Karen's Chronicles

I think it depends upon who pays... If "mandatory health insurance" is treated as a 100% employer-paid benefit, then the company (or university) has the right to provide whatever benefits it sees fit. However, to require all graduate students to *pay* for health insurance seems a bit draconian. Of course, you could argue that increased expenses on the institute level translate into decreased stipends for graduate students, so that would blow my "depends upon who pays" argument out of the water. This gets even more complicated when you look at if from a public health policy standpoint; many uninsured patients effectively shift the burden of their medical costs onto taxpayers. Is that fair?

I don't know about what I think in terms of GT being a public school.

Rice requires all students to have either the school provided health insurance or proof of outside insurance. This serves multiple purposes - but probably most importantly, by making it a mandatory fee, it allows people with no other form of insurance (undergrads with uninsured parents, grad students in general) a way to use their financial aid to buy insurance. Much like making computer ownership mandatory.

I think an opt-out program is necessary. Its ridiculous to ask a student or their family to double pay. I mean, I imagine a university insurance program is an HMO. Who would expect a student who has a good FFS plan to buy a second plan in an HMO? Ridiculous.

In Switzerland, health insurance was mandatory for every employed person. This gave employers the extra push they needed to make sure all of their employees are eligible for the group-policies.

I would argue that insurance is necessary for everyone. Also, you could argue that an unhealthy student can't learn as effectively as a healthy student - and if the university has a perogative to make sure their students are learning. And, the university already provides basic clinic services, and uninsured student probably create an undue burden on the clinic.

Stanford, like Rice, also required all grad students to either have outside insurance or Stanford would bill you for it. My fellowship covered the insurance cost as if it were another part of tuition; it didn't take away from my stipend. But that's a private school and a "private" (non-school-provided) fellowship.

I think mandatory health insurance is ok. An opt-out program is indeed necessary for those who have it elsewhere.

It may make a huge difference in the amount that people have to pay, too. My brother-in-law gets health insurance from his school district for $21/month. If you can keep the fee that low by making sure everyone buys into it, that may be enough to justify it.

Yes, it's fair. It is very similar to the Lid Law. That is what bikers call the law in most states that requires them to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle. It is meant to prevent head injuries. I guess the rest of the body is on its own. Uncle Mark refers to helmets as brain buckets as that is about all they will do in a really catastrophic accident. But I digress.
Car insurance is required, but more to protect the other person than the insured. Health insurance really only protects one thing and that is society which must pick up the bill when a person becomes ill to the point of hospitalization. Not unlike the lid laws, we are protecting people from themselves, those too stupid to either know or admit they need protecting.
And for Jen, the reason the cost is so low is that the average student, aged 18-25, is usually very healthy. Aside from the occasional torn ACL, most graduate students are as healthy as they will ever be.