It’s sort of amusing in a way. I bet if you ask people whether or not they should be required to carry auto liability insurance or health insurance, they would probably say no. But if you ask if other people should be required to carry auto liability insurance or health insurance, they are probably more inclined to say yes.
I have always maintained that if the individual mandate merely required a minimum proof of financial responsibility sufficient to cover most problems (like car insurance does in Texas), most people would not oppose the mandate. But when special interests, lobbyists for diseases, public health advocates and Know-it-all Do-Gooders (who think they know what’s best for everyone else) got involved, the mandate became Cadillac Coverage designed to create huge (read: inefficient) cross-subsidies. I don’t like the idea of a mandate partially because I understand the temptation for special interests to tack on more benefits is too great to resist. But if the individual mandate merely required people to have a high-deductible policy with, say, a $10,000 deductible and a lifetime or annual benefit limit of, say, $100,000, I’d be more apt to support a mandate. Unfortunately, that is decidedly not what the advocates had in mind.
Ohio voters have sense, except when it comes to unions.
It’s sort of amusing in a way. I bet if you ask people whether or not they should be required to carry auto liability insurance or health insurance, they would probably say no. But if you ask if other people should be required to carry auto liability insurance or health insurance, they are probably more inclined to say yes.
I have always maintained that if the individual mandate merely required a minimum proof of financial responsibility sufficient to cover most problems (like car insurance does in Texas), most people would not oppose the mandate. But when special interests, lobbyists for diseases, public health advocates and Know-it-all Do-Gooders (who think they know what’s best for everyone else) got involved, the mandate became Cadillac Coverage designed to create huge (read: inefficient) cross-subsidies. I don’t like the idea of a mandate partially because I understand the temptation for special interests to tack on more benefits is too great to resist. But if the individual mandate merely required people to have a high-deductible policy with, say, a $10,000 deductible and a lifetime or annual benefit limit of, say, $100,000, I’d be more apt to support a mandate. Unfortunately, that is decidedly not what the advocates had in mind.
Not surprised this didn’t make the news, all they covered was the Union vote.
Good vote in Ohio, but the whole issue lives or dies when the U.S. Supreme Court decides.
Brian, do you know how the SCOTUS ruling might affect RomneyCare?