Lisnpuppy Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 @Vagrant0: If you like sprinkles on your ice cream why would you go to an ice cream shop that does not offer sprinkles? If an ice cream shop was losing customers because they refused to offer sprinkles to customers who expect them to be available why would they continue to refuse to offer that product? If an ice cream shop could attract customers away from a competitor by offering the sprinkles that their competitors lack why would they choose not to? If you need a particular medication (birth control or anything else) and you want it to be covered by your insurance why would you choose an insurance company that does not provide that service? If an insurance company is losing customers because they refuse to offer a particular service then why would they continue to refuse to offer that service? If an insurance company could attract customers away from a competitor by offering a service that their competitor lacks why would they choose not to?You do realize that many people do not have a choice on their insurance provider? If you are fortunate enough to get insurance through your workplace then it is likely that you only get a small choice of the plans offered (if that) and not several different providers. There is a basic monopoly on the insurance/pharmacy issue as Vagrant hinted to as there is no ability to engage in free competition for the most part. It takes years and years for a drug to become generic so that other companies can engage in making it which causes prices to remain high for a long, long time. Insurance companies that take meds off their plans do not leave much choice for the consumer to shop elsewhere for other insurance providers or even for medications at a lower price as it is simply not available. I think (But don't quote me here) that medication rights can stay "copyrighted" (the proper word leaves my brain-its very early here lol) for as long as 7-10 years. That is a long time. I am diabetic and the cost of some of the meds I take is absolutely insane. My insurance even dictates at what pharmacies I can take my business further limiting the choices that I have. I am fortunate to have decent medical coverage but I often have to fight the medical necessity of even my diabetic meds. Having worked for some many, many years for an insurance company auto plans (the medical payments department) I know how the medical necessity game is played. So when you have only a choice of one insurance provider or if you can not afford to "shop around" for one that will cover basic medical necessities then this issue becomes difficult. I personally believe that the issue of birth control coverage by "Obamacare" providers has become not one of economics but rather one of morality. It isn't largely the insurance companies themselves that begin denying these coverages but the workplaces on a moral ground. Birth control pills are used for many things other than birth control. It also has been shown (and I will try to find the link for you on this) to be a significant health benefit to women and reduce overall health care costs. However the issue really is more about who is exactly deciding that the coverage should not exist or not be provided. Most insurance plans up to know provided birth control coverage. Though it was a fight for some time it was a regular part of most coverages of late. The morality of the time is saying that birth control, though of medical benefit and often medical necessity is not a medical condition. Viagra is covered by most insurance companies as a medical condition which is the excuse to pay it. That is the issue but now not being touted by the insurance only but the workplace (who often works with insurance companies to make plans and coverage that they will pay for and the worker gets little choice in coverage-it isn't an a la carte kinda thing.) That morality is being imposed on medications and there is no alternate recourse for the consumer to take their business elsewhere to force the providers to make changes or get jobs somewhere else to get coverage not overseen with moral eyes. Free enterprise typically works as you know, a company doesn't provide a need so you go find one that does. Company looses money to the competitor so it changes its way of doing business to remain competitive. The insurance and pharmaceutical markets really do not have this competition and thus people are forced by in large into small, select and limited choices which often is no choice at all (as they also can not change workplaces.) I apologize if this rambled a bit. I really need some coffee. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagrant0 Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 If an insurance company could attract customers away from a competitor by offering a service that their competitor lacks why would they choose not to?Because they lose more money by covering that thing than they would gain by attracting customers. It's clear that you've never had to look into your own health insurance. In many parts of the country there aren't many options, and what options which do exist are more or less equal because all parties involved KNOW that they have a collective monopoly. Cut-rate insurance plans usually don't offer ANY coverage for medication. Middle tier plans cover some medications, but mostly only those related to accidents or diseases. Higher tier plans may have covered some non-essential medication, but at that point the cost of the difference between the plans and what they cover is usually greater than just buying the medicine yourself without any coverage. Free market systems don't work when any group can maintain a monopoly. At some point you have to leave Disneyland and deal with how things are in reality. In a reality, it makes more sense for companies who can set their own price to come to a collective agreement on those prices where they all make a ludicrous amount of money, or where the raw statistics project an avenue of coverage to be a financial loss. If the raw statistics project an avenue of coverage as a financial loss, there is simply no reason why they would want to cover it, especially when you have people who want that coverage. Insurance companies only earn money if people buy into it, but don't need it at that moment. Continuing to argue things from the standpoint of a commodity exchange doesn't work because the nature of the business is not one of product for payment. Insurance is instead a business of payment now for potential repayment in the future, provided terms and conditions apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rizon72 Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 You can support an idea and not be for either side. That's a problem of today, someone agrees with one idea of the left or right and you are automatically considered to agree with every idea for that group. Just because someone agrees with what Huckabee says, doesn't mean they agree with everything he says or Republicans say. So let me get this straight, he is defending Huckabee because he supports the same ideas Huckabee stands for yet claims he wants to get rid of federal prohibiting laws? How is restricting a woman's reproductive rights not be a prohibiting law? Color, I said idea, not ideas. And yes, you can defend Huckabee for saying what he said, and not agree with it all. For example, I am for gay marriage, but it doesn't mean I agree with everything someone who supports gay marriage is for as well. We are complex people, and each side has many sides. Its not black and white like those in the media tend to tell us it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted January 26, 2014 Author Share Posted January 26, 2014 (edited) So let me get this straight, he is defending Huckabee because he supports the same ideas Huckabee stands for yet claims he wants to get rid of federal prohibiting laws? How is restricting a woman's reproductive rights not be a prohibiting law? Color, I said idea, not ideas. And yes, you can defend Huckabee for saying what he said, and not agree with it all. I don't think I can be any more clear than to say that Huckabee is crap. Then what "Idea" is TRoaches really actually defending that relates to Huckabee? Other than Huckabee's right to say something, seems pretty clear TRoaches called Huckabee "crap'.... On a side note, one thing I find ironic was not too long ago during the 2008 election cycle so many conservatives use to rant if Obama was ever elected president they would leave the country and move to either Canada or Australia... Which I would like to remind those people that those countries also have socialized medicine where their governments either mandates or provides contraception.... Edited January 26, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rizon72 Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 Color, I voted for Obama the first time (though if I had to do it over again I'd vote for someone else), and if you want to bring up leaving the country, when are the people who said they'd leave when Bush got voted in a second time going to leave? As for TRoaches, the only one who can say what he defends or not is TRoaches, not me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted January 26, 2014 Author Share Posted January 26, 2014 (edited) @rizon72 You seem to over look my example and just read "leaving the country if Obama is elected".... The reason why I brought up conservatives threating to leave the country if Obama was elected is because of the hypocrisy leaving one country to move to a more socialized nation when it comes to healthcare. Nations that have always provided contraception, where as there isn't even a debate whether it should be provided or not... Edited January 26, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 Free market systems don't work when any group can maintain a monopoly. There has not been a free market in medicine for a very, very long time. If monopolies exist it is not because the medical industry was running wild on the free market. That has been one of the most tightly regulated industries during the last 50 years. In a reality, it makes more sense for companies who can set their own price to come to a collective agreement on those prices where they all make a ludicrous amount of money, or where the raw statistics project an avenue of coverage to be a financial loss. If the raw statistics project an avenue of coverage as a financial loss, there is simply no reason why they would want to cover it, especially when you have people who want that coverage. In reality if a company will incur a loss by providing a particular service, and the federal government MANDATES that they provide that service, what will the result be? Will that company remain viable while losing money? Will their prices remain the same for their customers who do not need that particular service if that service, or will they have to increase their prices for everyone? In reality price fixing is illegal, and if you really can prove that price fixing occurs in the insurance industry you should take it to your state's attorney's office. I am sure there is a prosecutor somewhere who would love make a name for him or her self by busting open an insurance price-fixing ring. It is interesting to note that, at least as far as I can find out with a quick online search, insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws at a federal level, though such monopolies are prohibited by state law in apparently every state. It wonder why an executive administration so deeply committed to providing affordable health care to every citizen would choose not to overturn that antiquated law? Could it be that their bedfellows in the insurance industry asked them very nicely not to touch it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted January 27, 2014 Author Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) There has not been a free market in medicine for a very, very long time. If monopolies exist it is not because the medical industry was running wild on the free market. That has been one of the most tightly regulated industries during the last 50 years. Even more of a reason to have socialized medicine in my opinion.... In reality if a company will incur a loss by providing a particular service, and the federal government MANDATES that they provide that service, what will the result be? Will that company remain viable while losing money? Will their prices remain the same for their customers who do not need that particular service if that service, or will they have to increase their prices for everyone? In "reality" this has been happening to companies even before the government mandate.... don't really see the concern since a company can just file bankruptcy... but at least people won't be left without healthcare if this happens, thanks to the ACA.... In reality price fixing is illegal, and if you really can prove that price fixing occurs in the insurance industry you should take it to your state's attorney's office. I am sure there is a prosecutor somewhere who would love make a name for him or her self by busting open an insurance price-fixing ring. It is interesting to note that, at least as far as I can find out with a quick online search, insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws at a federal level, though such monopolies are prohibited by state law in apparently every state. It wonder why an executive administration so deeply committed to providing affordable health care to every citizen would choose not to overturn that antiquated law? Could it be that their bedfellows in the insurance industry asked them very nicely not to touch it? "Maybe" because the average american doesn't have the money or the time to pursue such a legal case... and those who are wealthy enough are not concerned about how much they are paying for healthcare.... Edited January 27, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Republicans have always advertised themselves as the "Christian" right, a fair few of them are Catholic, and part of their beleifs is "be fruitful and multiply." Therefore, birth control, and abortion are big no-no's in their belief system. That is reflected in the legislation they try and pass. For my part, I don't think the government should allow their religious views, which not everyone shares..... to dictate what laws they choose to pass. If you don't believe in birth control, don't use it. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. If you are a doctor, and subscribe to the same belief system, don't prescribe birth control, and don't perform abortions. Just because YOU don't think it is ok, doesn't mean that it is wrong for EVERYONE. THAT is what I have a major issue with. Don't restrict my rights based on some ancient book, that I DO NOT subscribe to. As for the "Alcohol is taxed, and therefore its ills are paid for" mindset. Tell that to my friends wife, and his three kids, that don't have a husband/father anymore, because a DRUNK DRIVER killed him. There ain't no fixin' dead. This is one of those instances where I think the punishment should fit the crime. (but, that's for another topic) As for the laws I would like to see go away. ANY laws that tells me what I can/can't do with my own body/with my own property, that does NOT infringe upon someone elses rights. If I want to sit out in my yard, and smoke pot, and drink till I pass out, that should be legal. If I want to snort coke until my nose glows, that should be legal. If I want to shoot herion into my viens, because it feels good, THAT should be legal. (but then, I think anyone that voluntarily sticks a needle into themselves for damn near any reason, has a couple screws loose.....) Darwin will have his way with those that can't control themselves. In all reality, I don't see that as a bad thing. Bear in mind, dumping nuclear waste in my back yard SHOULD be regulated, as that WILL have an impact on my neighbors, so, lets not even go down that road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted January 27, 2014 Author Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) As for the laws I would like to see go away. ANY laws that tells me what I can/can't do with my own body/with my own property, that does NOT infringe upon someone elses rights. If I want to sit out in my yard, and smoke pot, and drink till I pass out, that should be legal. If I want to snort coke until my nose glows, that should be legal. If I want to shoot herion into my viens, because it feels good, THAT should be legal. (but then, I think anyone that voluntarily sticks a needle into themselves for damn near any reason, has a couple screws loose.....) Darwin will have his way with those that can't control themselves. In all reality, I don't see that as a bad thing. Bear in mind, dumping nuclear waste in my back yard SHOULD be regulated, as that WILL have an impact on my neighbors, so, lets not even go down that road. Bare in mind... these things you want are far from what the Republican party would tolerate.... If anything I can see the start of the legalization of marijuana to be the start of this thinking which neither political party has tried to grab a strong hold on as of yet.... It's only a matter of time before what you want though will be liberated under Democratic control because historically red states have been the last to get rid of any sort of prohibition.... Edited January 27, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts