-
Behavioral Modification: Pavlov would be SO PROUD!
- Oct 2, 2009 at 5:25 PM
- By
- Comments (12) Total Views (193) Everyone can see this journal post.
Yes folks, your government is set to 'recondition' you FROM a people who believe they have CERTAIN inalienable rights endowed by the creator TO a people who accept the notion that the GOVERNMENT can either GRANT you a 'reward' for behavior deemed healthy and good or 'penalize' you for behavior deemed to be unhealthy and bad, or, to put it another way, ALIENABLE rights DICTATED by the government.
According to reporting by Politico our Senate Finance Committee just passed an amendment to the healthcare bill "allowing employers to increase premiums by up to 50 percent for people who engage in unhealthy behaviors.
That means smokers, obese individuals and others may face higher premiums if they do not participate in wellness programs."
I could not believe the search I had to do just to find ANY REPORTING on this amendment! To date I heard it reported on Greta Van Sustren last night--Thursday, October 1--and after several rewordings of google searches this ONE article by Politico! UNBELIEVABLE! I did find some other articles on the hearing that day, but only ONE other that mentioned this specific amendment or details on it!
This amendment sits in a bill that simultaneously makes it ILLEGAL for insurance companies to deny benefits based upon 'pre-existing' conditions, while allowing discrimination in pricing based on ASSUMPTIONS about possible conditions that could arise from certain behaviors--or PRE-EXISTING condition POTENTIALS. And it's NOT headline news.
MORE frightening is the support it found from BOTH parties even with "opposition from more than 50 health groups" including "the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association and the AFL-CIO." Four Democratic Senators represented the ONLY opposition to the bill: "Democrats Jay Rockefeller (W.V.), Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), Robert Menendez (N.J.) and Bill Nelson (Fla.) voted against it, according to committee staff," as reported in the CBS online story linked below. KUDOS to them!
I had to go here to find the final vote: "It passed by a vote of 19 to four." Given that the Senate Finance Committee is 13-10 Democratic majority, that means that ALL of the Republicans on the committee voted for YOU to be TREATED DIFFERENT based upon your RIGHT to make PRIVATE decisions about your OWN lifestyle! They NEED to be VOTED OUT, along with the NINE Democrats who voted for the same thing. Here they are:
CHUCK GRASSLEY, IA
ORRIN G. HATCH, UT
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, ME
JON KYL, AZ
JIM BUNNING, KY
MIKE CRAPO, ID
PAT ROBERTS, KS
JOHN ENSIGN, NV
MIKE ENZI, WY
JOHN CORNYN, TX
DEMS
MAX BAUCUS, MT
KENT CONRAD, ND
JEFF BINGAMAN, NM
JOHN F. KERRY, MA
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, AR
RON WYDEN, OR
DEBBIE STABENOW, MI
MARIA CANTWELL, WA
Here is the contact information for the Committee on Finance. I would HOPE that you make your feelings known to the Senators listed above who think it THEIR purview and not YOURS to determine not only IF you carry medical insurance, but what BEHAVIORS warrant 'reasonable' rates and what behaviors THEY have decided should be MODIFIED through coercion and PENALTY.
Committee On Finance
219 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-6200
(202) 224-4515
Comments:
LOL I love your passion
Did you read this part?
Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) said the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee adopted a similar bipartisan amendment by unanimous consent during its markup in July, but the language has since “unilaterally changed.”“My colleagues were never consulted and the Democratic majority staff removed it,” Enzi said. “We had to discover it on our own. I hope it will get into this bill so it will be considered in a merged bill.”
Democrats scrapped it in another committee! It's this silly attempt at bipartisanship that has revived this amendment :)
Honestly P, this has Republican written all over it. They are the ones always arguing for personal responsibility. This would be a form of personal responsibility (enrollment in wellness programs to avoid the increase in premiums).
As to the constitutionality of the amendment. If employers are already allowed to raise the premiums 20% of people who engage in risky behaviors why would 50% make it unconstitutional? I'm not saying I agree with the amendment. I think an equal protection argument could successfully be made BUT why was 20% ok and 50% isn't? And why is it ok for insurance companies to do the same thing or completely deny coverage on that basis?
<3
Isn't it amazing that we have to hunt down info now? Wonder if that has anything to do with Obama's new 'computer czar' George Coulter.OOpps, I forgot, czar is a bad word. "paid administrative consultant".
Thanks for the post 'P', I'm having the hardest time finding a lot of things.
Sooo let me get this right. Smoking cigarettes (presumably), chewing tobacco, eating powdered donughts are plausible to cause an increase in my premiums
BUT...
Abortion is covered?
Anyone see the irony here? "Go ahead, have random sex, terminate pregnancies as a birth control alternative, but don't you dare pick up that greasy Big Mac!!!
What are the standards that they are going to use? I'm curious to know, this is pathetic, disheartening and more Marxist than two hours ago.
I'M PISSED OFF!
It doesn't surprise me that Snowe is on the list but I am surprised at Orrin Hatch being on it. Guess I haven't been keeping up as well as I used to.
Great info Pati, thx for posting this.
First let me say that I'm going to do some research on this on my own, if I can find anything, and email my representatives and see if they can confirm it. I've jumped the gun way too many times before. But if this is true, we have a problem. The government is in our lives waaaayyyy too much already, this is going way too far.
sriveroc
Democrats scrapped it in another committee! It's this silly attempt at bipartisanship that has revived this amendment :)
Honestly P, this has Republican written all over it. They are the ones always arguing for personal responsibility. This would be a form of personal responsibility (enrollment in wellness programs to avoid the increase in premiums).
As to the constitutionality of the amendment. If employers are already allowed to raise the premiums 20% of people who engage in risky behaviors why would 50% make it unconstitutional? I'm not saying I agree with the amendment. I think an equal protection argument could successfully be made BUT why was 20% ok and 50% isn't? And why is it ok for insurance companies to do the same thing or completely deny coverage on that basis?
norwegianwood
I LOVE yours too...and on THIS one, apparently, I find myself on the side of the ACLU and the Dems--uncomfortable fit, to say the least. LOL
1) to the personal responsibility: it holds no water: O's argument is that those of us who by and large ARE already responsible:i.e. we have incomes, pay our bills, our mortgages, etc..that WE should pay MORE in taxes so that others who are NOT BEING RESPONSIBLE can get healthcare. Failed argument, river.
2) personal responsibility is deciding to carry coverage to fit your needs...it has nothing to do with other lifestyle choices, but a demonstrated act of taking care of one's self
3) PRIVATE insurance companies have always been allowed to charge what they wish--which is the stated problem with the costs..THIS is a 'deal' with them so that they WILL stop ONE instance of hiking prices: i.e. pre-existing conditions, but it subplants that WITH the allowance of SOME 'pre-conditions'..nowhere does it indicate what the insurance companies will use to determine-obesity.
4) These are the insurance companies IN THE POOL--i.e. PAID by our TAX DOLLARS--so, this is POOR people who smoke or are obese
5) read up on the link between poverty, obesity, and illness:
http://www.regiscollege.edu/about.aspx?id=6812
And, they've tried this in the UK...it hasn't worked:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/9187011/the_poor_are_still_with_us_just_fatter/
Even smoking is common among the poor:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/28/health/main620164.shtml
WHO studies have long found that poorer people tend to smoke more in both developing and developed countries.
So, it IS a deal with the insurance companies to allow them to charge the GOV'T--i.e. US MORE for these POOR people who are overweight or smoke or both, KNOWING that the percentages of these people are HIGHER among the poor!
The GOAL? To RECONDITION behavior. It's tantamount to GOVERNMENT control OVER personal choices--That's why I am against the gov't MANDATING it at all...but even MORE SO in this case. It is TAKING ADVANTAGE of their POVERTY or their NEED in order to MANDATE or DICTATE their personal choices! WRONG. so wrong...
AND NOTE: it says 'unhealthy behaviors'...so, it begs the questions: Isn't unprotected sex an 'unhealthy behavior' that COULD result in needed medical treatments for HIV Aids, other STD's, pregnancy and all the expenses that go along with that to include potential prenatal care needs, to abortions etc? And what about drinking? It CAN result not only in serious addiction and rehabilitation needs, but also in serious injuries from fights, falls, auto accidents etc? What about people who like to sky dive or bunji jump or rock climb or play football or auto race or any number of OTHER 'choices' that have POTENTIAL for injury or resulting in medical costs? What about people who drink coffee or tea ? The POTENTIAL for DICTATING on these liberties, basically BY THE GOVERNMENT --a government SEEKING to make ALL of us CARRY this coverage is LIMITLESS. And it is the ANTITHESIS of FREEDOM from having those CHOICES made by government. When you consider the number in government who want a SINGLE PAYER option? It's like BOLSHEVIK dictatorial America, not remotely associated with FREEDOM.
So, the government is telling the insurance companies in their POOL of gov't subsidized plans that they can charge MORE for obesity and smoking...but that means MORE TAXES and assumption of COSTS by the taxpayers...
this is a BAD IDEA...really bad. All I have to do is look at the WIC program and how it takes advantage of the NEED of women in order to dictate to them WHEN to make their child stop using a pacifier, to start drinking milk, to be potty trained etc etc...IT IS egregious the way the government is INSINUATING itself into these decisions on people in need. THIS IS WHY I am against these PROGRAMS in any case...they serve to get the populace ACCUSTOMED to 'being TOLD' what to do...it's NOT remotely FREE river..not even close.
P
Sooo let me get this right. Smoking cigarettes (presumably), chewing tobacco, eating powdered donughts are plausible to cause an increase in my premiums
BUT...
Abortion is covered?
Anyone see the irony here? "Go ahead, have random sex, terminate pregnancies as a birth control alternative, but don't you dare pick up that greasy Big Mac!!!
What are the standards that they are going to use? I'm curious to know, this is pathetic, disheartening and more Marxist than two hours ago.
I'M PISSED OFF!
ME TOO!
My head is spinning. Thanks for the info P....this is something I have to chew on and pick apart. I agree SOMETHING needs to be done...SOMETHING has to change with our American lifestyle, but NOT this. Aren't smokers already paying through the nose just to smoke....isn't that already working? Why not give that time. The obese problem we have in the US....paying higher premiums is NOT the way to go, I honestly don't believe this will help people change their lifestyle.
I will check out the links you provided to Sriverco. :-)
Thanks P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~you rock!
Already a member? Click here to log in
Check out these Tasty Treats from The Stir's partners:
Thanks for keeping us informed.
- Jambo4
Message Friend Invite