Like an idiot had the car audio set to “radio” rather than “aux”. So caught 3 minutes of Jim Engster on National Public Radio. *Sigh*
Discussing attempts to challenge the new health care legislation – legislation? that itself merits discussion – as unconstitutional. Some fellow calls in and trots out this tired argument.
People have to buy car insurance in order to use our roads. When they buy a house they have to get house insurance. So people should be required to buy health insurance in order to spread out the risk pool. [close paraphrase]
We have been hearing this concerning the individual mandate. “What do you mean you cannot require someone to buy something? We require people to buy something all the time such as car insurance”.
There is a simple and obvious problem with the argument.
- I can choose not to drive.
- I can choose not to buy a home.
- Can I choose not to live?
There are other problems. Actually one is required to buy home owner’s insurance only if you have a mortgage. That is because your home technically belongs to the bank. And they want to recoup the money they lent you if something happens to the property. Cover the property? the contents? to what extent? Also there is no “spreading of the risk pool”. Where you live. Previous claims. Some factors over which you have control affect the cost of the insurance. Cost of the insurance is not subsidized by the government. Which means other taxpayers paying for your insurance.
Car insurance. Typically one is only required to carry liability coverage. Cover the vehicle? to what extent? Again there is no “spreading of the risk pool”. Where you live. What kind of vehicle. How you use it. Previous claims. Your driving record. Some factors over which you have control affect the cost of the insurance. Cost of the insurance is not subsidized by the government. Which means other taxpayers paying for your insurance.
In both cases the reason you are required to carry insurance on your vehicle or your home is because other parties have a stake. The lending institution if something happens to the property. The other person if you are involved in a collision that causes damage to person or property.
How do these factors apply to health insurance? More specifically the current health care reform legislation?
Where you live. Who you are. Your medical history. Previous claims. Factors over which you have control. The whole thrust of this legislation is that none of these things can affect the cost of the insurance. You cannot decide what kind of coverage you want. Cost of the insurance is subsidized by the government. Which means other taxpayers paying for your insurance. And who has a stake in my health?
What is especially odd is for that caller to defend the individual mandate because it “spreads out the pool of risk”. So those who are healthy by choice or by accident end up paying more to help reduce the cost of insurance for those who are not.
Is the government putting “stupid” in our drinking water?
