BearMtnHIB wrote: Yes- require all insurance to cover birth control- that won't raise the cost of insurance for us.
HUH.
What ever happened to the idea that insurance was for covering those catastrophic costs- not the everyday costs like checkups, pap smears and birth control.
Yep, let's just have insurance cover those CATASTROPHIC costs, like the ones the result from lack of access to birth control. Let's see, pre-natal care, delivery and hospitalization for mom and baby, extraordinary care that can cost up to $500k a WEEK if the baby is premature or ill, and then 18 or 20 years of pediatric care for the child.
To save ten bucks a month on contraceptives?
And you think progressives are short sighted? rofllol rofllol
Lack of access to birth control isn't the problem, condoms are available at any King Soopers. It is the idiots choosing to have sex who can't be bothered to buy/use birth control when they are buying lube or beer.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Which, of course, totally ignores all the married couples who want to plan, and do not want more children at a given time, and the cost of birth-control may not fall within their budget. To a conservative, OF COURSE, all who want birth-control are irresponsible swingin' singles...
Well I must not be a standard conservative because I don't think voluntary choices should be subsidized by either the insurance companies or the federal government. Given incentive perhaps, but not subsidized. If the federal government wanted to give incentive to no cost birth control pills, it could accomplish that goal by allowing insurance companies which did so a tax deduction which those that didn't wouldn't be eligible for.
In a sense, I agree... Most families DECIDE when to have a baby...That's a voluntary choice... It should NOT be "subsidized" by insurance companies or the federal government, i.e., I should not have to pay for it through my premiums.... You want to breed?..Do it on your own nickel... All that stuff about pre-natal, and well-baby care?...Screw it... They CHOSE to breed... Not my problem.
Yep, a certain amount of logic in that... If you're a sociopath....
BearMtnHIB wrote: Yes- require all insurance to cover birth control- that won't raise the cost of insurance for us.
HUH.
What ever happened to the idea that insurance was for covering those catastrophic costs- not the everyday costs like checkups, pap smears and birth control.
I need a car everyday too- can Obama and the progressives start paying for that too?
Why should my insurance premiums pay for your erectile dysfunction?
rofllol You're on a roll Kate!
" I'll try anything once, twice if I like it, three times to make sure. " Mae West
Why should my insurance premiums pay for your erectile dysfunction
Your insurance should not cover erectile dysfunction- no insurance should cover it.
By the way mine is working fine- how about your partners?
I dont want insurance to pay for this- or birth control, or pap smears- or any other regular doctors visit. Insurance by definition is for covering unforseen events.
A pregnant woman is not unforseen, unless she was passed out at the time.
Unforeseen? Family planning often happens by accident.
I'm glad my insurance paid for the birth of my kids, otherwise, I'd still be paying for the birth procedure. How many families can afford $10,000 or more in health costs for a normal birth? Especially if it's an unplanned pregnancy?
You're on a roll Kate!
