Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
NEWS FLASH
Guess what, pregnancy is NOT a disease!!!
Guess what, pregnancy is NOT a disease!!!
pro tip: pregnancy is a health concern.NEWS FLASH
Guess what, pregnancy is NOT a disease!!!
Prenatal and delivery care is very expensive. My son was born naturally about 10 years ago at the cost of $11K for delivery, and about $5K for prenatal care. My daughter was born two years later for a cost of about $6K total. The difference is that my insurance policy with my son covered childbirth, while the policy with my daughter did not. What was the difference? I paid out of pocket for my daughter, as my insurance plan at the time did not cover childbirth (this is the norm with individually purchased health insurance). I had a vasectomy later on, which was covered by another plan (a group plan that also covered childbirth). I did have to pay a $75 or $100 copay, if memory serves...Or the savings obtained from less people getting knocked up offsets the costs for the insurance company?
You're only looking at one factor; Step back a moment and think about some other factors... With lower pregnancy rates you're going to have less pregnant ladies using their insurance for prenatal care, birth (I hear this can get expensive, $5k+?), etc - right? Less pregnant ladies means the insurance companies are paying less and then eventually pass the savings down (because presumably competition would force them to eventually)... So they raise rates to cover the cost of birth control and they lower them due to lower pregnancy rates... You think it'd cancel out at least? I'm willing to bet this move will actually drive insurance rates down, which is what it is designed to do in the first place.
Oh contraire mon frere . Righties don't kill doctors. Homicidal nut cases do.At least someone is trying to help prevent abortions. Righties just kill doctors. Can you imagine at how much money this would save?
And I do want to mention that this thread was started by a Libertarian who thinks he shouldn't have to pay for anything and is now complaining that others don't have to pay for something.
Pot, I would like to introduce you to kettle. Enjoy your date.
homicidal nut cases that profess right wing beliefs.Oh contraire mon frere . Righties don't kill doctors. Homicidal nut cases do.
I can agree with that, but you don't see 80% of the republicans in congress shooting doctors do you? Being "a righty" doesn't make you a killer.homicidal nut cases that profess right wing beliefs.
ROTFLMAO... thank you, I needed that : )If someone jumps off a bridge should others pay their bills as well?
Sure, but only if that person is an illegal alien of course.
Having sex is a conscious decision
What if she was unconscious?
Can't see it because it's not true; Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the Uk... ALL have more government intervention in their healthcare systems than we do and ALL of them pay less than we do - and Americans being fat doesn't even come close to making up the difference, either.Back in the stone age, before Johnson's Great Society, the health insurance that most people had only covered catastrophic care. For accidents and debilitation disease. Routine, normal office calls (btw, doctors made house calls then, also) were paid for out of pocket, because they were affordable. The poor were taken care of by charities.
Why has laser eye surgery continued to advance, even though the costs have come down. It is not covered on insurance, it is paid for out of pocket, therefore it is a very competitive industry and that keeps the cost down.
If you cannot or will not see that the rise in health care costs correlate to the intervention of government regulations, well... you can lead a horse to water but...
Are Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Spain or the UK... the US?Can't see it because it's not true; Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the Uk... ALL have more government intervention in their healthcare systems than we do and ALL of them pay less than we do - and Americans being fat doesn't even come close to making up the difference, either.
Hell, the UK pays less than the rest of them because they not only have socialized insurance, but they have socialized medicine - doctors are employees of the government... If anything, that shows that the trend is in favor of MORE government intervention in healthcare and not less.
Oh and, most if not all of the countries named are ranked higher than the U.S. in quality of care - not just in cost of care or availability.... I could go on and on but the point is clear, government intervention in healthcare reduces costs. You may not agree that universal healthcare is the responsibility of the government(constitutional questions, idealogy, etc), and that's fine, it's a valid opinion and of course you're entitled to your opinion - but not your own facts.
I was just getting ready to "like" your post and reply with my agreement, then I read the last line. I don't believe "profit" has to be a dirty word when it comes to health care. Like I said earlier, it worked before and it can work again.I just hosted somoe friends from Denmark. They don't pay a dime for HC. I asked about the wait times and they told me they can always get an appointment the same day. Just because America doesn't do it it doesn't mean it wouldn't work. Fact is, America has some of the best hospitals in the world but we have a poor HC system overall. There is no reason for us to be ranked 37th or something in the world. That's despicable.
Why should keeping people alive be such a profit based business?
In any good or service, you have three main components: cost/affordability, quality, and availability. You can pick two of them, but can never have all three. I'm not sure if the quality elsewhere is as high as you state (for example, why does the Saudi royal family and others choose the United States when they have a major surgery that needs to be performed?). From what I've read, the availability in Canada and the UK is atrocious - to the point that pets and farm animals receive the same care in a much faster time frame (I remember reading about a cat that received a MRI hours after the vet ordered one, compared to the weeks/months it can take in Canada. I read the denial rates in the UK are higher than they are here, along with a longer wait time to service as well.Can't see it because it's not true; Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the Uk... ALL have more government intervention in their healthcare systems than we do and ALL of them pay less than we do - and Americans being fat doesn't even come close to making up the difference, either.
Hell, the UK pays less than the rest of them because they not only have socialized insurance, but they have socialized medicine - doctors are employees of the government... If anything, that shows that the trend is in favor of MORE government intervention in healthcare and not less.
Oh and, most if not all of the countries named are ranked higher than the U.S. in quality of care - not just in cost of care or availability.... I could go on and on but the point is clear, government intervention in healthcare reduces costs. You may not agree that universal healthcare is the responsibility of the government(constitutional questions, idealogy, etc), and that's fine, it's a valid opinion and of course you're entitled to your opinion - but not your own facts.
by everyone else, do you mean the insurance company she pays every month with her own money?"and would you rather someone have a morning after pill, an abortion, or an expensive fucking baby?
short-sighted ideologues. fuckin' a, man"
At what point do people take responsibility for their own actions? If someone jumps off a bridge should others pay their bills as well?
Having sex is a conscious decision, and should be paid for by the one who makes the decision to have sex and not everyone else.
Nothing is free, your wife not being required to pay a co-pay leaves everyone else to pick up those costs. Why should others pick up part of your wife's costs?
 
Found here, via the Commonwealth Fund:In any good or service, you have three main components: cost/affordability, quality, and availability. You can pick two of them, but can never have all three. I'm not sure if the quality elsewhere is as high as you state (for example, why does the Saudi royal family and others choose the United States when they have a major surgery that needs to be performed?). From what I've read, the availability in Canada and the UK is atrocious - to the point that pets and farm animals receive the same care in a much faster time frame (I remember reading about a cat that received a MRI hours after the vet ordered one, compared to the weeks/months it can take in Canada. I read the denial rates in the UK are higher than they are here, along with a longer wait time to service as well.
If Canada's system is so good, why do they place restrictions on privately funded healthcare activities? It's like saying that our product is so good you'll never want to use our competitor's product, so we're going make our competitor's product illegal...
The six countries are: the U.S, Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.In a 2005 survey of sicker patients conducted in six developed countries, the United States ranked last on four measures of continuity of care and access problems reported by patients. The U.S. patients reported relatively longer waiting times for doctor appointments when they were sick, but relatively shorter waiting times to be seen at the emergency department, see a specialist, and have elective surgery.
Healthy people, especially young people, often go without insurance which makes the risk pool higher for those who do choose to have insurance and they pay more because of that; It'd be fine if they just had to pay a little more, but because of the lack of preventative care, access for the poor, and taxpayer funding that goes towards emergencies of those who are uninsured it ends up costing the U.S. at least twice as much for healthcare than every nation with universal coverage - and our coverage is already over 80%... So we could be paying less as a nation and have universal coverage OR we can be "free" to pay twice as much, for a lesser product, that's less available to the masses.Do you ever wonder why the governments who enact these entitlement programs make them mandatory? If something is a good product, it can and will stand on its own.