Genius Envy: Ed Schultz Repudiates Ed Schultz
In a remarkable moment in last night’s edition of The Ed Show on MSNBC, Ed Schultz got carried away and made a small government case against mandatory health care insurance. Perhaps channeling his former line of work as a Rush Limbaugh impersonator on the Right, Schultz said:
The bill makes the insurance mandatory for all Americans. This mandate is one of the most unAmerican things, I think, the Senate has ever done. This isn’t the same thing as mandating for car insurance or home owners insurance. I mean, there’s nothing more personal than your body…Forcing people, by the way, to buy health care, in my opinion, that’s not liberty. It’s not reform. It’s restriction. It’s a restriction of freedom that’s not democratic.
Evidently, Schultz switched back from conservative Jeckyll to leftist Hyde so swiftly that he did not realize he had repudiated his own position on health care “reform.”
Ed has long supported a single-payer system, similar to the one in Canada. That would force everyone to “buy” insurance through taxation, then allow the government to choose who receives coverage or is denied treatment. This is unlike the present system, which Ed and others on the Left call “rationing,” in which the insurance company opts not to pay for a treatment. Now, a patient denied treatment can pay out-of-pocket expenses and be covered. Under a government system, the only options left open to a patient denied coverage are to leave the country or convince a doctor to break the law.
Sorry, Ed: The only thing more personally oppressive than being compelled to purchase health insurance is being compelled to die on top of it.
Still, the momentary lapse of good sense was so refreshing, we’re tempted to give Ed Schultz a pass this time.
Ed’s comment is not a case for small government, just limited power. A government should not have the power to force you to participate in a market. By forcing people to purchase insurance, the government will be forcing everyone to indirectly fund lobbying in favor of insurance companies. The government should not have the power to force people to make contributions, no matter how indirect, towards political lobbying they may not agree with. The government also should not have the power to compel action from people, unless vital to the survival of our nation (as is the case for jury duty and military drafts).
To provide socialized health care, the government need only provide the service and tax to pay for that service. To equate socialized health care to forcing participation in a private market is dishonest. Socialized health care would merely impose on the finances of each individual, but a mandate imposes on the fundamental freedom to choose our own actions.
I know what happened, Ed’s brain (a little tiny winy brain that is)…………. FARTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I enjoyed the list of pros and cons of the bill, too. The only pros FatEd could come up with even HE had to qualify with disclaimers:
30 million covered–no comment from him, but we know it won't
Deficit neutral–Ed: "At least we hope it is."
Bans on pre-existing conditions–Ed: "Although I'm skeptical of that."
Prevention and wellness–Ed: "I hope it works; I'm not sure that it will."
Then his four "bad" points are 3 we think are good and the fourth, "Forced to buy private insurance," we also agree is bad, but for Constitutional reasons.
By my count, this makes his own analysis 7 points against the bill, only one for it.