Health care politics "ugliness"
by Rossputin | 2:15 pm, February 10, 2011 | 2 Comments
Over at the Huffington Post, Colorado’s own liberal media gadly, Jason Salzman, offered some thoughts about health care politics in response to hearing State Senator Greg Brophy on my radio show, Backbone Radio.
My response to Salzman follows:
Jason,
In response to your question “Does Brophy think his steely votes, against the touchiest and feeliest stuff, should be off the table come election time?”, I’d suggest this:
I don’t think Brophy’s votes would be a political liability where he currently runs for office. If he runs for state-wide office later, I’m sure these things will be brought up (including by you), and it’s possible they could hurt him depending on the spin. That said, Brophy’s position as I see it is much more about supporting limited government and personal responsibility rather than trying to impose socially conservative policies on us – even though Greg is certainly a social issues conservative. Again, this is just my view. I haven’t asked Greg what he thought of your note or question.
More importantly, I think you’re missing the key policy issue here.
The maternity coverage mandate is outrageous. People can negotiate for maternity inclusion if they want it. Including it for people who don’t want it (like me) simply forces up insurance costs for everyone. And since childbirth is a fairly expensive process – and can be very expensive if something bad happens – this is one of the most expensive mandates a state could impose. You write about repealing the mandate as if the repeal would block the ability of people to get health insurance that covers maternity, which is obviously not true.
Wanting to repeal the mandate is not “ugly” or “heartless” or against women “especially poor ones.” It’s about wanting government out of what should be private transactions. It is also about saying that it is not a proper role of government to force people who will not have children to pay the costs for those who decide to have children. Indeed, the childless already do enough for those with kids through their property taxes paying for public education and through federal deductions for having kids.
Also, it’s pretty outrageous for you to say that Brophy thinks health care politics are “ugly…because of the compassion people feel…” Health care politics are ugly because the left will do and say anything to eliminate freedom of contract in this area, in part because they believe it helps unions. Compassion should not be, indeed cannot be, expressed by government. It’s a personal feeling to be expressed by individuals through charity or other ways in which people can help – if they want to. Government “compassion” for poor people tends to keep them poor. Government “compassion” for black people did more to destroy black society in American than any other policy since Reconstruction.
If you want to talk about compassion, perhaps measured by charitable giving, it’s not surprising to me that “red” states are consistently more charitable/compassionate than blue states. Liberals, or at least their policies, are not truly compassionate. They’re just making themselves feel good by spending other people’s money.
In my view, even though I’m not a social issues conservative, I find Greg Brophy to be one of the most principled people I know and I’m proud to consider him a friend. And for the record, he does have slightly libertarian leanings…again, in my opinion.
Best,
Ross
Tags: Peoples Press Collective > Rossputin > Syndicated
Comments
Praise for PPC From Our Lefty "Fan"
- "Zany-ass bombast-entertainment...Hackneyed weirdo communist pseudo-nostalgia" --Alan Franklin, ProgressNow
Featured Posts
- Unemployment Up in February, Obama Reelection Chances Down
February is a long way from November.
- The Greek Deal Saves the Banks
- Geithner Ignores Subpoena to Testify in Lehman Bros. Case
- Plans Revealed for Greek Default on March 23
- Celebrating International Aviation Mandates: Don’t call them Taxes!
- Obamanomics, the State of the Union, and Reality
- Eurozone Recession Accelerates; Moody’s Piles On





February 10th, 2011 @ 8:59 pm
“The maternity coverage mandate is outrageous. People can negotiate for maternity inclusion if they want it. Including it for people who don’t want it (like me) simply forces up insurance costs for everyone.”
Really? How much? Sources, please.
Should women get a break on their premiums equal to the cost of covering your prostate exam and PSA test?
February 10th, 2011 @ 9:48 pm
Julian,
As usual, you have not engaged your brain before moving your fingers.
While I don’t know just how much the maternity mandate has forced up prices, I do know that my insurance went up 17% this year, and the maternity coverage was the largest change to the policy.
Also, my insurance broker told me that that mandate was responsible for much or most of the price increase.
However, you’d have to not understand even the slightest bit of economics to question whether such a mandate would raise insurance premiums for everyone.
Furthermore, I would bet that you’re single based on your comments. This isn’t about what MEN pay for insurance, since my insurance and many people’s insurance is family coverage.
However, in response to your rather silly question, the answer is no. First of all, those tests and exams are (1) quite cheap, and (2) aimed at detecting illness. That said, if a woman is getting insurance on her own, then of course that policy wouldn’t cover a prostate exam.
Getting pregnant is most often a choice, and something which the people who do it think brings them whatever benefits they expect from having kids. But it’s an expensive choice and not one which everyone else should have to pay for, especially people who say specifically that they will not make the same choice themselves or that they will cover the costs if they do.
Anyway, you’re a great representative of the left, being as clueless as you are. Thanks for being my point.