Mammography Matters

I confess; campaigns depress me.

When I read The Federalist, and stop to think that those works represented the period equivalent of campaign flyers, the quality of the present discourse stands revealed in all its idiocy. While not the only offenders, Democrats specialize in campaigns designed to insult the intelligence of the electorate and, alas, all too often, the electorate proves that insulting its intelligence is a very difficult proposition.

Imagine being transported back to June, when Chris Christie became the GOP nominee. A Corzine campaign official approaches you and asks your opinion on the proposed Corzine strategy:

First, the Guv, who almost got himself killed while moving at Star Trek speed up the Parkway unbelted, will chide Christie on his driving record. Second, a man who was, quite literally, in bed with a state employee/union leader; who lent her hundreds of thousands, which he then forgave; who – inexplicably – felt compelled to arrive at a million-dollar financial settlement to break up with said girlfriend; who arranged a state job for her sibling; and who moved legal mountains to avoid disclosing e-mail correspondence with her in her, will castigate Christie on a wholly innocent loan to a friend. Lastly, a man who may well be the last unindicted elected official in the Democratic Party will imply that Christie lacks ethics?

And when you got up off the floor...?

What any of this has to do with either candidate’s qualifications to serve as Governor is not patent. Clearly realizing that the people despise Corzine’s policies, the left decided that its only hope lay in destroying Christie personally. Alas, the trivia they dredged up had, seemingly, precisely that effect.

To their credit, the Republicans have not been nearly as personally negative as have the Dems, concentrating their attacks on Corzine’s horrendous record as Governor. Then again, given Corzine’s abysmal approval ratings, GOP restraint might have resulted less from qualms about the tactic than from the realization that the 40% of the electorate which feasts on taxpayer largesse was unlikely to be dissuaded from their socialist benefactor.

But of all the idiocy flowing from the Corzine camp, nothing rivals mammograms.

Christie, quite reasonably, proposes permitting interstate competition among health insurers to lower costs. Legislatively imposed coverage mandates make an individual policy in NJ the second most expensive in the nation, lagging only Massachusetts – which adopted Obamacare, with entirely predictable, hugely expensive results. Meanwhile, a policy in Wisconsin costs 1/4 what a policy in NJ costs.

If we permit interstate competition, a woman choosing to purchase a mandate-free policy, ala Wisconsin (where, apparently, misogynists rule and women die in droves from the want of preventative care) saves about $4,000 per year.

But – horrors!! – that policy might not cover mammograms.

Since you’re a fairly intelligent woman, you decide to (gasp!) think. A mammogram costs about $125. Let’s be generous and quadruple that. And, depending upon what advice you follow, you might get one every 2-3 years.

So. Save $8,000 to $12,000 in premiums, and shell out $500 for a mammogram, or pay those massively inflated premiums to get the "free" mammogram. $12,000 v. $500; what option would a rational, thoughtful woman take? (Take your time.)

Clearly, the Corzine camp is NOT appealing to rational, thoughtful women.

Or rational, thoughtful men, either.