by Patrick Appel
Douthat continues to make his pitch for a smaller health care bill:
[P]art of the reason this kind of targeting would costs less than the bigger bill is because children are relatively cheap to insure. But I don’t see what’s wrong with targeting a population that’s vulnerable and inexpensive to cover, rather than first mandating and then subsidizing (to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, in the long run) comprehensive plans for adults who would be better off buying catastrophic coverage instead.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to email@example.com.