Senate defeats limits on Birth control coverage

[michal1980]

The liberal line is that health-insurance can cover optional/lifestyle drugs. If you don't like the option/lifestyle then you don't have to buy the drugs. Mandating health-insurance, even for optional/lifestyle drugs does not mean you are handing-out to support/enable their lifestyle any more than a church being tax-free is handing-out to support/enable religiosity.

When you mandate something be covered, you can no longer say something "can" be covered.

saying that insurance companies can cover optional/lifestyle durgs implies they have a choice. Liberals have taken away that choice by mandates.

 

[CallMeJoe]

proof.

You can say that but it doesn't mean it true.

Heres why:

Giving free birth control to EVERY woman, could be more expensive then providing care for just the few that get pregent.

Futhermore. I thought the liberal line was that this wasnt about sex, and was about women that need the drugs for treating some other non-sex problem?

Unintended Pregnancy and Taxpayer Spending
CONTEXT: Nearly half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended. These pregnancies likely represent a substantial cost to taxpayers, but national-level estimates of these public costs have been lacking.

METHODS: Taxpayer spending on unintended pregnancy is measured by multiplying estimates of the 2001 incidence of publicly financed unintended pregnancy outcomes (abortions, fetal losses, births and need for infant medical care) by average per-incident costs. Public savings that would result from preventing unintended pregnancies are estimated by assuming that the prevention of an unwanted pregnancy would save the full cost of financing the pregnancy, while the prevention of a mistimed pregnancy would save the cost of financing the pregnancy today minus the present value of the cost of financing the pregnancy when it eventually occurs.

RESULTS: Lower-bound, mean and upper-bound estimates of the annual cost of unintended pregnancy are, respectively, $9.6 billion, $11.3 billion and $12.6 billion. Corresponding estimates of the savings that would accrue to taxpayers by preventing unintended pregnancies are $4.7 billion, $5.6 billion and $6.2 billion. The mean estimate of the taxpayer cost per publicly subsidized unintended pregnancy is $9,000; the prevention of such a pregnancy would save taxpayers about half that amount.

Any questions?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

When you mandate something be covered, you can no longer say something "can" be covered.

saying that insurance companies can cover optional/lifestyle durgs implies they have a choice. Liberals have taken away that choice by mandates.

Mandating coverage is good for society; allowing church's to be tax-exempt is good for society. Getting bogged down in minutia (is it a "hand out") doesn't make a point, it only distracts from it.

We take 'choice' away from many businesses, and for good reason: don't you agree?

 

[michal1980]

Unintended Pregnancy and Taxpayer Spending
CONTEXT: Nearly half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended. These pregnancies likely represent a substantial cost to taxpayers, but national-level estimates of these public costs have been lacking.

METHODS: Taxpayer spending on unintended pregnancy is measured by multiplying estimates of the 2001 incidence of publicly financed unintended pregnancy outcomes (abortions, fetal losses, births and need for infant medical care) by average per-incident costs. Public savings that would result from preventing unintended pregnancies are estimated by assuming that the prevention of an unwanted pregnancy would save the full cost of financing the pregnancy, while the prevention of a mistimed pregnancy would save the cost of financing the pregnancy today minus the present value of the cost of financing the pregnancy when it eventually occurs.

RESULTS: Lower-bound, mean and upper-bound estimates of the annual cost of unintended pregnancy are, respectively, $9.6 billion, $11.3 billion and $12.6 billion. Corresponding estimates of the savings that would accrue to taxpayers by preventing unintended pregnancies are $4.7 billion, $5.6 billion and $6.2 billion. The mean estimate of the taxpayer cost per publicly subsidized unintended pregnancy is $9,000; the prevention of such a pregnancy would save taxpayers about half that amount.

Any questions?

savings to taxpayers do not equal savings to health care companies.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Nearly half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended.

If you think forcing Catholic institutions to subsidize BC against their principals is going to measurable reduce that amount, well carry on...

Fern

 

[CallMeJoe]

If you think forcing Catholic institutions to subsidize BC against their principals is going to measurable reduce that amount, well carry on...

Fern

I was quoting the abstract of the study I linked, for the benefit of the many on this forum who never click links.

I do not believe that eliminating unintended pregnancies at Catholic-run businesses would reduce the number significantly by itself. I do, however, believe that making effective contraception cheap (or free) and universally available might.

It might even reduce the abortion rate.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

If you think forcing Catholic institutions to subsidize BC against their principals is going to measurable reduce that amount, well carry on...

Fern

Nope.

But you know what: It's against a vegan's convictions to subsidizing eating meat, but we still have food stamps and you can still buy bacon with them.

Just because you, your church or even God Himself says "don't do that shit" doesn't mean that we can't require people pay money so that it gets done.


Where's your out-rage regarding Jews, Muslims and Hindu people that are 'forced' to 'subsidize' a 'free handout' of pork?


When you figure out why you're outraged about one and not the other you'll figure out why you are wrong.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Nope.

But you know what: It's against a vegan's convictions to subsidizing eating meat, but we still have food stamps and you can still buy bacon with them.

Just because you, your church or even God Himself says "don't do that shit" doesn't mean that we can't require people pay money so that it gets done.


Where's your out-rage regarding Jews, Muslims and Hindu people that are 'forced' to 'subsidize' a 'free handout' of pork?


When you figure out why you're outraged about one and not the other you'll figure out why you are wrong.

What if you have a problem with all of the above?

 

[Acanthus]

I'm not posioning any well.

Liberals are for handouts. Obama mandate BC be given out for free. You are defending that.

I'm just stating facts.

Liberals like you try to hide behind misappllication of logical fallacies.

Conservatives are for handouts. They mandate that their bullshit ways be given out to everyone else because they think they have moral superiority.

 

[Blackjack200]

What if you have a problem with all of the above?

Vote for Rick Santorum.

 

[Fern]

Nope.

But you know what: It's against a vegan's convictions to subsidizing eating meat, but we still have food stamps and you can still buy bacon with them.

Just because you, your church or even God Himself says "don't do that shit" doesn't mean that we can't require people pay money so that it gets done.


Where's your out-rage regarding Jews, Muslims and Hindu people that are 'forced' to 'subsidize' a 'free handout' of pork?


When you figure out why you're outraged about one and not the other you'll figure out why you are wrong.

When you figure out the difference between the govt subsidizing something with general tax dollars, whether it's free BC from non-profit clinics or food stamps where people may get pork, versus forcing people (Catholics) to pay directly for something against their beliefs (BC in this case) you'll have gained some understanding.

I'm unaware that any Jews or Muslims are forced to directly pay for someone to get pork.

To my knowledge, Catholic people have been indirectly funding BC and not complaining it. The clear and obvious difference is when the govt moved to force them to directly provide it.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Unintended Pregnancy and Taxpayer Spending
CONTEXT: Nearly half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended. These pregnancies likely represent a substantial cost to taxpayers, but national-level estimates of these public costs have been lacking.

METHODS: Taxpayer spending on unintended pregnancy is measured by multiplying estimates of the 2001 incidence of publicly financed unintended pregnancy outcomes (abortions, fetal losses, births and need for infant medical care) by average per-incident costs. Public savings that would result from preventing unintended pregnancies are estimated by assuming that the prevention of an unwanted pregnancy would save the full cost of financing the pregnancy, while the prevention of a mistimed pregnancy would save the cost of financing the pregnancy today minus the present value of the cost of financing the pregnancy when it eventually occurs.

RESULTS: Lower-bound, mean and upper-bound estimates of the annual cost of unintended pregnancy are, respectively, $9.6 billion, $11.3 billion and $12.6 billion. Corresponding estimates of the savings that would accrue to taxpayers by preventing unintended pregnancies are $4.7 billion, $5.6 billion and $6.2 billion. The mean estimate of the taxpayer cost per publicly subsidized unintended pregnancy is $9,000; the prevention of such a pregnancy would save taxpayers about half that amount.

Any questions?

Yes, I have a question.

What's the point of including the costs of births in the above estimate?

An unintended birth costs no more than one that is intended. I'm positive that when my son was born neither the physician or hospital asked me or my wife if it was intended or unintended when they were preparing my bill.

I could see an analysis done on costs of BC versus unwanted pregnancies resulting in an abortion. But I see no reason to included pregnancies taken to birth.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, I have a question.

What's the point of including the costs of births in the above estimate?

An unintended birth costs no more than one that is intended. I'm positive that when my son was born neither the physician or hospital asked me or my wife if it was intended or unintended when they were preparing my bill.

I could see an analysis done on costs of BC versus unwanted pregnancies resulting in an abortion. But I see no reason to included pregnancies taken to birth.

Fern

You can't be serious. I know several people, my best friend's parents while I was growing up included, who had children due to an unintended pregnancy. These are children that would not have been born otherwise, therefore their insurance incurred costs it would not have had.

They do not believe in abortion. It was not even an option, yet the pregnancy was clearly unwanted. Attempting to discount those births is simply ridiculous.

 

[Fern]

You can't be serious. I know several people, my best friend's parents while I was growing up included, who had children due to an unintended pregnancy. These are children that would not have been born otherwise, therefore their insurance incurred costs it would not have had.

You've changed the discussion by converting "taxpayer costs" or "taxpayer cost per publicly subsidized" (as the article states) into insurance costs. I think these are different.

(As an aside, to assert that the unintended pregnancy results in additional costs of insurance requires an assumption that an additional child wouldn't be born. I.e., it may be that the timing was unintentional, but not the fact of the (additional) child itself. Had that unintentional pregnancy not occurred they may have sought an intentional pregnancy later.)

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

You've changed the discussion by converting "taxpayer costs" or "taxpayer cost per publicly subsidized" (as the article states) into insurance costs. I think these are different.

(As an aside, to assert that the unintended pregnancy results in additional costs of insurance requires an assumption that an additional child wouldn't be born. I.e., it may be that the timing was unintentional, but not the fact of the (additional) child itself. Had that unintentional pregnancy not occurred they may have sought an intentional pregnancy later.)

Fern

It's not a change in discussion in any substantive way, the government is acting as an insurer of sorts by subsidizing the procedure.

Furthermore, while some unintended pregnancies may prevent future intended ones, that possibility is accounted for in the text you yourself quoted from CallMeJoe.

 

[Fern]

It's not a change in discussion in any substantive way, the government is acting as an insurer of sorts by subsidizing the procedure.

I think it is. perhaps I'll explain later.

Furthermore, while some unintended pregnancies may prevent future intended ones, that possibility is accounted for in the text you yourself quoted from CallMeJoe.

I see it addressed. But their meaning isn't clear to. They keep referring to costs of "unintended", yet they call those that would inevitably occur "mistimed". I don't see where they clarify that those categorized as mistimed costs are included in those categorized as unintended costs, as though the former is a subset of the latter. No biggy, they have at least considered the issue.

Fern

 

[Dr. Zaus]

When you figure out the difference between the govt subsidizing something with general tax dollars, whether it's free BC from non-profit clinics or food stamps where people may get pork, versus forcing people (Catholics) to pay directly for something against their beliefs (BC in this case) you'll have gained some understanding.

I'm unaware that any Jews or Muslims are forced to directly pay for someone to get pork.

To my knowledge, Catholic people have been indirectly funding BC and not complaining it. The clear and obvious difference is when the govt moved to force them to directly provide it.

Fern

Insurance is an indirect purchase. Adding BC to it is no different than not allowing a limitation for health insurance for people that have heart-attacks from eating too much bacon or people who get VD from not having God-approved sex.

What if you have a problem with all of the above?

Then vote for the party or candidate seeking to change that

 

[caddlad]

To my knowledge, Catholic people have been indirectly funding BC and not complaining it.
Fern

Most Catholic women ignore the gold encrusted old men and use birth control. Of course they won't complain.

 

[MovingTarget]

Most Catholic women ignore the gold encrusted old men and use birth control. Of course they won't complain.

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner!