Swing States poll: Women push Romney into lead

What exactly do you think they are paying for for women that they don't pay for men? As the laws currently stand no taxpayer money can be used for abortion. Requiring insurance companies to cover contraception....that doesn't cost taxpayers...but will save us all money in the long run. So what stroke of the pen are you talking about?

Of course it is going to cost taxpayers. Where do you think that the insurance companies get the money to pay for the cost of the contraception they must cover, a foreign government or foreign citizens?

The mandate for "no out of pocket cost" contraception is in effect no different from a tax being levied by the federal government.

PrintSmith wrote: Of course it is going to cost taxpayers. Where do you think that the insurance companies get the money to pay for the cost of the contraception they must cover, a foreign government or foreign citizens?

The mandate for "no out of pocket cost" contraception is in effect no different from a tax being levied by the federal government.

Are you saying people aren't paying any premiums?? Where do you think the insurance companies get the money to pay for the cost of Viagra? And prostrate screening. Your post makes no sense....the insurance companies are certainly not hurting....their profits are up, significantly. With the ACA they have to use a set percentage on patient care....yet they still make gains in profit....Contraception has been part of insurance coverage since the 60s.....it's not something being added....it is something the GOP wants to take away.

Have you ever studied insurance rates? The higher a deductible you put on a car the less you have to pay per month. Insurance companies hate paying for tiny claims. It costs a lot of time and money to handle small claims. Putting a deductible of $100 on prescriptions and office visits would lower insurance premiums by a huge factor.

FredHayek wrote: Have you ever studied insurance rates? The higher a deductible you put on a car the less you have to pay per month. Insurance companies hate paying for tiny claims. It costs a lot of time and money to handle small claims. Putting a deductible of $100 on prescriptions and office visits would lower insurance premiums by a huge factor.

I'm curious how that relates to this discussion.

archer wrote: Are you saying people aren't paying any premiums?? Where do you think the insurance companies get the money to pay for the cost of Viagra? And prostrate screening. Your post makes no sense....the insurance companies are certainly not hurting....their profits are up, significantly. With the ACA they have to use a set percentage on patient care....yet they still make gains in profit....Contraception has been part of insurance coverage since the 60s.....it's not something being added....it is something the GOP wants to take away.

No, but I am saying that premiums will be higher because the amount of money that the insurance companies have to pay out has gone up, which will cost both taxpayers and non-taxpayers alike more than it did before. The requirement to purchase insurance, and the requirements regarding what the insurance must cover, is really no different in effect than levying a direct tax on people to provide insurance for them. You can either pay the tax to the insurance company or the federal government, but you will be paying a tax one way or the other.

While it may be true that, in raw dollars, insurance profits are up, they are down as a percentage of their premiums as a result of federal legislation. It is also true then that the ACA is the largest tax increase on the populace of the Union in its history. Raw dollars are used in both instances and both are equally true when that is the metric by which either claim is made.

I believe that any money put into prevention is money well spent. It can, and most probably will lower costs in the future for the insured, for the insurance company, and for the country. Screening tests are less costly then cures, especially for cancer. Birth control is less expensive than the cost to raise a child, you want to save a dime now so you can spend a dollar later to fix it.

archer wrote: I believe that any money put into prevention is money well spent. It can, and most probably will lower costs in the future for the insured, for the insurance company, and for the country. Screening tests are less costly then cures, especially for cancer. Birth control is less expensive than the cost to raise a child, you want to save a dime now so you can spend a dollar later to fix it.

You make valid points, but making visits free or medicine very low cost encourages people to go in for everything and to allow themselves to be put on many more drugs.
For example I was on a medication to reduce symptoms of GERD, but even off the medication, I was only getting symptons of it twice a year, to economize, I stopped ordering it on prescription and just learned to eat more sensibly.

But if Fluke had GERD, she would be saying anyone who had any signs of the disease should get free medication. Even though 95% of the people probably don't need it and or could afford to buy it themselves

Poor Fluke...she has been accused of so much that isn't true. All she asked for was to have her insurance policy cover contraception....like insurance policies have always done except when religion gets in the mix. Why should the religion of the administration of her university get to dictate what insurance coverage she is allowed?

I have very personal reasons for believing in preventive medicine. My private insurance policy did not cover colonoscopies for routine screening. because I was high risk for complications from the procedure...my cost to have one would have been well over $5000...so I made the mistake of waiting, even though my doctor thought everyone should be screened starting at age 50. I had no symptoms that would cause me concern and convince me to pay for it on my own, or make it eligible for insurance coverage. And so, when the insurance company decided to cover the procedure, I had one immediately. Sure enough,
I had a cancerous tumor that had been growing for years. The cost to cover my cancer treatments was over $200,000, money the insurance company could have saved if they had covered the screening even a few years earlier. Not to mention saving me the enormous emotional anguish and physical pain.

Preventive medicine makes good sense...both for our health and for the cost of health care. Early detection saves lives AND money.....why is it such an issue with conservatives that we spend money up front to save much, much, more money down the road?

It is a balancing act. Too much testing to avoid malpractice suits are one of the reasons that Americans have some of the highest healthcare costs in the world. "I am going to send you in for an MRI, it probably won't find anything but just to be safe."