Rush's commentary on this is genius. How can people not appreciate how colossally stupid that Georgetown law student's testimony was?
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.
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.
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?
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.
I agree with you that it's growing. It grows as an unintended consequence of every liberal welfare policy (and that's really what this birth control funding issue is) that purports to help the people that it is inevitably going to screw over. Rather than merely providing a safety net for people who are down on their luck, we're creating a permanent class of people who are dependent on the state for their very existence.
You have 50% more people on food stamps, than we have in total population in our country. I would say there are a lot of people born into nearly unworkable positions in America.
What do you think insurance companies should be forced to offer?
Nothing.
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.
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?
That is such a load of bullshit. No one is skirting self-reliance. The problem is that so many essential things aren't available to large amounts of the population if they are left to the free market. That's why the federal government mandates it, so everyone has equality of opportunity. This has absolutely nothing to do with equality of outcome, and your argument is a strawman and it's pathetic that you're bringing in that BS to this discussion.
So the federal government telling people what insurance they can buy, thereby limiting their options in the marketplace, promotes "equality of opportunity?" Really?
I have no idea what you're talking about, I know that you have no idea what I am talking about, and I am not even really sure that you know what you're talking about. This isn't the first time that this has happened, either. I'm going to do us both a favor and just ignore your posts from here on out.
You're just jumping around and saying random crap that has no relevance to the actual point whenever I bring up an argument that deals with yours. I was never talking about individual mandates to the employee to buy insurance. It's always been about requiring employers/insurance companies to cover healthcare needs and not allowing them to refuse to cover certain medical treatments.
Don't bother, xDaunt is pretty hopeless, and when he doesn't understand something, he inevitably accuses you of not understanding which is ironic. He's done it to me more than once and I've seen him do it to other people. People who disagree with his broken opinion are not "wrong", according to him they actually "don't understand", which is pretty ridiculous seeing how resistant he is to new information which he outright rejects because of his preconceived opinions.
The problem with posters like him is that I'll be talking about A, and he'll reply to my post and start talking about B, which inevitably is an irrelevant tangent. For example, in this latest episode, I spent several posts talking about self-reliance and how we should not need a paternalistic government in the context of government mandates relating to what services insurers provide, and this guy barges in and starts ranting about the glory of welfare programs and social safety net, which are irrelevant to what I was talking about.
As I have said countless times before, I'm not here to change anyone's mind. I'm here because good argument amuses me. Nothing more. If people respond to what I say with good arguments, I'm more than happy to respond in kind. Conversely, I'm not interested in arguing with people who consistently refuse to stay on point.
That's ridiculous. Seems to me like the whole concept of self-reliance relates to this absurdly individualistic notion of survival of the fittest, a very "right" thing to argue for. Sorry if I'm extrapolating, but that's basically what occurs to me. It seems obvious that welfare programs and safety nets are in direct opposition to the things you preach, so I don't know in what way you can say that he "barged" in with something completely alien to what you were talking about - it's closely related.
Self-reliance is generally the right, social safety nets are generally the left. What he brought up wasn't nonsense in any way... So what the hell dude?
On March 02 2012 12:18 xDaunt wrote: [quote] Rush's commentary on this is genius. How can people not appreciate how colossally stupid that Georgetown law student's testimony was?
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?!
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?
Nothing.
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.
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?
That is such a load of bullshit. No one is skirting self-reliance. The problem is that so many essential things aren't available to large amounts of the population if they are left to the free market. That's why the federal government mandates it, so everyone has equality of opportunity. This has absolutely nothing to do with equality of outcome, and your argument is a strawman and it's pathetic that you're bringing in that BS to this discussion.
So the federal government telling people what insurance they can buy, thereby limiting their options in the marketplace, promotes "equality of opportunity?" Really?
I have no idea what you're talking about, I know that you have no idea what I am talking about, and I am not even really sure that you know what you're talking about. This isn't the first time that this has happened, either. I'm going to do us both a favor and just ignore your posts from here on out.
Almost everyone his health care bill effects, CANT AFFORD HEALTH CARE. I love how republicans eat up this notion that people are losing freedom by being given government mandated healthcare. Why would you want health insurance forced on you, be free and have no insurance instead!
On March 02 2012 12:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: [quote]
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?!
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?
Nothing.
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.
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?
That is such a load of bullshit. No one is skirting self-reliance. The problem is that so many essential things aren't available to large amounts of the population if they are left to the free market. That's why the federal government mandates it, so everyone has equality of opportunity. This has absolutely nothing to do with equality of outcome, and your argument is a strawman and it's pathetic that you're bringing in that BS to this discussion.
So the federal government telling people what insurance they can buy, thereby limiting their options in the marketplace, promotes "equality of opportunity?" Really?
I have no idea what you're talking about, I know that you have no idea what I am talking about, and I am not even really sure that you know what you're talking about. This isn't the first time that this has happened, either. I'm going to do us both a favor and just ignore your posts from here on out.
Almost everyone his health care bill effects, CANT AFFORD HEALTH CARE. I love how republicans eat up this notion that people are losing freedom by being given government mandated healthcare. Why would you want health insurance forced on you, be free and have no insurance instead!
He doesn't understand the bill, but he also fundamentally doesn't understand the meaning "equality of opportunity". If everyone is basically "forced" to have the same health insurance like in Canada (which isn't the case in the US), that's pretty much perfect "equality of opportunity". I'm not saying it's the way to go, although I think it is, but yeah. Had to throw that in there.
Oh also, relative equality is awesome for a society. Like very awesome.
On March 02 2012 12:45 sc2superfan101 wrote: [quote] 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?
Nothing.
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.
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?
That is such a load of bullshit. No one is skirting self-reliance. The problem is that so many essential things aren't available to large amounts of the population if they are left to the free market. That's why the federal government mandates it, so everyone has equality of opportunity. This has absolutely nothing to do with equality of outcome, and your argument is a strawman and it's pathetic that you're bringing in that BS to this discussion.
So the federal government telling people what insurance they can buy, thereby limiting their options in the marketplace, promotes "equality of opportunity?" Really?
I have no idea what you're talking about, I know that you have no idea what I am talking about, and I am not even really sure that you know what you're talking about. This isn't the first time that this has happened, either. I'm going to do us both a favor and just ignore your posts from here on out.
Almost everyone his health care bill effects, CANT AFFORD HEALTH CARE. I love how republicans eat up this notion that people are losing freedom by being given government mandated healthcare. Why would you want health insurance forced on you, be free and have no insurance instead!
He doesn't understand the bill, but he also fundamentally doesn't understand the meaning "equality of opportunity". If everyone is basically "forced" to have the same health insurance like in Canada (which isn't the case in the US), that's pretty much perfect "equality of opportunity". I'm not saying it's the way to go, although I think it is, but yeah. Had to throw that in there.
Oh also, relative equality is awesome for a society. Like very awesome.
Its sad, because people falling for these republican catch phrases completely ignore whats happening in reality. You guys have 50 million people on foodstamps. Thats almost 1 in 6 people. Thats incredible. Then you try to do something to help them, nothing even over the top, just give them basic neccessities like health care and education, and somehow it gets turned into som crazy rhetoric about socialism, communism, removal of freedoms. I dont understand how the party of the rich, has its majority voting base made up of the poor. Its mind boggling how uneducated and uninformed people are. Is the media that good at brainwashing people?
On March 02 2012 15:06 Djzapz wrote: That's ridiculous. Seems to me like the whole concept of self-reliance relates to this absurdly individualistic notion of survival of the fittest, a very "right" thing to argue for. Sorry if I'm extrapolating, but that's basically what occurs to me. It seems obvious that welfare programs and safety nets are in direct opposition to the things you preach, so I don't know in what way you can say that he "barged" in with something completely alien to what you were talking about - it's closely related.
Self-reliance is generally the right, social safety nets are generally the left. What he brought up wasn't nonsense in any way... So what the hell dude?
You'd be correct if I was advocating the elimination of federal social safety nets, which I clearly wasn't and do not. In fact, there's basically no one on the right who advocates the elimination of federally provided safety nets. Curtailment to various degrees? Yes, and usually only moderate in scope if at all. And even then, the general idea is to shift safety nets from being federally administered to being locally administered. No one advocates pure social darwinism. This is why bringing up social safety nets in the context of what I was discussing is irrelevant.
On March 02 2012 15:06 Djzapz wrote: That's ridiculous. Seems to me like the whole concept of self-reliance relates to this absurdly individualistic notion of survival of the fittest, a very "right" thing to argue for. Sorry if I'm extrapolating, but that's basically what occurs to me. It seems obvious that welfare programs and safety nets are in direct opposition to the things you preach, so I don't know in what way you can say that he "barged" in with something completely alien to what you were talking about - it's closely related.
Self-reliance is generally the right, social safety nets are generally the left. What he brought up wasn't nonsense in any way... So what the hell dude?
You'd be correct if I was advocating the elimination of federal social safety nets, which I clearly wasn't and do not. In fact, there's basically no one on the right who advocates the elimination of federally provided safety nets. Curtailment to various degrees? Yes, and usually only moderate in scope if at all. And even then, the general idea is to shift safety nets from being federally administered to being locally administered. No one advocates pure social darwinism. This is why bringing up social safety nets in the context of what I was discussing is irrelevant.
Sorry for kind of repeating this, but I absolutely don't understand which scope can look at the whole notion of self-reliance without talking about social safety nets. Those topics are opposites!
First I want to say that there indeed are people who are for the complete abolition of those safety nets - although probably people who are not well versed in the art of "not killing your own population". Those folks still get to vote and talk about their opinions. I understand that you're not for the abolition of those safety nets though, which is good - but in this case what's up with self-reliance and the possibility of failure that you mentioned earlier.
And what are the real gains from locally administering something so simple as food stamps or welfare, or any social safety nets for that matter, it seems to me like it's more efficient to do something that simple from a federal admin instead of creating a whole bunch of little organizations that you need to create and hire people for... Handling things locally allows for a more "hands-on" democracy, but it's not cheap, and you don't need a nice lady to smile at you every time you go pick up your check. I'm not saying that there are no advantages by the way, but for one the disadvantages would most likely be greater, and I don't understand that whole self-reliance thing... not in a system with local administrations that provide safety nets.
(That'll be my last response for the night, cheers)
I don't understand why no one has a problem with viagra being part of insurance policies while birth control is a big no no. the birth control pill offers a whole range of benefits to the health of many women beyond preventing pregnancy. Perhaps we shouldn't have panels of all male priests and rabbis deciding these things for us.
What do you think insurance companies should be forced to offer?
Nothing.
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.
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?
That is such a load of bullshit. No one is skirting self-reliance. The problem is that so many essential things aren't available to large amounts of the population if they are left to the free market. That's why the federal government mandates it, so everyone has equality of opportunity. This has absolutely nothing to do with equality of outcome, and your argument is a strawman and it's pathetic that you're bringing in that BS to this discussion.
So the federal government telling people what insurance they can buy, thereby limiting their options in the marketplace, promotes "equality of opportunity?" Really?
I have no idea what you're talking about, I know that you have no idea what I am talking about, and I am not even really sure that you know what you're talking about. This isn't the first time that this has happened, either. I'm going to do us both a favor and just ignore your posts from here on out.
Almost everyone his health care bill effects, CANT AFFORD HEALTH CARE. I love how republicans eat up this notion that people are losing freedom by being given government mandated healthcare. Why would you want health insurance forced on you, be free and have no insurance instead!
He doesn't understand the bill, but he also fundamentally doesn't understand the meaning "equality of opportunity". If everyone is basically "forced" to have the same health insurance like in Canada (which isn't the case in the US), that's pretty much perfect "equality of opportunity". I'm not saying it's the way to go, although I think it is, but yeah. Had to throw that in there.
Oh also, relative equality is awesome for a society. Like very awesome.
Its sad, because people falling for these republican catch phrases completely ignore whats happening in reality. You guys have 50 million people on foodstamps. Thats almost 1 in 6 people. Thats incredible. Then you try to do something to help them, nothing even over the top, just give them basic neccessities like health care and education, and somehow it gets turned into som crazy rhetoric about socialism, communism, removal of freedoms. I dont understand how the party of the rich, has its majority voting base made up of the poor. Its mind boggling how uneducated and uninformed people are. Is the media that good at brainwashing people?
Yes they are that good at it, and it doesn't help that, in their lack of education, they blindly believe the fear-mongering that is brought up on a regular basis.
On March 02 2012 16:22 Saryph wrote: I don't understand why no one has a problem with viagra being part of insurance policies while birth control is a big no no. the birth control pill offers a whole range of benefits to the health of many women beyond preventing pregnancy. Perhaps we shouldn't have panels of all male priests and rabbis deciding these things for us.
It's sexism, pure and simple, and even worse, it's religious sexism.
No... It's, really, really simple. Morality has absolutely nothing to do with it:
Health Insurance is there to pay for the treatments of an "Illness/Accident".
Errection Problems = Illness = Health Insurance most likely has to pay for treatment when a Doctor diagnoses this. Woman getting pregnant = Normal = Health Insurance has nothing to do with this.. This has just absoluetly nothing to do with Helath Insurance or what they should and should not pay...
The Health Ihsurance is not there to grant/allow you a "better/smarter" lifestyle for "free", thats what education should do.. It's mainly there to pay for your treatment once your ill and for certain preventive measures. It sure as hell is not there to (force) birth controll on women that most likely don't even want to use it...
On March 02 2012 17:01 Velr wrote: No... It's, really, really simple. Morality has absolutely nothing to do with it:
Health Insurance is there to pay for the treatments of an "Illness/Accident".
Errection Problems = Illness = Health Insurance most likely has to pay for treatment when a Doctor diagnoses this. Woman getting pregnant = Normal = Health Insurance has nothing to do with this.. This has just absoluetly nothing to do with Helath Insurance or what they should and should not pay...
The Health Ihsurance is not there to grant/allow you a "better/smarter" lifestyle for "free", thats what education should do.. It's mainly there to pay for your treatment once your ill and for certain preventive measures.
I don´t fully agree with that. From a man´s perspective I can sympathize with that notion, though women get the shorter end of the stick in this case. How is having a baby NOT a medical condition and therefore a health issue for herself and the child?(I don´t like the term illness here) I am even going a step further just for the lulz and to provoke a bit : Is Sex for a man not part of a smarter/better lifestyle? Is it 100% a necessity for a man who´s unable to get a woody? (Yes I already know the answer... I am just trying to make a point, not that anyone thinks I am crazy and/or a priest...) I think providing women with equipment to decide when to have children should be put in the same category. And as some people already said - the pill is a smart way to achieve that.
Women raped by a stranger or family member? Anti-abortion crowd say you should deal with a physical reminder of getting raped, not to mention the massive monetary and time burden you never asked for.
Women want to avoid pregnancy or want to improve their standard of living with the pill? Shouldn't be covered. Rush calls you a slut. Church claims they are being persecuted. Lawmakers push to allow health insurance to cover everything but the pill.
Men want boner pills? Covered by insurance and promoted by the church, not even mentioned by lawmakers as a problem.
Educate yourself about all of the things that birth control pills do for women beside prevent pregnancy. It really is sad how women are still not treated equally in our society. There is a reason women are getting scared by people like Santorum, even lifelong republicans who have never voted for a democrat in their life.
On March 02 2012 17:01 Velr wrote: No... It's, really, really simple. Morality has absolutely nothing to do with it:
Health Insurance is there to pay for the treatments of an "Illness/Accident".
Errection Problems = Illness = Health Insurance most likely has to pay for treatment when a Doctor diagnoses this. Woman getting pregnant = Normal = Health Insurance has nothing to do with this.. This has just absoluetly nothing to do with Helath Insurance or what they should and should not pay...
The Health Ihsurance is not there to grant/allow you a "better/smarter" lifestyle for "free", thats what education should do.. It's mainly there to pay for your treatment once your ill and for certain preventive measures.
I don´t fully agree with that. From a man´s perspective I can sympathize with that notion, though women get the shorter end of the stick in this case. How is having a baby NOT a medical condition and therefore a health issue for herself and the child?(I don´t like the term illness here) I am even going a step further just for the lulz and to provoke a bit : Is Sex for a man not part of a smarter/better lifestyle? Is it 100% a necessity for a man who´s unable to get a woody? (Yes I already know the answer... I am just trying to make a point, not that anyone thinks I am crazy and/or a priest...) I think providing women with equipment to decide when to have children should be put in the same category. And as some people already said - the pill is a smart way to achieve that.
The Pill also has it's side effects and isn't exactly healthy.
I see where your coming from and i agree with your point BUT it is still not the helath insurers business, be it the state or a private company. A Woman being able to get pregnant is just in no way the health insurances business. If a state wants he can give out free condoms or whatever else, but this is just not the health insurers business..
Btw: Being 45 years old is also a medical condition, yet health insurance does not pay for skin cream or other products that would "help" me live "better".
Btw: Abortion and all that is an entirely diffrent topic. Why would you mix them.
There are so many flaws with so many things everyone does, private, public or government.
I just don't understand why people think it is a good idea to draw a line in the sand at women's birth control pills.
I mean, I do (men dominate, religion, Obama started the discussion to help his cause, etc) but there are so many other, better things to have a problem with, for the media and nation to direct their attention toward.
Vasectomies are almost always covered by insurance companies
Edit:
Vasectomies are almost always covered by insurance companies, I cannot recall the illness they cure though.
On March 02 2012 17:01 Velr wrote: No... It's, really, really simple. Morality has absolutely nothing to do with it:
Health Insurance is there to pay for the treatments of an "Illness/Accident".
Errection Problems = Illness = Health Insurance most likely has to pay for treatment when a Doctor diagnoses this. Woman getting pregnant = Normal = Health Insurance has nothing to do with this.. This has just absoluetly nothing to do with Helath Insurance or what they should and should not pay...
The Health Ihsurance is not there to grant/allow you a "better/smarter" lifestyle for "free", thats what education should do.. It's mainly there to pay for your treatment once your ill and for certain preventive measures.
I don´t fully agree with that. From a man´s perspective I can sympathize with that notion, though women get the shorter end of the stick in this case. How is having a baby NOT a medical condition and therefore a health issue for herself and the child?(I don´t like the term illness here) I am even going a step further just for the lulz and to provoke a bit : Is Sex for a man not part of a smarter/better lifestyle? Is it 100% a necessity for a man who´s unable to get a woody? (Yes I already know the answer... I am just trying to make a point, not that anyone thinks I am crazy and/or a priest...) I think providing women with equipment to decide when to have children should be put in the same category. And as some people already said - the pill is a smart way to achieve that.
Btw: Being 45 years old is also a medical condition, yet health insurance does not pay for skin cream or other products that would "help" me live "better".
Btw: Abortion and all that is an entirely diffrent topic. Why would you mix them.
No they most definitely will not pay for some mere skin cream(be it private or public health care) just so you will have skin like a baby which is a luxury to say the least(if you want to believe any of those stupid cream ads... but that´s beside that point). And I thought it was clear I mainly meant the contraceptive pill by refering to "equipment to decide when to have children", yes abortion is quite a differnt, and a way more complicated/difficult issue. Probably should have been more specific - sorry. I am just pointing out that there is quite a lot of hypocrisy when allowing boner pills, but not contraceptive pills. And I am not a doctor, but last time I read about the pill the pros outweigh the cons here(you got possible negative effects with ALL medication). But maybe we got a student of medicine or medical doctor here who can tell us more.
You don't get my point. My point is really, really simple...:
Being able to get Pregnant is no illness. Therefore it is not the Health Insurances business. Not being able to get a boner, when diagnosed by a doctor, is an illness and therefore you get treatment which is paid by the health insurance company.
It's no moral issue, it's an issue of facts. A health insurance insures your health and thats it. It's not giving out "cookies" (contraceptive pills ). It pais for treatment a doctor has deemed necessary and certain vaccines. If you want the health insurance paying for contraception pills, then you basically are calling "getting pregnant" an illness and could also pay for TONS of other stuff.
Which you might think would be good, i would just say that this should not be done by a health insurance company. It's just not their business.
If I agreed with your terminology ("illness") I had no other choice then to agree. Yet, previously written some posts earlier, I don´t. I am not trying to convince you, just trying to make a point, and if you dismiss it like that I respectfully agree to disagree here.
On March 02 2012 18:28 Velr wrote: You don't get my point. My point is really, really simple...:
Being able to get Pregnant is no illness. Therefore it is not the Health Insurances business. Not being able to get a boner, when diagnosed by a doctor, is an illness and therefore you get treatment which is paid by the health insurance company.
It's no moral issue, it's an issue of facts. A health insurance insures your health and thats it. It's not giving out "cookies" (contraceptive pills ). It pais for treatment a doctor has deemed necessary and certain vaccines. If you want the health insurance paying for contraception pills, then you basically are calling "getting pregnant" an illness and could also pay for TONS of other stuff.
Which you might think would be good, i would just say that this should not be done by a health insurance company. It's just not their business.
Many/most health insurance policies cover selective surgeries, offering medicine/surgeries that are not to alleviate an illness. Health insurance also covers preventive medicine, which is not combating an illness that currently exists. Also once again, you ignore my repeated mentions that there are many health benefits to the pill for women beyond preventing pregnancy.
EPT
) I think providing women with equipment to decide when to have children should be put in the same category. And as some people already said - the pill is a smart way to achieve that.
). It pais for treatment a doctor has deemed necessary and certain vaccines.
