Having lost in a court of law, HHS Secretary Shecantbeserious (and her attorney) has taken the case to the court of public opinion. To wit, an op-ed in today's Washington Post, wherein she repeated the oft-used - and completely erroneous - conflation of auto and health insurance:
How come no one's clamoring for a law that mandates coverage for wiper blades, or that requires insurers to charge the same rate for careful drivers and those with multiple DUI's?
More importantly, there's just no comparison between the term "driver" and "citizen." That is, one need only buy car insurance if one operates a vehicle on public roads. Take the bus? Insurance not required. Ride a bike? Insurance not required. Drive the '66 Blazer on your farm? Insurance not required.
Breathe the air? Insurance required, according to Shecantbeserious and her fuzzy-minded minions.
And there's this: in most (all?) states, one isn't actually required to buy insurance even if one does drive on the public roads. One has the option to post a "bond" as proof of financial responsibility. So why isn't this an option for the purchase of health care? Seems to me, fair's fair: if you want to conflate the two, then do it right: offer the option to post a bond and allow insurers to charge appropriately for the risk.
And, of course, drop this (evil) individual mandate nonsense.
"Imagine what would happen if everyone waited to buy car insurance until after they got in an accident. Premiums would skyrocket, coverage would be unaffordable, and responsible drivers would be priced out of the market."Let's recast this, shall we?
"Imagine what would happen if everyone waited to buy [health] insurance until after they got [sick]. Premiums would skyrocket, coverage would be unaffordable, and responsible [citizens] would be priced out of the market."D'unh!
How come no one's clamoring for a law that mandates coverage for wiper blades, or that requires insurers to charge the same rate for careful drivers and those with multiple DUI's?
More importantly, there's just no comparison between the term "driver" and "citizen." That is, one need only buy car insurance if one operates a vehicle on public roads. Take the bus? Insurance not required. Ride a bike? Insurance not required. Drive the '66 Blazer on your farm? Insurance not required.
Breathe the air? Insurance required, according to Shecantbeserious and her fuzzy-minded minions.
And there's this: in most (all?) states, one isn't actually required to buy insurance even if one does drive on the public roads. One has the option to post a "bond" as proof of financial responsibility. So why isn't this an option for the purchase of health care? Seems to me, fair's fair: if you want to conflate the two, then do it right: offer the option to post a bond and allow insurers to charge appropriately for the risk.
And, of course, drop this (evil) individual mandate nonsense.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar