RE: Challenging Affordable Care Act--religious freedom?
March 29, 2014 at 5:25 pm
(This post was last modified: March 29, 2014 at 5:33 pm by *Deidre*.)
(March 29, 2014 at 5:00 pm)alpha male Wrote:(March 29, 2014 at 12:44 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/2...1W20140325I don't think insurance should cover contraceptives, but my reasoning isn't religious. Insurance is supposed to be a pooling of resources to guard against catastrophic events. Contraception is routine. My car insurance doesn't pay for oil changes. My homeowners insurance doesn't pay for a fresh coat of paint. IMO the US is in trouble with health care largely because we've gotten away from the basic insurance principle.
I haven't been following this story 'too' intently, but ran across this article. I have mixed feelings about all of this. I'm no longer religious and while I classify myself as an atheist, is it right to bestow MY views onto religious people? Should all corporations, regardless of their religious affiliations, be required to pay for contraception under their insurance plans?
Your thoughts/opinions?
The main difference however being, if you choose to not take care of your car for example, never getting regular check ups and oil changes, etc... and you get into an accident because of engine failure due to your negligence, in the middle of the highway--your car insurance won't cover your damages, because you were at fault. (let's say your engine's failure caused you to get into an accident that would be deemed at fault)
On the flip side...You can choose to ignore your health your entire life, not exercising, eating poorly, and you end up eventually having a heart attack, yet your health insurance will cover the charges for the heart surgery. (less copays, and other applicable out of pocket expenses associated with your plan) And barring genetics, your poor health choices led you into the hospital for surgery.
Personal lines insurance and health insurance operate differently.
That said, if insurance companies operated similiarly to personal lines insurers, we might see more people exercising, eating cleaner, quitting smoking, etc...
Not to say all illnesses and health issues are self induced, as genetics plays a role, bu in many cases, how we take care of our bodies reflects how they will function.
Not to go off topic too much, but you do bring up some great points.
(March 29, 2014 at 5:19 pm)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:Insurance is supposed to be a pooling of resources to guard against catastrophic events.
If a woman gets knocked up and can't afford a kid its a catastrophe for her. Which is why the government should fully fund abortions. Cheaper than welfare.
Contraception does fail on occasion, but if contraception is available, and affordable, we should see less abortions. I'm not for making abortions illegal, but it changes women's lives, not for the better, who have had them. There's a huge psychological component to them, I've seen friends of mine undergo. So, in a nutshell, I think it's imperative to provide good education and affordable contraception for all women, so an abortion isn't their only option.
The other caveat to the contraception thing is not all women take contraception solely for birth control usage. Some take it to regulate periods and to prevent painful ones. Some take it for other medicinal purposes. So, if this is off the table because of the religious component, then where does this leave women who need it for other reasons? So, health first, religion...well, nevermind. lol
