Harry Guerrilla
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 28,951
- Reaction score
- 12,422
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
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.
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.
By "diluting" do you mean add more high risk people to the pool, or just adding more people in general?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.
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.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.
By "diluting" do you mean add more high risk people to the pool, or just adding more people in general?
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.
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.
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.
A simple question.
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.Just like insurers not covering suicide under life insurance policies, pregnancy is an elective condition.
All the rest absolutely true.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.
I agree one of us was confused.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.
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.
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.
Keep telling yourself that lie and maybe it'll become true someday.
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.
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.
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.
And so are certain forms of cancer. Are they elective events now too?
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.
False. There is no loss to an individual incurred by pregnancy. Using fallacious language doesn't make your argument any less dishonest.
False. There is no loss to an individual incurred by pregnancy. Using fallacious language doesn't make your argument any less dishonest.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So giving people free stuff, makes them value it more?
That's kinda contradictory you know.
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.
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.
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.
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?