I’ve never understood jabs like this one:
“JOHN MCCAIN LOVES HIS GOVERNMENT PROVIDED HEALTH INSURANCE, HATES BEING ASKED ABOUT IT.”
That’s the headline of Ezra’s post, the gist of his argument being that hey, if Senators have great health insurance EVERYONE should have similarly great health insurance. This is, how you say, ridiculously stupid? Yes, ridiculously stupid. That’s the right phrase.
It would cost trillions upon trillions of dollars to provide that level of health insurance to every American citizen (and, as I’m sure Ezra would like, every illegal immigrant)–the kind provided for the military and for Senators/Congressman. Senators and Members of the House deserve that health care because it’s part of their compensation package. They receive health care coverage in exchange for doing a job. If you can’t see the difference between providing a health care heavy incentive package for an employee (especially a high-level employee like, say, a Senator or a Congressman), and providing do-nothing, shiftless layabouts* health care simply because they reside in our country, you’re being obtuse.
*I realize that not everyone without health care is a shiftless layabout. But I also realize that the numbers regarding the uninsured in this country are total bunkum. For more on the asinine claims related to the number of uninsured in this country, watch this YouTube clip. Immediate access to free, awesome, completely comprehensive health care is not a human right. It’s not my job to provide shiftless layabouts with health care coverage. They can buy it themselves, if they want it.
/Scrooge

4 Comments - add your own
Daniel Kennelly — October 1, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Re: that video you posted. Man, I wish those interviews were scripted, but I know they’re not. I’ve known people like that myself.
Sonny Bunch — October 1, 2008 at 4:22 pm
It really is absurd. My favorite moment is the girl at the beginning who says, with a straight face after admitting she’s simply too cheap to buy health insurance: “And honestly, I feel it’s ridiculous that we live in a first world country where I have to pay for basic, um, health care.”
Thrift wrapped up in the flag of self-righteous indignation: that’s the heart of the universal health care movement right there.
Will — October 1, 2008 at 9:27 pm
So I’m totally down with your main point, but I disagree a bit with the framing. Maybe this is my own idiosyncratic take, but I’m uncomfortable with referring to everyone without health insurance as shiftless layabouts. I think a “more in sorrow than in anger” approach is called for - i.e. we acknowledge that not having health insurance sucks, but argue that the unintended consequences of providing universal health insurance outweigh any marginal benefits.
Then again, I suppose this wouldn’t be a very effective electoral strategy . . .
Sonny Bunch — October 2, 2008 at 10:13 am
Like I said, I know it’s not fair to call everyone without insurance a shiftless layabout. I just can’t stand people who frame the debate in terms of health care being this impossible-to-afford luxury that only the rich can indulge in. It’s very frustrating…