Tuesday, November 19, 2013


Although the original Evil Mandate meme was predicated on the (long discredited) comparison to mandatory auto insurance, perhaps the latter may serve as a useful tool for comparison to the latest drivel from Our Betters in Government©.

The latest to weigh in on the matter is California Governor Mr Linda Ronstadt Jerry Brown:

"It’s not really a cancellation,” Brown said during the station’s Sunday Morning Q & A segment ... “these are Marylanders who are getting notices ... that you can renew your policy today and into 2014 but in 2014 you won’t be able to renew your current plan because it’s a substandard plan"

Interesting definition of "renewal" there, Guv.

But let's think about this for a minute.

What is "substandard" about existing plans? Well, most individual plans (and these are the ones being cancelled alternately-renewed right now, but don't assume that your group plan will be long immune) exclude normal childbirth, and birth control convenience items, for that matter.

Does this make them substandard, as compared with the new ObamaTax-compliant plans which mandate these coverages?

[ed: and BTW, why no prostate or testicular cancer screening bennies for us XY'ers?]

Let's take a look at a typical auto policy, shall we?

They (almost all) start with liability coverage; that is, to protect those whom you harm when you run into them in the intersection. This coverage will pay their medical bills, and fix their cars. But what about your car?

If you have a late model vehicle, odds are you have comprehensive and collision coverage to pay for those repairs. But say your ride is a dozen years old. Do you still carry comp and collision on it? Odds are, the answer's no, because it generally doesn't make financial sense. If it's worth only a few thousand dollars, and the comp/collision coverage is hundreds of dollars a year, then you're probably better off self-insuring. So you take a pass on the "extras," and cover the important, hard to self-insure portion (who has $250,000 sitting in the bank to pay off an injured stranger?).

Does this make your policy "substandard?"

I would argue "no," it makes your policy "appropriate to your needs." So why would maternity or pediatric dental, or any of the other EHB's be any different? If you're a 55 year old guy - or gal, for that matter - why would you want to pay for either of those?

Or is that too obvious?
blog comments powered by Disqus