Health insurance and the victimhood canard

One of the biggest twisting of the facts that goes on in the healthcare debate is the insistence by supporters of nationalized healthcare of using “health insurance” and “health care” interchangeably. That’s another topic all together, but I wanted to highlight something Star Parker mentioned in her latest column:

Health insurance, so far, is not mandatory by law, and we’ve got 16 percent of the population – 47 million or so – without it. Auto insurance is mandatory by law, and according to the Insurance Research Council, 14 percent of drivers nationwide still don’t buy it.

So, again, the question is, do we want or need a nanny state? I don’t want the government telling me what I can eat or how much I can weigh, so I don’t want nationalized healthcare. I don’t need the government stepping in to “save” me from the consequences of my own decisions.

Parker also cites a recent study showing that in many cases people are making the choice not to purchase health insurance:

…According to a new study from the Employment Policy Institute, authored by two economists from City University of New York (one, Dr. June O’Neill, spent four years as head of the Congressional Budget Office), 43 percent of the 47 million can afford insurance and choose not to purchase it.

And that doesn’t even take into account the 10 million that are illegals. Should Americans pay for health insurance for illegal immigrants?

Pulling immigrants out of the equation, we’re left with an uninsured population that can’t afford insurance about a third the size of the widely quoted 47 million. It’s a population that is generally poor, young, uneducated and not working.

We’re already set up to deal with these folks. Either through Medicaid or covering their emergency room visits. The operative question is do we want to further institutionalize this reality into a new national health care plan involving trillions in new taxes and programs.

Her solution is more in line with the spirit of our country’s founding than a nationalized healthcare system:

Open the door to millions of poor kids out of broken families, broken public schools and the cycle of poverty through school choice. Give them the opportunity to go to church schools.

Rather than perpetuating poverty through further institutionalization of the welfare state, expose poor kids to the values and education necessary to enable them to make the right choices for their lives.

There is no future for a nation of victims, whether we’re talking about health care or anything else. But there is a great future for a country of responsible, free people.

Be Sociable, Share!



4 Responses to “Health insurance and the victimhood canard”

  1. Kansas Bob says:

    Great thoughts here Casey. One of the issues I have with the folks who can afford, but do not buy, health insurance is how they will still use health care providers like emergency rooms with no ability of paying for the care if it gets a little expensive (like what hospital care is not). They depend on the ethics of the medical profession but do not seem to have ethics themselves.

    What do you think Casey? Should there be legislation to enable healthcare providers to refuse uninsured non-emergency cases without the fear of leagal action against them?

    • casey says:

      No, I don’t think they should be allowed to refuse treatment all together. Absolutely not. How would you distinguish between those who intend to pay and those who do not? If someone wants to take the risk of breaking their bank with an unexpected illness by not getting insurance, that’s their problem, but they should not be refused treatment.

  2. Kansas Bob says:

    People without insurance drive up the costs for everyone else.. hospitals have to either write them off of pursue them in the courts.. and consequentially sometimes folks have to declare bankruptcy. It is not right.. I think that there should be laws on the books that make it illegal to not have insurance.. even if people choose to break such laws.