Dem Booed Over Birth Control at Town Hall

[Quantum Windbag]

No, the church is telling its employees they can have what ever they want as long as the employee pays for it. You are telling the church they have to pay for it for the employees. You are telling the employer that they must provide something they don't want to provide.

If you are stupid enough to believe that the insurance companines are not profiting from adding contraceptives to their policies, then don't blame me. They are doing nothing for free.

Immie

The church would only be "paying for it" if there was an additional charge by the insurance companies to cover some imagined cost.

Since there is not, they are not "paying for" anything.

They are receiving the exact same service they were previously receiving.

Contraception is just a bonus, given away to the end-user for free.

Bullshit.

 

[saveliberty]

There ain't no such thing as free. If it actually did save money every insurance company would already offer it as part of their service and we wouldn't be having this discussion. The fact that we are actually having this discussion speaks louder than anything you can possibly say.

Almost all of them already do.

It was only an issue for these particular ones because of the church's requirements.

Apparently all those insurance attorneys didn't see a legal problem. HINT.

Any guesses on what they will do when Obama gets around to formally asking them to do it for free? C-o-u-r-t.

 

[Neotrotsky]

There ain't no such thing as free. If it actually did save money every insurance company would already offer it as part of their service and we wouldn't be having this discussion. The fact that we are actually having this discussion speaks louder than anything you can possibly say.

Almost all of them already do.

It was only an issue for these particular ones because of the church's requirements.

Well it is an issue
because of the First Amendment

I know, the Constitution is like so "yesterday"

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Since those having sex will have the children, maybe they should buy some contraception then huh?

Why would they do that, when the health insurance companies are perfectly happy to pay for it?

Maybe if the leaders of the catholic church weren't so busy having sex with boys, they would have a better understanding of how contraception works...

Because the insurance companies don't want to fork out $3 billion a year on the theory that no one will ever have children again?

 

[Neotrotsky]

I see...no figures
Blowing it out of your arse, again?

I'm sorry, are you asking me to provide figures to prove that the health insurance cost of contraception is not greater than the health insurance cost of having children??

Children that will then be beneficiaries of said health insurance?

Really? You need proof of that?

Yes

considering the Left's poor history on economic figures

So exactly how many children are being born that should not be
that are causing the necessity of this gov't dictate

 

[Vast LWC]

It's like leftists never heard of cancer and blood clots.

Yes indeed
they are overly concerned with condoms and sex

Hey

this must be Papa Obama's version of

"Cash for Condoms"
program

Yes, because there are no costs associated with complications from childbirth. Right?

LOL.

Face it, there is no effing way that contraception costs more than having a child.

Trying to make it seem like that could ever be the case is just absurd.

I have two children, and the cost that was covered by the insurance companies for just their births alone was an insanely large figure. Hell, my deductable costs were around $5000.00, and that was just a small portion of the whole.

 

[Vast LWC]

Bullshit.

That's an argument... I guess.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There ain't no such thing as free. If it actually did save money every insurance company would already offer it as part of their service and we wouldn't be having this discussion. The fact that we are actually having this discussion speaks louder than anything you can possibly say.

Almost all of them already do.

It was only an issue for these particular ones because of the church's requirements.

Wrong again.

About 20% of insurance companies cover contraceptives right now, and all of them charge a higher premium to those who opt into this coverage. If you thought about it from a numbers stand point you will see why so few actually do cover it, the only way this will actually pay for itself is if everyone stops having kids. Even 1 child born to a woman who they are forced to cover will negate a lifetime of supposed savings. The only way this would be economical across the population of the US is if women stopped having kids.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bullshit.

That's an argument... I guess.

It got more response than any of my actual arguments, so that makes it a successful argument, probably because it was the only thing you understood.

 

[Neotrotsky]

It's like leftists never heard of cancer and blood clots.

Yes indeed
they are overly concerned with condoms and sex

Hey

this must be Papa Obama's version of

"Cash for Condoms"
program

Yes, because there are no costs associated with complications from childbirth. Right?

LOL.

Face it, there is no effing way that contraception costs more than having a child.

Trying to make it seem like that could ever be the case is just absurd.

I have two children, and the cost that was covered by the insurance companies for just their births alone was an insanely large figure. Hell, my deductable costs were around $5000.00, and that was just a small portion of the whole.

Again your statements support the Left's inability to deal with numbers
You are using the static event of one event vs another
Your claim was that it would save money industry wide for insurance

I suppose we could save money if we denied seniors certain medical care
oh wait that comes later


Again, the point is you are stating your opinion - fine
but you have no real facts to support your claim

there are many factors to this
you can not base it on just two events

for example
-what are the number of "unwanted babies" that are born under the insurance coverage
-did you factor in the extra monies that single pay vs family plan
-how do the insurance companies factor these extra costs into the price
if they underestimated the cost- why
if they overestimated cost- where is that extra money
Indeed, what is the overall comparative cost benefit analysis

Granted, if we had real facts, your point may be true
But does it support going against the Constitution
because it saves money?

So would a lot of things
that does not mean we should do them

 

[Neotrotsky]

What is your point?

Is there anything in the Constitution which would prohibit the federal government from contributing to the religious hospitals?

As long as the federal funding doesn't require the hospital to provide services contrary to the teachings of their religion then there is nothing prohibiting the hospital from accepting funds from the federal government.

Why not? The state requires i have insurance on my car if i want to drive.
they want the money, follow the rules.
I bet you are one of those people who complain about the high interest when you take out a loan.

Apples to Oranges
State vs Fed is different
The constitution specifically limits the Federal gov't
and the 10th amendment allows by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the States by the Constitution are reserved to the States.

 

[Vast LWC]

I see...no figures
Blowing it out of your arse, again?

I'm sorry, are you asking me to provide figures to prove that the health insurance cost of contraception is not greater than the health insurance cost of having children??

Children that will then be beneficiaries of said health insurance?

Really? You need proof of that?

Yes

considering the Left's poor history on economic figures

So exactly how many children are being born that should not be
that are causing the necessity of this gov't dictate

You can go to:

Ortho Tri-Cyclen Birth Control -

And buy 3 months of Birth Control for $45.00.

That's $15.00 per month, or $180.00 per year.

The average cost of a single, uncomplicated childbirth is about $9,000 dollars.

Complications can raise the price of birth significantly.

The average cost of a preemie childbirth, for instance, is $47,000.00.

The Average Cost of Child Birth | eHow.com

The average health care cost for each child, after birth, is about $70.00 a month.

The Cost of Raising Children - University of Minnesota Extension

All of which makes giving birth and raising a child MUCH more expensive than birth control.

 

[Full-Auto]

Who is forcing people to buy birth control?

The priests don't want birth control? They don't have to get birth control.

It's not like they need it anyway, considering the only people they have sex with are pre-adolescent and male.

It isnt a question of forcing purchase, it is a question of forcing others to pay for it.

I assume you never have owned insurance then, since you know you dont want to pay for other people.

Seriously do you see how stupid your point is? No i doubt you do.

If you were not such an idiot I might have responded differently.

 

[Vast LWC]

Again your statements support the Left's inability to deal with numbers
You are using the static event of one event vs another
Your claim was that it would save money industry wide for insurance

I suppose we could save money if we denied seniors certain medical care
oh wait that comes later


Again, the point is you are stating your opinion - fine
but you have no real facts to support your claim

there are many factors to this
you can not base it on just two events

for example
-what are the number of "unwanted babies" that are born under the insurance coverage
-did you factor in the extra monies that single pay vs family plan
-how do the insurance companies factor these extra costs into the price
if they underestimated the cost- why
if they overestimated cost- where is that extra money
Indeed, what is the overall comparative cost benefit analysis

Granted, if we had real facts, your point may be true
But does it support going against the Constitution
because it saves money?

So would a lot of things
that does not mean we should do them

My opinion, or anyone else's, on whether any savings is "moral" or "proper" is simply irrelevant to the point that was being made.

The point was that Health Insurers save money by providing contraception, and that point is a fact. See my numbers from my previous post.

And giving birth is often riddled with complications, adding more cost, with MUCH greater frequency than complications from taking birth control.

 

[Vast LWC]

That's $15.00 per month, or $180.00 per year.

The average cost of a single, uncomplicated childbirth is about $9,000 dollars.

Note that it would take 50 years of birth control to cover the cost of just the birth itself.

50 years.

 

[Neotrotsky]

I'm sorry, are you asking me to provide figures to prove that the health insurance cost of contraception is not greater than the health insurance cost of having children??

Children that will then be beneficiaries of said health insurance?

Really? You need proof of that?

Yes

considering the Left's poor history on economic figures

So exactly how many children are being born that should not be
that are causing the necessity of this gov't dictate

You can go to:

Ortho Tri-Cyclen Birth Control -

And buy 3 months of Birth Control for $45.00.

That's $15.00 per month, or $180.00 per year.

The average cost of a single, uncomplicated childbirth is about $9,000 dollars.

Complications can raise the price of birth significantly.

The average cost of a preemie childbirth, for instance, is $47,000.00.

The Average Cost of Child Birth | eHow.com

The average health care cost for each child, after birth, is about $70.00 a month.

The Cost of Raising Children - University of Minnesota Extension

All of which makes giving birth and raising a child MUCH more expensive than birth control.

Again, it does not support your claim that industry wide it would produce savings

Did you factor in the extra monies you have to pay for family plan vs single?
Was there some underestimate that the insurance companies had on their part?
If not, what happened to surplus funds?

preemies?
Insurance companies use risk management to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss. Did they not do that here?

Again, your analysis is limited to support your claim that industry wide they would be saving money enough for them to "support" it.

Honestly, as long as the profit margin is the same under either case, then at best they
would be indifferent to the policy change.

Under your claim, one would have to assume that they had no profit rate to justify the costs and that profit rates would
increase under your claim.

Like I said before, a full real study, may show your point to be true

But it is still no reason to overstep the limits put on the Federal gov't by the Constitution.

 

[Neotrotsky]

That's $15.00 per month, or $180.00 per year.

The average cost of a single, uncomplicated childbirth is about $9,000 dollars.

Note that it would take 50 years of birth control to cover the cost of just the birth itself.

50 years.

You did not factor in the extra monies for family plan
Again, your analysis is not complete, it is rather static

Some studies show that people who have children, live healthier lifestyles
Did you factor in those savings- of course not


If one used your level of static analysis, then would could argue....
for every person we killed, the insurance company would be saving money, as well

 

[Vast LWC]

There ain't no such thing as free. If it actually did save money every insurance company would already offer it as part of their service and we wouldn't be having this discussion. The fact that we are actually having this discussion speaks louder than anything you can possibly say.

Almost all of them already do.

It was only an issue for these particular ones because of the church's requirements.

Wrong again.

About 20% of insurance companies cover contraceptives right now, and all of them charge a higher premium to those who opt into this coverage. If you thought about it from a numbers stand point you will see why so few actually do cover it, the only way this will actually pay for itself is if everyone stops having kids. Even 1 child born to a woman who they are forced to cover will negate a lifetime of supposed savings. The only way this would be economical across the population of the US is if women stopped having kids.

Look, I don't know where you get your numbers, but:

Since over half of the states in the United States have already enacted legislation requiring insurers to cover birth control...

Birth Control and Health Insurance

And most of those states are most assuredly large-population liberal leaning states...

Unless said insurance companies are breaking the law, they are giving coverage for contraception.

 

[Vast LWC]

Again, it does not support your claim that industry wide it would produce savings

Yes, in fact it does. Unless insurance companies have arbitrarily decided to pay ridiculously high rates for birth control.

Did you factor in the extra monies you have to pay for family plan vs single?

Even with these monies included, the difference between what you pay for a family plan as opposed to what you would pay for two individual insurances, would not be $70.00 a month, now would they?

Was there some underestimate that the insurance companies had on their part?
If not, what happened to surplus funds?

preemies?
Insurance companies use risk management to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss. Did they not do that here?

And to hedge against those costs, they pay extra per normal birth.

Again, your analysis is limited to support your claim that industry wide they would be saving money enough for them to "support" it.

Honestly, as long as the profit margin is the same under either case, then at best they
would be indifferent to the policy change.

Under your claim, one would have to assume that they had no profit rate to justify the costs and that profit rates would

Like I said before, a full real study, may show your point to be true

But it is still no reason to overstep the limits put on the Federal gov't by the Constitution.

And since it would literally take 50 years of taking birth control to simply equal the initial cost of a single childbirth itself, without any complications, there can simply be no doubt that birth control is more cost-effective.

Especially when one factors in multiple children.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The Church is the body that is attempting to stop people from doing what they would like to do here

How so?