Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 9
(Crossposted)

Snips from Larry Kudlow article ----

"........As a 60-something, relatively healthy person, I don't want lactation and maternity services, abortion services, speech therapy, mammograms, fertility treatments or Viagra. I don't want it. So why should I have to tear up my existing health-care plan, and then buy a plan with far more expensive premiums and deductibles, and with services I don't need or want?

Why? Because Team Obama says I have to. And that's not much of a reason. It's not freedom.

"Fortunately, NBC News pulled the plug this past week on President Barack Obama's promise that "if you like your own plan, you can keep it." Ditto for keeping your own doctor. The plug was pulled because NBC learned that Team Obama knew—for three years—that stiff new regulations would prevent the grandfathering of existing health-care plans. And not just a few plans. But plans that could affect as many as 15 million individuals.

"The day after that bombshell hit, the president tried to blame insurers rather than regulatory overkill for this Obamacare shortfall. Yet both the public and the mainstream media were having none of it. In what may turn out to be a landmark moment, Americans and the media at large have turned against the president and Obamacare...."

(More at)
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101164217

Thanks for speaking out, Larry!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 17
Speaking the Republican Party line is hardly "speaking out" for Larry Kudlow.

More like "more of the same."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 28
Next he'll be telling us how he's outraged that his tax money is being used to build or repair roads he doesn't use or that he resents money being spent on DOD when he hasn't personally been attacked by another country.

No doubt he'll sign up for MediCare and one day hear young folks say, "I'm not old and broke so why should I have to pay for it?"
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 55
"I don't want lactation and maternity services, abortion services, speech therapy, mammograms, fertility treatments or Viagra."


Pregnancy is fairly predictable. If the only folks who pay for this coverage are those planning to use it in the next year...well, you do the math. That's the problem with individual coverage.
Now, if you work for GE, your coverage is the same as everyone else in that plan. The insurance company doesn't just come in and allow everyone who will never need it to get a discount and drop maternity coverage.

What the ACA does is turn the individual market into something akin to the employer marketplace, which, in the long run, will give it pricing power. That does not work if you can buy a $90 a month "catastrophic" policy and then just up that coverage if you happen to get pregnant and need maternity coverage.

Now, my children went to Catholic schools but that never allowed me to avoid paying public school taxes. Today, I have no children in my household and I'm still paying those taxes. Why? Because without that, the property tax system fails.

"But plans that could affect as many as 15 million individuals."

The number of uninsured is alot more than that and yet THAT number never quite got the GOP's fancy the way this new , 15 million, number does. In addition, those 15 million will all have access to health insurance...but I guess it makes for good blogging.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 55
"........As a 60-something, relatively healthy person, I don't want lactation and maternity services, abortion services, speech therapy, mammograms, fertility treatments or Viagra. I don't want it. So why should I have to tear up my existing health-care plan, and then buy a plan with far more expensive premiums and deductibles, and with services I don't need or want?

. . . It's not freedom.


phttttt!!!

As a 50-something, relatively peaceful person, I don't want to engage in warfare with every country in the world whose leader says something that insults some Americans. I don't want it. So why should I have to pay so much tax money for our ridiculously expensive military that I don't want?

. . . It's not freedom.

People could say the same thing about farm subsidies or food stamps or social security or Medicare, . . . virtually any government program. Since when did Americans become so naive about government that they thought they had the right to pick and choose what programs they would contribute to like choosing food ala carte from a menu?

The point that the reactionary Obama haters seem to want to overlook is that insurance companies were screwing people who needed insurance. They were dropping them when the cost of their healthcare increased too much. They were using bureaucracy to deny or stall payment on customers when they were no longer healthy - sometimes postponing coverage until the customer died. They were refusing to insure any illness or problem for new customers if they had a prior condition that might relate to it. This resulted in effectively trapping people in the states they lived and with the insurance they had since a move of either one would result in loss of coverage.

So healthy people with a low cost, high deductible policy might see the new law require them to buy more insurance than they were buying prior to this. But if they stop to think about how (in the absence of ACA) they might get treated if something ever happened to them and they really needed insurance, maybe they will be a little more satisfied with the deal.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2



"........As a 60-something, relatively healthy person, I don't want lactation and maternity services, abortion services, speech therapy, mammograms, fertility treatments or Viagra. I don't want it.


This is the most ridiculous argument, if you don't want it, then you will not have to fork over money for the Co-pays. That's why health care insurance is designed with Co-pays. People who utilize the services pay out of their pocket, a percentage, concomitantly with the insurance program they have secured. If you Don't utilize a service you Don't Pay For It.

Get it?
As was pointed out, the same is not true with other government programs, like public schools, if you don't have children you have to pay property taxes like the neighbor who might have 8 children in public school.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"This is the most ridiculous argument, if you don't want it, then you will not have to fork over money for the Co-pays."

Duh...you don't get it... he is paying higher premiums to subsidize women's services.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This is the most ridiculous argument, if you don't want it, then you will not have to fork over money for the Co-pays. That's why health care insurance is designed with Co-pays. People who utilize the services pay out of their pocket, a percentage, concomitantly with the insurance program they have secured. If you Don't utilize a service you Don't Pay For It.
_____________________________________________

OH MY GOD, they are this stupid!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 29




Duh...you don't get it... he is paying higher premiums to subsidize women's services.


Viagra? speech therapy? fertility treatments?

And women should have to pay for prostate exams and prostate cancer.
Every year, more than 200,000 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer, and women should have to pay for it?

is that really your argument?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"is that really your argument?
"

the point is neither should be subsidizing the other for their specific needs based on gender.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I do not want farm subsidies

Why do I have to pay taxes to support such things.

Because rich Republicans contribute to Republican politicians.

And that's not much of a reason.

It's not freedom.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"I do not want farm subsidies

Why do I have to pay taxes to support such things.

Because rich Republicans contribute to Republican politicians.

And that's not much of a reason.

It's not freedom.
"

Right on. Let's do away with ALL subsidies including Oil companies, green companies, auto bail outs, banks etc..
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
the point is neither should be subsidizing the other for their specific needs based on gender.

I see you have a very clear understanding of how "insurance" works. Or, you know, not.

-synchronicity
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"I see you have a very clear understanding of how "insurance" works. Or, you know, not.

-synchronicity
"

You appear confused by your lack of clarity.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2




You appear confused...

the point is neither should be subsidizing the other for their specific needs based on gender...


You've been owned, and put to bed... kiss it off and go back to the cartoons
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>Right on. Let's do away with ALL subsidies including Oil companies, green companies, auto bail outs, banks etc..

I'm down.

When we need to encourage a national industrial policy use taxes.

Example: A tax on fossil fuels because any person with a brain knows that we need to use few fossil fuels in the future.

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"You've been owned, and put to bed... kiss it off and go back to the cartoons
"

Only in your delusional dreams.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
MOst Americans like Larry, will have good supplemental coverage for the many things Medicare does not provide for. He'll likely pay extra Medicare premiums during retirement.

Those things are completely foreign to those that believe the Democrat party line, and will have to pay for their coma-like lifestyle. I can only imagine what happens when 47% of those that pay no federal income tax go on the dole 100%
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The Obummer Administration forgot the KISS principle when they passed this ACA BS. Instead of passing a ridiculously complicated and unnecessarily expensive mess like they did in ACA, what they should have done was pass a simple law that outlawed the sins of the insurance companies such as barring people with pre-existing conditions, cancelling people's insurance when they get sick, etc., etc., yadda, yadda, yadda, upgraded the standard of proof required in medical lawsuits to something a lot higher than preponderance of the evidence and given states incentives to do the same on their level, allowed the insurance companies to raise or lower their rates to reflect what this did to their costs, and jacked up the income tax to pay for administering this. No need to get any government involved in the insurance racket beyond playing referee if somebody violates this. There was no need, and indeed great harm, for Obummer to pass this mess, and when Obummer's own supporters see how many of them get harmed, and how badly, by this disorganized disaster, they might tell him to take the ACA and shove it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Duh...you don't get it... he is paying higher premiums to subsidize women's services.

Viagra? speech therapy? fertility treatments?


Also, mammograms are given to men too -- as a diagnostic for breast cancer (which men can get).

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancerinmen/detailedguide...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
the point is neither should be subsidizing the other for their specific needs based on gender.

I see you have a very clear understanding of how "insurance" works. Or, you know, not.

-synchronicity
_________________________

You do understand there is no subsidy in insurance correct?

You pay your money to a central pool and based on the basis of the risk that you will need to draw money from a pool of a lot of other folks you pay in the amount to keep the pool full based on your calculated need to take money from the pool.

That amount you pay in is not subsidized by anyone. You pay in according to how much it is worth to the insurer to safely add you to the pool. The fact that if you are the unlucky one who draws down the pool, it is not subsidized money, the shared pool is not a subsidy.

It is only a subsidized situation if the insurer for some reason charges you less than the right amount, then the insurer must take too much from someone else -- too much being more than their calculation of the risk of adding that other person, because they are less likely to take money out. In making someone else pay too much a subsidy is created. If I charge a person with pre-existing heart failure the same as someone with no disease there is a subsidy, I am obviously undercharging them and overcharging someone, assuming they both came to the company to buy insurance at the same time of course. You can make a phony argument with the well if they got sick while ensured, but at the time insurance start, unless you base the cost on how much it will take to keep the pool stocked if all candidates were of the health of the specific person being insured you are creating a subsidy situation.

Not understanding something as simple as what a subsidy is, or what insurance is, really does indicate you would really do everyone a favor by staying home on election day.

This is not complicated stuff.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Sorry I can only recommend this once, Rich.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The simple fact is this, many policies that were purchased did not have maternity benefits, now they are required. If the ultimate goal was Universal coverage, why not make it easier and more palatable, not to mention more affordable?

Once you get past the political and ideological differences of whether you like Obamacare or not, why did they have to limit choice so much, especially when the added coverages may not be needed ever? I would also think that by not making me get a plan with maternity coverage, the insurance company's profits would go down, another goal of Obamacare.

"There are lots of insurance policies, especially on the individual market, that are really bare bones. Some argue they shouldn't even be called insurance coverage, because their coverage is too sparse to insure against financial ruin. One report from the Obama administration, issued in 2011, found that 62 percent of individual market plans don't offer maternity care. Eighteen percent do not cover mental health benefits and 9 percent do not pay for prescription drugs.
The health-care law requires insurance plans to cover all of those things, and then some.
This includes spending at least 80 percent of subscriber premiums on medical care (leaving 20 percent for administration and profits), covering 10 benefit categories and providing preventive care without any co-payment.
That means insurance companies cannot, under the Affordable Care Act, keep selling the plans that they used to sell -- the ones that don't cover prescription drugs and maternity care. And that means that some people who liked purchasing coverage without maternity care and prescription drugs won't be able to keep those plans.
The cancellation notices are a feature of the Affordable Care Act, not a bug. The idea was to make insurance coverage more robust -- and that means cancelling policies that offer less thorough coverage."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/29/t...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"The simple fact is this, many policies that were purchased did not have maternity benefits, now they are required. If the ultimate goal was Universal coverage, why not make it easier and more palatable, not to mention more affordable?

"

Because this the radical left modus operandi. Their idea solving problems is to impact the everybody, write a multi-thousand page legislation and give the 4th estate wide latitude in writing regulations that enable them to push their agenda behind closed doors.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
one more thing...the radical left's arrogant view that they can control the market is why they are incapable of creating legislation that would actually reduce costs.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
rinjr says

The Obummer Administration forgot the KISS principle when they passed this ACA BS. Instead of passing a ridiculously complicated and unnecessarily expensive mess like they did in ACA, what they should have done was pass a simple law that outlawed the sins of the insurance companies such as barring people with pre-existing conditions, cancelling people's insurance when they get sick, etc., etc., yadda, yadda, yadda, upgraded the standard of proof required in medical lawsuits to something a lot higher than preponderance of the evidence and given states incentives to do the same on their level, allowed the insurance companies to raise or lower their rates to reflect what this did to their costs, and jacked up the income tax to pay for administering this. No need to get any government involved in the insurance racket beyond playing referee if somebody violates this. There was no need, and indeed great harm, for Obummer to pass this mess, and when Obummer's own supporters see how many of them get harmed, and how badly, by this disorganized disaster, they might tell him to take the ACA and shove it.

You're right. I agree. And you know, Conservatives could have written it so much better.

Only, you know, they didn't want to.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
"You're right. I agree. And you know, Conservatives could have written it so much better.

"

Conservatives would never have written any such legislation that gives power to the federal government over 1/6th of the economy .
Print the post Back To Top