Insurance and Freedom<\/a><\/h2>\nThese are tough times for opponents of health care reform<\/a>. They bet everything on a debacle, but Obamacare has failed to fail \u2014 and their efforts to deny the increasingly obvious success of the law are beginning to look ridiculous.<\/p>\nOh, and they can\u2019t come up with a conservative alternative; Obamacare IS the conservative alternative, a way to achieve sorta-kinda universal coverage without single payer, and all of its main elements are essential parts of the package.<\/p>\n
So what\u2019s left? Claims that guaranteed health insurance is an assault on America\u2019s freedom.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/thumb\/b\/b2\/Reagan-LPcover.jpg\/280px-Reagan-LPcover.jpg\")
Bill Gardner<\/a> at The Incidental Economist offers a rather decorous, mild reply to the people making this argument. I\u2019d put it more forcefully: the pre-ACA system drastically restricted many people\u2019s freedom, because given the extreme dysfunctionality of the individual insurance market, they didn\u2019t dare leave jobs (or in some cases marriages) that came with health insurance. Now that affordable insurance is available even if you don\u2019t have a good job at a big company, many Americans will feel liberated \u2014 and this hugely outweighs the minor infringement on freedom caused by the requirement that people buy insurance. (Also, if you don\u2019t like the mandate, why not support single payer?)<\/p>\nBut no discussion of this latest argument should fail to mention the original insurance-is-slavery campaign \u2014 Operation Coffeecup<\/a>, in which the AMA recruited doctors\u2019 wives to gather their friends and listen to a recording of Ronald Reagan declaring that Medicare would destroy American liberty.<\/p>\nStrange to say, that didn\u2019t happen. And Obamacare won\u2019t turn into a form of slavery, either. On the contrary, as I said, it will be a liberating force for many Americans.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Oh, and they can\u2019t come up with a conservative alternative; Obamacare IS the conservative alternative, a way to achieve sorta-kinda universal coverage without single payer, and all of its main elements are essential parts of the package.<\/p>\n
So what\u2019s left? Claims that guaranteed health insurance is an assault on America\u2019s freedom.<\/p>\n
But no discussion of this latest argument should fail to mention the original insurance-is-slavery campaign \u2014 Operation Coffeecup<\/a>, in which the AMA recruited doctors\u2019 wives to gather their friends and listen to a recording of Ronald Reagan declaring that Medicare would destroy American liberty.<\/p>\n Strange to say, that didn\u2019t happen. And Obamacare won\u2019t turn into a form of slavery, either. On the contrary, as I said, it will be a liberating force for many Americans.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nBill Gardner<\/a> at The Incidental Economist offers a rather decorous, mild reply to the people making this argument. I\u2019d put it more forcefully: the pre-ACA system drastically restricted many people\u2019s freedom, because given the extreme dysfunctionality of the individual insurance market, they didn\u2019t dare leave jobs (or in some cases marriages) that came with health insurance. Now that affordable insurance is available even if you don\u2019t have a good job at a big company, many Americans will feel liberated \u2014 and this hugely outweighs the minor infringement on freedom caused by the requirement that people buy insurance. (Also, if you don\u2019t like the mandate, why not support single payer?)<\/p>\n