The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Peter Orszag, the White House director of Management and Budget, has compared the new health insurance mandate that would force every American to purchase coverage or pay a tax to seat belt laws, TPM reports.

But the comparison does not hold up.

Laws requiring that passengers wear seat belts are administered at the state level, while the insurance mandate would be federal. Wearing a seat belt does not apply to people unless they are in a moving automobile on a public road, whereas the health care mandate would apply to any American merely for being alive. And fastening a seat belt does not cost any money, whereas purchasing health insurance costs thousands of dollars. In fact, Monday's CBO report found that an individual insurance policy for somebody earning over $43,320 (and thus not qualifying for subsidies) would rise to $5,800 in 2016. 

The only real similarity is that they're both an example of government assuming a paternalistic role.

What's most galling about Orszag's statement is the suggestion that people who choose not to purchase health insurance should be viewed as social outcasts:

Speaking with reporters at an event sponsored by Health Affairs at the National Press Club, Orszag dismissed critics who say the fine that essentially mandates coverage will work because he believes it is more of an issue of being socially acceptable.

As an example, Orszag cited seatbelt use, saying that there is more adherence to seatbelt laws than speeding laws because of social norms.

While proponents of a mandate try to portray those who are uninsured by choice as deadbeats, in reality many people with low annual health care costs make the rational decision to save money on monthly premiums, and simply pay out of pocket for whatever small costs they do incur. Now those same people will be forced to purchase a health care policy that's been pre-approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (or Health Choice Commissioner in the House bill), and submit proof of insurance to the IRS along with their tax forms. If they do not comply with the mandate, they'll be forced to pay a tax.

View all comments (9) | Leave a comment

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.2.09 @ 5:59PM

Well for one, I shall do with that health insurance mandate just what I do with seatbelt laws...

I SHALL DO AS I DAMNED WELL PLEASE!

Spicy Joker| 12.2.09 @ 9:48PM

Nobody has to put on a seatbelt if they don't drive. I can't believe this idiot Orszag got this far in life.

victor| 12.3.09 @ 12:01AM

Proof once again that Non-Private Sector guys know NOTHING about business or making money or keeping businesses profitable so that they stay in business.
This ties in with the Government Motors "board of directors" firing of Fred Henderson just days before the LA Auto Show.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.co.....-who-.html
Do these guys want to sell cars?
I, for one, will never buy a GM anything, under any circumstances.

And there will be people that will pay the fine rather than be forced to "buy" a mandatory Government Insurance Plan.

victor| 12.3.09 @ 12:03AM

I forgot to add that if GM goes out of business, WE THE TAXPAYERS will be stuck paying LIFETIME benefits to the UNIONS!

Once again: SCREW THE UNIONS!
Buy Toyota!
Buy Honda!
Buy BMW!

BUY ANY TRANSPLANT!

Richard Baker| 12.3.09 @ 4:59AM

It must be hard for someone like Orszag to get through the day, him being cognitively challenged as he is. There is a day of reckoning coming. Sic Semper Tyrannis.

Rich Birkett| 12.3.09 @ 6:22PM

A tax for failing to buy health insurance is unconstitutional. The US Constitution prohibits personal "direct tax" except income under the 16th Amendment. The proposed tax is certainly a direct tax, and not buying insurance cannot not be considered income.

tag hauer watches| 12.9.09 @ 10:55PM

tag hauer watches

tag hauer watches| 12.9.09 @ 10:56PM

tag hauer watches

Leave a Comment

N.B. We encourage readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Spectator article. Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful. (And don't feed the trolls!) Thank you.

More Blog Posts by Philip Klein

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/12/02/orszag-compares-insurance-mand

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Illusionist

Yogi Love | 10:06AM

At Least He Apologized

Ross Kaminsky | 8:34AM

Gallup: Veterans Prefer Romney

W. James Antle, III | 5.28.12

Markos Moulitsas is Scum

Quin Hillyer | 5.28.12

Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Memorial Day Edition

W. James Antle, III | 5.27.12

An Honor Flight Story

TAS Staff | 5.26.12

WaPost Criticizes Romney's Lack of Rhythm

Aaron Goldstein | 5.25.12

SPONSORED LINKS

Special Feature

Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:

A Time for Choosing

James Piereson

The Road from Serfdom

Stephen Moore and Peter Ferrara

FLASHBACK TO: 1984

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Meet the Flukes!

F. H. Buckley | 5.25.12

In Search of Muhammad

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi | 5.25.12

The Wisconsin Turning Point

Peter Ferrara | 5.23.12

Age and Kyl

Quin Hillyer | 5.25.12

Follow Me

Jay D. Homnick | 5.25.12

Terror by Any Other Name

Robert Stacy McCain | 5.29.12

How About the Record of DOE Capital?

William Tucker | 5.25.12

ADVERTISEMENT