Well, only in one small part, actually. The vast majority of his superb column on NRO today is absolutely spot on. The current health reform bill is indeed “irredeemable” and…
“…it wildly compounds the complexity by adding hundreds of new provisions, regulations, mandates, committees, and other arbitrary bureaucratic inventions.
Worse, they are packed into a monstrous package without any regard to each other. The only thing linking these changes — such as the 118 new boards, commissions, and programs — is political expediency. Each must be able to garner just enough votes to pass. There is not even a pretense of a unifying vision or conceptual harmony.”
But: Mr. Krauthammer makes one small but very important statement with which I disagree. He begins the end of his column with this statement:
“Insuring the uninsured is a moral imperative.”
Is it? Why?
If insuring the uninsured is a moral imperative, why isn’t ensuring food for those who can’t afford it also a moral imperative? After all, people can die from starvation, whereas a cold, fever, or flu may bring you down for a while, but it generally won’t kill you.
What about homes? Homeless people die of exposure; why not make homes for all a moral imperative as well?
No, the moral imperative is to make sure that the uninsured have access to the healthcare they need. But mandating that for-profit insurance companies must cover them is akin to mandating that grocery stores must give away groceries for free to the hungry; or that banks must give home loans to those who cannot afford to pay mortgages. Oh wait, we all saw how well that worked out, didn’t we?
Making sure that those who cannot afford healthcare coverage have access to good healthcare may in fact be a moral imperative. Insuring the uninsured whether they want it or not, whether they can afford it or not, whether the insurance companies want to or not, is most decidedly not a moral imperative.