Crush Liberalism

13 Comments »

1. So I guess you’re also opposed to mandatory car insurance?

   Comment by Jamelle | November 29, 2007

2. Apparently at your University of Virginia, they don’t teach logic or economics.

   I think Texas Rainmaker addresses your flawed “reasoning” (and I use that term loosely) perfectly:

   But there are some big differences between health insurance and all the “mandated” types of insurance mentioned above. Health insurance is an inward-facing protection, where the others are outward-facing. This means that one purchases health insurance to hedge against a future out-of-pocket expense for his or her own (and family’s) care. Mandated insurance like auto, malpractice, mortgage, etc is designed to protect others from acts of the insured.

   The other big difference is that those other types of insurance (including the auto insurance Hillary refers to) are also examples of “choice” despite being “mandated”. For instance, you only have to purchase auto insurance if you CHOOSE to drive a car. You only have to purchase mortgage insurance if you CHOOSE to take out a loan to buy a house with less than 20% down. You only have to purchase malpractice insurance if you CHOOSE a profession that requires it.

   So what about those who don’t drive, buy a home, or practice law or medicine? Should they be forced to buy insurance for each activity anyway? Only then would Democrats’ comparison to auto insurance be relevant.

   It’s true the Democrats’ plans are all about choice… so long as it’s their choice we’re talking about.

   School’s over. Class dismissed.

   Comment by crushliberalism | November 29, 2007

3. Jamelle
   Mandatory car insurance isnt to protect you, its to protect the person YOU HIT.

   Comment by WMD_Maker | November 29, 2007

4. I’m guessing that Jamelle probably thinks that “free health care” is REALLY free!

   Comment by crushliberalism | November 29, 2007

5. Your personal attacks are so clever.

   But you’re right, there is a quantitative difference between car insurance and health insurance, and in some sense, you have the choice of purchasing car insurance.

   I guess I take more issue with equating “mandated child health insurance” with “thought suppressing totalitarian dictatorship.” First it’s a bit ridiculous (though if you’d like, you can throw out a Hayek quote, I’m sure it’s appropriate as a response), and second, you’re sort of missing the point of a mandate.

   The health care plans presented don’t mandate coverage out of some perverse glee in seeing people deprived of choice, they mandate coverage for reasons similar to why we mandate car insurance (for car owners). Insurance dilutes the cost. The more people paying into a system, the cheaper it is for each individual. And considering that near everyone will have significant medical costs in their lives (just like most people will get into some sort of accident in their lives) it makes more sense to make sure as many people as possible are covered, so that the cost of compensating for that fact isn’t so preposterously high.

   And as an aside, I’m up for discussion, but let’s keep it civil. Personal attacks aren’t a mark of cleverness or ingenuity, they are a mark of immaturity.

   Comment by Jamelle | November 29, 2007

6. And as an aside, I’m up for discussion, but let’s keep it civil.

   Fair enough.

   they are a mark of immaturity.

   You are obviously new here. I apologize if I’ve given you the impression that you can expect maturity out of me…I’ll try not to do that anymore!

   you’re sort of missing the point of a mandate.

   Can we leave Barney Frank’s weekend plans out of the discussion?

   they mandate coverage for reasons similar to why we mandate car insurance (for car owners).

   Actually, they don’t. As demonstrated above, the purpose of mandatory car insurance is to protect me from you (and vice versa). Also as demonstrated above, it’s not completely mandatory, since I could always opt to ride a bike, walk, take public transportation, etc.

   Insurance dilutes the cost. The more people paying into a system, the cheaper it is for each individual.

   Oftetimes, that’s true…and 100% completely irrelevant.

   it makes more sense to make sure as many people as possible are covered, so that the cost of compensating for that fact isn’t so preposterously high.

   It’s not my responsibility to cover your health care, nor vice versa. Unlike auto insurance, where I can opt out of paying it by not driving a car, I would have no choice under a “pro-choice” prez to cover your health insurance. How about you take some responsibility for your own life and pay for your own? Unless you think there should be “universal car insurance”, “universal homeowners insurance”, “universal malpractice insurance”, etc. I mean, why stop at health care? I’d sure like everyone else to pay my other insurance rates for me!

   The truth is that Dems want socialist-style health care for one reason alone: power over your life. If they control your health care, they control you. The more freedom you have to pick your own health care providers for yourself and your family (as well as WHEN you go to the doctor), the less you need government to solve your problems…and they’ll be damned before they let that happen.

   I have my own health plan. I rarely go to the doctor, since I’m rarely sick. So why should I pay a higher premium, if I can just opt for a low-premium, high deductible plan? If I have a catastrophic illness, I am prepared for it through my insurance and my medical savings account. Your health needs and situation may be totally different than mine. You and I don’t need some government jackbooted thug to tell us what my health needs are, especially since it so grotesquely perverts government’s constitutional role.

   Also, I find it galling that the same leftist blowhards who frame abortion as a “health care choice that government shouldn’t be getting involved in” have absolutely zero qualms about being hypocrites and getting government involved in the other “health care choices” in our lives.

   But back to the original point: your point about mandatory auto insurance is fatally flawed, as has been demonstrated.

   Comment by crushliberalism | November 29, 2007

7. Hey , Jamelle, check it out:

   http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/29/silky-ill-garnish-your-wages-to-achieve-universal-health-care/

   Silky wants the federal government to garnish your wages if you don’t buy government health care! Go ahead, tell me again how it’s not totalitarian?

   Comment by crushliberalism | November 29, 2007

8. “Insurance dilutes the cost. The more people paying into a system, the cheaper it is for each individual.”

   Gee, that’s funny. Every year my auto insurance goes up. Every year my health insurance goes up. Yet, I have not had an auto accident, speeding ticket or gone to a doctor in those years. The insurance goons tell me it’s because of all the other people in the area that my rates must continue to increase.

   At least I am able to fire Allstate and go to Geico if I don’t like the way they treat me as a customer. Same goes for health insurance as it stands right now. Will that be the case when the likes of liberal politicians get their grubby hands on it? I think not.

   Note to self: write letter to University of Virginia staff to tell them what a lousy job they are doing.

   Comment by TheBad | November 30, 2007

9. Let me get this straight. I have to pay for substandard care and if I dont want substandard care I have to pay MORE plus pay for the decent care.

   Comment by WMD_Maker | November 30, 2007

10. Not one of the health insurance plans proposed by the Democratic candidates will force you to abandon your current health insurance or tell you which doctors you can or cannot see. Obama’s is almost entirely voluntary (aside from children), while Clinton’s and Edward’s allow individuals to opt out of the government service and keep their insurance, with means-tested subsidies.

    It’s cool to disagree with government subsidized health insurance, that’s your right. But it’s ludicrous to conflate a relatively simple and uncontroversial means of delivering services (subsidies) with I don’t know, totalitarianism.

    By the way, insult me if you want, but the University of Virginia is the finest institution of public higher education in the country. We routinely rank as either the #1 or #2 public university in the country, and we are ranked as the 22nd best university in the country. You can think I’m an idiot, but the school is pretty damn good.

    Comment by Jamelle | December 1, 2007

11. Jamelle, there is nothing voluntary about any of the Dems’ plans. When they talk about garnishing wages and, using their words, “you don’t have a choice”, then the voluntary thingy goes out the window. You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

    the University of Virginia is the finest institution of public higher education in the country.

    With all due respect, then, you’re not representing very well.

    Comment by crushliberalism | December 1, 2007

12. Fair enough.

    Comment by Jamelle | December 2, 2007

13. Jamelle, you’re alright, dude. I may think you’re way out in left field (and trust me…I do ), but feel free to comment. That is, as long as you can handle the inevitable fallout from the commenters. I get the impression you can handle it just fine.

    Anywho, enjoy your weekend.

    Comment by crushliberalism | December 2, 2007

« Previous | Next »

Site info

Crush Liberalism
Theme: Andreas04 by Andreas Viklund. Blog at WordPress.com.