Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 3:43:00 PM (view original):
I don't care what you believe. You've never met my wife.

99 percent of investors don't have cases in front of the Supreme Court where their " moral beliefs" and "investment beliefs" are exact opposites.

Open an investment firm.  You/your wife are doing the work.  Make the money.

So, if you have a public hearing with the SCOTUS, you need to tidy up your house?    I'm OK with that.   But it's still two seperate issues.

taintluck sez "Give me my Plan B pills on my health insurance or make less money with my 401k plan!!!  I demand it!!!!!"

Not sure that's the smartest stance but at least he's standing by his convictions.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/9/2014 2:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/9/2014 1:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/9/2014 1:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/9/2014 1:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/9/2014 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 11:55:00 AM (view original):
They offer health care to their employees. Birth control is covered by all health care plans. They should not be able to pick and choose what benefits they cover just as I can't pick what my tax money pays for.

Now, if an employee is paying into their health care plan, shouldn't they have a say in what is covered?

Bingo. Health insurance isn't a la carte.

Why shouldn't it be?

Because that would cause problems. If enough people opt out of a certain coverage, for example if all women opted out of coverage for testicular and prostate cancer, there might not be enough premium collected to cover the losses from people who do elect the coverage. Also, what is causing a health problem isn't always immediately apparent. How do you sort out what's covered and what isn't? It's more effective from both a rate setting perspective and a claim adjusting perspective to just cover all health issues with one policy.

So you're endorsing a health insurance system in which people are forced to pay for coverages that they can never use as optimal and effective.

Good job.

That's the way insurance works. If you only paid for the stuff you were going to need, it wouldn't be insurance, just pre-paid health care.

Why does a single man need to pay premiums for birth control pills engineered for women?

Forcing people to pay for **** they'll never need in order to get covered for the **** they will need is not exactly a financially efficient system.  Just another cog in the healthcare clusterfuck in the US.  The clusterfuck that Obamacare doesn't address.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/9/2014 2:48:00 PM (view original):
I think, at this point, you're only arguing against it because it's me, not because you don't like it. Basically, if I say X, you're saying Y, no matter what.

Being on the opposite side of most of your retarded arguments is usually the better path.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/9/2014 10:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/9/2014 2:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/9/2014 1:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/9/2014 1:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/9/2014 1:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/9/2014 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 11:55:00 AM (view original):
They offer health care to their employees. Birth control is covered by all health care plans. They should not be able to pick and choose what benefits they cover just as I can't pick what my tax money pays for.

Now, if an employee is paying into their health care plan, shouldn't they have a say in what is covered?

Bingo. Health insurance isn't a la carte.

Why shouldn't it be?

Because that would cause problems. If enough people opt out of a certain coverage, for example if all women opted out of coverage for testicular and prostate cancer, there might not be enough premium collected to cover the losses from people who do elect the coverage. Also, what is causing a health problem isn't always immediately apparent. How do you sort out what's covered and what isn't? It's more effective from both a rate setting perspective and a claim adjusting perspective to just cover all health issues with one policy.

So you're endorsing a health insurance system in which people are forced to pay for coverages that they can never use as optimal and effective.

Good job.

That's the way insurance works. If you only paid for the stuff you were going to need, it wouldn't be insurance, just pre-paid health care.

Why does a single man need to pay premiums for birth control pills engineered for women?

Forcing people to pay for **** they'll never need in order to get covered for the **** they will need is not exactly a financially efficient system.  Just another cog in the healthcare clusterfuck in the US.  The clusterfuck that Obamacare doesn't address.

For the same reason that women pay for coverage for prostate cancer. Insurance isn't a la carte.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/9/2014 3:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 3:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/9/2014 3:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 2:18:00 PM (view original):
How do you know they're never going to use an option?

Would a single man get an abortion?

Are they always going to be single?

If they get married, it's a lifestyle change.  They can add a spouse to their coverage.  In an a-la-carte system, I would also allow them to be able to add certain additional coverages for the spouse.

How about just covering everything?  It saves a **** ton of red tape.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/9/2014 10:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/9/2014 10:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/9/2014 2:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/9/2014 1:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/9/2014 1:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/9/2014 1:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/9/2014 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 11:55:00 AM (view original):
They offer health care to their employees. Birth control is covered by all health care plans. They should not be able to pick and choose what benefits they cover just as I can't pick what my tax money pays for.

Now, if an employee is paying into their health care plan, shouldn't they have a say in what is covered?

Bingo. Health insurance isn't a la carte.

Why shouldn't it be?

Because that would cause problems. If enough people opt out of a certain coverage, for example if all women opted out of coverage for testicular and prostate cancer, there might not be enough premium collected to cover the losses from people who do elect the coverage. Also, what is causing a health problem isn't always immediately apparent. How do you sort out what's covered and what isn't? It's more effective from both a rate setting perspective and a claim adjusting perspective to just cover all health issues with one policy.

So you're endorsing a health insurance system in which people are forced to pay for coverages that they can never use as optimal and effective.

Good job.

That's the way insurance works. If you only paid for the stuff you were going to need, it wouldn't be insurance, just pre-paid health care.

Why does a single man need to pay premiums for birth control pills engineered for women?

Forcing people to pay for **** they'll never need in order to get covered for the **** they will need is not exactly a financially efficient system.  Just another cog in the healthcare clusterfuck in the US.  The clusterfuck that Obamacare doesn't address.

For the same reason that women pay for coverage for prostate cancer. Insurance isn't a la carte.

Nice circular argument.

Good job.

Posted by The Taint on 7/10/2014 12:17:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/9/2014 3:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 3:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/9/2014 3:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 2:18:00 PM (view original):
How do you know they're never going to use an option?

Would a single man get an abortion?

Are they always going to be single?

If they get married, it's a lifestyle change.  They can add a spouse to their coverage.  In an a-la-carte system, I would also allow them to be able to add certain additional coverages for the spouse.

How about just covering everything?  It saves a **** ton of red tape.

So you would prefer to pay more money for health insurance to pay for things you'll never need or never use because it's easier that way?

That's an interesting approach to money management.

Next time you stop by the grocery store on your way home from work to buy a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread, just give them a $50 at the door when you walk in.  You'll be in and out of the store in no time.

taintluck doesn't care about money.   He'd prefer Hobby Lobby invest his 401k money in less profitable companies if they're not going to supply him with Plan B pills via his healhcare coverage.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/10/2014 5:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/9/2014 10:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/9/2014 10:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/9/2014 2:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/9/2014 1:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/9/2014 1:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/9/2014 1:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/9/2014 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 11:55:00 AM (view original):
They offer health care to their employees. Birth control is covered by all health care plans. They should not be able to pick and choose what benefits they cover just as I can't pick what my tax money pays for.

Now, if an employee is paying into their health care plan, shouldn't they have a say in what is covered?

Bingo. Health insurance isn't a la carte.

Why shouldn't it be?

Because that would cause problems. If enough people opt out of a certain coverage, for example if all women opted out of coverage for testicular and prostate cancer, there might not be enough premium collected to cover the losses from people who do elect the coverage. Also, what is causing a health problem isn't always immediately apparent. How do you sort out what's covered and what isn't? It's more effective from both a rate setting perspective and a claim adjusting perspective to just cover all health issues with one policy.

So you're endorsing a health insurance system in which people are forced to pay for coverages that they can never use as optimal and effective.

Good job.

That's the way insurance works. If you only paid for the stuff you were going to need, it wouldn't be insurance, just pre-paid health care.

Why does a single man need to pay premiums for birth control pills engineered for women?

Forcing people to pay for **** they'll never need in order to get covered for the **** they will need is not exactly a financially efficient system.  Just another cog in the healthcare clusterfuck in the US.  The clusterfuck that Obamacare doesn't address.

For the same reason that women pay for coverage for prostate cancer. Insurance isn't a la carte.

Nice circular argument.

Good job.

Sorry you don't like the answer but that's the way it is.

BL: That's the way health insurance works.
Tec: Why shouldn't it work a different way?
BL: Because the insurance companies want to collect more money.
Tec: That's not a good reason.
BL:  Sorry, but that's the way it works.

Another BL argument fail.

Good job.

You clearly don't understand it. That's ok. No one expects more from you.

Ignore birth control. It's relatively inexpensive, prevents more expensive medical bills, and doesn't really add to the cost of health insurance.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/10/2014 11:20:00 AM (view original):
You clearly don't understand it. That's ok. No one expects more from you.

Ignore birth control. It's relatively inexpensive, prevents more expensive medical bills, and doesn't really add to the cost of health insurance.

Does the cost of birth control pills for a single male have high marginal utility or low marginal utility with respect to the cost of his healthcare insurance premiums?

Posted by tecwrg on 7/10/2014 11:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/10/2014 11:20:00 AM (view original):
You clearly don't understand it. That's ok. No one expects more from you.

Ignore birth control. It's relatively inexpensive, prevents more expensive medical bills, and doesn't really add to the cost of health insurance.

Does the cost of birth control pills for a single male have high marginal utility or low marginal utility with respect to the cost of his healthcare insurance premiums?

You really want to try to bring up other concepts you don't grasp?

I'm down, but I'm also not the one always ******** about people bringing up stuff from past arguments.