Birth control, breast pumps, counseling for abuse? Are we going to do pedicures & manicures as well?

[MOIDALIZE]

Ladies, I’m sick and tired of you lusting over my cock.

And stop seducing me in the supermarket checkout line, you godless whores. Let me live my life in peace!!!

[Buck_Godot]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Glancing over the responses in this post, I happened to stumble* upon four straw men. I’d say I was surprised, but I’d be lying.

Oh, and LOL @ Someone saying Jehmu Greene using facts and science.

So would you care to present an interpretation of Rios’ comments that doesn’t make her out to be an ill-informed brain dead misogynist (yes I know she’s a woman the two aren’t exclusive), and additionally point out the scientific errors made by Jehmu Greene.

[Shodan]

@DiosaBellissima

Because the long term effects are those that benefit greater society as a whole. The law in question also offers free HIV and STD testing, cancer screenings, etc.

And we need those benefits now, at a time when spending and the deficit are out of control?

Preventive screening is much cheaper than the cost of treating someone’s cancer in a hospital for free.

There is very little evidence that preventative care, overall, reduces health care costs. If you have evidence that providing free breast pumps or abuse counseling pays for itself, then by all means provide it.

I know it sounds like it should work that way, but it usually doesn’t. Cite (pdf), cite, cite.

Again, we are currently tens of trillions of dollars in debt, and it is growing worse rapidly. Why do we need to be handing out freebies now?

Regards,
Shodan

[Yllaria]

@Shodan

Now that we are $14 trillion in debt, why are we covering things like this with no copay?

Regards,
Shodan

For the birth control, it’s like that old Fram oil filter commercial: you can pay me now or you can pay me later. In other words, an oil filter is cheaper than an engine rebuild. With birth control, what it’s cheaper than varies, but it’s always cheaper.

I was going to equivocate about the other two that had been mentioned, but then cancer screenings were mentioned, and they’re also money savers. Sometimes you have to put up with helping make people’s lives better in order to save money. Also, since it’s not the insurance companies that are $14T in debt, I’m not too worked up about them losing a few annual copays.

For the councelling, a lot of insurance policies cover six sessions at 80%, then six more at 20%, and then nothing until the next fiscal year. So the copays can be stoppers. I’m still thinking about this one. I’d probably need more information before forming an opinion.

(Even with preview, missed the last comment.)

[MOIDALIZE]

@Yllaria

For the birth control, it’s like that old Fram oil filter commercial: you can pay me now or you can pay me later. In other words, an oil filter is cheaper than an engine rebuild. With birth control, what it’s cheaper than varies, but it’s always cheaper.

They understand that. They just pretend not to.

[OneMissedPost]

@Ferret_Herder

Gotta love the assumption that if you’re a woman who needs birth control, you’re obviously screwing any and every man you can find. :rolleyes:

Yeah, what exactly is wrong with birth control? :rolleyes: I’m personally glad my girlfriend uses birth control.

[ladyfoxfyre]

@Shodan

And we need those benefits now, at a time when spending and the deficit are out of control?

Are you under the impression that the federal government will be paying the copays for all the birth control prescriptions now? No, the cost of premiums will increase minimally amongst the entire pool of covered individuals to compensate for the cost. My insurance provider already provides birth control pills at a zero copay, and I know of many others who already do too. This is just a requirement of the new health bill that insurance companies who aren’t already, provide these services at a zero copay. It doesn’t eliminate the requirement for a deductible or a premium payment, so stop with the “wAAHHhhh the government has to pay for so much stuff now! It’s not fair!!” bullshit.

[Shodan]

@Yllaria

I was going to equivocate about the other two that had been mentioned, but then cancer screenings were mentioned, and they’re also money savers.

I’d like to see a cite for that, because what I found does not bear it out.

…there are literally hundreds of studies from over the past 40 years that show preventive medical services usually increase medical spending. For instance, a review of nearly 600 studies published between 2000 and 2005 found that fewer than 20% of preventive services (and a similar proportion of treatments for existing conditions) were cost saving (Russell, 2009)—80% actually increased the total costs of care.

As one observer has put it, “Nearly every aspect of preventive care has crashed upon the rocky shore of added costs” (Gottlieb, 2001). Some exceptions to the general rule include immunization for childhood diseases, smoking cessation advice, and prenatal care for at-risk mothers (Tengs et al., 1995).

Contrary to popular belief, checkups for children and adults do not save the health care system money. Nor do pap smears, mammograms, and most other tests (Ferrara, 1995).

Cite.

For the councelling, a lot of insurance policies cover six sessions at 80%, then six more at 20%, and then nothing until the next fiscal year. So the copays can be stoppers. I’m still thinking about this one. I’d probably need more information before forming an opinion.

Again, I would like to see a cite that abuse counseling reduces costs overall.

Regards,
Shodan

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Shodan

Contrary to popular belief, checkups for children and adults do not save the health care system money. Nor do pap smears, mammograms, and most other tests (Ferrara, 1995).

Well, no, I wouldn’t expect it to save the health care system any money. Why would it? I mean, the health care system is the system that gets paid for checkups, pap smears, mammograms, and most other tests. They make money off those things; how could they possibly save money by charging for things?

This just in: buying stuff doesn’t save me nearly as much money as not buying stuff.

[curlcoat]

@DiosaBellissima

Because the long term effects are those that benefit greater society as a whole. The law in question also offers free HIV and STD testing, cancer screenings, etc.

But of course Family PAC won’t complain about those since they affect men… :smack:

Or birthing a baby without insurance-- my friend who had a baby at 20 has never paid her $40k hospital bill for that.

How did she manage that??

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Glancing over the responses in this post, I happened to stumble* upon four straw men.

You mean like this one here?

@Shodan

.Again, I would like to see a cite that abuse counseling reduces costs overall.

Regards,
Shodan

As much as I disagree with the government handing out freebies, I’d think that abuse counseling must save money by allowing the abused women to become functioning members of society?

Also, can anyone tell me why it is necessary to give out breast pumps? I’ve never had kids and my mother didn’t use one, so I have no idea why one might be needed, much less how it reduces costs?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Who gives a shit if it saves any costs anyway. It’s not about money, it’s about collective social responsibility. These services are needed. The question is why are we wasting so much money on tax breaks to billionaires when these kinds of services are so much more important.

Rios does illustrate, once again, that the so-called “pro-life” movement is far more rooted in a desire to shame and control women than any sincere concern over “babies.” There is nothing compassionate about these people.

[Cheesesteak]

@Yllaria

it’s like that old Fram oil filter commercial: you can pay me now or you can pay me later. In other words, an oil filter is cheaper than an engine rebuild.

It’s like this, you save $100/yr by not ever getting an oil change. Then, when the engine goes tits up after 5 years, you pay $50 for a tow to the junkyard (morgue), and have “saved” $450 for our “Car Care System”.

We don’t really have to worry about the car being towed to the morgue much earlier than necessary, because it’s just some loser who doesn’t have enough money to pay for his own health care.

[DiosaBellissima]

@curlcoat

How did she manage that??

It’s pretty hard to squeeze blood out of a turnip.

[Shodan]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Well, no, I wouldn’t expect it to save the health care system any money.

So you are in favor of steps that will increase health care costs. And as Obamacare is phased in, more and more of those increased costs will be borne by a government already in debt by an amount greater than our GDP.

This sounds like a good idea to you?

@curlcoat

I’d think that abuse counseling must save money by allowing the abused women to become functioning members of society?

Do you have any evidence of this, or is it just an assumption? Because as I mentioned earlier, it does seem like preventative care ought to save money. The problem is that it doesn’t. Most of the time, it increases costs.

Regards,
Shodan

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@curlcoat

Also, can anyone tell me why it is necessary to give out breast pumps? I’ve never had kids and my mother didn’t use one, so I have no idea why one might be needed, much less how it reduces costs?

They are needed because mothers who work cannot nurse their babies throughout the day, so milk needs to be pumped and stored in order to…you know…feed the fucking baby while the mom is at work.

Nursing mothers also need to express milk periodically because it’s painful if they don’t and because (TMI) it fucking LEAKS if they don’t.

As for reducing costs, who gives a shit. That’s a completely irrelevant question, and frankly a disingenuous one since the percentage of the budget we’re talking about is microscopic. We spend more money in ten minutes in Iraq than we don’t on ten years of breast pumps. It’s a phony objection.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Shodan

So you are in favor of steps that will increase health care costs. And as Obamacare is phased in, more and more of those increased costs will be borne by a government already in debt by an amount greater than our GDP.

There is no such thing as “Obamacare.”

[VinylTurnip]

[QUOTE=Yawn a Black Wingnut]
Glancing over the responses in this post, I happened to stumble* upon four straw men.
[/QUOTE]

I was about to ask you to list them, but then it occurred to me that I don’t give a shit.

[LavenderBlue]

I bought a very good breastpump for $300. It’s cheaper than formula and reduces the health risks for my baby. I’d rather have nursed directly but after multiple attempts with various lactation consultants and practically begging her for the first three weeks of her life, she simply never managed to get the milk directly from the breast. You need a good pump if you’re going to maintain supply. I’m still using the pump multiple times a day after three months.

Sandy Rios is a moron.

[Shodan]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

There is no such thing as “Obamacare.”

Obvious troll is obvious.

Regards,
Shodan

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Shodan

So you are in favor of steps that will increase health care costs.

Nope; I didn’t say that. Never did say that, or anything even close to that.

@Shodan

And as Obamacare is phased in, more and more of those increased costs will be borne by a government already in debt by an amount greater than our GDP.

This sounds like a good idea to you?

I doubt your premise highly and conclusion even more.