Say it with me...

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
General Buck Turgidson said:
I don't think you quite understand how it works. The preventive care services that are covered under the basic minimum are not the same for everyone. They are different, but everyone gets coverage of preventive care services. You don't get mamograms or pap smears or any of the other stuff specific to women.
Click to expand...

just keep dodging the point.....it becomes a habit after a while.....
 
christiefan915 said:
Should the basic minimum coverage for an 18 year old female (or any female) include prostate exams? Should the basic minimum coverage for women include vasectomies?
Click to expand...

no....and by the way, I don't think vasectomies should be included for men either.....it's an elective surgery......
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
I think you are mistaking being OK with the results of a given policy and not understanding the results of a given policy. I understand perfectly well that the costs of providing birth control will cost money and that the insurers will spread that cost among all of their insureds and I am perfectly OK with it.
Click to expand...

Well, General Turducken, being that our most significant problem with health care coverage is the cost, I think you are taking the incorrect approach at solving the problem by adding additional cost. I think the better approach would be to carefully consider what are, indeed, important and needed provisions of basic insurance coverage, and coverage for things that aren't basic, can be purchased cafeteria-style, if there is a market for it. Furthermore, I think we live in a society where my opinion is just as important as yours, and I have every right to express it without being called a bunch of names or having my viewpoint morphed into shit I never said.
 
Carlos Spicy Weiner said:
So, do you think auto premiums would be higher or lower if insurance wasn't mandated? I'm not saying that auto shouldn't be mandated, mind, or even that health shouldn't, but I honestly think we wouldn't be getting dicked around by auto insurance providers the way we are now, if it was an open marketplace.
Click to expand...

ca has mandated auto insurance for all drivers, but i still need uninsured motorist insurance because too many people ignore the law and drive without insurance

the people that drive without insurance usually do not have squat in the way of assets, except their cars, so they have nothing to lose driving without insurance

they do not even have to worry much about being jailed, as out here jails are full of drug offenders and their is no room for the civil offenders except for a few days at most

people with nothing to lose or who are scofflaws do not carry insurance

same thing for medical insurance, for them there is always the emergency room

and people wonder why health insurance is so high

we need single payer national health insurance to control costs. to get people out of our emergency rooms for illnesses treatable in doctors' offices
 
we need single payer national health insurance to control costs. to get people out of our emergency rooms for illnesses treatable in doctors' offices.
Click to expand...

This is the ignorance you keep spewing, but it doesn't stand up to logic. How do you figure cost will be controlled if the federal government is obliged to pay for your health care? Can you give me ANY example of something our government HAS to provide us with, which they do less expensively than it could be done in the private sector? Most corporations drool at the prospect of a government contract, because the money is very good... you can charge $500 for hammers and such... programs estimated to cost a billion dollars, end up costing a trillion dollars instead, but no big deal, right??? I mean, we somehow SAVE money this way, right???

And while you are lobbying for a "single payer" system, your buddies are coming up with stupid shit for the insurance carriers to pay for, left and right! It's like we are at a cafeteria-style restaurant, where everything on our tray is going to cost something... but liberals think they are at a goddamn smorgasbord, where they can pile up their plate with as much shit as they can, and it's all going to be done for free! You fucktards are insane!

Here's something you really need to try and understand, the government can't make people go to the doctor. Just like there are people now who won't go have a blood pressure screening or diagnostic procedure, there will still be people who will not go to a doctor, even if it's paid for. They will still wait until they are too sick to save, or have to go to an emergency room, or whatever! Changing to a "single payer" system will not change how people behave, it just changes who is obligated to pay.

Again, the example from earlier about the hospital bill and $50 Tylenol... there is a situation where you have a "single payer" system in action... the insurance company is the single payer in that case, the hospital knows the insurance company is obligated to cover 80% of the cost on the Tylenol, so they charge $50... your 20% share is $10, and the insurance company pays $40. But if we had a non-single-payer system, or a system whereby capitalism were allowed to prevail, I suspect competition might drive the price of Tylenol down. If the insurance didn't necessarily cover it, or the patient had other options made available for where to get their Tylenol, maybe the hospital would be forced to maintain some reasonable price for Tylenol? When the options are non-existent, and the hospital knows there is one entity who is obligated to pay, then they can charge whatever they want, and the obligated entity has to pay it, they are obligated... you mandated that. It didn't decrease anything about the cost, it actually drove the cost through the roof, but right now, you really don't care... this is about a political agenda, not saving on health care costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top