Governor McDonnell has said he will sign the ultra sound bill. That doesn’t sound like a real good idea if he wants to be considered for vice president. See the bill in full text.
Meanwhile Rachel Maddow discovered Bob Marshall. She is horrified and pointed out how Colorado and Mississippi rejected a similiar bill by double digits. What are our Virginia legislators doing to us? We have become the laughing stock of America. We have become the anti birth control state. I am mortified.
Meanwhile, make sure you don’t swear in Bob Marshall’s district. I hope he listens in. He will get an earful.
Meanwhile, the women of Virginia have to flood the governors office and tell him not to sign either of these bills should they pass the legislature. Gov. McDonnell’s number: (804) 786-2211
contact via email: https://www.governor.virginia.gov/AboutTheGovernor/contactGovernor.cfm
Enough big government intrustion into personal matters.
Such rank hypocrisy. Most of these idiots oppose the national health care law because of the health insurance purchase mandates, yet these ultrasound procedures are just that – they are mandating women to pay for health care procedures that they don’t necessarily want.
You also have to wonder where the legislature’s priorities are, when people are out of work and housing values are still declining. This, the personhood thing, the drive to repeal the gun law are their priorities. Most people here care about the economy and jobs. This will be a long session.
Then there is the question of who is going to pay for this ultra sound.
From what I understand, the women will have to pay for it. Like I said, it will be a government mandate.
Virginia certainly has gotten into big government. For a state who thinks nothing of suing to opt out of health care, they have a nerve mandating an unnecessary ultra sound.
The dumb asses think that no one is watching and the chicken crap pro choice groups are afraid Roe will be overturned. Bring it!
If these intrusive measures are allowed to whittle away at Roe until nothing is left of it, what difference does it make? Perhaps the frame work is outdated and we need to start over. Too many young women really have no concept of what it is like to have no reproductive rights. Perhaps if they had to fight for their own, it would make the rights they won more valuable to them.
A few years under the Virginia Taliban might make them sit up and take notice. If that’s what it takes, then so be it.
My wallet closed until the reproductive rights groups start fighting back in court. NARAL, Planned Parenthood, time to take the white gloves off.
So in the past week, we’ve had Republicans opposing birth control and the federal and state level through insurance coverage and the “personhood” amendment. They would require women to pay for a medically unnecessary vaginal ultrasounds as a condition to receiving a legal medical procedure (abortion). I wonder what our insurance companies think of paying for political vaginal ultrasounds? I wonder if this also applies to aborting dead “products of conception” after a miscarriage or when a baby dies in utero? I found out about my miscarriage through a standard, not vaginal ultrasound. Should I have had to go through another procedure at my own expense to satisfy the womb-watchers? Today is also the last day to submit comments on state regulations making permanent reguations that require women’s health clinics to meet hospital standards. Not that your comments will make any difference, considering that the regulations carry out ill-considered law intended to increase costs and reduce women’s choice.
Do the Republicans think that women are going to give them a pass on this bullshit?
Where is Planned Parenthood to legally fight this? Where is NARAL to legally fight this Bullshit. How humiliated do these politicians intend on being.
Let them pass it in the Senate, I still have some march left in me, even if you have to put me in a wheelchair to do it. This assault on women is out of control. Get the EFF out of my body.
The hypocrisy is so disgusting, how can these jerks not see their own reverse rhetoric. Big government is only good when it invades a womans vagina and womb?
I oppose government mandates in healthcare. I oppose the mandate for religious organizations to provide insurance coverage for things that violate their religion and I oppose the Va mandate for women to have ultrasounds before an abortion is allowed.
You are in favor of the former because it’s something you want, but against the latter because it’s something that government should not be involved in.
I would be much more sympathetic if you were against mandates in general rather than favoring mandates that are in your favor.
@Kelly, I don’t want it or need it. My husband went under the knife 35 years ago, not to be personal. However, there are lots of people who need contraception. I don’t care who provides it but I applaud it being part of the health program. From an economic point of view, it is an imperative. Women who aren’t in charge of their own reproduction are severely limited by economic factors.
I think the church was being disingenuous. They aren’t being required to use contraception. Many universities, hospitals and charities already provide contraception on their policies. Churches were exempt. The church as an employer was not. Which hat is it wearing? If the employer hat, then pony up.
I keep hearing on TV that women should just go to PLanned Parenthood. Give me a break. The very place that radical Republicans are trying to defund? Furthermore, people who don’t live in cities don’t have access to Planned Parenthood. $50 bucks month or more is just prohibitive for some people.
Kelly,
The madate for birth control and the Catholic Church forces them to do nothing Kellly so your point is invalid.
The state does have all sorts of mandates, car insurance, etc etc.
Forcing women to pay for a completely unnessary punitive procedure doesn’t fit into ANY topic we are discussing. The only reason for an ultrasound is to punish women, financially and emotionally.
@Elena
You can say it’s invalid of you want. There are a lot of people who disagree with you. I am sure the majority on your very liberal blog agree with you, but that doesn’t make you right.
I get the impression that you haven’t been in the work place for a very long time. Am I correct?
Kelly,
What does my working recently or not have to do with anything? What is your point?
@Moon-howler
Nobody is required to use contraception, just as no one is required to have an abortion. I think it’s admirable to live by one’s own convictions. What’s not admirable is forcing your convictions on others.
I don’t think that the current system of employer-provided health insurance is efficient, effective, or equitable. What bearing should my employer’s religion have on my access to or level of healthcare?
I agree, Bubberella.
I didn’t mean that to be AT you, Moonhowler, but just to reference something you’d said.
@Elena
You seem to view employers as evil corporations to be soaked rather than to be valued as an important resource. Those of us who work in the private sector realize that employees rarely get everything they want, but employers are generally motivated to treat people well to attract and retain talent. However, when forced to do something against their will or moral convictions, they can usually find a way around it and the results are usually bad for everyone.
The other issue is that you seem to have no appreciation for cost. The cost of labor in the U.S. is becoming prohibitively expensive and Obamacare is making the situation worse. I know of a new advanced technology project that can use either a domestic solution or a foreign solution. The U.S. technology is better, but the costs are extremely expensive for U.S. labor and projected to get worse over the next four years due to rising medical costs. However, the added labor expense of the U.S. technology could easily lead to cost overruns, which would doom the project. So the project has a huge dilemma on its hands.
You asked earlier what my solution is. My concept would be for employers to negotiate defined cash payments to workers for them to purchase their own health insurance or use in medical savings accounts. The RCC (and all employers) would then be out of the insurance business, making them leaner and more efficient and the workers would have the freedom to purchase insurance with whatever types of coverage they want.
So much for the savings with group plans.
I think you should say SOME employers. Some are so cheap they squeak.
It sounds like you haven’t worked for very many different people. My husband always worked for private companies. I worked the public sector. He often made more money than I did but I ended up with better benefits in the end. Its sort of a trade off. Now later vs Later now.
It also depends on the hiring market.
@Moon-howler
You are mistaken about my employment record. I have changed employers several times during my career as that’s the best way to get very large raises. I was even a blue collar worker at a factory while I was in college.
As for group rates, I would restructure insurance so that it is fundamentally a contractual relationship between the insurer and the individual (like auto insurance). I would favor an end to pricing based on group rates. This change would have the effect of ending phenomenal rate increases if someone’s employment ends. It also would prevent someone from being chained to a bad job.
It would also end employers’ involvement in private health decisions, which would resolve the current controversy with the RCC.
@kelly, but could you hold costs down?
Kelly,
You are wholly incorrect in your asessment of how I view the labor market. I believe there is a “social contract” between employer and employee. Starbuck and Whole Foods are wonderful example of a successful business model that provides great benefits while still being incredibly profitable.
Where are you getting facts regarding Healthcare Reform? On what basis are you stating that cost will increase and not decrease over time? Not from CBO, I can assure you. So, I cannot continue this discussion until you can demonstrate you are working from non partisan facts. CBO is probably a good start.
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/health.cfm
@Elena,
Don’t forget about Wegmans. That is one of the top places to work in the United States. It might be in the top ten. Great benefits, great employee/employer relations.
@Elena
I am happy to find out that you are not anti-capitalist or anti-corporation. Some of your previous statements on different threads give a different impression.
Nevertheless, your concept of a “social contract” essentially yields the same result, which is higher labor costs. Starbucks and Wegman’s do not really produce anything; instead they rely on people that deliver services at local stores. Many of the jobs are entry level, so the labor costs, even with extensive benefits, are probably pretty low. These types of service jobs cannot be exported out of the US, although super markets do now offer self-checkout. So these are the exceptions that prove my point.
The problem associated with high labor costs arises for the higher paying jobs that manufacture something. Our workers are in direct competition with foreign workers for jobs to produce cars, jets, computers, iPhones, etc. US workers are gradually being replaced, because our wages and benefits are so much higher than workers doing the same job in a foreign country. So the “social contract” may actually be detrimental to US workers, because it is gradually pricing us out of the job market.
As for the costs of Obamacare, nobody believes those BS numbers from the CBO. They were based on dubious assumptions that have already proven false. People whose job it is to plan for future business opportunities project higher medical costs for businesses.
That’s the trillion-dollar question, isn’t it? I believe it could reduce costs over time, because people managing their own healthcare would be more aware of cost. They would likely shop around for lower-cost medical supplies and become less accepting of questionable tests/procedures. If done right, consumers would be able to make rational choices that would trigger standard market forces to drive overall medical costs lower.
Kelly,
My basis for a social contract for a successful is what our Declaration of Indpendence was based upon.
You know, that whole John Locke thingie that Jefferson admired.
Kelly,
On some level we trust our doctors so to suggest that every consumer is going to become a medical expert is not reasonable. Are there some people that are hyocondriacs that over use the medical establishment, sure, but not the majority. Would I get a much needed brain, neck, and thorasic MRI if I knew it would cost me several hundred dollars, I don’t know, probably not, but that is why I pay for insurance within a large group. Your idea might work for people that are perfectly healthy or don’t “plan” on getting seriously ill, but we live in the real world where health care is an unknown to you, me, and everyone else who inhabits a body.
@Elena
The social contract described by John Locke was between government and citizens, not between employers and employees. He believed that a primary purpose of government is to protect property rights. As a result, I think he would take a very dim view of a government-imposed healthcare mandate and redistribution of wealth.
@Elena
I trust doctors, but I also believe that people should take some responsibility for their own treatment. Some treatments/tests are done because they are “free” or already “paid for” by a person’s insurance policy. Or doctors are forced to practice “defensive” medicine in which extra tests are done to prevent any possibility of being sued.
The thing that you don’t seem to realize is that we have already overpaid for the hypothetical MRI that you mentioned. You are paying hundreds of dollars per month for insurance, so why balk at paying similar amounts for an MRI if it was needed? I would certainly have no trouble justifying it.
I am just suggesting that we get rid of a layer of bureaucracy by eliminating employer-provided plans. You would pay the full amount of insurance (employer contributions would come directly to you instead of to insurance companies) and be fully aware of the costs involved. If you want full coverage that includes things like MRIs, then you could get the more expensive plan. There would have to be rules in place to prevent insurance companies from arbitrarily dropping customers after they make claims.
As for myself, I would choose a catastrophic medical insurance plan together with a health savings account. My insurance plan would have a large deductible ($1000-$5000), which has to be met before any medical payouts would occur. I would use the HSA to pay for visits/treatments that cost less than the deductible. I would change the rules so that money in an HSA never expires as it does now, but instead could be accumulated to maintain significant reserves on hand to pay for treatments. Most of the medical contributions from my employer would go into my HSA.
There was a time when I had to pay for health insurance out of pocket. During that time, I had to pay cash for several things that were not covered by my plan. What I found out was that paying cash resulted in significant savings. Doctors/hospitals gave me a break because they were paid immediately, avoided paper work, and prevented the risk of payment being denied by insurance companies. This seems like a win-win situation for doctors AND patients.
The government would also have a role. People with significant health issues and large medical payments in a year would get a large tax break. Poor people would get cash subsidies to use toward their health insurance and/or HSAs. I would abolish the healthcare mandate (!), but employer medical contributions would be taxed at a rate of 90% if they were not applied toward medical insurance or parked in an HSA.
There is probably a flaw in this idea, but I am certain that it makes more sense than Obamacare.
You were lucky Kelly, when I had a kidney stone and no insurance, I ended up paying the highest fee possible at the specialists office BECAUSE I had no insurance.
You make a false assumption regarding pre knowledge of the health care you will need at any given time. There is no way of knowing what tomorrow will bring, and if you don’t have full comprehensive coverage, I guess you better pray you don’t get seriously ill.
My example of a social contract was intended as a MODEL for a successful business, I know it is a governance tool, ergo the reference to the Declaration of Independence.
@Elena
I acquired and paid for my own health insurance, but there were exclusions. Perhaps that is why they were willing to work with me when I had to pay for uncovered medical treatments. If the costs became too large, my insurance policy would have kicked in to cover them.
I don’t know why you keep saying that I assume pre-knowledge. The individual would be able to purchase comprehensive medical insurance or catastrophic coverage insurance. In either case, medical insurance would cover costly, unexpected medical events, so there is no assumption of pre-knowledge. It does assume that the person can pay for costs below the deductible if (s)he decides to use catastrophic coverage.
@Elena
Under your MODEL, is the employer obligated to provide these benefits?