A common rationale for the health insurance mandate is that people who are not insured use a significant amount of Emergency Room resources and therefore cost the system an inordinate amount of money. By requiring everybody to either purchase qualifying health insurance or to pay a tax penalty, we offset the costs of their medical care and effectively make them pay for what they use.
An argument against the health insurance mandate is that the government of the United States has no business in the health care business.
But what about personal security? Law enforcement and civil protection are legitimate roles for government, both local, state, and federal. And people who are not trained in self-defense or who are unarmed are more likely to require substantial police presence at greater cost than people who are capable of handling their own protection and are armed appropriately for it.
The facts show that an armed populace results in lower crime rates. The level and amount of armament should have a direct effect on the levels of crime as the potential cost to the criminal rises with each additional law-abiding heat-packer.
Therefore, in order to share the costs of a legitimate responsibility of civil government among those who use it’s services, I support Representative Allen West’s (tongue in cheek) proposal that law-abiding and capable citizens be required to make rudimentary effort and take basic action to provide for their own defense. Well-defended individuals will utilize fewer of the scarce resources allotted to civil protection and law enforcement, and those who do not take such action ought to be subject to a tax to offset the increased cost to the government for their protection.
HT: The Jawa Report