When I talk about people being “screwed” by Obamacare, I’m generally referring to taxpayers who will bear a heavier fiscal burden and consumers who will pay more to get less.
But maybe we need to use a more elastic definition because some Obamacare proponents are using sex as a selling point to trick young people into buying over-priced insurance through exchanges.
Chris Moody of Yahoo! News reports that subsidized birth control is the focus.
From the folks who brought you the “brosurance” campaign that promotes the affordable care act comes a new line of ads aimed at reminding young women the new law will subsidize their birth control. The online ads were created by two nonprofit groups, the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative and Progress Now, to encourage young people to enroll in the exchanges.
And the ads are not exactly subtle. Here’s an example, presumably modeled after the “got milk?” campaign.
As an unmarried male, I theoretically should support anything that makes females easier to obtain, but instead this ad campaign is disconcerting on several levels.
1. I don’t like government either promoting sex or discouraging sex. Simply stated, it’s not their business. Though if some group wants to discourage sex by making it less enjoyable, then linking it to government might work like magic.
2. I don’t like the absurdity of using insurance for routine medical expenses. We don’t use auto insurance for oil changes and we don’t use homeowner’s insurance to repaint the dining room. The same principle should exist for health insurance, with policies only covering large and unexpected bills. That’s how a genuine market works, but Obamacare will take us farther down the path of third-party payer, which means more inefficiency and rising costs.
3. And I don’t like Obamacare, so it goes without saying that don’t like anything of the law’s features. The one time I wrote something nice about Obamacare, I included so many caveats that I’m pretty sure I preserved my anti-Obamacare virginity.
But it’s not just the Colorado Obamacare exchange that is linking sex with Obamacare. The private sector also is getting involved.
Sugar daddies are using government-run healthcare to go after young women.
Here’s a blurb from a report by the local CBS station in Dallas.
The online dating website Seeking Arrangement is launching the new campaign in Dallas, targeting young and healthy women who are now set to pay higher health insurance premiums under the recently launched Affordable Care Act. The new law is projected to increase insurance prices by an average of 41 percent next year, the website states. They want to offer women a “sweeter” plan. Seeking Arrangement suggests that women use their service to connect with a “sugar daddy” who can offset some of the new healthcare related costs. The website has earned a reputation for urging female college students and single mothers to meet men who are willing to offer money and expensive gifts for companionship.
The website is even posting a billboard.
As I wrote above, I don’t think it’s government’s job to interfere with the decisions of consenting adults regarding sex. But I’m old-fashioned enough to think that it’s wrong if the government makes the healthcare system so convoluted and expensive that young women are encouraged to seek out rich older men merely to deal with the higher costs of Obamacare.
Some readers may joke that I might feel differently if I was rich rather than merely old, but we libertarians are a purist bunch. I don’t want to benefit from state intervention. Heck, I’ve already said I’d be happy to get rid of the mortgage interest deduction in the tax code, even though I’m a beneficiary.
P.S. Since we’re on the topic of sex and government-run healthcare, here’s what Mark Steyn wrote about pornography and government-imposed health rules.
P.P.S. Don’t forget that Obamacare allows taxpayer-financed Viagra for sex offenders.
P.P.P.S. And I’m sure we’re all delighted that the government wants a database about our sex lives.
P.P.P.P.S. Our British cousins already link healthcare and sex, with government-provided breast augmentation as well as taxpayer-financed sex trips to Amsterdam.
P.P.P.P.P.S. Remember Sandra Fluke, the 30-yr. old college student who whined that birth control wasn’t being subsidized? Well, you can remember her ignoble role and enjoy some laughs with this great Reason video, this funny cartoon, and four more jokes here.
[…] with the unfortunate nexus between sex and government. You can find columns about taxes and sex, Obamacare and sex, and licensing and […]
[…] it is very bureaucratic and inefficient to use insurance for routine medical expenses. Sort of like using auto insurance to cover the cost […]
[…] is so costly that some young women are looking for sugar […]
[…] is so costly that some young women are looking for sugar […]
[…] being so costly that some young women are looking for sugar […]
[…] anything has to be better pro-Obamacare marketing than Pajama Boy or casual sex (because big government can take the fun out of […]
[…] for instance, the White House’s new effort to trick young people into buying over-priced health insurance policies (humorously depicted here). It features this […]
Trouble with Obamacare is it’s not about healthcare, it’s about insurance. Now the government already messed with our insurance once before, and I recall it taking years to recover (I’m old enough to remember the HMO debacle of the 80’s). Insurance companies are still a little tender from that. Seems it used to be that the attitude was that if you’re stupid enough not to provide for your OWN insurance, and something happened, it was considered your own silly fault. Now, it’s supposed to be the responsibility of hard working Americans to take care of those who don’t care to take care of themselves. Like driving a car- you don’t buy insurance, and it gets totaled, then you’re out of luck. Same with your health- analyze your own risks and decide if the expense is worth the potential downside. Those who take care of themselves might decide they’d rather have the money…
Give them credit – they know their target audience – brain dead losers looking for handouts
under the aca… are taxpayers now expected to pay for all manner of risk reducing measures associated with dangerous voluntary recreational activities? or is it just sex that gets the subsidy? and we all know that recreational sex is an important element in overall good psychological health… with the aca’s pointed emphasis on improving America’s mental health… will insurance cover sex therapists? ………………..hookers?
So Obama’s legacy is: He helped take away one more lame excuse that girls used for refusing to put out. Obama: The president who set out to make cheap sex easier.
The most disturbing part is that they are “hot to trot” what millennial says that?
Sandra Fluke obviously consulted on this ad campaign.
Sexual integrity is one component of moral integrity. If a person would have sex with someone for the sake of money, they will be likely to lie or steal for the sake of money. It breaks my heart to see our institutions of higher learning being a party to the prostituting of a whole generation of women, especially women who think of themselves as being educated and liberated.
The wisdom of the ages teaches that moral debasement is not a path to be followed instead of one to be made light of. Even common culture warns about the morals of whores, indeed the word carries that secondary meaning.
It doesn’t matter what the message is if people no longer trust the source.
Notice the * at the bottom of the Got Insurance ad? Too bad common sense didn’t protect us from Obamacare.