Althouse: "So yes, I’ll subsidize someone else’s prenatal coverage, in a more effective way than I’ve been doing by default under the current system..."

December 4, 2013

"So yes, I’ll subsidize someone else’s prenatal coverage, in a more effective way than I’ve been doing by default under the current system..."

"... in which too many pregnant women show up in emergency rooms without having had such care, creating problems for themselves and their babies, and all sorts of costs for taxpayers. And I’ll remember to be relieved that my own access to health care is guaranteed. But they had better work out the problems with the A.C.A.; if they don’t, and it doesn’t fulfill its promise of insuring the uninsured, I’m really going to feel like a chump."

The last paragraph of "My Cancelled Policy, and My Values," by Margaret Talbot in The New Yorker, which I'm going to guess expresses just about exactly where liberal opinion is right now.

121 comments:

Moose said...: ...and the counter to that is while they'll be covered (ignorant baby-mommas) there is no way to *get* them to use the benefits. So they'll still wait, ignore advice, and then hit the emergency rooms.; 12/4/13, 8:57 AM
MadisonMan said...: Look at that Chump in the mirror. Where did she come from!!?; 12/4/13, 8:57 AM
Henry said...: "I’m really going to feel like a chump."

Love the future tense.; 12/4/13, 8:59 AM
Hagar said...: Well, I think she is just going to have to get used to feeling like a chump then, since most of the uninsured do not seem any kind of enthusiastic about the ACA at all when they are told about it, and yes, it applies to them, and it involves paperwork and is not "free."; 12/4/13, 9:01 AM
Hagar said...: Well, I think she is just going to have to get used to feeling like a chump then, since most of the uninsured do not seem any kind of enthusiastic about the ACA at all when they are told about it, and yes, it applies to them, and it involves paperwork and is not "free."; 12/4/13, 9:02 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: The poor dear still believes that Obamacare is supposed to help people, rather than transfer control of their health care to the federal government.
And, of course, no one has a problem with her choosing to subsidize the healthcare of someone she does not know. What they have a problem with is her telling other people they have to subsidize the health care of people that they do not know.; 12/4/13, 9:04 AM
PB said...: "under the current system, in which too many pregnant women show up in emergency rooms without having had such care"

Another sweeping statement not supported by facts, but, boy, does it sound good to the liberal and sympathetic ear!; 12/4/13, 9:04 AM
JHapp said...: I didn't realize that hospitals could just send the bill for ER visits to the state. What a racket.; 12/4/13, 9:05 AM
prairie wind said...: ...too many pregnant women show up in emergency rooms without having had such care, creating problems for themselves and their babies...

I have heard that before...is it true? What terrible problems are caused by women who don't see their obstetrician every few weeks while they are pregnant? Is it really that hard to get through pregnancy safely? What percentage of terrible problems occur in women who see the doc regularly versus those who don't?; 12/4/13, 9:09 AM
prairie wind said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/4/13, 9:10 AM
TosaGuy said...: Everyone has a price. What is the price she will pay before her "values" change? Obamacare will most certainly try to find out!; 12/4/13, 9:16 AM
cold pizza said...: "... in which too many liberal writers show up in opinion pages spouting rumors unsupported by facts, creating problems for themselves and their low-information readers, and all sorts of costs for taxpayers."

FIFY. -CP; 12/4/13, 9:16 AM
Henry said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/4/13, 9:16 AM
Carnifex said...: You can't debate a liberal. They're just plain STUPID. I have ceased trying for about a year now, and boy do I feel a LOT better about not having to goad people into thinking critically.; 12/4/13, 9:17 AM
tim maguire said...: Well gee, it sounds all rational and reasonable when she puts it that way. Too bad her rational and reasonable view wasn't the guiding principle or even much of a discussion point when the legislation was being crafted and stuffed down our throats.

Perhaps if she and hers were more thoughtful and honest back then, things would have turned out better.; 12/4/13, 9:18 AM
Levi Starks said...: Her twisted logic makes my head spin.
Is that what I could expect to learn if I were in college today?; 12/4/13, 9:18 AM
rehajm said...: The economic incentives of the affordable care act make it unsustainable. There is no 'fix'.; 12/4/13, 9:18 AM
rehajm said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/4/13, 9:19 AM
Freeman Hunt said...: She thinks only people who can afford it get prenatal care? Ha ha ha.

You'd think people who assert that they care so much about poor people might bother to know some actual poor people.; 12/4/13, 9:22 AM
Deirdre Mundy said...: A lot of the coverage expansion from ACA comes from getting more people into Medicaid. BUT in a lot of areas it's difficult to find an OB taking new patients, much less one taking new Medicaid patients... and ACA is driving more OBs to retire....

So I predict a net LOSS in prenatal care.

OTOH, I once had a doctor tell me, when I showed up to my first appt. 5 months pregnant (Lost track of time, I'm irregular, and we'd had stomach viruses on and off for months)...that, really, for me, maternity care wasn't a big deal since I don't drink much at all (like 2 beers a month spread over 4 servings), don't smoke, and take prenatals all the time....

SO.. For most people, prenatal care isn't going to make or break the pregnancy, if they remember to buy a big jar of generic prenatal vitamins. And the crack-moms showing up in the ER? All the prenatal care in the world couldn't help them.....

So--- fewer OBs, and still no way to reach the truly destitute (who probably already qualified for medicaid, since it's easier to qualify if you're pregnant.) How does ACA solve anything again?; 12/4/13, 9:22 AM
Brando said...: It really is all about packaging. Get a "hip", socially acceptable President who already has "progressive cred" to slap his name on it, and progressives all around the country will get behind a law that both forces individuals to buy lousy, pre-approved products from big insurance companies as well as shovel government money at these companies while at the same time pretend that this is going to help the unfortunate.

If Bush proposed this exact thing five years ago? Costco would have a run on bulk tar and feathers.; 12/4/13, 9:23 AM
Jaq said...: I bet the reason that they didn't go for single-payer is that it would have caused such a fight over including illegal aliens. Given that political reality, lying to get the plan passed in its current form was probably their only option.; 12/4/13, 9:30 AM
Scott M said...: Love the future tense.

A point of order, sir. Liberals only use first-person-present.; 12/4/13, 9:31 AM
Farmer said...: But seriously - it is complete, total bullshit that taxpayers pay for unpaid ER bills, isn't it? Aren't those expenses paid for from a variety sources, only one of which is government grants (none of which would be reduced a penny if everyone were insured)? I mean, if you really, desperately wanted to stretch the point I guess you could have the kernel of an argument there, but it seems slightly dishonest.; 12/4/13, 9:31 AM
hombre said...: Talking points without supporting data. Typical lefty values. Typical lefty politics. America's termites.; 12/4/13, 9:32 AM
MarkW said...: The joke is on her. Many of the people going to the emergency rooms for health care aren't uninsured -- they have Medicaid, but can't find doctors. The ACA expands Medicaid ...but doesn't increase Medicaid reimbursements or increase the number of Medicaid providers. So emergency rooms are likely to get more crowded.; 12/4/13, 9:32 AM
Michael said...: Lefties wear their sanctimony like Tiffany bracelets, Schlumberger. Do they not see how cloying and unattractive this trait is? To parade your goodness.

Barf.; 12/4/13, 9:33 AM
Deirdre Mundy said...: Oh-- and the one pregnancy where my baby was born super-sick and needed a helicopter ride?

I had prenatal care...all the standard tests.... and they still missed the major heart defect.

Prenatal care is not some magic spell that suddenly makes a sick baby well. And in terms of maternal health, the most important things are: vitamins, diet, and exercise. Doctors can monitor and nag, but.... unless something is REALLY wrong, prenatal care seems to be more about peace of mind than outcomes...; 12/4/13, 9:34 AM
Scott M said...: Would Talbot consider prenatal care, which is part of health care, a right?

If so, who's benefiting? The mother and the unborn equally? Does the unborn have a right to prenatal care?

That would open up a whole 'nother can 'o worms.; 12/4/13, 9:35 AM
MadisonMan said...: Doctors can monitor and nag, but.... unless something is REALLY wrong, prenatal care seems to be more about peace of mind than outcomes.

And protection from lawsuits.; 12/4/13, 9:42 AM
Matt Sablan said...: Isn't that all preventative care though?

"It's super silly, except when it isn't."; 12/4/13, 9:44 AM
Tacitus said...: Nonsense.

I can say that in Wisconsin nobody goes without prenatal care due to lack of funds. It is a high priority and doctors will care for you first and assume that at least the meager MA reimbursement will be along after the fact.

Also, as an ER doc I can say that the number of helpful things I can do for a pregnant lady in the ER are...limited. Sure, diagnose that ectopic. Put in some fluids for somebody with severe 1st trimester vomiting. But provide basic prenatal care? No. And asking a critical care area to do so robs time from other potentially unstable patients.

Tacitus; 12/4/13, 9:45 AM
dbp said...: "" if they don’t, and it doesn’t fulfill its promise of insuring the uninsured, I’m really going to feel like a chump.""

When "they don't", she will engage in some moral and mental gymnastics to avoid ever admitting to being a "chump". It will always be a future or hypothetical state which never actually arrives.; 12/4/13, 9:50 AM
Original Mike said...: "[If the A.C.A.] doesn’t fulfill its promise of insuring the uninsured, I’m really going to feel like a chump."

A new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report says that under the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, 30 million non-elderly Americans will remain without health insurance in 2022.

You ARE a chump, Margaret.; 12/4/13, 9:50 AM
Big Mike said...: @Original-me. Would you care to take a bet that as on January 1st there will be more people lacking health insurance than there were before Octber 1st?; 12/4/13, 10:00 AM
Anonymous said...: She's certainly on board with the "blame insurers for everything the ACA is forcing them to do" part of liberal opinion.; 12/4/13, 10:00 AM
Michael K said...: Medicaid has always covered pregnant LEGAL residents. Illegals are another matter.

This is all bosh from the lefties.; 12/4/13, 10:01 AM
George M. Spencer said...: She's rich.

That's all you need to know.

An extra $300 a month is spare change for her.

I would ask her, "What if it were an extra $600/month? How about an extra $1,000/mo.?" See where the pain starts to kick in.; 12/4/13, 10:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Maybe part of her writing career depends upon being a member of a certain tribe, even if her experience and her brain tell her doing so is remarkably chump-like.

That I can understand, rather than the tortured logic.; 12/4/13, 10:12 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: What has become ever more apparent is that there has been a lot of slight of hand going on by the Administration, the Dems in Congress, and lefties in the media, concerning ObamaCare. Yes, a number of formerly uninsured people are getting "insurance", but what they are mostly getting is Medicaid. Esp. those who would be affected by the prenatal care. Sure, there are some who are getting insurance now, when they couldn't before, because of pre-existing conditions. But, they aren't the ones needing prenatal care. Those who would get the prenatal care, and wouldn't have before, most likely did not have health insurance because of its costs.

So, these people would get their prenatal coverage through an expanded Medicaid program. Is that any reason to massively reorganize 1/6 of the economy, throwing millions out of the insurance plans that they liked, and keeping them from seeing the doctors they liked? My view is no - the Dem Congress could have just stopped at increasing Medicaid, which they included in ObamaCare, preventing all the damage that they did with that legislation, and accomplishing their stated goal.

So, when analyzing claims in favor of ObamaCare, I think it prudent to ask whether this supposed benefit is a result of expanding Medicaid (which could have been done by itself) or a real benefit of the private insurance portion of this legislation.; 12/4/13, 10:15 AM
Original Mike said...: @Big-me: A lot more.; 12/4/13, 10:15 AM
garage mahal said...: I thought conservatives love love LOVE babies? Shouldn't we be doing everything we can to ensure healthy development?; 12/4/13, 10:18 AM
Michael said...: Garage. Babies dont live in wombs. If they do then abortion is murder, no? So when should we begin taking care of women who are pregnant? At which week in their pregnancy should the care be undertaken?; 12/4/13, 10:20 AM
Michael said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/4/13, 10:21 AM
gadfly said...: Margaret Talbot writes well, but her mind fails to focus on the problem. What idiot - I ask myself - would call BCBS, stay on hold 42+20+15 minutes and Lord knows how long at the DC health exchange and then endure multiple nonsensical responses - especially since her California friends had already provided the answers to her question? While waiting the first 42 minutes she could have done what she did in the end - search the internet.

"Rediscovering values" really means rationalizing the insurance problem to fit her mindset. Margaret would never have been denied insurance for high blood pressure, but "others" - those whose living conditions she misunderstands but whose lives she wants to control - need her taxes in the short term until single payer healthcare magically makes the taxes go away.

The lady really needs to research the underlying costs and ineffectiveness of any government-controlled program.; 12/4/13, 10:24 AM
Marty Keller said...: Garage Mahal said, "I thought conservatives love love LOVE babies? Shouldn't we be doing everything we can to ensure healthy development?"

Who's "we" here? If "we" means "the parents," well, yeah, of course. If "we" means taxpayers, why, exactly, would that be our responsibility?; 12/4/13, 10:27 AM
Writ Small said...: Lefties are generous with other people's money. It's part of the reason they vilify successful people. It provides a psychological rationale for picking some stranger's pocket. Obamacare requires progressives to be generous with their own money. Seeing how wealthy liberals fight school choice so that their own children aren't crowded out of their nice, suburban schools, you can easily see the seeds of Obamacare's destruction.; 12/4/13, 10:28 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: So it's morning in America. Gas prices are low, the stock market is high and everyone finally gets health care.; 12/4/13, 10:36 AM
Illuninati said...: "And then, this morning, I remembered my values"

Fine lady. Keep your "values" but stop forcing your "values" on everyone else.

""Remember, it didn’t take much to be counted as having a pre-existing health condition that got you rated up or denied—obesity, high blood pressure, arthritis, asthma, depression...That is indeed a harsh standard, and not one I want governing my life, or those of other people.

Actually she is governing other people's lives by that very standard. Everyone has to pay high rick premiums because of Obamacare not just those who are high risk. My wife was recently booted from her high risk policy. The monthly premium under Obamacare has not changed much for her but has gone up for everyone else.

"And I’ll remember to be relieved that my own access to health care is guaranteed. But they had better work out the problems with the A.C.A.; if they don’t, and it doesn’t fulfill its promise of insuring the uninsured, I’m really going to feel like a chump."

This is the biggest leftie lie. They know health care is not guaranteed by ACA or single payer. No government can provide unlimited health care for everyone. The central feature of government healthcare are the death panels whose only job is to deny healthcare to people whose lives the government bureaucrats view as less valuable.

Will she ever admit she is a chump? Not in a million years. Lefties never say I'm sorry.; 12/4/13, 10:46 AM
Anonymous said...: There's already a shortage of primary care doctors, even more so of docs who will put up with Medicaid reimbursement and the patients who come with it. ACA adds millions of Medicaid patients, but not a single physician, nurse, or med tech.
There are 16K new IRS agents- at least that's a consolation.; 12/4/13, 10:48 AM
Deirdre Mundy said...: I do love babies. BUT... the ACA will not actually improve prenatal care. The 'women delivering in the ER' don't take advantage of the programs already in place (Medicaid, WIC, etc.) that are very generous to pregnant women. So you think more rules and a broken website are going to help?

The people showing up with absolutely no prenatal care are often on drugs or the untreated mentally ill. They don't need health insurance--they need one-on-one pregnancy coaches or something.....

Meanwhile-- by kicking people OFF insurance, ACA is going to deny more prenatal care than it provides.

(For instance, plans with decent maternity benefits, but no free contraception, sterilization or mental healthy care? They're gone. And the new ACA 'bronze' deductibles? If my family bought into one of those plans, the deductible would be more than the cost of a C-section. Thanks, ACA!); 12/4/13, 10:49 AM
Scott M said...: So it's morning in America. Gas prices are low, the stock market is high and everyone finally gets health care.

You should remember to use one of the sarcasm fonts when you're trying to be humorous.; 12/4/13, 10:53 AM
Anonymous said...: And I’ll remember to be relieved that my own access to health care is guaranteed.

No, there is no guaranteed access to healthcare in the ACA. Guaranteed access to health insurance, sure, but that is an equestrian animal of a completely different hue. It is important, no doubt, but it isn't access to healthcare, and it may well decrease access to healthcare. More people insured, same number of physicians and hospital beds, you do the math.; 12/4/13, 10:55 AM
hombre said...: "So it's morning in America. Gas prices are low, the stock market is high and everyone finally gets health care."

There it is folks, critical thinking a la lefty.; 12/4/13, 11:04 AM
Matt Sablan said...: Gas prices are low? I don't drive, so this is actually a legit question on my part. I don't pay attention to them since they don't impact my daily commute.; 12/4/13, 11:04 AM
Scott M said...: Gas prices are low? I don't drive, so this is actually a legit question on my part. I don't pay attention to them since they don't impact my daily commute.

$3.00 is high. It's been hovering at or just under/over for most of 2013. You could say that gas prices are stable, but not low.; 12/4/13, 11:08 AM
Original Mike said...: "...and everyone finally gets health care."

Don't you feel foolish uttering such a glaringly obvious untruth?; 12/4/13, 11:09 AM
Skeptical Voter said...: She's a chump. But her real values are expressed in the sentence where she wishes for a single payer system. In that event, she wouldn't have any premiums to pay. The government and the tax payers would take care of it all.; 12/4/13, 11:10 AM
MadisonMan said...: $3.00 is high

Not when a Democrat is President.; 12/4/13, 11:19 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Scott M said...
Gas prices are low?

For a commodity, gas prices, in real dollars, have been remarkably stable over nearly a century, despite all the regular hysteria about prices. For whatever reason, gas prices have hit a local low point in my immediate area. They had been well above the national average and have fallen much closer to the average.; 12/4/13, 11:22 AM
Michael K said...: 12/4/13, 11:10 AM
Blogger MadisonMan said...

"$3.00 is high

Not when a Democrat is President."

If you come to California, where you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a Democrat politician, gas is about $3.60.

The more Democrats, the higher the gas prices, and electricity prices.; 12/4/13, 11:26 AM
Scott M said...: For a commodity, gas prices, in real dollars, have been remarkably stable

I said as much. I monitor corporate updates for weekly fuel surcharges using the U.S. On-Highway Diesel Fuel Prices (dollars per gallon) and have done so for years, so you could say I'm aware.

For whatever reason, gas prices have hit a local low point in my immediate area.

What is your metro?; 12/4/13, 11:32 AM
damikesc said...: So it's morning in America. Gas prices are low, the stock market is high and everyone finally gets health care.

Gas is over $3/gallon here. I guess that's "low" to some. I know if Bush was in office, it'd have lead newscasts.

More people lost insurance than have gained without Obamacare (and millions still will not be insured).

But, yeah, the stock market is high.

Go Progressives!; 12/4/13, 11:35 AM
Deirdre Mundy said...: I can't remember the last time we had gas under $3. Usually it's closer to 3.30, and it creeps higher every year. Meanwhile, no one's had a raise in ages, and our cost of insurance has gone UP. Also, food is going up too, and packages are getting smaller. Stagflation, baby!

Mourning in America.; 12/4/13, 11:36 AM
test said...: Deirdre Mundy said...
A lot of the coverage expansion from ACA comes from getting more people into Medicaid.

Keep in mind the "I pay more so other people get something" trade the author is professing to accept. The increased premiums for Obamacare customers don't go to the government, they go to the private insurers. But those insurers are not covering medicaid patients. So her premium is in no way covering them.

So we can safely drop the "if", Talbot's a chump.; 12/4/13, 11:38 AM
Original Mike said...: The stock market is high,

and retirees are getting no return on their savings.

Heck of a job, Barry!; 12/4/13, 11:41 AM
TosaGuy said...: Where are these cheap gas prices of which you speak? $3.00/gallon is not cheap.; 12/4/13, 11:46 AM
Strelnikov said...: Spoken like a true child of privilege:

http://www.vogue.com/culture/article/at-home-in-hollywood-in-a-new-book-margaret-talbot-recalls-the-glitzy-life-of-her-father-actor-lyle-talbot/#1; 12/4/13, 11:48 AM
Crunchy Frog said...: What terrible problems are caused by women who don't see their obstetrician every few weeks while they are pregnant?

Their OBGYNs become late on their boat payments. Can't have that.; 12/4/13, 11:48 AM
hombre said...: "I thought conservatives love love LOVE babies? Shouldn't we be doing everything we can to ensure healthy development?"

More lefty critical thinking. Right, garage, and Obamacare will guarantee that all those "responsible" moms who deliver in the emergency room will show up for prenatal care, etc. Correct?

And if we don't think so it means we don't love babies. Correct?

Ridiculous!; 12/4/13, 11:51 AM
Deirdre Mundy said...: The Terrible problem of skipping OB appointments:

Unless your OB knows you well, he assumes you're skipping on prenatal care because you're uneducated and on drugs.

That means he's less likely to let you labor in peace. So he's more likely to do a C-section to cover himself in case of lawsuits.

So... women who want to avoid conflict at the moment of birth get prenatal care to signal that they are the sort of good, responsible mother who can be trusted to take care of themselves.; 12/4/13, 11:52 AM
Deirdre Mundy said...: And I *LIKE* my OB. But I could weigh myself, pee in a cup and do a pH test, and take my blood pressure without ever leaving the house.

It's social signalling. And making sure you have an established relationship with a doctor so that *IF* something goes wrong, you don't have to go to the ER.

But people who go to Medicaid mills don't usually establish that relationship anyway-- they see nurses, and the first time they see the doc is at delivery... so....

ACA fail.; 12/4/13, 11:54 AM
hombre said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/4/13, 11:55 AM
TosaGuy said...: "$3 a gallon? Where can you get gas for $3 a gallon."

Paid $2.99 today. If I told you then it won't be $2.99 anymore ;); 12/4/13, 11:56 AM
hombre said...: "Where are these cheap gas prices of which you speak? $3.00/gallon is not cheap."

$3 a gallon? Where can you get gas for $3 a gallon?
(Corrected); 12/4/13, 12:00 PM
mccullough said...: With liberals, it's all about how they feel.; 12/4/13, 12:00 PM
damikesc said...: What happened to my insurance dropping by $2500? I mean, mine went up by 33% this year (pay not going up by that much, mind you), so I bet others saved a ton...but I've not heard of any.; 12/4/13, 12:12 PM
NCMoss said...: With liberals (and the president in particular) it's all about the appearance of being concerned; which is miles away from being sincerely concerned and which is miles away from doing the right thing.; 12/4/13, 12:16 PM
Andy Freeman said...: > For a commodity, gas prices, in real dollars, have been remarkably stable over nearly a century,

When Bush left office, gas was around $1.80/gallon.

When gas hit $3 during the Bush administration, Dems screamed.

Obama got the message. His first secretary of energy thought that gas should be $8/gallon.

Curiously, dems haven't complained about high gas prices.; 12/4/13, 12:42 PM
PackerBronco said...: garage mahal said...
I thought conservatives love love LOVE babies? Shouldn't we be doing everything we can to ensure healthy development?

That's very nice dear, but the adults are having an adult conversation right now, so please go back to the kiddie table.; 12/4/13, 12:46 PM
Hagar said...: Around 1960 regular unleaded was very stable in NM at 32.9 cents/gal.

That is worth about $3.30/gal. in today's money, depending on who is counting, and the current price for regular in Albuquerque, is $2.95+/- per gal., so yes, gasoline is a little cheap at the moment.; 12/4/13, 12:48 PM
Rusty said...: AReasonableMan said...
Scott M said...
Gas prices are low?

For a commodity, gas prices, in real dollars, have been remarkably stable over nearly a century, despite all the regular hysteria about prices. For whatever reason, gas prices have hit a local low point in my immediate area. They had been well above the national average and have fallen much closer to the average.

Then gas is expensive for another reason. What could it be?; 12/4/13, 12:55 PM
Rusty said...: damikesc said...
What happened to my insurance dropping by $2500? I mean, mine went up by 33% this year (pay not going up by that much, mind you), so I bet others saved a ton...but I've not heard of any.

Don't worry ARM is going to cover the difference.; 12/4/13, 12:56 PM
Jason said...: Gas would be closer to $4 and higher if the economy were stronger… especially with manufacturing and transportation bidding up energy prices.

Why isn't gas that high, now?

1. Because tracking.
2. …vastly increased production on private land (no thanks to Obama and despite the administration kicking and screaming.
3. A general global slowdown, with Europe approaching or in recession and Chinese growth slowing considerably, vastly reducing global demand.

Liberal shitbirds have zero to do with it, and are actively making things worse.

Verily I say unto you… if you see oil or gas prices fall for no visible reason, it is bad news, not good.; 12/4/13, 1:25 PM
Jason said...: Some libtard shithead always points to the stock market these days. The previous stock market high was in 2007. Was the economy in great shape then, dumbass?

Why is the stock market high now? Because of massive quantitative easing… and the promise of more of it under a Yellen Fed. It's inflation feeding high stock prices. And accumulated cash, because companies are afraid to invest it under the current thugs in the White House.

Where would they put it to compensate themselves for the risk? Returns are so low. The way to maximize your share price in the short run is to put cash in the bank and hint at dividends.; 12/4/13, 1:31 PM
MadisonMan said...: Why is the stock market high now?

Where else can you put your money for even a reasonable return? Interest rates are .1%? .2%? And that's if you have 5+ figures to squirrel away.; 12/4/13, 1:42 PM
garage mahal said...: That's very nice dear, but the adults are having an adult conversation right now, so please go back to the kiddie table.

LOL; 12/4/13, 1:42 PM
heyboom said...: Here in California, even uninsured illegals are covered by MediCal. Even so, so many MediCal patients do not avail themselves of prenatal care.; 12/4/13, 1:51 PM
garage mahal said...: We kicked more people off Medicaid than any other state. I'm always surprised I never hear conservatives eager to move here to bask in our Tea Party Paradise.; 12/4/13, 1:57 PM
Original Mike said...: "We kicked more people off Medicaid than any other state."

Aren't they supposed to go to the ObamaCare exchange?; 12/4/13, 2:11 PM
Michael K said...: "I'm always surprised I never hear conservatives eager to move here to bask in our Frozen Paradise. "

FIFY; 12/4/13, 2:14 PM
Michael K said...: Blogger MadisonMan said...

"Why is the stock market high now?

Where else can you put your money for even a reasonable return? Interest rates are .1%? .2%? And that's if you have 5+ figures to squirrel away."

Wait until interest rates inch up. There are 30 million fingers on the button. It will make 1929 look like a hiccup.; 12/4/13, 2:16 PM
n.n said...: Prenatal care doesn't require an expansion of Medicaid. Perhaps Obama should have addressed cost (i.e. before insurance) and availability (e.g. family doctors) of medical care, and, of course, economic development. Also, there is "feed the pig", which is already a government program.

Obamacare not only exacerbates the status quo of unaffordable medical care, but also contributes to the total cost of education. Education in this country is extremely expensive.; 12/4/13, 2:30 PM
madAsHell said...: This thread was about health insurance.

Don't feed the trolls.; 12/4/13, 2:37 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: It's morning in America - you can now eliminate all public pension debt simply by declaring bankruptcy. Problem solved.; 12/4/13, 2:44 PM
CWJ said...: Being legally required to subsidize someone else with no expectation of direct personal benefit is a tax. Doing so without legal compulsion is charity. Either way, its not health insurance.; 12/4/13, 2:47 PM
Original Mike said...: "It's morning in America - you can now eliminate all public pension debt simply by declaring bankruptcy. Problem solved."

That's what happens when you, ultimately, really can't pay your bills. That's what's always happened. That's the only thing that can happen.

You can't get blood from a turnip.; 12/4/13, 2:50 PM
Michael said...: Its morning in America where you have to fund pensions. Pay bills on time. repay mortgages that you were forced to take to buy bass boats and BMWs.; 12/4/13, 2:53 PM
garage mahal said...: Aren't they supposed to go to the ObamaCare exchange?

Presumably. But most won't, that's why they were on Medicaid to begin with. Pay 120 million more to cover less people. Oh well.; 12/4/13, 2:54 PM
Bryan C said...: "So I predict a net LOSS in prenatal care."

Look. We wrote out everything that will happen on these pieces of paper. And then we signed it. In INK. BOOM. Settled law.

So you better stop scaring people with your silly logic and facts.; 12/4/13, 2:59 PM
Original Mike said...: "But most won't, that's why they were on Medicaid to begin with."

ACA screws millions (and soon to be tens of millions) of responsible people providing for themselves, in order to provide insurance for people who don't even want it. Brilliant.; 12/4/13, 3:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I think a lot of the commenters here are forgetting the author is a liberal.

In her mind, two things are happening under the ACA.

1) A lot of women who dind't have health insurance before now will have this beautiful thing known as health insurance and they are going to use it.

2) This means when these women get pregnant, they'll go and see a doctor now, whereas before they wouldn't. And when they go and see the doctor, they will learn their baby is a crack head, or has a heart defect, or some other issue. Then they'll have an abortion, instead of carry it to term.

Presto! No more emergency room babies!; 12/4/13, 3:34 PM
damikesc said...: It's morning in America - you can now eliminate all public pension debt simply by declaring bankruptcy. Problem solved.

That's what being broke means. They did vote for the idiots that did it. They aren't victims here.; 12/4/13, 4:05 PM
B said...: garage mahal said...We kicked more people off Medicaid than any other state....

garage, your credibility, honesty, and mendacity has gotten to the point where there is no earthly reason to waste time addressing or researching any point you make. You have become a boring blowhard. Congrats.; 12/4/13, 4:41 PM
garage mahal said...: @B
Did I state something that wasn't true, or do you just hate my posts in general.; 12/4/13, 4:57 PM
Chef Mojo said...: I'm always surprised I never hear conservatives eager to move here to bask in our Tea Party Paradise.

No, garage. I probably has more to do with the fact that it gets real fucking cold up there this time of year. You can only go so far on Leinies and brats before the novelty of freezing your nether regions till they drop wears off. If y'all could raise the temperature, cordon off Madison and give Milwaukee to Illinois, I'd definitely consider the move.; 12/4/13, 5:49 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm always surprised I never hear conservatives eager to move here to bask in our Tea Party Paradise.

Really? I'd have thought the knowledge that you yourself have not decamped for some Tea Party-free paradise like California would have prepared you for the shock at least a little.; 12/4/13, 6:00 PM
B said...: Did I state something that wasn't true...

Constantly. Which is why even if something you post is true it doesn't get followed up and so it lacks credentials also. Once you have the reputation as a liar the safe assumption is that anything you say is a lie. You and Inga.; 12/4/13, 6:01 PM
garage mahal said...: B, tell me what isn't true and I'll try to do better. Retract even, if necessary.; 12/4/13, 6:27 PM
B said...: You don't get it. As simply as I can put it, I would not bother to expend the effort to find out whether anything you post is this thread is true because so much of what you've posted historically that I did look was false. It is not whether or not what you post in this thread is true. I ASSUME it is false based on experience.

You teach kids that if you lie repeatedly - The Boy Who Cried Wolf - then eventually no one will believe you at all. This was evidently either never taught to you or it was but never took.

Again, you and Inga.; 12/4/13, 6:48 PM
Original Mike said...: @B: Ditto. I stopped following garage's links because they never said what he claimed they did.; 12/4/13, 6:54 PM
garage mahal said...: It's not gentlemanly to call someone a liar without being able to demonstrate it. I'm assuming you took exception to "We kicked more people off Medicaid than any other state". Now in the old days we'd have to take this up in fisticuffs. Thankfully, blogger will do:

Wisconsin to cut more people from Medicaid than any other state; 12/4/13, 6:57 PM
garage mahal said...: Oops, see here; 12/4/13, 6:59 PM
B said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/4/13, 7:37 PM
B said...: Like I said, you don't get it.; 12/4/13, 7:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Garage,

The link you gave takes you to the original source which is KaiserHealthNews.org.

There you'll find this paragraph:

"Wisconsin would cut more people from Medicaid than any other state as part of a plan advanced by Republican Gov. Scott Walker and still awaiting federal approval. About 92,000 people -- 87,000 parents and caretaker relatives, and 5,000 childless adults with incomes above the federal poverty level -- would lose the Medicaid coverage they previously had as a result of a wavier and be sent to the online insurance marketplace. At the same time, the state is planning to add 100,000 Wisconsin childless adults with incomes below the poverty level to Medicaid."

Now, you originally said about Wisconsin:

"We kicked more people off Medicaid than any other state"

Which your link doesn't say. Nor does that paragraph. Instead, it says that's the plan. In the future. It might happen.

Maybe it has? Maybe it hasn't? We don't know because you didn't provide us with any evidence. However, you did state that it's happened already.

The next thing you failed to mention is the last sentence. While they plan to kick 92,000 from Medicaid, they also planned to add 100,000. Net: 8,000.

This may be why people struggle to believe you.; 12/4/13, 8:16 PM
MaxedOutMama said...: Well, I've got bad news for her - CBO's estimate of the ACA impact on uninsured is that the portion of the non-Medicare population who are insured will rise from 80% to 86% by 2015. This is not quite what most would find satisfactory.; 12/4/13, 8:34 PM
30yearProf said...: She is free to give 99% of her inflated New York salary to the poor. That is charity.

She is not free to give even 1% of my salary to her favorite cause(s). That denies me any free choice. It's armed (yes, all IRS Special Agents are armed, they even have a SWAT Team) robbery.; 12/4/13, 10:09 PM
30yearProf said...: She is free to give 99% of her inflated New York salary to the poor. That is charity.

She is not free to give even 1% of my salary to her favorite cause(s). That denies me any free choice. It's armed (yes, all IRS Special Agents are armed, they even have a SWAT Team) robbery.; 12/4/13, 10:11 PM
Michael The Magnificent said...: "She is not free to give even 1% of my salary to her favorite cause(s). That denies me any free choice. It's armed (yes, all IRS Special Agents are armed, they even have a SWAT Team) robbery."

Before she was my ex, my gf (daughter of a former nun!) and I had the following conversation:

Her: Social Security should be means tested.

Me: I could see allowing people to opt out of the Social Security system altogether. Is that what you mean?

Her: No. I think all workers should have to pay into Social Security, but if you already have enough money you shouldn't receive Social Security benefits.

Me: So all workers would have to pay?

Her: Yes.

Me: And some of those who payed in would never get a penny back?

Her: Correct.

Me: But they wouldn't have a choice in the matter?

Her: No, they wouldn't.

Me: So you propose taking money from people against their will, and then not giving it back to them. How is that different from stealing?

(crickets chirping); 12/5/13, 12:56 AM
Andy Freeman said...: > Here in California, even uninsured illegals are covered by MediCal. Even so, so many MediCal patients do not avail themselves of prenatal care.

CA isn't alone in that.

Free prenatal care is available almost everywhere in the US. (There are free clinics in almost every city, plus county, state, and federal programs.) However, you have to sign up and show up.

ACA doesn't make either one easier, so how is it going to reduce the number of pregnant women who don't use prenatal care.; 12/5/13, 10:27 AM