Makes Me Nervous...

The following, from this morning's NY Times article A Moment of Truth for Health Care Reform, caught my attention: "The critics insist that the mandate is unconstitutional because it regulates inaction. But the distinction they draw between inaction and action makes little sense. Refusing to pay a tax, for instance, is "inaction" that is clearly subject to government regulation. Choosing not to have health insurance is just as clearly a financial action - one that could shift future medical expenses onto others in the health system."

So by forcing individuals to carry medical insurance (private or public) we circumvent "the shift of one's medical expenses onto others in the health system." Really? Now I certainly don't have the answers to "our" health care problems, but I do know who pays for public programs... And I know who pays when insurance companies are forced to cover individuals they wouldn't otherwise cover...

And what then will we do about the gentleman who sits at Mickeydee's drive-thru window in his idled Oldsmobile (spewing exhaust fumes into the lungs of the children eating McNuggets and guzzling Pepsi in Ronald's playground) as he, after flicking the unfiltered Camel butt into the flower bed, orders two Big Macs, a large order of fries, three hot apple pies and a large vanilla shake? Think maybe his actions (not to mention the actions of the parents of the nugget-stuffed kids) will put a little pressure on "our" health care system? If the constitutional question is all about regulating inaction, we'll have no problem regulating this man's choice of automobile, his nicotine intake and his food... For "clearly these are financial actions - ones that could shift future medical expenses onto others" - with or without health care reform... Imagine the headline, A Moment of Truth for The Personal Choices Reform Act...

You may be a fan of The Affordable Care Act, and you may have it right - like I said, I don't have the answers... The fiscal question is, will this intervention ultimately produce the savings the CBO projects over the next ten years? I.e., will we save in the long run by spending more in the short run? The moral question is, do we continue to allow tens of millions of Americans to go without health coverage? Of course some would say the moral question is, do we force hundreds of millions of Americans to pay for the tens of millions who go without health coverage? Yes, I know, they already do... And at what point, in the interest of the greater good, do we force some bureaucrat's idealized lifestyle onto ourselves? Ridiculous? Let's hope so...

As for me, I'm a fan of freedom, and this one makes me nervous...