Mandatory Health Insurance part 3

[MrsSpringsteen]

Misguided? More like bat shit crazy. But I guess he can't say that. Not to mention an insult to the victims of both tragedies.

Not to make light of it at all but I can't get the image out of my head of an attack of the giant contraceptives.



Sen. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii said Rep. Mike Kelly’s comments were “misguided.”

"I witnessed the attack on Pearl Harbor and had the privilege of serving in the United States Army during World War II," Inouye, 87, who will celebrate 50 years as a senator in January, said in a statement.

"It is complete nonsense to suggest that a matter discussed, debated, and approved by the Congress and the President is akin to a surprise attack that killed nearly 2,500 people and launched our nation into the second World War.”

[anitram]

I hope the Republican members of Congress keep ranting against birth control all the way until November.

I'm actually very surprised that their leadership hasn't done a better job at muzzling some of these guys. It's such a loser of an issue for them, every poll is blatantly obviously against them and yet they keep staying the course. Wonderful news for anyone who doesn't want Romney elected.

Particularly affected will be older women who lived through the 60s as teenagers and young women - women of my Mom's generation for whom these comments bring up an especially strong reaction.

[KhanadaRhodes]

the thing i got from that quote was the weird way of saying the dates. december 7th, september 11th, august...the first? i'm picturing some king, not a date. and whenever politicians like this open their mouths about this topic, i can't help but think they didn't pay any attention during sex ed class.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by anitram

I'm actually very surprised that their leadership hasn't done a better job at muzzling some of these guys.

I think it's very telling of the Republican leadership and why the only women leaders the party can seem to attract are the Sarah Palin's or Culter's of the world.

[corianderstem]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

Republican likens contraceptive mandate to Pearl Harbor, 9/11

Christ, what an asshole.

[Moonlit_Angel]

"I know in your mind you can think of times when America was attacked. One is December 7th, that's Pearl Harbor day. The other is September 11th, and that's the day of the terrorist attack," Kelly said at a press conference on Capitol Hill. "I want you to remember August the 1st, 2012, the attack on our religious freedom. That is a day that will live in infamy, along with those other dates.

Really?

"My name is Mike Kelly, and I'm a complete and total dumbass."

"This is a right that every American should be outraged, outraged about what this administration and Secretary Sibelius has set forth here on August the 1st," New York Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (R) said at the same press conference as Kelly. "And as Mike said, August the 1st is a day that we as American will look at as the largest assault on our First Amendment rights."

It's cute how they care about rights when it affects them. They sure don't seem to give a crap about trampling on other people's rights.

And once again, of course, it's men coming out and making comments on this issue. 'Cause they're clearly the ones who will be the most affected. I feel for them, really, I do.

[KhanadaRhodes]

i still don't see how this is an "assault on (their) first amendment rights" - more instances of the extreme right not knowing what's in the constitution.

the first amendment covers...
- free exercise clause
- establishment clause
- freedom of speech
- freedom of the press
- freedom of assembly
- right to petition

hmm, i see nothing in there about the "right to never wrap it before you tap it" (i can't think of a witty phrase about birth control pills)

[digitize]

Originally Posted by KhanadaRhodes

i still don't see how this is an "assault on (their) first amendment rights" - more instances of the extreme right not knowing what's in the constitution.

the first amendment covers...
- free exercise clause
- establishment clause
- freedom of speech
- freedom of the press
- freedom of assembly
- right to petition

hmm, i see nothing in there about the "right to never wrap it before you tap it" (i can't think of a witty phrase about birth control pills)

I think it's a somewhat reasonable constitutional argument that it interferes on the constitutional right to freedom of religion of an employer to not pay for their employees' birth control on religious ground.

That being said, freedom of religion (as well as speech and the press) aren't totally rigid, and they've never been treated as such. Legal action can be taken against some speech, and the good ol' "my religion says that I should smoke marijuana, so drug laws don't apply to me" argument doesn't tend to hold water in court. This issue to me is on really shaky constitutional ground, on both sides. And it is times like these when Constitution-worship bugs me.

The founders, of course, would probably not have envisioned a world where the government requires that employers provide a certain degree of health care to employees. But they also would not have envisioned a world with a health care system even remotely similar to the one we have right now. The libertarian argument is that it's absurd for the federal government to be involved in health care in any way, shape, or form. And there are definitely strong constitutional arguments in favor of that. It's silly to try to extract "framers' intent" as if the framers had one unified universal message to transmit to posterity, because they didn't, and they often disagreed, which adds to the murkiness. Again, to me, the Constitution is a very imperfect document no matter how you slice it.

I personally lean towards single-payer to get out of this issue and around the bureaucratic complexities of the Affordable Care Act in general, though I obviously don't have a problem with ACA's overall goal. One could argue that it is just as much an infringement on freedom of religion of whatever religious people actually have a problem with birth control for the government to be using taxpayer money to pay for birth control, but that's a wildly slippery slope. Amongst people who protested against the Iraq War in 2003, I'm sure that there were at least a few pacifists on religious grounds who objected to their taxpayer money being used for that war, and them suing the government would not have stopped the war.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by KhanadaRhodes

i still don't see how this is an "assault on (their) first amendment rights" - more instances of the extreme right not knowing what's in the constitution.

the first amendment covers...
- free exercise clause
- establishment clause
- freedom of speech
- freedom of the press
- freedom of assembly
- right to petition

hmm, i see nothing in there about the "right to never wrap it before you tap it" (i can't think of a witty phrase about birth control pills)

And where does it speak to the "right" to free contraception? Free being a misnomer since others would be forced to pay for it, possibly against the teachings of their faith.

[KhanadaRhodes]

Originally Posted by INDY500

And where does it speak to the "right" to free contraception? Free being a misnomer since others would be forced to pay for it, possibly against the teachings of their faith.

did i say it was in the constitution? before getting all snarky, you could at least read my post before picking a two week old post to reply to.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

And where does it speak to the "right" to free contraception? Free being a misnomer since others would be forced to pay for it, possibly against the teachings of their faith.

where do you have the right to refuse to cover certain medications and not others? you're not buying it outright, nor are you using it yourself. what gives you the right to determine what is and what is not appropriate for someone else's health?

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

where do you have the right to refuse to cover certain medications and not others? you're not buying it outright, nor are you using it yourself. what gives you the right to determine what is and what is not appropriate for someone else's health?

Have you forgotten that private healthcare companies, Medicaid, Medicare and the VA all have drug formularies?

What is the moral argument that because something is medically appropriate it follows that someone else is obligated to pay for it?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Have you forgotten that private healthcare companies, Medicaid, Medicare and the VA all have drug formularies?

What is the moral argument that because something is medically appropriate it follows that someone else is obligated to pay for it?

Obligated to pay for it? That's a convenient formulation.

[Irvine511]

Further, where does it end? What other treatments can I refuse to cover because I find immoral?

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Further, where does it end? What other treatments can I refuse to cover because I find immoral?

Just a reminder, I'm the guy who thought "healthcare reform" should include severing health insurance from the workplace making discussions such as this moot. Your guy went the other way however. Less choice, less competition, more rules, more taxes and more Barack Obama in our lives.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Just a reminder, I'm the guy who thought "healthcare reform" should include severing health insurance from the workplace making discussions such as this moot. Your guy went the other way however. Less choice, less competition, more rules, more taxes and more Barack Obama in our lives.

Except that's been proven not to work. Your way would create the same amount of rules, same choice, same lobbying collectivism among companies, and less actual healthcare for human beings.

[INDY500]

PrintTemplate

New England Journal of Medicine Blasts Obamacare
Friday, 19 Oct 2012 01:36 PM By Nick Tate

Obamacare will do little to address two of the three major problems facing the U.S. healthcare system — holding down costs and boosting the quality of care for patients, according to a scathing article published in this week’s prestigious New England Journal of Medicine.

The “perspective” piece notes that while the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is likely to address the third major challenge facing healthcare — expanding coverage to uninsured Americans — the goals of addressing costs and quality “remain aspirations and promises” without much else in the way of detailed provisions or proposals.

“Although the ACA expands coverage, it ignores the structural problems in the organization and reimbursement of care — a limitation that is disappointing but not surprising,” said the editorial’s author Gail Wilensky, an economist and a senior fellow at Project HOPE, an international health education foundation. “Adding more people to the insurance rolls is politically and technically easier than finding a way to ensure that care is effective, high-quality, and affordable for both the recipients and taxpayers.”

Wilensky said Obamacare’s primary accomplishment is likely to be that some 30 million previously uninsured people may end up with coverage — about half through new state insurance exchanges and the other half through Medicaid expansions.” But she argues the law's controversial individual mandate — requiring all Americans to have insurance coverage or to pay a penalty tax of several hundred dollars — may instead encourage people to postpone buying insurance until they need it. That’s because insurers will not be able to refuse coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, or charge them higher rates.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has projected about 11-12 million Americans will be subject to the individual mandate’s penalties — and half will simply opt to pay the tax.

Among the other key points of the editorial:

MEDICARE CUTS: Obamacare provides Medicare “productivity adjustments,” but unless these institutions find ways to reduce costs, lower Medicare reimbursements will force providers to bargain for higher payments from private insurers. “Eventually, seniors' access to services will be threatened,” she said. “The Medicare actuary expects that 15 percent of institutional providers will lose money on their Medicare business by 2019, and the proportion will increase to 25 percent by 2030.”

NO MARKET-BASED REFORMS: Like Medicare, Obamacare relies on regulatory methods, instead of harnessing market forces, to promote spending reductions and improve quality of care. If that approach fails, the law authorizes an Independent Payment Advisory Board to reduce payments to clinicians and institutions. Although Congress can override the IPAB's recommendations, it can do so only by a three-fifth’s “super majority,” and only if it acts within a limited time and comes up with comparable savings.

“What is needed are reforms that create clear financial incentives that promote value over volume, with active engagement by both consumers and the healthcare sector,” Wilensky added. “Market-friendly reforms require empowering individuals, armed with good information and non-distorting subsidies, to choose the type of Medicare delivery system they want.”

Is anyone surprised that in the center-piece of his presidency Barack “I believe that the free enterprise system is the greatest engine of prosperity the world’s ever known” Obama went with more bureaucratic control and government regulation rather than market-based reforms and individual empowerment?

[digitize]

The reason why most of the developed world has cheaper health care than the US does is because single payer health care systems have monopsony buying power... also known as "government bureaucracy".

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by digitize

The reason why most of the developed world has cheaper health care than the US does is because single payer health care systems have monopsony buying power... also known as "government bureaucracy". price controls... also known as rationing.

Fixed.

[digitize]

Actually, that's not what monopsony is, and that's a wild misrepresentation of health care in the rest of the developed world. Moreover, even if government-funded health care did have "rationing"... so? It's just what the government pays for. People could still supplement by paying for their own care, just like what happens in the US now for our entire system.