• aidan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Its a handout to condom companies and stores that otherwise would have to compete on price. Granted, I don’t know how it would be implemented, but these tend not to be implemented well

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      So it’s better to make people pay for their own condoms and other OTC contraceptives rather than have insurance cover it? Because that sounds worse to me.

      • aidan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Yes, insurance exists for unexpected events, that’s why its insurance. A condom is a cost you willingly accept. And to be honest, primary care often shouldn’t be insurable, but since plans are required to cover it without price discrimination it kills direct primary care- so this is something that has to be accepted. Now, if medicare/medicaid and other programs choose to cover it that’s a different thing, but requiring all plans cover it is dumb. But I guess plans don’t really have to compete that much on price and value-added that much anymore post-ACA anyways

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Then insurance should also not cover things like breast exams and colonoscopies, right?

          They are not unexpected events.

          • aidan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 hour ago

            As I said in theory insurance shouldn’t cover primary care, but this is required post-ACA, and I think before too but I’m not sure starting from when. I think direct primary care could be great(but there are also otherways to do it, like optional primary care insurance).

            For some preventative things insurance would choose to cover it if it weren’t required to save them money in the long run.

              • aidan@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 hour ago

                I did answer, I think that should be negotiated between the insurer and insuree, and should not be required to be covered.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 hour ago

                  and should not be required to be covered.

                  Got it. You want to cost everyone more money in the long term.

                  Every new case of breast or colon cancer that isn’t caught early raises everyone’s premiums. You know what prevents those? Breast and colon cancer.

                  You know what costs taxpayers a lot of money? Unwanted kids.

                  So your “let’s have everyone pay more money rather than have insurance do basic preventative care” plan still makes no sense to me.

                  • aidan@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    59 minutes ago

                    Got it. You want to cost everyone more money in the long term.

                    No?

                    Every new case of breast or colon cancer that isn’t caught early raises everyone’s premiums. You know what prevents those? Breast and colon cancer.

                    Insurance companies want lower costs, if that is the reality they would offer screening even if not required. I’m not educated on the topic enough to evalutate it, but there is growing evidence that cancer(and other things) are over-screened. Tumors and other things that may not become cancerous or spread quickly are identified, causing stress and harmful surgery for patients that might not actually need it. I tend to believe more information is better, but, I’m not a doctor, and a lot of doctors are critical of overscreening in terms of outcomes for patients.

                    Edit: here’s a link to read a bit about this

                    You know what costs taxpayers a lot of money? Unwanted kids.

                    The job of an insurer is not to save tax payers money. If you want free condoms, just give out free condoms, why does it have to be tied to health insurance?

                    So your “let’s have everyone pay more money rather than have insurance do basic preventative care” plan still makes no sense to me.

                    Where did I say that?