toldailytopic: Should the government force companies to offer the Morning After Pill

[PureX]

You wrote:

"The government's responsibility is to ensure you an equal opportunity to pursue your own..."


Why, in your view, is this true for the pursuit of happiness, housing and food, but not health care?


Why do you expect the government to provide health care but not food and housing (and the Donzi necessary for my happiness)?

The government does provide food and shelter if we cannot obtain them on our own. And the government should also provide health care if we cannot obtain it on our own. There is a significant difference between these, however. Food and shelter can be obtained through our system of commerce at a minimal cost. Health care cannot. So that for the government to provide health care to all those who will need it, but who cannot afford it (a huge number of people), it will have to implement an organized national system that does not rely solely on commerce.

 

[resurrected]

The government does provide food and shelter if we cannot obtain them on our own. And the government should also provide health care if we cannot obtain it on our own. There is a significant difference between these, however. Food and shelter can be obtained through our system of commerce at a minimal cost.

Nonsense. My grocery bill is greater than the insurance I buy through my employer. And mortgage payments for houses in my neighborhood average roughly $2500 a month.

If I can no longer afford to pay my mortgage, why shouldn't I expect the government to pay it for me?

Health care cannot.

Sure it can.

How Much Does Health Insurance Cost? The Average Premium for Individual Coverage in 2011 was $183 per month, eHealth Study Finds
02 November, 2011Category: Company-issued Reports, Cost and Benefits, Research
eHealth, Inc. 2011 Cost and Benefits Report Released - Families with Their Own Health Insurance Plans Paid $414 Per Month on Average in 2011


MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA – November 2, 2011 – According to the ‘Cost & Benefits of Individual and Family Health Insurance Plans’ report, released today by eHealth, Inc. (NASDAQ: EHTH), the average premium paid for individual health insurance coverage in the United States in 2011 was $2,196 per year ($183 per month); families paid an average annual premium of $4,968 ($414 per month). The report also found that the average deductible for individually-purchased health insurance plans in 2011 was $2,935 for individuals and $3,879 for families.

So that for the government to provide health care to all those who will need it, but who cannot afford it (a huge number of people), it will have to implement an organized national system that does not rely solely on commerce.

If you really believe that to be true, then you have to explain to me why I shouldn't expect the same reasoning to apply to my housing needs and my food costs.

 

[PureX]

Nonsense. My grocery bill is greater than the insurance I buy through my employer. And mortgage payments for houses in my neighborhood average roughly $2500 a month.

You are paying for more than basic food and shelter, obviously. And your employer is probably paying part of your insurance costs.

If medical insurance was so cheap, there would be no reason for this big fight over Medicaid, would there.

If I can no longer afford to pay my mortgage, why shouldn't I expect the government to pay it for me?

You can collect unemployment for a while. But ultimately the house you are currently living in is a luxury, not a basic necessity, so the rest of us won't help you pay for it. But you know this already.

If you really believe that to be true, then you have to explain to me why I shouldn't expect the same reasoning to apply to my housing needs and my food costs.

If you continue to play the willful ignoramus, we can drop the conversation all together.

 

[resurrected]

You are paying for more than basic food and shelter, obviously. And your employer is probably paying part of your insurance costs.

If medical insurance was so cheap, there would be no reason for this big fight over Medicaid, would there.
You can collect unemployment for a while. But ultimately the house you are currently living in is a luxury, not a basic necessity, so the rest of us won't help you pay for it. But you know this already.
If you continue to play the willful ignoramus, we can drop the conversation all together.

So, now we get to the nub of it. The "Government Health Care" that you progressives want to provide will be on the level as these:

And don't think I didn't notice that you ignored the link I provided.

Much easier for you to make your case that health insurance is unaffordable if you ignore the evidence to the contrary, isn't it?

 

[resurrected]

Here - you can take another look at it:

How Much Does Health Insurance Cost? The Average Premium for Individual Coverage in 2011 was $183 per month, eHealth Study Finds
02 November, 2011Category: Company-issued Reports, Cost and Benefits, Research
eHealth, Inc. 2011 Cost and Benefits Report Released -

Families with Their Own Health Insurance Plans Paid $414 Per Month on Average in 2011


MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA – November 2, 2011 – According to the ‘Cost & Benefits of Individual and Family Health Insurance Plans’ report, released today by eHealth, Inc. (NASDAQ: EHTH), the average premium paid for individual health insurance coverage in the United States in 2011 was $2,196 per year ($183 per month); families paid an average annual premium of $4,968 ($414 per month). The report also found that the average deductible for individually-purchased health insurance plans in 2011 was $2,935 for individuals and $3,879 for families.

 

[PureX]

Here - you can take another look at it:

I wonder how many millions of families can't afford to pay another $414 a month for health care insurance that will very likely have large deductibles that they also will not be able to pay.

 

[resurrected]

I wonder how many millions of families can't afford to pay another $414 a month for health care insurance that will very likely have large deductibles that they also will not be able to pay.

Let 'em use Medicaid.

 

[Alate_One]

Should the government force companies to offer the Morning After Pill as part of their employee health coverage?

No. If the government feels that strongly about access to something that isn't a medical necessity then it should provide it.

In one sense I agree with this. If we would be smart and go with single payer healthcare and not ask employers to deal with employee healthcare *at all* none of this would be an issue. It's always awkward issue and the danger is the employer can end up with too much control over the employee's healthcare.

You can say the employee doesn't have to work for X company, but that's the same logic that got a number women sterilized back in the 1970s. It was American Cyanamid's policy for only sterile women to work in higher paid areas of the plant. Because there was little employment opportunity in the area, there were a number of women that chose to comply with the company's health policy rather than try to find another job.

 

[Sealeaf]

I would expect the push to come from the insurer. One morning after pill is much cheaper than prenatal care and ob coverage. Plus the employee stays productive. I would see the danger being employees being pressured to use teh morning after pill by the empoyer.

 

[swanca99]

No.

 

[Frank Ernest]

they get to define life and choice

Good answer! Bone-chilling, but good!

 

[Frank Ernest]

You are confusing your personal feelings about birth control with health care.

:darwinsm:

Health care practices are not properly determined by personal opinion, but by scientific investigation.

Scientific investigation infallible? I think not. I'll skip that part about your answer being totally irrelevant to the issue.

Our freedom of choice occurs when we as individuals determine our own health care options and course of action.

... except when government disagrees?

As I said, employers should not be providing heath care insurance in the first place. But if they are going to do so, then they are obliged to provide real heath care insurance, and not some collection of half-measures based on their own personal whims.

Employers should not be providing health insurance, but if they do, it's up to government to define what it is and what it should do. (Isn't tyranny just great?)

"First You Say You Do, And Then You Don't. Then you say you will, and then you won't. You're undecided now, so what are you gonna do?" So asked the Ames Brothers, Louis Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald in song some years ago.

 

[Traditio]

You are confusing your personal feelings about birth control with health care. Health care practices are not properly determined by personal opinion, but by scientific investigation.

If what you actually meant was "health care practices are not properly determined by moral precepts, but by scientific investigation alone," then I'm sure that Dr. Mengele would have agreed with you.

As I said, employers should not be providing heath care insurance in the first place. But if they are going to do so, then they are obliged to provide real heath care insurance, and not some collection of half-measures based on their own personal whims.

Medicine has a teleology. The teleology of medicine is health. Health consists in the proper organization and functioning of the organism.

In no sense does a contraceptive or an abortifacient, qua contraceptive or abortifacient, contribute to the proper organization and functioning of any organism.

 

[PureX]

If what you actually meant was "health care practices are not properly determined by moral precepts, but by scientific investigation alone," then I'm sure that Dr. Mengele would have agreed with you.

We have laws against what Mengele did based on equal freedom, justice and opportunity.

Medicine has a teleology. The teleology of medicine is health. Health consists in the proper organization and functioning of the organism.

In no sense does a contraceptive or an abortifacient, qua contraceptive or abortifacient, contribute to the proper organization and functioning of any organism.

You have completely ignored the psychological aspect of the human organism, which is to ignore that which gives the human organism purpose. Health care is far more than "ordered biology".

 

[Traditio]

We have laws against what Mengele did based on equal freedom, justice and opportunity.

Great. Then you grant that moral precepts should influence health care practices.

You have completely ignored the psychological aspect of the human organism, which is to ignore that which gives the human organism purpose. Health care is far more than "ordered biology".

By "health care" I understand that according to which care is provided for the sake of health. Thus: "health care." Whatever health is, it constitutes in the rightful ordering of that thing which has health. It is functioning properly, not improperly.

Contraceptives and abortifacients, insofar as they are contraceptives and abortifacients, do not contribute towards health. In any sense.

You could make the claim that certain contraceptives prevent diseases. Sure. But not qua contraceptive.

 

[resurrected]

What if you define an unwanted pregnancy as a disease?


Or, as Obama does, a punishment?

 

[Traditio]

What if you define an unwanted pregnancy as a disease?

A disease is that according to which health is disrupted. Health is disrupted when the organism is not working properly at least in some respect. "Pregnancy" is not a disruption of the proper functioning of the organism. In fact, pregnancy is the termination of one of the bodily systems.

"Unwanted" doesn't signify a mind-independent determination of the organism. It signifies a relation between mind and reality.

 

[PureX]

Great. Then you grant that moral precepts should influence health care practices.

But our laws aren't based on "moral precepts". They are based on social function.

By "health care" I understand that according to which care is provided for the sake of health. Thus: "health care." Whatever health is, it constitutes in the rightful ordering of that thing which has health. It is functioning properly, not improperly.

By adding the qualifier "properly" you invite morality into it unnecessarily.

Contraceptives and abortifacients, insofar as they are contraceptives and abortifacients, do not contribute towards health. In any sense.

Of course they do. The pregnancy they avoid is significantly stressful and endangering to the body's health. You just can't see it that way because you qualify "health" via your own moral imperatives.

 

[Traditio]

But our laws aren't based on "moral precepts". They are based on social function.

This line of reasoning is silly. If you are saying that there are laws which prevent the abuses of Dr. Mengele, then so what? That does nothing against my claim that you in principle agree with Dr. Mengele, insofar as both of you draw a strict line between moral precepts and health care practices.

If you are saying that there are laws which prevent the abuses of Dr. Mengele, and there should be, then you've conceded the point. There are moral precepts which 1. the law should enact and 2. that these laws should govern health care practices.

But note, this only shows that you believe that moral precepts should govern health care practices.

By adding the qualifier "properly" you invite morality into it unnecessarily.

It's not a moral use of the term. There can be a proper function of the organism, medically speaking, even if the exercise is immoral. If I fornicate with a woman and we conceive a child, then her reproductive system is working properly. The act that conceived the child is still wrong.

When I say "properly," I understand that we cannot but conceive of the parts of the organism as teleologically oriented towards some end when we are talking about health. If I say that body part x is healthy, then I recognize that there is a state of affairs which should hold for it, and that if this state of affairs does not hold, then it is not as it should be, that something is wrong with it.

If the heart is working properly, it is beating and pumping blood throughout my body. If it is not doing that, then it's not working properly.

There is a teleology here, but it's not intrinsically a moral one.

Of course they do. The pregnancy they avoid is significantly stressful and endangering to the body's health. You just can't see it that way because you qualify "health" via your own moral imperatives.

The only way that this would work is if you said that pregnancy constitutes a dysfunction of the organism which is pregnant, and that pregnancy is a disease.

As a matter of fact, this is false. One of the bodily system terminates in pregnancy as its teleological end. If a woman is pregnant, it is because various body parts are working properly.

 

[resurrected]

... significantly stressful and endangering to the body's health.

So is driving in traffic, working in an office, breathing the air in a major city or any of a myriad of other normal daily activities.