Posted by
The Conservative Manifesto on Monday, September 17, 2007 2:08:42 PM
As you know, I rarely repost blog posts in their entirety. But rarely doesn't mean never.
Via
Texas Rainmaker:
Following on John Edwards’ unveiling of his socialized medicine platform, here comes Hillarycare, the sequel.
Thirteen
years after her first effort at improving the nation’s health care was
abandoned, Hillary Rodham Clinton offered a new approach that would
require every American to have health insurance with federal assistance
to help defray the cost.
Nothing like mandated "choice".
"Insurance"
is simply a contract one enters whereby the insurer guarantees to
indemnify the insured against loss. We have the right to choose when
and how we enter into contracts, but Democrats want to take that choice
away… despite what they call it.
"But what about the mandate for drivers to carry insurance?", they say...
The
centerpiece of Clinton’s "American Health Choices Plan" is the
so-called "individual mandate," requiring everyone to have health
insurance — just as most states require drivers to purchase auto
insurance. Rival John Edwards has also offered a plan that includes an
individual mandate, while the proposal outlined by Barack Obama does
not.
States also require lawyers to carry
malpractice insurance when practicing law. Doctors must carry
malpractice insurance when practicing medicine. (Both to protect
clients from malpractice) Mortgagors require homebuyers to carry
private mortgage insurance if the downpayment is less than 20% of the
mortgage (to protect the lendor against a borrower’s default).
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.