Mandates: Good for the CEO, Bad for the “Average Joe”

By: Andrea Castillo

At this point, as Florida State University students, the majority of us are pretty familiar with the idea of an “insurance mandate” regardless of whether or not we actually have our individual health insurance policies, or subscribe to FSU’s health insurance plan. While the contentious legislative debate about how our troubled health care system should be fixed seems to have largely settled, the most popular bill that emerged from the debate is dependent on the axiom that citizens should be required to purchase their own health insurance plans (the mandate) in order to promote the good of society.


While pundits from both sides of the political spectrum were preoccupied by a strenuous game of Capitalism versus Socialism, no one noticed when a more-than-average amount of health insurance company executives, labor union leaders, and lobbyists paid many visits to their chums on Capitol Hill. This lobbying was not limited to one political party. The debate on health care led to a type of “bipartisanship” which is only possible when money flows in waves into Washington D.C. Unfortunately, for the average citizen, this health care bill may prove itself to be one of the more bipartisan ones in recent memory.

Because of all of this so-called bipartisanship, our Congress decided to write a bill that does not favor the ordinary citizen. However, it does ensure a steady source of new clients and revenue for the big insurance companies and health care providers. With this proposed legislation, not only will the government protect insurance companies with regulations that act as barriers to entry for would-be competitors (as it does currently does), politicians are now going the extra mile and promising these companies a perpetual and legally obligated paycheck from American citizens who will be made into criminals and fined if they do not comply with the mandate. The government has essentially stated that it will use its monopoly on violence to make sure that you and I purchase the services of Humana or Blue Cross Blue Shield. Don't worry though, they tell us that they are doing it for our own good.

In 2007, the Florida State University administration, in congruence with the Florida legislature, amended its policy to require that all new students either purchase private insurance or enroll in the new university health insurance option. Contrary to popular thought, our friendly university employees actually aren't the same people who administer and manage our university health insurance plan. In reality, the university administration found it wiser to outsource to a private company that is already well-established and knowledgeable in the market: Blue Cross Blue Shield. You might have thought that your university health insurance plan had the advantage of avoiding an unnecessary and profit-reaping middleman, but ultimately, at the end of the day, your money ends up in the pockets of big health insurance. You should feel a warm tinge of pride upon knowing that your university led the charge for institution-mandated health insurance years before its time.

Unfortunately, we FSU students are not afforded to choice to decide whether or not paying for health services makes financial sense for our budgets. We are forced for pay $1,440 per year regardless. Because of this, FSU students find themselves paying a higher tuition at $17,880 per year than UF students do at $17,025 per year even though our schools' curriculum are identical. The people who supported this policy twiddled their thumbs and sheepishly defended the increase in cost, suggesting that it was only a 5% to 7% increase in tuition.

The Florida legislature, supported by our own Student Government Association (SGA) and Florida State University Office of Legislative Affair's official lobbyist, is currently musing over whether to impose this same burden of mandated health insurance on the students of all Florida public universities. The sponsors of the proposed legislation state that they aim to “improve universities’ ability to negotiate insurance policies, reduce the number of students who withdraw from college for medical reasons, and reduce the burden of uncompensated care on community health facilities.” Have they stopped to ask themselves why universities, institutions of higher learning, have taken it upon themselves to act like hospitals in the first place?

Personally, I expect to struggle with my studies; I don't see a reason to struggle with my ability to pay for health insurance before I can have the opportunity to study. Perhaps enacting this type of reform would improve university relations with various insurance providers, and maybe make some people feel good about somehow helping the disadvantaged, but I personally am not enrolled in college so that I can score a sweet insurance premium. If a student cannot afford to attend college because of these new extraneous health costs, for what purpose is the pursuit of higher education anyways? I'm sure the executives of Blue Cross Blue Shield are happy with the current situation, but perhaps university officials and SGA should try to put themselves in the shoes of students who already struggle with day-to-day expenses and have to struggle to pay for mandated health insurance.