The Importance of Health (Medical) Insurance

Summary 

Medical insurance is a contentious and deeply divisive issue in the United States. The Economist penned an article featured on its website in which the author urges Americans to obtain health insurance. In order to underscore the importance of insurance, the author gives special focus to the externalities of medical insurance. They make it clear that those who either fail to or are unable to obtain health insurance incur additional costs and suffer some negative outcomes. After pointing out that the debate health insurance continues to divide Americans, the author of the article proceeds to observe that individuals without insurance pose an economic and health burden that is borne by others. Citing figures shared by the Institute of Medicine, the author notes that individuals who lack medical insurance are more likely to die in traffic accidents compared to those who are insured. This observation is important as it underscores the human cost of the failure to obtain insurance. The author states further that the US suffers an estimated 18,000 “excess deaths.” Essentially, these are needless deaths that can be prevented by extending insurance coverage to as many Americans as possible.

The author’s discussion extends beyond the deaths that the US suffers every year as a result of lack of insurance. Another issue that the author addresses is that firms incur costs when the death of an employee forces them to recruit new employees. This author clearly recognizes that firms shoulder the burden of lack of insurance. Through their discussion, the author manages to challenge readers to understand that unless the US takes steps to insure the millions who still lack coverage, firms will continue to incur huge costs, both financial and human. That the negative effects of not having insurance occur whether one refused to be insured is another question that the author explores. It is clear that by making this point, the author was motivated by the need to remind readers that reluctance to obtain insurance is a costly blunder. To make their point clear, the author notes that employees who are willing to accept insurance and those who reject mandatory coverage are exposed to the same risk of incurring heavy costs if they are not provided with coverage in good time. Overall, the Economist article is insightful and informative as it highlights the risks and costs that Americans incur when they refuse to purchase health insurance. This article is evidently intended to encourage the American people and policymakers to take all necessary steps to expand coverage.

Personal Perspective 

I feel the need to begin by declaring my agreement with the perspective of the author behind the Economist article. As noted above, this author makes the case for medical insurance by sensitizing readers on the dangers of lacking insurance. I believe that the costs of not having insurance extend beyond the individual who is not insured. I found it surprising that we lose thousands of Americans every year due to an issue that can be resolved through dialogue and compromise. The Economist article raises important issues that would undoubtedly persuade those opposed to mandatory insurance to change their stance. While I agree that it is critical for all Americans to purchase insurance, I think that we should be offered choices instead of making having medical insurance mandatory. Millions of Americans are simply unable to afford insurance and making coverage mandatory would be deeply unfair. I think that in order to create a healthy and highly productive workforce, Americans need to engage in open discussions regarding the role that insurance plays in facilitating health and performance. I would strongly urge our leaders to abandon their hardline positions and develop an insurance policy which extends coverage to as many people as possible.

References

For my sake, get insured. (2007). The Economist. Retrieved February 1, 2019 from https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2007/08/28/for-my-sake-get-insured