Thursday, March 25, 2010

Mr. Freedom Lover

Over at Logtar's Blog, his post about the recently passed Health Care Legislation, Privilege Vs Right has touched off a heated debate.

A commenter who strongly dislikes the legislation started his first reply with the statement, "The problem is that it's easy to spend someone else's money." Then went on to argue passionately that this policy is wrong because it is impinging on his freedom. He reveals his bent that justice should be of little concern for our society when he states, "I’d rather just be free to make the choices that lead to my success or failure." He confirms one of his choices by stating, "I waive health insurance and I do not want it. Up until yesterday I had the freedom to choose."

All very well and good, I suppose, except in a later comment, while trying to refute Logtar's contention that the government has a valid interest in curtailing citizen's freedom through traffic regulations, this freedom loving individual wrote, "choosing to speed can be enforced with a fine because [..] I am putting society in danger by doing so. [...] not having health care [insurance] does not put society in danger."


This commenter seems to share a blind spot with many individuals I meet who bitterly complain about having to pay taxes and having their freedom taken away, while simultaneously behaving in ways that threaten society and cause our taxes to be higher and requiring more regulations. Not having health insurance absolutely puts society in danger, by causing medical expenses and insurance premium increases to absorb the costs of treating uninsured individuals who can't pay for their treatment.

But I suppose I could be wrong. I suppose if we lived in a society that let everyone have the freedom to succeed or fail, no matter what, and the commenter were involved in some mishap and sustained life threatening injuries and an ambulance arrived, but the EMT refused to treat him because Mr. Freedom Lover chose not to carry health insurance, I suppose as the EMT snapped the laryngoscope back into its protective case, if the EMT were observant, he might see a hint of a smile at the corners of Mr. Freedom Lover's blood covered mouth, as Mr. Freedom Lover aspirated his own blood, a hint of a smile from the satisfaction Mr. Freedom Lover felt knowing he was living in a society where he had the freedom to suffocate on his own blood because he chose not to carry health insurance.


emawkc said...

Americans won't win while the discussion is about health insurance and not health prices.

A person can easily get by with basic car insurance (liability) if they plan ahead and budget for regular maintenance. The reason is because an oil change and brake check won't put you in the poor house.

Conversely, with health care we've let costs get so far out of hand that you have to have insurance just to be able to afford a simple annual physical.

The cost part of the equation has been ignored by the administration and both political parties.

Bull E. Vard said...

Good work, you've successfully made an argument for the health police. Fat people eating cheeseburgers shouldn't be allowed. They're going to use more of our health care services if they continue eating. Smokers, f... em; drinkers, suck it; meat eaters, you'd better not have high cholesterol.

What I'm looking for and you agree with apparently, is a new cabinet level agency, Department of Homeland Health and Insurance Premium Reduction. Goddamn these people who don't live their life to reduce everyone else's insurance premiums. What a bunch of selfish jerkholes.

What we need more of is government mandating what we put in our mouth. They're ultimately the best because they actually care what health care costs. People can't make these kinds of decisions. People would never have come up with such great solutions as subsidizing ethanol or making sugar so expensive, that everything has high fructose corn syrup in it. The government can always find the best solution.

Food isn't the only thing, you almost touched on the other aspects of post HCR life that need to be regulated. Mountain climbing, motorcycles, swimming, boating, automobiles, these all need to be outlawed so we can all live to meet our true purpose, keep insurance premiums down.

I think what we really need is a preferred citizens program where the most successful citizens at living a life of keeping insurance premiums lower for the rest of the citizenry get to escape the mandatory retirement death (after, of course, the 2 week post retirement, all expenses paid vacation, to Yellowstone) and get to live until age 75 when they will be given their trip to Yellowstone (Yellowstone is chosen, because nature is inherently risky and citizens who partake in nature are more likely to get hurt and raise insurance premiums) and lethal injection.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the cheapest possible insurance premiums to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I'm sure no one will miss the part of the Preamble we take out to put in the part about cheap insurance premiums.