Social Studies teacher: Don't you dare say bad things about the President!

[Ben Kenobi]

It staggers me that you care about that.

It's an important part of freedom that I should not be required to purchase health care coverage that I do not want or need. Forcing people to buy it, is wrong.

The vast majority of all health care is stuff you'll never need or want.

Then forcing me to pay for all of it is an inefficiency, not an efficiency. I would be better off only paying for exactly what I need, and no more.

It's just a waste of money to have different schemes for every little group that might want it. Much more efficient to have a scheme for everyone.

Efficient for whom? Clearly not the one forced to purchase health care. Providers, sure, but then that's not the point is it? Isn't health care supposed to be about meeting the needs of the individual, not the providers?

Plus being against contraception is cruel, dangerous, mysogynistic and wrong.

Why is it cruel, dangerous, mysogynistic and wrong?

[N35t0r]

Then forcing me to pay for all of it is an inefficiency, not an efficiency. I would be better off only paying for exactly what I need, and no more.

So, do you need prostate cancer coverage? You have to decide now, no switching later on.

[Ben Kenobi]

So, do you need prostate cancer coverage? You have to decide now, no switching later on.

Uh, why now? Why can't I pick it up later, say in 5 years or so? You're right though - that should I decide to go without coverage that I would have to deal with the consequences of not being able to get treatment.

I'm perfectly ok with that - it's fair. If I get sick and I can't afford treatment, well, that's my own fault isn't it?

[Jon Miller]

South Africa, where this is generally the case, is hugely inefficient with many people going from productive members of society to unproductive members because they did not have the wealth (due to lack of income) in order to take care of health care they needed.

Often they end up paying a lot more in health care costs as well as having a lot less income, because they did not have health insurance (or enough wealth to pay for the health care they needed at the time they needed it). This is bad from a utilitarian perspective.

And from the perspective of someone who cares about the suffering of others, it is atrocious.

JM

[rah]

The individual mandate requires people to purchase health care, and the health care they are required to purchase includes coverage for contraception. There is no exemption for Catholics or Catholic religious organizations, but there are exemptions for folks like the Amish, etc. Ergo it's unconstitutional.

You're having nuns forced to pay for contraceptive coverage? That's a terrible outcome. Nobody should be forced to buy health coverage that they do not want or need.

Oh I thought you meant that if forced catholics to buy contraception for themselves. I don't see a problem with it being part of the coverage since most catholics use them. There's a lot of things that taxes pay for (wars) that they don't approve of, so this is just one more thing. Your stretch that it's against their religious beliefs is trivial. There are so many bigger issues that you should be concerned about.

Nobody should be forced to buy health coverage that they do not want or need.

I'm never going to need half of what my health care coverage can provide. I'm never going to pregnant.

[MikeH]

Then forcing me to pay for all of it is an inefficiency, not an efficiency. I would be better off only paying for exactly what I need, and no more.

Efficient for whom? Clearly not the one forced to purchase health care. Providers, sure, but then that's not the point is it? Isn't health care supposed to be about meeting the needs of the individual, not the providers?

INSURANCE PROVIDERS WILL PASS THE COST OF ADDITIONAL INEFFICIENCIES ONTO THE CONSUMER YOU BLITHERING IDIOT!

If it makes the provider more efficient, this makes it cheaper for everyone. You are asking to increase costs for everyone for having additional coverage you won't use. The people who ARE using contraception are getting value out of their contraception but also paying extra for all the additional babies the ones who aren't using contraception are having.

My home insurance covers flooding, even though I am not in an area prone to flooding. The insurance companies don't offer coverage excluding flood cover for those that don't need it, and it wouldn't cost me less not to be covered for that. I am, in effect, paying for people who are prone to flooding. That's the way insurance works.

[kentonio]

Uh, why now? Why can't I pick it up later, say in 5 years or so? You're right though - that should I decide to go without coverage that I would have to deal with the consequences of not being able to get treatment.

I'm perfectly ok with that - it's fair. If I get sick and I can't afford treatment, well, that's my own fault isn't it?

Do you know how many possible illnesses you could potentially contract? The list is simply enormous. If you had to pay for individual treatments seperately, how exactly could everyone afford to cover themselves for any possible outcome? Are you happy with the idea that healthcare should basically just be one giant game of lotto, where you hope that whatever inevitable illnesses you contract happen to match up with your handpicked insurance coverage?

[Lorizael]

INSURANCE PROVIDERS WILL PASS THE COST OF ADDITIONAL INEFFICIENCIES ONTO THE CONSUMER YOU BLITHERING IDIOT!

What happens if I report this post?

[Jon Miller]

What happens if you report most any other post and it wasn't posted by a spambot.

JM

[Lorizael]

Good point.

[Ben Kenobi]

South Africa, where this is generally the case, is hugely inefficient with many people going from productive members of society to unproductive members because they did not have the wealth (due to lack of income) in order to take care of health care they needed.

South Africa's big problem is corruption - people taking money out of the system, depriving it of the ability to care for anyone.

This is bad from a utilitarian perspective.

Well, I'm sorry. Having lived under a regime subject to rationing, I'm glad I'm not a utilitarian. What good is it to have free, but unavailable care?

And from the perspective of someone who cares about the suffering of others, it is atrocious.

Yawn. This is a tired argument. Yes, you disagree with me, but that doesn't mean I would claim that your position is the position of someone who doesn't care about suffering. I'm stating, very simply, that singer payer does a crappy job of actually seeing that people get the treatment that they need.

[Ben Kenobi]

Do you know how many possible illnesses you could potentially contract? The list is simply enormous. If you had to pay for individual treatments seperately, how exactly could everyone afford to cover themselves for any possible outcome? Are you happy with the idea that healthcare should basically just be one giant game of lotto, where you hope that whatever inevitable illnesses you contract happen to match up with your handpicked insurance coverage?

I thought that was single payer. Sitting on a list, hoping that you don't die before they get down to you. Seems exactly like lotto.

As for insurance coverage - this is nonsense. You're arguing that the only alternative is insurance coverage that doesn't cover anything, and insurance coverage that covers everything (except for glasses, hearing aids, who needs that!?)

All I want is coverage that covers the things that I need. Glasses, hearing aids, and yes, not having to pay for contraception would be great insurance. I should be able to select from a menu and get the care that I need, and no more or less.

[Ben Kenobi]

INSURANCE PROVIDERS WILL PASS THE COST OF ADDITIONAL INEFFICIENCIES ONTO THE CONSUMER YOU BLITHERING IDIOT!

And how is it more efficient for me to be paying for things that I don't need, over paying for what I do need, and no more?

If it makes the provider more efficient, this makes it cheaper for everyone.

Not if they bundle everyone together. It makes it far more expensive for me, so that they can cover the people who are far more expensive to cover. Being young and heatlhy means that you will get a terrible deal for insurance and you will pay far more than what you take out. That's how the system works.

You are asking to increase costs for everyone for having additional coverage you won't use.

Nonsense. I'm asking that people who want to have contraception, pay for their own contraception. Those who don't need it shouldn't be paying for it.

The people who ARE using contraception are getting value out of their contraception

They are getting a free ride off the rest of us. They should pay for it if they want it, and not force the rest of us to pay for them.

but also paying extra for all the additional babies the ones who aren't using contraception are having.

No, they aren't. That's why we don't have single payer, so that everyone is carrying their own freight.

My home insurance covers flooding, even though I am not in an area prone to flooding. The insurance companies don't offer coverage excluding flood cover for those that don't need it, and it wouldn't cost me less not to be covered for that. I am, in effect, paying for people who are prone to flooding. That's the way insurance works.

So why should we be paying for something that isn't an emergency, that is entirely voluntary. Are you saying that people choose to be flooded just like they choose contraception? Terrible analogy.

Insurance is supposed to be catastrophic coverage, not coverage for stuff you don't need.

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh I thought you meant that if forced catholics to buy contraception for themselves.

Requiring people to buy health care and then requiring said coverage to cover contraception and abortifacients, means that you are forcing Catholics to pay for contraception and abortifacients.

Your stretch that it's against their religious beliefs is trivial. There are so many bigger issues that you should be concerned about.

Well, sure. I shouldn't be concerned that my money is going toward helping other people kill their babies.

Nobody should be forced to buy health coverage that they do not want or need. I'm never going to need half of what my health care coverage can provide. I'm never going to pregnant.

No one is forcing you to buy coverage at present. Obama is changing this. It's wrong to force people to buy things that they do not want. Up until now, people had the freedom of going without coverage, if they didn't like what they were paying for. This is liberty. Taking that choice away from people (even if that is a choice that you find repulsive), is tyranny. You call yourself prochoice, rah. Why are you taking away the choice of people to go without coverage should they choose to do so.

[rah]

Where did i say that people should be forceds to buy coverage. The fact that a few pennies of coverage for contraceptives bundled in with a comprehensive plan is quite trivial. Take it or leave it.