What am I carefully avoiding, exactly? Don’t answer that. Forget it. So now that we know the two places we disagree, let’s move on:
I didn’t mean the reference to PP as meaning that the pills weren’t paid for by someone. Of course they are. But I’m not sure why you keep bringing up objections about poor people when I have said about 5,000 times in this thread that we should help poor people out. Frankly, this is a solution in search of a problem. Most women in the US do not need subsidized birth control, it’s inexpensive, and women are highly motivated to use it.
What do you mean, exclude them from insurance? When did I say anyone should be excluded from insurance? However, I think we should not give rich people subsidized insurance. Or do you think we should?
For people who can’t afford it, yes.
Oh, please. There has been no press about birth control being evil.
I didn’t say it was. I also do not understand what recreation has to do with anything. Since you like analogies, here’s one: you can drive your car recreationally, but it is still insured.
I didn’t say it was. I did say we dealt with seatbelts in a different fashion, and I did suggest that toothpaste was an example of an unobservable behavior which is why it wouldn’t make sense for an insurance company to cover it, even if everyone brushing regularly would help them. If they could observe your use of a toothbrush, it’d not surprise me in the slightest for there to be a “good brusher” discount.
It’s an incentive. It doesn’t move everyone. It moves people on the periphery.
You misunderstand. He isn’t saying that rich people shouldn’t get insurance. He is saying that since rich people can afford their checkups without the benefit of insurance, should insurance not cover free checkups? Because that seems to be your argument about birth control.
Follow me here:
Since people can afford birth control they shouldn’t get it for free as part of their insurance.
Since people can afford checkups they shouldn’t get it for free as a part of their insurance.
That’s the point.
Republicans are across the country fighting for personhood amendments that would remove the majority of birth control on the market. The Republican front runner has flat out said that birth control leads to sinning. Churches lie about birth control and delude their followers into thinking that a supernatural entity hates them for using it. There are plenty of people selling the idea that birth control is evil.
Oh, the people on the periphery. Just how many of these people are there that we have to give free stuff to everyone so that these people “on the periphery” don’t screw everything up?
That’s not what he said. He said excluded from insurance. If he meant something else, I’ll wait until he clarifies it himself.
The mortgage interest deduction applies to everyone. It only motivates a partial segment to get houses.
Of course, your entire stance on this is silly. Birth control is dispensed by doctors. It’s not what the majority of society would consider elective, like a boob job. Why shouldn’t insurance cover it?
I could certainly be wrong, but he said, “The rich can afford to pay for their own annual checkups. Should we exclude them from insurance also?”
I’m pretty sure the *them *refers to annual checkups.
I’m saying that recreational activities are unessential. Therefore, just like unessential cosmetic plastic surgery, they should not be covered.
we’re not talking about a discount, or a “condom user” discount would be more fitting than the “covered toothpaste” comparison. Insurance companies can’t tell if you are using the pill or condoms every time you have sex. They can’t tell if you actually use any medication you buy, either. They give you prescription meds with the assumption that you’d use them. In that case, why should toothpaste not be covered?
It’s capped, so that rich people can’t exploit it. Or, so they can’t exploit it too cravenly.
BTW, I’m completely against the mortgage deduction, but that’s for another thread.
BC is prescribed by doctors, dispensed by pharmacies. Why shouldn’t insurance cover it? Because most people would buy it anyway. It’s part of what every adult has to deal with daily, like food and clothes and housing. But hey, if insurers want to cover it, fine with me. I don’t see why they should be forced to pay for something that they don’t want to. All they’ll do is transfer the payment back to us, with overhead.
Insurance is something you buy in case something happens to you that you can’t afford to pay for, or that would deal a significant financial blow to you, or that is unlikely to happen. You don’t buy insurance to cover your annual clothing budget. At least I don’t.
I seem to remember making that exact point.
Because the world isn’t bound by whatever you feel makes a good analogy.
I didn’t make an analogy, I made a direct comparison and found no difference.
But that doesn’t matter; you’re completely ignoring my point. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised…
And I never said that the insurance companies would know if you use birth control or not; I simply fail to see why it matters.
I’m not a huge fan either.
Thank you for that nitpick. I was using dispensed in an informal fashion. Like you just *dispensed *needless nitpickery. 
Transferring the payment to us, with overhead, is the whole point of insurance.
Clothing isn’t medicine. Birth Control is used to prevent a huge medical expense. That puts it in the medical sphere, imho.
Funny, my direct comparison didn’t count!
Your point is that birth control is sufficiently like toothpaste, and besides its recreational, so it is sufficiently like kneepads, and anyway, insurance shouldn’t cover non-necessities, unless they’re inconvenient for your point like recreational driving.
Glad we cleared that up.
Great, I’m glad to see that you not only have no idea what my point is, you’re proud of it.
I’ll give this one last try.
Birth control is nonessential, exactly like breat implants. If you want it, pay for it with your own money. If you want your insurance to cover it, get a bigger and more expansive policy. But don’t expect every policy to have it.
A second, seperate point that you insist on obscuring is that unlike unforseen medical problems (which insurance is meant for), birth control is a regular, cheap, everyday cost used as a preventitive measure, like toothpaste or kneepads.
Car insurance is completely different because it covers not only you, but anyone you damage while driving. If that was the case for health insurance, a male’s health insurance would cover child support. That’s why optional driving is insured, but optional medical procedures are not.
Birth control is used to prevent a huge medical expense. So no, it isn’t like breast implants. It’s utterly different.
If the woman has kneepads she doesn’t need birthcontrol.
Actually, birth control is prescribed by doctors, unlike kneepads. Putting it in the realm of insurance is perfectly sensible.
Still the things you’re willing to ignore for each analogy are more significant than the things you’re willing to accept.
Yet preventative care like semi-annual cleanings are covered.
Of course. Exactly like breast implants, but only tangentially like recreational things that are actually insured. :rolleyes:
Most people would buy blood pressure meds, dental cleanings, and eye exams, too, if they were indicated. Should insurance not cover those things?
Although, actually, a great many people who don’t have medical, dental, or vision insurance go without those things on a regular basis because of the cost.
John Mace, I’m willing to concede your point. Middle and upper class people could pay for their own birth control and subsidizing them probably doesn’t save a whole lot of money. I do think we should find a way to make it free for low income people since they’re more likely to use it as a result and because we need them to use it more.
I disagree with this bit, though:
Birth control is different because–unlike people starving to death–births to poor or unmarried women can have an impact on society as a whole.
Thank you.
Umm, someone correct me if I’m wrong here?
This new rule isn’t,
“Insurance policies must cover contraceptives.”
it’s,
“Insurance policies that cover prescription drugs must include in that coverage all FDA approved drugs and devices.”
I’m pretty sure that, unlike the Catholic church, insurance companies don’t give a shit about having to cover the cost of “The Pill” and IUDs. Having to pay for really, really, expensive cancer treatment, that wipe out years of insurance payments in a couple of weeks of treatment, on the other hand.
CMC fnord!
Um, I don’t think the Catholic Church actually wants religious liberty. At least not for the laity. The point is for the laity to keep supporting the Catholic church. Its hard to take when the women don’t think you have a clue.
Fine. Give poor people as much birth control as they need. Whatever they can’t get from Planned Parenthood (and I don’t know ho much that is) give it to them. I’m 100% OK with that. But this instance that we must give every woman free birth control seems like something out of a rigid ideological imperative, rather than a practical solution to a real problem.