Woman Who Can't Afford Her Own Birth Control Scrapes Up Money For Congressional Run

[Hauldren Collider]

Because it doesn't make logical sense to me.

Where is the line drawn? Taking a prescription medicine every day is routine for me, but it is a prescription medicine; I can't buy it out of pocket off the shelf. I have to see a doctor, who has to write the prescription. Is that "routine", or is it not?

Yes you ****ing can. My insurance doesn't even pay for ANY of my drugs. Yes, you need a prescription, but you don't need insurance. And you know what? This actually saves me money! Yes, the drugs are expensive. You know what else is expensive? Insurance that covers these drugs that I know I'm going to buy! Hm, I wonder why the **** that is? What a ****ing mystery!

Before the "spoiled rich kid" posts start rolling in, I'm going to re-emphasize this point: This actually saves me money! As in, it would cost me more if I bought insurance that covered it. Because it's routine.

[Guynemer]

Why should they be covered? Do you think you're actually going to save money by putting it on the insurance company?

So blood pressure and anti-rejection medicines and anti-seizure medicines and antidepressants etc etc etc should not be paid for by insurance?

Instead of getting ****ing hung up on the meaning of the word "routine", could you idiots please focus on the relevant point, which is, exactly what the benefit of having an insurance company cover something that ISN'T A RISK actually is? Morons.

Can you phrase that differently? It is impossible to parse.

[Felch]

I mean, ****, what is more expensive: covering birth control, or covering all the medical costs of pregnancy and birth?

This pisses me off.

You can't just read a thread, you jack**** ******? Instead you want to play dumb and score cheap rhetorical points by ignoring what other people say?

If insurance company actuaries calculate that providing contraceptives free of charge is a good idea, that's their business, and I'd have no problem whatsoever...

The problem comes from requiring insurance to cover routine expenses. It goes against the basic idea of insurance (small regular payments to offset the risk of occasional catastrophic expenses), and only serves to distort the market.

I said that pages ago. But your snide ass would rather play the ****** card, and pretend like you don't know what "routine" means. **** you, Guy. You're a bad person, and you should feel bad.

[Guynemer]

Blood pressure meds are routine. If you can't afford blood pressure pills, then you need to stop gargling french fries and eat a goddamn vegetable.

Not everyone with high blood pressure got it by eating a poor diet.

[Guynemer]

This pisses me off.

You can't just read a thread, you jack**** ******? Instead you want to play dumb and score cheap rhetorical points by ignoring what other people say?



I said that pages ago. But your snide ass would rather play the ****** card, and pretend like you don't know what "routine" means. **** you, Guy. You're a bad person, and you should feel bad.

Ad hominems are generally not used by people winning an argument, just for the record.

I'm trying to understand the argument you are making, because it appears incoherent in light of the way the real world operates.

[Hauldren Collider]

So blood pressure and anti-rejection medicines and anti-seizure medicines and antidepressants etc etc etc should not be paid for by insurance?



Can you phrase that differently? It is impossible to parse.

I'm going to leave both of these as an exercise to the reader. I encourage you to develop a deeper understanding of what insurance actually does and is for. Maybe then you will understand why it makes absolutely no sense at all for certain treatments to be covered.

[Hauldren Collider]

Also, I'm not an actuary. I'm not going to decide what treatments make sense for insurance to cover and what don't. I know in broad strokes that if it MITIGATES A RISK, then IT MAKES SENSE TO INSURE.

PS, Congress and Barack Obama are also not actuaries. It doesn't make sense for them to decide EITHER what insurance should and shouldn't cover.

[Hauldren Collider]

View Post
If insurance company actuaries calculate that providing contraceptives free of charge is a good idea, that's their business, and I'd have no problem whatsoever...

The problem comes from requiring insurance to cover routine expenses. It goes against the basic idea of insurance (small regular payments to offset the risk of occasional catastrophic expenses), and only serves to distort the market.

Felch

People, if you are having trouble understanding this post, you may want to go back to elementary school.

[Ban Kenobi]

I'm going to leave both of these as an exercise to the reader. I encourage you to develop a deeper understanding of what insurance actually does and is for. Maybe then you will understand why it makes absolutely no sense at all for certain treatments to be covered.

It makes perfect sense to cover contraceptives if you think family planning is a good idea. Just because something doesn't fit in with your hypothetical ideal of what insurance should be doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

[Guynemer]

Please delineate which of these treatments should be covered and should not be covered, so I can adjust my practice accordingly:

Childhood vaccines, including (but not limited to): DTaP, IPV, HiB, HepB, HepA, Rotavirus, Pneumococcus, MMR, Varicella, Influenza
Asthma treatment, including (but not limited to): bronchodialators, inhaled corticosteroids, equipment to adequately deliver said medications
Allergy treatment, including (but not limited to): over-the-counter antihistamines, both short and long-acting, nasal corticosteroids, leukotriene inhibitors
Various treatments for various infectious diseases, such as several different classes of oral and topical antibiotics

Let's start with that, and can go on from there.

[snrjefe]

All of which can be avoided by covering birth control.

[DinoDoc]

Please delineate which of these treatments should be covered and should not be covered, so I can adjust my practice accordingly:

Allergy treatment, including (but not limited to): over-the-counter antihistamines,

You're not serious with this part of the question you asked, right?

[Guynemer]

You're not serious with this part of the question you asked, right?

I am absolutely serious, so I can figure out where the ****ing line is when it comes to "routine".

[DinoDoc]

I question your medical expertise if that inclusion was anything other than a joke. Do you also try and get Neosporin scrips accepted by insurance in addition to the ones you fill out for Zyrtec?

[Guynemer]

I am assuming the line separates that from the other things I mentioned, but it is completely unclear that is the case from everything Felch and HC have said, so I am trying to figure it out.