Politicalprof: Expanding on Squashed’s answers, let me argue that there’s a substantial hole in rational choice thinking about human behavior, a hole that the individual mandate — and every other “universal rule" — seeks to bridge:
This is the problem of short- versus long-term incentives.
I’ve made this point in other posts, but it is common for people to choose to satisfy their short-term interests while ignoring — or indeed not even apprehending — their long-term ones. This practice is all the more likely when the downside costs of an action today will be felt immediately, while the long term benefits of taking action today will not, by definition, be felt until much later … if they are felt at all.
This common behavior/attitude explains a lot of social and political choice-making. Why do people oppose spending money today to solve future global warning: because you are taking their money today for an effect they may never have to deal with (if global warming is untrue, or if you are dead, etc.).
It explains why we eat that donut at 2 pm even though we know we’re overweight; it explains why we don’t save even close to enough money for our ever-lengthening retirements — and we especially don’t save when we’re young, when the effects of compounded interest will do the most good.
There are two rough responses to this problem. One, which I imagine is in the vein of those that Barticles would prefer, is: “bummer." You didn’t plan; you didn’t think; you were self-indulgent: enjoy the consequences of your (in)actions: poverty, suffering, early death, whatever.
And believe me, I get the appeal of this approach. I get that it’s really annoying to sacrifice and then see others seem to “get away with" their bad choices (e.g., not saving for retirement, not paying for healthcare and so going to the emergency room). “Screw ‘em" has an intuitive and emotional appeal.
The good news is that there’s another way to address the “now/later" choice problem, a way that only hurts the “free riders": universal requirements.
See, you and I were going to buy health insurance anyway. We were going to save for our retirements. We were going to add seat belts to our car orders (seat belts used to be optional equipment in cars, as were anti-lock brakes and airbags). And, importantly, we were going to pay those costs whether or not we ever actually used them: if you never have an accident, air bags and seat belts are unneeded expenses.
Yet we know people would be safer if everyone had airbags and seat belts (and health insurance). We know that society saves money in the end when fender-benders don’t end with major facial reconstruction surgery because the huge, rigid steering wheel in your 1963 Buick was yourcar’s crumple zone.
So the government passed laws mandating these things in all cars. You can’t buy a car without them (unless it’s a really old car).This doesn’t really change the price the “responsible" person pays for a car: they were going to buy these items anyway, and mass production is more likely to lower their price over time rather than increase them. Instead, it only raises the price for irresponsible people.
Does this work perfectly? God no. Do some irresponsible people refuse to buy a newer car for as long as possible after the price of new cars goes up? Absolutely. But so what? This is society, not utopia. Better is pretty damn good.
I can hear one complaint from Barticles in the back of my head: freedom. Federal compulsion to do anything, whether it is buying health insurance or airbags, constitutes a loss of freedom as such.
To which the only answer is: that is, in the abstract, true. It is also a pretty small point. You’re not being told what to say. You’re not being punished for challenging a law. You’re not being told to worship one religion or read only state-mandated news. You’re being told you have to buy an insurance policy and thus be responsible to your fellow members of society.
stormborns
izzy806
germansingergirl
2087
vaporwave
origamiaround
gummygunk
turnnoffyourmind
pixelskylines
titsay
