Mandates ensure higher health care costs – not corporate greed
Senators in Congress – lead by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) – are demanding health insurance companies provide “free” services including screenings for breast, cervical, ovarian and lung cancer, heart disease and diabetes, as well as postpartum depression and domestic violence.
Yeah – FREE!
Mikulski’s heart may be in the right place, but when it comes to her concept of health care economics – or even common sense – she is completely disillusion. From the New York Times.
The 61-to-39 vote on health benefits for women would, in effect, override new recommendations from a federal advisory panel that said routine mammograms should begin at age 50, rather than 40.
Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, who proposed the coverage requirement as an amendment to sweeping health legislation, said it could save millions of lives.
Hey Mikulski, why not just ensure health benefits for everyone for free. You’re actions along with the 60 other senators really did not go far enough. How dare you just provide free health benefits to women – that is totally discriminatory and completely unconstitutional!
State mandates are bad enough. Those mandates require insurance companies to cover treatments or preventative care for the insured. Sounds perfectly logical until you have to figure out how to pay for those mandates.
You see, those greedy insurance companies are hording all of that cash in offshore bank accounts somewhere, so they must be able to somehow pay for the mandates! But logical people know this not to be the case. When the government mandates coverage, the insurance company will end up increasing premiums across the board to cover the mandates.
So how much will these mandates cost? Someone, somewhere will have to come up with almost $1 billion dollars over the next decade to pay the cost to provide these “free” services.
Open your wallets you chumps.
7 Comments
The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.
You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.
The site is not broken.
Naturally we all know that the insurance companies are not greedy, only fulfilling their "mandate". I think we are paying for the screening services anyway the way things are now.
sammy22, as usual, you can't keep your eye on the ball.
For starters, having the government unilaterally declare that someone else will pay the freight does not make that service free, it just means that the government is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It amounts to confiscation without remuneration.
Any government powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take away everything you have. Don't assume you're Paul.
This is why we absolutely cannot trust government to control our healthcare. Group identity politics will creep into the healthcare guidelines. Politicians will have the power to manipulate the terms of who gets care, what conditions get priority testing, who pays more in premiums and who pays less. We know for a fact politicians do not care about making color blind decisions based on such constitutional principles as equality and human rights. Their decisions are made dogmatically to partisian ideologies and special interest influences. Healthcare distribution will follow the rules of politics . Treatment will favor groups that return the most votes and contributions. Healthcare will be provided with all the fairness of our tax codes.
It is just a miniature version of what Obama"care" is going to be, and the pols can arbitrarily make any decisions they like, without a shred of insurance "cred" in their resumes, for the purposes of buying votes from weak minded voters that actually believe that they are going to get something for nothing.
We know how well this mandate thing worked for the housing/mortgage industry….
"demanding health insurance companies provide “free” services including screenings for breast, cervical, ovarian and lung cancer, heart disease and diabetes, as well as postpartum depression and domestic violence."
Actually . . . I guess I don't have any problem with insurance companies providing medical services, free or not, just so long as it's voluntary. I mean, I don't care if YOU want to visit an insurance agent for your treatment. Just don't make ME go there.
On the other hand, I just can't wait to see what insurance policy my physician will issue to me. I hope it will be one of those free policies. I hear they're the best kind.
As the first 2074 pages of the bill intends to micro-manage our existence (and not reform health care), should we be surprised that they'd continue to legislate news issue by news issue for special interest group by special interest group? As Dr Tom Coburn said on the floor, today, legislating for these women's health issues is great but what about comparable male issues (prostate, colon…)?
(I fail to see why the RNC…or "Tea Party Express"…or ad infinitem… has failed to publicize the "Patient's Choice Act". This constructive Health Care Reform legislation has been buried by "Evil Monger" Harry for more than 3 years. All the while, the RNC, et al have failed to respond to the charges that they are the party of "NO". In 1994, the Republicans offered the "Contract with America". In 2009, they have the "Patients Choice Act" in response to the issue of the year, but have failed to publicize it 🙁 Maybe the Republican Party is irrelevant!)
Coburn in 2012!
This points to one of the basic problems with liberals. They complain that conservatives are greedy, but they don't see how they are even more greedy. They claim they want to "help people," but they rarely do that helping with their own money. They want other people to be forced to do that helping while they increase their influence. That often commands a higher salary for the liberal running the program, or higher campaign contributions from people and organizations affected by the new requirement.