Let me ask you Adak, how many times have you used the women's restroom in a public place?

Probably your answer is zero. Yet, your tax dollars pay for that part of the program and that's been true since you've paid taxes, but I've never heard you crying about that. The same logic applies to requiring all ACA compliant polices to cover maternity care, just as no public building would ever be built with bathroom facilities for only one gender. We're one public, there's one reasonable standard of care, and that's been established in the minimum standards for policies.

Let's look at it another way. Presume the rules were different, and we didn't require policies issued to males to have maternity care, and that policies issued to females did have maternity coverage. Now, the policies are different, how would you rationalize the different costs of these different classes of coverage? Would you let the prices be different, based on the sex of the insured? Would you hold the costs the same and force one group to subsidize the other? Let one group pay for something they'd never use? Let one group get coverage for something they didn't pay for? How do you slice that up? How many exceptions do you want to include once you travel down this path?

How many prostate cancer screenings will women have? How many childhood immunizations will you have? The list could go on and on and on, as I'm sure you can see. Lots of federal regulations are in place that don't touch my life directly, but they serve a purpose appropriately.

I had thought about taking a cheap shot about your mental illness not having been a choice of yours at all, but I have thought better about it. Mental illness is not a choice, you know that, you're just being an ass about it.

OF COURSE your insurance policy will have to cover things you are highly unlikely to personally need. The point is that the pool of insured clients must be large enough that expenses don't exceed revenue.

Just one of many articles outlining the short-sighted ignorance illustrated by Adak in his railings against paying for care he thinks he doesn't need, or care that he thinks doesn't affect him.


http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/c...ent-goes-heart

p.s. I think men should pay for their own hard-ons. (hards-on?)

IM, Justifying who pays for what insurance is only a matter of perspective.

Maternity benefits are for the benefit of the baby... so the baby should pay !

This view is consistent in that everyone is born... both men and women
... but not everyone has children.

With this perspective, Adak can rest more comfortably because he is
only paying for his own delivery... just a few years after his personal event.

Now we only have to figure out what to do with those people who don't/won't pay their bills.

OBVIOUSLY, health insurance should have always covered mental health, maternity care, and breast cancer screenings. That's all part of health and the people will become unhealthy if they don't have these things.

But insurance didn't cover them, because it became a tricky mix of companies trying to remain profitable and state insurance regulators being broadly incompetent while fighting the political will to do nothing so the money would continue to flow.

One hopes that the federal effort would cut this Gordian knot and ensure that health insurance actually, you know, insures health. If car insurance didn't cover back seats just because your car doesn't have one, that would be considered fraud: "Oh you have $5000 of damage, but your check is for $3000 because we don't cover the area between where the driver's seat ends and the rear bumper begins."

I'm not sure how maternity care and breast screenings were paid for by the pool of the insured, in the past. However it was done, it should continue that same way, as much as possible, now.

But mental health? THAT's a big Big, BIG expense, that most companies don't even offer in their health insurance plans for their employees. Not to mention that mental health insurance was not mentioned previously by the Democrats, as a requirement for ACA approved health insurance.

Forcing that cost onto us now, is one more BIG price increase in people's health insurance. It won't be well accepted when we start getting the price hikes that must accompany this forced, extra coverage.

It's hard to accept a new coverage being forced onto us, when we have no idea how much that extra cost will be. And in fact, we have no idea what the cost of our current plans will be, because the characteristics of the pool for each plan that's offered, is still unknown.

It's like we never heard of running a small scale pilot program - what a concept! :rolleyes:

International Franchise Association and U.S. Chamber of Commerce say only 1 in 12 small businesses will be helped by Obamacare.

http://www.aei.org/media/economics/i...icas-newsroom/

Because not treating mental health has no costs associated with it.

This is a repetitive refrain that shows lack of knowledge of community health programs
in various states, counties, and cities, not to mention countries on our border and/or overseas.

Maybe some diligent research and definition of "small pilot program" would help,
otherwise it's just "we never heard" wiggle-words.

Start with "MDRC"

Again... denial or lack of knowledge.

Just a "political clue"... remember John Edwards in the primaries ?

Edwards was first to announce a national health plan,
but the other Democratic candidates soon followed with similar ideas.

Sound familiar ?
If for political reasons, GOP Governors refuse to aid the citizens in their state... blame the GOP.

Basically, if our country wants to be the largest industrial nation in the world with easy access to firearms, then we should also have cheap or free access to mental health.

We pay BILLIONS of dollars to protect ourselves from terrorist attacks. The fact is that we are more likely to be killed by someone 'losing it' with a gun than by a terrorist.

If junior is hearing voices and owns a few guns, I would be willing to pay extra into the system so that when his mom warns the cops there is a place for him to stay and whatever professional help and drugs he needs.

The alternative is having an unpleasant meeting with him in a school, movie theater, mall.....

If more insurance companies get involved, the costs will go down as contracts are negotiated. The reason they are high now is that not enough attention was being paid.

Treating mental health is much cheaper than treating physical health. Compare the price of 26 weeks of talk therapy with any medical procedure requiring a hospital stay.

This line of reasoning is extremely offensive to the mental health community and its patients. You may want to apologize.

For saying that they are needed? After hearing the backstories of some of these recent massacres, that really appeared to be an issue.

I'm not being trivial here. There is a point at which the ease of access to healthcare for someone else affects me. It becomes more enlightened self-interest than pure altruism. Firearms are an extreme example, but there are also strangers whose lives intersect and affect my own. Companies make a big deal about impairment due to recreational drugs, because an intrusive drug test and a 'drug free' sticker is cheap. They don't say anything about how a person's mental state might affect their performance or interaction with me.

As dangerous as those individuals may have been people suffering from serious mental illness are disproportionately likely to be victims of violence. The automatic connection of mental illness with violence is unfair, unfounded and dangerously obscures the actual risks faced or posed by individuals.

This is devolving into a "gun" issue, but it not only that.

But mental health also involves abuse and violence given as well as received. Domestic violence is an example.

Since the first days of Obamacare, our health provider has been putting up posters in their clinics,
urging patients and families to discuss domestic violence and child abuse with their doctor during any appointment...

Saying that mental health issues should be covered, because every few months one person is so deeply affected that they begin killing people, or getting in their way, or even just making them uncomfortable or sad, is offensive.

Let me put it another highly personal way. Claudette's illnesses* should have been covered by treatment because:

A) She may kill a bunch of people.
B) She may affect** other people, such as richlevy.
C) It could have saved her life, which most of us would have given any amount to do, and is the right and humane approach for all of society.

Don't you think that answers A and B are offensive?


*She had three terminal diseases: cancer, addiction, and depression. The one that was covered was the most expensive to cover, but saved her life. Of course it also has excellent survival rates compared to the others. But that's because it's the one society decided to focus on.

**Actually I have to assume this means more than making you uncomfortable or sad.

Precisely, and well-stated D... as always.

Maybe I shouldn't have started with guns as an example, but I stand by my assertion that providing access to mental health care is not altruistic but a matter of social policy towards a better functioning society.

It is not all about violence, although those are the most obvious examples. It is about the ability of individuals to function, at work and at home. It is about intact family units that do not require social services.

My point is that there is an amoral argument for affordable or subsidized mental health care. This is important, because in the end moral arguments will not be enough to influence public policy.

And I do miss Claudette and I wish that she got the support that she needed.

*nods*

Fair enough, Rich. I absolutely agree with the main thrust of your argument.

C is the real answer, but you may have to use A and B because lots of people will see C as socialist and therefore evil.

Which is my point. Congressman are all for grandstanding when the real cost is neglibile and the only effect is limited, like the Terri Shaivo case. However, no amount of stories from friends and family will really have an affect unless it happens to be their friends or family.

Real policy change is made in dollars and cents. In charts on lost productivity, social services expenditures, etc. In making an argument for expenditures, the best argument is savings in cost. It is not a moral argument but a practical one.

And gun violence, while only a tiny percentage of the issue, is the most visible and the most visceral. And the rise in violent incidents might actually be an indicator of a rise in issues overall. Because congressman believe that voters will be more willing to pay for protection than for social good, the argument is easier to make.

Unfortunately, they may be right.

So Obama decried the IRS targeting Tea Party and Conservative groups, leading up to his re-election.

He was going to get it stopped!

This is why I hate politicians. They lie worse than rugs.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...ed-by-the-irs/

Although Mr. Elliott worked for the gov't during most of these years, he's being audited all the way back to 2009, now.

Just a COINCIDENCE that he received notification from the IRS, right AFTER he went on TV to explain his severe problem with Obamacare.

Mr. Elliott has terminal cancer, but Obamacare won't allow him to get coverage - "no one with a preexisting condition will be denied coverage", is just


And it's ALL A COINCIDENCE, that he's now being audited after pointing out a serious flaw (lie), in Obamacare. :rolleyes:

It's the modern age, our rulers don't need brown shirts or goon squads to come after you. Not at all! They can use gov't organizations like the IRS, to simply ruin you. Problem solved.

Many other and so called liberal groups were also targeted including many if not most 'Occupy Wall Street' type organizations. Later reports said targeted organizations tended to be many political groups claiming to be non-profit. Groups who used words such as "Israel," "progressive" and "Occupy" were investigated. IRS should have also investigated organizations that advocate torture as patriotic; but they didn't. Plenty of left and right extremists groups are angry because so few moderate organizations were targeted.

Why did you forget to include facts that Fox News also forgot to report?

Do you remember the joke about the dinner meeting of the Standup Comedians Society ?

One person yelled out the number "24"... and there were a few snickers.
Another yelled out "77" ... and there were several loud chuckles
Another yelled out "40" ... but no one laughed, except one fellow who fell out of his chair laughing.

The wife of another member asked:
"Why is that man laughing so hard when no one else is even chuckling ?"
An old timer answered: "Oh, he's new here, and he hadn't heard that joke before"

----

OK, it's a dumb joke.

But I want to give numbers to Adak's rants.
Then he can just post the numbers and I won't have to read thru them over and over and...

.

Lamplighter, you don't believe for one minute that the Obama Press Corps (oops! NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN), would broadcast the base behavior of their Glorious Leader, do you?

Perish the thought! Any idea you have regarding Obama's poor policies is totally racist, don't you know? If you express your opinion of it on public forums, they'll know you're crazy.

It's from Obama, ergo it's Glorious. Don't believe what your lying eyes are telling you, anymore.

They reported day and night on the supposed targetting of Tea Party groups, and then had a few mentions when it turned out that political groups on both sides were targetted. There are still quite a few people who still think that it was conservative groups that were targetted, rather than just groups with political names.

The so-called liberal media reports on the goofy "scandals" that Fox reports on; they just don't keep doing it as long or as loudly, especially after they turn out not to have any substance.

That'll be Adak#1

PolitiFact is supporting Adak#3

PolitiFact
Angie Drobnic Holan
12/12/13

Lie of the Year: 'If you like your health care plan, you can keep it'
This is an interesting article in that it goes back to 2009 and discusses
the "truthiness" of the ACA from several points of view.

But when something is called a "LIE", I take it to mean that the person knew,
or should have known, that the statement was false, and deliberately intended
to mislead the audience.

In all of this article, anything like such a definition is not presented.
Instead, the entire history of the Obama's phrase seems to be portrayed
along the lines of an advertising slogan.

What should Obama have said ? It would probably have been something like...

Somehow, all that doesn't quite fit into a sound bite or work as an advertising banner or slogan.

By my definition I don't see the furor as a "LIE".
But then in politics, "rape" means "legal rape" and "lie" means "deliberate lie"

The GOP is meeting in back rooms to re-access it's approach to Obamacare.
Their most recent tactic is to push a bullet point that:
"Obamacare is a lead airplane... it can't fly".

There are 2 obvious reasons this analogy fails:

1) Mythbusters has shown that, like birds, there is a 3-5% gas-savings for a lead plane flying in V-formation:

2) Cement boats do float.


,

OK, groans from everyone... :p:

Obama Knew he was lying

Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”

That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.

Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”

“This says that when they made the promise, they knew half the people in this market outright couldn’t keep what they had and then they wrote the rules so that others couldn’t make it either,” said Robert Laszewski, of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a consultant who works for health industry firms.

Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC NEWS that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”