More Birth Control = Fewer Abortions

[The Derp]

Oligopolies do not happen without some sort of help from government, and that help comes in the form of regulation 9 times out of 10. I am familiar with the cable/internet oligopoly, and they co-opted government to make themselves the gatekeepers of cable/fios/broadband lines. They have successfully pulled the ladder up, so that no competition can survive without them. The problem isn’t that these companies are too big to fail, it is that they’ve stomped out any new/better/cheaper and more practical competition. People have this false perception in their minds that the big players buy out politicians to remove regulation out of their way, so they can cut corners and make a few extra bucks. This is not the case, they push for more regulation very often, even though it may hurt them in the short run. But they play a longer game, and they know that if they add more and more corners for smaller companies to transverse, those smaller companies have a much harder time working their way up. They need teams of expensive lawyers that the big companies already have in place and can afford. And if the smaller competition inadvertently cuts one of the many corners, they can immediately hop on them, call in the g-man and create a very expensive problem for the competition. I cannot think of a oligopoly or monopoly that got there without some sort of help (usually a lot of help) from the government. It’s theoretically possible, but highly improbable if a small guy can come in at any time and do it faster/cheaper/better etc. What usually stops the small guy is regulation, and keeping compliant with them. It’s pretty telling when 60% of the cost of a new house goes into keeping compliant with regulation, not the land, not the building materials, not payroll, equipment, maintenance, etc. but keeping compliance.

So why wouldn't insurance companies also co-opt government? They practically already have. In fact, health care lobbying is the #1 sector of all lobbying, and if we are just looking at purely health services/insurance/HMO's, they represent about 19% of all health care lobbying contributions. So they carry significant influence and weight. So what you're saying is nice and sounds good, but the realities are that it's not realistic nor would there be any protections against insurers becoming too big to fail. What is to stop an insurer from using its weight to buy out/merge/consolidate with other insurers? That's not a regulation thing at all. Regulations weren't the reason banks merged, greed and a desire to increase market share would. So what's to stop a handful of 3-5 insurance companies from buying up all the smaller ones, and crowding the market share? Nothing. You're scapegoating the wrong thing (regulation) for a problem that exists beyond it.

So how do you intend to freeze insurance lobbyists out of the lawmaking? Are you saying that we should have public campaign finance so that lobbyists no longer existed?

You're also missing the entire point; all we are talking about is who reimburses your provider after they treat you. It's not even a part of health care that is germane to health care delivery. It's a transaction that happens after the fact. And to this day, not one person has been able to make the case that a private insurer does that administration cheaper, more efficiently, or just plain better than Medicare. And if you are going to remove state boundaries so insurance companies can become massive oligopolies, why not just enroll everyone in Medicare since it already operates across all 50 states, runs administrative overhead of 1% of its entire budget, would result in the lowest possible risk pool, and has the second-highest patient satisfaction rating after veterans' care?

nd yes, Switzerland does have universal care, but universal means all have to have it. Which is pretty much what we have now. They still have a much freer system than we do. It’s basically a lot like our car insurance laws, which are if the vehicle is on the road, it needs insurance. I’m not a fan of a universal system, but that is an area I can comprismise on...as long as we are freeing up the system, and we don’t have these gatekeeper dinosaur corps that should have been extinct long ago, had there been real competition.

No, not universal care, universal coverage. And it relies on a system where everyone is covered. And no, we don't have that system now. In fact, the system we currently have still excludes 25,000,000 people.

Also, by letting insurance sell across state lines, you're making the case for more federalism; because the roadblocks to selling across state lines that currently exist are each state's individual regulations of health insurance. So in order to do what you want, all those state regulations would have to be overruled by federal ones. And I don't know a single conservative who thinks that federal authority trumps state authority, particularly on health care and commerce. You're the ones saying that those powers aren't reserved for federal authority, yet here you are arguing for federal authority. So arguing for this broken concept is fucking hilarious when it comes from a right-winger or Conservative.

Finally, many states already allow insurance from out of state. The state I live in, GA, is one of those states. But insurers still don't offer plans from out of state despite being allowed to. Why? Simple; GA's state regulations on insurance would make the administrative burden of conforming to those standards too great to overcome.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So why would an employer not want their employees to have access to good birth control?

You asswipes have no clue that birth control has a relationship with women getting pregnant, the cost of which will be born by the Employers insurance policy leading to future increases.

It doesn't make any difference why, it's their choice.
You're all for choice, aren't you?

I know what choice you are for: the choice not to serve certain people.

Exactly. The choice of FREEDOM.

So, you want the freedom to be a racist fuck & discriminate?

I'm not racist. I do not have the power to effect an entire race.

I do discriminate, as it is my right to do so.

Like most on the right you’re ignorant, frightened, and hateful.

Like far too many on the right you’re a bigot and a racist.

And you’re at liberty to express your hate, ignorance, and stupidity.

But as a fact of settled, accepted law you’re not at liberty to discriminate in public accommodations, or in hiring and employment, or in public education – and thankfully so.

We as a society have wisely sought to protect all citizens from the ignorance, hate, bigotry, and racism practiced by the right.

Indeed, conservatism is the bane of the American Nation, a threat to Americans’ rights and protected liberties.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

And yet male breast cancer is a very common problem so men should be covered for mammograms.

Routine mammograms are not. I believe diagnostic procedures would be, but I am not sure a mammogram as done on women would even work on a man.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Yes we frequently see posters here say in that when a woman "spreads her legs" for a man, she needs to accept the consequences of her decision. That expression completes ignores that the man the woman is "spreading her legs" for is, more often than not, her husband and the father of her children. These idiots think that the only women getting abortions are teenagers and young single women living a promiscuous lifestyle who can't be bothered using readily available contraception.

Abortion statistics tell a different story. Fewer than 20% of those getting abortions are teenagers. More than half of the women getting abortions are married or in a committed relationship and more than half confirm having used birth control when they got pregnant. Most telling is that 80% of women getting abortions live below or just above the poverty line.

Religious conservatives completely ignore the results of their own attempts at controlling their daughters. Virginity pledges which are popular at Christian high schools with elaborate ceremonies where young women promise to be virgins on their wedding night. The promises have lead to shocking increases in teenagers have more dangerous anal sex as well as oral sex. Everything goes with these kids except vaginal sex. Gotta keep that hymen intact.

Conservatives also ignore the numerous studies which have shown that a healthy active sex life improves both physical and mental health of adults and reduces the chances of contracting some forms of cancer. Reduces the chances of contracting some forms of cancer. The hormones released during sex are necessary to our health and well-being.

There's my former roommate used to say "If God hadn't intended for us to use it, He wouldn't have issued us the equipment".

You don't think that these women lie? Please!

If they are married or in a committed relationship, then the husband or significant other is likely NOT that person. Why else would you have an abortion?

The bit about birth control is hilarious!

"I'm pregnant, but I was on the pill" or "We were practicing safe sex!"

Yeah, right! There is an old lie about sex that is is similar to "The check is in the mail!" that would have prevented the pregnancy in the first place.

 

[The Derp]

If that were true it would happen in any other insurance industry, but it doesnt, Basically insurance is all about statistical risk numbers that pretty much garuntee a profit vs risk. So let’s say we’re tlaking about fire insurance for a house, they know that statistically (I’m making these numbers up) 1 out of every 100 houses will catch on fire, if we charge x amount per 100 house we will statistically make x profit. And in the event of a fire, it will take x number of houses with our insurance to cover that, and we’ll still make a profit. Or take for instance life insurance, death is imminent, but the earlier you start paying into it, you can keep that low rate over time, because statistically you should live to your 70s and if you’ve been paying x amount since your 30s they will make a profit. Or if you get into life insurance in your 50s they will increase the amount you pay, because they have 20 statistical years to make a profit. And let’s say the company is unlucky and has extra fires, or deaths at a certain time, well it should be covered because they have a much larger pool they are drawing from.

Stop trying to go to non-sequiturs. The difference is that not everyone needs fire insurance (because not everyone owns a home), not everyone needs car insurance (because not everyone owns a car), but everyone needs health care. So that's why you can't compare these things. All health insurance companies do is administration. That's it. They are not germane to health care delivery. In fact, they restrict it. You have less choice in a private insurance system than in a single payer system because in the private insurance system, you can only go to the doctors that accept your plan. So your provider isn't even competing for your care; they are competing for insurance companies. So nothing they do is outcome-focused. They have no incentive to improve care and, in fact, have incentive for recidivism; if they can keep a revolving door of patients in and out, they can overcharge in their chargemaster and become more and more profitable, which is exactly what is happening and would only be exacerbated by oligopolic insurance companies. Why do you think drug companies spend more than any other group? Because drug companies profit off treating symptoms, not cures. So it's in the drug companies' interest as well to not move to an outcome-focused system because that would result in cures instead of treatments.

Right now, I bet you think your doctor is the best. Do you think that? How did you come to that conclusion? Did you shop around other doctors to compare? No! You shopped around for an insurance company and once you have it, you choose your doctor. So that's not choice, nor is it true free market. In a true free market system, all providers are reimbursed at the same rate and it becomes their responsibility to retain patients. And they do that by improving outcomes. Then patients have true free choice to find the best doctors because their outcomes are not obscured by insurance companies. You have literally no frame of reference to say your doctor is the best. None. Because you don't know what else is out there, and our current system of private insurers means you never will.

 

[Defiant1]

It doesn't make any difference why, it's their choice.
You're all for choice, aren't you?

I know what choice you are for: the choice not to serve certain people.

Exactly. The choice of FREEDOM.

So, you want the freedom to be a racist fuck & discriminate?

I'm not racist. I do not have the power to effect an entire race.

I do discriminate, as it is my right to do so.

Like most on the right you’re ignorant, frightened, and hateful.

Like far too many on the right you’re a bigot and a racist.

And you’re at liberty to express your hate, ignorance, and stupidity.

But as a fact of settled, accepted law you’re not at liberty to discriminate in public accommodations, or in hiring and employment, or in public education – and thankfully so.

We as a society have wisely sought to protect all citizens from the ignorance, hate, bigotry, and racism practiced by the right.

Indeed, conservatism is the bane of the American Nation, a threat to Americans’ rights and protected liberties.

Here you go again. All you liberals can do is throw insults around. You use words that no longer have any meaning to them. I doubt you know what they mean. You just use them because you hear the MSM and other liberals use them.

They are lies. Fake news.

 

[RealDave]

So why would an employer not want their employees to have access to good birth control?

You asswipes have no clue that birth control has a relationship with women getting pregnant, the cost of which will be born by the Employers insurance policy leading to future increases.

It doesn't make any difference why, it's their choice.
You're all for choice, aren't you?

I know what choice you are for: the choice not to serve certain people.

Exactly. The choice of FREEDOM.

So, you want the freedom to be a racist fuck & discriminate?

I'm not racist. I do not have the power to effect an entire race.

I do discriminate, as it is my right to do so.

Wow, such ignorance.

 

[RealDave]

I know what choice you are for: the choice not to serve certain people.

Exactly. The choice of FREEDOM.

So, you want the freedom to be a racist fuck & discriminate?

I'm not racist. I do not have the power to effect an entire race.

I do discriminate, as it is my right to do so.

Like most on the right you’re ignorant, frightened, and hateful.

Like far too many on the right you’re a bigot and a racist.

And you’re at liberty to express your hate, ignorance, and stupidity.

But as a fact of settled, accepted law you’re not at liberty to discriminate in public accommodations, or in hiring and employment, or in public education – and thankfully so.

We as a society have wisely sought to protect all citizens from the ignorance, hate, bigotry, and racism practiced by the right.

Indeed, conservatism is the bane of the American Nation, a threat to Americans’ rights and protected liberties.

Here you go again. All you liberals can do is throw insults around. You use words that no longer have any meaning to them. I doubt you know what they mean. You just use them because you hear the MSM and other liberals use them.

They are lies. Fake news.

"ake News" ike a good little duped Trumpette.

Donnie "Everyone is lying but me" Trump.

 

[PredFan]

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.

Wow, surprise surprise, that article is deceptive. Trump is giving employees the option to opt out of providing birth control free to employees. They can choose to do so if they wish. It allows business owners who object on religious grounds to not do so. In a free country, that's the way it should be.

Why does anyone need free birth control anyway? What is it, $12/month? Condoms are even less than that and abstinence is free.

Why should I pay higher premiums so someone else can get free birth control?