Ensign’s insurance argument flawed

Gary Sylvester, North Las Vegas

Thursday, Dec. 24, 2009 | 2:04 a.m.

Regarding the Las Vegas Sun story in Wednesday’s edition, “Ensign: Is the mandate legal?”:

Would someone please tell Sen. John Ensign to just stop? I am referring to his latest not-so-brilliant bleating regarding the proposed health insurance mandate that everyone buy insurance. Since when does the government have the right to mandate that you buy something, he asks. Well, Senator, that would be right after the insurance companies mandate that we pay the emergency room costs of the irresponsibly uninsured via higher premiums.

The senator then continues in typical “Republicant” fear mongering mode by positing that next the government will require us to buy certain cars, dishwashers and refrigerators. This isn’t quantum physics, Senator. Driving cars and buying appliances are choices we make. Catching the swine flu, breaking a leg or being ravaged by cancer are not things we decide to get by going to the after-Christmas sale at Wal-Mart. No one decides to get a debilitating disease.

The Sun story goes on to note: “Proponents of health care reform often compare the proposed mandate to state requirements for drivers to carry automobile insurance. But Ensign and others say the health insurance mandate is different. States require automobile insurance for the right to drive a car. Health insurance would be required merely for living.”

Perhaps a better way of looking at it for Ensign, who is eligible for government-subsidized insurance, is that this mandate would be required merely for living healthier, for not dying prematurely, and for equitably paying the costs.