A New Form Of Income Redistribution

All too often we find ourselves caught up in agreeing or disagreeing with a policy based solely on principle without fully understanding the extent of the policy. The opinion piece, "Health ‘Reform’ Is Income Redistribution", in The Wall Street Journal by Michael O. Leavitt, Al Hubbard and Keith Hennessey paints a picture of how health care reform is another way to redistribute wealth. The authors have worked in areas of government involved with health care and economics, which affords them valid insight into how proposed legislation might affect the public. The authors’ attempt to persuade the reader in agreeing with their opinions relies on an acceptance of three key requirements of health care reform: “guaranteed issue”, “community rating” and “individual mandate”. To support their argument the authors use a scenario where the government requires you to purchase fire insurance while your house is on fire at the same rate it would be if your house wasn’t on fire. Their argument is that under this policy, most homeowners would only purchase fire insurance while their house was on fire. While there is little to no hard evidence that would support the authors’ argument for why health care reform would only redistribute wealth and create an incentive for individuals to not buy health insurance, their argument is based on sound logic and a believable analogy. This lends the reader to concur with the authors that health care reform is a form of income redistribution, applying a tax on a group that tends to be healthier and historically makes less income and giving it to an older, ailing generation that makes more money.