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.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.