I want you to stay out of my bedroom, but pay for what goes on inside!

[candycorn]

I would be for a prospective employee not choosing that company to work for if it didn't align with what coverage they would like.

And if you work there already....I guess you should just quit. Or I guess you can decide just not to have kids, check the owner's religion preferences etc...

Very well.

Still, Ms. Fluke wasn't asking for government money.

So you purchase the extra rider.
A company like McD's, that hires mostly teenagers, probably doesn't provide very comprehensive geriatric coverage.

I'm just sating every company shouldn't be required to provide everything for everybody

How would this be any different than a company deciding it didn't want to pay overtime for more than 40 hours in a work week...if it tells you at the interview that you get paid strait wages through out?

You know the deal going in; you can decide not to work there and seek a more worker friendly company...

 

[Clementine]

Sandra Fluke wanted contraceptives to be part of her presciption drug plan. Not the government to pay for it.

She has you guys scared shitless...so nice.

She wanted the government to FORCE an employer to include it in the coverage plan they chose and they partially pay for, even if it was against their beliefs or stance for whatever reason... Nothing stopped Slutty McMuffin from going and buying her birth control all on her own

Exactly. Why should insurance pay for the small stuff? The purpose of any insurance is to cover the big costs due to accident or illness and now they are supposed to pay for every little thing.

 

[SinJinsg]

Sandra Fluke wanted contraceptives to be part of her presciption drug plan. Not the government to pay for it.

She has you guys scared shitless...so nice.

So who was stopping her from going out and finding just such a plan? Oh, that's right, she wanted the GOVERNMENT to force her existing plan to carry it because she didn't want to be bothered with doing anything for herself.

 

[Care4all]

Sandra Fluke wanted contraceptives to be part of her presciption drug plan. Not the government to pay for it.

She has you guys scared shitless...so nice.

She wanted the government to FORCE an employer to include it in the coverage plan they chose and they partially pay for, even if it was against their beliefs or stance for whatever reason... Nothing stopped Slutty McMuffin from going and buying her birth control all on her own

it does not cost more, so you and the employer does not pay ANYTHING FOR IT Dave....

The cost savings for insurers to not cover other things covers the pill.

As example, the insurance actuaries have found savings with providing birth control, that the insurance company won'[t have to pay for such as pregnancies and prenatal care... will cost less with fewer unwanted pregnancies as well....

There is no increase in insurance premiums AT ALL for including birth control coverage.

So, my dear Dave, there is no forcing ANYONE to contribute to another's birth control. Read up on it, pretty please.

 

[SinJinsg]

Sandra Fluke wanted contraceptives to be part of her presciption drug plan. Not the government to pay for it.

She has you guys scared shitless...so nice.

She wanted the government to FORCE an employer to include it in the coverage plan they chose and they partially pay for, even if it was against their beliefs or stance for whatever reason... Nothing stopped Slutty McMuffin from going and buying her birth control all on her own

it does not cost more, so you and the employer does not pay ANYTHING FOR IT Dave....

The cost savings for insurers to not cover other things covers the pill.

As example, the insurance actuaries have found savings with providing birth control, that the insurance company won'[t have to pay for such as pregnancies and prenatal care... will cost less with fewer unwanted pregnancies as well....

There is no increase in insurance premiums AT ALL for including birth control coverage.

So, my dear Dave, there is no forcing ANYONE to contribute to another's birth control. Read up on it, pretty please.

You really do believe in a free lunch, don't you. If you add a benefit there is a cost. It is that simple. And yes, the government IS forcing an insurance company to add birth control if said company does not WANT to provide that benefit.

But get in line for your free stuff! I want my free stuff!!!!

 

[Care4all]

She wanted the government to FORCE an employer to include it in the coverage plan they chose and they partially pay for, even if it was against their beliefs or stance for whatever reason... Nothing stopped Slutty McMuffin from going and buying her birth control all on her own

it does not cost more, so you and the employer does not pay ANYTHING FOR IT Dave....

The cost savings for insurers to not cover other things covers the pill.

As example, the insurance actuaries have found savings with providing birth control, that the insurance company won'[t have to pay for such as pregnancies and prenatal care... will cost less with fewer unwanted pregnancies as well....

There is no increase in insurance premiums AT ALL for including birth control coverage.

So, my dear Dave, there is no forcing ANYONE to contribute to another's birth control. Read up on it, pretty please.

You really do believe in a free lunch, don't you. If you add a benefit there is a cost. It is that simple. And yes, the government IS forcing an insurance company to add birth control if said company does not WANT to provide that benefit.

But get in line for your free stuff! I want my free stuff!!!!

No there isn't and you are being silly....the insurance policy price does not change if you add birth control....it's been done all over this nation in many different States, and the insurance companies do not charge more for the insurance policies with the coverage....because it costs them less on other coverages that come in to play if birth control is available...the insurance company actuaries have calculated the cost of birth control coverage and when all said and done, after they calculate the amounts the insurance companies save because they have fewer women needing other services, like fewer women that need prenatal and pregnancy care, there is no increase in the cost of the coverage because it balances out....

don't argue with me over it, argue with the insurance company actuaries who are paid to calculate these kind of things....

 

[Katzndogz]

it does not cost more, so you and the employer does not pay ANYTHING FOR IT Dave....

The cost savings for insurers to not cover other things covers the pill.

As example, the insurance actuaries have found savings with providing birth control, that the insurance company won'[t have to pay for such as pregnancies and prenatal care... will cost less with fewer unwanted pregnancies as well....

There is no increase in insurance premiums AT ALL for including birth control coverage.

So, my dear Dave, there is no forcing ANYONE to contribute to another's birth control. Read up on it, pretty please.

You really do believe in a free lunch, don't you. If you add a benefit there is a cost. It is that simple. And yes, the government IS forcing an insurance company to add birth control if said company does not WANT to provide that benefit.

But get in line for your free stuff! I want my free stuff!!!!

No there isn't and you are being silly....the insurance policy price does not change if you add birth control....it's been done all over this nation in many different States, and the insurance companies do not charge more for the insurance policies with the coverage....because it costs them less on other coverages that come in to play if birth control is not available...the insurance company actuaries have calculated the cost of birth control coverage and when all said and done, after they calculate the amounts the insurance companies save because they have fewer women needing other services, like fewer women that need prenatal and pregnancy care, there is no increase in the cost of the coverage because it balances out....

don't argue with me over it, argue with the insurance company actuaries who are paid to calculate these kind of things....

You are woefully uninformed. Just pathetically uninformed. Insurance companies have "cafe coverage". Which means that the insured gets to pick what provisions of coverage they want. A man does not have to pay for pregnancy and prenatal care coverage. A woman does not have to pay for prostate exam coverage. A 20 year old might opt for accidental injury but forego coverage for ostomy products.

If an employer is making these decisions on behalf of the employee they have the right to choose coverage that covers costs of pregnancy but not birth control. They are paying the premium. The insurance doesn't decide what kind of coverage is going to cost them less. Those decisions are made by the person purchasing the policy. In some cases, that's the employer.

 

[Care4all]

You really do believe in a free lunch, don't you. If you add a benefit there is a cost. It is that simple. And yes, the government IS forcing an insurance company to add birth control if said company does not WANT to provide that benefit.

But get in line for your free stuff! I want my free stuff!!!!

No there isn't and you are being silly....the insurance policy price does not change if you add birth control....it's been done all over this nation in many different States, and the insurance companies do not charge more for the insurance policies with the coverage....because it costs them less on other coverages that come in to play if birth control is not available...the insurance company actuaries have calculated the cost of birth control coverage and when all said and done, after they calculate the amounts the insurance companies save because they have fewer women needing other services, like fewer women that need prenatal and pregnancy care, there is no increase in the cost of the coverage because it balances out....

don't argue with me over it, argue with the insurance company actuaries who are paid to calculate these kind of things....

You are woefully uninformed. Just pathetically uninformed. Insurance companies have "cafe coverage". Which means that the insured gets to pick what provisions of coverage they want. A man does not have to pay for pregnancy and prenatal care coverage. A woman does not have to pay for prostate exam coverage. A 20 year old might opt for accidental injury but forego coverage for ostomy products.

If an employer is making these decisions on behalf of the employee they have the right to choose coverage that covers costs of pregnancy but not birth control. They are paying the premium. The insurance doesn't decide what kind of coverage is going to cost them less. Those decisions are made by the person purchasing the policy. In some cases, that's the employer.

It doesn't matter what you think you know Katz, employers buy insurance that covers pregnancies and prenatal care as it stands now and it doesn't cost them a dime more if birth control is covered on the same policy. END OF STORY.

 

[OriginalShroom]

No there isn't and you are being silly....the insurance policy price does not change if you add birth control....it's been done all over this nation in many different States, and the insurance companies do not charge more for the insurance policies with the coverage....because it costs them less on other coverages that come in to play if birth control is not available...the insurance company actuaries have calculated the cost of birth control coverage and when all said and done, after they calculate the amounts the insurance companies save because they have fewer women needing other services, like fewer women that need prenatal and pregnancy care, there is no increase in the cost of the coverage because it balances out....

don't argue with me over it, argue with the insurance company actuaries who are paid to calculate these kind of things....

You are woefully uninformed. Just pathetically uninformed. Insurance companies have "cafe coverage". Which means that the insured gets to pick what provisions of coverage they want. A man does not have to pay for pregnancy and prenatal care coverage. A woman does not have to pay for prostate exam coverage. A 20 year old might opt for accidental injury but forego coverage for ostomy products.

If an employer is making these decisions on behalf of the employee they have the right to choose coverage that covers costs of pregnancy but not birth control. They are paying the premium. The insurance doesn't decide what kind of coverage is going to cost them less. Those decisions are made by the person purchasing the policy. In some cases, that's the employer.

It doesn't matter what you think you know Katz, employers buy insurance that covers pregnancies and prenatal care as it stands now and it doesn't cost them a dime more if birth control is covered on the same policy. END OF STORY.

I can't beleive someone would say that it doesn't cost more to add a benefit to an insurance policy.

Just how Kool-Aid do you have to drink to believe that?

 

[LittleNipper]

The pill has more benefits than just being able to bang like a rabbit. But if you guys are against that then that must suck.

I think some of the "benefits" may involve sterility, endometriosis, autism, allergies, learning disabilities, later miscarriages, and even cancer. When people mess around with the normal functions of the body, one cannot be sure what else is being thrown out of wack. But hey, if this prevents unwanted babies, I'm all for the woman dealing with all the later problems --- if they feel it is worth it...

 

[tooAlive]

You are woefully uninformed. Just pathetically uninformed. Insurance companies have "cafe coverage". Which means that the insured gets to pick what provisions of coverage they want. A man does not have to pay for pregnancy and prenatal care coverage. A woman does not have to pay for prostate exam coverage. A 20 year old might opt for accidental injury but forego coverage for ostomy products.

If an employer is making these decisions on behalf of the employee they have the right to choose coverage that covers costs of pregnancy but not birth control. They are paying the premium. The insurance doesn't decide what kind of coverage is going to cost them less. Those decisions are made by the person purchasing the policy. In some cases, that's the employer.

It doesn't matter what you think you know Katz, employers buy insurance that covers pregnancies and prenatal care as it stands now and it doesn't cost them a dime more if birth control is covered on the same policy. END OF STORY.

I can't beleive someone would say that it doesn't cost more to add a benefit to an insurance policy.

Just how Kool-Aid do you have to drink to believe that?

I'm gonna call my car insurance company and upgrade to the best plan. Should cost the same, right?

 

[OriginalShroom]

It doesn't matter what you think you know Katz, employers buy insurance that covers pregnancies and prenatal care as it stands now and it doesn't cost them a dime more if birth control is covered on the same policy. END OF STORY.

I can't beleive someone would say that it doesn't cost more to add a benefit to an insurance policy.

Just how Kool-Aid do you have to drink to believe that?

I'm gonna call my car insurance company and upgrade to the best plan. Should cost the same, right?

Using the logic presented, it should.

They may even cover your oil changes, brake jobs, and tire rotations.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Why are we getting away from the real objection? The real and only objection is the first amendment violations. All the other cost vs cost is just smoke....

We either have freedom of religion or we don't, which is it?

 

[candycorn]

Sandra Fluke wanted contraceptives to be part of her presciption drug plan. Not the government to pay for it.

She has you guys scared shitless...so nice.

So who was stopping her from going out and finding just such a plan? Oh, that's right, she wanted the GOVERNMENT to force her existing plan to carry it because she didn't want to be bothered with doing anything for herself.

Well, I don't know her motivation or level of apathy but essentially you're right; she wanted the insurance offered to her to include preventative health drugs like contraception.

 

[rdean]

Republicans want total control over people's lives. "Stay out of my bedroom" indeed.

 

[candycorn]

Why are we getting away from the real objection? The real and only objection is the first amendment violations. All the other cost vs cost is just smoke....

We either have freedom of religion or we don't, which is it?

If your religion is against violence, should you have to pay taxes that go for tanks, apache helicopters, Navy SEALs?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Truth is I have never discussed my own personal religion on this board. But if you think Christian then no it is not against war. The Christian dogma says there is a time to beat swords into plow shares and a time to beat plow shares into swords...

 

[OriginalShroom]

Sandra Fluke wanted contraceptives to be part of her presciption drug plan. Not the government to pay for it.

She has you guys scared shitless...so nice.

So who was stopping her from going out and finding just such a plan? Oh, that's right, she wanted the GOVERNMENT to force her existing plan to carry it because she didn't want to be bothered with doing anything for herself.

Well, I don't know her motivation or level of apathy but essentially you're right; she wanted the insurance offered to her to include preventative health drugs like contraception.

What illness does Birth Controll prevent?

 

[candycorn]

So who was stopping her from going out and finding just such a plan? Oh, that's right, she wanted the GOVERNMENT to force her existing plan to carry it because she didn't want to be bothered with doing anything for herself.

Well, I don't know her motivation or level of apathy but essentially you're right; she wanted the insurance offered to her to include preventative health drugs like contraception.

What illness does Birth Controll prevent?

Hormonal imbalance for one if I recall.

 

[candycorn]

Truth is I have never discussed my own personal religion on this board. But if you think Christian then no it is not against war. The Christian dogma says there is a time to beat swords into plow shares and a time to beat plow shares into swords...

Well I didnt mean your personal beliefs. But will you allow that, at times the law trumps religion?