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.
Lying again....Fluke wants someone else to pay for it.I don't want to pay for birth control if I don't use it...
But those who choose to pay for it, like Ms Fluke, should be able to get it. Period.
- and not just when some asshole like lushbo says she can have it.
She's the poster slut for the moocher class.
The fucking rules are the fucking problem....That and insurance has insulated the purchaser of medical services form paying the costs for their choices.Lying again....Fluke wants someone else to pay for it.But those who choose to pay for it, like Ms Fluke, should be able to get it. Period.
- and not just when some asshole like lushbo says she can have it.
She's the poster slut for the moocher class.
I don't get that line of thinking... That's like you paying for my liquor because we both have visa cards with the same bank.
As long as you contribute according to the rules and I contribute according to the rules and she contributes according to the rules and claims are paid accordingly, we are all paying for our own health care choices, using a method of payment known as 'insurance'. Nothing more, nothing less.
The fucking rules are the fucking problem....That and insurance has insulated the purchaser of medical services form paying the costs for their choices.
1) Remove ALL deductibility for medical insurance...From everyone.
2) Declare insurance to be a free field of interstate commerce.
3) Watch rates drop like a rock.
As long as health care coverage is a closed-market function of an individuals employment, and not a true product to be shopped for in a reasonably free market place of many choices, government involvement is required.
Even to the point of requiring all the players to provide minimum coverage standards, like birth control.
And just 'cause our insurance company pays for her birth control doesn't mean you paid for it. Her premiums are no less valuable than yours or mine are, therefore she is paying for her own health care, via the insurance method, same as you and I are.
And by the way, I don't get why people complain about an insurance mandate being totally "unconstitutional" while at the same time can care less about the government forcing them to buy other preemptive protective measures like a police force, a fire department, and a military. Last time I checked, I don't have any choice whether or not I think I need a fire department to protect me (and may never use it). Aren't those mandates? Is complaining a double standard?
Wouldn't health insurance just be another thing that we all pay for that protects us?
Well, there's that too...But this will happen as a matter of course, when you can shop nationwide for cafeteria style coverage, rather than being a prisoner of in-state must cover mandates....Covered in #2.The fucking rules are the fucking problem....That and insurance has insulated the purchaser of medical services form paying the costs for their choices.
1) Remove ALL deductibility for medical insurance...From everyone.
2) Declare insurance to be a free field of interstate commerce.
3) Watch rates drop like a rock.
How about we make medical insurance more like car insurance, in that we all pay full prices for personal checkups/maintenance (which will bring back a price element into the equation, which will drive efficiency (docs will want to get their costs down)), and simply get insurance for huge catastrophes?
Not the point I want to argue - see post #2.
Give me a truly free market for health coverage or give me minimum standards and controlled prices, enforced by a government beholding to the consumers.
Something has to give. The health insurance lobby has made its bed and needs to be turned on its ear or via open competition regardless of employment, or highly regulated and controlled.
The only other method that makes any sense is a single payer option run like Social Security, with claims paid based on a list of rules that everyone has access to.
Why am I expected to pay for something I will not use? I don't want to pay for birth control if I don't use it... regardless of whether someone else does... if they want it, they can choose to pay for it. Why is the Government forcing insurance companies to only provide coverage that includes birth control? If I don't want birth control, why do I have to pay for it?
That's a lame-ass argument with the possible exception of Medicaid dollars. As long as contributions are paid in according to a set of rules applied equally to all and claims paid in a similar fashion, it's no more you paying for another persons health care choices than if you share the same bank and your money is 'commingled' on some balance sheet.
AVG-JOE in the opening post said:As I said, just 'cause our insurance company pays for her birth control doesn't mean you paid for it. Her premiums are no less valuable than yours or mine are, therefore she is paying for her own health care, via the insurance method, same as you and I are.
Well, there's that too...But this will happen as a matter of course, when you can shop nationwide for cafeteria style coverage, rather than being a prisoner of in-state must cover mandates....Covered in #2.
Bull....fucking....shit.Well, there's that too...But this will happen as a matter of course, when you can shop nationwide for cafeteria style coverage, rather than being a prisoner of in-state must cover mandates....Covered in #2.
Personally though I'd rather be a prisoner to a gov't that I could theoretically elect, vs an insurance company whose sole goal in life is to make profit. Theoretically, the government will care about the health care recipient..
As long as health care coverage is a closed-market function of an individuals employment, and not a true product to be shopped for in a reasonably free market place of many choices, government involvement is required.
Even to the point of requiring all the players to provide minimum coverage standards, like birth control.
And just 'cause our insurance company pays for her birth control doesn't mean you paid for it. Her premiums are no less valuable than yours or mine are, therefore she is paying for her own health care, via the insurance method, same as you and I are.
I sort of understand the argument, Joe. If we're giving up on freedom, we should at least get some security out of the deal. And gawd knows, the middle ground between a free market and state socialism is killing us.
But I think a lot of us are going to have a hard time with the 'giving up on freedom' thing. Even if we recognize the current situation is untenable, giving in to the socialist impulse seems a lot like just pushing things on over the cliff. Even if we win, what do we 'win'?
If we don't actually have choices in coverage, then we need tight controls, and that includes minimum standards that are guaranteed to come with controversy.
Without minimum standards, we may as well all pay cash as we go and bear all our own risk.
It's cheaper (or more profitable, depending on who negotiated the contract) to lump us all in fewer and larger groups. If restrictions of competition reduces the number of groups available for efficiency or for profit, minimum standards are a must.
North Korea, Venezuela and China can "theoretically" elect their leaders as well, and nobody is breaking down the doors of their hospitals to get treatment.
What you also didn't mention, but implied, is that you want your medical care run by the same incompetent nincompoops who run FEMA, TSA, HUD, Fannie & Freddie....North Korea, Venezuela and China can "theoretically" elect their leaders as well, and nobody is breaking down the doors of their hospitals to get treatment.
I did mention it's all theoretical.
What you also didn't mention, but implied, is that you want your medical care run by the same incompetent nincompoops who run FEMA, TSA, HUD, Fannie & Freddie....
IOW, you're off your bloody nut.
If we don't actually have choices in coverage, then we need tight controls, and that includes minimum standards that are guaranteed to come with controversy.
Without minimum standards, we may as well all pay cash as we go and bear all our own risk.
It's cheaper (or more profitable, depending on who negotiated the contract) to lump us all in fewer and larger groups. If restrictions of competition reduces the number of groups available for efficiency or for profit, minimum standards are a must.
I understand the argument. I'm just pointing out that, for a lot of us, this sounds something like "if we're going to be prisoners, we should have comfortable jail cells".
yes but we are not talking taxes having to pay one does not justify the otherWhy am I expected to pay for something I will not use?
You won't use many things your taxes pay for.
next
I never expect any people with a monopoly, especially that on the proactive use of force -the kind of force that hurts people- to be efficient, rational and reasonable.What you also didn't mention, but implied, is that you want your medical care run by the same incompetent nincompoops who run FEMA, TSA, HUD, Fannie & Freddie....
IOW, you're off your bloody nut.
Well you do have a point; I think our Congress is incapable of solving even the simplest of math equations together.
But I ask you, if our government were to become more efficient, rational and reasonable, would you consider?
As long as health care coverage is a closed-market function of an individuals employment, and not a true product to be shopped for in a reasonably free market place of many choices, government involvement is required.
Even to the point of requiring all the players to provide minimum coverage standards, like birth control.
And just 'cause our insurance company pays for her birth control doesn't mean you paid for it. Her premiums are no less valuable than yours or mine are, therefore she is paying for her own health care, via the insurance method, same as you and I are.
I sort of understand the argument, Joe. If we're giving up on freedom, we should at least get some security out of the deal. And gawd knows, the middle ground between a free market and state socialism is killing us.
But I think a lot of us are going to have a hard time with the 'giving up on freedom' thing. Even if we recognize the current situation is untenable, giving in to the socialist impulse seems a lot like just pushing things on over the cliff. Even if we win, what do we 'win'?
If we don't actually have choices in coverage, then we need tight controls, and that includes minimum standards that are guaranteed to come with controversy.
Without minimum standards, we may as well all pay cash as we go and bear all our own risk.
It's cheaper (or more profitable, depending on who negotiated the contract) to lump us all in fewer and larger groups. If restrictions of competition reduces the number of groups available for efficiency or for profit, minimum standards are a must.
The trick is to understand that with a public bureaucracy you A) get a say via your vote, and B) have to understand that 'having a say' does not mean 'getting your way'.
