White House says health insurance needs to fully cover condoms, other over-the-counter birth control
White House says health insurance needs to fully cover condoms, other over-the-counter birth control
Millions of people with private health insurance would be able to pick up over-the-counter methods like condoms under a new rule.
You're viewing a single thread.
A desperate attempt by Kamala to win more votes?
What is your specific issue with this policy?
I get that you think it is being done as a political stunt, but what is the actual issue you have with it aside from that?
Insurance is why the cost of healthcare is out of control in the US.
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
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.
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
Then insurance should also not cover things like breast exams and colonoscopies, right?
They are not unexpected events.
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.
You didn't answer my question.
Should breast exams and colonoscopies be covered by insurance?
I did answer, I think that should be negotiated between the insurer and insuree, and should not be required to be covered.
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.
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?
Damn those dems using common sense policies to win votes!!
I want my representatives to use fear mongering and do absolutely nothing!
No, thats not what I think
...I think
Let me fix that for you: a politician’s attempt to court disengaged voters by presenting a popular proposal. AKA democracy.
An interesting cause to embrace two weeks before an election, then.
(White House does anything)
This person: Why are they interfering with the election?!
They've been in office for 4 years and they finally think about the voters. What reaction do you expect?
they finally think about the voters.
Okay so apparently you've been burying your head in the sand because it's been nothing but progress in the past four years. From college forgiveness, to decriminalization, drop in violent crime, expanding overtime...
But nah it's cool bro THANKS BRANDON or whatever y'all say
I wouldn't say "nothing but progress". There was that railroad union busting thing. And the student loan thing (though that was the Republicans' fault). And currently there's the whole genocide thing.
But on the other other hand there was the CHIPS act which is massively expanding chip foundries within the country, the IRA which has crap loads of federal money for energy efficient upgrades to homes and businesses, or the Build Back Better act which provided a crap load of federal money for infrastructure improvements. Most of these will be extremely slow burn bills that will be incredibly instrumental in the long term improvement of the country but won't be immediately obvious to voters
Perhaps the voting public to have a bit more reflection than you seem to. It's not like this is the one thing they've done in four years.
Harris is in serious danger of losing to Trump. It takes a special kind of terrible candidate to be able to do that. Only Hillary Clinton accomplished it in the past. If Trump gets re-elected though, maybe the Dems can try for a new world record by launching three failed impeachments next term instead of two.
Who exactly should they have run, and did you canvass for that person?
Remember, that person also has to want to run.
So do they just have to stop governing at some point in order to receive your blessing. Exactly how many weeks/months out should they stop governing?
It's better than pretending to work at a fast food restaurant while also ignoring health codes.
Is it tho?
- Musk stan who sees no problem handing out a million dollars for a voting pledge
The White House: *does anything*
Idiots: DERE JEST DOING IT FUR VOTES!!!
Also idiots: DA DUMOCRATES HAVUNT DUN ENYTHING DURRING DERE TURM!!!1!!
Shhhhhh... The adults are working...
Go finish your beer.
that's the hardest ratio on this site I've SEEN. The only upvote from one hundred and six people was from yourself.
I've got plus around 500 and minus around 500 on Reddit once EDIT: in the same day. Don't remember which was which. The upvoted comment was vague approval of USSR's actually existent checks and balances. I suspect the other one was generally the same at the same subreddit. I suspect when Redditors see something vague, they just guess, and then the next Redditor only looks at the vote count.
I don't really think of proposing new policies as "desperate" so much as just trying to outline her goals to people who are still undecided.
Now if she went out and did some weird photoshoot stunt, I might start to pull out the desperate label.
The good ol' Mickey D's strategy
How dare she... Give people the things they want for votes... The outrage!
A desperate attempt by Kamala to limit the number of women dying from pregnancy complications since they have little to no access to abortion?