Thursday, March 27, 2008,10:31 PM
The Roanoke Times Responds ...
... to my post from yesterday regarding the glaring contradiction that was created over the last few days when on Monday the editorial page called for the creation of universal health care coverage but on Tuesday denounced the notion of universal flood coverage. The staff there sees no contradiction, writing (in "Flood insurance vs. health care"):

Jerry at From On High seems to think he caught us in a contradiction ...

I don't see the contradiction. Part of the problem with a universal flood program is that it makes all taxpayers assume the risk for the unwise choices of a few who decide building in flood-prone areas is wise. By offering premiums far below what is actuarially necessary, it also encourages that unwise behavior.

Eventually, wise or unwise, we all need health care. And, far from encouraging unwise behavior, a universal health care program would encourage wise behavior, since those with insurance are more likely to seek life- and money-saving preventive care.
That's the problem, Dan. Eventually we may all need health insurance but young unmarried males and females without children, as a general rule, don't today. And they know it. That's why millions choose to not have coverage. Statistically, it's a wise choice.

Yet most universal health care plans require that they participate. Thus forcing them to cover the needs of others. Thus it's no different from flood insurance, which does the same.

- - -

Also posted at Roanoke Times Roundtable: http://blogs.roanoke.com/roundtable/editorials/flood_insurance_vs_health_care.html#comments
 
posted by Jerry Fuhrman
Permalink ¤