Brandon Ferdig responds to Mark Greene’s post on Rush Limbaugh
First let me say this: I’ve written here before about how fear is an integral part of the arguments for any particular issue. As a reader and contributor and as someone who wants to see this site provide inspiring content to help men be better men, people be better people, I’ve called out this fear when I’ve seen it.
In this spirit, I have written this response to Mark Greene’s article: Rush Limbaugh Finally Sh*ts the Bed.
***
The incendiary comments recently made by Rush Limbaugh aren’t appreciated by most people. For those who do support Limbaugh’s comments, Mark Greene was perceptive to note that the people it brought out of the woodwork were those men who are tortured with fear of women and/or sex and so release this anger in verbally abusive ways toward the likes of Sandra Fluke.
I’m glad Mark brought this point up. Indeed, it is a terrible fear that these men project, and by giving it the light of day hopefully it may hasten its eradication—for the benefit of the women who are targeted and for the men who embody and suffer with it. May they be Good Men someday soon.
Unfortunately, Greene’s reactivity to Rush Limbaugh took his piece to harmful places: misinformation, alienation, and bigotry. So I write this retort to shed some much needed light on this one-sided, emotion-laden article.
The harm starts with the misinformation. Greene writes that Fluke is not asking for people to “buy her birth control”.
But, she is. By asking the government to force her college to offer birth control as part of the health insurance package, she’s forcing the plan to be more expansive and expensive which all policy holders will have to help pay for. Rush is wrong in saying that she’s making the taxpayer pay for it, but all the other students (as well as anyone else) who are on the plan will have to.
Greene then refers it as “A reasonable request.”
But that depends. It’s not reasonable if it’s simply for birth control. Health plans don’t pay for condoms.
Third, Greene suggests “These guys want to take away birth control”.
This is false. How is Rush or “The Republicans” taking anything away? What they are saying is that they don’t want to pay for it. This is not theft in the least bit.
Second, the kind of hate—the fear—that I addressed in my recent piece “The New Bigotry” is also featured in this piece. The most distressing line Greene writes is, “…my favorite part: It’s all being linked to the Republican Party.”
Oh goodie.
Greene is giddy here not because he hopes to see a better world but simply because he wants to see “Republicans” fall. When you seek to subtract, but not add or replace, the situation doesn’t improve. With no Republican what you do get is the current White House which advocates an escalating wasteful and bloody drug war—which has led to the death of thousands of innocent lives in Latin America, the incarceration and indefinite detention of those not even charged with a crime, and a drone attack program that has killed hundreds of innocents in the Middle East.
And if no Republican was offering a better solution to these problems, I’d not bring this up. But the fact is, the only presidential candidate making these deadly issues known to American living rooms hails from those Republicans who Greene wishes to see go away. By making this piece so political, Greene is (probably) unknowingly asking that no one challenge the nation’s leadership on these vitally important issues.
Lastly, Good Men don’t alienate an entire population because of who they vote for. Again, by rooting so ardently against the GOP, he puts his politics ahead of being helpful.
I don’t like Rush Limbaugh. I’m glad people don’t stand for the kinds of things Limbaugh says. I’m even more inspired that Greene identifies a fear in these “rageful” men that I hope can be eliminated.
But I also have distaste for intellectual dishonesty—especially when it belittles an entire swath of people. I’m writing this in the hopes that it will put the brakes on a dangerous trajectory Greene’s article endorses; don’t make the same mistake Limbaugh’s listeners make: getting riled up and drastically over-compensating for what you dislike, causing you to toss out logic, sensibility, and good nature.
Read Mark Greene’s “Rush Limbaugh Finally Shits The Bed”
Photo: AP/Chris Carlson
About Brandon Ferdig
ref. Fear.
Two points. One is that it is a dishonest tactic to discredit a legitimate negative opinion by calling it “fear” and thus dismissing any actual argument.
The other is where do you find these guys scared shitless of women’s sexuality? Or do we have a closet full of straw men to be hauled out as convenient? Now, I understand you may want to call one opinion or another with which you disagree “fear”, but, as Lincoln is supposed to have said, calling a cat a dog doesn’t make it one. In addition, the tactic is so transparent that it actually backfires. Nobody believes it, but seeing somebody trying it is illuminatiing.
That said, you were right to call out Greene’s misrepresentations, and by extension, those of many commenters.
“Greene is giddy here not because he hopes to see a better world but simply because he wants to see “Republicans” fall. When you seek to subtract, but not add or replace, the situation doesn’t improve.”
This is the evidence that Greene leads with fear. He obviously fears them or wouldn’t be pleased with their demise–which he also jumps to in a radical conclusion. His fear of “the Republicans” leads to his irresponsible wish to see them all fall. And I’m discrediting his article by pointing this out.
I’m also comfortable calling the comments made by the “scared” men the Greene references, fear. For that explains their name-calling towards Fluke.
“But that depends. It’s not reasonable if it’s simply for birth control. Health plans don’t pay for condoms.”
This is really where I want to focus my comment…cuz I have heard this mentioned a few times, and I’d like to highlight some differences between condoms and contraceptive pills. Birth control pills are not over-the-counter. I cannot walk into a drug store and pick up a box for £10. Birth control pills are not handed out at college functions for free, or sitting in a basket in a sex-toy shop. I am too old for free birth control from a teen clinic. (Other hormonal contraceptives also fall in line with this). I can get birth control pills in exactly one way – go to a doctor, have him/her write me a prescription, and have that prescription filled by a pharmacy. (Well that would be the case if I were in the U.S.)
I’d suggest that a better comparison to condoms are actually tampons, which insurance doesn’t cover. No prescription is necessary, they are relatively cheap to purchase, and one biological sex uses them.
Absolutely spot on. BC pills only work if you take them every day, consistently, month after month, and for that (or Nuva Ring, Norplant, IUD) you need a physical exam at least once a year and a prescription. Which insurance covers.
You cannot buy BC pills the same way as condoms. They don’t work the same way as condoms.
They are part of a prescription plan for prevention of pregnancy, and other various pre and post menopause symptoms, as well as endometriosis, and other issues pertaining to menstruation.
If BC pills were as easily and cheaply available as say condoms or allergy meds, I’d be having no issue with this bill. But they are not.
It all has to do with sex and a religious lobby, otherwise who is to stop other smaller religious groups protesting use of prescription viagra, or allergy meds, or acne creams, or cholesterol lowering drugs (all for non fatal but medically wanted use).
.
Julie. Missed the point. This is not about protesting or prohibiting any use. It’s about the catholic institutions paying for it. Or not.
My understanding was that Obama created an out for the institutions yes? Why the hang up? That the money from the institution is going to a company that offers the service to begin with? I don’t like the idea of any religious entity controling a private agency. Or am I missing something in all of this. Serious question, Aubrey, not snark. I don’t have time for snark today.
Julie. When you purchase something–as in insurance–you get to choose what you want to purchase. That might be considered control. The catholics are trying not to be forced to purchase coverage for BC. They aren’t trying to force anything else on anybody else regarding this issue.
Labeling something an “out” doesn’t make it an out. If the companies say they’ll provide the coverage at no cost to the catholic institutions, that’s not an out. What it means–one of my last names is CLU–is that they expect to be paying out incrementally more so they’ll have to charge more. The only difference is it won’t be a line item, and thus invisible or at least invisible if the morally malleable make it a point not to look too closely or think about it.. That’s not good enough for anybody except a lawyer.
I guess that if this was a perfect system, the Catholics would have their own insurance companies only for the institutions that are Catholic. And then they’d leave the rest of us out of it. It makes no sense to me how your (your meaning anyone upset by this) soul could be affected by some pennies that might be getting paid to a company that is servicing everyone on a number of levels.
And no one ever answers the question…if the Catholic Church gets to do this (kick out a type of coverage based on moral issues), what about the Scientologists, or JW’s or Mormons, or Jews, or Muslims, or Pagans, or anyone with enough political power to go head to head with the government?
What if it was your meds that were being fought over. I mean, I know how you’d answer Aubrey, you seem to have an answer for everything, but just really think about it. Do you want a religion you don’t believe in managing your prescription plan?
I have no idea what CLU means. Clue? Unions? Is that a union name?
CLU means he knows a heck of a lot about insurance and how it works…
Julie.
They are leaving you out, unless you happen to be employed by a catholic institution. They aren’t insisting contracts for other employers not cover BC.
Funny you mention other religions. There was a report about how the BBC treats various religions in its reporting. One of the Beeb’s shooters said they take letters seriously which begin, “I must protest in the strongest possible terms” but they take letters that start “I must protest in the strongest possible terms and I am loading my AK47″ even more seriously. So, yes, the BBC treats Islam more gently than it does other religions. They said so. And why. Nobody’s throwing dung at a picture of Mohammed and calling it truth to power. Even Mark Greene would hesitate.
Now, if the Muslim University of America said they want unusual coverages in their employee health plan, I have no problem with that, employment with them being a voluntary issue. However, if they decided they didn’t want to pay for BC, I fully expect to hear only crickets about it from the usual suspects. So maybe the next time you run up a list of religions for a hypothetical or counterfactual, you might leave out Islam, because sure as shooting, they’d get different treatment.
CLU is “Chartered Life Underwriter”. It’s a professional designation which most guys in the life insurance business don’t have.
Julie makes a crucial point here.
“Birth control” pills are also prescribed for other medical uses besides trying to prevent pregnancy. They are used as medicine to treat various uterine and ovarian problems, just as one might use medicine to treat an enlarged prostate.
If insurers can refuse to cover prescription drugs just because the drugs have a negative effect on fertility, then that sets up a precedent for denying all sorts of medical coverage. An insurer could get out of covering ANY drug that might decrease fertility, for the same reason.
Some things are exclusively for birth control, but some of things labeled “birth control” have other medical uses as well.
Thanks, Heather. I was wrong to compare birth control pills to condoms for the reasons you gave.
Brandon. There may be other reasons for the name calling. Like using her supposed sexual activity as a prop for making what some see as a change in the politics of health care. As it happens, Every Single One of the poster childs hauled out by dems as tear-jerker support, going back to Hillary’s first attempt, has been a fraud. Every. Single. One.
If unsupported accusations are de rigeur these days, or at least wrt this subject, do you think Greene is on retainer?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/02/peter-schweizer-big-pharma-s-role-in-the-contraception-debate.html
How is it not a reasonable request? If insurance covers other prescriptions, why should birth control be exempt?
I am disappointed in this article. I realize it is your opinion, but I don’t see how it adds anything to the discussion besides more confusion that have already been addressed in the comments section on the previous article.
Why should birth control be exempt indeed. The only reason I can see is that it’s related to women controlling their own bodies. And men wonder why there aren’t more BC options for men! Just you wait fellas! We’ll get a male pill on the market so that all the folks het up about needing to truly control their reproductive choices are finally getting what they want and then see how the Church reacts. You won’t be happy then when your decision to not procreate is challenged.
either make oral bc over the counter and inexpensive or cover it just like any other prescription.
Artemis. The request is reasonable, if the BC were free and if the catholic institutions didn’t think it was morally wrong.
The issue is forcing catholic institutions to pay for it. Nothing more.
What the catholics actually think about the entire issue of BC is a separate issue. Right now, the issue is forcing the catholic institutions to pay for it. Nothing more.
What men, or a bunch of probably non-existent scaredy cat men, think about it is irrelevant. It’s about paying.
Period.
You say they are being forced to pay for it, yet Obama already offered a compromise in which the insurance companies would cover the cost if the Catholic companies were reluctant to pay.
And I don’t think it’s moral to deny certain people certain prescriptions just because you feel like it. What now? Conflicting morality, huh?
So if an employer is morally opposed to blood transfusion for religious reasons, they should be allowed to deny paying for insurance that covers treatment the may involve blood transfusion?
(yes, there are religions with that view. It’s not a theoretical example)
Dear Brandon,
First and foremost, I want to thank you for the civility with which you have addressed your concerns about my article. The tone you have used in addressing my comments has dialed down the reactivity here. So thanks.
Furthermore, I’m willing to cop to my tone as divisive. However, I made the conscious choice to go after Rush Limbaugh because I’m responding to a major voice in the media who I believe has had far too much influence on the kind of country I live in. Furthermore, its an election year. I freely admit that my comments reflect that I hold political opinions. As do yours.
But I’d like to start with your contentions regarding birth control. You write:
“The harm starts with the misinformation. Greene writes that Fluke is not asking for people to “buy her birth control”. But, she is. By asking the government to force her college to offer birth control as part of the health insurance package, she’s forcing the plan to be more expansive and expensive which all policy holders will have to help pay for.”
Ms. Fluke does not want “somebody else to pay for her contraception” any more than I want “somebody else to pay for my allergy pills”. What we want is for the services we value to be part of our health coverage as we are paying into a risk pool and we would like for our preferred preventative care to be covered. By speaking out, Ms. Fluke wants to encourage all of us to arrive at a public consensus that says birth control is considered of value to enough people (NOT 100%) but enough people that it is included in the coverage she has. If you want condoms to be covered, go demand that.
In addition, the cost issue is not a valid critique. There is ample evidence to suggest that including cost free birth control in insurance plans REDUCES the overall cost of health care. See an article here: http://moneyland.time.com/2012/02/14/why-free-birth-control-will-not-hike-the-cost-of-your-insurance/
But back to politics.
The Republican leaders in the Congress have made a cynical political calculation about Obama’s policy on women’s birth control. The GOP’s calculation in an unintended collaboration with Rush’s nasty take on things, has backlashed big time.
Which brings me to your contention here that Good Men don’t get political.
You write: “Good Men don’t alienate an entire population because of who they vote for. Again, by rooting so ardently against the GOP, he puts his politics ahead of being helpful.”
It seems to me that there is a time for consensus building and a time to make your case. In many cases, I can see two sides of a political argument. But in this case, I do not. And when I do not, my course of action becomes clearer. Women who are advocating for access to birth control should not be shamed and called sluts for doing so.
You write: “Greene is giddy here not because he hopes to see a better world but simply because he wants to see “Republicans” fall.” Obviously, you and I differ on what would make a better world. And please understand, my respect for Ron Paul’s take in interventionist foreign wars and the war on drugs couldn’t be higher. But he is not the GOP. He, like, Democratic Congressman and sometime Presidential Candidate, Dennis Kucinich is an anomaly inside his party.
Let me close by saying this. I agree with you that binary divisive political arguments probably aren’t helping us. Also, I agree that my article is a pretty blatant example of a divisive argument. But Rush stepped over the goddamn line of honesty, civility and decency. And in my opinion, in those moments, good men have a right and an obligation to step up and say so.
“Ms. Fluke does not want “somebody else to pay for her contraception” any more than I want “somebody else to pay for my allergy pills”. What we want is for the services we value to be part of our health coverage as we are paying into a risk pool and we would like for our preferred preventative care to be covered. By speaking out, Ms. Fluke wants to encourage all of us to arrive at a public consensus that says birth control is considered of value to enough people (NOT 100%) but enough people that it is included in the coverage she has. ”
This.
Hey Mark,
Thanks for the reply. I especially like this paragraph:
“It seems to me that there is a time for consensus building and a time to make your case. In many cases, I can see two sides of a political argument. But in this case, I do not. And when I do not, my course of action becomes clearer. Women who are advocating for access to birth control should not be shamed and called sluts for doing so.”
From the points made here, I can understand where you’re coming from. But I will say there’s more to the opposition than the man yelling “slut”. To the last sentence in that paragraph I’ll say, “hear, hear.”
Thanks to you as well Brandon. I’m quickly gaining a healthy respect for civil discussions.
Greene still hasn’t figured out that money coming out of a health plan means money going into a health plan. IOW, paying for it. Increase the money coming out means increasing the money going in. IOW, paying for it.
Either he’s absolutely clueless, or he’s hoping his readers are.
Aubrey KNOWS that when a health insurer provides free birth control it reduces the overall cost of a health insurance by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions. This means overall savings for the plan.
Read about it here: http://moneyland.time.com/2012/02/14/why-free-birth-control-will-not-hike-the-cost-of-your-insurance/
But he continues to state otherwise because he actually supports abstinence for all unmarried adults and feels a little silly admitting it publicly.
Oh, yeah. And Greene’s outrage about namecalling and civility doesn’t extend to liberals doing it to conservative women. I bet he doesn’t think anybody’s noticed.
Watch your tone Aubrey, you’re starting to sound a little whiney. LOL
You seem to have all the answers Aubrey. You seem to know the system so well. What bothers me though, it’s your clear lack of respect for other people’s thought process. However it does not surprise me because you also seem to be very set on your ways of seeing the world. I’ve seen your posts all over this website and I’ve been trying to understand who you are because you very much embody -in my humble opinion- the old guard when it comes to men’s values. There are things I admire about your take on things and the most important to me is your consistency, but that doesn’t lend itself to what I hope we are trying to accomplish here, which I hope is to question old paradigms and fears. Money sure is important now days, but attempting to make mere cents to the dollar sound unrighteous by the catholic church and its followers when talking contraception just looks hypocritical. I believe in evolution of the mind and heart, but the catholic church or taxpayers throwing their arms up in the air at this without addressing an extremely-expensive-us-military-budget just seems foolish to me. Will they who pay no taxes ask their parishioners to do the same when it comes to supporting wars and the making of weapons? Did i take it too far for you? I believe I did, and I did it to illustrate my point I’m sure you have figured out already. What are you defending exactly? The right of the catholic church not to support this bill, or the pockets of those belonging to these college health plans as well as the insurance provider -that will always pass the cost regardless if it is a pill or a heart procedure- which will make more money down the line when dealing with unwanted pregnancies and all related matters? Could you clarify where exactly you are making your stand and why for me please? I have recently gone back to college and I’m thirsty for understanding since I’ve come to terms with the fact that facts -are useful as they are- understanding are not.
Adsum.
I do better with shorter sentences.
Among other things, the old guard of men’s ideas has to be demonstrated to be completely wrong instead of needing updating.
WRT the church and war. As I said elsewhere, presuming the mods didn’t eat it, the RC is a Just War church–see Augustine and Aquinas–not a pacifist church. That said, the American bishops oppose any war not fronted by outrised, upraged peasants brandishing AKs.
I’m defending the right of the church not to have to pay for BC in their insurance plans if they think it’s immoral and by extension the intrusion of the state into more and more of our private life.
Since the RCs aren’t paying for BC now, it’s hard to see how continuing to not pay for BC is going to result in an increase in births. I am kind of stuck wondering who actually believes that and who knows better but hopes he or she can get over on some of the more gullible.
For the birth control advocates- What is your goal here?
1. Do you want to provide all women with some form of access to affordable birth control?
-OR-
2. Do you want to force the Catholic Church to include birth control in its institutions’ insurance plans?
These are 2 VERY different goals and speak to 2 VERY different agendas. I’m somewhat sympathetic to the first but I am in obdurate disagreement with the second.
Mark. Whiney. Right. Anyway, your outrage regarding the Maher and Schultz lack of civility hasn’t yet appeared. Sometimes the net just is kind of slow. Hate when that happens.
The planted axiom is that if women, who have up to now, been paying for their own BC and racking up whatever birth rate they’ve shown, suddenly find they are paying for their own BC because the catholics won’t are going to start having babies at a much higher rate than before, when they had to pay for their own BC.
Amazing.
“are useful as they are” (as useful as they are) was meant.
Our society already treats pregnancy like a medical problem requiring a hospital intervention. You can now schedule a C-section so your baby is born on a specific day and time. We treat pregnancy like a dangerous condition requiring close medical attention.
Well, if we’re going to continue to look at it like that, then let’s be consistent. Let’s treat birth control as medicine designed to prevent an operable medical condition. Prevention of pregnancy sounds to me like a perfectly acceptable solution to a dangerous medical condition. If we let people take pills to prevent the onset of a dangerous condition like epilepsy, then why not pregnancy? People still die from it or have serious long-term damage from it.
Hell, in that case the Catholic charities better stop making calendars, because people might use them as a form of birth control. No more support for breastfeeding, because that limits a woman’s fertility as well.
Besides, if conservatives really are correct, then they really have nothing to worry about. Why not HELP us weird liberals get access to birth control so our numbers decline until we die off? Meanwhile the pronatalists can breed like rabbits. Theoretically we’ll die off and leave the conservatives to populate the world.
Unless conservatives are worried that they won’t be able to keep their kids away from birth control….
Six consecutive articles defending Obamacare, obfuscating the truth, silencing the righteous, and promoting divisive misinformation.
How can feminists pretend like they are interested in dialogue? Your anti-male campaign is as transparent as it is horrifying.
Anthony I suggest you take a look at your choice to attack instead of engage. It’s just another form of brutality. Something you insist you oppose.
That guy.
What help is needed? BC is cheap. You don’t need help. It isn’t the money and conservatives are not going to follow you on dates with spare condoms in case you were too broke, or too forgetful, to have some on hand.
Last I heard, liberal women are having kids at below replacement rate, somewhere about 1.5 per woman. Conservative women are replacing themselves, 2.1-2.2 per woman, and conservative Christians at about 3.0.
So, thanks for the offer, but we’ll just stand by and watch.
The 1942 Stabilization Act limited wage increases by employers but allowed the adoption of employee insurance plans to attract workers. As a result of decades of employer-sponsored insurance we now have limited options: take what your company offers or pay substantially more to purchase insurance elsewhere. My company offers five separate policies with almost exactly the same benefits and options; certainly nothing similar to my high-deductible car insurance or a catastrophic coverage policy.
To me the question isn’t whether a religious institution should be required to provide insurance covering temporary or permanent sterilization; it’s whether employers should be required to provide insurance instead of offering higher salaries that would allow employees to purchase insurance that suits their individual needs.
Signe. Employers are not required to offer health insurance. It’s a choice they make, usually under pressure to get and keep employees, or as a matter of union negotiation.
For employers, it’s a better deal to provide health insurance than to pay extra salary and have people buy their own.
Health insurance premiums paid by the employer are a deductible business expense and they are not reportable to the employee as income. No taxes at all.
Should the employer wish to take the salary route, things change. Say the group premium for a family is $400 per month. Depending on the employees’s tax rate, the employer might have to pay him $500 so that $400 will be left over after the employee’s taxes. In addition, as wages, the payment generates the employer’s share of Soc Scty if the employee is making under the cap, and that’s just over 5%. The increased wage also means, if below the cap, increased work comp premiums. If life insurance and disability insurance coverage are provided, they may have to be tweaked upwards as well, depending on the plan’s structure, which means more money. Most, if not all, of these expenses are deductible to the employer and not reportable to the employee. Nevertheless, they represent an increase in expenses of more than one-third.
So it means, to substitute wages for group premium, in this hypo, the employer will need to look at payng out maybe $550. Figures are arbitrary for purposes of mental math before first coffee. They are also pretty low for today’s world.
There’s a second issue, discovered by folks who go on COBRA. Because group premiums are a cost of doing business and are passed on to the consumer, or in the case of government entities, the taxpayer, the maximum acceptable premium to employers is pretty high. That means they can provide pretty fat plans, which means expensive ones. Going onto COBRA allows an employee who left the job to keep his group coverage if he pays for it, and 2% over for administration. Ex-employees are uniformly shocked at the premium. They won’t pay it if they can help it. Infdividual plans have to be saleable, which means considerably lower premiums. And that means less coverage.
Higher deductible, cat coverage is apparently going to be against Obamacare, depending on how things shake out.
Doctors used to be respected members of the upper middle class. Not instant millionaires (i exaggerate for some cases. OTOH,I have dealt with orthopods making $375k and up) One reason for the huge increase in health care costs is the loss of the buy-sell connection between patient and provider. Docs ratchet their fees upwards, companies raise the “usual and customary” schedules and pay out more, the group premiums go up, the employer raises his costs of goods sold or services performed to pay for it, the consumer pays it, the patient sees nothing of this and worries not at all. And here we are.
Richard: Absolutely agree with you about the “loss of the buy-sell connection between patient and provider.”
To clarify, I should have said “will be penalized for not providing insurance ” rather than “be required to provide insurance.” It was my understanding that under the Affordable Care Act employers with 50+ FTEs will have to provide insurance coverage or make an “assessable payment” for every FTE beyond the first 30. If I’m misinformed on this please let me know.
Signe
I was referring to the situation prior to Obamacare.
A question is what the assessable payment is. If it is substantially, or even slightly, less than an insurance premium, the ER will likely choose that route. That means te EE will be going to whatever government program is available.
In other words, a mechanism for reducing or ruiining private insurance companies–see rep. Jan Schakowsky who says that’s a goal–and right-next-to forcing people on to the government plan.
My recollection of the fine for individuals not having insurance is that it is a fraction of an individual or family premium. So the thing to do is pay the fine. When you need something expensive, under the new laws (as explained as the law was passed in order for us to read it) so the insurance company has to take you. So, after a few years of paying a fraction of a premium in the form of a fine, you get the needed coverage by making a quick stop at the nearest agent on your way to the Cleveland Clinic. After all is over, you drop the coverage. When Hillary was promoting her iteration, I called one of the congresscritters supporting it and explained that outlawing pre-existing condition exclusions would ruin insurance companies. They’d have to take a, say, $1000 premium for a, say, $100,000 expense. That would ruin them. See Schakowsky. “They were “looking at it “, which meant, to me, I should shut up and quit bothering them.
I get a charge out of calling legislators’ offices, or fed departments. They want to know if I’m a journalist–perhaps I sound like a child molester or something–or if I’m “just” a citizen. I usually tell them to lose the “just”, but it goes right over whatever they’re using for a head.
Presumably, the assessable payment will be a deductible business expense and not reportable to the employee.
Before you settle on one insurance company make sure you know you’re getting the best policy for you and your family. IntelliQuote can offer you free quotes from many different providers to compare. If you have any questions you can call and talk to a person without feeling pressured to pick right away. It’s a big decision. Feel confident and informed. http://bit.ly/ytx9RR
Tanya. That would be a good idea for many of the commenters. They’d learn something about health insurance policies.