Mandate, schmandate

Short of Repeal, G.O.P. Will Chip at Health Law - NYTimes.com:

Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, a senior Republican on the Finance Committee, has introduced a bill that would eliminate a linchpin of the new law: a requirement for many employers to offer insurance to employees or pay a tax penalty. Many Republicans also want to repeal the law?s requirement for most Americans to obtain health insurance.

 I'm gonna have to agree with the gentleman from Utah on at least part of this. While I'm not 100% decided on a requirement to offer health insurance, I am squarely against a health insurance mandate. 

While it's one thing for state's to require their citizens to have automobile liability insurance, that is for the overall protection of others, forcing an individual to have health insurance is another entirely. I didn't like the mandate when it was HRC's proposal, don't like it now.

As for the overall healthcare package, it's largest problem is that it is between two worlds. Personally, I would not be against the nationalization of the healthcare system, but there are certainly many out there that disagree. That being said, this set of reforms is, at its core, is little more than a stimulus bill for the healthcare industry, forcing millions of Americans to purchase coverage they may not be able to afford or pay a fine.

If President Obama's end goal is to implement a national healthcare system, then that's what he should push for, he may not get it, but it is hard for me to agree to a system that changes the current system in baby half-steps over a period of a ten years. If Universal Health Care is the goal, a bill that puts us in a place where we'll be able to consider it in total a decade from now does little in the interim but pump more money in the sector that this bill is supposed to be reforming, and that is already recording record high-profits while claiming the need to hike their rates to stay solvent.