Wonder what you would find if you frisked Attorney General Eric Holder and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’s op-ed in today’s Washington Post?
Answer: More proof that liberals have the hardest time understanding why the government can mandate one type of insurance and not another.
Here is their op-ed where they continue to bring up the same ol’ debunked argument:
Everyone wants health care to be affordable and available when they need it. But we have to stop imposing extra costs on people who carry insurance, and that means everyone who can afford coverage needs to carry minimum health coverage starting in 2014.
If we want to prevent insurers from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions, it’s essential that everyone have coverage. Imagine what would happen if everyone waited to buy car insurance until after they got in an accident. Premiums would skyrocket, coverage would be unaffordable, and responsible drivers would be priced out of the market.
The same is true for health insurance. Without an individual responsibility provision, controlling costs and ending discrimination against people with preexisting conditions doesn’t work.
Apparently the mind of liberal doesn’t allow for the common sense comparison between auto-insurance and Obamacare to seep in. If the Democrats are capable of understanding and passing a 2,000+ page piece legislation (which is debatable), then why can’t they understand the distinct differences between auto-insurance and Obamacare?
First of all, auto-insurance places requirements on the voluntary act of driving and not on life itself. Second, there is a difference between the powers of the federal and state governments – shocker, right? Thirdly, auto-insurance requirements are limited to individuals that choose to drive on public roads (private property is off limits). Lastly, auto-insurance only covers injuries to others, not yourself. If you still don’t see the differences between auto-insurance and Obamacare, Ed Morrissey – from Hot Air – put together a good article that explains it in further detail:
Drivers carry required insurance to cover damage done to others, not themselves, for one thing. It’s not applicable at all. Furthermore, states impose the insurance requirement, not the federal government, because states license drivers and vehicles. Driving is, after all, a voluntary activity conducted on public property (roads); there is no requirement for licensing or insurance for those who drive only on their private property. People who don’t drive on public roads aren’t required to buy a license or the insurance.
There are other problems with this analogy as well. Those who do have auto insurance only file claims when significant damage occurs. Auto insurance doesn’t pay for routine maintenance, like oil changes, lube jobs, and tire rotation. That’s why auto insurance is relatively affordable.
Also, auto insurance is priced to risk. If a driver lives in a high-crime area, then the premiums will rise to cover the risks associated with theft. If they drive badly (get moving violations and accidents), premiums will go up, or in some cases, the insurer will drop the driver. Policies are priced for risk according to age as well; the youngest and oldest drivers pay more due to their propensity for causing losses. Those who drive well and present a lower risk get rewarded with lower premiums. Right now, the federal government is preventing insurers in some instances from risk-pricing health insurance to impose government-approved fairness. That means we all pay more, removing the incentive to lower risk.
Debunked once again.