Free Markets, Free People


And you wonder why health insurance is expensive?

The opening line in a New York Times piece caught my attention.  It is typical of how government, once it gets control of something, then begins to expand it (and make it more costly for everyone) as it sees fit.  Note the key falsehood in the sentence:

The Obama administration is examining whether the new health care law can be used to require insurance plans to offer contraceptives and other family planning services to women free of charge.

Yup, you caught it – nothing involved in such a change would be “free of charge”.   Instead others would be taxed or charged in order for women to not have to pay at the point of service.  That’s it.  Those who don’t have any need of contraception will subsidize those who do.  And the argument, of course, will be the “common good”.   The other argument will be that many women can’t afford “family planning services” or “contraception”.

But the assumption is the rest of you can afford to part with a little more of your hard earned cash in order to subsidize this effort (it is similar to other mandated care coverage you pay for but don’t need).  Oh, and while reading that sentence, make sure you understand that the administration claims it has not taken over health care in this country.

The next sentence is just as offensive:

Such a requirement could remove cost as a barrier to birth control, a longtime goal of advocates for women’s rights and experts on women’s health.

So now “women’s rights” include access to subsidies from others who have no necessity or desire to pay for those services?  What right does anyone have to the earnings of another simply because government declares that necessary?

It is another example of a profound misunderstanding of what constitutes a “right” and how it has been perverted over the years to become a claim on “free” stuff paid for by others.

Administration officials said they expected the list to include contraception and family planning because a large body of scientific evidence showed the effectiveness of those services. But the officials said they preferred to have the panel of independent experts make the initial recommendations so the public would see them as based on science, not politics.

Really?  This is all about politics.  The fact that the services may be “effective” is irrelevant to the political questions and objections raised above.  This is science being used to justify taking from some to give to others – nothing more.

Finally:

Many obstetricians, gynecologists, pediatricians and public health experts have called for coverage of family planning services, including contraceptives, without co-payments, deductibles or other cost-sharing requirements.

Good.  Let them then advertise the fact that they are offering their services to women who want them or need them free of charge.

What?  That’s not what they meant?  They want to get paid, they just want someone else to pay them?

This is just the beginning of many special interest groups trying to find ways to have their needs subsidized by you – and trust me, if they fall in the favored constituency group of whoever is in power they have a shot at getting it.   That or a waiver.

But remember – government has not taken over health care.

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

24 Responses to And you wonder why health insurance is expensive?

  • Well, and if you EVER had any doubt that ObamaCare would masticize to become the ultimate Big Brother, read this…
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/print/opinion/columnists/2011/02/epa-now-regulate-spilled-milk-really?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d49a108e42bb0dd%2C0
    Meanwhile, given that there is a finite source of health care funding, what happens to NEEDED stuff when we get POLITICAL stuff…like contraception???
    OF COURSE these smart people can spend your money more wisely than you…!!!  What a silly question!

    • Ragspierre[G]iven that there is a finite source of health care funding… [emphasis original - dj505]

      What “finite source”???  There’s ALWAYS more money.  We just have to make the rich pay their fair share, right?  Oh, and create green jobs.  And I think we can safely assume that implementing this proposal will bend the cost curve down.

      / sarc

  • Such a requirement could remove cost as a barrier to birth control…

    Gosh, who knew that telling a guy “no” and keeping her legs closed could cost a woman money?

    [O]fficials said they preferred to have the panel of independent experts make the initial recommendations so the public would see them as based on science…

    Would that be the same kind of “science” upon which global warming climate change climate disruption is based?  Or embryonic stem cell research?  That kind of sciencesy science?

    McQThis is just the beginning of many special interest groups trying to find ways to have their needs subsidized by you – and trust me, if they fall in the favored constituency group of whoever is in power they have a shot at getting it.   That or a waiver.

    Exactly.  My only hope is that the American people are starting to get the ideas that (1) there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch and (2) it isn’t Uncle Sugar’s job to decide who gets what goodies.  We shall see.

    • You just hate sick people…!!!

      • Birth control is a right, sorry, correction, chemical or mechanical birth control is a right.  Who knew?  That must be in the really really really shadowy part of the penumbra.

        So it’s not my right to tell a woman what to do with her body, but it is HER right to have me subsidize her sexual activities.

         

        • Well, yeah.  And it we can chant “Keep your laws off my body” at an abortion rally, but not at a TEA Party rally.
          TOTALLY different, man.  See?

          • You kinow, that might be a defense against prosecution for prostitution or solicitation thereof – “Your honor, it’s not our place to tell her what she can do with her body”.

             

          • Oh, rest assured; it HAS been argued in court!  Did not fly, however.
            That whole “it is my body” thing is remarkably short-ranged, and seems very limited in its application.  Think of seat-belt laws…

          • Ah that’s only because there hasn’t been enough interest in overturning long standing prohibitions against official prostitution through public outcry.   It’s why we have to wear helmets on bicycles (because, you know, the stats prove some rubbish or other) but we DON’T have to wear helmets IN OUR CARS (I’m sure the stats would PROVE a better survival rate of helmet wearing drivers in automobiles, without even doing a study).

            So too, dinner, a movie, a drink, well, that makes it all okay, don’t you know.  Soft prostitution is where this new right comes in!
            Just think, the burden is off the guy again!  Paternity suits, meh!  She had access to free contraception, my client wasn’t responsible for more than dinner, a movie, a dance, and a few drinks!

          • …my client wasn’t responsible for more than dinner, a movie, a dance, and a few drinks!

            Well, that and the “Baby, baby….bay-BEEEEEE…!!!!”

          • But Imam! she had free access to birth control, it was her responsibility, after all, my client can hardly get pregnant, so why should he be expected to take further expensive precautions when the plaintiff had already been treated to an evening out at his expense.  My client had every reason to believe this woman was using some form of government approved contraception under her government mandated health care plan.  In fact, given her free access to contraception and planning, it’s criminal that she entrapped my client in this fashion!  I move for summary judgment and speedy execution!

            (sorry, I’m getting my sharia pleading mixed up with my US court system….)

  • “a longtime goal of ………and experts on women’s health.”

    Am I to understand that recreational sex is a necessity for women’s health? I seem to recall guys using that argument in Jr. High School.

    “…without co-payments, deductibles or other cost-sharing requirements.”

    So its okay for me to pay copayments, etc. to my cardiologist, which is arguably a necessity, but requiring people to pay for their own condoms for elective recreational sex is verboten. Interesting priorities.

  • Sigh,  instead of being a bunch of negative conservative fuddy duddies, we should celebrate the consistency of their position!

    You know, do the whole Stockholm thing, embrace our destroyers and captors!


    Man, good drugs would go a loooonnnnng way towards helping this, I don’t suppose THAT is going to be subsidized is it.

  • Yup, you caught it – nothing involved in such a change would be “free of charge”.   Instead others would be taxed or charged in order for women to not have to pay at the point of service.  That’s it.

    Yeah, but we’ll only tax the rich, and they have infinite dollars.
    All in all, it’s just a reminder that all the talk of efficiency and “bending the cost curve downward” is just the usual window dressing that is quickly ignored once the bill becomes law.  It’s not as if we weren’t given fair warning.  For example, part of the “savings” of ObamaCare were to come from the ‘doctor fix.’  But it’s known that it was never going to be applied.  So now we learn that there could be a very long list of new expenditures tacked on to it over time… is anyone surprised by this?  I doubt it, I think we all knew that this was coming.  I think we also know what isn’t coming: honest explanations on how these “rights” will be paid for.

  • But funding such things will allow more OB-GYNs practice their love with more women across the country.  How can you be against love?

  • This (free birth control) is a stupid idea, but I will point out that my former employer covered viagra but not birth control. So the middle-aged managers who couldn’t get it up got subsidized play drugs, but the 20-yr-old receptionist making $17,000 a year couldn’t get bc pills for the $20 copay. A pregnancy costs a lot more than bc pills.

  • While it goes unspokan here most “Family Planning Services” end up with Abortion somewhere in the mix.

  • Doesn’t a lot of the discussion of what health care is available to what types of groups tinged with
    a bit of eugenics at heart?  A person who currently cannot afford to provide themselves with a method of birth control are also the groups  it is argued require abortion on demand paid by taxpayers.  One way or another, the idea in the end is to eliminate or prevent unwanted (or undesireable) pregnancies.  The cost/benefit anaylsis is also another way of saying who gets what or eugenics.

  • Right on, no free nothing for no one. Except bankers, investors, oil companies, politicians, (full free health care, mail service, transportation and bodyguards),government employees,(full medical, great pensions) after all we are a free and equal people.

michael kors outlet michael kors handbags outlet michael kors factory outlet