Fair enough. My point was that it's a bad idea, not against your use of it specifically. Wrong pronoun I guess. I still think that just saying "move if you don't like it" is a bit of a cop out - that's applicable to any law and shouldn't provide free license to enact bad policy. A bad idea at the state level is preferable to one at the federal, but it's still bad.
Well when we're arguing about health services that are included at a public university, then you have to be against the school nurse at the elementary - high school levels. The inexpensive and free services at universities (at least when I went) were for basic things like health screenings, a couple of stitches, diagnosing colds and flues, etc. A local doctor or intern from the hospital might show up a couple days a week on a volunteer basis for more advanced diagnoses. They weren't giving out free appendectomies. They did offer health coverage at a group rate, but then so does Costco.
To be clear, I also said "vote or move" , not just move. If the majority of voters vote contrary to you in a state, then you have to live with it or move. I know - I live in CA.
I'm not an insurance expert so I can't say whether or not they would deny having children on a family plan. However, why not let them decide what to cover based off the market instead of mandating it? If consumer pressure forces them to include children of whatever age in their plans, then they will do so. If not, maybe people can save some money.
Consumer pressure did force them to have kids on a family plan, for all the years pre-obamacare. As for the mandate, the major point of my original argument is that both Trump and the R's want to keep the mandate in place. I was arguing that if they are going to keep the mandate, the least they could do was make it for children, not 26 year old adults.
