To the Editor:

Much of the debate on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been focused on the mandate that individuals obtain health insurance — and for good reason. It is the foundation of the law and raises key constitutional questions.

Setting aside the constitutional questions, however, there are still deep flaws evident in the law.

In promoting the ACA, President Barack Obama stated repeatedly, "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." As the law is being implemented, though, more than 2 million people, according to CBS News, are being told they can't renew their policies. Supporters of the law have responded by asserting that the health plans being canceled are inadequate, "bad apple" plans.

Let’s examine what constitutes a “bad apple” plan under Obamacare. A policy that doesn’t cover maternity care, even if purchased by a 50-year-old single male, is now a bad apple. A policy that doesn’t cover substance abuse treatments is also inadequate, even for someone with very little risk of developing such problems.

While some may benefit from these types of coverage, not everyone needs them. Moreover, unnecessary coverage will lead to higher premiums as insurers need more revenue to offset potential claims.

These are the absurdities we often encounter when government tries to make decisions for us. Even the brightest legislators cannot possibly know what’s best for each individual, so they instead pass blanket requirements that apply to large groups. This results in outcomes that aren’t ideal for many people.

If an individual health insurance mandate is truly necessary, does it make sense to require anything other than the most basic necessities, such as coverage for emergency care and catastrophic illnesses and injuries? Let’s give people back the freedom to make decisions about what’s best for their own, individual situations.

Daniel Kilpatrick

West Deptford Township