Saturday, March 29, 2014

Is Pregnancy a Disease?

Tom posted a comment on MinnPost's Birth Control is Not a Religious Issue, It is Basic Healthcare.
"When did we start treating pregnancy as a disease?"
That triggered some interesting thoughts for me, so I posted comments.  And they did not show up, which happens occasionally the first or second time.  However after posting them 5 times I think someone over their is censoring them...  It is at times like this I am happy to have my own blog.

My comment seemed pretty simple and not too questionable.  It went something like this:
"Tom, That is an excellent comment/question. If pregnancy is the disease, the growing human would be like a tumor. That does seem consistent with the views of the pro-choice groups, even when that little human heart is beating.

So if birth control is not a healthcare issue, but actually a technique to prevent incurring a healthcare issue. Should HEALTH insurance be forced to pay for condoms, motorcycle helmets, airbags in cars, etc? These also are critical prevention methods to protect people from incurring harm while participating in voluntary activities." G2A
I am trying to think of other medicines that healthcare insurance covers to protect people from the actions of their personal choices and activities.  I mean there are well care checks, monitoring tests, drugs to control chronic conditions, etc however I can not think of many other cases where health insurance pays for supplies to prevent a normal healthy human condition from occurring because someone wants to participate in an activity.

I suppose some of the cholesterol drugs enable people to eat unhealthy, however it is to prevent a disease from occurring.  So back to Tom's enlightened question...  Is pregnancy a disease?

Thoughts?

76 comments:

Anonymous said...

When did we start saying all that health care does is treat diseases?

--Hiram

John said...

Do you think it is a physical injury then?

Kind of like spraining an ankle while wrestling...

John said...

I guess that would equate those healthy growing human cells to a broken bone, torn ACL, a bloody gash, etc.

Not sure if that is worse or better than the growing tumor comparison.

Anonymous said...

Do you think it is a physical injury then?

It's a health condition. Like near sightedness. People go to doctor's office for insured visits when there is nothing wrong with them at all.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

I have no problem at all insuring pregnancy costs. That's not a disease either.

--Hiram

John said...

So now it is a physical failure for the body to perform correctly... Kind of like short sightedness, far sightedness, etc.

Interestingly enough, many of those types of issues are not part of many "health insurance" plans, just like many dental issues are not.

So how can these folks believe it is necessary to forcefully mandate that the insurance companies pay for the typical birth control pill, the IUD, the morning after pill, etc?

I mean the BC Pill can address real physical on going issues like acne, extreme PMS, etc. But the others only do one thing, they protect women from the unwanted potential natural physical consequences of undertaking a certain voluntary activity.

No different than my motorcycle helmet...

John said...

Now I don't care if insurance covers these or not, however the nerve of the Sarah to entitle her MinnPost article "Birth control is not a religious issue; it is a basic health-care issue" seems incredibly silly looking at it from this perspective.

Especially when Hobby Lobby isn't against the normal BC Pill...
Hobby Lobby

Anonymous said...


"So now it is a physical failure for the body to perform correctly... Kind of like short sightedness, far sightedness, etc."

I don't think pregnancy is a disease or a failure by the body to perform correctly, but I do think it should be covered by insurance.

I have no problem with forcefully mandating insurance companies to cover maternity costs, although I don't think it will be necessary to use armed force.

Is there a dispute on this point?

--Hiram

John said...

Now providing care during pregnancy is healthcare for both the Mother and fetus/tumor.

I just don't see IUD's or the morning after pill as "healthcare". Do you really see these as "maternity" cost?

Anonymous said...


I just don't see IUD's or the morning after pill as "healthcare". Do you really see these as "maternity" cost?

I don't think they provide maternity care for free. Is your problem with the word "health"? Would a different word make it better? How about "medical" care?

--Hiram

John said...

Now you do know what maternity means?

And you do know what an IUD and the Morning After Pill do?

I really don't think it is very maternal to prevent one's fertilized egg from bonding to one's uterine wall, therefore making sure it starves and dies.. Or does your ideaa of "maternal" align to "Mommy Dearest" or the mother of "Norman Bates". Or maybe those women in the news who have killed their children.

John said...

Of course, if one thinks of that fertilized human egg as just a liitle nuisance bacteria that needs to be killed... Then I guess it is medical care.

Which would bring us back to pregnancy being an illness. Hard to imagine how people apparently see no difference between a fertilized human egg and a bout of pink eye...

Anonymous said...

I thought this was a discussion of whether pregnancy is a disease. I don't think it is, but I think health insurance should cover it anyway.

--Hiram

John said...

Nobody disagrees with covering pregnancy costs.

They disagree with being forced to cover the cost to kill a fertilized human egg.

Laurie said...

this topic is dumb. corporations are not people. No one is being forced to cover the cost to kill a fertilized human egg. Also, it is a good idea for health insurance to cover the cost of helmets.

Laurie said...

Off topic link with more questions than answers that I thought you might find interesting:

Real World Economics: Balancing economic growth vs. public good

Anonymous said...

Nobody disagrees with covering pregnancy costs.

Does that mean every agrees that it's ok for health insurance to cover something other then the treatment of disease?

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

They disagree with being forced to cover the cost to kill a fertilized human egg.

I was forced to pay for the Iraq War. If the principle is established that you shouldn't have to pay for stuff you don't agree with, will I be able to get my money back?

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

this topic is dumb. corporations are not people.

It's kind of an interesting question. Mitt Romney said corporations are people. If they are people, which people are they? Are corporations their owners? But the whole point of corporate structure is to distance the corporation from those who own it. For example, the owners of a corporation are not liable for the corporation's debts. Should the reverse be true? Should a corporation be responsible for it's owner's debts? Whose religion does a corporation take on? A corporation doesn't take on it's owners' debts, does it take on it's owners' religion? Why do the owners get to determine a corporation's religion? Why shouldn't other stakeholders have a say? Managers? Employees? Are they not a part of the corporation too?

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in government. That's a doctrine of their faith. Does the fact that they are forced to pay taxes violate their first amendment rights?

By the way, is the requirement that we obey the law based on force? Or is the obligation to obey the law a voluntary choice, something we can freely infer from the decision to live in a country where laws are in place?

--Hiram

John said...

"No one is being forced to cover the cost to kill a fertilized human egg."

Laurie,
Please explain to us what you think an IUD and the Morning After Pill do.

"Does that mean every agrees that it's ok for health insurance to cover something other then the treatment of disease?"

Of course the vast majority do, we fund many preventive care measures. Well checks, mammograms, colonoscopy, etc.

John said...

Morning After Pill "Plan B One-Step emergency contraception may prevent pregnancy by temporarily blocking eggs from being produced, by stopping fertilization, or by keeping a fertilized egg from becoming implanted in the uterus. " WEB MD

"There are two types of IUDs available in the United States. One type releases the hormone progestin, which causes the cervical mucus to become thicker so the sperm cannot reach the egg. The hormone also changes the lining of the uterus, so implantation of a fertilized egg cannot occur." WEB MD

After researching, it appears that the woman is not "pregnant" until the fertilized egg attaches to the uterine wall, so technically the above are not abortifacients.

I wonder if that fine point matters to the fertilized egg that is prevented from getting the food it needs to grow into a healthy baby.

Laurie said...

It seems to me that store revenues pay employee's wages and benefits. Does the owner of Hobby Lobby pay personal taxes on total revenue of Hobby Lobby stores? If a Hobby Lobby employee uses an IUD covered by a health insurance plan, that IUD has been paid for by Hobby Lobby customers (not the owner's $). Business owners should not have the right to impose their religious views on their employees.

Also, I agree with Hiram. I object to the US military killing hundreds of thousands of people with tax dollars, including mine, but I can't withhold my taxes.

Laurie said...

What if the girl I hire to babysit for me uses the $ to pay for an abortion, have I paid for an abortion? No, I paid for child care. What if my store employee uses her health insurance to get an IUD, have I paid for an IUD? No, I have paid for someone to help my customers and ring up sales.

John said...

Excellent!!! Let's leave these questionable measures out the law.

Then people can pay for them with their own money. Because you are correct, once paid the money is the employees. Just like people pay for condoms.

Whereas companies and employers do pay for a fair amount of the "insurance plan", therefore they should have right to control what is in it. If the employee doesn't like the offering, they are free to go elsewhere. Just like if the salary is too low, managers are poor, etc.

What is your rationale that it must be in the plan, when women are free to buy and pay for these measures? Seems like government intrusion into the private sector, with very little benefit.

Next time I buy a new motorcycle helmet, I'll try to submit the expense under my flex spending plan. I am pretty sure the IRS won't accept it.

John said...

Laurie,
You real shouldn't be able to have it both ways. When it comes to offshoring jobs, you say the Business is at fault and in control. Now you say the consumer's are buying the IUD's and Morning After Pills.

As for having no choice in the expenditure of public funds, you are correct, the government makes those decisions. In this case the government is trying to control the expenditure of PRIVATE funds, not PUBLIC funds.

If we get to the point of "single payer", then your argument will be relevant.

John said...

How this for a twist... Vasectomies, an actual surgery, are not on the mandatory list.

It looks like our PUBLIC dollars are being spent on IUD's and Morning After Pills. At least that is the case in NY.

Laurie said...

You seemed to have missed my point. What an employee does with their compensation, cash or health care benefit, is none of the employer's business. If an employee chooses to get an IUD, what difference does it make if she pulls out her cash or her insurance card to pay for it, both have been provided by her employer to use at her own discretion.

It seems that the person trying to "to control the expenditure of PRIVATE funds" is the CEO.

moving on,

Vasectomies should be in the plan as well.

moving on some more,

I would have no problem with my tax dollars paying for birth control or abortions. I respect the right of a woman receiving medicaid to decide this issue for herself.

Lastly, I didn't say it was consumer's buying IUD's. My point was that the $ used to pay for health care benefits is not the CEO's personal funds but rather a business expense. He is not paying for IUDs.

Lastly (for real),

If a nurse works at a "catholic" hospital her salary is largely paid by the govt through medicare and medicaid payments. Why should catholic teachings dictate her access to a birth control benefit just because they founded the hospital long ago. They are not paying for birth control either.

John said...

The government or consumers pay their dollars to a business.

The money is then the property of the business. The business then contracts with an insurance company to pay a certain amount of their money for a certain basket of goods. The employer then offers access to the insurance program with whatever terms have been negotiated. (ie copays, deductibles, medications, etc) Why in the world would an entity include items in the basket that they see as "evil"?

If it is a good plan for a good price the employees are happy and they stay. If it is a lacking policy at a high price, the employees are unhappy and some leave. Just like if wages were too low.

I can't wait to hear how the Supreme Court rules...

John said...

SCOTUS Hearing Recap

Laurie said...

no one has paid for an IUD until a women presents her insurance card as payment at the doctor's office, which makes her the person who is paying.

I don't see how govt requiring a minimum benefit plan is any different than a law requiring a minimum wage.

The supreme court decision will likely be 5 to 4, though I don't pay enough attention to predict how each justice will vote, I think the decision may be in favor of hobby lobby. The supreme court sometimes makes bad rulings.

John said...

Bad rulings? Or upholds the Constitution....

Anonymous said...

Did we ever definitively answer the question at the top of this post?


"Is Pregnancy a Disease?"

My answer is "No", but that health insurance should cover it anyway. If that presents a semantic clash with the word "health", we should consider changing health insurance to medical insurance.

--Hiram

John said...

I am not sure...

Pro-abortion people believe that the growing fetus is the equivalent of tumor cells that the patient can have removed at their discretion.

So maybe they see it as the equivalent to having a benign tumor.

jerrye92002 said...

PMFBI, but I think the whole discussion misses the point. The point ought to be that people should be allowed to buy insurance that covers what they want covered, so long as it's legal. If people want their health insurance to cover BC pills, or prenatal care, or birth expenses, or well-baby care, then they should have the right to pay for those and get a policy accordingly. If they are a 64-year-old bachelor farmer, they should be allowed to pay less for a policy that does NOT cover those things. I'm sure this is in the context of Obamacare, and it is precisely these "one size fits all" and "mandatory" aspects that make it an unacceptably TERRIBLE law.

Anonymous said...

"The point ought to be that people should be allowed to buy insurance that covers what they want covered, so long as it's legal."

Why?

==Hiram

Sean said...

If corporations are allowed to have a religious identity, why are they not allowed to have a racial identity?

In 2006, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that JWM Investments, a company with one shareholder -- an African-American male -- could not sue Domino's Pizza for racial discrimination related to a contract dispute because the contract was with the company, not the person.

Sean said...

Jerry's point about letting people buy only what they want ignores the obvious point that if a person doesn't buy sufficient coverage for their needs, then society is still on the hook in some form -- whether it's a government program or free care provided by hospitals (which is paid for by people with insurance) -- for taking care of these folks.

That's one of the primary reasons for a minimum benefit package. Unless we're going to start allowing hospitals to have "bleed out" zones where the uninsured or under-insured can go to die, that is.

John said...

Sean,
I assume you want companies to be able to be "military free" or "NSA free". Meaning in someway the Board / Ownership can object to some spending, business segments or customers.

Would you support the government mandating that companies like Google be forced to go against their business values? Or forced to sell some product that they deem unacceptable? (ie dolphin laden tuna) Etc.

Liberals seem sensitive to this being a religious objection, yet they love their Civil Rights and/or environmental objections.

John said...

Jerry,
To some extent the ala carte would not work too well, insurance is about spreading risk across many people.

Sean,
That's why Conservatives prefer Charity to Government programs. Local people can decide to help their neighbors, or not. Depending on the specifics of the situation.

Sean said...

Personally, I don't think corporations should have racial or religious identities.

I'm merely posing the question. It appears likely that four or five of the Supreme Court justices who said a company can't have a racial identity are going to vote that a company can have a religious identity. Should there be a distinction, and if so, why?

Sean said...

If there's not enough in "charity" coffers, though, then what? Does Joe Uninsured bleed out on the corner?

John said...

We didn't have too many people bleeding out on the corners before ACA. Though some people did die due to the choices they made... (and occassionally bad luck) And we are back to the original problem, how far will our society go to save people who make poor choices?

Simple Answers...
We as a nation are to be blind to race, why would we want to acknowledge it? And treat people differently based on it.

However, we do honor freedom of religion, conscientuous objectors, etc?

John said...

By the way, unfortunately affirmative action / reverse discrimination already identifies corporations by the ownership and employees.

Sean said...

"We didn't have too many people bleeding out on the corners before ACA."

Correct. That's because the government or the insured are paying the bill. You, however, suggested that we move to charity instead. My question: what if charity doesn't raise enough money to cover it?

Sean said...

"We as a nation are to be blind to race, why would we want to acknowledge it? And treat people differently based on it."

If you go back to the case I mentioned, the African-American business owner claimed that Domino's Pizza breached contract with his company and the responsible Domino's employee cited race as a reason for breaking the contract.

Under these circumstances, it seems this gentleman's company is every bit as "black" as Hobby Lobby is "Christian", isn't it?

John said...

"That's one of the primary reasons for a minimum benefit package. Unless we're going to start allowing hospitals to have "bleed out" zones where the uninsured or under-insured can go to die, that is." Sean

The minimum benefit package is an ACA thing.(thus my answer) I would prefer charity do it, but am okay with Local and State governments helping. There is no reason that the Feds are involved from my perspective.

John said...

"Under these circumstances, it seems this gentleman's company is every bit as "black" as Hobby Lobby is "Christian", isn't it?"

I guess I disagree, "green" "christian" "anti-military" etc are all company values that guide their business choices. Being "white", "black", etc are just physical descriptions of the ownership. Just like "rich", "poor", "huge", "small", etc.

It will be interesting to see what SCOTUS thinks...

jerrye92002 said...

" if a person doesn't buy sufficient coverage for their needs, then society is still on the hook in some form -- " -- Sean

I'm sorry, but that is simply incorrect. A person is at all times and in all ways responsible for their own choices. If my insurance doesn't cover my unplanned pregnancy, the bill still comes to ME. And having insurance doesn't mean that you have health CARE. It's two entirely different things, as Obamacare's authors never bothered to understand. You cannot give better health care, to more people, for less cost,unless you somehow vastly increase the amount of CARE available (doctors, nurses, etc.) and O'care only made that situation WORSE with a number of doctors refusing to see O'care patients, and the number of doctors excluded from O'care policies.

jerrye92002 said...

And I was not suggesting "a la carte" insurance because that wouldn't be much "insurance." We have enough trouble now with people confusing "insurance" with prepaid medical care that covers everything from vitamins to gender reassignment surgery. Insurance have standard lists of things they cover, sometimes 3 or 4 just like Obamacare does, but then they PRICE them according to the actual risk of paying out, which Obamacare does NOT. So the problem isn't that the old bachelor farmer doesn't need or want the maternity coverage, but that he shouldn't have to PAY for it. Everybody thinks that letting children stay on their parents' policy until age 26 is great, but what's wrong with those few parents and adult children who WANT this coverage paying for it, and leave the rest of us out of it? Call it "one size fits all" or "community pricing," the result is that the price goes up for everybody, instead of letting the people who "cannot afford insurance" get a break on price, while everybody that COULD loses the plan they like.

John said...

From what I have read, the old bachelor is the one getting the good deal from ACA... That is why they need to get more young people signing up to pay for that old bachelor's colonscopies,lipitor, etc...

It sounds like the government is still dealing with cost realities.

John said...

Jerry,
As Sean asked me... Are you ready to let people bleed out on the street if they can not pay their healthcare bill?

And no there will not be enough "charity dollars" to pay all those costs.

Sean said...

The Kansas problems are unrelated to the ACA. They're trying to go it alone on Medicaid, and not doing a very good job of it based on the article.

jerrye92002 said...

That "people dying in the steets" is a hoary old myth, and about on par with every other lie told about Obamacare. We did not HAVE people dying in the streets, because hospitals were required to treat emergencies at no (immediate) charge. Sure, that was one thing wrong with our system, because everybody else had to pay more to cover it, but remember that was a government mandate, not necessarily the way a private system would work. We don't KNOW there aren't enough charitable dollars available because government has precluded that option. Medicaid, among its many faults, requires doctors get paid (though not much). Just letting doctors write off their charitable patients against their income might largely eliminate the need for Medicaid.

John said...

Oops... Wrong Link...

Senate Averts 24% Cut in U.S. Physician Payment Rates

Anonymous said...

From what I have read, the old bachelor is the one getting the good deal from ACA.

ACA opponents have been plagued by an anecdote shortage. Earlier on, pretty much every example they cited in commercials and speeches turned out to be spurious. Bedeviled by fact checkers, lately their response has been to show ads without any facts at all.

Now the Republicans who complained so vociferously about the people who received health insurance cancellation letters after the enactment of Obamacare, have to explain why they think it's a good idea to send out 7 million letters to Americans now insured under ACA. That should be interesting.

--Hiram

Sean said...

The Medicare doc fix is also unrelated to the ACA -- it goes back to the Clinton era.

John said...

My point was that the government should have learned by now that they can not effectively control medical costs through price fixing.

One of my favorite sayings... You can have high quality, low cost or timeliness(performance)... Just pick the 2 you want to control, and the third will float.

Sean said...

Medicare reimbursement rates are an area where the government most assuredly can control costs through price fixing. They are just choosing not to, for various reasons.

Anonymous said...

You can have high quality, low cost or timeliness(performance)... Just pick the 2 you want to control, and the third will float.

How do you think that played out with respect to the choices made around Obamacare?

Here is the way I see it, very often the choice is between quality, speed and cost. Democrats were under a time constraint, so speed was essential. We were willing to take a look at quality, in various ways, but that proved too politically dangerous. That gets you into death panels, socialized medicine, rationing etc. and dealing with those issues within the allotted time frame or any time frame, was just impossible. So that left cost. Obamacare simply doesn't address the issue of the high cost of American health care in a meaningful way. I regret that, if I had my druthers, it would, but between the three goals, that's the one we had to give in on. So Republicans, quite rightly, in my view argue that we failed in our goal to reduce health care costs. But had we chosen to priortize health care costs at the expense of the other two, they would have attacked us for that. We know how they would have attacked us for a reduction in quality, death panels, etc., and had we not finished Obamacare in time, they would have attacked the president for failure to achieve his most important political promise. So the deal of Obamacare was done. Quality was maintained, a program was delivered when it had to be, so Republican were left with the third, unattained priority, that it was too darn expensive. And if you notice, that's where most of their substantive policy criticism is directed. They also complain about the software, but that's just a convenient target. The software is a process issue, not a substantive or policy issue.

--Hiram

John said...

Sean,
Please describe some of those various reasons...

Hiram,
I agree. It is a thorny issue...

jerrye92002 said...

It appears we have a new candidate for "lie of the year," that 7 million people are now insured thanks to Obamacare.

John said...

CNN 7.1 Million

Please elaborate with why you question the number.

To me he seems to be counting the medicaid expansion people also. (ie some government not expanding...)

John said...

FOX News 7.1 Million

Anonymous said...

The seven million? Are you disappointed because the number is too high? Or too low?

--hiram

Sean said...

The two primary reasons are:

1.) Don't want to anger the doctor's lobby

2.) Fear that providers would drop Medicare patients if the cuts went through

Once again, it shows that politicians (in both parties) are more lip service than reality when it comes to saving money on entitlement programs. We'd be better off as a society if we could just admit that we like these programs, we're going to keep them, but we're going to have to make some changes to them. Instead, we get this kabuki dance where one party pretends to get tough on the issue until it's time to actually vote on something (or the other party floats cuts of its own, at which time it attacks that party for proposing such an awful thing!).

John said...

Would you keep working for your company if they dropped your income by 24%??? Just to save themselves money...

Why would the medical industry do any different?

Price and cost controls do not work... Unless you are willing to sacrifice quality or timeliness/performance...

Just like if a company cuts budgets by 24%... Something has give in most cases...

John said...

Unless maybe... They can outsource the care to a low cost country...

jerrye92002 said...

Sean, you're largely correct, but the thing that bothers me the most is that neither side wants to follow the path that IMPROVES quality and lowers cost. It is possible, just not politically palatable.

John said...

Yes, leaving the truly unfortunate to the whims of charitable giving is not going to be palatable to many Americans...

I think that fits into the improves quality, reduces costs and reduces the number of people served model....

Anonymous said...

"Sean, you're largely correct, but the thing that bothers me the most is that neither side wants to follow the path that IMPROVES quality and lowers cost. It is possible, just not politically palatable."

In John's tripartite priority scenario, to which I often subscribe, prioritizing quality and cost means sacrificing speed. In other words, stuff doesn't happen. That's because in a consensus basec governing system, when too many powerful constituencies are committed to the status quo and opposed to any change which is detrimental to their interests, consensus is impossible, and deadlock is inevitable. The fact that our system is consensus based, something that is very unusual in advanced nation, is why for many decades now, we have been the only nation without universal health care.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

Hiram, I think you may have hit upon the exact nature of the problem. You say we have a "consensus based system." That is ONLY necessary when government is the driving force behind the "system." The consensus position is then FORCED upon everybody, like it or not, and that denies freedom. Left to their own devices, many can not afford insurance under the old system, and many of them decided they could do without it. Many others decided that any inexpensive "catastrophic coverage" or HSA policy or Medicare Advantage was right for them. Obamacare is designed to deny them them those choices. I have been saying for a long time that, according to a long-lost Mayo study, our health care costs could be cut in half if government would just butt out. Instead we have this monstrosity that puts the government all the way in. No wonder costs are going way up and quality and availability down.

Sean said...

How does the ACA deny HSAs? Many of the exchange plans feature them.

Anonymous said...

That is ONLY necessary when government is the driving force behind the "system.

Not at all. Most governments are majoritarian. They have the quaint notion that if you elect someone to government, they should be allowed to govern. For those who believe that implementing decisions on everyone when they they are less than unanimously agreed to constitutes an exercise in "force", majoritiarian governments are just as forced based, in theory at least as consensus or totalitarian governments.

"The consensus position is then FORCED upon everybody, like it or not, and that denies freedom."

For me, this is a relatively new concept. It's what I was talking about when I said there is a belief out there, that people should be able to "opt out" of the application of laws with which they disagree. That, in some way, freedom is not just the right to have opinions, but also includes the right to have those opinions prevail, and least with respect to those who hold them. In thinking about history, I can't think of any society in the past that has adopted such a governing model. Something close to it, was the system in Poland between the two world wars, where it's parliament the Sejm, could only act when it was unanimous. No governments, and there have been a lot of them, who have emerged since then, have adopted that model. Indeed, it's hard to find any country, anywhere that has adopted our consensus based model.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

"Left to their own devices, many can not afford insurance under the old system, and many of them decided they could do without it."

Yes, in the popular parlance, we call them "freeloaders".

"Many others decided that any inexpensive "catastrophic coverage" or HSA policy or Medicare Advantage was right for them. Obamacare is designed to deny them them those choices."

Actually, Obamacare requires people to choose catastrophic. What Obamacare does do, is cover catastrophic situations. Where is allows choice is in covering expenses short of catastrophic coverage. You can get higher or lower deductibles, for less or more money. Generally speaking, the plans that are no longer allowable under Obamacare are those that limit catastrophic coverage, shifting that burden to the rest of us.

I am a liberal. I do not get the vapors when government spends money. But I also feel that when the government spends money, it should get value for it's dollar. I have talked about how both Obamacare and Jindalcare spend your money in the form of premium supports. They do not differ in substance in that way. But what I expect Jindalcare does is allow the individual who is using my tax dollars to use it in ways, that deprive me of the value of what I should expect to receive for my taxes. Specifically, he wants to by cheap insurance with limited coverage, leaving me with the burden of covering the cost of his catastrophic coverage. That's a good deal for him, but it's a bad deal for me. So why should I take it? Freedom is a wonderful thing, but why should I get the bill for someone else's desire to be free?

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

Maybe it comes down to this. It's okay to be free, but don't ask me to pay for your freedom. And don't ask me to serve on the death panel that makes the decision to deny you the coverage, you freely chose not to buy yourself.

--Hiram