PDA

View Full Version : What a difference 70 years makes.



LWW
03-08-2012, 08:46 AM
http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Rosie_Riveter_Sandra_Rivete.jpg

eg8r
03-08-2012, 08:50 AM
Hard to argue against that poster.

eg8r

llotter
03-08-2012, 10:23 AM
Sandra the Slut.

Soflasnapper
03-08-2012, 04:28 PM
No, friend, the poster is entirely wrong.

The complaint is that the health care insurance available, WHICH THE STUDENTS PAY FOR, doesn't include the contraception coverage, which is withheld by the university on moral grounds.

Nothing at all about getting anything free, and not from the government, either.

It's no wonder people cannot come together and reason, as reason, and familiarity with the facts, are in short supply. Sadly.

LWW
03-08-2012, 04:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hard to argue against that poster.

eg8r </div></div>

Yet the O-cult does.

Qtec
03-08-2012, 06:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><u>The complaint is</u> that the health care insurance available, WHICH THE STUDENTS PAY FOR, doesn't include the contraception coverage, which is withheld by the university on moral grounds.
</div></div>

Correct.

I have been trying to get that point over to the other Brethren, through multiple threads, without success.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nothing at all about getting anything free, and not from the government, either. </div></div>

Or 'Soooooo........ much sex'.

Q

DiabloViejo
03-08-2012, 06:40 PM
Fluke is not seeking "free birth control," she was arguing in favor of a principle that has been law since 2000.

In December 2000, the EEOC ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. <u>This is something that was supported by the Bush Administration for over a decade.</u>

As we all know, employer health insurance is not free. Employees pay part of the cost for these insurance programs through payroll deductions. Most employer insurance programs require co-pays for doctor visits; thus, obtaining a prescription for birth control isn't "free" for most employees, with or without a prescription co-pay. College student health plans also typically require students to pay annual premiums, along with tuition payments and other expenses. It is a flat out lie to claim that a woman who expects the insurance she pays for to cover the meds she needs is looking for taxpayer-funded "entitlements."

But alas, as you like to say..YOU ALREADY KNEW THAT!

LWW
03-09-2012, 04:13 AM
And those deductibles are generally at least $5.00 per prescription ... which is 50% higher than a typical prescription for the pill.

This has never been about birth control.

It has always been about a false flag operation to present the regime as the defender of reproductive rights ... and to force religious groups to sacrifice their collective rights to the left's beloved state.

Now ... I've asked this question many times. Why do you all think that this is about contraception?

Better yet ... why can not a single leftist answer this?

Qtec
03-09-2012, 04:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This has never been about birth control. </div></div>

Oh please. Its ALL about birth control and people having 'so much sex'.

That's the view coming from Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity and all of Fox News.

The Q is straight forward.

Should big fat middle aged men decide what medical treatment a woman needs or should that be the Doctor?

Q

Soflasnapper
03-09-2012, 09:44 AM
This 'free' nonsense?

It costs $1800 a student for their coverage at Georgetown.

From the university's info page (http://studentaffairs.georgetown.edu/insurance/letteraccept.html)

eg8r
03-09-2012, 10:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nothing at all about getting anything free, and not from the government, either.
</div></div>This is just one of the first steps. However, since you don't think they want the contraception for free, do you think she would be willing to up her HC costs by $1000/yr to cover her own need for such contraception and make sure my costs don't go up to cover her needs?

eg8r

eg8r
03-09-2012, 10:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Correct.
</div></div>It is not correct, it is a bold-faced lie. Contraception is provided as long as it is used for non-contraceptive purposes. Insurance companies are not in the business to keep sexually rampant young college coeds safe. Religious institutions are no in the business of making it easier for college coeds to run around having protected sex.

Here is what I could see you being in agreement with in the future. Let's say the insurance company starts covering contraception (understand I know have to pay additional money to cover this). This college nitwit goes out, uses the condom and then gets pregnant. Well she decides to sue the condom mfg and the insurance company because it is their fault for providing "access" to the contraception and for providing "faulty" contraception.

What is next for you people? Shouldn't toilet paper be free? Shouldn't electricity be free. We can't live our lives without electricity that should be a "right" of ours. When will it stop?

eg8r

eg8r
03-09-2012, 10:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is a flat out lie to claim that a woman who expects the insurance she pays for to cover the meds she needs is looking for taxpayer-funded "entitlements."
</div></div>These are not "meds" that she needs. Close your legs and all will be fine. When are the poor going to start telling the government that they need cable TV?

eg8r

eg8r
03-09-2012, 10:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It costs $1800 a student for their coverage at Georgetown.
</div></div>Wow, for a self-proclaimed genius you sure are doing your best to cast doubt. Adding additional coverage and no increase in charges to the students would be considered FREE. Get it, you are getting more for the same price meaning the extra is FREE.

Again, would you be in favor of this student being charged an additional $1000 to cover her "needs" as diablow referred to it yet leave those not partaking in this additional coverage alone.

eg8r

llotter
03-09-2012, 10:13 AM
The free stuff refers to the contraception mandate i.e. more stuff for the same price. The slut and all of her sisters that want to be on the 'pill' at other peoples expense, are not practicing 'safe' sex with a condom, apparently.

DiabloViejo
03-09-2012, 11:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The free stuff refers to the contraception mandate i.e. more stuff for the same price. The slut and all of her sisters that want to be on the 'pill' at other peoples expense, are not practicing 'safe' sex with a condom, apparently. </div></div>

B.S.! The price of any meds prescribed and / or treatments are factored into the premiums paid after actuarial analysis has taken place.

Did you not read this part of my response to LWW in this thread?:

<span style="color: #3333FF">In December 2000, the EEOC ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. This is something that was supported by the Bush Administration for over a decade.</span>

Where was all your right wing indignation during the Bush years when his administration supported the EEOC ruling? Oh that's right there wasn't any! You're only bothered when the black guy does it, right?

Apparently you are not aware that most intelligent single women who use contraceptives, be it the pill, IUD's, or diaphragm, still require their partners to use a condom in order to prevent STD's such as HIV. And you are apparently also unaware that it's the man's responsibility to provide his own condoms.

BTW your constant 'slut' comment indicates to me that you have a problem with women's sexuality. This could be due to your not having any sex in a long time for whatever reason(s). Perhaps you have been rejected by women, or are in a sexless relationship, so you turn on women who enjoy sex. Maybe you have physical or psychological problems which are causing you to feel the need to degrade women. I suggest you explore your problems with a qualified psychologist or sex therapist.

In any case, I hope you guys continue to shoot yourselves in the foot with all your culture wars nonsense. It will help ensure that you lose the presidential election and it will help get your Tea Party bufoons tossed out of congress the next time they're up for reelection. On behalf of all of us filthy liberal scum moonbat o-cultist obamatronic hippie liberals, let me thank you for your good work! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Republicans hoisted by their own wedge issue! (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/46675930#46675930)

DiabloViejo
03-09-2012, 11:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However, since you don't think they want the contraception for free, do you think she would be willing to up her HC costs by $1000/yr to cover her own need for such contraception and make sure my costs don't go up to cover her needs?

eg8r </div></div>

Are you willing to pay $1000 or more for your health insurance to cover your added risks from overeating? Why should other people in your health care plan be forced to bear the burden if you get diabetes or heart disease due to your diet decisions? Should smokers be denied cancer coverage? Should motorcyclists be denied trauma care because they engaged in risky activity which was preventable?

BTW, unless you are enrolled in the particular health plan Ms. Fluke was referring to, how exactly would it impact your health costs?

(OK, I await the part where you come in with an ad-hominem wisecrack.)

DiabloViejo
03-09-2012, 11:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is a flat out lie to claim that a woman who expects the insurance she pays for to cover the meds she needs is looking for taxpayer-funded "entitlements."
</div></div>These are not "meds" that she needs. Close your legs and all will be fine. When are the poor going to start telling the government that they need cable TV?

eg8r </div></div>

Au contraire, mon frere! You see, here is the problem... women (gasp) are biologically different from men in that (gasp) they are the only ones that can get pregnant, so they need birth control. This is the 21st century "close your legs and all will be fine" just doesn't cut it anymore. And BTW, if men could get pregnant I seriously doubt you'd be bitching about birth control. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

eg8r
03-09-2012, 12:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Au contraire, mon frere! You see, here is the problem... women (gasp) are biologically different from men in that (gasp) they are the only ones that can get pregnant, so they need birth control.</div></div>Again, you are sadly mistaken. They don't NEED birth control. Needs are air and food. This is a handout that they WANT. This issue about getting pregnant has been around since the beginning of time and billions of women have been getting along without their government forcing free contraception.

eg8r

eg8r
03-09-2012, 12:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">B.S.! The price of any meds prescribed and / or treatments are factored into the premiums paid after actuarial analysis has taken place.
</div></div>I like it when you tell us what to expect if you keep on talking. In this instance you told us that you were going to be telling us a bunch of BS. Right you were.

eg8r

DiabloViejo
03-09-2012, 01:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">B.S.! The price of any meds prescribed and / or treatments are factored into the premiums paid after actuarial analysis has taken place.
</div></div>I like it when you tell us what to expect if you keep on talking. In this instance you told us that you were going to be telling us a bunch of BS. Right you were.

eg8r </div></div>

LOL! Are you seriously saying that insurance companies don't factor the costs of medicines and treatment into their premiums? Are you so thick headed that you cannot understand the role of actuarial analysis?

Let me educate you: (Courtesy of Wikipedia)

<span style="color: #3333FF">Actuarial science is the discipline that applies mathematical and statistical methods to assess risk in the insurance and finance industries. Actuaries are professionals who are qualified in this field through education and experience. In many countries, actuaries must demonstrate their competence by passing a series of rigorous professional examinations.

Actuarial science includes probability, mathematics, statistics, finance, economics, financial economics, and computer programming. Historically, actuarial science used deterministic models in the construction of tables and premiums. The science has gone through revolutionary changes during the last 30 years because of the proliferation of high speed computers and the union of stochastic actuarial models with modern financial theory

In health insurance, including insurance provided directly by employers, actuarial science focuses on calculating contingencies such as the rate of disability, morbidity, mortality and fertility. The effects of consumer choice and geographical distribution of the utilization of medical services are also important. These factors underlay the development of the Resource-Base Relative Value Scale (RBRVS,(Hsiao 2004)). Actuarial science also aids in the design of benefit structures, reimbursement standards, and proposed standards on the cost of healthcare (CHBRP 2004).</span>

A company's claim history is also important in determining group health insurance rates. If a company employs a lot of older males, premiums will likely be higher since this population is prone to more cancer diagnoses, hypertension, diabetes and heart attacks. On the other hand, companies with lot of women in their 20s and 30s will also pay more due to maternity and childcare costs. It stands to reason that birth control helps keep group rates down by lowering the number of maternity and childcare claims.

Who is bullshitting whom now, hotshot? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

DiabloViejo
03-09-2012, 01:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Au contraire, mon frere! You see, here is the problem... women (gasp) are biologically different from men in that (gasp) they are the only ones that can get pregnant, so they need birth control.</div></div>Again, you are sadly mistaken. They don't NEED birth control. Needs are air and food. This is a handout that they WANT. This issue about getting pregnant has been around since the beginning of time and billions of women have been getting along without their government forcing free contraception.

eg8r </div></div>

LMAO! Yes, women have been getting pregnant since the dawn of the human species. None of us would be here if they hadn't! But it was not until 1960 when the FDA approved the first form of hormonal birth control, the combined oral contraceptive pill, that women finally had access to a reliable, highly efficient method of birth control.

And again your "free contraception" trope is not only wrong, it's quite boring. And, dare I say it? It's also indicative of either profound ignorance or sheer stupidity on your part.

Your comment about "needs" is also equally stupid. If all people really need is air and food then by god let's just do away with all coverage! Brilliant! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

eg8r
03-09-2012, 03:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let me educate you
</div></div>LOL, now that is funny.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
03-09-2012, 03:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It costs $1800 a student for their coverage at Georgetown.
</div></div>Wow, for a self-proclaimed genius you sure are doing your best to cast doubt. Adding additional coverage and no increase in charges to the students would be considered FREE. Get it, you are getting more for the same price meaning the extra is FREE.

Again, would you be in favor of this student being charged an additional $1000 to cover her "needs" as diablow referred to it yet leave those not partaking in this additional coverage alone.

eg8r </div></div>

I have not said I am a genius. I don't think childhood tests are valid into adulthood.

However, covering contraception will REDUCE the costs to the insurance company, through reduced obstetric charges, and other internal medicine charges.

DiabloViejo
03-09-2012, 03:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let me educate you
</div></div>LOL, now that is funny.

eg8r </div></div>

Yes. Come to think of it, trying to enlighten a pinhead is quite humorous! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

BTW, how's the view in there?
http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/1005/they-said-it-couldnt-be-done-pb-head-up-ass-demotivational-poster-1272914568.jpg

Qtec
03-10-2012, 02:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">do you think she would be willing to <u>up her HC costs by $1000/yr to cover her own need for such contraception and make sure my costs don't go up to cover her needs?</u>

eg8r </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is not correct, it is a bold-faced lie. <u>Contraception is provided </u>as long as it is used for non-contraceptive purposes. </div></div>

So, if its for medical purposes, it costs you nothing but if its for prevention of pregnancy, your costs somehow go up!

Do you see the contradiction here?



Q

Qtec
03-10-2012, 02:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have not said I am a genius. I don't think childhood tests are valid into adulthood. </div></div>

LOL

Q

Qtec
03-10-2012, 02:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They don't NEED birth control. </div></div>

There's that Fairy Dust again. Just don't have sex, right?

You wouldn't need a police force either if people obeyed the law.



Q

LWW
03-10-2012, 03:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This 'free' nonsense?

It costs $1800 a student for their coverage at Georgetown.

From the university's info page (http://studentaffairs.georgetown.edu/insurance/letteraccept.html) </div></div>

And?

Let's see ... if we add $1,000 a year in additional benefits, plus admin and billing fees, the new cost of coverage would be around $3,000.00 per year.

Do you actually have any clue how economics works?

LWW
03-10-2012, 03:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This 'free' nonsense?

It costs $1800 a student for their coverage at Georgetown.

From the university's info page (http://studentaffairs.georgetown.edu/insurance/letteraccept.html) </div></div>

Excellent point ... but I have an unfair advantage in that I actually read and understood it.

Let's review:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dear Student:

The Premier Plan offered by Georgetown University is underwritten by the United HealthCare Insurance Company (United). Because you are responsible for understanding your health benefits, carefully read the enrollment and benefit details, including the Exclusions and Limitations, in the Premier Plan Description of Benefits, Policy #2011-32-1, before making an enrollment decision.</div></div>

What this is explaining is that the plan doesn't cover absolutely everything, and before you enroll you should learn what is and isn't covered.

Soflasnapper
03-10-2012, 10:28 AM
Let's see ... if we add $1,000 a year in additional benefits, plus admin and billing fees, the new cost of coverage would be around $3,000.00 per year.

Do you actually have any clue how economics works?

You apparently do not have a clue how economics works.

Here's your clue: when a group buyer gets services covered, they get a large discount, as if they were buying wholesale. It's always far less than an ala carte, individual buying the same services individually. That's true across the board. Service providers agree to take a lowered fee, in return for the group buy.

eg8r
03-10-2012, 03:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you willing to pay $1000 or more for your health insurance to cover your added risks from overeating? </div></div>LOL, I already do through my gym membership. LOL, now what exactly is available to cover your stupidity?

eg8r

eg8r
03-10-2012, 03:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, if its for medical purposes, it costs you nothing but if its for prevention of pregnancy, your costs somehow go up!
</div></div>No contradiction at all. If they were to open up the covered uses of contraception then the bill would go up.

eg8r

eg8r
03-10-2012, 03:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There's that Fairy Dust again. Just don't have sex, right?
</div></div>Why do you despise effectivity? Why should insurance rates go up because you cannot control yourself. Does this mean "men" are going to be lining up to sue for condoms?

eg8r

eg8r
03-10-2012, 03:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, women have been getting pregnant since the dawn of the human species.</div></div>Yep, I am glad you can follow along. Contraception is a "WANT" and one day when you get tired of sticking your hand out for freebies you might be able to control yourself.

eg8r

eg8r
03-10-2012, 04:00 PM
LOL, it is funny to see you continually refer to pictures. So, do they let you out for recess every day or just some days? Or just when they are replacing the wall padding?

eg8r

DiabloViejo
03-10-2012, 04:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, it is funny to see you continually refer to pictures. So, do they let you out for recess every day or just some days? Or just when they are replacing the wall padding?

eg8r </div></div>

LOL! Are you mad Porky? Maybe you should just take break for a little while and say (http://youtu.be/DH7qq7OjJO8) .

eg8r
03-10-2012, 04:16 PM
Are the strings too tight?

eg8r

DiabloViejo
03-10-2012, 04:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, women have been getting pregnant since the dawn of the human species.</div></div>Yep, I am glad you can follow along. Contraception is a "WANT" and one day when you get tired of sticking your hand out for freebies you might be able to control yourself.

eg8r </div></div>

I see the depleted uranium skull plate implant is working for you. Good going, a thick skull is useful in deflecting the truth.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/418348_379500598744854_196601040368145_1428154_751 969055_n.jpg

DiabloViejo
03-10-2012, 04:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are the strings too tight?

eg8r </div></div>

Not at all. But thank you for your, no doubt, sincere concern! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

DiabloViejo
03-10-2012, 04:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you willing to pay $1000 or more for your health insurance to cover your added risks from overeating? </div></div>LOL, I already do through my gym membership. LOL, now what exactly is available to cover your stupidity?

eg8r </div></div>

And I'm sure you have a stunning physique from all your strenuous workouts, don't ya? Yep, you must be like a modern day Jack Lalanne!

You are so awesomely bright as well! In fact you're so very special in oh so many ways that it makes you want to sing! (http://youtu.be/Ye7PIyIcCro)

eg8r
03-10-2012, 10:02 PM
I guess that answers the question. Nothing can cover up your stupidity.

eg8r

LWW
03-11-2012, 01:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let's see ... if we add $1,000 a year in additional benefits, plus admin and billing fees, the new cost of coverage would be around $3,000.00 per year.

Do you actually have any clue how economics works?

You apparently do not have a clue how economics works.

Here's your clue: when a group buyer gets services covered, they get a large discount, as if they were buying wholesale. It's always far less than an ala carte, individual buying the same services individually. That's true across the board. Service providers agree to take a lowered fee, in return for the group buy. </div></div>

So you honestly believe that you can add whatever you want to the company costs and never see premiums rise?

That answers a lot of questions ... including the one about your knowledge of economics.

Qtec
03-11-2012, 04:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why do you despise effectivity? </div></div>

I posted this in another thread that obviously missed.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Last month, Republican state Rep. Francis Gibson said that in the Utah school district he represents, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>the abstinence-only curriculum is not producing positive results,</span> and that unexpected <span style='font-size: 20pt'>teen pregnancy is still a problem.
</span>
"I would hope as we make this decision, that we won't think if we say abstinence only, that fairy dust will have been sprinkled and that teen pregnancy will no longer be a problem," Gibson said </div></div>

Abstinence does not work. Its a fantasy to think you can solve all these problems by telling teenagers, 'don't have sex' and its problem solved.
Its been tried and has been proved over and over again to be a failure because its not based in reality.
People have sex. Teenagers and college students have sex. This is the reality.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why should insurance rates go up because you cannot control yourself. </div></div>

Your rates don't go up.

BTW, young people are relativity healthy. The reason their rates are so high is because they are paying for all those middle aged people who in later life require more HC.

That's how insurance works.

Q

Soflasnapper
03-11-2012, 12:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let's see ... if we add $1,000 a year in additional benefits, plus admin and billing fees, the new cost of coverage would be around $3,000.00 per year.

Do you actually have any clue how economics works?

You apparently do not have a clue how economics works.

Here's your clue: when a group buyer gets services covered, they get a large discount, as if they were buying wholesale. It's always far less than an ala carte, individual buying the same services individually. That's true across the board. Service providers agree to take a lowered fee, in return for the group buy. </div></div>

So you honestly believe that you can add whatever you want to the company costs and never see premiums rise?

That answers a lot of questions ... including the one about your knowledge of economics. </div></div>

Once again your Kreskin mind-reading skill set fails you!

Didn't say that, or anything close to that. I made no general point that a premium wouldn't rise for added benefit costs.

The point generally was whatever service is added to a group plan will not cost as much when bought in bulk, as it were, by the group, compared to what an individual can buy it for.

That's the general rule I was stating.

In particular, in this case, the service being provided saves the insurance company enough if it were added at no cost, the insurance company would make a profit on providing it that way. For the insurance company to make the SAME profit after providing it as before they provided it, the premium cost would actually go down.

Stitch in time saves nine. They (the insurance carriers) can pay now, or pay considerably more later.

DiabloViejo
03-11-2012, 12:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I guess that answers the question. Nothing can cover up your stupidity.

eg8r </div></div>

LMAO! Pick up your toys and go home boy!

BTW may I suggest a book for you?:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_0fYIu0Gw61Q/TLIDenZpwNI/AAAAAAAAAW4/IqR3Sfr6xKc/s1600/idiots_breathing.jpg

llotter
03-11-2012, 07:13 PM
What is it exactly that is being purchased in bulk to lower the cost?

In a less politically charged environment, what you and others are suggesting of lowering total cost by decreasing pregnancy which would cost more than the pill, smacks of social engineering through eugenics. 'Those poor folks that can't afford the pill shouldn't be reproducing anyway', is that what you're saying?

Insurance is generally something to cover unanticipated expenses, not known ones. It is like demanding insurance to cover my insurance expenses and that is exactly what contraceptives are, insurance.

eg8r
03-11-2012, 10:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the abstinence-only curriculum is not producing positive results, </div></div>This says NOTHING about the curriculum and the effectivity if it is followed.

As an example, a teacher is teaching his class algebra. He gives them homework. The kids that choose to not do the practice fail the test (get pregnant) the ones that do practice get passing grades (do not get pregnant). Should we throw out our entire educational system because more and more kids are failing out of school?

eg8r

eg8r
03-11-2012, 10:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I made no general point that a premium wouldn't rise for added benefit costs.
</div></div>He might be getting you confused with qtip and diablowhard.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The point generally was whatever service is added to a group plan will not cost as much when bought in bulk, as it were, by the group, compared to what an individual can buy it for.
</div></div>To that point do you think these increase, as low as you think, should only be applied to women?

eg8r

JohnnyD
03-11-2012, 10:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[quote=Soflasnapper]Let's see ... if we add $1,000 a year in additional benefits, plus admin and billing fees, the new cost of coverage would be around $3,000.00 per year.

Do you actually have any clue how economics works?

You apparently do not have a clue how economics works.

Here's your clue: when a group buyer gets services covered, they get a large discount, as if they were buying wholesale. It's always far less than an ala carte, individual buying the same services individually. That's true across the board. Service providers agree to take a lowered fee, in return for the group buy. </div></div>

So you honestly believe that you can add whatever you want to the company costs and never see premiums rise?

That answers a lot of questions ... including the one about your knowledge of economics. [/quote Excellent post.Jesus loves you.

Qtec
03-12-2012, 01:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This says NOTHING about the curriculum and the effectivity <span style='font-size: 14pt'>if</span> it is followed. </div></div>

If people didn't smoke...
If people didn't break the law...
If people didn't drink alcohol..
If people didn't eat so much...
If people wouldn't drive too fast....
If my Auntie had balls she would be my Uncle..........

Back to reality.

Abstinence only sex-ed doesn't work. Its a proven fact.

Q

Soflasnapper
03-12-2012, 08:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is it exactly that is being purchased in bulk to lower the cost?

In a less politically charged environment, what you and others are suggesting of lowering total cost by decreasing pregnancy which would cost more than the pill, smacks of social engineering through eugenics. 'Those poor folks that can't afford the pill shouldn't be reproducing anyway', is that what you're saying?

Insurance is generally something to cover unanticipated expenses, not known ones. It is like demanding insurance to cover my insurance expenses and that is exactly what contraceptives are, insurance. </div></div>

What is being purchased in bulk would be contraception pills and/or devices (IUDs, or subcutaneous implants), and ob/gyn services and office visit expenses. Providers agree to sell these at lower prices in return for more volume in the group buy.

It seems you have little understanding of how HEALTH INSURANCE works, for it was already standard for many routine things that come up every year to be included at either no extra cost or very low co-pays. For instance, my health care plan provides a no extra cost or very low co-pay for an annual (preventative care) physical, including an EKG test and its interpretation. My dental insurance pays for a semi-annual cleaning and annual wing-bite x-rays. None of which is unforeseen or unanticipated, and quite the contrary.

As I'm a man, I'm not sure, but I expect that some health insurance for women would include a routine pelvic exam, a PAP smear, and perhaps a mammogram (at whatever agreed upon frequency) under the same no extra payment and/or low co-pay arrangement.

Soflasnapper
03-12-2012, 09:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I made no general point that a premium wouldn't rise for added benefit costs.
</div></div>He might be getting you confused with qtip and diablowhard.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The point generally was whatever service is added to a group plan will not cost as much when bought in bulk, as it were, by the group, compared to what an individual can buy it for.
</div></div>To that point do you think these increase, as low as you think, should only be applied to women?

eg8r </div></div>

Many preventative care screenings will become free of additional charge under the ACA, and that's true for preventative care and screening for men as well as for women. Likely a comparable free male-only screen would be a digital rectal exam of the prostate, for example.

Qtec
03-13-2012, 09:22 AM
Its amazing.

RW'ers want less abortion, less single parent families,less teenage pregnancies, etc etc

What's their solution?...don't have sex?

You can't prevent young women having sex, what you can do is prevent is them getting pregnant.

Contraception.

Its logical.

Q

llotter
03-15-2012, 09:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is it exactly that is being purchased in bulk to lower the cost?

In a less politically charged environment, what you and others are suggesting of lowering total cost by decreasing pregnancy which would cost more than the pill, smacks of social engineering through eugenics. 'Those poor folks that can't afford the pill shouldn't be reproducing anyway', is that what you're saying?

Insurance is generally something to cover unanticipated expenses, not known ones. It is like demanding insurance to cover my insurance expenses and that is exactly what contraceptives are, insurance. </div></div>

What is being purchased in bulk would be contraception pills and/or devices (IUDs, or subcutaneous implants), and ob/gyn services and office visit expenses. Providers agree to sell these at lower prices in return for more volume in the group buy.

It seems you have little understanding of how HEALTH INSURANCE works, for it was already standard for many routine things that come up every year to be included at either no extra cost or very low co-pays. For instance, my health care plan provides a no extra cost or very low co-pay for an annual (preventative care) physical, including an EKG test and its interpretation. My dental insurance pays for a semi-annual cleaning and annual wing-bite x-rays. None of which is unforeseen or unanticipated, and quite the contrary.

As I'm a man, I'm not sure, but I expect that some health insurance for women would include a routine pelvic exam, a PAP smear, and perhaps a mammogram (at whatever agreed upon frequency) under the same no extra payment and/or low co-pay arrangement.
</div></div>

First, getting pregnant is not and should not be compared to an illness that everybody wants to avoid.

Second, the volume will not go up appreciably because the price is so low already and even free in some places. Plus, adding a third party payer in the equation will tend to increase the price, not lower it.

Lastly, neither contraceptive nor other early detection testing are cost savings to the insurance companies. These items are included because that is what the market wants but such additions do increase the premiums, not decrease.

Soflasnapper
03-15-2012, 12:14 PM
Clearly enough, pregnancy is a health condition that requires money be spent on the prospective mother, tests of the fetus and amniotic fluid, delivery and followups and whatever complications may arise, including possible need for surgery in delivery.

And then there's this:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> email
permalink

15 Mar 2012 01:13 PM
The Fiscal Conservative Case For Subsidized Birth Control

Brandishing a new report from Brookings, Max Fisher shows how "health care subsidies on birth control actually save you money -- a lot of money":

The savings come from averting health care, child care, and other costs associated with unplanned pregnancies. [It's] a rate of return of 100% to 500%, making it one of the safest and most profitable investments anywhere. ... As an added bonus, you'll also reduce the number and rate of abortions, 90% of which are estimated to be for unintended pregnancies. And you'll reduce the number of unwed mothers (if you happen to think this is a number that should be reduced), who carry 70% of unplanned pregnancies.

</div></div>

Here. (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/03/a-fiscal-conservative-case-for-subsidized-birth-control.html) At the link, you'll find live links for the report, and the discussion cited.