Contraception coverage and related insurance issues

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Postby The Heretic » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:14 am

portia wrote:If there is a single payer system and that system pays for something someone feels it shouldn't, persons who object will nevertheless be "forced" to pay for that something, as they will be forced to pay their taxes.

(Aside: just as people in the US are "forced" to pay for public schools, even if they are bad, and even if those people also pay for private schools.)

So, here is another instance of people being forced to pay for something, whether or not they approve of it or use it, because that is how society is set up. There is little or no choice about it, regardless of how we rationalize it to ourselves. Ideologically, some of us might not like it but, under present conditions, we have to lump it.

Well, both are using force, but, in one the state is taking the taxpayers (my) money in the form of taxes to pay for a public work (schools, that it generally mandates use of).
In the other the state is forcing me as private person, to hand my money (as not taxes) over to a private company for another private persons personal benefit. (Or simply put forces me to pay for your contraceptives for your personal benefit).

I would put your argument here in the same vein as your prior one where you suggested that since I was against the use of force to take what is my, I must also be against the use of force to prevent me from taking what belongs to others.
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Postby hamlet » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:42 am

RoseMorninStar wrote:
However, arguing that the insurance companies are bad because they don't cover everything is falacious as they were simply not designed to do so. It's like arguing that your car insurance company is evil because it doesn't pay for your oil changes, fuel, or tire replacement. That isn't what it's for.


I also do not believe insurance companies should cover everything, nor have I argued that they are bad because they do not do so. The two types of insurance are too different to compare, IMO. It doesn't help clarify the discussion. They have very different purposes. Fueling a car would be the equivalent to a human fueling themselves--(eating meals). One might compare oil changes to caring for one's body/brushing ones teeth, exercise, not drinking in excess, eating a healthy diet. Tires would be the equivalent of shoes or protective clothing.

Vehicle coverage.. no matter how well or how poorly you care for your vehicle.. is not intended to replace or repair your car. An engine is not a heart. Rust is not cancer. A dent is not a broken leg. Engine/transmission failure.. your fault or no, will not be covered. Auto insurance is not designed that way. If a vehicle falls apart due to poor maintenance or even if it was poorly constructed/a lemon, your car will not be replaced. A human being, and all the things that can happen, and why and how they happen, are just too different to compare.


You're still misunderstanding me.

I'm not saying that a human body is like a car. I'm saying ONLY that health insurance is set up on the model of car insurance (i.e., something goes wrong, the insurance pays part of the cost to repair/heal the problem) and not on the model of health care.


Jnyusa: I'd take your anecdote with a massive grain of salt if only because I know of absolutely no Catholic authority (or family for that matter) that would refuse a woman medication (even if it were, ostensibly, a birth control pill) for an off label therapy that was meant to give the woman a normal life (or as close as can be managed) in the future.

Who, in your story, forbade the girl the medication? Parents or Church? I, somehow, have doubts about the nature of your story.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10562
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Postby vison » Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:38 am

hamlet wrote:I'm not saying that a human body is like a car. I'm saying ONLY that health insurance is set up on the model of car insurance (i.e., something goes wrong, the insurance pays part of the cost to repair/heal the problem) and not on the model of health care.



I agree with you, hamlet.

oldtoby: yes.
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby hamlet » Tue Mar 20, 2012 8:12 am

vison wrote:
hamlet wrote:I'm not saying that a human body is like a car. I'm saying ONLY that health insurance is set up on the model of car insurance (i.e., something goes wrong, the insurance pays part of the cost to repair/heal the problem) and not on the model of health care.



I agree with you, hamlet.



Something has gone wrong with the world, then. Up is down, black is white, the Old Ones are risen!

Ia Ia Cthulhu Ftaghn!
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10562
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Postby portia » Tue Mar 20, 2012 8:22 am

The Heretic wrote:Well, both are using force, but, in one the state is taking the taxpayers (my) money in the form of taxes to pay for a public work (schools, that it generally mandates use of).
In the other the state is forcing me as private person, to hand my money (as not taxes) over to a private company for another private persons personal benefit. (Or simply put forces me to pay for your contraceptives for your personal benefit).

I would put your argument here in the same vein as your prior one where you suggested that since I was against the use of force to take what is my, I must also be against the use of force to prevent me from taking what belongs to others.


It is a distinction without a difference.
Anyone with a reasonably agile mind can find some way to draw a distinction between/among two or more things. But is there a real difference? I suggest not.

Money paid out is paid out regardless to whom. Force is force regardless of who exerts it. If it makes a difference to you, psychologically, that is up to you. An objective view could be very different.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Postby hamlet » Tue Mar 20, 2012 8:35 am

And, for the record, no, I don't think Health Insurance should cover birth control unless it is being used for treatment or therapy for another condition. And not because of Heretic's reasons, but because it's an imposition on me the taxpayer to have to pay for somebody else's sexuality. Rather, I think that, for the most part, birth control is an inexpensive item (I'm talking certain things here since, yes, I know that certain forms of control are more expensive) and one that is utilized as a matter of choice rather than neccessity (i.e., nobody is required to have sex in order to live a healthy life). Health Insurance should cover other things.

Health CARE on the other hand, yes, should cover basic birth control methods and encourage them as opposed to things like abortion, which is phenomenally more expensive than just utliziing a condom in the first place.

But again, two different animals.

When it comes down to it, I think the US should have both. Health Insurance should be a service that one can purchase, or receive as an employment benefit that provides a supplement that covers that which Health Care does not. Health Care (as in much like the NHS) would cover all essential treatments and emergency treatments, but would not cover elective or non-essential services (like birth control, cosmetic surgery, non-emergency abortion, etc.).
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10562
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Postby Faramond » Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:50 pm

Jn --

I had a great reply to your post, but it was gobbled up by my clumsy fingers hitting the wrong keys, and I'm not going to type it out again. I guess you win then. Here is my concession speech:

Long live Contraception! Viva Contraception!
User avatar
Faramond
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1366
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 11:06 pm
Top

Postby Jnyusa » Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:05 pm

Farmond wrote: I had a great reply to your post, but it was gobbled up by my clumsy fingers hitting the wrong keys, and I'm not going to type it out again.


Faramond, I'm sorry!

But you know what? I'm not happy with my own last response. I was kept awake last night thinking about this, because I like my arguments to be syllogistic and this one was not. Why is it so hard to speak about this deductively? That's what was keeping me awake.

And I decided that the reason we can't draw neat comparisons and deduce from them is because there is nothing in a man's sex life that has impact comparable to menstruation and pregnancy. There's just nothing you could deny to a man that would approximate what is being denied to a woman when this kind of medical care is denied.

I feel it so strongly in my gut that this is a civil rights issue - it is a question of equal treatment under the law, and arguments about government coercion, and 'go pay for your own' are willfully misplaced. But we have to get outside the medical field to find the analogous civil rights situation, I think. There just isn't an analogous situation inside medicine because men's reproductive experiences and needs are nothing like women's.

It's not about clearing the way for sex without accountability, as the Church would like to present it. That would make contraception and viagra sort of comparable, maybe. But if you skip your viagra you don't get pregnant! The magnitude of consequence is so different ... forget legal consequence, the magnitude of physical consequence is so different, this is why contraception is included in the standard of care for prevention while things like viagra are not.

So I was trying to think last night about something analogous, where arguments of equivalence are not appropriate because the starting points are too different ... and the one thing I could think of was integration of schools back in the late 1950s and 1960s, an era that I personally lived through. There were people who were against busing, as you know. And some of them had religious reasons for their opposition. They thought it would promote miscegenation and this was against their religion. (I believe that religious schools were at first exampt from integration -- got to double-check that though ... but I think they were not forced to accept all colors until the 1964 Civil Rights Act.)

Anyway, you have two non-equivalent starting points here, insofar as children have to go to the public school nearest where they live, and public schools are in most cases paid for out of property taxes. So the quality of the school reflects the social class division of the neighborhood and in the 1950 and 1960 this correlated to race more strongly than it does today. One school was poor and black, and the other school was white and prosperous. How do you equalize the opportunity of both children?

Well, you can't, really. But you can de-institutionalize the inequality, and you can do that in a lot of different ways:

- you can change the way schools are funded; and that would mean that prosperous white neighborhoods are now forced to subsidize black neighborhood schools with their tax dollars.

- you can integrate the neighborhoods, so that black kids have an equal chance of landing in schools that are already funded by more prosperous counterparts. Feasible, and tried, but because you can't force people to live where they don't want to live, "White Flight" simply pushed the problem forward into the future. The new neighborhood shortly becomes as poor as the old neighborhood was.

- you can integrate the school by moving the kids. And, notice, we only moved black kids into white schools. We did not move white kids into black schools. That asymmetry is profoundly illuminating.

And there was outrage, and national guardsmen assigned to accompany kids to school, and marches and beatings and shootings and church burnings, and I don't have to relate all this. You can watch it all in one of the Bill Moyer's specials.

White people didn't want to integrate and a lot of black people didn't either, but for the black person there was a visible, concrete benefit to living through the horrors of integration, whereas the white person who supported it had to do so out some pretty abstract principles ... higher productivity, a rights-reasoned legal system, and good old justice and morality. Just as there were people who opposed integration on religious grounds there were people who supported it on religious grounds, the Catholics and Jews being significant among them.

So, what's the analogy?

The analogy is in the nature of the argument against. (This is why I said that if there were evidentiary debate my tone would be different.)

Let us suppose that the opponent of all three plans above does want to find a way to provide equal access and equal opportunity for blacks but just doesn't like any of those three plans. The sort of argument you hear from that sort of person:
• it will acknowledge the gulph between the two starting points
• include evidentiary reasons why those plans won't work, but also
• include alternative plans whose merits can be debated

So you might hear someone argue that stronger affirmative action in hiring laws or more active promotion of property ownership should be coupled with voluntary desegregation of the schools instead of relying so heavily on involuntary desegregation ... some other mix of redress, in other words. I sat through many a debate like this, many of my friends thought our tactics were wrong while agreeing with the principle. I still participate in such discussions today on campus - 'what's the best way to attack inequality,' but not, 'how do we keep equality from happening.'

Then let us suppose instead that the opponent of all three plans really does not want blacks to have equal access and equal opportunity, but doesn't feel they can say this outright because it is racist and racism is no longer acceptable as it once was. Then:

• The gulph between starting points will be ignored. When it comes up in the debate, they change the subject.

• Changing the nature of society always involves coercion - doesn't matter what you're trying to implement, someone is going to be doing it against their will. So coercion becomes the focal point because the coercive elements of social change will always be highly visible.

In the case of busing it was much easier for black opponents to make this argument than for white opponents to make it because it was black children being shipped across town. When white opponents made this argument it had a different twist: the federal government is coercing the rights of the states to decide whether to integrate or not, not the rights of parents to decide where their children will go to school.

• It's against my religion for the races to mix. It's not an 11th amendment issue, it's a 1st amendment issue.

• It's discriminatory against white people who pay for their own children's schooling to have to expand the capacity of their schools for someone else's kids. Let the black parents pay for their own children, just like we do. This is the 'separate but equal' argument.

Now ... I hear in this discussion here, about women's health issues, all arguments of the second category, not the first: it's not my problem to fund your inequality, it's against my religion, and it's coercion by the federal government.

There is an underlying presumption about rights that is not being revealed because it would be deleterious to the argument: namely, that rights do not follow the circumstance, they follow the prejudice. This is the presumption 'outed' by A. France's oft-quoted comment on the equality of justice -- the rich are also prohibited from begging in the streets, sleeping under bridges, and stealing bread, so ... we're cool with those laws.

It's not possible to prohibit men from doing something with their sex lives and have it be comparable in impact to prohibiting contraception to women. Heretic says he does not want to deny contraception to women, he just wants them to pay for it themselves. But every other necessary health event in men's lives is being paid for and that is what matters in this issue. In the same way that if it were an insurance issue of covering pharmaceuticals, you could not grant coverage to one gender and not the other.

Either he is arguing disingenuously, or he does not understand that this difference is profound, or he is himself deceived by the nature of the propaganda he receives. But his arguments fall exactly into line with the arguments used to perpetuate racial inequality:
• deny there is any significant asymmetry
• keep the government out of it
• religion trumps everything

LIke I said, I do not need a translator when I hear this kind of argument made. But I do acknowledge that people sometimes make or repeat arguments they have heard without fully understanding the significance of what they are saying.

Now, I will go even further and say that with regard to health issues, women have been discriminated against in the past as horrifically as blacks were discriminated against in employment, education, property ownership, etc. I personally do not find civil rights in health care to be the least bit trivial. Control over reproduction makes as huge a difference to women as equal opportunity in education makes to minorities -- it determines all future opportunities. To de-institutionalize previous inequalities by enumerating what is entailed in a standard of care for women, this is truly significant.

To do an about-face on this because of some men's belief that women's health (and women's health alone) is a religious issue and not a medical issue ... this is almost too awful to listen to.
User avatar
Jnyusa
Mariner

 
Posts: 5934
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:24 pm
Top

Postby The Heretic » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:01 pm

Another example of Jnyusa willfully misrepresenting what I have said. I said I am not willing to be forced to pay for your contraception, (nor do you have any right to do so, I am not in your debt)(here, does this help any: I am also unwilling to be forced to pay for Cenedril_Gildnaur's condoms or sterilization (apologies to C_G if he objects to my use of his name)). Then followed by the attempt to end the debate or silence the opponent through insuating racism/bigotry. (See the other thread as well or the Superhighway thread for more examples of this attempt).
portia wrote:
The Heretic wrote:Well, both are using force, but, in one the state is taking the taxpayers (my) money in the form of taxes to pay for a public work (schools, that it generally mandates use of).
In the other the state is forcing me as private person, to hand my money (as not taxes) over to a private company for another private persons personal benefit. (Or simply put forces me to pay for your contraceptives for your personal benefit).

I would put your argument here in the same vein as your prior one where you suggested that since I was against the use of force to take what is my, I must also be against the use of force to prevent me from taking what belongs to others.


It is a distinction without a difference.
Anyone with a reasonably agile mind can find some way to draw a distinction between/among two or more things. But is there a real difference? I suggest not.

Money paid out is paid out regardless to whom. Force is force regardless of who exerts it. If it makes a difference to you, psychologically, that is up to you. An objective view could be very different.


No there is big difference as I laid out (as well as the subject change).
This then relates back to your earlier suggestion that since I was against the use of force to take what is mine for your benefit, I must also be against the use of force to prevent me from taking what belongs to others for mine.
Since you are in favor of the use of force to take what is mine for your benefit, you then must be in favor of me using force to take what is yours for my personal benefit.
Last edited by The Heretic on Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Postby portia » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:25 pm

Give it up, Heretic.
Your views are your own and you are the one who will have to answer for them.
All sorts of points of view are possible in the country, and much of the rest of the world, for which we should be very grateful, but the fact that you believe you are right does not compel anyone else to agree with you.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Postby JewelSong » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:46 pm

Gee, Heretic - you must hate paying taxes.
User avatar
JewelSong
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4634
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 6:31 am
Top

Postby The Heretic » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:49 pm

portia wrote:Give it up, Heretic.
Your views are your own and you are the one who will have to answer for them.
All sorts of points of view are possible in the country, and much of the rest of the world, for which we should be very grateful, but the fact that you believe you are right does not compel anyone else to agree with you.

I think you are projecting, portia. You are the one who wants to compel others.
And is "give it up" another way of saying "shut up"?
'Cause that goes back to my previous point about the false claims of control. You want to take want is mine, for your personal benefit no less, and then tell me I have no say in the matter. Who wants to control whom?
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Postby JewelSong » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:52 pm

:rofl:
User avatar
JewelSong
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4634
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 6:31 am
Top

Postby portia » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:58 pm

The Heretic wrote:
portia wrote:Give it up, Heretic.
Your views are your own and you are the one who will have to answer for them.
All sorts of points of view are possible in the country, and much of the rest of the world, for which we should be very grateful, but the fact that you believe you are right does not compel anyone else to agree with you.


You want to take want is mine, for your personal benefit no less, and then tell me I have no say in the matter. Who wants to control whom?


Your comments on what you think I want are fantasy. You haven't the remotest idea what I want.

"Give it up" means that you have beaten that drum a long time without effect, and in spite of your errors being pointed out to you. You should think of something else to say.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Postby The Heretic » Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:07 pm

portia wrote:
The Heretic wrote:
portia wrote:Give it up, Heretic.
Your views are your own and you are the one who will have to answer for them.
All sorts of points of view are possible in the country, and much of the rest of the world, for which we should be very grateful, but the fact that you believe you are right does not compel anyone else to agree with you.


You want to take want is mine, for your personal benefit no less, and then tell me I have no say in the matter. Who wants to control whom?


Your comments on what you think I want are fantasy. You haven't the remotest idea what I want.

"Give it up" means that you have beaten that drum a long time without effect, and in spite of your errors being pointed out to you. You should think of something else to say.

Hmm, no errors yet pointed out, and my "fantasy" is backed up by your assertions on the matter, to wit that I should be forced to pay (and should "lump it"). Or do you think Obama's mandate is wrong, and do not support it?
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Postby Faramond » Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:45 pm

That's a good, thoughtful post, Jn, but there is no chance I will participate in a thread that has basically become a group clubbing of another poster, no matter how much people feel he may deserve it.
User avatar
Faramond
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1366
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 11:06 pm
Top

Postby RoseMorninStar » Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:18 am

The Heretic wrote:
JewelSong wrote:The Heretic: May I ask you - is there ANY aspect of health care coverage that you feel *should* be mandated? A minimum standard of some sort, similar to automobile regulations?

Or do you feel that health care coverage should be entirely up to the insurers...which would mean that a person's health care coverage could vary wildly depending on where he or she worked. That doesn't seem at all fair to me (and would make any kind of hospitalization or office visits a paperwork nightmare) but...is that what you support?

I guess I don't understand why you are apparently not upset about paying for various aspects of health care coverage NOW (which you are, if you are insured) and very upset about paying for contraception.


(Back to changing the subject) Why would I be upset about paying for something that I choose to pay for (if I am not mistaken, currently my health plan covers contraception)?

How many more times do I have to say this?

I object to being forced to pay for your health care.
Should I choose to do so, I do not object to paying for your health care.

Notice the two different italicized words in those two sentences, in the first, the word is forced, in the second the word is choose.

I do not object to paying for health insurance at my choice.
I object to being forced to pay for health insurance.

Again, those two words forced, and choice.

One mandated, the other voluntary.

I do not object to contraception. (I think opposing contraception is silly, however, I am not willing to force others to go against their moral beliefs on the issue). I do not object to paying for contraception. I don't object to insurance covering contraception. I don't object to paying for health insurance that covers contraception.
I do object to it if I am forced to pay for it.

Can you see the difference?

I don't object to paying for health insurance that covers contraception, and you are in the same pool (or vastly simplified, I don't object to paying for your contraceptives).
I do object to you demanding I pay (or using the power of the state to make me pay) for insurance that covers contraception (or vastly simplied, I object to you forcing me to pay for your contraceptives).

I understand what you are saying.. right up until the last sentence ... and then you lose me.

I can completely understand someone objecting to any sort of mandated 'forced' insurance (and we certainly could argue the pros/cons, but that is not our point here). What I do not understand is why contraceptives are being singled out for attack/discussion/objection/whatever out of all the various treatments, medications, etc.. etc.. that a health plan/insurance offers. There are many aspects of day-to-day health that is a direct result of choices one makes that are far from 'accidental'.. Smoking/cancer, being overweight and the myriad of health problems it can cause requiring daily prescriptions for cholesterol or high blood pressure medication or insulin for diabetes, to knee & hip replacements, heart bypasses (and on & on) that are covered by insurance/health care plans. This is where my confusion lies. (And where Jnyusa's recent post comes in?)

I could expand on this.. but I will leave it here for now to avoid further confusion.
User avatar
RoseMorninStar
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 12800
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 10:34 pm
Location: North Shire
Top

Postby The Heretic » Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:10 am

RoseMorninStar wrote:I can completely understand someone objecting to any sort of mandated 'forced' insurance (and we certainly could argue the pros/cons, but that is not our point here). What I do not understand is why contraceptives are being singled out for attack/discussion/objection/whatever out of all the various treatments, medications, etc.. etc.. that a health plan/insurance offers.
Because the issue as brought up (by basil?) in the other thread, was contraception and abortion. It was not cancer, hip replacements etc.) Though when other others try and change the subject to that, I have said that I also object to being forced to pay for your (insert imaginary supposed medical condition).
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Postby JewelSong » Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:02 am

I don't understand how you are being "forced" to pay.
User avatar
JewelSong
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4634
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 6:31 am
Top

Postby Minardil » Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:19 am

Why would I be upset about paying for something that I choose to pay for (if I am not mistaken, currently my health plan covers contraception)?


Conservatives keep talking about having the freedom to "choose" when it comes to Health Insurance, but realistically what choices are available to any of us?

Most of us who actually HAVE Health Insurance get it through our employers. As a benefit of our employment it is part of our compensation, but most of us still make some out-of-pocket contributions to the premiums through payroll deductions, and of course most of us have co-pays etc when we actually go to use any medical services. The point being here that we ARE paying for our insurance, we aren't getting it "for free".

But what CHOICE do we really have, with regard to what type of coverage or level of coverage we get? When I first entered the workforce the company I joined offered a couple standard options, either a traditional Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan or a an HMO. I took the HMO and my premiums were $28 for my individual coverage (I was single then), and I had pretty good coverage with $0 copays on most services. When I got married and had kids, my coverage went up to about $100 a month. Over the years, the copays creeped up slightly.

Now, over 15 years later, things are very different.

First, few companies offer "choices" to their employees. They offer ONE plan for everyone, you can take that plan, or no plan at all. My current employer does not offer coverage for my family at all. I get individual coverage for MYSELF alone at a cost of about $300 a month. Luckily my wfe and kids get coverage through her job, but that costs HER $700 a month, so our total PREMIUMS have gone from $100 to $1000 a month in the last ten years. And our co-pay's have increased from nominal ammounts to a signficant portion of the bill. When I had my two kids, my co-pay was zero. Under my current plan, I'd have to pay 20% of the costs, which would run into thousands of dollars. That's on top of the huge increase in premiums I'm already paying.

I suppose that TECHNICALLY I could go out on the open market and buy my own insurance, but really I've LOOKED, and buying Health Insurance on the "open market" is even more expensive than what I get through my employer, and the coverage is worse, so REALLY, the only "choice" available to ME is to take whatever plan my company offers. And I'd say that situation is really pretty typical, so what we have is a de facto monopoly on health care insurance in the hands of employer, where the majority of us who have insurance have NO access to any sort of competitive options.


Given that situation, isn't reasonable that the Government implement some common sense regulatory oversight to ensure that these monopolies provide a bare minimum level of acceptable services? Since we realistically DON'T have the option of switching to a new insurance company if our current provider decides not to cover a service that we need, is it really wrong for the government to establish minimum levels of coverage that ALL plans must meet, just to keep the monopoly that controls our insurance from screwing us over to make a buck? Isn't THAT what happened here? The government didn't mandate contraceptive coverage SPECIFICALLY, at least that wasn't the whole point, the law mandated a level of minimum coverage that included female contraception among many other services. And wisely so, I think.

Conservatives think the problem here is that their "freedom to choose" has been trampled on and that the "free market" should be allowed to provide these goods and services without government interference.

I'd say that sounds GREAT, and I would support that idea EXCEPT that for the last decade or more, my own experience has shown me that the Health Insurance "free market" has NOT been able to provide me with anything LIKE the "freedom to choose" the best coverage for myself and my family at the best price. Quite the opposite, the market, acting on it's own, has reduced my choices to zero, stripped my family of coverage, and driven my costs through the roof. And that's for people who HAVE coverage! The "market" has done even less to provide insurance solutions to people who don't have access to coverage through an employer based plan.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Postby portia » Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:25 am

If a person voluntarily becomes part of an insurance pool, they take on the rules of that pool. No one, even under Obamacare, will be forced into a pool. a person can opt out and pay the "penalty" (Less than insurance, IIRC)

So, If you do not want to contribute to a pool that will help to pay for someone else's health-related decisions; opt out. (I do not consider that a very good choice, but if "force" is so offensive to you, you can avoid it by opting out).

The problem is an illusion. it exists only because you want it both ways: You want others to pay for your choices, but not to pay for someone else's choices. If that is not true, and you don't want others to pay for your choices, you need only opt out.

Problem solved.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Postby vison » Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:25 am

Minardil, excellent post. Full of that uncommon commodity: common sense.

And, good luck.
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby JewelSong » Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:50 am

Min, great post and also good follow-up by Portia.

This is why Heretic's posts seem so confusing to me. I don't understand what kind of "choice" he actually has and why this one issue is a deal-breaker for him.
User avatar
JewelSong
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4634
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 6:31 am
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:52 am

The Heretic wrote:Then followed by the attempt to end the debate or silence the opponent through insuating racism/bigotry. (See the other thread as well or the Superhighway thread for more examples of this attempt).


That's pretty common around here actually. I used to think that said insinuations were the last resort of one who has run out of arguments, but lately they've been coming earlier and earlier into the arguments.

The Heretic wrote:Since you are in favor of the use of force to take what is mine for your benefit, you then must be in favor of me using force to take what is yours for my personal benefit.


Too logical.
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby Minardil » Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:01 am

because it's an imposition on me the taxpayer to have to pay for somebody else's sexuality.


And can someone please explain the link between this issue and the "taxpayers" again? This is right out of the Fox News / Rush Limbaugh list of talking points, about how slutty women are demanding that the government pay for them to have sex, but I don't see the connection at all, so I'd like it explained.

As far as I can tell, a woman works for a company, she receives insurance through that company, which she pays for through a combination of her labor and payroll deductions. That insurance policy includes coverage for certain services, including "the pill". The cost of that coverage is born by her, and the other employees in the pool. Where does the TAXPAYER come into this? Which tax dollars are being paid into this pool to pay for these pills? At what level? What percentage of the money in the pool is tax money?

Conservatives going on about how their tax money is being used to pay for women to have sex need to explain this money chain in detail, because I just think it's another Big Lie.

I WOULD like to say that even IF some tax money somehow makes it into insurance pools and that some of THAT money pays for female contraception, well then that's still okay by me. And if women who actually get their health care entirely through government programs are getting fully subsidized pills THAT's okay with me too. Hell, weren't Conservatives demanding that women on welfare be forcefully sterilized not so long ago? One would think the idea of giving them free birth control pills would be very attractive to prevent them from squirting out those dozens of welfare babies that usually make Conservatives so angry.

Oh, and if any of my tax money is going to Rush Limbaugh's Viagra I WILL be very angry, because the thought of him having sex is just . . . . disturbing, and I don't want him doing it on my dime.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Postby Minardil » Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:10 am

I am also unwilling to be forced to pay for Cenedril_Gildnaur's condoms or sterilization


I am sure that almost everyone who has ever encountered CG would be more than happy to help pay for his sterilization.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:15 am

Minardil wrote:
I am also unwilling to be forced to pay for Cenedril_Gildnaur's condoms or sterilization


I am sure that almost everyone who has ever encountered CG would be more than happy to help pay for his sterilization.


Troll.
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby Minardil » Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:35 am

Hey, according to you guys I am free to choose wherever my money goes. I'm throwing some of mine in the pot to help you get fixed.

But back to this idea you are all throwing around that you are being "forced" through taxation to pay for someone else to have sex and all, does that objection hold only to this subject? Are you saying that we should all be able to pick and choose as individuals where our individual tax contributions are spent, and to withhold any portion of our taxes that are allocated for programs or priorities that we personally find objectionable?

If so, does that work for pacifists who don't believe in using military force under any circumstances? Does it hold for environmentalists who object to billions of dollars going to big oil companies every year? Does it hold for childless adults who don't have kids in school, and they don't want to pay taxes to send YOUR kids to school?

Or is this argument only valid for Conservatives, who don't want to pay for things that Conservatives object too, but Liberals who are opposed to say, the Iraq War, should just suck it up and pay their taxes? I'm curious.


You see, what I'm getting at is that THIS comment is complete and utter NONSENSE:

The Heretic said:

Since you are in favor of the use of force to take what is mine for your benefit, you then must be in favor of me using force to take what is yours for my personal benefit.


NO ONE is in favor of PERSONALLY using "force" to take money from anybody and give it to ourselves for our own benefit. What we are ALL in favor of, really, is using the democratic process to elect representatives to our government that will allocate funds for all sorts of programs based on the perceived will of the people and the representative's interpretation of which programs are in the best interests of the people. Sometimes we ALL have to pay for government programs we'd rather not support, but just because that happens doesn't mean we are being "robbed" or that our "freedoms" are being trampled by a tyrannical government, it just means that in that particular case we didn't get to have it our way. Anyone who says otherwise and prattles on about tyranny is the real troll.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:03 am

Minardil wrote:Hey, according to you guys I am free to choose wherever my money goes. I'm throwing some of mine in the pot to help you get fixed.


Shouldn't you be harassing a billy goat right now?
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby vison » Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:22 am

Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:
Minardil wrote:Hey, according to you guys I am free to choose wherever my money goes. I'm throwing some of mine in the pot to help you get fixed.


Shouldn't you be harassing a billy goat right now?


Maybe he thinks he is. :)
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs.com and 1 guest