The big white business journal uses an attack on Obama to echo insurance industry positions against being regulated. The insurance companies make money by refusing service and they try to maximize exclusions. Buyers think they are covered for medical, and then find out the fine print has screwed them. If insurers want to sell a variety of coverages, some of which include most of the exclusions, and fully inform customers of expected costs, ok. But this WSJ article is just trying to help insurance companies maximize their profits at the public expense by avoiding public regulation.

There are so many things wrong with this op-ed it's staggering. What a load of disinformation. Of course that's standard for the WSJ opinion page, which is utterly medieval in its trumpeting for plutocracy. The writer is from the American Enterprise Institute, a rightist think tank. He claims health care mandates are supported by a biased industry since they increase costs, but overlooks the problem of his relying on statistics from an insurance industry lobbying group. There are myriad reasons why costs may be higher in mandated areas. Inferring cause from these correlations is jumping to conclusions. If we look across the pond or even to Canada (and think logically) we see that costs are always lowered when more people pay ... More »