a day that will live in infamy

[RandFan]

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!

Oh for crying in the dark, what if you don't have a uterus? What if you don't have a penis? Should policies be written separately for men and women? Sometimes it helps to have separate policies for different things. Sometimes it makes sense for govt to dictate what a policy must cover.

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?

It's called statistics and studies show that women are more likely to use birth control if co-pays are covered. All of your hand waving and presupposing won't change any of that.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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

It's not, and I've never made any such claim. That's just your straw man.

I said it's less expensive for us as a society to guarantee easy access to reliable birth control than it is to deal with unwanted pregnancies.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Does "mitigate against unacceptable loss" work for you?

Not entirely. You seem to have no concept of spreading out the cost of risk.

 

[Neally]

It's not, and I've never made any such claim. That's just your straw man.

I never said you did. Travis did, "Saddling a woman with an unwanted pregnancy is hardly "giving her free stuff." " So Travis is the one with the straw man then?

Not entirely. You seem to have no concept of spreading out the cost of risk.

You seem to have no concept of the meaning of the word "mitigate." But go for it. I gave you the definitive reason/purpose for insurance. You have a better reason, do tell.

 

[cwalner]

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!

Bad analogy. a better analogy is if the cost of insurance goes up based on the number of items (be they cars, boats or people) insured. And lo and behold, families pay more for insurance than do individuals, but families also pay less per insured, just like car insurance and boat insurance policies work.

 

[Magyar]

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

As demonstrated multiple times in this thread as well as others.. They're clearly both. You can't possibly willfully ignore all the evidence - be. Pointed to multiple links provided in previuos posts and then respond by saying you can't provide evidence because it's not in your post - willfully lack understanding and continue to think you have a point.

 

[Travis]

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

If it makes preventing an unwanted pregnancy harder than it is defacto an action that will create more unwanted pregnancies.

I never said you did. Travis did, "Saddling a woman with an unwanted pregnancy is hardly "giving her free stuff." " So Travis is the one with the straw man then?

Well, that is sorta what I said.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Are you intentionally ignoring RandFan, as post #46 by him already has a link to one such study.

Thanks. FWIW, it's not my job to hunt down and read every one of his posts.

And he didn't post a link to a study. He posted a link to a Time Magazine article that makes some dubious conclusions and is light on facts pertinent to this discussion.

Also, as I stated the reason we are having this conversation is not because insurance companies are unwilling to cover birth control, but because religious conservatives employers are making it an issue.

Then that sounds like a perfectly good reason to decouple health insurance from employment, not saddle more insurees with services they may not want.

In short, religious business owners are claiming that their religious freedom includes being able usurp the religious freedom of their employees and restrict their access to certain types of preventative health care based on the employers religious beliefs.

Not that I agree with what the employers are doing, but I take issue with your characterization of it as "restrict[ing] their access". Not having something in an insurance plan isn't really "restricting access" any more than Sears "restricts access" to tools not made by Craftsman.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

The study took into account lost productivity for workers who become pregnant. A woman who becomes pregnant typically, IIRC out of work for 2 - 3 months.

None of which affects the insurer, so it doesn't increase their costs.

If this wasn't aimed at supporting your argument against mine that this will raise insurance costs, then nevermind. IP's post covered a bit more territory than that.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

[ETA: Just as a matter of fact, you're wrong. Several of us have raised this point. So we are talking about it. If you mean we shouldn't be, then see the rest of my post.]

Okay, I'm not talking about it.

Right, and when I consider whether or not to spend money on changing the oil and filter in my car, I should only consider the cost of the oil and filter and nothing else, in which case it's cheaper for me never to change the oil and filter in my car.

I agree that there are costs to "society" from unwanted pregnancies, but I'm not talking about them. What I'm talking about is the cost to insurers now that there cannot be a copay and how premiums will rise because of it. Any outside costs that wouldn't have been picked up by the insurer is irrelevant to this point.

You can make the argument that the law is justified because of the cost savings to government due to unused social services, but this is not a winning proposition for justification, at least in my view. In fact, it's morally bankrupt. It's the government's choice to provide social services, and their responsibility to pony up the cash to make it happen. If no-copay BC is such a great thing, let the government start handing it out. Thay way, they have to pay for it themselves and get to be held accountable politically instead of this behind-the-scenes "tax" hike that will just build public sentiment against insurers when costs keep increasing.

 

[Biscuit]

Which now means the additional out-of-pocket expenses the company was receiving must be recouped by other means. Like premium increases.

Or they will just apply it to the MLR.

 

[Biscuit]

The insurance companies will happily comply and in turn jack up the premiums for everyone to cover the additional cost. They'd probably welcome even more mandated coverages. Obamacare has already increased the premiums for health care insurance as a result of the added coverages that they are forced to include. You do realize that all these great new benefits aren't free, right?

It's posts like this that demonstrate how little people know about the ACA. The authors of this bill considered your argument and implemented the 80:20 medical loss ratio rule that makes it pointless for insurers to raise premiums due to covering birth control.

 

[RandFan]

None of which affects the insurer, so it doesn't increase their costs.

When did I say otherwise? I was responding to ichabod who wondered why govt doesn't do away with co-pays altogether. The answer is pretty obvious, the benefits of doing so are not the same.

 

[R.A.F.]

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.

Ya know, I could "almost' respect your opinion if you would only "own" it.


Republickers are notorious minority haters...women haters...gay haters...anyone "different" from them.

They feel the need to subjigate someone...to have a certain portion of the population "under their thumb". I guess it gives them the feeling of power.


They want smaller government, yet they want to crawl up inside every american women's uterus.



I hate republicans, and at least I "own" my hate. What's your "excuse"??




Ok...rant over....

 

[Grizzly Adams]

When did I say otherwise? I was responding to ichabod who wondered why govt doesn't do away with co-pays altogether. The answer is pretty obvious, the benefits of doing so are not the same.

Did you just read that line you quoted? Because there was another half that you ignored that addressed this contingency.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Ya know, I could "almost' respect your opinion if you would only "own" it.


Republickers are notorious minority haters...women haters...gay haters...anyone "different" from them.

They feel the need to subjigate someone...to have a certain portion of the population "under their thumb". I guess it gives them the feeling of power.


They want smaller government, yet they want to crawl up inside every american women's uterus.


I hate republicans, and at least I "own" my hate. What's your "excuse"??




Ok...rant over....

Your rant is incoherent, hateful, inflammatory, bigoted, baseless, and probably nothing more than bait.

I'm not biting.

 

[RandFan]

Did you just read that line you quoted? Because there was another half that you ignored that addressed this contingency.

Just reiterating the point. Fair enough Carry on.

 

[leftysergeant]

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

No. If you encourage women to use birth control, other costs will utterly go away. Win-win situation.

 

[thaiboxerken]

My company "forces" me to upkeep the company truck, I don't understand why they would do so. I mean, according to Grizzlly, that is financially bad for my company to do.

 

[leftysergeant]

Republicons are such drama queens.