They're trying again (to discourage women from voting Republican)

Anti- spanking the wank

There’s the “spilled semen” bill that Oklahoma Sen. Constance Johnson proposed – a bill that would declare it an act against unborn children for men to waste sperm. There’s an amendment Illinois Rep. Kelly Cassidy wants attached to a new state requirement that women who seek abortions have ultrasounds. The amendment mandates that men watch a graphic video about Viagra’s side effects before being able to receive a prescription for it. In Virginia, state Sen. Janet Howell proposed a mandatory rectal exam for men before they can get a prescription.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/...rylink=cpy

Quote from Xygonn : It's actually NOT absurd. The options are to pay for the routine costs as they occur like a normal person or to pay health insurance premiums to an intermediary to have them put it through a bureaucracy to pay your routine costs. That is what is insane! Do you pay for all of your regular car maintenance through maintenance premiums? It's actually a great analogy.

If owning a car were a requirement in order to live you might have a point. The choice to own a car and drive comes with the requirement to pay for liability insurance because requiring people to save enough money to cover their potential for damage on their own is simply impractical. How does that analogize to paying for health insurance? If I break my leg, should my insurance provider be able to deny my claim because I should have been "more responsible" for the health of my leg bone? The "responsibility for one's health" line of thought breaks down very quickly when you start considering the amount of times we get ill or "broken" or diseased through no fault of our own, and also what effects those illnesses/diseases/etc. might have on others.

The free market is simply not the panacea to society's problems that libertarians make it out to be, for one because there is no such thing in this world as a truly free market. The market is created from the same rules that regulate overall society, and those include rules that make living within a society as practical for all as possible.

In your free market utopia, who should pay for vaccinations for those who cannot afford it? You seem to think it's unfair to have insurance companies do it because then those who buy insurance have to pay for it. Are you similarly against the government subsidizing it for those without insurance?

Quote from Xygonn : The only difference being that people seem to have forgotten they are responsible for maintenance of their health.

You'd have a point if the only illnesses that insurance covered were directly related to the [lack of] maintenance. But since our health is a much more complex equation than the "regular car maintenance" schedule, this particular facet of your argument falls flat.

Quote from Xygonn : If we follow your argument to it's conclusion: Do you pay for food by giving a premium to the food insurance company so that you can be reimbursed for covered groceries?

Do you pay a premium to buy gas? I don't get the question or the intersection of the analogy.

Quote from Xygonn : Insurance is specifically for catastrophes you can't plan for.

Car insurance is specifically for catastrophes you can't plan for. Health insurance isn't so black and white because we are not cars, we don't need to drive to live, and we aren't granted an inalienable right to drive. Another breakdown in the analogy is that there is also no requirement that car shops fix your car when it breaks, but anyone can forgoe health insurance and get emergency coverage.

Quote from Xygonn : If it ]benefits the insurer to cover routine care to prevent large payouts, they will do it on their own. That's how the free market works.

Until that "free market" is perverted by the moral wishes of a select few.

Quote from Xygonn : Back to the automobile analogy. What about break service? What about changing tires? I think the argument could be made that this regular maintenance would not only affect costs to the primary user but the overall safety on the road.

Local governments already mandate that cars are safe (i.e. in good working order when it comes to brakes and tires and lights and such) so car insurance companies can safely make the assumption that those things are already being taken care of. Remove such a requirement and the equation would change, but since enforcement would become an issue for private providers, the overall safety of the roads would very likely change as well.

Quote from riptide_slick : If owning a car were a requirement in order to live you might have a point. The choice to own a car and drive comes with the requirement to pay for liability insurance because requiring people to save enough money to cover their potential for damage on their own is simply impractical. How does that analogize to paying for health insurance? If I break my leg, should my insurance provider be able to deny my claim because I should have been "more responsible" for the health of my leg bone? The "responsibility for one's health" line of thought breaks down very quickly when you start considering the amount of times we get ill or "broken" or diseased through no fault of our own, and also what effects those illnesses/diseases/etc. might have on others. The free market is simply not the panacea to society's problems that libertarians make it out to be, for one because there is no such thing in this world as a truly free market. The market is created from the same rules that regulate overall society, and those include rules that make living within a society as practical for all as possible. In your free market utopia, who should pay for vaccinations for those who cannot afford it? You seem to think it's unfair to have insurance companies do it because then those who buy insurance have to pay for it. Are you similarly against the government subsidizing it for those without insurance? You'd have a point if the only illnesses that insurance covered were directly related to the [lack of] maintenance. But since our health is a much more complex equation than the "regular car maintenance" schedule, this particular facet of your argument falls flat. Do you pay a premium to buy gas? I don't get the question or the intersection of the analogy. Car insurance is specifically for catastrophes you can't plan for. Health insurance isn't so black and white because we are not cars, we don't need to drive to live, and we aren't granted an inalienable right to drive. Another breakdown in the analogy is that there is also no requirement that car shops fix your car when it breaks, but anyone can forgoe health insurance and get emergency coverage. Until that "free market" is perverted by the moral wishes of a select few. Local governments already mandate that cars are safe (i.e. in good working order when it comes to brakes and tires and lights and such) so car insurance companies can safely make the assumption that those things are already being taken care of. Remove such a requirement and the equation would change, but since enforcement would become an issue for private providers, the overall safety of the roads would very likely change as well.

I'm going to temporarily abandon the car analogy, not because I think it is wrong but because it is causing confusion.

If we take your argument, that insurance should cover routine maintenance, then it should cover eating which is integral to your health. Therefore health insurance should cover groceries. And instead of paying "out-of-pocket" for the groceries, I should pay a higher premium to the insurance company, then file a claim for all of my groceries. That is how absurd it is to include regularly recurring and/or predictable, health care items in insurance.

Illness and injury is not regularly recurring and/or predictable -> covered. There is even a decent argument to be made that minor illness should not be covered.
All regularly recurring and/or predictable -> not covered.

If an insurance company finds out the average payout per customer is less when they do cover preventative care, they are free to offer that coverage (and then offer lower premiums because other insurance companies would do the same and offer better prices if they don't).

Remember:
your premium=(average payout per customer per month) * (1+some factor)

If you mandate coverage for something that costs $30 a month, your premium will go up $33 a month (or more).

Let people buy insurance in arbitrary groups accross state lines tax free and it'll work itself out.

Mandated BC, and other mandated insurance coverage still doesn't solve the "problem" of how to pay for BC and vaccines for the uninsured. In my "utopia" there are low cost and free clinics that provide basic medical care for the poor and needy. Wait, those exist IRL (some of which get public grants, some of which are private).

Quote from Xygonn : If we take your argument, that insurance should cover routine maintenance, then it should cover eating which is integral to your health. Therefore health insurance should cover groceries. And instead of paying "out-of-pocket" for the groceries, I should pay a higher premium to the insurance company, then file a claim for all of my groceries. That is how absurd it is to include regularly recurring and/or predictable, health care items in insurance.

If that were my argument then I'd also be saying that car insurance should cover gas too. Good thing that's not my argument. Eating is not "routine maintenance"; it's a requirement for life. And were we to go down the path of advocating that health insurance cover food, then we'd find ourselves with a lot less food choices, of which would differ widely depending upon what the newest studies have proven to be the "most healthy". Again, good thing that's not my argument, because that would be a nightmare. I'm not even sure where you got that from what I was saying.

Quote from Xygonn : Illness and injury is not regularly recurring and/or predictable -> covered. There is even a decent argument to be made that minor illness should not be covered. All regularly recurring and/or predictable -> not covered.

You are advocating that health insurance should not cover "routine" things even though they already do. Am I understanding you right - you would make those who are currently purchasing insurance pay for their own costs for everything that is not recurring and/or predictable? What about kids with "regularly recurring" illnesses like asthma - would they not be covered? Their illness is both recurring and predictable. I'd like to hear your argument that the insurance I pay for which currently covers that kind of stuff for me and my family shouldn't cover that kind of stuff for me and my family. I'm especially interested in the one that says that "minor" illnesses shouldn't be covered, because I'm wondering who gets to define what a "minor" illness is.

Kids born with birth defects will have "predicable" problems too - should they not be covered because those problems were predictable?

Quote from Xygonn : Mandated BC, and other mandated insurance coverage still doesn't solve the "problem" of how to pay for BC and vaccines for the uninsured. In my "utopia" there are low cost and free clinics that provide basic medical care for the poor and needy. Wait, those exist IRL (some of which get public grants, some of which are private).

First of all, it's not "mandated BC" - it's mandated coverage for BC. In your "free market" utopia, the "problem" of paying for those that are uninsured isn't solved at all - those "low cost" and "free" clinics are low cost and free because they are subsidized by everyone; not just those who purchase insurance. You've just shifted the burden of cost from those buying insurance to the population as a whole. Which seems to be either inconsistent with your "free market" ideology or in general agreement with a desire to have more people participate in that shared pool of risk in the first place (i.e. mandated health insurance coverage).

From some of your previous posts:

Quote : Cars are optional for life, but health is not optional for living.

Quote : If owning a car were a requirement in order to live you might have a point.

Quote from riptide_slick : If that were my argument then I'd also be saying that car insurance should cover gas too. Good thing that's not my argument.

First of all, I dropped the car analogy because it's clearly causing trouble in communication, I suggest you stop thinking about cars for the moment.

Quote : Eating is not "routine maintenance"; it's a requirement for life. And were we to go down the path of advocating that health insurance cover food, then we'd find ourselves with a lot less food choices, of which would differ widely depending upon what the newest studies have proven to be the "most healthy". Again, good thing that's not my argument, because that would be a nightmare. I'm not even sure where you got that from what I was saying.

And mandated birth control coverage won't result in less choice and higher costs?

Quote : You are advocating that health insurance should not cover "routine" things even though they already do. Am I understanding you right - you would make those who are currently purchasing insurance pay for their own costs for everything that is not recurring and/or predictable? What about kids with "regularly recurring" illnesses like asthma - would they not be covered? Their illness is both recurring and predictable. I'd like to hear your argument that the insurance I pay for which currently covers that kind of stuff for me and my family shouldn't cover that kind of stuff for me and my family.

Correct! They shouldn't be covered. Especially something like asthma. My mind figuratively salivates over the possibilities of the free market to address asthma when insurers aren't a go-between. You would have a smaller premium and more money in your pocket! You are assuming the "cost" of asthma medication is the one insurers have agreed to pay pharmaceutical companies.

You see, the argument is, if insurance doesn't pay for the treatment, your premium is lower. This is a very very simple concept. Please read the math included in my previous post. It should be immediately obvious to the most casual observer.

Quote : I'm especially interested in the one that says that "minor" illnesses shouldn't be covered, because I'm wondering who gets to define what a "minor" illness is.

I said some argument, though I prefer not to venture down that path. Basically, what I'm saying is high deductible HSAs will save you more money in the long run than typical health insurance if you have a minor illness. Any illness where this isn't true, is not a minor illness.

Quote : Kids born with birth defects will have "predicable" problems too - should they not be covered because those problems were predictable?

The real answer is a bit nuanced. You can include birth defects in the mother's plan, and so long as you hold the same insurance plan the kid should be covered (up to some agreed upon maximum lifetime payout), or you may engage in other solutions. You can not cover your child. After which, one would expect high premiums or lack of insurable coverage due to the expected cost.

Quote : First of all, it's not "mandated BC" - it's mandated coverage for BC.

Mandated BC and other mandated coverage, the coverage was implied. Trust me, I'm the last person who conflates insurance with care.

Quote : In your "free market" utopia, the "problem" of paying for those that are uninsured isn't solved at all - those "low cost" and "free" clinics are low cost and free because they are subsidized by everyone; not just those who purchase insurance. You've just shifted the burden of cost from those buying insurance to the population as a whole. Which seems to be either inconsistent with your "free market" ideology or in general agreement with a desire to have more people participate in that shared pool of risk in the first place (i.e. mandated health insurance coverage).

Many of the low cost/no cost clinics are paid for by donations. That is scarcely "subsidized by everyone". Unless you mean everyone that eats at McDonald's.

http://rmhc.org/

Quote from Xygonn : More accurately (since Rush doesn't run the GOP) -If you want other people to pay for your routine healthcare, you are a moocher The real problem is the GOP isn't going far enough. The government should have no say in forcing insurance to cover routine care. Does the gov't require car insurance to cover oil changes?

So you think the issue with the Georgetown woman was that she did not want to pay for her contraceptives?

You mention "routine care." So you are ok with gov forcing ins to cover non-routine cares?

Quote from TRNT : So you think the issue with the Georgetown woman was that she did not want to pay for her contraceptives? You mention "routine care." So you are ok with gov forcing ins to cover non-routine cares?

Not particularly. However, the idea that insurance should cover routine care at all is completely absurd and irrational.

Quote from Xygonn : Not particularly. However, the idea that insurance should cover routine care at all is completely absurd and irrational.

I say the exact opposite. Covering routine care is one of the smartet thing an ins can do. It reduces down the road expenses which are often much higher.

Quote from riptide_slick : And were we to go down the path of advocating that health insurance cover food, then we'd find ourselves with a lot less food choices, of which would differ widely depending upon what the newest studies have proven to be the "most healthy". Again, good thing that's not my argument, because that would be a nightmare. I'm not even sure where you got that from what I was saying.

Sounds similar to government mandating what a health plan has to cover.

I just had the thought of what if doctors still used blood-letting via leeches as standard procedure. It'd be mandated by the government. Amusing!

Quote from TRNT : I say the exact opposite. Covering routine care is one of the smartet thing an ins can do. It reduces down the road expenses which are often much higher.

Then, logically, if we cover routine, healthy food, it should also reduce expenses down the road.

Quote from Deusxmachina : Then, logically, if we cover routine, healthy food, it should also reduce expenses down the road.

I am not clear with part of this logic you are mocking. Lt me break it down for you:

1. Preventive care reduces expenses down the road.

2. It is to ins benefit to encourage preventive care.

Which one of the above are you disputing?

Quote from TRNT : I say the exact opposite. Covering routine care is one of the smartet thing an ins can do. It reduces down the road expenses which are often much higher.

In which case it behooves the insurance company to cover those procedures or even REQUIRE them to keep a low premium. No regulation necessary.

Quote from TRNT : I am not clear with part of this logic you are mocking. Lt me break it down for you: 1. Preventive care reduces expenses down the road. 2. It is to ins benefit to encourage preventive care. Which one of the above are you disputing?

Yeah, that's what I said.

1. If eating healthy food reduces expenses down the road, it falls under the general banner of "preventive care."

2. It is to ins benefit to encourage preventive care.

Quote from Deusxmachina : Yeah, that's what I said. 1. If eating healthy food reduces expenses down the road, it falls under the general banner of "preventive care." 2. It is to ins benefit to encourage preventive care.

You still did not say with which you disagree so I concentrate my time on that one. Oh well.

Here is where the analogy breaks. It is assumed that people who get preventative medicine by far take it. Not to mention that to have a similar effect food is much more expensive.

Such assumption cannot be made for those who would get free food. Especially that eating an oatmeal cookie a day while you gobble bunch of other bad food is not believed to do much help.

So while I disagree with your analogy, I would say that if giving people free healthy food would reduce ins payments, then any ins executive who would not give the free food should be fired. You disagree?

Quote : AZ bill could require reason for birth control: [yahoo.com] A bill nearing passage in the Republican-led Arizona Legislature allows all employers, not just religious institutions, to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage when doing so would violate their religious or moral beliefs.Women in Arizona trying to get reimbursed for birth control drugs through their employer-provided health plan could be required to prove that they are taking it for a medical reason such as acne, rather than to prevent pregnancy.

Quote : Idaho Senate Passes Forced Ultrasound Bill: [addictinginfo.org] Despite the national outrage and backlash over mandatory ultrasound bills in Virginia and Pennsylvania, and challenges to existing laws enacted in Louisiana and Oklahoma, Idaho Senator Chuck Winder proposed a bill which would force every woman to undergo a mandatory ultrasound prior to having an abortion. Although he’s the author of the bill, Winder admits that he has no idea what type of ultrasound is mandated by his bill nor does he or any other Republican in the state senate know how women would pay for the forced procedure.

Quote : NH House Passes Bill That Falsely Claims Abortion Causes Breast Cancer: [huffingtonpost.com] New Hampshire's Tea Party-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill Wednesday that would mandate a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion and require doctors to tell women that abortion causes breast cancer, even though there is no proven breast cancer link to abortion, according to the WHO and the American Cancer Society.

......