Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-28-2012, 07:14 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,443,387 times
Reputation: 9074

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980 View Post
1. Why should it matter WHY the person is taking a medication/pill, and how would only covering one use be more or less cost-effective? FYI, most plans still require a co-pay for the pill - usually around $10-20/pack.

Why should government dictate that insurers cover (some) elective drugs?

Why shouldn't it be up to insurers which, if any, elective drugs they cover?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-28-2012, 07:16 PM
 
Location: In the Redwoods
30,311 posts, read 51,912,730 times
Reputation: 23691
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhawkins74 View Post
People on both sides seem take things to the extremes that they seem to forget what they were originally debating about. The issue is actually about providing free birth control.
No it isn't... where did you get that idea? I guess you missed the whole Sandra Fluke debate, which was NOT about "free birth control" - if I read the transcripts correctly, it was about coverage under a student-covered plan specifically (and for medical reasons in the case of the friend for whom she was speaking). This entire current issue is mostly fueled by the Catholic hospitals and schools, who NO LONGER want to cover birth control because it "goes against their religion." As I said earlier, if they're so concerned about following Catholic doctrine, they should stick to providing church/worship services only.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2012, 07:18 PM
 
Location: Columbus
4,877 posts, read 4,505,763 times
Reputation: 1450
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReturningWest View Post
I guess you didn't read or see my post, insurance companies have been covering birth control for DECADES, it's more cost effective. No one complained about it until recently.
Nope didn't see it. I have said this is a make-believe problem to distract from Obama's economy from the beginning.

WTH, I just buy condoms. They are cheap and effective.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2012, 07:20 PM
 
Location: Columbus
4,877 posts, read 4,505,763 times
Reputation: 1450
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhawkins74 View Post
People on both sides seem take things to the extremes that they seem to forget what they were originally debating about. The issue is actually about providing free birth control.
It's not free and it won't be.

The debate is about shifting to cost to someone else. Same as the rest of ObamaCare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2012, 07:22 PM
 
12,867 posts, read 14,908,341 times
Reputation: 4459
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
I need a prescription for glasses. I can't read the birth control directions without it. Who is gonna pay for the motel room?

Yeah they just don't really get it do they?
gotta say i liked that one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2012, 07:22 PM
 
Location: Central, IL
3,382 posts, read 4,079,121 times
Reputation: 1379
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980 View Post
No it isn't... where did you get that idea? I guess you missed the whole Sandra Fluke debate, which was NOT about "free birth control" - if I read the transcripts correctly, it was about coverage under a student-covered plan specifically (and for medical reasons in the case of the friend for whom she was speaking). This entire current issue is mostly fueled by the Catholic hospitals and schools, who NO LONGER want to cover birth control because it "goes against their religion." As I said earlier, if they're so concerned about following Catholic doctrine, they should stick to providing church/worship services only.
Under Obamacare women will no longer have to pay a copay or out of pocket expense for birth control. It also was being debated that religious organizations should/should not be able to opt out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2012, 07:23 PM
 
Location: In the Redwoods
30,311 posts, read 51,912,730 times
Reputation: 23691
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Why should government dictate that insurers cover (some) elective drugs?

Why shouldn't it be up to insurers which, if any, elective drugs they cover?
Isn't that how it's always been? But if I'm not mistaken, birth control pills aren't considered "elective" if they're being used to treat gynecological issues... I took them for a time when I wasn't even sexually active, as prescribed by my OB/GYN to treat a menstrual condition. They didn't even give me other options, since that was the only effective treatment for what I had.

So in the case of medical uses for the pill, no they should NOT be able to pick & choose what to allow. In the case of truly elective medications, I believe they have always and still have the right to decide. But I'm not an expert on the issue, so I might be a little off on these specifics - I only know that my past & present employers have given us choices of providers, each of which had some differences in what exactly is covered and for how much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2012, 07:23 PM
 
12,867 posts, read 14,908,341 times
Reputation: 4459
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioIstheBest View Post
It's not free and it won't be.

The debate is about shifting to cost to someone else. Same as the rest of ObamaCare.
a good read on obamacare from black agenda report:

Why Obama Health Care Act Should Be Named “Obamacare for the Few and ObamaDon’tCare for the Majority"

Why Obama Health Care Act Should Be Named

how many people even know that there are "levels" of health care in this plan? Since there are four Plans in the Exchanges, and we have no sure way to know what proportion of any given Plan will be purchased by eligible uninsured citizens, let’s generously assume that ¼ or 25% of the estimated 29 million eligible citizens (7.25 million people) are able to end up purchasing the best insurance Plan (a Platinum Plan). That will mean the remaining 75% of the needy citizens, or approximately 21.75 million citizens out of 29 million) who are eligible for PPACA Insurance Exchange Plans will end up with a purchased product that is inferior to the Platinum Plan (e.g. a Gold, Silver, or Bronze Plan). So right from the start, about 3 out of 4 citizens will have a Plan that will not ensure that their health care costs will be “affordable” when they get sick.

and so it goes with the government picking the winners, as well as the upcoming losers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2012, 07:25 PM
 
Location: Columbus
4,877 posts, read 4,505,763 times
Reputation: 1450
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhawkins74 View Post
Under Obamacare women will no longer have to pay a copay or out of pocket expense for birth control. It also was being debated that religious organizations should/should not be able to opt out.
Women will still pay for birth control. They will just do it thru higher taxes.

It makes more economic sense to let them pay for it directly. Much more efficient which means lower costs. Injecting 2 outside parties (govt and ins. companies) will make the economic transaction less efficient and more cumbersome. Therefore more expensive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2012, 07:27 PM
 
Location: Central, IL
3,382 posts, read 4,079,121 times
Reputation: 1379
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioIstheBest View Post
Women will still pay for birth control. They will just do it thru higher taxes.

It makes more economic sense to let them pay for it directly. Much more efficient which means lower costs. Injecting 2 outside parties (govt and ins. companies) will make the economic transaction less efficient and more cumbersome. Therefore more expensive.
I do not disagree at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:03 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top