1. Why should men be charged for mammogram coverage? Why should a couple in their 5os be charged for child birth coverage? We pay for a lot of stuff that doesn’t make sense. There have been so many mandated covered items forced on us that insurance costs have gone through the roof and we’re all paying for it.

          • No offense taken. I’m sure my wife would buy Charlie a drink afterward. Like most husbands, I’m worth a helluva lot more dead than alive.

            I really do like Charlie and Tyler, I just want there to be a little more diversity on this blog. It seems like PP has simply become a “Deal Hater’s Club” these days.

            • B Balz says:

              Ditto that on Charlie, Tyler and diversity. I am glad others notice PP’s direction.

              I still notice that any comments I make don’t show up as “NEW” and direct readers to New Comments. Guess I am still in Purgatory.

              Did anyone notice that Galloway made a single phrase reference to the fact that there may be a significant number of write-in votes for a candidate not on the ballot? Guess the “Handel Lovers Club” is gearing up their massive push…

              Would a special election became necessary because enough folks wrote-in a non-existent candidate?

              • Charlie says:

                No, it would not. I posted about that a few weeks back.

                A write in vote for someone not “qualified” as a write in is not a vote. It does not count toward percentages when computing runoffs.

                As for your purgatory status, I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

                • B Balz says:

                  OK on one and two, missed your comment.

                  Maybe it is a local PC problem, but my comments do not show up as “NEW”. Gladly, you don’t know anything about it…

                  • Bucky Plyler says:

                    NEW NEW NEW !!!!!

                    No such thing as purgatory…no such thing as purgatory…sorry, there’s a glitch in the matrix.

  2. georgiaconservative33 says:

    So her ad is basically “Vote for me because I am not Ralph Hudgens?” I did not learn a single thing about her from the ad.

      • georgiaconservative33 says:

        I just visited her website, and I still do not know anything about what she wants to do as Insurance Commissioner.

  3. Melb says:

    luke the grifter – you must be different from every male that I know, because they all have breasts too and males get breast cancer. So glad to hear you are an evolved species. I could tell by your super intelligent posts.

    These things are all about prevention. They prevent diseases and catch them sooner. Women and men who get early detection end up saving healthcare costs for us all in the long run. People like to complain that the mandates raise their insurance rates, and they do, by about 1%. But those same mandates lower our taxes. If you do not get some of these test then some people will get sick, and they will go to state hospitals seeking treatment where the taxpayer will pick up the bill. A mammogram costs about $100, while treating someone with breast cancer costs $100k plus.

    People never know what health emergency is coming thier way.

    • Erick's Mortal Enemy says:

      I agree with Melb. Y’all are the same people yelling about Obamacare, talking about how we need to do more for prevention, etc. I’d rather not have universal coverage and have these sort of preventative measures covered.

      Fact is that the insurance industry is giving us a metaphorical prostate check every single day. There are some things bigger than “mandate,” “big government,” and whatever other buzzwords y’all are using nowadays. It’s called “morally right.”

      • Jeff says:

        So it is “morally right” to force me to pay for insurance coverage I don’t feel that I need, and quite possibly coverage that I cannot POSSIBLY ever need (forcing males to pay for pregnancy/mammogram/etc coverage)?

        It is morally right to force me to pay into the ponzi scheme known as “insurance” when I will NEVER get any benefit from it, so that someone else can benefit from MY money paid in?

        How about government simply treat me as the adult I am and let ME determine what is best for MY life?

        • polisavvy says:

          Unfortunately, Jeff, people really do feel that way. I happen to agree with you. Our health insurance is going up 12% next year — we already pay $1700 a month. Should we really be forced to take on the problems of someone else? We have our own.

        • Lady Thinker says:

          Women also pay for prostrate exams and we don’t have prostrates. Men pay for mammograms. It evens out.

  4. Jeff says:

    What is so wrong with people being able to choose what is or is not covered by their insurance?

    There is absolutely no problem with a person voluntarily choosing to pay for all of the mandates we currently have, as well as coverage for any other condition they wish.

    Where I have a problem is with government mandating that I pay for things I may find completely useless. Individual mandate, anyone?

    • Well the ultimate mandate example to me is lime disease. In Georgia, it is not mandated and it’s pretty rare that anyone gets that down here. In Connecticut it is a mandate and I presume is more common.

      Say that Connecticut residents could “buy insurance across state lines” and flooded the Georgia market where insurance is 1% cheaper because there is no lime disease coverage. Once one of those people gets lime disease who do you think pays when they go to the hospital to get treated and don’t have insurance? Ideally they pay for their foolishness, but more often than not I bet the taxpayer gets the bill (one way or another).

      What’s the solution there?

      By the way, I’m all for Georgia finding other states that have a similar menu of mandates and grouping together with them to form an exchange under the new healthcare law, but Georgia Republican likely won’t do anything proactive on that lest they be seen as implementing “OBAMACARE”.

      • Doug Grammer says:

        With the 2,000 page healthcare bill known as Obamacare, one thing was glaringly missing: Tort reform. Tort reform = lower insurance for doctors = lower medical costs. Trial lawyers like Gov. Roy Barnes can’t back that idea.

        That being said, I will never support a federal bill that taxes me for living. I think the SCOTUS will strike at least parts of it down.

        There is nothing that requires the state of Georgia to do anything under the new healthcare law. We could work with other states 0n our own.

        (Disclaimer, I have not read all 2,000 pages and there is probably a section that requires Georgia to neuter a bulldog if UGA were to play Illinois State and win.)

        • kyleinatl says:

          But Doug,

          We’ve had Tort Reform in Georgia for years and the effect on healthcare cost has been negligible, if non-existent.

          Tort reform isn’t the tail on the dog, it’s not even the end of the tail…that’s not to say it isn’t worth pursuing, but brother, it ain’t the answer.

  5. Howard Roark says:

    This advertisement will never see the light of day in the Atlanta, Macon, Columbus, Savannah, Greenville or Chattanooga television markets.

    Look at Senator Hudgens SEC account. He could go on TV if needed in all Georgia markets. He does not need to so he can save his money.

    • B Balz says:

      Hudgins, Deal, Olens form a powerful set of oppo for new HC laws.

      I am not going to judge that as good or bad, but I will say it right now:

      “Be careful of what you wish for.”

    • stephaniemills21 says:


      Then you better not turn on you TV today, as this commercial is going on TV with an ad buy that is about on par with Hudgens.

    • kyleinatl says:

      We all play a part in the blame for why our Health Care cost-curve is so out of control: The Pharmas, the Insurance Companies, the government and the consumer…it’s going to take one of two solutions to fix the problems we’re facing in terms of actual cost, either single-payer (which nobody but the most liberal of us want) or the Federal government is going to have to work with the pharmaceutical and medical industry to incentivize bringing down costs, thusly in an attempt to bring down monthly premiums and co-pays and make health insurance a more attractive thing for the consumer to actually take responsibility and purchase.

      I know it’s not that simple, but something’s gotta get done.

      • High deductible HSA’s are the way to go. Tell people basically if you have something so bad happen to you that it costs tens of thousands of dollars we’ve got you covered. But in the meantime, use your own tax free savings/contributions to pay for non-emergency and preventive care.

        I believe Indiana even converted some of its Medicaid population to HSA’s. This is the kind of solution that Republicans would offer to implement if they were actually serious about getting anything done and not just screaming about socialism advancing.

        • kyleinatl says:

          But they have to be actually usable HSA’s, I can recall a time that my significant other could not use her HSA when she stayed at the Emergency room overnight due to some technicality that I sadly cannot recall. But I agree, we use health insurance for far, far too much…but I would also argue the specialist I saw about 3 months ago shouldn’t be charging 400 dollars for five minutes of his time either. I realize we want the best and brightest in the medical profession…but come on…

          • analogkid says:

            Can anyone recommend a good HSA? I looked into BofA’s and they charge a monthly service fee of $5-ish. While you receive interest on the balance (around 1% I believe), you have to have a good $10k in the account to come out ahead after fees.

        • NoTeabagging says:

          Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t HSA funds only available the year you contribute and you can only contribute up to the amount you will spend for that year? After that year, you have to rollover any excess funds to an IRA and start over with your HSA fund. I wish we could actually have an HSA that you could add to every year and then draw money out many year’s later for medical purposes, as needed. Why not just create a yearly tax deduction if HSA’s are on a yearly basis?

          • analogkid says:

            You’re thinking of a Health Spending Account. What’s commonly referred to as an “HSA” (same initials) is a Health Savings Account, which does roll over. You have to have a high deductible plan to qualify for an HSA however.

      • NoTeabagging says:

        I agree, I wanted health Insurance reform, not health care reform.
        The insurance companies are out of control and do everything they can to avoid paying for services.

  6. JasonW says:

    I worked with certain GOP women in the house this past session exactly on this issue and the issue that was of concern to a few INITIALLY was this issue with regards to allowing insurance to be sold across state lines. Some were under the assumption that that would be the issue because people would buy insurance from the cheapest states without knowledge of the lack of coverage of mammograms. Until they learned that 49 states plus DC mandate Mammogram coverage. They proceeded to realize that most other mandates of concern were required in the vast majority of states, and that changed their minds…they were also upset they weren’t told that information by the democratic women.

Comments are closed.