Discrimination and Health Care

With much talk about Obamacare and our changing health laws, many people have questioned the justification of mandated health insurance. Is it right for the Government to tell me how to take care of my body? David Rivkin of the Justice Department explains, “a health insurance requirement would set the precedent that the government can control every single way in which you dispose of your income.” Amanda Read writes in the New York Times, "the government could require everyone to eat particular healthy foods or buy gym memberships using the same justifications as the insurance mandate." However I would argue that an individual health mandate would in fact guarantee Americans more rights.

Currently, hospitals give less care to the uninsured because they are less likely to be compensated, and the uninsured have less access to preventative care. A recent study from Families USA found, "in-hospital mortality rates were 60 percent higher for uninsured than insured children." They went on to say, "uninsured adults are nearly four times less likely than insured adults to get preventive care screenings such as pap smears, mammograms, and prostate exams due to cost."  In fact, Jack Ebeler of the National Academics calculates that uninsured adults 50% more likely to die prematurely from serious conditions such as heart disease or cancer.


Also, currently uninsured individuals are denied health coverage due to a pre-existing medical condition. A recent national survey estimated that in the past three years, 12.6 million tried to purchase health insurance and were in fact denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition.  Luckily, under the Affordable Care Act (provision of Obamacare), insurers cannot reject individuals or charge them higher premiums based on pre-existing medical conditions.

I think the fact that the new health law takes discrimination out of the equation makes the individual health mandate within Obamacare justified. Remember, before the law 12.6 million Americans couldn't have access to health insurance due to their illnesses, and now the law makes it so they can't legally be excluded. I think this is a big step forward for health care. What do you think? Is it justified for the government to tell my how to spend my money, regardless of the inherent benefits?