Harry Guerrilla
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 28,951
- Reaction score
- 12,422
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
It's a biological condition, so it's covered by insurance.
Just because something is biological doesn't mean it should be covered.
To me, it defies the purpose of insurance.
Why not?
Not according to the definition you yourself provided. The problem has been the way you've applied "uncertain" to the biological condition instead of the loss (which is inaccurate because the definition you'v provided applies said adjective to the loss, not the biological condition).
Even if pregnancy is done by choice, the losses financial costs associated with it remain very uncertain. It fits the definition you provided perfectly.
Dental care is expensive but last I checked we dont expect insurance companies to pay for toothbrush, paste, floss, mouthwash, etc. General cleanliness is important...so we COULD I suppose expect insurance companies to pay for soap and other personal cleaning supplies. Food...well...heck proper nutrition is CRITICAL...so...we can safwely assume that insurance companies should be providing free food and vitamins.Because not every biological condition is immense in cost.
Going to have a mole removed is not thousands of dollars.
It's pretty affordable.
Insurance is to cover the costs of unforeseen incidences.
Taking action and wanting to get pregnant, precludes the unforeseen.
You now know, that if you deliver this fetus, the hospital will charge for it.
It's known during the entire pregnancy.
Complications from pregnancy are unforeseen and would make sense to cover.
The costs of a standard pregnancy, with no complications can be calculated.
You can actually get a quote on the costs.
Because not every biological condition is immense in cost.
Going to have a mole removed is not thousands of dollars.
It's pretty affordable.
Insurance is to cover the costs of unforeseen incidences.
Well that logic certainly doesn't describe pregnancy.
Why are you changing your definition? Was there something wrong with the one you used earlier? I mean, aside from the fact that if you stick with that definition, you can't make the argument you are making.
Before you wondered why I said your arguments were dishonest. The fact that you cannot stick with one definition in order to make them is why.
wiki said:Insurance is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss.
NOBODY'S PAYING FOR ****ING SANDRA ****ING FLUKES ****ING CONTRACEPTION...
HOLY JESUS.
There's nothing wrong with mandating Medical Insurance Companies to pay for contraception the same way they would pay for any other basic drugs that are nessecary for people to have, some of these HMO's cover Viagra for gods sake, so why not contraceptive pills?
Doing such a thing, expanding access to contraceptives is a massive net benefit to the economy as it reduces unwanted pregnancies, reduces the need for abortions which is a net positive for the medical insurance companies obviously abortion procedures cost more than a measly pill.
This whole idea that everyone pays for Sandra Flukes Contraceptives is such a fallacy it's unbelievable.
A simple question.
I would be glad to pay for Sandra Fluke's birth control, but only if I have sex with her. Il shell out for the pill so that I don’t have to wear a condom (I like to get freaky).
I cant believe that a FULL 35% of the people on this forum actually WANT to pay for it.:screwy I wonder if they will pay for my Ferrari?
Don’t worry I’ll try not to pass on to many. Everybody likes a little more cheese on their taco.Of course that brings up the other problem. Oral contraception for the sake of contraception may prevent pregnancy but not STDs.
Here's your Ferrari.....I cant believe that a FULL 35% of the people on this forum actually WANT to pay for it.:screwy I wonder if they will pay for my Ferrari?
More than you do, apparently.
Here's your Ferrari.....
Sure hope you have insurance because I didn't see anyone on this forum say they wanted to pay for your careless driving or hospitalization....or Sandra Flukes birth control pills, least of all the person you were responding to. How could you miss what he said in capital letters? Do you want other people to pay for your eyeglasses too?
I certainly do when their sex lifestyle makes its way to my wallet.People sure do have a lot of hangups over women having sex. :\
What a waste of a perfectly good ferrari. Poor thing. Destroyed by an idiot. I bet I have driven more miles backward than you have forward, literaly. You give me a Ferrari and its like giving a exeperianced concert violenest a Stratavarius, we both can make our respective instruments sing for angels. As for the Ferrari or eyeglasses for that matter if somene WANTS to give them to me, who am I to deny them. Apparently 35% of the people who took the poll want to give Sandra Fluke contraceptives, I figered they might be amiable to giving me a Ferrari. I could do much much more with a Ferrari than Sandra could ever do with condom. Besides it never hurts to ask. You never no someone just might give me a shiny Ferrari. Prefferably red, but really pretty much any color will do nicely.
your reply.... literally.... made..... no..... sense.
.....there aren't any female Catholic bishops. Naturally a panel of them would be all male....<snip>
this isn't an issue of womens' health. No one is trying to take away birth control, or argue that women should be banned restricted or in any way limited from getting it. What is at issue is whether or not they have the right to force others to purchase it for them even in direct contravention of those others religious faith.
I don't think you give the insurance companies enough credit for doing a cost risk analysis. I seriously doubt they will go broke covering birth control pills if that's what you're trying to imply.All I'm saying is it's an additional liability and demand will go up. It's elective. I haven't commented on the level of the policy coverage, but now a bare bones policy must cover BC as well as a Cadillac group policy. The cadillac policy will show a lower risk but the lowest coverage options will not absorb it, then there is the middle, but no matter what the aggregate risk increase will add up.
Because Tucker is right, once you write a check that money is no longer in your account, which means it's no longer yours because you bought an insurance product that will pay out when you get sick or make a claim.Tucker, why focus on this? What I've been saying is that there is no alternative, by default people will have to spend their money on coverage they may or may not agree with.
Before the mandate a lot of people didn't have any insurance and when they got sick they became a burden on society who had to pay for their medical bills. Hospitals were going broke because of the uninsured so they started passing that burdensome cost onto Medicare and also the insurance companies, who then in turn raised the cost of insurance for policy holders. The mandate forces the uninsured to buy the insurance so they can stop being a burden on everyone else. So really, it's only a mandate for those who could afford to buy insurance but didn't.But, before the mandate you didn't have to give it to a company which provided electives, now you do. There is no getting around that.
But you're only funding coverage for yourself and family if you have one.No, I am saying that the risk pool and everything covered is the liability under contract of the insurance company, buying a policy with that coverage means you are funding it. Period, end of story.
I cant believe that a FULL 35% of the people on this forum actually WANT to pay for it.:screwy I wonder if they will pay for my Ferrari?
I was in the industry. You don't know what you are talking about, and politifact is not an acceptable counter.I don't think you give the insurance companies enough credit for doing a cost risk analysis. I seriously doubt they will go broke covering birth control pills if that's what you're trying to imply.
Because Tucker is right, once you write a check that money is no longer in your account, which means it's no longer yours because you bought an insurance product that will pay out when you get sick or make a claim.
Before the mandate a lot of people didn't have any insurance and when they got sick they became a burden on society who had to pay for their medical bills. Hospitals were going broke because of the uninsured so they started passing that burdensome cost onto Medicare and also the insurance companies, who then in turn raised the cost of insurance for policy holders. The mandate forces the uninsured to buy the insurance so they can stop being a burden on everyone else. So really, it's only a mandate for those who could afford to buy insurance but didn't.
Btw, a lot of Republicans embraced the notion of an insurance mandate.....before Obama did....
PolitiFact | Facebook post says Republicans embraced individual mandate in 1993
But you're only funding coverage for yourself and family if you have one.
I was in the industry. You don't know what you are talking about, and politifact is not an acceptable counter.
Yeah, okay.:roll: Politifact starts with a bias and goes from that initial point. They are unusable in a debate because of that.Actually its a great counter and blows the other position right out of the water into oblivion with hard and simple reality.
Yeah, okay.:roll: Politifact starts with a bias and goes from that initial point. They are unusable in a debate because of that.
They don't have facts,they have biases it is a political organization, not a research or industry board. I'm done with you here, you like Moot are not an expert in this subject and not being honest.Judge their facts that they report rather than if you approve of what ever political stance you feel they make have.
If a hard core fascist, nazi, communist or the worst pedophile on the planet states that two plus two is four - it is still a fact regardless of who it comes from.
To dismiss a source simply because you do not like what you perceive its politics to be without considering the information itself is a fallacy in thinking and a huge gaffe in actual debating tactics.
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?