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