ObamaCare: Gentlemen, Do You Like Subsidizing Women's HC costs?

[shadow9d9]

I don't see the negative cannotation.

How is linking the HC law to Obama negative? That's basically all it does beside providing a handy and widely understood name for it.

And when did the left decide that this was a negative term? Not that long ago I heard those like Chris Matthews handily refer to it as Obamacare in the normal course of discussion. And Chris Matthews certainly intended no slight, he a fierce supporter of Obama and loves the HC bill.

I can see people objecting to terms like Replirats or Dumbocrats etc (or had I called it Obamacrap). But damned if I'm going to be coerced into using only language approved by Libs or considered appropriately PC by certain factions. You control the language, you control the debate.

Fern

First, there is no "left" present in US politics. 1 representative total in congress.

It became negatively associated when the republicans used the term to make it republicans vs democrats rather than debate the substance in the bill. "Obama" was used in the term to fuel rage against the "creator" of the bill, that was a democrat, and therefore the hated enemy... despite the fact that the bill was championed by republicans as their idea for 20 years.

 

[boomerang]

Here's the nactual name of the law(s) we're discussing with ObamaCare:



It's ridiculously long.

Fern

I applaud you for your patience with this bunch of mopes. They profess to know much but actually know little. They like the idea of someone else paying for what they want. All other details are immaterial.

 

[shadow9d9]

I applaud you for your patience with this bunch of mopes. They profess to know much but actually know little. They like the idea of someone else paying for what they want. All other details are immaterial.

Since insurance is all about people paying for each other... what you said makes no sense. If you don't want to pay for others, don't buy insurance.

"Why should I pay for YOUR house's burglary with MY homeowner's insurance!"

Ridiculous.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't see the negative cannotation.

How is linking the HC law to Obama negative? That's basically all it does beside providing a handy and widely understood name for it.

And when did the left decide that this was a negative term? Not that long ago I heard those like Chris Matthews handily refer to it as Obamacare in the normal course of discussion. And Chris Matthews certainly intended no slight, he a fierce supporter of Obama and loves the HC bill.

I can see people objecting to terms like Replirats or Dumbocrats etc (or had I called it Obamacrap). But damned if I'm going to be coerced into using only language approved by Libs or considered appropriately PC by certain factions. You control the language, you control the debate.

Fern

I have no idea why you are playing dumb other than because you want to tweak people. It's a pejorative term used mostly by people who are against the bill. The irony is pretty great however that you're trying to use a term coined by the bill's opposition while noting that if you control the language you control the debate. And in a statement about how picked on you are by having people ask you to use the right name!

You guys never disappoint.

 

[shadow9d9]

I have no idea why you are playing dumb other than because you want to tweak people. It's a pejorative term used mostly by people who are against the bill. The irony is pretty great however that you're trying to use a term coined by the bill's opposition while noting that if you control the language you control the debate. And in a statement about how picked on you are by having people ask you to use the right name!

You guys never disappoint.

Isn't playing dumb the way of the game for republicans nowadays?

It is like mono comparing socialism to the soviet union in the other thread. I explained that a dictatorship has nothing to do with our minor implementations of socialism. He then tried to claim that the soviet union wasn't a dictatorship... it is all about linking negative associations to the ignorant and repeating the nonsense long enough.

 

[blankslate]

Given that prevention is better than treatment it would be better for us overall if, for health care at least, we all contribute to the public good.

We do this with law enforcement and in most areas with Fire departments even though we may never need the help of those agencies or run afoul of the law enforcement arm aside from traffic tickets.

 

[Joepublic2]

As a single guy I'm not happy about paying more but I do realize that the stakes are higher when it comes to women's healthcare mainly with regards to access to birth control. Inexpensive chemicals/hormones now will lead to lower externalized costs to society in the future due to unsupportable/unwanted children that abuse social services/rack up medical costs (drug abuse, risky activity etc etc etc)/end up incarcerated from women who didn't have access to birth control when they were conceived.

 

[boomerang]

Let’s Discuss What I Think Feminism Really Is, Shall We?

Ms. Fluke claims she’s a feminist. And I call bullsh*t on that. Mainly because she is EXPECTING, and dare I say, DEPENDING, on someone else to pay her way. She’s depending on a Prince Charming to come and rescue her from the horrific reality of paying for birth control. And, in this case, her Prince Charming is the cradle-to-grave government. Even King Obama is calling her on the phone to tell her that it’s O.K. to expect something for nothing.

Well, guess what? PRINCE CHARMING DOESN’T EXIST. I’ll let you go ahead and soak that in for a second.

Boo. Friggin. Hoo.

See, in my conservative-minded, Stockholm-Syndrome, right-wing nutjob world, I believe that REAL feminism is when a woman can do anything a man can do. I believe that real feminism is defined by a strong, SELF-RELIANT woman who can stand on our own two feet and PROVIDE FOR HERSELF. I believe that a real feminist isn’t one that looks for a Prince Charming to bail her out and rescue her. Real feminism isn’t LOOKING FOR A HANDOUT. Entitlement, at least in my mind, isn’t feminist thought at all. It’s antiquated thought. It’s the kind of thought that hurls women back to my great-grandmother’s time when they relied on someone else to make the ends meet. They were EXPECTED to rely on men to pay their way. This was commonplace. And in my mother’s generation, I recall a feminist movement that pushed women AWAY from this notion. So, when I look at Ms. Fluke, I see a woman who’s trying to set us back about 100 years. Heck, she might as well drop out of law school and get herself a Sugar Daddy. Because that’s precisely what she wants the government – what she wants ME, as a taxpayer – to be. HER DAMN SUGAR DADDY.

 

[sandorski]

Let’s Discuss What I Think Feminism Really Is, Shall We?

When a Strawman is all ya got, ya don't got a thing.

 

[Jhhnn]

The best part of all this is the ravers' framing of the issue- "free contraception" when that's not true at all. It's contraception as a fully covered benefit of having insurance.

Of course, if they couldn't frame it wrong, they wouldn't have anything to rave about, something quite common on the Right....

 

[umbrella39]

this guy is a moderator?

How about getting a clue - you do know the difference between health insurance premiums and life insurance premiums, right? Your lame attempt at attacking Obama can't even keep them straight.


Mod callouts are not allowed. Regarding:

Please take some time to familiarize yourself with the following portions of the AnandTech Forum Guidelines:

Administrator Idontcare

If we could add ANYONE, especially in P&N, to our IGNORE LIST that would be a blessing.

 

[Rainsford]

I wonder how many people who don't object to this are employees.

And of that employee group how many work for a company with 100 or more employees.

(Edit: I probably should've included unemployed OWS types and kids typing from mommy's basement.)

Fern

I'm curious what that has to do with the issue? I strongly suspect where you're going with this, but I'd rather not pre-judge your argument.

 

[Rainsford]

Let’s Discuss What I Think Feminism Really Is, Shall We?

I feel like the conservative arguments about this issue would be far more effective if they didn't keep giving the impression that they had absolutely no idea what health insurance was or how it normally worked.

Birth control falls into the same category as any number of routine medical costs covered by insurance, with the SINGLE exception that it annoys some percentage of the population (that may or may not consist mainly of old men). The Catholic Church angle at least had SOME logic behind it, but once some righties started to argue that asking for birth control coverage in insurance was some socialist plot, the debate took on a very strange turn.

 

[hal2kilo]

I like subsidizing everyones healthcare costs. Mine, yours, your brother, and your sisters.

Your point mister misogynist? Why are we still fighting the battles that I thought were won even in the late sixties? Last dying breaths of old white men? BTW, I'm a 57 year old
WASP.

 

[Fern]

I have no idea why you are playing dumb other than because you want to tweak people. It's a pejorative term used mostly by people who are against the bill. The irony is pretty great however that you're trying to use a term coined by the bill's opposition while noting that if you control the language you control the debate. And in a statement about how picked on you are by having people ask you to use the right name!

You guys never disappoint.

February 11, 2012 3:21 PM

Pardon the Outdated-Seeming Question, But…

By Jesse Singal

…among those of us who support Obamacare, did we ever reach a consensus as to whether “Obamacare” is a derogatory term? I ask because last year, in the course of reporting out some editorial for the Globe, I dropped the term in conversation with a researcher at a left-leaning think tank and got slightly chewed out for it. But more recently, I’ve heard people use it in a positive way, and it just rolls off the tongue (or fingers) way smoother than “health care reform” or “the Affordable Care Act.”

I don’t like the idea of what should be a neutral term becoming off-limits simply because reform opponents use it negatively, but on the other hand I just had a late lunch of a convenience-store soft pretzel (700 calories, 94% of my daily sodium… USA! USA!), so I’m probably not qualified to comment on anything related to health care

Jesse Singal is a former opinion writer for The Boston Globe and former web editor of the Washington Monthly. He is currently a master's student at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Policy.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_02/pardon_the_outdatedseeming_que035349.php

Interesting.

Apparently someone else didn't get the 'party' message from the mothership.

After googling I can see that the Left has decided among themselves that the term is derogatory. No real explanation found, other than 'opponents' use it. I can see Dems in Congress started trying to force Repub to cease using the term in Oct of last year.

Talk about 'marching in lockstep'.

BTW, I searched the forums, went back and found that some of the left were freely using the term "Obamacare" as little as 6 months ago.

Somehow the terms 'HillaryCare' or 'RomneyCare' are treated differently?

Talk about failing to disappoint.

Fern

 

[PokerGuy]

The left were fine with calling it obamacare until it started becoming clear that the public is getting wise to what a disaster it is and now more than 53% of the people favor repealing the law. It's an albatross and they want to remove its stain from the dear leaders name. Sorry, that's just not going to fly. It's obummer's disaster, he owns it forever.

 

[First]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_02/pardon_the_outdatedseeming_que035349.php

Interesting.

Apparently someone else didn't get the 'party' message from the mothership.

After googling I can see that the Left has decided among themselves that the term is derogatory. No real explanation found, other than 'opponents' use it. I can see Dems in Congress started trying to force Repub to cease using the term in Oct of last year.

Talk about 'marching in lockstep'.

BTW, I searched the forums, went back and found that some of the left were freely using the term "Obamacare" as little as 6 months ago.

Somehow the terms 'HillaryCare' or 'RomneyCare' are treated differently?

Talk about failing to disappoint.

Fern

Seriously, your posts are getting sad.

 

[her209]

http://www.lifeinsurance.org/most-important-questions/men-pay-more-for-life-insurance/

Why is that not gender discrimination?

Fern

:thumbsup:

 

[cybrsage]

Since insurance is all about people paying for each other... what you said makes no sense. If you don't want to pay for others, don't buy insurance.

Obamacare makes that illegal.

 

[cybrsage]

If we could add ANYONE, especially in P&N, to our IGNORE LIST that would be a blessing.

Agreed. If mods get special benefits, they should also be held to a higher standard. When they can act just like everyone else, but cannot be treated like everyone else, there is a problem.

 

[Carmen813]

In the not-to-distand past there was quite a fuss about women being charged higher HI premiums than men. Claims of higher premiums range from about 25%-50% (depending upon age, locale and other factors). Of course, this was based on insurers' claims experience. The simple fact is that women use more HC services than men.

Here is an example of one of many such articles: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/us/30insure.html

Well, then comes ObamaCare. Gentlemen, some/many of you will have the privilege of paying higher premiums so you can subsidize women's HI. They, of course, will be paying less thanks to you.

It would seem:

If you're a single guy, you're screwed.

If you're married, it may be somewhat of a 'wash' since your wife's cheaper premiums will offset your more expensive one.

If you're a gay (male) couple, you're doubly screwed. Both persons' premiums will be higher. Vice-versa for female couples, it's win-win here.

Oddly enough while this so-called "gender discrimination" (which is nothing of the sort actually) is not allowed for individuals or small business, it is allowed for large corporations. Meaning HI companies can still charge them less for men and more for women. Well, sSmall business takes it in the shorts gain (self-employed people would be buying as individuals).

http://www.aauw.org/learn/publications/outlook/outlookWinter2011_preview.cfm



ObamaCare: Not fair to men, not fair to small business.

Fern

For fucks sake. Really?