It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The madness and redefinition of insurance

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
All week long I've been seeing forums on contraception, abortion, catholic church, and the 1st Ammendment.

I've played my part in it. I watch and read all the pundits on all sides and they blur and obfuscate the meanings and definitions until we're all left with a moulderling pile of offal better left in a landfill somewhere far away.

I'll try to be brief.

The way I see it, one side is weeing themselves because church hospitals won't provide contraception or abortions to it's patrons.

The government is stepping in and wanting to mandate that any/all insurance companies provide this for everyone.

I see a 1st Ammendment issue right there. Government mandating that religions act in a way counter to their faith(s).

I also see another issue. Who uses insurance to by contraceptives? Insurance used to be if you got cancer, broke a leg, had a heart attack. Now insurance is used for rubbers, the "pill", . . . what next? Eye brow tweezing? Flatulance?

The pols are trying to make this a womans issue. Since when has insurance, and religious faith been a womans issue?

Some are trying to make it a health issue. As if the catholic church is forcing people NOT to use contraceptives. Um, nope. Catholics don't like it, but they won't stop you from going to CVS and buying rubbers or getting contraceptives. (CVS still accepts cash)

And worse of all, is the meme where insurance is expected, as if this option is already an entitlement that everyone expects to get/have.
Insurance is nice to have, but some pay out of pocket and it isn't manditory.

Yet.

So lets try to keep our focus. Especially here, on ATS. Don't let the media, pols, opinion-heads sway you. We're smarter than that.

*Mods, if this needs to be moved to Rants or "Epic Whining" (
) let me know)

Would really like to hear some sensible, clarity on this topic, friends and foes alike.
Cheers
beez




posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Here's where I stand.

The government, has no business, nor right to mandate that you do anything. Other than not kill, hurt, cheat and steal from people. Not necesarilly in that order however.

Anything else is coercion and is indication of a police state; where the government is under the impression that they know what's best for you. That idea should never ever be the case in Government. They should be asking " what do you think is best for us?".

So I happen to agree with the religious folks on here ( I know shocking) who disagree with the mandate or "compromise".

It's a violation of your rights as a member of the race of man, for some government entity to dictate what to do with your life.

~Tenth



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 
Thanks for the reply.

What worried me was the fact that we're discussing what kind of mandated insurance we're supposed to develope and with what provisions. I know that's the primary focus of Obama's healthcare law, but it's still to be decided by the Supreme Court.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
The service is there, you make the choice to use it or not.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Hopefullly SCOTUS will rule that any mandate within the Health Care law is unconstitutional, as it is. There's no line in the constitution that gives them the power to make you do things, only the state can do that, and even then, it's very limited as far as my understanding goes.

There's certainly a better way of doing things, I don't know what it is, but it's not for the Government to decide what's best for you.

~Tenth



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vio1ion
The service is there, you make the choice to use it or not.





If I understand correctly, you're saying insurance can provide anything, but it's up to the religious organization to purchase?



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by beezzer
 


Hopefullly SCOTUS will rule that any mandate within the Health Care law is unconstitutional, as it is. There's no line in the constitution that gives them the power to make you do things, only the state can do that, and even then, it's very limited as far as my understanding goes.

There's certainly a better way of doing things, I don't know what it is, but it's not for the Government to decide what's best for you.

~Tenth

I get the impression that they (government) are running rough-shod over the Constitution. Mandates, draconian laws, it removes choice.

They're doing it deliberately!
edit on 17-2-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
It is deliberate. Politicians since FDR and even before hate the Constitution and see it as an impedance to their exercise of power. Bush, Clinton Bush 2, and the O are all guilty of treating the Constitution as toilet paper. We need to stand every one of them up against the wall. If George Washington had gotten stood against the wall for his unlawful use of troops against Americans resisting an income tax during the whiskey rebellion, we would not have this problem now. Politicians would know their place.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
How do you feel if the birth control pills are used to control many health conditions.other than just contraception. How do you discriminate.

If you look at this from an actuarial point of view, pills are a lot cheaper than delivering babies.

If you look at it sociologically we are better of with fewer unwanted children and with planned families.

If you look at it from a pro choice point of view, birth control prevents abortion.

If you look at it from the Santorum view, you shouldn't be having sex unless you are making a baby, and if you enjoy sex you are a bad person and have a window seat in the bus to hell.

Insurance companies will pay for viagra, but not BC pills - isn't there a disconnect here.

The new version of the BC thing is that the Churches BUSINESS which is making money providing services are not required to pay for or promote or monitor usage. The insurance companies pay and they tell the users that the service is available -- the user can decide if that is what they want or not.

Apparently 98 percent of the women use or have used birth control - that is a lot of people to be on the wrong side of this.

Politically the right wing is trying to ride this horse saying that an EMPLOYER can taylor his insurance to discriminate against you because what you do is whatever they come up with. Diabetic sorry you should control it with a healthy diet.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
I just want to add, some things about insurance.

Auto insurance you have if you wreck your car. You don't call Alstate if you need gas, or to change your wiper blades.

Health insurance should have the same principles applied. You don't call your health insurance provider if you need your toe nails clipped or you need a condom.

Have we become that dependent on an agency/authority to provide for us?

Have we lost the ability to get birth control by ourselves?

Sometimes America really worries me.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
I think we'd all be better off if the system were to be redesigned so that we only used health insurance for larger medical issues. Right now the current system is costing us all a fortune (insurance costs have skyrocketed, and medical costs have also skyrocketed as doctors' offices are having to keep up with the insurance mess).

Think of it as an analogy using the idea of auto maintenance vs. auto insurance. For example, in this analogy, regular checkups, routine sick care, etc., we could all pay out of pocket, just like we pay auto maintenance out of pocket. But if something bad happens (think auto accident), such as a major hospitalization or cancer, that is when we use our health insurance.

Think of how fast the cost of medical care would come down if we were shopping around based on price. As it stands now, I have NO IDEA how much a medical check up costs. I just go in and give them my insurance card. Also, think of how much cheaper health insurance would be if it only covered certain major things.

I know the "health care is a basic human right" people will scream at me that people shouldn't have to "pay" for routine health care, but in my worldview, nothing is a "right" that requires the services of someone else.

-----

Edit: Note to Beezer: I was writing this while you were writing your post that is directly above mine. It seems like we agree on the auto insurance analogy!

edit on 17-2-2012 by GeorgiaGirl because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
"Redefinition of insurance" is a great term!

Government is taking over the responsibility of our health and has determined that we will pay them for that generous, benevolent act.

In that way, they virtually control via whatever laws, regulations or stipulations they want to impose upon our lives from preconception until after death. You have no reasonable choice to opt out.
edit on 17-2-2012 by Aliensun because: again, spelling

edit on 17-2-2012 by Aliensun because: word arrangement



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by spyder550
How do you feel if the birth control pills are used to control many health conditions.other than just contraception. How do you discriminate.

If you look at this from an actuarial point of view, pills are a lot cheaper than delivering babies.

If you look at it sociologically we are better of with fewer unwanted children and with planned families.

If you look at it from a pro choice point of view, birth control prevents abortion.


If they want the pills, then they should be able to get the pills. I don't relly care. I just see a problem when government is basically forcing the church to purchase the pills for the woman.


If you look at it from the Santorum view, you shouldn't be having sex unless you are making a baby, and if you enjoy sex you are a bad person and have a window seat in the bus to hell.


Santorum is nuttier than squirrel poop.


Insurance companies will pay for viagra, but not BC pills - isn't there a disconnect here.
I don't see Obama forcing the catholic church to do it. Why not ask insurance companies why.


The new version of the BC thing is that the Churches BUSINESS which is making money providing services are not required to pay for or promote or monitor usage. The insurance companies pay and they tell the users that the service is available -- the user can decide if that is what they want or not.

Apparently 98 percent of the women use or have used birth control - that is a lot of people to be on the wrong side of this.
No one is stopping women from obtaining birth control. Just stop asking the church to pay for it!


Politically the right wing is trying to ride this horse saying that an EMPLOYER can taylor his insurance to discriminate against you because what you do is whatever they come up with. Diabetic sorry you should control it with a healthy diet.


It is a 1st Ammendment issue, in that government is forbidden to dictate mandates to religion.

It is also disgusting to see government mandate/dictate what anyone should do!



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aliensun
"Redefinition of insurance" is a great term!

Government is taking over the responsibility of our health and has determined that we will pay them for that generous, benevolent act.

In that way, they virtually control via whatever laws, regulations or stipulations they want to impose upon our lives from preconception until after death. You have no reasonable choice to opt out.
edit on 17-2-2012 by Aliensun because: again, spelling

edit on 17-2-2012 by Aliensun because: word arrangement
The scope and sheer arrogance in determining for each and all of us is/was unthinkable, until recently.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
 
Great minds, ma'am.

Great minds.




posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
It is deliberate. Politicians since FDR and even before hate the Constitution and see it as an impedance to their exercise of power. Bush, Clinton Bush 2, and the O are all guilty of treating the Constitution as toilet paper. We need to stand every one of them up against the wall. If George Washington had gotten stood against the wall for his unlawful use of troops against Americans resisting an income tax during the whiskey rebellion, we would not have this problem now. Politicians would know their place.


Like I stated in another thread, our freedom is ours to keep and/or give away.

I can see the trend.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Eliminate the whole problem with a public option.

This entire argument only proves that it's needed.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
Eliminate the whole problem with a public option.

This entire argument only proves that it's needed.

A public option is what this is being driven to.

We need to change direction.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 





A public option is what this is being driven to. We need to change direction.


We have to go to some kind of system to that nearly everyone is paying into or costs will continue to explode. If too large of the segment of the population goes without insurance, then they wait till things are really bad to even get treated.....then unable to pay the bill because they can't afford it...driving up costs for the rest of us. The more that aren't in the system...the worse it is.

This is why the mandates were done...the votes were never there for a public option. It did pass the house at the time...but the votes were never in the Senate.

We pay by far the most for health care in the world...and are the only 1st world country that doesn't have some kind of universal healthcare. The amount of money that is being spent on healthcare/insurance is money that could go to the economy for people to buy things and create jobs.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 
I'm afraid that we will end up with that system. And as a result? We might as well jut trash the 1st Ammendment. Because it will be an infringement on religion out of "necessity".

We have a small window of oppourtunity. If we miss that? Then you will be correct.

That's why people need to be educated NAO!


edit on 17-2-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join