Men in Black

[paft.livejournal.com]

Here is a picture from today's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing about the Obama administration's birth control mandate:



The first row are the allowed witnesses.

All those people a couple rows behind them? Well... those witnesses just don't fit in.

That's why most of the Democratic women on the committee walked out of the room.

Just now, Oklahoma GOP representative Jim Lankford implied that these men in black were being "berated" by the committee. In fact, they've mostly been getting strokes just short of full-body massages from most of the remaining committee members. This hearing is such a transparent and over-the-top, right wing extremist attack on the administration (one Representative invoked those dastardly laws against smoking in public buildings as a sign of the slippery slope the administration has set up) that clips from it should be used by Democrats in the upcoming election.

I cannot imagine any reasonable and honest person watching this hearing and not being appalled.


Partially crossposted from Thoughtcrimes

*

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

While insurance may not primarily be an individual action, in this case insurance companies are approaching people on an individual basis because their employer-linked plan does not cover something.

...except that they're approaching them because their employer, the ones paying for most - if not all - of the plan, have already contracted them.

Not to mention that preventive car can keep costs on their end down and, in turn, increase their ability to make a profit.

Maybe, maybe not. I linked to a CBO thing earlier that disputes that.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

...except that they're approaching them because their employer, the ones paying for most - if not all - of the plan, have already contracted them.

So? I'm not aware of any legal or contractual requirement banning insurance companies from contacting their clients to provide options their employers don't have an interest in covering.

I'm also not sure why anyone who supports free and open trade would support any kind of contractual agreement like that.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So? I'm not aware of any legal or contractual requirement banning insurance companies from contacting their clients to provide options their employers don't have an interest in covering.

But the issue is about who's paying for it, not who's doing the contact.

I'm also not sure why anyone who supports free and open trade would support any kind of contractual agreement like that.

It's because I support free and open trade that I oppose any sort of coverage mandate.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

But the issue is about who's paying for it, not who's doing the contact.

The insurance company is covering it. An insurance company is not required to keep their financial expenses limited to just individual company pools. If they wanted to cover the costs of a high risk pool by taking funds from a low risk pool, they would be allowed to do that. There is nothing I am aware of that legally prevents an insurance company's left hand from financially knowing what the company's right hand is doing.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The insurance company is covering it.

And who is paying the insurance company?

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

Every single client they have.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Yes and no. I again refer you to the prior point (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1351189.html?thread=107573013#t107573013) last time this was raised.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

You'll also recall that I responded to it. Glad we remembered that part!

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Which raises the question as to why you've gone back to this well.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

Because you asked who pays for the coverage. It seems that because an employer has an insurance plan they provide an employee (which they pay for, either fully or in part), under your argument it's "wrong" for an insurance company to reach out to the employee to provide additional coverage outside of what the employer wants them to have.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It's not about the insurance company.