About This Blog
This seems to be the mountaintop argument upon which self-radicalized conservatives want to plant their Freak Flag.
Today we are again invited to believe that to deny a taxpayer subsidy is to withhold a right. For no discernible reason, the Obama administration has decreed that all contraceptives must be provided “free” to those who want them (which of course means that everyone else’s insurance rates must rise).
Those are the words of Kathryn Jean Lopez of The Corner, Nation Review Online's breeder tank for a variety of highly contagious and lethal extremist-right mind viruses.
The argument....well, it's not an argument.....the fallout from the El Rushbo self-induced implosion has led the self-radicalizers on the right to congeal like a thin layer of scum around the thought, not argument, that the problem with President Obama's health care exchanges offering contraception on a no co-pay basis....is that taxpayers are subsidizing that contraception.
This...thought....was behind Limbaugh's three day long yuk-a-thon at the expense of the young woman, Ms Fluke. If you remember, the focus of Limbaugh's misogny was on the idea that no co-pay contraception equaled all taxpayers subsidizing women to have sex.
Of course, it's been demonstrated that up to 58% of women who take the pill..do so for other health reasons than to prevent pregnancy. But self-radicalized conservatives don't do facts....and don't much care about facts....much like the King of Talk Radio.
But I want to go after this "subsidy" notion. First, the disclaimer. I am not some expert on insurance....just as I am not an expert on much of anything else....but I know some stuff. The stuff I know about insurance is that "subsidizing others" is the central pillar of insurance.
Insurance is socialistic by it's very nature. An insurance company takes money from a pool of customers, counting on the likelihood that not all of those customers will file claims. Mountains of cash from insurance policies are used to subsidize the claims of, the insurance company hopes, only a limited number of customers.
You pay fire insurance to protect your home. So does everybody else in your vicinity. The insurance customers whose homes actually do burn down in your vicinity are reimbursed, made whole, with the subsidized monies paid into the insurance company by it's other customers. Now, sure...insurance companies invest insurance policy funds and make money with their customers money, for themselves....but when it comes to payouts, without the socialist pool of other customers providing the funds to subsidize claims of a few....insurance would not work at all.
The same is true with health care insurance. For only one example, take my by-pass surgery in 2002. The total bill was approximately $50,000. The total cost of my family-of-four-at-the-time's health insurance policy,....combining employer and employee share....was approximately $1200 per month. In effect, the tens of thousands of other United Health Care customers subsidized my open heart surgery. It could be said that the health insurer subsidized my surgery, but without the money from tens of thousands of other policy holders, the insurance company...um...couldn't subsidize anything.
The discussion, lame as it is, over no co-pays for contraception, must be viewed through this insurance-as-socialistic-subsidization prism. Just as others subsidized my heart surgery ten years ago, the majority of us who pay for health insurance policies today are actually subsidizing other health care customers who consume more health care than we do. In this way, the entire health care insurance industry is but a socialistic, 3 Musketeers-type of industry. All for one and one for all.
In ObamaCare, many more Americans will become eligible for Medicaid and even those who will not qualify for Medicaid under the new rules may have their health insurance subsidized by taxpayer monies. Conservatives, for political reasons only, have limited their focus to contraception. Conservatives have expressed their disdain for subsidizing one specific, and tiny, piece of overall health care coverage, access to no co-pay contraception. They have done this in order to stoke the always-burning fires of the "culture wars" in a general election year.
I say that because every aspect of health care coverage is subsidized, one way or the other. Why complain about contraception, when thousands of other prescription medicines will be subsidized by tax payer monies under Obamacare? Why not complain about taxpayer monies subsidizing HIV cocktail drugs? Respiratory therapy, surgery, and drugs for smoker-related illnesses? Penicillin-related drugs to combat STD's? A liver transplant for a life-long alcoholic? Knee and hip replacement/repair for an extreme-sports enthusiast?
Singling out contraception is the tell. The contrivance which has been the "debate" over denying no co-pay contraception in the ObamaCare insurance exchanges is the radicalized-right's attempt to revive their motley group of voters to defeat Obama in November. That's all it is and nothing more. Most Americans subsidize the health care of others every month of every year. Nothing new about any of that. Low or no co-pay contraception has been part of most health insurers policies for decades, policies even the Catholic Church have bought for their employees without a peep until the beginning of 2012.
Abortion talk, women-who-have-sex-out-of-wedlock talk, contraception-is-dangerous talk, and we-don't-want-to-subsidize-those-evil-loose-women-who-take-the-pill talk....has all been designed by the conservative megaphone screechers as an opportunity to rile up the angry, angry base in the hopes of knocking out Obama in November.
There's not one ounce of sincerity in any of it....except for the right's hatred of the current president.
- 2013 (116)
- 2012 (265)
- 2011 (254)
- 2010 (274)
- 2009 (302)
- 2008 (331)
- 2007 (305)