• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why Can't We Have A Private Choice?

phattonez said:
I'm fine with 1-3 and 7-9. I see no reason why insurance should pay for simple drugs like antibiotics, ibuprofen, and things like that.
Click to expand...
Antibiotics aren't simple -- or cheap. Common generics (like amoxicillin) can be quite affordable without insurance; others can run $500 and up for a course. Vancomycin costs $2000 or more for a 7-day supply.

Insurers only pay for ibuprofen when it's given to you in the hospital. The "zomg massive charges for Tylenol!" are a bit exaggerated, because it's a game played by the hospitals and insurers. Hospitals set insanely high prices on everything, because that's a starting point for negotiation with the insurers. You're still paying way above OTC prices, but it's not as bad as presumed.

I've already discussed the problems of opting out of specific items. Perhaps to put it in terms you can relate to:

Omitting prescription costs keeps things cheap for you -- until you need those things. Any instant you could develop a condition that requires a medication, or mental health services, that costs you thousands of dollars a year. E.g. a friend of mine was fine one day, and the next week was dealing with headaches and dizzy spells; turns out he had a brain tumor. No clue, no way to plan, and if he didn't have insurance, he would have been socked with tens of thousands of dollars in surgery. You just don't know what you will need, until you need it. That's why we have insurance in the first place, to reduce exposure to risk and unexpected contingencies.

Further, if you can just add an essential coverage only when you need it, and drop it when you don't? Then you're a freeloader. You're taking advantage of everyone else, and expecting them to pay you only when you need it. Not only is that unfair to everyone else, the insurers have no interest in helping selfish freeloaders. As a result, they will make cheap plans with little coverage to scoop up those sweet government subsidies, and then charge so much for plans that (barely) cover what you need that it's barely worth having.


In other words, while you think the ESBs are unfair to you, the reality is that your plan is unfair for everyone, because you want to freeload. What you're requesting is the equivalent of the following:

"I don't want to pay for auto insurance. However, if I get into an accident, I want the insurer to pay for it anyway, and then I will go back to not paying for it."

Neither auto accidents nor medical conditions are predictable. You never know what you're going to need. That's why we have insurance, to distribute the risk across a large pool. In the short term you pay for things you don't need right now; in the long term, you benefit by the security of knowing that if you get hit, you're covered. That's how insurance works, regardless of whether it is private or public in its structure.


Think of it this way, would you want to pay for hormone treatment for transgenders?
Click to expand...
If research shows that hormone replacement therapy for transgender individuals helps improve their mental healthy, why should I have a problem with it?


That's what welfare is for. Don't call it insurance and ask me to thank you.
Click to expand...
Insurance is redistribution. That's what it's for. That's how it works.

An insurance company collects payments from people who do not currently need services, and uses those revenues to pay for the people who do need them. The fact that most insurers are private companies does not change its fundamental redistributive structure.

So... if you want your medical problems to be covered, you have to accept that your premiums are paying for someone else's care. Including problems that you personally will never face.

Wake up. This is not like ordering cable TV or a cell phone service. It is, ultimately, the society as a whole that has to pay for a public good.
 
Visbek said:
Antibiotics aren't simple -- or cheap. Common generics (like amoxicillin) can be quite affordable without insurance; others can run $500 and up for a course. Vancomycin costs $2000 or more for a 7-day supply.

Insurers only pay for ibuprofen when it's given to you in the hospital. The "zomg massive charges for Tylenol!" are a bit exaggerated, because it's a game played by the hospitals and insurers. Hospitals set insanely high prices on everything, because that's a starting point for negotiation with the insurers. You're still paying way above OTC prices, but it's not as bad as presumed.

I've already discussed the problems of opting out of specific items. Perhaps to put it in terms you can relate to:

Omitting prescription costs keeps things cheap for you -- until you need those things. Any instant you could develop a condition that requires a medication, or mental health services, that costs you thousands of dollars a year. E.g. a friend of mine was fine one day, and the next week was dealing with headaches and dizzy spells; turns out he had a brain tumor. No clue, no way to plan, and if he didn't have insurance, he would have been socked with tens of thousands of dollars in surgery. You just don't know what you will need, until you need it. That's why we have insurance in the first place, to reduce exposure to risk and unexpected contingencies.

Further, if you can just add an essential coverage only when you need it, and drop it when you don't? Then you're a freeloader. You're taking advantage of everyone else, and expecting them to pay you only when you need it. Not only is that unfair to everyone else, the insurers have no interest in helping selfish freeloaders. As a result, they will make cheap plans with little coverage to scoop up those sweet government subsidies, and then charge so much for plans that (barely) cover what you need that it's barely worth having.


In other words, while you think the ESBs are unfair to you, the reality is that your plan is unfair for everyone, because you want to freeload. What you're requesting is the equivalent of the following:

"I don't want to pay for auto insurance. However, if I get into an accident, I want the insurer to pay for it anyway, and then I will go back to not paying for it."

Neither auto accidents nor medical conditions are predictable. You never know what you're going to need. That's why we have insurance, to distribute the risk across a large pool. In the short term you pay for things you don't need right now; in the long term, you benefit by the security of knowing that if you get hit, you're covered. That's how insurance works, regardless of whether it is private or public in its structure.
Click to expand...

What in the world is unpredictable about birth control? This argument makes no sense for the subject at hand. If I didn't want to be insured for cancer you'd have a point, but why do I need insurance for something that I don't want to use?

It's like forcing me to get car insurance that covers car washes for my work truck. I don't want to wash my work truck, and I don't need to wash my work truck, so why would I want insurance that covers car washes?

If research shows that hormone replacement therapy for transgender individuals helps improve their mental healthy, why should I have a problem with it?
Click to expand...

Because you're not transgender! Insurance is for you! If they want the hormones, let them pay for it themselves.

Insurance is redistribution. That's what it's for. That's how it works.
Click to expand...

It's risk redistribution. You're thinking of it more as a social service, like welfare.

So... if you want your medical problems to be covered, you have to accept that your premiums are paying for someone else's care. Including problems that you personally will never face.

Wake up. This is not like ordering cable TV or a cell phone service. It is, ultimately, the society as a whole that has to pay for a public good.
Click to expand...

I get it. I want coverage for cancer even if I never get cancer. I want coverage for heart disease even if I never get heart disease. What I don't want is coverage for something that I am never going to use, that I know for a fact. That's my problem. That's the problem that so many people here seem to have a hard time understanding.
 
If you only get catastrophic, and you end up with non-catastrophic that bankrupts you, we lose, you lose.
if you end up not spending it for prevention until its finally catastrophic, you lose, we lose.
if you get lucky and have no issues at all and are ultra-genetically-healthy, you win, we lose
if you only get catastrophic but have costly issues, you may go to a charity hospital and get free/reduced cost treatment, you win, we lose

Go through the big ones, and you'll see this looks a lot like prisoner's dilemma.
Basically you want to betray, because in a betray single iteration game, you win and everyone else either breaks even or loses... very nice of you!
If you cooperate instead, (since this is an iterative process throughout your life and all of ours), the costs go down for everyone.

We can get into issues where we subsidize poor health choices...but hopefully we can contain those with a variety of measures. Although sometimes liberals get too liberal and want to just "give them everything they need", which can sometimes cause more harm than good.
 
phattonez said:
What in the world is unpredictable about birth control? This argument makes no sense for the subject at hand. If I didn't want to be insured for cancer you'd have a point, but why do I need insurance for something that I don't want to use?
Click to expand...
Because, as I've explained twice already: Allowing everyone to pick and choose coverage a la carte has numerous unintended consequences which wind up compromising coverage for everyone. Including you.

Again: Health insurance is not a service like cable TV, or Internet services, or cell phone services. You are not paying your insurer to deliver a good. You are paying them to redistribute risk and costs among a large pool of ratepayers.


It's like forcing me to get car insurance that covers car washes for my work truck. I don't want to wash my work truck, and I don't need to wash my work truck, so why would I want insurance that covers car washes?
Click to expand...
Incorrect.

Again, insurance is not about "paying for what I want." It's about distributing risk over as many people as possible.

Your proposal is you saying "I don't want to pay for other people, but I want them to pay for me." You don't want to pay for a specific service that you don't need -- but you expect others to pay for you, when you may need coverage for something they won't need either.

You're freeloading. It might not seem like it, because you're thinking about insurance as though you're picking ingredients at Chipotle, and that's not at all how it works.


Because you're not transgender! Insurance is for you! If they want the hormones, let them pay for it themselves.
Click to expand...
And again... That's not what insurance is about.

It's not about "I got mine, and screw all y'all." I may never have cancer, or a heart attack, or get hit by a truck. I'm not paying premiums solely for my benefit. It's about helping all the ratepayers, with the expectation they will assist me if I need it.


It's risk redistribution. You're thinking of it more as a social service, like welfare.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's because... redistribution is redistribution.

Again, it doesn't matter whether it's a public or private insurance scheme, the concept is exactly the same.

E.g. with single payer, the government collects premiums in the form of taxes, and pays service providers out of those revenues. The difference is that it's operated by the government instead of a for-profit entity. (And it has a much larger ratepayer base, which distributes the risk as widely as possible.)

The same with Social Security. It is both an insurance scheme and a safety net. You pay into the system, and your payroll taxes are paid out right now to the beneficiaries. You might never need disability; you could die at 60 and not collect SS at all. You aren't just paying in for your own benefit, but for everyone's benefit.

Long-term care insurance operates the exact same way. You pay the insurer a certain amount each year, and those payments are used to cover people right now who are in assisted living, or getting home care. You might die without ever needing it; so you are paying to reduce your risk and the risk of others.

This is how insurance works. This is why insurance works. Proclaiming "I'm gonna get mine, and that's all I care about" compromises how insurance works, and makes it worse for everyone.
 
phattonez said:
I understand that. I want coverage for being hit by a bus even if I'm never hit by a bus. I'm fine with that. What I object to is coverage for a service that I don't want. Why do I have to pay for something that I don't want to use?



I understand that, but the fewer benefits that I can claim, the less that I have to pay. If I'm never going to use birth control, then it means that an insurance company doesn't have that expense, so if I don't want the coverage, my premium goes down.
Click to expand...

What you don't understand is that you really Aren't "paying for something you don't want use"...

Its a myth that you are paying based on your usage and only your usage. You pay based on demand.. with the base cost set by the overall cost of all the people the insurance company insures.

the fewer benefits that you claim doesn;t really factor into what you pay. YOUR money is not going directly to only your care. Everyone ELSE.. is paying when YOU use your healthcare.

(why should I have to pay for your drinking. or your lifestyle choices)... Well the fact is that is HOW INSURANCE WORKS.

The "not paying for contraception" etc... that's just marketing to make you buy into their insurance. Either because you think you are getting a better deal.. or because you think its some kind of ethical decision. but at the end of the day.. Insurance does not work like a savings account that they save up in your account for just the things you need or use.
 
jaeger19 said:
What you don't understand is that you really Aren't "paying for something you don't want use"...

Its a myth that you are paying based on your usage and only your usage. You pay based on demand.. with the base cost set by the overall cost of all the people the insurance company insures.

the fewer benefits that you claim doesn;t really factor into what you pay. YOUR money is not going directly to only your care. Everyone ELSE.. is paying when YOU use your healthcare.

(why should I have to pay for your drinking. or your lifestyle choices)... Well the fact is that is HOW INSURANCE WORKS.

The "not paying for contraception" etc... that's just marketing to make you buy into their insurance. Either because you think you are getting a better deal.. or because you think its some kind of ethical decision. but at the end of the day.. Insurance does not work like a savings account that they save up in your account for just the things you need or use.
Click to expand...

Say there are two kinds of insurance, one that covers oil changes, and one that doesn't. If I opt for the one that doesn't cover oil changes, will I pay a lower premium?
 
phattonez said:
Say there are two kinds of insurance, one that covers oil changes, and one that doesn't. If I opt for the one that doesn't cover oil changes, will I pay a lower premium?
Click to expand...

Okay.. I'll bite.

If anyone whose car broke down had to be treated by federal mandate.. then no.. you wouldn't pay a lower premium. In fact the existence of such policies would mean that everyone would pay a higher premium.
 
jaeger19 said:
Okay.. I'll bite.

If anyone whose car broke down had to be treated by federal mandate.. then no.. you wouldn't pay a lower premium. In fact the existence of such policies would mean that everyone would pay a higher premium.
Click to expand...

Whether or not you chose to have the additional oil change coverage? I don't think so.
 
Mach said:
If you only get catastrophic, and you end up with non-catastrophic that bankrupts you, we lose, you lose.
if you end up not spending it for prevention until its finally catastrophic, you lose, we lose.
if you get lucky and have no issues at all and are ultra-genetically-healthy, you win, we lose
if you only get catastrophic but have costly issues, you may go to a charity hospital and get free/reduced cost treatment, you win, we lose

Go through the big ones, and you'll see this looks a lot like prisoner's dilemma.
Basically you want to betray, because in a betray single iteration game, you win and everyone else either breaks even or loses... very nice of you!
If you cooperate instead, (since this is an iterative process throughout your life and all of ours), the costs go down for everyone.

We can get into issues where we subsidize poor health choices...but hopefully we can contain those with a variety of measures. Although sometimes liberals get too liberal and want to just "give them everything they need", which can sometimes cause more harm than good.
Click to expand...

What are these examples of non-catastrophic events that bankrupt you?
 
Visbek said:
Because, as I've explained twice already: Allowing everyone to pick and choose coverage a la carte has numerous unintended consequences which wind up compromising coverage for everyone. Including you.

Again: Health insurance is not a service like cable TV, or Internet services, or cell phone services. You are not paying your insurer to deliver a good. You are paying them to redistribute risk and costs among a large pool of ratepayers.



Incorrect.

Again, insurance is not about "paying for what I want." It's about distributing risk over as many people as possible.

Your proposal is you saying "I don't want to pay for other people, but I want them to pay for me." You don't want to pay for a specific service that you don't need -- but you expect others to pay for you, when you may need coverage for something they won't need either.

You're freeloading. It might not seem like it, because you're thinking about insurance as though you're picking ingredients at Chipotle, and that's not at all how it works.
Click to expand...

How am I freeloading when I want a service that there isn't even a possibility of me using? Explain that. This isn't like me opting out of prescription coverage. There's a possibility of me using it. However, there is no possibility that I'm going to use birth control.
And again... That's not what insurance is about.

It's not about "I got mine, and screw all y'all." I may never have cancer, or a heart attack, or get hit by a truck. I'm not paying premiums solely for my benefit. It's about helping all the ratepayers, with the expectation they will assist me if I need it.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I'm saying that birth control is fundamentally different than cancer, heart attacks, or accidents.

Yes, that's because... redistribution is redistribution.

Again, it doesn't matter whether it's a public or private insurance scheme, the concept is exactly the same.

E.g. with single payer, the government collects premiums in the form of taxes, and pays service providers out of those revenues. The difference is that it's operated by the government instead of a for-profit entity. (And it has a much larger ratepayer base, which distributes the risk as widely as possible.)

The same with Social Security. It is both an insurance scheme and a safety net. You pay into the system, and your payroll taxes are paid out right now to the beneficiaries. You might never need disability; you could die at 60 and not collect SS at all. You aren't just paying in for your own benefit, but for everyone's benefit.

Long-term care insurance operates the exact same way. You pay the insurer a certain amount each year, and those payments are used to cover people right now who are in assisted living, or getting home care. You might die without ever needing it; so you are paying to reduce your risk and the risk of others.

This is how insurance works. This is why insurance works. Proclaiming "I'm gonna get mine, and that's all I care about" compromises how insurance works, and makes it worse for everyone.
Click to expand...

This isn't about I got mine. This is about a service that there is no possibility of me using that I don't want coverage for.
 
phattonez said:
Whether or not you chose to have the additional oil change coverage? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

You would be wrong. Since everyone that doesn;t have an oil change will eventually cost the insurance companies more than those that have the oil change (since there is mandatory car care) . That cost gets spread out to all premiums.
 
jaeger19 said:
You would be wrong. Since everyone that doesn;t have an oil change will eventually cost the insurance companies more than those that have the oil change (since there is mandatory car care) . That cost gets spread out to all premiums.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying, but I don't buy it. Why? People typically don't get car insurance that covers oil changes, but people get oil changes anyway.

Further, what's your argument about the birth control? That if I don't get it covered, that my wife will get pregnant more? Yeah, you're right, I would like many children. However, I have coverage for pregnancy, and even with the coverage I'm not going to change my behavior. I still don't want the birth control. So it's an added cost to me with a benefit that I have no possibility of using. Which hey, if you want this to be a social welfare thing, then say it, but don't call it insurance.
 
phattonez said:
I see what you're saying, but I don't buy it. Why? People typically don't get car insurance that covers oil changes, but people get oil changes anyway.

Further, what's your argument about the birth control? That if I don't get it covered, that my wife will get pregnant more? Yeah, you're right, I would like many children. However, I have coverage for pregnancy, and even with the coverage I'm not going to change my behavior. I still don't want the birth control. So it's an added cost to me with a benefit that I have no possibility of using. Which hey, if you want this to be a social welfare thing, then say it, but don't call it insurance.
Click to expand...

Well.. you asked the question in regards to oil changes. Changing your car oil is nothing like healthcare. there is a federal mandate that if you get deathly sick and have no insurance or are underinsured.. I have to treat you regardless of your ability to pay. A good portion of that cost gets transferred to people that have the ability to pay or have insurance. there is no federal mandate that if your car dies. a mechanic has to repair it. so comparing oil change insurance is very invalid.

Further, what's your argument about the birth control? That if I don't get it covered, that my wife will get pregnant more?
Click to expand...

No.. you don't understand how insurance works. THERE IS NO BOX WITH MONEY IN LABELED "money for phattonez healthcare". YOU are part of the group of people that are insured by that insurance company.

One of the larger costs to insurance companies is the cost of children... particularly if the child has problems that require NICU...

If the group is not covered by coverage that covers pregnancy.. then the group (which includes you).. will pay for the cost of those unplanned children.

Its that simple. Doesn;t matter if you don't use it or not. I pay when you skydive into a building.. even though I don't skydive. You pay when I blow out my Achilles playing tennis even though you hate the sport and never use it.. that's how insurance works.
 
jaeger19 said:
Well.. you asked the question in regards to oil changes. Changing your car oil is nothing like healthcare. there is a federal mandate that if you get deathly sick and have no insurance or are underinsured.. I have to treat you regardless of your ability to pay. A good portion of that cost gets transferred to people that have the ability to pay or have insurance. there is no federal mandate that if your car dies. a mechanic has to repair it. so comparing oil change insurance is very invalid.
Click to expand...

I totally get that and I completely understand why you would want everyone to at least have catastrophic insurance. But what does this have to do with birth control?

No.. you don't understand how insurance works. THERE IS NO BOX WITH MONEY IN LABELED "money for phattonez healthcare". YOU are part of the group of people that are insured by that insurance company.

One of the larger costs to insurance companies is the cost of children... particularly if the child has problems that require NICU...

If the group is not covered by coverage that covers pregnancy.. then the group (which includes you).. will pay for the cost of those unplanned children.

Its that simple. Doesn;t matter if you don't use it or not. I pay when you skydive into a building.. even though I don't skydive. You pay when I blow out my Achilles playing tennis even though you hate the sport and never use it.. that's how insurance works.
Click to expand...

Come on now. If my insurance covers birth control, then I'm paying for birth control. Birth control is a choice, not something that I need in an emergency. Emergency heart surgery is not a choice.
 
phattonez said:
I totally get that and I completely understand why you would want everyone to at least have catastrophic insurance. But what does this have to do with birth control?



Come on now. If my insurance covers birth control, then I'm paying for birth control. Birth control is a choice, not something that I need in an emergency. Emergency heart surgery is not a choice.
Click to expand...

I see.. so you are paying for you to get a mammogram? How about a hysterectomy? When do you think you might have those...because you are paying for them.. even though you are male....

Again.. its how insurance works:

Birth control is a choice, not something that I need in an emergency. Emergency heart surgery is not a choice
Click to expand...

See.. now you have left the financial realities of insurance and are on the ethics/morals whatever of birth control. Remember how I told you that it was a marketing gimmick by insurance companies to sway the ethical/moral inclined?

Eating fatty foods leading to a heart attack is also a choice.. why should I pay for your choices?

Hang gliding is a choice.. why should I pay for your broken leg when you slam into a tree.. why should I pay for your choices?"
 
phattonez said:
How am I freeloading when I want a service that there isn't even a possibility of me using?
Click to expand...
1) Because you, in turn, will receive medical care that other ratepayers won't need.

2) Because as I've explained numerous times, medical insurance is NOT a fee-for-service system. It distributes risk, not lets you pick items from the buffet table.

3) Because as I've explained numerous times, there are unintended consequences of eliminating EHB's. Repeating "but I don't wanna!" does not make those consequences disappear.


I'm saying that birth control is fundamentally different than cancer, heart attacks, or accidents.
Click to expand...
And yet, as I believe Rabid Alpaca pointed out a few days ago, women ratepayers may someday have to pay for your prostate cancer -- a disease they can't get. (Or testicular cancer.)

Roughly 40% of Americans will get cancer at some point in their lives. Why should the other 60% pay for them? Because that's how insurance works.

If you want someone else to pay for a medical problem that you have and they don't, then that's what insurance is for. In turn, you wind up paying for medical issues that they have and you don't. In an insurance system, the people who are fine pay for those who are not. That's how it works.

If you don't want to pay for someone else's medical coverage? Then drop your insurance, take the tax penalty (for as long as it lasts), and that way you only have to pay for the things that you use. Problem solved.
 
Last edited:
phattonez said:
What are these examples of non-catastrophic events that bankrupt you?
Click to expand...
High deductible plans can run a family upwards of 5-10K in deductibles, and max out of pocket can be crazy high as well.
Have a few kids with a few bad years between family members, and you're tens of thousands in unexpected expenses.

In any case, it's just a numbers game, take all possible scenarios and at the end of the day and if its a random draw, you'll do better on average to have the best average cover/pay. Why is this debated?
I hate dealing with insurance as an employer, always have, always will. It's a joke when you're a small business and told that big companies rates are lower because they have a bigger pool. WTF!? AS if insurance can't just pool everyone and offer the average cost? Is being a small business somehow riskier-healthwise? Universal health insurance will free all that employer angst/spending up to be put elsewhere, and you won't be tied to your business. But then, big corporate love it, they can smoke a small business in benefits often just due to scale. We'd have more entrepreneurship and risk taking possibilities in the marketplace if we had insurance independent of employment, that's a good thing for libertarians.
 
Mach said:
High deductible plans can run a family upwards of 5-10K in deductibles, and max out of pocket can be crazy high as well.
Have a few kids with a few bad years between family members, and you're tens of thousands in unexpected expenses.

In any case, it's just a numbers game, take all possible scenarios and at the end of the day and if its a random draw, you'll do better on average to have the best average cover/pay. Why is this debated?
I hate dealing with insurance as an employer, always have, always will. It's a joke when you're a small business and told that big companies rates are lower because they have a bigger pool. WTF!? AS if insurance can't just pool everyone and offer the average cost? Is being a small business somehow riskier-healthwise? Universal health insurance will free all that employer angst/spending up to be put elsewhere, and you won't be tied to your business. But then, big corporate love it, they can smoke a small business in benefits often just due to scale. We'd have more entrepreneurship and risk taking possibilities in the marketplace if we had insurance independent of employment, that's a good thing for libertarians.
Click to expand...

This isn't the point that I'm arguing. What I'm saying here is that birth control is optional, it's not something that's forced on you. I don't want it (plus I'm morally opposed to it), so why can't I get a plan that doesn't cover it?
 
jaeger19 said:
I see.. so you are paying for you to get a mammogram? How about a hysterectomy? When do you think you might have those...because you are paying for them.. even though you are male....

Again.. its how insurance works:
Click to expand...

Actually I see no reason why I should have that coverage, but I would like coverage for prostate exams. But this is really beside the point. These procedures aren't optional. They're not lifestyle choices. Birth control is. I don't want to use it, I don't need to use it, so why do I need to be covered for it?

See.. now you have left the financial realities of insurance and are on the ethics/morals whatever of birth control. Remember how I told you that it was a marketing gimmick by insurance companies to sway the ethical/moral inclined?

Eating fatty foods leading to a heart attack is also a choice.. why should I pay for your choices?

Hang gliding is a choice.. why should I pay for your broken leg when you slam into a tree.. why should I pay for your choices?"
Click to expand...

I should pay a higher premium if I engage in riskier lifestyles.
 
Mach said:
High deductible plans can run a family upwards of 5-10K in deductibles, and max out of pocket can be crazy high as well.
Click to expand...

Higher deductible plans typically have less coinsurance, i.e. you pay the high deductible until it's done, and then everything is covered.

I hate dealing with insurance as an employer, always have, always will. It's a joke when you're a small business and told that big companies rates are lower because they have a bigger pool. WTF!? AS if insurance can't just pool everyone and offer the average cost?
Click to expand...

This and networking makes it impossible, practically speaking, for insurance customers to have any clue WTF is going on.

Is being a small business somehow riskier-healthwise? Universal health insurance will free all that employer angst/spending up to be put elsewhere, and you won't be tied to your business. But then, big corporate love it, they can smoke a small business in benefits often just due to scale. We'd have more entrepreneurship and risk taking possibilities in the marketplace if we had insurance independent of employment, that's a good thing for libertarians.
Click to expand...

I agree, and Obamacare's arbitrary all-or-nothing cutoffs and penalties all but kill the chance that could happen.
 
phattonez said:
This isn't the point that I'm arguing. What I'm saying here is that birth control is optional, it's not something that's forced on you. I don't want it (plus I'm morally opposed to it), so why can't I get a plan that doesn't cover it?
Click to expand...

Because it's not a good choice based on public health/welfare I'm guessing, and for most I'm guessing it's a religious thing, i.e. divorced from reality.
Someone people want to pollute the air, but we prohibit them.
So doctors want to try experimental drugs with less regulation, but we prohibit them.

You can't get a la carte in any number of business models, that shouldn't be a surprise.
 
phattonez said:
Why are the only options allowed so regulated? For instance, I want a plan that covers me if I get hit by a bus or develop cancer, pure catastrophic coverage. Why can't I have that?
Click to expand...

You can. Just buy a high deductible policy.....although if you get hit by a bus, their insurance might pay for it. You can also get MEB coverage on your auto policy that will cover up to the limit if you get hit by a bus while walking. If you have 2 cars, then it pays double, three and it triples. I think 4 is the limit they allow you to stack.
 
backpacker said:
You can. Just buy a high deductible policy.....although if you get hit by a bus, their insurance might pay for it. You can also get MEB coverage on your auto policy that will cover up to the limit if you get hit by a bus while walking. If you have 2 cars, then it pays double, three and it triples. I think 4 is the limit they allow you to stack.
Click to expand...

High deductible policies must still include coverage for birth control.
 
Mach said:
Because it's not a good choice based on public health/welfare I'm guessing, and for most I'm guessing it's a religious thing, i.e. divorced from reality.
Someone people want to pollute the air, but we prohibit them.
So doctors want to try experimental drugs with less regulation, but we prohibit them.

You can't get a la carte in any number of business models, that shouldn't be a surprise.
Click to expand...

If you want to make it a social welfare thing fine. I wouldn't support it, but don't try to call it some kind of consumer protection when it's a totally optional drug that not everyone wants.
 
phattonez said:
If you want to make it a social welfare thing fine. I wouldn't support it, but don't try to call it some kind of consumer protection when it's a totally optional drug that not everyone wants.
Click to expand...

Most drugs and treatments are actually "optional", what's your point? They include the drugs/treatments that are deemed socially/medically necessary to offer.

Are you sure you live in the U.S.? We have conservatives on religious grounds all the time trying to stop federal support of birth control/abortions, and they would prefer it to be passed as law, etc.
Why do you think it has to be included by law...because if it's not, we get the religious blowback.

You are correct, if people didn't object to thinks on a religious basis, we wouldn't need to force it, it would happen without issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom