- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 45,596
- Reaction score
- 22,536
- Location
- Everywhere and nowhere
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
You seem to be confusing "how insurance works" with "how an individual insurance plan works."
I've never seen them covered on a policy, at least not specifically and I sold. There may be a state mandate, there may be companies that cover it but I've never seen it, and regardless it is a one time expense if covered, BC and Viagra are not.
Correct, but what besides pregnancy does BC in general prevent. Some people claim they lessen the effects of PMS, okay, but so do hormone treatments, and *if* a physician signs off on an order for preventative BC as a medical necessity properly it would be covered(many people don't know that). The problem is that the less than 25% of women who have major issues that complicate periods and benefit from a BC medicinal use are going to be underrepresented by the larger percentage that uses it for non-medical purposes, it IS offensive then to pay for a lifestyle choice.I'm not sure if they are covered or not. I was talking about the designation specifically. There's a difference medically between elective preventative care and elective care. Technically, a yearly doctor visit is elective preventative care.
Correct, but what besides pregnancy does BC in general prevent.
Combination pills can prevent a variety of disorders and problems from bone thinning to acne to anemia.
Everyone can afford it, but how many people take multivitamins?
Why would you assume that "they're covered for those services?" Insurance plans can differ substantially in the types of things they will cover and to what extent. Thus, it's not true that "Everyone receives the same coverage," the way insurance works, you get different levels of coverage depending on how much you're willing to pay for your particular insurance plan.No, insurance works like that. It's not like people get money back if they don't utilize certain services. They are covered for those services though.
Yes, but as I have stated that was already allowable with a simple physician's waiver before the mandate. Why now is it mandated for elective? IOW the medically necessary was already covered, now it doesn't matter and we all have to pay for some lifestyle choices.Combination pills can prevent a variety of disorders and problems from bone thinning to acne to anemia.
Why are half the population denied routine healthcare because of their gender? Are they second class citizens?
No one is being denied anything. I believe the whole issue is how it is paid for. Should some things be left to individuals to pay for themselves directly? Or does an insurance company pay the bill for everything?
Who exactly is being denied health care because of their gender? Surely you dont mean over this pretend issue???Why are half the population denied routine healthcare because of their gender? Are they second class citizens?
If men ovulated, it would be covered.
Who exactly is being denied health care because of their gender? Surely you dont mean over this pretend issue???
It was an invented problem created as a political platform. Fluke herself is an exposed political operative, it's a bull**** issue.How is it a pretend issue?
It was an invented problem created as a political platform. Fluke herself is an exposed political operative, it's a bull**** issue.
Because it is. Even Ms Fluke admitted SHE was covered through her religious schools insurance policy for medical indicated birth control. Her whole reason de force was some fabricated 'friend' that was allegedly denied contraceptives...and not by the school, or even by an insurance company, but by a drug store. Go watch her 'testimony' and in it she ADMITS that she as a student at the catholic school is actually covered. So where is the issue? Insurance companies are not en masse denying people legitimate medical needs birth control. The ONLY reason this came up in the first place was the current administration attempted to force the Catholic Church to change their policy.How is it a pretend issue?
The ONLY reason this came up in the first place was the current administration attempted to force the Catholic Church to change their policy.
Are you serious? 1-not everyone is Catholic. 2-the government doesnt have a right to dictate to churches on their position, 3-As Ms Fluke herself admitted as a student at a catholic education institution she was NOT DENIED coverage. 4-Every citizen has the right to obtain private insurance and cover whatever the heck they want.And why isn't that a legitimate concern?
Yes, but as I have stated that was already allowable with a simple physician's waiver before the mandate. Why now is it mandated for elective? IOW the medically necessary was already covered, now it doesn't matter and we all have to pay for some lifestyle choices.
Are you serious? 1-not everyone is Catholic. 2-the government doesnt have a right to dictate to churches on their position, 3-As Ms Fluke herself admitted as a student at a catholic education institution she was NOT DENIED coverage. 4-Every citizen has the right to obtain private insurance and cover whatever the heck they want.
There is no definitive conclusion that BC would, in fact, save insurance companies money; therefore, no evidence exists?
You're one of those "my default position must be proven wrong 100% before I will respect another opinion" guys?
Obviously it's politically driven, but that doesn't mean the underlying concern isn't valid. Why do you think it isn't?
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?