Republican governors order hurricane evacuations so we won’t have to bail you out. Then why do they defend your right to skip health insurance?
"What’s odd about Christie and other Republican governors is that they recognize this principle only when a hurricane hits. When it comes to injury or disease, which we know will strike everyone on this planet, the Republican governors defend your right to ride it out. They oppose any requirement to buy health insurance. If you get sick, the rest of us will shell out to rescue you." (link)
Thoughts?
Interesting article! This article promotes us to think about the connection between hurricane Sandy and things such as disease and illness. I do agree with Governor Christie’s persistence on getting people who live near the coasts to evacuate ASAP. He highlights that if people don't evacuate they are putting other (those who come to rescue them) in harms way. This is the difference between a storm and illness. With illness, other people who help the sick person are not risking their lives as well. Doctors who rescue the sick are most likely not putting themselves in danger.
ReplyDeleteThe article does bring up a good point though. If the government’s role is to protect then what is the difference between protecting citizens from a storm and protecting them from illness?
Wow, pretty interesting and thought invoking article. I believe he really gets down to the issue, though the idea that cost of evacuating a dangerous area is seen as an equivalent to purchasing health insurance seems to be a little obnoxious, but I get the point. The biggest difference I see here is the perception of risk in these situations. The author is quoted, "When it comes to injury or disease, which we know will strike everyone on this planet..." I don't necessarily agree that people believe they will struck by disease or a hospitalized injury, just as some people believed they wouldn't be harmed by Hurricane Sandy. It's probably difficult to determine which is actually more likely to cause harm, but I'm guessing people that refuse to purchase health insurance probably attempt to protect themselves from injury as best they can. I might go so far as to say they would make every effort to evacuate their homes if a the most powerful hurricane in decades was on its way. Then again, maybe not. Interesting piece.
ReplyDeleteGreat article. There really is a fine line between what they do and don't agree with. Needing aid because of a nature disaster is very different from an illness or disease, but at the end of the day, the aid comes from the government, so how is one ok and the other isn't? I think all of this has to do what the perception of people is.
ReplyDeleteTo me it seems to be a bit of a stretch to compare evacuating for the hurricane, and buying health insurance. I suppose the biggest difference that I see is the immediate threat that is presented by the hurricane, as opposed to the future or unknown effects of life that could lead to a need for health insurance. There was never any question or doubt that hurricane Sandy was going to hit the east coast hard, and therefore it makes sense that government officials would be upset when people disobey orders and put others in danger. Healthcare on the other hand seems so much more ambiguous and vague when it comes to knowing who will really need it or not. I personally feel like people can have a lot more power to prevent themselves from needing healthcare than they do from staying out of the path of a hurricane. If the hurricane is coming, it's not like there is anything a person could have done to prevent it from taking that path and hitting their city.
ReplyDeleteYour only as good as your metaphor. At first glance the connection makes perfect sense. But Alex brings up the core of the issue. Risk vs. certainty. Although yes we are all going to get sick in our lives, the severity of that illness is not guarantied. People have gone through life with their greatest affliction being a cold or flu. The Hurricane was going to be vicious, everyone understood that. Politicizing the storm is naive. If they did nothing would the same connection have been made? Damed if you do, damed if you don't situations like this make any sort of argument drawn from them mute in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI felt very conflicted about this article. There are threads of connection between the two. But even for someone who is behind the health care mandate, this is a bit of a stretch as far as the comparison goes. The main problem I see is scope. the population of specific area vs. the population of the entire united states is a very different paradigm when your talking about risk management. However I also believe that republican soapboxing on this an issue is largely and attempt to achieve reelection. (ie the side of Romney that emerged from Massachusetts after doing the same thing and now detesting it for votes.)
ReplyDelete