This is my first diary, so please have mercy. Constructive criticism/disagreement is ALWAYS welcome.
Since the Healthcare Reform law was passed by congress last year, there has been an enormous backlash by the Right-wing in this country. We have all heard the of the stories, arguments and litigious cases seeking to challenge portions of the law, or the whole law entirely.
However, most cases are specifically ones dealing the Individual Mandate provision, the part of the law that says that a person must buy health insurance (regardless of who its from) within a certain time period, or that person will be subject to fine and/or other penalties.
Among the Right's most favored arguments is the one that cites the Individual Mandate as a "forced expense", "another tax", "classic overreach" and an "intrusion into people's lives" by the federal government. That line is really starting to get on my nerves, and honestly, I think that its best described as "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
There exists ANOTHER (gasp!) mandate in this country, yet no ever seems to mention it in regards to countering these foolish arguments. That mandate is of course the CAR INSURANCE mandate.
In all 50 states, people are required to buy car insurance, accident insurance, collision insurance, etc., whatever you would like to call it. Driving uninsured is ILLEGAL, and carries fairly stiff penalties, including at times, loss of driving privileges.
So lets get the facts straight here:
-NOT EVERYONE drives in this country, yet the government forces people who do to buy car insurance so that they can afford repairs and other costs associated with vehicle damage and maintenance.
-EVERYONE in this country has a body and a "health" to maintain, yet the government mandating people to buy insurance is considered to be an overreach, and an "unnecessary expense" ? Really?
The RW can go ahead and push that argument, but at least be logically honest and apply that reasoning uniformly. By their logic, Car Insurance mandates should be equally unconstitutional right, and should be considered another forced expense. Yet why aren't they? Why aren't we seeing massive "Car Party" protests, with people waving flags saying "don't drive on me"?
Where is the outrage, where is the litigation? Oh, that's right, when it comes to health insurance, the RW's lackeys have insurance corporations to protect.
To be honest, we know the value and necessity of having Car Insurance. Costs involved with recovery, repairs and management almost always exceed what the person is able to pay out of pocket, right away, so the insurance helps to cover or close the gap.
It works the same with Health Insurance. For example, in Michael Moore's "Sicko", think back to the story about how a man who has 2 fingers severed had to decide between which finger he wanted to reattach, because the operation on each finger cost around 45-55k. How many of us here can pay that sum out of pocket? Exactly. Health Insurance does that same thing for people that Car Insurance does for drivers. It helps to manage the cost.
The argument that the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional or an overreach of power is fine to have, but then be intellectually honest, and protest the Car Insurance mandate with the same fervor and ferocity, because it does the exact same thing. And if you can't, at least own up to the fact that you represent the corporate 1%, and not the peoples' interests.