#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Washington state considers mandatory abortion insurance. What do you think?
In 1970, Washington became the first -- and remains the only -- state in the country to legalize elective abortions by a popular vote.
A generation later, and 40 years removed from the landmark United States Supreme Court Roe v. Wade ruling that extended abortion access nationwide, Washington is once again poised to stand out.
With 21 states having adopted bans or severe restrictions on insurance companies from paying for abortions, Washington is alone in seriously considering legislation mandating the opposite.
Yes
Side Score: 20
|
NO
Side Score: 25
|
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
1
point
Purchase of insurance is a voluntary exchange of a person who wants to be insured payment for an incident and a service that can offer that payment, so long as the person subscribes to monthly payments with or without needed service. That is the point. When legislation forces people to purchase insurance, they are merely increasing profit for a company that provides a service. Many people don't get abortions, so many people don't wish to purchase insurance for an abortion. Not to mention there are many options for when you get pregnant, and one can choose accordingly based on what they want. So abortion insurance is not high in demand. most people, though, are willing to do a lot to keep themselves from dying from cancer. This is why insurance that covers cancer patients is in high demand. It is profitable for insurance companies to offer coverage for cancer patients because most people would be willing to pay for that type of insurance. However, with most companies not profiting from abortion insurance, it greatly benefits them when the government forces people to purchase abortion insurance. Also, abortions aren't even expensive enough to really justify subscribing to abortion insurance for a long time unless it came as part of a plan. It makes no economic sense to force people to buy abortion insurance. And more importantly, I'd see this as coercive acts of government forcing a populace to give their money to a company. I don't even see how anyone benefits from this EXCEPT for the insurance companies... Side: NO
Purchase of insurance is a voluntary exchange of a person who wants to be insured payment for an incident and a service that can offer that payment, so long as the person subscribes to monthly payments with or without needed service. That is the point. Not even close to the point. The point is what medical procedures are covered by insurance companies and which are not. It is about forcing insurance that people already have to cover a specific procedure. It is no different than saying an insurance company must cover removal of a spleen, outside of the superstitions surrounding abortion specifically. When legislation forces people to purchase insurance, they are merely increasing profit for a company that provides a service. Unless people decide they want medical treatment when needed, insured or not. Which no surprisingly they do. In that case the more people who are insured the less expensive it is for everyone, whether they need an abortion or not, whether they need a kidney removed or not. Many people don't get abortions, so many people don't wish to purchase insurance for an abortion. Not to mention there are many options for when you get pregnant, and one can choose accordingly based on what they want. So abortion insurance is not high in demand. Do more people get abortions then say typhoid fever? So perhaps only the flu and colds should be covered? I mean, by comparison nothing is really in high demand. most people, though, are willing to do a lot to keep themselves from dying from cancer. This is why insurance that covers cancer patients is in high demand. It is profitable for insurance companies to offer coverage for cancer patients because most people would be willing to pay for that type of insurance. Same argument is above. Health insurance covers many things specifically because any one thing is not in high enough demand to be "profitable." It is a matter of what insurance is forced to cover and what they are not, it is not a matter of picking and choosing which cable channels you want. However, with most companies not profiting from abortion insurance, it greatly benefits them when the government forces people to purchase abortion insurance. Also, abortions aren't even expensive enough to really justify subscribing to abortion insurance for a long time unless it came as part of a plan. If one is already paying for health insurance, why should that health insurance get to choose not to cover specific things? This is not about more profits for health insurance, it is about health insurance actually using the money people give them to provide health care, whatever that care should happen to be. It makes no economic sense to force people to buy abortion insurance. And more importantly, I'd see this as coercive acts of government forcing a populace to give their money to a company. I don't even see how anyone benefits from this EXCEPT for the insurance companies... Well, ideally we'd have universal healthcare. It would cost less for everyone and be more efficient. But since we do not, forcing insurance companies to use the money people are giving them anyway, for the healthcare, is the only sensible thing to do. Side: Yes
The point is what medical procedures are covered by insurance companies and which are not. Yes, and most shop for their insurance based on what they find most appropriate to their wants/values. It is about forcing insurance that people already have to cover a specific procedure. Yes. Forcing. It is no different than saying an insurance company must cover removal of a spleen, outside of the superstitions surrounding abortion specifically. You are not very well-read on the beliefs of pro-life people, are you? Either way, your disagreement with a certain value doesn't support forcing people to pay for something against that value. In that case the more people who are insured the less expensive it is for everyone, whether they need an abortion or not, whether they need a kidney removed or not. Untrue. If a procedure is forced by insurance companies to be payed for, medical professionals will naturally raise the cost of that procedure since they know all will have to pay for it. But I guess your solution is to set a pricing cap or something, and then we can argue about economics/inflation/etc. Do more people get abortions then say typhoid fever? So perhaps only the flu and colds should be covered? That is up to the service providers and the consumers. it is not a matter of picking and choosing which cable channels you want. Both are services appealing to a specific mentality. But at least with cable providers the government hasn't regulated it so much that it costs too much to exist without insurance. If one is already paying for health insurance, why should that health insurance get to choose not to cover specific things? They don't cover plastic surgery, lipo-suction (i mean, some do, but that's up to the consumer if they wish to get those products or not.) ideally we'd have universal healthcare. Why ideally? This implies the ultimate system of force and healthcare price inflation. And elimination of competition. If the poor is really the problem, ideally we would have a healthcare voucher program. This boosts competition and decreases price gouging. forcing insurance companies to use the money people are giving them anyway, for the healthcare, is the only sensible thing to do. Why? Just because YOU like abortions? Not everyone thinks its moral, you know. And is your only real argument that "abortion good, laws must force people to pay for abortion." C'mon now, you're basing too much of your argument on some kind of false consensus. I'm against abortion regulation because I'm against the State enacting legislation to promote morality. This goes both ways. Side: NO
Yes, and most shop for their insurance based on what they find most appropriate to their wants/values. No, most have insurance through and employer and have no say in what is and is not covered. Most live in areas with 2 or 3 choices at most. Most insurance colludes to carve out these areas to not compete with one another and agree on a framework for coverage. All this does is say that people paying for this insurance now must receive this additional coverage. Yes. Forcing. Yes, "forcing insurance that people already have to cover a specific procedure" which is a different argument than forcing people to buy a type of insurance. So you now at least agree on the premise of the argument and will no longer argue the false premise that I'm sure I'll see guitar and prayerfails repeating in different words over and over, in my inbox once I'm done here. Untrue. If a procedure is forced by insurance companies to be payed for, medical professionals will naturally raise the cost of that procedure since they know all will have to pay for it. But I guess your solution is to set a pricing cap or something, and then we can argue about economics/inflation/etc. Considering we pay almost double what any other country pays for the 32nd ranked healthcare, I'm pretty sure there is room for better service along with price cuts. The insurance industry will survive. More importantly more people will get the service that will help them live longer. That is up to the service providers and the consumers. It has been and see where it's gotten us. Both are services appealing to a specific mentality. But at least with cable providers the government hasn't regulated it so much that it costs too much to exist without insurance. This is not what has happened with insurance. Insurance is more expensive here because we have the least regulation of it of any other country. It is a necessity so companies are able to monopolize while offering worse and worse service and pricing out any upstarts that try to get into the industry. They don't cover plastic surgery, lipo-suction (i mean, some do, but that's up to the consumer if they wish to get those products or not.) They do not for vanity, but they do for burn victims, obese when a doctor recommends it, etc. Abortion is not a vanity issue, it's a health issue for one individual up to the third trimester. Why ideally? This implies the ultimate system of force and healthcare price inflation. And elimination of competition. If the poor is really the problem, ideally we would have a healthcare voucher program. This boosts competition and decreases price gouging. No, universal health care ideally gets rid of insurance all together which eliminates the vast majority of health costs. It also ideally would eliminate stock holders, which would eliminate the desire for profits over service. Doctors can make more. Individuals pay less. Everyone wins except the people who are currently getting rich whilst doing nothing but coming up with reasons not to treat people and ways to keep people unhealthy and in need of expensive care. Why? Just because YOU like abortions? Not everyone thinks its moral, you know. And is your only real argument that "abortion good, laws must force people to pay for abortion." I like abortion? In caps? C'mon now, you're basing too much of your argument on some kind of false consensus. I'm against abortion regulation because I'm against the State enacting legislation to promote morality. This goes both ways. Abortion is legal. It doesn't matter whether I like it, hate it, like it in caps. You cannot base an argument about coverage on whether you are morally for that thing or against that thing. That question is inconsequential. Side: Yes
most have insurance through and employer and have no say in what is and is not covered. 1. Only because of government incentive for companies to cut employees' pay in trade for health benefits. As well, this also increases demand for insurance which increases prices. And as insurance supply goes up, health care officials charge more. 2. If government didn't incense a business to provide health benefits but they did it anyway, it is really up to the employees and employers on what is best for them. So you now at least agree on the premise of the argument and will no longer argue the false premise Shopping doesn't change, so no, I disagree with you. Considering we pay almost double what any other country pays for the 32nd ranked healthcare, I'm pretty sure there is room for better service along with price cuts. I'm sure you're sure. The insurance industry will survive How unfortunate. It needs to collapse and make way for small competing businesses. But I suppose this represents our opposing viewpoints. More importantly more people will get the service that will help them live longer You mean more people will pay into a system that bureaucracises (SIC) the healthcare industry (and to add government on top of it, a double stuffed bureaucracy. Pizza Hut ought to trademark that). It has been and see where it's gotten us. This is why I sometimes don't even care about arguing the plight of the healthcare industry with someone with this mindset. In short, no it hasn't. The four 15 minute videos are a great introduction. Insurance is more expensive here because we have the least regulation of it of any other country. Refer to the videos on why this is incorrect. It is a necessity so companies are able to monopolize while offering worse and worse service and pricing out any upstarts that try to get into the industry. Insurance is not a necessity. Direct health care is. Insurance is a century old service that provides a means of INSURING people, not cutting their costs, and in many ways it actually ends up being a waste of money. As a start it was a great idea, but over time most can see it as obsolete. However, thanks to the government's assistance towards insurance companies, they've made them "too big to fail" keeping innovation in the healthcare industry (specifically in insurance) static and non-competitive. Abortion is not a vanity issue, it's a health issue It can be a health issue. It can be a convenience issue. That is not for the government to decide. universal health care ideally gets rid of insurance all together which eliminates the vast majority of health costs. No, it monopolizes insurance. And if all healthcare professionals are part of Universal Healthcare, it monopolizes the entire healthcare industry. Costs only go up at that point. It also ideally would eliminate stock holders, which would eliminate the desire for profits over service. Profits are a result of service. Do you believe that doctors work for free? In the private sector, those doctors are part of a charity. In the public sector... well, they don't exist. Too many regulations would be one of the many issues. Doctors can make more. Individuals pay less. Right, the doctors are getting money from the magic money tree that government discovered over 60 years ago. The infamous "Free Lunch" I've been hearing about. But of course, you probably mean that rich people will just have higher taxes. Of course, increase taxes, pay the government, everyone wins 8l Everyone wins except the people who are currently getting rich whilst doing nothing but coming up with reasons not to treat people and ways to keep people unhealthy and in need of expensive care. Lol, I should have kept reading. so predictable. Abortion is legal. It doesn't matter whether I like it, hate it, like it in caps. You cannot base an argument about coverage on whether you are morally for that thing or against that thing. Yes, it's legal. That doesn't somehow give you a pass for forcing people to pay for it. Side: NO
1
point
I understand insurance being I am in the industry. Not sure what kind of idiot compares cancer to abortion where the former is uncontrollable and the latter is controllable. Apparently, your brain can't distinguish between uncontrollable and controllable factors in life. Insurance is alleviates risk of uncertainty in the future of unexpected events, and since nobody knows if or when someone may get cancer, insurance lowers the risk of uncertainty while sex is an expected daily activity, so there is no need to force people into purchasing abortion insurance especially if it is a controllable factor in life, pregnancy is expected events in many women lives, thus, this would skyrocket the price of abortions. Side: NO
Apparently, your brain can't distinguish between uncontrollable and controllable factors in life. Okay, a broken leg then. You should be against insurance covering broken legs because that is controllable. Why make insurance cover anything? Why not just send them a check every month and pay for all healthcare ourselves? This is about making insurance use the money people already give them for the healthcare they are supposed to be covering. It is about what insurance covers. Side: Yes
1
point
How is a broken leg an controllable factor in life? I suppose Ware of the Louisville Cardinals planned on breaking his leg right in one of the biggest games of his life. Nobody knows when broken legs are going to occur, so this is why healthcare exists to limit financial hardship due to uncertainty in life. Why would I be against covering broken legs? Insurance only exists to limit uncertainty in life, not cover everything under the Sun. What insurance covers is in all contracts whether group or individual. Side: NO
It's controllable as in you can control the actions which lead to the broken leg. You are saying that abortion is controllable as in you can control the factors which lead to pregnancy. So yes, the analogy is correct. Your argument is that one should not have to pay for whatever portion of insurance goes toward fixing a broken leg if one does not anticipate, or is somehow incapable of getting, a broken leg. It is the same argument. So is a cold contracted from not washing hands. So is food poisoning contracted from not washing vegetables. There are a million things insurance covers which can be prevented. What insurance covers is in all contracts whether group or individual. And this is a portion of that contract. You are trying to treat abortion special, you are trying to treat it as a different thing than all other healthcare matters. It is not. It is a healthcare matter. Side: Yes
2
points
No same sequence of action all lead to a broken leg, so a broken leg is still unpredictable and uncontrollable. Nobody can predict that an certain number of actions leads to a controllable event such as a broken leg. Almost all the same sequences of sex except in fertility cases does it result in pregnancy, which means controllable event. That is not my argument, that is a strawman. People pay for insurance because they can't anticipate when they will brake a leg or get cancer because these are uncontrollable events, so insurance limits the financial burden. Insurance certainly doesn't cover a million things that are preventable. That is not what insurance is. Insurance gives incentives for preventable actions like lower premiums and deductibles for non smokers because they are a lower risk, yet will cover still because getting cancer from smoking is not a 100% expected life event. Abortion is preventable because pregnancy is preventable, thus, it is a controllable life event. Side: NO
Insurance certainly doesn't cover a million things that are preventable. Thousands than. The point is they cover preventable things. The only defense for not covering this particular preventable thing is belief that thing "morally wrong." Or in the case of insurance companies, the only reason is anything to make more money for doing less. The rest is just window dressing. If you think abortion is evil and wrong, fine, don't get one. If you feel it is your moral duty to force others to believe fairy tales concerning that cluster of cells, fine, join one of those debates. But currently abortion is legal, it is a medical procedure, therefore it should be covered by medical insurance. Side: Yes
2
points
Insurance doesn't cover preventable things involving direct action, that is not what insurance is for the fourth time. It only insures uncertainty. Things that are uncontrollable like getting a cold or broken leg. I don't think abortion is evil or bad because the woman has very right to do whatver she wishes to do her body as she pleases. She owns her body. It is a medical procedure but not should covered under health insurance. Side: NO
I disagree. I think that a portion of her check is going toward health insurance, and if they are taking her money she has a right to that coverage. At least you are not arguing "You're making other people pay for her abortion!" You can't argue with that type of angry mentality no matter how false the entire premise is. So now that we realize that she is paying and it is a medical procedure, and it is only a matter of what that money she is paying should go toward and what it should not, I think we can come to an agreement somewhere. Let's pretend she decides she wants that child. It's been nearly a decade, but if I remember right when you work for a company that provides insurance X amount is taken out of your check and there is a big long contract, and some pay more or less and have a few options, but it's about the same price--$15, $20 here and there extra for this and that, but about the same. You would know better than me how that works exactly but that was about right I think. Then when someone needs to cover family, you're talking like $50, $100 extra right? Something like that per person with some kind of limit? Here's where I believe we begin to run into problems when we allow insurance to pick and choose what is and what is not covered. She has that kid and she works in the cubicle next to me. I see a doctor once or twice a year including the dentist, she did about the same and we paid about the same. But kids, kids are there like monthly for one thing or another. Well now she's using way more of that lump sum of money than I am, way more than the $100 or so more she's paying. So how much more do you charge her? Should I be upset her dumb sick kid is always sick? I don't know. My world-view is different than yours obviously, and I actually don't mind. I think it's a good thing that when people are in need we pool resources so it costs less. But okay, I get that no everyone sees it that way. Say I see it as unfair. Say I see it as infringing on my liberty, me paying a portion of my monthly bill to her kid. Do I then have a justification for encouraging abortion? I'm not even talking legislation, but do you think it is right to make it cost-wise, prohibitive for women to have kids unless they are able to pay the bulk of that healthcare for that kid on their own? I happen to not, maybe you do maybe you don't, but the point of that example is that, under the system in which we currently function it would be completely out of the question to encourage abortion based on cost, why then, functioning under the current system and ignoring whatever overall theory one may have on how it should function, why is it okay to do the opposite? I do not believe this debate is about costs, or forcing people to pay, those things exist in other areas and no one has a problem. There are no debates about those other things specifically. I believe that this is a smoke-screen for anti-abortion. Since they are not able to make it illegal the backup plan is making it prohibitive from the angle of cost. It just happens to fall nicely in line with some libertarian ideologies, which is why I have you ThePyg, and Guitar arguing with me. But you'd not be if the scenario were the one I laid out I don't believe. Side: Yes
2
points
Of course, money is going to pay for health insurance, and of course, she has a right to be covered for medical procedures because of the contract. What don't you understand about risk and uncertainty? This is the whole point of pooling resources together because it lowers risk and financial uncertainty based on controllable and uncontrollable events. Sex and pregnancy are completely 100% controlled events, nobody falls and slips into vagina or penis. The reason why abortion can't be covered because again, pregnancy is a everyday occurance, it happens without a dout. Insurance Premiums will increase because pregnancy by no means lower risk of anything of uncertainty. It actually increases risk and financial certainty. Insurance is not about picking and choosing, it is more like everything is under the Sun is not covered. Sure, I understand your scernio, but the cost of medical insurance like abortion increases costs because it is including events that are expected in life that dont lower risk and uncertainty but rather increase those. Imagine the price of gas if it were covered by auto insurance, it would skyrocket because of the haphazard third party paying system of insurance. It is more like being responsible for controllable events in life and having to pay for irresponsible decisons and learning from those mistakes. No smoke screen for anti-abortion. Side: NO
I believe the $300 or so one-time cost is much cheaper than 18+ years of that child's health care. You've convinced me. As a cost measure, abortion should be encouraged. Any woman who gets an abortion instead of having that baby should not only have it covered but should get a 50% discount on her next 3 insurance bills. ... if abortion saves money, why would it not be covered, similar to the way insurance gives discounts for not smoking, or for gym memberships you mentioned earlier? Side: Yes
1
point
Seriously, why would you equate the cost of one medical procedure to that 18 years of the child's health care? Not sure if you know this, but most couples who have children want them because they want to share something special in their lives where they are responsible for the child's well being, which means paying premiums, abortion is a last resort with special circumstances. On the other hand, you are just trying to these cost measures as a means to justify irresponsible women to have unlimited unprotected sex and not have to pay a dime where society should pay the $300 now as much cheaper alternative than paying 18 years of the child's health care. Side: NO
The point is that "I shouldn't have to pay for another person's abortion" is not really a valid argument when the alternative is actually more expensive. When you apply the exact same argument in support of abortion it suddenly sounds pretty bad as you point out, and suddenly nearly anyone who thought that was a valid argument think it's now a terrible argument. Which means that argument cannot be used without a large dose of hypocrisy. Don't get me wrong, it will be used, over and over and over again, but it should not be. So, what legitimate argument is left? Accepting that this is the health insurance system we operate under whether we like it or not, in this system the only argument left is "I'm against abortion" Which is fine, but abortion is legal and it is not health insurance' place to legislate what it thinks is "right or wrong," that is an argument to be had in courts and voting booths. Side: Yes
1
point
Actually, not only is my previous agrument valid, but this is valid arugment as well because the majority of people are responsible who take sex and pregnancy seriously and understand the responsibilities either by raising a child or buying condoms. The only way irresponsible women will learn is if they pay for abortion out of their pocket or the costs of raising a child without being government since they thought they were mature enough to raise a human being. Not against abortion, either pay more in premiums or higher deductibles due to the increased risk or out of pocket. Side: NO
Actually, not only is my previous agrument valid If the exact same argument can be applied to the exact opposite situation it is necessarily and invalid argument. There's no way around that. I did show that to be an invalid argument. But as I think I said to you or maybe Pyg, people are bound to keep using it anyway so let's move on... the majority of people are responsible who take sex and pregnancy seriously and understand the responsibilities either by raising a child or buying condoms. The majority of people also don't get cancer. Majority is not a basis for what should or should not be covered I don't believe. The only way irresponsible women will learn is if they pay for abortion out of their pocket or the costs of raising a child without being government since they thought they were mature enough to raise a human being. That sounds a bit angry huh? Do you think you can teach them to stop being such sluts by making them have kids, or by making sure they pay more money? I hope not. The fact is that not every woman who wants or needs and abortion is irresponsible, and there is a good argument to be made that in some cases abortion could be the more responsible choice. It is also the case that it would be the child being punished when you are getting into government assistance as far as food and whatnot, but that's a different subject entirely. The circumstances and reasoning are not anyone's business. That some have the incorrect idea that the majority of abortions are flippant decisions made in the moment by irresponsible individuals is not a good enough reason to "punish" every woman who wants this procedure. Not against abortion, either pay more in premiums or higher deductibles due to the increased risk or out of pocket. If insurance weren't so overpriced, and if insurance had not spent the last several decades dodging legitimate claims while price gouging, I might agree that an extra charge for that type of coverage would be perfectly acceptable. That is not the situation though and I understand and completely support WA State's decision given current circumstances. Side: Yes
1
point
You haven't proven that agrument is invalid at all. Again, cancer is uncontrollable, pregnancy and sex is controllable. How many times do we have to go over this? Never claimed that majority is the basis for what should and should not be covered. What does determine coverage is risk and uncertainty. Responsibility usually comes when people take accountability for their decisons such as paying for abortions out of their pocket or raising children. This is what people do. Actually, abortion is an act of irresponsibility because of lack of protection or respect for the act of sex. Anyone who takes government assistance should be ashamed, but some families generations that they cant take care of their own resonsiblities. The children are just victims to dependency. Charity can always fill the void to help those in extreme circumstances. Insurance is only overpriced because of government constant intervention invoking mandates forcing people to pay coverage of things that dont limit risk and uncertainty. Side: NO
Again, cancer is uncontrollable, pregnancy and sex is controllable. How many times do we have to go over this? Never claimed that majority is the basis for what should and should not be covered. What does determine coverage is risk and uncertainty. I don't need to prove cancer is controllable, I only need to prove anything under the sun any insurance covers is controllable. Anything. And I've done that. A cold. A flu. Chicken pox with a vaccine "well you didn't get the vaccine, that was your choice so no insurance isn't going to cover medicine for your chicken pox." You are holding one thing that you don't like others having, sex, to a higher standard based on, in your case I'm guessing from your weird negative view that everyone is always out for themself and so let it all burn (libertarian), you want to punish them. Well, they shouldn't be punished. Get over it. Responsibility usually comes when people take accountability for their decisons such as paying for abortions out of their pocket or raising children. And making them pay for flu shots out of pocket will teach those bastards to wash their hands! Same thing. Actually, abortion is an act of irresponsibility because of lack of protection or respect for the act of sex. Unless the condom broke, or they were raped, or the pill didn't work, or they timed it wrong, or there is a problem with the pregnancy and abortion is a medical necessity, There are a million "unlesses" and as much hatred as you have for people in general and how much you want them to suffer personally because everyone except for you is irresponsible and everything is their fault no matter what, The real fact is outside of that dark philosophical corner is that there are a million scenarios where abortion is not irresponsible, arguments for abortion being responsible are just as strong as any arguments against, and what circumstances lead to the abortion are none of your business (which if "libertarian" was not just a hypocritical neo-conservative Atlas Shrug set of philosophies based on disproven economic theories and ways of getting masses to fall for those disproven theories) would be self-evident. I digress. The point is, it is not irresponsible in every case. No more than a broken leg is always irresponsible in every case. Sometimes it might be, sometimes it is not, but they pay for the insurance so the abortion should be available as well as the cast. The children are just victims to dependency. Charity can always fill the void to help those in extreme circumstances. That's just stupid. If a woman has insurance she has a job, hence your hateful dependency arguments, which are complete bs anyway, have nothing to do with the argument. You want to put people who get abortions in this box, where they are all irresponsible jobless hobos. Ignoring that irresponsible jobless hobos should be the exact people you should encourage abortions for, it's not true. They are paying for insurance. They are not irresponsible jobless hobos any more than the person who has their dental checkup covered by their insurance. And charity has nothing to do with this argument at all. That's just some of your hatred for any social program that helps people pouring into an unrelated debate. Insurance is only overpriced because of government constant intervention invoking mandates forcing people to pay coverage of things that dont limit risk and uncertainty. That also is not true, again, as we see in real life outside of these disproven theories, because we currently have the least regulation and the most expensive and one of the worst insurance systems in the world. Every system with more government control than we currently have has better insurance and it is also more affordable insurance. So cute as those theories are, they don't work. Time to put them to rest with theories like the earth is flat and sky has holes in it. Side: Yes
1
point
Same logic. You seem to not understand the point of insurance. You can't really claim that its the same logic when cancer and abortion are two very different things. An abortion is what comes after a pregnancy and a pregnancy is a controllable factor for the most part. Cancer on the other hand is not for the most part, sure, sticking you're head in the microwave and chain smoking may cause certain kinds of cancer, but it is still largely an uncontrollable factor. Why should a non-sexually active women be forced to pay for abortion insurance? Why should any women be forced to pay for abortion service for that matter? I thought you were a feminist, you know, the old idea that women are strong, independent and capable of running their own lives (which they certainly can), so why are you telling them what to do in the insurance market? Side: NO
You can't really claim that its the same logic when cancer and abortion are two very different things. An abortion is what comes after a pregnancy and a pregnancy is a controllable factor for the most part. Cancer on the other hand is not for the most part, sure, sticking you're head in the microwave and chain smoking may cause certain kinds of cancer, but it is still largely an uncontrollable factor. There are thousands of diseases and injuries which are as controllable (or more controllable in the case of rape) than pregnancy. And the insurance people pay for covers these things. There is no reason the insurance people already pay for could not also cover this medical procedure. Why should a non-sexually active women be forced to pay for abortion insurance? It is the same insurance. It is an additional service that insurance people already pay for would now cover. This is the cancer/broken/leg etc. argument. If I'm an amputee and have health insurance through a company, and that insurance covers broken legs, no one has ever argued that the amputee should get the "broken leg" discount. Why should any women be forced to pay for abortion service for that matter? They shouldn't be if they are insured. Insurance should cover it. Glad you've come around. I thought you were a feminist, you know, the old idea that women are strong, independent and capable of running their own lives (which they certainly can), so why are you telling them what to do in the insurance market? If that is the definition of feminist, then sure I'm one. Don't tell them.. But it is about forcing insurance to cover a procedure, again. Side: Yes
0
points
There are thousands of diseases and injuries which are as controllable (or more controllable in the case of rape) than pregnancy. And the insurance people pay for covers these things. There is no reason the insurance people already pay for could not also cover this medical procedure. If you pay for an insurance plan that doesn't include abortion why should the "insurance people" be forced to cover abortion? Now if you want to force abortion coverage onto every plan, then you are also forcing the cost of abortion coverage onto every plan. It is the same insurance. It is an additional service that insurance people already pay for would now cover. Does their plan include abortion coverage? No? Then they aren't already paying for it, you're just making it mandatory that all plans cover abortions, thus, making it mandatory that all customers pay for abortion coverage. If someone wishes to not pay for abortion coverage for whatever reason, that is between them and the insurance company, not the government. They shouldn't be if they are insured. Insurance should cover it. Glad you've come around. Its very simple: You force the cost of abortion coverage for all females on the insurance company, the insurance company the forces the cost of abortion coverage on to all females. If that is the definition of feminist, then sure I'm one. Don't tell them.. It used to be, until people like her turned the movement into an over-sensitive, sexist ideology. But it is about forcing insurance to cover a procedure, again. Again, if your force the insurance to cover abortions, then the insurance will force their customers to pay for it. Side: NO
If you pay for an insurance plan that doesn't include abortion why should the "insurance people" be forced to cover abortion? Now if you want to force abortion coverage onto every plan, then you are also forcing the cost of abortion coverage onto every plan. Because the person who is getting an abortion is "forced" to pay for other people's prostate cancer treatment, or their prescription for anti-depressants, or their physical therapy after a car wreck, etc. All of which are more expensive than coverage for abortion when taken as a whole. Does their plan include abortion coverage? No? Then they aren't already paying for it, you're just making it mandatory that all plans cover abortions, thus, making it mandatory that all customers pay for abortion coverage. If someone wishes to not pay for abortion coverage for whatever reason, that is between them and the insurance company, not the government. As we see, leaving insurance up to insurance companies leads to the most expensive health coverage in the world and the 32nd ranked service in the world. It is a piss poor system. You either need to force insurance to cover health costs and regulate pricing, or you need to get rid of health insurance and implement universal healthcare. Otherwise, as we see, health insurance finds reasons to charge more and cover less. Its very simple: You force the cost of abortion coverage for all females on the insurance company, the insurance company the forces the cost of abortion coverage on to all females. It's very simple: You force the cost of cancer treatment for all people covered who get cancer on the insurance company, the insurance company forces the cost of cancer treatment on all people. Same thing. Again, if your force the insurance to cover abortions, then the insurance will force their customers to pay for it. Unless you put laws in place which force insurance companies to spend at least 80% of profits on healthcare, which is in place. In that case insurance rates will still go down for everyone, even whilst making them provide the services they are paid to provide. And health insurance continues to reign as the 3rd most profitable industry in the world, only after oil and drugs. Everyone wins. Side: Yes
1
point
Because the person who is getting an abortion is "forced" to pay for other people's prostate cancer treatment, or their prescription for anti-depressants, or their physical therapy after a car wreck, etc. All of which are more expensive than coverage for abortion when taken as a whole. They did not have that coverage forced into their plans by the government, so they are not being forced to pay the cost. As we see, leaving insurance up to insurance companies leads to the most expensive health coverage in the world and the 32nd ranked service in the world. It is a piss poor system. I agree, having a bureaucratic mess riddled with corporatist regulations is a terrible outline for a healthcare system, except you wish to continue adding more regulations, bureaus and have suggested a government monopolization of the industry, where as I wish to take the free market approach. It's very simple: You force the cost of cancer treatment for all people covered who get cancer on the insurance company, the insurance company forces the cost of cancer treatment on all people. No because I am not legally forcing the insurance company to cover cancer, where as you want to legally force the insurance company to pay for abortions. If I choose a coverage plan with cancer, its not being forced. If you have the government force insurance companies to include abortion coverage into all their plans, then it is being forced. Unless you put laws in place which force insurance companies to spend at least 80% of profits on healthcare, which is in place. In that case insurance rates will still go down for everyone, even whilst making them provide the services they are paid to provide. They must spend at least 80% of profits on coverage, you force them to cover another cost, thus, their profits go down, so either they have to spend less money on coverage or raise prices. And health insurance continues to reign as the 3rd most profitable industry in the world, only after oil and drugs. Everyone wins. Oh god, they're making... money? -shutters- It just makes me sick, knowing that people have business that make money, especially in large amounts! Side: NO
They did not have that coverage forced into their plans by the government, so they are not being forced to pay the cost. Sure they are. They are being forced by their insurance. I agree, having a bureaucratic mess riddled with corporatist regulations is a terrible outline for a health care system, except you wish to continue adding more regulations, bureaus and have suggested a government monopolization of the industry, where as I wish to take the free market approach. Which has proven to be an excellent approach for selling Coke, iPads, movies, video games, etc. But people don't have an instinctual need for those things. They do have an instinctual need to try to continue living, which is way too much power to put in the hands of private industry, I believe. I believe they will inevitably exploit that for greater profit. Now, your approach could work if there were not such a wide gap in wealth and there were not such incentive to price for the very richest only for greater profit, we could guarantee at least the vast majority of insurers were altruistic in their intentions, doctors were able to and wanted to donate a portion of their time to healing those who may not be able to afford insurance even in this utopian society, and probably you'd have to take insurance off of the market so there are no stockholders and their priority could legally be people over profits. You'd then need a groups of philanthropists willing to fund projects and studies... That world unfortunately does not exist, so I believe universal care to be the best system possible for health care. No because I am not legally forcing the insurance company to cover cancer, where as you want to legally force the insurance company to pay for abortions. If I choose a coverage plan with cancer, its not being forced. If you have the government force insurance companies to include abortion coverage into all their plans, then it is being forced. They are legally forced to cover cancer treatments though. Only recently and long due, but they are now forced to cover that. You seem to have this idea that most people truly have a choice. That is not how insurance works for most people in most places. Most areas have 1 and at the most 3 choices, and those are choices only for the company they work for, so really they have the "choice" of taking the company insurance or not taking it, and the options within that are very limited. They must spend at least 80% of profits on coverage, you force them to cover another cost, thus, their profits go down, so either they have to spend less money on coverage or raise prices. This may surprise you, but insurance has for years been spending nearly as much on lobbying, commercials, and bonuses for themselves, as on treatment and research. Shocking right ._. This while denying thousands and thousands treatment resulting in death in many many cases. Woohoo free market! Anyway, forcing them to spend this percent on treatment has already lowered costs and when they do not spend 80% they actually have to send individuals rebates, and they have done this already. Oh god, they're making... money? -shutters- It just makes me sick, knowing that people have business that make money, especially in large amounts! Sarcasm noted. I don't mind companies making money, that's a good thing. I do mind them do so at the cost of human life and whilst gobbling up a huge portion of our GDP. Greed for the sake of greed should not be rewarded. Side: Yes
1
point
Cancer and pregnancy are very different! One is a disease, and the other is caused by sex and is natural! It's apples and oranges! Okay then, as I've pointed out to everyone else. A broken leg. That's as preventable as an abortion, just be more careful, or don't walk around. This is about what insurance people pay for should cover. Abortion is a medical procedure, it should be covered under medical insurance. Not to mention, Ah, but you're going to anyway... paying for abortions violates religious freedoms, No it doesn't. You don't have to get an abortion just like you don't have to treat cancer, or have a broken leg set. If you are against it don't do it. Side: Yes
|