The Senate continues to debate the health care "reform" plan — all 2000+ pages of it (regardless of the fact that few, if any, of the Senators have actually read all of those pages).  The plan is a typical government response to what can be considered a legitimate problem:  that tens of millions of people don't have health insurance.  The response is "typical" in that it greatly expands the size, scope, and intrusiveness of the federal government for the 85% of people who are covered in order to provide coverage to the 15% who aren't.  In the process, it raises taxes (not typically considered a smart thing to do during a recession), creates federal bureaucracies, and establishes new prohibitions and mandates.

Of course, with any large government restructuring of the economy, unintended consequences are sure to abound.  Consider three aspects of the health "reform" bill and the unintended consequences for younger adults.  First of all, the legislation prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing condition.  Secondly, the bill restricts insurance companies from charging less for premiums for healthier customers.  Thirdly, the bill establishes, for the first time, an "individual mandate" — individuals will be forced by the government to purchase insurance coverage (with minimum coverage requirements proscribed by the government, regardless of what coverage individuals might want or need).

Removing the "pre-existing condition" requirements basically spreads more risk on the pool of insured; the impact of that is, of course, more expensive premiums for those purchasing insurance.  Strike one if you're a young adult — and less likely to have a pre-existing condition.  But younger adults tend to be healthier than older adults, and, like the reverse of auto insurance, tend to pay lower premiums than older, less healthy consumers.  Strike two.  Both the Senate bill and the one that previously was passed in the House specify minimum coverages for future health insurance plans; for example, maternity care coverage must be included.  That's great if you're a woman, but what about men?  Why should a single man be required by the government to purchase such coverage?  These three provisions could dramatically increase insurance premiums for young adults.

Enter the individual mandate.  Forget the question of whether or not it is even Constitutional for the federal government to require a person to buy a particular product — a concept never before enacted in the United States.  In an RNC conference call on the Senate proposals, Senator Tom Coburn outlined a probable scenario for many young adults:  for those not provided health insurance through their employer, it will be more economical for them to drop coverage altogether, and simply pay the fine — until they get sick and need medical care.  Then, they will simply go get insurance at that point, having saved money along the way.  Of course, adding only sick people to the insurance pool further raises premiums for everyone, particularly the healthy — thus raising the incentive for others to do likewise.

Thus, a bill whose stated purpose is to increase the number of people covered by health insurance could actually provide the incentives for people to drop health coverage, and it would be the healthiest people doing so.

There are true health care reforms that would help increase access to coverage and bring down costs while increasing individual choice and individual liberty and decreasing government intrusion on the economy.  They are simple, easy, and have been detailed here and elsewhere.  To start, the government could give individuals the same tax benefits for buying health insurance themselves as employers get for providing it, thus giving individuals and families more control over what plans they choose.  The government could remove its prohibition on buying health insurance across state lines, giving consumers more choices and a more competitive market in which to shop for those plans, buying only the coverages they want and need.  The government could remove prohibitions against group plans, allowing groups as varied as the NAACP, the American Institute of Architects, and the American Diabetics Association the ability to negotiate group rates for its members.  Those simple reforms would cost the taxpayers nothing, would create no new bureaucracies (according to Sen. Coburn, the current Senate plan creates 70 new government programs), and would allow increased access to health care insurance.

Alas, it would provide no new power to the government, and thus is not even being considered by Congress.