Is orange the new pink? Is 35 the new 25? Is conservative the new liberal?

More than a decade ago, conservatives would have called the Massachusetts health-care plan "socialized medicine." But conservatives have, em, "matured." This occasionally happens when Republicans with presidential aspirations promote liberal policies. Conservatives more attracted to power than to conservatism sell-out principles in the hopes of tethering themselves to a rising star. A Heritage Foundation policy wonk, who, in fairness, seems more motivated by his involvement in drafting this legislation, took to the pages of the Washington Post today to praise the Massachusetts universal health-care plan. The plan forces individuals to buy health insurance and confiscates money from businessmen to pay for the insurance of strangers.

For a conservative, what's there to like?

"Certainly, it would be wrong and counterproductive to force individuals to buy coverage in today's fragmented and overly-expensive health insurance market," Heritage's Edmund F. Haislmaier, who authored one of the less offensive of the plan's provisions, writes. "But the Massachusetts plan fundamentally changes the existing market, partially deregulating it to make coverage more affordable while providing subsidies to ensure low-income residents can afford coverage."

So. What.

The government doesn't know best. If a healthy, 24-year-old man wants to spend his money on a car, or a gym membership, or cigarettes even, instead of health insurance (which he probably won't use), who is the governor of Massachusetts to tell him that he can't instead of he shouldn't? Who is the governor of Massachusetts to make decisions regarding the personal finances of his constituents? Who is the governor of Massachusetts to say he has a more compelling interest in an individual's health than the individual?

Freedom involves choice, which allows for bad choice. A society of millions means one man's bad decision is another man's wise decision. One way to ensure bad decisions is for the government to make everyone's decisions for them in the same manner. Not everyone does, or should, make the same health-care decisions. I am not talking about decisions of whether to choose this coverage or that coverage. I am talking about whether to choose any coverage. "But, but, but what if something happens?" But what if something doesn't happen? The insured man pours money down a rat hole. The uninsured man saves thousands of dollars. Insurance is a type of gambling (you're betting on yourself to lose), and for a small percentage of the population--young, healthy--it may make sense to pocket the money, particularly when you don't have a lot of money in your pocket, instead of hand it over to a health-insurance company. Reject this decision? Think it's reckless? Then don't make it.

And the provision taxing employers to pay for the people who won't pay for their own insurance? The Heritage wonk assures us that's "all symbolism without real substance." Sorry, but I don't believe you. It's in the bill. Why should we assume that lawmakers will pass a law generating revenue that they have no intention of collecting? When new tax laws go into effect, does government generally react: "You know what, just keep it. You don't need to pay me. I have more money anyhow." A response I'm more familiar with is: "Give me the money we say that you owe us, or we'll send armed men to confiscate your business and throw you in jail." Of course, they don't use those exact words. They prefer euphemism. But you get the point.

"Rather than focus on the bill's politically galvanizing 'mandates,' policymakers and pundits should step back and look at the big picture of this landmark reform," Haislmaier advises. But does the bill contain mandates or just "mandates"? It contains real mandates. It forces individuals and businesses to do things they wouldn't normally do. Why use scare quotes, or in this case, more accurately, mock quotes? The law uses state compulsion to engineer private behavior. Period. It mandates.

This is corporate welfare masquerading as human welfare. Government is forcing individuals to pay thousands of dollars in tribute to corporations. State guarantees of customers to health-care conglomerates will result in worse care and higher prices. It is a generational scam that forces healthy young people to pay for insurance that they won't use to subsidize unhealthy old people who rely on insurance quite a bit. Worse than all this, the bill erodes liberty.

Busybodies support this bill. Health-care corporations support this bill. People who don't like work but do like free health care support this bill. But conservatives?

I guess you could say I'm pro-choice on health insurance.

One of my favorite blogs has a post from a few weeks back about the Mass Healthcare Plan:
http://massbackwards.blogspot.com/2006/04/as-luke-skywalker-once-said.html

Here's an insurance reform I'd like to see.

Right now, big companies that negotiate insurance packages on behalf of thousands of employees get much better rates and coverage for theirs than is available to the self-employed, etc.

Congress should pass a law making room for a new kind of company, a company that brings such people together and allows them to negotiate with insurance companies as a group.

This is unfortunately typical of most conservative candidates these days. Romney moved way left on this and all to appeal to a wider range of voters in preparation for this run for the White House.

He’s been a pretty good (and conservative) Governor but this takes him off the board for me. He worked with our overwhelmingly socialist lay about legislature and got accolades from our overwhelmingly socialist senior Senator. What more do you need to know?

Mass. is losing business and population and these kinds of restrictions work to only help the flight. Obviously, our Governor can’t wait to leave too but the only place he’s going is back to Salt Lake.

I am going to respectfully disagree here. I'm a avowed conservative who didn't like this bill when I first heard about for all the reasons spelled out by Dan Flynn. But I read a bunch of articles on this, and to me this sounds like its treating health insurance like car insurance. You legally can't drive a car without auto insurance, and noone really complains about the lack of freedom regarding that. The way I see it, if someone decides to not buy health insurance, and they get in a horrific accident and need emergency care, they're using taxpayer money to perform whatever measures necessary. And if I understand the bill correctly, the state of Massachusetts is using this tax-payer fund to subsidize the insurance policies that the current "uninsured" would theoretically purchase.

This step of making people buy their own insurance, ala car insurance, is still quite far away from the single payer universal health care that liberals really want. I'm not sure if this will really work, but I'm glad something like this is being tried in Massachusetts, as opposed to say the U.S. entirely. Lets see if it works and let's see how much it will really cost the business and taxpayers.

DJ,

What about people who get in horrible accidents and then receive emergency room medical care then paying the hospital back over time. Before the patient is released they can arrange contractually a schedule of payments, enforceable like any other contract. Crazy idea, I know.

This idea of "personal responsibility" reminds me of that old boxer James Braddock (Cinderella Man was a biopic on him) who paid back all the welfare he received during the Depression once he started earning a living again.

asdf,

Romney has lived in Mass. for the better part of his adult life. If he were to go somewhere it would be to Michigan (where he was born). Also, from what I read he's been working on this the whole time he's been in office. It's hardly a last minute stunt like you and Dan allude to.

Brain,
Your example would be great and make for a good story, but in the real world (today) people don't act that way. In many cases the government is left subsiding to keep emergency care available to a particular geographical area.

Dan,
Is there a guarantee that the uninsured person isn't going to use healthcare that is subsidized by the government?

Without this guarantee then those paying insurance, pay more and everyone pays more through taxes. The Mass. system works under these constraints.

DJ: I think in theory, you are correct. And in the right world, this would be a noble endeavor. But, in the People's Republic of Mass., this will turn out to be a top heavy, bureaucratic fiasco. Using the auto insurance anaalogy is a good one as Massachusetts has one of the most restrictive and convoluted systems in the country. Could be why most every carrier in the country will not do business here and why we pay some of the highest premiums. Ultimately, the truth is that we have a Republican and supposedly conservative Governor who has gotten into bed with the very liberal Democratic leadership of the state to come up with what is essentially a socialist plan for healthcare. And even though this has been cooking for a while, you’ll have to agree the timing could not have been better (and more contrived) for the Governor’s run for the roses.

Blah: I know. He’s lived in Belmont for a long time. Pretty close to one of the most opulent Mormon Temple’s in the country. I was just bustin’ and joking.