To the Journal editor:
Boy, is U.S. Rep. Dan Benishek, R-Crystal Falls, out of touch. In his guest editorial published on Sunday, July 2 and entitled, "Health care law is an affront, must be changed," Benishek argues in favor of customizable health care, saying we should not be obliged to pay for care we do not need. He asks, "what other industry would we allow to charge us for goods or services we do not intend to use? None."
Hello? I'd like to show him our cable TV bill. We pay for I-don't-know-how-many channels...a hundred or more... when we only watch a dozen, tops. As for insurance, we certainly don't intend to have a house fire, but we buy insurance against it just in case. We don't intend to wreck our cars, but everyone in Michigan is required to carry auto insurance. I could give many more examples, but this is an argument that is almost too silly to pursue.
As for the "customizable (health) insurance" Rep. Benishek proposes, how is that supposed to work? I don't intend to have a heart attack, or cancer, or a hip fracture, so I shouldn't have to buy insurance that covers those eventualities? How is that supposed to work?
He needs to put a little more thought into his opinions before he puts them in the paper for the voters to read.
Mary Ann Severyn