Privacy between a doctor and patient is sacred in this country. It is illegal to share information with anyone the patient has not designated including the police—with a few exceptions. However, if Montana’s Max Baucus gets his way in the healthcare debate your doctor would become an agent of the police, at least in the enforcement of one federal law.

Like many of the current proposals on healthcare, the Baucus plan forces all Americans to purchase health coverage. Your employer might provide it, but if not, you would be required by federal law to purchase it yourself. This means that choosing to be uninsured will no longer be an option—find a job that provides it or find a way to pay for it.

On the surface it sounds good that all American’s will have coverage and it would solve some of the problems of the industry, but at what ultimate cost? Several problems would arise out of this requirement.

First, let’s look at the enforcement nightmares. Like all laws, this one is only as effective as the ability to enforce it. No matter how good a law sounds on paper, or in sound bites, if it is unenforceable there is effectively no law. Many who support this requirement compare it to mandated auto insurance, but there are some glaring differences. For one, there is the issue of opting out. If I want to avoid buying auto insurance I can choose to not drive. I can shop and work close to home or live in a community with mass transit. Either way I have a choice if I don’t want to fork out the money for auto insurance. Another difference is the issue of enforcement. In states where auto coverage is mandatory you show your insurance when getting your car inspected or registered. You also display proof of coverage when pulled over for an infraction or, in some states, at random check points.

With health coverage you will not have random check points to check insurance cards—we hope. The only option would be to report violators at the point of service. The doctor, hospital and clinic will be responsible for this. So instead of taking care of your needs, medical personal are converted into agents of the state. One may argue that checking for and reporting insurance noncompliance would be in the interest of the doctor because by this they can ensure a higher percentage of patients paying their bill. Part of the cost of health care is the number of people who opt out of coverage and choose to use the emergency room as their family physician because they can’t be refused care for an emergency. Requiring everyone to get coverage would handle this and supposedly reduce costs. What this will actually do is discourage those without coverage from seeking medical care even for true emergencies. In many communities hospitals and doctors are forbidden to report alien status. This is to protect those who are here illegally. It is assumed that if seeking medical care will get one’s illegal status discovered would keep those who need care from seeking it, endangering people’s lives and health. This is being overlooked in the case of mandatory coverage. So it is alright for the liberals to tie the doctor’s hands when it comes to reporting alien status, but then the doctor will be required to report anyone, including those here legally for not having coverage. People without coverage will be less likely to see a doctor for treatment until the danger is high enough to offset the cost of discovery.

Another problem is the negative impact to employer provided coverage plans. Most people with coverage provided through their employer pay a portion of the cost with the remainder paid by the employer. If everyone is required to have coverage the employer is empowered to transfer more costs to the employee because they have no option but to purchase coverage. They can choose to pay more though the employer or pay much more directly to the insurance company selling the policy.

Neither will this requirement reduce costs to the consumer. It is true that mandated coverage will reduce medical costs impacted by care for the uninsured. Providers will no longer set charges assuming a certain number will not pay. For example, suppose Doctor Jones knows that providing x level of coverage to n number of patients with appropriate profit requires c dollars. If Doctor Jones knows that 10% will not pay then he either finds a way to operate on less or increases by 10% his charges for those who d pay to offset the non-payers. By lowering this pool of non-payers through mandated coverage it is hoped that this transfer will no longer be needed. This will of course reduce the price of care, but only to those paying the bill—the insurance company. This decrease may lower premiums, but don’t forget that all Americans will be captive customers of the insurance companies. If they want to see the doctor without fear of being reported they must pay for insurance. Does mandating insurance lower or increase premiums? When anything is mandated those who provide it are able to demand higher prices for it, because opting out is no longer an option.
Finally, the greatest threat from this mandate is what it will do over the long haul. As people get tired of being forced to pay for insurance and accept more government interference in their health choices, the calls for a public option will grow. If you can’t convince the American voter to accept plan A just pile on more requirements until plan A becomes attractive. Those in the middle, squeezed because they don’t qualify for a subsidy, but can’t afford the cost of the coverage they are forced to buy, will begin to clamor for the system that has been planned by the left all along—a one-payer system with government control over the medical industry. Don’t be fooled. This effort to mandate health coverage in place of a public option is just one step to forcing government control of the health industry down the throats of the American people.