The Birth Control Controversy

Originally posted by WTFover
Why did you leave out the third party in that association? In fact, the most important party... The one which is paying the bill and, just like the other two, has the right the free exercise of religion and to determine the tenets of that religion.

I didn't, he is trying to infringe and the Constitution says he should butt out.

Let's say my employer provides me a vehicle. I'm told to go to the dealership to get it. Once there, I find out it has hand crank windows. Can I then tell the dealership to upgrade to power windows, even though my employer doesn't want to pay for them? The options are the sole decision of the employer, who is footing the bill.

Nope, it's more like your employer giving you a Christmas bonus but telling you that you can't buy your JD and coke, because drinking is against his religion.

reply to post by mastahunta


If frogs had wings...

If... If... If...

If a religious organization, acting as an employer, chooses to provide insurance coverage to an employee, they have a Constitutionally protected right to choose to not pay for contraceptives, which are in violation of the basic tenets of their religion. They do not have a Constitutionally protected right to prevent their employee from obtaining contraceptives through other means.

reply to post by mastahunta

But one key economic factor is that Pregnancy, Prenatal Care, Birth and complicated pregnancy + delivery, post natal complications are more expensive for Insurance companies than most contraception methods. The is 100% true when you examine the total expense of both -

Once again, the O.P. plays fast and loose with language and expects all to pretend along with him that the ridiculous conspiracy between insurance companies and government is some "free market" concoction, and stupidly thinks just because an organization is parading as a business that free market advocates must own corporations that clearly despise free markets as their own.

The O.P. may as well be arguing that baseball players are the same as head bashing serial killers because both use bats as tools.

Further, the argument that insurance companies would rather people not have children so they don't have to turn around and honor the contract they made with those individuals who do get pregnant may certainly be true, but it is absurd. Of course it would be cheaper for insurance companies offering insurance for the expense of pregnancies if all who owned such a policy just simply didn't get pregnant. Hell, it would also be cheaper for insurance companies if people simply did not get sick. Of course, it would be even cheaper for insurance companies to simply pull out of the medical profession all together.

Insurance schemes are nothing more than gambling practices. The insurance company is the casino (or "house") and the purchaser of the policy is the gambler. The purchaser of automobile insurance is betting against the house that they will damage their vehicle before the house believes they will. The purchaser of home owners insurance is betting against the house that their home will be damaged before the insurance company believes it will be damaged, and of course, the purchaser of a life insurance company is betting against the house that they will die before the insurance company believes they will die. Quite the morbid absurdity but this is the bottom line of insurance schemes and the gamble.

Indeed, insurance companies are the quintessential speculators, and speculation is something the O.P. claims to be against...until, of course, speculation suits his purposes.

Insurance schemes is not health care outside of the Orwellian world so many insist on living in. In the rational world health care is the practice of maintaining health, and failing that healing sickness all of which can function quite fine without insurance schemes...but let's pretend health care cannot function without insurance schemes,and let's pretend that insurance corporations are bastions of free market advocates, and let's pretend that big government will bring us chocolate rivers, marshmallow clouds and tangerine skies.

Originally posted by WTFover

If a religious organization, acting as an employer, chooses to provide insurance coverage to an employee, they have a Constitutionally protected right to choose to not pay for contraceptives, which are in violation of the basic tenets of their religion. They do not have a Constitutionally protected right to prevent their employee from obtaining contraceptives through other means.

The government changed the handling of this to relieve the religious employer from bearing the guilt based on their religious s tenants, while still providing for the employee who does not share the same religious beliefs.

In situations such as this the religious employer can choose not to provide coverage for birth control, and the insurance company is required to step forward and offer the benefit to the employee.

reply to post by Pixiefyre


Again, the argument isn't about that. A "contraceptive" is a device or drug serving to prevent pregnancy. The uses of the medications you've described are not "contraceptive" in nature. So, you are using the term incorrectly.

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by mastahunta

 

If frogs had wings...

If... If... If...

If a religious organization, acting as an employer, chooses to provide insurance coverage to an employee, they have a Constitutionally protected right to choose to not pay for contraceptives, which are in violation of the basic tenets of their religion. They do not have a Constitutionally protected right to prevent their employee from obtaining contraceptives through other means.

You are also engaging in an if because these institutions can opt out of having to pay for
these things they object to on moral grounds.

Originally posted by Pixiefyre
The government changed the handling of this to relieve the religious employer from bearing the guilt based on their religious s tenants, while still providing for the employee who does not share the same religious beliefs.

If you are referring to the ridiculous notion Obama concocted that insurance companies will provide the coverage to the employee, at no charge to the religious organization... Surely you are not that naive.

Originally posted by mastahunta
You are also engaging in an if because these institutions can opt out of having to pay for
these things they object to on moral grounds.

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by Pixiefyre

 

Again, the argument isn't about that. A "contraceptive" is a device or drug serving to prevent pregnancy. The uses of the medications you've described are not "contraceptive" in nature. So, you are using the term incorrectly.

Actually I am not. While the uses of the medications I have described were not contraceptive in nature aside from the two FDA mandated cases I described and the more personal one added at the end of the linked post the specific drugs being used for this are classified as contraceptive and are most commonly recognized publicly as "contraceptive drugs"

Originally posted by WTFover


If you are referring to the ridiculous notion Obama concocted that insurance companies will provide the coverage to the employee, at no charge to the religious organization... Surely you are not that naive.

Well logically if the government has mandated this, your previous statement....

2) If a patient and/or doctor conspire to obtain a prescription for and insurance payment for a particular drug, by falsifying the medical necessity and intended use of that drug, they've committed fraud

Applies equally here if the insurance provider does in fact pass the coverage on to the religious organization they are committing fraud

I must have missed the memo that contraceptives are covered by insurance in the first place, since birth control is for a recreational activity that has as a consequence procreation. This whole argument has turned stupid quick. Maybe if people made more intelligent choices this would not be a issue. Not to mention that contraceptives are not that good vs sexually transmitted disease, so yea you can get the "pill" but are we then expected to all pay in for the diseases that will come from someone else bad decisions?

Originally posted by Pixiefyre
Applies equally here if the insurance provider does in fact pass the coverage on to the religious organization they are committing fraud

Wow! We are way off track here... But, yes you would be correct and if Obama secretly told the insurance companies to do that, he would be a co-conspirator in the fraud.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by mastahunta

 

But one key economic factor is that Pregnancy, Prenatal Care, Birth and complicated pregnancy + delivery, post natal complications are more expensive for Insurance companies than most contraception methods. The is 100% true when you examine the total expense of both -

Once again, the O.P. plays fast and loose with language and expects all to pretend along with him that the ridiculous conspiracy between insurance companies and government is some "free market" concoction, and stupidly thinks just because an organization is parading as a business that free market advocates must own corporations that clearly despise free markets as their own.

I would never say this is a free market concoction, I know full and well it is not.

The O.P. may as well be arguing that baseball players are the same as head bashing serial killers because both use bats as tools.

If your still upset about my other thread we can take it back there any time... I opened up this
thread so that the argument could get away from the "are women, sluts or not arena". I failed
to include the fact that employers are allowed to opt out based upon religious reasons which
hasn't stopped the furious debate anyways.

Further, the argument that insurance companies would rather people not have children so they don't have to turn around and honor the contract they made with those individuals who do get pregnant may certainly be true, but it is absurd. Of course it would be cheaper for insurance companies offering insurance for the expense of pregnancies if all who owned such a policy just simply didn't get pregnant. Hell, it would also be cheaper for insurance companies if people simply did not get sick. Of course, it would be even cheaper for insurance companies to simply pull out of the medical profession all together.

I based this thread on economic reasons because others pushed it into that region in several
other threads. It would not be cheaper for insurance to pull out of the medical profession,
if you want that to be the back bone of your argument I'd be cautious if I were you.

Insurance schemes are nothing more than gambling practices.

Not in my opinion, Oil Speculation is nothing but a casino.

Health Insurance is a finacial model that allows people to pay for medical proceedures
in a world where procedures and short hospital stay can finacial ruin individuals. The
fact that the better health of the majority of the group allows their unused money to be
used to help the smaller minority who is not in good health. If people could afford
cash prices for open heart surgery, there wouldn't be insurance would there?
How low are you gonna go with this??? My premise will not change even if you
suggest water and aspirin for Bi Polar Disorder

Indeed, insurance companies are the quintessential speculators, and speculation is something the O.P. claims to be against...until, of course, speculation suits his purposes.

Oh, you mean people being able to afford regular checkups is something that serves my purpose?
I'll be damned, I am the only person that mortal health on the planet. If you can not distinguish the
difference between access to medical care and extortionary oil prices created by manipulation
of global markets, you are in a sorry moral state as a human being by any measure of morality.

Insurance schemes is not health care outside of the Orwellian world so many insist on living in. In the rational world health care is the practice of maintaining health, and failing that healing sickness all of which can function quite fine without insurance schemes...but let's pretend health care cannot function without insurance schemes,and let's pretend that insurance corporations are bastions of free market advocates, and let's pretend that big government will bring us chocolate rivers, marshmallow clouds and tangerine skies.

So if you befell a mild heart attack tonight, could you pay for your care with cash?
I cannot, you might be a high roller, I certainly cannot afford the cost of even the most
basic surgery at this point.

My best friend had and accident without insurance. Cost him $30,000 for 4 days.
Can you afford a $30,000 hospital stay starting tonight? I think you believe in
Marshmallows and rainbows. And yes, Insurance companies do advocate free market
ideas so they can save money when they revoke policies of dying people. But you
are gonna tell me a dying person is going to engage in a seven year legal battle to have
their policy reinstated aren't you?

reply to post by mastahunta


Maybe you should look into how much less expensive medical care would be if there were no insurance companies. It's really easy. Just ask your GP.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by mastahunta

 

Maybe you should look into how much less expensive medical care would be if there were no insurance companies. It's really easy. Just ask your GP.

I am not saying healthcare is not more expensive, I am saying $20,000 in an ICU as opposed
to $30,000, would not make a huge difference for many people who simply can't afford to pay
that kind of money when the unforeseen need arises. DO you know when you are going to
have a heart attack? A Car accident? A bout with cancer? Insurance exists precisely because
people cannot afford huge financial demands that arise, otherwise everybody would pay cash
now wouldn't they?

You can lead with one very compelling statement, but it is so superficial in its substance
I find it offensive, I am sure you do not mean to offend me to such a degree but it suffices.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by mastahunta

 

If it weren't for your constant disingenuousness I might be inclined to believe you are tragically naive. You my be an ignoramus but you are certainly not naive, tragically or otherwise. You actually think that all you have to do is place spin on something in order to alter the reality of that thing, and of course, you seem to think that truth is only a matter of opinion.

It is your opinion that insurance schemes are not gambling schemes or speculation, is it? You can hide behind opinion all you like, it will not disguise the disingenuousness of declaring that insurance is not speculation. Sure, we can call it "risk management" if you like, but it remains speculation.

You and twisting words? Are you a profesional word twister? You should be because you have a
natural talent. It is speculation, just as death is a certianty. But it serves a vital purpose in society
unlike Oil Speculation which only serves to extort higher prices out of America due to the spongible
nature of OIL.

Again chief, can you afford a $30,000 medical bill tonight? Why don't you grow a pair
and answer my question so we can see how optional the Insurance model really is in modern
America.

Further, your sappy "model" you've presented that implies that insurance is nothing more than like minded people coming together and pooling their resources to allow the less fortunate to enjoy the same medical enmities as the more fortunate is outrageously laughable.

Your ability to twist words is awardable. Insurance is the scheme that achieves the purpose
of people pooling resources to cover each others costs when the smaller majority need medical
attention. Are you trying to assert that over a billion people world wide give their money aware for
fun? Sure enough you take the lowest peg of logic possible and lower the bar to new lows.

The model you present is a fine one it just has nothing to do with the very earnest profit seekers behind insurance companies.

You change positions as often as Imelda Marco's changes shoes. No one was impressed with her closet full of shoes and I suspect few are impressed with your closet full of disposable truths.

when someone figures out a way to remove the profit motive from the insurance industry,
insurance will disappear because people will not have to pay for costs that are not associated
with medical care.

My positions are what they are, I look at utility while you cling to your religion of the almighty dollar.

so lets hear it

Can you afford a $30,000 hospital bill if you had to pay it tonight?

This is what i call a win win topic.

USE Fascist means to take my money from me to enrich those Big Pharma Coporations

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by mastahunta

 

Naturally, this is all you can do, rely upon anecdotal evidence and hope to push emotional buttons by screaming can you afford the expense of heart attack. Histrionics is not a debating style, chief, it is just a silly tantrum.

I did not scream I cannot afford a heart attack, I simply cannot. But you you make it sound as if a
Heart Attack is uncommon, it sounds like you are going to suggest that heart attack victims should
take and aspirin and walk it off. In the world exists a series of events which can be conveyed by
anecdotes, while you seem to be happy to pretend an awful lot, or simply hide the fact that you
care more for ideas than you do living people. I guess because you are not surrounded by heart
attack victims, with very little savings, that most mean that heart attacks do not exists? I mean
you take all concepts of imagination and logic and bludgeon them into a whole new form of reality.

I see you didn't answer the question about your finical means, maybe to hide that fact that you
yourself cannot pay for a heart attack tonight. Which would bring credence to the idea that
you are not arguing in good faith, in fact your entire world view thrives on ignoring the impact
of your ideas on real people.

Got a gun shot wound? Buy some cotton and have a soda!