View Poll Results: Should we pay for Sandra Fluke's birth control?

Voters
78. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    28 35.90%
  • No

    50 64.10%
Page 53 of 82 FirstFirst ... 343515253545563 ... LastLast
Results 521 to 530 of 811

Thread: Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

  1. #521
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    01-19-18 @ 09:45 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,475

    Re: Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Illegality is irrelevant.
    Pregnancy is an elective situation, just like setting your house on fire.

    You choose to have the condition of pregnancy, just like you choose to set your house on fire.
    It's not a hedge against risk.

    Now complications from a pregnancy, should generally be covered, because it is a risk.
    Tucker is right, "wow, just wow." First of all, the point of having insurance is to insure against the risk of getting sick. A woman may choose to get pregnant but she doesn't choose to get sick or have complications during pregnancy. You can only buy insurance before you get sick, not after. So if a woman didn't have insurance and had complications that threatened hers and the life of the fetus, she can't go out buy insurance to pay for the pregnancy after the fact. She had to think ahead and prepare for the risk that something might go wrong by buying insurance before she gets pregnant. Life is a risk because no one knows what will happen in the future. But you can take measures to reduce the risk and lessen the financial burden that the unforeseen might cause.

  2. #522
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Tucker is right, "wow, just wow." First of all, the point of having insurance is to insure against the risk of getting sick. A woman may choose to get pregnant but she doesn't choose to get sick or have complications during pregnancy. You can only buy insurance before you get sick, not after. So if a woman didn't have insurance and had complications that threatened hers and the life of the fetus, she can't go out buy insurance to pay for the pregnancy after the fact. She had to think ahead and prepare for the risk that something might go wrong by buying insurance before she gets pregnant. Life is a risk because no one knows what will happen in the future. But you can take measures to reduce the risk and lessen the financial burden that the unforeseen might cause.
    Just like insurers not covering suicide under life insurance policies, pregnancy is an elective condition.
    Complications from pregnancy is not an elective condition.

    Insuring against pregnancy, no.
    Insuring against complications from pregnancy, sure.

    Mandating pregnancy coverage, especially for people who won't or can't have children is insanely stupid.
    Last edited by Harry Guerrilla; 09-05-12 at 08:23 PM.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  3. #523
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    30,259

    Re: Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Just like insurers not covering suicide under life insurance policies, pregnancy is an elective condition.
    Pregnancy coverage exists on every insurance policy, sorry. Life insurance companies deny pay-out for suicide because it is something done specifically to make them pay out. You have to remember that all insurance policies are a wager. You are betting that the amount of money you pay out of pocket will be less than projected health care costs, the insurance company is betting that collectively, the costs of actual health care will be less than the money paid into the system. It's like life insurance. They're betting you'll live. You're really betting you'll die.

    Mandating pregnancy coverage, especially for people who won't or can't have children is insanely stupid.
    That's why health insurance is a package deal, you don't get to pick and choose which illnesses you want covered, you get a policy that covers all possible illnesses. It's not like you go to the hospital and they tell you "Ooh, sorry, your insurance only covers if you break your left leg and you broke your right leg! Tough break!" Nobody pays more to cover both legs, any more than they pay more for pregnancy coverage, or in the case of this thread, contraceptive coverage.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  4. #524
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Illegality is irrelevant.
    Why would it be irrelevant. You are comparing a preventable condition to an illegal act.

    The type of action described is certainly relevant, no matter how disingenuously you attempt to pretend it isn't.

    Pregnancy is an elective situation, just like setting your house on fire.
    False. Pregnancy is a preventable condition, setting your house on fire is a criminal act. The apple has met the orange, and they have left the building together.

    Try an honest comparison.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #525
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Pregnancy coverage exists on every insurance policy, sorry. Life insurance companies deny pay-out for suicide because it is something done specifically to make them pay out. You have to remember that all insurance policies are a wager. You are betting that the amount of money you pay out of pocket will be less than projected health care costs, the insurance company is betting that collectively, the costs of actual health care will be less than the money paid into the system. It's like life insurance. They're betting you'll live. You're really betting you'll die.
    Getting pregnant is specifically making them pay out as well.
    There is no difference in the terms.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    That's why health insurance is a package deal, you don't get to pick and choose which illnesses you want covered, you get a policy that covers all possible illnesses. It's not like you go to the hospital and they tell you "Ooh, sorry, your insurance only covers if you break your left leg and you broke your right leg! Tough break!" Nobody pays more to cover both legs, any more than they pay more for pregnancy coverage, or in the case of this thread, contraceptive coverage.
    You don't get to pick and choose because states and the feds have made the choices for you, whether or not you actually need it.
    You're description of insurance coverage is false.

    You don't just get left or right leg coverage.
    Yes females did pay more for insurance than males, specifically because they were female and they cost more to insure.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  6. #526
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Why would it be irrelevant. You are comparing a preventable condition to an illegal act.

    The type of action described is certainly relevant, no matter how disingenuously you attempt to pretend it isn't.
    Illegality is completely irrelevant.
    If arson on your home were completely legal, would an insurance company cover setting your house on fire?
    The answer is no.

    Just like them not covering suicide for life insurance policies.
    It's an elective event, in which you purposefully incur a loss.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    False. Pregnancy is a preventable condition, setting your house on fire is a criminal act. The apple has met the orange, and they have left the building together.

    Try an honest comparison.
    Setting your house on fire is equally preventable, sorry.
    Again illegality is completely irrelevant.

    In both situations, the policy holder is purposefully incurring a loss, in an attempt to activate insurance coverage.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  7. #527
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    01-19-18 @ 09:45 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,475

    Re: Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    The general pool of funds exist and everyone dips into it, however, actuaries try to predict the annual cost of insuring different risk profiles and charge accordingly.
    When you keep diluting the pool of risk profiles, it makes cost predictions harder and harder to make, because the risk specific data is no longer relevant to these risk pools, because they no longer exist.
    By "diluting" do you mean add more high risk people to the pool, or just adding more people in general?

    The result is, you get young, healthy males and females paying the same as older, unhealthy males and females.
    It's ripe with functional regressive pricing and moral hazard.
    Well, I can certainly empathize with what you're saying. But doesn't it kind of all work out since the older "healthy" female had been paying more for her premiums and for many years longer than someone who is young, male and healthy? Just because someone is young and healthy today doesn't mean they will be tomorrow and that is the point of insuring against risk.

  8. #528
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    By "diluting" do you mean add more high risk people to the pool, or just adding more people in general?
    Adding more and more people to a risk pool without consideration for their risk profile.
    Essentially mixing both high risk and low risk people together and virtually pricing them the same.

    It's unfair to the low risk people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Well, I can certainly empathize with what you're saying. But doesn't it kind of all work out since the older "healthy" female had been paying more for her premiums and for many years longer than someone who is young, male and healthy? Just because someone is young and healthy today doesn't mean they will be tomorrow and that is the point of insuring against risk.
    I understand that, later on in older years, women used to pay less than men for insurance.
    Because women are less expensive, than men, to insure in their elder years.

    In this case it doesn't work out, because young people tend to be poorer than older people.
    Switching the arrangement of young, less money, but less costs to....young, less money, more costs, it fundamentally unfair to young people, when the older people did not have to endure this.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  9. #529
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Illegality is completely irrelevant.
    Keep telling yourself that lie and maybe it'll become true someday.

    If arson on your home were completely legal, would an insurance company cover setting your house on fire?
    The answer is no.
    And if your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.

    Setting your house on fire on purpose isn't an "elective" condition. It's a crime. It's a crime for a reason. That reason is the same one that prevents it from being covered under home insurance.

    If you accidentally set your house on fire, however, it will be covered by your home owners insurance. Accident = not insurance fraud.

    Just like them not covering suicide for life insurance policies.
    That'd be insurance fraud. People don't get pregnant in order to get money from their health insurance company.

    You're forgetting another big detail in your disingenuous comparison: who receives the money. Nobody commits health insurance fraud by virtue of getting pregnant. Arson, however, is one of the most common ways people attempt to commit home insurance fraud. Suicide is a way that people commit life insurance fraud.

    It's an elective event, in which you purposefully incur a loss.
    Find one definition of "elective" that puts arson or suicide in the realm of "elective events". And pregnancy isn't an elective condition, it's a preventable one. Big difference. Especially when you're whinging about having insurance cover that which makes said condition preventable.



    Setting your house on fire is equally preventable, sorry.
    And so are certain forms of cancer. Are they elective events now too?

    Again illegality is completely irrelevant.
    Only when you are desperately attempting to pretend that a totally dishonest comparison is valid. It's entirely relevant if one values honest comparisons, though.

    In both situations, the policy holder is purposefully incurring a loss, in an attempt to activate insurance coverage.
    False. There is no loss to an individual incurred by pregnancy. Using fallacious language doesn't make your argument any less dishonest.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  10. #530
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

    Quote Originally Posted by Meathead View Post
    A simple question.
    Yes. Maybe she won't reproduce.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

Page 53 of 82 FirstFirst ... 343515253545563 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •