1. #1341
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    I think that the argument coming from the right is that if a woman wants to have sex and be protected, let her buy her own protection. I'm not defending it, I'm just telling you what they're arguing. The health insurance companies, well I don't know why they might oppose it. Your logic seems sound to me.
    Health insurance companies aren't opposing it. It's why some states in the country are doing the exact same thing that politicians in Washington are arguing against.

    It's that employers feel that since they pay for it, they can decide what coverage their employees need, which is bullshit. If they don't like what they're paying for, make the employee pay it, or stop providing it.

  2. #1342
    Herald of the Titans
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Northwest USA
    Posts
    2,708
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    Health insurance companies aren't opposing it. It's why some states in the country are doing the exact same thing that politicians in Washington are arguing against.

    It's that employers feel that since they pay for it, they can decide what coverage their employees need, which is bullshit. If they don't like what they're paying for, make the employee pay it, or stop providing it.
    and there lies the problem!! that's not legal! employers are required to provide a basic level of health insurance in pretty much every state.. and since health insurance is so heavily regulated.. it's nearly impossible to get a health insurance plan as an individual..

    as it stands.. with the exception of certain religious institutions.. almost all health insurance plans cover birth control..

    the only thing that will change if madam-i-have-sex-three-times-per-day-every-day gets her way is that those few religious institutions will be forced to pay for and provide something they do not agree with..

    it would be like forcing a Muslim deli to sell ham.. it won't hurt anyone.. it's just wrong!
    the most beautiful post I have ever read.. thank you Dr-1337 http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post22624432

  3. #1343
    Quote Originally Posted by ishootblanks View Post
    and there lies the problem!! that's not legal! employers are required to provide a basic level of health insurance in pretty much every state.. and since health insurance is so heavily regulated.. it's nearly impossible to get a health insurance plan as an individual..

    as it stands.. with the exception of certain religious institutions.. almost all health insurance plans cover birth control..
    Then stop paying for their insurance. It is not a requirement for an employer to pay for their employees' health insurance. My company doesn't. I pay the full premium, at a better price than as an individual.

    There is no such law requiring employers to provide health insurance, either at the cost of the employee or the employer.

    Employers provide this option as a perk of the job. Simple as that. They are not required to do so, but are compelled to do so by competition in their respective markets.


    Quote Originally Posted by ishootblanks View Post
    the only thing that will change if madam-i-have-sex-three-times-per-day-every-day gets her way is that those few religious institutions will be forced to pay for and provide something they do not agree with..

    it would be like forcing a Muslim deli to sell ham.. it won't hurt anyone.. it's just wrong!
    It's not anything like that, you're kidding yourself. No one, and I mean no one, in this country is required to provide health insurance for their employees. It is a perk of the job.

    And I'm sorry, my employer has no business deciding what parts of MY health care is covered. If they don't like that I can get birth control pills covered through my insurance company, they can stop paying for it. In fact, I'd demand my company do that, if they ever tried that shit.
    Last edited by Chonogo; 2012-03-04 at 04:08 AM.

  4. #1344
    Fluffy Kitten Dacien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    9,069
    Quote Originally Posted by namelessone View Post
    I noticed that forum "avatar" seems to sometimes alter the perception of other forum members. For example, I have a hard time feeling negative towards that dude with crossbow, despite the fact that he seems to be a republican.
    Daryl is badass. And I even kind of look like him lol! (sorta)



  5. #1345
    Herald of the Titans
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Northwest USA
    Posts
    2,708
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    Then stop paying for their insurance. It is not a requirement for an employer to pay for their employees' health insurance. My company doesn't. I pay the full premium, at a better price than as an individual.

    There is no such law requiring employers to provide health insurance, either at the cost of the employee or the employer.

    Employers provide this option as a perk of the job. Simple as that. They are not required to do so, but are compelled to do so by competition in their respective markets.




    It's not anything like that, you're kidding yourself. No one, and I mean no one, in this country is required to provide health insurance for their employees. It is a perk of the job.

    And I'm sorry, my employer has no business deciding what parts of MY health care is covered. If they don't like that I can get birth control pills covered through my insurance company, they can stop paying for it. In fact, I'd demand my company do that, if they ever tried that shit.
    you have the option to pay for the healthcare plan the corporation has signed up for.. I didn't say that the corporation had to pay the full premium.. they had to provide access to it.. and believe me you get a good deal..

    and yes your corporation has the right to purchase whatever healthcare they want.. you don't have the right to work there.. you can find another job if it doesn't fit your needs

    or like you said above.. try to find an insurance provider that covers your special needs..
    the most beautiful post I have ever read.. thank you Dr-1337 http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post22624432

  6. #1346
    Pandaren Monk Willeonge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    The Greyt Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    1,997
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    Daryl is badass. And I even kind of look like him lol! (sorta)


    One of you have a little bit more hair :P.
    "Laws should be made of iron, not of pudding."

    “A good act does not wash out the bad, nor a bad act the good. Each should have its own reward.”

    - King Stannis Baratheon

  7. #1347
    Fluffy Kitten Dacien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    9,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Willeonge View Post
    One of you have a little bit more hair :P.
    Yeah I know lol! My brother, when we were growing up, he used to make fun of me. He'd say, "Most people got a forehead. You got a fivehead!"

  8. #1348
    So, back on topic for a moment (maybe not the best idea), it seems that Romney has a big national lead (link), and yet he's getting taken out fairly badly in a number of state projections for Super Tuesday (Nate Silver's numbers here). So, what happens after Super Tuesday if that pans out as projected? Do the national numbers move?

    I've been operating under the assumption that no one else has a shot, and its Romney's race, but he's really doing a terrible job finishing it off.

  9. #1349
    Fluffy Kitten Dacien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    9,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    So, back on topic for a moment (maybe not the best idea), it seems that Romney has a big national lead (link), and yet he's getting taken out fairly badly in a number of state projections for Super Tuesday (Nate Silver's numbers here). So, what happens after Super Tuesday if that pans out as projected? Do the national numbers move?

    I've been operating under the assumption that no one else has a shot, and its Romney's race, but he's really doing a terrible job finishing it off.
    Yeah, it's Romney. The other candidates are kidding themselves. Short of something disastrous from the Romney camp, Romney is going to be the nominee.

    It's all about delegate counts, and Romney will get what he needs.

  10. #1350
    Herald of the Titans
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Northwest USA
    Posts
    2,708
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    So, back on topic for a moment (maybe not the best idea), it seems that Romney has a big national lead (link), and yet he's getting taken out fairly badly in a number of state projections for Super Tuesday (Nate Silver's numbers here). So, what happens after Super Tuesday if that pans out as projected? Do the national numbers move?

    I've been operating under the assumption that no one else has a shot, and its Romney's race, but he's really doing a terrible job finishing it off.
    Romney currently has double the number of delegates that any other candidate has.. he won't win every single state from here on out because we have three viable candidates that will all bounce around..

    in 2008 before Obama appeared out of nowhere everyone thought Clinton was going to be the nominee since the alternatives were... umm.. Joe Biden.. and ahh.. John Edwards.. even democrats didn't consider those two to be serious candidates..

    in the republican lineup.. the only candidate who never stood a chance at beating Obama was Ron Paul.. Washington was the only state I figured Paul had a chance in because it's filled up with primarily tin-foil hat wearing pot heads.. (seriously.. i will put Washington hillbillies up against anything you can find in the Ozarks)
    the most beautiful post I have ever read.. thank you Dr-1337 http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post22624432

  11. #1351
    Pandaren Monk Willeonge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    The Greyt Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    1,997
    Quote Originally Posted by ishootblanks View Post
    Romney currently has double the number of delegates that any other candidate has.. he won't win every single state from here on out because we have three viable candidates that will all bounce around..

    in 2008 before Obama appeared out of nowhere everyone thought Clinton was going to be the nominee since the alternatives were... umm.. Joe Biden.. and ahh.. John Edwards.. even democrats didn't consider those two to be serious candidates..

    in the republican lineup.. the only candidate who never stood a chance at beating Obama was Ron Paul.. Washington was the only state I figured Paul had a chance in because it's filled up with primarily tin-foil hat wearing pot heads.. (seriously.. i will put Washington hillbillies up against anything you can find in the Ozarks)
    I've heard that about Washington Republicans....haven't really encountered it though. Must be Eastern Washington mostly, I'd guess?
    "Laws should be made of iron, not of pudding."

    “A good act does not wash out the bad, nor a bad act the good. Each should have its own reward.”

    - King Stannis Baratheon

  12. #1352
    Quote Originally Posted by ishootblanks View Post
    you have the option to pay for the healthcare plan the corporation has signed up for.. I didn't say that the corporation had to pay the full premium.. they had to provide access to it.. and believe me you get a good deal..
    I'll say it again a little more plainly.

    Not a single employer, in any state in this country, is required to provide access to health insurance for its employees. It is strictly optional.

    I know all about the good deal, I've been a software engineer for 15 years. It's a standard option for employers in my line of work.

    Quote Originally Posted by ishootblanks View Post
    and yes your corporation has the right to purchase whatever healthcare they want.. you don't have the right to work there.. you can find another job if it doesn't fit your needs

    or like you said above.. try to find an insurance provider that covers your special needs..
    If my company is going to want to lure the best people they can to them, it is in their best interests to offers things that their employees would want, not what they deem is necessary. Your argument is just as silly as saying that "sure, your corporation has the right to offer you $10k less than market value for your pay, you don't have the right to accept market value." If a company wants to succeed, they hire employees worth hiring, and invest in 401k, salary, and health benefits in order to make them happy. Not covering things out of some stupid "moral" issue that they have no business mandating, is, if I must say it, anti-free market and anti-capitalist.

  13. #1353
    Washington was the only state I figured Paul had a chance in because it's filled up with primarily tin-foil hat wearing pot heads.. (seriously.. i will put Washington hillbillies up against anything you can find in the Ozarks
    Don't know much about the state.


    Not a single employer, in any state in this country, is required to provide access to health insurance for its employees. It is strictly optional.
    I think there are a few states that require companies is some super high risk businesses provide care but don't quote me on it.

    Anyway, birth control is a medical service, why should its access be between anyone other than a doctor and the patient? Insurers and employers should have no right to determine what legitimate medical procedures they will cover if they choose to offer insurance.

  14. #1354
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Insurers and employers should have no right to determine what legitimate medical procedures they will cover if they choose to offer insurance.
    That's not how insurance works. The issuer of the insurance decides for what it applies. The customer then decides if they want purchase it or not.

    Health insurance does not have to cover everything health related, and it is actually better if you pay out of pocket for low-cost regular procedures.

  15. #1355
    That's not how insurance works. The issuer of the insurance decides for what it applies. The customer then decides if they want purchase it or not.
    And I'm telling you that's bullshit. If you want to offer medical coverage then you need to operate at a certain level, you need to provide basic services, and you don't get much more basic than birth control. Unwanted and unplanned pregnancy places a huge cost on the government and economy, there's no reason in a country this wealthy that anyone should not have access.

    Health insurance does not have to cover everything health related, and it is actually better if you pay out of pocket for low-cost regular procedures.
    Birth control is not a low-cost procedure.

  16. #1356
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells
    Birth control is not a low-cost procedure.
    Just so I make sure I speak of the same thing, what do you mean when you speak of "Birth Control"?

    Because condoms and birth control pills are low-cost. Abortion is not.

  17. #1357
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Just so I make sure I speak of the same thing, what do you mean when you speak of "Birth Control"?
    Been following american politics? The big issues right now is the availability and coverage of prescription birth control, mostly the pill, but a few other options as well like rings and patches. The kind of stuff you need a doctor to prescribe.

    Birth control is a bit of a misnomer since they're widely used for non birth control purposes of course, with something like half of all women using them using them at least in part for non reproductive reasons.

    I mean sure its not the same cost as a round of chemo, but it can run well outside the range of many people, especially those least likely to already have health care.

    Right now there is a super spotty system of charities, my own girlfriend got what she needed through Planned Parenthood for a number of years, but their resources are stretched where they're even available.

    There's a large push by the GOP over the last several years to limit access to reproductive and ummmm "feminine" care for women, with the latest offense being the "blunt amendment" which allows employers to refuse to cover any medical procedure they deem morally unacceptable (read birth control). The GOP wants to allow any employer who offers health care to force their moral decisions on the private lives of their employees and its disgusting. What happens between my doctor and I isn't my boss's business.

    Essentially for some fucking reason the GOP is deciding this is the issue they want to fight right now and as pissed as the things they say make me, politically I'm thrilled because most of America wants nothing to do with their horse shit. Even our politically blind populace can see the sexism and slut shaming they're so poorly hiding.

    ---------- Post added 2012-03-04 at 10:49 AM ----------

    Because condoms and birth control pills are low-cost. Abortion is not.
    Pills are not low cost for many many many Americans, not to mention the cost of the exam. Average range is 15 to 50 a month and it can get much much higher. Reproductive control should not be out of reach of the poor.

    ---------- Post added 2012-03-04 at 10:55 AM ----------

    I'm going to bed, but the say that the Pill is low-cost is a pretty huge mountain of privilege.
    Last edited by Wells; 2012-03-04 at 10:50 AM.

  18. #1358
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Pills are not low cost for many many many Americans, not to mention the cost of the exam. Average range is 15 to 50 a month and it can get much much higher. Reproductive control should not be out of reach of the poor.
    Just to give you some perspective, in socialist Finland you pay the cost of the pill out of your pocket. The government can only assist you with an appointment with a doctor. If you want to advocate that the government pays for the pill for poor people, that's one thing.

    But to mix up private health insurance and government, and force them to provide everything, well that right there is one reason for the obscene healthcare costs in the US. You're advocating corporatism.

    The insurance company must be able to tailor their product to cover what they want, and then customers through their demand will steer the companies to provide sought after products. A plan that covers everything is both inefficient and a cause for higher prices down the road. And it should most certainly be up to the companies to decide the content of the plans they offer. It has nothing to do with the patient-doctor relationship in this case.
    Last edited by Diurdi; 2012-03-04 at 11:41 AM.

  19. #1359
    But to mix up private health insurance and government, and force them to provide everything, well that right there is one reason for the obscene healthcare costs in the US. You're advocating corporatism.
    No one is saying they have to cover everything, though I did misspeak up thread. We're saying they need to cover birth control, as HCR set basic levels of coverage that have to be met by policies and employers should have no right to block treatment payments or refuse to provide coverage for legitimate medical procedures based on moral beliefs.

    Fact is the GOP in this county wants to let your employer refuse to offer birth control with their coverage because if they want to impose their moral values on the private lives of people working for them.

    Birth control is a super basic medical treatment and should be a standard part of basic care by any stretch of the imagination. Unplanned pregnancy is too great a dampener on the economy.

    There's a huge difference between saying a carrier needs to cover birth control and saying they need to cover experimental procedures or even vision.

    ---------- Post added 2012-03-04 at 11:10 AM ----------

    Actually going to bed now.

  20. #1360
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Fact is the GOP in this county wants to let your employer refuse to offer birth control with their coverage because if they want to impose their moral values on the private lives of people working for them.
    And they should be allowed to do so, however ridiculous it may seem. The employer is a private entity and it sure as hell is allowed to instill moral or even religious values at the workplace.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wells
    Birth control is a super basic medical treatment and should be a standard part of basic care by any stretch of the imagination. Unplanned pregnancy is too great a dampener on the economy.
    Then a separate birth control insurance incase you happen to become pregnant makes more sense. However, you have to remember that if there is no risk (Probability is 0% or approaching 100%) involved, then insurance shouldn't be involved either. The purpose of insurance is to reduce the risk of sudden financial stress.

    If your aim is to take birth control pills at regular intervalls for years, then insurance is not designed for this. There is no risk as the probability is 100%. All you're doing is paying the insurance company to shuffle papers while you could just take the money to the store and buy it outright without the insurance company.
    Last edited by Diurdi; 2012-03-04 at 11:53 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •