The angry masses in Missouri have voted to exempt themselves from being required to purchase health insurance as required by the recent Federal health care “reform” law (though perhaps many of them didn’t understand what they were voting on). I can see only two explanations for this and the continuing fulmination against the “individual mandate” by conservatives: 1) They truly are pursuing a cynical strategy of opposing anything supported by Democrats, and of exploiting any possible means of attacking health care reform, or 2) They are uninformed, unthinking, intellectually-dishonest dolts. I tend to think that option 1 applies to the politicians and talking heads, while option 2 applies to their followers, and both options apply to dangerous idiots like Sarah Palin.

Forget for a moment that conservatives (like Newt Gingrich, The Heritage Foundation, and others) used to support the idea of individual mandates, and maybe even invented it. Forget that the government already requires you to “purchase” retirement and medical insurance (in the form of Social Security and Medicare taxes).

Opponents claim to be against forcing people to buy health insurance on the grounds that it’s an intrusion on their liberty or their privacy. Or possibly because it’s forcing them to give money to a private company (but of course the reason the money is being given to private insurers is that the same people also oppose having the government provide the insurance).

“Oh, the horror! The government is making me spend money that I don’t want to spend! Why should I have to buy health insurance?! It’s a slippery slope! Where will it end? What if those socialists in Washington next decide to force everyone to buy a waffle iron, like Hitler did? Help! Help! I’m being oppressed!”

There are two kinds of people who might be making this argument: the ones who have health insurance, and the ones who don’t. And either way, I can’t see an intellectually- or ideologically-defensible position.

Those who already have health insurance (which includes all of the politicians and talking heads who are getting the crowds all lathered up) have nothing to complain about. You’re not being forced to do anything. I suppose you would claim to be protecting the rights of those who “choose” not to buy insurance.

So what is your proposal for dealing with those people when they do get sick? You’re happy with the current system, where you and the rest of us (through taxes and higher overall health care costs) pay for the free riders? This approach is just forcing a “mandate” on the rest of us. Socializing the problem, if you will.

Or do you suggest that people who show up at the hospital be turned away if they can’t show an insurance card or a wad of cash? “Sorry, sir, we would never mandate that you buy insurance, but you should have been smart enough to do it yourself anyway. Now you must die for your lack of individual responsibility.”

Those of you who don’t have insurance and don’t want to be “forced” to buy it (are there really very many of you?): same question. Are you happy with idea that your access to health care will be terminated when your ability to pay for it runs out? If so, I commend you for your willingness to die for your principles. If not, you are a hypocritical freeloader.

I can’t see a middle ground. “None of the above” is not a valid solution here.

So, please, dear readers (any Republicans in the audience?): explain it to me if you can.