Romney is a still a piece of [inks] coward

[BigSkyBob]

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.

[BigSkyBob]

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.

I was speaking specifically of the individual health insurance mandate, something lots of Republicans (including Romney) argued Obama should implement -- until he did.

And, I was taking about whether, or not, Obama has offered a "solution." He hasn't. If you are merely claiming Obama offered an individual mandate, I concur. If you are claiming he offered a "solution," I am noting that claim is nonsensical.

[BigSkyBob]

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.

Umm, Romney passed a bill that mandated IVF treatment, essentially gratis. Romney's rationale for the individual mandate was to deal with "free riders." Well, infertile couples don't show up at the emergency room. Just as Obama is trying to make birth control an entitlement, Romney made IVF an entitlement. The difference is that IVF can be ten times Flukes inflated costs for birth control.

Nor, can I let it pass that some of the couples seeking IVF are doing so because of a past STD. What did you write about condoms and STDs again?

[BigSkyBob]

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!

[BigSkyBob]

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.

[BigSkyBob]

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.

[BigSkyBob]

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.