For what? You already said women are too lazy to use it,*** so it costs you nothing.***
Birth control, breast pumps, counseling for abuse? Are we going to do pedicures & manicures as well?
Ok, so are you under the assumption that every single woman will have birth control foisted upon her or something under this regulation? Mandatory birth control for all?
Because, you know, that isn’t the case, right?
If your contention is true that most women wont bother taking it anyway, well, then there’s no additional cost because they are too lazy to get the birth control in the first place.
It also helps when you can get the kind that actually works for you (rather than a generic or whatever’s subsidized).
Right? Something tells me that you’d see a lot more women with IUDs if they were cheaper.
May I assume, OMG a B.C. that you are against the abstinence-only education pushed by the religious right?
I think what he’s saying is that the women who are ALREADY using and paying for birth control will start to get it with no copay, and that’s what will raise costs. (To which I say, boo hoo hoo…but I think that is his point. And I don’t believe it’s necessarily true anyway since birth control is pretty cheap and having a baby is pretty expensive, so a relatively few pregnancies prevented could make up for a lot of “free” birth control.)
Well, now, to be fair, he didn’t actually say anything like that. You could put it to him as a direct question, and I’m sure he would be happy to point out that he never actually said that, and then answer another question altogether.
Am I the only one who understands this? I, for example, would not be charged a higher premium based on whether or not a woman actually uses birth control or any other service provided. Rather I, for example, would be charged a higher premium solely because of the mandate which says that insurance companies have to provide coverage for certain services without a charge to the woman. That mandatory coverage represents a cost to the insurance company. A cost they won’t eat and will pass along to everyone else.
Hmmm. You know, I kind of wonder what that has to do with this.
“Why does a black conservative answer a question with a question?”
“Well, so, why shouldn’t a black conservative answer a question with a question?”
According to you, insurance companies will incur no costs related to the mandate, because women are too lazy to avail themselves of free birth control. No cost to the insurance company means no cost to you even if it is mandated by law. Of course, if you want to walk back your comment that:
Why do you care?
Yes, that’s precisely what I said. No woman will use contraceptives and insurance companies will just be super glad to eat the costs associated with (1) providing birth control sans copays (especially if they’re already providing birth control coverage with a copay!) and (2) covering numerous non-birth control related services.
Better keep abortion legal then. Not doing so would be insanely stupid. Childish, even. Clearly the conclusion of an inferior thought process, one might say.
Well, you did say they didn’t want to, or just don’t care.
One more time: If women don’t use free birth control, there are no costs for insurance comapanies to eat. You can’t have it both ways, with women too lazy to use birth control, yet somehow managing to leave insurance companies on the hook for exorbitant, mandated benefits.
Hell, I’m still trying to absorb how he worded it. “*No woman *will use contraceptives…” What? Huh? Pretty sure you missed the mark on that one. Call rewrite.
OMGBC seems to be under the impression that clinics will be giving women birth control whether they ask for it or not - like, as they walk out the clinic, they get handed a doggie bag full of birth control pills. Now, if they’re giving out birth control to women who neither want, nor have requested, birth control, that is indeed a profligate waste.
But I’m pretty sure that’s not what’s going to happen.
With just a little tweaking this could be a great idea. I have this list…
Cora Mae Wilcox, my cousin in Texarkana. She on it?
Because that’s ever so clearly what I said.
(No, it’s not.)
What I said was, and I quote:
And they don’t use it for lack of access, but simply because they choose not to use it for whatever reason (or they just forget about it all together).
I’m just going to quote myself, since that’s a lot easier than just retyping the same thing out:
Because you don’t understand this really is no skin off of my nose.
I don’t have to have it “both ways” since there is only one way.
I have a better idea. It’s called “How-about-you-find-me-where-I-wrote-that-out?”. What’s with the rather blatant straw man? Of course, straw men are par for the course around here. If you can’t argue against what someone has typed out, then argue against something they didn’t type out. Yeah!
I really should start keeping a running tally of the number of straw man thrown out around here in a given week. I’m sure it has to be well over a hundred.
Ask, and it shall be given.
So what’s cheaper, an abortion or a delivery? Let’s run some numbers.