wow....

[Bonestorm]

M'eh, works for me. I am not going to be all "up in arms"... This isn't going to make or break the debate. I do think that people can afford a copayment on condoms and BC pills though and would prefer to continue exactly where we have been.

Well, the experts at the Institute of Medicine disagree with your assessment.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Yes, how stupid for insurance premiums to cover preventive care.

You're thinking on health care policy suffers from severe myopia coupled with extreme narcissism.

LMAO... You truly are a pathetic straw man maker.

I stated CLEARLY that I SUPPORT preventative measures.

I stated CLEARLY the thing I DO NOT SUPPORT is putting these cookie cutter measures into EVERY policy. There is NO fucking reason to have an individual man's policy cover mammograms or cervical cancer tests or breast pump 'support classes'. Likewise there is NO FUCKING REASON for an individual woman's policy to cover prostate exams.

So do try to learn to read as your straw men are quite pathetic.

 

[Bonestorm]

LMAO... You truly are a pathetic straw man maker.

I stated CLEARLY that I SUPPORT preventative measures.

I stated CLEARLY the thing I DO NOT SUPPORT is putting these cookie cutter measures into EVERY policy. There is NO fucking reason to have an individual man's policy cover mammograms or cervical cancer tests or breast pump 'support classes'. Likewise there is NO FUCKING REASON for an individual woman's policy to cover prostate exams.

So do try to learn to read as your straw men are quite pathetic.

Under your scenario women would always pay more for coverage for preventive services by virtue of biology. Of course, you have no problem with that because you're a man. If you have policies that cover only women's preventive services for women and policies that cover only male preventive services for men, the women lose out every time.

If, however, you have policies that cover preventive services and allocate the costs across the risk pool - both men and women - then you get a more equitable distribution of costs that do not disadvantage women for being born women.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Under your scenario women would always pay more for coverage for preventive services by virtue of biology. Of course, you have no problem with that because you're a man. If you have policies that cover only women's preventive services for women and policies that cover only male preventive services for men, the women lose out every time.

If, however, you have policies that cover preventive services and allocate the costs across the risk pool - both men and women - then you get a more equitable distribution of costs that do not disadvantage women for being born women.

You are looking at ONE factor moron. Men also have higher death rates due to cancer. Oh my, lets spread that around to everyone. Oh crap, women smokers have higher risks than male smokers... lets spread that around...

The whole fucking point is that when you charge EVERYONE FOR EVERYTHING, you end up with HIGHER health care costs. PERIOD.

 

[Bonestorm]

You are looking at ONE factor moron. Men also have higher death rates due to cancer. Oh my, lets spread that around to everyone. Oh crap, women smokers have higher risks than male smokers... lets spread that around...

The whole fucking point is that when you charge EVERYONE FOR EVERYTHING, you end up with HIGHER health care costs. PERIOD.

When you charge everyone for everything you get higher costs for some (the young and healthy) and lower costs for others (the old and sick). When it comes to preventive care, covering everything means higher costs for men (who require less preventive care) and lower costs for women (who require more). Your preferred policies only lower costs by pricing people out of the market entirely. If they can't afford insurance -- and thus care -- then costs will be lower for sure, but I don't know that that is a good thing. Hence, your extreme myopia and narcissism.

 

[Damocles]

Would this simply be a round about way to reduce expenditures for Planned Parenthood and free up more money for abortion? Basically, does this give more federal money to abortion providers which will free up more of their budgets to provide what is at the very least controversial?

What are the ramifications of this additional funding of "women's preventative care"?