![\"Image\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/pixel.nymag.com\/imgs\/daily\/intelligencer\/2017\/03\/31\/31-jeffrey-lebowski.w710.h473.jpg?resize=536%2C357\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\u201cYou\u2019re just looking for a handout,\u201d mothers<\/em>!<\/span><\/a> Photo: Universal Pictures<\/span><\/cite><\/strong><\/p>\n America’s conservatives and republicans are interested in ideology and selfish interests. Not the he general welfare of the American people. They haven’t been for the last 40 years. It’s just becoming more pronounced.<\/p>\n BTW, selfish interests are NOT <\/strong>the same as rational self-interest<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n The single most unifying idea to change Obamacare among conservatives is to eliminate the law\u2019s \u201cessential health benefits.\u201d These burdensome mandates of which treatments insurance has to cover make Obamacare too expensive, conservatives say. Their problem is that the list of required essential health benefits includes actually only, well, essential ones. If the list did include any frivolous treatments, like cosmetic surgery or some goofy alternative-medicine quack scheme, that\u2019s all you\u2019d hear about. But it doesn\u2019t. So the single example conservatives come up with, over and over, is maternity care. Today it appears in Charles Krauthammer\u2019s column<\/span><\/a>:<\/p>\n Even more significant would be stripping out the heavy-handed Obamacare coverage mandate<\/span><\/a> that dictates what specific medical benefits must be included in every insurance policy in the country, regardless of the purchaser\u2019s desires or needs.<\/p>\n Best to mandate nothing. Let the customer decide. A 60-year-old couple doesn\u2019t need maternity coverage. Why should they be forced to pay for it? And I don\u2019t know about you, but I don\u2019t need lactation services.<\/p>\n The thing to understand is that mandating covering maternity care doesn\u2019t affect the total cost of insurance. It only changes the distribution<\/em> of the costs. It\u2019s not like Charles Krauthammer\u2019s insurance forces him to actually go through childbirth. It merely means that his premiums help pay for other people\u2019s maternity care.<\/p>\n If health insurance could sell plans that did not cover childbirth, then young women of childbearing age would be the only people who bought plans that covered it. And having a baby would be extremely expensive. Indeed, in the unregulated market that existed before Obamacare, it was common for women to buy insurance they believed<\/em> covered their childbirth but in fact did not. In 2009, Sarah Wildman<\/span><\/a> described her not-atypical experience of getting a $20,000 bill from her insurance company for a standard delivery.<\/p>\n And it is true that, if we let Krauthammer buy insurance that didn\u2019t cover maternity care, that change would, on its own, reduce Krauthammer\u2019s premiums. That reform would make sense if you think of having a baby as some kind of yuppie extravagance. This notion was, not long ago, considered so self-evidently absurd that it could be the premise of a Simpsons<\/span><\/i> joke<\/span><\/a>:<\/p>\n Homer Simpson<\/span><\/b><\/a>: I can\u2019t fake an interest in this, and I\u2019m an expert at faking an interest in your kooky projects.<\/p>\n Marge Simpson<\/span><\/b><\/a>: What kooky projects?<\/p>\n Homer Simpson<\/span><\/b><\/a><\/strong>: You know, the painting class, the first-aid course, the whole Lamaze thing.<\/p>\n Now the entire Republican Party is Homer Simpson.<\/p>\n Truer words have never been spoken.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Continue reading HERE<\/em><\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"\n
<\/div>\n