753
White House says health insurance needs to fully cover condoms, other over-the-counter birth control (torontosun.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/news@lemmy.world
111 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

Its a handout to condom companies and stores that otherwise would have to compete on price. Granted, I don't know how it would be implemented, but these tend not to be implemented well

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    So it's better to make people pay for their own condoms and other OTC contraceptives rather than have insurance cover it? Because that sounds worse to me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yes, insurance exists for unexpected events, that's why its insurance. A condom is a cost you willingly accept. And to be honest, primary care often shouldn't be insurable, but since plans are required to cover it without price discrimination it kills direct primary care- so this is something that has to be accepted. Now, if medicare/medicaid and other programs choose to cover it that's a different thing, but requiring all plans cover it is dumb. But I guess plans don't really have to compete that much on price and value-added that much anymore post-ACA anyways

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Then insurance should also not cover things like breast exams and colonoscopies, right?

    They are not unexpected events.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    As I said in theory insurance shouldn't cover primary care, but this is required post-ACA, and I think before too but I'm not sure starting from when. I think direct primary care could be great(but there are also otherways to do it, like optional primary care insurance).

    For some preventative things insurance would choose to cover it if it weren't required to save them money in the long run.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    You didn't answer my question.

    Should breast exams and colonoscopies be covered by insurance?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I did answer, I think that should be negotiated between the insurer and insuree, and should not be required to be covered.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    and should not be required to be covered.

    Got it. You want to cost everyone more money in the long term.

    Every new case of breast or colon cancer that isn't caught early raises everyone's premiums. You know what prevents those? Breast and colon cancer.

    You know what costs taxpayers a lot of money? Unwanted kids.

    So your "let's have everyone pay more money rather than have insurance do basic preventative care" plan still makes no sense to me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Got it. You want to cost everyone more money in the long term.

    No?

    Every new case of breast or colon cancer that isn’t caught early raises everyone’s premiums. You know what prevents those? Breast and colon cancer.

    Insurance companies want lower costs, if that is the reality they would offer screening even if not required. I'm not educated on the topic enough to evalutate it, but there is growing evidence that cancer(and other things) are over-screened. Tumors and other things that may not become cancerous or spread quickly are identified, causing stress and harmful surgery for patients that might not actually need it. I tend to believe more information is better, but, I'm not a doctor, and a lot of doctors are critical of overscreening in terms of outcomes for patients.

    Edit: here's a link to read a bit about this

    You know what costs taxpayers a lot of money? Unwanted kids.

    The job of an insurer is not to save tax payers money. If you want free condoms, just give out free condoms, why does it have to be tied to health insurance?

    So your “let’s have everyone pay more money rather than have insurance do basic preventative care” plan still makes no sense to me.

    Where did I say that?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I am not seeing any doctors in a cursory search saying that people should not be screened for breast and colon cancer at all.

    Also, why is the job of an insurer not to save taxpayer money? Because you say so? Maybe if we made that part of the cost of owning a business, we would be able to have more social services.

    But something tells me you don't want more social services just like you apparently want unwanted babies from people who would otherwise be able to afford birth control if their insurance took care of it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I am not seeing any doctors in a cursory search saying that people should not be screened for breast and colon cancer at all.

    Where did I say that?? If you don't stop engaging in bad faith I won't respond.

    Also, why is the job of an insurer not to save taxpayer money?

    Do you think McDonald's should be required to open a shipyard as a loss to save the navy money on warships? Because its simply not their job.

    Maybe if we made that part of the cost of owning a business, we would be able to have more social services.

    Businesses already pay tax, also insurers are already required to cover screening>

    But something tells me you don’t want more social services just like you apparently want unwanted babies from people who would otherwise be able to afford birth control if their insurance took care of it.

    Do you think health insurance should be required to buy homes for people? Or help them pay for gas? No? So you want people to be homeless?

    What you're advocating is a type of fascism called corporatism. You want a merger between the responsibilities and goals of the state and "private" companies. This type of merger tends to be deeply profitable for politicians and companies- see the military industrial complex.

    You're not giving a good reason why the government just buying a condom factory and giving condoms out for free wouldn't be more efficient, since you're so concerned about saving money for the tax payer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I like how you keep suggesting that I keep putting words in your mouth and yet you keep asking me silly rhetorical questions which have nothing to do with what I said. Not at all dishonest.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •