To the Editor:
In “Reforming the Reform” (column, Jan. 24), Ross Douthat raises the difficult conundrum that is the insurance mandate. He proposes an alternative approach, with limited enrollment periods.
What seems to be lost in the discussion is that this is not fundamentally a question of economics, interstate commerce or freedom of choice. It is at its root a moral issue.
If there is no mandate to buy coverage, what do we do when people who make the choice to opt out of insurance coverage do get sick or have terrible accidents? Do we let them die because they took a calculated risk?
Fortunately, we have sensible laws that require hospitals to treat the sick and injured whether they are insured or not. That is the moral thing to do.
However, as long as we have such a mandate for treatment, we must have an accompanying mandate for coverage or we will never control costs.
Jeremy Kasdin
Princeton, N.J., Jan. 25, 2011
Note from KBJ: I don't see the morality in coercing people into purchasing something they don't want and don't need.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 