Then why doesn't insurance companies voluntarily cover contraception?

Meant to say contraceptives.

Then why doesn't insurance companies voluntarily cover contraception?

 

Boggles the mind, doesn't it?

Boggles the mind, doesn't it?

If it's true that it makes money for health insurance companies to cover it (which I would assume it would), then yes, it does boggle the mind.

If it's true that it makes money for health insurance companies to cover it (which I would assume it would), then yes, it does boggle the mind.

 

Insurance companies have figured out how to wring blood out of a turnip, which leaves me skeptical of the claim. I checked it out and the studies are conflicting about whether or not there would be a cost savings. Some indicators pointed to a savings while others pointed to additional costs. Imagine that?

Interesting. I found this article where Hannity defends insurance coverage for Viagra because it treats a "medical problem". But criticizes birth control coverage. So, it's okay for taxpayers to provide coverage for medication that treats an issue related to sex is ok for men....just don't expect the same for women.

Interesting. I found this article where Hannity defends insurance coverage for Viagra because it treats a "medical problem". But criticizes birth control coverage. So, it's okay for taxpayers to provide coverage for medication that treats an issue related to sex is ok for men....just don't expect the same for women.

 

It's not even the same, and I don't think anyone logical is arguing against it for women who have a condition it helps, i.e. endometriosis. But, if you don't have a diagnosed reason for needing it, why should insurance pay for it?

:lol:

Interesting. I found this article where Hannity defends insurance coverage for Viagra because it treats a "medical problem". But criticizes birth control coverage. So, it's okay for taxpayers to provide coverage for medication that treats an issue related to sex is ok for men....just don't expect the same for women.

 

It's Hannity, he's wrong but what else is new? Taxpayers should not pay for either.

Maybe there should be a thread on "Tax payers paying for Birth Control for Law Students". Everyone is placing so much emphasis on what Rush said and not even taking into account how outragous Sandys comments are.

 

Please show me where she said that taxpayers should pay. What she said was that contraceptives should be covered by insurance as routine care. No more. No less. If Georgetown is like most schools, the student pays for the health insurance policy. This was about what the policy would cover.

Please show me where she said that taxpayers should pay. What she said was that contraceptives should be covered by insurance as routine care. No more. No less. If Georgetown is like most schools, the student pays for the health insurance policy. This was about what the policy would cover.

 

That's the part no one wants to acknowledge. People are skirting this fact....the one where many insurance companies will not cover contraceptives...and are willing to distort this issue as one of morality. All based on nothing even remotely resembling fact.

Insurance companies should not by law be required to cover anything. But that horse left the barn long ago and grew into this monstrosity of a law that is now turning us against each other every day.

Please show me where she said that taxpayers should pay. What she said was that contraceptives should be covered by insurance as routine care. No more. No less. If Georgetown is like most schools, the student pays for the health insurance policy. This was about what the policy would cover.

 

That's the part no one wants to acknowledge. People are skirting this fact....the one where many insurance companies will not cover contraceptives...and are willing to distort this issue as one of morality. All based on nothing even remotely resembling fact.

This is where we are these days, people want something for nothing. Who pays for the increase? Surely not Sandy, she's already broke from paying for contraceptives, so the increase in her insurance for the coverage won't be welcome to her. I'm sure she wants that passed onto the rest of us.

No one is saying they want something for nothing. Again...we want insurance (which most of us pay for) to provide coverage for a medicine many women need, for various reasons. It's ridiculous that insurance covers Viagra because erectile dysfunction is considerdra medical condition. But for women who need to take the pill, the answer is to just stop having sex if they don't want to pay for it. Apparently medicine that has anything at all to do with sex is only important if a man can't get it up. As long as he can, it's all up to the woman to figure out how keep him from getting her pregnant....fully funded by herself. Because we wouldn't want to have a nation of female ****s. Only enough to satisfy the men who can get it up with or without their insured medical miracle medicines.

Edited March 4, 201214 yr by rockmom

Rush has apologized. Says he did not mean to personally attack Ms Fluke.

Rush has apologized. Says he did not mean to personally attack Ms Fluke.

 

You mean that he did not personally mean to say anything to result in losing advertising. :lol: