One distasteful element of Obamacare is the likelihood that there will be mandatory health insurance. We may presume that the model for this will be what the People’s Republic of Massachusetts put in place in 2007. Not that what those chowderheads did should ever be a model, but lefties tend to fall in line. And whatever else he is, Obama is a lefty’s lefty.
We will be told, over and over by way of analogy, “hey, the state requires a driver’s license.” In fairness, this is half-true as a working analogy. The half-truth is that those who choose to be uninsured may become a burden to the community, as their health costs are taken care of on the public’s dime. The same is already true of millions of illegal immigrants. If this is a problem, where’s the Obama/Pelosi solution?
We speak not of those who can’t afford health insurance but want it. These people should be given, in the form of welfare, health insurance. No, I write of those who could afford health insurance but opt not to get it. And here’s where the analogy fails: if I don’t have a driver’s license, I pose a risk to you when I drive. But no health insurance? The risk is principally to my own well being.
Making all people buy health insurance is a twofer for the state: it allows yet another dimension in the Nanny State’s control over our lives, and it brings in a new revenue stream. If having health insurance is good for you, why resist having it made mandatory?
For the same reason Americans should resist any and all encroachments on our personal lives by the state. Sure, having health insurance is good for you. So is not drinking too much, eating too much, smoking, not getting enough sleep or exercise. And, oh, the humanity! Some of us like McDonald’s. The list of things we do that we ought not do is endless.
The Soviet man has no problem with control by the state. Americans should.