Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
you have no idea what this conversation is even about.the government didnt say you directly pay for other peoples health care idiot. the law says the health care providers can not change an extra co-pay or co-insurance for contraception. its not free, its simply included in the cost of your premium.What does that have to do with the point that the government should not be forcing people to pay for other people's contraception or force insurance companies to provide coverage for contraception?
seeing as how you already pay for other peoples services, why are you not complaining about every other service your health care provider provides for no additional cost?
Again,
What does that have to do with the point that the government should not be forcing people to pay for other people's contraception or force insurance companies to provide coverage for contraception.
I don't have to have insurance, its still a choice.
How an insurance company uses the money from the premiums to pay for other people's health care is their business. If they want to charge extra for contraception coverage that is also also their business not the government's you arrogant prick.
The Catholic Church is opposed to contraception for moral reasons.
Where is the morality in creating a life when food and clean water are rare commodities? Where poverty exists and educational opportunities are non existent?
Where is the morality when disease is spread?
Where is the morality when a women is the victim of domestic violence? When a women is forced to conceive and then trapped as the child become a lever to gain more power and more control?
you have no idea what this conversation is even about.the government didnt say you directly pay for other peoples health care idiot. the law says the health care providers can not change an extra co-pay or co-insurance for contraception. its not free, its simply included in the cost of your premium.
seeing as how you already pay for other peoples services, why are you not complaining about every other service your health care provider provides for no additional cost?
Again,
What does that have to do with the point that the government should not be forcing people to pay for other people's contraception or force insurance companies to provide coverage for contraception.
I don't have to have insurance, its still a choice.
How an insurance company uses the money from the premiums to pay for other people's health care is their business. If they want to charge extra for contraception coverage that is also also their business not the government's you arrogant prick.
point to where the government says you will pay for other peoples contraception? the argument stems from a portion of the law that states all insurance plans must provide contraception as a services. and that service will be provided for no extra charge. meaning no extra copay or coinsurance.
do you have any idea how insurance actually works already? get an education dumbass.
the government didnt say you directly pay for other peoples health care idiot. the law says the health care providers can not change an extra co-pay or co-insurance for contraception. its not free, its simply included in the cost of your premium.you pay for other peoples health care every time you pay your insurance premiums.... are you protesting your current insurance company as right now?
What does that have to do with the point that the government should not be forcing people to pay for other people's contraception or force insurance companies to provide coverage for contraception?
seeing as how you already pay for other peoples services, why are you not complaining about every other service your health care provider provides for no additional cost?
if you dont understand a simple premise like how insurance works obviously cant understand the rest of the argument.you have no idea what this conversation is even about.Again,
What does that have to do with the point that the government should not be forcing people to pay for other people's contraception or force insurance companies to provide coverage for contraception.
I don't have to have insurance, its still a choice.
How an insurance company uses the money from the premiums to pay for other people's health care is their business. If they want to charge extra for contraception coverage that is also also their business not the government's you arrogant prick.
point to where the government says you will pay for other peoples contraception? the argument stems from a portion of the law that states all insurance plans must provide contraception as a services. and that service will be provided for no extra charge. meaning no extra copay or coinsurance.
do you have any idea how insurance actually works already? get an education dumbass.
Do you have any idea that I am making a philosophical point? Apparently not.
Did you fail to understand my other philosophical point that the government should not be forcing insurance companies to provide services? Apparently so.
How insurance works? Education? Really?
Get over your superiority complex dickhead
you have no idea what this conversation is even about.the government didnt say you directly pay for other peoples health care idiot. the law says the health care providers can not change an extra co-pay or co-insurance for contraception. its not free, its simply included in the cost of your premium.
seeing as how you already pay for other peoples services, why are you not complaining about every other service your health care provider provides for no additional cost?
Again,
What does that have to do with the point that the government should not be forcing people to pay for other people's contraception or force insurance companies to provide coverage for contraception.
I don't have to have insurance, its still a choice.
How an insurance company uses the money from the premiums to pay for other people's health care is their business. If they want to charge extra for contraception coverage that is also also their business not the government's you arrogant prick.
point to where the government says you will pay for other peoples contraception? the argument stems from a portion of the law that states all insurance plans must provide contraception as a services. and that service will be provided for no extra charge. meaning no extra copay or coinsurance.
do you have any idea how insurance actually works already? get an education dumbass.
you have no idea what this conversation is even about.Again,
What does that have to do with the point that the government should not be forcing people to pay for other people's contraception or force insurance companies to provide coverage for contraception.
I don't have to have insurance, its still a choice.
How an insurance company uses the money from the premiums to pay for other people's health care is their business. If they want to charge extra for contraception coverage that is also also their business not the government's you arrogant prick.
point to where the government says you will pay for other peoples contraception? the argument stems from a portion of the law that states all insurance plans must provide contraception as a services. and that service will be provided for no extra charge. meaning no extra copay or coinsurance.
do you have any idea how insurance actually works already? get an education dumbass.
Do you have any idea that I am making a philosophical point? Apparently not.
Did you fail to understand my other philosophical point that the government should not be forcing insurance companies to provide services? Apparently so.
How insurance works? Education? Really?
Get over your superiority complex dickhead
re-read the argument. i said as i have always maintained that the law doesnt specifically say or mandate that you will pay for other people services. that is the way you people on the right are interpreting it.you have no idea what this conversation is even about.Again,
What does that have to do with the point that the government should not be forcing people to pay for other people's contraception or force insurance companies to provide coverage for contraception.
I don't have to have insurance, its still a choice.
How an insurance company uses the money from the premiums to pay for other people's health care is their business. If they want to charge extra for contraception coverage that is also also their business not the government's you arrogant prick.
point to where the government says you will pay for other peoples contraception? the argument stems from a portion of the law that states all insurance plans must provide contraception as a services. and that service will be provided for no extra charge. meaning no extra copay or coinsurance.
do you have any idea how insurance actually works already? get an education dumbass.
Wait a minute.
Aren't you the guy that insists that premiums go directly to pay for other people's services? How can you argue that and, at the same time, argue that people aren't actually paying for other people's services?
if you dont understand a simple premise like how insurance works obviously cant understand the rest of the argument.you have no idea what this conversation is even about.
point to where the government says you will pay for other peoples contraception? the argument stems from a portion of the law that states all insurance plans must provide contraception as a services. and that service will be provided for no extra charge. meaning no extra copay or coinsurance.
do you have any idea how insurance actually works already? get an education dumbass.
Do you have any idea that I am making a philosophical point? Apparently not.
Did you fail to understand my other philosophical point that the government should not be forcing insurance companies to provide services? Apparently so.
How insurance works? Education? Really?
Get over your superiority complex dickhead
so what you are really advocating is that insurance companies and health care providers not be regulated to have uniform standards? hmmm like all those ethical insurance companies who used to drop people when they got sick, or refused to provide them certain services they thought were too expensive, or refused to provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. hmmm sounds like a wonderfully perfect system. pretty soon they wont have any regulations, and then they wont have to provide services to anyone who cant pay full price for the services. so no one will have access to coverage.
if you dont understand a simple premise like how insurance works obviously cant understand the rest of the argument.you have no idea what this conversation is even about.
point to where the government says you will pay for other peoples contraception? the argument stems from a portion of the law that states all insurance plans must provide contraception as a services. and that service will be provided for no extra charge. meaning no extra copay or coinsurance.
do you have any idea how insurance actually works already? get an education dumbass.
Do you have any idea that I am making a philosophical point? Apparently not.
Did you fail to understand my other philosophical point that the government should not be forcing insurance companies to provide services? Apparently so.
How insurance works? Education? Really?
Get over your superiority complex dickhead
so what you are really advocating is that insurance companies and health care providers not be regulated to have uniform standards? hmmm like all those ethical insurance companies who used to drop people when they got sick, or refused to provide them certain services they thought were too expensive, or refused to provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. hmmm sounds like a wonderfully perfect system. pretty soon they wont have any regulations, and then they wont have to provide services to anyone who cant pay full price for the services. so no one will have access to coverage.
A comment that left me scratching my head as well.The Catholic Church is opposed to contraception for moral reasons.
Where is the morality in creating a life when food and clean water are rare commodities? Where poverty exists and educational opportunities are non existent?
Where is the morality when disease is spread?
Where is the morality when a women is the victim of domestic violence? When a women is forced to conceive and then trapped as the child become a lever to gain more power and more control?
Food and clean water are rare commodities??
And I thought this was a thread to actually discuss contraception. Imagine my surprise when I found out it was another extreme political stunt.....
Go away. The questions asked and the respones above are not the product of a political stunt. But even you know that much.
But thanks so much for sharing.
i think when the free market fails to provide an adequate service such a basic health care at an affordable price government intervention can force change. since the majority of people on this thread have basically decided that access to affordable health care is not a basic right and people do not deserve it, this rules out universal health (unlike most of the rest of the industrialized world). this being said, government regulation of this can provide a framework to make it accessible by more people than it currently it.if you dont understand a simple premise like how insurance works obviously cant understand the rest of the argument.Do you have any idea that I am making a philosophical point? Apparently not.
Did you fail to understand my other philosophical point that the government should not be forcing insurance companies to provide services? Apparently so.
How insurance works? Education? Really?
Get over your superiority complex dickhead
so what you are really advocating is that insurance companies and health care providers not be regulated to have uniform standards? hmmm like all those ethical insurance companies who used to drop people when they got sick, or refused to provide them certain services they thought were too expensive, or refused to provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. hmmm sounds like a wonderfully perfect system. pretty soon they wont have any regulations, and then they wont have to provide services to anyone who cant pay full price for the services. so no one will have access to coverage.
First off, the fact that health care costs so much and that so many people have to have insurance, (which was originally created to be only for catastrophic situations) just to walk into a doctor's office is because the government's overinvolvement in health care.
But that's for a whole other discussion
Government has restricted market forces from weeding out insurance companies who act out as you stated by preventing people from purchasing insurance across state lines. This created an artificial monopoly where costs go up and coverage grows poorer. Open up access and competition increases. Increased competition means lower cost and better coverage for everyone.
Should people have recourse if the insurance company screws the person over by not providing an agreed upon paid for service? Yes!
In a free market these companies will go out of business real fast.
Should the government mandate what services an insurance company provides? No.
Government is not the solution, its the problem.
But that's just my opinion as is yours that the government is the solution. OK, we disagree.
i think when the free market fails to provide an adequate service such a basic health care at an affordable price government intervention can force change. since the majority of people on this thread have basically decided that access to affordable health care is not a basic right and people do not deserve it, this rules out universal health (unlike most of the rest of the industrialized world). this being said, government regulation of this can provide a framework to make it accessible by more people than it currently it.
government is not always the solution, but neither is the free market. just use the financial markets betwen 2004 and 2008 as an example of this.
i think when the free market fails to provide an adequate service such a basic health care at an affordable price government intervention can force change. since the majority of people on this thread have basically decided that access to affordable health care is not a basic right and people do not deserve it, this rules out universal health (unlike most of the rest of the industrialized world). this being said, government regulation of this can provide a framework to make it accessible by more people than it currently it.if you dont understand a simple premise like how insurance works obviously cant understand the rest of the argument.
so what you are really advocating is that insurance companies and health care providers not be regulated to have uniform standards? hmmm like all those ethical insurance companies who used to drop people when they got sick, or refused to provide them certain services they thought were too expensive, or refused to provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. hmmm sounds like a wonderfully perfect system. pretty soon they wont have any regulations, and then they wont have to provide services to anyone who cant pay full price for the services. so no one will have access to coverage.
First off, the fact that health care costs so much and that so many people have to have insurance, (which was originally created to be only for catastrophic situations) just to walk into a doctor's office is because the government's overinvolvement in health care.
But that's for a whole other discussion
Government has restricted market forces from weeding out insurance companies who act out as you stated by preventing people from purchasing insurance across state lines. This created an artificial monopoly where costs go up and coverage grows poorer. Open up access and competition increases. Increased competition means lower cost and better coverage for everyone.
Should people have recourse if the insurance company screws the person over by not providing an agreed upon paid for service? Yes!
In a free market these companies will go out of business real fast.
Should the government mandate what services an insurance company provides? No.
Government is not the solution, its the problem.
But that's just my opinion as is yours that the government is the solution. OK, we disagree.
government is not always the solution, but neither is the free market. just use the financial markets betwen 2004 and 2008 as an example of this.
they did operate in a free market between 1990 and 2008. how did the free market work out during that time?i think when the free market fails to provide an adequate service such a basic health care at an affordable price government intervention can force change. since the majority of people on this thread have basically decided that access to affordable health care is not a basic right and people do not deserve it, this rules out universal health (unlike most of the rest of the industrialized world). this being said, government regulation of this can provide a framework to make it accessible by more people than it currently it.First off, the fact that health care costs so much and that so many people have to have insurance, (which was originally created to be only for catastrophic situations) just to walk into a doctor's office is because the government's overinvolvement in health care.
But that's for a whole other discussion
Government has restricted market forces from weeding out insurance companies who act out as you stated by preventing people from purchasing insurance across state lines. This created an artificial monopoly where costs go up and coverage grows poorer. Open up access and competition increases. Increased competition means lower cost and better coverage for everyone.
Should people have recourse if the insurance company screws the person over by not providing an agreed upon paid for service? Yes!
In a free market these companies will go out of business real fast.
Should the government mandate what services an insurance company provides? No.
Government is not the solution, its the problem.
But that's just my opinion as is yours that the government is the solution. OK, we disagree.
government is not always the solution, but neither is the free market. just use the financial markets betwen 2004 and 2008 as an example of this.
If the insurance industry operated in a regulated free market there would be little or any threat of the horrors of dropped coverage,etc because the market would weed out bad actors. Not only that, prices would fall as insurance companies would lose their protected markets. People would have more choice. They could shop for the kind of coverage they wish to buy.
And if you or anyone else thinks Obamacare's mandate that pre existing conditions must be covered is going to work, your nuts. Private insurers will simply stop writing health coverage and will of course drop existing insureds when their policies expire.
Of course this is the goal of Obamacare. To create a system where the only insurer available if the federal government. Obama gets his wish for socialized medicine. And we get shitty rationed care by doctors who are from third world countries, can barely speak English and are more likely to screw up.
they did operate in a free market between 1990 and 2008. how did the free market work out during that time?i think when the free market fails to provide an adequate service such a basic health care at an affordable price government intervention can force change. since the majority of people on this thread have basically decided that access to affordable health care is not a basic right and people do not deserve it, this rules out universal health (unlike most of the rest of the industrialized world). this being said, government regulation of this can provide a framework to make it accessible by more people than it currently it.
government is not always the solution, but neither is the free market. just use the financial markets betwen 2004 and 2008 as an example of this.
If the insurance industry operated in a regulated free market there would be little or any threat of the horrors of dropped coverage,etc because the market would weed out bad actors. Not only that, prices would fall as insurance companies would lose their protected markets. People would have more choice. They could shop for the kind of coverage they wish to buy.
And if you or anyone else thinks Obamacare's mandate that pre existing conditions must be covered is going to work, your nuts. Private insurers will simply stop writing health coverage and will of course drop existing insureds when their policies expire.
Of course this is the goal of Obamacare. To create a system where the only insurer available if the federal government. Obama gets his wish for socialized medicine. And we get shitty rationed care by doctors who are from third world countries, can barely speak English and are more likely to screw up.
