Posted on 08/02/2011 12:46:01 PM PDT by libertarian neocon
On the heels of his unsuccessful attempt to raise taxes through the debt ceiling agreement, Obama has decided to lower everyone's take home pay another way, through regulation. The Department of Health and Human Services just announced a new regulation which sounds all warm and fuzzy on the surface, but is in fact another in the long list of idiotic & costly government regulations. It requires all new healthcare plans to cover, without the need for co-payment or any other form of cost-sharing, a number of services strictly for women (I guess since men tend to vote Republican, this administration doesn't really care as much about them):
Also, if you take this "it's so important it should be free" argument to its logical conclusion, what will have a co-pay going forward? Why should I have to pay a co-pay for my kid's ear infections? If I don't take him to the doctor, won't fluid build up in his ears, increasing the likelihood he will need tubes surgically inserted? Also, why do ER visits have a higher copay? Aren't they emergencies? People might be holding off on getting treatment for serious injuries causing more serious complications down the road. Shouldn't they be free based on Obama's logic? There really is no end.
Prices are there for a reason. It's a way to naturally limit resource use so costs don't go through the roof. By making the price for the end user zero you will actually lead to overuse of a given resource. People who don't need something will get it because its free. Instead of asking their boyfriend/husband to go to the CVS to buy condoms they will get birth control pills from their doctor for free, something that is less expensive for that couple but more expensive for those of us actually paying for it. It's not that complicated.
That’s very possible. It’s like they want to mess up the system so badly that people want ANY solution no matter how stupid. Let’s hope the courts decide in our favor and we don’t have to deal with this mess anymore.
It's a bad idea, and counter to conservative philosophy, but it has one shining upside to it. This will reduce the number of said dumb people breeding, sticking the taxpayers with decades worth of immediate payouts, and indirect jailing or maintenance fees of the kids they didn't raise right.
I'm almost surprised they'd do it, given this will reduce their voter base. Namely, the supply of dumb people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.