The Republican War Against Women, illustrated

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Could it have some connection with the expensive litigation associated with maternity and child birth?

Well if we assume it is what is the free market solution (other than forcing mothers to be to sign indemnification docs)

Edited March 15, 2012 by Sousuke

[Orando 57]

Could it have some connection with the expensive litigation associated with maternity and child birth?

Yes indeed....good point, tort reform is needed as well for comprehensive health insurance reform...too many lawyers working in DC....big hurdle to get over....a hospital/Doctor recently had to cough up ~$2,500,000 to a couple whose child had down syndrome. They argued the Doctor failed to detect the down syndrome, they would have had an abortion if they had known, they won the case, pass go, collect ~$2,500,000. No coverage for maternity or higher premiums for this coverage to follow....

Well if we assume it is what is the free market solution (other than forcing mothers to be to sign indemnification docs)

tort reform....too many lawyers in the halls of government to get it done though apparently, on both sides of the aisle....

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Yes indeed....good point, tort reform is needed as well for comprehensive health insurance reform...too many lawyers working in DC....big hurdle to get over....a hospital/Doctor recently had to cough up ~$2,500,000 to a couple whose child had down syndrome. They argued the Doctor failed to detect the down syndrome, they would have had an abortion if they had known, they won the case, pass go, collect ~$2,500,000. No coverage for maternity or higher premiums for this coverage to follow....

tort reform....too many lawyers in the halls of government to get it done though apparently, on both sides of the aisle....

I don't know...doesn't sound very free market like.

[Orando 57]

I don't know...doesn't sound very free market like.

Yeah, but does it sound reasonable that the family of this down syndrome child will need $2,500,000 to care for this child?

If we were to add up all the extra care the child will need plus some on top for emotional damage for the family, plus some to give the child a reasonable quality of life for a down syndrome kid, does that come out to $2,500,000 over the life of the child? Also, taking into consideration investment income and capital gains off this money?

I have managed some of these types of structured settlements, many times, the parents end up increasing/boosting their lifestyle off the judgement/settlement. I am sure this particular family's life style just got a major upgrade. I view this as an economical injustice, hence the call for tort reform. This family just entered the elite 1% off their child being born with down syndrome.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Orando

[Leatherneck 693]

I would argue that health insurance should be unlinked from a person's employment. I would argue that individuals should own their own health insurance independent of their jobs, like people do with car, life and home owners insurance. I would argue that there should be a market place where people can go, shop and buy the insurance they want, like we do with car, life and homeowners insurance. The employer could still provide a cash benefit that the employee could then go and use to buy their health insurance if they like. The market place would then develop plans that meet the demand of consumers (Including plans that cover birth control). I do think it would be a good idea for the government to require that all insurance providers provide a basic health insurance plan to all people. Pre-existing conditions is a tough one, insuring someone with a pre-existing condition goes against the concept of insurance, in the same way a life insurance company will only insure a smoker with a life threatening illness for a super high premium. The insurance company is guaranteed to loose money on these consumers. I would be ok with the govt requiring insurance providers cover pre-existing conditions, this means higher premiums for everybody, but my conscience would sleep better knowing that these consumers are entering the risk pool, albeit they are more than a risk, they are a certainty, and getting the care they need. Anyways, my 2 cents Looks like we are on the path to a single payer govt system anyways, so much for free people owning their own health insurance policy.

Edit: People who do not have money for whatever reason, the govt could give these people money to buy their insurance, I am cool with my tax dollars going to that.

Yes we are, provided the SCOTUS does not rule the mandate to buy health insurance unconstitutional. Then the VA health care system will have some competition for the worst managed government health care, if the $1.76 trillion cost over the first ten years doesn't kill us first.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Yeah, but does it sound reasonable that the family of this down syndrome child will need $2,500,000 to care for this child?

If we were to add up all the extra care the child will need plus some on top for emotional damage for the family, plus some to give the child a reasonable quality of life for a down syndrome kid, does that come out to $2,500,000 over the life of the child? Also, taking into consideration investment income and capital gains off this money?

I have managed some of these types of structured settlements, many times, the parents end up increasing/boosting their lifestyle off the judgement/settlement. I am sure this particular family's life sytle just got a major upgrade. I view this as an economical injustice, hence the call for tort reform. This family just entered the elite 1% off their child being born with down syndrome.

Yeah that actually seems pretty fair in 2012 USD. I'm glad to see the free market worked out for them.

[Orando 57]

Yeah that actually seems pretty fair in 2012 USD. I'm glad to see the free market worked out for them.

Woooo, ok then, you must be in the elite 1%, the consequences will be that maternity coverage will continue to slowly go away from private insurance providers, and where it is offered, it will be at a higher premium and deductible. You are right, that is the free market working within the rules of the game as they stand. This trend will probably provide further wind in the sails of the movement pushing towards a single payer govt system. Private insurers will continue to raise premiums, continue to raise deductibles, to the point the people will have no other alternative but to sign on to the single payer system. Sure, there are many more factors in play for higher premiums and deductibles.

I had a similar situation with one of my clients. The mother entered into a lease/purchase agreement for a home with a $10,000 monthly rental payment. Sadly, she has the power to spend down the child's money and eventually, they are going to be up the creek without a paddle. When the money is gone, she will turn around and sue the bank like one of my other clients did. This other client of a structured settlement argued the bank should have known better than to give her the money. She will lose, it is a matter of law, she was free to spend down her settlement money as she saw fit.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Orando

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Woooo, ok then, you must be in the elite 1%, the consequences will be that maternity coverage will continue to slowly go away from private insurance providers, and where it is offered, it will be at a higher premium and deductible. You are right, that is the free market working within the rules of the game as they stand. This trend will probably provide further wind in the sails of the movement pushing towards a single payer govt system. Private insurers will continue to raise premiums, continue to raise deductibles, to the point the people will have no other alternative but to sign on to the single payer system. Sure, there are many more factors in play for higher premiums and deductibles.

I had a similar situation with one of my clients. The mother entered into a lease/purchase agreement for a home with a $10,000 rental payment. Sadly, she has the power to spend down the child's money and eventually, they are going to be up the creek without a paddle.

Yep we are nearing the point where the government will have to provide healthcare.

[Leatherneck 693]

Yes indeed....good point, tort reform is needed as well for comprehensive health insurance reform...too many lawyers working in DC....big hurdle to get over....a hospital/Doctor recently had to cough up ~$2,500,000 to a couple whose child had down syndrome. They argued the Doctor failed to detect the down syndrome, they would have had an abortion if they had known, they won the case, pass go, collect ~$2,500,000. No coverage for maternity or higher premiums for this coverage to follow....

tort reform....too many lawyers in the halls of government to get it done though apparently, on both sides of the aisle....

Bingo! There you have it.

Indemnification would be the health insurance company's 'ace in the hole' if that maternity care was covered by a plan that mandated one must choose a doctor within the group of medical care providers.

[Orando 57]

Bingo! There you have it.

Indemnification would be the health insurance company's 'ace in the hole' if that maternity care was covered by a plan that mandated one must choose a doctor within the group of medical care providers.

Yeah man, so many good ideas out there, the govt is gridlocked...total bummer...

Yes we are, provided the SCOTUS does not rule the mandate to buy health insurance unconstitutional. Then the VA health care system will have some competition for the worst managed government health care, if the $1.76 trillion cost over the first ten years doesn't kill us first.

Yeah man, the SCOTUS is set to rule this summer on the mandate....wooooo....that is going to be quite a ruling, right around the time the GOP primary is wrapping up if they do not go to the convention to pick their nominee....I love these times of the year, every four years! The mid-term elections are not as interesting to me...

[Leatherneck 693]

Yeah man, so many good ideas out there, the govt is gridlocked...total bummer...

Yeah man, the SCOTUS is set to rule this summer on the mandate....wooooo....that is going to be quite a ruling, right around the time the GOP primary is wrapping up if they do not go to the convention to pick their nominee....I love these times of the year, every four years! The mid-term elections are not as interesting to me...

Yes, this will be an interesting summer, yes it will be.

[james&olya 1,121]

First they came for our birth control and then they'll come from your viagara - not a good position to be in for fat, old, bald men who want to travel the world for young hotties.

Ah, but one of the biggest reasons for having the 'hotties' is that viagra (note the spelling) is not even remotely necessary, because of their 'hotness', at least for some of us fat, old, bald men!

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

VJ posts on the subject have suggested otherwise

[james&olya 1,121]

Unlike yourself I do not put labels and categories on them to determine how I feel about them - I judge them individually

You don't use terms like 'hotties'?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

You don't use terms like 'hotties'?

She's a bit conservative if you haven't noticed yet. Super intelligent, but I don't think she likes to party much. Nothing a jug of tequila, a few hits of ecstasy, and a wild man with a jar of viagra couldn't change.