• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Health plans ordered to cover birth control without co-pays

Which is cheaper?

1) Taxpayers forced to pay for abortions?

OR

2) Not paying for abortions, but forcing the woman to carry a fetus to term, which she then abandons, thus throwing the cost of raising the child on the taxpayers?

OR

3) Birth control without copay?

I'll go with birth control. This one is a no-brainer.
 
Last edited:
Which is cheaper?

1) Taxpayers forced to pay for abortions?

OR

2) Not paying for abortions, but forcing the woman to carry a fetus to term, which she then abandons, thus throwing the cost of raising the child on the taxpayers?

OR

3) Birth control without copay?

I'll go with birth control. This one is a no-brainer.

So dan, people who have insurance are already likely to get birth control, with or without the freebie built in.
You're jumping to conclusions here, buddy.
 
Ouch!

You make an excellent point.

In general, there is NO justification in drug companies being BOTH exempt from anti-trust laws AND PROTECTED by patent laws. The reason drugs cost less in other countries is those countries have a free market. The USA outlaws a free market when it comes to prescription drugs.

Best wishes for a speedy recovery and healing!

It goes up because the US laws protecting drug company profits keep them from having to sell the meds at reasonable price. An example: After a pulmonary embolism, I had to receive two injections a day (in my tummy :shock: ) of a generic drug called Enoxiparin. My cost in the US was $95 per pre-filled syringe. I have a friend from a diet-related BB who is a Canadian pharmacist - the cost of that drug in Canada is $29/ syringe.

BC pills costs far less in other countries. The name-brand BC my youngest daughter uses costs $39/month in the US and $8 in Canada. If insurers had the option of buying meds from other countries, the costs in the US would drop dramatically as US sellers had to bring down their prices to move their product.
 
It is still being spread with co-pays. I shouldn't have to pay a co-pay for my heart medicine (which I don't actually use) becuase it's a good thing to take it. It sure is cheaper than a transplant.

Right, you shouldn't have to co-pay for it.
 
Or a better question, how can you insure against someone choosing to use birth control?
It's a freebie and it still doesn't make any sense.

Check this out people, insurance exists to mitigate loss in an unforeseen event.
That is the entire purpose for insurance, it does not exist to provide you with a bunch of "free" stuff.

In reality, that's not the case. My insurance provided new customers with free health check which they can choose to take advantage of or not. And at what point does it become "free stuff" vs "unforeseen event", at what point from finding out that one has diabetes and being told by one's doctor that s/he need to take diabetic drugs does it become "free stuff"? What if the person has to go on dialysis for the rest of his/her life?
 
In reality, that's not the case. My insurance provided new customers with free health check which they can choose to take advantage of or not. And at what point does it become "free stuff" vs "unforeseen event", at what point from finding out that one has diabetes and being told by one's doctor that s/he need to take diabetic drugs does it become "free stuff"? What if the person has to go on dialysis for the rest of his/her life?

Insurance exists, in case you get diabetes.
You can't insure against something that has already happened or is going to happen.

It defeats the entire purpose of insurance in the first place.
Save money, buy your own diabetic drugs.
Not everything dealing with medical issues has to be washed through an insurance card.
 
Right, you shouldn't have to co-pay for it.

At which point everyone is going to pay more monthly. It's like people think nobody has to make up this money.
 
Insurance exists, in case you get diabetes.
You can't insure against something that has already happened or is going to happen.

It defeats the entire purpose of insurance in the first place.
Save money, buy your own diabetic drugs.
Not everything dealing with medical issues has to be washed through an insurance card.

So you shouldn't be able to buy a life insurance since you know you are going to die?

Do you also think that disability insurance defeats the entire purpose of insurance since they pay benefits after that something has happened?

Talking is the easy part, living it is the hard part. How many people can afford a mortgage, college fund for their children, and the medical bill for chronic illness? What happen when they can't? Insurance works for houses and cars, when it's fixed, it's fixed, if not you get money to buy a new one. Not so people, sometimes an illness don't just get cured once you found out about it, you have to live with it. Unless of course, you think people who can't support their ongoing health bills should just die.
 
At which point everyone is going to pay more monthly. It's like people think nobody has to make up this money.

It's like people think that the American insurance model for healthcare is nonsensical.
 
It's like people think that the American insurance model for healthcare is nonsensical.

Have you heard those with health insurance complain that they get stuck paying a $10 deductible for their B.C.? No? Me either.
 
Have you heard those with health insurance complain that they get stuck paying a $10 deductible for their B.C.? No? Me either.

I have heard them complain about paying for diabetic medicine, some of the new ones aren't cheap, I have heard them complain about having to co-pay for tests. And who do you think you are? You think you represent all Americans with insurance?
 
I have heard them complain about paying for diabetic medicine, some of the new ones aren't cheap, I have heard them complain about having to co-pay for tests. And who do you think you are? You think you represent all Americans with insurance?

They won't complain when their monthy rates go up?
 
They won't complain when their monthy rates go up?

They have to pay for it anyway either way. Couldn't you work that out?
 
All this does is spread co-pays between those who need the B.C. and those who do not. The cost of the insurance is going to go up for all.

How does it not make sense that those who utilize their health care more than others pays a higher percentage of the costs? Is this not the idea concerning charging smokers more than non smokers?

Or charging healthy people the same as fat people, I don't want to pay for bypasses, knees, hips which is quite costly.

Jumping jacks have nothing to do with flap jacks.
 
It's cheaper if you re-use them.

Not sure but I think there may be some holes in this philosophy.

On the other hand there is actually a better free for all, cost will never go up solution. When you sit down with your boys you tell them straight out, keep your pecker and your pants and zipper up and will eliminate many consequences. Further explain to them what the purpose for sex is and that even if you use contraception that isn't 100%.
 
Last edited:
Not sure but I think there may be some holes in this philosophy.

On the other hand there is actually a better free for all, cost will never go up solution. When you sit down with your boys you tell them straight out, keep your pecker and your pants and zipper up and will eliminate many consequences. Further explain to them what the purpose for sex is and that even if you use contraception that isn't 100%.

??? Are you preaching personal responsibility ?? You can forget that .. Liberals don’t have any, don’t want any, and will never accept that into their way of life.
 
It's the idea with insurance, to spread the payments among everyone in the pool. The idea with smokers is to penalise them for smoking which is bad. Using contraceptive is something that should be encouraged.


. You sit there and use the example that smoking is something you do that is bad for you, so it’s okay to charge smokers more …. Yet having unprotected sex is bad for you isn’t it? So why should I have to pay more for being a smoker, then someone that has unprotected sex, aren’t both a choice ? Or do you believe in only choices that agree with your ideals ?
 
So you shouldn't be able to buy a life insurance since you know you are going to die?

Do you also think that disability insurance defeats the entire purpose of insurance since they pay benefits after that something has happened?

Talking is the easy part, living it is the hard part. How many people can afford a mortgage, college fund for their children, and the medical bill for chronic illness? What happen when they can't? Insurance works for houses and cars, when it's fixed, it's fixed, if not you get money to buy a new one. Not so people, sometimes an illness don't just get cured once you found out about it, you have to live with it. Unless of course, you think people who can't support their ongoing health bills should just die.

Existing insurance can be tailored to you wants and needs now, don’t want any co-pays just tell you insurance agent, do want any deductible, same thing. If you are willing to pay the price, you can be covered 100% for everything you can think of, if you are willing to pay the price.

By having many of these things “mandated” you are going to pay the price, like it or not. So if your complaint is I don’t have that because I can’t afford it, to bad, because as they keep adding these mandated items, you will be forced to pay what you can’t afford, or go without. You keep talking about the diabetic medicines co-pays, how are these people going to pay for it when they have “NO” insurance because it’s so high they can’t afford it?

Comparing other insurances to health care is unreasonable ..... car insurance even more so, try totaling 3 cars in 5 years .. and see what your insurance rates would be ... Comparing it to health insurance is saying that the more you use your health insurance the more you should pay for it .....
 
Back
Top Bottom