Saturday, October 23, 2010

Consternative Contradictions Part 4: To Insure or Not to Insure (And Whether or Not to Whine About It)

By “Pintface” Pete Bogs/BogsBlog

In their campaign against so-called “big government,” consternatives are framing the health insurance requirement of the new health care law as a “loss of freedom.” This even though neither they nor anyone else is complaining that we’re required to buy insurance if we drive a car – and that’s most of us. We also have to buy homeowner's insurance and other forms of coverage.

This also even as they complain about the lazy, entitlement-loving, uninsured poor raising everyone else’s insurance rates with ER visits and surgeries they can’t afford. If the disadvantaged can get affordable insurance (also part of the law), the rest of us won’t be subsidizing them(!)

I don’t agree with the health insurance mandate myself (the health care law overall is weak and disappointing), but I’m not going to play the victim card and stoke exaggerated, unwarranted anger amongst the great uncritical masses. Unlike some people.

3 comments:

LeftLeaningLady said...

If I didn't love life, I would stop wearing my seat belt and take it to the Supreme Court. CRAZY. Taking away my rights, FORCING government into my car.

They are crazy.

Are you voting????

Pete Bogs said...

LLL - I have my absentee ballot sitting on the coffee table. I plan to drop it off at the elections office this week.

Pete Bogs said...

Done voted! Held my nose while I did it, too.