Jay just answered your question in plain English and you are feigning confusion because Rush Limbaugh won't let you accept his answer. Also, assuming your a republican, wouldn't you rather the state subsidize a pill that costs pennies to press than 18 years of childhood? Lastly, birth control is covered by most health insurance. If you are a state employee in most of this country, you get subsidized birth control. Its not like Obamacare created the concept that health insurance equates to birth control. Please ask your girlfriend/wife/sister if her jobs health insurance covers birth control. The likely answer is yes. Under your logic the difference between health insurance, flu insurance, surgery insurance, back insurance, and contraceptive insurance all need to be specified. I think you are intelligent enough to realize what a silly argument that is.
Jay just answered your question in plain English and you are feigning confusion because Rush Limbaugh won't let you accept his answer. Also, assuming your a republican, wouldn't you rather the state subsidize a pill that costs pennies to press than 18 years of childhood?
True, many people support eugenics.
Lastly, birth control is covered by most health insurance. If you are a state employee in most of this country, you get subsidized birth control. Its not like Obamacare created the concept that health insurance equates to birth control.
You politically-correct people are so funny. You've always said "it's a choice," "my body, my choice," "my choice, get out of the bedroom."
Newsflash: Insurance combined with choice is generally considered insurance fraud.
If someone buys fire insurance and then sets his stuff on fire, what is that called? If someone buys life insurance and commits suicide, what is that called? If someone buys lung cancer insurance and he smokes but doesn't tell his insurance provider, what is that called? If someone buys birth control pill purchasing insurance and then purposefully purchases birth control pills, what is that called? If someone buys car crash insurance and then purposefully crashes his car, what is that called?
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/insurance-coverage.asp
"Insurance coverage is issued by an insurer in the event of an unforeseen or unwanted occurrences."
"...when boiled down it comes down to the probability of the insured event actually occurring."
Please ask your girlfriend/wife/sister if her jobs health insurance covers birth control. The likely answer is yes.
It'd be easier for my wife to find a job, if not for trolls going to congress and suggesting "anyone who hires a woman and doesn't give her free ______ should go to jail."
Under your logic the difference between health insurance, flu insurance, surgery insurance, back insurance, and contraceptive insurance all need to be specified. I think you are intelligent enough to realize what a silly argument that is.
Of course it needs to be specified; before idiot #2 goes before congress and says that insurance needs to provide food coverage.
My god you just provided talking points instead of responding. So is it fraud to pay for anxiety medication with your insurance? What about heart disease medication? Cholesterol medication? Much of this subsidized medication, which people depend upon, is preventitive and not imminently necessary to keep someone alive. Its all covered by health insurance. More than half of working adults take medication. By your logic a lousy thyroid that requires meds at coverage? Fraud. Asthma problem? Fraud. Depression? Fraud. If anything those ailments which most people support subsidizing are more likely to result in fraud because not everyone suffers from those afflictions. All adults have sex. Many people get health insurance just to subsidize those aforementioned conditions and no one is arguing that having your heart pills knowingly covered constitutes fraud. Look up the legal definition of fraud.
Your argument that of course we need to parcel what is included under health insurance proves you lack the intelligence to refer to a congressman as "idiot #2". I was saying they are all health insurance and are defined as such. Why do we need 20 different terms when they are all already defined under the definition of health insurance? Do you really think health insurance isn't defined by statutes and coverage policies? Do you really think literally calling them "back insurance" and "flu insurance" will help? You also seem to be seriously confused about something, the government doesn't pay for health insurance. Employers and employees do. All the ACA did was add more regulations. The only people whose insurance is payed for by the government are state/federal employees such as myself. Guess what, part of my coverage still comes out of my paycheck.
Also, you were provided with logical arguments challenging your definition of health insurance. You ignored every argument. You accused us of being pro-life politically over correct atypical super liberals. Neither Jay nor myself made such an argument. We answered a question. You didn't like our answers so instead of challenging our logic like an adult you ignored it, put words in our mouth, and ranted. Lastly, birth control equals eugenics? My family tree was hacked limb by limb during the holocaust, that is beyond an insulting argument. I can't even begin to parcel your reason because its not there. Your wife can't get a job because of new health insurance mandates? Thats laughable. Primarily because most insurance in existence well before Obamacare provided subsidized birth control. You know what I'm done responding to you, its pointless.
I want to note that if anyone would like to rationally support AC I would love to hear it. Bitterroot, I am thinking of you in particular. I have nothing but respect for reasonable people challenging me and am happy to listen to opposing views, so long as they aren't quotes from whatever extremist news source you favor.
He has a point in that "insurance" is the wrong word for the prevention aspects of the service. "Health insurance" is two services tied together, with the prevention aspect to try to help avoid paying out the the disaster aspect. Personally, I think *society* should cover the prevention aspect, not corporations, and this whole issue becomes moot. Really, if you think it's important enough for everybody to have, then "everybody" should pay for it, not non-governmental entities.
All adults have sex.
Nice generalization you got there. It's still a choice (usually) and if you can't afford the consequences or the prevention, then you shouldn't partake. I'm only in favor of subsidized birth control because it's cheaper than an "accidental" kid, and for some reason a lot of people seem incapable of making good choices (which is what I hope you mean by your absolute statement).
I knew some one was going to call me out on that generalization. I'm not rescinding it. The number of life long virgins is so low it shouldn't be counted as at all significant. Its a fundamental part of the human experience. Just like breathing and walking. The percentage of people who are life long virgins is probably lower than those who can't walk or breathe without mechanical aid. The percentage of people who have sex is certainly far higher than the percentage of people who need heart pills. There is no controversy about those.
[quote from="Jay13x »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/debate/450397-hobby-lobby-and-obamacare?comment=620"]Same concept. What is birth control coverage, then?
I've already explained it multiple times in this thread, it's the insurance company covering the cost of a medication. Can you please just elaborate on what you are trying to get at? I'd like to discuss your actual opinion and not give you healthcare 101 that I know you don't need.
He has a point in that "insurance" is the wrong word for the prevention aspects of the service. "Health insurance" is two services tied together, with the prevention aspect to try to help avoid paying out the the disaster aspect. Personally, I think *society* should cover the prevention aspect, not corporations, and this whole issue becomes moot. Really, if you think it's important enough for everybody to have, then "everybody" should pay for it, not non-governmental entities.
Socialized Healthcare? This is America, man
More seriously, however, I absolutely agree with you. We need to do away with Medicare and Medicaid and Subsidies, and create a single-payer system. But that's an entirely different debate. Socialized anything is a dirty word here in the US, where the specter of the cold war still hangs heavy over many Americans and where people on unemployment rail against socialization without any hint of the inherent irony.
Nice generalization you got there. It's still a choice (usually) and if you can't afford the consequences or the prevention, then you shouldn't partake. I'm only in favor of subsidized birth control because it's cheaper than an "accidental" kid, and for some reason a lot of people seem incapable of making good choices (which is what I hope you mean by your absolute statement).
This isn't a reasonable solution, although to be fair to you it's something I bought into for a very long time. Look at the implications of abstinence-only sex education in states, and then compare it to the states with the highest rates of teen pregnancy. They line up almost perfectly. So why does simply insisting that people not make bad choice work? Because sex is a biological imperative, and is critical to any relationships. To expect people to abstain from sex is a very puritanical view that doesn't reflect reality. Obviously, not 'everyone' has sex, but for the couples that do, the women face far, far more risks than the men.
So why does that matter to us at the societal level, or why should we be responsible? Outside of the social importance, preventing unwanted pregnancies is very important to the economy - and in more ways than most people seem to think. Pregnancies for single mothers is ready for more kids tends to lead to the children being stuck at the same socioeconomic level as the mother, and the mothers tend to be stuck at a low socioeconomic level. That means more people dependent on social programs and creating a cycle that it very hard to break out of. Even for your average middle-class woman, being able to control when they have children can make the difference between class. Pregnancy is a long-term and far reaching medical condition that completely changes the lives of the mothers (and the father, when present, which is another point). I'm not in favor of having a full half of our population be nothing more than incubators and child caregivers simply because they got a XX instead of a XY, and birth control can largely free women from that burden until they're ready.
Alternatively, we could actually teach all our kids about sex and pregnancy prevention so they have all the facts, but that seems about as likely as a socialized healthcare system.
I recognize that abstinence-only isn't realistic, that's why I said I'm in favor of subsidized birth control. I just wish more people would think with their heads rather than their hormones before doing something with extreme, lasting consequences, but that's idealistic.
Sex is not so deep a biological imperative that you literally die if you don't. That's the crucial distinction. Not breathing -> death, No heart pills -> death, No sex -> *not death*.
Yes but sex is the purest form of pleasure and all people seek out pleasure. We can limit food stamps to essential government made nutrient loaves but people enjoy the taste of food. Also no sex would equal the death of our race. Lastly I believe not having sex is harmful to the psyche. People need to feel another person to feel complete. Trust me I know, I have gone through many a dry spell and after a few months you don't feel as good.
My god you just provided talking points instead of responding. So is it fraud to pay for anxiety medication with your insurance? What about heart disease medication? Cholesterol medication? Much of this subsidized medication, which people depend upon, is preventitive and not imminently necessary to keep someone alive. Its all covered by health insurance. More than half of working adults take medication. By your logic a lousy thyroid that requires meds at coverage? Fraud. Asthma problem? Fraud. Depression? Fraud. If anything those ailments which most people support subsidizing are more likely to result in fraud because not everyone suffers from those afflictions. All adults have sex. Many people get health insurance just to subsidize those aforementioned conditions and no one is arguing that having your heart pills knowingly covered constitutes fraud. Look up the legal definition of fraud.
Your argument that of course we need to parcel what is included under health insurance proves you lack the intelligence to refer to a congressman as "idiot #2". I was saying they are all health insurance and are defined as such. Why do we need 20 different terms when they are all already defined under the definition of health insurance? Do you really think health insurance isn't defined by statutes and coverage policies? Do you really think literally calling them "back insurance" and "flu insurance" will help? You also seem to be seriously confused about something, the government doesn't pay for health insurance. Employers and employees do. All the ACA did was add more regulations. The only people whose insurance is payed for by the government are state/federal employees such as myself. Guess what, part of my coverage still comes out of my paycheck.
Also, you were provided with logical arguments challenging your definition of health insurance. You ignored every argument. You accused us of being pro-life politically over correct atypical super liberals. Neither Jay nor myself made such an argument. We answered a question. You didn't like our answers so instead of challenging our logic like an adult you ignored it, put words in our mouth, and ranted. Lastly, birth control equals eugenics? My family tree was hacked limb by limb during the holocaust, that is beyond an insulting argument. I can't even begin to parcel your reason because its not there. Your wife can't get a job because of new health insurance mandates? Thats laughable. Primarily because most insurance in existence well before Obamacare provided subsidized birth control. You know what I'm done responding to you, its pointless.
I want to note that if anyone would like to rationally support AC I would love to hear it. Bitterroot, I am thinking of you in particular. I have nothing but respect for reasonable people challenging me and am happy to listen to opposing views, so long as they aren't quotes from whatever extremist news source you favor.
[quote from="Jay13x »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/debate/450397-hobby-lobby-and-obamacare?comment=620"]Same concept. What is birth control coverage, then?
I've already explained it multiple times in this thread, it's the insurance company covering the cost of a medication. Can you please just elaborate on what you are trying to get at? I'd like to discuss your actual opinion and not give you healthcare 101 that I know you don't need.
The insurance company will give them money when they buy it? Where does the insurance company get the money from?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard: [leftovers from booster drafts]
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
My god you just provided talking points instead of responding. So is it fraud to pay for anxiety medication with your insurance? What about heart disease medication? Cholesterol medication? Much of this subsidized medication, which people depend upon, is preventitive and not imminently necessary to keep someone alive. Its all covered by health insurance. More than half of working adults take medication. By your logic a lousy thyroid that requires meds at coverage? Fraud. Asthma problem? Fraud. Depression? Fraud. If anything those ailments which most people support subsidizing are more likely to result in fraud because not everyone suffers from those afflictions. All adults have sex. Many people get health insurance just to subsidize those aforementioned conditions and no one is arguing that having your heart pills knowingly covered constitutes fraud. Look up the legal definition of fraud.
Your argument that of course we need to parcel what is included under health insurance proves you lack the intelligence to refer to a congressman as "idiot #2". I was saying they are all health insurance and are defined as such. Why do we need 20 different terms when they are all already defined under the definition of health insurance? Do you really think health insurance isn't defined by statutes and coverage policies? Do you really think literally calling them "back insurance" and "flu insurance" will help? You also seem to be seriously confused about something, the government doesn't pay for health insurance. Employers and employees do. All the ACA did was add more regulations. The only people whose insurance is payed for by the government are state/federal employees such as myself. Guess what, part of my coverage still comes out of my paycheck.
Also, you were provided with logical arguments challenging your definition of health insurance. You ignored every argument. You accused us of being pro-life politically over correct atypical super liberals. Neither Jay nor myself made such an argument. We answered a question. You didn't like our answers so instead of challenging our logic like an adult you ignored it, put words in our mouth, and ranted. Lastly, birth control equals eugenics? My family tree was hacked limb by limb during the holocaust, that is beyond an insulting argument. I can't even begin to parcel your reason because its not there. Your wife can't get a job because of new health insurance mandates? Thats laughable. Primarily because most insurance in existence well before Obamacare provided subsidized birth control. You know what I'm done responding to you, its pointless.
I want to note that if anyone would like to rationally support AC I would love to hear it. Bitterroot, I am thinking of you in particular. I have nothing but respect for reasonable people challenging me and am happy to listen to opposing views, so long as they aren't quotes from whatever extremist news source you favor.
Same concept. What is birth control coverage, then?
I've already explained it multiple times in this thread, it's the insurance company covering the cost of a medication. Can you please just elaborate on what you are trying to get at? I'd like to discuss your actual opinion and not give you healthcare 101 that I know you don't need.
The insurance company will give them money when they buy it? Where does the insurance company get the money from?
The insurance company will give them money when they buy it? Where does the insurance company get the money from?
Wait, do you actually not understand how insurance works? If so, then I apologize for not explaining it.
So some Insurance 101: the Insurance Company collects the premiums from whoever is paying for it, be it the government subsidy, employer contributions or out-of-pocket for the insured, or some combination therein. Of those premiums, are certain amount goes to overhead (administrative costs), and a certain amount goes to actual patient care expenses. Whenever an insured person goes to a Doctor's Office, or a Pharmacy for a prescription medication, they provide their insurance information. Usually they have some kind of copay or coinsurance, which is generally a token amount designed to prevent overuse of the systen. If whatever was done or prescribed is covered, the insurance company is billed for everything minus the copay. Of course, this doesn't get into the deductible, but it's the basic process.
So, simple answer: The insurance company is billed for the medication and pays for it through the premiums they receive.
so, quick question: how much of their employee's insurance is Hobby Lobby (and other companies) actually covering? Because, at my current job, I only pay about 80 dollars a month for my plan. I'm assuming that the company covers the rest of it.
If it is a significant amount, then I would say yes, Hobby Lobby is justified in this, since they are the ones footing the majority of the bill, so they are the ones actually paying for said pills. (and before anyone says that it is part of the employee's benefits, doesn't Hobby Lobby get to essentially choose those benefits?)
The insurance company will give them money when they buy it? Where does the insurance company get the money from?
Wait, do you actually not understand how insurance works? If so, then I apologize for not explaining it.
So some Insurance 101: the Insurance Company collects the premiums from whoever is paying for it, be it the government subsidy, employer contributions or out-of-pocket for the insured, or some combination therein. Of those premiums, are certain amount goes to overhead (administrative costs), and a certain amount goes to actual patient care expenses. Whenever an insured person goes to a Doctor's Office, or a Pharmacy for a prescription medication, they provide their insurance information. Usually they have some kind of copay or coinsurance, which is generally a token amount designed to prevent overuse of the systen. If whatever was done or prescribed is covered, the insurance company is billed for everything minus the copay. Of course, this doesn't get into the deductible, but it's the basic process.
So, simple answer: The insurance company is billed for the medication and pays for it through the premiums they receive.
The main problem is that the premiums' cost are proportional to the liklihood of the event happening. If I buy auto insurance for a year, and I say I want $8,500 if I get in a car crash, then they'll calculate my odds of getting in a car crash in the next year. If the odds are 10%, then they'll charge me a little more than $850 per year.
This is the conversation that would ensue if someone requested birth control coverage:
"This is ABC Insurance Company, thanks for holding."
--"Hi, I would like to add birth control coverage to my current plan."
"No problem, how much coverage are you asking for?"
--"$40 per month would be best."
"Okay great, our research has shown that 98% of customers who request coverage in our birth control policy choose to go to the store and buy birth control, therefore we'll increase your premium by $41 per month, is that okay?"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard: [leftovers from booster drafts]
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
It's not that simple. Insurance companies negotiate with drug manufacturers to get lower prices. Drug manufacturers agree to this because they're essentially getting a bulk deal - if the insurance company covers the drug, a bunch of people will use it. This way, the insurance company can take less in premiums than an individual would pay for the drug were they uninsured, and everyone still comes out ahead. Further, some drugs, birth control included, reduce the risk of more expensive health issues. This is why my insurance company will pay 100% of the cost for me to walk into a clinic and get a check up. They'd much rather spend that small amount than have a health problem go undetected and become expensive. An insurance company can therefore offset a significant amount of the cost of the birth control with savings from fewer pregnancy complications, etc.
The main problem is that the premiums' cost are proportional to the liklihood of the event happening. If I buy auto insurance for a year, and I say I want $8,500 if I get in a car crash, then they'll calculate my odds of getting in a car crash in the next year. If the odds are 10%, then they'll charge me a little more than $850 per year.
This is the conversation that would ensue if someone requested birth control coverage:
"This is ABC Insurance Company, thanks for holding."
--"Hi, I would like to add birth control coverage to my current plan."
"No problem, how much coverage are you asking for?"
--"$40 per month would be best."
"Okay great, our research has shown that 98% of customers who request coverage in our birth control policy choose to go to the store and buy birth control, therefore we'll increase your premium by $41 per month, is that okay?"
I think that is a bit of an oversimplified (and incorrect) view. First of all, risk is spread out among a large number of policy holders, there isn't a 1:1 ration between your personal risk and your premium.
Further, paying for birth control for 10 years is less expensive than a single pregnancy. Let's lean toward one of the more expensive birth control pills and say $50 a month. And let's take a low estimate for a hospital visit for an uncomplicated pregnancy at $6,000 (this is a gross underestimate, btw), it would take ten years for the cost of the Birth Control to outweigh the cost of a single uncomplicated pregancy hospital visit. And this doesn't include any kind of prenatal care, nor the care of the child for as long as they're on the parent's plan (which is until 25 now).
Simply put, Insurance companies want women on Birth Control because it's cheaper than the alternative. It's just another kind of preventive healthcare.
True, many people support eugenics.
You politically-correct people are so funny. You've always said "it's a choice," "my body, my choice," "my choice, get out of the bedroom."
Newsflash: Insurance combined with choice is generally considered insurance fraud.
If someone buys fire insurance and then sets his stuff on fire, what is that called? If someone buys life insurance and commits suicide, what is that called? If someone buys lung cancer insurance and he smokes but doesn't tell his insurance provider, what is that called? If someone buys birth control pill purchasing insurance and then purposefully purchases birth control pills, what is that called? If someone buys car crash insurance and then purposefully crashes his car, what is that called?
"Insurance coverage is issued by an insurer in the event of an unforeseen or unwanted occurrences."
"...when boiled down it comes down to the probability of the insured event actually occurring."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance
"It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coverage?s=t
"protection provided against risks or a risk..."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insurance?s=t
"in consideration of a payment proportionate to the risk involved."
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/insure
"Arrange for compensation in the event of damage to or loss of (property), or injury to or the death of (someone), in exchange for regular advance payments to a company or government agency."
It'd be easier for my wife to find a job, if not for trolls going to congress and suggesting "anyone who hires a woman and doesn't give her free ______ should go to jail."
Of course it needs to be specified; before idiot #2 goes before congress and says that insurance needs to provide food coverage.
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
Your argument that of course we need to parcel what is included under health insurance proves you lack the intelligence to refer to a congressman as "idiot #2". I was saying they are all health insurance and are defined as such. Why do we need 20 different terms when they are all already defined under the definition of health insurance? Do you really think health insurance isn't defined by statutes and coverage policies? Do you really think literally calling them "back insurance" and "flu insurance" will help? You also seem to be seriously confused about something, the government doesn't pay for health insurance. Employers and employees do. All the ACA did was add more regulations. The only people whose insurance is payed for by the government are state/federal employees such as myself. Guess what, part of my coverage still comes out of my paycheck.
Also, you were provided with logical arguments challenging your definition of health insurance. You ignored every argument. You accused us of being pro-life politically over correct atypical super liberals. Neither Jay nor myself made such an argument. We answered a question. You didn't like our answers so instead of challenging our logic like an adult you ignored it, put words in our mouth, and ranted. Lastly, birth control equals eugenics? My family tree was hacked limb by limb during the holocaust, that is beyond an insulting argument. I can't even begin to parcel your reason because its not there. Your wife can't get a job because of new health insurance mandates? Thats laughable. Primarily because most insurance in existence well before Obamacare provided subsidized birth control. You know what I'm done responding to you, its pointless.
I want to note that if anyone would like to rationally support AC I would love to hear it. Bitterroot, I am thinking of you in particular. I have nothing but respect for reasonable people challenging me and am happy to listen to opposing views, so long as they aren't quotes from whatever extremist news source you favor.
Nice generalization you got there. It's still a choice (usually) and if you can't afford the consequences or the prevention, then you shouldn't partake. I'm only in favor of subsidized birth control because it's cheaper than an "accidental" kid, and for some reason a lot of people seem incapable of making good choices (which is what I hope you mean by your absolute statement).
Twitch channel
I've already explained it multiple times in this thread, it's the insurance company covering the cost of a medication. Can you please just elaborate on what you are trying to get at? I'd like to discuss your actual opinion and not give you healthcare 101 that I know you don't need.
Socialized Healthcare? This is America, man
More seriously, however, I absolutely agree with you. We need to do away with Medicare and Medicaid and Subsidies, and create a single-payer system. But that's an entirely different debate. Socialized anything is a dirty word here in the US, where the specter of the cold war still hangs heavy over many Americans and where people on unemployment rail against socialization without any hint of the inherent irony.
This isn't a reasonable solution, although to be fair to you it's something I bought into for a very long time. Look at the implications of abstinence-only sex education in states, and then compare it to the states with the highest rates of teen pregnancy. They line up almost perfectly. So why does simply insisting that people not make bad choice work? Because sex is a biological imperative, and is critical to any relationships. To expect people to abstain from sex is a very puritanical view that doesn't reflect reality. Obviously, not 'everyone' has sex, but for the couples that do, the women face far, far more risks than the men.
So why does that matter to us at the societal level, or why should we be responsible? Outside of the social importance, preventing unwanted pregnancies is very important to the economy - and in more ways than most people seem to think. Pregnancies for single mothers is ready for more kids tends to lead to the children being stuck at the same socioeconomic level as the mother, and the mothers tend to be stuck at a low socioeconomic level. That means more people dependent on social programs and creating a cycle that it very hard to break out of. Even for your average middle-class woman, being able to control when they have children can make the difference between class. Pregnancy is a long-term and far reaching medical condition that completely changes the lives of the mothers (and the father, when present, which is another point). I'm not in favor of having a full half of our population be nothing more than incubators and child caregivers simply because they got a XX instead of a XY, and birth control can largely free women from that burden until they're ready.
Alternatively, we could actually teach all our kids about sex and pregnancy prevention so they have all the facts, but that seems about as likely as a socialized healthcare system.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Sex is not so deep a biological imperative that you literally die if you don't. That's the crucial distinction. Not breathing -> death, No heart pills -> death, No sex -> *not death*.
Twitch channel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLiu7B25G4o
The insurance company will give them money when they buy it? Where does the insurance company get the money from?
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLiu7B25G4o
The insurance company will give them money when they buy it? Where does the insurance company get the money from?
That makes infinitely more sense than the current system. I don't think that would be the best system, but that's a different issue.
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
Wait, do you actually not understand how insurance works? If so, then I apologize for not explaining it.
So some Insurance 101: the Insurance Company collects the premiums from whoever is paying for it, be it the government subsidy, employer contributions or out-of-pocket for the insured, or some combination therein. Of those premiums, are certain amount goes to overhead (administrative costs), and a certain amount goes to actual patient care expenses. Whenever an insured person goes to a Doctor's Office, or a Pharmacy for a prescription medication, they provide their insurance information. Usually they have some kind of copay or coinsurance, which is generally a token amount designed to prevent overuse of the systen. If whatever was done or prescribed is covered, the insurance company is billed for everything minus the copay. Of course, this doesn't get into the deductible, but it's the basic process.
So, simple answer: The insurance company is billed for the medication and pays for it through the premiums they receive.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
If it is a significant amount, then I would say yes, Hobby Lobby is justified in this, since they are the ones footing the majority of the bill, so they are the ones actually paying for said pills. (and before anyone says that it is part of the employee's benefits, doesn't Hobby Lobby get to essentially choose those benefits?)
"normality is a paved road: it is comfortable to walk, but no flowers grow there."
-Vincent Van Gogh
things I hate:
1. lists.
b. inconsistencies.
V. incorrect math.
2. quotes in signatures
III: irony.
there are two kinds of people in the world: those who can make reasonable conclusions based on conjecture.
The main problem is that the premiums' cost are proportional to the liklihood of the event happening. If I buy auto insurance for a year, and I say I want $8,500 if I get in a car crash, then they'll calculate my odds of getting in a car crash in the next year. If the odds are 10%, then they'll charge me a little more than $850 per year.
This is the conversation that would ensue if someone requested birth control coverage:
"This is ABC Insurance Company, thanks for holding."
--"Hi, I would like to add birth control coverage to my current plan."
"No problem, how much coverage are you asking for?"
--"$40 per month would be best."
"Okay great, our research has shown that 98% of customers who request coverage in our birth control policy choose to go to the store and buy birth control, therefore we'll increase your premium by $41 per month, is that okay?"
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
I think that is a bit of an oversimplified (and incorrect) view. First of all, risk is spread out among a large number of policy holders, there isn't a 1:1 ration between your personal risk and your premium.
Further, paying for birth control for 10 years is less expensive than a single pregnancy. Let's lean toward one of the more expensive birth control pills and say $50 a month. And let's take a low estimate for a hospital visit for an uncomplicated pregnancy at $6,000 (this is a gross underestimate, btw), it would take ten years for the cost of the Birth Control to outweigh the cost of a single uncomplicated pregancy hospital visit. And this doesn't include any kind of prenatal care, nor the care of the child for as long as they're on the parent's plan (which is until 25 now).
Simply put, Insurance companies want women on Birth Control because it's cheaper than the alternative. It's just another kind of preventive healthcare.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath