Beware Counterfeit ‘Responsibility’
The ObamaCare individual insurance mandate met its first courtroom defeat when Judge Henry Hudson ruled it unconstitutional in Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius. But while the legal battle is likely to smolder on for years until it reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, the rhetorical battle is heating up in the court of public opinion. In particular, the Obama administration is attempting to defend the individual mandate as a matter of “individual responsibility.” If Americans allow them to get away with this counterfeit notion of “responsibility,” it will jeopardize the freedoms that make genuine individual responsibility possible.
In his December 13, 2010, news conference, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs repeatedly referred to the individual mandate as the “individual responsibility” portion of the law. This is not a new rhetorical tactic. Massachusetts’ Republican Governor Mitt Romney made similar arguments back in 2006 when he defended his state’s system of mandatory insurance as a matter of “personal responsibility,” a position he still holds. In both cases, they argued that uninsured patients receiving free health care were free riders on those who chose to purchase insurance. Hence, in the name of “personal responsibility,” everyone should be forced to purchase insurance.
But the idea of forcing people to act in a certain way inverts the very notion of responsibility. The concept of responsibility arises from the fact that humans have free will, and can thus choose to act in ways that benefit — or harm — themselves.
Personal responsibility thus presupposes that an individual has the freedom to make his own decisions and to enjoy — or suffer — the consequences thereof. In the context of health insurance, personal responsibility means that if a patient wants to pay a willing insurer more money now in exchange for the assurance of lower future medical costs if he becomes ill, then he is free to make that choice. Similarly, personal responsibility means that if he chooses not to purchase health insurance and later incurs a $10,000 medical bill, he will be held accountable for it even if he has to sell his car, borrow money from his family, or rely on charity. In contrast, when the government forbids an individual from making such choices about his health insurance, it makes personal responsibility in this area literally impossible.
Contrary to Gibbs and Romney, the problem of free riders arises not from a lack of individual responsibility — but because the government deliberately uncouples an individual’s behavior from its consequences. To the extent that laws like EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act) compel physicians and hospitals to render medical care regardless of a patient’s ability to pay, the government itself creates the free rider problem and undermines genuine responsibility.
The SCOTUS judges are political appointees. That’s the end of it. The constitution is a nice fantasy.
No concept in human existence has taken quite as much damage this past century as “individual responsibility,” the moral complement to individual freedom. The main agencies have been persons and movements desperate to defame and delegitimize it, but with Americans rising in reaction against such persons and movements, the forces of darkness have decided to deploy a version of the Islamic two-step — saying they’re for freedom while promoting tyranny — in the hope that we can still be fooled.
What is there to say about such tactics but don’t allow yourself to be taken in?
Well said, Dr. Hsieh. It’s absolutely sickening the extent of moral corruption we see in our political and intellectual leaders today. Orwell’s most prescient version of doublespeak was, “Freedom is Slavery.” The idea that, “Indvidual Responsibility is the extension of the Nanny state,” is almost as vulgar.
Politicians and the hair brained government policies they bring with them usually have horrible unintended (and sometimes intentional, like Obamacare) consequences. Healthcare is highly regulated by the government. The government breaks the system, ignores their responsibility and then wants to Fix it. That makes sense.
Obama and his socialist minions have lost the concept of “individual rights” which is why “individual responsibility” to them is straight collectivism. Their thinking is up-side-down. Individual rights means that the individual is protected from the majority. Obama and his followers seek to make the individual a slave to the majority. We are fortunate to have clear-thinkers and forceful writers like Dr. Hsieh who clarify the contradictory statements of collectivists.
Hear, hear! Dr. Hsieh eloquently distinguishes real individual responsibility from the pseudo-responsibility of government mandates. If individual responsibility is to have any meaning, then it must separate the voluntary actions of individuals, and the consequences of those same actions, from the forced requirements of government. The former is why individual responsibility is an important corollary of freedom; the latter is a form of involuntary servitude.
I’ve started wearing a helmet everyday so that it’ll seem like my own idea when the gov’t makes me start using one.
Nice article. And thanks for calling out Mitt Romney as being of like mind to Obama on this. After the twin fiascos of Romneycare and Obamacare, I remain flabbergasted that Romney is still considered a leading presidential candidate for 2012.
“Freedom is necessity recognized” V.I.Lenin
They love this trick, don’t they. They must have thousands of people working full-time dreaming up these word games.
Take some long-held widely-recognized principle and turn it on its head.
“Choice”, “Justice”, “Voting” (re union membership), “Responsibility”.
How to tell the truths from the lies?
The only sure way is to listen to what an “ist” (i.e., socialist, statist, etc.) says. Whatever it is, that is the lie.
Every last one of them lied when they took the oath of office.
Every one.
FIRST! There are NO provisions in the Constitution granting to the congress or any other of the three branches of government, a legislative power to mandate “individual responsibility” within the realm of the commerce clause.
Secondly! A mandate of ALL citizens must purchase health care insurance can ONLY come through “taxation” paying into a single government payer/subsidized system. For example! The government cannot require ALL citizens purchase Medicare/Medicaid or ALL citizens pay into Social Security or ALL citizens to pay excise taxes for federal highways. One can only be mandated to participate in such things IF and WHEN they become engaged in COMMERCE one of two ways…..employment or as a VOLUNTARY consumer.
The problem comes through a term above that I did not emphasis….SUBSIDIZE.
During the 20th century of socialist progressivism, the congress began policies of granting government subsidy to “individual’s” for health care….essentually, unconsitutionally, amending the constitution to grant Health Care as an Individual Right….through yet another abuse of the Commerce Clause, etc.
As to the Supreme Court. The court has a very long standing “rule” outside the Constitution, that a long standing “precedent” will not be disturbed….much like the law of “squatters” being undisturbed on anothers land for a prescribed period of time, can give to the squatters, rights to that land for use.
This type of congressional and judicial constitutional abuse is not limited to health care! It is vast and wide throughout commerce, private domain, federalizing States lands, etc., etc.
So, there are going to be substantial adversarial battles to overcome in the Judicial branch of government on this health care debacle, given the long decades of unconstitutional socialist progressive creep into our branches of government and society at large….and the question of undistrubed precedence.
A single Constitutional Amendment of the Constitutions Article I, Section 8 Commerce Clause can “right” so many wrongs and the current day devistation our nation is experiencing and will continue to cycle and experience into the future…if not seriously considered and accomplished soon.
For Obama it is still about ‘group salvation’. The only ‘individual responsibility’ is to fulfill HIS group salvation.
This is, of course, counter to the Constitution and Constitutional rights.
FDR pressured SCOTUS to surrender the Constitution. We have to assure that will not happen again under FDR-Lite. The court needs to understand that the People will not surrender their rights again. That the consequences of going along are worse than the consequences of standing up for the Constitution.
Encourage a group salvation for SCOTUS…
I find it interesting that Mitt Romney is even remotely considered a suitable opponent to Obama! Even a fast glance at RomneyCare in Mass reveals it to be a abject failure. Without federal subsidy Mass would be as Calif and may yet be. Make no mistake Mitt Romney is a RINO!!! For all her faults Palin is the better choice. I’m hoping for a wider selection.
Romney got the best deal he could from a socialist legislature, and that is never a good thing. He either implements this or he gets the State run socialized medicine. The choices were pretty crappy and still are.
“Personal responsiblility,” applied to a mandatory health care insurance is an oxymoron.
Another excellent article by Paul Hsieh. Well said!
“This is YOUR responsibility,” is the favorite dodge of the left/libtard bureaucrat of anything unpleasant and/or they don’t want to do (or be responsible for)… no authority attaches to said responsibility (unlike what the left/libtard crowd likes) however.
Well from now on consider me to be irresponsible as far as the “individual responsibility” argument goes. I will not purchase any policy for anything even though I am a service connected disabled veteran with VA health care, that I will not use unless it is absolutely necessary!
Right out of the communist playbook. What did anyone expect besides this daily barrage of twisted logic.