ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags birth control issues , health care issues , Mike Huckabee , obamacare

Reply
Old 28th January 2014, 09:00 AM   #241
Unabogie
Philosopher
 
Unabogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 9,692
Originally Posted by SomedayGirl View Post
I am afraid of heights. I've never been on a ladder. My risk of financial loss due to a fall from a ladder is zero. Why should I pay to insure zero risk?

Also, I don't have a penis. My risk of financial loss resulting from penis-related medical interventions is zero. Why should I pay to insure zero risk?

I don't have a prostate, either. My risk of financial loss due to prostate related illness is zero. Why should I pay to insure zero risk?
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
I am not anyone other than myself. Why should I pay to insure the risk of anyone other than myself?
This boils it down nicely, thank you. The complaint that any particular medical expenditure is unfair because individual X will not need that specific help throws the entire concept of a risk pool out the window. How high would premiums be if everyone had to only pay for things they KNEW they'd get? If we KNEW you'd one day get cancer and cause millions in losses, would any insurance company cover you for less than millions in premiums? It's all about spreading out the cost, and that's all the Heritage/Romney plan attempts to do.
Unabogie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 09:35 AM   #242
Neally
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,671
Originally Posted by mortimer View Post
I said nothing about it being free.
Free via insurance. Free via subsidized premiums.

Quote:
But lowering the cost to poor women makes it more likely that it will be used.
Another one here that appearantly thinks that women don't have the intelligence to see that an unwanted pregnancy is way more expensive than free or low cost BC through the clinic.

Quote:
Is your problem with mandatory BC coverage because it is free or because it is mandatory?
Some people are forced to pay for something they don't want or need and BC is not a medicine that a person needs to cover the risk of having to use it.

Quote:
What imagined extra expense?
The expense of pregnacy and medical procedures related thereto.
Quote:
Are you claiming that unwanted pregnancies do not result in expensive prenatal and delivery expenses for insurance companies?
Are you claiming that insurance companies are so stupid that all this time they've been losing revenue by not offering BC on all polices and thereby incurring the associated costs of covering unwanted pregnancies?

Originally Posted by SomedayGirl View Post
I am afraid of heights. I've never been on a ladder. My risk of financial loss due to a fall from a ladder is zero. Why should I pay to insure zero risk?
You shouldn't

Quote:
Also, I don't have a penis. My risk of financial loss resulting from penis-related medical interventions is zero. Why should I pay to insure zero risk?
You shouldn't.

Quote:
I don't have a prostate, either. My risk of financial loss due to prostate related illness is zero. Why should I pay to insure zero risk?
You shouldn't. There wasn't that easy? Is there a problem with this? Unfortunately there is a practical limit to customizing polices according to your wants and needs.

Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
This boils it down nicely, thank you. The complaint that any particular medical expenditure is unfair because individual X will not need that specific help throws the entire concept of a risk pool out the window.
No it doesn't.

Quote:
How high would premiums be if everyone had to only pay for things they KNEW they'd get? If we KNEW you'd one day get cancer and cause millions in losses, would any insurance company cover you for less than millions in premiums?
When you know you will or won't need something, that is not a risk. Insurance is to mitigate risk. Also there is a difference between having a risk and willing to accept the risk. BC is not a risk.
Neally is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 09:36 AM   #243
Olowkow
Philosopher
 
Olowkow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,230
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
If Mike Huckabee is the GOP's front man on reaching out to women in the "war on women", the Republican party needs to surrender immediately.
They've already surrendered. Abortion, BC, same sex marriage, and other hot button issues have always been just republican political sledge hammers. The gullible buy into their BS and think they are being logical.

The party thinks it can just do an "etch a sketch" and win new gullible voters over. Huckabee is one of the biggest hypocrites because he knows better, and any republican hopeful hitching his wagon to this "star" is going to go down in flames.

Huckabee: For contraception mandate before he opposed it

Quote:
Mike "We Are All Catholics Today" Huckabee, when he was Arkansas governor, apparently signed a health insurance mandate law in 2005 that included contraception in preventive care. He was among many Republicans in many states who did the same.

Oops. In Arkansas, that law had two Republican co-sponsors. More checking will be required. But I hope Sen. Missy Irvin and the ALEC squad is on the lookout for these apostates.
Olowkow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 10:00 AM   #244
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
 
A'isha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 15,221
Originally Posted by Neally View Post
When you know you will or won't need something, that is not a risk. Insurance is to mitigate risk. Also there is a difference between having a risk and willing to accept the risk. BC is not a risk.
Pregnancy is a risk. BC mitigates that risk.
__________________
When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes - Desiderius Erasmus

"Does [A'isha] want to end up in a gas chamber, I wonder? Because this is where the whole thing will end" - McHrozni
A'isha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 10:03 AM   #245
mortimer
NWO Janitor
 
mortimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,518
Originally Posted by Neally View Post
Free via insurance. Free via subsidized premiums.
Er, ok.
Originally Posted by Neally View Post
Another one here that appearantly thinks that women don't have the intelligence to see that an unwanted pregnancy is way more expensive than free or low cost BC through the clinic.
Its not about intelligence. It's about financial ability.

Originally Posted by Neally View Post
Some people are forced to pay for something they don't want or need and BC is not a medicine that a person needs to cover the risk of having to use it.
*Everybody* who has health insurance and prescription drug coverage is forced to pay for many many things they don't want or need. Why are you singling out BC?
Originally Posted by Neally View Post
The expense of pregnacy and medical procedures related thereto.
That is not an imagined expense. It is very real.
Originally Posted by Neally View Post
Are you claiming that insurance companies are so stupid that all this time they've been losing revenue by not offering BC on all polices and thereby incurring the associated costs of covering unwanted pregnancies?
Most policies have covered BC. I suspect that the few policies offered that didn't are specifically tailored for people who have some moral objection to it.
__________________
"why would i bother?" - Bikerdruid, on providing evidence for his claims
"I view hamas as an organization fighting for the freedom of its people." - Bikerdruid
mortimer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 10:15 AM   #246
SomedayGirl
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 826
I guess I always assumed my policy was part of a pool and my premium covered boy parts even though I don't have them, and that conversely the premiums of people with boy parts cover girl parts even if they don't have them. In the same way my premium covers skydiving injuries even though I'll never have one and someone else's premiums cover kitchen burns I get even though they've never so much as boiled a pot of water. You're in the pool and the sum of pool payments is meant to offset all the possible outcomes for everyone in the pool, not just the outcomes specific to a single individual payer.
__________________
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their own desires.

--Susan B. Anthony
SomedayGirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 11:12 AM   #247
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,096
Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
This boils it down nicely, thank you. The complaint that any particular medical expenditure is unfair
Not talking about medical expenditures. I'm talking about my spending on health insurance. I want to buy a plan that has a $50k deductible and won't cover any service until I reach that deductible. Why can't I do that?
Quote:
because individual X will not need that specific help throws the entire concept of a risk pool out the window.
. No it doesn't. I'm still a part of the risk pool if I have a high-deductible plan.

Quote:
How high would premiums be if everyone had to only pay for things they KNEW they'd get? If we KNEW you'd one day get cancer and cause millions in losses, would any insurance company cover you for less than millions in premiums? It's all about spreading out the cost, and that's all the Heritage/Romney plan attempts to do.
Heritage never mentioned coverage mandates. Romneycare does not have a BC mandate.

Besides that, you have articulated my point. Women of child bearing age should be on BC if they don't want kids. Their need is 100%; i.e. We KNOW they are going to need it. So premiums have to be higher for everyone. If there were no BC mandate, then premiums would be lower.

Why do we need the BC mandate? Why can't women just buy their own BC?
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 11:29 AM   #248
mortimer
NWO Janitor
 
mortimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,518
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Why do we need the BC mandate? Why can't women just buy their own BC?
You *do* know there exist poor people, right?
__________________
"why would i bother?" - Bikerdruid, on providing evidence for his claims
"I view hamas as an organization fighting for the freedom of its people." - Bikerdruid
mortimer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 11:36 AM   #249
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,096
Originally Posted by SomedayGirl View Post
I guess I always assumed my policy was part of a pool and my premium covered boy parts even though I don't have them, and that conversely the premiums of people with boy parts cover girl parts even if they don't have them. In the same way my premium covers skydiving injuries even though I'll never have one and someone else's premiums cover kitchen burns I get even though they've never so much as boiled a pot of water. You're in the pool and the sum of pool payments is meant to offset all the possible outcomes for everyone in the pool, not just the outcomes specific to a single individual payer.

Fair enough. But before ACA, I could
buy a high deductible plan that covered nothing until after the deductible. Why should I not be allowed to buy this anymore?
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 11:41 AM   #250
SomedayGirl
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 826
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Not talking about medical expenditures. I'm talking about my spending on health insurance. I want to buy a plan that has a $50k deductible and won't cover any service until I reach that deductible. Why can't I do that?
. No it doesn't. I'm still a part of the risk pool if I have a high-deductible plan.



Heritage never mentioned coverage mandates. Romneycare does not have a BC mandate.

Besides that, you have articulated my point. Women of child bearing age should be on BC if they don't want kids. Their need is 100%; i.e. We KNOW they are going to need it. So premiums have to be higher for everyone. If there were no BC mandate, then premiums would be lower.

Why do we need the BC mandate? Why can't women just buy their own BC?
It might be better to exclude not just BC but the other chick specific stuff too like breast/ uterine/ cervical/ ovarian cancers as well as all prenatal and delivery care. If there were no mandate to cover those things, then premiums would be lower.
__________________
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their own desires.

--Susan B. Anthony
SomedayGirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 11:44 AM   #251
elbe
Illuminator
 
elbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,983
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Fair enough. But before ACA, I could
buy a high deductible plan that covered nothing until after the deductible. Why should I not be allowed to buy this anymore?
Apparently because some people decided that wasn't a good enough minimum. Probably because it was costing the tax payers too much. Stupid society and its rules, amiright?
__________________
"Take the weakest thing in you and beat the bastards with it"
realityisnotadditive... blog... thingy...
elbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 11:55 AM   #252
SomedayGirl
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 826
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Fair enough. But before ACA, I could
buy a high deductible plan that covered nothing until after the deductible. Why should I not be allowed to buy this anymore?
Honestly I think it's because the insurance industry screwed itself over before the development of the ACA. Too many of their low cost/ high deductible policies were so obtuse in description and had such scanty coverage they may as well have not covered anything and just asked their clients for a monthly stipend check rather than calling it insurance. If their dealings had been more honest in the run up, forcing them to be more transparent and comprehensive after implementation of the ACA wouldn't have been necessary.
__________________
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their own desires.

--Susan B. Anthony
SomedayGirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 11:56 AM   #253
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,096
Originally Posted by elbe View Post
Apparently because some people decided that wasn't a good enough minimum. Probably because it was costing the tax payers too much. Stupid society and its rules, amiright?

How is my paying for my own healthcare costing the taxpayers anything? Your response makes no sense so please clarify.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 11:59 AM   #254
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,096
Mike Huckabee and the war on women

Originally Posted by SomedayGirl View Post
Honestly I think it's because the insurance industry screwed itself over before the development of the ACA. Too many of their low cost/ high deductible policies were so obtuse in description and had such scanty coverage they may as well have not covered anything and just asked their clients for a monthly stipend check rather than calling it insurance. If their dealings had been more honest in the run up, forcing them to be more transparent and comprehensive after implementation of the ACA wouldn't have been necessary.

I knew exactly what I was buying: peace of mind if my costs went above $X. I paid for my own healthcare, my own BC when I needed it. My health insurance never paid one dime toward my care and that's exactly the way I wanted it. They were up front and honest.

Why can't I have that plan?
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 12:12 PM   #255
SomedayGirl
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 826
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I knew exactly what I was buying: peace of mind if my costs went above $X. I paid for my own healthcare, my own BC when I needed it. My health insurance never paid one dime toward my care and that's exactly the way I wanted it. They were up front and honest.

Why can't I have that plan?
Because many people who bought that plan and other low cost plans were mislead, they believed it covered more than it did and the insurers deliberately obfuscated the nature of what they were purchasing. It worked out okay for you and you understood it but because it resulted in problems for many others the practice was stopped. If the industry had been more forthright with purchasers about coverages and limitations on high deductible policies they might still be available, especially for low risk individuals and those who can show the financial wherewithal to make a high deductible.

The solution isn't to exclude this piece of health insurance coverage that pertains exclusively to women or that bit that applies exclusively to men.
__________________
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their own desires.

--Susan B. Anthony
SomedayGirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 12:13 PM   #256
Amazer
Graduate Poster
 
Amazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,488
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I knew exactly what I was buying: peace of mind if my costs went above $X. I paid for my own healthcare, my own BC when I needed it. My health insurance never paid one dime toward my care and that's exactly the way I wanted it. They were up front and honest.

Why can't I have that plan?
Because the system that allowed you to have such a plan was broken?
Amazer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 12:13 PM   #257
elbe
Illuminator
 
elbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,983
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
How is my paying for my own healthcare costing the taxpayers anything? Your response makes no sense so please clarify.
Do you think laws are written just because of what you, specifically, do? Or could it be that there are a lot of people who cost the taxpayers a lot of money because their insurance doesn't cover everything they need?

Again, it's part of the compromise that comes with living in a society. We mandated insurance coverage. We also required a minimum amount of coverage to qualify as "covered"; $1 a year obviously wouldn't count. Unfortunately for you your old plan doesn't meet the new guidelines. Welcome to society.
__________________
"Take the weakest thing in you and beat the bastards with it"
realityisnotadditive... blog... thingy...

Last edited by elbe; 28th January 2014 at 12:15 PM.
elbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 12:22 PM   #258
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,096
Originally Posted by SomedayGirl View Post
Because many people who bought that plan and other low cost plans were mislead, they believed it covered more than it did and the insurers deliberately obfuscated the nature of what they were purchasing. It worked out okay for you and you understood it but because it resulted in problems for many others the practice was stopped. If the industry had been more forthright with purchasers about coverages and limitations on high deductible policies they might still be available, especially for low risk individuals and those who can show the financial wherewithal to make a high deductible.
I don't buy this argument. Do you have a source for this or is it just your understanding?
This was not something that was part of the discussion when they were coming up with ACA.



Quote:
The solution isn't to exclude this piece of health insurance coverage that pertains exclusively to women or that bit that applies exclusively to men.

Richt. The solution is for me to pay for the coverage I need and you pay for the coverage you need. We both need some form of illness coverage but we differ on the amounts we need covered. You may want your insurance to cover your BC and I have no need for BC.

Again: why can't I buy what I need and you buy what you need? Why do we all have to be forced to buy the same kind of coverage?

I find it amazing that no one can answer this simple question except by variations of: Because society.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 12:25 PM   #259
elbe
Illuminator
 
elbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,983
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Richt. The solution is for me to pay for the coverage I need and you pay for the coverage you need. We both need some form of illness coverage but we differ on the amounts we need covered. You may want your insurance to cover your BC and I have no need for BC.

Again: why can't I buy what I need and you buy what you need? Why do we all have to be forced to buy the same kind of coverage?
A: Because packages are cheaper than a la carte.

And B: people are stupid and stupid people would defeat the purpose of the mandate.

Quote:
I find it amazing that no one can answer this simple question except by variations of: Because society.
No. Strawman. Your dislike of the compromises of society is "because society". Insurance packaging has more to do with it being more efficient and potentially cheaper to provide a basic package to all people than to have to tailor every plan to the individual.

Considering, however, that the thread is about how some republicans don't think women should have BC I'm not sure why you always try to talk about how you're not happy with your new insurance plan.
__________________
"Take the weakest thing in you and beat the bastards with it"
realityisnotadditive... blog... thingy...

Last edited by elbe; 28th January 2014 at 12:38 PM.
elbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 12:53 PM   #260
SomedayGirl
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 826
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I don't buy this argument. Do you have a source for this or is it just your understanding?
This was not something that was part of the discussion when they were coming up with ACA.






Richt. The solution is for me to pay for the coverage I need and you pay for the coverage you need. We both need some form of illness coverage but we differ on the amounts we need covered. You may want your insurance to cover your BC and I have no need for BC.

Again: why can't I buy what I need and you buy what you need? Why do we all have to be forced to buy the same kind of coverage?

I find it amazing that no one can answer this simple question except by variations of: Because society.
I don't think that's the answer I've given. My answer was you don't get to exclude BC and I don't get to exclude prostate exams, and you don't get to exclude prenatal care and I don't get to exclude Viagra, because we're in the pool together and our collective premiums are to offset our collective risk rather than to cover yours or my individual risk specifically. We've tried doing it the way you describe - everyone does what they think is best for them - and that didn't work since among other things it might be best for me not to have insurance and to let the public and other insureds pay my costs.
__________________
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their own desires.

--Susan B. Anthony
SomedayGirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 01:35 PM   #261
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,096
Originally Posted by SomedayGirl View Post
I don't think that's the answer I've given. My answer was you don't get to exclude BC and I don't get to exclude prostate exams, and you don't get to exclude prenatal care and I don't get to exclude Viagra, because we're in the pool together and our collective premiums are to offset our collective risk rather than to cover yours or my individual risk specifically. We've tried doing it the way you describe - everyone does what they think is best for them - and that didn't work since among other things it might be best for me not to have insurance and to let the public and other insureds pay my costs.
OK. We are both in the pool together. That would still be true if the insurance company sold me a high-deductible plan. The only difference would be that I am asking them for significantly less coverage than you are.

I will likely not ever need to collect on my high-deductible insurance plan before I reach Medicare age. You (a theoretical you that wants preventive BC and other coverage that I don't), on the other hand will likely collect quite a bit over the life of the policy. It seems obvious to me that you should pay more than I do because you are a bigger risk -you are going to cost the insurance $X.

Are you with me so far?
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 01:38 PM   #262
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 43,112
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
That doesn't make sense. I bought the insurance to protect against financial losses due to illness. That's the purpose of health insurance.

Previously, since no one I need to insure could get pregnant, I did not carry maternity or BC coverage. I had zero risk of financial loss due to pregnancy. So why should I pay to insure zero risk?

This is the point that I'm not getting.
Yes a one time loss. Your car insurance can decide you are not worth covering. Why can't health insurance? You have it for catastrophic care not chronic care.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 01:39 PM   #263
Neally
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,671
Originally Posted by mortimer View Post
*Everybody* who has health insurance and prescription drug coverage is forced to pay for many many things they don't want or need. Why are you singling out BC?
Because BC isn't a risk that needs to be mitigated. It's a monthly ongoing expense. People shouldn't be forced to pay for someone elses monthly expenses that are not risk related. Does your car insurance pay for your gas?

Quote:
That is not an imagined expense. It is very real.
The imagined part is your claim that if a policy doesn't include BC, the insurance company will have greater expenses at some point due to unwanted pregnancies. So again we should see a massive reduction in premiums now that they no longer have this additional expense. Do support this claim.

Quote:
Most policies have covered BC. I suspect that the few policies offered that didn't are specifically tailored for people who have some moral objection to it.
No. Policies didn't cover it because some people have no need for it. Now they are forced to pay for coverage for something they don't want or need.

Originally Posted by SomedayGirl View Post
I guess I always assumed my policy was part of a pool and my premium covered boy parts even though I don't have them, and that conversely the premiums of people with boy parts cover girl parts even if they don't have them.
You assumed wrong. Premiums are set based on risks and the resulting expenses. Men and women previously had different priced policies taking into account that different potential treatments may be needed.

Quote:
In the same way my premium covers skydiving injuries even though I'll never have one and someone else's premiums cover kitchen burns I get even though they've never so much as boiled a pot of water. You're in the pool and the sum of pool payments is meant to offset all the possible outcomes for everyone in the pool, not just the outcomes specific to a single individual payer.
Already covered this. Ideally a person could pick and choose what coverages they wanted based on their own particular needs and lifestyle. There is a practical limit to that. That doesn't mean the concept of pooling risks goes away.

Originally Posted by SomedayGirl View Post
Because many people who bought that plan and other low cost plans were mislead, they believed it covered more than it did and the insurers deliberately obfuscated the nature of what they were purchasing.
Doubtful but do support your claim. Regardless, the solution would be more complete disclosure requirements, not mandating people pay for stuff they don't want or need so that some people get what they want.

Quote:
The solution isn't to exclude this piece of health insurance coverage that pertains exclusively to women or that bit that applies exclusively to men.
Actually it worked fine before. You wanted BC coverage, you buy a policy that covers it. You don't want coverage, you buy one that doesn't. Now there is no choice. Aren't liberals all about pro-choice?
Neally is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 01:43 PM   #264
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,096
Originally Posted by elbe View Post
A: Because packages are cheaper than a la carte.

And B: people are stupid and stupid people would defeat the purpose of the mandate.
I'm not sure what you mean by the second one. Who are the stupid people and how would they defeat the purpose of the mandate.

Quote:
No. Strawman. Your dislike of the compromises of society is "because society".
No, the answer I've gotten is, "Because we as a society have decided XYZ." I know that already; I want to know on what basis this was decided.

Quote:
Insurance packaging has more to do with it being more efficient and potentially cheaper to provide a basic package to all people than to have to tailor every plan to the individual.

Considering, however, that the thread is about how some republicans don't think women should have BC I'm not sure why you always try to talk about how you're not happy with your new insurance plan.
Well, if Dems say that we all have to buy plans with BC coverage, I want to understand why, in my specific situation, I should have to buy it. Huckabee says that the reason I have to buy it is because Dems think women are incapable of buying themselves and need the government to mandate that I contribute. I have not seen any evidence here that he is wrong.

So maybe you can show me how he is wrong. If I buy a high-deductible plan that does not cover BC, how does this result in women being denied coverage for BC if they are offered plans that cover it?
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 01:55 PM   #265
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,096
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Yes a one time loss. Your car insurance can decide you are not worth covering. Why can't health insurance? You have it for catastrophic care not chronic care.
Right. I also carry long-term-disability coverage. And what I'm buying from my health insurance company is a guarantee that my yearly healthcare costs won't exceed, say, $50K. It is unlikely that anyone's costs will ever exceed that in a year so the insurance can use it's actuarial-fu to come up with a premium that will cover that risk over the life of the policy. That's insurance.

Now, I agree with the anti-recission part of ACA. They shouldn't be able to just take away my coverage if I ever actually do get sick. That was the risk they took in selling me my policy. I also agree that, in order to get everyone coverage, we need both an individual mandate to buy health insurance as well as a ban on denying people for pre-existing conditions. I agree with those aspects of ACA.

But the coverage mandates go too far. If the goal is to prevent people from going bankrupt because of medical costs, how does a BC mandate further that goal? I say it doesn't and that there are other agendas behind the BC mandate. I'm trying to determine what those agendas are. Huckabee brought up one possibility.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 02:01 PM   #266
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,096
Originally Posted by Neally View Post
The imagined part is your claim that if a policy doesn't include BC, the insurance company will have greater expenses at some point due to unwanted pregnancies. So again we should see a massive reduction in premiums now that they no longer have this additional expense. Do support this claim.
Right. The idea is supposedly that providing BC for free will reduce expenses for the companies by reducing the expenses of unwanted pregnancies. This should result in reduced premiums. So why aren't premiums lower now that those risks have been mitigated? Because the insurance companies know that the issue is a lot more complicated than just, "Free BC!"

It's interesting that when anyone opposes the BC mandate, the Dems don't respond with reasoned debate about how much it will save. Instead, it's "War on Women!"
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 02:24 PM   #267
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 43,112
Originally Posted by Neally View Post
Because BC isn't a risk that needs to be mitigated. It's a monthly ongoing expense. People shouldn't be forced to pay for someone elses monthly expenses that are not risk related. Does your car insurance pay for your gas?
Exactly why things like hiv and blood pressure medication shouldn't be covered. Your car insurance doesn't cover maintenance after all.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 02:26 PM   #268
Neally
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,671
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Exactly why things like hiv and blood pressure medication shouldn't be covered. Your car insurance doesn't cover maintenance after all.
Yet another one that seems to think that being fertile and enjoying sex is some sort of disease people are in risk of catching.
Neally is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 02:42 PM   #269
SomedayGirl
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 826
My husband didn't catch high blood pressure - he has no know risk factors other than family history - but he has it. Most of the time I don't think you catch cancer but people get it. (Sometimes you do catch it - should that be excluded?) I didn't catch ovaries and a uterus...
__________________
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their own desires.

--Susan B. Anthony
SomedayGirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 02:57 PM   #270
Neally
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,671
Originally Posted by SomedayGirl View Post
My husband didn't catch high blood pressure - he has no know risk factors other than family history - but he has it. Most of the time I don't think you catch cancer but people get it. (Sometimes you do catch it - should that be excluded?) I didn't catch ovaries and a uterus...
You really need to pick up the level of discourse here if you want to debate the issue. "Catch" as in "catch a disease" is part of the medical costs that someone might be at risk of. They could also be at risk of being injured in various ways, "get" cancer, "develop" heart disease, or become in need of medical treatment in any number of ways. None of those include a risk of being fertile and wanting to enjoy sex.

Thus far you failed to support your claims/justifications:
1. Why people shouldn't be given a choice as to whether they want BC coverage on a policy or not.
2. Why people shouldn't be allowed to buy policies with minimal coverage.
3. Why people can't decide which risks they want coverage for and what risks they do not.
4. Why policies previously that didn't include BC should be made unavailable.
Neally is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 03:14 PM   #271
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,096
Originally Posted by SomedayGirl View Post
My husband didn't catch high blood pressure - he has no know risk factors other than family history - but he has it. Most of the time I don't think you catch cancer but people get it. (Sometimes you do catch it - should that be excluded?) I didn't catch ovaries and a uterus...
Right. Those are the kinds of things we need insurance for: unforeseen illnesses.

What is unforeseen about BC? You are either going to decide to use it or not to use it. There is no risk; thus, I don't see why you would need an insurance plan to cover it. You could pay for it yourself and if you couldn't, you could get it through the Medicaid program. If you wanted an insurance plan to cover it, you could add that on as a rider to your health insurance.

To add on to your cancer example: Smokers pay more for health insurance, even under ACA, because they have a higher risk of contracting cancer and other illnesses. They are choosing to engage in an activity that will almost certainly increase their healthcare costs, so they naturally pay more.

The same concept applies to people who want BC coverage. Their need for this coverage will increase their healthcare costs. So why shouldn't they pay more for it?
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 03:21 PM   #272
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,942
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
My problem is with being mandated to pay for insurance coverage I don't need.
Nobody needs health insurance of any kind until they get sick/hurt.
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 03:21 PM   #273
SomedayGirl
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 826
Sweetie, you used the word catching. I just followed on.

Quote:
Yet another one that seems to think that being fertile and enjoying sex is some sort of disease people are in risk of catching.
The things I listed are also not catching, just as being fertile and enjoying sex are not catching. I don't think any of it should be excluded, catching or not.

And I answered your questions above in my original posts. Perhaps my view is colored by my experience of the pools, which have always been employer provided. Neither I nor my husband were charged more on the basis of gender. When we covered one or the other of us with spousal coverage, it was the same whether it was a male or female spouse. Kids were all one thought, whether boys or girls.

So to me that's how pools should work - everyone pays in, even for coverage that is unnecessary to them specifically, because the totality of the pool is for covering collected risk. The ACA is a sized up version of that so I have trouble getting exercised about BC coverage (which I don't need but I understand others in the pool might, just as others may need Viagra and I...still don't).
__________________
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their own desires.

--Susan B. Anthony
SomedayGirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 03:27 PM   #274
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,096
Originally Posted by SomedayGirl View Post
Sweetie, you used the word catching. I just followed on.



The things I listed are also not catching, just as being fertile and enjoying sex are not catching. I don't think any of it should be excluded, catching or not.

And I answered your questions above in my original posts. Perhaps my view is colored by my experience of the pools, which have always been employer provided. Neither I nor my husband were charged more on the basis of gender. When we covered one or the other of us with spousal coverage, it was the same whether it was a male or female spouse. Kids were all one thought, whether boys or girls.

So to me that's how pools should work - everyone pays in, even for coverage that is unnecessary to them specifically, because the totality of the pool is for covering collected risk. The ACA is a sized up version of that so I have trouble getting exercised about BC coverage (which I don't need but I understand others in the pool might, just as others may need Viagra and I...still don't).
Well, if you work for someone and they pay for a part of your insurance, it might benefit you to add on your family.

But I work for myself. Additionally, I have large savings and high income. I can tolerate a lot more risk than most people. I don't need to be covered for BC, Preventive, dental, maternity, etc. I only need to be covered if my health expenses exceed $X. Why can't I buy what I actually need?
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 03:28 PM   #275
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,096
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Nobody needs health insurance of any kind until they get sick/hurt.
I always need health insurance to protect myself against losses in case something bad happens. I may not need much healthcare until I get sick.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 03:34 PM   #276
elbe
Illuminator
 
elbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,983
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I'm not sure what you mean by the second one. Who are the stupid people and how would they defeat the purpose of the mandate.

No, the answer I've gotten is, "Because we as a society have decided XYZ." I know that already; I want to know on what basis this was decided.

Well, if Dems say that we all have to buy plans with BC coverage, I want to understand why, in my specific situation, I should have to buy it. Huckabee says that the reason I have to buy it is because Dems think women are incapable of buying themselves and need the government to mandate that I contribute. I have not seen any evidence here that he is wrong.

So maybe you can show me how he is wrong. If I buy a high-deductible plan that does not cover BC, how does this result in women being denied coverage for BC if they are offered plans that cover it?
You haven't demonstrated why women's drugs should not be covered just like everyone else's. Appeals to ignorance just isn't that compelling.

And Huckabee's opinion of women is pretty clear.
__________________
"Take the weakest thing in you and beat the bastards with it"
realityisnotadditive... blog... thingy...
elbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 03:40 PM   #277
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,096
Originally Posted by elbe View Post
You haven't demonstrated why women's drugs should not be covered just like everyone else's. Appeals to ignorance just isn't that compelling.
I don't need to demonstrate that to ask the question. I'm asking proponents of the BC mandate to justify it. If no one that I need to cover needs BC, why do I have to buy a plan that includes it?

You can dance around the issue all you want to, but it comes down to that simple of a question.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 03:41 PM   #278
Neally
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,671
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Nobody needs health insurance of any kind until they get sick/hurt.
Wrong. Plenty of people don't need it. Does everyone need car insurance? If you pay out of pocket and are willing to accept the risk, there's no need for any type of insurance.

Further, we are discussing what exactly should be included in insurance. Ironically, some liberals here seem to be anti-choice.

Originally Posted by SomedayGirl View Post
Sweetie, you used the word catching. I just followed on.
So you did it out of ignorance that "catch" would include any other forms of needing medical care, or you did it deliberately to be argumentative?

Quote:
Perhaps my view is colored by my experience of the pools, which have always been employer provided. Neither I nor my husband were charged more on the basis of gender. When we covered one or the other of us with spousal coverage, it was the same whether it was a male or female spouse. Kids were all one thought, whether boys or girls.
Well then here's news to you: not everyone gets insurance through employers. There are policies that you can buy as an individual. Those polices had been based on what a person wants and needs in a policy and the policy is priced according to those things they want and their respective risk pool.

Quote:
So to me that's how pools should work - everyone pays in, even for coverage that is unnecessary to them specifically, because the totality of the pool is for covering collected risk.
Now you know the problem with that is that it eliminates choice and forces some people to pay more so that some can pay less.
Neally is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 03:50 PM   #279
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,096
Originally Posted by Neally View Post
Now you know the problem with that is that it eliminates choice and forces some people to pay more so that some can pay less.
This is it. People who don't want BC coverage pay more so that people who do want it can pay less. The question is: why must it be this way? There are other options that would not reduce the availability of BC.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 03:58 PM   #280
elbe
Illuminator
 
elbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,983
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I don't need to demonstrate that to ask the question. I'm asking proponents of the BC mandate to justify it. If no one that I need to cover needs BC, why do I have to buy a plan that includes it?

You can dance around the issue all you want to, but it comes down to that simple of a question.
You've been dancing way too much just "asking questions". Short answer is that women deserve to be treated equally. If they can afford it they'll buy it but if they can't they should have the right to be responsible with their lives and be able to obtain BC, a medical drug. The dems aren't forcing women to buy it just making it as available as viagra while also allowing women to take advantage of insurance price negotiations to get cheaper prices.

Various states already mandated it in insurance prior to the aca. This isn't a new idea. It's just been used as a tool to attack the president on for "attacking christianity". Considering how much the right has been going out of their way to attack women of late you'd think they'd try a broader appeal but people like Huckabee are only in it for themselves and don't give a shilling over the lives of others.

Hopefully I caught all the typos, my phone is being a bit random tonight.
__________________
"Take the weakest thing in you and beat the bastards with it"
realityisnotadditive... blog... thingy...
elbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:29 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.