Trump Proposes to Socialize IVF

[KenH]

The government mandating that health insurers pay for IVF will raise premiums for all health insurance beneficiaries, regardless of age, sex, or lifestyle choices. To mitigate costs, insurers might raise deductibles and make provider networks narrower and less attractive to would-be fertility patients. Insurers would also intrude into reproductive decision-making through the authorization and approval process.

That authorization process will likely become even more inefficient and cumbersome if he forces taxpayers to pay for government-funded IVF, which Trump supports as an alternative. (Trump didn’t address the impact of such a program on the budget deficit.)

Whether indirectly, through health insurance mandates, or directly from a government program, Trump proposes to socialize IVF. For someone who has referred to Kamala Harris as “a socialist lunatic,” this is more than a little hypocritical.

- rest of column at https://www.cato.org/blog/trump-proposes-socialize-ivf

 

[JonC]

The government mandating that health insurers pay for IVF will raise premiums for all health insurance beneficiaries, regardless of age, sex, or lifestyle choices. To mitigate costs, insurers might raise deductibles and make provider networks narrower and less attractive to would-be fertility patients. Insurers would also intrude into reproductive decision-making through the authorization and approval process.

That authorization process will likely become even more inefficient and cumbersome if he forces taxpayers to pay for government-funded IVF, which Trump supports as an alternative. (Trump didn’t address the impact of such a program on the budget deficit.)

Whether indirectly, through health insurance mandates, or directly from a government program, Trump proposes to socialize IVF. For someone who has referred to Kamala Harris as “a socialist lunatic,” this is more than a little hypocritical.

- rest of column at https://www.cato.org/blog/trump-proposes-socialize-ivf

The author of the article is misusing the word "socialism".

Requiring insurance companies to cover a treatment or medical condition is not socialism.

What Harris has suggested (her economic proposals) tends towards socialism but is merely one element of the economic system (a move from capitalism towards socialism).

The OP is dishonest political propaganda.

 

[KenH]

The author of the article is misusing the word "socialism".

No, the author is not.

The OP is dishonest political propaganda.

No, the OP is not.

 

[KenH]

You are for something, @JonC, that is socialistic, and that's okay. Socialism is one of a variety of various societal solutions to various problems. No need to try to run away from it. It's okay, Jon, it's okay.

 

[KenH]

The author of the article is misusing the word "socialism".

By the way, I am quite aware that people generally do not use the word, "socialism", according to the strict economic definition of the term. Just as people generally do not use the word, "inflation", according to the strict economic definition of the term.

Yes, I am old, can be cantankerous, and yell at clouds. But there are times when I leave out the yelling at clouds part.

 

[JonC]

By the way, I am quite aware that people generally do not use the word, "socialism", according to the strict economic definition of the term. Just as people generally do not use the word, "inflation", according to the strict economic definition of the term.

Yes, I am old, can be cantankerous, and yell at clouds. But there are times when I leave out the yelling at clouds part.

Words have meaning. You are misusing a word for an emotional argument.

That is one issue with politics today. People simply are controlled by their emotions. You demonstrate that here.

The OP is simply incorrect.

Requiring insurance companies to cover cancer treatments, IVF, weight loss programs, and even....dems will love this one....transition treatments is not socialism.


A discussion can be had - and should be had - about what procedures and treatments insurance companies need to cover.

But the discussion needs to be honest, not based on dishonest propaganda as you suggest.

 

[JonC]

You are for something, @JonC, that is socialistic, and that's okay. Socialism is one of a variety of various societal solutions to various problems. No need to try to run away from it. It's okay, Jon, it's okay.

Ahhh... bring out the lies now. I didn't think it'd take long. You are driven too much by your emotions.

I am not for insurance companies covering IVF or transition treatments.

I am also not against it.

I favor insurance companies providing coverage that meets the demands of their consumers.

If you, for example, want to transition into a "woman" and are looking for an insurance policy that covers your treatment then I am not opposed to an insurance company providing your desired coverage.

You are not a child so you can take whatever hormones you need to transition into a "woman" (in "" because I won't consider you an actual woman).

BUT only those who elect that type of coverage should pay for that type of policy (the cost is spread over a select group....I don't pay for you to become a "woman").

 

[JonC]

No, the author is not.



No, the OP is not.

Provide a legitimate definition of "socialism" that means "insurance coverage".

You can't, because just like the GOP you misuse the word to make emotional arguments.

Some may use "socialism" to mean something unrelated to socialism. You do here. But that is not what "socialism" means.

If enough misuse the word the definition could change. But as it stands you ate misusing the word intentionally. That is no different, IMHO, from lying.

According to your logic a man can be pregnant because many misuse words denoting gender.

 

[KenH]

I'm sorry, @JonC, I apologize. I had previously said that I would no longer engage with you on this board. I forgot. I'll stop interacting with you on this thread now.

 

[JonC]

I am against using government force to make insurance companies cover any thing.

I am as well. I am for less federal government interference.

I believe the market will take care of what is covered. I am not opposed, for example, to pet insurance. I don't have it so I don't have to pay for it.

I need health insurance. I have to pay, to an extent, for other people's treatment. I don't want to have to pay for elective treatments.

 

[JonC]

Evidently, you don't deal with regular folks much on social media.

I do. And I point out that they do not know what the word means.

Words have meaning. Ignorance does not mean the definition of a word changes.


If you are right and the word "socialism" does not mean socialism (it's "dictionary meanjng") then it is no big deal. Trump's suggestion is thus new meaning rather than the economic system it once meant.

 

[JonC]

I'm sorry, @JonC, I apologize. I had previously said that I would no longer engage with you on this board. I forgot. I'll stop interacting with you on this thread now.

Lol.....yea.....take your ball and run home.

That's your m.o. when challenged by truth.

 

[JonC]

Here is where @KenH went wrong- he is using "socialism" to describe insurance coverage.

He is right that the word is often misused. But this is not an excuse to misuse it.

With insurance - whether health, home, automobile, or pet insurance - the uktimate cost of coverage is shared by policy holders. Insurance companies exist to make a profit, so the company not only has to charge enough to cover what is paid out but also enough to cover operational expenses and still be profitable.



@KenH 's insistence that insurance covering a medical treatment equates to socialism simply reflects a misunderstanding of economics.