Dem Booed Over Birth Control at Town Hall

[Neotrotsky]

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.

Again
it is static
where is the total cost benefit analysis ?
Do you factor in the extra monies for family plans- no
Do you factor in the savings from people with children living a healthier life- no
For that matter, how about the long run analysis? Won't some of these children
grow up to pay future costs? Would having less younger people pay into a system with
more seniors be better for savings or worse?
Have you shown that insurance companies were lacking of profit from all these "lost savings"
- which would require you to show that they underestimated the costs in their price point

As I said
your static approach leaves something to be desired

In your approach, just killing people would produce "savings"
and help the industry or for that matter, so would sterilization



Note
Even if you were able to fully prove your point
It is still not reason to ride over the Constitution
not matter what the reason

Which is the core of the issue
No one wants to argue savings, except the Left, combined with their concern on condoms
because they want to spin it away from the truth of what it is,,,,

A dictate by the Federal gov't that is unconstitutional, straight up

No one cares about
"cash for condom" program, except the Left

 

[saveliberty]

I guess dems will have to stop town halls again. Maybe they will just weed out those entering with crosses or St. Chistopher medals.

 

[francoHFW]

Huge LOSER for Pubs and especially loudmouth religious nuts...carry on! God bless Cathy- great girl. Her husband was a big victim of Booosh's BS partisan (basically unconstitutional) states attorney CRAPPE...

 

[Article 15]

There was a time when Americans embraced freedom.... for everyone.

When was that?

Pretty much until some assclown (with the initials LBJ) became POTUS.

I totally agree.

Segregation was good times for everyone.
And those days before universal suffrage? Let freedom ring baby!
Don't even get me started on the golden age of freedom that was squashed by the bastard Lincoln.

 

[initforme]

The pill to me is one of the greatest medical advances ever known to mankind. It has prevented many unwanted pregnancies. I'm not a believer in abortion but I am a huge believer in contraceptive devices and drugs that prevent the fertilization when it is not wanted. How anyone can have a problem with that is beyond stupidity. Utter nonsense. Drivel.

 

[Neotrotsky]

The pill to me is one of the greatest medical advances ever known to mankind. It has prevented many unwanted pregnancies. I'm not a believer in abortion but I am a huge believer in contraceptive devices and drugs that prevent the fertilization when it is not wanted. How anyone can have a problem with that is beyond stupidity. Utter nonsense. Drivel.

Sure is
except that is not the issue

The Federal gov't not following the First Amendment
is the issue

No matter how much the Left wants to turn this into
a "Cash for Condom" program

 

[francoHFW]

Nobody's stopping any town halls for uncivil, un-American, brainwashed whack loudmouth Pub dupes.... We can only thank them. The huge majority is sick to death of them...

 

[Vast LWC]

Well then, I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree.

Since the average family with children has an average of 1.86 children, I cannot imagine any scenario where it would be cheaper to provide health care to a family with children, than it is to provide birth control.

A woman could only conceivably use an absolute maximum of 30-35 years or so of birth control, with a much smaller average, due to the fact that not all women would be continuously sexually active for their entire fertile window.

So, 30 x 180 = a grand total of about $5400.00 over the woman's entire life.

If your insurance isn't covering more than $5400.00 of cost, for two children, over 26 years, then I would suggest getting some better insurance.

 

[Immanuel]

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

How so?

Don't you know that he said it, that makes it so?

Immie

 

[Neotrotsky]

Well then, I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree.

Since the average family with children has an average of 1.86 children, I cannot imagine any scenario where it would be cheaper to provide health care to a family with children, than it is to provide birth control.

A woman could only conceivably use an absolute maximum of 30-35 years or so of birth control, with a much smaller average, due to the fact that not all women would be continuously sexually active for their entire fertile window.

So, 30 x 180 = a grand total of about $5400.00 over the woman's entire life.

If your insurance isn't covering more than $5400.00 of cost, for two children, over 26 years, then I would suggest getting some better insurance.

Does the pill ever cause strokes or cancer?
Were these factored in,....


I agree we do disagree

But to me the main issue is not savings

 

[Immanuel]

The pill to me is one of the greatest medical advances ever known to mankind. It has prevented many unwanted pregnancies. I'm not a believer in abortion but I am a huge believer in contraceptive devices and drugs that prevent the fertilization when it is not wanted. How anyone can have a problem with that is beyond stupidity. Utter nonsense. Drivel.

Most of us in this conversation don't seem to have a problem with it. My wife was on the pill for a time. The problem we on the right have is with people on the left forcing organizations that don't want to pay for it, to pay for it.

Immie

 

[Vast LWC]

Does the pill ever cause strokes or cancer?
Were these factored in,....


I agree we do disagree

But to me the main issue is not savings

And of course, as far as your "static" argument is concerned, there is a factor you're overlooking:

Birth control is also often used to limit the size of families.

Which means insurance companies still get to charge the same family rate, but with less children to pay the expenses for.

 

[saveliberty]

The pill to me is one of the greatest medical advances ever known to mankind. It has prevented many unwanted pregnancies. I'm not a believer in abortion but I am a huge believer in contraceptive devices and drugs that prevent the fertilization when it is not wanted. How anyone can have a problem with that is beyond stupidity. Utter nonsense. Drivel.

I am not going to make people that don't want to use it or buy it for someone else do either. I'm particularly not going to stand by and let the president use his power to tell a church what to do. This is not over Mr. Obama.

 

[Neotrotsky]

And of course, as far as your "static" argument is concerned, there is a factor you're overlooking:

Birth control is also often used to limit the size of families.

Which means insurance companies still get to charge the same family rate, but with less children to pay the expenses for.

Just like the pill can cause strokes and cancer

so yes

The full cost benefit study is, in the words of Papa Obama,
beyond our "pay grade"

 

[Vast LWC]

Just like the pill can cause strokes and cancer

so yes

The full cost benefit study is, in the words of Papa Obama,
beyond our "pay grade"

And yes, the pill does have unwanted side-effects once in a blue moon. But childbirth has unwanted side effects on a much more frequent basis.

 

[saveliberty]

Does the pill ever cause strokes or cancer?
Were these factored in,....


I agree we do disagree

But to me the main issue is not savings

And yes, the pill does have unwanted side-effects once in a blue moon. But childbirth has unwanted side effects on a much more frequent basis.

Pay for your play.

 

[initforme]

Well surely the market will help in this case. Those places that dont want to sell it I say thats fine. The places that do will surely reap in the profits, those that dont sell it will be left out. Heck if nobody wants to sell it then I will go back into business trying to sell as much of the pill, etc as I can. And to think I am an active Christian.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Just like the pill can cause strokes and cancer

so yes

The full cost benefit study is, in the words of Papa Obama,
beyond our "pay grade"

And yes, the pill does have unwanted side-effects once in a blue moon. But childbirth has unwanted side effects on a much more frequent basis.

Do you have numbers for that...

just kidding

 

[initforme]

If you are against contraception then you had better be willing to help support all the unwanted children. Cant have it both ways, hypocrites.

 

[initforme]

And one more thing. If you are for less gov't intrusion then you are for the get out of my bedroom and out of my wife's womb. The gov't has no business there whether she is pregnant or not. Let the man and woman take care of things. Nobody else should have a say. Not their business.