Frist Endorses Individual Mandate in Healthcare Reform
By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
Bill Frist, the former Tennessee senator and senate Republican leader, endorses an individual mandate in today's U.S. News weekly edition. The idea of an individual mandate, which would legally require everyone to buy health insurance, has drawn fire from conservatives and Republicans in recent weeks. But Frist, a heart surgeon, writes that, "the only way affordable access can be achieved is for every citizen to have some type of health insurance." He writes that catastrophic insurance is "an appropriate place to start."
He adds:
I believe in limited government and individual responsibility, cherish the freedom to choose, and generally oppose individual mandates—except where markets fail, individuals suffer, and society pays a hefty price. Let's face it, in a country as productive and advanced as ours, every American deserves affordable access to healthcare delivered at the right time. And they don't have it today.
It is time for an individual health insurance mandate for a minimum level of health coverage.
One of Frist's former colleagues, ex-House Majority Leader Dick Armey, writes for the opposing view, arguing that an individual mandate would be a boondoggle for health insurance lobbyists.
You can read both articles in our digital weekly edition. And weigh in with your view—is an individual mandate a good idea?
- Check out our political cartoons.
- Become a political insider: Subscribe to U.S. News Weekly, our digital magazine.
- Follow Robert Schlesinger on Twitter.
Tags: healthcare | health insurance | Dick Armey
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (20) | Print
Reader Comments
TTNewton - uncalled for
TTNewton of AK: "That's the Forest Obama is leading us all into, and people like you are cheering the train. Your villains are anyone who works hard to better his life and the lives of his family, if he resents you attaching yourself like a leach to his sweaty back."
You know not of whom you speak. RL Schaefer is a regular on these boards and that isn't even close to an accurate description. Schaefer is one of the posters who I respect, even when I disagree. Same goes for Muser (with whom I disagree more often than not.) You owe an apology for your mischaracterization.
John Galt is the main character in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". Just FYI.
However, I agree with you that forced charity is not charity at all - it's theft. The individual mandate is completely unconstitutional coming from the Feds, so at this point it's just a big stick to threaten while they try to slip in mandatory Health Savings Accounts (HSA).
If they get HSAs, they'll use the funds coercively collected to shore up Social Security to keep the Boomers happy, fed and voting until they die (maybe even voting after.) Then the HSA program will be as broke as Social Security. The goal isn't to fix anything or serve anyone - it's to keep the merry-go-round spinning as long as possible.
But one day, the music will stop, and someone will be left without a chair.
U.S.A: No we can't
It's too bad the U.S. will lose this opportunity for health care reform. In infant mortality, child mortality and longevity, the U.S. looks like a 3rd world country compared to the Europeans and Canadians. I haven't seen any notable measure of disatisfaction by these countries citizens - quite the contrary.
That wouldn't be so embarrassing except for the fact that we have by far the most expensive health care in the world.
But the Republicans won't vote for anything suggested by a Democrat as a matter of principle. And so far, that has been a winning strategy for them politically.
To David of ID (below)
I never said in my posts below that I thought it necessary that YOU have to believe that universal health care is a moral issue. If you don't, that's OK. What's necessary (eventually) for the soul and economic well-being of America is that a sufficient majority for passage so believes.
advertisement
