WASHINGTON — One of President Trump’s first acts Friday was a broad executive order urging his administration to loosen the Affordable Care Act’s regulations — and one of its casualties could be the law’s so-called contraception mandate.
Much will depend on how the Department of Health and Human Services interprets Trump’s orders. The first order itself does not mandate any specific actions.
I don’t agree http://www.pressherald.com/2017/10/12/trump-signs-executive-order-in-effort-to-undo-affordable-care-act/
Gin up the false outrage. Calling all (economic) science denialists! Take a non-issue and use it to stir up the rabble. Sandra Fluke had 20 pharmacies that she could walk to and get BCP’s for $20 bucks a month. They are available for free for those who can’t afford them at every county health department.
So how to make this cheap and widely available product more expensive? Government mandate by executive fiat, of course. This was pure and simple politics aimed at the dolts who will take this as “banning the pill”!!! (lot’s more exclamation points!).
Widely available women’s health care and contraceptives = less abortions and deaths of low-income women. Why are we even talking about this?
Because of the first real right listed in the Bill of Rights, that of freedom of religion (as opposed to the fake right of free birth control pills).
Secondly, we are not talking about “low income women”. Low income can already get free contraception at every county health department. Instead, we are talking about forcing people with religious objections to pay for Sandra Fluke’s BCP’s (cost of her law school is approximately $100k per year).
Thirdly, it is bad economics. These mandates cause the overall cost to go up.
Leave the affordable health care act alone. 20,000,000 more americans have health insurance and women should not have out of pocket expenses because they’re women.
Please put quotes around “affordable”. Let’s see 20 million more insured and 27 still uninsured (Remember the lie of complete coverage.) Are 20 million more insured only due to Obamacare? There has been paltry economic expansion under Obama. This would explain some of the newly insured.
Certainly those who are covered by the Medicaid expansion mandate can be attributed to Obamacare. Can the word affordable and Medicaid be used in the same sentence? Expanding a hopelessly broken system, is that a good idea? But more fundamentally, having medicaid improves no metric of physical health by the Oregon study.
The CBO estimated that the cost is $50,000 per newly insured over 10 years – this is government cost and does not include the “hidden” cost that all of us are paying in skyrocketing premiums and the lead weight placed on the economy. Now most of these are young and healthy. These newly insured could have bought far better policies for far less if we had simply given them half in cash.
Affordable? The biggest lie of all.
The Drumpf years, setting women’s rights and science back by centuries. What a ride.
Comments are closed.