• 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 .
No, you pay for healthcare that has a prescription plan which you apprently do not partake of. You don't pay for bc, though.

Well, functionally you are paying for others birth control, because with mandates like this, you've essentially been forced into the "takes birth control" risk group.
 
No, you pay for healthcare that has a prescription plan which you apprently do not partake of. You don't pay for bc, though.
Incorrect, all policies must cover BC under Obamacare, we all pay now.
 
it is interesting that libertarians like the concept of group buy when it benefits them, but just to the point they get help protecting themselves from disaster, or so they think but rail at the idea of the group helping others do the same.

Most companies offer a variety of plans the biggest savings in premiums comes from high deductibles. If you don't use your insurance for The Pill, allergy meds, Diabetes monitering and meds, COPD- then take the high deductible.

Those who oppose birth control coverage have an odd position, it would be covered under the drug plan like other prescriptions, not like birthin then babies.
 
it is interesting that libertarians like the concept of group buy when it benefits them, but just to the point they get help protecting themselves from disaster, or so they think but rail at the idea of the group helping others do the same.

Most companies offer a variety of plans the biggest savings in premiums comes from high deductibles. If you don't use your insurance for The Pill, allergy meds, Diabetes monitering and meds, COPD- then take the high deductible.

Those who oppose birth control coverage have an odd position, it would be covered under the drug plan like other prescriptions, not like birthin then babies.

You keep ignoring the points being raised.
It's not a "libertarian" position, it's a "how insurance is supposed to work" position.

The fact is, a massive amount of people are completely ignorant, when it comes to how insurance is supposed to work.

****, I've spent so much time studying this subject, I should be licensed to sell the crap now.
 
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.
If insurance companies didn't spread the risk across all risk groups then they'd go broke just paying for the high risk group. The pool has to include all risk groups....or it wouldn't be "spreading" the risk. Someone who is low risk today can easily become high risk tomorrow. That is the risk you are insuring against.

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.
They really didn't start doing research into women's health until about 20 or 30 years ago. Up until then almost all the research was done for men's health. So I'm not surprised that women were discriminated against by the insurance companies as well.
 
Well, functionally you are paying for others birth control, because with mandates like this, you've essentially been forced into the "takes birth control" risk group.

As many conservatives have pointed out, the cost of birth control is pretty low overall. My son's birth was significantly more expensive than my wife's bc was over 13 years combined. Couple that with the extraordinary amount of healthy visits to the doctor he has. Had in only 17 months of life and it should be pretty clear that the takes birth control risk group should be much cheaper than the ****s like a bunny and pops out rugrats by the litter risk group.

Seriously, kids cost a ****ton
 
If insurance companies didn't spread the risk across all risk groups then they'd go broke just paying for the high risk group. The pool has to include all risk groups....or it wouldn't be "spreading" the risk. Someone who is low risk today can easily become high risk tomorrow. That is the risk you are insuring against.

Errr not exactly.
Why do think premiums are high, for higher risk groups?

They tend to be higher than an individuals, average annual medical costs.
Because insurance covers those, once in a blue moon situations, not every month situations.

They really didn't start doing research into women's health until about 20 or 30 years ago. Up until then almost all the research was done for men's health. So I'm not surprised that women were discriminated against by the insurance companies as well.

Lord, women paid more, because they used more, representing a greater risk.
It's not misogynistic discrimination, it's functional discrimination.

Just like young men being charged more for car insurance, because they are more dangerous behind the wheel.
 
As many conservatives have pointed out, the cost of birth control is pretty low overall. My son's birth was significantly more expensive than my wife's bc was over 13 years combined. Couple that with the extraordinary amount of healthy visits to the doctor he has. Had in only 17 months of life and it should be pretty clear that the takes birth control risk group should be much cheaper than the ****s like a bunny and pops out rugrats by the litter risk group.

Seriously, kids cost a ****ton
Tucker, this is cost to you and your family. One birth v. one individual using BC, when everyone who wants it paid for starts to make claims the company is on the hook for each one. So sure, raising a child, the birth, and the other costs for you > birth control. But think about this, when the companies are now having to pay +.50% of every BC regimen consumed, plus maternity, plus their original obligations the **** adds up. It's an aggregate that people aren't seeing.
 
As many conservatives have pointed out, the cost of birth control is pretty low overall. My son's birth was significantly more expensive than my wife's bc was over 13 years combined. Couple that with the extraordinary amount of healthy visits to the doctor he has. Had in only 17 months of life and it should be pretty clear that the takes birth control risk group should be much cheaper than the ****s like a bunny and pops out rugrats by the litter risk group.

Seriously, kids cost a ****ton

Well you are now in both risk groups, whether or not you decide to have more kids.
That's besides the fact the pregnancy is an elective condition and shouldn't be mandated in coverage.
 
Incorrect, all policies must cover BC under Obamacare, we all pay now.

If you pay more, it's because the cost of insurance has gone up due to Obamacare.

That doesn't change the fact that what you are paying for is YOUR insurance. It's all well and good to complain about how insurance prices have gone up due to Obamacare. It's all well and good to complain about the individual mandate. It's not all well and good to complain about what other people utilize their health insurance for. They are paying for the same services you qualify for.

It's not their fault you do not utilize it in the same way. You aren't paying for their birth control, you are failing to maximally utilize a service you pay for.
 
Is getting pregnant a felony now?

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.
 
If you pay more, it's because the cost of insurance has gone up due to Obamacare.

That doesn't change the fact that what you are paying for is YOUR insurance. It's all well and good to complain about how insurance prices have gone up due to Obamacare. It's all well and good to complain about the individual mandate. It's not all well and good to complain about what other people utilize their health insurance for. They are paying for the same services you qualify for.

It's not their fault you do not utilize it in the same way. You aren't paying for their birth control, you are failing to maximally utilize a service you pay for.
No tucker, this is not true. You pay for everything mandated in an insurance policy, now I as a 5"10" nearly 200lb strapping male with no ovaries must have my birth control pills covered under any policy sold in the U.S. AND insurance is now mandatory(See how silly that is?). You also pay for all options that you choose, you are now as HG stated in the BC risk class by default because your policy must by law cover it, and it's open ended so if Sebelius decides to mandate transgender surgery coverage it will be law, AND pretty much whatever else they think of next. So yes, everything mandatory for policy issuance is paid for by anyone with a policy, everything optionally covered is paid by those who choose that specific company, plan, and optional riders.
 
Errr not exactly.
Why do think premiums are high, for higher risk groups?

They tend to be higher than an individuals, average annual medical costs.
Because insurance covers those, once in a blue moon situations, not every month situations.



Lord, women paid more, because they used more, representing a greater risk.
It's not misogynistic discrimination, it's functional discrimination.

Just like young men being charged more for car insurance, because they are more dangerous behind the wheel.

Okay, I think I understand what you're saying and I think I agree. High risk people do pay more and some are refused insurance all together because they are so high risk.

So the high risk people do pay more....but they are still included in the pool with the low risk people. That is how the risk and cost is spread.
 
I'm only talking about the costs which went to my insurance company.
Which is not part of the overall aggregate. This is what I'm trying to explain, you covered your portion of the risk, according to contract. That the BC cost less than a pregnancy is not a relevant factor, not every woman is going to either use BC or get pregnant but BC must be provided in every plan which changes the risk. This is a fact.
 
Okay, I think I understand what you're saying and I think I agree. High risk people do pay more and some are refused insurance all together because they are so high risk.

So the high risk people do pay more....but they are still included in the pool with the low risk people. That is how the risk and cost is spread.

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.

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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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. :roll:
Yes females did pay more for insurance than males, specifically because they were female and they cost more to insure.
 
Back
Top Bottom