Cost and Effect
Tuesday, August 14, 2007 at 01:30PM 
Massachusetts recently passed a Universal Healthcare Law, requiring that every citizen in the Commonwealth obtain health insurance. In my case, the State Legislature has mandated that I pay $240.00 a month for basic health insurance—$2880.00 annually. The penalty for not doing so amounts to a $3850.00 income tax increase.
It’s a beautiful piece of economics. Get health coverage or we’re going to take your money. You give us three grand for shitty coverage, or you give us four grand for nothing. While I admire this adroit piece of social planning, the reality of it drives me nuts. I’m now required to pay for health coverage I don’t need.
Looking to circumvent a huge hit to my monthly income, I went straight to the General Laws of Massachusetts for a decent rationale. According to the Commonwealth:
“The purpose of this ‘Individual Mandate’ is to strengthen and stabilize the functioning of health insurance risk pools by making sure they include healthy people (who, if not offered employer-sponsored and –paid insurance, are more likely to take the risk of not having insurance) as well as people who know they need regular health care services (and therefore are more likely to go to great lengths, and expense to obtain insurance).”
Evidently, Massachusetts is outraged that I’m unlikely to pay for something I don’t need. Silly me. I also don’t buy the gasoline you put in your car, the food you feed your kids, or the Crate & Barrel throw rugs you just had to have. I don’t pay for your stuff.
As a 27-year old male with a resting heart rate of 54 beats per minute, 10% bodyfat, and 174 total cholesterol, I’ve chosen not to support the healthcare needs of those who chose to smoke, drink, eat fast food, and sit on their collective ass all day long.
Taken from another perspective, I’m extremely unlikely to require long-term health care for at least another decade, while there are millions who will require it within months due to bad habits and general personal negligence.
Given this dichotomy, I’d like to propose a different model of Universal Healthcare. Perhaps the financial burden for insurance should be borne by those with early-stage indicators of disease—obesity, high triglycerides, and high blood pressure. These are the folks that should have their personal income tax exemption at risk.
Our less-than-healthy brethren would have an immediate financial incentive to improve their health markers, leading to a drastic reduction in the incidence of easily preventable diseases. A subsequent reduction in the number of people dipping into the health insurance pool would follow. Instead of addressing a symptom—too little money to treat the ill—we address the cause: bad lifestyle choices such as lack of exercise and poor diet.
My indignation is not directed toward the poor, those who need insurance but are unable to pay for it. Instead, I reserve my wrath for the gavel-wielders who believe that more money is the solution to our healthcare epidemic, and look to the healthy to find it. If you want my money, tell me it’s for higher education, phys ed programs, and athletic scholarships—things that actually prevent disease. Don’t tell me you’ve instituted a mandate that drains my wallet, provides me with no benefit, and does nothing to address the underlying causes of a long-term problem.
You might as well kick me in the nuts and kiss my girlfriend.
Picture of the Commonwealth's guiding priniciple courtesy of insightservices.net.
Reader Comments (4)
Wouldn't you rather be secure knowing that if you're hit by an uninsured driver, fall of a cliff, suffer a serious concussion dropping a loaded bar on your head or any other random event unperturbed by your perfect level of personal health, you could still receive adequate medical care?
Honestly, this blog is stretching its mandate covering topics such as this and arguing that you don't need health insurance is weak at best. FWIW I'm Canadian, but go to school in Massachusetts where I receive private health insurance for about $950/yr. Also, I could be wrong, but don't insurance providers require lengthy medical histories and increase premiums (or deny coverage altogether) for those with higher risk factors?
Cameron,
I fail to see how an article on bodily health is beyond the scope of this website. What exactly is it that you think we're here to promote?
Further, I don't believe that health insurance is unnecessary. I believe that removing the individual's choice to obtain it (or not) is unnecessary.
As a free-thinking person, I should be able to choose whether I pay a large portion of my income to cover an event with an extremely small likelihood. Being hit by a car, dropping a barbell on my head, and falling off a cliff are all things that are well within my control. I look both ways, bail with straight arms, and make damn sure my harness and rope are in good repair.
Looking at the Center for Disease Control's 2000 data on non-fatal injury, we see 672,941 non-hispanic white males between the ages off 25 and 29 suffered an treated injury out of a total population of 6,058,607. This means I have an approximate 1 in 11 chance of suffering a non-fatal injury that requires treatment, assuming that injuries are entirely random. If I asked you to give me $4000/year, with a 1 in 11 chance that you might see some benefit from it, would you fork over the dough?
Congratulations on your affordable health care. Between the Commonwealth's generous subsidization of your student health care and the tax-funded care you receive in Canada, you must be very happy. As a small business owner, I make just enough money to fail to qualify for subsidization, and my extensive tax contributions (north of 30% of net income) do nothing to cover my health care, although they do cover care for the poor and students such as yourself. Please enjoy it.
Best,
Jon
Hey Jon,
It's your blog, write what you want. I'm resistant by nature and hate being told what to do, especially when it comes to money. How bad would the commute from New Hampshire be? Or a satellite Crossfit facility up here? Hope things are well with you, other than the health care debacle. Protect those nuts.
David,
"Live Free or Die" is more than a catchy motto as far as I'm concerned. NH has one of the few remaining governments that believes that individual choice should not be legislated.
I'm a New Hampshire boy through and through, but the lack of viable jobs sent me south after graduating from UNH. Nonetheless, the day may soon come that Sam and I find ourselves in the Granite State.
The commute would be hellish, but we could always open a gym in Concord. If I could recruit a quarter of NH's Representatives, we'd have a full house. Keep training hard, brother!
Best,
Jon