a day that will live in infamy

[Travis]

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.

Not everyone has the freedom you speak of. Many people are lucky to get whatever health insurance plan their employer offers. If it doesn't cover something vital to them....well they are screwed.

Heck my last three employers didn't even offer health insurance.

And if you don't give free stuff to people it means you're oppressing them. I know I certainly am oppressed.

Saddling a woman with an unwanted pregnancy is hardly "giving her free stuff."

 

[cwalner]

And my and others insurance company doesn't, thus the premiums got jacked up because they were forced to add stuff I didn't want or need.

Neither I nor Aetna chose what coverage I have, my employer did. If you don't have a good plan, blame your employer, not your insurance company

Wrong, which is why they are included in the law. Covering birth control copay is just one example. More here.

Again, the problem is not that insurance companies are not offering the services, the problem is that employers don't see the value the same way that insurance companies do and/or make decisions based on religious beliefs instead of a cost/benefit analysis. That is what the law addresses.

No such evidence has been given for that claim plus it doesn't even make sense. Don't you think insurance companies would already do whatever they could including adding coverage if they knew it would reduce their costs?

1) yes it has
2) as I have repeatedly stated insurance companies are offering these services. However, if I ran an insurance company, and my customer stated he didn't want to pay for contraception for his employees, I would happily offer him a plan that specifically excluded contraception. Its far more costly to me to lose a customer than to insist on offering a more efficient plan that he clearly does not want.

 

[Neally]

Saddling a woman with an unwanted pregnancy is hardly "giving her free stuff."

Yes, because not giving her the copay means she is forced to have an unwanted pregnancy.

Neither I nor Aetna chose what coverage I have, my employer did. If you don't have a good plan, blame your employer, not your insurance company.

Irrelevant. This isn't about a good or bad plan that my employer offers. It's about coverage that people like me don't want or need but are forced to pay for as a result of Obamacare.

Again, the problem is not that insurance companies are not offering the services, the problem is that employers don't see the value the same way that insurance companies do and/or make decisions based on religious beliefs instead of a cost/benefit analysis. That is what the law addresses.

Try to keep on topic. Stuff has been added to medical insurance plans by Obamacare. Stuff costs money. Those costs have been passed onto the consumer.

1) yes it has

Citation?

2) as I have repeatedly stated insurance companies are offering these services.

Offering but not forced to include them. Until now.

However, if I ran an insurance company, and my customer stated he didn't want to pay for contraception for his employees, I would happily offer him a plan that specifically excluded contraception. Its far more costly to me to lose a customer than to insist on offering a more efficient plan that he clearly does not want.

If the plan indeed was more efficient it would be cheaper and thus wouldn't cost more to the employer. That's not what's happening here. The law wasn't about forcing employers to offer coverage that they refused to include due to religious objections.

 

[cwalner]

Irrelevant. This isn't about a good or bad plan that my employer offers. It's about coverage that people like me don't want or need but are forced to pay for as a result of Obamacare.

So you admit to being one of the freeloaders who does not take personal responsibility that the AHCA is addressing. Just because you don't think you need preventative care, doesn't mean you don't. It will just cost more money to treat whatever should be prevented, but what do you care, that is covered.

Try to keep on topic. Stuff has been added to medical insurance plans by Obamacare. Stuff costs money. Those costs have been passed onto the consumer.

and all of the stuff on the list will help prevent much more costly problems so we will all save in the long run.

Citation?

you really are bad at this. several people have already linked to this, I am not going to do it again for you, check out the previous links.

Offering but not forced to include them. Until now.
If the plan indeed was more efficient it would be cheaper and thus wouldn't cost more to the employer. That's not what's happening here. The law wasn't about forcing employers to offer coverage that they refused to include due to religious objections.

yet that is the addition that seems to be getting the most push back, and the one referenced in the OP.

 

[RandFan]

Yes, because not giving her the copay means she is forced to have an unwanted pregnancy.

Straw man.

Irrelevant. This isn't about a good or bad plan that my employer offers. It's about coverage that people like me don't want or need but are forced to pay for as a result of Obamacare.

You don't understand how insurance works. Most men don't need or want pap smears but many insurance plans provide for pap smears anyway. Same with viagra and women. You might not need or want a traffic light at some intersection you never use but that's no a valid argument against the traffic light. Insurance isn't based on individuals. It's based on groups. Likewise, the laws and regulations aren't crafted for individuals.

Try to keep on topic. Stuff has been added to medical insurance plans by Obamacare. Stuff costs money. Those costs have been passed onto the consumer.

Studies show it will reduce costs.

 

[Neally]

So you admit to being one of the freeloaders who does not take personal responsibility that the AHCA is addressing. Just because you don't think you need preventative care, doesn't mean you don't. It will just cost more money to treat whatever should be prevented, but what do you care, that is covered.

Stop with the lies and straw. I have insurance. I don't want or need some of the stuff I'm now forced to pay for. Kinda hard to accept the fact that Obamacare has actually increased the cost of medical insurance if you are irrationally in love with the AHCA, isn't it?

and all of the stuff on the list will help prevent much more costly problems so we will all save in the long run.

Citation?

you really are bad at this. several people have already linked to this, I am not going to do it again for you, check out the previous links.

Can't provide the citation then. Got it.

 

[RandFan]

Stop with the lies and straw. I have insurance. I don't want or need some of the stuff I'm now forced to pay for.

If you are a man you pay for the medical care of pregnant women. If you are a woman you pay for prostrate examinations. How god damn stupid is your argument? Wake up. You live in a society. We don't craft individual insurance policies. Laws and regulations are not made with just you in mind. How difficult is it to understand that?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

If you are a man you pay for the medical care of pregnant women. If you are a woman you pay for prostrate examinations. How god damn stupid is your argument? Wake up. You live in a society. We don't craft individual insurance policies. Laws and regulations are not made with just you in mind. How difficult is it to understand that?

Serious issues.

 

[pgwenthold]

If you are a man you pay for the medical care of pregnant women. If you are a woman you pay for prostrate examinations. How god damn stupid is your argument? Wake up. You live in a society. We don't craft individual insurance policies. Laws and regulations are not made with just you in mind. How difficult is it to understand that?

You know, if people didn't have to pay for stuff they didn't need, the whole concept of insurance would be meaningless.

The whole POINT of insurance is for people who don't need something to help pay for it for someone who does. The benefit you get for doing it is the (gasp) insurance that, if you are one of the unfortunate ones who ultimately does need it, then others will help pay for you.

If you are getting as much out of insurance as you are putting in, then you are a burden on the system. Don't feel guilty, of course, because someone has to be getting more out than they are putting in (if there wasn't, then you'd be able to put less in until that happened).

 

[RandFan]

You know, if people didn't have to pay for stuff they didn't need, the whole concept of insurance would be meaningless.

It kills me. What do some people imagine insurance is?

 

[cwalner]

Stop with the lies and straw. I have insurance. I don't want or need some of the stuff I'm now forced to pay for. Kinda hard to accept the fact that Obamacare has actually increased the cost of medical insurance if you are irrationally in love with the AHCA, isn't it?

Insurance is not supposed to just be for what you want or need now. It's insurance against what you may need later. Claiming that you should not have to pay for something because you don't currently use it is the same as claiming you don't need insurance at all because you are not presently sick. This is exactly the freeloader problem that the individual mandate is attempting to address.

The other issue is that I currently have a plan that functions much like AHCA is already in place and has for several years. The reason that I am not seeing cost increases is that I already have the coverage that is now legally mandated.

Might I suggest the problem is not with my love of the AHCA, but that if your plan has to increase costs to meet the minimum requirements of the AHCA that you have been under insured and the small increases in costs now will likely save you a lot of money when you get injured or sick and you now will not go bankrupt to pay for medical expenses that you were not covered for.

 

[DavidJames]

If you are a man you pay for the medical care of pregnant women. If you are a woman you pay for prostrate examinations. How god damn stupid is your argument? Wake up. You live in a society. We don't craft individual insurance policies. Laws and regulations are not made with just you in mind. How difficult is it to understand that?

This is why I consider libertarians as either the dumbest group of political ideologues, and or the most anti-social and self centered.

 

[pgwenthold]

It kills me. What do some people imagine insurance is?

Of course, this is a common problem. Wasn't Chief Justice Roberts who got called out by Ginsberg on this issue?

 

[Olowkow]

It kills me. What do some people imagine insurance is?

Apparently, it means that you only should pay for those illnesses that you anticipate contracting. If you never play with dogs, insurance should not cover rabies.

Same with the stock market. I always tell my wife when she loses money on a stock, just call them up and explain that you really didn't mean to buy it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes, because not giving her the copay means she is forced to have an unwanted pregnancy.

You keep repeating this strawman argument. No one is saying that.

And the issue isn't just about having no out-of-pocket cost. For many it's about having easy access to reliable birth control at all. And it will certainly give many women more options.

I think it's reasonable to expect that this measure will result in fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Stop with the lies and straw. I have insurance. I don't want or need some of the stuff I'm now forced to pay for.

You clearly don't understand the concept of insurance.

 

[pgwenthold]

You keep repeating this strawman argument. No one is saying that.

And the issue isn't just about having no out-of-pocket cost. For many it's about having easy access to reliable birth control at all. And it will certainly give many women more options.

I think it's reasonable to expect that this measure will result in fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions.

Similarly, I would hope they would cover vasectomies. I had a $60 co-pay on mine, but it was still cheaper than years of BC pills or a third kid.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

You know, if people didn't have to pay for stuff they didn't need, the whole concept of insurance would be meaningless.

The whole POINT of insurance is for people who don't need something to help pay for it for someone who does.

No. Traditional (market-based) insurance reduces risk. Fraternal societies, for example, share risk among members. Risk is a cost that people will pay to reduce. The calculation that market-based insurance reduces risk applies only if people volunteer to accept the cost of the premium.

 

[RandFan]

A correction.

We don't craft individual insurance policies.

It is possible to get an insurance policy that is individually crafted. That's not typically how insurance policies work though.

 

[Neally]

Insurance is not supposed to just be for what you want or need now.

I understand that. The purpose of insurance is to mitigate against unacceptable loss.

It's insurance against what you may need later. Claiming that you should not have to pay for something because you don't currently use it is the same as claiming you don't need insurance at all because you are not presently sick. This is exactly the freeloader problem that the individual mandate is attempting to address.

Not what we are talking about. Should you be forced to cover loss of a boat on your auto policy even though you don't own one? One day you might have a boat! Just because you currently don't have one is no excuse! It helps reduce the cost of boat insurance for all boat owners, you freeloader!

Insurance plans are designed to offer choices as to what you want coverage for at a range of prices. You pick what you want covered and what you can afford to pay. Now Obamacare forces me to cover stuff I don't want or need. That has nothing to do with "freeloading".

The other issue is that I currently have a plan that functions much like like AHCA is already in place and has for several years. The reason that I am not seeing cost increases is that I already have the coverage that is now legally mandated.

Well good for you. There are undoubtedly even better "gold plated" plans that offer even more. If AHCA mandated even more exensive coverage that what you plan currently offers, you would see a premium increase.

]Might I suggest the problem is not with my love of the AHCA, but that if your plan has to increase costs to meet the minimum requirements of the AHCA that you have been under insured and the small increases in costs now will likely save you a lot of money when you get injured or sick and you now will not go bankrupt to pay for medical expenses that you were not covered for.

You haven't a clue as to what you are talking about. Might I suggest you include boat insurance to your auto policy. The small increases in costs now will likely save you a lot of money when if in the future your boat crashes and you now will not go bankrupt to pay for medical expenses that you were not covered for.

The whole POINT of insurance is for people who don't need something to help pay for it for someone who does.

So get that boat insurance and quit freeloading!

You keep repeating this strawman argument. No one is saying that.

Perhaps then you can explain how not covering a copay is saddling a woman with an unwanted pregnancy?

And the issue isn't just about having no out-of-pocket cost. For many it's about having easy access to reliable birth control at all. And it will certainly give many women more options.

The issue here is making birth control fully covered without a copay.

I think it's reasonable to expect that this measure will result in fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions.

I think not. You really expect that a working woman previously didn't use birth control because she had to pay a copay to get it, and instead was just taking chances at getting pregnant, but now that her copay is covered, she'll start using it? LOL.

You clearly don't understand the concept of insurance.

Does "mitigate against unacceptable loss" work for you?