| Author |
 Topic  |
|
mcvlbound
Senior Member
1486 Posts |
 Posted - 03/04/2012 : 11:56:26 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mixed Nutz
Hey MCV, I have an idea to take some of the load off of the already over burdened welfare system. Why don't we STOP paying women to have babies all together? That might even work better than free birth control. Y'a Think???
...Politicians aren't the "Oldest Profession", but the results are still the same!!!
How many times have I said that the real solution to the "safety net" problem is to get rid of it altogether? Start there and move backwards. That same solution applies to a lot of our welfare problems in my opinion. |
 |
|
|
mcvlbound
Senior Member
1486 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 12:03:30 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by gotchacovered
If MC's position is really about reducing welfare rolls, then why not just exclude the pills from Obamacare and sterilize all welfare recipients--or just setup condom dispensers in the projects. Oh, wait, they are already at every gas station in slums, and they cost less than the pack of cigarettes the guy went in there to buy. They could also just put government-funded BC-pill machines on the street corners, or send the pills along with the welfare checks. Or, they could just go down to the already-existing federal clinics downtown and get the pills. Or, they could have "pill stamps".
Nope, they MUST* cover bc pills in Obamacare. It's the only way*.
That, and we can't have voter ID's because those same people who drive and show ID to get their free BC pills can't go get a free voter ID.
Nonsense. This is about the hippies having their acid-fueled dreams of "free love" fulfilled. Sex with ZERO responsibility, and on someone else's dime. FLOWER POWER!
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862
Most of the "baby mama's" of today have never heard about flower power. Go into just about any city in this country and you will find lots of kids and their mother's living off of our taxes. Free food, free medical, subsidized housing, you name it. Compared to what all of that is costing the taxpayer, free contraceptives are a drop in the bucket. You've already established that they are very cheap.
It's a moral issue entirely. |
|
|
|
dixiedog02
Senior Member
224 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 12:08:56 PM
|
MC, to respond to your post, I was simply stating that (in my opinion) the people that think Obama is going to come out of this ahead will be very small compared to the number of people that will be offended that this woman can afford $150,000 in loans, but can't afford her own BC. My point was not defined to SC, and I am not sure where you got that, but I think the country will see this as a dumb move. And this country is a big place, full of women that feel they should pay their own way and not just ask for others to.
Mixed Nuts, you nailed it again. Nice post. |
|
|
|
gotchacovered
Prolific Poster
18036 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 12:32:16 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by mcvlbound
quote:
Originally posted by gotchacovered
If MC's position is really about reducing welfare rolls, then why not just exclude the pills from Obamacare and sterilize all welfare recipients--or just setup condom dispensers in the projects. Oh, wait, they are already at every gas station in slums, and they cost less than the pack of cigarettes the guy went in there to buy. They could also just put government-funded BC-pill machines on the street corners, or send the pills along with the welfare checks. Or, they could just go down to the already-existing federal clinics downtown and get the pills. Or, they could have "pill stamps".
Nope, they MUST* cover bc pills in Obamacare. It's the only way*.
That, and we can't have voter ID's because those same people who drive and show ID to get their free BC pills can't go get a free voter ID.
Nonsense. This is about the hippies having their acid-fueled dreams of "free love" fulfilled. Sex with ZERO responsibility, and on someone else's dime. FLOWER POWER!
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862
Most of the "baby mama's" of today have never heard about flower power. Go into just about any city in this country and you will find lots of kids and their mother's living off of our taxes. Free food, free medical, subsidized housing, you name it. Compared to what all of that is costing the taxpayer, free contraceptives are a drop in the bucket. You've already established that they are very cheap.
It's a moral issue entirely.
The "baby mommas" are only a fraction of the people using contraceptives, and they aren't the ones running the country. The flower-power people are. The flower children simply USE the baby mommas as a tool to get their free love passed.
"Compared to what all of that is costing the taxpayer, free contraceptives are a drop in the bucket."
That's ALWAYS the Liberal ploy--"but it's only a drop in the bucket". Well, those drops ADD UP.
Why can't baby mommas buy bc pills if they can buy cigarettes, MC? Also, why do we have to buy bc pills for all the college grads if it's only about keeping the poor off of welfare?
Answer!
"It's a moral issue entirely."
ABSOLUTELY. It's about the Democratic Party LYING to us and tramping the CONSTITUTION. I'm glad you're finally seeing that.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
Edited by - gotchacovered on 03/04/2012 12:39:56 PM |
|
|
|
gotchacovered
Prolific Poster
18036 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 12:42:56 PM
|
Mcvlbound, I want an answer. If it's really just about reducing welfare rolls, then why pay for all the NON-welfare women's BC pills too? Why not exclude the pills from Obamacare and sterilize all welfare recipients? Why not just setup condom dispensers in the projects? Why not just put government-funded BC-pill machines on the street corners, or send the pills along with the welfare checks? If it's about saving money, wouldn't those means save even more money? Why can't they just go down to the already-existing federal clinics downtown and get the pills? Or, why not have "pill stamps"? Any of the above would save even more money than funding national birth control for all Americans.
In other words, if it's just about welfare rolls, then why are the bills also being provided to college-grad women and EVERYONE?
Answer if you dare.
Again, I'll tell you why. It's because it's not really about reducing welfare. If anything, it's about increasing welfare, but this part of the puzzle is really more about fulfilling other long-held hippie-Socialist dreams, just like the high-speed rail train.
It IS a moral thing, though. It's immoral to take money from me and fund someone else's birth control pills in violation to my religion--and call it "healthcare". Despite whether or not you agree with me on the immorality of certain forms of birth control and abortafacients, deceiving the American people is inarguably immoral, and abusing the Constitution is, too. The Obama administration has been doing BOTH with this.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
Edited by - gotchacovered on 03/04/2012 12:58:52 PM |
|
|
|
gotchacovered
Prolific Poster
18036 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 1:13:42 PM
|
This deserves it's own post.
We've already established that contraceptives are extremely cheap--cheaper than the cigarette habits of the baby mommas'. Cigarettes average about $125 per month for the average smoker, while BC pills are around $5-$10. By comparison to all the luxuries the baby mommas buy for themselves, contraceptives are virtually free already. Nevertheless, even with dirt-cheap birth-control pills and 50-cent condom dispensers already in every inner-city bathroom, the baby mommas still crank out the welfare babies like rabbits. So, what makes anyone think that if the pills were free, there would be that much of a differene in birth rates among the welfare class? If $125 per month doesn't stop baby mommas fro smoking, (not to mention cellphones, crack, and other costs), then why would a savings of $5 per month stop a baby momma from purposefully farming babies every 2 years so she can stay on the welfare rolls?
Because of the baby-farming phenomenon that goes on in welfare, 19 states have passed "family caps". http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/welfare-reform-family-cap-policies.aspx
This strongly suggests that providing free contraceptives (a) will not reduce welfare baby farming (because the farming is done intentionally by many mothers to gain more welfare in the 31 states that don't have caps) and (b) will not really even matter for welfare babies in those 19 states listed, including SC (since they've already capped the welfare benefits for baby mommas).
The welfare cap seems to be working out in those 19 states, as it's been in place for about 15 years. So, if it's really about the money, why won't you just support a national cap instead of tax-funded contraceptives?
Hmmmmmmmmm?
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
Edited by - gotchacovered on 03/04/2012 1:25:47 PM |
|
|
|
mcvlbound
Senior Member
1486 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 1:40:53 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by gotchacovered
This deserves it's own post.
We've already established that contraceptives are extremely cheap--cheaper than the cigarette habits of the baby mommas'. Cigarettes average about $125 per month for the average smoker, while BC pills are around $5-$10. By comparison to all the luxuries the baby mommas buy for themselves, contraceptives are virtually free already. Nevertheless, even with dirt-cheap birth-control pills and 50-cent condom dispensers already in every inner-city bathroom, the baby mommas still crank out the welfare babies like rabbits. So, what makes anyone think that if the pills were free, there would be that much of a differene in birth rates among the welfare class? If $125 per month doesn't stop baby mommas fro smoking, (not to mention cellphones, crack, and other costs), then why would a savings of $5 per month stop a baby momma from purposefully farming babies every 2 years so she can stay on the welfare rolls?
Because of the baby-farming phenomenon that goes on in welfare, 19 states have passed "family caps". http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/welfare-reform-family-cap-policies.aspx
This strongly suggests that providing free contraceptives (a) will not reduce welfare baby farming (because the farming is done intentionally by many mothers to gain more welfare in the 31 states that don't have caps) and (b) will not really even matter for welfare babies in those 19 states listed, including SC (since they've already capped the welfare benefits for baby mommas).
The welfare cap seems to be working out in those 19 states, as it's been in place for about 15 years. So, if it's really about the money, why won't you just support a national cap instead of tax-funded contraceptives?
Hmmmmmmmmm?
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862
I like the cap idea. Put the cap at 1. That's getting rid of the "safety net" which is what I believe is of paramount importance.
I'm sure you understand that they get free contraceptives to help them stay under the cap don't you? |
|
|
|
mcvlbound
Senior Member
1486 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 1:51:12 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by dixiedog02
MC, to respond to your post, I was simply stating that (in my opinion) the people that think Obama is going to come out of this ahead will be very small compared to the number of people that will be offended that this woman can afford $150,000 in loans, but can't afford her own BC. My point was not defined to SC, and I am not sure where you got that, but I think the country will see this as a dumb move. And this country is a big place, full of women that feel they should pay their own way and not just ask for others to.
Mixed Nuts, you nailed it again. Nice post.
DD did you know that at Georgetown U they have a student health center that provides general health care for the students as a part of their paid tuition? Maybe she feels that at $150,000 a year tuition her "cheap" contraceptives should be provided along with the flu shots and other medications that are provided at no charge to the students.
After paying all that money doesn't she have a right to at least have expectations, and a right to voice those expectations?
As far as women understanding in the way that you think they will, I'm not sure. I know after my second child was born and I said to my wife that I was thinking that we should consider not having any more kids she didn't object, but her response wasn't what I was hoping for either. She told me that not having any more kids was easy for her, all I had to do was not get her pregnant again.
I'm adding the link for the Georgetown Law Student Health Care. They even provide free Psychiatric Services
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/reslife/oncampus/facilities.html#shs |
Edited by - mcvlbound on 03/04/2012 2:24:44 PM |
|
|
|
Reelly Old
Senior Member
1337 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 2:53:54 PM
|
After paying all that money doesn't she have a right to at least have expectations, and a right to voice those expectations?
She attends a private, Catholic sponsored university. She has a right to expectations, but also a common sense responsibility to have 'reasonable' expectations, which free contraception at a Catholic university certainly is not. And she has a right to voice her expectations, though most would say interrupting a Congressional hearing to voice an unrealistic expectation would not be the best time or place. And those who disagree with her stance have a right to voice that disagreement and disapproval, however poorly they might do so ... 
Most Martyrs To A Cause End Up Dead Because Of It!
Only Being Called A Few Names (So Far) Must Be A Relief.
__________________________ |
|
|
|
skinneej
Prolific Poster
11907 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 3:03:21 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by mcvlbound
quote:
Originally posted by dixiedog02
MC, to respond to your post, I was simply stating that (in my opinion) the people that think Obama is going to come out of this ahead will be very small compared to the number of people that will be offended that this woman can afford $150,000 in loans, but can't afford her own BC. My point was not defined to SC, and I am not sure where you got that, but I think the country will see this as a dumb move. And this country is a big place, full of women that feel they should pay their own way and not just ask for others to.
Mixed Nuts, you nailed it again. Nice post.
DD did you know that at Georgetown U they have a student health center that provides general health care for the students as a part of their paid tuition? Maybe she feels that at $150,000 a year tuition her "cheap" contraceptives should be provided along with the flu shots and other medications that are provided at no charge to the students.
After paying all that money doesn't she have a right to at least have expectations, and a right to voice those expectations?
As far as women understanding in the way that you think they will, I'm not sure. I know after my second child was born and I said to my wife that I was thinking that we should consider not having any more kids she didn't object, but her response wasn't what I was hoping for either. She told me that not having any more kids was easy for her, all I had to do was not get her pregnant again.
I'm adding the link for the Georgetown Law Student Health Care. They even provide free Psychiatric Services
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/reslife/oncampus/facilities.html#shs
It's not about whether a woman feels what "should" be included in her health benefits package. This issue is about having the FREE WILL to make the DECISION without the government FORCING you down a path. If the woman wants healthcare to cover BC, then there are PLENTY of insurance companies out there who already OFFER THIS and it rests in her FREE WILL that she may CHOOSE the one that best fits her needs. The problem comes when a government gets so big and powerful that it feels that it can DEMAND from private companies and institutions what they MUST offer with the threat of being punished by law of the land.
I just don't understand why people cannot see this argument. Is our society really that stupid? |
Edited by - skinneej on 03/04/2012 3:05:01 PM |
|
|
|
mcvlbound
Senior Member
1486 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 3:14:38 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Reelly Old
After paying all that money doesn't she have a right to at least have expectations, and a right to voice those expectations?
She attends a private, Catholic sponsored university. She has a right to expectations, but also a common sense responsibility to have 'reasonable' expectations, which free contraception at a Catholic university certainly is not. And she has a right to voice her expectations, though most would say interrupting a Congressional hearing to voice an unrealistic expectation would not be the best time or place. And those who disagree with her stance have a right to voice that disagreement and disapproval, however poorly they might do so ...
Most Martyrs To A Cause End Up Dead Because Of It!
Only Being Called A Few Names (So Far) Must Be A Relief.
__________________________
She didn't interrupt a Congressional Hearing. She wanted to be in the formal hearing, but she was denied. She then was invited to an informal hearing, attended and spoke. |
|
|
|
Mixed Nutz
Senior Member
3482 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 3:18:57 PM
|
I just don't understand why people cannot see this argument. Is our society really that stupid?
It's sure starting to look like it!!
...Politicians aren't the "Oldest Profession", but the results are still the same!!! |
|
|
|
DFreedom
Senior Member
6593 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 3:20:57 PM
|
| She also does not have to go to Georgetown. If she feels she should get free pills for paying $150,000 and does not get them, perhaps she could go somewhere less expensive or maybe somewhere that provides free contraceptives. |
|
|
|
mcvlbound
Senior Member
1486 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 3:46:34 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by skinneej
quote:
Originally posted by mcvlbound
quote:
Originally posted by dixiedog02
MC, to respond to your post, I was simply stating that (in my opinion) the people that think Obama is going to come out of this ahead will be very small compared to the number of people that will be offended that this woman can afford $150,000 in loans, but can't afford her own BC. My point was not defined to SC, and I am not sure where you got that, but I think the country will see this as a dumb move. And this country is a big place, full of women that feel they should pay their own way and not just ask for others to.
Mixed Nuts, you nailed it again. Nice post.
DD did you know that at Georgetown U they have a student health center that provides general health care for the students as a part of their paid tuition? Maybe she feels that at $150,000 a year tuition her "cheap" contraceptives should be provided along with the flu shots and other medications that are provided at no charge to the students.
After paying all that money doesn't she have a right to at least have expectations, and a right to voice those expectations?
As far as women understanding in the way that you think they will, I'm not sure. I know after my second child was born and I said to my wife that I was thinking that we should consider not having any more kids she didn't object, but her response wasn't what I was hoping for either. She told me that not having any more kids was easy for her, all I had to do was not get her pregnant again.
I'm adding the link for the Georgetown Law Student Health Care. They even provide free Psychiatric Services
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/reslife/oncampus/facilities.html#shs
It's not about whether a woman feels what "should" be included in her health benefits package. This issue is about having the FREE WILL to make the DECISION without the government FORCING you down a path. If the woman wants healthcare to cover BC, then there are PLENTY of insurance companies out there who already OFFER THIS and it rests in her FREE WILL that she may CHOOSE the one that best fits her needs. The problem comes when a government gets so big and powerful that it feels that it can DEMAND from private companies and institutions what they MUST offer with the threat of being punished by law of the land.
I just don't understand why people cannot see this argument. Is our society really that stupid?
At the point you describe it's an easy argument to make, but where do you draw the line? Could a private company decide to make a choice that they will not provide treatment for obesity related illnesses, or illnesses deemed related to smoking. How about a private company that just one day decides to put you on a scale and then tells you how much weight you need to lose to keep your payment rates from increasing. My health insurance company has already called me and asked me questions ranging from how much alcohol a week I consume, to how often I eat fast food. To me it's not as much an issue of what private companies should be allowed to do as much as it's a question of what insurers working through private companies could do.
In the big picture to me there is more to it than contraception and the Catholic Church, and there are definitely other freedoms involved. |
Edited by - mcvlbound on 03/04/2012 3:47:43 PM |
|
|
|
skinneej
Prolific Poster
11907 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 4:01:22 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by mcvlbound
Could a private company decide to make a choice that they will not provide treatment for obesity related illnesses, or illnesses deemed related to smoking.
Of course! Then you and the millions of other customers could send them a message by switching to a provider that DOES cover these illnesses. Thats how the market works...
Let's say that nobody will cover obesity related illnesses. That provides for a few things to happen:
1) Maybe you might consider getting on the treadmill
2) Maybe you move to France
3) Maybe demand for obesity drugs drops and the companies selling them will be forced to reduce prices to the point where it becomes 'affordable' again.
Do you not understand that private insurance companies are not there as a slave to YOU, but instead they are selling goods and services to make a profit? |
Edited by - skinneej on 03/04/2012 4:02:38 PM |
|
|
|
Mixed Nutz
Senior Member
3482 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 4:14:45 PM
|
We draw the line at our gov. mandating our tax dollars provide for, and promoting illicit behavior. Your private company scenario holds no water, as plenty of them already have no tolerance clauses on both legal, and illegal substances, to employees wishing to join their insurance programs, or to remain employed.
But now that you've brought private companies back into the argument. What's your argument with citizens buying private insurance from a private company to cover their birth control, whether they choose to use it for recreational purposes, or a true Dr. prescribed medical issue?
...Politicians aren't the "Oldest Profession", but the results are still the same!!! |
|
|
|
skinneej
Prolific Poster
11907 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 4:22:40 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mixed Nutz
We draw the line at our gov. mandating our tax dollars provide for, and promoting illicit behavior. Your private company scenario holds no water, as plenty of them already have no tolerance clauses on both legal, and illegal substances, to employees wishing to join their insurance programs, or to remain employed.
But now that you've brought private companies back into the argument. What's your argument with citizens buying private insurance from a private company to cover their birth control, whether they choose to use it for recreational purposes, or a true Dr. prescribed medical issue?
...Politicians aren't the "Oldest Profession", but the results are still the same!!!
@mcvlbound, right? |
|
|
|
skinneej
Prolific Poster
11907 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 4:28:32 PM
|
| Me thinks that mcvlbound really doesn't understand the basics of how "insurance" works... |
|
|
|
mcvlbound
Senior Member
1486 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 4:31:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by skinneej
quote:
Originally posted by mcvlbound
Could a private company decide to make a choice that they will not provide treatment for obesity related illnesses, or illnesses deemed related to smoking.
Of course! Then you and the millions of other customers could send them a message by switching to a provider that DOES cover these illnesses. Thats how the market works...
Let's say that nobody will cover obesity related illnesses. That provides for a few things to happen:
1) Maybe you might consider getting on the treadmill
2) Maybe you move to France
3) Maybe demand for obesity drugs drops and the companies selling them will be forced to reduce prices to the point where it becomes 'affordable' again.
Do you not understand that private insurance companies are not there as a slave to YOU, but instead they are selling goods and services to make a profit?
Well you make it sound so simple. Basically if I understood what you said correctly, after we've paid our premiums, the Health Care Providers have the right to tell us exactly how they want us to live our lives in order for us to receive the benefits that they choose to provide. |
|
|
|
skinneej
Prolific Poster
11907 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 4:39:50 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by mcvlbound
Well you make it sound so simple. Basically if I understood what you said correctly, after we've paid our premiums, the Health Care Providers have the right to tell us exactly how they want us to live our lives in order for us to receive the benefits that they choose to provide.
Nope. Once you have paid your premiums, there is a binding of agreements about what is covered called your "policy". They can't tell you that obesity will be covered, charge you for it, and then choose not to cover it. That would be fraudulent.
Nice try, but try again... |
|
|
|
gotchacovered
Prolific Poster
18036 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 5:40:42 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by mcvlbound
quote:
Originally posted by gotchacovered
This deserves it's own post.
We've already established that contraceptives are extremely cheap--cheaper than the cigarette habits of the baby mommas'. Cigarettes average about $125 per month for the average smoker, while BC pills are around $5-$10. By comparison to all the luxuries the baby mommas buy for themselves, contraceptives are virtually free already. Nevertheless, even with dirt-cheap birth-control pills and 50-cent condom dispensers already in every inner-city bathroom, the baby mommas still crank out the welfare babies like rabbits. So, what makes anyone think that if the pills were free, there would be that much of a differene in birth rates among the welfare class? If $125 per month doesn't stop baby mommas fro smoking, (not to mention cellphones, crack, and other costs), then why would a savings of $5 per month stop a baby momma from purposefully farming babies every 2 years so she can stay on the welfare rolls?
Because of the baby-farming phenomenon that goes on in welfare, 19 states have passed "family caps". http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/welfare-reform-family-cap-policies.aspx
This strongly suggests that providing free contraceptives (a) will not reduce welfare baby farming (because the farming is done intentionally by many mothers to gain more welfare in the 31 states that don't have caps) and (b) will not really even matter for welfare babies in those 19 states listed, including SC (since they've already capped the welfare benefits for baby mommas).
The welfare cap seems to be working out in those 19 states, as it's been in place for about 15 years. So, if it's really about the money, why won't you just support a national cap instead of tax-funded contraceptives?
Hmmmmmmmmm?
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862
I like the cap idea. Put the cap at 1. That's getting rid of the "safety net" which is what I believe is of paramount importance.
I'm sure you understand that they get free contraceptives to help them stay under the cap don't you?
"I'm sure you understand that they get free contraceptives to help them stay under the cap don't you?"
No, not at all. Why should we give them free contraceptives to help them stay under the cap?
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
|
|
|
gotchacovered
Prolific Poster
18036 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 5:45:05 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by skinneej
Me thinks that mcvlbound really doesn't understand the basics of how "insurance" works...
Roger that, Mr. Skinnee.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
|
|
|
gotchacovered
Prolific Poster
18036 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 5:50:02 PM
|
"Maybe she feels that at $150,000 a year tuition her "cheap" contraceptives should be provided along with the flu shots and other medications that are provided at no charge to the students."
She's wrong.
"After paying all that money doesn't she have a right to at least have expectations, and a right to voice those expectations?"
No.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
|
|
|
gotchacovered
Prolific Poster
18036 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 5:56:14 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by mcvlbound
quote:
Originally posted by skinneej
quote:
Originally posted by mcvlbound
Could a private company decide to make a choice that they will not provide treatment for obesity related illnesses, or illnesses deemed related to smoking.
Of course! Then you and the millions of other customers could send them a message by switching to a provider that DOES cover these illnesses. Thats how the market works...
Let's say that nobody will cover obesity related illnesses. That provides for a few things to happen:
1) Maybe you might consider getting on the treadmill
2) Maybe you move to France
3) Maybe demand for obesity drugs drops and the companies selling them will be forced to reduce prices to the point where it becomes 'affordable' again.
Do you not understand that private insurance companies are not there as a slave to YOU, but instead they are selling goods and services to make a profit?
Well you make it sound so simple. Basically if I understood what you said correctly, after we've paid our premiums, the Health Care Providers have the right to tell us exactly how they want us to live our lives in order for us to receive the benefits that they choose to provide.
No, they tell you how they expect you to live your life at the time you sign the insurance application. It's all written in the policy. You apparently don't understand that insurance is the transfer of ACCIDENTAL risk from you to the insurer and that the insurer is in it for a PROFIT--and YES, YOU DO have terms you're supposed to keep as you part of the deal to prevent unnecessary risk and loss.
Paying for luxuries is not a transfer of risk. It's just giving people money.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
|
|
|
skinneej
Prolific Poster
11907 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 6:06:22 PM
|
mcvlbound, do you at least believe that a 21 year old with perfect health, a routine of excercise and diet, should expect a lower premium than someone who is 100 lbs overweight, has AIDs, cancer, constantly smokes, and drinks budweiser for breakfast, after taking a few viles of crack?
If you owned your own insurance company, would you even cover person B? |
Edited by - skinneej on 03/04/2012 6:07:20 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
You win some, and you lose some....
