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 it is you who thinks it is a great idea... the premise of your thread.
Uh....no. What I'm saying is that right now the libs are okay with mandated coverage of birth control, but in a future administration a different President can appoint a different HHS Secretary who might halt payments for it (on fiscal grounds, either genuinely or on a ruse). What, I wonder, will it feel like when the shoe is on the other foot? Hmmmmm?
And isn't that what people need for personal health? Health maintenance, not "accident insurance". Everyone will experience health issues, minor, major, and in between. We can't opt to buy a new body if one becomes too much of a maintenance issue, like we can with a car that starts nickel and diming us. Why is coverage for health care so offensive to some?
How would feel if your state insurance commissioner mandated that policies did cover such things, even if your premiums went up significantly? If shocks and oil changes are 'free' what incentives do people have not to overuse such services?
Uh....no. What I'm saying is that right now the libs are okay with mandated coverage of birth control, but in a future administration a different President can appoint a different HHS Secretary who might halt payments for it (on fiscal grounds, either genuinely or on a ruse). What, I wonder, will it feel like when the shoe is on the other foot? Hmmmmm?
But if you're not okay with bureaucrats defining electives or not, why are you condoning the idea in that direction?
The first thing that needs to be noted, is that unlike most other kinds of insurance - health care stands alone as the one that people expect and desire to use
Also, the trend in health insurance is to cover things like annual checkups without any cost to the policy holder ...... it's been shown time and again that these preventative treatments are vastly less expensive than visits when things go awry. It also helps facilitate a relationship between the policy holder and a primary care physician. This relationship can lead to less expensive alternatives for "routine" procedures down the line.
You'd be surprised at how many people don't have a relationship with a PCP and won't go to an annual checkup even if it is free (forget about paying out of pocket to have a doctor confirm that you're fine - besides, if you weren't fine then you could go see the doctor and end up paying less for that......)
Same reason why insurance companies are starting to look more favorably on urgent care centers and are even coming around to minute clinics. Getting a prescription for a sinus infection from one of these places is a lot more cost effective than getting it from the emergency room.
You also can't just put a blanket out there and say something like "abortion" is purely elective - there are many procedures along this spectrum, some of which are definitely medically necessary where there is grave risk to the mother (and a much higher expense) if not done ...... as a quick example there is a defect that is detectable and will lead to the death of the fetus well before term - the choices are pretty much abort or carry until it dies inside you and then deal with it ...... it's absolutely more expensive and more risky to do the later ... granted this is a rare circumstance, but it shouldn't be hit with an absolute exclusion just because it isn't common ...... it's not good for the policy holder or the company
It's also absolutely insane to think that people wont use protection because "they can just get an abortion" and that is driving up insurance costs .... it just fails on so many different levels
Then things get even more out there when trying to bring up something like an auto warranty program into a debate on health insurance ........
I believe the 2nd post did a great job in that what is "elective" and what isn't is a very complex discussion, especially since what could be "elective" is very often beneficial to the insurer in that it saves them expense on the whole
But if you're not okay with bureaucrats defining electives or not, why are you condoning the idea in that direction?
I'm not. I'm saying that Obamacare gives government bureaucrats just that ability. Right now, entitlement-minded liberals are okay with this because they think they're gonna get free stuff. I'm saying that when the other shoe drops they're gonna scream bloody murder. I am also, by posting this thread, bringing out the fact that government bureaucrats are already dictating -at the federal level- what is and is not mandatory coverage.
The first thing that needs to be noted, is that unlike most other kinds of insurance - health care stands alone as the one that people expect and desire to use
Also, the trend in health insurance is to cover things like annual checkups without any cost to the policy holder ...... it's been shown time and again that these preventative treatments are vastly less expensive than visits when things go awry. It also helps facilitate a relationship between the policy holder and a primary care physician. This relationship can lead to less expensive alternatives for "routine" procedures down the line.
You'd be surprised at how many people don't have a relationship with a PCP and won't go to an annual checkup even if it is free (forget about paying out of pocket to have a doctor confirm that you're fine - besides, if you weren't fine then you could go see the doctor and end up paying less for that......)
Same reason why insurance companies are starting to look more favorably on urgent care centers and are even coming around to minute clinics. Getting a prescription for a sinus infection from one of these places is a lot more cost effective than getting it from the emergency room.
You also can't just put a blanket out there and say something like "abortion" is purely elective - there are many procedures along this spectrum, some of which are definitely medically necessary where there is grave risk to the mother (and a much higher expense) if not done ...... as a quick example there is a defect that is detectable and will lead to the death of the fetus well before term - the choices are pretty much abort or carry until it dies inside you and then deal with it ...... it's absolutely more expensive and more risky to do the later ... granted this is a rare circumstance, but it shouldn't be hit with an absolute exclusion just because it isn't common ...... it's not good for the policy holder or the company
It's also absolutely insane to think that people wont use protection because "they can just get an abortion" and that is driving up insurance costs .... it just fails on so many different levels
Then things get even more out there when trying to bring up something like an auto warranty program into a debate on health insurance ........
I believe the 2nd post did a great job in that what is "elective" and what isn't is a very complex discussion, especially since what could be "elective" is very often beneficial to the insurer in that it saves them expense on the whole
Bottom line is, when it's beneficial to both insurer and insured, you have a market driven bargain and sale. When the government dictates that something is 'free' what you have a confiscation from the productive to the less productive, aka social engineering. It has never worked -at least not without the loss of freedom.
The first thing that needs to be noted, is that unlike most other kinds of insurance - health care stands alone as the one that people expect and desire to use
Also, the trend in health insurance is to cover things like annual checkups without any cost to the policy holder ...... it's been shown time and again that these preventative treatments are vastly less expensive than visits when things go awry. It also helps facilitate a relationship between the policy holder and a primary care physician. This relationship can lead to less expensive alternatives for "routine" procedures down the line.
You'd be surprised at how many people don't have a relationship with a PCP and won't go to an annual checkup even if it is free (forget about paying out of pocket to have a doctor confirm that you're fine - besides, if you weren't fine then you could go see the doctor and end up paying less for that......)
Same reason why insurance companies are starting to look more favorably on urgent care centers and are even coming around to minute clinics. Getting a prescription for a sinus infection from one of these places is a lot more cost effective than getting it from the emergency room.
You also can't just put a blanket out there and say something like "abortion" is purely elective - there are many procedures along this spectrum, some of which are definitely medically necessary where there is grave risk to the mother (and a much higher expense) if not done ...... as a quick example there is a defect that is detectable and will lead to the death of the fetus well before term - the choices are pretty much abort or carry until it dies inside you and then deal with it ...... it's absolutely more expensive and more risky to do the later ... granted this is a rare circumstance, but it shouldn't be hit with an absolute exclusion just because it isn't common ...... it's not good for the policy holder or the company
It's also absolutely insane to think that people wont use protection because "they can just get an abortion" and that is driving up insurance costs .... it just fails on so many different levels
Then things get even more out there when trying to bring up something like an auto warranty program into a debate on health insurance ........
I believe the 2nd post did a great job in that what is "elective" and what isn't is a very complex discussion, especially since what could be "elective" is very often beneficial to the insurer in that it saves them expense on the whole
The conversation about "cost vs benefit" should be between the insurance company and the CUSTOMER, not a bureacrat. This is a private contract between those parties.
Right now it's Kathleen Sebelius. Next? It could be Rick Santorum. Would the Left take that in stride as part of the democratic process? I don't think so.
Yes, this is the problem with expanding government.
Some people think Bush was an overaggressive war criminal. But he got Congressional approval. Well now Obama's adventures in Libya has set the precedent that it's no longer required. So what happens when the next war monger gets elected? Who will he decide to attack?
People need to use their heads. The people you elect will be gone, but the power you gave them will remain.
That's why everyone should be opposing this contraceptive thing. Government should not be mandating what elective procedures insurance companies cover and don't cover. You like the mandate this time, but you may not like the mandate next time. There's already another thread complaining about requiring women to get ultrasounds before being allowed an abortion. Sorry, but it was you liberals who gave the government the idea they could interfere in healthcare the first place.
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
The conversation about "cost vs benefit" should be between the insurance company and the CUSTOMER, not a bureacrat. This is a private contract between those parties.
Every private contract is governed by law though - be it determined by the legislature, the courts or a combination of both
Also, insurance is one of the most heavily regulated products you can purchase
Furthermore, nothing in my post had a single drop to do with "bureacrats" or government intervention
Yes, this is the problem with expanding government.
Some people think Bush was an overaggressive war criminal. But he got Congressional approval. Well now Obama's adventures in Libya has set the precedent that it's no longer required. So what happens when the next war monger gets elected? Who will he decide to attack?
People need to use their heads. The people you elect will be gone, but the power you gave them will remain.
That's why everyone should be opposing this contraceptive thing. Government should not be mandating what elective procedures insurance companies cover and don't cover. You like the mandate this time, but you may not like the mandate next time. There's already another thread complaining about requiring women to get ultrasounds before being allowed an abortion. Sorry, but it was you liberals who gave the government the idea they could interfere in healthcare the first place.
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Finally someone gets it!
Rep inbound.
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.
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.
