Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know if they got the chance they would make birth control illegal.
My state tried to pass a law that would make it illegal back in 2008. I nearly siht bricks.
So you fear that birth control will be made illegal if Republicans get in office.
And how long have condoms been in the marketplace ?
How long has the pill been available ?
And you think and elected President has the power to just "make it illegal" all on his own ?
So you fear that birth control will be made illegal if Republicans get in office.
And how long have condoms been in the marketplace ?
How long has the pill been available ?
And you think and elected President has the power to just "make it illegal" all on his own ?
Your emotions have gotten the better of you.
Emotions are fundamental to opposition as well. It is logical to push against religious fundamentalism. Sure, I don't see republican politicians outright banning any of this. What I do see, is them lying through their teeth to appease a certain sect of voters with hope that this will benefit them in elections. If anything, those voters are the problem. If left to their whims, we might just end up with our own version of zealots like this:
"The midwife’s defiance would prove fatal: Two months ago, the insurgents shot her dead.
What had enraged the Islamist rebels, however, was a surprising issue, more often debated in the West than Afghanistan. As part of a fledgling family planning program, the worker known only as Zarghona was distributing condoms and birth-control pills, and the insurgents called that sacrilege."
How many of those drugs are drugs that the patients prescription drug insurance won't cover without a notice?
A list of some common ones would be nice.
I gave you a very common one already and made my case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gallowsCalibrator
And we begin the descent into fallacies.
Starting with Ad Hominem.
Oh, my apologies. I was unaware that we were in the presence of an armchair expert. Moving along...
Quote:
Originally Posted by gallowsCalibrator
Is this leading into a strawman?
Yes. Yes it is.
It's also a red herring.
Is Botox a prescription drug you can pick up at a pharmacy?
No?
So in your opinion, the method of delivery is the key to whether or not a prescription drug can be discussed in this context? Way to deflect when you can't refute. Strawman? Red Herring? Please. It's a prescription drug that is paid for by insurance for certain medical conditions but not covered for recreational uses. How is that any different than prescribing BCP for hormonal imbalances, endometriosis, or acne (medical conditions) vs. its more common use as pregnancy prevention (recreational use)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gallowsCalibrator
Alrighty then. Different topic.
BUUUUUUT B4CK TO TH3 OR1G1N4T1NG TOP1C OF R3L1G1OUS W4DS OF TW1ST3D P4NT13S.
The hospital accepts government money to provide for public benefit. Because of that, their religious beliefs should not interfere with their work. This includes cherry picking of medications they will allow to be covered or procedures to be performed.
Hospitals are required by law to treat any emergent cases that walk through their doors, whether they have medicare, medicaid, private insurance, or no ability to pay whatsoever. Is that what you mean by accepting government money? And yes, religiously affiliated hospital systems are considered charitable organizations (501c3) and get certain tax benefits because of that status. That is not the equivalent of accepting government money. Talk about a strawman...
Should other people get to decide what you should be eligible for? It sounds like you condone the idea, and I really hope you get to experience consequences of the recipe you propose for others.
Other people already DO decide what is covered, be it the insurance companies or the government. People can't exactly go and demand that their liposuction be covered by insurance, now can they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
But, let us revisit your idea of "conservatism" and opposition to contraceptive coverage (I see you didn't continue your argument on likes of Viagra, so I will leave it at that... I guess you don't have problem with it anymore. Why do you think the states that have contraception coverage, do? I'm not looking for an irrational/emotional response, but a logical one. Or, would that be too much to ask/expect?
What's to argue about Viagra coverage? I've already stated my opposition to its coverage. It's ridiculous that it is a covered prescription. To answer your question, i believe that states with contraception coverage have fallen victim to the pharmaceutical lobbyists and a populace that is more than complicit. For the elected officials it's a win-win situation. They get campaign contributions from the lobbyists and the people easily impressed with freebies are more than willing to keep voting these people in.... until they realize that their insurance premiums are now skyrocketing. Too many people can't connect the dots though and understand the reasons behind the hikes. They would rather blame those evil insurance companies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Why are they trying to repeal something they themselves passed? Politics?
Most things like this are decided by politics, yes.
How many of those drugs are drugs that the patients prescription drug insurance won't cover without a notice?
A list of some common ones would be nice.
Just wanted to add that many times an appeal isn't even necessary. If it is being prescribed for a diagnosed medical condition, the ICD-9 diagnostic code will suffice and the prescription will be covered by insurance. One only needs to appeal in cases where it is initially denied. No waste of time or additional paperwork as you contend. There is no ICD-9 code for wanting to prevent pregnancy , hence, not covered.
I gave you a very common one already and made my case.
You listed a procedure that is not (typically) covered when performed for cosmetic reasons (some insurance plans do have some coverage for things like botox and lipo).
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatyousay
Oh, my apologies. I was unaware that we were in the presence of an armchair expert. Moving along...
Yet another ad hominem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatyousay
So in your opinion, the method of delivery is the key to whether or not a prescription drug can be discussed in this context? Way to deflect when you can't refute.
The method of delivery is definitely a key factor.
If the doctor can write a prescription for a drug that the patient can pick up at a pharmacy, then prescription drug coverage is used.
If the doctor has to be the one to inject it (ala botox), it would be treated as an inpatient procedure if for a valid medical problem as you mentioned. If done for cosmetic reasons, it would be billed/treated as a cosmetic procedure.
On my last hospital bill, my prescription drug coverage wasn't used for any medications that the doctors injected me with. They were billed to insurance as part of the hospital visit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatyousay
How is that any different than prescribing BCP for hormonal imbalances, endometriosis, or acne (medical conditions) vs. its more common use as pregnancy prevention (recreational use)?
Method of delivery.
One is part of a procedure done in a doctor's office.
One is picked up at a pharmacy using prescription drug coverage to assist with the cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatyousay
Hospitals are required by law to treat any emergent cases that walk through their doors, whether they have medicare, medicaid, private insurance, or no ability to pay whatsoever. Is that what you mean by accepting government money? And yes, religiously affiliated hospital systems are considered charitable organizations (501c3) and get certain tax benefits because of that status. That is not the equivalent of accepting government money. Talk about a strawman...
Hospitals are required by law to do many things.
The Catholic hospital up near me receives all sorts of government grants to expand upon what they can offer. In fact, I'd wager that most hospital organizations get grants from the state and federal government to expand services.
A prescription drug is a prescription drug is a prescription drug.
If a person has prescription drug coverage, then it should cover any drug that a doctor provides a prescription for. Classify and tier the levels of coverage as they see fit, but flat out refusing to cover a drug because someone's panties are twisted up like a contortionist is laughable.
Other people already DO decide what is covered, be it the insurance companies or the government. People can't exactly go and demand that their liposuction be covered by insurance, now can they?
People don't decide. Insurance companies do. It is why states have established a baseline for requirements, so people like you aren't taken for a ride. That is the least you can hope for. As a business, insurance companies aren't looking forward to pay for your coverage, they're looking for denying it.
Quote:
What's to argue about Viagra coverage? I've already stated my opposition to its coverage. It's ridiculous that it is a covered prescription.
And where has been the opposition to it by the same folks who have been screaming their lungs out against contraceptives? Whispering in a discussion board doesn't cut it.
Quote:
To answer your question, i believe that states with contraception coverage have fallen victim to the pharmaceutical lobbyists and a populace that is more than complicit...
Complicit to who? If that is your best argument, that the states (or the general opposition) is sold out to insurance company lobbyists can be promoted as the other side of the coin. One can always play the game. But, I demanded logic for response.
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 03-07-2012 at 11:21 AM..
I don't want to be paying for your's or for other people's irresponsibility or behavior. If you can't afford to have a baby or don't want one yet. Then men, keep your zippers zipped and women, keep your legs closed until marriage.
Even married people (like me) want to have SEX without a BABY nine months later .
You listed a procedure that is not (typically) covered when performed for cosmetic reasons (some insurance plans do have some coverage for things like botox and lipo).
There is a distinct difference between a medical procedure (the actual injection itself) and the drug being injected. They are billed separately. There are diagnostic procedure codes that dictate the actual procedure itself. For example, a cholecystectomy, which is the surgical removal of the gallbladder is a procedure. The diagnostic procedure code covers the procedure, but the anesthesia drugs used during the surgery are billed separately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gallowsCalibrator
Yet another ad hominem.
Whatever you say, chief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gallowsCalibrator
The method of delivery is definitely a key factor.
If the doctor can write a prescription for a drug that the patient can pick up at a pharmacy, then prescription drug coverage is used.
If the doctor has to be the one to inject it (ala botox), it would be treated as an inpatient procedure if for a valid medical problem as you mentioned. If done for cosmetic reasons, it would be billed/treated as a cosmetic procedure.
Yes because one procedure has an approved diagnostic procedure code, the other does not. Hence, coverage for one procedure is approved, the other is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gallowsCalibrator
On my last hospital bill, my prescription drug coverage wasn't used for any medications that the doctors injected me with. They were billed to insurance as part of the hospital visit.
See above. Insurance coverage is insurance coverage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gallowsCalibrator
Method of delivery.
One is part of a procedure done in a doctor's office.
One is picked up at a pharmacy using prescription drug coverage to assist with the cost.
Okay, you're still going with the method of delivery line of defense. What about prescriptions drugs for weight loss or gain? Drugs prescribed for cosmetic use? Prescription fluoride treatments? There are many drugs that require a medical prescription but are not covered by insurance, nor should they be. Have you ever heard of the donut hole? Yep, even the government does not cover all prescription medications simply because it was prescribed by a physician.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gallowsCalibrator
Hospitals are required by law to do many things.
The Catholic hospital up near me receives all sorts of government grants to expand upon what they can offer. In fact, I'd wager that most hospital organizations get grants from the state and federal government to expand services.
Ad hominem, indeed. Please cite some data showing that all or even most hospitals get grants to expand services. Regardless, simply because one Catholic hospital by you has received some government grants doesn't mean that they all have, or even close to all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gallowsCalibrator
A prescription drug is a prescription drug is a prescription drug.
Yes, meaning that it is not available over the counter and must have a doctor's written order to be filled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gallowsCalibrator
If a person has prescription drug coverage, then it should cover any drug that a doctor provides a prescription for. Classify and tier the levels of coverage as they see fit, but flat out refusing to cover a drug because someone's panties are twisted up like a contortionist is laughable.
No. Only drugs prescribed to treat a diagnosed medical condition should be covered with an approved diagnostic code. I don't understand your panty fetish.
People don't decide. Insurance companies do. It is why states have established a baseline for requirements, so people like you aren't taken for a ride. That is the least you can hope for. As a business, insurance companies aren't looking forward to pay for your coverage, they're looking for denying it.
People, as in underwriters decide. Whether they work for the government (medicaid, tricare, or medicare coverage) or private insurance company, you are not the one who decides. That is precisely why I favor a cafeteria plan of coverage. I don't want infertility coverage, pregnancy coverage, coverage for lap band surgery, etc. I want major medical coverage, aka, catastrophic coverage but I'd prefer to not have to pay for coverage that I don't want or need. Why is that decision being taken away from me? The problem with baseline requirements is that they are no longer a baseline. The increasing number of mandates for non-medically necessary procedures/drugs, etc. is out of control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
And where has been the opposition to it by the same folks who have been screaming their lungs out against contraceptives? Whispering in a discussion board doesn't cut it.
It's not my fault you were asleep at the wheel when hoards of complaints were lodged over insurance company mandates for Viagra coverage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Complicit to who? If that is your best argument, that the states (or the general opposition) is sold out to insurance company lobbyists. One can always play the game. But, I demanded logic for response.
No, not insurance company lobbyists, pharmaceutical lobbyists. There is nothing illogical in my argument.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's a prescription drug that is paid for by insurance for certain medical conditions but not covered for recreational uses. How is that any different than prescribing BCP for hormonal imbalances, endometriosis, or acne (medical conditions) vs. its more common use as pregnancy prevention (recreational use)?
, hence, not covered.
