Town Square

Post a New Topic

More women to get health services under new law

Original post made on Aug 1, 2012

Access to women's health services expanded on Wednesday, Aug. 1, due to the federal Affordable Care Act. The guaranteed services are part of a package of preventative services in the act designed to help underserved populations avoid or reduce the impact of serious chronic diseases.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, August 1, 2012, 5:30 PM

Comments (23)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by There-Is-No-Such-Thing-As-A-Free-Lunch
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 1, 2012 at 6:30 pm

What exactly does "access" mean? Women have always been able to walk into any health care facility and pay for these services. There is nothing in this law that overturns bans on doctors/health care providers making these services available to pay who wanted to pay for them.

> "Forty-seven million women across the country, including 5
> million women in California, will now receive important
> preventive services without co-pay because of the new health
> care law. With these new provisions, women will no longer need
> to forgo preventive services to stay healthy, catch potentially
> life-threatening illnesses earlier, and protect against
> prohibitive medical costs," she stated.

So .. the issue is "free" health care. Why should these millions of woman be expected to pay for their health care (no matter how small the actual costs are), when they have Anna Eshoo passing taxes on people who are not generally users of health care to now be obligated to pay hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes to take care of "women" who don't seem to understand what their obligations to themselves, and the financial stability of the nation is?

Anna Eshoo is such an embarrassment. And the Weekly doesn't seem to understand the issues either, based on their lack of noting that this law passes massive taxes on people who are already paying heavy taxes.

While Eshoo has been in Washington, the National Debt has increased to about $15+T. All of this "free" health care will only drive this debt up, and up, and up.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by thank you
a resident of College Terrace
on Aug 1, 2012 at 6:40 pm

Thank you Rep. Eshoo. Health insurance is increasingly difficult to find, even at outrageously high prices. Poor levels of health in the general population can only lead to a decline in our society at large. Thank you to Rep. Eshoo and others for pushing for meaningful healthcare reform.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Neal
a resident of Community Center
on Aug 1, 2012 at 6:52 pm

I agree with There-is-no-such-thing-as-a-free-lunch. Obamacare will in no way shape or form reduce the cost of health care as promised.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by neighbor
a resident of another community
on Aug 1, 2012 at 7:00 pm

To the writer of the first comment letter: Women's birth control is now covered, whereas men's Viagra always was.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Skeptical
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 2, 2012 at 4:43 am

@neighbor -- it's interesting that you equate Viagra, which treats male erectile dysfunction, with women's birth control. You feel that female fertility is a medical dysfunction?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Aug 2, 2012 at 8:02 am

Neal and TINSTAAFL: right on.I wish we could just buy the insurance that covers what we WANT to pay for, not what everyone else wants.

I am particularly appalled that now, a firm believer against abortion under 99% of circumstances as the worse of 2 evils, am now forced to pay for abortifacients for others. Add this to the ever growing list of "insurance" I have to pay for services I will never wish to use and never have. One way to lessen insurance costs is to allow me to choose to insure against what I wish, and take good care of myself ( like a good driver premium reduction) by not smoking or being fat etc. Instead, our lovely government(s) keep piling on mandated coverages, increasing my out of pocket costs.Forcing me to buy a Jaguar instead of letting me buy a Ford Focus.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by A Noun Ea Mus
a resident of Professorville
on Aug 2, 2012 at 1:33 pm

Hey Perspective, not every ejaculation deserves a name.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Aug 2, 2012 at 2:49 pm

Noblesse oblige.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Obamacare rocks.
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Aug 2, 2012 at 2:59 pm

"Obamacare will in no way shape or form reduce the cost of health care as promised."

You 'feel' that way, or are you making the false claim? If you 'feel' that way, okay. If you are making the false claim, back it up.

Despite factual CBO evidence to the contrary.

Web Link

On top of all the long overdue women's health services, I got a $224 rebate because of Obamacare.

It rocks.

And it's the law.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 2, 2012 at 5:21 pm

@ Obamacare:

You wrote: "And it's the law."

Not for long. I hope that President Romney (after he is inaugurated) will dismantle this mess and replace it with something that is NOT designed behind closed doors, difficult to afford a mandatory hit like this by hurting middle class families and reflects what a majority of Americans want.

We didn't have to rush this legislation. If we were going to do it, we should have done it right.

I know that my opinion isn't popular with a majority in this area, but polls show that it is more aligned with the views of Americans as a whole.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ACA to stay
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Aug 2, 2012 at 5:49 pm

Obamacare is HELPING middle class families, most of all.

Besides that, your first premise is false. Romney, with his tax plan revealed, and his tax return troubles- having never revealed them to his own party- is already sliding in the swing states. By the time of the GOP convention, the writing will be on the electoral college wall, and the GOP will have to decide whether to stay with a sinking ship or choose someone new.

Obamacare will never be repealed even if he wins, because they have offered no replacement except Medicare with vouchers.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 2, 2012 at 11:16 pm

@ ACA to stay:

I disagree. As a member of the "middle class" (and not just the Palo Alto/SF Bay Area connotation of the term), I understand what this will cost our family. Right now, we cannot afford health insurance. We barely make ends meet at the end of each month. Now, we will be forced to come up with THOUSANDS of $$$ to pay for a now ever-increasing price of insurance. Even with the small subsidy that we will receive, where will we get the money to pay for what Obama, Pelosi & Co. required?

If we could have afforded insurance in the first place, we would have already purchased it. The mandate...tax...penalty...or whatever they want to call it...is a loss of financial freedom for our family. This financial strain won't matter to the politicians who designed this behind closed doors and then claimed that it needed to be quickly passed before it could be understood. They have better insurance than the rest of us anyway.

Now, you can spew nonsense all day about "tax return problems" from Governor Romney, but we all know that you are simply repeating nonsense. Governor Romney has survived many audits and has released his tax returns as often as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama.

Still, the perpetual attack on Governor Romney is a poor defense of four years of Barack Obama. If approval polls are any indication, Mr. Obama is not doing so well in the eyes of a majority of Americans. No one is saying that he is solely responsible for the financial mess that we are in (as a contrast to three years of finger pointing rhetoric that he directed at Mr. Bush). However, Mr. Obama made many great and far-reaching promises for which he will be called into account.

At this point, Obama is banking on an electoral college victory. However, much can happen between now and November. There will be debates. There will be new economic figures. Still, the vast majority of Americans are disappointed with the state of this nation, the direction that we are going and even the extremely messy and mediocre health care legislation that you claim is here to stay.

I know that I am in a minority here in my support for Romney. However, like many Americans, I am simply tired of the current Administration's utter ineffectiveness or vulgar attempts to exert larger federal control over things like health care and business. Obama has proven to be ineffective in this office. At this point, I am willing to try something new economically -- and I do believe that we need better direction and leadership on a moral front.

I don't believe that this nation can improve using the same "invisible" plan that Obama has been embracing along with his history of rabid deficit spending and his call for what would be business/investment-crippling taxes.

Again, I know that we differ in opinions. However, this nation is evenly split when it comes to Obama and Romney. Yet, a great majority believes that this nation is going the wrong way. They feel this now just as much as they felt in 2008 when 52.9% of voters elected an inexperienced but inspiring man. The reality of Obama was different than what many people expected.

I am growing increasingly confident that Governor Romney will be elected. Barring an "October Surprise," I suspect that the convention and announcement of a Vice Presidential running mate and clear policy goals during the "home stretch" will differentiate and energize many Americans.

Many minds are already made up. Most current polls have Romney already "certainly/almost certainly" garnering about 45% of the vote. Obama is "certainly/almost certainly" garnering 43%. At this point, Romney will only improve via the "energy" bounce from the convention, VP announcement and other efforts at publicizing his plans and agenda for a first term. With Obama, we will only see him either present more of the same...or continue to attack Romney.

I believe that we need a change. The change that was given to us in 2008 just wasn't what many Americans thought it would be...and many are experiencing "buyer's remorse." If Obama gained 52.9% of the vote in a year that was extremely favorable for him (at a time when the economy was terrible), what should he expect in 2012 when the economy is still a mess? The "It's not my fault" and "It will take more time that I said in 2008" excuses are just not going to cut it for millions of Americans.

I think that the election will be close. However, I think that if things spell out like I believe they will, Romney will gain nearly the same percentage of the national vote as Obama did in 2008. I suspect that Romney will win 52.7% of the vote and the same states that Bush won in 2000 plus Iowa and 1/4 of Maine.

If I am wrong, I will come back and admit it. However, I wouldn't mind revisiting this poll to see how close my prediction was.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ACA to stay
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Aug 3, 2012 at 1:49 am

Nayeli - My "defense of Obama" (and I am not a devout supporter) is primarily because Romney has pledged to follow Cheney/Bush policies. He has hired innumerable members of the Bush/Cheney team. When asked how he would differ from Bush/Cheny, he couldn't answer.

Romney = Bush

It's an easy choice for any American that can recall, or go back and review, the headlines from October, 2008.

What a disaster.

Regarding your confidence that Romney has a chance.... please, turn off the Fox.

Why are you looking at the national popular vote/polls? Look at the swing state polls. Romney is sliding so badly that thinking conservatives will be calling for his head at the convention.

Have you looked at the results of Romney's tax plan? The giveaway of middle class money to billionaires? I was wondering what the 'game-changer' would be. I think we now know.

Have a good evening...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Insurance
a resident of Barron Park
on Aug 3, 2012 at 10:00 am

For all of you who think health care will cost you more, I wish you could sit in on the budgeting meetings that resulted in health care costs being passed on to the employees as the cost of insurance was increasing faster than other line items. Your eyes would be opened to the reality of the health care issue.

It is very simple - health insurance is reverse gambling - you pay into it hoping to not need it. But if more and more people decide to gamble by not buying insurance (hoping as well that they will not need it), then the ratio of those submitting claims to those not increases to where those with insurance have to pay more (fewer people to share the cost). Additionally, hospitals have to charge more to cover the emergency costs of those without insurance (that could have prevented their emergency with preventive care).

Insurance companies negotiate rates based on their large volume of users - kind of like shopping at Costco instead of the mom & pop store. If you don't have insurance and go see a doctor for preventive care, you pay a premium (you do not get the negotiated rate). I have been there - I was charged 4 times what a friend's insurer paid (and the friend had no out of pocket cost).

For those of you who say you cannot afford health insurance, what are you going to do if a member of your family gets hurt, ill, or is diagnosed with a high cost disease. If you answer is you expect the OTHER tax payers to cover you - you are part of the problem.

If you are making your statement based on the current cost of individual health insurance, then pay more attention to the simple mathematical fact that the more people that have insurance, the less everyone will pay. Insurance rated WILL go down. Why do you think car insurers reward good drivers - the more good drivers they have, the lower they can keep their premiums and the more people they can attract.

Please wake up everyone!! Romney even got it when he supported similar state level legislation - but her learned he could not win the republican primary if he didn't turn his back to what he knew to be the truth. Our whole political system has issues when candidates bow to pressure.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 3, 2012 at 10:06 am

@ "ACA to stay:"

You can repeat that Romney is equal to Bush until you are blue in the face. However, Romney =/= Bush. Romney has CRITICIZED many of the policies of Bush and Obama. In fact, there are statements that he made in which he said that his policies will try to fix the mess from policies that both the Bush and Obama years caused.

I am not interested in returning to 2008. Like I said, the hysteria leading up to that election with hoopla and promises of "hope" and "change" haven't helped Obama's approval rating (which sits at 44% today). Rather, I am interested in returning to a better future.

We cannot improve if we continue the failed policies of the last five years (including four years of Obama and the last year of the Bush Administration). We can't continue the enlarging of the Federal Government, massive deficit spending and ever-increasing entitlement benefits.

And, please, enough with the "turn off Fox" hogwash. I could only WISH that I could afford cable television. I get my news from the internet...including an eclectic source ranging from the AP, Reuters, Huffington and Drudge. I am also smart enough to tell when I am being "led" by biased "news-tellers" too.

Yes, I have reviewed Romney's five step economic plan. There is no "giveaway of middle class money to billionaires." That is lofty propaganda, but tax rates that grow business by not taking even more from them at a time where businesses need to grow is NOT "giving away" something that belongs to the middle class. Like President Kennedy said, such a climate GIVES to workers through jobs and job security.

While it isn't quite full of details at this stage, it is already clearer and more concise (and, from my perspective, more favorable to the economy) than the nearly invisible "plan" of "hope and change" that we have been experiencing for four years.

I understand that you are a fan of the last four years. I am not. In fact, I am not a fan of the last six years. There are quite a few people like me. When we cut through all of the propaganda and spin, we are left with three choices. We can either vote for more of the same (Obama), something new (Romney) or choose either to stay home or vote for a third party. At this point, I would rather try something new.

Now, I suppose that you will try to convince me and others that Romney is the second coming of George W. Bush. I couldn't care less about such rhetoric. I know that it isn't true and many people feel the same. In fact, if anything, Romney will have the advantage of learning from the terrible mistakes of the Bush Administration and Obama Administration by refusing any policies that were detrimental to this nation.

Regardless, I am excited to see where this goes. I made my prediction and I wonder how accurate that it will turn out to be.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ACA to stay
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Aug 3, 2012 at 10:37 am

Yes, Romney is supporting Bush Cheney policies. Yes, Romney has hired legions of the Bush Cheney team, including the Bush Cheney gal who later did the PR for the BP oil spill, hired just this week. Last week, when asked how he was different than Bush, Romney prattled on about job training.


Nayali - "There is no "giveaway of middle class money to billionaires." That is lofty propaganda"

No, one of the studies co-authors is a Bush guy. From the thinktank that Romney called "credible" when he used it to attack Rick Perry 6 months ago.

The study, co-authored by a bushie: billionaires get tax cuts, middle class taxes go up. Web Link


"This paper examines the tradeoffs among three competing goals that are inherent in a revenue-neutral income tax reform—maintaining tax revenues, ensuring a progressive tax system, and lowering marginal tax rates—drawing on the example of the tax policies advanced in presidential candidate Mitt Romney's tax plan. Our major conclusion is that any revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by EPA
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Aug 3, 2012 at 10:39 am

Nayeli - romney IS cheney bush redux

You say romney has said he isn't. Tell us the differences or give us a link to the mitt page highlighting the vast differences


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 3, 2012 at 11:03 am

@ "ACA to stay:"

I don't even know where you are coming from. You are complaining about guilt by association when it comes to Romney and what you deplore as those devilish Bush men. First of all, although Bush wasn't the perfect president and made many, many mistakes, he wasn't the complete bumbling fool that some ideologues have desperately tried to convince Americans. He simply made some errors...many of which were continued by Obama (in addition to Obama's own errors). Secondly, I can think of a number of "questionable associations" by which to compare Obama with if I so desired.

Romney hasn't released all of the specifics of his tax and economic plans. However, neither has Obama. All that I -- and many other Americans know -- is that Obama's plan is not working like he promised...and might not be working at all. Market correction happens on its own by consumer and employer behavior. Sometimes, the type of government meddling actually HURTS a recovery. Besides, Obama's massive deficit spending certainly didn't help.

Besides, what would Obama's tax plan do to business? His own economic advisers (many of which since resigned) said that it would be "unwise" to raise taxes during economic times like the ones in which we live. However, what would corporate and upper income tax increases do to investments, job creation and business growth? It cannot encourage growth or greater employment. It can only give more of taxpayers' money to a federal government that has already proven itself to be a mediocre steward of what it already has.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Aquamarine
a resident of Stanford
on Aug 3, 2012 at 11:04 am

So maybe Nayeli should move somewhere less expensive in order to afford health insurance. That would happen anyway in the event of a serious illness or injury becaus she couldn't afford to stay in Palo Alto, one would think.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 3, 2012 at 11:05 am

@ EPA: The burden of proof does not fall on me to prove that your claims are incorrect. First, prove your point. Prove to me that Romney is "cheney bush redux" and I will then show you how you are simply parroting propaganda.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 3, 2012 at 11:07 am

@ Aquamarine:

The time may come when that must happen. However, I haven't had any serious illnesses yet. My husband and I haven't needed a hospital. If that time were to come (God forbid), I hope that the economy will have improved enough to where we have jobs and benefits and can afford insurance on our own -- rather than via tax/penalty compulsion of a group of politicians through an extremely unpopular piece of closed-door legislation.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ACA to stay
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Aug 3, 2012 at 11:58 am

Nayeli said "Romney hasn't released all of the specifics of his tax and economic plans"

Why hasn't Romney been transparent with his tax plan?

What is he hiding from Americans?

Same thing he's hiding in his tax returns?

Romney has been running for president for 7 years (arguably longer.) Romney promised on February 22 he would release specifics. He has not done so.

I can't help it if Romney is either a liar, a compulsive flipflopper, or is too afraid for the great American Middle Class to see his plan to raise their taxes (see study above) while giving tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.

Obama's tax cuts are out there for all to see - Obama wants EVERY American to have a new tax cut on their first $250,000 in income every year. Personally, I think that is too much of a tax cut in this time of deficit, but Obama is really trying to support the middle class, while republicans only care about tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.

* * * * * * * * *

I'll jump in on the "Romney IS BushCheny redux" point...

Romney is for giving tax cuts to billionaires, tax cuts to corporations without increasing revenues elsewhere, while increasing Defense and DHS spending $2 trillion, all of which will drive the deficit upward, cut the social safety net, wants to invade Iran, has dozens of Bush Cheney team on his staff, continues to hire more Bush Cheney team every week, and on and on. Romney met with Karl Rove last night at a fundraiser for Rove's anonymous superpacs.

All while Romney is unable to explain any substantive difference between himself and Bush Cheney polices.

Romney IS MOST DEFINITELY Bush Dick Cheney on steroids.

Don't run from that. You like it.

You prefer Dick Cheney and Dubya Bush over Obama.

Own it.

Of course, as America realizes it, we see swing state polls move steadily towards Obama in the last month.

That's the one area that Romney is more like McCain/Palin, everything else is Romney = Bush Cheney.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Aug 3, 2012 at 4:46 pm

Getting away from politics, about 9 comments above there's a claim of "the simple mathematical fact that the more people that have insurance, the less everyone will pay." Must have meant "the more HEALTHY people that have insurance...", as evidenced in the subsequent sentence by the car insurance analogy "the more GOOD drivers they have, the lower they can keep their premiums." [emphasis mine]

Is it legal to charge a healthy individual less for health insurance, like charging a good driver less? How about a healthy pool of individuals? What does Facebook pay for insuring a cadre of mostly young healthy males, compared to a company in a more mature industry?


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Cho's, beloved dim sum spot, to reopen in Los Altos
By Elena Kadvany | 8 comments | 5,567 views

Why I Became Active in Palo Alto Forward
By Steve Levy | 10 comments | 2,118 views

Early Decision Blues
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 1,618 views

Guest Post from HSSV: Adopt a Naughty Dog!
By Cathy Kirkman | 1 comment | 1,403 views

First Interview
By Sally Torbey | 5 comments | 740 views