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 69 of 82 FirstFirst ... 1959676869707179 ... LastLast
Results 681 to 690 of 811

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

  1. #681
    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 LaMidRighter View Post
    Incorrect. You pay for everything covered in the policy.
    False. You pay for the policy, and the price is based on what it will cover for you should you need to use it.

    You aren't paying for chemotherapy right now, but you are paying to be covered in the event that you do require it.

    If you said that people should not be forced by law to pay for coverage of electives, it would at least be debatable. Since you didn't say that, but instead chose to say something that is false, it's not debatable, it's just false.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  2. #682
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post

    Nobody
    is paying for electives if they don't elect to have them. Period.
    Not true. Everything in the risk pool is built into the price, everything.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  3. #683
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    False. You pay for the policy, and the price is based on what it will cover for you should you need to use it.
    No, premiums are based upon coverage. There are three things at play when paying a claim. 1) Cash on hand from premiums 2) Invested dollars to increase the risk pool from current reserves and 3) Reinsurance. 2 and 3 use the initial premium from one to build upon. Every single dollar spent on premium goes into the risk pool in some way and is based upon contractual liabilities, this means everything covered weights into the premium. There is no way to state that a mandated elective coverage isn't priced into premium. Whether an individual uses those services or not they do agree to pay for it by accepting coverage AND when mandated you have no choice.

    You aren't paying for chemotherapy right now, but you are paying to be covered in the event that you do require it.
    Yes, chemotherapy if covered IS payed for by policyholders. Hopefully one never needs to use it themselves but they ARE paying for it.

    If you said that people should not be forced by law to pay for coverage of electives, it would at least be debatable. Since you didn't say that, but instead chose to say something that is false, it's not debatable, it's just false.
    I am on record as being against mandatory elective coverage, I am on record as saying that Viagra is an elective and shouldn't be paid for. Insurance is about covering catastrophic loss, electives do not fit that mold.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  4. #684
    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 LaMidRighter View Post
    Not true. Everything in the risk pool is built into the price, everything.
    The risk pool is determined by the services which are covered.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #685
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    The risk pool is determined by the services which are covered.
    And the premiums are your share of all costs contained therein. If x is covered it is weighted at y starting value then your particular risk to the pool is added to your share of the premium, IOW riskier people pay more BUT everyone pays a bit of something.

    It would read like this in a traditional model, for the benefits of speed I'll just throw in a couple of created values as a or instance. Birth control(.5), payor(.02), risk class(z)
    so basically the risk + share of the pool = premium base + individual risk
    Premium base + premium class(or modal factor) = total premium.

    Yes everyone pays a portion of the entire risk pool, and yes there is more weight added individually in a higher risk class BUT everybody pays.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  6. #686
    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 LaMidRighter View Post
    No, premiums are based upon coverage. There are three things at play when paying a claim. 1) Cash on hand from premiums 2) Invested dollars to increase the risk pool from current reserves and 3) Reinsurance. 2 and 3 use the initial premium from one to build upon. Every single dollar spent on premium goes into the risk pool in some way and is based upon contractual liabilities, this means everything covered weights into the premium. There is no way to state that a mandated elective coverage isn't priced into premium. Whether an individual uses those services or not they do agree to pay for it by accepting coverage AND when mandated you have no choice.
    These are for-profit organizations. They aren't community arrangements between friends who pool their resources together and all have joint ownership of the pool of money. Once they give their money to the insurance company in order to receive the services which that company provides, it ceases to be their money anymore. They aren't paying for anything that is paid for by that pool on money. It's not their money anymore.

    Yes, chemotherapy if covered IS payed for by policyholders. Hopefully one never needs to use it themselves but they ARE paying for it.
    No, policy holders are paying for their policy in order to cover those services for them if the need arises. The insurance companies pay for the services with money they receive form the clients that they provide a service for.


    I am on record as being against mandatory elective coverage, I am on record as saying that Viagra is an elective and shouldn't be paid for. Insurance is about covering catastrophic loss, electives do not fit that mold.
    Medical insurance has not been limited to covering catastrophic loss at any point in my adult life, and possibly my entire life.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  7. #687
    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 LaMidRighter View Post
    And the premiums are your share of all costs contained therein.
    Yes, price of a service is determined by the cost of that service + profit for the company. It doens't make sense to provide a service and charge less than t costs to provide that service.

    Onc epeopel pay for a service, the money they paid is no longer their money.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  8. #688
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Yes, price of a service is determined by the cost of that service + profit for the company. It doens't make sense to provide a service and charge less than t costs to provide that service.

    Onc epeopel pay for a service, the money they paid is no longer their money.
    The contract is theirs, the access to the risk pool is theirs. The starting point is that the money belongs to them, so now the federal government has MANDATED insurance ownership and then MANDATED that birth control be paid for, so yes, people must use their money to fund birth control by mandate. With no copay so even that risk reduction tool has been taken away.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    These are for-profit organizations. They aren't community arrangements between friends who pool their resources together and all have joint ownership of the pool of money. Once they give their money to the insurance company in order to receive the services which that company provides, it ceases to be their money anymore. They aren't paying for anything that is paid for by that pool on money. It's not their money anymore.
    Not necessarily, there are organizations including non-profits that self insure and use similar models as for profit insurance companies. The status of profit does not change the fact that insurance is risk sharing, it is in fact creating a large pool of money that is contractually available to those in the pool.



    No, policy holders are paying for their policy in order to cover those services for them if the need arises. The insurance companies pay for the services with money they receive form the clients that they provide a service for.
    Paying for your needs to be covered by entering the risk pool IS paying for others to likewise be covered for the same potential risks, there is no way around this. When gender specific electives are added the pool must cover those costs and the benefit is gender specific, there is no argument against this.




    Medical insurance has not been limited to covering catastrophic loss at any point in my adult life, and possibly my entire life.
    It depends on the policy. Major medicals, HMOs, PPOs, and HSAs are large umbrella policies that cover more. Catastrophic coverages such as hospitalization, disability, etc. cover a very small scope and are strictly for large claim single events, you may not have that type of policy but they still exist. As well, the original insurance, indemnity, serves as more of a rebate type of insurance and covers a portion of covered loss after the payment. As well there is FFS or fee for service such as the soon to be gutted Medicare advantage and similar programs. But yes, catastrophic only does still exist.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  9. #689
    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 LaMidRighter View Post
    The starting point is that the money belongs to them...
    No it doesn't. The policy is theirs. They gave up their money for the privilege of having that policy.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  10. #690
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    No it doesn't. The policy is theirs. They gave up their money for the privilege of having that policy.
    The policy is theirs, but the consumer can change coverages OR not go with a provider they feel is too expensive due to things they find frivolous such as multiple electives. With the mandate that choice was stripped away by law. If a consumer chooses to cancel coverage and pocket the money, it's still theirs, so again, at the starting point it is the consumer's money.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

Page 69 of 82 FirstFirst ... 1959676869707179 ... 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
  •