That is the way insurance *should* work, however imbedded within that is a system of write offs and price inflation that has taken over teh entire health care system, as the idea of preventative care being covered by insurance (to avoid larger costs later on) has allowed health insurance to become a far greater necessity than it ought to be. If health insurance companies were not allowed to require write offs on insurance claims then prices might become more modrate ad we might get back to that point. Of course it's hard to make that a law when Medicare is the biggest cost adjuster of all...

Shouldn't a person, in order to be insured in the US work something like 40 h/week? If yes, wouldn't be $200 a month be a bit below minimum wage?



(I'm not 100% sure about the first question, but second is purely rhetorical because equivalent of $200 would even in my country roughly half of legal minimum wage after taxes)

Yes, which is why i stated that since it was an employer mandate we should probably be talking about someone who was paid $1364 a month. Not everyone is able to work, which is why I know women with 3 kids who only have $200 a month to live on. I had thought the post you quoted was fairly clear on this point.

Sorry - I spot that later.

EDIT: I mean if you want to help people on the bottom not to reproduce I think that the whole idea of providing contraception to the insured through their employer is missing the whole point.

My apologies. I was implying the difficulty of the individuals affected by this legislation did not have difficulty gaining access to contraception. And note that this was not really an issue or even a debatable topic until the government mandate came down.



I am struggling not to take the time and disprove the overwhelming majority of attacks on conservatism -- but I don't think that would prove my point. This thread, however, does pretty much explain why politics IS indeed broken and why we should distance ourselves from it as much as possible.

Squeak, as was mentioned above saying that the Republican party has strayed != attacks on conservatism as a whole.

So you are suggesting the reason for Squeak's Law is that it is the Republican Party's fault?
Never mind that the US Congress has been either partially or entirely democratic since 2006?

I'm just trying to understand the logic here.

That's totally true. It wasn't an issue until this particular mandate, which is actually less of a mandate than already existed. It was pointed out to me just a little bit ago that employers who provide health insurance that covers drugs and devices are actually already required to cover contraceptives because to not do so is sex discrimination. It was an EEOC ruling in 2000, reinforced bya Supereme Court case, Erickson v. The Bartell Company in 2001.

Curious that it should cause a furious uproar now, oui?

That case doesn't say anything about providing free birth control with no additional cost and no copay -- including the 'morning after' pill.

This just 'smacks' of a political agenda by the current administration....

<Struggles to not make any partisan comments about this and further divert the thread>

No, but it does say that if you cover prescription drugs, you are required to cover contraception. The rule change is about how much the employee has to pay for it, not about whether it has to be provided or not. It was already required to be provided, no exceptions.

They're politicians, of course it's a political agenda. Come on, Squeak, that's just a silly thing to say.