Here's a viewpoint which does not concentrate on the Constitutional issue.
...The argument seems to be that it's important for women, so therefore it should be free to women. There are lots of things that are at least as important, though, that we certainly don't expect to be free: food, for example, or sufficient clothing for the winter. The argument seems to be that birth control ought to be free (and indeed it is, in the form of abstinence, a form of birth control that Catholics consider it a virtue to materially assist: but I digress). It ought to be free, and any employer ought to be sure that any of their employees receives it as free.
This is really an astonishing demand. I could understand demanding it at cost: we could structure an argument whereby insurance companies are understood to receive a reasonable profit, and as part of the price of approving the practice of the business in the state, we mandate that they arrange to provide certain critical medications to their consumers at cost. We might ask, even then, why birth control or abortifacients would be the medicine we chose to occupy this position of special importance -- surely life-saving drugs would be a more worthy choice? Still, at least at cost could conceivably be a reasonable demand.
Free, though? Nothing is free. Everyone knows this....
But "Free Stuff" is what Democrats do, you know.
HT: Grim
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I'm a woman. I think this rule is horrid. But then, I think all the mandates in ObozoCare are horrid. One big reason we have skyrocketing healthcare costs is because we removed the "cost" from the equation.
Nothing is free
Next up? Limiting the salaries of those evil 1% doctors...
To command that a thing should be free is to command that anyone should do whatever it takes to provide it to whomever should ask for it. There are few things that have had that status in history: hospitality, perhaps, in the sense of water and salt in the desert.
And yet even those things carried a great price: for what does it mean to have eaten another man's salt? Of old it meant that he could never harm you, and neither could you ever betray him. It was a powerful bond.
This is not a bond of that type. It is meant to be... free. ' An entitlement' I suppose is the modern way of saying it. But what kind of thing is this?
What is it that nobody here seems to understand that "without copay" is not equivalent to "free"?
Does anybody here care to take a guess WHY people should be encouraged to avail themselves of PREVENTATIVE care by not having to pay out-of-pocket to get them?
Anybody? Bueller?
PREVENTATIVE care by not having to pay out-of-pocket to get them?
You mean... Free?
Also, the entire meme of low/no cost preventative care was proven false with the HMO experiment. Not only did costs not fall with all of that low/no cost Preventative care, it skyrocketed.
Why?
Maybe because it disconnected the cost of the service from the consumer? And now people really believe they are entitled to things "by not having to pay out of pocket" to get them. Somebody else was oaying out of their pockets. I think we are running out of pockets to pick...
Also, the entire meme of low/no cost preventative care was proven false with the HMO experiment.
I reject that.
Why does Anthem take the time to call me up every month to check on how I'm doing with my blood sugar and other health concerns? Sure this costs them money to do. Why would they do that?
Why does my dental insurance cover my checkups and cleaning with no copay but only 80% of crowns and implants?
Because working to prevent disease pays off. Anthem is a smart company. They know that money spent now lowers the cost of care in the future. They wouldn't do that if they didn't know it was true. And I pay premiums for that care and attention.
You may choose to pay a lower premium and higher deductible if that works for you. I choose higher premiums, lower deductible and lower copays. Either way, we both pay. It's NOT free.
Anthem probably calls you because your employer wants them to and pays them to.
But lets look st this another way. We'll use me as an example.
My company actually offers vision - some don't. I feel fortunate. But they offer two levels. "Basic" which does not require an additional premium from me and "Premium". I had been selecting the premium option. But when I looked at the costs incurred for the past three years, I chose Basic this year. Why? Because I was paying close to $200 per year for the "extra" coverage for higher cost frames and coatings for me and my daughter. Even with the "Premium" option, I still had out of pocket costs. When I looked at the cost of the glasses and what I was paying out of pocket... It was less expensive for me to pay more at the time of service than it was for the extra coverage.
My employer is self-insured, but offers three options for premium/deductible. If you keep track of your medical expenses in great detail like I do, then it becomes very clear that the only reason for the most expensive premium with the lowest deductible is if you know you have a major expense coming up - like having a baby or surgery. Or if someone has a chronic disease like MS or diabetes.
Along with that, I have a very mild case of scoliosis. Not debilitating, but enough to have my hip not quite be in the right place on occasion. To care for that, I see a chiropractor. My coverage through my employer does have Chiropractic, but I don't use it. My doc and I worked out a cash plan. She doesn't have to deal with forms, and I get a huge "discount" off of what she would have had to charge to make up for all the bureaucracy.
When someone in the family needed an MRI last year. The hospital offered a quick-pay discount of an additional 25% on top of group plan discount. We also question the necessity of tests now. Instead of running all of them at once, we ask if how about we try the "normal" stuff first and then go for the more exoctic if needed.
Imagine how much people could save out there if they just paid better attention instead of Jim's attitude of pay a premium and forget it.
There is not a One-Size-Fits-All person or family out there. I fail to understand why ObamaCare supporters think there is a One-Size-Fits-All plan.
Mandating that everything is covered for everybody will do nothing but increase costs and infringe on a whole lotta individual liberty.
Anthem probably calls you because your employer wants them to and pays them to.
Very likely...because my employer wants to lessen the growth of its cost. So?
Imagine how much people could save out there if they just paid better attention instead of Jim's attitude of pay a premium and forget it.
This is judgemental and ignorant. I too question procedures and tests. My orthopedic surgeon has suggested procedures that I didn't feel were absolutely necessary.
You insult people when you assert that only YOU take the time to carefully consider the types of coverage you are willing to pay for and the treatments you will accept, and that all are willing to except a steep curve of growth in health care costs.
I'm invested in my health care and the care of my family. I get nothing for free. Nothing. I ask for nothing for free.
I fail to understand why [PPACA] supporters think there is a One-Size-Fits-All plan.
I fail to understand why Obama haters think that a few rules and standards constitute a "One-Size-Fits-All plan."
You are free to buy any car you want in this country. And there are hundreds of makes and models to fit the needs and desires of every family and every driver.
And yet they MUST have brakes. They MUST have brake lights and headlights. They must have turn signals. They must have rear view mirrors. They must have seat belts. They must meet minimum safety standards.
PPACA allows for dozens of plans to fit innumerable family needs differently in every state. You can have high deductibles or no deductibles. You can have high copays or no copays. There are a few new rules: covering kids to age 26, covering pre-existing conditions, no copay for preventive services.
To call PPACA One-Size-Fits-All is quite ignorant.
Mandating that everything is covered for everybody
More ignorance. PPACA does no such thing.
Sure Jim. Insisting that every plan cover the same things makes it infinitely flexible. It will make it all cheaper too.. Except that it won't.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/11/obamacare-architect-expect-steep-increase-in-health-care-premiums/
And all of these extra agencies and tens of thousands of pages of regulations will be models of efficiency.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/03/obamacare-the-infinite-bureaucracy-act/
Insisting that every plan cover the same things makes it infinitely flexible.
PPACA doesn't do that. It just doesn't, plain and simple. It has minimum requirements, not specific coverages.
Here's one for you:
New Study: Health Care Costs Fall When Poor Get Health Care Coverage
Except that "minimum" coverage is covering everything. And then it says how much it can cost. And will determine if the plan is acceptable. Yup. Lots and lots of flexibility.
First sentence: false
Second sentence: false
Third sentence: true, just like you or your employer would
Fourth sentence: Yup
Fifth sentence: Yup
Post a Comment