This could get interesting.

[RidgeHunter]

So is their position that if it is medically necessary in some cases it should be given out free in all? I know some people that use canes for medical reasons. I know others that carry them for completely non medical reason. Should the government force insurance companies to supply everyone because a small minority need them for medical reasons?

I dunno, I'm not "them". That seems to be the position of some people, yes. I'm sure many of these people want a single-payer type system, but I obviously can't speak for all of them. That may be their desire, but the issue on the table now is the government mandating a certain level of coverage by insurers. Let's stick with that for now.

If it comes down to it going through why not offer a compromise. The insurance companies will only be forced to pay for the ones who have a prescription from a Doctor showing a valid medical reason for needing them? The folks who want these items for non medical reasons buy their own?

I'm sure some would be satisfied with that, and some wouldn't. In the Fluke testimony she talks about cases where they had legit diagnoses from the doctors and were still grilled by university staffers and ultimately denied coverage. Some might be happy with no blanket ban and a provision for "if your doctor says you need it, you get it" type deal.

Personally, I don't see much if any difference between birth control and anti-anxiety meds or cholesterol meds or anything else. Or getting a mole removed from you face that is no threat to your health (GET A MOLE REMOVED SO YOU ARE MORE ATTRACTIVE AND CAN HAVE MORE SEX THAT WE'RE PAYING FOR!!!). All things I've seen people get insurance to pay for. Now, the issue is that the government is not necessarily forcing insurers to cover these things - if you want to look at it that way.

 

[sanjuro893]

You're oversimplifying the position. Some people, like Fluke, are gunning at the idea that birth control (not condoms) is sometimes necessary for medical reasons, etc. - and more or less insinuating that a blanket ban on coverage of it more or less stems from antiquated beliefs and/or sexism rather than anything else, including a cost/benefit analysis on the part of the insurers.

Now, the position a lot of these people take in regards to the governments role in the healthcare arena is pretty contentious, and it's certainly a position a lot of people are going to disagree with for their own reasons. It really all boils down to whether or not you the the federal government is overstepping its bounds with such mandates in the healthcare arena. It really doesn't have much if anything to do with birth control - that just happens to be the issue on the table so to speak. It could us as easily be something else they want the government to step in and mandate.



Tell me about it. The kind the government provides is unwanted and unlubed.

I get what yer sayin'. If it wasn't this particular mandate, it would be something else.

 

[Stan Upchurch]

Thank you all for your words and thoughts. You've made a boring Saturday afternoon a time of excitement for this old retired historian/minister. Go in peace.

 

[ripnbst]

I don't see how the government can force a private entity to do anything.

Oh wait, the government can do anything it wants because we let it get too big(to fail).

 

[donner]

i'm curious about something. After all these "i don't see how the government can" posts. Does anyone have a problem with the government telling food companies that they can't use rotten meat? Or put poisonous levels of arsenic in our food. Or lead in our paint? Or meds that companies know wont cure anything?

I'm not saying the govt. always gets it right (i think they are getting it wrong more and more often), but that doesn't change the fact that there are things the government does do, which aren't spelled out in the constitution, that we benefit from.

 

[Hobbes]

I'd like to know how the government can force Jehova's Witness parents to allow a blood transfusion for their critically ill child.
I'd like to know how the government can deny mormons their right to polygamy.

 

[RidgeHunter]

Does anyone have a problem with the government telling food companies that they can't use rotten meat?

Dude, did you forget what forum you're on? We just had a dude lambast TR for the Federal Meat Inspection Act not more than a few days ago.

pregnancy is optional! Why should I pay for pregnancy because a woman loves sex?!

ahahahahaha

This is pretty much the same thing. I don't think blanket bans on pregnancy-related coverage would be nearly as popular, tho.

 

[donner]

This is pretty much the same thing. I don't think blanket bans on pregnancy-related coverage would be nearly as popular, tho.

Pregnancy isn't a medical condition, though. It's a gift from God.

 

[RidgeHunter]

For those that don't know, Obamacare says maternity and newborn care is an "essential health benefit" that must be covered by 2014.

Where's the outrage over the government forcing insurers to pay for babies? Babies aren't a medical condition. Don't want to pay for a delivery? Don't have sex! Why do people expect insurance to cover maternity care and birth?

Also, babies are a hell of a lot more costly than some hormones, for the penny pinchers.

 

[donner]

For those that don't know, Obamacare says maternity and newborn care is an "essential health benefit" that must be covered by 2014.

Where's the outrage over the government forcing insurers to pay for babies? Babies aren't a medical condition. Don't want to pay for a delivery? Don't have sex! Why do people expect insurance to cover maternity care and birth?

Also, babies are a hell of a lot more costly than some hormones, for the penny pinchers.

makes it hard to argue with those who say the GOP only cares about 'babies' until they are born.