• 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 .
Your research is based upon third party information. I don't accept it based upon my recent work history in the industry, you make claims that the birth control mandate is a sum good, you have to back that up because frankly the real numbers suck in the aggregate.

All research is based upon third party information. Someone conducts a study, people quote that study. You keep talking about "real numbers" but so far all I've seen is bluster and repeated references to your work "in the indusry." For all I know, you cleaned the floors. Why on earth would I provide you with any more information at this point when you've consistently refused to provide yours?
 
Incorrect, risk tables in insurance are directly compiled by the actuarial department.

Great. Prove me wrong then. While you're at it, why not address any or all of the other arguments I've made?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
...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.
 
Back
Top Bottom