Friday, February 03, 2012

Obamacare: "anger and division are inevitable consequences of the Law"

The title is a quote from Michael Cannon of Cato.See his commentary .

His current comments are in regard to the latest decree from the HHS Secretary regarding the mandate for the details of the health insurance that Obamacare mandates with the threat of a fine for non compliance. This time the Catholic Church is the focus of attention with the insistence that that organization will, in fact, have to provide insurance that covers among other things,certain reproductive services including control pills.

When the government, this time a single high ranking government presidential appointee, decides what you shall have and shall not have in your health insurance, there is bound to be anger and division as Cannon said.

Some folks with a more progressive mind set that I have might be pleased that the enlightened HHS secretary will force a program so that women can afford contraception,but the government control knife cuts more ways. I quote Cannon again

The same apparatus that can force Americans to subsidize elective abortions can also be used to ban private abortion coverage once the other team wins. The rancor will only grow.

Thomas J. Sargent said the following in his address to graduates at UC Berkeley in May 2007.

"Other people have more information about their abilities,their efforts and their preferences that you do."

I suppose even progressive planners would admit that but with a "Yes,but". Yes but we know better what is best for other people.


Of course, with the power of HHS mandates and the reach of IPAB,the apparatus of government health care control system can force certain things and ban others regardless of the wishes and the particular circumstances of the "other people".

The social justice bestowed on us rolls on. It just gets better and better.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

The Obama Administration has ruled that there will be no conscientious exceptions to mandated birth control and abortion coverage under the ACA regulations for preventative services. While I am deeply concerned about this infringement on religious freedom, I can’t help but conclude that this mandate also reveals how little I (we) actually know about just what is and is not covered under ACA.
It is my understanding that HHS has still not released a definitive statement on what is to be covered by a minimal health insurance policy. We now know that Birth Control, and abortion services will be included, under preventative services. But what else is included? Mammograms, but only if you are over 50 and under 70? PSA testing, are there age restrictions? Unlimited “sick” visits, how many physical exams (and what are the age restrictions, what should be done)?
What are the restrictions/benefits for hospitalization? Is the “client” to pay 20%, 10%, 5%, or 0% for hospitalization. Medicare A has a co-pay requirement, as do most employer and private insurance plans, so will government authorized plans require co-pays, and will there be a maximum “out of pocket” limit? How are the individual state mandates to be dealt with? Most states have multiple mandates, Massachusetts requires payment for wigs (for cancer “clients”), although it adds less than 1% to the cost of a premium, there are 80 other special mandates, each of which adds between < 1% up to 10% to the cost of a premium. At 60 should I have to buy a policy that includes IVF(+10%), BC, and abortion? When my Mother lost her hair to Chemo, her family bought her several wigs, and they were a lot more expensive 40 years ago.
What about the “other” services, will acupuncture, massage therapy, and fitness training be covered, what about aromatherapy? Due to flaws in wording, all are or can be covered under Massachusett mandates. What is “medical” treatment verses behavioral treatment for “autism”, why is marriage conseling included under mental health, and why are ministers and priests considered to be “medical” personell. What are the costs of “unlimited” treatment for alchol, sex, gambling, drug, and shopping “addictions”? It goes on and on. The point is, after 2 years there is still no definitive list of what is to be included or covered under a “minimum” approved federal plan. Nor is there any cost information associated with what the total will be in an individual state, after the State mandates are added.

Anonymous said...

I hope this doesn't change the subject too much, but I remain extremely concerned about the advancement of ObamaCare and RomneyCare in the MSM without factual information being given. Two side-by-side comparisons might be of interest and help.

Citizens Council on Health Care did a nice side-by-side comparison of Romney Care versus Hilary Care here:
http://www.cchfreedom.org/pdfs/Romney_Healthcare_Chart.pdf

And Families USA did a comparison of Romney and Obama Care here:
http://www.familiesusa2.org/assets/pdfs/Elections-2012/RomneyCare-ObamaCare.pdf