Why should people get lower rates when they buy plans that don't have birth control?

F

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
Having a child is much more expensive to the insurer than providing for birth control. Plans that don't provide abortion or birth control services should be more expensive to purchase to cover the insurers on the fact that these plans increase the risk of an extremely expensive pregnancy in those that have them. Giving them lower rates when their beliefs lead to higher costs for insurers is total bullshit.
 
Mayocide when? said:
Having a child is much more expensive to the insurer than providing for birth control. Plans that don't provide abortion or birth control services should be more expensive to purchase to cover the insurers on the fact that these plans increase the risk of an extremely expensive pregnancy in those that have them. Giving them lower rates when their beliefs lead to higher costs for insurers is total bullshit.
Click to expand...

Evidently someone out there turning a profit disagrees with you.
 
Mayocide when? said:
Having a child is much more expensive to the insurer than providing for birth control. Plans that don't provide abortion or birth control services should be more expensive to purchase to cover the insurers on the fact that these plans increase the risk of an extremely expensive pregnancy in those that have them. Giving them lower rates when their beliefs lead to higher costs for insurers is total bullshit.
Click to expand...
Are you pregnant?

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
 
Mayocide when? said:
Having a child is much more expensive to the insurer than providing for birth control. Plans that don't provide abortion or birth control services should be more expensive to purchase to cover the insurers on the fact that these plans increase the risk of an extremely expensive pregnancy in those that have them. Giving them lower rates when their beliefs lead to higher costs for insurers is total bullshit.
Click to expand...
In theory, they won't be covered when a pregnancy occurs. Clearly, this admin knows nothing about the foundation of all insurance...cost sharing.

Sure...men don't want to pay for pregnancy, and women don't want to pay for Viagra.

The state of insurance in this country is going to spiral downward, as this administration has cut the legs out from under the ACA, no doubt thinking that nobody will know who to blame.
 
Althea said:
In theory, they won't be covered when a pregnancy occurs. Clearly, this admin knows nothing about the foundation of all insurance...cost sharing.

Sure...men don't want to pay for pregnancy, and women don't want to pay for Viagra.

The state of insurance in this country is going to spiral downward, as this administration has cut the legs out from under the ACA, no doubt thinking that nobody will know who to blame.
Click to expand...

You don’t know what you are talking about. That is not the foundation of insurance.
 
Mayocide when? said:
Having a child is much more expensive to the insurer than providing for birth control. Plans that don't provide abortion or birth control services should be more expensive to purchase to cover the insurers on the fact that these plans increase the risk of an extremely expensive pregnancy in those that have them. Giving them lower rates when their beliefs lead to higher costs for insurers is total bullshit.
Click to expand...

Because your idea punishes gays and old people with higher insurance premiums which means your bigoted proposal is discriminatory in effect.
 
Mayocide when? said:
The idea that everyone get all the health coverage they require?
Click to expand...

The idea that gays and old people should be punished with higher than necessary insurance premiums under the pretense they would be getting coverage they don't want or need. Why should Anderson Cooper have to pay more for insurance so some woman living in a $75K a year household get her birth control for free? Charge the woman actually getting the coverage for her coverage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top