I’d have thought the greatest need would be among the unmarried…..
MrPotarto
I’m just trying to grasp what “insurance coverage for contraception” implies. You are insuring against your need to buy the pill at the end of the month when the current box runs out?
If an insured event is guaranteed, predictable and regular, why would you ever use insurance to pay for it?
Surreptitious Evil
But even if you have been married long enough to get throughly bored of each other, that just makes it an infrequent low-cost event.
So why bother worrying about it at all?
Richard
Perhaps for whom it is neither frequent, regular or predictable they send emergency supplies by courier.
Ltw
A friend of mine once tried to start a local business delivering emergency condoms by bicycle (in nice, attractive gift baskets with massage oils etc). Unfortunately, the wait for him to turn up, plus the sheer unattractiveness of a sweaty man in lycra pants killed it.
Still, nice try.
Ltw
Slight nitpick – I agree the frequency can be debated, but the “preventing pregnancy…is not a high cost event” is perfectly true.
Dealing with the consequences if you don’t prevent it on the other hand…maybe that’s what people should insure against!
Agammamon
“I’m just trying to grasp what “insurance coverage for contraception” implies”
Its the American definition of medical insurance – most of the rest of the world calls it “stuff you should be paying for out of your own pocket”.
We “insure” for a whole bunch of damn near unavoidable things – right now I’m price-searching for health insurance and its getting ridiculously difficult to find high-deductible (above $2000) catastrophic insurance since most plans want to include payments for minor doctor visits.
DocBud
Surreptitious Evil, MrsBud and I have still not been married long enough to be thoroughly bored of each other (rumpy pumpy is still frequent and vigorous but don’t tell the kids), however, we have been married long enough that preventing (another) pregnancy is no longer a concern.
Tracy W
Agammamon, oddly enough every dental “insurance” scheme I’ve seen in NZ and the UK has a really low annual cap for claiming, like $2,000 or £1,000 a year.
Robert Dammers
I think our host is pulling the leg of the lovely, recently married, Ms McArdle.
It’s odd that the lovely Ms McArdle should ask us “Should the Church Have to Dispense Birth Control?” (answer: no) then write a lengthy article about something else.
And the law being what it is, DocBud should perhaps be a little less frank in discussing his troilist alliance with Surreptitious Evil and MrsBud.
Surreptitious Evil
Paul,
I’m not aware that there is any law against troilism, menage a trois or even threesomes.
Perhaps you meant bigamy?
Although, I’m clearly not being filthy-minded enough because I needed you to point out the consequence of the missing paragraph break after Doc’s comma. I’ll put it down to being at work …
I’d have thought the greatest need would be among the unmarried…..
I’m just trying to grasp what “insurance coverage for contraception” implies. You are insuring against your need to buy the pill at the end of the month when the current box runs out?
If an insured event is guaranteed, predictable and regular, why would you ever use insurance to pay for it?
But even if you have been married long enough to get throughly bored of each other, that just makes it an infrequent low-cost event.
So why bother worrying about it at all?
Perhaps for whom it is neither frequent, regular or predictable they send emergency supplies by courier.
A friend of mine once tried to start a local business delivering emergency condoms by bicycle (in nice, attractive gift baskets with massage oils etc). Unfortunately, the wait for him to turn up, plus the sheer unattractiveness of a sweaty man in lycra pants killed it.
Still, nice try.
Slight nitpick – I agree the frequency can be debated, but the “preventing pregnancy…is not a high cost event” is perfectly true.
Dealing with the consequences if you don’t prevent it on the other hand…maybe that’s what people should insure against!
“I’m just trying to grasp what “insurance coverage for contraception” implies”
Its the American definition of medical insurance – most of the rest of the world calls it “stuff you should be paying for out of your own pocket”.
We “insure” for a whole bunch of damn near unavoidable things – right now I’m price-searching for health insurance and its getting ridiculously difficult to find high-deductible (above $2000) catastrophic insurance since most plans want to include payments for minor doctor visits.
Surreptitious Evil, MrsBud and I have still not been married long enough to be thoroughly bored of each other (rumpy pumpy is still frequent and vigorous but don’t tell the kids), however, we have been married long enough that preventing (another) pregnancy is no longer a concern.
Agammamon, oddly enough every dental “insurance” scheme I’ve seen in NZ and the UK has a really low annual cap for claiming, like $2,000 or £1,000 a year.
I think our host is pulling the leg of the lovely, recently married, Ms McArdle.
Tim adds: Bingo!
It’s odd that the lovely Ms McArdle should ask us “Should the Church Have to Dispense Birth Control?” (answer: no) then write a lengthy article about something else.
And the law being what it is, DocBud should perhaps be a little less frank in discussing his troilist alliance with Surreptitious Evil and MrsBud.
Paul,
I’m not aware that there is any law against troilism, menage a trois or even threesomes.
Perhaps you meant bigamy?
Although, I’m clearly not being filthy-minded enough because I needed you to point out the consequence of the missing paragraph break after Doc’s comma. I’ll put it down to being at work …
I meant “alliance” in the sense of “marriage”: I think that’s clear from the context – I’ll put it down to your being at work.