Slap Shot
I got nothing
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
Apparently you don't since you think it's pertinent to the discussion.
Apparently you don't since you think it's pertinent to the discussion.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
- Status
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
She doesn't want to pay for them herself, she gives no reason why someone else should pay for them instead, and so she insists that the insurance company pay for them, which means that she insists that everyone who pays insurance premiums should pay for them, along with the insurance company's employees, and shareholders as well. That money has to come from somewhere if it isn't coming from her. Who else does it come from? Lots of other people.
What rationale does she give as to why her contraceptives should be covered by insurance? because they are expensive. lots of things in life are expensive, it would really be nice to have other people pay for them on my behalf. that's not a reason, it's a preference.
Now, that's not to say that a person couldn't give good reasons why contraceptives "should" be covered by insurance, I could provide several myself. That's tangential. Fluke never gave any reason except one: she didn't want to pay for them herself.
She doesn't want to pay for them herself, she gives no reason why someone else should pay for them instead, and so she insists that the insurance company pay for them, which means that she insists that everyone who pays insurance premiums should pay for them, along with the insurance company's employees, and shareholders as well. That money has to come from somewhere if it isn't coming from her. Who else does it come from? Lots of other people.
What rationale does she give as to why her contraceptives should be covered by insurance? because they are expensive. lots of things in life are expensive, it would really be nice to have other people pay for them on my behalf. that's not a reason, it's a preference.
Now, that's not to say that a person couldn't give good reasons why contraceptives "should" be covered by insurance, I could provide several myself. That's tangential. Fluke never gave any reason except one: she didn't want to pay for them herself.
duper
Well-known member
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
Now you could argue that many of us don't pay for our own premiums, or don't pay all of the premiums, but I would argue that this is also a fallacious argument, as we get insurance premiums in lieu of some other form of compensation.
Insisting that the insurance pays for them is a way of spreading the money that SHE pays for them over time. The argument that insurance is a way of having someone else pay for your services is fallacious one. A VERY small number of people get more out of insurance than they put in, and in the case of health insurance those are generally people who have terrible diseases or serious accidents. Most of us pay MUCH more in to insurance than we get out, and so we pay for our own services, plus a some for the service of having the payments amortized over time.
Now you could argue that many of us don't pay for our own premiums, or don't pay all of the premiums, but I would argue that this is also a fallacious argument, as we get insurance premiums in lieu of some other form of compensation.
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
She did not give any reason as to why she thought insurance should pay for it except so that she didn't. The more things insurance covers, the higher the premium. As you said, premiums are spread around. By your own definitions just posted, if you add benefits then everyone else is contributing a little bit extra to pay for those incremental extra benefits. What you just posted and what I said before are logically congruent.
She did not give any reason as to why she thought insurance should pay for it except so that she didn't. The more things insurance covers, the higher the premium. As you said, premiums are spread around. By your own definitions just posted, if you add benefits then everyone else is contributing a little bit extra to pay for those incremental extra benefits. What you just posted and what I said before are logically congruent.
duper
Well-known member
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
Everyone pays a little more, because everyone gets those services, not just her. She pays for her own services.
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
it is in the best interest for insurance to pay. It is a lot cheaper to pay for birth control than it is to pay for a birth.
it is in the best interest for insurance to pay. It is a lot cheaper to pay for birth control than it is to pay for a birth.
duper
Well-known member
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
Maybe that's why insurance companies are so profitable? Nahhh..
Do you know how birth control works?
leswp1
Well-known member
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
duper is right. Many medications are paid for by insurance. The cost of the insurance does not equal the cost of the service provided. I do not see a problem with someone asking for a medication to be covered. It is not whining. It is saying if I am paying this in I want this type of coverage in exchange. It is not free. The person pays a premium or their work does as part of the compensation pkg. No one would exclude and ACE inhibitor for diabetes. The cost vs benefit of preventing renal failure would make that seem silly. The cost of a pregnancy is high. You have prenatal care, delivery, postpartum care to start. Then add in the fact that most babies get sick 8-12 times a yr and you get lost income, extra utilization fo medical services for the parents to get checked out if they get sick too, etc. That is if the person doesn't have complications that end up costing more because they need a c-section, extra testing, etc.
I don't think the feminists need to be all that vocal on the outrage. He was so far out of the ballpark that it isn't worth getting in a froth about it.
This. I don't see why the 'kerfluffle' about paying for birth control over any other medication. No one cavails over paying for an ACE inhibitor to protect the diabetic's kidneys, the cholesterol med to prevent CAD, the daily antiviral to prevent herpes outbreaks, etc. Not everyone is medically in a place that pregnancy is safe and doesn't carry risk. This is a prevention medication like any of the other ones. Also if the person has endometriosis it will actually preserve fertility because it prevents adhesions and scarring by supressing the endometriosis.
duper is right. Many medications are paid for by insurance. The cost of the insurance does not equal the cost of the service provided. I do not see a problem with someone asking for a medication to be covered. It is not whining. It is saying if I am paying this in I want this type of coverage in exchange. It is not free. The person pays a premium or their work does as part of the compensation pkg. No one would exclude and ACE inhibitor for diabetes. The cost vs benefit of preventing renal failure would make that seem silly. The cost of a pregnancy is high. You have prenatal care, delivery, postpartum care to start. Then add in the fact that most babies get sick 8-12 times a yr and you get lost income, extra utilization fo medical services for the parents to get checked out if they get sick too, etc. That is if the person doesn't have complications that end up costing more because they need a c-section, extra testing, etc.
duper
Well-known member
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
Obviously, it's been a good week.
I believe that I have seen/heard the word "ferfluffle" more times this week than the rest of my life combined.
Obviously, it's been a good week.
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
Everyone pays a little bit more, everyone does not get those services. Post-menopausal women? nope. Men? nope. women who are not sexually active? nope.
Let's use an analogy. If a dog bites someone in the face, many insurance companies will cover cosmetic surgery to make that face "normal" again. Aging changes the appearance of a face. Suppose I say elective plastic surgery should be covered by insurance too, and the only reason I give is that it is expensive. How do you respond?
Everyone pays a little bit more, everyone does not get those services. Post-menopausal women? nope. Men? nope. women who are not sexually active? nope.
Let's use an analogy. If a dog bites someone in the face, many insurance companies will cover cosmetic surgery to make that face "normal" again. Aging changes the appearance of a face. Suppose I say elective plastic surgery should be covered by insurance too, and the only reason I give is that it is expensive. How do you respond?
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
That may very well be the case. I am not disputing that in the slightest; I even said I could come up with good reasons for insurance to pay. That was not the point.
I merely repeated the Professor's observation that Ms Fluke did not say any of that. She did not give any reason why she thought insurance "should" pay except one: it was too expensive for her to "afford" on her own (although even that statement was belied by two clerks from different pharmacy chains who each reported that their stores sold generic birth control pills for $9 / month while Ms Fluke cited $3,000 / year).
That may very well be the case. I am not disputing that in the slightest; I even said I could come up with good reasons for insurance to pay. That was not the point.
I merely repeated the Professor's observation that Ms Fluke did not say any of that. She did not give any reason why she thought insurance "should" pay except one: it was too expensive for her to "afford" on her own (although even that statement was belied by two clerks from different pharmacy chains who each reported that their stores sold generic birth control pills for $9 / month while Ms Fluke cited $3,000 / year).
unofan
Well-known member
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
So men get viagara covered, but women's don't get birth control? How's that fair?
So men get viagara covered, but women's don't get birth control? How's that fair?
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
Viagara is used to help make babies, birth control is used to help murder babies.
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
But Viagra's even worse. If you need Viagra to procreate, God has already told you that He doesn't want any more babies from you. Don't thwart His will. Viagra is the work of the devil.
But Viagra's even worse. If you need Viagra to procreate, God has already told you that He doesn't want any more babies from you. Don't thwart His will. Viagra is the work of the devil.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
You have that backwards. Impotence is the work of the Devil, Viagra is a gift from God that undoes that evil deed and allows you to procreate. As the Bible says, "Live long and prosper."
bronconick
Yep, still here
leswp1
Well-known member
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
Pretty sure if you read the whole transcript Ms Fluke wasn't talking about just herself in reference to expense. The clip I saw I think she was talking about a roommate. Of course we could just tell most of the unmarried women of a certain age in the world to abstain or procreate, drop out of school and go on the welfare rolls
The men can continue to go at it because there is no consequence to them.
This makes no sense. Using your logic because everyone is not diabetic we should not cover insulin? everyone doesn't have a trauma, we shouldn't pay for the ER visit? Both of those things are exceedingly expensive in the long run to manage. If prescription coverage is part of the plan, birth control is an expense almost all insurances cover as a matter of course, just like they cover standard meds for prevention/treatment of other things. (I can't think of an insurance that excludes that off the top of my head.) I think you would need to actively opt out of that when negotiating a contract kind of like you get a car with factory options and you don't want one.
Pretty sure if you read the whole transcript Ms Fluke wasn't talking about just herself in reference to expense. The clip I saw I think she was talking about a roommate. Of course we could just tell most of the unmarried women of a certain age in the world to abstain or procreate, drop out of school and go on the welfare rolls
The men can continue to go at it because there is no consequence to them.Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
Either you are unaware of context or are ignoring it.
I exercised no logic (none was called for, there was merely observation, not evaluation) and never discussed "should." In fact, my comment was merely a factual observation on the absence of "should:" The question was, "should" the insurance plan cover non-medically prescribed* birth control pllls, and Ms Fluke's only proffered answer was "because the are expensive."
I suggested that rationale alone was insufficient, and even stated that there are several good reasons a person could advance as to why they "should" be covered.
Of course insurance plans "should" cover unexpected, unplanned, illnesses and injuries, that is the essence of what insurance is for. There is a very compelling "should" attached: "if this were to happen to you or your child, would you want it covered?"
See, you are now providing a "should" upon which people can have a conversation. If I understand your reasoning, a healthy sexual appetite is just as important to human well-being as food and water, and so the insurance plan should cover non-medically prescribed* birth controls to reduce potential future claims costs that otherwise might occur as a result of this sexual activity. That's reasonable.
* edited. I've read that Ms Fluke's plan does cover medically-prescribed birth control pills, i.e. those prescribed not for contraception but to address some other medical condition. I know all birth controls are only available by prescription since a physician needs to monitor the side effects. Usually they are prescribed primarily for contraception.
Either you are unaware of context or are ignoring it.
I exercised no logic (none was called for, there was merely observation, not evaluation) and never discussed "should." In fact, my comment was merely a factual observation on the absence of "should:" The question was, "should" the insurance plan cover non-medically prescribed* birth control pllls, and Ms Fluke's only proffered answer was "because the are expensive."
I suggested that rationale alone was insufficient, and even stated that there are several good reasons a person could advance as to why they "should" be covered.
Of course insurance plans "should" cover unexpected, unplanned, illnesses and injuries, that is the essence of what insurance is for. There is a very compelling "should" attached: "if this were to happen to you or your child, would you want it covered?"
Pretty sure if you read the whole transcript Ms Fluke wasn't talking about just herself in reference to expense. The clip I saw I think she was talking about a roommate. Of course we could just tell most of the unmarried women of a certain age in the world to abstain or procreate, drop out of school and go on the welfare rolls
See, you are now providing a "should" upon which people can have a conversation. If I understand your reasoning, a healthy sexual appetite is just as important to human well-being as food and water, and so the insurance plan should cover non-medically prescribed* birth controls to reduce potential future claims costs that otherwise might occur as a result of this sexual activity. That's reasonable.
* edited. I've read that Ms Fluke's plan does cover medically-prescribed birth control pills, i.e. those prescribed not for contraception but to address some other medical condition. I know all birth controls are only available by prescription since a physician needs to monitor the side effects. Usually they are prescribed primarily for contraception.
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
Perhaps you do not understand the concept of incremental effects?
"Insurance" is when everyone contributes money to a risk pool to cover unexpected illnesses and injuries that might affect anyone covered by the plan. The existing plan is priced given existing benefit structures and morbidity schedules and loss ratios. Now you want to add an additional benefit, not based on unexpected or unplanned activity but directly as a consequence of advanced planning. Of course, there will be an incremental cost, and of course, this incremental cost will be spread over everyone, so that some people who never ever would even be eligible to use it still would have to help pay for it.
That is factual. What you probably wanted me then to add was, the rest of the people "should" realize that it is in their own best interest to help pay for it anyway, because by paying a little more in advance for preventive services, you pay a lot less down the road for covered services. That doesn't negate the factual observation that incrementally people who will never use the benefit will still pay for it; it instead advances an argument as to why those people would want to pay it anyway.
Perhaps I was too technical on a subject when a more generalized approach would have been preferable. If so I apologize for contributing to the confusion by parsing things so precisely.
Perhaps you do not understand the concept of incremental effects?
"Insurance" is when everyone contributes money to a risk pool to cover unexpected illnesses and injuries that might affect anyone covered by the plan. The existing plan is priced given existing benefit structures and morbidity schedules and loss ratios. Now you want to add an additional benefit, not based on unexpected or unplanned activity but directly as a consequence of advanced planning. Of course, there will be an incremental cost, and of course, this incremental cost will be spread over everyone, so that some people who never ever would even be eligible to use it still would have to help pay for it.
That is factual. What you probably wanted me then to add was, the rest of the people "should" realize that it is in their own best interest to help pay for it anyway, because by paying a little more in advance for preventive services, you pay a lot less down the road for covered services. That doesn't negate the factual observation that incrementally people who will never use the benefit will still pay for it; it instead advances an argument as to why those people would want to pay it anyway.
Perhaps I was too technical on a subject when a more generalized approach would have been preferable. If so I apologize for contributing to the confusion by parsing things so precisely.
- Status