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 70 of 82 FirstFirst ... 2060686970717280 ... LastLast
Results 691 to 700 of 811

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

  1. #691
    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 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.
    Of course. They can still do this.

    With the mandate that choice was stripped away by law.
    For one issue, but they still have choices. They can still look for a cheaper policy. Tehy can still find a policy that has fewer electives. The only thing that different is that one more service, among hundreds of services, now has to be covered by insurance

    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.
    they will not get one red cent that they had already paid to the company if they do this. Why? because once they paid it, it was no longer their money. They can't call on it later. they won't get any of it back. They canceled the service, therefore they are no longer paying for the service.

    That last point of yours proves my position correct and yours incorrect. People have no claim to the money in the pool unless they continue to pay for that privilege.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  2. #692
    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
    Of course. They can still do this.
    Changing policies means nothing with the mandate in place. Drug coverage most likely go up because of it and all policies must include it, as I've been saying all along, consumer choice loses here.

    For one issue, but they still have choices. They can still look for a cheaper policy. Tehy can still find a policy that has fewer electives. The only thing that different is that one more service, among hundreds of services, now has to be covered by insurance
    Fewer electives, but no matter what the consumer must fund an elective they may have a problem with, and it skews the risk up. This is fact.



    they will not get one red cent that they had already paid to the company if they do this. Why? because once they paid it, it was no longer their money. They can't call on it later. they won't get any of it back. They canceled the service, therefore they are no longer paying for the service.
    Of course, there is no refund period after a "free look" period, so anyone who had the coverage for more than three months is SOL. But it doesn't matter because everyone has to pay for birth control now.

    That last point of yours proves my position correct and yours incorrect. People have no claim to the money in the pool unless they continue to pay for that privilege.
    Actually, it's the opposite. My point all along was the starting point is the consumers money, they make the choice to purchase/not purchase into the pool. It further reinforces that the mandate takes a choice away from them. I've never said paid premiums are the consumers, but that their money starts the cycle.
    Last edited by LaMidRighter; 09-07-12 at 06:15 PM.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  3. #693
    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
    Changing policies means nothing with the mandate in place.
    So your position is that covering birth control is, at this time, the maximal policy that anyone can hold (meaning that it has maximum coverage possible)? If not, then the above is false.

    Drug coverage most likely go up because of it and all policies must include it, as I've been saying all along, consumer choice loses here.
    The minimum coverage plan will probably go up slightly, sure.

    Fewer electives, but no matter what the consumer must fund an elective they may have a problem with, and it skews the risk up. This is fact.
    It will have a slight overall effect on the price (probably pennies per person), but not a big one, because, as has been noted by many people opposed to this, it is a small percentage of people who will partake of this covered service.




    Of course, there is no refund period after a "free look" period, so anyone who had the coverage for more than three months is SOL.
    This is because they are paying for a service, and as such, the money they put in is not theirs once they relinquish possession of it.

    Fact: money you no longer own is not your money.

    But it doesn't matter because everyone has to pay for birth control now.
    Repeating a false claim doesn't make it any less false. They aren't paying for birth control, they are paying for their health care policy. The money that goes towards the birth control is not their money. The minimum mandatory coverage that they are paying for changed.

    My point all along was the starting point is the consumers money
    And that point has been, from the starting point, 100% incorrect. If it was their money, cancelling th epolicy after never having utilized teh services would mean they could take their money back. tehy can't. Because it is no longer their money.


    they make the choice to purchase/not purchase into the pool.

    they are purchasing the policy, which guarantees certain services will be covered should they need to utilize them. They aren't purchasing "into the pool", they are purchasing access to a service. If they were buying into the pool, they'd be able to take their money back out if they chose to leave the pool without utilizing any services at all. Tehy can't do that, ergo, the money ceases to be theirs once they relinquish possession of it.

    It further reinforces that the mandate takes a choice away from them.
    It's never been their choice to determine what an insurance companies minimum coverage plans were, thus there is no choice removed from them. They are still free to choose the minimum coverage plan. Teh minimum coverage plan has simply changed.

    I've never said paid premiums are the consumers, but that their money starts the cycle.
    when you say "They pay for another persons service" you are saying the money is the Customers by virtue of the simple fact that one can't pay for something with money that is not theirs.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  4. #694
    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
    So your position is that covering birth control is, at this time, the maximal policy that anyone can hold (meaning that it has maximum coverage possible)? If not, then the above is false.
    All I'm saying is it's an additional liability and demand will go up. It's elective. I haven't commented on the level of the policy coverage, but now a bare bones policy must cover BC as well as a Cadillac group policy. The cadillac policy will show a lower risk but the lowest coverage options will not absorb it, then there is the middle, but no matter what the aggregate risk increase will add up.



    The minimum coverage plan will probably go up slightly, sure.
    Percentage wise probably the most.



    It will have a slight overall effect on the price (probably pennies per person), but not a big one, because, as has been noted by many people opposed to this, it is a small percentage of people who will partake of this covered service.
    It will be more than pennies, probably not an unsustainable increase, but either way it's more money out of everyone's pocket for elective treatment.






    This is because they are paying for a service, and as such, the money they put in is not theirs once they relinquish possession of it.
    Tucker, why focus on this? What I've been saying is that there is no alternative, by default people will have to spend their money on coverage they may or may not agree with.

    Fact: money you no longer own is not your money.
    But, before the mandate you didn't have to give it to a company which provided electives, now you do. There is no getting around that.



    Repeating a false claim doesn't make it any less false. They aren't paying for birth control, they are paying for their health care policy. The money that goes towards the birth control is not their money. The minimum mandatory coverage that they are paying for changed.
    There's nothing false about it, everything in the policy is in the premium. So yes birth control is being paid for.



    And that point has been, from the starting point, 100% incorrect. If it was their money, cancelling th epolicy after never having utilized teh services would mean they could take their money back. tehy can't. Because it is no longer their money.
    Not necessarily. There is a "free look" period by law, meaning if the policy is turned in in three months a full refund is due, after that there is no refund unless the company agrees. As well, any cancellation ends the agreement, at the point of initial payment it is the consumer's money, and this does not change what they are having to pay for. Insurance is now mandatory, and insurers are mandated to provide birth control, there is no choice.





    they are purchasing the policy, which guarantees certain services will be covered should they need to utilize them. They aren't purchasing "into the pool", they are purchasing access to a service. If they were buying into the pool, they'd be able to take their money back out if they chose to leave the pool without utilizing any services at all. Tehy can't do that, ergo, the money ceases to be theirs once they relinquish possession of it.
    Yes, and without the option to buy something that offers no electives this is a moot point.



    It's never been their choice to determine what an insurance companies minimum coverage plans were, thus there is no choice removed from them. They are still free to choose the minimum coverage plan. Teh minimum coverage plan has simply changed.
    Oh you'd be surprised. There were plenty of options when I was selling.



    when you say "They pay for another persons service" you are saying the money is the Customers by virtue of the simple fact that one can't pay for something with money that is not theirs.
    No, I am saying that the risk pool and everything covered is the liability under contract of the insurance company, buying a policy with that coverage means you are funding it. Period, end of story.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  5. #695
    Educator Schutzengel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Last Seen
    04-20-13 @ 11:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    719

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Aderleth View Post
    Um... did you actually read the sentence you were responding to? I said the prescription was medically indicated. So, like, the opposite of what you just said.
    hence the if I had already responded to the affimative to medically required contraception.
    History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid. - Ike

    Tea is better for you than Kool-Aid.

  6. #696
    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
    Adjectives describe the noun they are connected with, not nouns which appear later on in the sentence. "Uncertain" is an adjective. Pregnancy is a biological condition, not a loss. When you figure out why I am saying that, you'll realize immediately why your arguments have been disingenuous.


    (hint: Your argument relies on you applying the adjective "uncertain" to the wrong noun in the sentence)
    I know that pregnancy is not a loss.
    That's why I try to quote "loss."

    The money used to pay for the medical services, sought for addressing pregnancy is the "loss."
    A loss where the parties, purposely and willingly set the conditions for the want for medical services to be used.

    With practically all other insurable situations, the medical costs were uncertain and contingent.
    With this, they are foreseen by the insured.

    Now if a pregnancy was accidental, having coverage for abortion would make sense.
    It is to remediate the accidental pregnancy.
    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. #697
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    01-05-17 @ 02:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,479

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    NOBODY'S PAYING FOR ****ING SANDRA ****ING FLUKES ****ING CONTRACEPTION...

    HOLY JESUS.

    There's nothing wrong with mandating Medical Insurance Companies to pay for contraception the same way they would pay for any other basic drugs that are nessecary for people to have, some of these HMO's cover Viagra for gods sake, so why not contraceptive pills?

    Doing such a thing, expanding access to contraceptives is a massive net benefit to the economy as it reduces unwanted pregnancies, reduces the need for abortions which is a net positive for the medical insurance companies obviously abortion procedures cost more than a measly pill.

    This whole idea that everyone pays for Sandra Flukes Contraceptives is such a fallacy it's unbelievable.

    What Jetboogieman said! Fact.

  8. #698
    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
    There are a multitude of services for which 100% of insured people are covered, but only a small percentage of people utilize. In fact, the vast majority of services which are covered fit that description.

    The only way insurance companies could be profitable is because what I am saying is not only true, but it is the ****ing business model upon which the industry is built.

    Seriously. It's the ****ing business model.
    Covering people for services that would be completely impossible to utilize, is not a business model the insurance industry relies on.
    Males cannot use female birth control, as should be self evident.

    For example, mandating female bc coverage for all medical plans and eliminating gender based risk grouping, causes males insurance rates to climb to subsidize females, who would otherwise be a higher risk group.
    When you start shielding risk groups to much, you create a situation, that promotes moral hazard.
    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. #699
    Sage
    Fletch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mentor Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    15,286

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    It will have a slight overall effect on the price (probably pennies per person), but not a big one, because, as has been noted by many people opposed to this, it is a small percentage of people who will partake of this covered service.
    Why on earth would you advocte the state step in and mandate a coverage that will raise everyones rates at a time when high rates are the major problem with health care in this country, when only a small percentage of people will partake in it? I think people forget what insurance is there for in the first place--that is to cover the unexpected, catastrophic event, not things you can pay for with change you find between the coushions of the couch. Health insurance covers too much already. That is why it is so costly. Most of your premium is just basically a pre-payment for services not a protection against the unforseen.

  10. #700
    Guru
    Porchev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    GA
    Last Seen
    01-08-17 @ 12:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    3,092

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

    ...I have nothing against birth control, premarital sex, or everyone having access to every birth control method possible. However, what is the big deal about having to pay for it yourself? One of my sons just started college recently, and within two weeks I found out he has a new cute girlfriend (I saw pictures on Facebook), and I hope he is following my advice from some time ago (and reminded often since) about safe sex…so I expect him to go buy condoms at Walmart or wherever. And for his girlfriend if she so choices and totally up to her, she could be on the pill which costs about as much as condoms, so why can't they pay for that themselves, when they have easy access to them?

    I think the comparison with the BC pill and Viagra isn't really what we should be comparing; cost and commonality would suggest we compare condoms and the BC pill. So, with that said, should condoms be covered in health insurance, or should it just be up to the individual to buy them. I would suggest it remain up to the individual, since they both are very easy to attain.

Page 70 of 82 FirstFirst ... 2060686970717280 ... 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
  •