| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Mohdoo
United States15689 Posts
On March 02 2012 12:45 sc2superfan101 wrote: i certainly don't believe that the government has the right to force insurance companies to offer it. What do you think insurance companies should be forced to offer? | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On March 02 2012 12:47 Mohdoo wrote: What do you think insurance companies should be forced to offer? what they have contractually agreed to offer for the payment they recieved. if they don't want to offer any service whatsoever, and make that clear throughout the entire process, i am 100% fine with that. if an insurance company decided that they ONLY cover nose jobs and thats it, in my opinion, they should be allowed to cover only nose jobs. as long as they do not promise contraception coverage and then deny it. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
Really it's not a good idea to tie insurance to employment - this makes it more difficult to switch jobs even when the economy is in decent shape. But within the system we have, I think it is reasonable to say that an employer cannot remove standard items from their company's insurance plans. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 02 2012 12:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: You have got to be kidding me, you honestly believe that Employers should be able to dictate if women can/should receive contraception through their insurance?! Does the concept of "free markets" ring a bell? If an employer (or in this case, a private Catholic school) does not want to offer free birth control to its employees (students), why should the federal government be able to force them to do so? More importantly, where in the Constitution does the federal government have that power? It's really as simple as that. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 02 2012 12:47 Mohdoo wrote: What do you think insurance companies should be forced to offer? Nothing. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
Most of the polls I've seen show the public either divided or strongly supporting the administration's policy on contraception coverage. This probably implies moderate support for Obama's position. At the same time, GOP candidates are accusing Obama/Democrats of bringing this up as a wedge issue to distract people from focusing on the economy. If Obama wins re-election, PPACA will remain law and become fully implemented in 2014. Obama will surely veto any major changes to the health care law. If Romney or Santorum (or Gingrich or Paul) wins the election, they have promised to repeal PPACA. So... what is the point of even trying to pass something like the Blunt Amendment? The only way something like that even makes it into law, it becomes a moot point anyway when PPACA is repealed, so it will never actually become legislation. And from a campaign perspective, they claim to believe that it is a liability for the party, and the polling data agrees. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On March 02 2012 13:09 xDaunt wrote: Does the concept of "free markets" ring a bell? If an employer (or in this case, a private Catholic school) does not want to offer free birth control to its employees (students), why should the federal government be able to force them to do so? More importantly, where in the Constitution does the federal government have that power? It's really as simple as that. This seems to go hand in hand with the question of whether the federal government has the power to force employers to offer insurance at all. Which I know you are probably against. Just from a logical perspective, though, do you agree that IF we have a law which requires that employers provide all of their employees with health insurance, then they should have to cover all items that come with a standard insurance plan? Not having that is a huge loophole that makes the law meaningless. I can offer my employees an insurance plan that only covers Romulan Measles. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 02 2012 13:11 Signet wrote: From a strategic perspective, I don't get why Republicans are even bringing up this contraception debate. They didn't. Stephanopolous (ie the democrats) brought it up, and continue to bring it up. Most of the polls I've seen show the public either divided or strongly supporting the administration's policy on contraception coverage. This probably implies moderate support for Obama's position. The problem is that the debate is being portrayed as concerning the right to use birth control instead of access to birth control. It's a big scare tactic where liberals are running around saying that republicans are threatening to take away their birth control and prevent women from accessing it, which is ridiculous. At the same time, GOP candidates are accusing Obama/Democrats of bringing this up as a wedge issue to distract people from focusing on the economy. Yeah, and they're correct about this. That said, Santorum has been trying to use this issue to his advantage in the primary. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
lets say that im a lazy fatass and i sit on a couch all day and play video games while living off of soda and chinese takeout. "bob"is a healthy young man who jogs with his dog everyday, plays some basketball with his friends, and eats a healthy diet. we have the same insurance and pay similar premiums. one day, i go into cardiac arrest from a particularly greasy order of kung pao chicken and have to go the emergency room. the cost of surgery and my hospital stay runs into quite a few thousand dollars, most of it covered by insurance. so, "bob" is pretty much paying for me and my terrible lifestyle choices. thats how insurance works. no one complains. birth control is the same thing pretty much. | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On March 02 2012 13:09 xDaunt wrote: Does the concept of "free markets" ring a bell? If an employer (or in this case, a private Catholic school) does not want to offer free birth control to its employees (students), why should the federal government be able to force them to do so? More importantly, where in the Constitution does the federal government have that power? It's really as simple as that. What if an employer (say they're some sort of deep baptist) says they believe the answer to cancer to be prayer, not kimo, and thus refuse to provide coverage for it? Or any other basic disease for that matter. (I'm not actually sure how much cancer is covered in worker insurance, but you get the point.) | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 02 2012 13:17 Signet wrote: This seems to go hand in hand with the question of whether the federal government has the power to force employers to offer insurance at all. Which I know you are probably against. Correct. Just from a logical perspective, though, do you agree that IF we have a law which requires that employers provide all of their employees with health insurance, then they should have to cover all items that come with a standard insurance plan? Not having that is a huge loophole that makes the law meaningless. I can offer my employees an insurance plan that only covers Romulan Measles. What is a "standard insurance plan?" I'll tell you from experience that this is the type of thing that legislators spend a lot of time defining. Essentially, giving the federal government the power to mandate that employers provide health care for employees necessarily entails that the federal government also has the power to define what services are provided, thereby interfering with and limiting what the free market may otherwise offer. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 02 2012 13:25 1Eris1 wrote: What if an employer (say they're some sort of deep baptist) says they believe the answer to cancer to be prayer, not kimo, and thus refuse to provide it? If people want to buy that healthcare plan, then that's their problem. Look, here's where I fundamentally differ from liberals: I believe that people should be responsible for themselves and making good decisions for themselves. Freedom has negative and positive consequences. I do not believe that it is the role of the federal government to police our lives and make decisions for us under the presumption that we're too stupid to do so. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
Kind of defeats the concept of insurance. Sometimes I wonder if Americans are just fighting for the freedom to let someone else rip them off. | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On March 02 2012 13:30 xDaunt wrote: If people want to buy that healthcare plan, then that's their problem. Look, here's where I fundamentally differ from liberals: I believe that people should be responsible for themselves and making good decisions for themselves. Freedom has negative and positive consequences. I do not believe that it is the role of the federal government to police our lives and make decisions for us under the presumption that we're too stupid to do so. And the problem with that idea is you fundamentally assume that everyone has the ability to be responsible for themselves. Some people are just born into positions that are literally unworkable, and they require help, simple as that. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On March 02 2012 13:21 xDaunt wrote: They didn't. Stephanopolous (ie the democrats) brought it up, and continue to bring it up. The problem is that the debate is being portrayed as concerning the right to use birth control instead of access to birth control. It's a big scare tactic where liberals are running around saying that republicans are threatening to take away their birth control and prevent women from accessing it, which is ridiculous. Yeah, and they're correct about this. That said, Santorum has been trying to use this issue to his advantage in the primary. While Stephanopolous asked that question to Romney in the debate in January, he didn't create the Blunt Amendment. He's not the one calling the religious right's leaders to come to congressional hearings on the subject. To whatever extent his question was a political ploy, the GOP is willingly playing along with it. Which doesn't make sense strategically. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 02 2012 13:33 Defacer wrote: Kind of defeats the concept of insurance. Sometimes I wonder if Americans are just fighting for the freedom to let someone else rip them off. See my comment above. Do you really need the federal government to wipe your ass for you? I sure hope not. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 02 2012 13:34 1Eris1 wrote: And the problem with that idea is you fundamentally assume that everyone has the ability to be responsible for themselves. Some people are just born into positions that are literally unworkable, and they require help, simple as that. So how large is this percentage of Americans that cannot help themselves? More to the point, is it large enough to warrant the federal government imposing paternalistic regulations on all Americans? | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On March 02 2012 13:33 Defacer wrote: Kind of defeats the concept of insurance. Sometimes I wonder if Americans are just fighting for the freedom to let someone else rip them off. That's basically what it is. People like xDaunt refuse to acknowledge how the world really works and think that the free market will fix everything just like it does in their magical hypothetical land. Unfortunately, that isn't how the world actually operates. | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On March 02 2012 13:35 xDaunt wrote: So how large is this percentage of Americans that cannot help themselves? More to the point, is it large enough to warrant the federal government imposing paternalistic regulations on all Americans? I don't think anybody knows the exact number, but it's pretty obvious that it's growing, and I guess that it would depend on if you consider a restriction on 4x people worse than the continued suffering of x people. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 02 2012 13:38 Stratos_speAr wrote: That's basically what it is. People like xDaunt refuse to acknowledge how the world really works and think that the free market will fix everything just like it does in their magical hypothetical land. Unfortunately, that isn't how the world actually operates. No, you have it wrong. I don't expect the free market to fix anything. That's not the point. The point is that people should be free to succeed and free to fail. If someone wants to buy shitty insurance, that's their problem, regardless of whether they have good reasons, bad reasons, or no reason at all for buying it. That's what freedom is. Seriously, when did we become such a nation of pussies? What happened to self-reliance? | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Stormgate Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
DaveTesta Events
The PondCast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
RSL Revival
RSL Revival
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
CSO Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
