Which means all that “free stuff” will paradoxically (though predictably) lead to an increase in rates for everyone.
Or to put it more forcefully, the President has determined that he has the authority, as well as the support of his base, to force the public to pick up the cost of freely-chosen lifestyle choices (from here on considered a “right” by the left, with a condom being refigured as part of a regiment of “preventive care” and an elective abortion as a “women’s health” issue) — and the Executive overreach on display, while it may please some in Obama’s leftwing base (and the Catholic Church hierarchy), is becoming a rallying cry for conservatives, classical liberals, libertarians, and constitutionalists who see in this President’s actions an attempt to redefine the relationship between the individual and the government.
Too, this move will almnost certainly bring both ObamaCare –and a concern over the Pandora’s box opened with the legitimation of government mandates more generally — into the forefront of the election conversation.
Which I suspect helps Santorum and perhaps damages Romney.
But yeah. It was The GOP what got “punked.”
It was just a shell game.
The insurance companies will raise their rates so they can offer services for “free”.
So if the employer is paying for the insurance, then they will be paying extra for the “free” stuff.
Jesus.
Birth Control isn’t a fortune to buy these days.
I heard one woman today compare her vagina to an interstate freeway in an idiotic claim that we all pay for infrastructure of freeways…. so why not my reproductive system.
I blew beer out my nose.. (I want repatriations for that!!) dearest girl, comparing your vagina to a freeway leads me to wonder if maybe you need to just say no
can we defund planned parenthood because the insurance companies are doing their job
well, let’s see how long my comment on Mandy’s snippy exercise in Not Getting The Point lasts.
link
i’m seeing A Bridge Too Far (1977)
monty and obama sitting in a tree
They only “right” the left seems driven to protect is sex without consequences. This puts them a little further down the road.
geez some obot on hannity thought mittens is going to be the nominee visavis the catholic vote
Good call newrouter. Too, we have only to remember the Polish General’s reflections after the strategy had been declared a mistake: “Doesn’t matter what it was. When one man says to another, ‘I know what let’s do today, let’s play the war game.’… everybody dies.”
Of course, it wasn’t Monty who died, nor Horrocks, nor Browne. Some of Barry’s Catholic backers may count themselves among the casualties now though, I reckon.
baracky’s problem is that the things he uses to stir up his flaccid base stirs up the tea partiers more.
Paul Ryan’s CPAC speech (text, not video).
Anyone claiming anything is “free” ought to be hauled off stage and beaten.
TANSTAAFL
If you like your insurance, you can keep it.
Has that conclusively been show to be a 7424679436784 Pinnochios lie now?
One of the reasons to like the U of C is that the snack shop at the bottom of Pierce hall was called TANSTAAFL back in the early 90’s.
U of C? Cincinnati Connecticut or Charleston? The daughter is at Charleston.
but… but… Juan Williams tells me this is cheaper than dealing with babies and miscarriages.
on oreally ingraham interviewing “katherine ragsdale”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Hancock_Ragsdale
you can’t make this stuff up
Saw a boat in the Keys with TANSTAAFL as the name. It was parked next to A smaller boat Named DILLIGAF. Funny as hell.
I had her pegged as a Unitarian. NTTAWWT.
“I had her pegged as a Unitarian.”
or communist
Chicago.
Juan Williams tells me this is cheaper than dealing with babies and miscarriages.
Cheaper for whom?
What is it ANY of Juan’s bizness unless he’s paying the bill …
oh. heh.
Remember when preventative care was cheaper, until it was shown to not be?
Why can Obama mandate anything? That is the only question.
I keep watching Obama just totally make shit up as he goes along and wonder were all those pinheads shrieking “unitary executive” non-stop a few years ago are today?
Its like they all just disappeared.
Here’s an interesting (but, TNR) overview of BHO’s political gamesmanship and methodology to date. We certainly need to thank the then-newly-minted 2010 midterm Conservatives for buying us some time; but that time is quickly running out.
Bahaa haaa ahhhaa:
Sister Carol Keehan is their go-to gal for a Catholic who full-throatedly supports the liberal agenda.
She’s VERY PLEASED.
Jonah Goldberg walks back his Romney endorsement and goes all in for none-of-the-above.
KEEP YOUR LAWS OFF MY BODY!!!!
Huh? Say what? Free stuff? Oh.
WELCOME TO MY UTERUS, MR. PRESIDENT!!!!
link
nr,
That was the second link in the main post.
I am horrified at the prospect of national health care, and the related infringements of Obamacare if anyone here isn’t familiar with me.
People ought to be able to provide for their own costs or prudent provision of insurance, by having less of any money spent in that direction confiscated to government coffers; along with health accounts with tax free growth to boost the power of that money. Employer based insurance is part of the problem ( although there are different ways to change that system and I don’t mean to go into that now. ) Mainly I think individuals should have more power and choice in the matter and that this particular issue would be moot if people bought their own plans and paid their own expenses.
Let me be the debbil though. Devils advocate for a moment (and devils advocate only). I have a feeling this is going to come up, and I think it ought to be talked about. What if net subscriber costs went DOWN as as result, or were raised much less than predicted when adjusted for the following:
This wasn’t addressed directly, unless I missed it, in the article – there is an expected savings from one of the pricier payouts for insurers – the cost of pregnancy and childbirth, especially complicated pregnancy and childbirth, and the extraordinarily high expenses associated with premature delivery of a baby (who is generally added to the parents insurance without any exclusions possible for the insurer, and whose care may rapidly mount into the hundred of thousands and even millions in rare cases over time).
It is possible that this would make provision of contraceptives and sterilization procedures cost effective and lower insurer payouts overall.
I’d like to know the true answer to that. It would have some effect certainly.
But assuming it is true – what then? The argument that costs rise for all even when there is no direct subsidy of a particular health care consumers choices is weaker then.
oops
At Hot Air Morrissey argues that the premium increases are felt acutely now and any potential savings are very diffuse and long-term.
This wasn’t addressed directly, unless I missed it, in the article – there is an expected savings from one of the pricier payouts for insurers – the cost of pregnancy and childbirth, especially complicated pregnancy and childbirth, and the extraordinarily high expenses associated with premature delivery
Sarah – I really don’t think that’s going to happen. Birth control is currently available for anyone that wants it – it is pretty low cost – much less that cell phone, and about what it costs to get your nails done (with tip!) . “Unwanted” pregnancies are the result – if I may speak straight out of my ass – not because the fornicators can’t afford it, but they either 1) don’t want to or 2) use it only occasionally or improperly.
The idea that overall costs are going to go down because we’re now handing out birth control like candy is … wishful, or even an outright untruth.
Perhaps top-down population control saves a few bucks. I’m still not interested. And I’m surprised no one is squawking about corporate welfare for Big Pharma.
“with a debt of $15,000,000,000,000 now is a good time to reduce the number of future taxpayers” says dr piven
You raise an interesting question SarahW; you debbil you :)
As Carin notes, contraception is available to all, so predominantly speaking the births each year are those that are intended/wanted; that is, I don’t think this will effect the calculus of cost-benefit all that much.
I do feel compelled to note that all of those cost associated with childbirth, that you provided as examples, would probably also decrease drastically if there were far fewer abortions in society; you know, like the ol’ volume discount!
All of which is neither here nor there, really, in getting to the crux of the entire issue; Mr. Obama’s “imperial” overreach on this, as well as the larger issue of Obamacare.
Mandating the Church to provide services that violate their beliefs is a first amendment transgression. And mandating that insurers provide it for “free”, is not only a transparent connivance, but is also exceeding his authority by the proverbial country mile. I mean, who died and made Barack “L’etat c’est moi!” Obama king of America anyway :)
My Regards
[…] etc., gain strength if it can actually lower the costs of health insurance premiums? Writes Sarah W in the comments: I am horrified at the prospect of national health care, and the related […]
It’s funny, and a different topic, but the costs associated with childbirth are needlessly outrageous. There are plenty of things to do to ACTUALLY bring the costs down. Not this silly “give everyone free pills” Trojan horse.
The left is only concerned with preserving trivial liberties that do not allow you to challenge their control over your life. The slaver doesn’t care what tune the livestock chooses to sing itself to sleep.
Much of that would involve going after one of the tyrants’ favorite funding sources — trial lawyers. John Edwards wasn’t just on the fast-track to the White House because of his hair; the Party owes his industry their existence.