[ARCHIVED THREAD] - illegitimate rape insurance (Page 3 of 3)
|
Quoted:
That doesn't change the fact that you are always subsidizing someone else's problems. At no point in time will your monthly payments actually cover your $1mil policy, let alone provide profit to the insurance agency. If that was the case, there would almost no reason to buy insurance. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Talk about controlling the narrative. 
This bill basically allows people in Michigan to exercise greater control over their health insurance, and keeps abortion coverage from being subsidize by people that will never, ever have an abortion. And even Arfcom opposes it. So a woman has the right to choose... but not what her insurance covers?  The problem with your argument is that this bill ONLY talks about abortion and not about anything else regarding "health insurance"! The people of Michigan (and everywhere else) should be allowed to decide what coverage(s) they want to subsidize. But ALL coverages should be open for a vote and not just abortion. But since this bill ONLY talks about abortion it's clearly an anti-abortion measure and nothing else! You're not fooling anyone by claiming that this is an health insurance issue! Do you know how insurance works? People pay for shit that happened to someone else, with the stipulation that when shit happens to them, everyone else pays for them. What happens when all the men decide they don't want to pay for breast cancer? Insurance is about mitigating risk by paying up front. The more risk you want to mitigate, the more you pay, which is why a million dollar life insurance policy costs more than a 500k life insurance policy. Men get breast cancer too--they just have a much lesser risk. If a man wants to reduce upfront costs by taking the risk and not having his breast cancer covered, then he should have that choice. That doesn't change the fact that you are always subsidizing someone else's problems. At no point in time will your monthly payments actually cover your $1mil policy, let alone provide profit to the insurance agency. If that was the case, there would almost no reason to buy insurance. If you don't live in a flood zone, since you don't have as much risk, you save on premiums by pooling with people who also don't live in flood zones. If you are a non smoker, you should not be penalized by being pooled with smokers, and so forth. |
|
Quoted: Webster's dictionary isn't an authority on the English language. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: He used the word "children," which is even worse. Definition 1A for the word "child" in Webster's is? As others have said; "words mean things". ;) |
|
Quoted: You can try to redefine the word all you want it is flat out dishonest. Child is from old english cild. Which does describe offspring in and out of the womb. That is why people used to and sometimes say she is with child. Liberals love redefining words to push their agenda. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: He used the word "children," which is even worse. Definition 1A for the word "child" in Webster's is? As others have said; "words mean things". ;) |
|
Quoted:
I agree. Now if I can just get our legislature to force private companies to remove coverage for infections caused by tattoos! Dirty inkies should have to get separate coverage for their shame. Or, you know, we could let private companies decide what they want their products to do, and consumers could decide what product features they need. Insanity, I know. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There are all kinds of legitimate reasons to terminate WANTED pregnancies. Will these not be covered as well? not if you don't pay for the coverage. Which seems fair to me. I mean I don't pay for my neighbor's house, so I'm not allowed in it unless they invite me. So why should I get free shit from my insurance company that I'm not paying for? I agree. Now if I can just get our legislature to force private companies to remove coverage for infections caused by tattoos! Dirty inkies should have to get separate coverage for their shame. Or, you know, we could let private companies decide what they want their products to do, and consumers could decide what product features they need. Insanity, I know. Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. What this legislation is doing is removing the force of government from making insurance (one private party) offer services to their consumers (another private party). The government requiring a private party to sell something to everybody means I am paying for shit I don't need on behalf of other people. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of wanting to give free shit to people to buy their vote. As a side note, I would dance for joy if I could purchase cheaper insurance that doesn't cover infection from tattoos. I don't have any, hate needles, and so won't ever have any. Thus I don't need to insure against that risk. |
|
Quoted:
Exactly. And the more "accurately" you can get yourself in a risk pool, the better off you'll be. The law of large numbers is amazing. Life is crazy and random, but a big enough number of lives, especially similar ones, is frighteningly predicable. Ironically, Vegas works pretty much the same way. You never know which player will win and which will lose, but if you know how many players are in the casino, the house can forecast its "take" with uncanny accuracy. Quoted:
Quoted:
10 people each spend $100/month on insurance, giving the insurance company $1000 per month. Their bet is that in the pool of 10 people, the total payout won't exceed $1000 per month. (More like they hope it doesn't exceed $700 a month or whatever). Statistics like a motherfucker, actuary tables, etc. Quite a science goes into it. Exactly. And the more "accurately" you can get yourself in a risk pool, the better off you'll be. The law of large numbers is amazing. Life is crazy and random, but a big enough number of lives, especially similar ones, is frighteningly predicable. Ironically, Vegas works pretty much the same way. You never know which player will win and which will lose, but if you know how many players are in the casino, the house can forecast its "take" with uncanny accuracy. For example, life insurance through the IEEE is cheaper than average. If only the government would force electrical engineers to pay more for life insurance so that everybody could have it
|
|
Quoted:
Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. What this legislation is doing is removing the force of government from making insurance (one private party) offer services to their consumers (another private party). The government requiring a private party to sell something to everybody means I am paying for shit I don't need on behalf of other people. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of wanting to give free shit to people to buy their vote. As a side note, I would dance for joy if I could purchase cheaper insurance that doesn't cover infection from tattoos. I don't have any, hate needles, and so won't ever have any. Thus I don't need to insure against that risk. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There are all kinds of legitimate reasons to terminate WANTED pregnancies. Will these not be covered as well? not if you don't pay for the coverage. Which seems fair to me. I mean I don't pay for my neighbor's house, so I'm not allowed in it unless they invite me. So why should I get free shit from my insurance company that I'm not paying for? I agree. Now if I can just get our legislature to force private companies to remove coverage for infections caused by tattoos! Dirty inkies should have to get separate coverage for their shame. Or, you know, we could let private companies decide what they want their products to do, and consumers could decide what product features they need. Insanity, I know. Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. What this legislation is doing is removing the force of government from making insurance (one private party) offer services to their consumers (another private party). The government requiring a private party to sell something to everybody means I am paying for shit I don't need on behalf of other people. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of wanting to give free shit to people to buy their vote. As a side note, I would dance for joy if I could purchase cheaper insurance that doesn't cover infection from tattoos. I don't have any, hate needles, and so won't ever have any. Thus I don't need to insure against that risk. Facts you say? A qualified health plan offered through an American health benefit exchange in this state pursuant to the patient protection and affordable care act, Public Law 111-148, as amended by the health care and education reconciliation act of 2010, Public Law 111-152, shall not provide coverage for elective abortion. "Shall not provide" sounds sort of like force - but I don't know what the penalty is. Do you have any facts to share about that? |