The Safe Choice on Health Care
Conn Carroll /
The Heritage Foundation has long been an advocate for increased consumer choice in health care. In The New York Post, The Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon does a great job pushing back against some of the fear mongering coming from the left about what increased consumer choice would mean for consumer’s health care coverage:
Obama sees choice as dangerous. He fears that “where there are no requirements for you to get cancer screenings,” no insurers would offer such coverage. The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn echoes, “Less cancer screening under McCain’s plan? Actually, yes.”
Nonsense. California doesn’t mandate colon-cancer screening, yet Kaiser Permanente of Northern California is a leader in such research and boasts the most aggressive screening program in the country.
Michigan doesn’t mandate prostate or cervical cancer screening, yet six of the University of Michigan’s seven insurance offerings cover both. That’s where Cohn gets his insurance, so I’ll bet him a fancy dinner that he has coverage for both, even without a mandate.
Cohn fears California consumers couldn’t enforce protections crafted in, say, Delaware. Evidently, he’s never heard of contract law, which lets California courts do just that.