29

ObamaCare: Do It to Shut the Nagging Moms Up

A tribute to just how delusional contemporary liberalism is.  Young people do not want to sign up for ObamaCare policies which they view as too expensive, and almost certainly unnecessary for them while they are young and healthy.  Solution:  have celebrity moms nag them to purchase the insurance and they will sign on in droves!  These people truly do believe in unicorns and pixie dust as the solution to real world problems, and that self interest will bow to the lure of second hand celebrity.  (At least unicorns and pixies would be entertaining as compared to the wretched video above.)  Liberalism since the time of McGovern has been a long revolt against reality, but reality always wins in the end.

Share With Friends
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Donald R. McClarey

Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three and happily married for 35 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.

29 Comments

  1. Too funny.
    For the record, young people do need health insurance, but only a catastrophic plan that should take into account the reduced risks associated with their youth. Forcing them to subsidize the middle-aged and elderly is grounded in politics, not fairness.

  2. The best and simplest health care reform we could have Mike is legislation requiring all health insurance companies to offer a la carte health insurance where the consumer gets to pick his plans without either the States or the Feds mandating required coverages. That and abolishing the absurd restriction that health care insurance cannot be sold across state lines, along with mandating that all care givers disclose their prices electronically on public accessible web sites would drive costs down dramatically. In short, turn the medical marketplace into a real market.

  3. These liberal feminists would have aborted the very children whom they urge to get on board with Obamacare had they the chance

  4. Thought this was going to be on the endless “Moms against an amorphous threat with all debate answered by YOU HATE CHILDREN!!!” groups.

  5. Donald, the key is to eliminate the tax break for employer-provided health insurance. It is that special treatment that results in insurance being offered through employers rather than directly though insurers, which I agree is much preferable. I doubt that law you suggest would be needed if we eliminated the tax preference. After all, insurers do not need a law requiring them to offer property, casualty, and life insurance to individuals and families. Yes, health insurance should be offered across state lines, but that does implicate some regulatory challenges since states do regulate insurance and their public policy choices will never be identical. Federal law could change to substitute federal regulation for state, but on balance I’m doubtful that that would be an improvement. Finally, none of these changes addresses the social risks resulting from a significant portion of the population choosing to go without insurance for catastrophic or emergency care. When those folks encounter catastrophies or emergencies, taxpayers inevitably end up paying the bill. This is why the unfairly maligned “mandate” makes policy sense, though it should only require catasrophic/emergency insurance — i.e., only services which the taxpayer would otherwise have to provide. Also, such mandates should only be at the state level. Leaving aside the rather famous constitutional issues, a federal mandate leaves no room for experimentation based on demographic diversity and social change. Political forces being what they are a federal mandate would eventually become richer and richer in terms of the breadth of the coverage mandated.

    Finally, I would note that insurance is by nature a bad bet. Insurance companies are designed to make a profit. That does not mean that risk sharing and transfer is not a good idea. It is prudent and necessary for catastrophic events. But any time that the user of a service is separated from the payer, abuse will happen. People use services differently if it is other people’s money. This is inevitable with insurance, but manageable if the coverage is limited to large exposures. The separation between an the payor (i.e. insurer) and user (patient) is exacerbated when a fourth party employer (the health care provider is the 3rd party) is introduced into the mix. ObamaCare doubles down on this inefficiency instead of retreating from it as you suggest.

  6. “Donald, the key is to eliminate the tax break for employer-provided health insurance.”

    All health insurance should simply be deductible.

    “After all, insurers do not need a law requiring them to offer property, casualty, and life insurance to individuals and families.”

    One can go through life without any of those insurance policies, while health insurance is a necessity as people grow older and sicker. A la carte policies, free of state or federal mandated coverage, would allow low cost alternatives for people who wish to avail themselves of such policies.

    “Yes, health insurance should be offered across state lines, but that does implicate some regulatory challenges since states do regulate insurance and their public policy choices will never be identical. Federal law could change to substitute federal regulation for state, but on balance I’m doubtful that that would be an improvement.”

    State regulation of health insurance has always been a political football. A national market for health insurance can never be established as long as the states and the feds attempt to write the policies to protect their pet special interests. Federal pre-emption is necessary to establish a free market in such policies. The risk of Federal regulation would be high, but after the ObamaCare fiasco I think most people are ready for some free market common sense.

    “This is why the unfairly maligned “mandate” makes policy sense, though it should only require catasrophic/emergency insurance”

    I disagree. People should simply be on the hook for reimbursing the government by seizure of tax refunds, including earned income tax credit, social security benefits, pensions, stoppage of welfare benefits, etc. That should be incentive enough for people to get health insurance. Those who have nothing to take would be unable to pay for health insurance premiums in any case. The truly indigent could go on Medicaid, but a vastly reduced Medicaid, better able to serve the truly needy rather than the swollen monster now that has too many people on the rolls who could pay a large portion of their health care costs. Illegal aliens who owe any medical bills that are paid for by the government should be promptly expelled from the country and their goods confiscated to defray the cost of their care.

    People who go naked without any health insurance will always be a minority. We should attempt to make that option as painful as possible if the dice come up snake eyes on their gamble.

  7. Mike Petrik wrote, “Insurance companies are designed to make a profit.”

    In Europe, quite a number of insurers are mutuals.

  8. I have worked in health insurance – financial and regulatory reporting – for over 25 years. State regulations are a nightmare to deal with. Insurance companies can offer health insurance across state lines, but getting licensed in multiple states is costly and time consuming. it’s bad enough when a company wants to offer vision or dental insurance in multiple states, but comprehensive health insurance….ugh.

    Processing and filing regulatory paperwork to keep these licenses is a huge part of my job – and I hate it. ObumblerCare has made it worse and the worst of it is yet to come.

    I will not allow my sons to go into this line of work.

  9. Some guy who claims to be pope says this about those pesky, indigent illegal aliens:
    .
    “’Where is your brother?’ the voice of his blood cries even to me, God says. This is not a question addressed to others: it is a question addressed to me, to you, to each one of us. These our brothers and sisters seek to leave difficult situations in order to find a little serenity and peace, they seek a better place for themselves and for their families – but they found death. How many times to those who seek this not find understanding, do not find welcome, do not find solidarity! And their voices rise up even to God! And once more to you, the residents of Lampedusa, thank you for your solidarity! I recently heard one of these brothers. Before arriving here, he had passed through the hands of traffickers, those who exploit the poverty of others; these people for whom the poverty of others is a source of income. What they have suffered! And some have been unable to arrive!
    .
    “’Where is your brother?’ Who is responsible for this blood?” Etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum. Thankfully, that guy was talking about some far off country. No applicability here.

  10. The context of his homily is important:
    http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-on-lampedusa-the-globalization-of-indifferenc/?frommarfeel=yes

    Both because you are shifting his meaning away from indifference to folks’ deaths, and because even if he had said what you desire to claim, a Pope’s words don’t outweigh the Church’s teaching about the right of a country to set the rules so long as they are moral ones. (And no, “I would be better off materially” is not a good enough reason.)

  11. “’Where is your brother?’
    Hopefully in his own nation hard at work to support his family, just as I am in my own nation hard at work to support mine. Americans are a generous people, but some six million illegal aliens from Mexico alone is not a call for neighborly assistance, but another form of invasion. I am perfectly happy to assist people in need due to some catastrophe in their own nation. I am not willing to see them come here, take jobs away from native Americans, and strain public resources. There is a difference between being a good Christian and being a total chump. This of course leaves aside the machinations of some big businesses that thrive on cheap illegal alien labor, counting on local social welfare programs to supplement the meager wages paid out. Open borders immigration is bad social policy all around and all the pretty words in the world, no matter who says them, can’t make this pig of a policy any prettier.

  12. These people remind me of the photos from the Soviet Union in the 1930’s showing peasants happily signing up to join a collective farm.

  13. A coherent case can be made for protectionism. It is more difficult, however, to support the free movement of capital, the free movement of goods, but not the free movement of labour.

    Because we have freedom of movement within the EU, the French people, like the Scots, enjoy the inestimable benefits of my ill-requited legal services, the only sufferers being the former cartel of avocats. By the same token, I can have my antiquated geyser maintained by a rapacious, but efficient Polish plumber.

  14. “Some guy who claims to be pope says this about those pesky, indigent illegal aliens…”

    There was also this other guy who claimed to be pope and will soon be canonized who said this about illegal immigration:

    “Illegal immigration should be prevented, but it is also essential to combat vigorously the criminal activities which exploit illegal immigrants.”

    Wow, it should be prevented. What a wack job that alleged pope was.

    Then that alleged pope also said this:

    “When no solution is foreseen, these same institutions should direct those they are helping, perhaps also providing them with material assistance, either to seek acceptance in other countries, or to return to their own country.”

    Are you kidding? You mean you can kick them out. Did that poor excuse for a pope ever hear about Catholic Social Justice? Why are they making him a saint?

  15. The whole concept of insurance is based on spreading out the financial risk of a rare or statistically unlikely event over a long period of time and among lots of people. Events such as houses burning down or people getting in serious car accidents do happen regularly, but, the odds of them happening to any specific individual are fairly low.

    Trying to insure for events that affect just about everyone, such as ordinary illnesses and routine checkups, inevitably places too much strain on the system and leads to companies going under or having to charge sky-high premiums. Imagine how costly your car insurance would be, for example, if it had to cover routine maintenance such as oil changes and tire rotations (not to mention that car repair places would probably jack up the price of these services simply because they could).

    For that reason I think health insurance policies should be designed primarily for rare, high-cost or catastrophic events. For the more frequent or routine events such as checkups, immunizations, well-baby care, etc., a medical savings account, a concierge plan (you pay an annual or monthly fee to your doctor to cover all your services for the period) or a medical expense sharing plan (a type of coverage sponsored by various Christian organizations and specifically authorized under Obamacare) would probably be more appropriate ways to manage costs for people who have difficulty paying for them on the spot.

  16. Trying to insure for events that affect just about everyone, such as ordinary illnesses and routine checkups, inevitably places too much strain on the system and leads to companies going under or having to charge sky-high premiums. Imagine how costly your car insurance would be, for example, if it had to cover routine maintenance such as oil changes and tire rotations (not to mention that car repair places would probably jack up the price of these services simply because they could).

    If the insurance including that was grouped by probability of use– say, miles driven and age of car?– then there’s no inherent problem with “insuring” to include regularly scheduled maintenance; it’s when you group unlike things and remove visibility of the costs that it causes problems. Our minivan is scheduled for an oil change ever 4,500 miles, according to the book, but we also use synthetic; Laurence’s 1970’s jeep runs as much on oil as it does on gas, but uses normal oil.

    I wouldn’t mind buying “insurance” that paid for regularly scheduled maintenance up to XYZ amount per thing, with some service groups agreeing to charge exactly that amount. I can even see a big demand for it for those who know that they have “sucker” written across their forehead when it comes to vehicles, and aren’t sure of themselves.
    (Let me tell you about when Jiffy Lube tried to sell me a window repair on a chip that had been patched the last three times I came through, and wanted to sell me a replacement lightbulb for an area that doesn’t have a light…..)

    The problem comes when you can’t shop around and when you have groups with wildly different demands shoved together, and those who get insurance subsidize those who defraud the system, which is legally prevented from stopping the defrauding.

  17. Yes, an excellent message that includes the fullness of Catholic teaching including respect for persons, helping immigrants, decrying illegal immigration, respecting the rights of states to set limits to immigration and, where necessary, to deport illegal immigrants.

    Quite different than the simplistic message that you first conveyed.

  18. Quite different than the simplistic message that you first conveyed.
    lol. So, Philip, to what extent does Donald’s message — the one that prompted my comment — include the fullness of Catholic teaching on respect for persons, helping immigrants, decrying illegal immigration, respecting the rights of states to set limits to immigration and, where necessary, to deport illegal immigrants?
    .
    “Illegal aliens who owe any medical bills that are paid for by the government should be promptly expelled from the country and their goods confiscated to defray the cost of their care.”

  19. Such a comment by Don is in fact consistent with the rights of the state protecting the common good. First, illegal immigration per Catholic Social teaching is immoral as it violates the right of the state to set limits on immigration and the duty of persons to respect those laws. Second, as illegal immigrants, there is no right per se to free medical care provided by the state. (In fact, there is no right per se for citizens to be provided free medical care by the state.) Certainly in a time of massive deficit spending and an ill-conceived state run medical system, the state can decide that, for the common good, illegal immigrants can be denied certain services and can, as JP II has clearly stated, be deported.

    Now, per Catholic Social teaching, one may disagree with this assessment, taking into account other factors, as CST allows for a diversity of opinions in solving social ills. But Don’s position does take into account the fullness of Catholic teaching as noted and not a simple “take care of everyone of not be Christian” approach.

  20. Such a comment by Don is in fact consistent with the rights of the state protecting the common good.
    Nobody ever said it wasn’t. But as soon as anyone here quotes the Bible, or quotes the Catholic Catechism, or quotes a pope (past or present) in an attempt to provide the fullness of Catholic teaching, that is when commenters around here get really agitated. And that’s weird because they are not getting upset at the person who made the original comment, they’re getting upset at the person who steers the conversation toward Catholic teaching.
    .
    Okay we are serious off-topic. Philip and Don and Foxfier can vent at me one more time, but any further comments by me here will be on-topic of the original post. I’m not ignoring you, I’m not going away mad, I am just not going to continue off-topic.

  21. “Hopefully in his own nation hard at work to support his family, just as I am in my own nation hard at work to support mine.”
    .
    Many of the pubic schools and churches were built by the workmen’s own hands from the brick made his own hands in the evenings after their jobs.

  22. Nobody ever said it wasn’t.

    You tried to imply it with your selective and misleading partial quotes.

    I’m not ignoring you, I’m not going away mad, I am just not going to continue off-topic.

    I guess that’s as close as we’re going to get to an admission that you’re wrong. Being off topic was not a problem to you initiated the attempt use the Pope as a club and claim that a country’s government not paying for medical care for those who illegally entered the area was somehow anti-Catholic.

  23. Being honest folk & sincerely wanting to do what is best for others–we are trying to think of how to actually provide quality care for people at the lowest cost in the most efficient manner. That was never the goal of those who passed Obamacare–if it had been their true goal, they would have read the bill they voted on–and it would not have been thousands of pages long–and the thousand exemptions granted for political favor would not have been granted–nor the requirement that Christians violate their conscience. The overarching purpose of that piece of legislation was government control of the private sector and redistribution of wealth–as is shown for all to see by the refusal of those who voted for Obamacare to participate in it as well as the dictatorial actions of our current president in altering the law by issuing decrees with any legitamate authority to do so. Even to say that Obama care was ” passed” is not the full truth. As the current speaker of the house had to say at that time–she [Nancy Pelosi] “reckoned” it passed because it could not be passed any other way.

  24. In short, turn the medical marketplace into a real market.

    Most reasons why political bodies resist plain common-sense solutions such as that one is because, as the Instapundit frequently observes, they have “insufficient opportunities for graft”.

Comments are closed.