Why insurance requirements cannot be tied to food legislation.
Choice is a fragile thing. Government Requirements are not. If a government requirement exists, then penalties for not having something are very real. Who will require the proof and what sort of certification will suffice? How much liability is required and who determines the limits? Will a government employee come to a home to see if the proof of insurance is posted on someone’s wall? Will a person have to register with the state to become a certified food preparer and mail in proof of insurance? What will the penalties be if someone is caught without it?
Now on the Insurance end. If a state requirement is standing and someone gets caught selling without the mandate then one has blatantly disregarded the law. That serves as a black mark upon anyone and can make them either ineligible for insurance per company rules or so rated that they cannot afford the premium. It’s rather exclusionary. And when companies decide what is risky and what is not, they may not even cover a type of food processing that is very safe in the eyes of many. They can decide an entire segment of the food chain is â€œnot worth the riskâ€ and in effect deny a whole line of foods.
We cannot leave our freedoms to small groups of people who have the ability to deny our right to choose.