DanG 1
Recommended Posts
rehmwa 2
QuoteQuoteBut if you think the 'right wing' (whatever that is) is the first group, I think you are reading the news incorrectly
The right wing wants to be able to deny coverage for birth control, and anything else they find "offensive".
So nobody wants to pay for someone's birth control - neither for themselves, nor for another
that sounds just about right
Of course - abusing law to force one's subjective beliefs on another isn't the sole domain of the uber right, it pretty much matches any self righteous fanatic and we find them on all sides.
It's what politics "really" is. It's about forcing others to your view, rather than protecting the individual to live his life.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
DanG 1
QuoteSo nobody wants to pay for someone's birth control - neither for themselves, nor for another
that sounds just about right
Well, I don't want to pay for a triple bypass, either for myself or for another. Should employers be allowed to declare that a triple bypass is offensive to them, and stop covering it?
- Dan G
rehmwa 2
QuoteQuoteSo nobody wants to pay for someone's birth control - neither for themselves, nor for another
that sounds just about right
Well, I don't want to pay for a triple bypass, either for myself or for another. Should employers be allowed to declare that a triple bypass is offensive to them, and stop covering it?
employers can declare that, but I suspect they'd have a lot of employees leave and go to work for the other guy that does offer that benefit
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
DanG 1
Again, in a perfect world, employers would have nothing to do with health insurance. Our world is far from perfect.
- Dan G
- Dan G
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuoteQuoteSo nobody wants to pay for someone's birth control - neither for themselves, nor for another
that sounds just about right
Well, I don't want to pay for a triple bypass, either for myself or for another. Should employers be allowed to declare that a triple bypass is offensive to them, and stop covering it?
employers can declare that, but I suspect they'd have a lot of employees leave and go to work for the other guy that does offer that benefit
Reminds me of the "No Claim" insurance policy on Monty Python. But at least you got a naked lady with that one.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO2R_DDZPCM
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rehmwa 2
I thought your below was the better comment and good for reasonable debate. It outlines a position on basic coverage without the whole "war on women" rhetoric.
Me? I'd rather let people choose for themselves as individuals, not the employers, etc - but then they have to pay for the coverage selected. I tend to talk to what would be a good final answer, not about diddling around in current flawed systems - it's a more interesting discussion and less subjective to regional culture and preferences.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Me? I'd rather let people choose for themselves as individuals, not the employers, etc - but then they have to pay for the coverage selected. I tend to talk to what would be a good final answer, not about diddling around in current flawed systems - it's a more interesting discussion and less subjective to regional culture and preferences.
QuoteThe question is whether or not employers (not doctors, patients, insurance companies, or the government) should be able to pick and choose what coverage an individual can receive. I think if you're going to stick with the employer provided system, then we all need to agree on what a basic level of coverage includes. I think it should include birth control.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
rehmwa 2
QuoteAgain, in a perfect world, employers would have nothing to do with health insurance. Our world is far from perfect.
I don't find that perfect, it's a great benefit to attract valuable employees. The perfect world would have this option, but the employees would be able to add options to a very basic plan offered (it would only have to be very clearly defined) and then who pays for the extra would be a matter of employment terms and negotiations.
I think restricting the options for extras would be out of line though. That's a possible common ground. that, or even ensuring that the employee would also have the option to take the employer contribution directly and find his own plan, if he chooses.
I'd think a small adder for the naked woman option would be just fine - depends on the woman though.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
DanG 1
I think we're on the same page regarding the ideal end state. I'm fine with discussing that, but certain people here (not you) then try to correlate the perfect end state with current policy, and it ends up being a mess.
If we were to scrap the employer based health insurance system tomorrow, I'd be all for it. That's not going to happen.
As far as the "war on women" stuff, I personally think none of this would have ever come up if it weren't about women's health. I don't see the religious right complaining about covering Viagra or vasectomies. But the pill and girl part stuff? That shit's evil.
- Dan G
If we were to scrap the employer based health insurance system tomorrow, I'd be all for it. That's not going to happen.
As far as the "war on women" stuff, I personally think none of this would have ever come up if it weren't about women's health. I don't see the religious right complaining about covering Viagra or vasectomies. But the pill and girl part stuff? That shit's evil.
- Dan G
davjohns 1
I'm not sure if I wasn't clear or if you missed my point. Sex isn't technically necessary to good health. In that manner, it is voluntary.
But I take your point on pregnancy. It is generally voluntary. Which begs the question of why you get family coverage whether there are two of you or twenty. Twenty cost more, so why don't you pay more? Basically, people with fewer family members are subsidizing the big family people.
But I take your point on pregnancy. It is generally voluntary. Which begs the question of why you get family coverage whether there are two of you or twenty. Twenty cost more, so why don't you pay more? Basically, people with fewer family members are subsidizing the big family people.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
rehmwa 2
QuoteBut the pill and girl part stuff? That shit's evil.
not evil, but a bit complicated and kinda fun
I'd think that the pill and viagra, though, should be on the same page - pay for both directly, pay for both indirectly, but keep them equivalent. It's about as analogous as one can get.
The pill might actually win out over the viagra - it has additional applications in terms of regulating health even for non-sexually active females. If viagra had some type of analogy for generalized men's health (regulating blood pressure or the like) then that would do it too.
But if either is issued JUST for the purpose of play time, then that's is a good debate - necessity vs optional is a good subject on any product or procedure. I only have issues when something optional is allowed unequally to one demographic over another. (yeah, someone smarmy dope with note the old people have heart disease more than youngsters....clever dope)
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteBasically, people with fewer family members are subsidizing the big family people.
Isn't that inherent to insurance. The many pay for the few.
kallend 2,027
QuoteI'm not sure if I wasn't clear or if you missed my point. Sex isn't technically necessary to good health. In that manner, it is voluntary.
.
I'm not sure that is true. The experience of the Roman Catholic church with "celibate" priests indicates a serious link to mental health.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
QuoteI think we're on the same page regarding the ideal end state. I'm fine with discussing that, but certain people here (not you) then try to correlate the perfect end state with current policy, and it ends up being a mess.
If we were to scrap the employer based health insurance system tomorrow, I'd be all for it. That's not going to happen.
As far as the "war on women" stuff, I personally think none of this would have ever come up if it weren't about women's health. I don't see the religious right complaining about covering Viagra or vasectomies. But the pill and girl part stuff? That shit's evil.
Viagra isn't birth control, and I bet that insurance covering vasectomies will also cover tubal ligations.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
billvon 2,998
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Viagra isn't birth control
Correct. Unlike birth control it is for optional recreation only.
Correct. Unlike birth control it is for optional recreation only.
rehmwa 2
QuoteViagra isn't birth control,
you really need to think that comment through after looking up the term 'control' in the dictionary
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
davjohns 1
QuoteQuoteI'm not sure if I wasn't clear or if you missed my point. Sex isn't technically necessary to good health. In that manner, it is voluntary.
.
I'm not sure that is true. The experience of the Roman Catholic church with "celibate" priests indicates a serious link to mental health.
Touche' on that one.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
Shotgun 1
QuoteBut I take your point on pregnancy. It is generally voluntary. Which begs the question of why you get family coverage whether there are two of you or twenty. Twenty cost more, so why don't you pay more? Basically, people with fewer family members are subsidizing the big family people.
I don't have any children, but I'm pretty sure that my health insurance charges additional fees per child. Are there plans that cover an entire family regardless of the number of children?
The right wing wants to be able to deny coverage for birth control, and anything else they find "offensive".
In an ideal health insurance system, I would agree. The problem is that our health insurance system has evolved so that employers are providing health insurance to their employees. I don't think this is a good system at all, but it's what we currently have. The question is whether or not employers (not doctors, patients, insurance companies, or the government) should be able to pick and choose what coverage an individual can receive. I think if you're going to stick with the employer provided system, then we all need to agree on what a basic level of coverage includes. I think it should include birth control.
- Dan G
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites