Note to Emerald: Look Up “Individual Responsibility”
I usually don’t read the ODE editorials, as I have a strong aversion to mealy-mouthed opinions. But something about today’s editorial, “Mandatory insurance for health makes sense”, caught my attention: It’s bad … really bad.
Not far into the piece we get our first taste of the ODE’s sluggish cognitive abilities.
Individuals should be required to take preemptive measures, to ensure that the government and taxpayers will not be forced to pick up the slack once an accident or health problem occurs
Barely three sentences later, after extolling the legislation’s “amalgamation of the socialist value of government protection for all and the capitalist value of individual responsibility”, the ODE dishes us this nugget.
The government will help subsidize those with low incomes.
Brilliant, because governmental subsidies are completely unrelated to taxes. Seriously, no relation. I would expect this sort of poor argumentation from the sub-literates at the Insurgent, but I cannot fathom anyone at the ODE reading this and not realizing that it makes less sense than giving Paris Hilton a recording contract.
Two brilliant takedowns of mandatory health insurance can be found here and here (downloadable PDF), and naturally they come courtesy of the Cato Institute.
As Alan King states in his Wall Street Journal Op/Ed, “to subsidize zero-deductible health insurance, state taxpayers might have to pay about $6,000 per recipient.”
Undaunted, the Emerald continues by trotting out the poor people.
If lower-income citizens are forced to buy into a health insurance plan, they will be more likely to exercise early health-care measures such as scheduling regular visits to the doctor.
What an utterly condescending sentence. Think about it for a second. Now, if manufactured prescience concerning the behavioral patterns of the impoverished were a sound rhetorical device, then — and only then — would this argument make any sense. Instead, this anti-individualistic claptrap is patently paternalistic and therefore unconvincing. Giving the government unprecedented power is not the answer. Especially for “lower-income citizens”.
And make no mistake about it, this is an unprecedented plan. Although the Emerald claims that this plan is no different from legislation that forces car owners to purchase car insurance, it actually is quite a bit different. Purchasing a car is a choice that a person makes. After making this choice to purchase a car, a person must then legally insure it. Owning a car is not a right, but rather a privilege, thus certain stipulations apply. Merely existing, however, is not a choice, but rather a right. At no time has the government forced its citizens to purchase a good or service as a condition as merely existing.
