a day that will live in infamy

[fuelair]

You have got to be kidding me.

Nope, republickers seem to want women to be barefoot (well, technically I semi-made that up), pregnant and paying their own damn money for the privilege.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

For whatever reason you seem to want poor women to be stuck with unwanted pregnancies. Hate is the only reason I can think of for someone wanting to wish that onto an entire segment of the population.

Yes, the freedom to choose whether or not you want to have a plan that covers such a thing (and then have to pay for it) couldn't possibly have a *********** thing to do with it.

If hate is the only reason you can think of, perhaps you should either think harder or just give up on the prospect of thinking altogether because you're not particularly good at it.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Turns out that birth control is much cheaper than pregnancies and associated complications.

I already addressed this above.

Read, then hit the "reply" button.

The order in which those two actions occur are actually quite important.

 

[DavidJames]

Yes, the freedom to choose whether or not you want to have a plan that covers such a thing (and then have to pay for it) couldn't possibly have a *********** thing to do with it.

There are dozens of things in my policy I would prefer not to pay for but the way insurance works is to balance the costs across a large population.

Such a concept is lost on libertarians, but then so is the concept of society and related shared benefits and costs. Oh and when you respond, don't use "coercion", that's so PC. Please figure out how to include "at the barrel of a gun", that always gives me a belly laugh.

 

[Biscuit]

Insurance companies have to provide a product free of charge when it was not free of charge before. Costs increase.

Ummmmm no. The insuree pays a fee to the insurer in order to be insured. The only thing this changes is additional out of pocket expenses to the insuree.

 

[RandFan]

Insurance companies have to provide a product free of charge when it was not free of charge before. Costs increase.

Turns out that birth control is much cheaper than pregnancies and associated complications.

I already addressed this above.

Read, then hit the "reply" button.

The order in which those two actions occur are actually quite important.

1. I quoted you in full.
2. I've looked but don't see a post that addresses my premise.
3. Turns out that birth control is STILL much cheaper than pregnancies and associated complications (regardless of order). Let me translate that so you can understand. If the insurance companies pick up the tab for birth control then they will spend less in the long run.

Why Free Birth Control Will Not Hike the Cost of Your Insurance

The truth is that both insurers and employers who self-insure save money in the long run by covering contraception. So much money is saved that it makes financial sense to waive co-pays and deductibles. A 2000 study by the National Business Group on Health estimates that not providing contraceptive coverage in employee health plans winds up costing employers 15% to 17% more than providing such coverage.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Taxes are the user fees for living in society.

"For" here is a statement of intention. Intentions are a matter of inference. "For living in society" is not always the case. Sometimes taxes are the price people pay to avoid prison or the loss of their tangible assets. People pay taxes in North Korea. The Declaration of Independence listed taxes as one cause for war against the British crown. In any case, the coercion that Rep. Quayle observed is taxation to pay for contraception, not the contraception itself. Merits of coercion in this case aside, taxes are coerced.

 

[Border Reiver]

"For" here is a statement of intention. Intentions are a matter of inference. "For living in society" is not always the case. Sometimes taxes are the price people pay to avoid prison or the loss of their tangible assets. People pay taxes in North Korea. The Declaration of Independence listed taxes as one cause for war against the British crown. In any case, the coercion that Rep. Quayle observed is taxation to pay for contraception, not the contraception itself. Merits of coercion in this case aside, taxes are coerced.

I believe ground was specifically "taxation without representation", not just taxes. Something about not having a say about not being able to say what is an appropriate tax rate, etc.

There was also the not wanting soldiers garrisoned there (the French having been defeated, why were there still soldiers still there - a very English attitude), and of course the ability to displace former allies from their home territories (they were only savages afterall).

 

[jj]

And that idiot would be the one who drafted the bill. There's no reason to mandate coverage for birth control at all, let alone to mandate it without a copay.

Meanwhile, costs will increase and politicians (and other idiots) will use it as more reason to overhaul health care (again) or do away with the insurance system altogether.

So, it's more expensive to pay for medical care for one person using birth control than it is for 10 children without birth control?

Please explain this, it runs counter to every bit of evidence I've ever seen.

 

[BenBurch]

I'd say having a copay isn't horrible but there is a reason for this. If you set the copay for all drugs to 100% you can avoid paying a dime for birth control at the expense of covering anything at all. And some religiously affiliated employers might just do that.

 

[Kestrel]

Copays exist to assure that people only go to the doctor when necessary. The problem is that some people will avoid preventive care because of the cost. Care that oven saves money in the long run.

 

[Roadtoad]

The day might live in Infamy.

I live in California.

(What?)

 

[IchabodPlain]

1. I quoted you in full.

1. 
   
   You did, but not the post GA is referring to.
   
   

   [*]Turns out that birth control is STILL much cheaper than pregnancies and associated complications (regardless of order). Let me translate that so you can understand. If the insurance companies pick up the tab for birth control then they will spend less in the long run.

   
   Irrelevant unless you don't think there should be copays for any preventative medicine. Providing insulin is cheaper than being treated in the ER. Same with cancer screenings, same with any other drug. What GA, I believe, is arguing (and please correct me if I am wrong), is why should birth control be treated differently than these other preventative services? Personally, I would be fine with some sort of means test, but I am skeptical that a $5 or $10 copay is going to cripple anyone financially.

 

[BStrong]

If this trips anybodys "Day of Infamy" switch, they need to start paying attention to what is going on.

 

[BenBurch]

If this trips anybodys "Day of Infamy" switch, they need to start paying attention to what is going on.

Amen.

 

[RandFan]

You did, but not the post GA is referring to.

Thanks. FWIW: It's not my job to find and read every one of his posts. That said, his gut feelings don't trump science. In fact, they don't mean ****.

Irrelevant unless you don't think there should be copays for any preventative medicine. Providing insulin is cheaper than being treated in the ER. Same with cancer screenings, same with any other drug.

If the experts conduct a meta study and determine more money will be saved by doing away with co-pays, then hell yes there shouldn't be co-pays. How hard is that to figure out? That said, I suspect that such a study won't have a similar finding.

What GA, I believe, is arguing (and please correct me if I am wrong), is why should birth control be treated differently than these other preventative services?

Well, instead of relying on your beliefs why not look at what he says instead.

Insurance companies have to provide a product free of charge when it was not free of charge before. Costs increase.

No, I don't think he is arguing what you are. He stated his position explicitly. He's wrong.

 

[IchabodPlain]

Thanks. FWIW: It's not my job to find and read every one of his posts. That said, his gut feelings don't trump science. In fact, they don't mean ****.

It's a short thread. But you're right, his interpretation is just that, not to be confused with evidence.

If the experts conduct a meta study and determine more money will be saved by doing away with co-pays, then hell yes there shouldn't be co-pays.

Fair enough, but then, stuff costs money. And unless copays are what is preventing women from using the pill, then removing them altogether only increases the free rider problem. A more efficient method, in this case, would be a means test.

That said, I suspect that such a study won't have a similar finding.

Why not? At $5/mo copay, insulin is - even after decades - cheaper than one visit to the ER to treat the diabetic shock from not having it.

No, I don't think he is arguing what you are. He stated his position explicitly. He's wrong.

You are correct that his primary point is that it shouldn't be covered in the first place and that it's coverage will increase costs. I'll let him argue the libertarian cause on that.

 

[Kestrel]

Fair enough, but then, stuff costs money. And unless copays are what is preventing women from using the pill, then removing them altogether only increases the free rider problem. A more efficient method, in this case, would be a means test.

If you think about it, the system being set up has a means test. Wealthy women pay the full price for insurance coverage, poor women have the cost subsidized. Preventive care including contraception is included in the price of the insurance. There is no need to complicate it further by having a seperate means test for copays.

 

[Multivac]

Infamy-ly way? I thought birth control was designed to prevent that.

 

[cwalner]

Copays exist to assure that people only go to the doctor when necessary. The problem is that some people will avoid preventive care because of the cost. Care that oven saves money in the long run.

Thanks. This succinctly addresses my concerns up thread. The medicines that I listed are for treatment of chronic conditions, not prevention.

Since it is shown that the cost of preventative medicine saves money in the long term, then I am sure that Insurance companies are for it and willing to pay the costs as it ultimately saves them money.

However, the objections to this do not seem to be coming from the Insurance companies.