Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

To the Editor:

Paul Starr’s noble attempt to bridge the health
reform divide seems to miss the mark (“A
Health Insurance Mandate With a Choice,” Op-Ed, March 4).

His
five-year opt-out provision might appeal to some conservatives, but the
objections of most Republicans to mandatory health insurance seem
motivated more by politics than by libertarian ideology. They would
probably vote down a health reform bill even if it included an opt-out
provision.

It’s distressing that Americans find a health insurance
mandate so alien. After all, we are required by law to buy car
insurance to protect against losses due to accidents and damage caused
by others. In the same way, a health insurance mandate would pool risk
and cover health care costs incurred by others that are now reflected in
ever-higher insurance premiums.

How the mandate is structured
(that is, penalties imposed for noncompliance) is the real question we
must address. Allowing people to opt out, even temporarily, and hoping
that they learn from the error of their ways seems like wishful
thinking.

Alan B. Cohen
Boston, March 4, 2010
The writer is a
professor of health policy and management at Boston University and
executive director of its Health Policy Institute.

Note from KBJ: Note the imputation of bad motives to Republicans. Their opposition to "mandatory health insurance" (i.e., totalitarianism) is political, not principled. If you can't win an argument on rational grounds, attack the person. I feel sorry for the students of this "professor."