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.
She's attending a Cathloic school which she pays a tuition to which includes her health insurance if she doesn't opt out. They're able to do that because of grouping of other Catholic students who also pay for HI in their tuition. If the HI company, in this case UHC, is forced to provide contraception, they'll have to spread the burden of that to all of the students in the group.
Now that I've schooled you on how HI works and how Georgetown is able to provide HI for its student, where do I send the bill?
She's attending a Cathloic school which she pays a tuition to which includes her health insurance if she doesn't opt out. They're able to do that because of grouping of other Catholic students who also pay for HI in their tuition. If the HI company, in this case UHC, is forced to provide contraception, they'll have to spread the burden of that to all of the students in the group.
Now that I've schooled you on how HI works and how Georgetown is able to provide HI for its student, where do I send the bill?
And they wonder why their tuition is skyrocketing?
Your arguments are a complaint about the existence of insurance as an industry. Insurance is socialism. If you've got that huge a problem with insurance, are you willing to ban it as an industry? If so, are you willing to accept the ramifications of severely limiting daily navigation for the overwhelming majority of citizens that cannot swing having a 50k pad in their bank accounts to cover the potential disasterous financial consequence of a car accident?
My arguments are not a complaint about the existence of insurance. My complaints are that I disagree with the government mandating for you to have insurance. Be it health insurance, car insurance, life insurance, etc. When you are required to buy insurance as a stipulation for simply living in this country, then it becomes a problem for me.
But let's look at your example in regards to car insurance really quickly.
Yes, in most states, the government requires all vehicles that drive on public roads to have car insurance. Does that mean that every single car on the road today has insurance? Not even close.
I would bet that even before there was a car insurance mandate that plenty of people purchased car insurance. I am almost positive that full-coverage was required by car loan companies as a stipulation for them giving you a loan to buy the car in the first place. So how much of a real impact has mandating car insurance really had? And who really benefits from the existence of mandating car insurance? The rich or the poor?
Most of the rich already have insurance that covers "uninsured motorists", so what is truly the need for the car insurance mandate to begin with? Who really benefits in the end? Last time I checked, only about 70% of all the money insurance companies receive is paid out in claims.
Lastly, from what income group to most of the citations for things like no-insurance come from? In my state of Oklahoma, if you are driving without insurance, you have to both pay the over $200 ticket, you also have to pay an additional $100 to get your license reinstated. The majority of people who drive without insurance do it because it is an expense that is difficult for them to afford. What happens when they get these tickets? Generally, they can't pay them either, so then they get their license suspended. Which makes it difficult for them to get a job to begin with, and it ends up pushing them into bad situations.
Thusly, I simply despise car-insurance mandates, it is a perfect example of a regressive tax.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady
If you want something to fail, you can make it fail. If I promised to be your accountant, I could change my mind mid stream and embezzle the funds. We should ban the profession of accountants? We had sound standards for accounting and you deregulated them, only to turn around and blame all others. Social security wasn't built to carry dead weight like stay at home mommies on a lifelong plan of staying at home sitting around to collect the pension. It wasn't built to absorb Cuban refuges of every political asylum cause Republicans would adopt. Those were unfunded mandates but you ignore them. Republicans were all too happy to hold open the door importing illegal immigrant poverty while the rest of us had made a commitment to eradicating poverty.
First, I am not a Republican nor am I a democrat. I am not for banning any institution or occupation. You seem to completely misrepresent what I am saying.
What I am saying is, I oppose government mandates. I oppose the government putting their hand in my pocket supposedly for my own good or for the good of society. When I speak of Social security, the very concept of social security is simply that a certain percentage of the population will either be unwilling or unable to save money for when they are old. And so, people should be required to pay into a government-run insurance program all of their lives, which will take care of them when they get old. Social security is nothing but a government-mandated insurance program, and I am opposed to government-mandated insurance programs because I believe they actually do more harm than good. And the people who benefit from them are usually disproportionately the wealthy, regardless of its good intentions.
For instance, take life-expectancy. The poor tend to have much shorter life-expectancies than the rich. So, if the tax-rate and benefit-rate was based on the amount of money you paid into the system. But the wealthy lived longer(and thus benefited longer from social security) and the poor died earlier(and thus probably didn't get a dime out of the system). Then who really benefits from such a system? The rich or the poor?
Again, social security is another great example of regressive taxation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady
Heaven forbid insurance companies be obliged to pay out the promises they made. Making careers out of dodging accountability is far too profitable thanks to SCOTUS limiting liability and lobbyist habits dictating the rules.
This last part addresses the actual topic, but misrepresents my point.
You say that "insurance companies should be obliged to pay out for the promises they made". What you leave out is that, these promises were not made by them, but rather they were mandates by government. They are simply trying to find ways to "opt-out" of these mandates. Either for ethical or financial reasons.
Going to the issue of contraception. What you don't seem to understand is that, a lot of insurance companies weren't providing contraception in their plans before this mandate(not simply for religious reasons). Why? Well, most likely it was because it would cost more for them to provide contraception in their plans, thus necessitating them to charge higher premiums. To keep costs down, they did not provide those services. But, the mandate requires them to provide those services. And thus, it will almost certainly cause them to have to raise their premiums to cover the increased cost. So who is paying these higher costs? Simple, anyone who buys health insurance. And who buys health insurance? Well, soon it will be every single citizen of the United States, because it will be mandated.
If you followed that logic, we could conclude that, in a sense, all American citizens will be paying for contraception through their mandated healthcare premiums. Basically, you are being forced to pay for contraception through a sort of tax. It isn't even a tax for working or a tax for driving. It is a tax for simply living in this country.
My argument is simply that, I find the argument on this issue to be dishonest when you frame this as a fight between health insurance companies and their clients. This is really a philosophical argument about government forcing you to buy insurance that you may not want, and also them being able to mandate what those insurance companies must provide. It is in essence a form of taxation, of which I am opposed.
I mean, we can sit here all day coming up with what government should tell health insurance providers they must provide. This argument is about contraception. What should that include? Birth-control? Condoms? Shots? Vasectomy? Tubal ligation? How about erectile dysfunction? How about penis enlargement pills? Hair-loss treatments? Sex-change operations? Boob-jobs? Nose-jobs?
I mean, I'm sure a woman could say that her tiny or badly sagging breasts cause her a lot of emotional trauma, and that she is on anti-depressants or other drugs to deal her body issues. And that, she would have much more self-confidence if her health-insurance provider would pay for her boob-job. Does a sob story suddenly make it OK for the government to tell a private company what services they are required to provide?
Last edited by Redshadowz; 03-23-2012 at 02:50 PM..
So if they don't get it for free (no copayment) then all these women going to college and working for private insitutions will have welfare babies? There is no other option? This is not saying much for the intelligence and ethics of women. I find it very insulting.
I also find this insulting. It is like the liberals are saying women are too dumb and helpless to make their boyfriend/husband/fiance use a condom. The majority of women with reasonable intelligence will talk with her doctor about birth control options. Plus, I thought Planned Parenthood already gave out free birth control?? The taxpayers already support them so why are we paying for this twice??
I guess since we are giving everyone free birth control, we should stop supporting all the welfare babies. No excuse to get pregnant six times with 5 different daddies.
My arguments are not a complaint about the existence of insurance. My complaints are that I disagree with the government mandating for you to have insurance. Be it health insurance, car insurance, life insurance, etc. When you are required to buy insurance as a stipulation for simply living in this country, then it becomes a problem for me.
But let's look at your example in regards to car insurance really quickly.
Yes, in most states, the government requires all vehicles that drive on public roads to have car insurance. Does that mean that every single car on the road today has insurance? Not even close.
I would bet that even before there was a car insurance mandate that plenty of people purchased car insurance. I am almost positive that full-coverage was required by car loan companies as a stipulation for them giving you a loan to buy the car in the first place. So how much of a real impact has mandating car insurance really had? And who really benefits from the existence of mandating car insurance? The rich or the poor?
Most of the rich already have insurance that covers "uninsured motorists", so what is truly the need for the car insurance mandate to begin with? Who really benefits in the end? Last time I checked, only about 70% of all the money insurance companies receive is paid out in claims.
Lastly, from what income group to most of the citations for things like no-insurance come from? In my state of Oklahoma, if you are driving without insurance, you have to both pay the over $200 ticket, you also have to pay an additional $100 to get your license reinstated. The majority of people who drive without insurance do it because it is an expense that is difficult for them to afford. What happens when they get these tickets? Generally, they can't pay them either, so then they get their license suspended. Which makes it difficult for them to get a job to begin with, and it ends up pushing them into bad situations.
Thusly, I simply despise car-insurance mandates, it is a perfect example of a regressive tax.
First, I am not a Republican nor am I a democrat. I am not for banning any institution or occupation. You seem to completely misrepresent what I am saying.
What I am saying is, I oppose government mandates. I oppose the government putting their hand in my pocket supposedly for my own good or for the good of society. When I speak of Social security, the very concept of social security is simply that a certain percentage of the population will either be unwilling or unable to save money for when they are old. And so, people should be required to pay into a government-run insurance program all of their lives, which will take care of them when they get old. Social security is nothing but a government-mandated insurance program, and I am opposed to government-mandated insurance programs because I believe they actually do more harm than good. And the people who benefit from them are usually disproportionately the wealthy, regardless of its good intentions.
For instance, take life-expectancy. The poor tend to have much shorter life-expectancies than the rich. So, if the tax-rate and benefit-rate was based on the amount of money you paid into the system. But the wealthy lived longer(and thus benefited longer from social security) and the poor died earlier(and thus probably didn't get a dime out of the system). Then who really benefits from such a system? The rich or the poor?
Again, social security is another great example of regressive taxation.
This last part addresses the actual topic, but misrepresents my point.
You say that "insurance companies should be obliged to pay out for the promises they made". What you leave out is that, these promises were not made by them, but rather they were mandates by government. They are simply trying to find ways to "opt-out" of these mandates. Either for ethical or financial reasons.
Going to the issue of contraception. What you don't seem to understand is that, a lot of insurance companies weren't providing contraception in their plans before this mandate(not simply for religious reasons). Why? Well, most likely it was because it would cost more for them to provide contraception in their plans, thus necessitating them to charge higher premiums. To keep costs down, they did not provide those services. But, the mandate requires them to provide those services. And thus, it will almost certainly cause them to have to raise their premiums to cover the increased cost. So who is paying these higher costs? Simple, anyone who buys health insurance. And who buys health insurance? Well, soon it will be every single citizen of the United States, because it will be mandated.
If you followed that logic, we could conclude that, in a sense, all American citizens will be paying for contraception through their mandated healthcare premiums. Basically, you are being forced to pay for contraception through a sort of tax. It isn't even a tax for working or a tax for driving. It is a tax for simply living in this country.
My argument is simply that, I find the argument on this issue to be dishonest when you frame this as a fight between health insurance companies and their clients. This is really a philosophical argument about government forcing you to buy insurance that you may not want, and also them being able to mandate what those insurance companies must provide. It is in essence a form of taxation, of which I am opposed.
I mean, we can sit here all day coming up with what government should tell health insurance providers they must provide. This argument is about contraception. What should that include? Birth-control? Condoms? Shots? Vasectomy? Tubal ligation? How about erectile dysfunction? How about penis enlargement pills? Hair-loss treatments? Sex-change operations? Boob-jobs? Nose-jobs?
I mean, I'm sure a woman could say that her tiny or badly sagging breasts cause her a lot of emotional trauma, and that she is on anti-depressants or other drugs to deal her body issues. And that, she would have much more self-confidence if her health-insurance provider would pay for her boob-job. Does a sob story suddenly make it OK for the government to tell a private company what services they are required to provide?
I look at it differently.
I am for insurance mandates if you want to drive a car. Why should I have to pay higher rates because others do not want to pay their fair share? If you want to drive, you should have to pay. How much more do you think uninsured motorist coverage would cost if we did away with this mandate? Did you ever think of that?
I am also for insurance mandates. How many people NEVER require medical care? Why should I pay higher rates to cover their care when they do need it.....and they WILL.
Why should you be able to skate through life without paying health insurance....and then when you do get sick.....you waltz into the ER and get medical care that I will pay for.....through higher medical costs and higher insurance premiums?
Social security? Well, if we do away with social security.....there are going to be people who save for their retirements.....and those who don't. In this country, we are never going to allow the elderly to starve in the streets. So, guess what would happen? We would have "Eldercare", similar to Welfare.....and those of us who did save our money will be taxed to care for those who didn't.
So, in the grand scheme of things, yes, I am for government mandates to force people to pay their fair share......because without them....the rest of us will end up paying the WHOLE tab by ourselves.
I am for insurance mandates if you want to drive a car. Why should I have to pay higher rates because other do not want to pay their fair share? If you want to drive, you should have to pay.
You say fair share, but you aren't looking at it correctly. What is a fair share anyway? There are plenty of people who have never gotten into an accident in their entire life, yet they have been, and will continue to be required to have insurance to drive a car.
What is their "fair share" exactly?
Statistically, the more you drive the higher your likelihood of getting into an accident. Yet, there are almost no options for buying insurance at lower rates for people who only drive short distances. Lastly, if I get into a car accident that isn't even my fault, my insurance company can raise my rates.
When we talk about fair shares, we aren't really talking about an insurance mandate. We are talking about people who actually damage others having to pay for those damages.
And since 1 in 7 motorists already don't have insurance. In my state of Oklahoma it is actually about 1/4th of all motorists. In that sense, the mandate and its harsh penalties have failed. And I am tired of collectively punishing the many because you want to punish the few. Especially when the burden comes down so disproportionately on the neediest of us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53
I am also for insurance mandates. How many people NEVER require medical care? Why should I pay higher rates to cover their care when they do need it.....and they WILL.
Why should you be able to skate through life without paying health insurance....and then when you do get sick.....you waltz into the ER and get medical care that I will pay for.....through higher medical costs and higher insurance premiums?
Waltzing into the ER is a government mandate first and foremost. Secondly, if medical care wasn't so overpriced because of government regulations and licensing, there would be a lot more options for the actually needy. Lastly, the majority of the people who show up at ER's now are either the very poor, or illegals. Neither will be contributing much or anything with the new healthcare mandate, so get it out of your head.
Quote:
Social security? Well, if we do away with social security.....there are going to be people who save for their retirements.....and those who don't. In this country, we are never going to allow the elderly to starve in the streets. So, guess what would happen? We would have "Eldercare", similar to Welfare.....and those of us who did save our money will be taxed to care for those who didn't.
There was no social security for the first 140 years of this countries existence. It didn't come into effect until the great depression. I don't recall that many more people starving in the streets before social security as after. And during the Great depression, people of all age groups were struggling.
As for the prospects of Eldercare, I would much rather have eldercare than social security. It at least most likely wouldn't be regressive in nature, and would leave the majority of us with more options for our retirements.
Quote:
So, in the grand scheme of things, yes, I am for government mandates to force people to pay their fair share......because without them....the rest of us will end up paying the WHOLE tab by ourselves.
I have nothing wrong with the concept of the fair share. But these programs simply DO NOT force anyone to pay their fair share. Regardless of the intent of your government programs, certain people will end up paying far more than others. So stop pretending these programs do anything to address fairness.
You say fair share, but you aren't looking at it correctly. What is a fair share anyway? There are plenty of people who have never gotten into an accident in their entire life, yet they have been, and will continue to be required to have insurance to drive a car.
What is their "fair share" exactly?
Statistically, the more you drive the higher your likelihood of getting into an accident. Yet, there are almost no options for buying insurance at lower rates for people who only drive short distances. Lastly, if I get into a car accident that isn't even my fault, my insurance company can raise my rates.
When I retired, I got a nice big discount on my car insurance because I now drive less than 10,000 miles a year.
When we talk about fair shares, we aren't really talking about an insurance mandate. We are talking about people who actually damage others having to pay for those damages.
And since 1 in 7 motorists already don't have insurance. In my state of Oklahoma it is actually about 1/4th of all motorists. In that sense, the mandate and its harsh penalties have failed. And I am tired of collectively punishing the many because you want to punish the few. Especially when the burden comes down so disproportionately on the neediest of us.
Without mandates, how many people would carry insurance at all? Do you think you could even afford insurance if you wanted it? Would you feel comfortable going without insurance, knowing that one accident could totally wipe you out financially?
Waltzing into the ER is a government mandate first and foremost. Secondly, if medical care wasn't so overpriced because of government regulations and licensing, there would be a lot more options for the actually needy. Lastly, the majority of the people who show up at ER's now are either the very poor, or illegals. Neither will be contributing much or anything with the new healthcare mandate, so get it out of your head.
So, if a child gets hit by a car, and the parents can't pay.....you would be OK with the hospital turning that child away?
Can you imagine what hospitals would be like if there weren't regulations? You want doctors without medical licenses? You want medicines that don't pass purity requirements? You want filthy instuments used on you if you have surgery?
There was no social security for the first 140 years of this countries existence. It didn't come into effect until the great depression. I don't recall that many more people starving in the streets before social security as after. And during the Great depression, people of all age groups were struggling.
As for the prospects of Eldercare, I would much rather have eldercare than social security. It at least most likely wouldn't be regressive in nature, and would leave the majority of us with more options for our retirements.
You can't compare this day and age with the "old days", when families were huge and all lived and worked in the same town within a few miles of one another.
I have nothing wrong with the concept of the fair share. But these programs simply DO NOT force anyone to pay their fair share. Regardless of the intent of your government programs, certain people will end up paying far more than others. So stop pretending these programs do anything to address fairness.
Sharing risk is one of the main reasons that the quality of life in this country is so much better today than it was in the "good ole days".....that weren's all that good, BTW.
I am for insurance mandates if you want to drive a car. Why should I have to pay higher rates because others do not want to pay their fair share? If you want to drive, you should have to pay. How much more do you think uninsured motorist coverage would cost if we did away with this mandate? Did you ever think of that?
I am also for insurance mandates. How many people NEVER require medical care? Why should I pay higher rates to cover their care when they do need it.....and they WILL.
Why should you be able to skate through life without paying health insurance....and then when you do get sick.....you waltz into the ER and get medical care that I will pay for.....through higher medical costs and higher insurance premiums?
Social security? Well, if we do away with social security.....there are going to be people who save for their retirements.....and those who don't. In this country, we are never going to allow the elderly to starve in the streets. So, guess what would happen? We would have "Eldercare", similar to Welfare.....and those of us who did save our money will be taxed to care for those who didn't.
So, in the grand scheme of things, yes, I am for government mandates to force people to pay their fair share......because without them....the rest of us will end up paying the WHOLE tab by ourselves.
You will pay those higher rates regardless of the mandate.
Remember..there is no more refusal for pre-existing conditions under Obamacare.
So..I choose NOT to get health insurance..I pay $95 for the fine.
I get sick so I go and get insurance, get fixed up by the docs and then drop it til I need it again.
Don't think it won't happen. It IS happening in Mass. under their mandated health insurance and is causing some financial problems with their budget.
Sharing risk is one of the main reasons that the quality of life in this country is so much better today than it was in the "good ole days".....that weren's all that good, BTW.
I don't disagree with you that quality of life wasn't as great in the "good old days" as it is today. But is that really attributed to government insurance programs? For instance, medicare has been around since the 60's, and social security since the 30's. But was life suddenly better the day after social security passed? Is every year exactly as good for the elderly since medicare was passed?
The reality is, the increase in quality of life has very little with social security or medicare or anything else the government has passed. In the Soviet Union there was much more "risk sharing" than there even is in those socialist utopia's of Europe. But was the quality of life better in the Soviet Union or in horrible capitalist America?
I have nothing against social safety nets in general. But, we have to be really careful about how those programs are put in place, what their actual effect is on society, and who really pays for them.
I will agree with you on one point. I do feel like it would be beneficial to have a universal healthcare plan. But I do not believe it is possible with our current state of immigration. Nor do I think it is proper with our ridiculous form of unequal taxation and loopholes. Nor do I agree with the public option. It must be single-payer or nothing.
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.
