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.
