• 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 .
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.

Illegality is completely irrelevant.
If arson on your home were completely legal, would an insurance company cover setting your house on fire?
The answer is no.

Just like them not covering suicide for life insurance policies.
It's an elective event, in which you purposefully incur a loss.


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.

Setting your house on fire is equally preventable, sorry.
Again illegality is completely irrelevant.

In both situations, the policy holder is purposefully incurring a loss, in an attempt to activate insurance coverage.
 
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.
By "diluting" do you mean add more high risk people to the pool, or just adding more people in general?

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.
Well, I can certainly empathize with what you're saying. But doesn't it kind of all work out since the older "healthy" female had been paying more for her premiums and for many years longer than someone who is young, male and healthy? Just because someone is young and healthy today doesn't mean they will be tomorrow and that is the point of insuring against risk.
 
By "diluting" do you mean add more high risk people to the pool, or just adding more people in general?

Adding more and more people to a risk pool without consideration for their risk profile.
Essentially mixing both high risk and low risk people together and virtually pricing them the same.

It's unfair to the low risk people.

Well, I can certainly empathize with what you're saying. But doesn't it kind of all work out since the older "healthy" female had been paying more for her premiums and for many years longer than someone who is young, male and healthy? Just because someone is young and healthy today doesn't mean they will be tomorrow and that is the point of insuring against risk.

I understand that, later on in older years, women used to pay less than men for insurance.
Because women are less expensive, than men, to insure in their elder years.

In this case it doesn't work out, because young people tend to be poorer than older people.
Switching the arrangement of young, less money, but less costs to....young, less money, more costs, it fundamentally unfair to young people, when the older people did not have to endure this.
 
Illegality is completely irrelevant.

Keep telling yourself that lie and maybe it'll become true someday.

If arson on your home were completely legal, would an insurance company cover setting your house on fire?
The answer is no.

And if your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.

Setting your house on fire on purpose isn't an "elective" condition. It's a crime. It's a crime for a reason. That reason is the same one that prevents it from being covered under home insurance.

If you accidentally set your house on fire, however, it will be covered by your home owners insurance. Accident = not insurance fraud.

Just like them not covering suicide for life insurance policies.

That'd be insurance fraud. People don't get pregnant in order to get money from their health insurance company.

You're forgetting another big detail in your disingenuous comparison: who receives the money. Nobody commits health insurance fraud by virtue of getting pregnant. Arson, however, is one of the most common ways people attempt to commit home insurance fraud. Suicide is a way that people commit life insurance fraud.

It's an elective event, in which you purposefully incur a loss.

Find one definition of "elective" that puts arson or suicide in the realm of "elective events". And pregnancy isn't an elective condition, it's a preventable one. Big difference. Especially when you're whinging about having insurance cover that which makes said condition preventable.



Setting your house on fire is equally preventable, sorry.

And so are certain forms of cancer. Are they elective events now too?

Again illegality is completely irrelevant.

Only when you are desperately attempting to pretend that a totally dishonest comparison is valid. It's entirely relevant if one values honest comparisons, though.

In both situations, the policy holder is purposefully incurring a loss, in an attempt to activate insurance coverage.

False. There is no loss to an individual incurred by pregnancy. Using fallacious language doesn't make your argument any less dishonest.
 
Although we are not actually paying for birth control, I say the government should pay for it if a person is on medical card. It is already relatively cheap and as a taxpayer it is the less of two evils so to speak. Have 1/billionth of a penny of my money used to pay for a woman's birth control, or pay for her to have section 8, etc
 
Just like insurers not covering suicide under life insurance policies, pregnancy is an elective condition.
Slight correction H, suicide falls under a incontestibility period, usually two years. Suicides are typically covered under a life policy after the initial period of incontestibility but not before that ends. Other than that, there are policies that do not or only partially cover maternity, usually though a rider could be purchased to that end. That said pregnancy itself is only truly avoidable through abstinence but that obviously isn't practical so it's not necessarily "elective" but rather a different risk class all on it's own. Birth control is absolutely elective however.


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.
All the rest absolutely true.
 
It really has nothing to do with your argument. I switched to saying gender because it didn't change my arguement, it sounded better and was shorter to write than reproductive organs. Sorry if it confused you.
I agree one of us was confused.
 
Slight correction H, suicide falls under a incontestibility period, usually two years. Suicides are typically covered under a life policy after the initial period of incontestibility but not before that ends. Other than that, there are policies that do not or only partially cover maternity, usually though a rider could be purchased to that end. That said pregnancy itself is only truly avoidable through abstinence but that obviously isn't practical so it's not necessarily "elective" but rather a different risk class all on it's own. Birth control is absolutely elective however.


All the rest absolutely true.

I'd like to know just how much you think it would increase your insurance premium to have birth control pills covered.
 
Slight correction H, suicide falls under a incontestibility period, usually two years. Suicides are typically covered under a life policy after the initial period of incontestibility but not before that ends. Other than that, there are policies that do not or only partially cover maternity, usually though a rider could be purchased to that end. That said pregnancy itself is only truly avoidable through abstinence but that obviously isn't practical so it's not necessarily "elective" but rather a different risk class all on it's own. Birth control is absolutely elective however.


All the rest absolutely true.

Hmmm, I just thought of something else too. Don't MOST (if not all - I don't really know) insurance policies cover circumcisions? I don't mind paying a little bit more in my insurance premium to cover the costs of a circumcision because I know this is preventative medicine, even though I will never ever need to have a circumcision (hopefully - LOL). Why wouldn't you (and the others here who are DEAD SET against it) feel the same about birth control for women?
 
Keep telling yourself that lie and maybe it'll become true someday.

I'm sorry you fail to understand the point being made.
It's not a lie, it is completely and totally immaterial to the discussion.

Burning your own house down, may not actually be illegal.
I'm sure there is a permitting process for it.
A legal demolition, you can call it.

And if your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.

Setting your house on fire on purpose isn't an "elective" condition. It's a crime. It's a crime for a reason. That reason is the same one that prevents it from being covered under home insurance.

If you accidentally set your house on fire, however, it will be covered by your home owners insurance. Accident = not insurance fraud.

Setting your house on fire, on purpose, is a purposeful action, choosing to get pregnant, is another purposeful action.
You have chosen to do these things, they are done by you electing to do so.
I'm sorry you can't see this.

That'd be insurance fraud. People don't get pregnant in order to get money from their health insurance company.

You're forgetting another big detail in your disingenuous comparison: who receives the money. Nobody commits health insurance fraud by virtue of getting pregnant. Arson, however, is one of the most common ways people attempt to commit home insurance fraud. Suicide is a way that people commit life insurance fraud.

I'm not talking about fraud, I'm talking about purposefully destroying an insured piece of property, then with all the facts in the open, attempting to make a claim on your policy.
They will summarily deny it, because insurance does not exist to cover purposeful losses.

It's not disingenuous, you just don't seem to understand the purpose of insurance.

On the "who receives the money" issue, it is the insured.
With pregnancy, you don't have to pay the full cost.
You save money by this action.

Regardless, you are benefiting from it.



Find one definition of "elective" that puts arson or suicide in the realm of "elective events". And pregnancy isn't an elective condition, it's a preventable one. Big difference. Especially when you're whinging about having insurance cover that which makes said condition preventable.

Elective is you exercising a choice, in this situation, a choice to incur a loss.
You seriously mean to tell me that people don't choose to get pregnant.

You have the nerve to say I'm lying. :lol:

Whining?
I'm pointing out the erroneous belief that people who can afford medical insurance, can not afford birth control.
The logic behind that position is dumb.

And so are certain forms of cancer. Are they elective events now too?

Do people purposefully choose to get cancer?


Only when you are desperately attempting to pretend that a totally dishonest comparison is valid. It's entirely relevant if one values honest comparisons, though.

There is no desperation to be honest, this isn't even hard to debate with you (which is odd, because 99% of the time, you skills make it challenging).
It's incredibly apparent that you don't know what insurance is meant to do.

False. There is no loss to an individual incurred by pregnancy. Using fallacious language doesn't make your argument any less dishonest.

In the event of the pregnancy, the pregnant person will incur a financial loss, by paying for medical services to deliver and care for the mother or child.
But this loss, is on purpose, because the woman has chosen to become pregnant.
 
People who don't have VERY easy access to BC are going to go out and have sex without it, or just use condoms which are not NEARLY as effective at preventing pregnancy as a doubling up method (BC pill plus a condom). If we could get people to double up on their BC methods, we would have less unwanted pregnancies and less abortions. I think it is totally worth it to cover BC under an insurance policy because it is completely naive to believe that people will EVER abstain from sex. Preventing unwanted pregnancies would save us money in the long run.
 
Preventing unwanted pregnancies would save us money in the long run.

I look at it from the insurance company's perspective. I'm pretty sure that insurance to cover the baby under the family's policy does not cost as much as the baby will cost the insurance company, on average. Insurance companies are probably better off with more customers using BC instead of having (especially unexpected) babies.

Perhaps that's not how the mechanics of the insurance (nor car) industry works, but it seems to me that 'preventative maintenance' is generally a positive net income. Should people do their own preventative maintenance for their own good? Sure. But if I were an insurance company, I'd consider promoting customers to do it for the company's financial benefit.
 
I look at it from the insurance company's perspective. I'm pretty sure that insurance to cover the baby under the family's policy does not cost as much as the baby will cost the insurance company, on average. Insurance companies are probably better off with more customers using BC instead of having (especially unexpected) babies.

Perhaps that's not how the mechanics of the insurance (nor car) industry works, but it seems to me that 'preventative maintenance' is generally a positive net income. Should people do their own preventative maintenance for their own good? Sure. But if I were an insurance company, I'd consider promoting customers to do it for the company's financial benefit.

That's a very good point.
 
I look at it from the insurance company's perspective. I'm pretty sure that insurance to cover the baby under the family's policy does not cost as much as the baby will cost the insurance company, on average. Insurance companies are probably better off with more customers using BC instead of having (especially unexpected) babies.

Perhaps that's not how the mechanics of the insurance (nor car) industry works, but it seems to me that 'preventative maintenance' is generally a positive net income. Should people do their own preventative maintenance for their own good? Sure. But if I were an insurance company, I'd consider promoting customers to do it for the company's financial benefit.

Tell me how many people, who can afford insurance, can not afford birth control.
Once we have these numbers, then we can decide if it will actually reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancies.

Until then, this point is poppy ****.
 
Tell me how many people, who can afford insurance, can not afford birth control.
Once we have these numbers, then we can decide if it will actually reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancies.

Until then, this point is poppy ****.

Single mothers who already have children and work for a living but make just above the poverty line in income, which is probably quite a FEW people.
 
Tell me how many people, who can afford insurance, can not afford birth control.
Once we have these numbers, then we can decide if it will actually reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancies.

Until then, this point is poppy ****.

Nonsense. The point is encouraging people to employ preventative maintenance. Them being able to afford it alone is irrelevant to company profits; what is relevant to company profits is if they actually do it, and that's what (I think) insurance companies should be interested in actively promoting.
 
Last edited:
Single mothers who already have children and work for a living but make just above the poverty line in income, which is probably quite a FEW people.

Generally speaking, she won't have to worry too much because her kids will likely able to qualify for reduced or free coverage through SCHIP and/or Medicaid.
Leaving her to be the only one insured, if you count the EITC refundable tax credits, which people at her income level get in the thousands.

I'm pretty sure she has the ability to purchase her own birth control.
Actually, I'm betting it's not that many people.
 
Nonsense. The point is encouraging people to employ preventative maintenance. Them being able to afford it alone is irrelevant to company profits; what is relevant to company profits is if they actually do it, and that's what (I think) insurance companies should be interested in actively promoting.

So giving people free stuff, makes them value it more?
That's kinda contradictory you know.
 
Generally speaking, she won't have to worry too much because her kids will likely able to qualify for reduced or free coverage through SCHIP and/or Medicaid.
Leaving her to be the only one insured, if you count the EITC refundable tax credits, which people at her income level get in the thousands.

I'm pretty sure she has the ability to purchase her own birth control.
Actually, I'm betting it's not that many people.

The point is making access easier though. Yes, people can go to Planned Parenthood and get a voucher or whatever, but people will be people, and making access easier will ensure more people are actually using birth control. We should also start sex education and the importance of birth control much, much earlier to kind of drill into the little heads.

I don't see how someone being able to access something without insurance is a con to having the premium pay for it either. I agree with Eco that it would help ENCOURAGE more people to use it, which would be a good thing. Some medications that are preventative are already covered by insurance companies, and a lot of insurance companies already cover birth control (from what I've heard), so I really don't see what the problem is. Unless someone can show me where it increased premiums across the board exponentially.
 
It's not free if your paying for it through your insurance.
 
So giving people free stuff, makes them value it more?
That's kinda contradictory you know.

I didn't say free; I don't believe in free stuff. Who believes that anything is free? This is highschool level crap.

My premise is that providing BC will be a net positive income for an insurance company. As the insurance company, I don't give a crap what people value. What I care about is promoting preventative maintenance for increased company profits.

Will you grasp the point or will you fall back, once again, on highschool economy class slogans.
 
Last edited:
The point is making access easier though. Yes, people can go to Planned Parenthood and get a voucher or whatever, but people will be people, and making access easier will ensure more people are actually using birth control. We should also start sex education and the importance of birth control much, much earlier to kind of drill into the little heads.

I don't see how someone being able to access something without insurance is a con to having the premium pay for it either. I agree with Eco that it would help ENCOURAGE more people to use it, which would be a good thing. Some medications that are preventative are already covered by insurance companies, and a lot of insurance companies already cover birth control (from what I've heard), so I really don't see what the problem is. Unless someone can show me where it increased premiums across the board exponentially.

But the evidence just doesn't exist to demonstrably support this position.
You're just hoping it does.

Crafting legislation on "I hope it works" is dumb.

For reference see this,

FactCheck said:
So where does all this leave us? We of course take no position on whether contraception should be covered or not, or if so, by whom. What we can say is this: The administration hasn’t proven that requiring insurance companies to provide free contraception on request will save them enough in medical costs to make the net costs zero or less. But by the same token, the president’s critics can’t prove that he’s wrong, either.


FactCheck.org : Cloudy Contraception Costs
 
I didn't say free; I don't believe in free stuff. Who believes that anything is free? This is highschool level crap.

My premise is that providing BC will be a net positive income for an insurance company. As the insurance company, I don't give a crap what people value. What I care about is promoting preventative maintenance for increased company profits.

Are you capable of grasping the point, or will you fall back, once again, on highschool economy class slogans.

Sorry I should of quoted "free."
I figured you'd understand that.....

Anyway, The fact check article shows that there is no clear evidence that this will be cost effective for anything.
 
Back
Top Bottom