Sharon Angle, the Republican candidate for senator in Nevada running against Harry Reid, is now famous at least in liberal circles by attacking insurance mandates by saying “You’re paying for things you don’t even need.” Among them is maternity leave. As she says, “I’m not going to have any more babies, but I sure get to pay for it on my insurance.”

There are arguments to be made against mandates, and against required maternity leave for that matter, but, gosh, can’t she do better than argue against things because she doesn’t need them herself? Does she really want her insurance  to drop care for uterine cancer because half the people paying for the coverage don’t need it? Or drop coverage of menopausal problems because well over half don’t need it or won’t need for years or don’t need it anymore?

As I say, there are arguments to be made for a free society and against what was once called the nanny state (though not so much any more, though it’s gotten even more nanny-ish), arguments that need to be made, but coarse appeals to self-interest are not among them. It’s not a vision of the public good that will draw anyone other than people apparently as pinched and crass as Ms. Angle. It’s not a vision that will help an unknown beat even someone as vulnerable as Harry Reid.

blog comments powered by Disqus