Posted on 10/30/2013 10:48:15 AM PDT by Rusty0604
Happened at a company where I used to work. One of our employees knocked-up his live-in girlfriend. He demanded that she be added to his health plan. Our HR manager refused, citing policy reasons. When she offered “well, you could marry her” his head just about blew clean off his shoulders!
A week or so ago, I received a letter from my health insurance explaining my post-mastectomy care options. I am a single 60+ male. Your results may vary but it appears that some portion of my premiums are paying for benefits that are not what I desire in my health package. I wonder what I am paying for Birth Control?
Is this another one of those stupid satire posts that have infested FR of late?
Seriously, sometimes I can’t tell anymore.
(Which is another reason that I think satire posts should not be allowed here. But hey, it isn’t my living room so I don’t get to make the rules.)
Twilight Zone of Liberal Insanity.
We’re being governed by crazies.
yep she would be covered under her own policy, which she would have purchased under penalty of law whether she wanted it or not. Cruella’s argument is absurd.
I call it the individual market as opposed to people that have a group policy. On the individual market you can get individual policies or policies covering your family. Even a couple in their late fifties will now have to pay for maternity and pediatrics they don’t need if they purchase a family policy on their own.
So if she said individual policy for men covering maternity is needed maybe she is referring to CA insurance as they have to cover fertility treatments for gay couples?
Fixed
Only if it is an individual buying insurance for his/her family. The way she is saying it is misleading because a single individual would only buy insurance for themselves.
That’s fine because you have a group policy and they risk share. There is no risk sharing when you have to get insurance as an individual.
I used to purchase health insurance for my company, and they assess the risk factor for the group based on the demographics of the participants in the group.
If you get individual insurance it was based on your risk.
Cost shifting is an entirely different concept: it is moving the cost from one entity to another; ie, a hospital shifting their costs to an insurance company, or an insurance company/hospital shifting their costs to Medicaid.
Requiring men to purchase pregnancy coverage is similar to bundling services to use revenue from on component to subsidize another. A good but unrelated example: cable television companies forcing you to purchase a whole lot of channels you don't want (and will never watch) in order to get channels (or even service) you do want.
Filled with government cheese, of course.
I love satire; always can use a good laugh. It is sad that these days it’s hard to tell the difference.
The way she is saying it is misleading because a single individual would only buy insurance for themselves.
...on the topic of misleading...why do you postulate a single individual buying insurance (or doing anything else) for ‘themselves’...?
“The way she is saying it is misleading...”
Understatement of the day! ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.