GOP Senators’ Obamacare Replacement Beneficial to Young People says Senator Colborn as He Loses His Own Cancer Doctor in the Midst of His Cancer Fight

GOP senators’ Obamacare replacement beneficial to young people

Red Alert Politics: Just weeks into the new year and only months after Congressional Republicans attempted to defund the Affordable Care Act, a trio of Senate Republicans have unveiled a plan to replace Obamacare. And this alternative seeks to put money back in Millennials’ pockets.

Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) joined forces in crafting a replacement for the Affordable Care Act, unveiling the proposal Monday. Called the Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility, and Empowerment Act, the law’s first step would be to repeal Obamacare. However, the proposed alternative does leave some key aspects of the current healthcare law in place, while offering some reprieves for Millennials.

“The American people have found out what is in Obamacare— broken promises in the form of increased health care costs, costly mandates, and government bureaucracy.  They don’t like it and don’t want to keep it,” Burr said in a press release. “…We can lower costs and expand access to quality coverage and care by empowering individuals and their families to make their own health care decisions, rather than empowering the government to make those decisions for them.”

Since the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, young Americans have found their premiums increasing, some as much as 260 percent. However, the law was designed to require Millennials to pay more for health insurance to subsidize coverage for the elderly, whose health insurance is deemed to be more costly.

The Patient CARE proposal, however, seeks to take the financial burden off of young people’s shoulders.

“Unfortunately, young Americans are on the front lines of experiencing the costs and consequences of Obamacare’s costly mandates and broken promises: skyrocketing premiums, fewer choices, employers deciding not to offer health insurance, cutting back hours, or not hiring all together,” Burr said in an emailed statement to Red Alert. ”They know that Obamacare is not fair to them or their future.”

Under the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies can charge older Americans only three times as much as they charge “young invincibles.” This provision drives up the cost of health insurance for Millennials.

But under the Patient CARE proposal, that threshold is increased to allow insurance companies to charge the elderly a maximum of five times as much as they charge Millennials. States, though, can set their own ratio below that amount or opt out of the mandate by passing a law allowing it to do so.

Prior to the implementation of Obamacare, many states adhered to the federal benchmark proposed by Burr, Coburn and Hatch.

“Mr. President, we can see the importance of choice in the failings of ObamaCare, which is struggling to sign up young people who might just need a health plan that’s affordable instead of one that includes coverage they’ll never use or need,” Hatch said on the Senate floor Monday.

One of the Affordable Care Act’s most lauded provisions allows young people under the age of 26 to stay on their parents’ health insurance plans, and the measure has long been a staple of President Obama’s speeches and addresses surrounding his signature healthcare law. Sens. Burr, Corburn and Hatch included the provision in the Patient CARE proposal.

“While we believe fewer young consumers will utilize this option as the cost of health insurance decreases, retaining this policy has a very marginal effect on premiums and provides consumers with more choices,” it states.

The Congressional Budget office projected Obamacare would lead to 800,000 fewer jobs, likely as a result of the high cost of providing employees working more than 30 hours per week and other provisions in the employer mandate. But repealing the Affordable Care Act, as the Patient CARE measure seeks to do, provides both economic relief and opportunity for Millennials — a generation facing 15.9 percent unemployment.

“The Patient CARE Act would provide relief to young Americans by repealing Obamacare’s costly mandates, putting in place common-sense  insurance protections – like guaranteed coverage for pre-existing conditions, and empowering them to find a plan that meets their needs, including allowing health savings account dollars to go toward health premiums for the first time,” Burr said.

The Patient CARE legislation has yet to be introduced in the Senate, as the Republican triad hopes to “further refine and improve upon the proposal” and build support on both sides of the aisle.

Meanwhile, Cancer-stricken Sen. Tom Coburn revealed Tuesday that his health insurance under Obamacare doesn’t cover his oncologist.

The Oklahoma Republican’s spokesman confirmed to POLITICO that since the senator enrolled in his health insurance plan under Obamacare, his coverage has been reduced and he lost coverage for his cancer specialist. Coburn will continue to pay out of pocket and see his oncologist, his office said.

Luckily the former physician and Senator can pay for his doctor of choice and treatment out of pocked, but that is not the situation for many Americans who are losing their specialists, doctors or choice or their healthcare coverage completely and can’t afford the replacement.

His spokesman said Coburn’s struggles with his own doctor illustrate the need for a new policy, saying that not every American has the option to pay out of pocket for care.

“We hope the White House will work with us to make sure Americans who can’t afford to pay out of pocket don’t lose access to life-saving care,” spokesman John Hart said. “As Dr. Coburn’s experience shows, the American people are about to learn they’re going to lose access to not only their doctors and plans, but their specialists and treatments.”

Technorati Tags: Patient Choice,Affordability,Responsibility,and Empowerment Act,ObamaCare Alternatives,GOP,Tom Colburn,Cancer,ACA,Millennials,Health Insurance

Obamacare Open Enrollment is ending soon. If you have pre-existing conditions you need to understand the new rules…

C. Steven Tucker: Today is January 15, 2014 and today is the last day to enroll in an individual (non employer sponsored) health insurance plan with a February 1, 2014 effective date. After tomorrow, the next available effective date will be March 1, 2014. In fact the first national “open enrollment” period is quickly coming to a close. The last date to enroll in any individual major medical health insurance plan will be February 15, 2014 for a March effective date. So, if you have a preexisting condition or are one of the 6.3 million policy holders who have lost your plan because of the PPACA (Obamacare) you need to start familiarizing yourself with how “open enrollment” works now, not later now.

The old rules are gone

The old rules pertaining to purchasing health insurance in the individual major medical market are now gone. You can no longer purchase individual major medical health insurance coverage whenever you want, all year long. There are now specific time periods where this kind of coverage will be available in 2014 and in subsequent years. Those periods are called “open enrollment” periods. Outside of those “open enrollment” periods individual major medical health insurance coverage will not be available for sale. This means that you will not be able to get coverage for preexisting conditions.

This is why it is essential that you understand the new rules for they will affect you and everyone you know who has a preexisting condition or has lost their health insurance because of Obamacare. This is especially true because our existing state run high risk health insurance pools which provided guaranteed issue coverage for those who were declined health insurance coverage for decades before Obamacare are now being dissolved.

Buying insurance on and off the Obamacare exchange

It is important to know that you do not have to purchase health insurance at Healthcare.gov. All products sold on and off the new Obamacare HIX – “Health Insurance Exchange Marketplace” will be guaranteed issue products during the two national “open enrollment” periods. They are:

Open Enrollment Period One: 1/1/14 – 3/31/14

Open Enrollment Period Two: 11/15/14 – 1/15/15

This means that you can not be denied coverage and no exclusion riders can be placed on your policy whether you buy the product on or off the Obamacare HIX but only during these two time periods. After these two time periods you can be denied coverage. In fact, individual major medical products will not be offered between these two national “open enrollment” periods. If insurance carriers continued to offer guaranteed issue coverage all year long it would lead to adverse selection. As it did in Massachusetts.

What you need to know right now

Since time is of the essence (and their is nothing timely about purchasing health insurance on the exchange). You need to know the only reason to purchase health insurance inside the HIX – Health Insurance Exchange Marketplace (Healthcare.gov) is if you qualify for an APTX – Advance Premium Tax Credit – (subsidy) to artificially lower the high cost of the Obamacare “Medal” plans – Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum. In order to qualify for an APTX your 2014 total household MAGI – Modified Adjusted Gross Income – income after taxes and retirement contributions must be less than:

$46,960 for an individual
$62,040 for a couple
$78,120 for a family of three
$94,200 for a family of four
$110,280 for a family of five
$126,360 for a family of six

If your income is more than the aforementioned amounts, you should purchase your health insurance outside of the HIX. The same plans are available off the exchange and the application process is much faster and far more secure. Again, all major medical health insurance products purchased inside and outside the HIX will be guarantee issue (no preexisting conditions) during the two national “open enrollment” periods in 2014.

PLEASE NOTE: The cheapest 2014 Obamacare “Medal” plan is the “Bronze” plan equivalent. This plan will expose a couple or a family to $12,700 in out of pocket risk each year for in network claims. For single applicants, that risk will be $6,350. So you are better off purchasing the Silver, Gold or Platinum plans if they are within your affordable range.

For Illinois residents the best priced 2014 ‘Medal’ plans are insured and underwritten by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois a Division of Health Care Services Corporation. Find the right health insurance plan for you by exploring all of the plan options, save plans that fit your needs in your Shopping Cart and return to apply for coverage when you are ready. Don’t forget the last day for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Open Enrollment is February 15, 2014.

To shop for all plans on and off the Obamacare HIX in all 50 states click the banner below:

A cheaper option for those without preexisting conditions

If you do not have any serious preexisting conditions, you can save a lot of money if you purchase a Temporary health insurance policy for a period of one year. These health insurance policies do not cover preexisting conditions nor do they include all of the federally mandated “Essential Health Benefits” such as Maternity, Drug Rehab coverage and Pediatric Dental. This also means that they are not considered ‘Qualified Health Plans’ meaning that you will be subject to the 1% of your MAGI penalty in 2014 if you purchase one of these plans. That stated the premium difference between these plans and ‘Qualified Health Plans’ is significant. Far outweighing the additional fine you would pay to the IRS in most cases.

To run quotes for a Temporary health insurance plan off the exchange click the banner below:

If that Temporary insurance quote engine does not work in your state click the banner below:

Very Important Note: Since the PPACA mandates that all health insurance policies cover preexisting conditions during the first national “Open Enrollment” period from 1/1/14 – 3/31/14 and the second national “Open Enrollment” period from 11/15/14 – 01/15/15. You can now safely purchase Temporary health insurance knowing that when your one year Temporary policy ends you will qualify by Federal law for any ‘Qualified Health Plan’ regardless of preexisting conditions during the second annual “Open Enrollment” period in 2014. Outside of those two aforementioned “Open Enrollment” periods you will not be able to obtain coverage for a preexisting condition. For this reason you must not purchase the 6 month Temporary health insurance option.

Only the 12 month Temporary insurance option is acceptable at this juncture. If you purchase a 6 month Temporary policy your coverage will end in between the two aforementioned “Open Enrollment” periods and you will not be able to obtain another policy that will cover a preexisting condition that you may develop during the first 6 months of Temporary policy ownership. HHS may yet provide us with further guidance as to whether or not the loss of a Temporary health plan outside of “Open Enrollment” periods will qualify as a “Special Enrollment” period in 2014 so that one could obtain a “Qualified Health Plan” on a guaranteed issue basis outside of “Open Enrollment” periods. As of the date of this writing no such guidance has been received.

Technorati Tags: Speical Enrollment

Obamacare will double my monthly premium (according to Kaiser)

That’s  right… the Progressive website, the Daily Kos, reported that according to Kaiser, people’s healthcare premiums, under the new Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, are doubling for some.

Daily Kos: My wife and I just got our updates from Kaiser telling us what our 2014 rates will be. Her monthly has been $168 this year, mine $150. We have a high deductible. We are generally healthy people who don't go to the doctor often. I barely ever go. The insurance is in case of a major catastrophe.

Well, now, because of Obamacare, my wife's rate is gong to $302 per month and mine is jumping to $284.

I am canceling insurance for us and I am not paying any fucking penalty. What the hell kind of reform is this?

Oh, ok, if we qualify, we can get some government assistance. Great. So now I have to jump through another hoop to just chisel some of this off. And we don't qualify, anyway, so what's the point?

I never felt too good about how this was passed and what it entailed, but I figured if it saved Americans money, I could go along with it.

I don't know what to think now. This appears, in my experience, to not be a reform for the people.

What am I missing?

I realize I will probably get screamed at for posting this, but I can't imagine I am the only Californian who just received a rate increase from Kaiser based on these new laws.

UPDATE: Updated the title per some requests. I appreciate all the helpful comments. I am   now on baby duty but will go through these later for more information. I can't keep up with all the comments right now.

I really do appreciate the helpful comments. Peace all. Peace out.

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,ObamaCare costs,ObamaCare surprises,Kaiser,Healthcare Premiums,Affordable Care Act,wake-up,ACA,Socialized Medicine,ObamaCare lies,Get-Involved

Stunner! State to help infertile 'gay' duos

That’s right folks… proposal would extend treatments to homosexuals, lesbians… really?

Rush Limbaugh: “I know you're scratching your head. "Wait, wait, wait. There's no such thing as 'gay infertility.'" Oh, yes, there is now. The language doesn't mean anything anymore, folks. Truth doesn't mean anything anymore.”

Majority Democrats in the California legislature over the years have demanded that school children celebrate the life of homosexual activist and reported sexual predator Harvey Milk.

They’ve also demanded that children as young as 5th grade be taught any consensual sexual behavior is “safe” as long as you “protect” yourself. And bisexuality and transexuality are “normal.”

But the state’s new proposal, AB 460, the “Health care coverage: infertility” proposal by California homosexual advocate Tom Ammiano takes the state’s pro-homosexual actions to a whole new level.

AB 460 would extend the idea of “non-discrimination” to homosexuals and lesbians regarding fertility, allowing them to be classified as “infertile” if they are unable “to conceive a pregnancy or to carry a pregnancy to a live birth after a year or more of regular sexual relations without contraception.”

They would then be eligible for insurance coverage for “treatment of infertility, except in vitro fertilization, under those terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between the group subscriber or the group policyholder and the plan or the insurer.”

“Coverage for the treatment of infertility shall be offered and provided without discrimination on the basis of age, ancestry, color, disability, domestic partner status, gender, gender expression, gender identity, genetic information, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.”

“No wonder California taxpayers are going bankrupt,” said a commentary at Breitbart.com. “Even biology must take a back seat to political leftism now.”

The commentary said the legislation’s “fact sheet” notes that insurance companies are refusing coverage “based on[the policy holder's] not having an opposite sex married partner with which to have one year of regular sexual relations without conception.”

Pondered Breitbart.com, “Makes sense, due to biology.”

The proposed change would apply the requirement that insurance companies provide benefits for “Treatment for infertility,” which includes “procedures consistent with established medical practices in the treatment of infertility by licensed physicians and surgeons, including, but not limited to, diagnosis, diagnostic tests, medication, surgery, and gamete intrafallopian transfer…”

It applies to homosexuals and lesbians alike the provision, “For purposes of this section, ‘infertility’ means either (1) the presence of a demonstrated condition recognized by a licensed physician and surgeon as a cause of infertility, or (2) the inability to conceive a pregnancy or to carry a pregnancy to a live birth after a year or more of regular sexual relations without contraception.”

California has a long record of legislatively promoting homosexuality and other alternative lifestyles. Just last year lawmakers demanded that any counseling involving sexual orientation change for minors be banned – even if the minor and the minor’s parents requested it.

That law is on hold while it is fought over in court.

It would require all counselors dealing with minors to affirm homosexuality and all its variations under all circumstances, regardless of the requests of the minor or his or her parents.

Earlier, the California lawmakers’ pursuit of a free-sex atmosphere in public schools and elsewhere included a vote in which the majority Democrats killed a plan that would have cracked down on intimate relationships between school teachers and their students.

The unsuccessful Assembly Bill 1861 would have made it a felony if any teacher or employee of a public or private school “engages in a sexual relationship or inappropriate communications with a pupil.”

Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, has created a Rescue Your Child website, which encourages parents to seek out church schools or homeschooling options for their children.

His group explains that already in California’s public schools children as young as 5th and 7th grades are told they have the “individual” and “personal” right to engage in “respectful” sexual activity with anyone as long as it is consensual and males wear a condom.

California has adopted numerous sexual indoctrination bills, including SB48, which requires positive portrayals of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons in public school social studies and history classes.

Others cited by Thomasson’s group:

• SB 543, signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2010, “allows school staff to remove children ages 12 and up from government schools and taken off-campus for counseling sessions, without parental permission or involvement. The purpose is to permit pro-homosexuality teachers and administrators to remove sexually confused children in 6th grade and up from campus and take them to pro-homosexuality counselors who will encourage them to embrace the homosexual lifestyle.”
• ACR 82, approved by the California Legislature in 2010, “creates de facto ‘morality-free zones’ at participating schools (pre-kindergarten through public universities). Schools that become official ‘Discrimination-Free Zones’ will ‘enact procedures’ (including mandatory counseling) against students from pre-kindergarten on up who are accused of ‘hate,’ ‘intolerance,’ or ‘discrimination’.” What is the hate? Peacefully speaking or writing against the unnatural lifestyles choices of homosexuality and bisexuality.
• SB 572, signed by Schwarzenegger in 2009, establishes “Harvey Milk Day” in K-12 California public schools and community colleges. In classrooms, schools and school districts that participate, children will now be taught to admire the life and values of late homosexual activist and teen predator Harvey Milk of San Francisco the month of May.
• SB 777, signed by Schwarzenegger in 2007, prohibits all public school instruction and every school activity from “promoting a discriminatory bias” against (effectively requiring positive depictions of) transsexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality to schoolchildren as young as five years old. SB 777 means children will be taught their “gender” is a matter of choice.
• AB 394, signed by Schwarzenegger in 2007, effectively promotes transsexual, bisexual and homosexual indoctrination of students, parents and teachers via “anti-harassment” and “anti-discrimination” materials, to be publicized in classrooms and assemblies, posted on walls, incorporated into curricula on school websites, and distributed in handouts to take home.
• SB 71, signed by Gov. Gray Davis in 2003 and implemented in 2008 through the new “sexual health” standards approved by appointees of Schwarzenegger and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell, teaches children as young as 5th grade that any consensual sexual behavior is “safe” as long as you “protect” yourself with a condom, and teaches children that homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality is “normal.”
• AB 1785, signed by Davis in 2000, required the California State Board of Education to alter the state curriculum frameworks to include and require “human relations education” for children in K-12 public schools, with the aim of “fostering an appreciation of the diversity of California’s population and discouraging the development of discriminatory attitudes and practices,” according to the state legislative counsel’s digest.
• AB 537, signed by Davis in 1999, permits teachers and students to openly proclaim and display their homosexuality, bisexuality or transsexuality, even permitting cross-dressing teachers, school employees and student on campus, in classrooms, and in restrooms.

The state legislature even demanded earlier students in public schools every year honor Harvey Milk, a homosexual activist and reported sexual predator, as well as an advocate for Jim Jones, leader of the massacred hundreds in Jonestown, Guyana.

In honoring Milk, schools are advocating for the acceptance of what Milk sought: the entire homosexual, bisexual and cross-dressing agenda; a refusal to acknowledge sexually transmitted diseases spread by the behavior; his behavior as “a sexual predator of teenage boys, most of them runaways with drug problems”; advocacy for multiple sexual relationships at one time; and “lying to get ahead”; according to SaveCalifornia.com.

A 1982 biography of Milk tells of a 16-year-old named McKinley, who “was looking for some kind of father figure.”

“At 33, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him,” the book says.

It also states, “It would be to boyish-looking men in their late teens and early 20s that Milk would be attracted for the rest of his life.”

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Gay infertility. It is... (chuckles) It's about mandated insurance coverage for the inability to have babies. I know you're scratching your head. "Wait, wait, wait. There's no such thing as 'gay infertility.'" Oh, yes, there is now. The language doesn't mean anything anymore, folks. Truth doesn't mean anything anymore.

Language doesn't mean anything.

So if a bunch of activists want to create the concept of "gay infertility" and then tax all the rest of us to compensate them for the fact that they can't have babies, then that's gonna happen. You haven't missed anything yet. I'm just teasing you as to what's coming. Gays now think it's not fair they can't have babies, so they're calling that "infertility," and it will require mandatory health insurance because of it. (interruption) Yeah, I know they're not infertile but that doesn't matter; they can't have babies.

Even after they're married, they can't do it -- and that's not fair to them. That is culturally unfair. (interruption) Well, you mean the guy with the artificial womb? (interruption) Oh, that guy? Yeah, yeah, yeah. That guy. Well, I don't think they all want to go through that. See, that's the point. They'd have to do mastectomies, chopadicoffamies, addadictomies. They don't want to have to do all that. It's just gonna be easier to... (interruption) Folks, if you're thinking this never gonna happen, it's time to wake up. Time to wake up.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, gay infertility. Are you paying attention? This is from Front Page magazine, this David Horowitz's great publication. "It’s interesting sometimes to read about the last days of past civilizations. It’s hard not to notice during these readings that those last days were filled with completely irrational ideas and behaviors that could not be explained in any way outside of a mass collapse of reason." And boy, are we seemingly there.

You know, most societies die of suicide, not attack. Did you know that? Most societies wipe themselves out and it's interesting to read about the last days of past civilizations. You'll note that the last days of past civilizations were filled with idiotic, irrational ideas and behaviors that couldn't be explained by reason.

"In entirely unrelated news, there’s a new proposal to mandate coverage for gay infertility. The problem is that gay infertility is just biology. Two men and two women are not infertile. They’re just not capable of impregnating each other. This isn’t a medical problem. It’s a mental problem." It's a physiological problem.

"Infertility is meant to cover natural couples who would be capable of conceiving a child if not for medical problems. Gay rights activists will predictably argue that couples in which one partner has deeper medical problems may also be covered, but that is only as part of a larger set of natural couples."

What they're getting at here is that infertility coverage for heterosexual couples, it's not fair that coverage is not available to gay couples. And you say, "Wait a minute, gay couples are not infertile. They just, by definition, can't have baby." Doesn't matter. It's not fair that they can't have babies when other people can. It's not fair that gay couples can't have babies, and so we want access to infertility coverage. This is gonna be the next push according to this story in the magazine.

"Come on, Rush, it's never gonna happen."

Never gonna happen, right?

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Hey, Mike, you know, I just thought of something, as quickly as you can, grab Klaus Nomi. I may as well do a full-fledged gay community update on this infertility business. I may as well go all in, uh, all the way, uh, dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut. We'll get to Mitch McConnell's office being bugged by the Democrats here just a second, folks, but first a gay community update on infertility insurance. Here's our theme, Klaus Nomi singing.

(playing of song)

The Rush Limbaugh program.

(Continued playing of song)

All right. Let 'er rip here, man.

(continued playing of song)

It is a story at the Front Page magazine, it's on their website: "'Gay Infertility' is the New Mandatory Health Insurance Frontier ... Now that we’ve decided that gay marriage is a real thing, biology be damned." Because if gay marriage is a real thing, gay infertility must be a real thing. It's not fair. I mean, it wasn't fair they couldn't get married, and now it's not fair that they can't have babies, even though they're not infertile, that doesn't matter. And so there must be access to infertility insurance for married gay couples, if our culture and if our society is to be fair and equal for one and all, and it is coming, and don't laugh about it.

(continued playing of song)

Okay, folks, they're gonna get really revved up here now.

(continued playing of song)

Klaus Nomi everybody, let's hear it, Klaus Nomi. You Don't Own Me. That's a cover, the old Lesley Gore tune, one of our all-time first favorite feminist update themes, by the way. I'm telling you, it's a genuine story in Front Page magazine, it's by Daniel Greenfield and he's heard rumblings of this and is writing about it, and is effectively predicting it.

"Now that we’ve decided that gay marriage is a real thing, biology be damned. Gay infertility must also be a real thing. And you must also pay for it. Should health insurers be legally required to offer infertility treatment for gay couples? Yes, according to a bill (AB 460) filed in the California legislature by assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco)."

So it's already a proposed piece of legislation. In fact, refusing to offer infertility treatment for gay couples, should be a crime according to this bill.

"Current California law requires group health plans to offer coverage for infertility treatments with the exception of in vitro fertilization (IVF). If such coverage is purchased, benefits must be paid whenever 'a demonstrated condition recognized by a licensed physician and surgeon as a cause for infertility' has been diagnosed -- or upon 'the inability to conceive a pregnancy or to carry a pregnancy to a live birth after a year of regular sexual relations without contraception.'"

So the bill says that if two people engage in sexual relations, two people, not two heterosexual couples, if two people engage in regular sexual relations and after a year there is no conception, that couple's entitled to infertility compensation. And since gay couples will be married and will engage in sexual relations and will not conceive, then they will be entitled to infertility compensation, and California taxpayers will pay for it.

"According to the fact sheet supporting AB 460, the trouble is that some insurance companies 'are not complying with current law that prohibits discrimination' based on sexual orientation."

So you see, whether the couple is the gay or not is irrelevant if after a year there is no conception. Hello, insurance.

But as Daniel Greenfield writes: "But why stop there? Once we’ve determined that 70-year-olds and gay men are equally entitled to infertility treatments, not to mention people paralyzed from the waist down and 3-year-olds… it’s time to extend the civil right of a medical treatment meant to help biologically compatible couples to people trying to impregnate," anything else. "If we’re going to treat biology like a bad joke, why stop at the human species line?"

And this sort of melds with what the actor Jeremy Irons was asking as a Libertarian. He said (paraphrasing), "Wait a minute, now, what's to stop a father from marrying a son so as to escape estate taxes on the death of the father? I mean, what's to stop that? Who is to say a father can't marry his son?" And somebody said, "Well, that would be incest, and there are laws against incest." Jeremy Irons said, "No, no, there wouldn't be incest here because there isn't any procreation." A father and son marriage will not produce kids, but it will get infertility coverage. And a father and son marriage would be a pretty clever way of avoiding estate tax upon the death of the father. And who's to say that the father and son should be denied the love that they obviously have for one another? Is it wrong to love another man?

I have been asked this frequently on the golf course after sinking a long put and saving a hole. Is it wrong to love another man? Of course not. It's not. And is it wrong to love your son, marry your son, to avoid paying taxes? Of course the people that would probably do this are people on the left who want everybody to pay more taxes. But that's just a slight contradiction, we'll deal with that later.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I have a question about gay infertility. "If the treatments work, how do we deal with gay abortions?" Can there be gay abortions if there's no...? Gee, I'm confused. Would we pay for abortions if they change their minds? Gay couples. (sigh) I'm sorry. I've now lost the ability to follow my own train of thought. (interruption) "Stabbing Reported on a Texas College Campus." Eight victims, one arrest. (interruption) A stabbing, eight victims? In a stabbing? (interruption) Wait a minute. You're taking me now from whether or not we're gonna cover gay abortions in the infertility case to eight victims in a stabbing on a Texas college campus. (interruption) No, I know there's no magazine, and there's no clip, but... (interruption)

Well, I guess we're making it harder to gun down our kids.

Okay, Ryan in Cokeville, Wyoming. Let's grab a phone call here before it's too late. Ryan, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello, sir.

CALLER: Thank you, Rush. It was a pleasure to be on hold during your obscene profit break. Hey, the real issue with this gay infertility is that the human anatomy is a bigot. That's the real issue.

RUSH: Yeah, I could see that. The human anatomy is the bigot.

CALLER: Yes. The human anatomy is a bigot. We're born and we discriminate by the very definition of the human anatomy.

RUSH: I can't find any fault with that, folks. I really can't.

CALLER: In the spirit of fairness, Rush, I've got a solution here, and the solution is that we need to push some federal legislation mandating that the human anatomy come from the womb gender neutral. This will make everything fair. This will make the anatomy so that it's not a bigot anymore. To get the RINOs on board, we just need a grandfather clause so that those of you born before this legislation passes can keep our gender.

RUSH: Yeah, that's a key element here. If you don't grandfather this in, a lot of us would be really confused.

CALLER: (laughing) Yeah, exactly.

RUSH: Excellent point. So what we need is, human anatomy must come from the womb gender neutral?

CALLER: Yes, that solves the whole problem.

RUSH: Now, for people in Rio Linda, could you explain that?

CALLER: Well, I guess it's kind of difficult to explain but the primary purpose is that so that there's no more bigotry from the human anatomy.

RUSH: Yeah, but what's "gender-neutral anatomy"?

CALLER: Well, if you're not born male or female, and this anatomy can procreate, then it doesn't matter if you're gay, straight, or whatever. Everyone can procreate and there's no bigotry, and all is well.

RUSH: Okay, so all we gotta do is figure out how to give birth to a gender-neutral anatomy?

CALLER: Yes, and we'll mandate that federally so that, you know, it'll just happen.

RUSH: Yeah. Good. Good idea. I'm jealous I didn't think of this.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here's Lauren in Morgan Hills, California. Lauren, glad you called. Thanks for waiting. You're on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Well, mega dittos, Maha Rushie.

RUSH: Thank you very much.

CALLER: Thanks so much for everything you do. I learn something new every day. First-time caller. This Tom Ammiano proposal for the California Assembly is really outrageous.

RUSH: Infertility insurance coverage for gay couples, yeah.

CALLER: Infertility insurance. Let me tell you. We are a mixed-race couple. I'm Chinese-American, and my husband is American mutt. It took us about eight and a half years before --

RUSH: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Whoa. I just want to make sure I'm hearing this right. You are Chinese-American and your husband is "American mutt"?

CALLER: Right. He's Irish, Italian, (garbled).

RUSH: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. He's a white guy. Okay.

CALLER: A little bit of everything in there.

RUSH: Right.

CALLER: We did not know for some time that we were both infertile, and our internist -- we saw the same one -- she said, "Well, I am seeing a specialist, and I recommend him highly." We come to find out that both of us required infertility treatment and the odds were probably 4% that we would ever conceive naturally. Well, we were devastated. We hadn't planned for this. You know, we didn't think that... We were healthy. We're in the middle of our thirties. So we went to this great specialist and thank God --

RUSH: Yeah, but did you have infertility coverage?

CALLER: We did not. I worked for an evil corporation. My husband worked for an evil corporation. I had an SSA program, an account, and we utilized that -- and our savings -- to cover the cost of testing. There's a lot of blood testing.

RUSH: Let me guess. Let me guess. You and your husband have tried very hard; you've not been able to have babies. You found out you're infertile. It's been an arduous thing to endure, to deal with, to pay for, and so forth -- and you're insulted here that your circumstance can be just automatically blanket applied?

CALLER: Offended. Offended completely, and it's a mockery to those of us who have gone through fertility treatment. There's a huge range. You cannot imagine, Rush, what can be done even when the odds are minuscule, like the way we did. So my husband was on a prescription. I was on a prescription.

RUSH: Look, I totally understand. You have a real problem. You have a real, genuine problem, you and your husband -- who, by the way, when you said "American mutt," I was worried for a moment that you'd married your dog. But now I know that that's not the case. You and your... (interruption) Well, "American mutt," see... (interruption) Yeah, I know. Not yet. You and your husband have this real, genuine problem that is emotionally draining and so forth.

Now all of a sudden, just because some people want some money, there's a bill before the California legislature --the assembly -- to treat any couple who's failed to conceive after one year of sex, to grant them access to infertility coverage, treatment. I'd be offended if I were you, too. It's trivializing your real life circumstance, in exchange for a money grab. So I know exactly how you feel and I want you to know that. We feel for you and we all here wish you the best, Lauren. Thanks much.

END TRANSCRIPT

Technorati Tags: infertility,treatment for infertility,you be the judge,death of common sense,Rush Limbaugh,Obamaland,gay infertility,health insurance,health insurance coverage,sexual preditors,California