I'm either repeating myself or answering some parts with things that others could read during this post a lot. Fair warning.
Currently health insurance companies charge more for group plans, or at least they did, because group plans include everyone in an office whether they are a 22-year-old fitness nut or a 55-year-old diabetic. So group plans are generally more expensive.
In the new health care plan, there is an individual mandate. The justification for this is that people who can afford insurance but don't purchase it when they're healthy need to pay in anyway, rather than just not paying for it when they're healthy and then purchasing it when they're sick and need health insurance. It's my understanding that the individual mandate regulation was put in there to protect insurance companies from going bankrupt from people abusing the system, after the government made it illegal for them to reject people with pre-existing conditions. It used to be that someone with a pre-existing condition could not get coverage at any price. Now they can get coverage, and there was a fear that such legislation opened the door to people waiting until they were sick to buy insurance. My personal opinion is that it makes sense if you're an insurance company, but my sympathy for the insurance companies is absolutely nil. I do think it's barbaric that we still allow private companies to profit off of illness and/or fear of being ill.
Some people in this thread are treating raised premiums as subsidies. So in other words, they're saying that you're subsidizing others' birth control if your premium goes up in reaction to this legislation. Sandra Fluke (and therefore this thread) was not discussing government-subsidized birth control, but supporting the coverage of it via health care.
And not all plans are $10k. I live in Massachusetts and my health insurance costs a little over $2k a year.
I'm actually alright with insurance companies being allowed to offer higher or lower costs due to things like age. With auto insurance, it costs much more as a teenager because teenagers have more accidents. With life insurance, it costs more as an older person because you're more likely to die. If health insurance should not be this way, should we change the other insurance companies to match?
I also vehemently disagree with the concept that the federal government can tell you that you have to buy something just for the "privilege" of existing. Don't get me wrong; I disagree with the extremists among the Republicans who want to legislate the bedroom, but what's the point of throwing out a Republican for legislating the bedroom and voting for a Democrat who legislates what you're allowed to eat, what you have to buy, and similar things?
That would have to cover a WHOLE new thread. Of course regulating the men that set the rules is always hard to work. I know that had my brother gotten elected to office that he was running for in '10 he mentioned that he'd have lost control of his own financial planning. The bank, law partnership, insurance company and other business would have to been run by someone else, and he wasn't happy with that. Sometimes I doubt that all representatives are ethical about it as they should be but getting laws.
If I wasn't having problems keeping up with my current threads, I'd start one. Remind me sometime that we should do so? Ideally well before November, so people can start asking the various candidates and bounce the questions to the news media.
Actually, no, crap on it, I'm starting one up.
That particular comment was directed towards the conservative movement of late, not the mouthpieces of either side, to regulate the reproductive organ of women to the point where a normal (if sad) event such as a miscarriage is grounds for investigating potential manslaughter. The conservative political actions of late have become increasingly hostile towards women, in the interests of the unborn, without pushing one single iota of male responsibility.
I have seen a lot of 'reproductive' health law proposals of late that seem solely be designed to inflame the unspoken moderate feminist into coming out in force. Ultrasounds for abortions? 'Personhood'? Restricting any outlet of reproductive health or medicine that is 'women' only.
I'm sorry, this surge of 'reproductive health' laws are so far out what was coming before their release that I can't help but see it as a planned sequence. The implications of some of the 'personhood' acts really scare me. My mom had two miscarriages over the years, and while they were traumatic events in and of themselves, the idea that in ADDITION to losing a baby having a cop come by to investigate seems like grinding her loss in salt.
You can't legislate morality, and if only Republicans and all Republicans attempted to do so, I'd be completely unwilling to vote for them.
To me, it's sadly become like health care. Can you really vote against either Obama or Romney with only health care as a debate when they both pass a law in their respective jurisdictions which is practically the same thing? It becomes something that you have to ignore in order to look for actual differences in their policies.
You could argue that legislating the bedroom isn't as bad as legislating every other room in the house, and I've heard some say that Republicans aren't as bad because they only want the bedroom, but to me, it's one and the same and equally abhorrent.
I find it particularly ironic that at the same time the people who are pushing these personal invasions forth are the ones who insist they are 'downsizing' government. How can you insist, despite lots of evidence to the contrary, that less regulation is good for the country while at the same time insisting that it's perfectly okay to increase the invasion of a person's privacy to the point that you see no problem at all in violating doctor/patient privacy or looking past closed doors to what happens in the privacy of a person's home?
Parties are not monolithic. It's part of the reason I refuse to join them.
There are Democrats out there who are trying to shrink government, they're just in the minority, in the same way that not all Republicans are for this madness.
You just have to look at the voting record for an individual before voting. It's a sad fact that far too many purely look at the R or D before making a decision, but you know it's exactly how the Giants want it.
If we had more than two parties which had a shot at getting elected, we could point at the Republicans, say, "Stop legislating X," then point at the Democrats, say, "Stop legislating Y," and go vote for Z. However, third party voting still seems like it's just throwing your vote away until a significant chunk of people (tens of millions) all agree on a single alternative.
To clarify: I know Planned Parenthood offers services to men, but not to the same degree or with as wide a variety as they do for women. They also spend the majority of their time and money on, and have a general focus on, women (and indeed, when they gave interviews on this issue they, from the ones I saw, more often spoke of how they benefit and treat women). They could fix this without outside intervention but choose to continue to focus on women.
I mean, if they just ended up with more women 'customers' (patients? pick a word) that would be fine, but they undeniably and consciously have chosen to focus on women over men.
This is the inherent nature of government groups. They hole up on a particular issue, and to them, that issue is king. They never budge an inch if they can help it, because it lowers their funding and their power if they lose their strangehold on a particular issue. If an issue is ever fully resolved, the group shuts down, so as we nominalize towards equality, those groups become more and more extreme until their original purpose is lost.
You can't get rid of them, though, because if a politician tries to cut funding for the Save The Purple Whales because the Purple Whales are no longer endangered, then that politician is seen as despising the purple whales and not caring about their destruction. The group instead goes towards making sure the Purple Whale is never endangered ever again.
Perhaps we can consolidate a number of these groups into things which will never be in question? If you make a group about all endangered species rather than focusing on a few, and the money goes into all of them, then the group itself works out which ones need to stay and which need to go. Although I would consider this inferior to simply getting rid of them, I'd consider it a step in the right direction.
Because the media perpetuates the male irresponsibility stereotype to the point of being sexist, and assuming that it's going to be the woman raising the kid.
This is exactly what I'm seeing here. In fact, this very thread seems to be assuming that men are not worth focusing on. Especially when it comes to sex. Everything is hunky dory, guys are havin' the times of their lives, so screw 'em, they don't need help. Which to me is wrong. We need to be teaching both genders responsibility, not assuming that one side is too stupid to understand and thus foisting all the help/responsibility on the other.
Already spoken on the media bias and don't really have anything to add.
The problem with the second paragraph is that you can't really legislate morality. GWB had that whole speech during the 2000 campaign about how he'd love to see a bill where you had to be a good parent. It's a legislative nightmare, and even when people try, you end up with things like putting the government in your food, bedroom, health care, etc.
I agree that responsibility needs to be fostered, but I don't want the government trying to do it by passing laws which force people to do stuff.