The Irony: Obama Does Not Want to Subsidize People

November 14, 2009 6:00 AM 7 comments

Share this Article

Author:

In an interview regarding healthcare “reform” with ABC News’ Jake Tapper President Obama said something rather curious.  It made me wonder… why does he not apply this logic to every situation except healthcare (his answer was in response to a question about people who don’t get health insurance paying a penalty)?

[...]if you have the ability to buy insurance, it’s affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there’s a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are — are burdened by because of the fact that people don’t have health insurance, you know, there’s nothing wrong with a penalty.

Seems to me, if I recall correctly, that President Obama is for subsidizing many things in the U.S. economy like General Motors, Chrysler, “alternative” energy, health insurnace, etc…

Why, all of the sudden, is he against subsidies then?

And why does he always compare getting health insurance to getting auto insurance?  They are not really the same thing, after all.

Did you like this article? Get new articles daily for free via RSS or Email.

Buy the Breitbart tee shirt, donate to his family!

7 Comments

  • lol@Obambo. He’s reminding me of Bush more and more.
    .-= stunatra´s last blog ..Five 9/11 suspects to be charged in NY =-.

  • Actually I do see the analogy between health insurance and auto insurance. We are mandated to have auto insurance. For those who do not have health insurance, the rest of us pay for them anyway when they use Emergency rooms as PCP’s. Health insurance rates go up for the rest of us. Someone has to pay for those services. Inevitably, it is the taxpayer.

    By the way, have you seen the tremendously long lines for free clinics this year? It is gut-wrenching to see the lines around city blocks as people line up for exams they have not been able to afford for years. HCR is coming. I just hope it is in the proper package.
    .-= askcherlock´s last blog ..Preps & Props For The Steeler Game =-.

  • I think fines are untenable. How would she propose collecting blood from a rock? What would be feasible is attaching any income tax refunds due to those who do not opt for a program. Those fees in turn could go back into the Health Care funds. Tax returns are attached for those who owe back child support, so the same principle could apply here. Jail is absurd and probably illegal. Plus, they would get FREE health care while in jail. It’s ludicrous.
    .-= askcherlock´s last blog ..Preps & Props For The Steeler Game =-.

  • A couple a points about the health and auto insurance comparison.

    I don’t think the comparison is a right fit: If you don’t want to pay for auto insurance, then you don’t have to drive. Unlike the health bill currently making its way through the Senate, you are not compelled to pay for someone else who may have unhealthy habits. In fact, “moral hazard” will be very easy for some to fall into once they know that they have coverage no matter what.

    Lastly, I lived in New Hampshire for a time and there is no state mandate for having auto insurance–getting it is completely voluntary. Yet, N.H. has some of the highest rates of drivers having auto insurance than many states that mandate it. Why do you think that is?

    Auto insurance doesn’t pay for yearly tune-ups or if your transmission blows out. Generally speaking, health insurance pays for the chunk of just about everything. I know that there are different types of health coverage with an array of deductibles and restrictions but most Americans expect 90% or more to be covered when they see a doctor.

    The analogy would make better sense if Obama compared an auto warranty to health coverage.
    .-= vulcanhammer´s last blog ..Big government cable makes private cable competitive? =-.

Leave a Reply


*
CommentLuv badge

Trackbacks

Other News