The OC Blog Back Issues Our Mission Contact Us Masthead
Sudsy Wants You to Join the Oregon Commentator
 

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.

  1. Anthony says:

    At least Meghan Farnsworth was semi-hot for a hippie chick. Oh those were the days.

  2. Timothy says:

    And Gabe Bradley makes me miss David Jagernauth.

  3. Ian says:

    I miss Aaron Shakra.

    Who doesn’t? Slater can be as good as Shakra at times, but she’s nowhere near as consistent.

  4. Timothy says:

    I miss Aaron Shakra.

  5. HardCorps says:

    One persons ehh? Well since it came from the editorial BOARD, I just hope Ailee wasn’t the only one in attendance.

    Please sir/ma’am, everyone in attendance and elsewhere knows the Dirty has published much less intelligible editorials. Gee, why not read Ian’s critique of their recent endorsement!

  6. Miles Rost says:

    In what context are the kids getting the crap kicked out of them?

  7. What the ... ? says:

    I love the peoople who say the ODE sucks when it reads ONE person’s opinion on a topic. Yeah that gives you a lot of cred.

    Oh by the way, if you want to read an article that really sucks, read Shawn Miller’s column a couple of days ago about how little kids deserve to get the crap kicked out of them. Now there is a guy who writes crap columns.

  8. Tyler says:

    Yes, Andy, no difference at all. You’re really gunning for blogging rights aren’t you?

  9. HardCorps says:

    Tyler-

    My response is that taxes, the involuntary dispropreation of wealth, is clearly not purchasing a good. But it still doesn’t matter what the tax is for, because we have a near 0% influence on where it is spent. The only place where we do have 100% influence of where our money is spent is on the free market, and that’s because we choose to participate.

    Paying taxes is no differnet than micky d’s comming to your house, robbing you of $1, and giving you a bacon cheeseburger – like it or not.

  10. Everybody now:

    Soyuz nerushimy respublik svobodnykh
    Splotila naveki velikaya Rus’!
    Da zdravstvuyet sozdanny voley narodov
    Yediny, moguchy Sovetsky Soyuz!

    Slavsya, Otechestvo nashe svobodnoye,
    Druzhby narodov nadyozhny oplot,
    Partiya Lenina

  11. Tyler says:

    Hardcorp —

    I assume you’re talking about taxes. Point taken. Paying taxes, however, is not the same as “purchasing” a good or service. I don’t consider myself to be purchasing an education for children, or purchasing military protection … or purchasing a DEA agent’s mortgage, for that matter. Tax collecting for roads, schools and other services assumes that you have already benefited, or continue to benefit, from a good or service that the private sector is incapable of supplying (clearly this is debatable when it comes to education). The model for this health program is quite different, and I suggest you look at it, Hardcorps.

  12. HardCorps says:

    LoL oh shit! sorry man!

    That was tyler’s first post in like months…it was the Ian blog for awhile…

  13. Timothy says:

    Unfortunatly, I have an economics professor who says that the used car market doesn

  14. Anthony says:

    HardCorps, you just got rocked dawg.

  15. Miles Rost says:

    Pwned.

  16. Ian says:

    The only dumb-ass here is the person who doesn’t know the difference between the names “Tyler” and “Ian.”

  17. HardCorps says:

    Sorry Ian,
    [quote]At no time has the government forced its citizens to purchase a good or service as a condition as merely existing.[/quote]

    Dumb-ass! It makes us pay for ITSELF to “provide services” for our mere existance!!

  18. HardCorps says:

    Ian, I take argument in the fact that zero-cost health care is not insurance.

    Although there are “full-coverage” car insurance plans, we don’t send a claim in every time we get an oil change, paint scratch, or brake job. Under the heavily and incompetent regulation racket we have today, private health insurance is unsurprisingly very expensive to most people.

    The point of insurance is to mitigate catastrophic loss – such as homeowners, auto, and life insurances do (otherwise know as copters/casualty in the business).

    What we have now, and need to end, is a system where the healthy subsidizing the sick, the workers subsidizing the incapable/leeches.

  19. Anthony says:

    Man the ODE is a pile of trash.

  20. HardCorps says:

    Apparently all of their knowledge of socialism is missing the history of the soviet union, nazi germany, and many other defunct tyrannies.

    Maybe the writers of that editorial should stop smoking pot and do some research, say maybe by looking at individual states attempts to start their health programs. Tennessee already failed, Oregons is cutting off people every year…I just wonder who’s next.

    Unfortunatly, I have an economics professor who says that the used car market doesn’t exist according to her model, and uses perfect competition as a straw man. I just wonder what the journalism dept. teaches…

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.