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.
To own and drive a car, requires the responsibility of having insurance. If you do not want to pay for insurance, all you need to do, is not have a car.
That is wrong. I can own and drive a car and not pay insurance. I can, in lieu of insurance, purchase a bond. A surety bond and insurance are not the same thing, but they achieve the same result.
Factually...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Fallacy: Appeal to common practice.
The Slippery Slope is not a fallacy. It is very real. You need only to open your eyes to see it.
The best example of the Slippery Slope is any social welfare program, which is constantly expanded well-beyond it's original intent, and of course abortion, where we went from the 1st Trimester to the 2nd Trimester to the 3rd Trimester to yanking the kids out, crushing their skulls and then vacuuming up the mess with an Oreck, and now infanticide is being normalized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
By that reasoning, people should just give their money to thieves because there are a lot of people stealing. The solution is not to give in, but to restructure and require accountability. If you allow people to take without consequence, many will take because there is no consequence.
Even though you BOLO'd on the Slippery Slope, I think I must rep you for that.
As the health care system is structured now, there is no accountability anywhere. The program is simply "keep taking from me until I run out of money then go take money from someone else."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
The problem with the system is not the serious conditions and ailments, rather it is the requirement that all health services be covered by insurance.
That is not the problem. The problem is that it is not insurance.
All insurance is based on risk, except "health insurance" which totally ignores risk.
And even that wouldn't be so bad, except that I have no choice. When I purchase life, home, boat, auto, fire, business, casualty or any other type of insurance, I have myriad choices and can tailor the plan to fit my exact needs and my budget.
With "insurance health" there is no choice.
My risk of heart disease, cancer, AIDs. STD, pregnancy, hyper-tension, and a host of other health problems is exactly ZERO. Why should I pay for that when I don't need it and never will?
Why can't I just purchase insurance to cover emergency room visits and prescription drugs issued by an ER doctor? Because there is no such thing as "health insurance."
Why can't I purchase catastrophic care/physical rehab insurance? Because there is no such thing as "health insurance."
Appealing...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Are you paying for others' coverage today, disregarding their "lifestyle"? I hope so. So, stop worrying about people who have a "life-style" that involves birth control between them and their doctors. Just because it isn't a part of your life-style doesn't make for an excuse.
And I don't have to pay for it.
You have to choose between a cell-phone and birth control, not me.
Choose wisely.
Not paying....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristineVA
Uninsured patients are one aspect of a very damaged health care system in this country.
They are not. Read the law. Reagan signed off on it. There is a general misconception that people just show up at the emergency room and get treated for free.
That is not how it works.
In order to be treated, you must have an emergency condition, ie a life-threatening condition. The simple test is, if you do not treat the patient, will the patient die? If the answer is "No," then you call security and escort their goat-smelling asses out the door.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristineVA
My comparison with auto insurance rings true. There was probably a time when you could drive a car and not be insured. Uninsured motorists became a big drain on other drivers (and non-drivers). For the betterment of society, it was determined that all drivers would hold a minimal policy to protect others and to protect the system from catastrophic events.
And you can purchase a surety bond in lieu of insurance, if you have some moral, ethical, personal or religious thing against the concept of insurance.
Note that many banks require full coverage insurance on new automobiles or any auto that is financed.
That is not government talking, that is the lender talking and if the lender says we will not loan you the money to buy an auto unless you also obtain and maintain full-coverage insurance, then that is just the way it is.
Same with homes. Government does not require insurance, rather it is the lender who requires insurance on the home. If you want a mortgage, then you must obtain insurance.
As in the case of both homes and autos, you still have a choice: you can pay cash out-right instead of borrowing the money and then you don't have to purchase home-owner's insurance if you don't wanna.
Comparing....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wimzer
The nasty? Sex is not nasty. Jesus, I thought we as a country were past this Victorian Era mindset of sex being some evil thing.
Born yesterday, were you? Maybe you're still in Pampers.
In a society, you do pay for other's lifestyles, in order to live your own the way you want.
No, and as soon as you get out of your Pampers and finally are graduated from high school, you need to enroll in ECON 101.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wimzer
Like I've stated above, I do not condone the wars we have been in recently, yet taxes still go to them.
Yes, you most certainly do condone them.
If you are not actively disrupting the war effort, then you condone the wars.
And, no, "lip service" doesn't count.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wimzer
If I was one of those women, I would not be trying to take your money, I would be trying to obtain medicine either for a medical condition I had, or to regulate my menstrual flow, or to control acne, or yes, to have sex.
Well, then cancel the damn cable TV and the cell-phone and use the money wisely.
It is not my job to pay for your cable and cell-phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wimzer
In short, if you want to live in this country, yes, it is your part to pay for everyone's lifestyle.
Then I vote for a new country (...he says ramming a cleaning rod down the barrel of his AK and adjusting the sight).
A little revolution is a good thing now and again...
The bottom line is that hormonal bcp treats a variety of things. We CAN NOT micromanage this or expect women to "provide evidence" to their employer as to WHY they need a specific medication, as the State of Arizona is trying to suggest.
Insurance companies already have a way of managing this. You file and it's either covered or it's not. Some medications/treatments are covered for one diagnosis and not another. That part isn't difficult.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceece
The only LOGICAL solution is to stop worrying about this and let the church and / or it's business keep preaching to their members about what they want them to do (freedom of religion and all that jazz) and stop trying to circumvent health care regulations with specific exemptions that make no sense.
There really is no other option and I don't get how people are missing this very obvious conclusion.
Sure there is. The first would be to not mandate that everything needs to be covered, such as things where there are already affordable options. Secondly, where I work, we are offered some insurance packages. If those don't fit our needs, we are able to take the cash value as long as we use it on insurance; that could work for situations like this as well.
The bottom line is that hormonal bcp treats a variety of things. We CAN NOT micromanage this or expect women to "provide evidence" to their employer as to WHY they need a specific medication, as the State of Arizona is trying to suggest. Micromanagement won't work and that level of intrusion into someones very personal private medial life would never pass muster by anyones standards. The only LOGICAL solution is to stop worrying about this and let the church and / or it's business keep preaching to their members about what they want them to do (freedom of religion and all that jazz) and stop trying to circumvent health care regulations with special exemptions that make no sense.
There really is no other option and I don't get how people are missing this very obvious conclusion.
So you would of course have no problem buying Viagra for pedophiles?
Simply a matter of what your own morals and ethics say to you- you aren't required to buy Viagra for pedophiles, others aren't required to buy hormonal treatment for the purpose of BC.
'I don't get how people are missing this very obvious conclusion'
As for the need to "provide evidence"; our current insurance companies already require this. The doctor prescribing medicine identifies the illness being treated. While off-label use may be beneficial, the insurance doesn't cover drugs for off-label use. Simple enough to make BC an off-label use for insurance purposes......................
The bottom line is that hormonal bcp treats a variety of things. We CAN NOT micromanage this or expect women to "provide evidence" to their employer as to WHY they need a specific medication, as the State of Arizona is trying to suggest. Micromanagement won't work and that level of intrusion into someones very personal private medial life would never pass muster by anyones standards. The only LOGICAL solution is to stop worrying about this and let the church and / or it's business keep preaching to their members about what they want them to do (freedom of religion and all that jazz) and stop trying to circumvent health care regulations with special exemptions that make no sense.
There really is no other option and I don't get how people are missing this very obvious conclusion.
I agree that it would be an undue intrusion if a woman needed to report to her employer that she was having heavy cycles or some other medical indication for an otherwise contraceptive drug, but that would not be necessary. Insurance companies have a database of drugs they will cover for certain conditions; for example, under a given insurance plan, a brain cancer patient may receive Temodar chemotherapy (which is approved by for use in brain tumors) but not some experimental chemotherapy indicated for prostate cancer, as it is the drug and the condition are not "linked". Now usually all of the patients' diagnoses are in their medical records; if a patient is diagnosed with a medical condition for which hormonal contraception or some other contraceptive is indicated, or typically prescribed, they could obtain such drugs as long as the Catholic institution specifically instructs the insurer to provide contraceptive drugs solely for medical indications. So a woman would not have to tell her boss that she is having heavy cycles and has tried all herbal remedies but none have worked, so she needs the Pill.
That is wrong. I can own and drive a car and not pay insurance. I can, in lieu of insurance, purchase a bond. A surety bond and insurance are not the same thing, but they achieve the same result.
Factually...
Mircea
The Slippery Slope is not a fallacy. It is very real. You need only to open your eyes to see it.
The best example of the Slippery Slope is any social welfare program, which is constantly expanded well-beyond it's original intent, and of course abortion, where we went from the 1st Trimester to the 2nd Trimester to the 3rd Trimester to yanking the kids out, crushing their skulls and then vacuuming up the mess with an Oreck, and now infanticide is being normalized.
Even though you BOLO'd on the Slippery Slope, I think I must rep you for that.
As the health care system is structured now, there is no accountability anywhere. The program is simply "keep taking from me until I run out of money then go take money from someone else."
That is not the problem. The problem is that it is not insurance.
All insurance is based on risk, except "health insurance" which totally ignores risk.
And even that wouldn't be so bad, except that I have no choice. When I purchase life, home, boat, auto, fire, business, casualty or any other type of insurance, I have myriad choices and can tailor the plan to fit my exact needs and my budget.
With "insurance health" there is no choice.
My risk of heart disease, cancer, AIDs. STD, pregnancy, hyper-tension, and a host of other health problems is exactly ZERO. Why should I pay for that when I don't need it and never will?
Why can't I just purchase insurance to cover emergency room visits and prescription drugs issued by an ER doctor? Because there is no such thing as "health insurance."
Why can't I purchase catastrophic care/physical rehab insurance? Because there is no such thing as "health insurance."
Appealing...
Mircea
And I don't have to pay for it.
You have to choose between a cell-phone and birth control, not me.
Choose wisely.
Not paying....
Mircea
They are not. Read the law. Reagan signed off on it. There is a general misconception that people just show up at the emergency room and get treated for free.
That is not how it works.
In order to be treated, you must have an emergency condition, ie a life-threatening condition. The simple test is, if you do not treat the patient, will the patient die? If the answer is "No," then you call security and escort their goat-smelling asses out the door.
And you can purchase a surety bond in lieu of insurance, if you have some moral, ethical, personal or religious thing against the concept of insurance.
Note that many banks require full coverage insurance on new automobiles or any auto that is financed.
That is not government talking, that is the lender talking and if the lender says we will not loan you the money to buy an auto unless you also obtain and maintain full-coverage insurance, then that is just the way it is.
Same with homes. Government does not require insurance, rather it is the lender who requires insurance on the home. If you want a mortgage, then you must obtain insurance.
As in the case of both homes and autos, you still have a choice: you can pay cash out-right instead of borrowing the money and then you don't have to purchase home-owner's insurance if you don't wanna.
Comparing....
Mircea
Born yesterday, were you? Maybe you're still in Pampers.
No, and as soon as you get out of your Pampers and finally are graduated from high school, you need to enroll in ECON 101.
Yes, you most certainly do condone them.
If you are not actively disrupting the war effort, then you condone the wars.
And, no, "lip service" doesn't count.
Well, then cancel the damn cable TV and the cell-phone and use the money wisely.
It is not my job to pay for your cable and cell-phone.
Then I vote for a new country (...he says ramming a cleaning rod down the barrel of his AK and adjusting the sight).
A little revolution is a good thing now and again...
So you would of course have no problem buying Viagra for pedophiles?
Simply a matter of what your own morals and ethics say to you- you aren't required to buy Viagra for pedophiles, others aren't required to buy hormonal treatment for the purpose of BC.
'I don't get how people are missing this very obvious conclusion'
As for the need to "provide evidence"; our current insurance companies already require this. The doctor prescribing medicine identifies the illness being treated. While off-label use may be beneficial, the insurance doesn't cover drugs for off-label use. Simple enough to make BC an off-label use for insurance purposes......................
WTH??? How does a persons brain even get to these places? I buy insurance for ME, are you comparing pedophilia to bcp? SERIOUSLY?!?!?!?!
The providing evidence isn't to the insurance companies, it's to the EMPLOYER. Big difference dontcha think? Laura and Doug in HR, or your boss Jimbo, don't have a right to know squat about your reproductive details.
WTH??? How does a persons brain even get to these places? I buy insurance for ME, are you comparing pedophilia to bcp? SERIOUSLY?!?!?!?!
Not comparing the two, just pointing out that you have a sense of morals and convictions that would cause you to object to paying for drugs in some cases! Why should your morals and convictions be more relevant than those held by others? Could it be that it's because you are the decider?
You buy insurance for you, I buy insurance for me- how does that alter the fact that my premiums are higher to pay for your bcp?
So if we include Viagra for pedophiles, how would that alter the fact that your premiums would be higher to pay for Viagra for pedophiles?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceece
The providing evidence isn't to the insurance companies, it's to the EMPLOYER. Big difference dontcha think? Laura and Doug in HR, or your boss Jimbo, don't have a right to know squat about your reproductive details.
Again, "As for the need to "provide evidence"; our current insurance companies already require this. The doctor prescribing medicine identifies the illness being treated. While off-label use may be beneficial, the insurance doesn't cover drugs for off-label use. Simple enough to make BC an off-label use for insurance purposes......................"
So make BC an off-label use and the employer never enters the picture......
"I believe that we live in America. We don't live in the Soviet Union," Lesko said. "And so government shouldn't be telling employers, Catholic organizations or mom-and-pop employers to do something that's against their moral beliefs." Rep. Debbie Lesko in the Arizona Daily Star
note: Italics added for emphasis.
'I don't get how people are missing this very obvious conclusion'
That it is a business should be the relevant part. No "special laws" on religious grounds.
I agree. For all Church owned businesses.
But a tax exempt nonprofit medical services provider is NOT a business and no amount of liberal disingenuousness will make it one.
There is no logical or moral justification for stripping the Church's religious exemption when they are providing community services.
If the Catholics simply sit in their church and pray, they're cool. But if they decide to actually help the surrounding community, then we mandate they lose the right to do so within the bounds of their religious beliefs. There is no reasonable explanation for this.
Of course one explanation is that it acts as read meat to those liberals who are anti-religion and thus fires up his base in an election year. It also disincents churches from providing medical services at all, which would leave gaps in available healthcare services for the poor which Obama could fill with government controlled entitities and thus be one step closer to universal healthcare.
Your argument is that of a slippery slope. There are many contingencies concerning the issue and you can not simply dismiss them with a generalized mandate. It is inconsiderate to the freedom of an individual to choose for themselves.
As for what is draining the hospitals, you might want to look into that a bit more.
Slippery slope is a fallacy.
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.
