March 24, 2017

For the annals of bad right-wing jokes.

"I wouldn’t want to lose my mammograms."

187 comments:

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Yup. Can't fix Obamacare because women might lose some free stuff they deserve to get. Everyone has to pay for things so that women can get free stuff, because it's our duty as men to pay extra for women, because that's what equality is.

Definitely a sustainable model, no question--Democrats give women free stuff and get votes (from women), the programs cost a ton and don't work well, and then when Republicans try to change the programs and possibly reduce the free stuff everyone shouts "you hate women, you're harming women, this will not stand!" and nothing gets fixed.

I cant' see any way that dynamic would ruin a nation, no ma'am.

Ken B said...

You don't need insurance for predictable low cost expenses. Bundling such things into "insurance" is a large part of the problem.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

The political perils of men proclaiming their thoughts on what women ought to say or how they ought to receive medical care should be clear enough to the Republicans.

Yup. Men shouldn't tell women what they ought to say or ought to think. Women can tell me what they ought to say and ought to think, of course, but that's only fitting--women are a lot smarter and more emotionally intelligent than men are. Again, that's what equality means.

Interestingly, the Left doesn't see any political peril in telling the non-Left how to think or how they should live, etc. I mean the whole "What's The Matter With Kansas" premise is that the Left knows how people who vote for non-Left candidates & policies should actually vote--it's the Left telling everyone else how they should think about issues. It's not just an acknowledgement of a difference of values, see, it's actually the Left saying that those people simply don't understand what's in their own best interest.
Which, you know, is kinda what this author is accusing Republican lawmakers of doing on this single topic. Well, male Republican lawmakers.

Lewis Wetzel said...

The political perils of men proclaiming their thoughts on what women ought to say or how they ought to receive medical care should be clear enough to the Republicans.
There is a certain tone deafness on the part of Democrats who do not understand that men should not be required to pay for the health care of women.
We're equal, right?

Jason said...

Note: Planned Parenthood does not do mammograms.

Ever.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

On Thursday, a photograph that was widely circulated on Twitter showed a room packed with white men

Hey, wait a damn minute! How does this lady reporter know those are all white men? She's just looking at the picture, right? How the hell does she know if all those people self-identify as white and as men? Did the NYTimes fact check that by calling each one and getting them to agree that the self-identify in that way?
I am pretty sure the standard is that you aren't allowed to judge someone's gender just from appearances. Those people LOOK like what was traditionally considered "male," sure. But if I draw that conclusion I'm told I'm a vicious sexist and transphobe. Why is the NYTimes not holding this author to that same standard?

It's almost like all that talk about gender is complete horseshit, huh?

buwaya puti said...

Note that the article is about messaging, not substance. About feelings.

EDH said...

Why shouldn't "reproductive choice" include whether you want to pay for maternity coverage?

And plenty of men will have to pay the extra premium as part of a family plan, won't they?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Jason said...Note: Planned Parenthood does not do mammograms.


Yup, exactly correct. Note her careful wording, after mentioning mammograms ealier: "The bill would also cut federal funding for Planned Parenthood, which says it provides preventive care services and screenings to 1 in 5 American women." Not only does she not specify WHICH preventative care services (in an attempt to get the reader to assume that must include mammograms), she's not really vouching for the truth of the assertion she's presenting--she's only saying that PP SAYS they do something, not that it's a fact that they actually do.

Pretty weasel-y, really.

AprilApple said...

The left insist WE ALL must pay for poor helpless wiminz free stuff.

We must also pay for big bird, and every corrupt leftwing money hole.

Gahrie said...

Could you imagine the hysteria if men had a life expectancy five years longer than women?

Gahrie said...

Why shouldn't "reproductive choice" include whether you want to pay for maternity coverage?

And plenty of men will have to pay the extra premium as part of a family plan, won't they?


Because silly, men don't have reproductive choices, they have reproductive responsibilities....

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Anyway this whole article is highly problematic.

Men can have periods. Men can have babies. I've been told that over and over recently by the Media, and of course the Media can't be wrong. Gender is a social construct and anything that's a social construct can be changed on a whim and is not restricted by something as petty as objective fact. So, since it has been decided that anyone who self-identifies as a man is a man the premise of this article (that there's a problem of "women's health care" issues that men aren't correctly addressing) is both invalid and hurtful.

I'm shocked that NYTimes' "senior correspondent and editor on gender issues" would commit such wrongthink. Honestly, there oughta be a law.

rehajm said...

We must also pay for big bird, and every corrupt leftwing money hole.

Big Bird flew the coop to HBO but we still can't cut PBS funding because...BIG BIRD!

Weasel words!

AprilApple said...

PBS is flush with money. It's a crock that they need ANY tax payer funding.
Why don't you ask Obama to ask the Iranian Mullahs to give American tax payers their 400 million back.

AprilApple said...

It's "choice" when leftists force you to pay.

AprilApple said...

Meanwhile - CA Maddowcrats can't fix a dam.

rehajm said...

Spicers joke however was spot on and highlights the ridiculous nature of Obamacare mandates: “Well, I think if you’re an older man, you can generally say you’re not going to need maternity care.”

wwww said...



Maternity & pre-natal coverage shouldn't cost women more. Likewise insurance agencies shouldn't be able to refuse coverage for women who have had c-sections, calling it a pre-existing condition.

We shouldn't make the cost of abortion less then the cost of pregnancy.

Big Mike said...

Unmarried men should not be forced to pay for mammograms or maternity benefits unless women are forced to pay for PSA tests.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Also, and just as an aside, the facts don't support the Left/NYTimes line. Shocking, I know.

The proposed changes would eliminate federal rules requiring everything and the kitchen sink be covered under "essential health benefits" for health insurance policies. The change would NOT say anything about STATE rules regarding what's required to be included in a health insurance policy, so if a given STATE demands that policies sold within that state contain X, Y, or Z coverage, it will still be required.
I looked in this article but I don't see that fact mentioned, even though its essential to understanding and evaluating the actual change being made. Strange, huh?

This particular provision, of course, is one of the ways then-President Obama can be show to have knowingly lied, over and over again, when selling Obamacare. At the time there existed "catastrophic only" health insurance plans, where relatively healthy people could purchase relatively inexpensive insurance that did not have very broad coverage (that is, did not include all the stuff Obamacare deemed "essential" like maternity coverage, pediatric dental care, etc) but did cover large, expensive health costs. Many Americans had those plans, and Obamacare definitely made all of those plans illegal, but then-President Obama insisted repeatedly that no one would lose their plan. They later changed that line to "no one would lose their plan unless they have a worthless junk plan" but most cat.-only plans weren't worthless or were they junk--they acted as actual insurance at a reasonable rate.

The Republican changes would make such plans POSSIBLE again, but only if a state agreed that the list of essential benefits didn't include all the things Obamacare includes. If California wants to stick with requiring all that stuff, they can. If other states want to make it legal for a business and a consumer to make a deal that satisfies both but doesn't happen to include things that Obamacare insists they must include, well, those states would be free to do so. Hey, that might even induce some of that "competition" and "efficiency" I used to hear so much about!

Kevin said...

So we're already back to the NYT before the bruised eye and the broken rib can heal?

I know, I know. You're doing it for your commenters.

Francisco D said...

From the NYT: "a room packed with white men ..."

This crap is getting really old. I cannot read past that phrase.

I reject collective guilt, implied or directly stated. It is anti-intellectual and non-empirical. It's a newer version of the white guilt game that conveniently excludes women. Will this manipulative BS ever end?

Note that my "White Guilt" credit card has been maxed out for a long time. I do not have a White Man Guilt card. The interest rates are ridiculous and it is set up so I can never pay the balance.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ooh, I almost forgot--I'm a man. An unmarried, childless white man, at that. My opinion doesn't matter and if I give my opinion on public that means I'm trying to tell other people how to think--including women people--and it's a grave offense for me to tell women what they should think or do.

Sorry--please ignore all my previous comments. And and future ones, just to be safe.

Nonapod said...

It's just far too easy for the lefties in the media to portray most Republican lawmakers as wealthy, white, out-of-touch old men who delight in punishing women by cutting various benefits (especially when they say silly things in lame attempts at being "funny").

Of course none of that is a rational argument. None of that is based on any kind of serious, reasoned discussion about the pros and cons of a particular government benefit. It's all just emotion and storytelling, appealing to the id. Unfortunately that sort of appeal works really well we loads of people, and thus we have a Democrat party.

mockturtle said...

If women were really united in anger, Trump would not have won the election. These harridans think that, through shrill 'outrage', they can win over the media and threaten elected officials. The former is obviously an effortless fait accompli. But if our congresspeople cower in the face of these threats, they deserve to be unseated.

rehajm said...

Obamacare has taught us when you force too many coverage mandates on everyone it raises insurance costs and premiums, forcing people out of the system, raising costs again for everyone else, forcing more people out of the system, and so on and so on and scooby dooby doo-bee...

AprilApple said...

Funny - leftist feminists need a man to pay for their stuff.

wwww said...

Unmarried men should not be forced to pay for mammograms or maternity benefits unless women are forced to pay for PSA tests.


I don't get this?

Do commenters really think pregnancy shouldn't be covered by health insurance? Or if it is covered, you want young women to pay more because of the risk of giving birth?

Or do you want her to give birth at home (a rising trend of women avoiding OB/GYNs they don't trust). Home birth is much less expensive. But the risk is MUCH higher of the unborn baby dying with a home birth. Higher stillborn rates of 3rd trimester babies.

Didn't we just have several threads where we talked about how women ought to give birth to down syndrome babies? And how it was immoral for a couple to choose a first trimester abortion rather then not give birth to a less-then-perfect babies. But less then perfect means MUCH higher risk of NICU. Heart issues are directly correlated with these trisomies.

The NICU is expensive. Very very expensive.

You want to charge women more for maternity care? Or not include maternity coverage at all in insurance?

If a woman of child-bearing age can't get maternity coverage, what is she to do if she gets pregnant?

Kevin said...

"Unmarried men should not be forced to pay for mammograms or maternity benefits unless women are forced to pay for PSA tests."

That's playing right into their game. We should pay for our own PSA tests and demand free booze.

wwww said...



What is a woman working as an independent computer contractor to do if she gets pregnant and an ultrasound picks up a birth defect?

exiledonmainstreet said...

mockturtle said...
If women were really united in anger, Trump would not have won the election"

53% of white women voted for Trump. But we are non-people, or non-women, according to the pussy hat brigade.

I know this sounds amazing but when I was in my 20's, my health insurance would covered me if I had been run over by a bus or had been in some other terrible accident, but I paid for my checkups and contraceptives and pap smears out of pocket. Once I hit 30, I thought it would be prudent to up the coverage a bit more and I did so again once I hit 40 but it never occurred to me that it was someone else's responsibility to decide what sort of coverage I should have or to pay for it.

Contrast that with a millennial I spoke to yesterday who thinks the government should be providing her with free tampons.

AprilApple said...

Make the man pay for it!

Lewis Wetzel said...

Blogger wwww said...

What is a woman working as an independent computer contractor to do if she gets pregnant and an ultrasound picks up a birth defect?
3/24/17, 10:39 AM


What is a male working as an independent computer contractor to do if an EMR reveals testicular cancer?

Fernandinande said...

FNYT says: a room packed with white men

Virtue signaled!

FNYT also says: "Vast Study Casts Doubts on Value of Mammograms"

tim in vermont said...

The perfect storm was to maleducate so many women while leaving them hugely in debt and all but unemployable except maybe in retail, but making up for it because Twitter is free.

AprilApple said...

wwww

The free market can answer your questions. We should all be free to buy the insurance we want and the coverage we want, depending on our age and gender. We should be able to do this without the government stepping in, forcing us to pay for plans we don't need, coverage we don't need, at a price we cannot afford.

The left's premise is all wrong. We should start there. 40 years of government meddling, with the Obamacare cherry on top, has led us to this disaster.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

wwww...Do commenters really think pregnancy shouldn't be covered by health insurance? Or if it is covered, you want young women to pay more because of the risk of giving birth?

Yes, insurance that covers pregnancy should be available. No one is arguing that it shouldn't be.

Yes, the premium cost of insurance should be related to the actual coverage. It costs me less to insure my car than it would cost me to insure a Ferrari. The expected value of my potential losses, for my car, are much lower than the expected value of losses I might incur if I owned a Ferrari. No one thinks it's unfair of my insurance company to charge me more in that case.

Yes, some cross subsidies should exist within the insurance market for a given line of coverage. It already does--if pregnancy coverage was paid for only by women who chose it some of those women would not ever use the coverage, some of them would have standard low-cost pregnancies & births, and some of them would have complicated/unusually high cost pregnancies or births. The subsidy happens within the group/coverage type, just like for all other insurance.

What's unusual about the current scheme, and what people are actually objecting to, is forcing ALL plans to include coverage that many people do not want or need. The justification for this is that the money taken from people who don't want the coverage goes to help fund the coverage for people who do. That's factually correct, but it's not a moral argument. You could say the same thing about...well, anything! It's the equivalent of saying that my insurance should cover a Ferrari--and that I should pay the price for that insurance--even though I don't own a Ferrari. The justification "well some people do own a Ferrari, and if you don't subsidize their cost then their coverage will be expensive!" isn't all that persuasive.

If you want money for pregnancy care then pass a tax. Bump everyone's income tax rate up by 0.025% and use the money to subsidize actual healthcare spending just on pregnancy and childbirth. I'd vote for that, fine. Don't hide the cost in a logically-ridiculous mandate that forces me to buy something I don't want and pay more than I otherwise would for what I do want under the justification that I trust you that the money taken from me will actually be used for some good thing I'm supposed to support.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Am I the only one who can remember the before time, the long-long ago way back when Obamacare didn't exist? Did maternity coverage not exist in those ancient days? What the heck did women do then? It's all so hazy.

AprilApple said...

shorter leftist whining:

"You should have to pay for________________" **guilt trip guilt trip guilt trip guilt trip guilt trip**

Helpless feminist women in pussy hats hate you, yell at you to get out of there uterus but... "pay for my abortions, tax payer daddy!"

I thought feminism was about self-empowerment? I guess not.

Fernandinande said...

rehajm said...
Big Bird flew the coop to HBO but we still can't cut PBS funding because...BIG BIRD!
Weasel words!


I'd like to see children's program with a BIG WEASEL performing updated fairy-tales.

Little Red Riding Weasel
Hansel and Weasel
Beauty and the Weasel
The Little Weasel
Sleeping Weasel
Weaselrella
Rumpelweaselskin

paminwi said...

wwww are you dense? Insurance for women was ALWAYS more expensive than for a man! How do I know this? Because I was the person in human resources who explained to new employees, those changing status, i.e. getting married, what the cost of their insurance would be. A single male between ages 18-30 would pay a substantially lower rate than a woman in same age group mainly because that is prime child-bearing years (for a woman in the traditional way of defining a woman). And believe it or not, women go to the doctor waaaaay more than men in every age group. So therefore, their policies would cost more.
They did away with birth, gender and age cost differences in Obamacare and that is one reason why insurers had to raise rates so much. It is time to get back to paying for the services you choose for your family situation. Single, married +1, family, catastrophic, or anything in between. Selling across state lines would be a big help in addition to requiring health care providers having to spell out the cost of services. That way families will have a much better idea of what they are going to get charged for!

wwww said...

Am I the only one who can remember the before time, the long-long ago way back when Obamacare didn't exist? Did maternity coverage not exist in those ancient days? What the heck did women do then? It's all so hazy.


This is personal for me. My sister is an independent contractor. She and her husband did not get pregnant because they had an issue finding coverage. The new health care plans covered maternity, so they got pregnant and now I have nephews.

They are done with having children, so it's not longer an issue for my family. Yea us!

But it's still a problem for encouraging people to give birth versus abortions. Uninsured NICU costs will destroy a family.

A family cannot wait until a woman is diagnosed with a unborn baby with a birth defect to get insurance under the old market system. Pregnancy and the birth defect in the unborn baby is a pre-existing condition.

It would be a horrible conundrum: do you destroy your family economically, and the economic security of your older children, in order to pay the NICU health costs of the child with a birth defect? What would you choose? Birth or an abortion?

wwww said...

It is time to get back to paying for the services you choose for your family situation.

Do you understand that if you advocate to allow insurance to not cover maternity and NICU costs, you are putting in more incentives for abortion?

Even someone who gives a baby up for adoption could be on the hook for NICU costs.

wwww said...

Helpless feminist women in pussy hats hate you, yell at you to get out of there uterus but... "pay for my abortions, tax payer daddy!"


NO The issue is paying for BIRTH to discourage abortion and stillbirth.

wwww said...



I don't care if they get rid of mental health and the other benefits.

But birth should be covered.

AReasonableMan said...

GOP Staffer said...
‘I’ve Never Seen So Many People Look At Something That’s Dead And Pretend It’s Not’

I Callahan said...

This is personal for me. My sister is an independent contractor. She and her husband did not get pregnant because they had an issue finding coverage. The new health care plans covered maternity, so they got pregnant and now I have nephews.

I don't know - if it's too expensive to have kids, then don't have kids. That aside - don't you think it would be prudent that if you knew you wanted kids, you'd save your money for such costs?

But it's still a problem for encouraging people to give birth versus abortions. Uninsured NICU costs will destroy a family.

Nope. NICU costs are NOT maternity costs. NICU costs are health care expenses that are covered when the child is added onto the parents' coverage, which in EVERY case happens. Maternity is the delivery of the child. Two different things. Note: I work for a health insurance company.

A family cannot wait until a woman is diagnosed with a unborn baby with a birth defect to get insurance under the old market system. Pregnancy and the birth defect in the unborn baby is a pre-existing condition.

Uh, no, it isn't. And I'd like you to point me to some links where you found this.

It would be a horrible conundrum: do you destroy your family economically, and the economic security of your older children, in order to pay the NICU health costs of the child with a birth defect? What would you choose? Birth or an abortion?

There are some people who purposely choose NOT to have kids, or save up for the expense. Why should THEY pay for someone else's health bills? As was mentioned above, we didn't have a "market" system before. In a real market system, you could buy your own separate maternity coverage rider. There would be insurance companies who'd offer them, if the state and federal governments would just get the hell out of the way.

I don't know where you're getting your facts from, but they're questionable, to say the least.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

wwww said...A family cannot wait until a woman is diagnosed with a unborn baby with a birth defect to get insurance under the old market system. Pregnancy and the birth defect in the unborn baby is a pre-existing condition.

I agree, yes--people who are at risk of becoming pregnant should have health insurance that covers pregnancy in place before becoming pregnant. Again, I don't think anyone is arguing against that.

It does not follow from that, though, that people who are not at risk of becoming pregnant must be forced to buy coverage for pregnancy. That's the argument that people are opposing.

wwww...Do you understand that if you advocate to allow insurance to not cover maternity and NICU costs, you are putting in more incentives for abortion?

Once again, I'm not advocating outlawing pregnancy/maternity coverage. Of course everyone agrees that coverage for those conditions should be available. The key point, wwww, is that "available" does not equal "mandatory for all." Those two things are not equivalent and conflating them is illogical.
If you're arguing that the coverage won't be available unless it's mandatory for all plans, I'll point back to the fact that the coverage was available pre-Obama. It cost money, and maybe you think it cost too much. Well, it still does cost money and in fact the actual cost of care has not gone down, at all, under Obamacare.

People seem to want to argue that I have a moral duty to give money to others for the benefit of those others--in this case I'm supposed to be obligated to give money to women to help pay for their maternity insurance. If that's what you're arguing, fine, but make that argument and make it in an explicit way. Dressing it up in talk about rates, plans, etc, is just a distraction. Tell me that I have to give my money to a group women so that those women will experience a lower cost for their own insurance. Just say that--just admit that if that's what's being asserted. The rest, respectfully, is hand waving.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Blogger wwww said...

I don't care if they get rid of mental health and the other benefits.

But birth should be covered.

3/24/17, 11:12 AM

It's not insurance, then, is it?
Maybe a special tax, levied on women for the benefit of women, would be a good way to pay for birth? But we're also talking about the pre-natal stuff, I assume.

tim in vermont said...

ARM, without even clicking, I will say that they are talking about the ACA, dead man walking.

Not sure I know of any actual Republicans who want that bill passed. Paul Ryan sold us out on the ACA when he gave Democrats what they wanted, in that budget deal, while asking nothing in return.

I am happy to leave the ACA to die of its own weight.

wendybar said...

Use Birth control....Your body, your responsibility...not mine.

wwww said...

The key point, wwww, is that "available" does not equal "mandatory for all."

Yeah, the problem was it wasn't available in all geographic areas. And pregnancy is a pre-existing condition, so if you don't have it and you get pregnant, it's a problem. A C-Section is a pre-existing condition.

All of this encourages home birth. There's a "unassisted" home birth movement for women to give birth without any medical assistance what-so-ever. Stillbirth rates go up with home births.

It also encourages abortion.

If people don't want to pay for it, well, fair enough. But we shouldn't pretend that there are not consequences.

wwww said...

Use Birth control....Your body, your responsibility...not mine.


If birth control fails, do you want her to have an abortion? Once she's pregnant, it's a pre-existing condition.

If an ultrasound has diagnosed a birth defect, what then? What is she and her family cannot afford the NICU?

Trumpit said...

Government ought to provide poor people with vitamins, birth control including abortion, and free clinics to help them when they are sick and need a doctor. Government can also pay for cigarette, alcohol and drug addiction treatment for the poor. Insurance is for the middle class to protected them from sudden bankrupting medical bills. Rich people, who mostly all have insurance, don't really need it depending on how rich they are.

AprilApple said...

Arm - tell us your opinion of the ACA... got one?

AprilApple said...

wwww

Who is paying? No one is arguing pregnant women should be shut out of the insurance market.

n.n said...

Keep the mammograms. Close the abortion chambers. Choice. Conception. Life.

damikesc said...

I don't get why I'm expected to pay for a random woman's birth control. I helped pay for my future wife's when we were dating because it was mutually beneficial to do so.

But some random woman down the street?

How is her reproductive "health" my issue? Either get a boyfriend to pay for it or find a way to save about $10 a month.

And I love the ignoring that the GOP has been trying to make birth control OTC for a while now. That will lower costs for the uninsured also.

wwww said...



immaculate conception:

Mary's mother may have, but the standard woman's uterus doesn't magically become pregnant. I mean, they haven't gotten into that situation by themselves. But it shouldn't be seen as a situation for the nation. It should be seen a blessing.

Isn't it in the nation's interest for the population to continue? Higher premiums for women because they have a working uterus seems, well, an odd and self-defeating position for the nation to take.

Punishing women for giving birth in a hospital -- just seems to me to be a bad medical decision, ethically problematic, and bad economic decision for the nation.

Unknown said...

The hypocrisy of the right lamenting the falling birth rate, then saying maternity care isn't important is not surprising.

Trumpit said...

Pay for your own damn mammograms, and prostate exams. Open the abortion chambers. Choice. Birth Control. Life.

Lewis Wetzel said...

" . . . then saying maternity care isn't important is not surprising"
No one is saying this. Another strawman from "Unknown."

n.n said...

Revitalization. Rehabilitation. Reconciliation.

Ken B:

You don't need insurance for predictable low cost expenses

There is evidence that the dysfunctional economy is caused by central management, not limited to progressive debt and catastrophic antropogenic immigraiton reform (CAIR), which precludes optimal price determination and distribution through a capitalist market. The misalignments in diverse areas of our economy are a clear and progressive threat to viability.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

wwww said...If birth control fails, do you want her to have an abortion? Once she's pregnant, it's a pre-existing condition.

Yes, that's true, and it's why that woman and/or her family should have health insurance with maternity care in place before she becomes pregnant. I'll say it again, but literally no one is arguing against that, wwww. Your argument goes like this:

1. Women who might become pregnant should have heath insurance covering pregnancy.
2. X
3. Therefore all health insurance plans sold to anyone must include pregnancy coverage.

No one is arguing with #1. We're arguing that whatever case you're trying to make for 2. needs to be made, since 3. absolutely does not follow from 1. See?

n.n said...

There is no hypocrisy. The order of responsibility is personal, then familial, then community. The plan is to restore a functional market where products and services are affordable and available by choice, not force, compensated through the product of individual labor. We are long past progressive days, where involuntary exploitation (e.g. slavery), or mortal gods and goddesses dictating from a central office, would indulge in redistributive change.

Trumpit:

You mean:

Choice. Deny life unworthy. Death. Selective-child. The progressive solution.

Coupled with [class] diversity, forces a a liberal divergence from human and civil rights, and places us on a progressive slope to debasement of human life for trivial and minority causes.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

wwww said...Higher premiums for women because they have a working uterus seems, well, an odd and self-defeating position for the nation to take.

Punishing women for giving birth in a hospital -- just seems to me to be a bad medical decision, ethically problematic, and bad economic decision for the nation.


A. Higher premiums are charged for higher risk. That's how actual insurance works--all insurance. It costs more to insure a $500k house than it does for a $50k condo, because the risk (to the insurer) is greater. Is that unfair to the person with the $500k house?

B. I'm pretty sure the environmental Left has been saying that wealthy western nations should have fewer kids...but let's not roll that into things.

C. "Punishing" is a wholly inappropriate word to use in that context, and I'm pretty sure you know that. It's not punishment when I'm asked to pay for something I use. The restaurant isn't punishing me when they give me the check after the meal--they're asking that I pay for what they provided. At any rate I'm fairly sure my tax money already goes to fund my local/county hospitals already, but I guess we're not taking any of that into consideration.

D. If you're saying it ought to be the nation's policy to subsidize childbirth, fine, just say that. Again, if that's the argument then make it, pass a law to take tax funds and pay for maternity care, etc. If your position is that we're all morally obligated to bear a portion of the costs associated with any pregnancies women in America decide to have, fine, say that explicitly and pass a law. Every pregnant woman gets a voucher for $X, paid from general funds. Let's vote. I guarantee Ivanka Trump will support it, probably President Trump too.
But why, oh why, would you chose as a funding mechanism a severe restriction on the freedom of every American to choose an insurance plan that meets their actual needs? Why is that the best way, or the only way, to accomplish the goal of subsidizing pregnancy? It hides what you're doing, it dramatically distorts the actual market, and it turns the idea of personal "insurance" on its head.

Again: you think I'm morally obligated to give my money to women I don't know who are or may become pregnant. You think I'm morally obligated to fund costs they may incur due to their choice to become pregnant (or engage in behaviors that might accidentally lead to them becoming pregnant). You seem to assume that everyone must agree with that, or anyone who doesn't agree must be wrong. Fine, ok, that's, like, your opinion, man. But even granting that you have not made any kind of an argument as to why this particular way of extracting that money from me is the best, or even a good method.

n.n said...

So, this is about Planned Parenthood, beginning with the abortion industry, and ending with clinical cannibalism. A clear and progressive conflict of interest that can only be resolved through a separation of family services and reproductive rites.

Unknown said...

Oh yes, there is gross hypocrisy on display here. What if a man owns a policy that doesn't have maternity care, but has a family policy because he has kids from a previous marriage, then impregnates a woman that he immediately marries. Then he tries to add on her on his family policy. They will tell him, "you haven't got a policy that covers maternity care". Men are trying to get out of taking care of the women they impregnate nowadays? All health insurance policies had maternity care before Obamacare came into existence, IIRC.

Trumpit said...

n.n.,

Don't tell me what I mean. I don't want to pay for children because YOU refused an abortion to their mother; you pay for them. If fact, I'd take all your money away from you to pay for their food, clothes, medical treatment, etc. You have an authoritarian streak like Trump.

n.n said...

With respect to pregnancy, higher premiums for a woman and the man who loves her. It's a shared responsibility by a prospective mother and father, wife and husband, which doesn't work well with the quasi-polygamous (without commitment) institution of friendship with "benefits" and transgressive womb banks and sperm depositors.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Blogger HoodlumDoodlum said...
. . .
A. Higher premiums are charged for higher risk. That's how actual insurance works--all insurance. It costs more to insure a $500k house than it does for a $50k condo, because the risk (to the insurer) is greater. Is that unfair to the person with the $500k house?
. . .

Men have been told for nearly half a century that pregnancy is a personal matter. A woman has the right to determine what happens to her body.
Now we are told that a woman's pregnancy is intimately tied into public policy. It is public business, from the moment of conception until birth.
Can't have it both ways, but I can see why they want to have it both ways, it's human nature.

Unknown said...

You can't have it both ways, indeed. You can't pressure women to have children to replenish the earth and then deny them care when they carry new life in their uterus. Selfish hypocrites.

n.n said...

Trumpit:

You missed a few steps.

How do you reconcile moral, natural, and personal imperatives?

Lewis Wetzel said...

Blogger Unknown said...

You can't have it both ways, indeed. You can't pressure women to have children to replenish the earth and then deny them care when they carry new life in their uterus. Selfish hypocrites.

3/24/17, 12:30 PM

Another strawman. I am not "pressur[ing] women to have children to replenish the earth" any more than I am pressuring men to have children to replenish the earth.
Boy, lefties are bad at reasoned argument. The "I'm arguing against what you have not said" seems to be a very common tactic. No wonder they want to shutdown debate.

n.n said...

Women and men. It's a shared responsibility of the mother and father.

Granted, it doesn't work well in a quasi-polygamous culture and the advent of womb banks and sperm depositors to compensate for dysfunctional orientations.

Where does the final solution fit in? Denying life unworthy.

So, it's about the money... but more generally, the pursuit of wealth, pleasure, leisure, and narcissistic indulgence for personal and democratic leverage.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Unknown said...What if a man owns a policy that doesn't have maternity care, but has a family policy because he has kids from a previous marriage, then impregnates a woman that he immediately marries. Then he tries to add on her on his family policy. They will tell him, "you haven't got a policy that covers maternity care".

I'm surprised at your sexism, Unknown. What about the woman? Does she not already have a health insurance policy of her own, with pregnancy coverage? In your scenario she relies entirely on some man to provide for her needs. That's a regressive, sexist worldview. For shame.

n.n said...

Another strawman. I am not "pressur[ing] women to have children to replenish the earth" any more than I am pressuring men to have children to replenish the earth.

Exactly. No Pressure. Choice... Conception. Responsibility.

The evolution of human life begins with Choice. It shouldn't end with Choice and nearly 100% collateral damage... and whatever lucrative parts can be cannibalized, recovered from her remains.

Lewis Wetzel said...

"In your scenario she relies entirely on some man to provide for her needs."
This is the thesis of the NY Times article. The "room full of white men" have an obligation to pay for the needs of females. The "help, daddy!" instinct is so strong in American women that they are blind to all of its manifestations.

Unknown said...

"I'm surprised at your sexism, Unknown. What about the woman? Does she not already have a health insurance policy of her own, with pregnancy coverage? In your scenario she relies entirely on some man to provide for her needs. That's a regressive, sexist worldview. For shame."

In my scenario, she does not have her own health insurance, obviously. The pregnancy was unexpected and she doesn't believe in abortion. she is a Christian young woman who made a terrible mistake in engaging in premarital sex, but now she will do the right thing and have the baby that lives in her womb. And you people would deny her maternity care? Shame!

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Trumpit said...If fact, I'd take all your money away from you to pay for their food, clothes, medical treatment, etc. You have an authoritarian streak like Trump.

Now there's a pair of funny sentences!

exiledonmainstreet said...

"then deny them care when they carry new life in their uterus. Selfish hypocrites."

It's "new life in their uterus," Unknown? Why, here I thought that was just a blob of nothing, just cells which women can have scraped and vacuumed out of them if they decide they don't want to be mothers, right up until the delivery date. That's what the leftists tell me.

Oh, I see. It's only "new life" when the mother decides it is and when you have another one of your asinine political points to make. Then you're suddenly all pro-maternal.

You're the selfish hypocrite. And a dumb one too.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Spare me your concern about Christian unwed mothers, hypocrite.

Unknown said...

So, when her boyfriend finds out she won't be covered under his policy, he gets mad and abandons her. In her heartbreak and panic, she asks her family for help, they cast her out for her sin. Unable to care for her self and her pregnancy, due to an extreme financial situation, she aborts the child. She lives with the terrible guilt for the rest of her life.

Now wouldn't it just be better to have maternity care on all insurance policies? No? Shame!

Lewis Wetzel said...

Is it really your opinion, "Unknown," that it is a terrible mistake to engage in premarital sex?
What purpose do you think society has in discouraging premarital sex? It's not only Christian societies that have this taboo.

exiledonmainstreet said...

As someone who has been in a position to know, there is no shortage of help available for women who do not wish to have abortions. All you have to do is check "abortion alternatives" and call one of the organizations listed - most run by private and Christian organizations.

Unknown Inga doesn't know that because she is unable to grasp the notion of help being available outside of the government. And because she doesn't really give a shit about "abortion alternatives."

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Unknown said...In my scenario, she does not have her own health insurance, obviously.

Why not? She must; it's the law, remember? Anyway it's what everyone here is actually saying--people ought to pay for the insurance they require for their actual risks. She was at risk of becoming pregnant, so she's supposed to have health insurance that covers pregnancy. If she chooses not to then as a consequence of that choice she's going to have to pay for her care out of her pocket (well, she and her new husband will, in your scenario).

Your attempt to wag a finger in my face based on this scenario is stupid. I'm not denying her maternity care. The pregnancy part of that scenario is entirely beside the point--according to you she didn't have any insurance! If she was uninsured and got drunk and jumped off her roof, breaking her leg, she'd have to pay the hospital bill for that. If I don't give her cash to pay that bill I'm not "denying her medical care," am I? No, of course not--she chose to go without insurance, had a loss, and had to pay the bills she incurred. I'm not involved and you haven't made a case that I'm morally responsible for paying her bills.

Now, of course, it's doubly stupid to say that I'm denying her medical care. There are any number of programs for indigent people and in fact our hospitals are required to provide care--just as they were in the long-forgotten pre-Obamacare days. Things like prenatal vitamins and checkups are already free almost everywhere (that is, they're free to the person and subsidized by the rest of us already), so the claim that anyone is denying anyone else care is just false.

Unknown said...

Is it really your opinion, "Unknown," that it is a terrible mistake to engage in premarital sex?

No. It's the opinion of born again Christians.

exiledonmainstreet said...

And also because she's stupid.

exiledonmainstreet said...

No. It's the opinion of born again Christians.

3/24/17, 1:01 PM

"Born again Christians" have done more to help unwed mothers than you ever will, you hypocritical ass.

Unknown said...

Yep, when it comes down to it, there are some of you that want women to have babies, yet your concern stops when you may have to shell out a few bucks. You want women to replenish the earth? Worried about a plummeting birth rate? Put your money where your mouth is.

exiledonmainstreet said...

I see your ignoring my comments, you stupid airhead.

You don't give a shit about unwed mothers, you poisonous sack of pus.

Unknown said...

"I see your ignoring my comments...."

You're.

n.n said...

Lewis Wetzel:

Some other strawman arguments are that uninsured implies unaffordable, that prioritizing responsibility beginning with personal is unempathetic or uncaring, that encouragement is equivalent to coercion, and that normalization or promotion dictates obligation.

Lewis Wetzel said...

"You want women to replenish the earth? Worried about a plummeting birth rate? Put your money where your mouth is."
Oh, goody! A request from "Unknown" for men to manage the reproductive lives of young women! I've always wanted a hareem!

exiledonmainstreet said...

The born again Christian and Catholic organizations will help an unwed mother with medical and other costs and Catholic hospitals which offer charity care will deliver your baby. They will also help with adoptions.

Unknown Inga ignores that so she can continue to repeat her vile lies about conservatives who don't care about women and babies after they are born.

I know people involved in working for such organizations and they are 1000X more compassionate and giving than you are - than most people are, especially greedy leftist pigs.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Unknown said...
"I see your ignoring my comments...."

You're.

Opps! Sorry!

How's this?

You're a stupid bitch.

There. It's grammatically correct and perfectly true.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Unknown siad...So, when her boyfriend finds out she won't be covered under his policy, he gets mad and abandons her. In her heartbreak and panic, she asks her family for help, they cast her out for her sin. Unable to care for her self and her pregnancy, due to an extreme financial situation, she aborts the child. She lives with the terrible guilt for the rest of her life.

Now wouldn't it just be better to have maternity care on all insurance policies? No? Shame!


Ok, this is getting idiotic. Why would he "find out" that his personal policy doesn't cover pregnancy? I'm pretty sure he'd know that already. Under your scenario he doesn't have the ability to insure her anyway--he doesn't have an insurable interest in his girlfriend, and he'd have to add her to his policy anyway, so even if he had a personal policy that included maternity care (for him!) he wouldn't be able to use that coverage for her. She needs her own insurance, Unknown. If the problem is that she doesn't have her own insurance then making the guy buy insurance that includes maternity care, for him, does not solve that problem.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Unknown said...Yep, when it comes down to it, there are some of you that want women to have babies, yet your concern stops when you may have to shell out a few bucks. You want women to replenish the earth? Worried about a plummeting birth rate? Put your money where your mouth is.

Ooh, an ideological test! Neat. So if I don't believe in those things I'm not required to put my money where my mouth, ah, isn't? That's cool, that's cool. Er, wait, it almost sounds like you're saying that because some people have that worldview it's ok for you to force me to pay money to support that worldview. That seems pretty wrong, Unknown. I wish there was a word for that kind of wrongness.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Blogger n.n said...

Lewis Wetzel:

Some other strawman arguments are that uninsured implies unaffordable, that prioritizing responsibility beginning with personal is unempathetic or uncaring, that encouragement is equivalent to coercion, and that normalization or promotion dictates obligation.

Yes, n.n., some women, especially feminists (like the woman who wrote the NY Times article), live in some ideological fantasy world where men are completely removed from the reproductive process. Like it's olden times and the men all live together in one long house, and the women live in another, and the two sexes only meet to procreate.
Men have children, even though they cannot bear them. They have been with wives or girlfriends throughout their pregnancy and maternity. They know what prenatal care is, and how much it costs, and how insurance can help pay the bills, but sometimes does not. Feminists want pregnancy and maternity to be strictly a female affair until some one hands them a bill, then they go running to a wealthy, powerful male (wealthier and more powerful than her, anyway), father of hte child or not, with the bill in hand.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Try it out this way: all policies must include maternity care because if a person doesn't have a policy and gets pregnant she won't have coverage. Like...you see how that's wrong, don't you?
The problem is that she doesn't have coverage. You could say that all coverage has to be super-plantinum and pay for every conceivable (sorry) medical cost no matter what...but if she doesn't have coverage then none of that helps.

The scenario isn't realistic, though, since Obamacare mandates that everyone have insurance. Remember all those millions of people who "gained" coverage (largely through expansion of welfare medical prgms and being forced to buy some policy)? She has a policy now. Since she is at risk of becoming pregnant she has a duty to choose a policy that includes pregnancy coverage. If for some reason she breaks the law (by not having coverage) or makes a really foolish choice (not to insure her own risk) I don't see how that creates in me (an uninvolved 3rd party) some moral obligation to give her my money.

You're not really making a case, or an actual argument, that it does. You're just asserting that it must and saying "Shame!" repeatedly. That's not an argument.

exiledonmainstreet said...

" I wish there was a word for that kind of wrongness."

One was coined yesterday on this blog: "sunsongness."

AReasonableMan said...

"Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY), a key Trump ally in Congress, said part of the problem predicting Friday's vote result is that communications have broken down among House Republicans. "I've never seen this. People are refusing to talk to each other. They're storming past each other. This is not good," he told reporters. "There is bitterness within our conference that's going to take time to heal.""

Unknown said...

ARM,

It's The Trump Effect.

Bob Loblaw said...

Feminists want pregnancy and maternity to be strictly a female affair until some one hands them a bill, then they go running to a wealthy, powerful male (wealthier and more powerful than her, anyway), father of hte child or not, with the bill in hand.

How terrible for her. She shouldn't have to demean herself like that just to get money someone else earned. What should happen is the government should take that man's money and give it to her as an entitlement.

jdniner said...

Why are doctors charging an arm and a leg to fix a headache? That seems to be the cause of all the problems. Issue more tents. Issue more mules.

jdniner said...

IMO, the IRS tax form should now include a checkbox for donating $3 to national healthcare. Then with a sub checkbox for victim status. Let people self identify as victims and enroll themselves in a federal database.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Blogger Unknown said...
ARM,

It's The Trump Effect.

3/24/17, 1:48 PM

Shows just how little you know. The division was there before Trump and produced Trump.

FullMoon said...

Unknown said... [hush]​[hide comment]

So, when her boyfriend finds out she won't be covered under his policy, he gets mad and abandons her. In her heartbreak and panic, she asks her family for help, they cast her out for her sin. Unable to care for her self and her pregnancy, due to an extreme financial situation, she aborts the child. She lives with the terrible guilt for the rest of her life.


Perhaps you should not have attempted to blackmail your boyfriend into marriage by getting pregnant. While I sympathize with you over ostrsization by your family, it probably has more to do with your pugnacious attitude than your failure to snare a spouse.

Fernandinande said...

Unknown said...
You can't pressure women to have children to replenish the earth and then deny them care when they carry new life in their uterus.


I hereby deny you a beer and a hamburger. No, make that two beers, a hamburger and fries. All denied.

You can't buy your own. Because caring.

Fernandinande said...

HoodlumDoodlum said...
Unknown said...In my scenario, she does not have her own
health insurance, obviously.

Why not? She must; it's the law, remember?


She's an undocumented alien who was sex-trafficked and raped by white men who deny her insurance. And she's a lesbian.

Kirk Parker said...

Crazy Jane,

What do women want?

Fried ice.

Duh....




Lewis W.,

" I've always wanted a harem!"

Says the man who's never observed such in action.

Trust me, as someone who's lived in a place where polygamy is still legal... you have NO IDEA what you're asking for.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Fernandinande said...She's an undocumented alien who was sex-trafficked and raped by white men who deny her insurance. And she's a lesbian.

I recognize you're kidding, but the actual truth is funnier: in that scenario, the illegal immigrant is already covered and will receive care free of charge under federal emergency Medicaid funding. Seriously. This was true before Obamacare, as well (although some states, like CA, have pushed to extend ACA marketplace availability to illegal immigrants).

Emergency Medicaid for Illegal Immigrants (pregnancy & childbirth)


Currently, Medicaid is the only public assistance emergency medical service available to illegal immigrants. These Medicaid emergency services have to be provided under the federal law. The federal law states that emergency Medicaid services must be provided to illegal immigrants for urgent medical conditions with acute symptoms that could endanger the patient’s health. This also covers the cost for emergency delivery and labor.

See? Unknown's attempted shaming is entirely misplaced. We, as Americans, already cover the scenarios Unknown is trying to argue we're heartless for not covering. The proposed changes to Obamcare will not undo this.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Blogger Kirk Parker said...

Lewis W.,

" I've always wanted a harem!"

Says the man who's never observed such in action.

Trust me, as someone who's lived in a place where polygamy is still legal... you have NO IDEA what you're asking for.


I was using sarcasm to make a point :)

wwww said...



This is silly. It's a debate about insurance. Women aren't asking men to pay for the entire NICU bill.

The point is that young families will be ruined if they have to pay for a NICU bill on their own. They need insurance. Both the husband and the wife need it.

Many people don't start their own company, and they don't go independent contractor, for the maternity care. That's not just bad for that family, it's bad for the nation's economy.

Corporate covered health care is part of the problem. The risk pool would be plenty big and lower prices if people weren't covered by their work insurance. Get rid of corporate covered health care and have everyone purchase insurance on the open market -- that's one solution. But it's too ingrained in the US. No politician has been able to do it, including this congress.

But if you shrink the risk pools too small, the insurance for maternity care goes WAY UP. That keeps people working for big companies until they are past child-bearing age. Or it forces people into situation where they have to choose: pay out of pocket for maternity care, give birth at home, or abort if you have a unborn child with a problem.

It's short sighted to make maternity insurance premiums so expensive (or unavailable) that it discourages economic growth and encourages abortion. Dumb.

wwww said...


I don't understand why people are talking about birth control as if that's something that raises premiums.

Generic birth control is cheap.

Pre-natal care and c-sections and the NICU -- that's the risk that raises premiums.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Blogger AReasonableMan said...

"Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY), a key Trump ally in Congress, said part of the problem predicting Friday's vote result is that communications have broken down among House Republicans. "I've never seen this. People are refusing to talk to each other. They're storming past each other. This is not good," he told reporters. "There is bitterness within our conference that's going to take time to heal.""

3/24/17, 1:44 PM

This is what change looks like.
The passage of the ACA was not exactly a show of congressional collegiality.

wwww said...

The born again Christian and Catholic organizations will help an unwed mother with medical and other costs and Catholic hospitals which offer charity care will deliver your baby. They will also help with adoptions.


I haven't seen a situation where the NICU is covered. But I would encourage there to be greater guarantees for pregnant women in these situations.

Some adoptive parents will pay for the birth and any NICU costs. Others, though, will not. Some back out when they find out the baby has a birth defect. Some back out at the hospital if it's not known before hand that the baby has Downs, or other issues. It's horribly sad, but it is what it is.

The problem is that the hospital cost will be in the pregnant woman's name, and she knows she is at the mercy of the adoptive parents being ethical people who are able and willing to cover the costs even if the child has a birth defect or a birth injury.

Bob Loblaw said...

But if you shrink the risk pools too small, the insurance for maternity care goes WAY UP. That keeps people working for big companies until they are past child-bearing age.

Yes, and this is my problem... why? Why am I paying for other people's lifestyle choices?

Unknown said...

Well, for now Obamacare remains. No vote for TrumpCare any time soon.

Rusty said...

Unknown said...
"So, when her boyfriend finds out she won't be covered under his policy, he gets mad and abandons her. In her heartbreak and panic, she asks her family for help, they cast her out for her sin. Unable to care for her self and her pregnancy, due to an extreme financial situation, she aborts the child. She lives with the terrible guilt for the rest of her life.

Now wouldn't it just be better to have maternity care on all insurance policies? No? Shame!"

There's one sure way to have sex and not get pregnant.
Go fuck yourself.

urbane legend said...

Kevin said...
That's playing right into their game. We should pay for our own PSA tests and demand free booze.

I will pay for my own PSA tests. But I don't drink, Kevin. Make us a different offer.

Peter said...

"If a woman of child-bearing age can't get maternity coverage, what is she to do if she gets pregnant?"

Whatever she wishes to do?

Certainly she's free to get pregnant or not, or to buy appropriate insurance coverage or not. She's free to get pregnant by sperm bank, or with a man who can be expected to be a resident father, or with one can't or won't choose to do that, or to abort or not abort, to give for adoption or not, to raise herself or with a partner.

She has the right to do just whatever it pleases her to do but not, apparently, the obligation to be held responsible for her choices: that, the obligation to pay, you reserve for ... me.

When the only "right" I have the "right" to pay, why are you surprised that I'd choose to just have no "rights" at all?

Of course, I could still choose to help. But you would deny me that choice as well, wouldn't you? Because rights are (or should be yours), but obligations and liability should be mine.

And as a practical matter, I normally don't much care what you do, but when you insist I'm responsible for the costs generated by your choices then suddenly I get a whole lot more interested in having some control over those choices. Does that also surprise you?

So sorrybut, I decline to pay. Now, the only question left is: can you make me pay?



wwww said...

A. Higher premiums are charged for higher risk.

Yeah, but human reproduction doesn't work that way. Women don't self-generate their own pregnancies. This is something Men + Women do together.


B. I'm pretty sure the environmental Left has been saying that wealthy western nations should have fewer kids...but let's not roll that into things.

I'm obviously not the environmental Left.

C. "Punishing" is a wholly inappropriate word to use in that context

ok - Discouraging. Most of the time this is not a Man/ Woman issue, it's a young family issue trying to figure out how to pay for NICUs, and births.

and I know people who have chosen home birth. I don't think it's a good idea to encourage it because it risks the lives of babies.

D. If you're saying it ought to be the nation's policy to subsidize childbirth, fine, just say that.
But why, oh why, would you chose as a funding mechanism a severe restriction on the freedom of every American to choose an insurance plan that meets their actual needs? Why is that the best way, or the only way, to accomplish the goal of subsidizing pregnancy? It hides what you're doing, it dramatically distorts the actual market, and it turns the idea of personal "insurance" on its head.

Agreed: ok: I think nations should encourage and subsidize childbirth and care of newborns.

I'm good with getting rid of corporate funded health care. I'm open to other idea. This idea in front of congress is not one I agree with.

Straight up. If abortions are cheaper then hospital birth I think that's fucked up.

Again: you think I'm morally obligated to give my money to women I don't know who are or may become pregnant. You think I'm morally obligated to fund costs they may incur due to their choice to become pregnant (or engage in behaviors that might accidentally lead to them becoming pregnant). You seem to assume that everyone must agree with that, or anyone who doesn't agree must be wrong. Fine, ok, that's, like, your opinion, man. But even granting that you have not made any kind of an argument as to why this particular way of extracting that money from me is the best, or even a good method.


Yeah, I don't think it's the best method or even a particularly good method. I think it's a better method then the one in front of the House right now.

I don't want you to be subject to high premiums because women give birth. I do not want the risk pool to be so small that only women who are pregnant are forced into very expensive insurance. I'm fine with getting rid of all corporate insurance and making everyone go onto the free market. I mean, it's not fair that infertile women have to pay the same amount as fertile women either.

This gender war stuff doesn't seem important compared to the health of a newborn. The newborn baby comes first, end stop for me. I do think everyone should chip in to get the baby earth side alive. I think that baby will, in the end, benefit the rest of us though paying for all of our social security and medicare.

But even if the baby does not personally benefit us -- if the baby has a severe case of Downs, if the newborn is paralyzed from a birth defect, if the baby has a life-long birth injury, even if the baby looks like a "drain" on the parents & the rest of society -- I don't want the parents to be encouraged to kill it due to lack of insurance.

That's my take. We might have to agree to disagree.

mockturtle said...

she asks her family for help, they cast her out for her sin. Unable to care for her self and her pregnancy, due to an extreme financial situation, she aborts the child.

This sounds like something out of a bad Victorian novel.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Unknown said...
Well, for now Obamacare remains. No vote for TrumpCare any time soon.

3/24/17, 2:42 PM

Fine by me.

Unknown said...

"This gender war stuff doesn't seem important compared to the health of a newborn. The newborn baby comes first, end stop for me. I do think everyone should chip in to get the baby earth side alive. I think that baby will, in the end, benefit the rest of us though paying for all of our social security and medicare."


Good prenatal care will help make sure that baby doesn't need extended care after birth. That should be a no brainer. People should stop being selfish about women and the sacrifice they make in contributing to the continuation of the species.

Achilles said...

Unknown said...
Well, for now Obamacare remains. No vote for TrumpCare any time soon.

As a Trump supporter this is the best possible outcome. It is worth 48 hours of media blather about Trump's "failure."

Because on Monday:

1. Speaker Ryan should be resigning.
2. Republicans in congress look divided and weak.
3. Democrats in congress look like unreasonable partisans.
4. Trump tried to fix Obamacare. Now it is still in place and is still crashing and burning right before our eyes. Democrats will still be on the hook for their awful destructive policy and we wont have Obamacare 2.0 which the republicans would have been blamed for.
5. Most importantly We get to talk about tax reform.

AReasonableMan said...

Currently the new administration is exceeding my expectations. I expected this bill to pass the house and fail in the senate.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

wwww said....Yeah, but human reproduction doesn't work that way. Women don't self-generate their own pregnancies. This is something Men + Women do together.

Ok, that's a good reason for men and women to act responsibly and carry insurance if they're engaging in behavior that includes a risk of pregnancy. It's not at all a good reason why I, a person unrelated to those 2 and who has nothing to do with their behavior or their choices, to have to pay for their insurance. You're making a great case that women who might become pregnant should carry pregnancy insurance, and a good case that the sexual partners of women who might become pregnant should help them pay for it (maybe after getting married, huh?). You're not making a case at all that an uninvolved 3rd party should have to pay, too.

I mean, it's not fair that infertile women have to pay the same amount as fertile women either.

Right, exactly. Infertile women have a different risk profile and should be able to buy insurance based on that different risk profile. I agree! Making a 70 year old woman buy a health plan that includes maternity care, for her, is as ridiculous as making a (biological) man buy a plan that includes it. That's what the current law does, though.

Straight up. If abortions are cheaper then hospital birth I think that's fucked up.
But...why wouldn't they be? An abortion is a relatively straightforward procedure--medical abortions are just giving drugs and surgical abortions are not complex (compared to other surgical procedures). I mean, I understand you're expressing a desire that giving birth be an "easier" choice than having an abortion, and that's a good instinct, but just on the economics of the procedures themselves it's not going to be the case that birth is cheaper. You could get around that by charging an enormous tax for abortion services, but that's unconstitutional.

This gender war stuff doesn't seem important compared to the health of a newborn. The newborn baby comes first, end stop for me.

Fine, but that's a dodge. What IS more important than the health of a newborn? Freedom of speech? Why? I could say "we must pass a law that taxes the hell out of newspapers, blogs, and twitter accounts in order to fund healthcare for newborns. People who object to this clearly put their own desire to read and talk over the health of tiny babies, but for me the newborn baby comes first, full stop." That line of reasoning justifies almost literally everything. It's consistent, but it's not compatible with our nation.

Anyway, thank you for clarifying your positions.

Francisco D said...

It's great that some senators are reading this healthcare bill (cf. ACA) and finding objections. That is how laws should be made. None of that "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."

We need to segment and enlarge risk pools. Provide insurance products that fit different profiles and get rid of coverage mandates. Let the market decide.

As a man in his sixties, I have different healthcare needs than my 50-something girlfriend. Her risk of prostate cancer is non-existent whereas mine is currently about 25%. Thus we need different treatment and products. My risk of osteoporosis is nearly non-existent whereas hers (as a short White woman whose mother has osteoporosis) is relatively high. She might want a policy that covers certain drugs that mean nothing to me.

The second step is to allow insurers to expand risk pools (thus reducing their costs) across state lines.

robother said...

My concern is that Obamacare may turn out to be the single most effective killer of American jobs of all of Obama's regulatory and tax measures. Just as 8 years of Fed stimulus and the Trillion dollar shovel ready jobs program couldn't ever jump start the real recovery, what if it turns out that Trump's tax reform and infrastructure spending sputter in the face of the continued burden of ACA employer mandates, taxes and resulting healthcare cost burdens?

We know that small and growing medium sized business creates the most jobs, and that they are hardest hit by the ACA mandates. Tax rate relief for them doesn't mean squat if ACA mandates eat up all the projected profits of any expansion. Calculation isn't all that different even for American multinational corporations, if they use the repatriated earnings to add employees (as opposed to buying up existing companies and firing redundant employees.)

readering said...

As I have written before, it's going to be a four year cluster*uck.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Blogger mockturtle said...
she asks her family for help, they cast her out for her sin. Unable to care for her self and her pregnancy, due to an extreme financial situation, she aborts the child.

This sounds like something out of a bad Victorian novel.


In Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, there is passage where the narrator, a lawyer named Utterson, comes to believe that Jekyll is the father of the bastard Hyde. The Victorians were well practiced at writing about these things elliptically.
The book is well worth reading. Jekyll is not a good person. The narrator, Jekyll's lawyer, doesn't think much of him, and Stevenson makes it quite clear that Jekyll is in truth the source of Hyde's wickedness and Hyde's crimes.

And here is Utterson's internal monologue regarding the relationship between Jekyll and Hyde:

. . . the lawyer set out homeward with a very heavy heart. "Poor Harry Jekyll," he thought, "my mind misgives me he is in deep waters! He was wild when he was young; a long while ago to be sure; but in the law of God, there is no statute of limitations. Ay, it must be that; the ghost of some old sin, the cancer of some concealed disgrace: punishment coming, PEDE CLAUDO, years after memory has forgotten and self-love condoned the fault." And the lawyer, scared by the thought, brooded a while on his own past, groping in all the corners of memory, lest by chance some Jack-in-the-Box of an old iniquity should leap to light there. His past was fairly blameless; few men could read the rolls of their life with less apprehension; yet he was humbled to the dust by the many ill things he had done, and raised up again into a sober and fearful gratitude by the many that he had come so near to doing, yet avoided. And then by a return on his former subject, he conceived a spark of hope. "This Master Hyde, if he were studied," thought he, "must have secrets of his own; black secrets, by the look of him; secrets compared to which poor Jekyll's worst would be like sunshine. Things cannot continue as they are. It turns me cold to think of this creature stealing like a thief to Harry's bedside; poor Harry, what a wakening! And the danger of it; for if this Hyde suspects the existence of the will, he may grow impatient to inherit. Ay, I must put my shoulder to the wheel if Jekyll will but let me," he added, "if Jekyll will only let me." For once more he saw before his mind's eye, as clear as a transparency, the strange clauses of the will.

Drago said...

readering: "As I have written before, it's going to be a four year cluster*uck."

How can it be such a thing?

We will still have the wonderful, perfect obamacare to fall back on! What could go wrong with this 100% dem plan which solves all our problems?

Mutaman said...

"what if it turns out that Trump's tax reform and infrastructure spending sputter in the face of the continued burden of ACA employer mandates, taxes and resulting healthcare cost burdens?"

Based on what we saw today its "going to sputter " in the face of incompetent right wingers who won't be able to get it passed.

Mutaman said...

"We will still have the wonderful, perfect obamacare to fall back on! What could go wrong with this 100% dem plan which solves all our problems? "

if its so bad, why don't you just repeal it like you've been promising to do?

Unknown said...

"We will still have the wonderful, perfect obamacare to fall back on! What could go wrong with this 100% dem plan which solves all our problems? "
----------
"if its so bad, why don't you just repeal it like you've been promising to do?"
----------
Trump declared, "Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated!".

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

"I will repeal and replace Obamacare on day one!"

Unknown said...

"We can't stand winning so much, you'll get sick of winning!"


Sorry, I know that's cruel.

Unknown said...

Oh yes, "I alone can fix it!"

Gospace said...

What's unusual about the current scheme, and what people are actually objecting to, is forcing ALL plans to include coverage that many people do not want or need

My insurance covers quacks, or if you prefer, chiropractors, because NY, home of chiropractic colleges, requires that quackery be included in insurance plans. I have no intention of ever seeing a quack. Also covers 30 day in-patient care for treatment of alcoholism or drug addiction. Even though, again, I'll never need such coverage and will never use it, and even though inpatient programs have an enormous recidivism rate. Being able to choose from a menu of coverage. deleting just those two items would probably drop my insurance bill considerably. As a consumer of healthcare, I do, for the most part, have control over who I see. But as a purchaser of insurance, I have zero control over what I pay for. I'm not covered by an ACA plan. If I was, I would also have zero control over who I could see.

Unknown said...

Here you go, a solution. Medicare for All. But of course you'll reject it, as IF you knew better.

"After the White House called on House Speaker Paul Ryan (Wis.) to withdraw Friday's scheduled vote (after an aggressive lobby effort on the part of both President Donald Trump and Ryan), many are looking to what happens next.

Though the Republican narrative that Obamacare is "imploding" has been proven to be a unfounded talking point, The Week's Ryan Cooper argued Friday that Democrats "shouldn't sit idly by and wait for Republicans to slowly bleed Obamacare to death by other means."

"They need a counter-offer," Cooper writes, "one that's more compelling than the creaky status quo. They need a single-payer, Medicare-for-All plan.""

Simarily, RoseAnn DeMoro, executive director of National Nurses United (NNU), told Common Dreams that ultimately Democrats "are fighting for an unacceptable status quo," noting that a private insurance market will always prove to be "unaffordable."

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/03/24/epic-gop-failure-dems-urged-go-bold-medicare-all

Michael K said...

"Medicare for All. But of course you'll reject it, as IF you knew better."

You know so little about health care it's hard to know where to start.

Fools rush in....

Unknown said...

Michael K,

Why don't you go to D.C. and volunteer, because you alone can fix it!

Unknown said...

Physicians for a National Health Program

H.R.676 Medicare for All

AReasonableMan said...

The Republicans successfully voted sixty time to repeal Obamacare under Obama. Even Republicanism worked better under Obama.

Michael K said...

"Why don't you go to D.C. and volunteer, because you alone can fix it!"

I actually did volunteer in 1995 after the GOP took Congress. I had just finished a Masters in health policy at Dartmouth after retiring from practice. Senator Judd Gregg helped me to talk to some people but the GOP said all health policy would be written by tax lawyers and they were not interested in provider input.

That is the same mistake Hillary made with her disastrous secret committee to write Hillarycare.

I doubt you are interested but someone might be .

Here is what I have suggested since 2007.

I also have a book on medical history, which you won't read. It has a chapter on the economics of healthcare and I have given lectures at the medical school on this subject.

A big part of the problem is that politicians of both parties are terrible at making things work.

"Medicare for all" is a leftist myth which should be obvious to anyone who studies the NHS in Britain, which I have done.

The French System, which is funded by payroll deductions is probably as good as any government could do. It uses a partial free market mechanism. Unusual for France but it was devised during the war by exiles.

Drago said...

AReasonableMan: "The Republicans successfully voted sixty time to repeal Obamacare under Obama. Even Republicanism worked better under Obama."

Ha!

Not bad.

Unknown said...

Well, Michael K, go again and impress the hell out of them instead of commenting on Althouse. You could do some real good!

Drago said...

Unknown: "if its so bad, why don't you just repeal it like you've been promising to do?"

Because you can't undo in one fell swoop what it took 60 votes in the Senate to do and there was simply not enough "upside" to the reduction in costs/premiums in the near term so the political price to be paid in getting phase II and III was too big a risk for enough republican moderates (which is who Ryan catered to initially).

Which is one reason of many that most Trump supporters said if we can just get 50% of what we want across the board (not just healthcare but the SC, taxes, etc) it will be a "big" win.

Pretty basic.

Drago said...

Mutaman: "Based on what we saw today its "going to sputter " in the face of incompetent right wingers who won't be able to get it passed."

It's not a question of competence. It's a question of whether or not you can get the different republican factions to each give sufficiently to get the votes needed.

We've seen in the past and we've just seen again that the republicans won't just fall into line with each other.

But "sputter" is correct given the tremendous constraints of the obamacare employer mandates which keeps so many small businesses from expanding and providing economic growth.

Unknown said...

"Pretty basic."

There is NOTHING basic about any of what you suggested. That is where you people make your fatal errors. Also that quote is not mine, it's Mutaman's, but I do agree with it.

Drago said...

Unknown: "That is where you people make your fatal errors."

LOL

Very dramatic of you.

Tell us more of "fatal" errors. Begin with Hillary's campaign.

AReasonableMan said...

This was just a show for the punters. The Red team never had any intention of passing this bill. It started with an approval rating of 17%, nothing that hated gets passed and they would have owned health care.

Drago said...

AReasonableMan: "This was just a show for the punters. The Red team never had any intention of passing this bill. It started with an approval rating of 17%, nothing that hated gets passed and they would have owned health care."

Yep.

I really thought they would follow the Charles Krauthammer strategy of passing it in the house and then "letting" the dems kill it in the Senate, thereby assuring the 100% Dem-owned obamacare fails (which is inevitable) and the only "replacement" on the horizon would have also been killed by the dems.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

Disinformation Troll Drago slips back into his persona.

ARM,

Yep, they knew it was a dead duck. Only true believers like Drago thought it would go through, because Meadows of the Freedom Caucus said so, that they were negotiating with Trump, lol.

Drago said...

Now, (in true Strother Martin fashion), what we have here is an opportunity, for the dems.

If the dems were smart and not 100% invested in advancing their palace coup against Trump, they could mosey on over to the White House and say, tell you what old bean, lets split the difference (or something) on what we both want: Dems to save obamacare structure and Trump to increase options and lower prices for consumers.

Trump, who would rather be known as a party-crossing Deal-maker might just jump at that, regardless of what Bannon or Priebus or Ryan say, as long as the results are good for the people.

And Trump, down deep, does want to be loved! And a deal like that would do it.

But at this moment you've got the dems divided 5% like ARM who can read the tea leaves and can recognize an opportunity but 95% like Nancy Pelosi/Unknown who are only interested in perpetuating the Russia collusion/impeachment nonsense.

So that won't happen.

Which is why as a conservative I'm fairly content right now.

Executive orders/actions + Gorsuch + Business Confidence/investment with the coming Taxes discussion has us feeling pretty good.

Not to mention what's coming on the intel side.

And obamacare can always be revisited down the road and the repubs don't own a terrible bill that didn't reduce costs (at first).

Drago said...

Unknown: "Only true believers like Drago thought it would go through, because Meadows of the Freedom Caucus said so, that they were negotiating with Trump, lol"

I did think they would buy off on the deal and let it die in the Senate.

I'm actually pleased that they stuck to their guns. I did not think they would and they were successful in putting off the vote itself.

Not bad all in all.

Unknown said...

Empty bravado.

Unknown said...

"Not to mention what's coming on the intel side."

LOL

Drago said...

Unknown: "Empty bravado."

Hmmm,

bra·va·do
brəˈväˌdō/
noun
a bold manner or a show of boldness intended to impress or intimidate.

What boldness exists in this: Executive orders/actions + Gorsuch + Business Confidence/investment with the coming Taxes discussion has us feeling pretty good.

Drago said...

Unknown: "LOL"

You know who isn't smug and laughing anymore?

Schiff-ty.

I wonder why that is?

Drago said...

And now we have Roger Stone, Manafort AND Carter Page all volunteering to pop on over early next and be put under oath for the committee.

Hmmmm, not exactly the behavior of fellows in trouble.

I wonder why it is the republicans are so anxious to get everyone on the record and get all the information exposed and its the dems who want to bury the "investigation" so that no one can know what's going on for the next year?

Don't worry Unknown, these are very very difficult questions for you to answer so it's best to avoid them altogether.

Unknown said...

More baloney, but keep peddling the doggy doo.

Drago said...

Unknown: "More baloney, but keep peddling the doggy doo."

A powerful and substantive rebuttal.

One of your best, actually.

Unknown said...

Drago, they are all arrogant enough to lie under oath. Good, I hope they do.

Unknown said...

Disinformation Troll Drago, it's just not worth bantering with you. You'll just accuse me of being drunk on box wine and I'll tell you about how you drink vodka from a baby bottle and it all will just be a repeat of the other night.

That would be boring for the other folks here.

Drago said...

Unknown: "You'll just accuse me of being drunk on box wine and I'll tell you about how you drink vodka from a baby bottle and it all will just be a repeat of the other night."

Fine. Have it your way.

I'll drink the box wine and you'll slam the vodka so it will be completely different this time!

Drago said...

Unknown: "Drago, they are all arrogant enough to lie under oath."

We know Bill Clinton was.

Michael K said...

Easy to see why it is impossible to have any sort of honest discussion with Inga.

Ignorant snark is the usual response.

She would rather go on with what she thinks are clever comments.

"Which is why as a conservative I'm fairly content right now. "

So am I. What I suspect will happen is that the Dims will filibuster Gorsuch.

Then McConnell will finally get enough gumption to go the full Harry Reid.

Once that bridge is crossed, it will be time to revisit the repeal/replace.

McCain actually had a pretty good plan in 2008 if only he understood it.

The most conservative and workable plan now would be to just make Obamacare optional. It is really just Medicaid with higher income limits. Let the mandates expire and let states get block grants to deal with Medicaid.

Under Obamacare, a lot of doctors have either retired or gone to cash practices. That actually creates a rudimentary free market.

What is needed now is some reform of Medicare and insurance contract law.

Let doctors "balance bill" in Medicare. That would open the door to a free market similar to what is allowed in France. It would make it easier for Medicare patients to find physicians who will take care of them. Medicare now discounts charges by providers by 80 to 90%.

If I want to go to a doctor with better credentials or a better record, I should be able to pay extra. That is now illegal.

Private insurance now contracts with almost all doctors, who are mostly employees of hospitals since Obamacare. I think the hospitals are going to find those deals are losers. Doctors cannot offer cash prices or discounts as the insurance contract forbids it.

When I retired 20 years ago, I had 276 contracts with various entities. I had to use a computer system to keep track of all the provisions and rules they imposed. It's one reason the doctor's office asks for your insurance immediately. I was once fined by an HMO $500 for sending a patient to the "wrong" lab for a $16 culture.

Leftists who think "Medicare for All" would work have just no idea of how complex the situation has become.

Lewis Wetzel said...

"Under Obamacare, a lot of doctors have either retired or gone to cash practices. That actually creates a rudimentary free market."
A few years ago I had to get a TB test to enroll in some college courses. They had free TB test days at the college, but they weren't convenient. I talked to the people at the local blood lab so I could get a TB test at my convenience.
$120 if I wanted to use my insurance, $60 if I payed cash.
I paid cash.

Mutaman said...


"it's not a question of competence. It's a question of whether or not you can get the different republican factions to each give sufficiently to get the votes needed."

Now that I think about it I can definitely remember Trump winning the Republican nomination by telling rallies of thousands of people, "We're going to repeal and replace Obamacare — as long as we can get the different republican (sic) factions to each give sufficiently to get the votes needed."

AReasonableMan said...

Lewis Wetzel said...
$120 if I wanted to use my insurance, $60 if I payed cash.


You can get a man murdered if you are willing to pay cash.

Mr. Majestyk said...

Great comments this thread, Hoodlum.

Bob Loblaw said...

This was just a show for the punters. The Red team never had any intention of passing this bill. It started with an approval rating of 17%, nothing that hated gets passed and they would have owned health care.

People want them to pass a bill that keeps the benefits but gets rid of the cost. That's why we're not going to see any real reform until the current system actually collapses.

Achilles said...

How is "medicare for all" different from the VA?

The VA is basically single payer and it is absolutely terrible. But fixing the VA would be easy, just force everyone into that system!

I know none of the medicare for all people can answer honestly. I have tried. We already have an example of how bad that system is and they just will not discuss the issue in good faith.

Bob Loblaw said...

As I have written before, it's going to be a four year cluster*uck.

After the last eight years we're used to it.

Achilles said...

Unknown said...
Drago, they are all arrogant enough to lie under oath. Good, I hope they do.

I know you think it is OK to use the surveillance agencies on political opponents and illegally leak intercepted communications without redaction as long as they are your opponents. I can only imagine how you would be freaking out if Bush was caught treating Obama this way. I imagine you are going to be defending what Nixon did any moment now. Or the Lion of the Senate. Or Mr. Flexibility himself.

Your alternate reality is going to come crashing down around you. Most people are not amoral hypocrites like you.

Michael K said...

"Most people are not amoral hypocrites like you."

She is a silly fool. You assume you are talking to a rational person.

Bruce Hayden said...

The interesting thing to me about the idea that society should essentially subsidize women's health care, their pregnancies, deliveries, contraception, etc, is that it is, essentially a way to separate from reliance upon men, or, more specifically, a specific man, but instead, put the burden on all men, which essentially allows them to have sex with, and have children by, whichever man they want, without any regard for the men's ability or willingness to have and support those children. The natural progression of this can be found in many, esp Black, underclass neighborhoods, where few women actually get married, but instead have their kids by their baby daddies, and let society pay the bill.

We have recently watched a number of "the First 48 Hours" TV shows, which show actual homicide investigations from start through arrest in cities around that country. The depressing part of the whole thing is that so many of the perps are young black males, and the victims, also black, die leaving (mostly young) children, but almost never a spouse, behind. More young males than females, but some of the latter too. I remember one where a woman was shrieking "baby daddy, baby daddy" upon discovering the death of the father of her kid.

And, it is my contention that this intentional disconnection of sperm donorship from fatherhood and marriage, so that women aren't tied to specific men for the support of themselves and their children is one of the primary causes of the violence that we are seeing these days in lower income intercity neighborhoods around the country. And, yes, I put much of the blame on the Ingas of the world who put their own freedom above the good of society, and, in many cases, the good of their own children. They essentially demand that we support this freedom for them, regardless of how many innocent lives are lost or destroyed.

Let me also note that the most common response above was the obvious rejoinder - that women should take ,personal responsibility for their actions and their lives, and to not have sex or, esp, get pregnant without their sperm donor being willing to commit to providing adequate support (or if the women don't want to depend on their sperm donor to provide adequate support, that they take personal responsibility themselves).

Bruce Hayden said...

As to pregnancy insurance, it was always available in, at least, individual policies, as a rider. The problem was that of adverse selection - women typically wouldn't add one to their policies until they were ready to start trying to have a family. The result was that pregnancy riders tended to be relatively expensive, because many/most of them were utilized. On the flip side, major medical policies tended to cover complications of pregnancy. This meant that the really expensive costs were socialized over the entire population, while the routine ones were paid for by the women having the kids.

Our situation was interesting. We had a private major medical policy that had a pregnancy rider. Then, my wife went to work for an employer who provided healthcare insurance with pregnancy coverage (very reasonable since there were few women in the plan who could get pregnant). We dropped the policy but kept the pregnancy rider, expecting a pregnancy, which soon followed. Turns out that both policies were primary, so neither could subordinate. The individual pregnancy rider paid the deductible on the group policy. Which should have meant that we came out even - except that there were complications with the birth, and both mother and child spent an additional day or two in the hospital. At that point, both policies were paying, at maybe 80% each, which meant that we walked out of the hospital with money in our pockets. Wasn't supposed to happen that way, but I had sold health insurance a decade earlier, and her best friend sold us the individual policy. So, together, we knew better than most how to game the system.

Then there is the flip side. My partner got pregnant on her wedding night. Which coincidentally was the day that she went on her new husband's group policy, which, as was common then, required you to be covered for, say, 3 months, before getting pregnant, for a pregnancy to be covered (to counteract the adverse selection problem noted above). Which meant that the usual costs of the pregnancy and delivery had to be born by the newly wed couple. Turns out, he was making plenty of money, so they were fine, and the complications, again, were paid for with the major medical policy he had from his employer. 🙃

exiledonmainstreet said...

Unknown said...
Drago, they are all arrogant enough to lie under oath. Good, I hope they do."

That is because you are a liar and you love and applaud lies.

Good to see you admit it.

You're also a deeply stupid bimbo who beclowns herself everyday here. You'll never admit that because you're too stupid to realize just how stupid you are.

Michael K said...

"As to pregnancy insurance, it was always available in, at least, individual policies, as a rider."

When my first three kids were born, I was a medical student and a surgery resident. My youngest was born in 1969. There was no insurance coverage for "normal delivery." Only for c-section, which supposedly caused more c-sections to be done. The charge for mother and child for three days hospital stay was about $450. It was a lot in those days but doable. About ten years later, I got divorced and remarried. In 1980, my fourth child was born. This time insurance covered the costs and the total was about $6,000. There had been inflation in the 1970s but that was almost 15 times the cost for the same service. I'm not sure that paid for the OB, who may have not charged me as those days still saw "professional courtesy " among doctors.

The existence of insurance had been the difference. I have a number of stories about this in the chapter on Medical Economics in my medical history book.