ObamaCare - "Give up your phone to get it!!!"

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderators: Community Team, Global Moderators

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Mar 21, 2013 3:32 pm

Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:I am happy to have all insurance removed from employer pay, BUT as long as employers offer insurance then they need to provide the coverage people need , not just the coverage they want.


Why? If the employer is the one paying for the coverage, then why does the government get to dictate what they buy? Until Obamacare, if people didn't like the employer coverage, they could opt out of it.
Because its a necessity, not just a nice add on, because the REASON the system was set up this way specifically to benefit employers, not employees... and the government mandates are there to say "OK, you want this benefit employers... you need to meet some minimum standards".
It is only in recent years that providing health insurance has become more expensive than paying additional wages and the response is typical... make every excuse in the book to provide less.

There is an option.. don't be an employer. Its no different than those who want to be employers and not pay employees... oops you are happy to support them as well.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2438
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Mar 21, 2013 3:35 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:You don't pay directly for police, fire, road services, most education or many other public services.


Because those are directly paid for by our taxes as they're a proper role of government. Most emergency rooms are operated by private health care providers, not the government.


So you agree that emergency rooms should be operated by the government, right? I mean, anything else would be tantamount to saying that you prefer for private providers to be in charge of emergency rooms so that they can turn away sick people.

No, there are other options. A lot of options were discussed back in this thread.

However, I don't have a problem with my fellow citizens running emergency rooms, provided medical care and not politics decide that care. That is at risk, private or public, thanks to folks like Nightstrike.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2438
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Mar 21, 2013 3:36 pm

Night Strike wrote:So much for health information being confidential.

TAMPA (FOX 13) -

What would you say if your employer told you it needed your height, weight, body fat percent and other personal information for health insurance purposes?

That's what CVS is beginning to do. The company is telling workers who use its health insurance to have a wellness review done or pay up.

CVS says the information will go to a third party administrator of CVS's benefits, not CVS itself.

The idea is to incentivize healthy living. CVS says the idea is nothing new.

"The idea of an employee wellness plan is perfectly legal under the ADA. Courts held up these plans," said Joshua Kersey, a Tampa labor attorney. He says with "Obamacare" looming in 2014, practices like this wellness review are likely to become more common, because a lot of employers are expecting to pay more for their workers' health insurance.

"The more money it's going to save the employer, the more incentive the employer has to affect these types of programs," he said.

In CVS's case, workers not comfortable getting the review done will have to pay a $600 annual penalty.

"It is voluntary because you're welcome to get healthcare through someone else," he said.

In a statement, CVS says it's implemented the program to try and keep employees as healthy as possible, and help them manage their costs.

The company also says it will not be receiving or reviewing any of the personal information.

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/21752353/2013/03/20/cvs-seeks-to-collect-employees-health-information#ixzz2OCUVFWaP
Nightstrike... that ship sailed LONG ago and you were among those arguing is perfectly reasonable, particularly so employers could deny women specific procedures or deicde to not hire or let go women who had other procedures.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2438
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby jj3044 on Thu Mar 21, 2013 6:02 pm

Night Strike wrote:So much for health information being confidential.

TAMPA (FOX 13) -

What would you say if your employer told you it needed your height, weight, body fat percent and other personal information for health insurance purposes?

That's what CVS is beginning to do. The company is telling workers who use its health insurance to have a wellness review done or pay up.

CVS says the information will go to a third party administrator of CVS's benefits, not CVS itself.

The idea is to incentivize healthy living. CVS says the idea is nothing new.

"The idea of an employee wellness plan is perfectly legal under the ADA. Courts held up these plans," said Joshua Kersey, a Tampa labor attorney. He says with "Obamacare" looming in 2014, practices like this wellness review are likely to become more common, because a lot of employers are expecting to pay more for their workers' health insurance.

"The more money it's going to save the employer, the more incentive the employer has to affect these types of programs," he said.

In CVS's case, workers not comfortable getting the review done will have to pay a $600 annual penalty.

"It is voluntary because you're welcome to get healthcare through someone else," he said.

In a statement, CVS says it's implemented the program to try and keep employees as healthy as possible, and help them manage their costs.

The company also says it will not be receiving or reviewing any of the personal information.

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/21752353/2013/03/20/cvs-seeks-to-collect-employees-health-information#ixzz2OCUVFWaP


This:
The company also says it will not be receiving or reviewing any of the personal information.


The media coverage doesn't explain this story properly. CVS pays a third party to administer the program. CVS doesn't get individual results. They only get group aggregate data, and participation data so that they can pay out the incentive (or disincentive as the case may be).

Their health information is still confidential.
Image
User avatar
Brigadier jj3044
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:22 pm
Medals: 71
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (6) Clan Achievement (23)

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby Night Strike on Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:08 am

jj3044 wrote:The media coverage doesn't explain this story properly. CVS pays a third party to administer the program. CVS doesn't get individual results. They only get group aggregate data, and participation data so that they can pay out the incentive (or disincentive as the case may be).

Their health information is still confidential.


"Third party" still means "not doctor-patient confidentiality".

PLAYER57832 wrote:Nightstrike... that ship sailed LONG ago and you were among those arguing is perfectly reasonable, particularly so employers could deny women specific procedures or deicde to not hire or let go women who had other procedures.


You're incorrect, like usual. All I've said is that the government can't dictate what employers should provide, not that they should be allowed to go through a person's medical records and decide what to cover. If a procedure is not covered for all people, then there's no discrimination or violation of confidentiality going on. And if a person wants a procedure that's not covered, then they can pay for it themselves and the employer doesn't have to know. No person is ever denied the ability to take care of themselves just because an employer doesn't want to pay for it.
Image
User avatar
Captain Night Strike
Tournament Director
Tournament Director
 
Posts: 8633
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm
Medals: 79
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (11) Tournament Contribution (12) General Contribution (18)

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby Night Strike on Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:11 am

By the way, Congress is finally doing a bit of work to undo part of the damage of Obamacare:

The Senate gave sweeping bipartisan approval Thursday to a proposal by Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., to put senators on record in favor of repealing a tax on medical devices – a key part of President Obama’s controversial health care law.

The Hatch-Klobuchar amendment to the GOP budget plan is the latest effort to roll back the tax that applies to a range of medical products, from surgical tools to heart devices. It’s among several taxes in Obama’s 2010 health care overhaul.

The amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 79 to 20.

“Today, bipartisan members of the Senate spoke loudly and clearly that this tax on medical devices simply must go. It is a drain on innovation, on job creation and on our ability to provide ground breaking medical technologies to patients,” Hatch said in a statement.

The Affordable Care Act levies a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices with the goal of raising nearly $30 billion over the next decade.

Manufacturers say the impact of the tax is far greater than meets the eye -- the 2.3 percent tax is on gross sales, meaning it's a much greater percentage of net income.

The Obama administration has defended the medical device tax, saying companies actually stand to benefit from the law. Though the 2.3 percent tax hits the industry, the department argues that the millions of new health care customers insured as a result of the law will increase the demand in hospitals to order more equipment -- in turn boosting medical device companies' profits.

Last year the White House threatened to veto a House bill that would have repealed the tax, citing concerns that the House proposal would offset the lost revenue from the tax by cutting down on subsidies for some families.

This, they said, would effectively "raise taxes on middle-class and low-income families."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/22/bi-partisan-push-to-repeal-medical-device-tax-gaining-traction-in-senate/#ixzz2OFKrYpW5
Image
User avatar
Captain Night Strike
Tournament Director
Tournament Director
 
Posts: 8633
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm
Medals: 79
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (11) Tournament Contribution (12) General Contribution (18)

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby PLAYER57832 on Fri Mar 22, 2013 4:17 am

Night Strike wrote:
You're incorrect, like usual. All I've said is that the government can't dictate what employers should provide, not that they should be allowed to go through a person's medical records and decide what to cover. If a procedure is not covered for all people, then there's no discrimination or violation of confidentiality going on. And if a person wants a procedure that's not covered, then they can pay for it themselves and the employer doesn't have to know. No person is ever denied the ability to take care of themselves just because an employer doesn't want to pay for it.

No, you were fine with employers firing women for having abortions.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2438
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby Night Strike on Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:25 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
You're incorrect, like usual. All I've said is that the government can't dictate what employers should provide, not that they should be allowed to go through a person's medical records and decide what to cover. If a procedure is not covered for all people, then there's no discrimination or violation of confidentiality going on. And if a person wants a procedure that's not covered, then they can pay for it themselves and the employer doesn't have to know. No person is ever denied the ability to take care of themselves just because an employer doesn't want to pay for it.

No, you were fine with employers firing women for having abortions.


Where did I say that?
Image
User avatar
Captain Night Strike
Tournament Director
Tournament Director
 
Posts: 8633
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm
Medals: 79
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (11) Tournament Contribution (12) General Contribution (18)

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby PLAYER57832 on Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:32 pm

Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
You're incorrect, like usual. All I've said is that the government can't dictate what employers should provide, not that they should be allowed to go through a person's medical records and decide what to cover. If a procedure is not covered for all people, then there's no discrimination or violation of confidentiality going on. And if a person wants a procedure that's not covered, then they can pay for it themselves and the employer doesn't have to know. No person is ever denied the ability to take care of themselves just because an employer doesn't want to pay for it.

No, you were fine with employers firing women for having abortions.


Where did I say that?

You did, but even just sticking with the above, to claim taht no one is denied a procedure because iNSURANCE won't cover it, because the employer has decided its their personal business to dictate the health care other people get.... that is just a ludicrous assumption on your part. And, to claim that I have to pay extra for coverage because I am a woman is descrimination, and that IS what is mandated.

Claiming this is about money is stupid. We are talking about , literally a few cents, out of any policy... and none of that is going to be refunded women who are denied this particular kind of coverage. They will just have to pay more. So, it really is about folks bullying others into doing as THEY think. Whether I use birth control, get my tubes tied, have episiotomy, or a D& C is just not ANYONE else's business except my husband's. It certainly is not your or anyone else's right to claim that they have some moral obligation to dictate what insurance I can have or not have.

Its just a back door attempt to dictate to women what they can do.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2438
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby Night Strike on Fri Mar 22, 2013 3:01 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
You're incorrect, like usual. All I've said is that the government can't dictate what employers should provide, not that they should be allowed to go through a person's medical records and decide what to cover. If a procedure is not covered for all people, then there's no discrimination or violation of confidentiality going on. And if a person wants a procedure that's not covered, then they can pay for it themselves and the employer doesn't have to know. No person is ever denied the ability to take care of themselves just because an employer doesn't want to pay for it.

No, you were fine with employers firing women for having abortions.


Where did I say that?

You did,


Then prove it.

PLAYER57832 wrote:but even just sticking with the above, to claim taht no one is denied a procedure because iNSURANCE won't cover it, because the employer has decided its their personal business to dictate the health care other people get.... that is just a ludicrous assumption on your part.


There are tons of procedures not covered by insurance policies, yet no one is denied getting those procedures...they just have to provide the payments themselves.

PLAYER57832 wrote:And, to claim that I have to pay extra for coverage because I am a woman is descrimination, and that IS what is mandated.


The people who use more health insurance should have to pay more for health insurance. That's basic economics (but you're banning economics from the health industry). Furthermore, if you say it's discrimination to charge more for using more health insurance, isn't it also discrimination to mandate that women now get free coverage for contraceptives? All it does is switch which gender is paying more money; the discrimination hasn't disappeared. But I'm guessing that the removal of discrimination is not your goal.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Claiming this is about money is stupid. We are talking about , literally a few cents, out of any policy... and none of that is going to be refunded women who are denied this particular kind of coverage. They will just have to pay more. So, it really is about folks bullying others into doing as THEY think. Whether I use birth control, get my tubes tied, have episiotomy, or a D& C is just not ANYONE else's business except my husband's. It certainly is not your or anyone else's right to claim that they have some moral obligation to dictate what insurance I can have or not have.

Its just a back door attempt to dictate to women what they can do.


Then f***ing pay for your own damn health care!!!!! If it's none of my business what goes on in your bedroom, then stop making me pay for what goes on in your bedroom!!!!! No one is denying you the ability to get all of those treatments simply because they may or may not be paid for by the insurance an employer provides. If you actually cared about being logical, you would be demanding that every single treatment in existence must be provided by every single insurance policy. Instead, you just want to mandate the things you want for yourself in the name of "choice". You can still choose to pay for procedures on your own dime....no one is denying you that option.
Image
User avatar
Captain Night Strike
Tournament Director
Tournament Director
 
Posts: 8633
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm
Medals: 79
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (11) Tournament Contribution (12) General Contribution (18)

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby PLAYER57832 on Fri Mar 22, 2013 3:25 pm

Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:but even just sticking with the above, to claim taht no one is denied a procedure because iNSURANCE won't cover it, because the employer has decided its their personal business to dictate the health care other people get.... that is just a ludicrous assumption on your part.


There are tons of procedures not covered by insurance policies, yet no one is denied getting those procedures...they just have to provide the payments themselves.

which is prohibitively expensive in the case of medical care, which is WHY people have insurance.
These women are not getting any deduction, and if they did it would amount to mere pennies --no where near enough to pay for the denied procedures. It is not about money, it is about control... about men controlling what women do and using whatever excuse they think will fly to do it.
Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:And, to claim that I have to pay extra for coverage because I am a woman is descrimination, and that IS what is mandated.


The people who use more health insurance should have to pay more for health insurance. That's basic economics (but you're banning economics from the health industry).
No, I am saying that what you claim to an economic argument is not truly and economic argument. The ultimate problem is that people cannot either predict OR control their health usage. I was born female. I need things that you do not because I am female. Some people are born with tendencies to high blood pressure. They can only control certain factors, not the disease. You have no idea if you will get cancer, will get hit buy a bus and wind up paralyzed from the neck down tommorrow. That you think this is something that you CAN control means you are either extremely stupid or a bully who thinks its perfectly OK to judge people based on things entirely outside their control.

Night Strike wrote:Furthermore, if you say it's discrimination to charge more for using more health insurance, isn't it also discrimination to mandate that women now get free coverage for contraceptives?

#1. Contraceptives are not “free”, as you keep insisting. Women PAY for their insurance, usually with copayments, payroll deduction, but even if the employer pays the entire bill, it is paid for with their work. That the employer pays part of the compensation with insurance does not mean its not compensation for work. AND, as I said many times before, a fact you can research quite easily if you had any interest in actually educating yourself about this instead of just spouting off what you think is true… the reason employers now buy insurance is because it benefitted THEM. They got to provide a higher level of compensation for less money – the same as some employers provide housing or other benefits. That has changed, but because the medical care available has changed.



Night Strike wrote:All it does is switch which gender is paying more money; the discrimination hasn't disappeared. But I'm guessing that the removal of discrimination is not your goal.
I see, so you are under the impression that men will be paying more for their insurance? No, they are not.
And, if you are trying to somehow claim that providing female services is “discrimination”.. well, guess what, male sexual issues are covered quite well.
What makes it discrimination is the fact that women don’t get to choose their gender, at least most women.

Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:Claiming this is about money is stupid. We are talking about , literally a few cents, out of any policy... and none of that is going to be refunded women who are denied this particular kind of coverage. They will just have to pay more. So, it really is about folks bullying others into doing as THEY think. Whether I use birth control, get my tubes tied, have episiotomy, or a D& C is just not ANYONE else's business except my husband's. It certainly is not your or anyone else's right to claim that they have some moral obligation to dictate what insurance I can have or not have.

Its just a back door attempt to dictate to women what they can do.


Then f***ing pay for your own damn health care!!!!!
I AM, or, in my case, my husband is, since family coverage is far, far cheaper than 2 individual policies.

AND… why don’t you just do without insurance?.. Oh, that’s right, you seem to think that is a perfectly rational and intelligent choice that adults ought to be able to make (at least male ones)… and that is why emergency rooms are filled with people who “oops, cannot pay” because they were just like you and thought they could do with “just the basics” of “what they will actually use”. And don’t try to claim “oh, I have major medical” or “I have emergency coverage”, because I can guarantee, that coverage will disappear very, very fast post any major accident or illness, if the healthcare law is eliminated.



Night Strike wrote:If it's none of my business what goes on in your bedroom, then stop making me pay for what goes on in your bedroom!!!!! No one is denying you the ability to get all of those treatments simply because they may or may not be paid for by the insurance an employer provides. If you actually cared about being logical, you would be demanding that every single treatment in existence must be provided by every single insurance policy. Instead, you just want to mandate the things you want for yourself in the name of "choice". You can still choose to pay for procedures on your own dime....no one is denying you that option.

This isn’t about bedrooms or choice. This is about MEDICAL CARE. Just because you dislike women’s healthcare doesn’t give you the right to decide that this is some kind of optional coverage.

I and others have gone into detail over ways this is absolutely NOT about women just deciding to have sex and not have babies or any other issue.. never mind the whole male domination bit, the FACT that many women plain and simply don’t decide their sexual activity on their own, but do wind up having to bear the biggest burdens.

This is not about your views or morals. It is about healthcare. Doctors, not clergy .. or employers get to decide that.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2438
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby jj3044 on Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:32 pm

Night Strike wrote:
jj3044 wrote:The media coverage doesn't explain this story properly. CVS pays a third party to administer the program. CVS doesn't get individual results. They only get group aggregate data, and participation data so that they can pay out the incentive (or disincentive as the case may be).

Their health information is still confidential.


"Third party" still means "not doctor-patient confidentiality".

The article (and you) said nothing about "doctor-patient" confidentiality. The issue that has been raised is about the company (CVS) having access to their employees data, which they don't!

And anyway, since you are now complaining about "doctor-patient" confidentiality, does that mean that there shouldn't be any electronic medical records? The people who build and run electronic medical records aren't doctors... and they have access to patient data...

I just used EMR's as an example, but you will find dozens if not HUNDREDS of examples of entities having access to this data for very valid reasons.
Image
User avatar
Brigadier jj3044
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:22 pm
Medals: 71
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (6) Clan Achievement (23)

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby PLAYER57832 on Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:37 pm

jj3044 wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
jj3044 wrote:The media coverage doesn't explain this story properly. CVS pays a third party to administer the program. CVS doesn't get individual results. They only get group aggregate data, and participation data so that they can pay out the incentive (or disincentive as the case may be).

Their health information is still confidential.


"Third party" still means "not doctor-patient confidentiality".

The article (and you) said nothing about "doctor-patient" confidentiality. The issue that has been raised is about the company (CVS) having access to their employees data, which they don't!

And anyway, since you are now complaining about "doctor-patient" confidentiality, does that mean that there shouldn't be any electronic medical records? The people who build and run electronic medical records aren't doctors... and they have access to patient data...

I just used EMR's as an example, but you will find dozens if not HUNDREDS of examples of entities having access to this data for very valid reasons.

I agree with you here. You are quite correct.

BUT.. what a lot of people do not realize is that because employers pay for insurance, they often do actually have access to much of our information. HIPAA. changed some of that, but not all. Ironically so, in some cases an employer can know information about employees that their spouses cannot without direct authorization.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2438
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby Night Strike on Sat Mar 23, 2013 5:02 am

PLAYER57832 wrote:Contraceptives are not “free”, as you keep insisting.


I'm well aware they aren't truly free, yet the specific words of the regulation state that contraceptives must be provided free of charge.......that means the woman doesn't even have to pay a co-pay, yet she can get any type of contraceptive, whether it be $9 or $900. What prescription, especially a voluntary prescription, can a man get without paying a co-pay? THAT is why I said you're simply reversing the discrimination that you claim to be getting rid of.

PLAYER57832 wrote:I was born female. I need things that you do not because I am female. Some people are born with tendencies to high blood pressure. They can only control certain factors, not the disease.


Then YOU pay for those things. It's not my job to work in order to pay for YOU to have those things. I don't owe you anything simply because you're female. You don't owe me anything simply because I'm male.

PLAYER57832 wrote:That the employer pays part of the compensation with insurance does not mean its not compensation for work. AND, as I said many times before, a fact you can research quite easily if you had any interest in actually educating yourself about this instead of just spouting off what you think is true… the reason employers now buy insurance is because it benefitted THEM.


Of course they started providing health insurance benefits as a way to attract the best employees BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAD BANNED INCREASES IN WAGES!!!! If you banned from paying better people more money, then you have to find another incentive to woo them to your company. That's how the FREE MARKET works.

PLAYER57832 wrote:well, guess what, male sexual issues are covered quite well.


And men pay co-pays to get those medicines, if they're covered in their plans.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Just because you dislike women’s healthcare doesn’t give you the right to decide that this is some kind of optional coverage.


Where did I say I dislike women's healthcare? All I dislike is being mandated to pay for YOUR healthcare. The only women whose healthcare I'm responsible for is my wife's and any daughters I may have. The thing is, all you and your progressive friends want is to mandate that other people pay for your healthcare instead of you paying for your own. That's ALL Obamacare is for.....defining who must pay for someone else's healthcare. It does nothing to actually improve medical care (while doing a lot to harm it); it only defines payment mandates. And it doesn't make it "affordable" as its name claims.
Image
User avatar
Captain Night Strike
Tournament Director
Tournament Director
 
Posts: 8633
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm
Medals: 79
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (11) Tournament Contribution (12) General Contribution (18)

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sat Mar 23, 2013 7:00 am

Night Strike wrote:By the way, Congress is finally doing a bit of work to undo part of the damage of Obamacare:

The Senate gave sweeping bipartisan approval Thursday to a proposal by Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., to put senators on record in favor of repealing a tax on medical devices – a key part of President Obama’s controversial health care law.

The Hatch-Klobuchar amendment to the GOP budget plan is the latest effort to roll back the tax that applies to a range of medical products, from surgical tools to heart devices. It’s among several taxes in Obama’s 2010 health care overhaul.

The amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 79 to 20.

“Today, bipartisan members of the Senate spoke loudly and clearly that this tax on medical devices simply must go. It is a drain on innovation, on job creation and on our ability to provide ground breaking medical technologies to patients,” Hatch said in a statement.

The Affordable Care Act levies a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices with the goal of raising nearly $30 billion over the next decade.

Manufacturers say the impact of the tax is far greater than meets the eye -- the 2.3 percent tax is on gross sales, meaning it's a much greater percentage of net income.

The Obama administration has defended the medical device tax, saying companies actually stand to benefit from the law. Though the 2.3 percent tax hits the industry, the department argues that the millions of new health care customers insured as a result of the law will increase the demand in hospitals to order more equipment -- in turn boosting medical device companies' profits.

Last year the White House threatened to veto a House bill that would have repealed the tax, citing concerns that the House proposal would offset the lost revenue from the tax by cutting down on subsidies for some families.

This, they said, would effectively "raise taxes on middle-class and low-income families."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/22/bi-partisan-push-to-repeal-medical-device-tax-gaining-traction-in-senate/#ixzz2OFKrYpW5

OH GREAT, eliminate one of the things that makes the bill pay for itself....

Also, you DO realize (no, you don't... because you have denied this in the past ) that this was one way of not passing medical costs onto the rest of us. For someone who goes berserk over the possibility of paying less than a penny for women’s care, you are strangely on the other side of this one!
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2438
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sat Mar 23, 2013 7:12 am

Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:Contraceptives are not “free”, as you keep insisting.


I'm well aware they aren't truly free, yet the specific words of the regulation state that contraceptives must be provided free of charge.......that means the woman doesn't even have to pay a co-pay, yet she can get any type of contraceptive, whether it be $9 or $900. What prescription, especially a voluntary prescription, can a man get without paying a co-pay? THAT is why I said you're simply reversing the discrimination that you claim to be getting rid of.

Oh BULL.

and... if you "know its not free" then stop saying that it is1

If that really were the issue, then your demand would be to insert a co-pay, NOT to demand that employers get the right to choose.

Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:I was born female. I need things that you do not because I am female. Some people are born with tendencies to high blood pressure. They can only control certain factors, not the disease.


Then YOU pay for those things. It's not my job to work in order to pay for YOU to have those things. I don't owe you anything simply because you're female. You don't owe me anything simply because I'm male.

This claim, again! Seriously, you just got through saying that you know its not free….. and now you are claiming that you are paying for “other people’s healthcare!’

No, you pay for your insurance. I pay for my insurance. I realize you like to ignore the purpose of insurance, but stop pretending this is about a crusade of payment instead of just a backdoor attempt to control women’s ability to get care they need.
PLAYER57832 wrote:That the employer pays part of the compensation with insurance does not mean its not compensation for work. AND, as I said many times before, a fact you can research quite easily if you had any interest in actually educating yourself about this instead of just spouting off what you think is true… the reason employers now buy insurance is because it benefitted THEM.


Of course they started providing health insurance benefits as a way to attract the best employees BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAD BANNED INCREASES IN WAGES!!!! If you banned from paying better people more money, then you have to find another incentive to woo them to your company. That's how the FREE MARKET works.

Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:well, guess what, male sexual issues are covered quite well.


And men pay co-pays to get those medicines, if they're covered in their plans.


Oh brother! There is nothing consistant or honest about any of your views. Just face it. Your real objection is you don’t like women taking birth control or getting other services. The rest is just a back-pedaled attempt at justifying your views.

Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:Just because you dislike women’s healthcare doesn’t give you the right to decide that this is some kind of optional coverage.


Where did I say I dislike women's healthcare? All I dislike is being mandated to pay for YOUR healthcare .


YOU are not paying for my or anyone else’s healthcare. You ARE paying for insurance. The way insurance works is that money gets pooled so that when you really need something incredibly expensive, its there for you. To claim it is somehow “abusive” because you stay healthy is not “free marketism”, its stupidity. Might as well cry because your house didn’t burn down!

Getting upset because women “get something you don’t get” is as stupid as getting angry because one person gets asthma medication or another has arthritis. If you want to deal with what women deal with constantly.. .there are operations you can get. Or you can just do a “fake trial” .
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2438
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby jj3044 on Sat Mar 23, 2013 10:52 am

The true story regarding the CVS program:
http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2013/ ... -it-wrong/
Image
User avatar
Brigadier jj3044
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:22 pm
Medals: 71
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (6) Clan Achievement (23)

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby jj3044 on Sat Mar 23, 2013 10:57 am

PLAYER57832 wrote:
jj3044 wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
jj3044 wrote:The media coverage doesn't explain this story properly. CVS pays a third party to administer the program. CVS doesn't get individual results. They only get group aggregate data, and participation data so that they can pay out the incentive (or disincentive as the case may be).

Their health information is still confidential.


"Third party" still means "not doctor-patient confidentiality".

The article (and you) said nothing about "doctor-patient" confidentiality. The issue that has been raised is about the company (CVS) having access to their employees data, which they don't!

And anyway, since you are now complaining about "doctor-patient" confidentiality, does that mean that there shouldn't be any electronic medical records? The people who build and run electronic medical records aren't doctors... and they have access to patient data...

I just used EMR's as an example, but you will find dozens if not HUNDREDS of examples of entities having access to this data for very valid reasons.

I agree with you here. You are quite correct.

BUT.. what a lot of people do not realize is that because employers pay for insurance, they often do actually have access to much of our information. HIPAA. changed some of that, but not all. Ironically so, in some cases an employer can know information about employees that their spouses cannot without direct authorization.

Groups that are self-insured (typically larger companies with say ~1000 employees or more) do have expanded access to their data, because they are actually acting as their own insurer. They use a Blue Cross, or United, or Aetna for their network and as a claims processor only. That said, there are still significant limits of what the insurer can pass along, and to my knowledge they still can't receive individual, condition-specific cases. Now, I don't work in that particular part of the industry, so I may have a misconception somewhere, but I don't think the companies can say "give me the names of my top 10 unhealthiest employees"...
Image
User avatar
Brigadier jj3044
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:22 pm
Medals: 71
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (6) Clan Achievement (23)

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sat Mar 23, 2013 12:18 pm

jj3044 wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
jj3044 wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
jj3044 wrote:The media coverage doesn't explain this story properly. CVS pays a third party to administer the program. CVS doesn't get individual results. They only get group aggregate data, and participation data so that they can pay out the incentive (or disincentive as the case may be).

Their health information is still confidential.


"Third party" still means "not doctor-patient confidentiality".

The article (and you) said nothing about "doctor-patient" confidentiality. The issue that has been raised is about the company (CVS) having access to their employees data, which they don't!

And anyway, since you are now complaining about "doctor-patient" confidentiality, does that mean that there shouldn't be any electronic medical records? The people who build and run electronic medical records aren't doctors... and they have access to patient data...

I just used EMR's as an example, but you will find dozens if not HUNDREDS of examples of entities having access to this data for very valid reasons.

I agree with you here. You are quite correct.

BUT.. what a lot of people do not realize is that because employers pay for insurance, they often do actually have access to much of our information. HIPAA. changed some of that, but not all. Ironically so, in some cases an employer can know information about employees that their spouses cannot without direct authorization.

Groups that are self-insured (typically larger companies with say ~1000 employees or more) do have expanded access to their data, because they are actually acting as their own insurer. They use a Blue Cross, or United, or Aetna for their network and as a claims processor only. That said, there are still significant limits of what the insurer can pass along, and to my knowledge they still can't receive individual, condition-specific cases. Now, I don't work in that particular part of the industry, so I may have a misconception somewhere, but I don't think the companies can say "give me the names of my top 10 unhealthiest employees"...


I am going to stick with, “its more complicated than that”. In some cases the law has changed so that information that was very much available 10 years ago, earlier is not available now. In other cases, its just “more complicated”.

At any rate, I think release of data is a real concern, still, though not necessarily as Nightstrike asserted above with CVS (haven’t looked into that because it really is a side issue to this thread and my point).
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2438
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby Night Strike on Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:44 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:OH GREAT, eliminate one of the things that makes the bill pay for itself....

Also, you DO realize (no, you don't... because you have denied this in the past ) that this was one way of not passing medical costs onto the rest of us. For someone who goes berserk over the possibility of paying less than a penny for women’s care, you are strangely on the other side of this one!


Considering the bill never paid for itself since it's passing, I don't know how you care about whether or not it's paid for. Furthermore, how does increasing taxes on medical devices lower the prices of health care? Every single business tax is passed on to the consumer or cut from other business spending (this specific one will directly harm medical device R&D).

PLAYER57832 wrote:If that really were the issue, then your demand would be to insert a co-pay, NOT to demand that employers get the right to choose.


I have demanded that as well.

PLAYER57832 wrote:This claim, again! Seriously, you just got through saying that you know its not free….. and now you are claiming that you are paying for “other people’s healthcare!’

No, you pay for your insurance. I pay for my insurance. I realize you like to ignore the purpose of insurance, but stop pretending this is about a crusade of payment instead of just a backdoor attempt to control women’s ability to get care they need.


Every person who gets a governmental subsidy to buy their insurance is not paying for their own insurance. Every person who gets coverage through the major expansion in Medicaid is not paying for their own insurance. So no, it's a lie the every person is only paying for their own insurance. Taxes are meant to pay for governmental services, not passing money to other people.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Oh brother! There is nothing consistant or honest about any of your views. Just face it. Your real objection is you don’t like women taking birth control or getting other services. The rest is just a back-pedaled attempt at justifying your views.


If I didn't like women taking birth control, we wouldn't be using it. I think it's very wise to use birth control....I think it's very unwise to expect someone else to pay for it.

PLAYER57832 wrote:YOU are not paying for my or anyone else’s healthcare. You ARE paying for insurance. The way insurance works is that money gets pooled so that when you really need something incredibly expensive, its there for you. To claim it is somehow “abusive” because you stay healthy is not “free marketism”, its stupidity. Might as well cry because your house didn’t burn down!


Except that I'm paying for my insurance AND providing subsidies for other people to buy insurance. So yes, that IS paying for someone else's healthcare.
Image
User avatar
Captain Night Strike
Tournament Director
Tournament Director
 
Posts: 8633
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm
Medals: 79
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (11) Tournament Contribution (12) General Contribution (18)

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sat Mar 23, 2013 2:32 pm

Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:OH GREAT, eliminate one of the things that makes the bill pay for itself....

Also, you DO realize (no, you don't... because you have denied this in the past ) that this was one way of not passing medical costs onto the rest of us. For someone who goes berserk over the possibility of paying less than a penny for women’s care, you are strangely on the other side of this one!


Considering the bill never paid for itself since it's passing, I don't know how you care about whether or not it's paid for. Furthermore, how does increasing taxes on medical devices lower the prices of health care? Every single business tax is passed on to the consumer or cut from other business spending (this specific one will directly harm medical device R&D).

Typical.. the bill has not been fully implemented, was not projected to pay for itself until a few years after its full implementation, for reasons already discussed and you seem to thing the argument "its not yet paid for" has validity, and further that its just fine that one of the provisions that would add money to the budget was removed.

A cynic might see a pattern there...
Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:If that really were the issue, then your demand would be to insert a co-pay, NOT to demand that employers get the right to choose.


I have demanded that as well.

No, that's a copout. If that is your argument, then that is your ONLY demand... the rest is just garbage or, yes, denying women the right to healthcare coverage.

Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:This claim, again! Seriously, you just got through saying that you know its not free….. and now you are claiming that you are paying for “other people’s healthcare!’

No, you pay for your insurance. I pay for my insurance. I realize you like to ignore the purpose of insurance, but stop pretending this is about a crusade of payment instead of just a backdoor attempt to control women’s ability to get care they need.


Every person who gets a governmental subsidy to buy their insurance is not paying for their own insurance. Every person who gets coverage through the major expansion in Medicaid is not paying for their own insurance. So no, it's a lie the every person is only paying for their own insurance. Taxes are meant to pay for governmental services, not passing money to other people.

No dice. The debate here is specifically over women’s health care, and whether employers can select this specific coverage to exclude, not providing care for the indigent. That is a different issue.

Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:Oh brother! There is nothing consistant or honest about any of your views. Just face it. Your real objection is you don’t like women taking birth control or getting other services. The rest is just a back-pedaled attempt at justifying your views.


If I didn't like women taking birth control, we wouldn't be using it. I think it's very wise to use birth control....I think it's very unwise to expect someone else to pay for it.
No, but go on trying to convince yourself that.

You oppose this because of misguided ideas about birth control and sex, not to mention women’s health. Several folks have tried to educate you, but you prefer ignorance.

However your desire to remain ignorant does not translate into a right to tell people outside of your immediate family what medication they should and should not have.

And again, “paying for other people’s issues” is precisely what insurance is about. I don’t see you raising objections to paying for people’s insulin. Same principle.

Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:YOU are not paying for my or anyone else’s healthcare. You ARE paying for insurance. The way insurance works is that money gets pooled so that when you really need something incredibly expensive, its there for you. To claim it is somehow “abusive” because you stay healthy is not “free marketism”, its stupidity. Might as well cry because your house didn’t burn down!


Except that I'm paying for my insurance AND providing subsidies for other people to buy insurance. So yes, that IS paying for someone else's healthcare.

No, not in this case. You are buying your own insurance. ALL insurance is about “providing subsidies” to people who need more care. You are not paying one iota more because birth control is covered under your policy than if it were not. In fact, there is a good chance that use of birth control is keeping your health care costs down, since raising a baby and taking time off from work cost far more than a few pills (even if the more expensive type) Women who need it, however WILL be paying more. Your argument plain and simply FAILS.

Right now, you and your family are apparently not ones who have a lot of insurance claims. You can sulk and continue to pretend this is some big plot or you can be thankful that you have your health AND that should you get sick or seriously injured, the insurance will still be there…

OH, yeah, and while you are about it, (heaven forbid, but..) if you happen to have a disabled child or get into a serious accident, then you and your family will continue to receive coverage under your insurance plan, which they would not if the prior rules had remained in force.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2438
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby Night Strike on Sat Mar 23, 2013 2:44 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:However your desire to remain ignorant does not translate into a right to tell people outside of your immediate family what medication they should and should not have.


What person is being denied medication of their choice simply because insurance doesn't pay for it? Is the insurance company or employer blocking them from paying for it out of their own pockets? That's the fundamental question here. If people are not allowed to buy it on their own, then there could be a need for governmental intervention. Every other answer is simply using the government to decide who must do the paying. In this case, you want the employer/insurance/government to pay for the medication instead of the user (yourself).
Image
User avatar
Captain Night Strike
Tournament Director
Tournament Director
 
Posts: 8633
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm
Medals: 79
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (11) Tournament Contribution (12) General Contribution (18)

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sat Mar 23, 2013 3:00 pm

Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:However your desire to remain ignorant does not translate into a right to tell people outside of your immediate family what medication they should and should not have.


What person is being denied medication of their choice simply because insurance doesn't pay for it

First, they are being denied a service that rightfully, that under any other employer would be paid for. Even if not flat out denied, saying that it is perfectly OK to expect women to pay a minimum of $100 up to over a thousand just becuase their employer wants to "take a stand" and that they have no reason to object is idiotic.

Second, many families are barely getting by on their incomes. If they have to shell out for all the women's health services not covered under this (and don't delude yourself into the idea that it is just birth control being eliminated), then yes, they will often just not use it.

Thirdly, your whole assumption that this is somehow a subsidy you are paying is just plain wrong. The REAL truth is that insurance companies provide this because it reduces their costs, not adds to it. By rights, any employer denying this should be charged an extra tax to pay for the extra children's health care costs and pregnancy costs that will arise.

Finally, there is the basic principle. Coverage is offered or denied based on formula insurance companies use that get into both effectiveness and cost of various things. I don't agree that this is a great system, BUT if employers are allowed to just "opt out" on their own, then it leaves the door open for employers to just "opt out" of any kind of medical coverage. Jehovah's witnesses can deny coverage for blood transfusions, etc.

Night Strike wrote: Is the insurance company or employer blocking them from paying for it out of their own pockets? That's the fundamental question here. If people are not allowed to buy it on their own, then there could be a need for governmental intervention.
No, its not the “fundamental question”, its not even the question at all. The point is that women ARE PAYING for insurance and need this coverage, but are now being told by some employers to pay extra because the employer doesn’t happen to agree with these women’s healthcare choices. It just is not the employer’s place to have ANY say in that.

This is not about the government, except that the government is saying to employers that if they provide insurance, it must meet certain standards. This coverage is one of those standards.



Night Strike wrote: In this case, you want the employer/insurance/government to pay for the medication instead of the user (yourself).

No more than saying I want the insurance to pay for a cast on my son’s arm if he breaks it.
Again, that is how insurance works. The idea that this gets to be an exception is the issue.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2438
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby Night Strike on Sun Mar 24, 2013 1:30 am

Player, what gives you the right to dictate what product a private business provides? If you don't like that product, you go shop somewhere else. Instead, you use the government to dictate that other businesses provide you with what you want. There is no freedom of choice with you.
Image
User avatar
Captain Night Strike
Tournament Director
Tournament Director
 
Posts: 8633
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm
Medals: 79
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (11) Tournament Contribution (12) General Contribution (18)

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sun Mar 24, 2013 5:21 am

Night Strike wrote:Player, what gives you the right to dictate what product a private business provides? If you don't like that product, you go shop somewhere else. Instead, you use the government to dictate that other businesses provide you with what you want. There is no freedom of choice with you.

Are you truly serious!
Healthcare is not an optional product. Health insurance is not an optional product. The means of delivery of health insurance at this time is through people's employers or the government. It is the government's role to ensure that PEOPLE, not private business interests are protected. Businesses are protected in that they are extensions of private people, but are protected only to the extent they do not seriously impinge upon people's lives and safety.

This falls under that mandate.

Besides, this is about targeting women's health specifically, not general mandates. We all know you want to do away with government. You are under the illusion that simply letting business decide how to run the world will function. We get that. Its a very stupid position, but it is your position. However, to target women's health specifically is the issue here.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2438
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

PreviousNext

Return to Babble-On Five

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DaGip

Login