The White House and Pronoun Trouble

In the wake of today’s ruling by a federal district court to let a challenge by the state of Virginia to the health care reform act proceed, the White House has released a response. While my sympathies regarding the constitutional questions involved lay pretty squarely with Virginia in this case, I’ll defer any discussion of such matters to people who traffic in constitutional law.

I only wish here to demonstrate the sloppy collectivist thinking revealed in the response’s language, in adjacent paragraphs:

This law came into being precisely because of the interconnectedness of our health care costs.   People who make an economic decision to forego health insurance do not opt out of the health care market, but instead shift their costs to others when they become ill or are involved in an accident and cannot pay.

We do not leave people to die at the emergency room door – whether they have insurance or not.

Note the logic used to attempt to explain why the voluntarily uninsured deserve to be forced into paying: “they” are shifting their costs to others.  But how?  Because “we” refuse to not take care of them.  But then, isn’t it clear that “we” are shifting the costs, not “they”?  Did “they” demand treatment at gunpoint?  No.  ”We” provided treatment and demanded payment for it at gunpoint.  ”We” are bullies, who, because “we” are squeamish about letting people bear the consequences of “their” own choices, will trample over “their” rights to make those choices for them.

I could say I couldn’t bear the thought of someone going through life without listening to Beethoven.  Should I have carte blanche to garnish people’s wages for the purposes of providing them (and their less fortunate fellow citizens) with recordings, and insist upon penalty of law that they listen to them?  Isn’t their choice to not listen something I should be reasonably expected to deal with on my own?

"You keep outta this, he doesn’t have to shoot you now."