The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

They Have a ‘Right’ to Your Money

Posted on | December 30, 2016 | 1 Comment

Did you ever wonder why the “healthcare crisis” became such an issue? Why did Democrats ram ObamaCare through Congress with Nancy Pelosi claiming, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”? Most people already had health insurance, and Obama dishonestly promised, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.” Democrats also promised that ObamaCare would reduce the cost of healthcare when, as everybody now knows, health insurance premiums have skyrocketed since the passage of ObamaCare. Federal taxpayers will subsidize ObamaCare to the tune of more than $40 billion — that’s billion, with a “b” — next year, and there is no end in sight to the escalating costs.

The myth of a “crisis” that required this costly intervention was created to sell voters on the idea of mandates — government forcing insurance companies to provide certain types of coverage without regard to costs — so as to create a “right” to this coverage. This idea of health insurance as a “right” means that moochers are getting “free” health care that other people are being forced to subsidize. And there is no limit to what the moochers expect to get for “free”:

Three same-sex female couples are suing the US state of New Jersey for what they claim are discriminatory rules regarding the funding of fertility treatment.
The plaintiffs complain that a state insurance mandate from 2001 unfairly discriminates against non-heterosexual women. The mandate requires insurers to fund fertility treatments, but only for couples who can demonstrate infertility through ‘two years of unprotected sexual intercourse’.
Two of the plaintiffs, Erin and Marianna Krupa, have spent more than US$25,000 on failed treatments after their insurer, Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield, refused to pay. The plaintiffs argue that the insurance mandate is unconstitutional as it discriminates on the basis of sex and sexual orientation and, owing to the high costs of fertility treatments, they now have to choose between ‘starting a family and financial security’.
Grace Cretcher, lawyer for the plaintiffs, told the New York Times: ‘These women are already going through what can be a difficult experience, and they have the added stress of affording it financially and the added insult of being treated like a second-class citizen.’
New Jersey is one of fifteen US states that require insurers to fund treatment for infertility, defined as the inability to impregnate another person, to carry a pregnancy to live birth or to conceive after two years of unprotected sex. Even though one of the couples could demonstrate one year of unsuccessful home insemination, and the plaintiffs also presented medical evidence of their fertility status — including diagnoses of endometriosis and polycystic ovaries — their circumstances were said to fall outside the definition of infertility as having unprotected sexual intercourse with a man for two years.
Cretcher contends that this definition violates the rights of non-heterosexual women, adding: ‘The specific wording of the New Jersey mandate is particularly egregious and one of the most specific and exclusionary.’
The landmark case is thought to be the one of the first to challenge the legal definition of infertility, and the plaintiffs hope to make it easier for lesbian couples to access fertility treatment.

How did we reach this level of insanity? Where did people get the idea that they had a “right” to in-vitro fertilization and to have the cost of this expensive treatment covered by their health insurance, so that the state of New Jersey mandated such coverage, and now lesbians are claiming to be victims of discrimination because they can’t get it? We’re living in a dystopian novel — Atlas Shrugged meets Brave New World.

 

Comments