More Birth Control = Fewer Abortions

[The Derp]

The left hate the poor

You're the ones who want to cut subsidies for individuals as well as CSR's.

Obamacare is 100% owned by Democrats

It was until Trump broke it.

 

[The Derp]

Well it would very much in the states interest, to deregulate to allow cheaper insurance to come in.

So you are arguing on behalf of federalism; wiping out state laws and regulations in favor of a set of federal authority standards that apply to all states.

That runs in direct conflict with Conservatives' stated goals of "states rights" and anti-federalism.

Is that what you intend?

Do you know how many businesses would move in a heartbeat if they knew their insurance plans could Potentially he be cut in half. That’s one of the biggest cost of operation in the United States, and just by moving you could increase your profit margin by say 5%...there’s plenty of companies that would clamor to make that move. Not to mention there’s this whole thing called the commerce clause that would take regulation out of the states hands anyway

You're working under the assumption that market consolidation would lead to cheaper rates. It didn't happen with cable, so why would it happen with health insurance?

So just so we're clear, the idea of letting insurance companies operate across state lines is federalism because you're setting federal standards for insurance regulation, wiping out any state-based laws. Is that what you want? More federalism? And if you're going to do that, you might as well just open up Medicare to everyone since it's more efficient, cheaper, and already operates across all 50 states.

 

[The Derp]

But not everybody is in the same risk pool.

So you want to create silos, but silos don't reduce costs, they increase them. The larger the premium pool, the lower the premium, and the lower the risk. If everyone was in one single risk pool then that bottoms out the overall risk, does it not? What reduces the risk? The amount of healthy people not likely to incur medical costs. Ergo, if you want the lowest possible costs, you want all the healthy people to enroll.

Like a recently married woman would be much more likely to have children in a couple of years, which that couple should be able to shop for a plan that fits them together. Unless she was on mirena, then she could show the companies she’s not planning on having kids in the near future, and still get a lower cost plan. And I’m sure the insurance company would be more than happy to cover the cost of the mirena.Right now the risk pools are company based, so they’re offering the same few plans to this diverse group of people, some who are not strong health risk, and some who are.

The risk pools right now are all over the place because there are multiple, different risk pools out there. If everyone was in the same risk pool, then what does that do to overall risk and costs?

 

[The Derp]

But not everybody is in the same risk pool.

Welll, but who is determining who goes in which risk pool? That's my point. If you start siloing people into different risk pools, you're just perpetuating the same problem from before; you're segregating out "presumably" healthy people with "presumably" unhealthy people, but the point of insurance isn't to segregate, it's to lower the risk. So the larger the pool, the lower the risk. So the largest pool possible will result in the lowest risk possible, will it not? So how are you not making a case for a single payer system, where everyone is on the same insurance plan?

Try to think of this in terms beyond just yourself. I know that's challenging for some people who lack empathy, but health care and health insurance isn't an individual issue, it's a social one.

 

[sakinago]

Well it would very much in the states interest, to deregulate to allow cheaper insurance to come in.

So you are arguing on behalf of federalism; wiping out state laws and regulations in favor of a set of federal authority standards that apply to all states.

That runs in direct conflict with Conservatives' stated goals of "states rights" and anti-federalism.

Is that what you intend?

Do you know how many businesses would move in a heartbeat if they knew their insurance plans could Potentially he be cut in half. That’s one of the biggest cost of operation in the United States, and just by moving you could increase your profit margin by say 5%...there’s plenty of companies that would clamor to make that move. Not to mention there’s this whole thing called the commerce clause that would take regulation out of the states hands anyway

You're working under the assumption that market consolidation would lead to cheaper rates. It didn't happen with cable, so why would it happen with health insurance?

So just so we're clear, the idea of letting insurance companies operate across state lines is federalism because you're setting federal standards for insurance regulation, wiping out any state-based laws. Is that what you want? More federalism? And if you're going to do that, you might as well just open up Medicare to everyone since it's more efficient, cheaper, and already operates across all 50 states.

If it opened up the market yes, the whole point is that over regulation is bad for pretty much everyone, except the big dogs in that specific industry. And it is more constitutional, with the commerce clause, than not allowing the commerce to commence outside of state lines, and regulating the bejesus out of us. I am for the free market, if the states are obstructing it, than I’m not for the states, if it’s the Fed, then I’m not for the Fed doing it.

I am NOT for the Fed clearly overstepping its bounds, or using coercion when it comes to states rights, which it does frequently. I am pro 10th amendment, but with the commerce clause this is constitutional.

What is mentally messed up with you peoples heads? You either have to be 1000% on this side, or 1000% on this. It’s gotten far passed silly at this point, and is starting to become mental illness, it’s just ridiculous.

And stop saying that opening up the risk pools won’t work for this reason or that reason....it’s already being done successfully in Switzerland. It works very well for them.

 

[Dragonlady]

You miss the point. Employers should have NO SAY in what medical treatments are covered in employee health care packages. None. That is between the employer and their doctors.

Here in Canada, the Catholic Church pays for health care for its employees which includes both birth control and abortion. Not once ever have they filed lawsuits claiming a violation of their religious freedom.

This whole "it's against our religion" is a scam to try to force others into living by THEIR religious ideals. That violates the religious freedom of every employee working for them.

I don't believe in religion. I believe in ownership rights.
When I use the word employer, I'm talking about the owner of the company.
The owner gets to spend his money as he sees fit.
Including not providing any insurance at all.

If health insurance is part of the compensation package it's not his money it's his employees' money. They earned it. The employer should be asking the employees what they want in their healthcare since it's their healthcare not his.

This isn't about Canada.
I don't expect you to understand American freedom.

I understand American freedom is a myth. My birth control was always paid for in my health insurance. Abortions in Canada are paid for in full by my government health insurance. No copays no paperwork. That's freedom.

Employers have no right to tell me I can't have birth control because Of THEIR religious beliefs. What you call "freedom" is in fact the opposite. It is the employer's attempt to inflect his religious beliefs on his employees.

This is one of the reasons why Canada ranks much higher In the ranking of countries with the most personal freedoms than the USA. Freedom means freeedom for all, not just for those holding the purse strings.

There are no employers telling anyone they can't have birth control.

They are restricting access to it through manipulation of the health care package. Since paying for birth control is cheaper than paying for prenatal/ postnatal care and live delivery, I'm willing to bet that policies for women of child bearing age are cheaper if birth control is included.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

This is an informative article on what really happens when people try to legislate sexual morality and insist others live according to THEIR religious beliefs. Sadly, this is not going to have the effect the moral warriors are hoping for. Limiting birth control options by making them more costly or harder to access is going to lead to more abortions or more poor outcomes for both the mothers and children. Abstinence based initiatives have been studied and shown to have no measurable impact on abortion rates. Birth control use did. In a big way. Don't like abortion? Make birth control MORE available, not less.

So why is the current Administration trying to make birth control harder to come by?

Trump jeopardizes progress in reducing teen pregnancy and abortion rates


Teen birth rates have been cut in half over the last decade, which is beneficial not only to young women but to Americans as a whole. The decline is attributed to public health outreach and better use of contraception.

President Donald Trump has put that access to contraception in jeopardy with his rollback of a rule that required employers, with some narrow exceptions, to include contraception, at no cost, in their health insurance plans....

The Trump administration has already quietly cut more than $200 million for ongoing research into the most effective ways to prevent unwanted teen pregnancies, a decision most likely driven by ideology rather than science.

Three-quarters of U.S. teen pregnancies are unplanned and nearly a third end in abortion, which is much higher than the overall abortion rate of 14.6 percent. That’s the lowest rate since 1973, the year of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision.

Teen pregnancy has multi-generational consequences. Only half of teen mothers receive a high school diploma by age 22, compared with 90 percent of women who do not give birth as teens.

The children of teenage mothers also are more likely to drop out of high school. In addition, they are more likely to have more health problems, be incarcerated at some time during adolescence, give birth as teenagers, and face unemployment as young adults.

Do you use BC?

I use the most effective form of birth control available. It is called being old and ugly. The only thing that happenes in my bedroom is sleep. Yet I still belive we all have a right to use BC and have it affordable. God bless those who get some! More power to them. At least some one has some happiness. You crazy right wingers wnat no hppiness for anybody.

If they want happiness, let them pay for it! I am in the same shape you are, so why should I care if anyone else is getting any?

Last time I checked, paying someone to have sex was illegal in most places.

It is cheaper to pay for the birth control than the birth period. I do not steel stuff but the cost of my goods are including the cost of theft. You pay either way. You pay more by not letting the young and pretty people have thier fun and use the contraceptive.

You need to work on your writing. I barely made it through that mishmash of poor punctuation, bad spelling, and improper word choice. Please try to do better!

It is not cheaper to pay for birth control if I am not using it. My wife is past her childbearing years and I have no children on my insurance. (Besides, if they came up pregnant, they'd be dead anyway!) So much for needing maternity coverage. Yet, under Obamacare's laws, I have to pay for it anyway.

So explain to me agains how it is cheaper for me to pay for coverage I don't need or want?

 

[OldLady]

Funny how the left think a 50 year old male should be covered for maternity.

This is the way medical insurance has always worked. No one bitched about it until the Republicans came up with this clever idea as part of repeal and replace Obamacare. People could pick and choose their coverage like a salad bar. It wasn't voted in because IT DOESN'T WORK. So get over it. Women have always paid for men's enlarged prostate and erectile dysfunction.

Sorry, I was never covered for maternity in all my life.

Yet now it’s a right that makes men and post menopausal women pay for it.

What insurance did you have?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Funny how the left think a 50 year old male should be covered for maternity.

This is the way medical insurance has always worked. No one bitched about it until the Republicans came up with this clever idea as part of repeal and replace Obamacare. People could pick and choose their coverage like a salad bar. It wasn't voted in because IT DOESN'T WORK. So get over it. Women have always paid for men's enlarged prostate and erectile dysfunction.

Sorry, I was never covered for maternity in all my life.

Yet now it’s a right that makes men and post menopausal women pay for it.

What insurance did you have?

All the big ones, none of which said this male was covered for giving birth or mammograms

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I don't believe in religion. I believe in ownership rights.
When I use the word employer, I'm talking about the owner of the company.
The owner gets to spend his money as he sees fit.
Including not providing any insurance at all.

If health insurance is part of the compensation package it's not his money it's his employees' money. They earned it. The employer should be asking the employees what they want in their healthcare since it's their healthcare not his.

This isn't about Canada.
I don't expect you to understand American freedom.

I understand American freedom is a myth. My birth control was always paid for in my health insurance. Abortions in Canada are paid for in full by my government health insurance. No copays no paperwork. That's freedom.

Employers have no right to tell me I can't have birth control because Of THEIR religious beliefs. What you call "freedom" is in fact the opposite. It is the employer's attempt to inflect his religious beliefs on his employees.

This is one of the reasons why Canada ranks much higher In the ranking of countries with the most personal freedoms than the USA. Freedom means freeedom for all, not just for those holding the purse strings.

There are no employers telling anyone they can't have birth control.

They are restricting access to it through manipulation of the health care package. Since paying for birth control is cheaper than paying for prenatal/ postnatal care and live delivery, I'm willing to bet that policies for women of child bearing age are cheaper if birth control is included.

Yes, of course it is cheaper, because they are charging people who have no need for birth control or maternity coverage!

 

[The Derp]

If it opened up the market yes, the whole point is that over regulation is bad for pretty much everyone, except the big dogs in that specific industry. And it is more constitutional, with the commerce clause, than not allowing the commerce to commence outside of state lines, and regulating the bejesus out of us. I am for the free market, if the states are obstructing it, than I’m not for the states, if it’s the Fed, then I’m not for the Fed doing it.

OK, but why do you assume allowing insurance companies to operate across state lines will result in lower costs and not an oligopoly? Because we tried that very thing with cable companies and it didn't result in lower costs there. I am not sure you really know what it is you want. We all need health care, and that health care has to be paid. The debate isn't that insurance companies provide health care; they don't. The debate should be around why it matters to the patient who reimburses their doctor after the doctor delivers health care. I have not seen a viable, credible argument that a private insurer does it better than Medicare. In fact, Medicare does it cheaper and more efficiently than insurers, and Medicare already operates in all 50 states and has one of the highest patient satsifaction, second only to veterans' health care:

Now, do you think that satisfaction number would go up if private insurers were to operate as Medicare does? Let me ask you this; are you satisfied with the customer service you get from Comcast, Time Warner Cable, or any other cable provider? Most Americans aren't. In fact, they rate cable companies' customer satisfaction the lowest of all industries, right at the bottom with banks and telecoms. So why would the opposite be the case if insurers operated as cable companies; across state lines as massive oligopolies?

I am NOT for the Fed clearly overstepping its bounds, or using coercion when it comes to states rights, which it does frequently. I am pro 10th amendment, but with the commerce clause this is constitutional.What is mentally messed up with you peoples heads? You either have to be 1000% on this side, or 1000% on this. It’s gotten far passed silly at this point, and is starting to become mental illness, it’s just ridiculous.And stop saying that opening up the risk pools won’t work for this reason or that reason....it’s already being done successfully in Switzerland. It works very well for them.

You know why it succeeds in Switzerland? Because they have universal coverage.

 

[The Derp]

Yes, of course it is cheaper, because they are charging people who have no need for birth control or maternity coverage!

And thus is exactly what I mean when I say Conservatives fundamentally do not grasp the concept of health insurance. When you exclude people from your risk pool, you're only increasing your own costs.

What would result in the lowest possible risk? If everyone was enrolled on the same health insurance plan. So you're just making the case for a single payer.

 

[The Derp]

Sex is a sin? Never read the Song of Songs. You probably never knew it existed. Doesn’t fit the narrative your masters feed you.

So if you don't think sex is a sin, why do you think preventable childbirth serves as punishment for having sex?

 

[OldLady]

So the only "defense" as to why Trump is undermining birth control in this country is because he's selfish and penny wise, pound foolish?

 

[The Derp]

The major difference that you are ignoring is cost. Birth control is NOT expensive. It should NEVER be covered unless there is a medical need for it..Using your reasoning, vision and hearing should always be covered by every health insurance coverage. It is not. Why? Because they can be very expensive and not everyone needs that coverage.

If it's not expensive, then why do you care if it's offered as a part of health care?

Vision and hearing should be covered by every insurance plan. Again, if you have the broadest possible risk pool, then the risk of incurring costs for vision and hearing should also be low, right?

 

[The Derp]

Keep defending the insanity of Obamacare. Democrats are extinct.

I can't help it that on a fundamental level you don't know what health insurance is.

 

[The Derp]

Well it would very much in the states interest, to deregulate to allow cheaper insurance to come in.

Many states already do that, and the plans aren't cheaper. Why? Because of the administrative costs of having to conform with another set of state-regulations in addition to the ones they are already under.

The only way your plan makes sense is to invoke federalism and wipe out all state-level regulations regarding health insurance. Is that what you want? To encroach on "states' rights"?

 

[Borillar]

This is an informative article on what really happens when people try to legislate sexual morality and insist others live according to THEIR religious beliefs. Sadly, this is not going to have the effect the moral warriors are hoping for. Limiting birth control options by making them more costly or harder to access is going to lead to more abortions or more poor outcomes for both the mothers and children. Abstinence based initiatives have been studied and shown to have no measurable impact on abortion rates. Birth control use did. In a big way. Don't like abortion? Make birth control MORE available, not less.

So why is the current Administration trying to make birth control harder to come by?

Trump jeopardizes progress in reducing teen pregnancy and abortion rates


Teen birth rates have been cut in half over the last decade, which is beneficial not only to young women but to Americans as a whole. The decline is attributed to public health outreach and better use of contraception.

President Donald Trump has put that access to contraception in jeopardy with his rollback of a rule that required employers, with some narrow exceptions, to include contraception, at no cost, in their health insurance plans....

The Trump administration has already quietly cut more than $200 million for ongoing research into the most effective ways to prevent unwanted teen pregnancies, a decision most likely driven by ideology rather than science.

Three-quarters of U.S. teen pregnancies are unplanned and nearly a third end in abortion, which is much higher than the overall abortion rate of 14.6 percent. That’s the lowest rate since 1973, the year of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision.

Teen pregnancy has multi-generational consequences. Only half of teen mothers receive a high school diploma by age 22, compared with 90 percent of women who do not give birth as teens.

The children of teenage mothers also are more likely to drop out of high school. In addition, they are more likely to have more health problems, be incarcerated at some time during adolescence, give birth as teenagers, and face unemployment as young adults.

No government official is preventing anyone from getting birth control.
All that is happening is the removal of mandates forcing people to do things against their will.
I thought you were against rape.

If there's no funding or mandates many women will not have access to birth control. Insurance covers viagra no questions asked. Why can't birth control be treated the same?

Viagra treats a medical problem.

What affliction does birth control treat?

Yes I know about female issues. Most employers make exception when proscribed for those issues.

What affliction? Unwanted pregnancy.

 

[Defiant1]

So the only "defense" as to why Trump is undermining birth control in this country is because he's selfish and penny wise, pound foolish?

Trump is not undermining birth control.
There are very few companies involved.

 

[The Derp]

Trump is not undermining birth control.
There are very few companies involved.

Doesn't matter if there's one or one million, the principle doesn't change. Birth control reduces abortions and births. So all that maternity coverage you're whining about having to pay wouldn't be as much if there was more birth control, contraceptive, and abortion access.