Mandate vs. Mandate

Kevin Drum notes that the current issue of National Review features both an editorial arguing against the individual health insurance mandate because it forces people “to buy a product they would not buy on a free market” and an article arguing that Social Security be replaced with a system “requiring individuals to contribute a reasonable proportion of their income (though some flexibility should be allowed) to an array of investment vehicles to which they hold property rights.”

He concludes by asking:

So what are we to make of the proposition that forcing people to buy retirement annuities is OK but forcing them to buy healthcare insurance isn’t?

It’s a good question.

FILED UNDER: Humor, Media, Quick Takes, US Politics
Alex Knapp
About Alex Knapp
Alex Knapp is Associate Editor at Forbes for science and games. He was a longtime blogger elsewhere before joining the OTB team in June 2005 and contributed some 700 posts through January 2013. Follow him on Twitter @TheAlexKnapp.

Comments

  1. Tano says:

    Now that is hilarious!

  2. Replaced Social Security with a mandate to buy an annuity, then get Supreme Court to declare that mandate unconstitutional. Voila, no more Social Security.

  3. Richard Gardner says:

    When I saw the subject line in my RSS feed, I thought it was something about a gay dating website. LOL

  4. Herb says:

    As Dodd explains in his judicial activism post, it’s all about the process….or something.

  5. Well, don’t forget that a significant portion of Republicans were in favor of health insurance mandates up until Obama added them to his bill. So I think what it says is that the National Review will take the opposite side from Obama on every issue, whether the aggregate ends up making sense or not.