And so it is with the latest efforts to define the brave new world of health insurance, gummint-style:

“.”[emphasis added]

Madam Secretary, this word “affordable,” I dunna think it means what you think it means.

Allow me to expand a bit:

Let’s start with the government’s definition of “basic.” It includes coverage for “outpatient, hospital, emergency, maternal, newborn and children’s care, prescription drugs, mental health and substance abuse treatment, rehabilitation, labs, prevention and wellness.” All of which sound reasonable, but then, so does GPS, a CD player and cruise control. Get the picture?

There are folks who would like a new car, but realize that all the shiny “goodies” add to the price. These folks want a “basic benefits package” that includes 4 tires, a working engine, and decent mileage. Imagine what might happen if they were forced by the government to also purchase an extended warranty and sunroof. Well, that new car suddenly becomes unaffordable.

Same with insurance: many folks would be quite happy to have catastrophic coverage, maybe some reasonable co-pays, and coverage for more expensive med’s (after all, generics are $4 most places now). What they want is to know that if they need chemo, or develop MS, or have a stroke, they won’t lose the house. What they can’t afford is all the other bells and whistles that abruptly take the plan out of their financial reach.

Particularly since they’ll face jail time .

The disconnect here is astounding:

“Few small employer plans presently offer comprehensive mental health coverage, for example. As such services are added, the total cost of the package should stay within a realistic budget target to be set by the administration. That would help keep premiums affordable.”

Because price-controls have worked out so well in the past:

“.”

Now, substitute “health insurance” for “gasoline.”

Any questions?