Women should get free birth control, panel says

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

I'm confused on how preventative health services wouldn't exist, without public money.

Because we're not operating in a hypothetical market - we're operating in an actual, defined system, one in which insurance companies have very little incentive to push preventative services (due to consumer, government and market pressures), and one in which their slavish devotion to quarterly earnings trumps the long-term cost benefit of pushing preventative measures anyway.

[AlwaysSAI]

Must this thread, of all threads, really turn into yet another GC barking contest?

ROOF! My bark is the loudest.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Because we're not operating in a hypothetical market - we're operating in an actual, defined system, one in which insurance companies have very little incentive to push preventative services (due to consumer, government and market pressures), and one in which their slavish devotion to quarterly earnings trumps the long-term cost benefit of pushing preventative measures anyway.

I thought Elephant Walk was "smart enough" to know all of this. I guess not.

I was looking forward to reading different opinions on this. I welcome those who can express those opinions in a manner different than Elephant Walk.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Because we're not operating in a hypothetical market - we're operating in an actual, defined system,

Of course.

However, I suppose my hypotheticals come with caveats. If we are to remove healthcare funding from the federal budget, we are to remove total government intervention in the market. The problem is that we get a little free-market one way...but no free-market in another similar instance.

For example, the banks were able to spend boundless amounts of money and hand-out tons of loans. An exhibition of free-market Austrian capitalism. Except, that in direct opposition to this was the fiat money system, the FDIC, and the federal reserve. These federal regulations and propping up systems created moral hazards creating a collapse. No moral hazards/no government intervention...a functioning market. But when the invisible hand is not allowed to work, it is a nightmare.

With that said, I'm advocating the removal of the federal intervention in the health-care market...but if we remove universal health care, we must remove the whole disgusting mess.

So when you talk about,

one in which insurance companies have very little incentive to push preventative services (due to consumer, government and market pressures), and one in which their slavish devotion to quarterly earnings trumps the long-term cost benefit of pushing preventative measures anyway.

Which is created by a system propped up by the government, expounded by the fiat money system and welfare, you're going to have this mess. In spite of this consistent meddling by the federal government, the insurances still like preventative care. Insurance companies and companies that provide insurance love preventative care because it makes having you in their insurance cheaper. If they have a slavish devotion to quarterly earnings, they would have a slavish devotion to preventative measures which saves money. And they do. Do you really think that many corporations (including the one I work for) provide a gym because they want everyone to be skinny and hot?

No.

When you have a regulatory agency which consistently withholds drugs from the populace where it might be someone's last hope, where you have a federal government that prevents cheap drugs from other countries in order to support corporations (form of corporatism, eventual fascism), where you have a government who has now forced the populace to buy insurance (which again is another form of corporatism, eventual fascism) which in itself creates a terrible moral hazard and greatly increases the cost of care, and ultimately a government who props up a multiplicity of companies, you have a problem. The problems these last two or three decades have seen in regards to healthcare are not a result of a government hands-off approach, simply the opposite. The government has been too involved.

The Austrian Free-Market is compassion. The socialized market fakes compassion for power. Power over the powerless.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

I'm confused on how preventative health services wouldn't exist, without public money.

Currently, gobs and gobs of private money goes into preventative care. And it works, better than the governments inefficient system. Why not enhance the private sector over the public, so that citizens are able to choose what to do and not do with their money?

The fact that you think that you have the right to tell anyone what to do with their money is absolutely disgusting. If you believe in limiting that personal freedom, you probably also want to ban gay marriage...at least if you didn't want to be hypocritical.

Since I actually work in the real health system, this whole post is laughable. The fact that you actually think that providing people with preventative health care limits personal freedom gives me a pretty good idea of the level of logic skills you exhibit. I will refrain from getting into a philosophical debate with you about libertarianism. It's all well and good if every person has the same resources and the same belief system, but it quickly becomes deadly when people don't.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Since I actually work in the real health system, this whole post is laughable.

Excellent lambasting of the post. You and DrPhil are pretty much in the same boat, mentally.

The fact that you actually think that providing people with preventative health care limits personal freedom gives me a pretty good idea of the level of logic skills you exhibit.

Woah, talk about leaps of logic! I never said that providing people with preventative health care limits personal freedom. That's silly.

However, taking money at the barrel of a gun (the IRS/government is the gun) to give to other people is limiting personal freedom.

[AlwaysSAI]

^^^Sure don't.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AlwaysSAI

^^^Sure don't.

Darn!

Originally Posted by agzg

Is your bark the loudest? Or is your house the most dry?

If "house" is code for vagina, you picked the right thread.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Yes, people disagreeing and discussing matters at a moderately high level really takes a dump on a thread, doesn't it?

Take off your moderator pants, put on a pot of tea, and chill out. EW is somewhat one-note, but a lot of times there's an interesting point to discuss underneath the Libertrolling.

Also, it's like the most anti-Feminist thing on Earth to say "this thread, of all threads" - seriously?

LOL. This topic is rooted in politics and other stuff so it would be this thread, right?

[AlwaysSAI]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

If "house" is code for vagina, you picked the right thread.

I was wondering that. And, I'll stop there.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Yes, people disagreeing and discussing matters at a moderately high level really takes a dump on a thread, doesn't it?

Take off your moderator pants, put on a pot of tea, and chill out. EW is somewhat one-note, but a lot of times there's an interesting point to discuss underneath the Libertrolling.

Also, it's like the most anti-Feminist thing on Earth to say "this thread, of all threads" - seriously?

Eh. I just thought that people, especially women, should be happy about the possibility of preventing babies for free. Not arguing about it. If my verbage, which is always off, makes me anti-feminist, so be it.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AlwaysSAI

Eh. I just thought that people, especially women, should be happy about the possibility of preventing babies for free. Not arguing about it. If my verbage, which is always off, makes me anti-feminist, so be it.

There are different ways to views these topics. There are plenty of people (including many women) who feel as Elephant Walk does and are much better at expressing it. There are also perspectives that differ from ours and Elephant Walk's.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by AlwaysSAI

I was wondering that. And, I'll stop there.

No, I see the word "roof" and think the roof of a house. I see the word "woof" and I think about a dog's bark.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

I agree with Ghostwriter about the "free" comment, but in a different way. As I understand the health care law, everyone who uses the system will have to pay to be part of it so women will be getting "free" birth control as part of the health care plan they have to buy. Right?

I didn't know there was such a vast array of birth control pills out there. The cynic in me says that it's probably going up to the government which birth control you get for "free". I can also see some people getting jealous and causing a stink that their blood pressure or diabetes medication isn't considered preventative.

Yes, but a lot of women are paying for their health insurance now (or at least a significant portion of the premium) and still have to pay $50 a month for birth control.

Actually, your insurer and your employer have a lot of say in what you can get at a low cost now. Insurers have formularies and only cover what is on their formulary. That's no different. Blood pressure and diabetes medication is currently covered by most people's insurance policies whereas birth control is not. It is assumed those will continue to be covered. Your employer has to purchase an extra birth control rider for your insurance to pay any part of birth control prescriptions.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by agzg

No, I see the word "roof" and think the roof of a house. I see the word "woof" and I think about a dog's bark.

Is this a Vagina Monologue?

[nittanygirl]

I wish could be free.
I pay $20 a month bc I'm can't use my insurance for it and sometimes, being still in school with only a part time job, it gets to be too expensive for me and I have to cut out some of my groceries, etc to afford it. Personally, I think my boyfriend (long-term, 5 years) should pitch in every now and then since it's not just me who is not ready for a baby (& he has a full-time job and I don't)

Although I know people who pay more, so I can't complain too much.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by nittanygirl

I wish could be free.
I pay $20 a month bc I'm can't use my insurance for it and sometimes, being still in school with only a part time job, it gets to be too expensive for me and I have to cut out some of my groceries, etc to afford it. Personally, I think my boyfriend (long-term, 5 years) should pitch in every now and then since it's not just me who is ready for a baby (& he has a full-time job and I don't)

Although I know people who pay more, so I can't complain too much.

Have you discussed that with him? I would certainly hope that financial burden shouldn't fall only one partner, especially in a very long term relationship. Take turns every other month maybe?

I have always thought it should be free. As noted above, it's much more cost effective to cover birth control than to pay for a child for a lifetime!