Now, here's a disclaimer: I don't typically discuss politics or religion at all, and I try to avoid discussing really divisive hot button items. Why? There's no point. The percentage of people able to hold a civil conversation with differing opinions just seems to continuously decline while ignorance increases. As such, it is much easier to just steer clear of it altogether. If someone directly asks me a question, I will answer it, but I won't instigate, and I won't voluntarily contribute to a discussion more often that not on one of these two topics. To me, the fact that most people cannot and could not identify any political or religious beliefs I have is a positive, as it is important to me to be an open-minded person, someone who is impartial on issues and bases conclusions on rationality and not emotion. At the end of the day, my thought is "who the hell am I to think my opinion is worth more than anyone else's?" It's not worth more, but the ability to analyze facts and come to a logical conclusion is not something that is as disputable as an opinion based on any sort of bias or emotion.
At lunch yesterday there was a discussion about healthcare. The topic of birth control never came up once, but obviously it has been a huge issue discussed. What my problem is for many things is hypocrisy. Look, I get it, not everyone likes birth control for one reason or another. Maybe they are religiously opposed. Maybe they are opposed to forcing someone to pay for something they don't agree with as part of an insurance policy. Maybe they are opposed to making someone pay for a coverage they will never utilize. I get all that, with perhaps the last reason the piece I'd focus on. I'm not going to change anyone's opinions on moral grounds. It just isn't going to happen. What I can't idly sit by and accept without being irritated is this thought that "we shouldn't have to pay for birth control if we don't use it" unless that same argument is applied consistently.
So basically, here is the argument people make: "Why should we have to pay for birth control in our health insurance premiums if we don't use it? It's not fair."
And here is how one might respond: "Why should we have to pay for you to pop a kid out? It's way more expensive, makes up a larger component of an insurance premium, and quite frankly, we don't need more people on this overpopulated planet."
I just don't see where people get off thinking that it makes sense for maternity expenses to have to be included in health insurance policies but birth control shouldn't be. Like I said, as long as the sentiment is consistent, it's preposterous to me. I completely understand that health insurance is different from other types of insurance. I suggest it should differ less; make coverages separate. A homeowners policy doesn't include coverage for replacement cost on personal property unless you add it for an additional premium. An auto policy doesn't offer towing and rental car coverages unless you add it for an additional premium. If a woman doesn't want to ever have kids, knows it, and doesn't want to subsidize people who do want kids, she shouldn't have to pay for it. The problem here is twofold: there's an attitudinal problem and a structural problem. While I could write quite a bit on each, the short version is 1) people don't think they should have to pay for things of others, but then they think their specific needs should be covered, and 2) we have a system that requires people and employers to purchase coverage that is not customized to their needs unless they want to be fined. The employment based structure is problematic for a number of reasons, but the one I am addressing here is that the employer has to secure a group policy that meets the needs of the entire group instead of letting people shop for the coverage that suits them best (and the options for an individual are not robust anyhow).
Before I fall into a never-ending session of postulating on health care and insurance, I'll wrap this one up just by asking why it is so hard for people to open their eyes? One of my biggest irritants is the preponderance of double standards that one is confronted with day in and day out. Assuming that the healthcare system here is not beyond repair (which I believe it is - there are just too many factors all playing into it for it to be otherwise), I really think the attitudinal differences are going to have to play a bigger role than any structural differences. There are a lot of very different healthcare systems out there with much more efficient outcomes for the same or better health results, so it should demonstrate that you can make a number of structures work provided the public has the appropriate attitude accompanying it.
So basically, here is the argument people make: "Why should we have to pay for birth control in our health insurance premiums if we don't use it? It's not fair."
And here is how one might respond: "Why should we have to pay for you to pop a kid out? It's way more expensive, makes up a larger component of an insurance premium, and quite frankly, we don't need more people on this overpopulated planet."
I just don't see where people get off thinking that it makes sense for maternity expenses to have to be included in health insurance policies but birth control shouldn't be. Like I said, as long as the sentiment is consistent, it's preposterous to me. I completely understand that health insurance is different from other types of insurance. I suggest it should differ less; make coverages separate. A homeowners policy doesn't include coverage for replacement cost on personal property unless you add it for an additional premium. An auto policy doesn't offer towing and rental car coverages unless you add it for an additional premium. If a woman doesn't want to ever have kids, knows it, and doesn't want to subsidize people who do want kids, she shouldn't have to pay for it. The problem here is twofold: there's an attitudinal problem and a structural problem. While I could write quite a bit on each, the short version is 1) people don't think they should have to pay for things of others, but then they think their specific needs should be covered, and 2) we have a system that requires people and employers to purchase coverage that is not customized to their needs unless they want to be fined. The employment based structure is problematic for a number of reasons, but the one I am addressing here is that the employer has to secure a group policy that meets the needs of the entire group instead of letting people shop for the coverage that suits them best (and the options for an individual are not robust anyhow).
Before I fall into a never-ending session of postulating on health care and insurance, I'll wrap this one up just by asking why it is so hard for people to open their eyes? One of my biggest irritants is the preponderance of double standards that one is confronted with day in and day out. Assuming that the healthcare system here is not beyond repair (which I believe it is - there are just too many factors all playing into it for it to be otherwise), I really think the attitudinal differences are going to have to play a bigger role than any structural differences. There are a lot of very different healthcare systems out there with much more efficient outcomes for the same or better health results, so it should demonstrate that you can make a number of structures work provided the public has the appropriate attitude accompanying it.
I've noticed similarities in Medicaid, welfare, etc. in the city where I live, which is highly depressed [largely due to having 2 high-security prisons, and many of the, may I say, trashy, families move here from other cities]. I can't help but be appalled by the increasingly low standards of the lower class in what was once a beautiful city. These people put themselves in less than ideal situations on a daily basis [to put it nicely], refuse to work, multiply like rabbits, and live off 'the system' - all too Jerry Springer-esque. Here, it seems as if women have kids [with unknown fathers] and use them as a way to collect free money, etc., which they often use for drugs. I've seen plenty of people buy beer with food stamps they get for being less than a decent human being. These people don't care about using the aid for a better quality of life, they only care about what's in front of them at any given time. And no one steps in. The government rewards these people while those who did all the 'right things', but happen to be going through rough financial times, and want to work, etc., are denied any help at all. It's like being a total piece of sh!t is glorified.
ReplyDeleteAnd really, I think we have the government, religion, etc., and the media they control, to thank for feeding society these messages that lead us to lower our standards. Gone are the days when people are willing to work hard for a good life. It's as if no one wants to accept responsibility for their actions, no one wants to contribute any more than the next guy. Yet when reward isn't as easy to come by, they're the first to complain- 'this is offensive', 'this is harassment'. When faced with rules, respond with- 'but I have problems'. It's everywhere now- from health insurance to the quality of the food at McDonald's.
There is a very good reason why Americans are the assholes of the universe. I hate them too, and I am one. Where has our morale gone?
I've always said that the purpose of welfare is to help the people unable to help themselves, not the people who choose not to help themselves. The government does absolutely nothing to try and fix anything; politics is such a money and power grab, and no one stands for the people. Instead of fixing things, both of the major parties simply try to incite disgust for the other party by taking polar opposite positions. Actually working to fix something that is broken is not as beneficial of making empty promises and mudslinging against the other party. You don't see either party trying to ensure the people who need welfare get it and the people who milk the system don't. You have one party trying to drastically scale it back altogether, and you have another that wants to keep expanding the current system. Nowhere is there a "fix what we have in place today". Why? Because it's easier to play the "welfare goes to people stealing your hard earned money" to rally the mob, or "those rich bastards want to take the food out of peoples' mouths while they eat caviar" to rally the mob. It's like that with the vast majority of issues. Neither party is for bigger or smaller government; they're both in it for the money, and they just happen to get it from different people.
ReplyDelete