Mitt Romney’s Unfair Health Care

by Mike Schiller

Recently, the state of Massachusetts passed a universal health care bill which is being hailed by the media as an ideal model for federal and state level legislation to extend health care to all Americans. While congress and state governments across the nation should start taking action to achieve the goal of extending health coverage to all those who deserve it, they would be better advised to formulate a different approach. The legislation championed by Mitt Romney is unfair to consumers because it imposes large tax penalties upon those who choose not to purchase a health insurance plan. It is true that the Massachusetts legislation creates new low-cost insurance options for lower income families, but it also unfortunately erodes consumer freedom. The problem with the Mass. bill is that a state government is forcing a consumer transaction. Regardless of whether the state is making insurance more affordable, it is engaging in an unacceptable intrusion into people’s private consumer choices.

The media is deceptively comparing Romney’s bill to the laws requiring car owners to buy liability insurance. Such comparisons are completely inaccurate. The car insurance laws only affect people who choose to purchase automobiles. Romney’s bill affects all Mass. residents. A better way to illustrate the nature of the Mass. law would be to compare it to a nonexistent law. Imagine if congress passed a law requiring all U.S. citizens to purchase at least five granola bars per year, or pay a $1000 penalty for failing to do so. Such a law would be of parallel equivalence to the health care bill passed in Massachusetts. The car insurance laws only require people who purchase a specific product to buy a form of insurance which is relevant to the initial product purchased. In contrast, the Massachusetts law requires the entire state population to buy health insurance, even if many people never seek traditional medical care for their ailments or injuries.

It is reprehensible for any government to forces its citizens to buy a consumer product many of them don’t wish to purchase. Sure, some people may find the cost of health insurance under the new laws affordable, and not feel the laws are worth challenging. If a law requiring people to buy granola bars were passed, the same would be true - Many people may feel it’s easier to just buy the granola bars.
What people need to understand is that a larger issue is at stake. Governments are not supposed to be in the business of forcing consumer transactions. Governments are supposed to be respectful of consumer freedom and health care is a consumer product. There are millions of people in the U.S. who seek alternative health care treatments, such as nutritional or herbal supplements, massage therapy, hypnosis, and even religious prayer.

The Massachusetts law will essentially force those people to buy into insurance plans which do not cover the types of treatments they prefer. Certainly, the Massachusetts law’s supporters may argue that citizens, on an individual basis, do not control the way their tax dollars are spent, and cite taxes as an example of an involuntary transaction which our government already forces upon the people. Such an argument only distorts the differences between a taxpayer funded health care plan, and the Massachusetts plan which forces direct transactions between citizens and corporations. There is already enough room in the federal and most state budgets for a comprehensive universal health care bill. To cover the cost, many spending priorities would need to be reexamined, but it would be dishonest to suggest there’s no room in the budget for a universal health care program. There is plenty of room in the federal and most state budgets for universally accessible health care.

There is no need for the federal or state governments to intrude on people’s religious and consumer freedoms. Universal health care can and must be funded by existing tax revenues. The moment people roll over and allow their governments to force us into compulsory consumer transactions, whether expensive or inexpensive, the doors will open for more legislation of a similar nature. Today, we laugh at the idea of legislation which forces people to buy granola bars. If we allow the Massachusetts health care bill to be used as a model for similar state or federal legislation, the idea of government sponsored compulsory granola bars purchases will not stand sound so ridiculous ten years from now. Mitt Romney’s health care bill is a step in the wrong direction which could eventually lead to laws requiring citizens to buy all sorts of things they may not want or even have a use for - kitchen appliances, sweatshirts, bicycles, soft drinks, encyclopedias, or anything else a legislature or congress decides to impose upon the people.

Remember when Bush was running around telling people to buy duct tape to protect themselves from bioterrorism? If we accept the Mitt Romney health care bill as a legislative model for the nation or other states, we could eventually see a gradual transition from the days when presidents recommend duct tape to a new era when presidents can mandate the people to buy duct tape or pay a fine for failing to do so. That is not how a democracy with a free market operates. Citizens of all political persuasions should urge lawmakers to make health care universally accessible to all those who deserve it, including those who can’t afford it, yet also demand that lawmakers pass a taxpayer funded bill which does not force compulsory consumer transactions upon the people. Lawmakers in congress and state legislatures should take the initiative to lead the way with their own universal health care legislation. Hopefully, people of all political ideologies can work together to produce legislation which can be truly a model for others to follow.

Mitt Romney’s bill is not the model we should seek.

We can do better.