Posted on 12/14/2010 1:22:29 PM PST by jazusamo
Could switching to ObamaCare really destroy our health care system? Do liberals make weak, emotional arguments defending horrible policies?
In the wake of Mondays court decision ruling the individual mandate component of ObamaCare unconstitutional, the White House is trotting out a new line, which is actually an old line, and theyre trying to change the terms of the debate. We shouldnt be surprised, I guess: These people are trying to put a tax on breathing. Any other tactic is fair game once youve tried that.
The White House blog, taking its cues from the left wing blogosphere, trotted out the car insurance argument Monday afternoon, here:
This concept [of forcing Americans to buy something as the price of citizenship] is clearly seen in other areas of commerce. For example, in most states, drivers are required to carry a minimum level of auto insurance. Accidents happen and when they do, they need to be paid for quickly and responsibly. Requiring drivers to carry auto insurance accomplishes this goal. Similarly, the Affordable Care Act, through the individual responsibility requirement, will require everyone to carry some form of health insurance since everyone at some point in time participates in the health care system, and incur costs that must be paid for.
And then today, out come attorney general Eric Holder and HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius, with the same line in an op-ed for the Washington Post.
Imagine what would happen if everyone waited to buy car insurance until after they got in an accident. Premiums would skyrocket, coverage would be unaffordable, and responsible drivers would be priced out of the market.
This, along with changing the label of the individual mandate to the softer individual responsibility, forms the backbone of the Obama admininstrations new strategy to defend ObamaCare.
Holder and Sebelius open their piece with the usual liberal sob story, about someone who couldnt get coverage until ObamaCare rode in to save the day:
In March, New Hampshire preschool teacher Gail OBrien, who was unable to obtain health insurance through her employer, was diagnosed with an aggressive form of lymphoma. Her subsequent applications for health insurance were rejected because of her condition. With each round of chemotherapy costing $16,000, she delayed treatment because she knew her savings wouldnt last.
Then President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act. Thanks to this law, OBrien is getting treatment through a temporary program that provides affordable coverage to people whove been shut out of the insurance market because of a preexisting condition. Even better, she knows that in 2014 insurers will be banned from discriminating against her or any American with preexisting conditions.
Funny thing about all that. ObamaCare didnt even contain state level high risk pools until the end stages of the debate, when according to Yuval Levin, the Democrats tacked them on to make the bill appear to be more effective before 2014. Another funny thing about that: Most states already have high risk pools. Texas has had its high risk pool in the law since 1989, and funded since 1997. State high risk pools are expensive and like everything else, imperfect, but they generally work. Texas didnt need ObamaCare to tell us to create it. If anything, ObamaCares mandates threaten to bankrupt the states by saddling them with billions in unfunded mandates, which will presumably destroy state health care risk pools and other similar programs. ObamaCare isnt the antidote, its the poison.
As to the argument that mandating health care is like mandating auto insurance, that argument doesnt stand up to the facts. Changing the nomenclature to individual responsibility rather than individual mandate doesnt help strengthen the argument. That the White House is doing both says that it has run out of strong legal arguments to buttress the law.
So one more time, lets go through the various ways that ObamaCare is not like auto insurance. For one thing, auto insurance is pegged to risk, while ObamaCare is explicitly intended to remove the link to risk thats what ObamaCares pre-existing conditions mandate does. If youre a driver with a clean record, you pay less than a driver with a terrible record, and if you live in a high crime neighborhood, you pay more for your insurance than residents of lower crime neighborhoods. And at some point, a terrible driving record can make you uninsurable. Auto insurance is also not used to pay for services before theyre needed. Auto insurance pays for damage done, not routine maintenance. And driving itself is not a right, its an earned privilege licensed by the state, done mostly on roads owned and maintained by the state, giving the state a great deal of say in who gets to drive and what they must to in order to maintain their driving privileges. Auto insurance also is not tied to employment. That coupling of employment and health insurance is itself an unintended result of government intervention in the marketplace. ObamaCare just piles on more unwise intrusion into the private sector, rather than cleaning up the governments previous mess.
Whereas auto insurance is tied to a privilege, ObamaCare is essentially a tax on your heartbeat. The state didnt start your heartbeat, it doesnt maintain your heartbeat, and it doesnt license your heartbeat. But it does want to tax your heartbeat, and if you dont comply it will send the IRS after you.
The auto insurance and health insurance markets are simply not analogous. No amount of sophistry will make it so.
ObamaCares individual mandate, now re-branded individual responsibility, is also a tax on citizenship in that it forces citizens (and lawful residents) into economic relationships that are not forced on those who are here illegally. In fact, to the extent that illegal aliens make up the millions of uninsured that we always hear about, and they make up a great deal of that number, ObamaCares mandate forces law-abiding Americans and residents to pay for the care of illegals who havent followed our basic laws of entry and also havent entered the health insurance market. Is that fair? We are already paying for that care via our local and state, and in some cases federal, taxes. ObamaCares mandate is a double hit, and one that could end up pricing American citizenship itself out of the market.
The White Houses defense of ObamaCare is weak and fundamentally dishonest. Their desired end state, as Obama himself admitted in more youthful moments, is single payer and the individual mandate is part of the path to get there (so was the so-called public option, which thankfully didnt get past even a heavily Democrat congress). They couldnt sell single payer or even the public option, so they sold ObamaCare and the individual mandate, and got a budget-busting, freedom-killing Frankenstein that most Americans oppose and that now a court has reasonably ruled is illegal.
Do we need reform? Absolutely. Is ObamaCare the reform that we need? Absolutely not. ObamaCare needs to be struck down or repealed, and replaced with market-based reforms that increase, rather than curb, our individual freedoms while strengthening, rather than swamping, state budgets.
Bryan Preston has been a leading conservative blogger and opinionator since founding his first blog in 2001. Bryan is a military veteran, worked for NASA, was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the Laura Ingraham Show and, most recently before joining PJM, was Communications Director of the Republican Party of Texas.
my sister doesn’t have a car. Does she still have to buy car insurance?
Spot on.
1. We also have to have a license, for the ‘privilege’ to use the public ROW. They have equated this privilege with having a pulse.
2. Individuals can choose to not drive - thus there is no requirement to purchase auto insurance. We cannot choose not to live (or should be be forced into that choice, since we are guaranteed life, liberty....).
3. If they want to go down that road, and use the commerce clause...since health insurance is currently regulated by states, and not purchased across state lines, it doesn't even apply.
She can see this as justification for the individual mandate, but she CAN'T (WON'T) see that it utterly destroys the argument for covering pre-existing conditions.
According to the Marxist in the WH she probably should to help defray the costs, it’ll be a great day when he’s out.
I love the Car insurance comparison. Please let them keep using that as an argument. What a joke this administration is!!
Yes. From now on (following Obamacare metaphors) the following people will have to have car insurance, even though they don’t have or drive an automobile:
1. Pedestrians.
2. Bicyclists.
3. Mothers pushing strollers.
4. Toddlers on trikes.
Isn’t that a great thing???? Now EVERYONE is covered!! Wooohooo! The world is a safer place!!!
Timely article.
Someone at work tried this argument on me yesterday. I quickly dismissed his point by citing the fact (unlike health insurance) that almost all roads are government owned and thus the government can stipulate what insurance is needed to use them.
However, I didn’t have the other points. While I was successful in winning the point, he was a soft target.
Freepers - you’re going to get this argument a lot. Read the article and be prepared.
Correct, and she doesn’t address the fact that poor drivers pay a lot more or can’t buy it at all as in the article.
The list, ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
Driving is a selective choice made by the individual. You DO NOT have to drive...you choose to.
The fact is you don’t even need a license, let alone insurance, if you do all your driving on your own property.
“Yeah, Both are Unconstitutional.”
No they’re not. Driving on public streets is a priviledge regulated by the state and it’s perfectly within their powers under the law to make sure you are insured when exercizing that priviledge.
Living is not a priviledge but a right and forcing someone to pay for that right is truly unconstitutional.
Yes, Preston makes great points in the piece.
I’d rather have the gecko in charge of my hearthcare than Barack Obama...or Michelle in charge of my diet!
Okay, even when disregarding the obvious difference between privilege and the unconditional right to benefits of citizenship, if the asshole aide has any idea about comparing health insurance with ‘car’ insurance, then he/she/it should know (because he/she/it is an all knowing damned Democrat) that the only time the Federal Government has a sayso about car insurance is when someone tries to drive on Federal installations... So in MY book the only one who HAS to purchase the damned insurance is Obama and Biden, who live on Federal property....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.