Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Why such a fuss about health insurance?
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court gets down to brass tacks on the health care mandate and whether it is constitutional. For those “pro-choice” advocates out there, consider the hypocritical dichotomy of being against a federal requirement that you be smart enough to provide some kind of health insurance (in the same way that there is a mandated requirement to have auto insurance coverage if you drive), and yet favor any kind of mandate requiring women to have an ultrasound exam before they can have an abortion. I am frankly sick of the denial, let alone the hypocrisy, of whatever this particular breed of Republicans is. A mandate for national universal health insurance is an argument nearly a century old. It was led 20 years ago by Republicans. If there are those who don’t want health insurance (you can either choose the federal program or get one of your own under the “Obamacare” law), should we just let you die, rather than help cover your care in an emergency room? Ok. I’m cool with that. How about an alternative health care law that says you have three choices: Kick in for the national health insurance system; opt out of the national plan and buy a plan of your own; leave it to fate, in which case, don’t come whining to me expecting me to cover your care costs. In Japan, lived under a pragmatic national health care plan for 35 years. I paid my share, and I got good care. The program has flaws, and there are still loopholes subject to abuse. But it works. So does the Affordable Care Law. For those of you who think the mandate for health insurance that was a bipartisan notion until President Obama actually got it done is now suddenly a bad thing, it would be easy to offer a simple noun-and-verb response. But I will take the high ground here. If you don’t want to have health insurance, and you need care and don’t have a way to pay for it, die!
Posted by Ron Rhodes at 10:33 AM