The Health Care Mandate & the End of Freedom
Like many young Americans, for the better part of my 20s and early 30s, I didn’t bother with health insurance. When I finally got it (as my father’s insistence), I wasn’t aware I could get catastrophic coverage, figuring I had to buy the HMO that Anthem (then-Blue Cross) told me was the best deal for me. Actually, it was the best deal for them, but unaware of all the choices out there, I went with that.
Of the many, many, many troubling things about Obamacare, the individual mandate (which Obama opposed during his campaign) may well be the most troubling. It tells individuals what kind of coverage they must have. A young person must be roped into a plan that may offer more coverage than he is willing to pay for, covering things, like my HMO did, that they don’t really need nor want–but the government says they need.
If, in 2001 when I got my health insurance, I was aware of all the choices out there, rather than dependent on the corporate representative to whom I was directed, I would have opted for something less expensive that covered only serious illness. I had the choice, but didn’t make myself aware of what was out there. Now, the Democrats are on the verge of denying young people that choice.
18 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
And in those years you weren’t buying health insurance, you were raising the premiums for all of us old and fat people. Thanks.
Comment by Ashpenaz — March 18, 2010 @ 2:01 pm - March 18, 2010
Actually, it forces individuals at gunpoint (since government is a gun) to spend their money on a given product or industry.
That is fascist in principle, and in terms of the federal government doing it, it is unprecedented and unconstitutional. And it would still be that, even if Obamacare let the industry offer people suitable choices (like only taking catastrophic coverage). The moral principle is the real issue.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 18, 2010 @ 2:02 pm - March 18, 2010
Bullshit, spoken by a looter.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 18, 2010 @ 2:02 pm - March 18, 2010
Actually, wouldn’t it be the other way ’round?
You ‘old fat people’ (I qualify for the later, but have my healing factor still keeping me mostly intact) are raising the premiums for those who don’t use the insurance, but have it when something goes wrong.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 18, 2010 @ 2:09 pm - March 18, 2010
I misspoke by calling Ash a looter. I wouldn’t know what he does in real life. I should have said, “by one who espouses the ideas/philosophy of a looter.”
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 18, 2010 @ 2:21 pm - March 18, 2010
This article brings an important idea into the light. If insurance is to be profitable the pool of money going in must be greater then the money going out. Now what is up the sleeves of the Dictating Party in charge? could it be ending Medicare and Medicaid in favor of adding the elderly and those on Medicaid (Welfare) into a system that would allow the Government to raise premiums (Taxes) guaranteeing the future of Medicare which we know is all going broke.
Comment by Joe — March 18, 2010 @ 5:20 pm - March 18, 2010
Thanks for the honesty Dan. The truth is, of course, that if you had had some terrible accident, or major disease in those years that you had no insurance, then the rest of us would have footed the bill for your treatment nonetheless.
[No, no, no, my father would have been forced to pay it; it's why he insisted I get the insurance. Do you pay any attention to what I write or do you just mouth off your left-wing bromides? All you do is make assumptions. You're clueless about me, even though you're obsessed with my blog. Sounds like some guys I know, wanting to date me, but getting angry when I start talking about the things I love.]
Thats the kind of society we are – the kind of people we are (at least until the Randians take over). So yeah – you were being a parasite on our sense of humanity.
[And how was I being a parasite? Where was I asking for something from the government? Please, please, please tell me? The more your comment, the more you reveal your ignorance. --Dan]
The exquisite irony of all this of course is that, if the polls are to be believed, the person who is most likely to receive the Republican nomination in 2012 is the one who first instituted a state-level individual mandate for health insurance. I will have such wonderful time watching you guys shill for a “Stalinist destroyer of freedom”.
Comment by Tano — March 18, 2010 @ 5:22 pm - March 18, 2010
the end of freedom? wow. i’m glad to see that you haven’t acquiesced to hyperbole during this policy debate.
Comment by Chad — March 18, 2010 @ 5:35 pm - March 18, 2010
ah poor Tano…
MA can make Romney care. The ‘laboratory of democracy’ would show that it doesn’t work. The Federal Government can’t.
But hey, since Tano can’t admit he was wrong about Global Warming, he was wrong about Honduras, why should we assume he’d admit he’s wrong here?
Comment by The_Livewire — March 18, 2010 @ 5:37 pm - March 18, 2010
Livewire,
So please tell me. If Romney gets the nom, will you be out their shilling for the second coming of Josef Stalin?
Comment by Tano — March 18, 2010 @ 5:46 pm - March 18, 2010
I chipped in so you could have military protection, though I don’t feel personally threatened by terrorist attacks.
I chipped in so your kids could get an education, even though I don’t have kids.
I chipped in so your meat could be inspected, even though I don’t eat beef, chipped or otherwise.
If you young and healthy people aren’t going to chip in on health care, can I have the money I gave for your military protection, etc., back? I could use it since you’re keeping my health insurance premiums so high.
Comment by Ashpenaz — March 18, 2010 @ 6:02 pm - March 18, 2010
37 states, or 74% of all the states, including 9 that Obama won in the election, are trying to pass statutes or state constitutional amendments to outlaw the public mandate. The governors of VA and ID have signed the bills into law. The Missouri House passed a constitutional amendment yesterday outlawing the health insurance mandate. If it passes the Missouri Senate, it will be on the ballot in November.
Democrats are pushing something 74% of all states are trying to outlaw, and they think they’re going to be loved in November?
http://www.sfexaminer.com/economy/mo-house-approves-constitutional-amendment-to-block-federal-plan-requiring-health-insurance-88194672.html
Comment by Scott — March 18, 2010 @ 6:22 pm - March 18, 2010
The truth is, of course, that if you had had some terrible accident, or major disease in those years that you had no insurance, then the rest of us would have footed the bill for your treatment nonetheless.
And if he hadn’t, we would not have had to pay anything at all.
Now, under ObamaCare and the mandate, we have to pay BOTH when he gets sick AND if he never gets sick at all.
The funny part of this whole debate has been watching the Obama puppets reveal their complete ignorance on what health insurance really is and is meant to cover.
And furthermore, Tano wouldn’t have “footed the bill” for any treatment. Tano doesn’t pay taxes and Tano doesn’t pay for health insurance — it lives like a parasite off other people.
And that is really what Tano is — a wasteful, useless parasite.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 18, 2010 @ 6:54 pm - March 18, 2010
Let me see if I have this straight.
Tano, the Global Warming, anti-semite loving Obama apologist is saying that Mitt Romney would be Stalin?
Ignoring that President Obama has surrounded himself with communists, Mao loving SEIU thugs and terrorists, and then saying that Romney is the nest coming of Stalin?
If that were really true, Tano would be cheering Romney on.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 18, 2010 @ 8:06 pm - March 18, 2010
Livewire,
So in other words, come 2012, you will be out there stumping for someone who has put into place an individual mandate, if he wins the nomination.
As will most everyone else here.
Good to keep that in mind when reading all the bs that is generated here….
hope you don’t really think that you can somehow avoid this by simply calling me a long string of names..
Comment by Tano — March 18, 2010 @ 11:02 pm - March 18, 2010
So in other words, come 2012, you will be out there stumping for someone who has put into place an individual mandate, if he wins the nomination.
And in 2012, you will be supporting a convicted criminal whose illegal use of Federal funds for propagandizing and bribery has him facing impeachment, not to mention his bevy of supporters who are in prison for everything from contempt of court through embezzlement and to child sexual molestation.
But there’s no need to worry, Tano; you’ll be on year 2 of your sentence. Of course, we all know it will be because of those dirty Jews, as you and yours put it, who framed you.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 19, 2010 @ 1:03 am - March 19, 2010
Ah, in Tano-vision supporting someone who claims “da Jooos is microwaving me brain” isn’t supporting an anti-semite, it’s name calling.
And Tano-boy, as I pointed out. MA can do whatever the frak it wants for healthcare. I’ll oppose Romney in the primary, I’ll oppose Romney-care, but I can at least take cold comfort that he won’t be recruiting communists, truthers, and thugs like the President you blindly follow.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 19, 2010 @ 7:19 am - March 19, 2010
And 4 months after the election The US quietly admits we were wrong.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 19, 2010 @ 7:21 am - March 19, 2010