Our Constitution was not designed to protect us from ourselves, nor should it. There is no mention of insurance in our Constitution because insurance is a free market tool to mitigate risks: life, auto, health, employment.
The United States of America was founded on the principles of personal freedom and personal responsibility. Individual freedom and liberty allows any personal action as long as it does not adversely impact any other person. Actions are not dictated by any moral, racial, or religious creeds, but are legislated by our Congress for our “common good.” These freedoms are not free since they come with associated personal responsibility for the consequences of these actions. Over time our legal system has grown to regulate and restrict personal actions, personal consumption of legal and illegal products, and behaviors that affect our personal health. Meanwhile a basic safety net has been created to protect those who are unable to care for themselves through no fault of their own. The question is whether this country has gone too far trying to protect people from the consequences of their actions, thus relieving them of the personal responsibility and shifting that responsibility to the people? There is an easier way to protect others from subsidizing people’s bad decisions and that is to remove their eligibility from the government health and safety net and require individuals to be directly responsible for the consequences of their actions.
Our Constitution was not designed to protect us from ourselves, nor should it. There is no reason that people cannot take personal risks, as long as they do not endanger anyone else. Not wearing a helmet while riding a bicycle or motorcycle or not wearing a seat belt in an automobile only endangers the individual, so personal freedom should prevail. Eating, drinking, smoking, ingesting anything is a personal decision so should not be restricted since the consequence only falls on that individual. As long as this “risky” behavior only impacts that individual, there is no reason for the government to get involved, as long as these individuals understand that they are voluntarily removing themselves from the government health and welfare safety net and are personally responsible for any and all consequences.
Our Constitution has no role enforcing personal behavior for our own good such as personal hygiene, what foods and where we can eat, and who with and where we can perform sexual acts. Parents teach us about personal behavior in a civilized society. The government has no role to replace this parental influence. What foods, how much, with what ingredients are outside the scope of government control. Government may educate about the consequences but not regulate that individuals must behave a certain way. Sex between consenting adults is a matter of preference and none of the government’s business. Victimless crime refers to infractions of criminal law without any evidence of anyone suffering any damage. Personal choice must allow individual freedom and acceptance of consequences. As long as this personal behavior only impacts that individual, there is no reason for the government to get involved, as long as these individuals understand that they are voluntarily removing themselves from the government health and welfare safety net and are personally responsible for any and all consequences.
Our Constitution does not regulate moral behavior concerning “sinful” acts such as consuming alcoholic beverages, smoking of tobacco products, and personal use of recreational drugs. Over time there is no rhyme or reason for the criminalization of some but not all drugs. Alcohol (ethanol) is a legal drug, tobacco (nicotine) is restricted drug, but recreational drugs are against the law. In moderation these vices do little harm, but in excess the consequences can be dire or fatal to the individual. Personal choice must include destructive choices and accepting the consequences of these “sinful” and risky actions. Maybe it is time to legalize all drugs for anyone over 18 years of age. At the same time repeal all sin taxes (tobacco, alcohol, drugs, etc.) as inefficient at influencing behavior and ineffective incenting desirable behavior. As long as this personal behavior only impacts that individual, there is no reason for the government to get involved, as long as these individuals understand that they are voluntarily removing themselves from the government health and welfare safety net and are personally responsible for any and all consequences.
There is no mention of insurance in our Constitution because insurance is a free market tool to mitigate risks: life, auto, health, employment. Our health and safety net includes a number of insurance like functions that should be available in the free market insurance industry. Government should have no role in providing insurance coverage or benefits. Personal choice must include the option of no insurance, and government should not intervene to provide an insurance safety net. The 10th Amendment precludes the federal government from powers not delegated by the Constitution. Medical insurance, including Medicare and Medicaid, should be 100% devolved back to the states where it can be administered more efficiently. Other federal insurance programs, such as Crop Insurance, Flood Insurance, Property Insurance, Windstorm Insurance, and Disaster Insurance, should be privatized and permanently removed from the federal government safety net.
Personal freedom and choice always have personal responsibilities associated with the real consequence of those actions. One of the most important responsibilities is to accept and live with the consequences of any actions. Personal choice must include the option of doing stupid things and making bad decisions, as long as the consequences are accepted. The legal profession should be restricted from retroactively suing to compensate for clients stupidity when they suffer unforeseen consequences. There is no requirement for anyone to accept, support, or subsidize anyone else’s personal choices. In addition there is no reason for anyone to be required to subsidize others personal choices and their consequences. Personal freedom has a cost and that cost is the removal of eligibility from all government safety nets such as food stamps, welfare, insurance, and health care. Ultimately returning to a principle of personal freedom and associated personal responsibility will make this a stronger country.
Mr. Coughlin writes: "Not wearing a helmet while riding a bicycle or motorcycle or not wearing a seat belt in an automobile only endangers the individual, so personal freedom should prevail."
This may be, but such behavior leads to higher health insurance premiums for the rest of us, or increased Medicaid expenses to take care of those bikers who wind up with a high spinal cord injury and require care for the rest of their lives. So, I'll support a libertarian's desire to ride without a helmet if and when he posts a bond and shows that he can pay for the medical care and rehab work he'll need when he shows up at my local ER with a C4 spinal injury. Apart from that, the injured biker is costing me money.
That the injured biker costs anyone besides himself is because of societal cost sharing, a feature of liberalism. The author is writing about personal responsibility. A person bears his own cost of his own foolishness, and to degree this isn't the case is a violation of this precept.
The health insurance part of the equation is a false assertion. Health insurance predicates pricing on the risk characteristics of a large number of people in the insurance pool. This spreads the risk of loss, and as such, the actions of an individual have little impact on the cost for everyone else in the pool.