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.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Monday, August 1. 2011
I thought it was a blessing and a gift from God - and I naively thought that medical insurance was meant to help cover costly diseases. Obama administration approves no-cost birth control, including ‘morning after’ pill. Here's the relevant statement:
Photo is of a woman's hideous health problem, tragically not cured in time, for free, by modern science. It's sort-of like a tumor, I suppose, but a healthy one which has a strange way of popping out of a lady's hoo-ha when it grows too big.
Tracked: Aug 07, 00:02
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
A tumor, eh? A really beautiful one, too. Now if Big. Gov. would just keep its busy little fingers off this sweet child, she/he will have a chance to grow up and delight all of us....
For decades, the left has considered pregnancy a health problem that abortion can cure.
I'm with you Marianne!
Margaret Sanger smiles. And isn't there a strand of ZPG/eugenics in the global-warming-we're-all gonna-die movement?
There's a strand of eugenics running through this argument, along with the idea that "we'll take care of everything for you and we'll make most of your big decisions while you make the small ones."
That said, pregnancy is a medical condition with costs and potentially complications. It's not a disease, although for years military hospitals listed it as a disease for admission. That's because there were only three broad admission categories: battle casualty, injury, and disease. (So which would you choose?)
Birth control helps couples to enjoy each other and still manage their child-bearing, which seems legitimate to me. I don't see why it's your job to pay for that for other couples, nor their "right" to demand it of anyone else. If people want to choose an insurance plan with low or no copay for these services, and are willing to pay the premiums, that should lie between the insurance companies and their customers. Right of privacy, after all.
The other side, which is the one to answer, was nicely put by Marge Piercy in the 70s, "Right to Life"
A fetus is human (ie not wolf) but not a human (yet).
My own argument would be from what a soul is, which curiously it is possible to argue from what interests developed the English language are.
I expect that the government will soon require pregnancy counseling. That is what the Kaiser/Permanente Hospital system did in California in the 70's.
When the pregnancy test was positive it was standard health plan procedure to offer an abortion. It must have helped the health care company's bottom line.
Many women were frightened and thought something was wrong with their pregnancy.
I wonder how many abortions were done because of the hospital staffs manipulations?
The government is requiring no cost birth control to obtain total control of women's reproduction.
Nothing is free.
And therefore the health care industry will not consider a woman's inability to produce such a tumor to be a medical condition worthy of treatment.
You are sounding a bit reactionary, BD. There are plenty of good reasons women use birth control, some of them health-related (too old to carry successfully, for example), others personal, financial or whatever. It is certainly true that during much of woman's life either getting pregnant or avoiding pregnancy is a primary concern one way or the other, depending on the circumstances. So it is something of medical relevance - and cost. One could certainly argue about the co-pay decision, etc. on other grounds but please let's not paint those who choose to use birth control as those who are not cognizant of the "blessing" of giving birth.
Of course not. My issue is viewing it as something to be covered by insurance, as if a disease.
That is not really consistent. There are plenty of things covered by insurance that are not diseases, many of them in the preventative care realm including lab work and check ups, but also including delivery of children.
I would say that if you want birth control to be covered by your insurance, you should pay, not me.
Because it's birth control? It seems to me that for better or worse the way insurance works is by taking large groups and spreading the cost/risk around - and if everyone stops opting out of this or that (i.e. you won't pay for birth control for me and i won't pay for a diabetes drug for you since I think you should have lost those extra 50 pounds), the system pretty soon becomes unworkable.
Not, mind you, that it isn't already. And that is a discussion worth having.
A person should pay for his or her own play. Go to the free clinic and they will give you bags of goodies to prevent pregnancy and the good doctor will write a scrip for a woman to get on the pill. Use more than one form however. Any one has a failure rate; two forms will bring it closer to 95%.
I think the Maggie's Farm issue here is about who should control this decision.
Birth control may be to support frivolity, or promiscuity, or the deep affection of sweethearts in matrimony. That part isn't our business.
When health insurance was almost all "major medical", routine expenses were the individual's or the family's responsibility. Birth control is a routine medical expense, unlike having an appendectomy or a heart attack. People who want comprehensive medical should have a range of available plans and premiums and they should choose the risk-cost-benefit mix they think is best from what's available.
The people should choose. Not BD or me. Not Obama or Sibelius.
I think DemBamaCare's big interest here is to make insurance through private carriers completely unfeasible. That will drive them out of the market and push families toward the subsidized plans. Anyone here believe the subsidized plans won't morph into single-payer, given any chance to develop?
No, because it's your choice. If you want cancer coverage, you should pay for that, too. If you don't, then you shouldn't have to pay for it.
Insurance looks like it's spreading the cost around, but it is in actuality indemnifying you against potential loss.
How do you feel about drugs for erectile dysfunction being covered by insurance?
Egads. The current system is complicated enough - and now you seem to be suggesting a chinese menu approach to buying health care insurance, which might work if it was a different sort of good/service. Like going for an extra topping on a pizza. Hard to imagine how this could be priced - and leaves insurance companies plenty of wiggle room. Like wall streeters pricing options. And if you choose wrong? Who funds the uninsured cancer patient who thought he/she would die of something else? I suppose, in theory, they could just be left to die. Or we could all go without insurance and pay as you go. I am more with GB thinking it would be better to get back to a major medical care system which would cover outsized costs and leave the routine stuff to the wallet.
well, if you cover ED, you had better cover the pill too. Just sayin'.
More seriously, my issue, such that it is, is about cherry picking what things some people want to cover and others don't (such as contraception) for reasons that sometimes have less to do with health care and cost decisions and more to do with one's beliefs or opinions. Since our beliefs are bound to vary, I am more comfortable with a system that covers outsized medical expenses to avoid catastrophic expense for a family or individual. Today's system is not that system since it has morphed into all sorts of things that are illogical (why is so much health care related to employment? to marriage status? etc.). And to preventative care. Nothing wrong with preventative care, of course, it can certainly save costs down the road. But that is a different sort of insurance - or savings accounts, or whatever.
I would not force any insurance company to provide coverage for any particular "issue". If a man wanted to be covered for ED (or maybe his wife would want him covered), then he (or she) should be prepared to pay for it. I certainly don't expect you to pay!
Yes, the current health insurance system is complex. Yes, I'm an advocate of a Chinese menu system. It has to be feasible, though: each insurance company would need to consider a range of "base" services, e.g. major surgery, oncology care, the stuff we usually think of as "catastrophic" or "major medical."
Then companies would also compete on the packages they offer. A plan might not cover birth control or abortion, thus appealing to some people of conviction and others who just don't need those services. Another plan could be "soup to nuts" comprehensive care. A free market in insurance would encourage innovation and plans to meet a wide range of needs and wishes. Probably every plan would leave out something that some people wanted. But maybe some companies and brokers would go ahead and piecemeal a plan together if requested.
Who are Obama and Sibelius to decide these issues?
I agree with the major medical or catastrophic health insurance model, too. As for who pays for those without coverage... that's what charities are for. All those people who are "out to save medicare" (with someone else's money) can donate - and in fact, EVERYBODY who can should donate to charities.
Sounds like we are coming to some agreement here, mb and GB. And it works out well for me since I just happen to work for a charity that provides medical care to the uninsured, among other things, so please send any checks my way.
Bless you and your charity. What is its name and where is it?
We have been in business for 14 years. My parents always covered their employees with comprehensive health insurance, so it was normal to me when we started our firm to do the same. Years ago, we could choose plans that covered maternity care, or not. When we had employees that were or had wives that were of childbearing age, we paid extra for the coverage. Our insurance now covers maternity, even though I am past that and we have no women of childbearing age being covered (we had to downsize dramatically) as well as acupuncture, rehab (only if it is severe enough for hospitalization, psych office visits have a $5000 deductible), chiropractic, but all with a maze of paperwork to be filled out and approved. Our rates have gone up an average of 30-40% a year. We are now a high deductible plan and it costs three times as much as when I paid for full coverage policies with maternity care included.
When I was on the pill, sure I whined to my friends that my insurance didn't cover it.....but it cost about $15 a month. (Less than the copay) So I wonder how much more my premium will go up again to cover someone else's $15 a month (I read it's $9 now) option, that no one in my office will need.
I also had friends that would get pregnant with no maternity coverage, back in the day. The doctor would work for a reduced rate and they would make payments. Was certainly cheaper than what we are paying for the insurance policies.
I have never expected to receive a checkup for free. My $40 copay (because I pay through the nose for insurance) is fine. Not free, fine. The pediatrician we have always gone to is thinking about getting out. All the doctors around here are joining major medical groups so they don't have to deal with this crap alone.
I'm just trying to continue to cover my family and our couple of employees. Heck, I'm just trying to stay in business.
First, it seems that "health" insurance is covering far too broad a band of issues. It should be more like car insurance, in covering only catastrophic circumstances, and allowing us to self-medicate (ignore the scratch or parking lot dent) and cut costs by cutting out the middle man. How many of us would could afford to drive if we paid up front for all the costs to keep our daily transport as pristine as one of Jay Leno's gems? The most reasonably costly medical procedures are those self paid by the customer.
Second, in my humble opinion, this "pregnancy is a disease" is a terrifying concept. Pregnancy is a natural result of a natural activity. We all, I hope, know what causes it, and therefore should understand the potential result of the activity. It's not a cribbage game.
In another vein, I'm not clear about the logic of a "liberal" mindset that is horrified about losing the last few of a scarce species, (because therein might lie the cure to cancer) but seems on the surface, to care little for callously stopping the growth to term of a child who could be the next Ghandi, Lincoln, or Einstein, or a really good second grade teacher.
After all, I'd be hard pressed to decide which of my five children is "useless" to society, and should or could have been eliminated as being inconvient, because trust me, at some point, each was a thorn in my side. But, being inconvient is not a capital offense.
Folks, simply put, an abortion, at any "stage," ends a human life; it's that simple, and therefore, is completely wrong, by any just standard.
Personally i dont even think the Gov't is evening listening or cares as long as they themselves are not affected by the laws.. They have their own rules and coverage for themselves.. full pay and coverage after they leave and they are in no hurry to change any of that.. they keep taking from us and nothing from themselves... ok im shutting up now i feel a nose bleed coming..