Thursday, December 16, 2010

A weak defense of the mandate by Yglesias.

Nice try, Matt.
If you want to buy gasoline, you need to pay the federal gas tax. If you want to not buy health insurance, you need to pay a fine. Either way, the behavior-linked collection of money is designed to (a) raise revenue and (b) assist in the regulation of the national economy.
But you don't have to buy gasoline, because no one's forcing you to drive. There are -- wait for it -- public options that let you opt out of driving.

I'm all for the mandate if there's a way to opt out. Otherwise, I think it sucks.


I love how this post brings out the "'s the Senate's fault!" trolls. Defend the policy on the merits, please.

My position is this: forcing someone to buy a product of a for-profit company -- especially when that for-profit company is part of a pernicious cartel that makes billions of dollars by screwing people over -- is wrong, unless you give them an opt-out.

What's yours?

No comments: