U.S. 2012 Election

[Sythen]

So, then, why would you think it's okay to have insurers make a blanket refusal to cover oral contraceptives?

Because they are a private company, and will decide what they will or will not cover. It wasn't a secret that such things weren't covered, so why would you pick a company that doesn't? If it meant a huge increase in business, another would offer it already.

 

[vonGarvin]

So, then, why would you think it's okay to have insurers make a blanket refusal to cover oral contraceptives?

When did I say that?  I'm saying that ANY drug prescribed for an existing medical condition ought to be covered. Period.


If someone just wants to fuck without getting pregnant and wants me to pay for the oral (or other) contraceptive, well, then, do they want me to pay for the wine at supper too?  The taxi home? 

No, thank you, they can pay for that themselves.

I realise that "The Pill" can be used for uses such as seen in this quote from the Interwebs:

polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), endometriosis, adenomyosis, menstruation-related anemia and painful menstruation (dysmenorrhea). In addition, oral contraceptives are often prescribed as medication for mild or moderate acne. The pill can also induce menstruation on a regular schedule for women bothered by irregular menstrual cycles or disorders where there is dysfunctional uterine bleeding. In addition, the Pill provides some protection against breast growth that is not cancer, ectopic pregnancy, vaginal dryness and menopause-related painful intercourse

So, if it's prescribed by a physician for any of the above, or any other existing condition, why not?

 

[Redeye]

:So, if it's prescribed by a physician for any of the above, or any other existing condition, why not?

Okay. I think my high school girlfriend used irregular cycles and acne as her excuse to get it without telling her father why she wanted it. You realize that doctors will make up whatever "cause" is necessary to fit the bill, right?

And since that's the case, well then how about we dispense with this nonsense altogether?

 

[vonGarvin]

Okay. I think my high school girlfriend used irregular cycles and acne as her excuse to get it without telling her father why she wanted it. You realize that doctors will make up whatever "cause" is necessary to fit the bill, right?

And since that's the case, well then how about we dispense with this nonsense altogether?

Sure, why not?  I mean, people also cheat on their taxes too, so why bother?  I mean, people are just going to cheat anyway...

And why maintain speed limits?  I mean, people are going to speed anyway....

So, let me get this straight, your argument is that "people are going to do it anyway, so why bother?"  The only nonsense here is your illogical argument structure.  And I suspect that not "all" doctors will make up whatever excuse to fit the bill.  Sure, some will, I'm not living in some fantasy world.  And having a 15 year old hormonal daughter, and having been a teenage boy myself, I'm fairly confident that I'm not going to stop her from "doing it".  That doesn't mean I'm going to throw up my hands, buy her a motel room, pay for the rubbers, and even drive over her boyfriend for her.

 

[Redeye]

Because they are a private company, and will decide what they will or will not cover. It wasn't a secret that such things weren't covered, so why would you pick a company that doesn't? If it meant a huge increase in business, another would offer it already.

Economically, that doesn't make a lot of sense. The cost to an insurer (and thus the premium payers) of pregnancy is far higher, so why not cover contraceptives. Insurers have no problem covering birth control for that very reason. In the case of someone like Miss Fluke, is she to make her decision about education solely based on health insurance provisions? That seems rather ridiculous to me.

 

[Redeye]

Sure, why not?  I mean, people also cheat on their taxes too, so why bother?  I mean, people are just going to cheat anyway...

There's a reason Revenue Canada doesn't chase tax cheats except big fish. It's not worth it. They came after me for a full accounting of moving expenses last year, presumably thinking I'd claimed an excessive amount and they'd get more money out of me. I don't know how much civil service time was wasted, but it turned out that I'd estimated some costs conservatively, and when pushed to be detailed, they owed me a couple hundred bucks.

And why maintain speed limits?  I mean, people are going to speed anyway....

Similarly, cops don't chase people doing a couple of km/h over the limit.

So, let me get this straight, your argument is that "people are going to do it anyway, so why bother?"  The only nonsense here is your illogical argument structure.  And I suspect that not "all" doctors will make up whatever excuse to fit the bill.  Sure, some will, I'm not living in some fantasy world.  And having a 15 year old hormonal daughter, and having been a teenage boy myself, I'm fairly confident that I'm not going to stop her from "doing it".  That doesn't mean I'm going to throw up my hands, buy her a motel room, pay for the rubbers, and even drive over her boyfriend for her.

My argument is that most people use birth control in some form, and most people see that it's beneficial to society to see that it's readily available - that is - covered by insurance. Before I deployed, we shifted around my health insurance benefits from work to save me paying premiums for something I didn't need and wasn't using. In the interval, I had to pick up a month's supply of pills for my wife. $50 or so without coverage. They're something like $4 normally. To someone who's living paycheque to paycheque - or students - or whomever, that's a big expense potentially. So yes, I'd expect that most doctors, realizing that the benefit is substantial would facilitate getting them covered, but the more logical position is to just make sure they're covered, which insurers have no problem with because the cost is negligible in comparison to the alternative.

I don't have a daughter, so I can't speak from first hand experience, but if I did, I'd absolutely make sure she was on the pill if that was her choice, and had access to condoms etc, because that's far better than the alternative. And I'd be quite happy if my insurance covered it. I won't presume to speak for you, but if you want to shell out lots more money on account of principle, well, that is your choice. I'd rather accept that humans will do what humans will do, and it's better to be open about it. When it comes to insurance coverage, I'd just rather say "hey, you know what, people use this stuff, and there's a societal benefit to it, so maybe we don't start making a production about it." I suspect a majority of American voters would feel the same way - as well as Canadians.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It doesn't matter whether it's for a medical condition.  Not all medical conditions are covered by insurance or public healthcare in all jurisdictions - my poor eyesight, for example.  Arguing that it should be covered for medical conditions is a null arguments; there will always be listed and unlisted goods and services.

It doesn't matter whether it makes economic sense, except to the insurer.  It's their decision whether they want to pocket the savings, or pay the overhead to suit their ideological bent.  The "it makes sense, therefore it should be imposed" fallacy is the most pernicious and liberty-eroding of all argumentation techniques advanced by advocates of government solutions to problems.

 

[Redeye]

It doesn't matter whether it's for a medical condition.  Not all medical conditions are covered by insurance or public healthcare in all jurisdictions - my poor eyesight, for example.  Arguing that it should be covered for medical conditions is a null arguments; there will always be listed and unlisted goods and services.

It doesn't matter whether it makes economic sense, except to the insurer.  It's their decision whether they want to pocket the savings, or pay the overhead to suit their ideological bent.  The "it makes sense, therefore it should be imposed" fallacy is the most pernicious and liberty-eroding of all argumentation techniques advanced by advocates of government solutions to problems.

Thank you! You've just made my point.

It's the insurers' decision. Not the government's. Not the employer's.

This whole idea of letting employers make insurers' decisions - and impacting the health decisions of their employees - is that pernicious liberty erosion in action.

Remember, insurers are not the ones arguing for this. In fact, I think they probably find it rather ridiculous, and potentially quite annoying. See, insurers normally create prepackaged benefits - what's covered, to what amount etc. Accommodating a change like this imposes on them, and for no particularly good reason. And it opens the door to further erosions.

 

[vonGarvin]

My argument is that most people use birth control in some form, and most people see that it's beneficial to society to see that it's readily available -

This is where we disagree.  I would go on and make a counter argument, but that is going to fall on deaf ears.

but if you want to shell out lots more money on account of principle, well, that is your choice.

Exactly, it's my choice.  And if you want to go out and fuck but not have kids, then shell out your own money.  It's your choice.

 

[Redeye]

This is where we disagree.  I would go on and make a counter argument, but that is going to fall on deaf ears.

You can disagree, but the sheer number of women who use birth control, for whatever reason, suggests you'd be incorrect. That's all I'm saying. The whole series of events around women's health strikes me as nothing but a loser for the GOP. They need to court independents, and alienating around half of them by attacking things like access to contraception isn't the way to do that. It's not going to pay off for them in the polls at all.

Part of the challenge in elections in the States is getting people to vote. Obama's campaign succeeded in getting a lot of people out to vote. He received more popular votes that any other President in US history if memory serves, and more Electoral College votes than any in something like 20 years. He got people rallied around an idea, or rather his campaign did. The GOP is handing him another idea to rally people around, in my view. Not exactly a winning strategy.

 

[tomahawk6]

The issue is freedom of religion .The Catholic faith doesnt condone contraceptives and for the government to tell Catholic hospitals and schools to provide free contraceptives is a violation of the Constitution.Ms Fluke is going to law school which is costing her or her family $45,000 a year.Yet she doesnt want to buy a month's supply at Walmart for $8. While I think Rush went over the line calling Fluke a loose woman,the reality is that she certainly isnt saving herself for marriage.She put herself in the public eye by making statements supporting the administrations effort to force religious instutions to do something they are opposed to on moral grounds.

 

[PuckChaser]

You hit the nail on the head here, T6.

 

[RangerRay]

A pox on all their houses.  I'm glad my ancestors fled over 200 years ago.

 

[Redeye]

The issue is freedom of religion .The Catholic faith doesnt condone contraceptives and for the government to tell Catholic hospitals and schools to provide free contraceptives is a violation of the Constitution.Ms Fluke is going to law school which is costing her or her family $45,000 a year.Yet she doesnt want to buy a month's supply at Walmart for $8. While I think Rush went over the line calling Fluke a loose woman,the reality is that she certainly isnt saving herself for marriage.She put herself in the public eye by making statements supporting the administrations effort to force religious instutions to do something they are opposed to on moral grounds.

Again, I find this religious freedom claim laughable, and I suspect most voters will too if it really becomes an issue. A large number of Catholic hospitals and schools did provide this coverage already without any problem, suggesting they don't really see an issue with it. Ultimately, insurance coverage is a form of compensation. So why do they care what employees do with it? How is it any more morally acceptable for them to pay out of pocket for birth control? It's not, if you really think about it. That's why I think this was the wrong thing to pick a fight over.

We're not necessarily talking about oral contraceptives, by the way, but also other methods - IUDs, implants, etc. The cost of some of those can be extremely high without insurance.

So she may or may not be "saving herself for marriage", I don't recall her making any comment to that effect. Guess what? Neither do most Americans.  The average age at which Americans lose their virginity is 17. Source: http://www.newstrategist.com/productdetails/Sex.SamplePgs.pdf So, that's basically irrelevant. Rush's pernicious three day attack on someone making a reasonable case isn't justifiable in any way, shape or form. It's that simple.

RangerRay - my wife fled 10 years ago, and she just shakes her head looking back.

 

[tomahawk6]

Redeye the Obama administration doesnt much care for our Constitution. Yes the government cannot impose mandates on religious organizations that run counter to their beliefs.

1st Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

 

[Redeye]

Redeye the Obama administration doesnt much care for our Constitution. Yes the government cannot impose mandates on religious organizations that run counter to their beliefs.

Spare me this idiocy. Please. Spare all of us this complete crap.

1st Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Given that such provisions exist in many states already and have for quite a while, I don't think a challenge based on the Establishment Clause goes anywhere. In fact as solid a case (not very) can be made that an exemption for religious organizations of that nature violates the clause.

 

[Redeye]

Great article:

http://crooksandliars.com/bluegal-aka-fran/who-paying-georgetown-undergradua

Georgetown students pay $1800/year for their health insurance. I think it's fair to say that would cover their birth control needs. The article goes into more depth about why insurers are only too happy to cover birth control options.

I particularly like the closing line: "Congratulations, libertarians! When it comes to buying a product that serves the needs of the customer versus obeying an artificial moral dictum brought out by hypocrites like Limbaugh? Capitalism wins every time."

 

[vonGarvin]

Spare me this idiocy. Please. Spare all of us this complete crap.

No, you spare us.  You're a fucking hypocrite who sees any argument counter to yours as "idiocy".  So, with or without contraceptives, go fuck yourself.  (It's your choice, but I'm not paying the bill).

 

[Kirkhill]

Spare me this idiocy. Please. Spare all of us this complete crap.

Given that such provisions exist in many states already and have for quite a while, I don't think a challenge based on the Establishment Clause goes anywhere. In fact as solid a case (not very) can be made that an exemption for religious organizations of that nature violates the clause.

I wasn't aware that Congress was responsible for making laws for the individual states.  In point of fact I rather thought it was other.

And please, spare us the tone.

 

[Redeye]

No, you spare us.  You're a ******* hypocrite who sees any argument counter to yours as "idiocy".  So, with or without contraceptives, go frig yourself.  (It's your choice, but I'm not paying the bill).

I haven't seen a good argument on the matter. I've seen a lot of weak ones. It's that simple, and why I'm saying that this will not play well for the GOP. I was specifically referring to this "The President doesn't respect the constitution" canard that seems to be the last resort of people incapable of actually forming any sort of reasonable argument. Frankly, I should be happy people make that argument, because if that's all they've got, than the other side is doing something right.

Frankly, I'd rather foot the bill for contraceptives for all who want them than foot the bill for unplanned pregrancies, because that bill is a hell of a lot higher, and the consequences of not paying for the former is in fact the latter. That's as simple as I can make it.