The "WAr On Women??"

[StrictMasterD]

That may be true but you stil have to have the Insurance Policy on your car
What ever one here si missingi t that WOMEN DO NOT HAVE TO BUY CONTROCEPTION it si therir choice if they do not wantto but it they do not have to, and again those on Birth Control use it more then then just Preventing Pregnancies, they are usedfor varies otherthings
You CAN buy Birth Control if you want you are NOT requiredit all it dsays is your insurancecomany wil pay for it is IF you wantti it does not say you MUST BUY it, with Car insurance YOUMUST buy it their are no options there

[Thorne]

Oops! Wrong thread!

[Thorne]

Girl Scouts Targeted by Catholic Bishops

Personally, any group that can piss off the Catholic Bishops is at least worth looking into as a force for good in this country. If the Bishops don't like what the girl scouts are doing, let them come up with their own organization to teach their propaganda. Call them, "The Nuns" or something.

Oh, wait! They're pissed at the nuns, too!

[js207]

Good point! If we all have to pay anyway, why not pay where we get the most out of it = a system that doesn't have to show a profit, but just has to cover costs?

In practice, that tends not to work; the small profit margin tends to help improve efficiency, which isn't generally something government bodies are known for.

[Punish_her]

Good point! If we all have to pay anyway, why not pay where we get the most out of it = a system that doesn't have to show a profit, but just has to cover costs?

simple: niskanen's bureaucratic budget optimization in public choice theory.
every agency that just covers costs via federal handout seems to have rapidly inflating costs with decrasing efficiency. tell me the dmv is a well-oiled machine

[Punish_her]

That's because health and disease don't work according to commercial rules. To take a current hot issue: as researchers discover genetic predispositions to disease, insurance companies want to screen for them and charge higher premiums. From a business point of view, this is only common sense. From a human point of view, it's cruel discrimination against the sick.

and if they can't charge higher premiums for the sick, they must charge higher premiums for all, which means me, which means they're discriminating against the healthy because i almost never use medical services

[Punish_her]

That may be true but you stil have to have the Insurance Policy on your car
What ever one here si missingi t that WOMEN DO NOT HAVE TO BUY CONTROCEPTION it si therir choice if they do not wantto but it they do not have to, and again those on Birth Control use it more then then just Preventing Pregnancies, they are usedfor varies otherthings
You CAN buy Birth Control if you want you are NOT requiredit all it dsays is your insurancecomany wil pay for it is IF you wantti it does not say you MUST BUY it, with Car insurance YOUMUST buy it their are no options there

if its free why would people not want it?

[StrictMasterD]

No my point is very simple, Car Insurance is Required by Law
As far a Birth Contorl goes, you are NOT being told you have to buy it, all they are sayingis IF YOUWANT IT youer Insurance Company ha to pay for it not you
Ifyou do not want BC Pills don't buy them, they are used as I have said repeatadly for more the justto Prevent becoming Pregnant, BC Pills are used to trea a variety of other issues, not justto keep you from getting pregnant, thae law say the Inusrance Comany must pay for them not the indivudal, if you do not wantthem don't getthem their is no law that says YOU have to buy them it say YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY MUST pay for them but ONLYIF YOU WAN THEM
Insurance is a Requirment therei s a difference
btwi got into a minor accidentthe other day, the other driver HAD NO INSURANCE so iahd have to pay for my dmamge hie can;t has no no insurance and at this point I believe also no liscence now or a car
He was arrested for not having insurance never heard of ANYONE being arrested for not having BC Pills

[Punish_her]

No my point is very simple, Car Insurance is Required by Law
As far a Birth Contorl goes, you are NOT being told you have to buy it, all they are sayingis IF YOUWANT IT youer Insurance Company ha to pay for it not you
Ifyou do not want BC Pills don't buy them, they are used as I have said repeatadly for more the justto Prevent becoming Pregnant, BC Pills are used to trea a variety of other issues, not justto keep you from getting pregnant, thae law say the Inusrance Comany must pay for them not the indivudal, if you do not wantthem don't getthem their is no law that says YOU have to buy them it say YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY MUST pay for them but ONLYIF YOU WAN THEM
Insurance is a Requirment therei s a difference
btwi got into a minor accidentthe other day, the other driver HAD NO INSURANCE so iahd have to pay for my dmamge hie can;t has no no insurance and at this point I believe also no liscence now or a car
He was arrested for not having insurance never heard of ANYONE being arrested for not having BC Pills

if they're free why would a girl not want them, just in case

[StrictMasterD]

Simply put the Law says Your Insurance Company must pay for Brith Control Pills if youwant it does not say aNYTHING about YOU that YOU MUST BUY THEM you don't have to use them if you don't want onlt that the Insurance Comany IF YOU WANT THERM MUST PAY FOR THEM not you

[StrictMasterD]

if they're free why would a girl not want them, just in case

Becauee BC Pills are not just used to Prevent Pregnacies if you read ANY INFO cardon ANY perscription it says " This NMedication isdegiend to Prevent PREGNANCIES OR for other Conditions as directed by your Doctor" BC pills are used by women for a variey ofthings besides preventing Prgnancy
The issue is that people think the BC issue is mandted that they have to getthem they don't BUT IF THEY want to they can for free if someonedoes not wantto get them thats fine they are not required to the only requiremnt is that their Insurance Comany has to pay for them thats all
Some peole may not wantthem even for free as it may violate their Religious Beliefs or Persoanl beliefs that fine they don;t use them their Comapny does not have to pay for them
Why someonewould not wanthem for free is beyond me

[StrictMasterD]

Simply put, the Mandate say ONLY that if you want /birth Controls Pills your Insurance Comanpy wil have to pay for them I does NOT say you have to buy them only that the company has to do that buy ONLY if you want nobody is mandated to buy BC pills all the mandtedwas who pays for them

[Thorne]

Insurance coverage does not necessarily mean free. My pharmacy plan requires I pay a co-pay. Still much cheaper than paying the full price, but certainly not free. Even low cost pills, like birth control pills, would require some co-pay. Plus, some people may not be able to take them, for medical reasons. Plus, Catholics wouldn't be permitted to take them by the Church. (Whether that will KEEP them from taking them is another story!)

The simple answer is, you have no problem with the insurance companies covering YOUR prescriptions, but you have a problem with them covering prescriptions intended solely for women. The reasons they take them are of no concern to you. Only that YOU can't use them, so you don't think they should get them.

[StrictMasterD]

Insurance coverage does not necessarily mean free. My pharmacy plan requires I pay a co-pay. Still much cheaper than paying the full price, but certainly not free. Even low cost pills, like birth control pills, would require some co-pay. Plus, some people may not be able to take them, for medical reasons. Plus, Catholics wouldn't be permitted to take them by the Church. (Whether that will KEEP them from taking them is another story!)

The simple answer is, you have no problem with the insurance companies covering YOUR prescriptions, but you have a problem with them covering prescriptions intended solely for women. The reasons they take them are of no concern to you. Only that YOU can't use them, so you don't think they should get them.

I understand that Thorne, my point was most of the cost minus a samll co pay is your insurance or as you put it you do not wantthe pill you do not andare not madated to buy them just becaue you insurance covers most of the expesne if they don'twant BC that si their choice but I assume there are other meds they will need to buy for onereason or another, the Mandate is directedat the Inusrance Companies they must pick up mostof the cost it is not Mandte the everyone needs to buy them

[js207]

No my point is very simple, Car Insurance is Required by Law

Not comprehensive car insurance, though: all you're required to insure against is damage done to other people by your driving. There's no requirement for you to insure against your own car being stolen, wrecked or torched, because that's your own problem.

The problem with requiring contraception to be paid for by "the insurance company" is that ultimately all you're doing is forcing it to be included with the premiums - which, of course, will go up as a result. Surely better to point people struggling with the cost at the low-cost options - $9 at Target - or free ones such as Planned Parenthood, rather than fighting over ramming through yet another coverage mandate, forcing insurance costs up another little bit?

[StrictMasterD]

Ok, basic liability is required by we are getting off the point which is simply women do NOT HAVE TO BUY PC if they do not want to all that was mandated was how it was paid for not who had to use it, that Insurance Companiw must pay for it ONLY,ONLY,ONLY is the LADY WANT IT, THEY DO NOT HAVE TO BUY IT, that is not, what was Mandated only how it was paid for was, that Insurance Companie if the Lady wants it her Insruance Company was required to pay for it minus a pssibile small co-payment by her not sure what is not clear here
If A lady WANTS BC Pills most of it must be paid for by her Insurance Comapny the BILL DOES NOT SAY SHE HAS TO BUY IT only that her Insurance Company must pay for it minus a small co paymeny by her

[ksst]

I'm a bit confused by this, but I would not take birth control pills even if they were free. I was on them previous to having kids and my Master did not like the side effects. He said I should not go back on the pill so I have not.

Our insurance (privately purchased) has a huge deductible, which means that we pay for everything out of pocket anyway. So we give them lots of money every month on the off chance that one of us gets a serious illness and we would actually use the insurance. Otherwise they pay for nothing. We can't afford the lower deductible plans at all.

I hate the insurance companies, and would love to see us go to a health system like Canada, single payer plan. And yes, birth control pills should be covered by whatever plan is in place. They are a lot cheaper than an unwanted pregnancy.

[Punish_her]

Insurance coverage does not necessarily mean free. My pharmacy plan requires I pay a co-pay. Still much cheaper than paying the full price, but certainly not free. Even low cost pills, like birth control pills, would require some co-pay. Plus, some people may not be able to take them, for medical reasons. Plus, Catholics wouldn't be permitted to take them by the Church. (Whether that will KEEP them from taking them is another story!)

The simple answer is, you have no problem with the insurance companies covering YOUR prescriptions, but you have a problem with them covering prescriptions intended solely for women. The reasons they take them are of no concern to you. Only that YOU can't use them, so you don't think they should get them.

that's a comical, offensive twisting of my words.
if you fall into the, what is it, 14% that uses bc for non bc reasons, cover them. if you just want to save 9$ a month, not a reason

[Thorne]

if you fall into the, what is it, 14% that uses bc for non bc reasons, cover them.

But that's the problem! Religious organizations, such as the Catholic Church, don't want to have to pay premiums for their employees and have birth control pills covered, for ANY reason! The same with the pro-forced birth crowd. Any medication that might allow a woman to enjoy sex without the risk of pregnancy, regardless of the actual reasons for her taking the meds, is hateful to them! Really, this is not a cost issue. As you yourself note, the cost of the pills is negligible, and by having them covered by insurance, and thus made available to more women, the costs would drop even more.

[leo9]

In practice, that tends not to work; the small profit margin tends to help improve efficiency, which isn't generally something government bodies are known for.

Then why are healthcare costs in the US twice or three times as much as they are in all those "inefficient" government run systems in other countries? (For poorer health outcomes, in many areas.) Could it have something to do with the need for corporations to keep paying their shareholders? Or is it - as our recent economic disasters suggest - that the whole idea that capitalism automatically means efficiency is a myth?

[denuseri]

Looks up. Well well said Sir leo!

[leo9]

and if they can't charge higher premiums for the sick, they must charge higher premiums for all, which means me, which means they're discriminating against the healthy because i almost never use medical services

And I'd guess you rarely need to call the police, so why should you have to pay taxes to support the police force? And you haven't had a house fire, so you shouldn't be expected to contribute to the fire brigade either. And foreign enemies haven't recently threatened you personally, so what are the government doing expecting you to contribute to the defence budget...?

[StrictMasterD]

Then why are healthcare costs in the US twice or three times as much as they are in all those "inefficient" government run systems in other countries? (For poorer health outcomes, in many areas.) Could it have something to do with the need for corporations to keep paying their shareholders? Or is it - as our recent economic disasters suggest - that the whole idea that capitalism automatically means efficiency is a myth?

No it is so Pharmcutial Comaspnies can send Billions upon Billions on R&D and pay thier CEO's etc $25,000,000 a year in slalry plus bonuses it is all about the money noting more,Pharmacitical Companies could care less about the average American Joe, they do it for the Money
They jsut said on the new tonight that the CIO of Chase, although she resigned do to the scandal, that she was paid $23 mill, in salary last years and got a "Serverence Check" today for $15 Million and she ovewr saw the issue and did noting so it cost Chase $2-4 Milioni n comapny money, they did mention money last was NOT customer money but their own money, yet she recieive as $15 miloin dolar bomus as service pay for costing her company to loos $2-4 Billion,?? No wonder our Costs and bank feesare so high, if i cost my company that kind of money I would not only be out a job but possibly facing criminal charges

[Punish_her]

And I'd guess you rarely need to call the police, so why should you have to pay taxes to support the police force? And you haven't had a house fire, so you shouldn't be expected to contribute to the fire brigade either. And foreign enemies haven't recently threatened you personally, so what are the government doing expecting you to contribute to the defence budget...?

once again, you dontseem to know what the word "insurance" means, or "risk averse" or "hedge"

[js207]

And I'd guess you rarely need to call the police, so why should you have to pay taxes to support the police force?

You pay more in higher-risk circumstances, yes: high risk events generally seem to pay for it, and of course more valuable properties pay higher taxes too. Just as smokers pay considerably more toward the NHS than non-smokers.

And you haven't had a house fire, so you shouldn't be expected to contribute to the fire brigade either.

My building's high risk - big gas-powered generators in the basement - and we do indeed pay a substantial amount extra to the fire brigade each year because of it. Bigger properties also tend to pay higher taxes generally, to fund such services, as well as being held to higher standards regarding fire alarms, extinguishers etc.

As for price: yes, the NHS is cheap. It's also very nearly killed me once due to inadequate staffing (or rather, politically skewed staffing: instead of a proper hospital, they were fighting to keep a "cottage hospital" open with no actual doctors in, hence no properly trained staff when complications occurred). I'd rather have an expensive system that doesn't kill me, thanks.

[leo9]

No it is so Pharmcutial Comaspnies can send Billions upon Billions on R&D and pay thier CEO's etc $25,000,000 a year in slalry plus bonuses it is all about the money noting more,Pharmacitical Companies could care less about the average American Joe, they do it for the Money
They jsut said on the new tonight that the CIO of Chase, although she resigned do to the scandal, that she was paid $23 mill, in salary last years and got a "Serverence Check" today for $15 Million and she ovewr saw the issue and did noting so it cost Chase $2-4 Milioni n comapny money, they did mention money last was NOT customer money but their own money, yet she recieive as $15 miloin dolar bomus as service pay for costing her company to loos $2-4 Billion,?? No wonder our Costs and bank feesare so high, if i cost my company that kind of money I would not only be out a job but possibly facing criminal charges

Like I said: the claim that capitalism leads to efficiency is a myth. Corporations waste money on a scale that no government outside China could get away with.

[Punish_her]

Like I said: the claim that capitalism leads to efficiency is a myth. Corporations waste money on a scale that no government outside China could get away with.

if chase is wasting its own money, who cares? the government wastes FAR more money, and its my money that they're wasting

[leo9]

if chase is wasting its own money, who cares? the government wastes FAR more money, and its my money that they're wasting

If you think a bank's losses are nobody else's problem, you really haven't been paying attention. Banks don't make money out of thin air, though they often talk as if they did, to cover up the fact that their money comes from the same place as everyone else's, the hard work of ordinary folk.

These losses will come out of the pockets of their customers, in poorer interest rates and higher charges, and out of the general economy, in less loans to business, depressing trade. Even if they never have to apply for a government bailout, they are sustained on the market by the certainty that the government will catch them if they fall: and the government's credit rating is the poorer because the markets know it could be exposed to that kind of unplanned cost. Which means that when the banks look shaky, government borrowing costs the government more, which comes out of your taxes. "No free lunch" applies to bad stuff as well as good.

It's all of a piece with what I've been trying to explain about social welfare issues like health and policing and emergency services. Society is all interconnected, that's what "society" means, and anyone who thinks they can live as a heroically independent individual within it is dreaming. Unfortunately, it's a dream that a lot of politicians and business leaders like to encourage, since people don't act collectively if they think their neighbours' troubles are nothing to do with them. Divide and rule at the personal level.

[Punish_her]

If you think a bank's losses are nobody else's problem, you really haven't been paying attention. Banks don't make money out of thin air, though they often talk as if they did, to cover up the fact that their money comes from the same place as everyone else's, the hard work of ordinary folk.

These losses will come out of the pockets of their customers, in poorer interest rates and higher charges, and out of the general economy, in less loans to business, depressing trade. Even if they never have to apply for a government bailout, they are sustained on the market by the certainty that the government will catch them if they fall: and the government's credit rating is the poorer because the markets know it could be exposed to that kind of unplanned cost. Which means that when the banks look shaky, government borrowing costs the government more, which comes out of your taxes. "No free lunch" applies to bad stuff as well as good.

It's all of a piece with what I've been trying to explain about social welfare issues like health and policing and emergency services. Society is all interconnected, that's what "society" means, and anyone who thinks they can live as a heroically independent individual within it is dreaming. Unfortunately, it's a dream that a lot of politicians and business leaders like to encourage, since people don't act collectively if they think their neighbours' troubles are nothing to do with them. Divide and rule at the personal level.

ah yes, i do love getting lectures on the banking system, its not as if im about to complete a masters degree in the field or anything.
1) you're absolutely right, their money does come from the hard work of ordinary folk . . . which will grow with interest if they give it to a bank.
2) if you're literally losing money by having it in a bank, you wont leave it in the bank. thats just stupid
3) bailout and fdic insurance is not the same. at all really
4) a 500 billion dollar bailout would only make up 13% of the federal budget. considering the deficit is already projected to be 2.5 times that, i got a feeling its not that big of a deal
5) seems that you really just want free shit from other people. you said yourself "no such thing as a free lunch" but then you find it unbelievable that people should pay out of their pocket for fire protection, health services, or police.
and finally, in the wake of serious losses, the cio steps down, and this is inefficient? usps loses about 3 billion every quarter, and they close only a few offices. right, super efficient

[denuseri]

Which has what exactly to do with a supposed war on women?