The "WAr On Women??"

[thir]

In practice, that tends not to work; the small profit margin tends to help improve efficiency, which isn't generally something government bodies are known for.

Each system has its pro and cons..commercial health care is there to make money, and so it does what makes the most money with smallest cost, which is often not something that benefits the customers. We have this discussion here in UK right now, with our goverment wanting to sell out public health care.

It is also true that public hospitals can be very expensive and need overseeing, but at least their first priority is people's health, and we are many who share in paying.

[Punish_her]

Good point! If we all have to pay anyway, why not pay where we get the most out of it = a system that doesn't have to show a profit, but just has to cover costs?

simple: niskanen's bureaucratic budget optimization in public choice theory.
every agency that just covers costs via federal handout seems to have rapidly inflating costs with decrasing efficiency. tell me the dmv is a well-oiled machine

[thir]

simple: niskanen's bureaucratic budget optimization in public choice theory.
every agency that just covers costs via federal handout seems to have rapidly inflating costs with decrasing efficiency. tell me the dmv is a well-oiled machine

Federal 'handouts'? You mean, like the banks got and the car firms quite recently? Or are you talking about the military, maybe?

Here we call it taxes, and we pay them happily (no, honestly, at least in Denmark surveys show that Danes do not mind paying taxes if they get value for money) and yes, you have to keep a rein on expenses, that is true.

[js207]

Federal 'handouts'? You mean, like the banks got and the car firms quite recently? Or are you talking about the military, maybe?

Which of those do you think are examples of fiscal probity and efficiency?

Here we call it taxes, and we pay them happily (no, honestly, at least in Denmark surveys show that Danes do not mind paying taxes if they get value for money) and yes, you have to keep a rein on expenses, that is true.

Paying some taxes for necessary services, properly delivered, is one thing - but would you not object to vast sums of your money being handed to failed businesses so they can keep on failing at your expense? I know I do.

[js207]

With car insurance, you aren't actually required to insure yourself: you're just required to make sure you can pay other people for any damage you might cause them in your driving, either by having sufficient funds yourself (Enterprise Rent-A-Car do this in most states: they don't have an insurance policy, they just have a big enough pot of money that if you crash one of their cars, they pay for the damage).

Ksst: Make your insurance policy pay $9/month for contraceptive pills, they'll be taking that $9 from you in premiums - plus some overhead. Why not expect your car insurance to "cover" oil changes and servicing, too?

[thir]

This is not war on women, or girls, in this case, it is war by the bishops on everybody they do not agree with, in this case girl scouts. Thought police.


Girl Scouts Targeted by Catholic Bishops

Girls schouts have been tageted by some republican politicians before, now it is the bishops:


“Girl Scouting helps girls develop their full individual potential; relate to other with increasing understanding, skill, and respect; develop values to guide their actions and provide the foundation for sound decision-making; and contribute to the improvement of society through their abilities, leadership skill, and cooperation with others.”

The bishops’ Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth will conduct the investigation, trawling through a wide variety of program materials and liaisons that the Catholic Church finds problematic in order to make requests about changing the materials.


Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/girl-sco...#ixzz1ufPYO7su

[Thorne]

Girl Scouts Targeted by Catholic Bishops

Personally, any group that can piss off the Catholic Bishops is at least worth looking into as a force for good in this country. If the Bishops don't like what the girl scouts are doing, let them come up with their own organization to teach their propaganda. Call them, "The Nuns" or something.

Oh, wait! They're pissed at the nuns, too!

[StrictMasterD]

That may be true but you stil have to have the Insurance Policy on your car
What ever one here si missingi t that WOMEN DO NOT HAVE TO BUY CONTROCEPTION it si therir choice if they do not wantto but it they do not have to, and again those on Birth Control use it more then then just Preventing Pregnancies, they are usedfor varies otherthings
You CAN buy Birth Control if you want you are NOT requiredit all it dsays is your insurancecomany wil pay for it is IF you wantti it does not say you MUST BUY it, with Car insurance YOUMUST buy it their are no options there

[Punish_her]

That may be true but you stil have to have the Insurance Policy on your car
What ever one here si missingi t that WOMEN DO NOT HAVE TO BUY CONTROCEPTION it si therir choice if they do not wantto but it they do not have to, and again those on Birth Control use it more then then just Preventing Pregnancies, they are usedfor varies otherthings
You CAN buy Birth Control if you want you are NOT requiredit all it dsays is your insurancecomany wil pay for it is IF you wantti it does not say you MUST BUY it, with Car insurance YOUMUST buy it their are no options there

if its free why would people not want it?

[Thorne]

Oops! Wrong thread!

[StrictMasterD]

No my point is very simple, Car Insurance is Required by Law
As far a Birth Contorl goes, you are NOT being told you have to buy it, all they are sayingis IF YOUWANT IT youer Insurance Company ha to pay for it not you
Ifyou do not want BC Pills don't buy them, they are used as I have said repeatadly for more the justto Prevent becoming Pregnant, BC Pills are used to trea a variety of other issues, not justto keep you from getting pregnant, thae law say the Inusrance Comany must pay for them not the indivudal, if you do not wantthem don't getthem their is no law that says YOU have to buy them it say YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY MUST pay for them but ONLYIF YOU WAN THEM
Insurance is a Requirment therei s a difference
btwi got into a minor accidentthe other day, the other driver HAD NO INSURANCE so iahd have to pay for my dmamge hie can;t has no no insurance and at this point I believe also no liscence now or a car
He was arrested for not having insurance never heard of ANYONE being arrested for not having BC Pills

[Punish_her]

No my point is very simple, Car Insurance is Required by Law
As far a Birth Contorl goes, you are NOT being told you have to buy it, all they are sayingis IF YOUWANT IT youer Insurance Company ha to pay for it not you
Ifyou do not want BC Pills don't buy them, they are used as I have said repeatadly for more the justto Prevent becoming Pregnant, BC Pills are used to trea a variety of other issues, not justto keep you from getting pregnant, thae law say the Inusrance Comany must pay for them not the indivudal, if you do not wantthem don't getthem their is no law that says YOU have to buy them it say YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY MUST pay for them but ONLYIF YOU WAN THEM
Insurance is a Requirment therei s a difference
btwi got into a minor accidentthe other day, the other driver HAD NO INSURANCE so iahd have to pay for my dmamge hie can;t has no no insurance and at this point I believe also no liscence now or a car
He was arrested for not having insurance never heard of ANYONE being arrested for not having BC Pills

if they're free why would a girl not want them, just in case

[StrictMasterD]

if they're free why would a girl not want them, just in case

Becauee BC Pills are not just used to Prevent Pregnacies if you read ANY INFO cardon ANY perscription it says " This NMedication isdegiend to Prevent PREGNANCIES OR for other Conditions as directed by your Doctor" BC pills are used by women for a variey ofthings besides preventing Prgnancy
The issue is that people think the BC issue is mandted that they have to getthem they don't BUT IF THEY want to they can for free if someonedoes not wantto get them thats fine they are not required to the only requiremnt is that their Insurance Comany has to pay for them thats all
Some peole may not wantthem even for free as it may violate their Religious Beliefs or Persoanl beliefs that fine they don;t use them their Comapny does not have to pay for them
Why someonewould not wanthem for free is beyond me

[js207]

No my point is very simple, Car Insurance is Required by Law

Not comprehensive car insurance, though: all you're required to insure against is damage done to other people by your driving. There's no requirement for you to insure against your own car being stolen, wrecked or torched, because that's your own problem.

The problem with requiring contraception to be paid for by "the insurance company" is that ultimately all you're doing is forcing it to be included with the premiums - which, of course, will go up as a result. Surely better to point people struggling with the cost at the low-cost options - $9 at Target - or free ones such as Planned Parenthood, rather than fighting over ramming through yet another coverage mandate, forcing insurance costs up another little bit?

[StrictMasterD]

Ok, basic liability is required by we are getting off the point which is simply women do NOT HAVE TO BUY PC if they do not want to all that was mandated was how it was paid for not who had to use it, that Insurance Companiw must pay for it ONLY,ONLY,ONLY is the LADY WANT IT, THEY DO NOT HAVE TO BUY IT, that is not, what was Mandated only how it was paid for was, that Insurance Companie if the Lady wants it her Insruance Company was required to pay for it minus a pssibile small co-payment by her not sure what is not clear here
If A lady WANTS BC Pills most of it must be paid for by her Insurance Comapny the BILL DOES NOT SAY SHE HAS TO BUY IT only that her Insurance Company must pay for it minus a small co paymeny by her

[StrictMasterD]

Simply put the Law says Your Insurance Company must pay for Brith Control Pills if youwant it does not say aNYTHING about YOU that YOU MUST BUY THEM you don't have to use them if you don't want onlt that the Insurance Comany IF YOU WANT THERM MUST PAY FOR THEM not you

[StrictMasterD]

Simply put, the Mandate say ONLY that if you want /birth Controls Pills your Insurance Comanpy wil have to pay for them I does NOT say you have to buy them only that the company has to do that buy ONLY if you want nobody is mandated to buy BC pills all the mandtedwas who pays for them

[Thorne]

Insurance coverage does not necessarily mean free. My pharmacy plan requires I pay a co-pay. Still much cheaper than paying the full price, but certainly not free. Even low cost pills, like birth control pills, would require some co-pay. Plus, some people may not be able to take them, for medical reasons. Plus, Catholics wouldn't be permitted to take them by the Church. (Whether that will KEEP them from taking them is another story!)

The simple answer is, you have no problem with the insurance companies covering YOUR prescriptions, but you have a problem with them covering prescriptions intended solely for women. The reasons they take them are of no concern to you. Only that YOU can't use them, so you don't think they should get them.

[StrictMasterD]

Insurance coverage does not necessarily mean free. My pharmacy plan requires I pay a co-pay. Still much cheaper than paying the full price, but certainly not free. Even low cost pills, like birth control pills, would require some co-pay. Plus, some people may not be able to take them, for medical reasons. Plus, Catholics wouldn't be permitted to take them by the Church. (Whether that will KEEP them from taking them is another story!)

The simple answer is, you have no problem with the insurance companies covering YOUR prescriptions, but you have a problem with them covering prescriptions intended solely for women. The reasons they take them are of no concern to you. Only that YOU can't use them, so you don't think they should get them.

I understand that Thorne, my point was most of the cost minus a samll co pay is your insurance or as you put it you do not wantthe pill you do not andare not madated to buy them just becaue you insurance covers most of the expesne if they don'twant BC that si their choice but I assume there are other meds they will need to buy for onereason or another, the Mandate is directedat the Inusrance Companies they must pick up mostof the cost it is not Mandte the everyone needs to buy them

[Punish_her]

Insurance coverage does not necessarily mean free. My pharmacy plan requires I pay a co-pay. Still much cheaper than paying the full price, but certainly not free. Even low cost pills, like birth control pills, would require some co-pay. Plus, some people may not be able to take them, for medical reasons. Plus, Catholics wouldn't be permitted to take them by the Church. (Whether that will KEEP them from taking them is another story!)

The simple answer is, you have no problem with the insurance companies covering YOUR prescriptions, but you have a problem with them covering prescriptions intended solely for women. The reasons they take them are of no concern to you. Only that YOU can't use them, so you don't think they should get them.

that's a comical, offensive twisting of my words.
if you fall into the, what is it, 14% that uses bc for non bc reasons, cover them. if you just want to save 9$ a month, not a reason

[Thorne]

if you fall into the, what is it, 14% that uses bc for non bc reasons, cover them.

But that's the problem! Religious organizations, such as the Catholic Church, don't want to have to pay premiums for their employees and have birth control pills covered, for ANY reason! The same with the pro-forced birth crowd. Any medication that might allow a woman to enjoy sex without the risk of pregnancy, regardless of the actual reasons for her taking the meds, is hateful to them! Really, this is not a cost issue. As you yourself note, the cost of the pills is negligible, and by having them covered by insurance, and thus made available to more women, the costs would drop even more.

[ksst]

I'm a bit confused by this, but I would not take birth control pills even if they were free. I was on them previous to having kids and my Master did not like the side effects. He said I should not go back on the pill so I have not.

Our insurance (privately purchased) has a huge deductible, which means that we pay for everything out of pocket anyway. So we give them lots of money every month on the off chance that one of us gets a serious illness and we would actually use the insurance. Otherwise they pay for nothing. We can't afford the lower deductible plans at all.

I hate the insurance companies, and would love to see us go to a health system like Canada, single payer plan. And yes, birth control pills should be covered by whatever plan is in place. They are a lot cheaper than an unwanted pregnancy.

[denuseri]

Looks up. Well well said Sir leo!

[denuseri]

Which has what exactly to do with a supposed war on women?

[js207]

Which has what exactly to do with a supposed war on women?

That's the spin the other side wanted to put on it, that somehow expecting a woman to pay her own $9 for pills or collect it free with federal funding from a place like Planned Parenthood rather than making it a compulsory part of her health insurance was some sort of evil misogynist plot. Bit of a stretch, of course, but some have run with it anyway.

[StrictMasterD]

I agree denuseri,
the post above you have NOTHING to do with this thread

[Punish_her]

nothing . . . everything

[MMI]

Which is better? I can keep some of my wealth by subsiding failed businesses with the rest of it, or I can lose it all while watching those businesses go down the pan?

What pisses me off is that many of the people who ran those businesses into bankruptcy are still there getting fatter and richer than me, or have been paid off with amounts that make mortal men weep.

So maybe, after thinking about it a bit more, I do object.

[thir]

Editorial from New York Times, 19th of May:

The Campaign Against Women

Despite the persistent gender gap in opinion polls and mounting criticism of their hostility to women’s rights, Republicans are not backing off their assault on women’s equality and well-being. New laws in some states could mean a death sentence for a pregnant woman who suffers a life-threatening condition. But the attack goes well beyond abortion, into birth control, access to health care, equal pay and domestic violence.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/op...nion&seid=auto

[js207]

None. Which are federal handouts?

The support given to GM and Chrysler in particular, as well as the literal bankrolling of many large banks.

This mix up of private and public responsibilites are a pestilence, but I guess that is another topic.

Actually, I think it's this same topic: the federal government has strayed into far too many areas it has no business entering. It's supposed to provide a military, immigration/customs ... prop up failed car manufacturers? Not in my book - particularly when others like Ford were viable - and yes, that was a federal handout, at least partly aimed at enriching the powerful car manufacturing unions, who just happen to be politically connected...