ObamaCare Supporter: “I Didn’t Realize I Would Pay for It Personally”

Cindy Vinson is among the “big believers in the Affordable Care Act” (aka ObamaCare), and she is “proud to say [she] helped elect and re-elect President Barack Obama,” reports the San Jose Mercury News (in an article publicized by Michelle Malkin and Instapundit).

Unfortunately for Vinson, her health insurance policy now costs $1,800 more per year, a hike necessary to make the policy “conform to all the requirements of the new health care law.”

Vinson was shocked(!) to learn this. She said, “Of course, I want people to have health care; I just didn’t realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally.”

Who did she think was going to pay for it? Health care is not manna from Heaven; the provision of health care and health insurance must be provided by someone’s effort. Someone has to pay for it.

At its root, ObamaCare is a scheme to forcibly redistribute wealth from some people to others through mandated coverage of certain services, subsidized premiums, and the like. Forcing some people to pay for the health care of others is its central feature.

This is altruism—the alleged duty to live for others—applied to politics. According to altruism, the government must force people to sacrifice their own values and wealth for the sake of others. We should not be surprised when altruistic policies involve such sacrifices.

Ending altruistic policies will require far more than expressions of shock and anxiety. It will require the recognition that individuals properly live by their own judgment and for their own sake, and thus that individuals should be free to do so. This is the only principle by reference to which government can be limited to its proper role of protecting people’s rights.

Americans who don’t want to “pay personally” for the health care of others must reject the moral code that mandates that they do.

Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard.

Related:


Comments submitted to TOS Blog are moderated. To be considered for posting, a comment must be civil, substantive, and fewer than 400 words in length. If approved, your comment will be posted soon.

  • https://www.facebook.com/david.thoreau.92 David Thoreau

    DISOBEY

  • Bruce Walberg

    Wakey! Wakey! The bill has come due!!!
    But we were just a bunch of “Nuts” who actually could use a calculator and thought that since the Gov. can’t run or afford Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. that adding the “Largest Federal Bureaucracy in the History of Mankind” would not work. I’m sorry I was right. This is only going to get worse.
    Too the folks that have decided to stand up and fight to at least slow down this train wreck. I know it’s hard to fight this fight but Please don’t give up!

  • Anonymous

    Economics isn’t a suggestion, it’s how things get done.
    The promises made by those promoting Obamacare ignore economics. Which means that it’s not going to work they way that was claimed. If you know economics, even at a basic level, this was EASILY foreseen.

    • Glenn Gallaher

      LOL, you have to remember Obamanomics, where in our schools today if a student can explain why 4×3=11 it is acceptable and not a wrong answer. But last I checked 4×3=12 and anything else no matter the reasoning was a wrong answer.

  • roberta4343

    unfortunantly the people in government don’t practice what they preach they definitly are not living for others benefits. they live strictly for thier own benefit and advancement. hypocrisy at its finest. the few who do seem to care about altruism are in the minority. altruism is only a cover for a desire to steal wealth and redistriubute to themselves using a small percentage to actually help someone else. it is a cover for a serious case of theft.

  • Anonymous

    You got what you deserved

  • ric

    This a perfect example of the intelligence and mind set of Obama supporters….Ima get mine

  • Dennis Barnhardt

    if you dont have pre-exsisting condition , grandfathered plans are less expensive .there are a lot of plans created before march 23, 2010. that are grandfathered . you can buy a grandfathered plan for 2014 as long as the plan was created before march 23, 2010. google “what if i have a grandfathered plan?

    • Dennis Barnhardt

      it is not to late to buy a grandfathered plan per healthcare.gov

      • Friend of John Galt

        Grandfathered plans are ONLY plans offered through employers. These exist in only very limited circumstances. If you must purchase insurance through an exchange or directly from an insurance company, you must purchase a policy that meets the minimum requirements spelled out in the ACA and related regulations.

    • Mike Lange

      AN individual can have a grand-fathered plan if THEY have been on that plan since before March 2010. If you do not have that plan you cannot buy it now.

      • Dennis Barnhardt

        per healthcare.gov , people can still purchased grandfathered plan, if the plan was created before march 23, 2010, it is not when you purchased it.

  • Anonymous

    In some states, health insurance will get more expensive. In others, cheaper. Redistribution of wealth, altruism, by legislation (I didn’t say LAW).

    Good post. I’d’ve just used different, and sharper language in a few places. Mike Kevitt

  • Anonymous

    Finally we can put the altruistic Jesus doctrine to rest!

  • Friend of John Galt

    I have moved on to Medicare (and the premiums for my Medicare Advantage plan did not change. However, my wife does not join Medicare until mid year 2014. For the past 20 years, we’ve mostly been covered under individual policies due to self-employment and/or having a small employer who did not have a “company plan” (though they did pay a generous portion of the premiums on our individual policy).

    Since my wife is in outstanding good health, we have had a policy with high co-pays, a significant deductible, and a 50-50 split of expenses if there is a serious ailment that requires something beyond basic services. This policy cost $366 per month.

    The policy is not and can not be “grandfathered” (as I understand it, many “self-insured” companies can have their employee-plans grandfathered. But Insurance companies can only offer policies that conform to the standards in Obamacare.) So the 2014 plan (just received in the mail) has “better” coverage in that the deductible is about $1500 less and the share of covered expenses is only 20%. The PROBLEM is that this new plan increases the premium by 94% for a total monthly premium of $711 per month.

    Since my wife has not used any significant amount of services over the past 20 years (beyond routine exams and preventative screening tests) and is unlikely to do so in the future, this huge increase in premiums is a massive waste of money.

    Since my wife only has a few months until she will go onto Medicare I would be inclined to simply drop coverage — but if you are not covered by an “acceptable” policy for more than 3 months, then you become liable for the penalty tax (the GREATER of $99 or 1% of AGI on your tax form).

    This whole thing ends up being an immoral theft of my assets, as I’m either forced to pay a penalty or buy the insurance that I would not otherwise buy. Note: due to our household income, we do not qualify for any of the Obamacare subsidies.

    The supporters of this monstrosity have repeatedly lied:

    1. You can keep your insurance if you like it. Well, no, I can’t because I must have a policy that complies with the requirements of a basic (bronze) policy under the ACA. Since I had selected a policy that suited our needs but did not comply with the ACA, then I’m not allowed to “keep the policy I like.”

    2. Most families will save $2500. To be fair, that was for a family of four. Do I save $625 (1/4 of 2500)? Not at all. Since the $2500 figure was based on a full year, a full year of the new premium would increase the cost of this policy by $4140. (Which makes the penalty under the ACA quite attractive.)

    On the whole, there are likely very few people who will “save” anything except those who receive the benefit of the subsidies — taxpayer funds taken from all taxpayers to be given to a selected group of insured.

    I see absolutely nothing either useful or moral about the ACA (Obamacare) program. It raises costs. It forces the insured to purchase policies they may not want. And it further distorts the market for medical care (which has already been distorted by “well meaning” government interference since the end of World War II).

    We could go on to explore how Obamacare distorts employment by encouraging “29 hour” employees and other economic distortions inherent in the program.

    Suffice it to say, the end result of socialist/progressive policies is “redistribution” of impoverishment.

    • Anonymous

      ‘…and other economic distortions…’. That means ‘distortions’ of what private individuals want for themselves, as per their inalienable individual rights. It’s actually DENYING them what they want, forcibly, as per nihilism. I sympathize with you, Friend of John Galt, 100%. Mike Kevitt

  • Anonymous

    I think it is really odd to use the word “altruism” in terms of policy, particularly with regards to the ACA and other policies that mandate that people are penalized in order to serve others. It really galls me to hear (or read) the word “altruism” connected in any way with leglslation, given that altruism is voluntary selflessness and legislation is forced

    • Anonymous

      The problem is that those controlling the government impose their values on everyone. If you believe that “we” should be helping others, those are the laws you pass.

      If you believe that “we” should respect the rights of individuals, laws violating rights are the laws you repeal.