In yesterday's Star, Thomas E. McClanahan--the paper's resident Conservative--outlined more of his reasons for being against the Health Care Reform Act passed earlier this year.
Naturally, he utterly ignored the fact that US District Court Judge Henry Hudson's ruling against the reform was highly biased and should have been dismissed since Judge Hudson is a part owner of a company, apparently, that worked openly and against this same reform. Recusing, anyone?
But no, Mr. McClanahan didn't address that issue.
We'll go on from there.
Next, he says "At issue is the personal mandate, the part of the law that says everyone must buy health insurance or pay a penalty."
Okay, so if this is an issue, then how can government tell us to buy car insurance, then? How is this a problem?
No one gets the connection? One is allowable but the other isn't? How wouldyou explain that?
But here's what he says is the crux of his issue with the health care reform:
During the health care debate, it was common to hear people piously assert that health care should be a right, perhaps unaware of the full implications. The ongoing strikes and riots in Europe, however, represent the long-term risks of the progressive vision, in which government-delivered social benefits are portrayed as personal rights.