• 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!

Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

Should we pay for Sandra Fluke's birth control?

  • Total voters
    64
  • Poll closed .
Can I pay to sterilize the people who think that having insurance cover certain meds = all of us paying for those meds? It'd be a public service.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
How can they not pay?

One way or another, it costs money. If you're getting it through insurance, then that insurance policy has to charge you a premium which reflects what it costs the insurance to cover it. This will almost certainly be more than what it would cost you to simply pay for it yourself directly. If you're getting it through a government-based medical program, then you're paying higher taxes, in an amount that reflects the cost of government covering it. Again, this is almost certainly more than it would cost you to buy it directly.

I think your problem is that you live in a society that has a government-based health care system that has you so far removed from the actual cost of anything that you have no clue what your health-based services and products actually cost. This prevents removes, from the actual provider, any incentive to keep costs reasonable. You have no clue how a free market works, or how prices are controlled by basic supply & demand thereunder.
Click to expand...

You know, I am getting different messages from people re health insurance, and frankly, I don't know what to believe anymore....
 
Harshaw said:
No, it does not speak to anything I said.

I said this:

OK, then you have no idea what you're talking about. Employers provided coverage which didn't include contraceptives; that's a fact, thus your premise is negated.

The mandate required them to provide that coverage.
Click to expand...

You show me the exact words in that to which you linked which "proves" any of this "wrong."
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I don't play by your rules. First you said "Employers provided coverage which didn't include contraceptives; that's a fact." And then you said, "The mandate required them to provide that coverage."

So which is it? Explain how the state mandated the insurance companies to provide birth control coverage and then how the employer provided coverage didn't include it. Where do you think the employer provided insurance comes from?

So what? If you think this has anything to do with what I said, you either didn't understand what I said, or you don't understand your link.
Click to expand...
It probably had something to do with your claim that there wasn't a mandate to cover Viagra.....

Harshaw said:
There's no mandate to cover Viagra.
Click to expand...

You were wrong.

The law review case note to which you linked does not concern birth control, and in fact mentions "birth control" exactly once, in passing, and "contraceptives" a couple of times in footnotes when discussing OTHER things. Did you read it? I suspect you did not. I suspect you Googled and just posted the first thing you found which kinda sorta maybe said something like what you wanted to say. (Did you even know it WAS a law review case note?)
Click to expand...
You were wrong on the connection between birth control and fertility drugs and I corrected you.

And all that aside, it has absolutely NOT ONE WHIT, not the merest iota, to do with what I posted. Zip. Zero. Nada. Nothing in this post nor your previous post. Nothing.
Click to expand...
Well, you're wrong again.
 
Moot said:
Sorry, but I don't play by your rules. First you said "Employers provided coverage which didn't include contraceptives; that's a fact." And then you said, "The mandate required them to provide that coverage."

So which is it? Explain how the state mandated the insurance companies to provide birth control coverage and then how the employer provided coverage didn't include it. Where do you think the employer provided insurance comes from?
Click to expand...

Do you understand that the statements followed some semblance of chronological order? Nope. Nope, you do not. You did not, because you didn't understand my post.


It probably had something to do with your claim that there wasn't a mandate to cover Viagra.....
Click to expand...

There wasn't. Not for employers. What you cited was about Medicaid, not private insurance. This, too, appears to be something beyond your comprehension. Do you know what Medicaid is? It appears you may not.


You were wrong on the connection between birth control and fertility drugs and I corrected you.
Click to expand...

That's just plain idiotic. Even your own link -- the law review case note -- drew a distinction between the two, further evidencing that you didn't even read it.


Well, you're wrong again.
Click to expand...

The ramblings of someone who 1) doesn't understand simple words in front of her (like "employers" and "Medicaid") and 2) doesn't even bother to read the very things she herself posts as "evidence" do not make me "wrong."
 
Tucker Case said:
Can I pay to sterilize the people who think that having insurance cover certain meds = all of us paying for those meds? It'd be a public service.
Click to expand...
If you pay a premium you are paying for everything covered in the policy. If you have a prescription drugs rider you are paying for your own and other's pharmalogical products covered, if you don't add the rider or buy a policy that has said coverage you aren't paying for anyone's medicine. With the mandate you are now paying for birth control for others because it is a federal mandate.
 
Harshaw said:
Do you understand that the statements followed some semblance of chronological order? Nope. Nope, you do not. You did not, because you didn't understand my post.
Click to expand...
It doesn't look like you understand your posts, either. Explain how employer provided insurance doesn't provide bc coverage if its a state mandate.

There wasn't. Not for employers. What you cited was about Medicaid, not private insurance. This, too, appears to be something beyond your comprehension. Do you know what Medicaid is? It appears you may not.
Click to expand...
I cited the state mandates and you have cited....nothing.


That's just plain idiotic. Even your own link -- the law review case note -- drew a distinction between the two, further evidencing that you didn't even read it.
Click to expand...
Then quote it and show me the distinction.

The ramblings of someone who 1) doesn't understand simple words in front of her (like "employers" and "Medicaid") and 2) doesn't even bother to read the very things she herself posts as "evidence" do not make me "wrong."
Click to expand...
If you spent as much time speaking coherently and rationally as you do insulting and spewing garbage then you might have a point. But you don't.
 
LaMidRighter said:
If you pay a premium you are paying for everything covered in the policy. If you have a prescription drugs rider you are paying for your own and other's pharmalogical products covered, if you don't add the rider or buy a policy that has said coverage you aren't paying for anyone's medicine. With the mandate you are now paying for birth control for others because it is a federal mandate.
Click to expand...

No, you are paying for your health insurance.
 
Moot said:
It doesn't look like you understand your posts, either. Explain how employer provided insurance doesn't provide bc coverage if its a state mandate.
Click to expand...

Crikey. The mandate you cite was for MEDICAID. Your inability to comprehend this baffles me.


I cited the state mandates and you have cited....nothing.
Click to expand...

On MEDICAID. Good grief, you DON'T know what Medicaid is.


Then quote it and show me the distinction.
Click to expand...

It mentioned birth control once as a separate thing, and then it never mentioned birth control again:

Furthermore, the states asserted that the mandate placed them in the “untenable position of covering Viagra for men while virtually none of them
cover birth control or infertility treatments for women.”
Click to expand...

Which you might have known if you had ever read it. But you didn't. You just posted it on the title alone.


If you spent as much time speaking coherently and rationally as you do insulting and spewing garbage then you might have a point. But you don't.
Click to expand...

Oh, OK. "I know you are, but what am I?" At least didn't type out the baby talk phonetically this time, so you're improving a tiny bit.

Anyway, that's all I require from you here. No more time to waste on you.
 
LaMidRighter said:
And everything that the policy contains. I was in the industry Tuck, there are no freebies in a policy.
Click to expand...

Of course. You are paying for the services that you receive. They pool the money (as well as make a tidy profit) so that the business can work, but you don't pay for anyone else's ****.
 
Tucker Case said:
Of course. You are paying for the services that you receive. They pool the money (as well as make a tidy profit) so that the business can work, but you don't pay for anyone else's ****.
Click to expand...
You are paying for access to the risk pool, everything allowed for in the policy is weighted towards that. Technically you pay for someone else's heart attack and surgeries but if you are in the same situation then alternately it will be payed by those likewise paying into the pool. This is not company specific either, many companies reinsure so you could actually be paying for your risk pool and a portion of the company you didn't go with. Think about it, do you think if you pay for a policy for five years, get cancer which requires aggressive treatment(heaven forbid) and pay your total OOP that you have accumulated those multiple thousands of dollars in premium? No, but what you have done is insured that there is a pool of money to dip into should that happen, drug coverage is sort of like that, you may not use an asthma inhaler, or statin drugs but are paying for them with the rider fee and the specific things you need will likewise be paid by everyone else in the rider. Birth control is not medically necessary(nor is Viagra) and a waiver in such a case could be issued with a physician issuing a simple statement of need for health purposes, if it's mandatory then you are paying for something you never will have use for.
 
LaMidRighter said:
You are paying for access to the risk pool, everything allowed for in the policy is weighted towards that.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You pay for the services that you can receive. The insurance company pools the money they collect from people who wish to have those services in order to pay for the services. the only thing you pay for is access to the services though. Once the money leaves your possession, it becomes the insurance companies money, which it then uses for providing those services.

Saying that you pay for other people's services is like saying you pay for other people's coffee when you buy a cup of joe at a diner because some portion of the money you paid goes into a pool that the diner then uses to purchase their products which they then provide to their customers.
 
Tucker Case said:
Exactly. You pay for the services that you can receive. The insurance company pools the money they collect from people who wish to have those services in order to pay for the services. the only thing you pay for is access to the services though. Once the money leaves your possession, it becomes the insurance companies money, which it then uses for providing those services.

Saying that you pay for other people's services is like saying you pay for other people's coffee when you buy a cup of joe at a diner because some portion of the money you paid goes into a pool that the diner then uses to purchase their products which they then provide to their customers.
Click to expand...
No Tucker, the two points aren't related. You agree to contract with an insurance company, this means they owe you covered services plus everyone else. I have no problem with companies providing a birth control rider of their own free choice, at that point if I thought it was a big enough issue I could simply find an alternative or not take the rider. Where I have a problem is the mandated coverage of it, this takes my choices away and forces me to pay for things I have no need of. If I buy a cup of coffee I am paying for the portion in the cup specifically and the service to myself, it's an individual purchase. The difference is the risk pool is "access only" and it is determined whether the company will accept an application as acceptable or not.
 
LaMidRighter said:
No Tucker, the two points aren't related. You agree to contract with an insurance company, this means they owe you covered services plus everyone else. I have no problem with companies providing a birth control rider of their own free choice, at that point if I thought it was a big enough issue I could simply find an alternative or not take the rider. Where I have a problem is the mandated coverage of it, this takes my choices away and forces me to pay for things I have no need of. If I buy a cup of coffee I am paying for the portion in the cup specifically and the service to myself, it's an individual purchase. The difference is the risk pool is "access only" and it is determined whether the company will accept an application as acceptable or not.
Click to expand...

You won't have to pay for birth control.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Well then everybody should pay for every medical drug and procedure out of their own pocket.

After all it's their responsibility.

Let's do away with HMO's, they're socialistic anyway.

:lol:
Click to expand...
Lousy example. Sex acts are never a life or death situation.

Bob is right, and you are wrong.
 
"Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?"

Actually society shouldn't have to, although it would be a benefit to humanity if she didn't reproduce_

After all, supporting her children for 21 years would cost alot more than a lifetime supply of condoms_

She comes across as a lazy dependent welfare queen looking for a free ride off the American taxpayer_
 
Harshaw said:
Crikey. The mandate you cite was for MEDICAID. Your inability to comprehend this baffles me.




On MEDICAID. Good grief, you DON'T know what Medicaid is.
Click to expand...
Of course I know what Medicaid is. Do you know what private insurance is? Because that's who the states were mandating to. But you would know that if you had really read the links I provided.

It mentioned birth control once as a separate thing, and then it never mentioned birth control again: Which you might have known if you had ever read it. But you didn't. You just posted it on the title alone.
Click to expand...
The point was that birth control drugs are catagorized with fertility drugs since both involve and effect the ovaries, the menstral cycle and reproduction. Is that clear enough for you or do you need pictures?

Oh, OK. "I know you are, but what am I?" At least didn't type out the baby talk phonetically this time, so you're improving a tiny bit.

Anyway, that's all I require from you here. No more time to waste on you.
Click to expand...
I have to admit Harshaw, reading your posts is like fingernails across a chalkboard. There's only so much of you I can take as well. Later gator.
 
randel said:
so, because you have' no need for it', you shouldnt pay for it...you do realize that you are pooled with other people to spread risk around, right? you understand that what you 'need', may be different from others in that risk pool, correct?
Click to expand...

Yes and I should be pooled with people who have a similar risk profile.
Not with people who have a different risk profile.

People with greater risks should pay more, while those with less risk should pay less.
That's how insurance is supposed to work.
By your logic, me being a smoker, shouldn't matter and I should have to pay the same premiums as non smokers.
 
ChrisL said:
Check out this link.

Honolulu Civil Beat - FACT CHECK
Click to expand...

I linked a fact check article which basically says that, there is no clear evidence that providing birth, out of pocket free, reduces unwanted pregnancies.
There is no clear answer, that it is cost neutral, positive or negative.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Yes and I should be pooled with people who have a similar risk profile.
Not with people who have a different risk profile.
Click to expand...
Then you missed the whole point of "spreading the risk" which is the foundation insurance is built upon.



People with greater risks should pay more, while those with less risk should pay less.
That's how insurance is supposed to work.
By your logic, me being a smoker, shouldn't matter and I should have to pay the same premiums as non smokers.
Click to expand...
Insurance companies spread the cost as well.
 
Tucker Case said:
Of course. You are paying for the services that you receive. They pool the money (as well as make a tidy profit) so that the business can work, but you don't pay for anyone else's ****.
Click to expand...

Actually, some of us do, because we buy health insurance, at a monthly premium, and we rarely ever use it, while others use it regularly, so essentially, I am paying for someone else's health care, just by the fact that I am healthy, and others on the same plan are not, but we pay the same monthly premium.
 
Moot said:
Then you missed the whole point of "spreading the risk" which is the foundation insurance is built upon.
Click to expand...

You missed the entire, modern concept of insurance, risk based pricing and the purpose of actuaries.
Practically every other insurance model includes risk groups, some have higher risk, others have lower risk.

When you add coverage, you change your specific risk group and the pricing that goes along with it.
So yes, you do spread the risk, but it is generally with people in your risk pool, not with every single soul who purchases insurance.

Moot said:
Insurance companies spread the cost as well.
Click to expand...

Yes, but they change prices based on risk group and coverage.
That's why females, used to pay more, because as a whole, they are a greater risk to the insurer.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I linked a fact check article which basically says that, there is no clear evidence that providing birth, out of pocket free, reduces unwanted pregnancies.
There is no clear answer, that it is cost neutral, positive or negative.
Click to expand...
So why do women take birth control if it doesn't reduce unwanted pregnancies? For every month a woman is on the pill she is preventing an unwanted pregancy.
 
Moot said:
So why do women take birth control if it doesn't reduce unwanted pregnancies? For every month a woman is on the pill she is preventing an unwanted pregancy.
Click to expand...

You're mixing individual results, with group results.
An individual woman can take birth control and eliminate unwanted pregnancies.

As a group and in this specific situation, providing free (at point of service) birth control, through insurance, does not necessarily reduce additional unwanted pregnancies.
Why?
Because the group of people, who are the primary beneficiaries of this mandate, are more likely to already be taking birth control.
All this mandate has done, is spread the cost of birth control to other people, who do not need birth control.

We keep diluting risk group pricing with these mandates, so less risky people, end of paying more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom