Should Americans Have to Choose Between Health Insurance and Booze?

In the midst of all the debate over healthcare reform, the Left and their media minions conveniently ignore an irrefutable fact: many Americans can't "afford" health insurance because they'd rather spend their money on other things.

Those include such "necessities" as fancy cars, big screen TV sets, iPhones and their monthly fees, designer jeans, and -- ahem -- alcohol.

With this in mind, the good folks at Reason TV have created a marvelous video that nicely defines who many of the currently uninsured are (h/t Dave Dix):

President Obama's prime-time health insurance speech underscored an important point: No American should have to choose between health insurance and paying rent, between health insurance and getting groceries -- or getting drunk, getting designer jeans, or protein powder.

We hear so much about hardworking Americans who need health insurance, but what about the rest of us? Millions of uninsured Americans could afford health insurance, but it would mean giving up some really cool stuff. Support President Obama's plan to cover all Americans, because no American should have to choose between health insurance and protein powder.


In the end, for many people who don't have health insurance, it is isn't because they're poor and can't afford it.

It's because they have other priorities.

Is it their fellow Americans' responsibility to pay for that which they choose not to?

If Obama-loving media members were at all honest concerning this subject, they would do exactly what the good folks at Reason did: interview regular people who don't have health insurance, and ask them what they spend their money on.

Before we as a nation actually embark on extending healthcare to others, shouldn't we first examine why people who don't qualify for Medicaid, Medicare, or S-CHIP don't have private insurance?

Consider that some years ago when the federal government was first getting involved in reverse mortgages to seniors, they required prospective borrowers to have a meeting with a HUD or FHA representative.

At said counseling session, the income and monthly expenses of the borrower were examined to determine whether or not he or she actually needed the loan. The counselor would even recommend that the borrower cut back on expenditures RATHER than borrow against his or her property.

The point is that without the HUD or FHA agent's authorization, the senior was NOT permitted to do a government-backed reverse mortgage.

With this in mind, maybe folks wanting the government to provide them with health insurance should have to meet with a federal official to examine their finances and determine why they can't afford it themselves.

If after this meeting, it is determined that simple budgetary changes can be made by the prospective insured so that he or she could pay for private insurance, he or she should be denied the government option.

As a result, although Reason was making a joke, maybe folks should have to decide between health insurance and getting drunk.

After all, if they choose the latter, why should the taxpayer fund the former?

Noel Sheppard's picture