Opposing mandatory health insurance is socially irresponsible


Is the question of mandatory student health insurance really a debate? Indiana, Georgia, Emory, Ohio State, Vermont and all UC schools (including Berkeley and UCLA) are just a few schools that require all students to have health insurance. About 90 percent of private schools have this requirement (BYU since 1989), and more and more public schools are requiring students to be covered.

The Chronicle lauded the U’s social responsibility for purchasing wind power, yet opposes a far more important social issue: health of the students. How irresponsible!

Opponents argue that some students cannot afford health insurance. But students across the country are forced to drop out of college because of unforeseen medical incidents.

Too many students believe they are invincible and appendicitis, a major accident, etc. will never happen to them. Coverage for Fall and Spring Semesters cost students $896 this year, and that cost would certainly decrease if more students were enrolled in the plan. UCLA’s student insurance was $558 for the entire year last year.

Is the U going to be a national leader in this important area of public health and social responsibility? Or will we lag behind and be one of the last universities in the country to adopt this policy? I am embarrassed that this question is even an issue.

Rick WarneGraduate Student, Business