Why the push to control womens productive freedoms?

[zinfamous]

Agreed. I don't really care about the way things are now since the way things are now is completely nonsensical. I care about the way things should be. If an insurer wants to include preventative medicine in their plan then they should include it. If they don't want to include it, they shouldn't. People could then choose whatever plan they want depending on their price point. Specific exceptions are loopholes which inherently contradict the logic of the rest of the bill. Otherwise, they wouldn't be exceptions - they would simply be part of the rest of the bill.

I agree with the thrust of your argument, but the economic reality is that preventative coverage is far cheaper for the insurer and the insuree than is simple "catastrophic" coverage.

Whether or not such mandates should be enforced is a bit odd, since economics would, in theory, dictate that it is the only logical option.

We have a retarded fear in America regarding regular healthcare. We tend to prefer going to the doctor when the shit hits the fan, rather than annual or semi-annual checkups that would greatly increase a chance of catching the shit before it hits the fan, making it more treatable/manageable, and saving everyone $$$$$.

But no, many of us refuse to acknowledge such well-honed data, and make this a preposterously invalid political issue.

 

[CycloWizard]

I agree with the thrust of your argument, but the economic reality is that preventative coverage is far cheaper for the insurer and the insuree than is simple "catastrophic" coverage.

Whether or not such mandates should be enforced is a bit odd, since economics would, in theory, dictate that it is the only logical option.

We have a retarded fear in America regarding regular healthcare. We tend to prefer going to the doctor when the shit hits the fan, rather than annual or semi-annual checkups that would greatly increase a chance of catching the shit before it hits the fan, making it more treatable/manageable, and saving everyone $$$$$.

But no, many of us refuse to acknowledge such well-honed data, and make this a preposterously invalid political issue.

Agreed. I doubt forcing insurers to cover preventative medicine will increase demand for preventative medicine - it will just drive up premiums and allow companies to make more money. People will still wait until something is wrong then go to the ER rather than getting regular checkups because they're idiots. You can't legislate away stupidity. No one has ever proposed that we legislate that you must change your oil every xxx miles, but people do it because of blind faith in technology and fear of the unknown. People avoid doctors for the exact same reasons, which I think is interesting psychologically: people are afraid that they will get bad news and convince themselves that nothing bad is going on if they don't have a diagnosis. People also mistrust doctors, don't take their meds, and don't show up for followup appointments, but will then drive down the street and spend five times as much time and money getting their brakes replaced because the mechanic said it had to be done. Anyway, enough rambling.

 

[PingSpike]

My auto insurance includes glass coverage. If I get a chip in my windshield the deductible is waived for the repair. They don't do this out of charity. They do this because it saves them money as the replacement of a windshield is very expensive but they can prevent having to pay that higher cost by paying the smaller chip repair costs. This is actually completely irrelevant though because human beings are not cars.

Anyway, the reason there is a focus on this is because most rational minded people have been driven away from the Republican party. If this is a vast liberal plan to make them look bad it required a party wide bait taking by the republicans of epic proportions to make it work. Only an incompetent or a lunatic would think this is a politically advantageous battle to fight.

 

[dank69]

Agreed. I doubt forcing insurers to cover preventative medicine will increase demand for preventative medicine - it will just drive up premiums and allow companies to make more money. People will still wait until something is wrong then go to the ER rather than getting regular checkups because they're idiots. You can't legislate away stupidity. No one has ever proposed that we legislate that you must change your oil every xxx miles, but people do it because of blind faith in technology and fear of the unknown. People avoid doctors for the exact same reasons, which I think is interesting psychologically: people are afraid that they will get bad news and convince themselves that nothing bad is going on if they don't have a diagnosis. People also mistrust doctors, don't take their meds, and don't show up for followup appointments, but will then drive down the street and spend five times as much time and money getting their brakes replaced because the mechanic said it had to be done. Anyway, enough rambling.

I don't think you can make that statement. Many people avoid preventative care when they don't have insurance that covers it. It is quite expensive.

 

[OutHouse]

People will still wait until something is wrong then go to the ER rather than getting regular checkups because they're idiots.

fail.

 

[Wreckem]

Some say it started with Obama's mandate. Nope. Texas' assault started in 2005. Thats when they passed a law that they are only now choosing to enforce. And now they try to sue the Feds over this issue with ZERO legs to stand on, just like all their other Texas v. US cases they got going.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I doubt that forcing people to pay for cable will increase the use of cable TV. People will still either steal cable or just watch broadcast, because that's what they were happy with.

 

[boomerang]

can we get back to the real issue with the birth control and health care?

IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT CONTRACEPTION.

Seriously: what is the point of discussing this with people that refuse to address the medical issues, which are, fundamentally, the only concerns of this issue?

OK let's get back on track.

It's long been known that birth control pills have medical uses other than contraception. They cost money. The argument is that they should be provided at no charge. That they should be provided at no charge for contraceptive uses and at no charge for medically dictated uses. The argument goes on further to state that women are being controlled by not being provided these drugs for free.

This same argument can be applied to a slew of drugs suited for medical conditions in both men, women and children too. Using the same argument, all drugs should be provided for free to everyone. If an individual must take blood pressure medication, insulin, the list goes on and on and on, it should be provided for free. If they are not provided free, that individual is being "controlled".

So all drugs must be provided for free.

Who is paying for them? Therein is the root cause of the argument against providing free birth control to all women. Somebody has to be concerned about who pays for things.

Having said all that, this issue has come to a head because of election year politics and the attempt by some to convince folks that they are the only ones looking out for women. It's a sign of the ever increasing depths of depravity our political system and it's foot soldiers stoop to in order to win.

Lap...it...up. Or get smart and realize you're being manipulated.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's long been known that birth control pills have medical uses other than contraception. They cost money. The argument is that they should be provided at no charge.

Strawman. The argument is that they should be one of many covered services provided under paid healthcare insurance.