Michael Mathias started out blogging about how health insurance mandates were bad int his post, and my jaw hit the floor.  For a while I thought someone hacked his blog, and we were being stunted:

Health insurance mandates have been tried since the Nixon Administration, and they have a history of not working. The most prominent recent example is in Massachusetts, where state officials are now seeking comment on new rules that would fine residents who do not purchase health insurance if they are found to be able to afford it under a murky system of formulas and guidelines. The idea that residents there now have to choose between the expense of a fine and the expense of health care that is increasingly unaffordable is about as onerous a restriction as a state can impose. It’s a wonder that Mitt Romney, governor at the time the mandate was passed, hasn’t been taking more heat on this issue.

Of course, then he went on to talk about how the real solution was something akin to Healthy Wisconsin... in other words, a government paid health insurance system.  What I'm still trying to wrap my brain around is how mandated heath insurance is really any different than a single payer system paid for through taxes.  They're both mandatory, it's just that you get even less choice with a Healthy Wisconsin style system because the government chooses everything for you.  They both have little chance of working well.  Of course, a government system like Healthy Wisconsin, with it's faux privatization, would be even worse than a Massachusetts style system for reasons I laid out in a prior post.  But still, his opinion is clear.  Mandatory health insurance is bad, when it's private, but good when it's government run.

Of course, we just have to do something about the 48 million uninsured don't we?  Unless of course they're not uninsured at all.  We could simply turn those 48 million uninsured into 48 million "empowered patients" like they've done in England:

Millions of people with arthritis, asthma and even heart failure will be urged to treat themselves as part of a Government plan to save billions of pounds from the NHS budget.

Instead of going to hospital or consulting a doctor, patients will be encouraged to carry out "self care" as the Department of Health (DoH) tries to meet Treasury targets to curb spending.

Patients will be asked to administer their own drugs, and monitor the changes in their own conditions, as if they're qualified to do so.  According to the article, they should also use relaxation techniques to avoid panic trips to the emergency room.  I'm sure people with chronic heart disease will feel so much better knowing that some deep breathing is now all they need to stop their angina.

Critics claimed the plan would provide doctors with an excuse for ignoring the elderly or those with debilitating, but not life-threatening long-term conditions, and would not work without significant investment in community health services.

Can you imagine what Mathias would say if a private insurance company in the United States refused to pay for hospital visits for chronically ill elderly patients, and told them to practice relaxation techniques?  But if the government does the exact same thing, is that OK then?  I won't speak for him, but I'm curious what his reaction would be.