Romney is a still a piece of [inks] coward

[Politico]

Do we really have to resort to name calling or is that all that the left can offer? What about ideas and solutions?

Like "slut"?

Not to mention that Obama did offer a solution on health care. Not a left wing solution, but one implemented by Romney in Massachusetts, and endorsed by him, by Newt Gingrich, by the Heritage Foundation, and lots of others, as the responsible moderate compromise that was acceptable to conservatives. Now it's suddenly the worst thing in the world, and repealing it is the top priority.
This is a case where not only do Republicans not have a solution, but they're insisting on un-solving something for which a solution was found. So they call women sluts instead.

 No "solution" has been implemented. Obamacare was imposed. It drives up costs, not lowers them. For instance, the latest birth control fiscal fiasco. Fluke told Congress with a straight face that birth control costs a Georgetown student $3,000. That's $750/yr. Generics are available at Walmart and Target for $9/mo. Add a couple of hundred bucks a year for a pelvic exam, and the real costs are half her estimate. Of course, once insurance pays the generics are discarded in favor of pricey alternatives such as Yaz or Mirana. Since someone else is paying, all of a sudden the costs really are $3,000. Big Parma wins, and the taxpayer loses.

The reality is that Georgetown isn't going to "eat" the extra costs, nor are the insurance companies. Georgetown will have no choice but to recover the extra costs in higher tuition or fees. Fluke is still going to have to pay for her birth control. College is not a free lunch. But, now, because there are no incentive to control costs she will have to pay more.

This is a good post. I would add that women who are sleeping around without insisting upon their partners wearing condoms should have to front their own costs of STD treatment if they get infected with something. You want a cheap, readily available form of birth control, it's called a condom and it's the only contraceptive that helps prevent STDs, including the AIDS virus.

Nobody is responsible for my health other than myself. Similarly, I am not responsible for anybody's health with the exception of my family's. There is no free lunch. Doctors, nurses, technicians, administrators, etc. certainly do not provide their labor free of charge, regardless of whether individuals, insurance companies, or the government are footing the bill of services rendered.

[Politico]

Rush Limbaugh is a shock jock. He gets good ratings by being controversial (by, surprise-surprise, saying controversial things). Regardless of merit, he is also influential (he is the real life jmfcst, the leader of the jmfcsts). With regards to politics, the signal is clear: Romney is stepping on egg shells with Limbaugh because he respects Limbaugh and does not want to incur his wrath. Limbaugh could appreciate this, and may possibly consider calling the GOP war over if Romney is successful on Super Tuesday.

[Politico]

Do we really have to resort to name calling or is that all that the left can offer? What about ideas and solutions?

Like "slut"?

Not to mention that Obama did offer a solution on health care. Not a left wing solution, but one implemented by Romney in Massachusetts, and endorsed by him, by Newt Gingrich, by the Heritage Foundation, and lots of others, as the responsible moderate compromise that was acceptable to conservatives. Now it's suddenly the worst thing in the world, and repealing it is the top priority.
This is a case where not only do Republicans not have a solution, but they're insisting on un-solving something for which a solution was found. So they call women sluts instead.

 No "solution" has been implemented. Obamacare was imposed. It drives up costs, not lowers them. For instance, the latest birth control fiscal fiasco. Fluke told Congress with a straight face that birth control costs a Georgetown student $3,000. That's $750/yr. Generics are available at Walmart and Target for $9/mo. Add a couple of hundred bucks a year for a pelvic exam, and the real costs are half her estimate. Of course, once insurance pays the generics are discarded in favor of pricey alternatives such as Yaz or Mirana. Since someone else is paying, all of a sudden the costs really are $3,000. Big Parma wins, and the taxpayer loses.

The reality is that Georgetown isn't going to "eat" the extra costs, nor are the insurance companies. Georgetown will have no choice but to recover the extra costs in higher tuition or fees. Fluke is still going to have to pay for her birth control. College is not a free lunch. But, now, because there are no incentive to control costs she will have to pay more.

This is a good post. I would add that women who are sleeping around without insisting upon their partners wearing condoms should have to front their own costs of STD treatment if they get infected with something. You want a cheap, readily available form of birth control, it's called a condom and it's the only contraceptive that helps prevent STDs, including the AIDS virus.

Nobody is responsible for my health other than myself. Similarly, I am not responsible for anybody's health with the exception of my family's. There is no free lunch. Doctors, nurses, technicians, administrators, etc. certainly do not provide their labor free of charge, regardless of whether individuals, insurance companies, or the government are footing the bill of services rendered.

So you oppose the health care reform implemented in Massachusetts by Governor Romney? And advocated by him as a national solution as recently as July of 2009?

I don't live in Massachusetts, so I'm fine with it. I prefer having the states figure out how they want to address health care rather than having the federal government enforce a one-size-fits-all package. Each state knows themselves better than Washington. Contrary to liberal belief, Washington does not know best.

[Politico]

You said you supported Obama 4 years ago? Right?

But you are now really opposed to health care reform?

Why on earth did you support Barack Obama then?

He did what he said he would do. And you are now disappointed with the fact that he did do it?

This one goes to all of you hyper-partisans in the room who want to turn the Atlas into Diet Democratic Underground (not the above poster, necessarily):

"If you agree with me on nine out of twelve issues, you should vote for me. If you agree with me on twelve out of twelve issues, you should see a psychiatrist."

- Ed Koch

Unfortunately, it appears most of America needs a psychiatrist these days.

[Politico]

You said you supported Obama 4 years ago? Right?

But you are now really opposed to health care reform?

Why on earth did you support Barack Obama then?

He did what he said he would do. And you are now disappointed with the fact that he did do it?

"If you agree with me on 9 out of 12 issues, you should vote for me. If you agree with me on 12 out of 12 issues, you should see a psychiatrist."

- Ed Koch

True, but health care was one of the most important issues of his campaign, as I remember. Not something he just said, he made a key issue. Just like Wall Street reform.

He ran a pretty leftwing campaign but governed like a centrist. So what is your problem with Obama now?

I largely supported Obama because I believed he would be a New Democrat in the Bill Clinton mold (circa 1995-2001), who would help restore confidence in America and bring us together again (remember "there are no blue states or red states; there is the United States" or however he put it?). Like most of America, I was suffering from severe Bush fatigue. I believed I was getting a moderate on economic issues, somebody who would oversee responsible, effective stimulus spending WITH a plan for long-term fiscal discipline. I did not think I was going to get a spend-and-tax-later liberal. I largely opposed his idea of federal health care and his views on gun control, nuclear energy, crime, and probably some other issues that do not come immediately to mind. Last but not least, I have moved to the right over the past four years, so that plays into it. But I am still quite liberal on a lot of social issues. Also, I am happy with Obama's performance in the foreign policy realm with the exception of Iran, where I think he needs to be slightly more tough with the rhetoric. Foreign policy is the only area where Obama largely delivered what I expected (i.e., overseeing a successful withdrawal in Iraq and the death of Bin Laden while maintaining successful covert operations throughout the world).

[Politico]

Romney really had a Sister Souljah moment here to appeal to independents and women, and he blew it. Even self-admitted Romney-hack Mike Murphy agreed on MTP this morning that Romney failed to show any courage here

Romney has not won the nomination yet. Romney won't need a Sister Souljah moment because, unlike Democrats circa 1992, the furthest right elements of the Republican base will be toning down their tone-deaf ways soon enough.

[Politico]

If you haven't noticed I hate the current health care system and would like as strongly price-controlled and generic a pharmaceutical industry as possible with the possible exception of research and development.

Why would pharmaceutical companies invest in research and development if they would not get a return on their investment? Pharmaceutical companies need to be given exclusive monopoly rights on new drugs for at least a few years in order to receive a return on their investments in R&D.

This is the fantasy world these people live in, Bob. This is why Mitt Romney must defeat Barack Obama.

[Politico]

At this point I would like to ask if any of us are aware of the non-contraceptive health effects of hormonal birth control and why some women might need or want them.

So, women are entitled to free mood stabilizing medication if they call it "pregnancy prevention?" This is exactly how costs explode. If women had to pay for their own birth control more would opt for the $9 generics at Walmart and Target. But, since someone else is paying, they can opt for the pricey name-brand prescription drugs that are no more effective at preventing pregnancy, but, have desireable side effects. $3,000 isn't too high a price to pay when someone else is footing the bill!

The logical extension of your argument would be to end all insurance schemes altogether.

The logical conclusion of my position is that "insurance" should cover bills that one can't pay. Thus, the need for "insurance." Homeowners insurances pays to replace your home in the event of a fire. It does not pay you to paint your home. That's a routine maintenance cost. When medical "insurance" is conflated with prepaid medical care, incentives to control costs are destroyed, especially when prepaid medical care is mandated.

This is a great analogy.

The debate should be over whether or not the "pill" should still require a prescription. Why not make it OTC after one fills out a quick questionnaire with a pharmacist, verifying there is minimal risk of adverse side effects? I mean, the "pill" has ONLY been around half a century. Fierce competition in an OTC market for the "pill" would drive down prices to affordable levels, like any other OTC pill. This is an example of a deregulatory measure that would substantially benefit consumers (i.e., consumers of the "pill" in this case).

[Politico]

At this point I would like to ask if any of us are aware of the non-contraceptive health effects of hormonal birth control and why some women might need or want them.

So, women are entitled to free mood stabilizing medication if they call it "pregnancy prevention?" This is exactly how costs explode. If women had to pay for their own birth control more would opt for the $9 generics at Walmart and Target. But, since someone else is paying, they can opt for the pricey name-brand prescription drugs that are no more effective at preventing pregnancy, but, have desireable side effects. $3,000 isn't too high a price to pay when someone else is footing the bill!

Okay, so the answer to my original question was 'no'.

Um, the answer was,"Yes."  Again, drugs like Yaz advertise themselves as lessening hormonal mood fluctuations. Beyond that, some gals are using Nuva-ring to cease menstruating.

If Yaz is being prescribed as an alternative to other mood-altering drugs, then, it should be reimbursed in exactly the same way as other drugs in that category. It isn't. That's the financial problem with making birth control an entitlement: it drives up costs because it allows people to game the system for free drugs rather than incents them to lower costs.

You stand with big Pharma. I stand with the taxpayer.

No I do not stand with big pharma. If you haven't noticed I hate the current health care system and would like as strongly price-controlled and generic a pharmaceutical industry as possible with the possible exception of research and development.

Irrevelent inasmuch as we live in the real world, not the world of pie-in-sky fantasies about how things ought to be. In the real world Big Pharma cut a deal with Obama to help pass his health care scheme in exchange for Big Pharma's interests being protected. It is exactly that corrupt deal that you are defending. You can try to state your support for the deal, but, your opposition to the corruption, but that isn't how the real world works. This latest mandate means money in the pockets of Big Pharma, and higher costs for employers, employees and taxpayers. Whether, you like it or not, and, whether you realize it for not, you are standing for Big Pharma and against the taxpayer.

You're absolutely right. If some states want Obamacare, let them have it. But to force it upon states that do not want it is unconstitutional as the Supreme Court will decide soon enough.