Senate defeats limits on Birth control coverage

[michal1980]

Another genius who believes contraception is more expensive than pregnancy.

Because insurance companies are in the business of handouts.

Another liberal genius that thinks only a handout will solve the problem.

BC is cheap. Personal reponsiblity. Learn it.

Of course that too much to epect of liberals who think everyone is to stupid, and too poor, to make their own decisions, and only because of the good grace of liberalism handouts can they survie.

I'm sure insurance companies know full well the cost benfit of one vs the other, and if it was cheaper to give BC out for free, they would have done it along time ago. Since most health insruance plans require some form of payment for BC it should be obivous to everyone but the most brain dead liberal that giving it out for free would cause rates to go up.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Because insurance companies are in the business of handouts.

Another liberal genius that thinks only a handout will solve the problem.

BC is cheap. Personal reponsiblity. Learn it.

Of course that too much to epect of liberals who think everyone is to stupid, and too poor, to make their own decisions, and only because of the good grace of liberalism handouts can they survie.

I'm sure insurance companies know full well the cost benfit of one vs the other, and if it was cheaper to give BC out for free, they would have done it along time ago. Since most health insruance plans require some form of payment for BC it should be obivous to everyone but the most brain dead liberal that giving it out for free would cause rates to go up.

Insurance companies aren't the ones fighting this policy; they're perfectly happy with being allowed to offer contraception to all their clients who want it. Contraception saves money.

 

[DCal430]

It doesn't. No where does it say that. It actually treats BC like other medications.

It just says companies and their health plans have to allow birth control to be covered by their plans. Prior to ObamaCare, BC of all types(pills, shots, etc) were rarely covered by insurance plans.

BC should be treated like all other preventative maintenance type things health insurance covers.

Nope the law says BC must be FREE with no Copay and no deductible.

 

[MovingTarget]

Because insurance companies are in the business of handouts.

Another liberal genius that thinks only a handout will solve the problem.

False. Liberals aren't all about "handouts". Way to poison the well there...

BC is cheap. Personal responsibility. Learn it.

False. BC isn't necessarily cheap as I and others have pointed out. This isn't about personal responsibility either. BC is not always used for contraceptive purposes. Besides, if you really think that married couples should not have sex due to finances, you are delusional.

Of course that too much to expect of liberals who think everyone is to stupid, and too poor, to make their own decisions, and only because of the good grace of liberalism handouts can they survive.

Again, way to poison the well. Liberals fully expect that people make their own decisions regarding birth control. Nobody is forcing anyone to use or not use it. This rule is about treating BC as you would any other medication, and acknowledging that things aren't the same for women as they are for men in the reproductive sphere.

I'm sure insurance companies know full well the cost benefit of one vs the other, and if it was cheaper to give BC out for free, they would have done it along time ago. Since most health insurance plans require some form of payment for BC it should be obvious to everyone but the most brain dead liberal that giving it out for free would cause rates to go up.

Again, false. Religious-affiliated employers often seek out exclusionary clauses for birth control/abortion. It doesn't matter what the insurance company thinks. They would be bitching to high heaven if the actuarial tables didn't work out in their favor regarding this rule. If anything, they've been wholly supportive of it - even with regards to religious employers, which would require that insurance companies eat the whole cost.

See responses in bold/italic. Also, learn to spell-check your posts.

 

[Rainsford]

You can't be serious.

I'm not a Catholic, but h3ll even I know they've been strongly anti-contraceptive since forever.

Fern

Read what I wrote again. I'm not saying Catholics aren't anti-contraceptive, I'm saying it's ridiculous to claim that their way of following that belief is by denying contraceptive health insurance coverage to their employees.

 

[Rainsford]

They are just being FORCED to pay for something they dont belive in.


Honestly are you people on the left this stupid?

Not really, but clearly you think I must be if you think your argument is at all persuasive. The only requirement is that they OFFER the coverage to employees as part of their benefits package. Since insurance, along with salary, is employee compensation for work performed, I don't see how the church has any more claim to that money than they would dictating how an employee spends their salary. It's not like the church is being required to provide, for free, contraceptives to random people off the street.

You get your undies in a bunch over a sign in a school because that somehow establishes religon, but goverment telling religous groups what they should, and should not do is 'ok'.

That doesn't seem like even remotely the same thing...

 

[Pens1566]

its a handout when you want it for free.

Most use of BC are for sex.

To say that BC is like other medication just means your stupid.

It's not "free", they pay premiums.

And it's YOU'RE stupid. Ironic.

 

[Rainsford]

...
You cannot be serious. (Yes, I find it necessary to repeat myself.)

We have a federal law banning taxpayer money for abortion. And it is well known that we have this law because of peoples' religious or moral objection to abortion.

By your logic we wouldn't have this law, because funding abortions isn't the same as forcing you to have one.

I.e., it well understood and accepted that forcing someone to fund something that violates their moral or religious beliefs is a valid concern. It is not that we have actually force them to perform the act.

Fern

A single example does not prove your general point. And given that people morally object to many things that remain funded by tax dollars, I'd argue that the ban on federal funding for abortions is an aberration rather than the rule. I also think that's a particularly bad example, since rather than being about personal choices as to how your money is spent, the supporters of that law made the decision on how (not) to spend tax money for EVERYONE, even people with different moral/religious beliefs. And the law wasn't based on a particular overriding principle or legal precedent, the anti-abortion folks simply got a majority of the votes that time. Had they had less support, their money would continue to go to federal funding for abortion.

Basically, I'm being completely serious about this. I'm trying to look at this from as objective a standpoint as I can, and I honestly am having trouble understanding why employer provided insurance coverage for birth control violates the employer's religions beliefs in any context. At the end of the day, the insurance coverage is a benefit provided to the employee in exchange for work. Should an employer really have claim over how those benefits are used?

 

[Wreckem]

Nope the law says BC must be FREE with no Copay and no deductible.

Still not free. Premiums will go up slightly.

Ands its a preventative medication. Insurance covers a whole host of preventive medicine for "free", including quitting smoking.

Heart Medication isn't preventative medicine. And for the personal responsibility arguments, it was the persons choice to be a fat ass/smoker/drinker. All three are some of the biggest causes of ED. Which medication for ED is gleefully covered.

Companies already heavily subsidize for fat asses, smokers, and drinkers. The amount they have to spend on them easily drawfs any estimate for birth control by many times over.

Employers SHOULD NOT be allowed to cherry pick whats covered and whats not. And the Ins. Co's have no problem with the mandate. Why should they, they got to pass the buck on to employers and employees by way of premium increases. And this is going to cause minimal increases to premiums, in all likelihood less than a few dollars per month per plan, which is more or less offset by current tax deductions for employers and premiums coming from pretax income for employees. Furthermore, the Feds, as well as the states that have required their insurers to cover BC(for free as y'all like to say), had had no direct cost increase to minimal cost increases which resulted in minimal premium increases of up to $20/year.

 

[DCal430]

Still not free. Premiums will go up slightly.

Ands its a preventative medication. Insurance covers a whole host of preventive medicine for "free", including quitting smoking.

Heart Medication isn't preventative medicine. And for the personal responsibility arguments, it was the persons choice to be a fat ass/smoker/drinker. All three are some of the biggest causes of ED. Which medication for ED is gleefully covered.

Companies already heavily subsidize for fat asses, smokers, and drinkers. The amount they have to spend on them easily drawfs any estimate for birth control by many times over.

Employers SHOULD NOT be allowed to cherry pick whats covered and whats not. And the Ins. Co's have no problem with the mandate. Why should they, they got to pass the buck on to employers and employees by way of premium increases. And this is going to cause minimal increases to premiums, in all likelihood less than a few dollars per month per plan, which is more or less offset by current tax deductions for employers and premiums coming from pretax income for employees. Furthermore, the Feds, as well as the states that have required their insurers to cover BC(for free as y'all like to say), had had no direct cost increase to minimal cost increases which resulted in minimal premium increases of up to $20/year.

This isn't about covering birth control, which I have no problem with. ED drugs have copayments, this does not.

FYI there are medical conditions that can cause diabetes and heart disease beyond the persons control.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Basically, I'm being completely serious about this. I'm trying to look at this from as objective a standpoint as I can, and I honestly am having trouble understanding why employer provided insurance coverage for birth control violates the employer's religions beliefs in any context. At the end of the day, the insurance coverage is a benefit provided to the employee in exchange for work. Should an employer really have claim over how those benefits are used?

Shrug, seems obvious to me.

Yes, I agree it is provided in exchange for the employees' labor. But the law makes the church pay them, not in cash, but in BC. Just let the church give them 'more' in cash, and if the employee chooses they can use it to purchase BC. IMO, that was the situation prior to the law change.

We fixed something that wasn't broken.

----------------------

As I understand it, throughout this HC process churches were assured by the Obama admin that they would be exempted from any BC requirements that may be promulgated by the DHHS (? I think that's the one) when fleshing out the regs and requirements of the HC bill.

Instead, they were ambushed. If this is indeed the case it has been woefully under reported by the media.

I further believe this 'ambush' was politically calculated; that it was purposefully done in a campaign year and intended to pull the Repubs into a fray regarding social issues (contraception and abortion) and away from fiscal issues (the economy and national debt). Maybe I'm too cynical.

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Furthermore, the Feds, as well as the states that have required their insurers to cover BC(for free as y'all like to say), had had no direct cost increase to minimal cost increases which resulted in minimal premium increases of up to $20/year.

IDK how much costs increase is associated with providing BC, but all you're describing above is a govt subsidy program. It's a tax increase disguised as HI premiums, and instead of govt check coming from some federal agency it's now coming from an insurance company.

The federal govt has been perverting the h3ll out of the income tax code for some time now, disguising welfare-type payments and various subsidies as refundable credits. I suppose they figure it's now time to move on to something else like HI and pervert the crap out of it too.

Fern

 

[michal1980]

See responses in bold/italic. Also, learn to spell-check your posts.

your reponses are so full of lies there isn't even a point in responding to them.


If liberals aren't for handouts, why is Obama telling insurance companies BC must be provided for free?

 

[michal1980]

It's not "free", they pay premiums.

And it's YOU'RE stupid. Ironic.

oh look its the grammer police. When all your arugments fail. Attack grammer.

P.S.

Obama said curch have to provide BC to their employees. To try to appease the church with this gross violation of the 1st amendemnt, he told the church that their insurance companies will give it to them for 'free'.

 

[CallMeJoe]

oh look its the grammer police. When all your arugments fail. Attack grammer.

P.S.

Obama said curch have to provide BC to their employees. To try to appease the church with this gross violation of the 1st amendemnt, he told the church that their insurance companies will give it to them for 'free'.

Again, contraception costs less than pregnancy. The insurance companies aren't fighting this because stopping church-run businesses from removing contraception from their health care coverage saves money.

 

[MovingTarget]

Your responses are so full of lies there isn't even a point in responding to them.


If liberals aren't for handouts, why is Obama telling insurance companies BC must be provided for free?

Go ahead, respond. This oughta be good. The more misogynistic that the radical right gets, the more they become politically irrelevant.

 

[michal1980]

Go ahead, respond. This oughta be good. The more misogynistic that the radical right gets, the more they become politically irrelevant.

Theres no point in responding to your lies. Because you deny the truth.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Theres no point in responding to your lies. Because you deny the truth.

Talking to yourself again?

 

[michal1980]

Again, contraception costs less than pregnancy. The insurance companies aren't fighting this because stopping church-run businesses from removing contraception from their health care coverage saves money.

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?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Theres no point in responding to your lies. Because you deny the truth.

See here what happens when your world is constructed entirely of self-reference.

Everything you think is "truth" and anyone that denies it is, by definition, denying truth: this makes them un-trustworthy.

How can a former truth be shown to be false in this world view?

My experience is that an argument can't be made, only growth through experience gained.

 

[MovingTarget]

proof.

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

Here's why:

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

Furthermore. I thought the liberal line was that this wasn't about sex, and was about women that need the drugs for treating some other non-sex problem?

There is no "liberal line" as you speak of it. We aren't following a weekly set of talking points. There are two separate points being made. Do try and keep up.

Oh, and the "few" of them that get pregnant? Do you live in a monastery or something? Women are fertile for quite some time during their lives. Have you seen the birth rate here?

 

[MovingTarget]

See here what happens when your world is constructed entirely of self-reference.

Everything you think is "truth" and anyone that denies it is, by definition, denying truth: this makes them un-trustworthy.

How can a former truth be shown to be false in this world view?

My experience is that an argument can't be made, only growth through experience gained.

Again, he poisons the well of discourse. Common logical fallacy.

 

[michal1980]

See here what happens when your world is constructed entirely of self-reference.

Everything you think is "truth" and anyone that denies it is, by definition, denying truth: this makes them un-trustworthy.

How can a former truth be shown to be false in this world view?

My experience is that an argument can't be made, only growth through experience gained.

He stated that liberals arent for handouts. Yet thats what started the whole BC thing. Handouts

[q]Under the health law, insured women will qualify for contraceptives without a copayment as part of a range of preventive medical services.[/q]
http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...-need-to-know-about-the-birth-control-mandate

Whos denying the truth? Not me. Obama mandated that insurance companies handout BC.

Thats a fact. Yet liberals are denying that left and right.

Come back when you can be honest.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Yet thats what started the whole BC thing. Handouts

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.

Again, he poisons the well of discourse. Common logical fallacy.

ok

 

[michal1980]

Again, he poisons the well of discourse. Common logical fallacy.

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.