The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Re: Mandate Mitt Watch

Phil, I will have a column out tomorrow on precisely this point so I won't give too much away, but you are entirely correct. Once you say everyone must have COVERAGE as opposed to ACCESS to coverage the argument is just about what coercive measures the government will undertake to reach that outcome. Moreover, once you say everyone must have coverage then the government decides what type of coverage is "coverage" and we're off to the races in government mandated benefits and costs (e.g., Is a $2000 annual deductible plan "coverage"? Must there be mental health benefits in "parity" with other health benefits to be "coverage"?) This was the cardinal error in MittCare and if Romney gets the nomination will be a significant handicap in making the case against HillaryCare.

Leave a comment

Leave a Comment

N.B. We encourage readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Spectator article. Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful. (And don't feed the trolls!) Thank you.

More Blog Posts by Jennifer Rubin

http://spectator.org/blog/2007/09/18/re-mandate-mitt-watch

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

Special Feature

Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:

A Time for Choosing

James Piereson

The Road from Serfdom

Stephen Moore and Peter Ferrara

FLASHBACK TO: 1984

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Meet the Flukes!

F. H. Buckley | 5.25.12

The Wisconsin Turning Point

Peter Ferrara | 5.23.12

In Search of Muhammad

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi | 5.25.12

Age and Kyl

Quin Hillyer | 5.25.12

Follow Me

Jay D. Homnick | 5.25.12

A Test of National Honor

Hal G.P. Colebatch | 5.25.12

How About the Record of DOE Capital?

William Tucker | 5.25.12

The Great Debate

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. | 5.24.12

ADVERTISEMENT