An Insurance Mandate in Action

Thanks to a pointer at National Review Online, I found this article in the Boston Globe Sunday April 4:

"Thousands of consumers are gaming Massachusetts’ 2006 health insurance law by buying insurance when they need to cover pricey medical care, such as fertility treatments and knee surgery, and then swiftly dropping coverage, a practice that insurance executives say is driving up costs for other people and small businesses." . . . "The typical monthly premium for these short-term members was $400, but their average claims exceeded $2,200 per month."

Ouch - but there's more:

"The problem is, it is less expensive for consumers — especially young and healthy people — to pay the monthly penalty of as much as $93 imposed under the state law for not having insurance, than to buy the coverage year-round. This is also the case under the federal health care overhaul legislation signed by the president, insurers say."

. . . also the case under federal health insurance overhaul legislation. Swell. What can possibly go wrong?

But, the people are pretty smart huh? We figure this stuff out. How's come the legislators don't figure this out? They had actuaries and insurance experts advising them. Don't the legislators pay attention? Who DO they listen to? What were they thinking by making the penalty so much less than the premiums? Did they think they were doing some kind of big favor for people who still couldn't afford insurance?