Posted on 03/06/2012 8:32:09 AM PST by Qbert
From what’s being reported Rush Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke he owes the young lady an apology. Just on the basic issue of good manners if nothing else.
However, that’s not the part of the larger story that interests me. I’m simply terribly confused as to why anyone at all would want contraception to be part of a heath care insurance scheme...
[Snip]
Just for a moment, for the purposes of my argument here, leave aside whether a Jesuit organisation really should be forced to provide contraception...[Snip]
I’m interested purely and simply in the use of an insurance model as a method of providing this contraception. For it’s very difficult indeed to think of something less suited to such a financing model.
[Snip]
This just isn’t what we’re doing with contraception. It is what we’re doing when we take out insurance against large health care problems. Having a car crash, getting cancer, needing a transplant. These are things that happen to a minority of us so we pool the risks. That contingent loss is so huge that we really do want to insure the loss away. This also applies to hurricane insurance, flood, fire and so on.
But something that most of the women of the country are going to use for a significant portion of their adult lives just isn’t suitable for an insurance model. Leave aside those who don’t have heterosexual sex at all (a significant minority, yes, but a minority all the same) and with rare enough exceptions the vast majority of women in the country are going to spend a couple of decades of their lives managing their fertility. Such management is not an unexpected thing, it is not uncertain, it’s just part and parcel of what the 21 st century allows us to do.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
"Insurance is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss."
By holding this bogus hearing regarding contraception, and the subsequent blow up over Limbaugh's comments, the Democrats have successfully distracted us from the original argument. Now the argument seems to be the GOP limiting access to contraception which isn't true at all.
I want my auto insurance to cover oil changes, new tires and gasoline...
More GREAT POINTS that are now lost and won’t be debated because it is more important for one individual to personally insult another individual and miss making the many valid points this scenario presented on a silver platter for Republicans to make.
If sex is essential to the health of young singles, insurance must offer coverage for hair curlers, nice khakis, bottles of wine or six packs, 800 thread sheets, and cars with seats that fold flat.
Well from an insurance company’s point of view, contraception is a money saver. Trust me, the insurance companies are not fans of employers who opt out of contraception for ethical/moral/religious reasons.
Contraception is cheap as far as insurance goes. Pregnancy not so much. A single visit during prenatal care probably costs as much as a years worth of contraceptives. A single delivery wouldn’t surprise me if it had a monetary close to a lifetime of contraceptives.
I myself don’t think it makes sense for insurance to cover low cost routine medications or office visits.
But what if covering the low cost things is actually cost- effective, in terms of prevention of illness? In the case of contraception and pregnancy, if paying for someone’s contraception is what keeps her from getting pregnant, maybe she’s not the kind of person you want getting pregnant very often.
What is cost-effective in theory ought to be better determined by market than mandate. In practice, it might work out that an insurance company can shuffle greater costs off to the public later by not paying for treatment early.
And where do you draw the line? My routine medications cost me around $200 a year. What if someone’s routine, necessary medications or treatments cost $20,000 a year?
Because the REAL ultimate goal here is national single payer, and the Libs need to get this issue off the table before it comes to that point.
“Rush Limbaugh, Sandra Fluke and Why is Contraception Part of Health Insurance Anyway?”
********************************
Anf wtf does gubmint—at all levels—have its nose in our personal business at all!!!!!!!
Some folks like it that way...wanna do their “fair share” y’know....
Semper Watching!
*****
The bast majority of married couples are on some type of BC. Maybe even your own daughter(s. Are you saying they are not the type of people who should get pregnant?
Why is contraception part of Health Insurance?
Health Insurance was started to keep people from monumental loss, not little picky things. Little by little, people added Doctor’s visits, eye care, prescriptions, etc. Lets go back to the original intent. It should just cover big losses.
Why is contraception part of Health Insurance?
Health Insurance was started to keep people from monumental loss, not little picky things. Little by little, people added Doctor’s visits, eye care, prescriptions, etc. Lets go back to the original intent. It should just cover big losses.
Why is contraception part of Health Insurance?
Health Insurance was started to keep people from monumental loss, not little picky things. Little by little, people added Doctor’s visits, eye care, prescriptions, etc. Lets go back to the original intent. It should just cover big losses.
Why is contraception part of Health Insurance?
Health Insurance was started to keep people from monumental loss, not little picky things. Little by little, people added Doctor’s visits, eye care, prescriptions, etc. Lets go back to the original intent. It should just cover big losses.
DING DING DING we have a winner!
I am saying that people who get pregnant when they don’t want to be, because they won’t/can’t spend the money out of pocket to prevent it, are not the kind of people who should be getting pregnant, so maybe we should pay to help them not get pregnant.
Convoluted, no?
OK, got it. I read your response wrong.
Interesting. Why not just pay them period not to get pregnant. How about $5000 a year. They could then use any method they want for birth control.
“Because the REAL ultimate goal here is national single payer, and the Libs need to get this issue off the table before it comes to that point.”
Correct! This is unambiguously a modest cost, routine service and not a large cost, health uncertainty. Large cost, health uncertainties are the domain of insurance. Modest cost, routine service is an item in the realm of a welfare payment. It has the potential to garner political support from a large number of women so it is entirely about vote buying. It also has the benefit of attacking the Catholic church (populist) and conservatives who don’t think the general taxpaying population should fund routine activities of a subset of the population. That is why it has been touted so prominently by the socialists in this presidential election year. Outrageous, yes, but standard operating procedure by socialists.
My long-held objection is, I think, even simpler than that: most forms of “birth control” are designed to make something in your body that functions correctly, stop functioning correctly.
Somewhere, Hippocrates is asking, what’s up with that?
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.