- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Which is cheaper?
1) Taxpayers forced to pay for abortions?
OR
2) Not paying for abortions, but forcing the woman to carry a fetus to term, which she then abandons, thus throwing the cost of raising the child on the taxpayers?
OR
3) Birth control without copay?
I'll go with birth control. This one is a no-brainer.
It goes up because the US laws protecting drug company profits keep them from having to sell the meds at reasonable price. An example: After a pulmonary embolism, I had to receive two injections a day (in my tummy :shock: ) of a generic drug called Enoxiparin. My cost in the US was $95 per pre-filled syringe. I have a friend from a diet-related BB who is a Canadian pharmacist - the cost of that drug in Canada is $29/ syringe.
BC pills costs far less in other countries. The name-brand BC my youngest daughter uses costs $39/month in the US and $8 in Canada. If insurers had the option of buying meds from other countries, the costs in the US would drop dramatically as US sellers had to bring down their prices to move their product.
It is still being spread with co-pays. I shouldn't have to pay a co-pay for my heart medicine (which I don't actually use) becuase it's a good thing to take it. It sure is cheaper than a transplant.
Or a better question, how can you insure against someone choosing to use birth control?
It's a freebie and it still doesn't make any sense.
Check this out people, insurance exists to mitigate loss in an unforeseen event.
That is the entire purpose for insurance, it does not exist to provide you with a bunch of "free" stuff.
In reality, that's not the case. My insurance provided new customers with free health check which they can choose to take advantage of or not. And at what point does it become "free stuff" vs "unforeseen event", at what point from finding out that one has diabetes and being told by one's doctor that s/he need to take diabetic drugs does it become "free stuff"? What if the person has to go on dialysis for the rest of his/her life?
Right, you shouldn't have to co-pay for it.
Insurance exists, in case you get diabetes.
You can't insure against something that has already happened or is going to happen.
It defeats the entire purpose of insurance in the first place.
Save money, buy your own diabetic drugs.
Not everything dealing with medical issues has to be washed through an insurance card.
At which point everyone is going to pay more monthly. It's like people think nobody has to make up this money.
It's like people think that the American insurance model for healthcare is nonsensical.
Have you heard those with health insurance complain that they get stuck paying a $10 deductible for their B.C.? No? Me either.
I have heard them complain about paying for diabetic medicine, some of the new ones aren't cheap, I have heard them complain about having to co-pay for tests. And who do you think you are? You think you represent all Americans with insurance?
They won't complain when their monthy rates go up?
All this does is spread co-pays between those who need the B.C. and those who do not. The cost of the insurance is going to go up for all.
How does it not make sense that those who utilize their health care more than others pays a higher percentage of the costs? Is this not the idea concerning charging smokers more than non smokers?
It's cheaper if you re-use them.
Not sure but I think there may be some holes in this philosophy.
On the other hand there is actually a better free for all, cost will never go up solution. When you sit down with your boys you tell them straight out, keep your pecker and your pants and zipper up and will eliminate many consequences. Further explain to them what the purpose for sex is and that even if you use contraception that isn't 100%.
It's the idea with insurance, to spread the payments among everyone in the pool. The idea with smokers is to penalise them for smoking which is bad. Using contraceptive is something that should be encouraged.
So you shouldn't be able to buy a life insurance since you know you are going to die?
Do you also think that disability insurance defeats the entire purpose of insurance since they pay benefits after that something has happened?
Talking is the easy part, living it is the hard part. How many people can afford a mortgage, college fund for their children, and the medical bill for chronic illness? What happen when they can't? Insurance works for houses and cars, when it's fixed, it's fixed, if not you get money to buy a new one. Not so people, sometimes an illness don't just get cured once you found out about it, you have to live with it. Unless of course, you think people who can't support their ongoing health bills should just die.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?