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

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

            I am not seeing any doctors in a cursory search saying that people should not be screened for breast and colon cancer at all.

            Also, why is the job of an insurer not to save taxpayer money? Because you say so? Maybe if we made that part of the cost of owning a business, we would be able to have more social services.

            But something tells me you don’t want more social services just like you apparently want unwanted babies from people who would otherwise be able to afford birth control if their insurance took care of it.

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

              I am not seeing any doctors in a cursory search saying that people should not be screened for breast and colon cancer at all.

              Where did I say that?? If you don’t stop engaging in bad faith I won’t respond.

              Also, why is the job of an insurer not to save taxpayer money?

              Do you think McDonald’s should be required to open a shipyard as a loss to save the navy money on warships? Because its simply not their job.

              Maybe if we made that part of the cost of owning a business, we would be able to have more social services.

              Businesses already pay tax, also insurers are already required to cover screening>

              But something tells me you don’t want more social services just like you apparently want unwanted babies from people who would otherwise be able to afford birth control if their insurance took care of it.

              Do you think health insurance should be required to buy homes for people? Or help them pay for gas? No? So you want people to be homeless?

              What you’re advocating is a type of fascism called corporatism. You want a merger between the responsibilities and goals of the state and “private” companies. This type of merger tends to be deeply profitable for politicians and companies- see the military industrial complex.

              You’re not giving a good reason why the government just buying a condom factory and giving condoms out for free wouldn’t be more efficient, since you’re so concerned about saving money for the tax payer.