"Obama thinks I'm stupid so he's using psychology on me to get my vote.. He wants me to think Republicans hate me so I'll vote for him instead.. I think I will even though he thinks I'm stupid. Hehehe!"
Posted on 05/23/2012 1:25:02 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
White House Claims Obamacare Stops Insurance Companies from ‘Discriminating’ Against Women By Fred Lucas May 23, 2012
(CNSNews.com) – In an appeal to shore up women voters and support for the health care law, the White House and President Barack Obama have accused health insurance companies of charging women more for insurance “because they’re women.”
The White House Web site said the health care law will prevent insurance companies from “discriminating against women” and charging higher premiums to women, “simply because of their gender.”
Health insurance companies base premiums on projected costs not discrimination, said American Health Insurance Plans spokesman Robert Zirkelbach. Further, he said, the only time there is a cost difference between genders is among those who buy individual policies, while those covered through their employers pays the same.
The provision of the health care law requiring coverage of pre-existing conditions would change this practice of charging more, according to the White House.
Obama said on April 6 at a White House Forum on Women and the Economy. “And soon, insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions like breast cancer, or charge women more just because they’re women.”
Again on April 27, at a campaign event at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in Washington, Obama repeated the line.
“Soon, insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions like breast cancer, or charge women more just because they’re women,” Obama said.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Barack Obama never met a straw man he didn't like.
Sure has been a lot of stories about BO care lately. Isn’t the SC ruling due out in June?
Women use doctors more than men because of pregnancy, why shouldn’t they pay more for coverage.
If you remove pregnancy coverage for the policy, the costs are the same.
Prior to Medicare, I paid a higher premium because I have heart disease, but so does anyone who is high risk. Today, my Medicare premium is the same as anyone else’s. The only reason I pay more for supplemental coverage is because I choose to.
I'm sick of this war on women nonsense. I'm tired of the notion that I need government to protect me. I'll take care of myself, thank you.
(Rant over)
Boy oh boy..a one trick pony. If the Pubbies can't beat this clown on all that he has said and done then they just don't want to win and will be doomed to the ash heap of politics.
Salve
I cannot write what I think, for Jim will cancel my account very quickly.
Merci
“soon, insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions like breast cancer”
This is an embarrassingly transparent ploy. As if there weren’t a million other “preexisting conditions” one could have besides breast cancer, and as if only women get breast cancer, for that matter.
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
Maybe pregnancy coverage should be an option that women (or couples) can choose. Thus those who choose to self-insure for it or who are not at risk of pregnancy don’t have to pay for it if they don’t want to.
Some of these news articles are so full of crap you can only hope they don’t believe the propaganda they write
I would think heart problems in men and blue collar injuries, notably back injuries in men might offset females use of doctors to some degree.
Oh, I thought that was an option. Although not an issue for me now, years ago when my husband and I were getting insurance we could chose or not to accept the coverage, when it was no longer necessary during open enrollment we dropped it.
I assumed wrongly I guess, that was still an option.
We had a hurricane here in NJ last summer. The power went off, and the basement flooded in the midst of the tropical downpour. I have no flood insurance.
But obviously, I now had a flooded basement, with tons of ruined belongings floating around, and the furnace destroyed.
I called my insurance company, and tried to persuade them to sell me flood insurance for my “pre-existing condition.” Insurance people don’t seem to appreciate my sense of humor as much as I would have hoped! They said no, and seemed very puzzled at my request. But all I was doing is following the logic of the liberal propagandists.
If you can buy coverage for a pre-exiting condition, it is NOT INSURANCE. It is merely a way of ripping off the insurance companies. This is what 0 is advocating, because he would rather have the government take over everything.
Do insurance companies “discriminate” against teen boys when they charge them several multiples of the standard rate for auto insurance?
Do they “discriminate” against drivers with accidents and speeding tickets when they charge them higher rates?
Health insurers charge based on expected claims. The expected claims are higher for women of child-bearing age. Thus, charging them the identical premiums means that male subscribers will be cross-subsidizing female subscribers. Only in Obama’s world would this be viewed as fair.
my lib friends fall for this crap hook line and sinker.
It’s useless to argue.
When you try they roll their eyes and tell you to stop getting brainwashed by Fox News.
So why doesn't 0blather and the dims go after auto insurance companies for discriminating against men? A male under 25 pays almost twice as much as a female of the same age in the same family.
I'm so tired of this Marxist "professor" and "community organizer" dictating things and making pronouncements about how businesses should be run when he's never managed so much as a lemonade stand!!!!
“the health care law will prevent insurance companies from ‘discriminating against women’ and charging higher premiums to women, ‘simply because of their gender.’”
The only reason insurance companies would “discriminate” in that manner is if women statistically use more health care, if the health care they use is more expensive, or both. What’s the matter with discriminating in that manner? We have at some point to get back the realization that discrimination is a good thing. We still do it all the time, no matter how often the ingorant and the interested cluck their tongues. Just think how precisely the government discriminates on the basis of income when it comes to tax rates.
This is not anti-discrimination; this is pandering. This is identity politics. Because the woman vote is important to Democrats, they will protect them from politically incorrect discrimination. Likewise, if innercity grocery stores charge higher prices than suburban ones, that will be deemed politically incorrect, if not outlawed. The demand will arise, as if from nowhere, that someone else must pay for innercity food and breast cancer treatment. Because it’s not as if anyone who votes for Democrats should pay unjust prices.
It couldn’t possibly be that higher prices are charged because of higher expenses due to—oh, I don’t know—the particular services in question being more expensive. It can’t be that preexisting condition coverage—for breast cancer or whatever—is not insurance, and therefore can’t be covered by insurance plans. It can’t be that innercity retailers have to charge more because of crime. No, it must be irrational on the part of grocers, just as discriminating against women is irrational on the part of insurers. As a result, and as always with government meddling, costs have to be shifted from one sector to another, less politically approved, sector.
If the woman vote is important, raise costs on everyone to cover their end. Eventually, we may bankrupt the insurance industry. Who cares? Socialized medicine can do it better. If the black vote is important, drive grocers out of business. Who cares? Schools can feed the kids, and adults can enroll in new socialized food programs, or whatever. We’ll get to it.
Obamacare is more discriminatory towards people of ALL genders, and any label you can imagine vs. what underwriters do based upon REAL statistics.
Oh, and there’s no doubt that costs will not be REDUCED for ANYONE with this “plan”, but it WILL raise costs for all - ESPECIALLY single males! Why should a single man pay for someone else’s insurance coverage in the first place?
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.