58 replies to this topic

[MissMelsWell]

OverSword, on 05 October 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

The problem with Obama's pandering to women by giving them free birth control is that the average co-pay on BC for women in America is $15.00 a month.  Just because the government says it's now free it doesn't magically become free.  That cost will be made up for by yet another increase in premiums.
So take every women in the USA that get BC through insurance multiply that number by $15.00, and add that to your employers premuims.  The republicans are not trying to outlaw birth control they're trying to keep insurances increases lower.  How can people not get that?

Except, I never had a health plan that covered birth control, ever! If I had, I'd have gladly paid the 15$ co-pay... as it were, I ended up going to PP most of my reproductive years so I could get it for between $15-20 a month.

Edited by MissMelsWell, 06 October 2012 - 01:51 AM.

[Render]

HuttonEtAl, on 05 October 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

Meh, Europeans have more sex, start at a younger age, and are more open about it...they also have few issues than we do...The problem is that it is seen as a taboo.

I think people just need to increase their standards and not have sex with anything that has the proper anatomy. It is okay to turn someone down...

lol your making Europeans sound a bit promiscuous there. Europe has the same issues. But the difference is that Europe doesn't have the tendency to let religion dictate health policies. Of course there are also extreme conservatists, but their voice is not as powerful as the voice of reason and logic. The policies aren't guided about what the church deems a sin. It's about what makes the most sense dealing with the current situations.

OverSword, on 05 October 2012 - 08:41 PM, said:

LOL!  You guys are exhausting.  How about if the president just declares everything free!  Why not, who need profits?

In Europe, several countries have the policy that certain generic brands of birth control are free until the age of 21. Then they raise the price, and from the age of 25 or 26 you pay full price.
I find that very sensible.

Edited by Render, 07 October 2012 - 10:21 AM.

[preacherman76]

HuttonEtAl, on 05 October 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

But they could. That is my argument. Do do not HAVE to raise prices. They choose to. That is the problem with our system. That is the problem with having private healthcare. IMO healthcare should not be about capitalism, it should be about care...

Health care isnt about capitalism. Not even close. The whole game has been rigged. Once government started flipping the bill through medicare/aid capitalism was thrown out the window. Its a damn shame too cause before that people could afford to pay outta pocket for minor emergency room visits, or a trip to the doctor for basic care. All competition has been eliminated. Insurance companies are running monopolies in each state. Some states having as many as 2 insurance providers. And now 0bama has forced the American people to buy insurance from for profit companies, and has done nothing to eliminate the monopolies run by these criminals. These is nothing about our health care system that represents free market capitalism. And now you want the same people who have created this mess, to fix it.

Edited by preacherman76, 07 October 2012 - 11:38 AM.

[CommunitarianKevin]

OverSword, on 05 October 2012 - 08:41 PM, said:

LOL!  You guys are exhausting.  How about if the president just declares everything free!  Why not, who need profits?

That would be a stupid idea...Not everything should be free, but I believe some things should be...or they should not be profit driven. The people making the profit do not care about the people...that is the problem...

preacherman76, on 07 October 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

Health care isnt about capitalism. Not even close. The whole game has been rigged. Once government started flipping the bill through medicare/aid capitalism was thrown out the window. Its a damn shame too cause before that people could afford to pay outta pocket for minor emergency room visits, or a trip to the doctor for basic care. All competition has been eliminated. Insurance companies are running monopolies in each state. Some states having as many as 2 insurance providers. And now 0bama has forced the American people to buy insurance from for profit companies, and has done nothing to eliminate the monopolies run by these criminals. These is nothing about our health care system that represents free market capitalism. And now you want the same people who have created this mess, to fix it.

Yes, it is about capitalism. You do know that free market captialism is not the only type of capitalism right? There is varying government regulation in capitalistic models and the U.S. is right in the middle. Norway and Sweden are examples of a lot of government regulation, way more than the U.S. but they are capitalistic non the less.

I did not say the government has not caused problems and I did not say I support Obamacare...what I said was WE HAVE MAJOR ISSUES IN OUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM AND NEED REFORM. I would prefer socialized healthcare. I would not trust free market capitalism as the best method for healthcare. I base this on real world examples and logic flaws in free market capitalism.

[preacherman76]

Id rather trust the market before I trusted the government. Why would you trust a government who has allowed this to take place?

[CommunitarianKevin]

preacherman76, on 07 October 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

Id rather trust the market before I trusted the government. Why would you trust a government who has allowed this to take place?

Simple...

First, your proposed system (free market capitalism) has never existed. It is pure speculation and for whatever reason, in this speculation, you think a bunch of selfish, greedy, business men are the answer. Fact: People are selfish...but yet you think unchecked selfishness is the answer. You cannot get rid of a CEO or a corporation...

Second, granted the goverment has allowed this to take place, but more importantly, the people allowed this to take this. Whatever excuse you want to find for why people let this happen, the fact of the matter is that they did. Our government is made up of elected officials. If you think they do a crappy job, you can fire them...is that not what people are trying to do to Obama? For whatever reason, we do not fire them...I guess because some people believe them...But you can fire them. That is the difference. Our government has been and always will be elected...it can be checked. A corporation (in free market capitalism) is left unchecked, so there is no way to control them. When they do amass great wealth, and they will, they will form a monopoly and snuff out any competition because they have the money and power to do so. The people will be pawns to the corporation just as they are in a dictatorship. The corporation will become your form of government, a dictatorship.

Edited by HuttonEtAl, 07 October 2012 - 12:50 PM.

[Gamma-lunas]

OverSword, on 05 October 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

The problem with Obama's pandering to women by giving them free birth control is that the average co-pay on BC for women in America is $15.00 a month.  Just because the government says it's now free it doesn't magically become free.  That cost will be made up for by yet another increase in premiums.
So take every women in the USA that get BC through insurance multiply that number by $15.00, and add that to your employers premuims.  The republicans are not trying to outlaw birth control they're trying to keep insurances increases lower.  How can people not get that?

I get that, but BC has other uses other than contraception. BC pills are hormones, which many women are prescribed by their doctor to help hormone issues. Many remark that it is strange that insurance covers Viagra, But not BC. BC has application which go beyond preventing pregnacy, but Viagra has no other purpose than a sexual one. So if insurance companies do not want to cover BC then they should not cover viagra either as it only has a single purpose in comparison BC which has another medical purpose.

RUSH's misogynistic comment about not wanting to pay women to have sex is not only flawed, but it seems he is very willing to pay for other men to have sex. Viagra needs to be taken prior to each sexual encounter, while BC, must be taken regardless of frequency of sexaul activity. Viagra is per-use more expensive than BC.

What does Viagra costs to that premuim? It is an issue of whose needs are more important.

[CommunitarianKevin]

Gamma-lunas, on 07 October 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

I get that, but BC has other uses other than contraception. BC pills are hormones, which many women are prescribed by their doctor to help hormone issues. Many remark that it is strange that insurance covers Viagra, But not BC. BC has application which go beyond preventing pregnacy, but Viagra has no other purpose than a sexual one. So if insurance companies do not want to cover BC then they should not cover viagra either as it only has a single purpose in comparison BC which has another medical purpose.

RUSH's misogynistic comment about not wanting to pay women to have sex is not only flawed, but it seems he is very willing to pay for other men to have sex. Viagra needs to be taken prior to each sexual encounter, while BC, must be taken regardless of frequency of sexaul activity. Viagra is per-use more expensive than BC.

What does Viagra costs to that premuim? It is an issue of whose needs are more important.

Viagra is a very interesting point that I never thought of...that is weird...
I also agree about BC. I made the comment to my wife about these high school girls having flawless skin even though they are in their teens...she said it is because they are on BC. The hormones are good for the skin. BC is also recomended to women with irregular periods.

[questionmark]

HuttonEtAl, on 07 October 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:

Viagra is a very interesting point that I never thought of...that is weird...
I also agree about BC. I made the comment to my wife about these high school girls having flawless skin even though they are in their teens...she said it is because they are on BC. The hormones are good for the skin. BC is also recomended to women with irregular periods.

It is very simple: Viagra helps get women pregnant, the pill avoids it. Avoiding getting women pregnant very bad, you go to hell!

Edited by questionmark, 07 October 2012 - 06:08 PM.

[preacherman76]

HuttonEtAl, on 07 October 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

Simple...

First, your proposed system (free market capitalism) has never existed. It is pure speculation and for whatever reason, in this speculation, you think a bunch of selfish, greedy, business men are the answer. Fact: People are selfish...but yet you think unchecked selfishness is the answer. You cannot get rid of a CEO or a corporation...

I know a bunch of greedy selfish businessmen are the answer. In fact its cause of thier greed, if of course they were on a even playing field, that the price for insurance would drop dramaticaly. If the market were open, and any insurance company could operate in any state, what do you think would happen if you had 50 companies to choose from, instead of 2? All 50 companies cutting each others throat for your money.  Could you not then get rid of a CEO, or company? Of course you could. Its the government on both the state and federal level that has allowed them to create monopolies. For any other industry, that would be illegal.

Quote

Second, granted the goverment has allowed this to take place, but more importantly, the people allowed this to take this. Whatever excuse you want to find for why people let this happen, the fact of the matter is that they did. Our government is made up of elected officials. If you think they do a crappy job, you can fire them...is that not what people are trying to do to Obama? For whatever reason, we do not fire them...I guess because some people believe them...But you can fire them. That is the difference. Our government has been and always will be elected...it can be checked. A corporation (in free market capitalism) is left unchecked, so there is no way to control them. When they do amass great wealth, and they will, they will form a monopoly and snuff out any competition because they have the money and power to do so. The people will be pawns to the corporation just as they are in a dictatorship. The corporation will become your form of government, a dictatorship.

In a true free market system, you can fire them. What you are describing here is a catch 22. On one hand you tell me government is the answer, and we need socialised insurance. Then on the other hand admit government is the problem cause corperations are able to buy them off. You are right in saying the people allowed this. And it will continue till the people no longer allow it. I for one would rather go with a system where the government can no long have thier hands in it at all. They caused all this.

[Hilander]

Hasina, on 05 October 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

I wonder if (or hopefully when) they produce male birth control, will that be paid for by insurance agencies?

Probably, they pay for Viagra.

[CommunitarianKevin]

preacherman76, on 09 October 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

I know a bunch of greedy selfish businessmen are the answer. In fact its cause of thier greed, if of course they were on a even playing field, that the price for insurance would drop dramaticaly. If the market were open, and any insurance company could operate in any state, what do you think would happen if you had 50 companies to choose from, instead of 2? All 50 companies cutting each others throat for your money.  Could you not then get rid of a CEO, or company? Of course you could. Its the government on both the state and federal level that has allowed them to create monopolies. For any other industry, that would be illegal.

I do not buy your premise. I do not understand why so many thing unregulated greed is the answer. This theory only works in the beginnings of an economic system, before major corporations are established. Once a market is created, one cannot simply enter the market. The market will already be dominated by the "best" corporation. Also, capital is needed to make capital. One must have capital to start a business and will be at a severe disadvantage compared to established corporation. This competition you see does not exist in an established market. You may start with 50 companies and it would be cut-throat, until one or 2 companies came out as the winners. If it was 2 companies, they could then merge to fully control the market. With full domination of the market, they would snuff out any competition. One may argue that a corporation cannot have control of the market because they will specialize in different things, thus they cannot have full control. Except for the fact that they can. It is called vertical integration. A corporation keeps integrating parts of its business into itself, eventually controlling all aspects...this makes them all powerful. Your idea that monopolies will not form is pure speculation. Like I said, this model is only theoretical...it has never existe. We have, however, seen monopolies form. More importantly, we have seen what greed can lead to. Greed is limitless. To say my proposal would not happen is totally speculative and not supporting of history. We see what greed does and what corporations do. Corporations act as individuals...selfish, violent, and ruthless.

Quote

In a true free market system, you can fire them. What you are describing here is a catch 22. On one hand you tell me government is the answer, and we need socialised insurance. Then on the other hand admit government is the problem cause corperations are able to buy them off. You are right in saying the people allowed this. And it will continue till the people no longer allow it. I for one would rather go with a system where the government can no long have thier hands in it at all. They caused all this.

If you are going to refute me, please explain how. HOW can you fire them?

[preacherman76]

HuttonEtAl, on 10 October 2012 - 07:00 AM, said:

I do not buy your premise. I do not understand why so many thing unregulated greed is the answer. This theory only works in the beginnings of an economic system, before major corporations are established. Once a market is created, one cannot simply enter the market. The market will already be dominated by the "best" corporation. Also, capital is needed to make capital. One must have capital to start a business and will be at a severe disadvantage compared to established corporation. This competition you see does not exist in an established market. You may start with 50 companies and it would be cut-throat, until one or 2 companies came out as the winners. If it was 2 companies, they could then merge to fully control the market. With full domination of the market, they would snuff out any competition. One may argue that a corporation cannot have control of the market because they will specialize in different things, thus they cannot have full control. Except for the fact that they can. It is called vertical integration. A corporation keeps integrating parts of its business into itself, eventually controlling all aspects...this makes them all powerful. Your idea that monopolies will not form is pure speculation. Like I said, this model is only theoretical...it has never existe. We have, however, seen monopolies form. More importantly, we have seen what greed can lead to. Greed is limitless. To say my proposal would not happen is totally speculative and not supporting of history. We see what greed does and what corporations do. Corporations act as individuals...selfish, violent, and ruthless.

What is there not to buy about it? There are hundreds of examples of just that. Look at car insurance. There are several different companies to choose from. Every few years I get a bunch of quotes. And many times companies that I couldnt afford last time, end up being cheaper cause thier competition forced them to lower there prices in order to compete. You can go right down the line and see examples from your local mechanic, to office cleaning companies. This isnt some imaginary senerio. It happens every single day.

Quote

If you are going to refute me, please explain how. HOW can you fire them?

You call em up and say, you are fired. Then you go with a different company.

[CommunitarianKevin]

preacherman76, on 10 October 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:

What is there not to buy about it? There are hundreds of examples of just that. Look at car insurance. There are several different companies to choose from. Every few years I get a bunch of quotes. And many times companies that I couldnt afford last time, end up being cheaper cause thier competition forced them to lower there prices in order to compete. You can go right down the line and see examples from your local mechanic, to office cleaning companies. This isnt some imaginary senerio. It happens every single day.



You call em up and say, you are fired. Then you go with a different company.

Free Market Capitalism is a theoretical model. We have government regulated capitalism.

You changing companies does not fire them. What if they are the only company?