Government Involvement in Health Insurance & Mandated Minimum Standards

[Quantum Windbag]

Section 1302 of PPACA requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to regulate the essential health benefits that must be offered by all carrier participants in the state health insurance exchanges. PPACA defines essential health benefits by the following categories:

• Ambulatory patient services;
• Emergency services;
• Hospitalization;
• Maternity and newborn care;
• Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment;
• Prescription drugs;
• Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices;
• Laboratory services;
• Preventive and wellness services;
• Chronic disease management; and
• Pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

All health insurance policies must, at a minimum, provide these health benefits to be certified and offered in the proposed state health insurance exchanges. All Medicaid state plans must cover these services by 2014.

IOM Final Recommendations for PPACA

Wow. I had no idea. While this may be terrific for people with high prescription costs, how much will this raise premiums?

Weren't you paying attention to Obama? All of this will magically lower premiums.

 

[KevinWestern]

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?

So you don't want any of your premiums going to a woman who may or may not choose to have birth control included in her insurance policy, but you will gladly pay for the increased premiums caused by that same woman having a child, or having a child prematurely who will require hundreds of thousands of dollars of care? Okay then. My youngest son was born ten weeks early. His bills came close to $300,000 as he was in NICU for 47 days. This was almost 15 years ago. I don't even want to think how much it would cost today.

Another nut that thinks the government should sterilize people.

That WASN'T auditor's point at all (sorry Windbag, I know it can be hard to understand sometimes, when you've got a giant silo wrapped around your head that only allows you to look at things in one way).

The point was that it's much cheaper for an insurance company to cover a $300/yr pill for a sexually active woman who wants it, than cover an accidental pregnancy that can cost on average about $12,000, and sometimes even reach $300,000 when there are complications (as in auditor's example).

Insurance will have to cover both, which is why most all insurance companies offer BC pills; it's a mechanism that protects the insurance pool against costly pregnancies that are unwanted. "Unwanted" meaning people who are sexually active, but don't want children at this time. You give them the pill and there's a 3% chance they'll get pregnant, you don't offer the pill and the chance of pregnancy might rise to 30-40%.

No one said anything about "sterilizing" people. Offering the pill to protect the woman, insurance company, and overall healthcare system against costly unplanned, unwanted pregnancies is not the same as saying that "we should sterilizing people". You should know this, I hope.

BC pill will bring down the total costs of the insurance pool, there's nothing magic about it (that is unless you can't understand these simple economic concepts above).

If you're going to argue against this issue, take the side that it's wrong for government to force an employer to do something, because at least you'll be making a valid and debatable point.

.
.
.

 

[chanel]

You are under the false assumption that women don't use the pill because of the expense. It's not your fault. That's what the spin doctors have told you. If women do not want to get pregnant, they find a way to avoid it. We are very clever that way.

My concern right now is all the OTHER prescriptions that will have to be paid for. Once they are "free"...Hell I don't even want to think about it.

 

[KevinWestern]

You are under the false assumption that women don't use the pill because of the expense. It's not your fault. That's what the spin doctors have told you. If women do not want to get pregnant, they find a way to avoid it. We are very clever that way.

My concern right now is all the OTHER prescriptions that will have to be paid for. Once they are "free"...Hell I don't even want to think about it.

Chanel, you may be one of the responsible people, but I'm sure that you can agree that people do take the risk of having unprotected sex all of the time. Condoms are expensive, don't feel great, and aren't always readily available. People can be especially dumb - both male and female - especially after a few drinks .

Do you think a woman is more likely to be on the pill when insurance covers it as a part of the costs she already pays, or when she has to pay an additional $30-40 for it each month? My answer would be she is more likely to be on the pill if insurance covers it. Why? Because the less and less something costs somebody, the higher their demand for the product will be. Imagine if they lowered the price of Audi's to $50; do you think your neighbor or co-worker would be more likely or less likely to own an Audi in that example?

If insurance does not cover BC out of ten sexually active women who don't want children, maybe 2 of them will be resourceful and will go to planned parenthood, or will make room in their budget to buy the pill 100% out of pocket to protect themselves. However, if insurance does cover BC, maybe 5 of those women will go on the pill because it requires much less additional effort.

More women on pill = less pregnancies the insurance company will have to cover.

Now, if we're talking actual stats, it's estimated that for every $1 an insurance company spends on birth control, it saves about $2-$6 dollars in the long run in pregnancies. Don't you want to save the system a little extra cash? I know I do...

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2012/03_unplanned_pregnancy_thomas.aspx
.
.
.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So you don't want any of your premiums going to a woman who may or may not choose to have birth control included in her insurance policy, but you will gladly pay for the increased premiums caused by that same woman having a child, or having a child prematurely who will require hundreds of thousands of dollars of care? Okay then. My youngest son was born ten weeks early. His bills came close to $300,000 as he was in NICU for 47 days. This was almost 15 years ago. I don't even want to think how much it would cost today.

Another nut that thinks the government should sterilize people.

That WASN'T auditor's point at all (sorry Windbag, I know it can be hard to understand sometimes, when you've got a giant silo wrapped around your head that only allows you to look at things in one way).

The point was that it's much cheaper for an insurance company to cover a $300/yr pill for a sexually active woman who wants it, than cover an accidental pregnancy that can cost on average about $12,000, and sometimes even reach $300,000 when there are complications (as in auditor's example).

Insurance will have to cover both, which is why most all insurance companies offer BC pills; it's a mechanism that protects the insurance pool against costly pregnancies that are unwanted. "Unwanted" meaning people who are sexually active, but don't want children at this time. You give them the pill and there's a 3% chance they'll get pregnant, you don't offer the pill and the chance of pregnancy might rise to 30-40%.

No one said anything about "sterilizing" people. Try to use your head, and stop melding peoples words to serve your own purposes.

BC pill will bring down the total costs of the insurance pool, there's nothing magic about it.

.
.
.

You are the one that got his point wrong, if his point was that it makes sense for insurance companies to offer contraception because it saves them money. He was responding to California Girl's post about not wanting to buy contraceptives for herself with the argument that it would save her money if she bought a policy that covered it.

If birth control does save insurers money, which is debatable if you dig into the numbers, then insurance companies will offer it as part of their policy. If they examine the numbers and decide it doesn't, they will choose not to. I don't have a problem with that, what I have a problem with is the government saying that everyone who buys insurance has to buy contraception.

What are they going to do when they find out that birth control insurance doesn't actually drive down the cost of the insurance pool? Why should people who get birth control for free settle for the $9 generic version of the Pill at Target or WalMart when they can get the expensive brand name pill for the same price? Will the simple fact that it is on insurance suddenly stop people from actually having babies? That will mean insurance companies will be paying for birth control and still paying for pregnancies, which will cost more in one year than a lifetime of birth control.

The only way to make savings work is to somehow reduce pregnancy itself. The only way to actually accomplish that is for the government to step in and tell each woman how many children she can have, and when she can have them. Anything less than that is not going to save money.

I am using my head, unlike most people.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are under the false assumption that women don't use the pill because of the expense. It's not your fault. That's what the spin doctors have told you. If women do not want to get pregnant, they find a way to avoid it. We are very clever that way.

My concern right now is all the OTHER prescriptions that will have to be paid for. Once they are "free"...Hell I don't even want to think about it.

Chanel, you may be one of the responsible people, but I'm sure that you can agree that people do take the risk of having unprotected sex all of the time. Condoms are expensive, don't feel great, and aren't always readily available. People can be especially dumb - both male and female - especially after a few drinks .

The point is, do you think a woman is more likely to be on the pill when insurance covers it as a part of the costs she already pays, or when she has to pay an additional $30-40 for it each month?

As the price of something falls, demand for it will rise.

If insurance does not cover BC out of ten sexually active women who don't want children, maybe 2 of them will be resourceful and will go to planned parenthood, or will make room in their budget to buy the pill 100% out of pocket to protect themselves.

If insurance does cover BC maybe 5 of those women will go on the pill because it requires much less additional effort.

More women on pill = less pregnancies the insurance company will have to cover.

It's projected that for every $1 an insurance company spends on birth control, it saves about $2-$6 dollars in the long run in pregnancies (actual statistics). Don't you want to save the system a little extra cash? I know I do...

Policy Solutions for Preventing Unplanned Pregnancy - Brookings Institution
.
.
.

There is your problem, you have no real idea how much contraception costs.

 

[KevinWestern]

You are under the false assumption that women don't use the pill because of the expense. It's not your fault. That's what the spin doctors have told you. If women do not want to get pregnant, they find a way to avoid it. We are very clever that way.

My concern right now is all the OTHER prescriptions that will have to be paid for. Once they are "free"...Hell I don't even want to think about it.

Chanel, you may be one of the responsible people, but I'm sure that you can agree that people do take the risk of having unprotected sex all of the time. Condoms are expensive, don't feel great, and aren't always readily available. People can be especially dumb - both male and female - especially after a few drinks .

The point is, do you think a woman is more likely to be on the pill when insurance covers it as a part of the costs she already pays, or when she has to pay an additional $30-40 for it each month?

As the price of something falls, demand for it will rise.

If insurance does not cover BC out of ten sexually active women who don't want children, maybe 2 of them will be resourceful and will go to planned parenthood, or will make room in their budget to buy the pill 100% out of pocket to protect themselves.

If insurance does cover BC maybe 5 of those women will go on the pill because it requires much less additional effort.

More women on pill = less pregnancies the insurance company will have to cover.

It's projected that for every $1 an insurance company spends on birth control, it saves about $2-$6 dollars in the long run in pregnancies (actual statistics). Don't you want to save the system a little extra cash? I know I do...

Policy Solutions for Preventing Unplanned Pregnancy - Brookings Institution
.
.
.

There is your problem, you have no real idea how much contraception costs.

Windbag - Which pool of people do you think would be more costly for an insurance company to cover:

- a pool of 50 pregnant women

or

- a pool of 50 women on the pill?

How about a pool of 20 pregnant women, vs a pool of 50 women on the pill?

How about even a pool of 10 pregnant woman, vs a pool of 50 women on the pill?

The simple fact is that contraception is CHEAP when compared to pregnancy. Super cheap.

I believe if one were to buy a pack of BC pills, it runs you about $50/retail. And think of with an insurance company that buys in bulk, that price can drop to about maybe $10/per month or less (per customer). I've even read that in very large plans, the cost of contraception (in total) for the year would run the insurance company only $16 extra per person.

So is it worth the insurance companies dishing out $100-$300/year to drastically curb the risk of having to pay for an unplanned pregnancy ($12,000-$300,000).

Absolutely.

Why do you think otherwise?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Chanel, you may be one of the responsible people, but I'm sure that you can agree that people do take the risk of having unprotected sex all of the time. Condoms are expensive, don't feel great, and aren't always readily available. People can be especially dumb - both male and female - especially after a few drinks .

The point is, do you think a woman is more likely to be on the pill when insurance covers it as a part of the costs she already pays, or when she has to pay an additional $30-40 for it each month?

As the price of something falls, demand for it will rise.

If insurance does not cover BC out of ten sexually active women who don't want children, maybe 2 of them will be resourceful and will go to planned parenthood, or will make room in their budget to buy the pill 100% out of pocket to protect themselves.

If insurance does cover BC maybe 5 of those women will go on the pill because it requires much less additional effort.

More women on pill = less pregnancies the insurance company will have to cover.

It's projected that for every $1 an insurance company spends on birth control, it saves about $2-$6 dollars in the long run in pregnancies (actual statistics). Don't you want to save the system a little extra cash? I know I do...

Policy Solutions for Preventing Unplanned Pregnancy - Brookings Institution
.
.
.

There is your problem, you have no real idea how much contraception costs.

Windbag - Which pool of people do you think an insurance company would have to dish out more money for - a pool of 50 pregnant women, or a pool of 50 women on the pill?

How about a pool of 20 pregnant women, vs a pool of 50 women on the pill?

Before you answer that question, consider that a birth control pack costs about $40-50 if one were to purchase out of pocket, so maybe $500/year. Then you have to take into account that the insurance companies will be paying much less for those packs, given that they buy in bulk.

At $100,000 a pop for a normal pregnancy, which is probably low, would pay for 11,111 monthly doses of birth control at $9.

 

[KevinWestern]

There is your problem, you have no real idea how much contraception costs.

Windbag - Which pool of people do you think an insurance company would have to dish out more money for - a pool of 50 pregnant women, or a pool of 50 women on the pill?

How about a pool of 20 pregnant women, vs a pool of 50 women on the pill?

Before you answer that question, consider that a birth control pack costs about $40-50 if one were to purchase out of pocket, so maybe $500/year. Then you have to take into account that the insurance companies will be paying much less for those packs, given that they buy in bulk.

At $100,000 a pop for a normal pregnancy, which is probably low, would pay for 11,111 monthly doses of birth control at $9.

So then you're agreeing with me?

 

[Flopper]

So you don't want any of your premiums going to a woman who may or may not choose to have birth control included in her insurance policy, but you will gladly pay for the increased premiums caused by that same woman having a child, or having a child prematurely who will require hundreds of thousands of dollars of care? Okay then. My youngest son was born ten weeks early. His bills came close to $300,000 as he was in NICU for 47 days. This was almost 15 years ago. I don't even want to think how much it would cost today.

Another nut that thinks the government should sterilize people.

That WASN'T auditor's point at all (sorry Windbag, I know it can be hard to understand sometimes, when you've got a giant silo wrapped around your head that only allows you to look at things in one way).

The point was that it's much cheaper for an insurance company to cover a $300/yr pill for a sexually active woman who wants it, than cover an accidental pregnancy that can cost on average about $12,000, and sometimes even reach $300,000 when there are complications (as in auditor's example).

Insurance will have to cover both, which is why most all insurance companies offer BC pills; it's a mechanism that protects the insurance pool against costly pregnancies that are unwanted. "Unwanted" meaning people who are sexually active, but don't want children at this time. You give them the pill and there's a 3% chance they'll get pregnant, you don't offer the pill and the chance of pregnancy might rise to 30-40%.

No one said anything about "sterilizing" people. Offering the pill to protect the woman, insurance company, and overall healthcare system against costly unplanned, unwanted pregnancies is not the same as saying that "we should sterilizing people". You should know this, I hope.

BC pill will bring down the total costs of the insurance pool, there's nothing magic about it (that is unless you can't understand these simple economic concepts above).

If you're going to argue against this issue, take the side that it's wrong for government to force an employer to do something, because at least you'll be making a valid and debatable point.

.
.
.

I've seen first hand, what happens to unwanted children from poor families. The cost to society is far greater than just the cost of the pregnancy. In the US we spend 3.5 billion on birth control bills and over 23 billion to support children from low income families, many who are unwanted. Unwanted children from poor families are much more likely to be victims of child abuse, become low achievers in school, and become involved in criminal activity. IMHO, birth control should be free to all low income families. I think the savings would far exceed the cost.



http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/0317.pdf

 

[freedombecki]

Contraceptives are found 30 years later to have an astronomical increase in certain kinds of cancers in women. Everything like that is a no-win for an insurance company, fellas. Losing a friend to cancer is just about as rotten as it gets

 

[KevinWestern]

Another nut that thinks the government should sterilize people.

That WASN'T auditor's point at all (sorry Windbag, I know it can be hard to understand sometimes, when you've got a giant silo wrapped around your head that only allows you to look at things in one way).

The point was that it's much cheaper for an insurance company to cover a $300/yr pill for a sexually active woman who wants it, than cover an accidental pregnancy that can cost on average about $12,000, and sometimes even reach $300,000 when there are complications (as in auditor's example).

Insurance will have to cover both, which is why most all insurance companies offer BC pills; it's a mechanism that protects the insurance pool against costly pregnancies that are unwanted. "Unwanted" meaning people who are sexually active, but don't want children at this time. You give them the pill and there's a 3% chance they'll get pregnant, you don't offer the pill and the chance of pregnancy might rise to 30-40%.

No one said anything about "sterilizing" people. Try to use your head, and stop melding peoples words to serve your own purposes.

BC pill will bring down the total costs of the insurance pool, there's nothing magic about it.

.
.
.

You are the one that got his point wrong, if his point was that it makes sense for insurance companies to offer contraception because it saves them money. He was responding to California Girl's post about not wanting to buy contraceptives for herself with the argument that it would save her money if she bought a policy that covered it.

If birth control does save insurers money, which is debatable if you dig into the numbers, then insurance companies will offer it as part of their policy. If they examine the numbers and decide it doesn't, they will choose not to. I don't have a problem with that, what I have a problem with is the government saying that everyone who buys insurance has to buy contraception.

What are they going to do when they find out that birth control insurance doesn't actually drive down the cost of the insurance pool? Why should people who get birth control for free settle for the $9 generic version of the Pill at Target or WalMart when they can get the expensive brand name pill for the same price? Will the simple fact that it is on insurance suddenly stop people from actually having babies? That will mean insurance companies will be paying for birth control and still paying for pregnancies, which will cost more in one year than a lifetime of birth control.

The only way to make savings work is to somehow reduce pregnancy itself. The only way to actually accomplish that is for the government to step in and tell each woman how many children she can have, and when she can have them. Anything less than that is not going to save money.

I am using my head, unlike most people.

For one thing, sorry to jump at you with the "using your head", just a little frustrated. Anyways.

I think if insurance companies offer the pill they will generally offer the generic brands. Yes, people get it "free", but they don't always have a choice about what they get (perhaps without having to maybe dish out extra if they want the name brand). For example, I'm on antibiotics right now for bronchitis, and to get the generic brand cost me $2 co-pay, while the name brand cost me $40. Needless to say, I picked generic.

And will birth control being offered prevent people from having babies? Of course not. If someone wants to have a baby, they're going to do it no matter what. Those aren't the people, though, we're talking about.

In this discussion, it's important to note that we're specifically talking about the group - sexually active women who don't want kids.

Cover the pill, and they'll be less likely to get pregnant.

So say out of the 4,000 women who fall into that category on insurance pool A, you'll see a 4% pregnancy rate if the pill is offered but a 10-20% pregnancy rate if it is not.

The pool of 4,000 women who want to get pregnant are going to have the same pregnancy rates whether or not you offer the pill, because either way they're not going to be taking it.

 

[Rozman]

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.

Government would not let it's citizens buy health care across state lines like car insurance.
They wanted what they got.And I have a really bad feeling about where we are headed.

 

[Flopper]

Contraceptives are found 30 years later to have an astronomical increase in certain kinds of cancers in women. Everything like that is a no-win for an insurance company, fellas. Losing a friend to cancer is just about as rotten as it gets

Astronomical Increase? Not according to the National Cancer Institute

Some studies have shown an increased risk of breast cancer in women taking oral contraceptives, while other studies have shown no change in risk.

Oral contraceptive use has been shown in multiple studies to decrease the risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer.

Oral contraceptives have been shown to increase the risk of cervical cancer; however, human papillomavirus is the major risk factor for this disease.

Oral Contraceptives and Cancer Risk: Q & A - National Cancer Institute

 

[auditor0007]

Another nut that thinks the government should sterilize people.

That WASN'T auditor's point at all (sorry Windbag, I know it can be hard to understand sometimes, when you've got a giant silo wrapped around your head that only allows you to look at things in one way).

The point was that it's much cheaper for an insurance company to cover a $300/yr pill for a sexually active woman who wants it, than cover an accidental pregnancy that can cost on average about $12,000, and sometimes even reach $300,000 when there are complications (as in auditor's example).

Insurance will have to cover both, which is why most all insurance companies offer BC pills; it's a mechanism that protects the insurance pool against costly pregnancies that are unwanted. "Unwanted" meaning people who are sexually active, but don't want children at this time. You give them the pill and there's a 3% chance they'll get pregnant, you don't offer the pill and the chance of pregnancy might rise to 30-40%.

No one said anything about "sterilizing" people. Try to use your head, and stop melding peoples words to serve your own purposes.

BC pill will bring down the total costs of the insurance pool, there's nothing magic about it.

.
.
.

You are the one that got his point wrong, if his point was that it makes sense for insurance companies to offer contraception because it saves them money. He was responding to California Girl's post about not wanting to buy contraceptives for herself with the argument that it would save her money if she bought a policy that covered it.

If birth control does save insurers money, which is debatable if you dig into the numbers, then insurance companies will offer it as part of their policy. If they examine the numbers and decide it doesn't, they will choose not to. I don't have a problem with that, what I have a problem with is the government saying that everyone who buys insurance has to buy contraception.

What are they going to do when they find out that birth control insurance doesn't actually drive down the cost of the insurance pool? Why should people who get birth control for free settle for the $9 generic version of the Pill at Target or WalMart when they can get the expensive brand name pill for the same price? Will the simple fact that it is on insurance suddenly stop people from actually having babies? That will mean insurance companies will be paying for birth control and still paying for pregnancies, which will cost more in one year than a lifetime of birth control.

The only way to make savings work is to somehow reduce pregnancy itself. The only way to actually accomplish that is for the government to step in and tell each woman how many children she can have, and when she can have them. Anything less than that is not going to save money.

I am using my head, unlike most people.

And please explain how that means I want the government to sterilize people? I think you are so full of hot air it's making you dizzy. But hey, keep thinking I want the government to sterilize everyone because I think that it's much more cost efficient to have insurers cover birth control versus not doing so. They good thing is that you have the right to believe whatever it is that you want, regardless of how ludicrous it may be.

 

[chanel]

Another nut that thinks the government should sterilize people.

That WASN'T auditor's point at all (sorry Windbag, I know it can be hard to understand sometimes, when you've got a giant silo wrapped around your head that only allows you to look at things in one way).

The point was that it's much cheaper for an insurance company to cover a $300/yr pill for a sexually active woman who wants it, than cover an accidental pregnancy that can cost on average about $12,000, and sometimes even reach $300,000 when there are complications (as in auditor's example).

Insurance will have to cover both, which is why most all insurance companies offer BC pills; it's a mechanism that protects the insurance pool against costly pregnancies that are unwanted. "Unwanted" meaning people who are sexually active, but don't want children at this time. You give them the pill and there's a 3% chance they'll get pregnant, you don't offer the pill and the chance of pregnancy might rise to 30-40%.

No one said anything about "sterilizing" people. Offering the pill to protect the woman, insurance company, and overall healthcare system against costly unplanned, unwanted pregnancies is not the same as saying that "we should sterilizing people". You should know this, I hope.

BC pill will bring down the total costs of the insurance pool, there's nothing magic about it (that is unless you can't understand these simple economic concepts above).

If you're going to argue against this issue, take the side that it's wrong for government to force an employer to do something, because at least you'll be making a valid and debatable point.

.
.
.

I've seen first hand, what happens to unwanted children from poor families. The cost to society is far greater than just the cost of the pregnancy. In the US we spend 3.5 billion on birth control bills and over 23 billion to support children from low income families, many who are unwanted. Unwanted children from poor families are much more likely to be victims of child abuse, become low achievers in school, and become involved in criminal activity. IMHO, birth control should be free to all low income families. I think the savings would far exceed the cost.



http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/0317.pdf

I am very familiar with "unwanted children from poor families". Guess what? In most states, Medicaid already pays for BC, as does most insurance policies. There are far fewer "unwanted pregnancies" than people think. They may not want the child; but they sure like the check. Why aren't there millions of children put up for adoption?

The controversy is about Catholic institutions - WORKING, SEXUALLY ACTIVE, SINGLE women who for some reason???? cannot afford 10 bucks a month. Anyone have any stats on that?

 

[AVG-JOE]

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?

So you don't want any of your premiums going to a woman who may or may not choose to have birth control included in her insurance policy, but you will gladly pay for the increased premiums caused by that same woman having a child, or having a child prematurely who will require hundreds of thousands of dollars of care? Okay then. My youngest son was born ten weeks early. His bills came close to $300,000 as he was in NICU for 47 days. This was almost 15 years ago. I don't even want to think how much it would cost today.

Another nut that thinks the government should sterilize people.

Where the fuck did you see 'sterilize'?!?

It'd be interesting to hear how you interpret 'Hansel & Gretel'......

 

[MeBelle]

We have covered this topic several times already.

So, say that all health insurance plans cover birth control.
That doesn't mean that all women will use prescribed birth control.

Why have BC covered in an insurance plan when Planned Parenthood gives it out for free?

Medicaid does not even cover the cost of a hospital or LTC stay. The business, whether for profit or non-profit ends up eating the cost.

The main point that keeps getting lost is 'separation of church and state'.
If we can't put up a creche' in the capital because of 'separation of church and state' how in the hell can the government FORCE any church based business, to purchase BC if it goes against their beliefs?

When government intrudes on religious beliefs, it has crossed the 'separation of church and state' line.
This should be important to everyone, believer or non-believer.

 

[dblack]

The main point that keeps getting lost is 'separation of church and state'.
If we can't put up a creche' in the capital because of 'separation of church and state' how in the hell can the government FORCE any church based business, to purchase BC if it goes against their beliefs?

The main point that keeps getting lost is freedom. The freedom of churches, businesses, individuals - all of us - to follow our own beliefs as long our actions aren't harming others.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The freedom to choose what your business does and does not sell goes out the window when the people buying your particular product from your particular company have no or very little choice in the matter.

As long as the insurance industry insists on limiting their competition and my choices by tying health care coverage to my employment, I insist on mandated product descriptions and price controls. You can't have your monopoly and eat it too.