Republican candidates and birth control... (Representatives, state government, state, federal)
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.
The instant they took money from the government, they accepted that the government may or may not put limitations or requirements in order to keep receiving said funds. If they don't like the terms, then they don't accept government money.
It's that easy.
So you think that accepting government money means that we give up all our rights?!?! You can't be serious! That's rediculous! Our constitutional rights trump all else, no amount of money can take away our rights like that!
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 was my point. Who did you think I was talking about? Or, is this a way to deflect from the core point, that is a tussle between people (as in consumers) and insurance companies?
Quote:
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?
Being? I take it that you were unaware of the responsibilities you had, until now? Should I get to decide what your idea of coverage should be?
Quote:
No, not insurance company lobbyists, pharmaceutical lobbyists. There is nothing illogical in my argument.
A logical argument doesn't ignore a logical argument. It doesn't shy away from presenting both sides. Yours made for a crippled argument, I completed it, by highlighting that if you believe pharmaceutical lobbyists are the only reason most states have mandated contraceptive coverage, then you must also believe that opposition to contraceptive coverage is a collective influenced by lobbyists from insurance companies. That is how logic works.
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.
Then the hospital bills I received where the medications were covered under the hospital visit and didn't touch my prescription drug coverage were wrong?
Cool.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatyousay
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.
So insurance companies should be able to review any and all medications that a person is taking?
That should remain between the doctor and the patient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatyousay
See above. Insurance coverage is insurance coverage.
Except, like every plan I've ever had, it's broken down into categories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatyousay
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.
Classify and/or tier all the drugs.
For me, certain medications cost $A, some $B, and some $C.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatyousay
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.
And I don't agree with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatyousay
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.
Which is why, in my statement, I say that if a hospital receives government money, they deal with the strings.
One of those strings should be for their religion to not interfere with their work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatyousay
No. Only drugs prescribed to treat a diagnosed medical condition should be covered with an approved diagnostic code.
And I think all drugs, whether for getting the little man up to full force or preventing pregnancy, should be classified and/or tiered under a prescription drug coverage. Cherry picking is a waste.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatyousay
I don't understand your panty fetish.
P4NT13S 4R3 4W3SOM3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyndsong71
So you think that accepting government money means that we give up all our rights?!?! You can't be serious! That's rediculous! Our constitutional rights trump all else, no amount of money can take away our rights like that!
Limitations to rights exist.
Scream fire in a crowded theatre and you can be arrested, for instance.
That is the point. You depend on a collective to pay for your conveniences.
No, I pay into a collective that pays for neccesities, not conveniences. Police, fire, roads are not convenient, they are for safety and actual 'GENERAL WELFARE" or the people. Birth control does not apply to the general welfare of the people, no matter how you try to paint it!
No, I pay into a collective that pays for neccesities, not conveniences. Police, fire, roads are not convenient, they are for safety and actual 'GENERAL WELFARE" or the people. Birth control does not apply to the general welfare of the people, no matter how you try to paint it!
Should I define what should be "necessities" for you?
That was my point. Who did you think I was talking about? Or, is this a way to deflect from the core point, that is a tussle between people (as in consumers) and insurance companies?
What IS your point then? You said that I don't get to decide what coverage I get. I agreed, which is why I prefer cafeteria plans. Your point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Being? I take it that you were unaware of the responsibilities you had, until now? Should I get to decide what your idea of coverage should be?
That is the benefit of a cafeteria plan, you decide what coverage YOU need and/or want, not me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
A logical argument doesn't ignore a logical argument. It doesn't shy away from presenting both sides. Yours made for a crippled argument, I completed it, by highlighting that if you believe pharmaceutical lobbyists are the only reason most states have mandated contraceptive coverage, then you must also believe that opposition to contraceptive coverage is a collective influenced by lobbyists from insurance companies. That is how logic works.
You are probably correct that there are insurance company lobbyists who are actively lobbying against the BC mandate. That wasn't my only argument, btw.
Then the hospital bills I received where the medications were covered under the hospital visit and didn't touch my prescription drug coverage were wrong?
Cool.
*Sigh* Explaining to you how insurance coverage and billing works is getting tiring. It does not matter if the drugs used during your hospital stay were covered by your prescription plan or major medical plan. It's all the same insurance company, correct? Many plans do not even differentiate between the two, it's all part of your comprehensive coverage, which is how mine works. The bottom line is that you did not pay out of pocket, it was covered by your insurance company, be it your prescription coverage or medical coverage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gallowsCalibrator
So insurance companies should be able to review any and all medications that a person is taking?
That should remain between the doctor and the patient.
If you don't want an insurance company to review your claims for coverage, you are free to not use insurance for medical costs. Touche.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gallowsCalibrator
Except, like every plan I've ever had, it's broken down into categories.
Classify and/or tier all the drugs.
For me, certain medications cost $A, some $B, and some $C.
Blah, blah, blah who cares. I don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gallowsCalibrator
Which is why, in my statement, I say that if a hospital receives government money, they deal with the strings.
One of those strings should be for their religion to not interfere with their work.
I don't disagree too much, but simply receiving payment for services rendered under medicare/medicaid don't count, IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gallowsCalibrator
And I think all drugs, whether for getting the little man up to full force or preventing pregnancy, should be classified and/or tiered under a prescription drug coverage. Cherry picking is a waste.
LOL, there is no cherry picking. It's either an approved diagnostic code for a medical condition or it isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gallowsCalibrator
P4NT13S 4R3 4W3SOM3.
If you say so. Looks like something one of my 13 year old son's friends would send in a text message.
Last edited by gallowsCalibrator; 03-07-2012 at 12:42 PM..
Reason: Discuss topic, not poster.
No, they said immoral.
But simply having these men who think birth control is immoral ANYWHERE NEAR the white house scares the **** of out me.
I live in Colorado and in 2008 my state TRIED to pass a bill that would make birth control illegal. So it's not like people aren't trying. I voted HELL NO by the way.
really? who said it was immoral? name names, and give quotes.
Quote:
I just wanted to know what people's opinions are on having someone in office who thinks birth control is immoral, in a country where their beliefs could possibly infringe upon those who aren't religious and don't have an issue with birth control.
again name names and give quotes.
Quote:
I think we should keep all religion out of office, it has no place there, I don't want my country lead by some religious nut who thinks the way some of these men do.
Honestly if you have a penis you have no right to say anything about what women do with their bodies or spout out how immoral you think something is.
i agree that religion should be kept out of politics, and that includes the things obama tries to use to justify his policies. it wont happen however so live with it.
personally i dont care what you do with your body, you want to have sex with 50 men per day every day, that is your business not mine. however if you want birth control, you should pay for it yourself, not have other people pay for it for you.
Quote:
This is a free country and the last thing we need is some oppressive religious guys who could care less about womens rights and too much about what the bible says, when no one can even prove god is real.
again, who doesnt care about womens rights? name names and give quotes. if you think people in this country are against womens rights, check out what happens in islamic countries when women have relations with men they are not related to, or betrothed to. think honor killings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gallowsCalibrator
If the government says "You will do this in order to receive our money", and the "this" interfered with your religious practice, then yes. If there was a law on the books that forbade the drinking of all alcoholic products while on any sort of welfare, unless religious ceremonies are explicitly exempt, it would include religious-based use of alcohol (such as with nearly every Jewish holiday).
Plain and simple, money comes with strings. Government money comes with strings. If you don't like the strings, don't take the money.
what part of
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
The part where people think that their rights are absolute no matter what.
Though, it's not that I don't understand.
It's that I'm too busy laughing at how silly they come off.
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.
