by Dean Hartwell
In the
Much of this buying helps the economy. The money typically goes to help businesses and can create or maintain jobs.
Should we encourage the “haves” to stay ahead of the “have-nots”?
Consider the 44 million people in the
Those with pre-existing illnesses frequently cannot get access to health insurance without a job. Since insurance companies face fewer obstacles in refusing coverage to individuals, they frequently turn down applicants.
Insuring additional people, especially those with illnesses, would cost everyone more. Insurance companies would pass this cost along to those already insured. If the insured wanted to stay ahead, they would lobby their insurance company and their elected officials to stop this idea from becoming reality.
Depriving a minority of health insurance would help the majority of people. That’s good public policy, right?
Wrong. First of all, most “have-nots” lack insurance through no fault of their own. It is poor public policy to impose what amounts to punishment by keeping them from getting health care.
Second, the majority of the public does not benefit from uninsured people. At any time, any of the 44 million people without insurance, because they can’t see a doctor, may go to the emergency room instead. Emergency doctors and assistants do not work for free. They won’t ask the uninsured person to pay (because they can’t). They will look to the rest of society to pay these medical bills.
When it comes to
necessities, the “haves” who try to stay ahead of the “have-nots” wind up
having even less. The