CBS News reports that next year under the new Obama care program, the following services will be available FREE for women. Well-Woman visits, contraception and counseling, gestational diabetes screening, HPV-DNA counseling, STD counseling, HIV screening and counseling, breast feeding support and supplies, and interpersonal and domestic violence screening. This will be added to the already available benefits for free mammograms, cervical cancer screening and prenatal care. CBS reports this could be available for 47 million women.
Is there anything in the first paragraph women do not need? My wife will kill me, but I wonder about the breast feeding supplies. (It’s a joke, I know about the pumps etc.) The answer to my mind is everything mentioned is necessary and desirable. My question goes to the issue of free.
Will the insurance companies be giving these services free? You know better. Insurance companies take money from all of us, pay the bills, pay their expenses and leave in a profit margin to stay in business. They add these numbers up and establish the rates for the coming year. Insurance companies are not going to be doing this for free.
Will doctors be doing this for free? No, doctors must pay for their education, their office expenses, their staff and their own living expenses. So, we are told, they have no choice, the administration is reducing the payments to Docs and requiring these services. One of the issues we have now in our National Health Care system is doctors dropping out of the Medicare/Medical system. The doctors simply cannot keep their doors open at those reimbursement rates so they pull out of the system. Doctors are not going to do this for free.
Who is going to be paying for these services? The 51% of people who pay income taxes will be asked to pay more. We are constantly discussing this, so let’s pass this time and talk about another segment of the issue.
I am taking the stance that this is deceptive advertising like we would never allow from a commercial company in this country. It is also another step to try to divide us into classes. This is the very worst example of political hype and self-serving big government advocacy in history. Forget the Constitution; this actually suggests people in this country are too stupid to understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch. This is to count on people being so attuned to their political party they will move away from individual thinking and reasoning. Free? There is nothing in the world for free. Everything from liberty, commerce, research and development, highways, bridges, politicians and even marriage licenses cost somebody, somewhere money.
Think about your average food center in a poor community which advertises free food for the needy. The food given out or prepared is only free to the people receiving the food. The people who prepare the food are often volunteers, usually working under the direction of a paid person, working for the charity. This is not always true, but often. All the food was paid for at some point in the food chain. The farmer paid for the seed, fertilizer and water. They picked the food, transported the food and off loaded it. If it is direct to the center that is all the costs. They are always having food drives outside my local grocery store. I always take a bag and fill it from the list. The money I spend is given freely and with love. But the money was my money and I worked for it. The fact that I’ve been in the other guy's shoes and I know how much the food is appreciated does not mean the food was free. It was paid for by my efforts.
We must get away from this idea of free. If you want to put forth the argument that we have a right to take working people’s money and give it to people not working, then make that argument. If you don’t feel the people earning have a right to their own rewards, then make the argument. But be honest about what you think. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Come on CBS, how about a little truth in your headlines? It is not free, it is a gift from the working people of this country.
For me, whether one characterizes any aspect of ACA as "free" or as "free access" doesn't matter. What matters most to me is that Congress had no legitimate Constitutional authority to enact ACA, nor the President to sign it into law, in the first place. Our federal government is supposed to be legally constrained from exercising *any* power or authority that is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. SCOTUS has now difinitively put to rest the absurd notion that ACA is a proper extension of Congress' power to regulate commerce among the several States. Instead, ACA has been upheld as an extension of Congress' authority to lay and collect taxes. Under this tortuous interpretation, Congress can now compel us to do virtually anything, so long as it intends to penalize us for *not* doing so, while claiming that the penalty is a tax. This latest bit of federal legislative hyperactivity is precisely the sort of intrusion into personal freedoms and individual liberties that the Founders sought strenuously to prevent. "Free"? I think many of us have forgotten what the word means in the context of our *personal* freedom and a federal government that keeps encroaching upon it.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=66pE67m_Hf4&feature=related
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/view/ On the book: Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/view/#ixzz22v3eDZdI
Oy.
http://www.floodsmart.gov/floodsmart/pages/faqs/do-i-really-need-flood-insurance.jsp Didja get the FEMA mailer?
Yet the majority of voters continue to send representatives to Congress who pass Bill after Bill into law after law that do just that very thing. So who do we really have to blame for that?
Still, according to a Kaiser Foundation study, Massachusetts continues to experience some significant challenges with healthcare *costs*: "State health reform in 2006 purposefully focused on expanding coverage to residents while leaving the thornier task of cost containment for future years. As a result, affordability continues to be an issue. Per capita health spending is 15% higher than the national average and although premium growth has slowed in recent years, Massachusetts has the highest individual market premiums in the country. Legislation focused on comprehensive provider payment reform and endorsed by the Governor is currently pending in the state’s legislature." http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8311.pdf In any case, these sorts of experiments in universal healthcare are entirely appropriate at the State level. They are not, at all, appropriate on a national scale unless or until we amend the Constitution to give the legislative and executive branches that specific authority.
Services like this are NOT free. SOMEONE has to pay for them. And that someone is us.
Washington has done it best to destroy both Medicare and Social Security. The average $114,000.00 paid in by workers in their lifetime by payroll deductions does not reflect the investment earnings which should have accumulated during this lifetime. The amount should be an accrual of at least $500,000.00. Medicare is not free. Recipients pay an insurance premium of $98.00 per month which, according to Washington, will jump to $214.00 per month in 2014 to help finance Obamacare. Obamacare has already taken $500,000,000,000.00 (ONE HALF A TRILLION) from Medicare on behalf of Obamacare! Congress , over the years, has robbed Social Security of $1,000,000,000,000.00 (ONE TRILLION DOLLARS) and this will never be repaid! Is the problem Social Security, Medicare or Congress?
Which unelected entities are most powerful in Washington these days?
This entire "Free" discussion is a side show from the real mess, The PPACA - a first class A-1 turd of a piece of legislation. This law will make the projects in Chicago look like a good idea. Can't wait to see how many families of 4 making $100,000 will want to join Medicaid and go to Bell Gardens for a pap smear. It sounds terrible to hear how many doctors don't want to see any more Medicare patients, until you realize it's not so bad compared to Medicaid. I can see it now, "Tiajuana, The New Mayo Clinic for the Middle Class. Get your thingamajiggy fixed and 1'Free' Margarita."
Yeparoo, when you are right, you are all the way right.
Yes indeedy: http://bit.ly/P6Eiqq http://bit.ly/NkcUAv http://bit.ly/P6Eh5P http://bit.ly/P6Em9F "The average $114,000.00 paid in by workers in their lifetime by payroll deductions does not reflect the investment earnings which should have accumulated during this lifetime." Yes, because the surest way of assuring that mom and pop have guaranteed coverage for the hospitalization they need is to bet it all on mortgage backed securities by the unregulated private sector.
Why can't mom and pop simply place their payroll deducted amounts in personal savings accounts or 10 yr CD's? Even at those relatively low yields, wouldn't they still have a sizeable sum more when it comes time to start using the money than they currently receive by giving it to the government to control, raid, and mismanage?
I do agree that there always is room for discussion. My context though, as far as others would allow, was narrowly focused on John's article. The extreme only serves to point out that we should not ignore that perhaps the formulators of that Medicare wanted safety and bet that costs won't skyrocket. We can see that there may be ways (maybe CDs, maybe *safe* stocks) can grow 114,500 to 355,000. It does not today. And *that* has zilch to do with anything Obamacare caused. It existed before, and it exists now. That requires fixing or changing (privatizing maybe, or slashing) Medicare. As it stands, people will take more out of Medicare than they put in, on average. Otherwise we do not even have a problem. And it certainly did not start on Jan 21, 2009. So we have status quo which is that those on Medicare will get 'free' stuff because of the way it is structured, long before Obamacare got its grubby paws on it. Those who are benefiting from that are complaining (erroneously) that Obamacare gives off free stuff. No doubt there is much to discuss on how best to fix the ACA (which I am not a fan of, find it a modest improvement that took way too much time), and Nancy has been demanding an alternative, and how to fix Medicare. To me those are different discussions. If someone wants to blog on those, maybe it'd be interesting.
The alternative to ACA and Medicare is the same...dump them both. Get the Fed out of the healthcare game altogether except where it concerns federal employees and federal land. Get the Fed all the way out of it and let the good people of each State determine what sort of universal healthcare system *they* want (if any.) This could arguably result in 50 different sorts of healthcare systems within the U.S. And? All this means is that folks in the US have more choices...more personal control...in this important area of their lives. How is this a bad thing? If some in one State don't like the plan the majority of that State's electorate adopted, guess what, they are entirely free to move to another State that has a plan that better suits them. That's the very workable and entirely Constitutional alternative that should satisfy Nancy's question...that there *is* no single solution...their could be 50 of them...and maybe there *should* be!
That is a good question! I watch Fox News and CNBC for their respective slants and their guest commentators as you probably do also. Wow, are they polarized? It must be extremely hard for the average viewer to know the truth! Most of us are extremely tired of politicians in both major parties.
Add MSNBC CNN PBS (and as many others as suits your taste) into a spinning blender. Visualize whirled peas. Impossible, right? :-)