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.
and so therefore Viagra should also not be covered!
Actually, what you're saying is that erectile dysfunction should not be covered. Viagra is covered by insurance because it's a treatment for a medical problem. Birth control pills cure nothing.
Actually, what you're saying is that erectile dysfunction should not be covered. Viagra is covered by insurance because it's a treatment for a medical problem. Birth control pills cure nothing.
Birth control pills are NOT only used for birth control but are indeed used for many medical reasons for woman.
But alas, there are lots of plans that DO NOT pay for birth control.. atleast not all forms of it as it is already...
Also, birth control is a lot cheaper than a pregnancy..and prevents unwanted pregnancies.. etc.
While pregnancy may be "optional" (not really, as it is a natural part of life and life cycles) after the woman is impregnated it becomes a matter of life and treatment for that life inside that woman's body. Lack of care during pregnancy leads to problems outside the womb that then becomes costly medical problems and is no longer "optional".
So to equate something part of a natural life cycle, birth, to say putting plastic in your body (unnatural) to make your boobs bigger (non life threatening) is completely ridiculous.
Oh.. and BTW.. in many states purchasing maternity care ADDS to the insurance policy and if you plan on not having children you can purchase a plan that doesn't have maternity coverage.
There are some "cosmetic" procedures that are performed solely to correct facial and other deformatives that cause severe emotional pain to the children unfortunate enough to have been born with them. Example: severe hemangiomas ("strawberry" birthmark). This is just ONE example. There are countless others.
I believe certain circumstances should be excluded.. and those are one of them. Also surgery following accidents, etc.
However, a woman just wanting to increase her breast size or suck the fat out of her body or get injects of botox to make her lips fuller.. is totally and completely a luxury.. oh.. lets' not forget how men get peck implants, penis enlargements.. etc.. all luxuries..
I believe certain circumstances should be excluded.. and those are one of them. Also surgery following accidents, etc.
However, a woman just wanting to increase her breast size or suck the fat out of her body or get injects of botox to make her lips fuller.. is totally and completely a luxury.. oh.. lets' not forget how men get peck implants, penis enlargements.. etc.. all luxuries..
And none of them use insurance today. So don't tax them for insurance they cannot use. It wasn't included in healthcare reform and should remain that way.
And plastic surgery to correct deformities is covered under insurance.
So to equate something part of a natural life cycle, birth, to say putting plastic in your body (unnatural) to make your boobs bigger (non life threatening) is completely ridiculous.
Are you under the impression that we're arguing for insurance coverage for cosmetic procedures? I don't think anyone's doing that. All we're saying is that there shouldn't be a tax on cosmetic procedures.
Are you under the impression that we're arguing for insurance coverage for cosmetic procedures? I don't think anyone's doing that. All we're saying is that there shouldn't be a tax on cosmetic procedures.
N o not under that impression however, we need healthcare reform so that every person who actually gets sick and requires treatment can and does get it. If havinga tax on luxury items like notoxamd other such stuff raises the money toward reform and decreases the overall burden of the cost then I am all for it! You all complain about the cost and the tax that might occur on your income but when an alternative is produced and raised you all ***** about that. Is it ideal,no, but it is a great way to solve the problems involved. It's a luxury it period and therefor tax isn't such a horrible thing especially if it helps solve the problem of people not getting much needed and non luxury care.
N o not under that impression however, we need healthcare reform so that every person who actually gets sick and requires treatment can and does get it. If havinga tax on luxury items like notoxamd other such stuff raises the money toward reform and decreases the overall burden of the cost then I am all for it! You all complain about the cost and the tax that might occur on your income but when an alternative is produced and raised you all ***** about that. Is it ideal,no, but it is a great way to solve the problems involved. It's a luxury it period and therefor tax isn't such a horrible thing especially if it helps solve the problem of people not getting much needed and non luxury care.
Then you are in favor of taxing anything and everything in order to pay for healthcare subsidies ?
Then you are in favor of taxing anything and everything in order to pay for healthcare subsidies ?
I'm in favor of taxing luxury items.. not everything and anything.. which,btw, is already done ..just add a few more tot hat.
Yes, I'm all for taxing elective cosmetic surgeries.. it's a luxury. Same as i am okay with a tax on all goods that we buy with the exception to food etc.
If it means that someone doesn't have to die of cancer because they can't pay for treatments and have no health insurance I am all for Ms. Boob job paying a little tax on your 34DDD's
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.