Ive heard this analogy a few times now in defense of the cancellation of peoples health insurance policies because theyre sub-par or sub-standard. The govts right to mandate coverage is just like their right to mandate certain safety features on cars. Okay. Imagine the govt told all car makers they could only make three models of cars and that each could only be offered in black, white, and grey, that they all had to have big fins on the back, had to have snow tires, and then said that people could only drive them up to 50k miles. Certainly, there are people that like those colors and maybe even the fins. Snow tires are going to be great for a large segment of the population and a newer car is always better than an older car, until you factor in price. But all those features would increase the price, and for many, none of those things are worth a single penny more. Prenatal coverage for a 60 year old man is as useless as fins, or snow tires for someone living in Yuma. Or maybe the person is young and healthy and doesnt need anything but catastrophic coverage for the money hed save. Back to the car analogy, maybe they would rather have more money in their pocket and a car with higher mileage because theyre really good at fixing cars and can make it work. But the real reason the analogy fails: If you dont want to pay for a car with govt-mandated safety features, you dont have to.
Posted on: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 01:16:12 +0000