Cambridge , Massachusetts ( CNN ) -- In the coming weeks , Congress will attempt to forge a health care bill from proposals developed by five House and Senate committees . The final bill will likely include a mandate that most Americans buy health insurance , subsidies for the purchase of insurance and bans on denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions . The bill may also include a `` public option , '' government insurance that would compete with private insurance . The underlying presumption behind this legislation is that government health insurance should be expanded to cover the uninsured . This presumption is wrong . Government should not subsidize health insurance -- for the uninsured , the poor , the elderly or anyone else -- or regulate health insurance markets . Here 's why . Subsidizing health insurance means that patients and doctors are insulated from the costs of health care , so they utilize too much -- often in the form of unnecessary tests or medical procedures whose value has n't been proven . This excess demand , along with technological progress , means rapidly growing deficits , so governments limit reimbursements to health providers or ration care . This kills innovation and creates its own inequities . The taxes necessary to fund subsidies are a drag on economic growth . The reason the Obama administration and congressional Democrats are seeking to cover the uninsured is that health insurance is expensive . Without government support , many people could not afford health insurance . The conventional wisdom is that government should therefore subsidize health insurance for those who can not afford it . This confuses two issues : whether government should help the poor , and how government should help the poor . If society wants everyone to have health insurance , the obvious approach is to give the poor enough money so that individuals can purchase on their own . Just because people want government to help the poor does n't require it to pay for specific kinds of goods . If some people do not purchase insurance and then become ill , they would have to rely on private charity . Now one possible objection to designing anti-poverty programs in this way -- cash transfers , but no subsidies for health insurance -- is that it would require a lot of cash . That is not a convincing objection . Health insurance is just as expensive if provided as a separate benefit . The cash approach makes clear just how much money is involved , but it does not increase the amount . The other possible objection to the cash transfer approach holds that , if left unregulated , private health insurers would deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions . Thus , some people might get no health insurance at all . This outcome is unlikely , however , assuming health insurance is unregulated . In that case , insurers would set higher premiums for the unhealthy , but they would cover anyone willing to pay a sufficiently high price . Thus , the question is whether society should compensate those who face higher prices because of their health status ? The answer is no . Advocates for such compensation would suggest that it is basic fairness for society to insure people against the bad luck of being born with lousy genes . Many differences in health status , however , arise from behavior : heart disease from overeating , lung cancer from smoking , and cirrhosis from drinking , to name a few . If society compensates everyone for differences in their health status , it is often rewarding unhealthy behavior , perhaps even encouraging it . In addition , it is logical for society to treat the differences in financial well-being due to health in the same way it treats differences due to IQ , athletic ability , race , country of origin , family background , and so on . These and other factors mean that some people , through no fault of their own , face hard financial circumstances , whether because of their ability to earn income or because of the higher prices they face for certain goods , such as health insurance . Yet if society tried to equalize all differences resulting from , say , IQ , it would kill the incentive to work hard and destroy the economy 's productive capacity . Thus , most people believe society should reduce these differences -- by helping the poor -- but most also recognize that society should not attempt to eliminate all differences . This same tradeoff -- between helping the least fortunate and promoting an efficient economy -- applies in the case of health insurance . A reasonable balance is for government to provide a social safety net that protects the poor and allows them to purchase some health insurance on their own . An alternative is to provide health insurance vouchers , but only to the poorest segment of society . Guaranteeing health insurance for everyone is too costly , and it means worse health care for everyone . That is why Obamacare , and existing subsidies for health insurance , are treatments that are worse than the disease . The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jeffrey Miron .
Miron : Government should not subsidize health insurance . Public health insurance will increase costs and reduce quality , he says . Providing everyone with health insurance rewards unhealthy behavior , Miron says . Miron : Give the poor health insurance vouchers instead of public insurance .