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.
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.
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.
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
pallet racking| 1.8.10 @ 3:19AM
http://www.t-racking.com
http://www.cold-store-equipment.com