In order to give supporters more opportunity to answer this question (perhaps word it better than the response I’ve received), I’m going to continue to ask the question about mandating health insurance. But the one person who has answered my question so far (a commenter on a blog at Hill’s official site) has given quite the telling response.
I should note, before getting into it, a couple things. First, I’ve asked this question so many times, in so many formats, on so many forums, that I’ve simply lost count. Hillary herself, or anyone on her team, has yet to consider the question — perhaps because it hasn’t been asked publically by an opinion-shaper (perhaps because the opinion-shapers already have their horse, and don’t wish to confuse voters with things like facts). The question, by the way, is simply: why mandates? Why, in the course of creating healthcare legislation, do some politicians like Clinton insist on mandating insurance on individuals?
A commenter (as opposed to a blogger) on Hillary’s website has finally answered my question, somewhat. And while it’s not the official answer, it is at least a peek into how some voters are thinking. This commenter shares my wife’s name, ironically, but not, unfortunately, her intelligence.
“… the idea is you can only truly control costs in an environment where everyone participates. However, you would not need to purchase private insurance, along with opening up the congressional pool, Hillary plans to allow anyone interested to purchase a medicare-type public health coverage.”
Now, at the very least, this statement represents the role some voters would like for the Federal Government to play in healthcare, and therefore, in our individual lives. Two key words here: “control” and “allow.”
Look, using the word “allow” in the context of Federal Government is the very antithesis of liberty. My health insurance decisions ought to be mine — there should be no such thing as what the Federal Government “allows” in terms of my decisions about my health and that of my family. “Allow” presumes “control.” The statement I highlighted above, then, is one made by somebody who not only is resigned to, but actively welcomes government control over her life. The word for this is “socialism,” and that is why I refuse to let Hillary remove the word “socialized” from her plan uncontested.
Actually, though, the assessment isn’t entirely accurate. If the government mandates healthcare costs, they have no need to force participation by individuals. Especially when they also offer a government-run alternative as competition. Therefore, cost-control cannot be affected by forced participation. If this is, in fact, the reasoning Hillary is using for her mandates, either she’s an idiot, or she assumes we are.
We already know she isn’t stupid. Guess where that leaves us.
-Streu-
Society for Independent Thinking 