And, in the end, that leaves Aetna with the bill. “There is a sort of bank account,” says the official, “and Aetna is sucking it up.”
That sounds good, but the White House says a lot of things; in 2008 Obama said Democrats should nominate him instead of Hillary because his healthcare plan did not carry a public mandate and hers did.
"Aetna sets the premium, but it cannot be higher than it would have been without birth control." Just how are they verifying that? Remember, these are the same people who proudly declared health insurance available to everyone because they removed insurer freedom to deny coverage—WITHOUT establishing the very kind of price restrictions mentioned here, thereby allowing insurers to price people out of the market rather than denying them coverage outright. One of the healthcare "reforms" most critical failings is the near total absence of anything to slow, let alone halt or reverse, the growth in prices. Since they have done a complete 180° on this issue in just 48 hours, I will not believe that statement any more than I believed the last one until they demonstrate its veracity. Talk is cheap; it almost has to be with Obamas policies, because there is nothing to them BUT talk.
If you don't want to believe them, that's your prerogative. You still have no factual basis to claim that people will have to pay for coverage. The entire point of the preventive care rule is that it eliminates copays; it seems to me that they are pretty dedicated to making sure that applies evenly.
What you see as a complete 180, others see as savvy political maneuvering. (See article below.)
My factual basis for believing people will have to pay for the coverage is, as already stated 1) Obamas healthcare "reform" is almost completely devoid of cost oversight, one of its biggest flaws and thus one of the biggest liberal criticisms, and 2) Obama has a history of reversing himself, on healthcare in particular and on this issue specifically. So when Obama says, "we will do x, and the law with almost no provisions to enforce it will guarantee it," I believe it about as much as I did when he said it two days ago. Maybe I am more wrong now than two days ago; I hope so, because my only error then was in overestimating how long it would take him to cave just as I said he would. It is what he does. Note Rolands response immediately below yours: Aetna MAY comply to save money, but if they do not Obama has no means to force them. He is pretty much entirely dependent on their voluntary compliance. Again, that is the whole problem with his healthcare "reform:" It relies on those who got rich destroying the healthcare system to voluntarily repair it.
Oh, and I pretty much already knew "what women really think" about this, but even the ones who use contraception do not all agree the government should force churches whose doctrine forbids it to buy it for employees. I think Obama already has the strict pro choice vote locked up (though Romney was a NARAL donor back when he was running for governor of a liberal state. ) I also think the number of religious Americans greatly outnumber the strict pro choice ones, and a lot of the former were already uneasy about Dems in general and Obama in particular. This did not help with anyone on the fence.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.