We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Clearest explanation I've seen about Obamacare:The Real Trouble With the Birth-Control Mandate -Critics are missing the main point. There are good reasons that your car-insurance company doesn't add $100 to your premium and then cover oil changes.
Notice the doublespeak confusion of "access" and "cost." I have "access" to toothpaste because I have two bucks in my pocket and a competitive supplier. Anyone who can afford a cell phone can afford pills or condoms.
Poor women who can't afford birth control are a red herring in this debate. HHS isn't limiting this mandate to the poor anyway. We all have to pay. The very poor typically don't have employer-provided health insurance in the first place. "Allowing women to space their pregnancies"? Was there some sort of federal ban on birth control before this?
It's not about "access" and it's not about "insurance." It's because Americans, when paying even modest copayments, choose to spend their money on other things. They prefer a new iPod to a "wellness visit" to the doctor.
As the HHS unwittingly admits: "Often because of cost, Americans used preventive services at about half the recommended rate." Remember, we're supposed to be worrying about skyrocketing health-care expenses. Doubling the number of wellness visits and free pills sounds great, but who's going to pay for it? There is a liberal dream that by mandating coverage the government can make something free.
Sorry. Every increase in coverage means an increase in premiums.
That doublespeak about access and cost is what I have been writing about. If it's a plan to pay for every medical cost, it isn't insurance in any ordinary sense.
"Sorry. Every increase in coverage means an increase in premiums."
Don't be sorry - it's true. I see no reason to apologize to someone who can't understand this. We MUST keep hammering away at this elemental fact - every increase in coverage means an increase in cost and less money in our pocket.
It's much worse than that: You can't grant a woman (or woman) the right to engage in sex without consequences AND require someone else to pay the consequences for her exercising that right, be it abortion, abortion-iducing drugs, or child care. Sex is an elective act, not an accident. You can't morally force me to pay for her contraception, either. What would be more sensible -- but still not very sensible -- would be to outlaw casual sex. All these positive rights have no moral, legal or rational foundation, and they often violate my negative rights.
Eh. It's just camel's nose sticking into the tent.
If the R primaries really are the disaster they look like, and we get stuck with O again, we're screwed very hard. But I'm not sure we aren't screwed anyway.
It kind of breaks my heart that anybody can believe a conceit like government being able to run health care with efficiency, justice, and positive results for all.
It's almost enraging that they don't understand the implied expansion of government power it calls for, and the inevitable intrusion of that power into their own lives. Of course, they never imagine that government will ever directly interfere with the conduct of their own personal affairs even as they vote to increase government power.
I'm losing hope that we're going to dodge the bullet on this. I just hope that at least some of the people who have supported it will be capable of calling disaster by its name rather than blaming anyone but themselves.