Insurance Companies Would Save Money by Giving Away Contreceptives
Sure thing
Side Score: 11
|
 |
I don't get it.
Side Score: 12
|
|
|
|
|
No, because insurers have hoodwinked America and gained the system in their favor by monopolizing regions, picking and choosing whom they insure, eliminating those who actually need to cash in on the insurance they've paid through "pre-existing" condition clauses, all while driving up costs to such a degree that a deductible is what you would pay anyway should their particular insurance have never existed. However it would drive down costs if health insurance was not horribly fucked up. It's pretty simple. 1. A condom is a contraceptive. A condom protects against 99.8% of STDs. STDs are more expensive than condoms. 2. Reasonably many who do not want to get pregnant cannot afford a child. A child a parent cannot afford raises insurance costs for everyone more than the price of contraceptives. That would only be the case where insurance was held to some sort of standard though. Side: Sure thing
your #1 is stupid. it is stupid because you didn't think when you said it. a condom is a f'ing condom. all this bullshit about abortion and contraceptives is about women's rights. condoms cost like 99 cents at a gas station, bro. no one needs insurance to cover that. um. #2? was that English? people who don't want babies don't have sex. the statement for this debate is misleading. insurance companies wouldn't be "giving away contraceptives". if they were, who would be paying for them? Side: I don't get it.
1. Something that contracepts a baby is a contraceptive. And if you bother to read the third grade bill (did you write it?) It gives employers the right to deny that too. I was making a point about how retarded the bill is 2. People have sex and don't want babies all the time... you sad ridiculous person. And they are paid for... They're called premiums and insurance companies are fleecing America with them. We have the most expensive health system in the word, over twice as expensive as england, number two. Meanwhile our healthcare is ranked 24, behind a couple 3rd world countries. And big insurance and pharmacy have tricked most christians (not hard to do) and a swath of libertarians into the bs you seem so proud to have just spewed. Side: Sure thing
|
1
point
1
point
Couldn't they see a decrease depending on how many pregnancies are avoided that the insurance company would have to pay for? Pregnancy is expensive, contraceptives are pretty cheap in lower volumes. So long as the volume of contraceptives given out isn't too high it should result in less cost for insurance companies, and competition should result in lower premiums. Side: Sure thing
1
point
Granted, pregnancy is expensive, but it is no excuse to abuse the system and get free contraceptives, and act in life as there are no consequences or responsibilities. Sex is a human pleasure, but it should be respected with dignity and not used as a tool to get free gimmes. Using contraceptives as a means to prevent pregnancies will only lead to more unintended consequences. Side: I don't get it.
Not if providing comparatively cheap contraceptives prevents expensive diseases like cervical cancer, aids, Hepatitis, etc, and prevents more children born into families who cannot afford to pay for all of the illnesses these kids inevitably will get through the course of childhood. Side: Sure thing
1
point
1
point
It is a risk, the transitory stage from the current methods to giving away contraceptives would raise their cost for a temporary period since they would have to cover both; lowering their profitability while other insurance companies do things that improve their market share sooner. You invest in the lowermost risk, highest gain you can find. Thee are other options with less turn around, and thus less risk. Side: Sure thing
1
point
Don't some hospitals already give away insurance? Besides, I doubt the insurance money will reach the people it's supposed to be protecting from pregnancy. Studies show that the group most likely to get pregnant- the young to mid-twenties- are also the least likely to have insurance. Side: I don't get it.
The reason it does not save them money is because they know they can drop those with expensive or recurring diseases. If laws were in place that actually made insurance companies insure the people who have been paying premiums, most insurance would likely provide contraceptives as part of coverage, knowing it would save them money later. Since these loopholes have not been closed and insurers are still somewhat free to collect years of premiums than not cover those ill, laws at least forcing them to provide this part of women's healthcare (which by the way they have paid for, this debate is about people paying premiums, not free healthcare as the right has framed it) seems more than fair. Side: Sure thing
|
