If You Read the Paper | Tues Aug 17
Words BC Wilson
Tuesday, August 17th, 2010 at 10:25 am
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but as the old saying goes, never ask a barber if you need a haircut.
Is the health care mandate constitutional?
81% of respondents to this Pilot poll say “no.”
The interesting part here is, of course, the comments. A good number of people seem to think that requiring Americans above a certain income level to purchase health insurance (if they are not covered by an employer plan) is the same as requiring all Americans to buy a GM car. That claim is patently ridiculous, of course. Requiring health insurance for users of the health care system (which we ALL use) is much more similar to requiring auto insurance for drivers of cars.
All of us who drive have a legal obligation to purchase insurance, not because we might wreck our own cars, but because we might run into someone else’s and end up costing them a lot of money. It’s a law that makes sense, but you can opt out of it if you choose not to drive a car.
It’s absurd, on the other hand, to assert that you might opt out of ever seeking medical care. You can argue that, I suppose, right up to the point of your first heart attack, or until the day your diabetes becomes unmanageable. At that point you become, like it or not, a burden on the health care system. And if you don’t have insurance then one of three things will happen: 1 – someone else will pay for you (which isn’t fair), 2 – you’ll pay for yourself (which could easily drive you into bankruptcy), 3 – the government will pick up the tab (which means that all of America pays for you). Unless you are particularly rich and option 2 won’t empty your savings account, then your lack of health insurance just became a cost to the state. So that’s why requiring Americans to buy health insurance is not the same as requiring them to buy a Chevy.
Asking average people to rule on constitutional matters, especially when they have a financial interest at stake, is not likely to arrive at a meaningful conclusion. For example, if you asked whether a state or federal income tax was constitutional, you’d probably get an overwhelmingly negative response. If you asked whether it was constitutional to require drivers to have liability insurance you’d probably hear a resounding no, especially if the liability insurance bill had recently been paid.
The real problem here is that, sadly, the fundamental problems of our health care system were not resolved by the recent health care bill. We have a fundamentally weird system of employer-provided health care administered by a Chex Mix of private companies and insurers. It’s confusing, stress-inducing, and unfair in many ways, and none of that changed. All this bill did was try to find a way to extend health care to those who didn’t already have it. A better plan might have been to scrap employer plans and simply require all individuals (who are not in poverty) to buy health insurance, one way or another. The other alternative is to nationalize the system and pay for it with taxes. I’m afraid we’re going to be arguing about the health care system for another decade or two before we get around to trying anything more creative than what we have today. In the meantime, I’m just happy that I don’t have to buy a Chevy.
Lie detector tests are now standard for fishermen in big tournaments
That’s just pretty funny.
With home sales faltering, apartments are booming
I guess this is good. I always wanted an apartment with a swimming pool, but I lived in New York City so instead I got an apartment with a bathtub in the kitchen.
That’s crab house, not crack house
John T. Johnson won a moral victory of sorts two years ago when he staved off an attempt by the city to take his property, Johnson’s Crab House, and demolish it to make a waterfront park near the Portsmouth Naval Medical Center. Well, the city wasn’t done with Johnson–from March through May this year the Portsmouth police entered Johnson’s Crab House with hidden cameras and bought a few thousand dollars worth of crack and heroin from Johnson and his wife. The couple pleaded guilty yesterday to 18 charges of selling illegal drugs from the property. Now the city is likely to take the property as a criminal asset under state forfeiture laws rather than by eminent domain. Looks like a win for the good guys to me.
Openings downtown!!
Things are finally getting back in shape on Granby. The rail construction is nearing completion, and business owners are sighing with relief. We’ve even got some new guys.
A big welcome to Grow Interactive, which recently moved into their new building on Granby Street. It’s a gorgeous contemporary interior in a renovated historic building with high ceilings and fun amenities (roof deck party, anyone?). Just before it opened I walked by and snapped this photo, which tells me that these guys are really out to achieve the impossible. Go Grow!
Next, over on Boush Street in the old Eagleton’s building we have an exciting new surprise for downtown: our very own School of Rock. They are in the soft opening stage right now (you can see from the photo that they’re not quite ready for the world), but I’m eager to drop in when the doors open and check out the space. If my kids don’t want to take lessons, maybe I can finally indulge my inner Jimmy Page and start rockin’ like Dokken. Word.
COMMENTS
Facebook comments:
ABOUT THE WRITER
BC Wilson is an internet strategist, freelance writer, and graduate of ODU's Creative Non-fiction Program. He canceled his cable TV subscription four years ago and now spends his free time dragging his children around in a bike trailer and torturing his wife by playing the recorder.
Other posts by BC Wilson.
Other posts by BC Wilson.
RELATED POSTS
- Editorial Cartoonage with Dougie O: Mitt (Loves) Newt, Tebow, & More
- What I Saw on My Walk Today | Our World Through Walt Taylor’s Eyes
- Will the Real DJs Please Spin Forward: Elitism in the World of Spinning
- Op-ed: Bus Service to ORF: It’s About Time
- Letter to the Editor | Waterside: The Answer is Clear, Now Let’s Get Moving













Your insurance logic seems sound, with one possble exception: Mandated health insurance doesn’t protect the individual, it protects the providers. Right? Or am I way off-base?
If the government protects the providers, it can then control costs, limiting profit and driving down quality.
Let the free market reign.
SCHOOL OF ROCK! SWEET!
You’re close to the mark on mandated health insurance, but here’s my take.
Buying a car and being forced to buy car insurance isn’t a function of you hitting other people; it’s because you drive on state roads. If you own a car and a few thousand acres, as long as none of the roads on your thousands of acres are state funded, you can drive around your property as much as you want without insurance. In fact, I’d imagine you can even take the license plates off your car and not register it as long as it never makes it’s way onto a state funded road.
Now, once you turn onto a state (or federally) funded road, you need to start covering your bases; registration, license plates, and insurance; this is because the government provided the roads, they write the rules for them. Think of it like the pool in your backyard (run as much as you want!) versus the one the neighborhood charges you a fee to use (no running.).
Being forced to buy healthcare simply because you’re alive and in America doesn’t follow the same tracks as buying car insurance because there’s no option. If you’re alive, you have to buy it. Plain and simple.
Furthermore, asking the average American (myself included) about the constitutionality of anything is pretty much a waste of time because none of us are constitutional scholars; we’re all lost in the sauce when it comes to this kind of stuff.