Friday, September 18, 2009
The victims justify the means
I was not much in favor of the health care "reform" legislation proposed by the left, but now that I know that the treatment of women under our current system is "unacceptable" and that they are "being crushed," well, that's another thing entirely. What was I thinking?
23 Comments:
By 
, at
Fri Sep 18, 09:00:00 PM:
It isn't just women, it's all of us crushed by the patriarchy, including us retired guys who function as de facto wives while our actual wives continue to work. I'm the one making doctor's appointments around here (and veterinarian appointments too), and god damn it, it's killing me. I've never been so crushed by oppression as I am right now. Big fleas have little fleas upon 'em, and I want the government to provide me with a de facto wife who can schedule those appointments, and ferry kids and dogs to them, too. They call this a health care system, well it's not, and it won't be until every scheduler or either sex has some sort of government scheduler to lift this intolerable burden.
By , at
Fri Sep 18, 09:16:00 PM:
Excuse me, but didn't the feminist movement give Bill Clinton a pass because of his politics? There are no more feminists with credibility.
Sorry, Michelle, get a new storyline.
By , at
Fri Sep 18, 09:39:00 PM:
ObamaCare henceforth shall be known as HillaryCareII
By 
Dawnfire82, at
Fri Sep 18, 11:33:00 PM:
Sweet! Now everyone who opposes this garbage is both a racist *and* a sexist!
Gotta go, it's time to go put on some blackface and beat my wife.
By , at
Sat Sep 19, 01:26:00 AM:
Women always suffer more from everything, you insensitive *****. Report thyself to a women's studies class for immediate reprogramming.
By Diane Wilson, at
Sat Sep 19, 06:53:00 AM:
And by making a statement, any statement, advocating ObamaCare, Michelle has made herself a legitimate political target once again. And the Prez will go all protecty and tell us that family is off-limits.
This will not end well, starting with an investigation into Michelle's patient dumping in Chicago.
By , at
Sat Sep 19, 07:43:00 AM:
You might be right, and it won't end well, but the comment stream has definitely started well! You folks are all racist, sexist trolls.
By , at
Sat Sep 19, 09:12:00 AM:
Insty put it succinctly: if it's crushing women how come they live longer than men?
Retread
By , at
Sat Sep 19, 09:55:00 AM:
Gotta go, it's time to go put on some blackface and beat my wife.
Like today's any different
By , at
Sat Sep 19, 10:13:00 AM:
Won't the burden on women decrease as more men get involved in same sex marriages?
Well, I for one, certainly intend to give Mrs. Obama's concern all the attention it deserves!
By , at
Sat Sep 19, 10:17:00 AM:
Maybe I'm misinterpreting the sarcasm, but women do indeed get a raw deal. So, for instance, in 33 states where insurance companies can charge higher premiums based on gender, a 22-year old woman's premium can be 50% higher than a 22-year old man's*. Of course, the real discrimination is not between men and women, but between the young and old. I get the idea the only ones who think health care is acceptable, like "best in the world" Senator Boehner, are those who get their health care checks paid for free, like all the old fogeys getting Medicare.
By , at
Sat Sep 19, 10:19:00 AM:
And the Prez will go all protecty and tell us that family is off-limits.
The President has made it clear that his kids are off limits but he never said Michelle was. He didn't say a word when the thin-lipped repuvblican women complained about her bare arms at the SOTU or when she dared to plant a vegetable garden at the WH or when she wore *gasp* shorts on her vacation. So many infractions, so little time.
ppffttt. What else ya got Diane?
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Sep 19, 10:53:00 AM:
"Like today's any different"
This comment wins.
"Maybe I'm misinterpreting the sarcasm, but women do indeed get a raw deal. So, for instance, in 33 states where insurance companies can charge higher premiums based on gender, a 22-year old woman's premium can be 50% higher than a 22-year old man's."
So? Women at that age typically need more care because that's when they get pregnant. Men, on the other hand, are generally at their healthiest at that age.
When I was younger, I had to pay exorbitant amounts of money for auto insurance because young men like to drive fast and total their cars. Wasn't fair to me, since I didn't do that, but that's the category I fit into and the policy made sense in the aggregate. Does that mean that men get a wrong deal, and we should forcibly overhaul the auto insurance industry?
I like how you used healthreform.gov as a source. Like THAT'S going to be an honest appraisal.
"I get the idea the only ones who think health care is acceptable, like "best in the world" Senator Boehner, are those who get their health care checks paid for free, like all the old fogeys getting Medicare."
Boehner is not a Senator. He's House Minority leader.
I think health care here is awesome. I am not an old fogey. I do not get it for free.
In fact, when I DID get it for free (Army) it was pretty f'ing terrible. The best doctors were in the private system where they could make money, and since the system was free it was overwhelmed with people abusing that fact. So worse doctors, and not enough of them.
When I left the Army, I walked with a cane. Military medicine looked me over for 6 months and told me there was nothing more to be done.
The very first guess of the very first private practitioner I went to that I paid for was correct, and now I can run. From the time I walked into his officer to the end of my treatment was 4 months.
Our healthcare system is great.
If it weren't why would foreigners who can afford it (like the Shah of Iran in 1979 and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia in 2008 and innumerable wealthy Canadians who are fed up with their own system) travel here for treatment?
By , at
Sat Sep 19, 11:14:00 AM:
Women at that age typically need more care because that's when they get pregnant.
Don't forget gynecological exams, PAP smears, and "free" mammograms, more things insurance is paying for that men don't need.
If women's premiums are only 50% more, that means they're paying 60% of premiums. As I recall, expenditures on women's health care is significantly more than 60% of health care dollars.
By , at
Sat Sep 19, 04:39:00 PM:
and "free" mammograms, more things insurance is paying for that men don't need.
randian, the way it works is that "free" mammograms are um, free so there's nothing to submit to an insurance company. It works the same way with "free" prostate exams.
I think all you experts are missing the point here. It's not that women may need more care than men or go to the doctor more often (although in response to someone's earlier point that is a good reason why we do live longer), it's that women are less likely to be covered by insurance in the first place.
Women who work part-time rarely qualify for insurance coverage (I know I didn't when I worked part-time for a few years), divorced women who were covered under their husband's policies may have a pre-exisitng condition, and single mothers who work full-time may not be able to afford it when it is.
By , at
Sat Sep 19, 06:51:00 PM:
randian, the way it works is that "free" mammograms are um, free so there's nothing to submit to an insurance company.
There's no such thing as free. Some other diagnosis or treatment is being overcharged to compensate. Somebody is paying for that mammogram, directly or indirectly. In states where it's illegal to charge women more for insurance, that somebody is men.
It works the same way with "free" prostate exams.
Where have you seen those offered?
By , at
Sat Sep 19, 09:51:00 PM:
Free? It's hard to believe anybody would want to pay for a prostate exam. I guess, on reflection, that's why I don't subscribe to Atlantic.
By , at
Sat Sep 19, 10:54:00 PM:
Somebody is paying for that mammogram, directly or indirectly.
Yep, you're right about that, sport. It's called donations. Most of the "free" mammograms offered to women without insurance are funded that way by people like me who participate in Avon Walk for The Cure or Susan Komen Race for the Cure, etc. The likelihood that you're paying for someone's free mammogram, randian, is pretty slim, unless, of course, you've made a donation to one of the breast cancer charities.
As for who offers free prostate screening, I suggest you google that term. I got more than 2 million hits--there's gotta be a screening site near you. With almost 200,000 men diagnosed every year, I'd get googling.
By , at
Sun Sep 20, 08:40:00 AM:
Randian says: "Don't forget gynecological exams, PAP smears, and "free" mammograms, more things insurance is paying for that men don't need."
Heh. Don't worry. Once you hit your 50's, your clogged arteries will send your medical expenses soaring, and I'll be paying for your previous lifestyle and poor eating habits.
Why do you think life insurance for men is more expensive than it is for women??
By , at
Sun Sep 20, 02:38:00 PM:
Why do you think life insurance for men is more expensive than it is for women??
I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the idea that charging men more for life insurance is A-OK, while charging women more for health insurance isn't.
By , at
Sun Sep 20, 03:13:00 PM:
And I have problems paying the same premium amount as my overweight, diabetic male co-worker who clearly has cost the system far more than I could even if I had two uteri. Or my male boss who drinks like a fish and has quit smoking more times than I have fingers and toes to count. What's your point?
BTW, Randian, did she run off with your best friend or do you blame the female sex just as a matter of course?
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Sun Sep 20, 09:47:00 PM:
anon 4:39 and squealer are arguing for the same side, but their data points in different directions. Do women pay 50% more, or do they have less insurance? Both could be true, but there'd be some fancy complications.
By , at
Mon Sep 21, 09:37:00 AM:
From Link,
In yesterday's programs, Obama analogized healthcare coverage to auto insurance. I thought it'd be useful to develop this in more depth.
Obama said that fining those who don't buy into his health care plan wasn't a tax. He's wrong. Unlike what Obama implied, Americans don't have to buy auto insurance. Most states require it -- but it's a cost of operating a car -- not a cost of citizenship or even having a driver's license. You can also cost it all out and decide that you'd rather live in Iowa than bear the all-in cost of New Jersey. The IRS isn't being authorized to work with a new commission to force you to pay your fair share of everybody's else's auto insurance. Ironically, fining people who don't buy coverage was Hillary's idea. It's a tax on the young especially. A rose is a rose is a rose.
Insurance companies will sometimes write policies to cover commercial pre-existing conditions for companies -- but at very high rates. When they do it helps the insured manage the timing of realizing a loss, and can have tax advantages. But no auto insurer covers the car that's already had an accident. Nor would they write a policy for someone they know was destined to crack up a brand-new BMW every month. "Pre-existing conditions" is a real problem that we should try to fix -- but we should be clear about what's being covered and what the costs are.
I owned a clunker when I was young -- I registered it with my Maine college address -- so no insurance required. As a 20-year old Bronx male, New York insurance would have run me more in a year than the value of the car. Obama would say I was gaming the system and he's right -- in effect I was like an illegal immigrant free-riding on healthcare coverage. Under ObamaCare my kids would be forced to pay in at high rates, but illegals wouldn't.
When you buy auto insurance it's all about getting put in the most favorable risk pool, trading off the coverage you get versus price. Risk pools discriminate -- that's the idea. We let insurance companies discriminate in some ways, but not others. Because it's OK to discriminate by gender, I've paid more for auto insurance because of this. We don't allow auto insurers to discriminate by race, but they just use your address instead -- some even work in your credit score. When you buy auto insurance you don't want to get put in the risk pool for 20-year old Bronx males, trust me.
Health insurance risk rating is a joke. In effect, big companies self-insure their workers and thus opt-out of the general risk pool. Many states mandate coverage for things I don't want -- but would force me to pay. It's like forcing me to buy collision coverage for my clunker. It's a big reason why there's such disparity between the states in healthhcare insurance rates. We need to give people more competition and more options -- ObamaCare moves in the other direction.
Insurance always creates moral hazard. I had an older friend -- died two years ago -- who ran an auto repair shop. Another friend brought in his somewhat damaged car before seeing his auto insurer. My friend backed his wrecker into the car a few times and said "Now I have something Ito work with." Don't tell me we don't have the equivalent in healthcare coverage. This includes tort lawyers -- guess what that paragon of virtue John Edwards did before he went into politics. ps, We're moving away from using co-pays which are a proven way to bring some discipline to things.
I suspect the real zinger in ObamaCare is to create a lot of SEIU union jobs. That's where Obama wants to skew our healthcare spending. Who needs better devices?
Link, over
