Mandated health insurance is like the property taxes that pay for the fire department. The fire trucks are in place to respond because everyone is paying for them to be in place. You can’t say that you’re only going to pay for the fire trucks if you one day use them. (By the way, something like that was tried in the colonial era.)

Or that you are only going to pay for the police to be in place if you one day need them.

If you are going to swear off the use of the infrastructure everybody else is paying to get in place through our insurance dollars, that’s great. But in the private sector, for various purposes to do business you can be required to have bonding because there is an understanding that even if you think you can shoulder the risk, when the time comes to pay you very well may be unable to.

If you can prove that you actually can pay the full cost of freight, well, have at it. We’ll issue you a card that let’s you in to the heart surgeon when you can prove you have $1,000,000 in place to pay on the backside. You would have all the freedom in the world to opt out of the system.

I have been relearning the term “totalitarian”, which in my mind, meant a dictatorial system. But it doesn’t. What it means is a government that is involved in all aspects (i.e. total) of life. Part of the problem of health insurance mandates is that it is just another part of life that we would be allowing government to eat into.

There is also a significant difference between auto insurance and health insurance. Auto insurance is requiring that you can cover damage done to the other guy (i.e. liability is required, not collision). Health insurance is damage done to yourself.

As someone that was not covered by health insurance for a period of time, I disagree that it is picked up by the government–or even that anyone necessarily “eats” the cost. Anything that I had to have done (including gall bladder surgery) was eventually paid by me as health providers are tenacious collectors. Only emergency care is “mandated” and even there, the ones who could afford insurance eventually pay for the services anyway.

Universal health care is short for universal insurance coverage, which we do NOT have. Universal coverage means no more free rides; everyone who may one day draw upon services is required to participate, include paying a premium, so that those of us who do participate and pay premiums no longer have to shoulder the load for those who can but choose not to.

It isn’t universal coverage that will bankrupt our system; it is the absence of it that we suffer today.
Also, the idea that universal health care coverage is socialist is driven by confusing universally mandated coverage with single-payer government managed health care. They are different concepts. The problem right now is that there is such confusion on the words that a decent discussion is stifled.

We have universally mandated auto insurance for drivers; State Farm and Allstate would be shocked to learn that they are parts of a big-government or socialist program.

I have no problem with people opting out by signing a waiver which denies them access to the health facilities everyone else is paying for. In fact, I think an elegant solution would be to assign the expenses of people who show up at emergency rooms without insurance to people who go on record opposing universal (mandated) coverage. Then the rest of thinking society doesn’t have to continue to suffer the financial burden of the irresponsible and the unthinking, which is the present system!

2. Ronald Reagan’s gift was a confidence in the future of American capitalism and individualism and the demise of communism. He was of an era when a considerable conflict existed between two incompatible historical systems; that era has passed, with his help.

That said, attempting to place the party strictly in the legacy of Ronald Reagan is comfort food. The Republican Party’s future is in the future…. not the past. The question is what should that future look like?

My contention is that those of us who remember what Reagan stood for must become involved in the party. We must “evangelize” the party (and those who are not in the party) of the relevance of Reagan’s message.

In other words, the resurgence of the Republican Party needs to come about from the bottom, not the top.

We need candidates who can inspire people to look forward to the future. We need candidates who can reassure people that people can create their own destinies. We need someone like Reagan who can communicate our ideals in a way that inspires all Americans.

We also need candidates who can explain why uncontrolled spending doesn’t mean more “free” things, but instead takes money and freedom away from people.

If anything, this issue helps Republicans rather than hurts them–particularly if they focus on protecting the border.

The analysis that immigration hurt various Republicans in 2006 is ludicrous. The issues of 2006 were fiscal responsibility and ethics (with a bit of the toll road thrown in there).