|
Grex > Agora56 > #105: State: Wal-Mart must carry emergency contraception | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 526 responses total. |
marcvh
|
|
response 242 of 526:
| 
Mar 1 04:12 UTC 2006 |
Well, you got me curious, so I checked the policy offered by my own
company. It covers all forms of non-OTC contraception (the pill, IUD,
Norplant, vasectomy, tubal ligation) but sexual dysfunction is
specifically not covered. No coverage for Viagra or the like.
Psychotherapy is covered for pretty much any reason except for sexual
problems; likewise with seeing your physician or a specialist (a
urologist or whatever.) This is a policy which is ostensiby
gender-neutral, applying equally to men with ED and women with
"Inhibited Sexual Desire" (ISD) although I'm not sure its impact ends
up being the same to both genders.
There has been some controversy about Viagra when newspapers started
reporting that former sexual offenders were getting Viagra and it was
being paid for by Medicaid, and this apparently gave people images of
their own tax dollars being used to create new super-sex-predators who
would brutally rape women and children with the incredible power of
modern pharmaceuticals.
|
slynne
|
|
response 243 of 526:
|
Mar 1 12:37 UTC 2006 |
Now you have piqued my curiosity. I wonder how insurance coverage varies
by state. Is birth control more likely to be covered in "blue" states?
|
tod
|
|
response 244 of 526:
|
Mar 1 13:42 UTC 2006 |
Psychotherapy doesn't help ED for situations where someone has a disease like
diabetes which causes plaque resulting in ED. Of course, ED at that point
is more about mental health.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 245 of 526:
|
Mar 1 14:23 UTC 2006 |
Endo isn't helped by psychotherapy, but can be helped by hormonal birth
control.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 246 of 526:
|
Mar 1 19:06 UTC 2006 |
"what th' heck awr wemmen complanin about...thay kin
git vaslleen otc an thets all th' sexual aid thay need
fer as im consarned, lynne *slutlover* freemond."
love in christ,
james *naked shower with your son* dobson
|
slynne
|
|
response 247 of 526:
|
Mar 1 19:20 UTC 2006 |
:)
|
happyboy
|
|
response 248 of 526:
|
Mar 1 19:35 UTC 2006 |
"so whur 'r yew doin sunday after mornin' worship, miz
freemond?"
love in christ,
james *boobs-a-lot* dobson
|
slynne
|
|
response 249 of 526:
|
Mar 1 21:27 UTC 2006 |
Shucks, I dont think that far ahead.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 250 of 526:
|
Mar 1 22:21 UTC 2006 |
>I wonder how insurance coverage varies by state. Is birth control more
>likely to be covered in "blue" states?
Along those lines, this:
http://www.agi-usa.org/media/nr/2006/02/21/index.html
|
klg
|
|
response 251 of 526:
|
Mar 2 11:45 UTC 2006 |
Health insurance mandates by state. Here's the url for a report with a
state by state chart. Someone else can do the counting & analysis.
http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/MandatePubDec2004.pdf
|
johnnie
|
|
response 252 of 526:
|
Mar 2 15:01 UTC 2006 |
Thanks, "klg"--that's a truly handy link.
A quick look would seem to show that mandated contraceptive coverage (29
states) does not seem to follow any predictable red/blue pattern. Only
21 states mandate maternity coverage.
Other tidbits:
*45 states mandate alcoholism treatment coverage, only 35 mandate drug
abuse treatment coverage.
*Only one state does not mandate mammogram coverage (Utah); only one
state (Washington) does not mandate coverage for maternity hospitalization.
*9 states (including Michigan) do not require insurance policies to
cover adopted children.
*13 states mandate newborn hearing screening coverage; only 2 states
mandate coverage for newborn sickle-cell testing.
*47 states mandate that chiropractors be a covered provider; only 11
states do the same for nurses.
*Minnesota mandates the most coverages, Idaho the fewest. Michigan
ranks near the bottom (somewhere around 43rd)
|
keesan
|
|
response 253 of 526:
|
Mar 2 15:27 UTC 2006 |
If you force people to pay for all the above in their policies, the policies
will cost a lot more. My Michigan policy lets me pay extra for maternity
coverage, but it paid 100% (instead of the usual 80%) for a mammogram. I
would pay a lot extra to cover a dependent of any sort. If you force
insurance to cover everything, individual plans will be a lot more expensive.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 254 of 526:
|
Mar 2 15:51 UTC 2006 |
> If you force insurance to cover everything, individual plans will be
> a lot more expensive.
Isn't that the main argument against national healthcare?
|
twenex
|
|
response 255 of 526:
|
Mar 2 16:05 UTC 2006 |
The main argument against national healthcare is that it would enable the
spread of healthcare to those who need it, rather than those who can afford
it.
|
keesan
|
|
response 256 of 526:
|
Mar 2 16:21 UTC 2006 |
National healthcare would tax the rich to keep the poor healthy, so that the
healthy poor can work for the rich better to keep them rich.
It would also avoid a lot of administrative costs, keeping healthcare cheaper
for everyone.
|
richard
|
|
response 257 of 526:
|
Mar 2 16:23 UTC 2006 |
national healthcare would help ensure that people have health care
consistently during their lives, which will greatly lower the number of sick
elderly people that will end up entirely dependent on the government in their
last years. When the baby boom generation hits their seventies, there is
going to be incredible pressure on existing health care facilities because
we will have never had anywhere near as many old people. National healthcare
will SAVE us money in the long run. It is something fiscal conservatives
should push for if they really ARE fiscal conservatives.
|
slynne
|
|
response 258 of 526:
|
Mar 2 16:49 UTC 2006 |
I think that National healthcare is probably good for big business.
Most large companies would LOVE to get rid of that expense. I suspect
that the Walmarts and the General Motors of the world are already
lobbying hard for it which means that it might actually come to pass.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 259 of 526:
|
Mar 2 16:53 UTC 2006 |
I think most fiscal conservatives who understand the healthcare issue
are in favor of a national healthcare system. They might disagree on
how to implement it though.
Jeff, was that sarcasm? If so, ;)
|
klg
|
|
response 260 of 526:
|
Mar 2 17:21 UTC 2006 |
National health insurance is a foolproof way to really screw up things
and make it more expensive, to boot.
On the subject of mandated coverage, those only apply to health plans
that are not subject to ERISA. Because ERISA regulates, for example,
the auto industry health plans, they are exempt from state mandates.
|
twenex
|
|
response 261 of 526:
|
Mar 2 17:28 UTC 2006 |
National health insurance is a foolproof way to really screw up things
and make it more expensive, to boot.
That's a hell of a recommendation, coming from you.
|
jep
|
|
response 262 of 526:
|
Mar 2 17:43 UTC 2006 |
I don't think very many fiscal conservatives are in favor of a
government sponsored national health insurance plan.
|
richard
|
|
response 263 of 526:
|
Mar 2 17:43 UTC 2006 |
how is it going to make it more expensive if you have fewer sick people?
clearly it would SAVE money in the long run.
|
klg
|
|
response 264 of 526:
|
Mar 2 17:55 UTC 2006 |
Oh, oh. Where do you get your information? Here's a little dittie on
how the government typically wildly underestimates the cost of health
care programs. Have fun.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/7/4/61.pdf#search='Medicare
%20ESRD%20cost%20estimate'
|
richard
|
|
response 265 of 526:
|
Mar 2 18:10 UTC 2006 |
klg what do you propose we do when the number of senior citizens in this
country quadruples, many of whom will be sick from lack of health care? Put
them out of their misery rather than have the government pay for their care?
|
tod
|
|
response 266 of 526:
|
Mar 2 18:14 UTC 2006 |
I think national healthcare would increase malpractice by 100 fold and people
would be less likely to seek preventative healthcare. Do you really want the
government running healthcare? Look at how bad the VA is screwed up.
|