1* Should health insurance companies be required by law to cover all government-approved contraceptives for women, without co-payments or other charges to the patient?If you answered "yes" to question 1, you can't rationally turn around and say "yes" to question 4! How are these individuals supposed to buy something that the insurance companies are not allowed to offer? Apparently, people feel sympathetic to individuals but not to insurance companies, and they reflexively decide to push the companies around and respect individual freedom.
43% Yes
46% No
11% Not sure...
4* Should individuals have the right to choose between different types of health insurance plans, including some that cost more and cover just about all medical procedures and some that cost less while covering only major medical procedures?
77% Yes
9% No
14% Not sure
Anyway... speaking of things people get emotional about... there's also sex and religion, which naturally go together, since "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
पोस्ट्स
१८२ टिप्पण्या:
Birth control and ED meds are things that should not be covered by medical insurance. If you want to get laid you should be willing to pay for the privilege.
Ann.
1)50% of the population are on the left of the bell curve.(coincidentally that includes most lib/proggs.)
2)Free stuff!
And you expect reason?
silly you.
I think they are saying insurance companies should be required by law to provide those things, but you should not have to pay for those services.
Like saying you have to provide hamburgers at a hamburger joint, but people do not have to buy one when they come in. So, the insurance company can offer a suite of plans, one of which must cover all government-approved contraceptives, but it can also offer other, cheaper alternatives.
At least, that's one way to not see a disconnect.
Do much math?
This is not saying that that understanding is a good one, just that it is possible to be logically consistent. At least, I think. Potentially. Willing to be shown wrong.
@Matt there is a difference between birth control and controlling tuberculosis. A hamburger joint shouldn't be required anything other than what it wants to offer it's customers. That is what menus are for.
The bottom line is that Government - Federal, State, and local - should get out of the insurance business - any kind of insurance - except for protecting us against fraud, misrepresentation, and other criminal acts.
Anything else they try to do for us by legislation is just going to make things worse.
@cubanbob
I don't see how that relates. People say that you must offer this, but are also saying you do not have to buy it. That is a logically sound position (even if we don't think that someone who claims to provide B should provide A). Let's not get distracted by the health care debate; let's focus on whether or not the positions of the people answering the questions are sound.
The democrat party has an excellent propaganda-vilification machine that vilifies targeted private industry.
From the percentages presented, I'd say that this proves that at least 20% of likely voters are irrational.
Of the 770 people saying yes to the second question, at most 570 of them came from either the "no" or "not sure" columns in question one. So at least 200 of the 1000 people were inconsistent.
It's low-hanging fruit, but I'd say that 2008 proved that at least 52% of likely voters are completely batshit insane.
AA, its easy to explain. How about these two questions:
A) Do you want all kinds of free stuff from Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny (or in Madison, the "Spring Rabbit")?
B) Do you think your parents should pay the house mortgage and buy food before spending huge bucks on toys?
The first question gets a yes because people want free stuff.
The second question gets a yes because it is logical and the right answer.
Paying your medical insurance company to (in turn) pay for expected events like birth control, mammograms, colonoscopies, is like paying your auto insurance company to (in turn) pay for oil changes. Extra handling. Extra paper work. More cost.
Take any medical procedure that is routinely paid out of pocket and you will almost always find that the US has the best and cheapest in the world. (How do you tell Americans from Europeans? Have them smile.)
Insurance is for unlikely, high cost events.
You are assuming that the questions are dependent -- describing a common reality that stays constant across both. In fact, poll questions like this can be read as independent -- they don't assume the truth of any such constant. Because the question is inherently counterfactual (extra-factual?), the answer to any 'should' question always assumes a state of affairs against which the value judgment is made, and the assumed state of affairs can vary from question to question. It's not the case that a person answering both questions 'yes' is necessarily irrational; that is merely one of several possible conclusions, none of which can be ruled out from the available information.
The are not mutually exclusive choices as posed questions. So if A happens there is one answer. But if B happens there is another answer.
But no one asked them what if A an dB both happened at the same time.
Calling the Pollees irrational is a headline grabbing falsehood of the lowest grade. It stupidly assumes that we are stupid.
This is why $$$ er advertising is soooo important in politics.
You can never underestimate the stupidity of the general public.
>
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.
They misunderestimated me.
And so it goes ...
The reasons conservatives get so upset about other peoples' sex lives is due to repressed sexuality. Frankly speaking conservatives are frigid, they rarely have sex and definitely never have kinky, mind-blowing sex. I'm talking about shattering orgasms, making the lady squirt and all that.
shiloh is misunderstood. He doesn't want to destroy America, he wants to remake it in his Leninist image.
I have to agree with the blog hostess on this one.
The first questions says that the gov't requires you to get more expensive insurance whether you want it or not.
The second question says that you should be able to assemble an insurance policy that bests fits you. If you or your employer only want to purchase insurance that covers major medical incidences, you can get this.
Is it possible that those polled believe that insurance companies should be required by law to offer at least one form of insurance (policy) that covers contraceptives, yet individuals remain free to choose to buy policies of their choice - including those that do not have such coverage?
Chuck, question 1 asks:
Should health insurance companies be required by law to cover all government-approved contraceptives for women, without co-payments or other charges to the patient?
Not: Should you have to buy this coverage.
Nope. The first question clearly states that it would be illegal to purchase a moderate priced insurance that doesn't give you certain free things.
That is like saying all new cars are required to have airbags, but you aren't required to buy an airbag with your new car.
That's not what the question is asking. It is a possible way to answer Yes to that question (all plans offered by companies must do this), but another answer is that they are merely required to offer an option that does that.
Saying yes to the first one is irrational regardless, so I'm going with 43%.
"That is like saying all new cars are required to have airbags, but you aren't required to buy an airbag with your new car."
But you are not forced to buy a car at all, you can instead choose another method of transportation if you so chose.
"Saying yes to the first one is irrational regardless, so I'm going with 43%."
You would cut the Gordian Knot too.
I see what you are saying. I think the difference of opinion on this is that we all know that Obama is trying to make it illegal to purchase insurance that doesn't cover these things.
Question 1 doesn't specifically say that, hence how you can read the results differently.
For a better control, the first question should say that ALL insurance plans must offer this.
Alex: Regular surveys of voters show that conservatives not only have more sex, but more satisfying sex.
I doubt they will kiss and tell about accidental trips over the falls. ;)
You have co-payments on other drugs, so you'd be left with paying co-payments on necessary drugs and having free birth control?
That is so stupid. So so stupid.
"Crotches!" cried the voters.
Obamacare could have won popular support if it had been primarily a catastrophic coverage policy for all and it also offered bridge / transition coverage while you were between jobs.
But NO libruls could never resist taking us all down their desired path to universal single payer.
Plus I love how journalists say the contraception requirements in Obamacare are "free". As if!
That may be the intent, but we're stuck with the words on the page.
Probably if the second question had been asked before the first question instead of the order in which they were placed, the people answering the poll would have caught their logical error and fewer would have said "yes" to requiring free stuff from the insurance companies.
At any rate, in both questions, the responders picked the answer that is most favorable to them at face value - free drugs in #1, cheaper insurance alternatives in #2 (or technically #4)
Selfishness.
evidence that Larry Summers was on to something.
The "rationality" of others is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! Just as Poll Taxes were ILLEGAL. And, denying Blacks the rights to vote, was patently illegal. PLUS, Rehnquist LIED when he was asked by Congress if he had ever stopped voters from voting. In Arizona.
What is sad?
The right wing lunatics won't let go of abortion! They've gone from displaying bloody pictures ... to this "new" campaign. Which makes the GOP look like a poor substitute for Obama.
Go ahead. Don't change. Individual voters are not, individually responsible, for your losing your bid to get a president elected.
If you think Obama has blinked, the answer is NO. He has not! And, now? With your local primaries ... and reduced voter turnouts ... you're stuck with a message that is even less satisfactory than Clint Eastwood's "half-time" commercial.
"Do much math?"
You're right. It should be 34%. Fixed.
Maybe they consider the application of a contraceptive for women to be a major medical procedure.
Or, perhaps, they picture the companies offering different plans, some of which are comprehensive coverage and some of which cover only major medical procedures. In that case, they might also interpret question one as meaning that the insurance company must offer a plan in which those things are covered, not that every plan the offer must do those things. If an insurance company is "required by law to cover all government-approved contraceptives for women," and they offer plans that do this, they as a company do cover contraceptives, and so if they offer a plan that covers fewer things, I say they've fulfilled that requirement.
I agree with Matthew. The first question doesn't make it clear whether or not this is a requirement for all plans offered by the insurance company or just a requirement that they offer plans that do this.
AJLynch,correct. There are a lot of people who file for bankruptcy due to medical bills. If the gov't would only work on this, then it is something many moderates could live with.
Instead it is a total takeover of health care.
Shattering orgasms
Make liberals intolerant of less;
Discrete orgasms
Teach conservatives to abhor excess.
I think it was Pew, but maybe it was Gallup, that ran an astonishing poll in October, 2011 in which almost HALF the people polled could not name (unaided) a single Republican presidential candidate.
Want to talk about irrational inconsistencies, why does a sophisticated and developed society believe that allowing a willfully ignorant, uninformed electorate to vote leads to good government?
We all know the answer. It's a rhetorical question.
AJLynch,correct. There are a lot of people who file for bankruptcy due to medical bills. If the gov't would only work on this, then it is something many moderates could live with.
Instead it is a total takeover of health care.
And how would they do that? Pay off everyone's medical bills who didn't get insurance? What's the incentive to buy insurance in the first place if you know the government will wind up paying off your bills if you don't buy the insurance? I'm not an economist but I think if you take away the incentive to buy insurance, or just significantly decrease the amount of incentive people have, it screws up the economics that keep insurance industry alive.
Maggot...when Thune defeated Daschle in South Dakota, about 90% of the people knew months ahead of time who they were voting for. Millions was spent to try to convence the remaining 10%.
My point being, so many elections are decided by a small number of people who can't tell the difference between Thune and Daschle.
It means, "I should have the extra coverage and not have to pay more for it- but IF I have to pay more for it, then I want to have a choice"?
How different would the result have been if the first question had also included the "pay more" part?
Besides, logic is hard.
"1* Should health insurance companies be required by law to cover ...contraceptives for women, Viagara for men, ..."
Wonder what % of approval?
Btw, question 1 approval and question 4 approval are not contradictory even though most voters are irrational to fall for HopeAndChange, and after more than a thousand days, everything goes wrong is still Bush's fault.
Question 1 and question 4 are not mutually exclusive. Individuals have the rights to choose which of many plans, one of which covers all govt approved contraceptives, etc. etc.
By the U.S. Constitution I have all the rights that I have not given up to the govt. The govt. has no rights to "give" me rights.
The dirty secret is the shifting of burdens of free care for the poor onto higher costs paid by insurers of the middle class.
Both private industry and Government Industry do that same thing. It's how medicine has worked in America since 1960.
But the GI version also empowers a huge National bureaucracy that really wants the marginal cases to die quietly and quit bothering them so much.
The day Palinisms described this obvious tipping point so well, The Tea Party arose in force challenging Congress over this basic respect for life issue.
And the Tea is still floating around in the harbor.
Yeah, well, it was bad enough when Justice O'Connor shoveled that crap out in Casey. It was even worse when Kennedy republished it in Lawrence v. Texas. They should both be ashamed.
"I've caught you in a contradiction. Don't you see?"
"Yes, sir. I suppose you have caught me in a contradiction."
Major Sanderson proudly lettered 'Contradiction' on his pad with his thick black pencil. "Just why do you think," he resumed when he had finished, looking up, "that you made those two statements expressing contradictory emotional responses to the fish?"
"I suppose I have an ambivalent attitude toward it."
...and more tying fish to sex Catch 22.
"Evidence that 43% of likely voters are irrational."
Well, I have evidence that 53% of likely voters are irrational:
53% of American voters elected the least experienced and qualified person ever nominated by a major political party to the presidency.
And your point is?
Matthew is right--the first question asks if this 1 particular thing should be included without charge.
The second asks if you should be able to choose from among a list of items and get better coverage if you are willing to pay more.
There's no inconsistency to saying yes to both.
I don't think that irrationality is the best term, though it's an enjoyable term to use. In the end, though, I think that our ability to function within a paradox is an important human trait. I think that it's important that we CAN hold mutually exclusive facts to be true. It's part of the process of reconciliation of those facts and allows us, ultimately, to accept new information.
Obamacare could have won popular support if it had been primarily a catastrophic coverage policy for all and it also offered bridge / transition coverage while you were between jobs.
Agreed, my primary opposition to it was not the individual mandate (although I am opposed to that) but that it doubled-down on what I think are some of the worst aspects of how we pay for health insurance – having routine medical costs covered by third-party payers and treating health insurance as prepaid health care rather than what kicks in when you have a catastrophe (like every other form of insurance). I think that those are a large part of the reason why health insurance is so expensive in our country and also why health care costs have gone up so astronomically (people don’t think that they should have to pay for the things that they want). However I think in time even a mandate to buy catastrophic health insurance would turn into the same sort of “Christmas tree” policies that States require insurance policies to provide and we’d wind up with what we’re getting now.
If you stuck "without co-payments" on the end of any telephone poll question about health insurance, you would get a high positive response.
AJLynch, correct. There are a lot of people who file for bankruptcy due to medical bills. If the gov't would only work on this, then it is something many moderates could live with.
The number of people who file bankruptcy because of unpaid medical bills is rather small* but even so, isn’t that one of the reasons why we have bankruptcy in the first place – to allow people who have suffered a catastrophe that they couldn’t otherwise recover from to start over?
* The infamous Harvard Study that supposedly measured medical bankruptcies attributed any person who had any medical bills or went to the hospital or had a gambling problem as having a medically-related bankruptcy which was used to grossly inflate the numbers.
Christopher- the key word you missed is "catastrophic" coverage. Cancer, heart attack, strokes, serious illnesses would be covered. Breaking a leg, appendicitis, having a cold, flu, migraine, etc would not be. Most wise people would insure for the latter types of health issues while the govt would offer CAT coverage for the bad stuff.
The problem for Dems and Obama is their voting constituents want free stuff 247 including treatment for the sniffles.
What if your "concept of existence" is at odds with reality? Isn't that an endorsement of the irrational?
Thorley;
Hoosier Daddy has the best explanation that concurs with what you are saying. His goes something like "we don't really have insurance anymore, it is mostly pre-paid stuff".
wv= slogisms = stuff Rumsfeld said.
Lack of comprehension is no surprise.
Look who's in the oval orifice.
Irrational, indeed.
wv - staineat
Like saying you have to provide hamburgers at a hamburger joint, but people do not have to buy one when they come in.
This is not even close to being correct. Forcing insurance companies to sell coverage of contraception devices is like telling all restaurants, not just burger joints, they have to sell burgers.
I agree with Matthew and Chris. The two questions are far from aligned.
Still, a little cognitive dissonance is normal. You wanna really blow your mind, check out differential poll results on question pairs like "Should women be the ultimate deciders on whether they should be allowed an abortion?" and "Should society be allowed to put some restrictions on the practice of abortion?"
Ken- correct and every customer must pay for the burgers even if they don't order one.
Freeman,
You have co-payments on other drugs, so you'd be left with paying co-payments on necessary drugs and having free birth control?
Exactly. It's a wealth transfer, from people who don't use birth control or don't want to get sterilized, to those who do.
If being fertile were a disorder (like, say, being infertile), I could understand it. But fertility isn't a disorder. Neither is pregnancy.
(cubanbob, this is why I have to disagree about your lumping birth control and ED together in the first comment of this thread. ED is something going wrong; fertility is something going right.)
wv: sneti.
"Ken- correct and every customer must pay for the burgers even if they don't order one."
Begs the question: Is this more/less a 1. traditional American model, or 2. does this more resemble a soviet-era model?
Hint: Not a trick question. Nuanced answers not accepted, this is for demonstration purposes, only.
They should have cut to the chase and asked "should businesses be allowed to charge more than you can afford for things you need".
Only 34%? Suprising.
Don't Tread:
I will be generous and say it's the common good model......where you and I subsidize public transit or roads or libraries even if we don't use or rarely use them.
The problem is the libruls will never stop adding more goods [i.e free cell phones] and services [i.e. free school lunch or state paid day care] to the things covered by the term "common good" .
Frankly speaking conservatives are frigid, they rarely have sex and definitely never have kinky, mind-blowing sex.
Science disagrees. The more conservative and religious the woman, the more orgasms she reports.
It's a wealth transfer, from people who don't use birth control or don't want to get sterilized, to those who do.
Yeah, and if I weren't having sex currently, I'd be pretty annoyed about having to subsidize all those people who were. Aren't they the lucky ones already?
I whole-heartedly agree that women should have the right to control their own bodies, and that includes the right to keep said bodies out of my bed.
"Abortion on demand" seems to be more in the line of attempting to reverse the consequences of not controlling their bodies.
and "free" contraceptives an attempt at avoiding having to exercise any control over their bodies.
In the mid-90s, I could purchase a high deductible ($10,000) health plan for my entire family for $150 a month. You can't do that now because of mandates such as the birth control one mentioned. Another in my state was mandating that all health insurance cover pregnancy and well baby care as well as a host of other things. Then the feds stepped in with tax rules about high deductible plans which made them even less desirable for single insured people (and very difficult to manage for providers.)
I think it's called having your cake and eating it, too.
May have more in common with hypocritical than irrational.
Or something.
Like saying you have to provide hamburgers at a hamburger joint, but people do not have to buy one when they come in.
No, I think it’s closer to saying if you sell pizza, you have to put anchovies on it and any customer who wants to buy a pizza has to pay for the anchovies but they don’t have to eat them.
Alex memorialized: I'm talking about shattering orgasms, making the lady squirt and all that.
"Lady Squirt" does have certain ring to it. A good band name perhaps. Sex, drugs, and Rock 'n Roll go hand in hand.
Here is the deal: if you pay the insurance payment you pay for it. No having a co pay does not make it free. just increase the rates and be done. And to think that there are whiners still whining about the evils of birth control I would say that backward thinking is the best evidence of the need for birth control and mandatory education.
So now rubbers and abortions are to be covered.
And we wonder why health insurance costs so much.
"... Paying your medical insurance company to (in turn) pay for expected events like birth control, mammograms, colonoscopies, is like paying your auto insurance company to (in turn) pay for oil changes. Extra handling. Extra paper work. More cost.
Take any medical procedure that is routinely paid out of pocket and you will almost always find that the US has the best and cheapest in the world. (How do you tell Americans from Europeans? Have them smile.)
Insurance is for unlikely, high cost events..."
I have been saying thus for years Thank Allah I'm not the only one who understands.
You got the subtraction right but not the set theory. A minimum of 20% (77-46-11) and a maximum of 43% answered the irrational yes/yes combination. Pastafarian had this above.
My understanding is that amyl nitrate was covered free of charge under the Kennedy Health Plan.
Joe - "In the mid-90s, I could purchase a high deductible ($10,000) health plan for my entire family for $150 a month. You can't do that now because of mandates such as the birth control one mentioned."
That's a crock.
The additional cost of an insurance policy, related to birth control mandates is minimal at best.
Compare that silly notion to the cost of emergency room costs (covering those without insurance), hospital rooms ($700 - $1,500 a day), medications, physician fees and administrative costs...
Your comment is ridiculous.
Love: You truncated Joe's post. You leave in the part you need and cut out the parts that don't help you.
That's a crock.
Here is the deal: if you pay the insurance payment you pay for it. No having a co pay does not make it free. just increase the rates and be done.
But I want to choose the thing that I want for no co-pay. Susie can have her birth control pills and I can have my son's EpiPens. Being allergic to bee stings isn't a preexisting condition!
Only the right crazos here could somehow connote the availabilty and cost of contracetives with the massively rising cost of insurance coverage and health care costs.
And most hypocritical is the constant argument against abortion...while at the same time, screaming about paying for contraception...the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancy.
WHat do you think costs more?
Contraception of the bill for an abortion?
Ridiculous.
while at the same time, screaming about paying for contraception...the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancy.
Using contraception is very effective for avoiding unwanted pregnancy. Paying for it is not so effective.
Brennan "Love: You truncated Joe's post. You leave in the part you need and cut out the parts that don't help you."
The second part of his comment was irrelevant to his initial statement that he couldn't get the same kind of policy pricing, saying "You can't do that now because of mandates such as the birth control."
That's a crock.
The second part: "Another in my state was mandating that all health insurance cover pregnancy and well baby care as well as a host of other things. Then the feds stepped in with tax rules about high deductible plans which made them even less desirable for single insured people (and very difficult to manage for providers.)
What does a separate policy relating to pregnancy have to do with his intial statement?
Nothing.
"... The additional cost of an insurance policy, related to birth control mandates is minimal at best..."
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, we know. He said mandates such as birth control. States mandate all kinds of coverage into health insurance that gave to be priced into the product.
In other words, the more coverages you want, the more cost that's added to the policy based upon underwriting experience. But since you don't know much about insurance, your claim its minimal is a crock.
If the expectation is that health insurance cover even the most basic birth control measures or abortion than its not health insurance.
MayBee - So you think contraception costs more than abortion or paying to give birth?
You're kidding...right?
Oral contraception costs about $400 a year.
An abortion costs about $400-$600
Having the baby: $6,000 - $8,000.
Do the math.
".. WHat do you think costs more?
Contraception of the bill for an abortion?.."
Since President Shortpants insists that both be covered by insurance, we're all going to find out.
Out of curiosity, is there any medical procedure or product you don't think should be covered by insurance?
Only the right crazos here could somehow connote the availabilty and cost of contracetives with the massively rising cost of insurance coverage and health care costs.
The point made was about mandates and how they drive up the cost for everything. We can ignore that it's a mandate to cover products that take perfectly functioning parts of the body and manipulates them so they do not work which is a pretty sweet walk down "insurance" lane.
I don't know if Joe was using prophylactics by design, but it is a good subject to cite to test if otherwise objective people are actually quite stupid and cannot control for their own biases.
Blogger Hoosier Daddy "Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, we know. He said mandates such as birth control."
They're not "mandating" one practices birth control.
They're "mandating" insurance cover such cost...IF one is practicing birth control.
And you talk about reading comprehension??
"... Oral contraception costs about $400 a year.
An abortion costs about $400-$600.."
Assuming those costs are accurate, why should those paltry sums not be the responsibility of the individual?
The question is of course predicated on the assumption that liberals understand the concept of personal responsibility.
Brennan - I understand "mandates" and how they can effect costs.
Uninsured motorist coverage is mandated, but are you sayig you would like for them to discontinue that requirement?
This entire argument is ridiculous, especially considering the fact that many states have, for many, many years, had just such a mandate in their state laws relating to insurance coverage.
It's ALL about religion mixing with politics...don't believe me?
At least 26 states have laws requiring insurers that cover prescription drugs also provide coverage for any Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved contraceptive.
These states include: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
Heard anything from these states before?
No.
"... They're not "mandating" one practices birth control..."
I said this where?
"..They're "mandating" insurance cover such cost...IF one is practicing birth control..."
Incorrect. A mandate means the insurance company is required (that means must) cover a type of coverage, on this case, birth control. That means its part of your coverage and your paying for it whether you use it or not.
"..And you talk about reading comprehension??.."
Yes. Also I'll say your knowledge of how insurance works is just as bad.
Hoosier Daddy "Assuming those costs are accurate, why should those paltry sums not be the responsibility of the individual?"
"Paltry" to who?
Why do you and others constantly want to speak for those Americans who might not be in the same financial situation as yourselves?
$400 to some is nothing. To others it might be the difference between paying rent or feeding their children or even themselves.
This edict is directly related to the people who cannot afford contraception, with the alternative representing unwanted pregnancies, abortions, medical costs and possible proplems relating to such medical procedures.
People with the money can pay for it themselves...right out of their pockets...right?
Why it this so hard for so many of you to understand??
there used to be a word for women who want a subsidy for their sexual activity.
Hoosier - You said it here:
Blogger Hoosier Daddy "Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, we know. He said mandates such as birth control."
"Mandates such as birth control."
The mandate is for the "payment"...not the birth control.
X said..."there used to be a word for women who want a subsidy for their sexual activity."
Cute.
The mandate covers men, too.
contraception...the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancy.
What an amazing claim. So you're more likely to get pregnant if you don't have sex at all than you are if you have sex with contraception?
Apparently immaculate conceptions are more common than previously believed.
MayBee - So you think contraception costs more than abortion or paying to give birth?
You're kidding...right?
????
What did I say to make you think I said that?
Although, over time, yeah I think contraception costs more than an abortion. But that has nothing to do with the stupid joke I made.
The mandate covers men, too.
It only covers men if they use birth control pills or breast pumps.
The mandate covers men, too.
I have to wonder: who sleeps with a guy who can't even scrounge up fifty cents for a condom?
Talk about a cheap date.
Uninsured motorist coverage is mandated, but are you sayig you would like for them to discontinue that requirement?
Yes. Of course. They auto insurance mandates don't work. The arguments that claim they do are flawed. What happens is drivers carry the most minimal coverage they can afford to pay out of pocket and nothing else. It's rarely enough to cover the actual costs and risk of driving an automobile. And the state picks up all the losses because it thought it could mandate rainbows for everyone. Ironically, auto insurers love the mandate. I still don't understand why the left has such a fancy for giving insurance companies what they want.
These states include: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
How many of these states have legislatures controlled by the GOP? I think about four of them, maybe five. But of those almost all of them are recent moves to the GOP. So, those policies are really the result of blue legislatures that don't really see any problem with mandates to cover FDA approved contraceptive drugs. Some of these states have at times had GOP governors. However, I would excuse many of the GOP governors from accountability because of the super majority in the legislatures that can overrule many of their vetoes. IL, MA, and NY for example.
"... Uninsured motorist coverage is mandated, but are you sayig you would like for them to discontinue that requirement?.."
UIM is mandated in a few states. Most states don't require it.
Try again.
I would have answered the questions that way, b/c I think the coverage should be offered somewhere, but no one should mandate how much it costs or whether an employer must offer it.
I think it's a vote for more choice! In a different way that the way abortion supporters use it.
"... You said it here:
Blogger Hoosier Daddy "Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, we know. He said mandates such as birth control."
"Mandates such as birth control."
The mandate is for the "payment"...not the birth control...."
You truly are the dumbest person on the face of the earth.
Just to be on the safe side, I will gladly pay for your birth control.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists estimated that...
"the average total cost of adding coverage for the full range of reversible contraceptives to health plans that do not currently cover them will increase total health coverage costs for employers by $21.40 per employee per year --
...$17.12 of employers' costs
...and $4.28 of employees' costs.
The added cost for employers of providing this coverage corresponds to $1.43 per month, which represents an increase of less than 1% in employers' cost of providing employees with medical coverage.
WOW...$21.40...A YEAR.
Uninsured motorist coverage is mandated
Not in California it isn't.
In fact, liability insurance isn't even technically required here; you're allowed to self-insure if you can prove the financial ability to do so.
will increase total health coverage costs for employers by $21.40 per employee per year
Why should your boss pay you to be sexually active? Either fund your own sex life or keep it in your pants.
"... Not in California it isn't..."
It's mandated in about 4 states last time I looked.
Motorist mandates exist to protect the other people in an accident. If you buy the minimum liability insurance and cause an accident, your insurance pays the other guy not you.
WOW...$21.40...A YEAR.
Ha ha ha ha ha!
Remember when Obama started that Twitter campaign- and invited some winners to the WH- to talk about how much $40 means to normal people???
when you make your sexual activity other people's business, your sexual activity is other people's business.
Getting insurance for the big, rare, and impossibly expensive medical problems used to be cheaper, until all sorts of requirements to cover all sorts of small, common, inexpensive things were added, *such as* birth control.
I didn't find that a difficult (or illogical) statement.
As someone said... it's like having car insurance to pay for your oil changes... and tires, and wiper fluid, and transmission fluid, and jumper cables, and batteries, and hoses, and belts, and filters.
The original question #4 was should insurance be available that *only* covers major medical procedures?
#1 asks if all insurance companies should be required to cover all government-approved contraceptives. Granted it doesn't say all insurance policies, just all companies, but I'm betting that anyone reading it understood it to be all policies. If not then the Catholic organizations functioning as insurance providers could offer a policy that includes contraception to, say, one person, *me*, and offer policies that do not include contraception to everyone else. Because then they would, in fact, be offering a policy that included contraception, if that was the actual rule.
I think that the more reasonable reading is the right one, that the questions are in conflict with each other, that the policies that are mandated to include contraception are *all* of them. Which means that major-medical only isn't possible or legal.
"... Motorist mandates exist to protect the other people in an accident. If you buy the minimum liability insurance and cause an accident, your insurance pays the other guy not you..."
A pretty basic fact that the smartest President in our history could not understand.
You'd think for a Harvard lawyer the word liability would have been a clue.
And since I don't use contraception, the Catholics could sell me the insurance while protecting their souls.
Win-win.
Mandates add up. This is one mandate. One mandate out of many, many mandates. Taken together they represent significant increases in the cost of health insurance.
Why should one only be allowed to buy health insurance that offers this coverage? Why shouldn't one be allowed to select a different plan that does not cover birth control?
(I realize that the text is unclear on whether or not this would be a mandate for all plans, but in the context of what such mandates entail in the world, I'm assuming that it is referencing a universal mandate.)
Just a hint -- don't try simultaneously arguing that (a) birth control is too expensive for people to buy for themselves but (b) it is so cheap that it represents a trivial cost for employers to buy it FOR them.
MayBee - "Using contraception is very effective for avoiding unwanted pregnancy. Paying for it is not so effective."
The alternative being?
And if contraception is so incredibly cheap, why not pay for it yourself? Why make someone else buy it for you?
Where's your self respect?
Freeman - "Why should one only be allowed to buy health insurance that offers this coverage? Why shouldn't one be allowed to select a different plan that does not cover birth control?"
Maybe you can. (All car insurances policies are not the same. Age, driving habits, etc.)
Do you know? (Insuance policies also vary. Age, health, etc.)
Have you read the rules relating to such?
The alternative being?
Paying for it doesn't prevent pregnancy. Using it does.
ps. Where do you get the information that men are covered?
"... And if contraception is so incredibly cheap, why not pay for it yourself? Why make someone else buy it for you?.."
I guess to a liberal, why not?
"...where's your self respect?.."
No kidding.
Synova "And if contraception is so incredibly cheap, why not pay for it yourself? Why make someone else buy it for you?"
Cheap for who?
Once again: $400 to some is nothing. To others it might be the difference between paying rent or feeding their children or even themselves.
This edict is directly related to the people who cannot afford contraception, with the alternative representing unwanted pregnancies, abortions, medical costs and possible proplems relating to such medical procedures.
Hoosier - So can we all assume you refuse any form of employer financed insurance?
Never have, never will?
You know...because of that self respect thingie?
Why is Obamacare turning women into such a burden for employers? The mandated coverages for birth control and breast pumps will be increasing premiums, and the lactation rooms add on another expense.
Just a hint -- don't try simultaneously arguing that (a) birth control is too expensive for people to buy for themselves but (b) it is so cheap that it represents a trivial cost for employers to buy it FOR them.
This. You can't have it both ways.
Also, it's a canard to pretend that this is about the desperately poor. Medicaid already covers birth control.
let the haggling commence
Looks like the regulars here are on the wrong side of the argument...at least as far as the American public is concerned...as usual:
Here’s the key finding from Public Policy Polling’s survey:
A solid 56 percent majority of voters support the decision to require health plans to cover prescription birth control with no additional out-of-pocket fees, while only 37 percent are opposed.
It’s particularly noteworthy that pivotal independent voters support this benefit by a 55/36 margin; in fact, a majority of voters in every racial, age, and religious category that we track express support.
In particular, a 53 percent majority of Catholic voters, who were oversampled as part of this poll, favor the benefit, including fully 62 percent of Catholics who identify themselves as independents.
"This edict is directly related to the people who cannot afford contraception, with the alternative representing unwanted pregnancies, abortions, medical costs and possible proplems relating to such medical procedures."
What edict?
We're talking about a set of poll questions.
But nice to see that the obvious alternative for (by definition) poor women to being taken care of by others, is unwanted pregnancies... because they're just *like* that you know.
Also, even in the hypothetical poll question world, this isn't about a subsidy attached to welfare or something, it's about mandating that all insurance include all government approved contraception, for everyone.
This edict is directly related to the people who cannot afford contraception
No it isn't.
It's directed to all insurance companies to cover all women.
If it were about women who cannot afford contraception, it could be directed to the people who will be going on Medicaid.
Here's the thing: it is going to be illegal not to buy insurance, and not to buy insurance that has this government mandate, along with all the other coverages like no lifetime maximums and protections for people with preexisting conditions. So if the cost of your insurance policy goes up more than the $20 you *would* have been paying for the pill, you are not better off.
I think ribeye's should be covered too.
"Looks like the regulars here are on the wrong side of the argument...at least as far as the American public is concerned...as usual:"
There's a technical name for that logical fallacy. What is it called... argument by popularity? It's a subset of appeal to authority, IIRC.
In other words... Don't think, follow the crowd, and if you don't you'll be outside what is socially acceptable. An implied threat of shunning, and coercively hostile in intent.
Why no complaints about coverage for Viagra? Or vasectomies?
Both have been covered for quite some time.
Synova - "In other words... Don't think, follow the crowd..."
Oh, I see.
The regulars here are right...and a majority of the American public is wrong?
Yeah...right.
MayBee said..."No it isn't.
It's directed to all insurance companies to cover all women."
Of course it covers all women.
How else would one put any kind of mandate in effect?
Once again: If one want to pay for their own contraception, and can afford to do so...they can.
There's not reason they shouldn't.
Oh, and if they really want to be fair...they can also reimburse their employer for the cost of that specific element of their policy...right?
Or send them a check to cover the expense if paying for their own insurance...right?
Why no complaints about coverage for Viagra? Or vasectomies?
They are not mandated by the Federal government to be covered by all insurance plans that all employers must offer and all Americans must buy.
They are not being covered with zero copay. It will be perfectly legal to sell a policy that does not cover them. It will be perfectly legal to own an insurance policy that does not cover them.
You see the difference, right?
(ps. do you have more information on men being covered by the birth control mandate?)
Synova - The "mandate" edict.
Try to catch up.
"Why no complaints about coverage for Viagra? Or vasectomies?"
Probably because #2 on the poll was not "should all insurance companies be required by law to cover all government-approved erectile assistance medications and proceedures without co-payments or other charges."
At least I'm guessing it wasn't in the poll or we *would* be talking about how dumb it was. Particularly if half the people who answered *yes* also answered that insurance shouldn't have to cover what they just said must be mandated by law.
Have you still not read the post?
MayBee - What exactly is your complaint here?
Are you actually saying that mandating coverage of contraceptives is going to somehow turn the entire country upside down?
This entire argument is nothing more than an anti-Obama rant.
Don't think so?
Explain why we haven't heard any of this from these states...that already provide such coverage:
These states include: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
There's not reason they shouldn't.
Oh, and if they really want to be fair...they can also reimburse their employer for the cost of that specific element of their policy...right?
What are you even arguing?
That even though it will be illegal to own an insurance policy that does not fully cover birth control and breast pumps, there is no reason to not pay full price for those things if you disagree with such a mandate?
Does that work for the insurance mandate, too? That if you disagree with the government saying all citizens must buy insurance, the proper thing is to buy insurance as mandated and then not use it?
Is this where you are going with this?
"Once again: If one want to pay for their own contraception, and can afford to do so...they can."
And pay for it three times? Once for themselves as part of the insurance, once for others as part of the insurance, and then for themselves out of pocket?
Seriously?
How about... can they buy a policy that does not cover it for *anyone* and then pay for it themselves?
No?
You know why some people have money?
Because they don't stupidly pay for things several times over, not even because it's most convenient.
Rich ladies who use a breast pump and can get one they've already paid for from their insurance policy will not pay out of pocket. In fact, they will probably get the breast pump on the chance they *might* maybe use it once.
(Since we're not actually talking about the post, my bad.)
"Oh, I see.
The regulars here are right...and a majority of the American public is wrong?
Yeah...right."
Do you see, really?
The regulars here might be right, or they might be wrong. Majority opinion is irrelevant and proves nothing. One way or the other.
I'm certainly not going to argue authority based on a minority opinion. That would be what you did and every bit as invalid.
Are you actually saying that mandating coverage of contraceptives is going to somehow turn the entire country upside down?
No.
But I do think a situation where the HHS Secretary can tell people they are going to get some medical treatment for "free" while requiring all of us to pay for it out of our own pockets is pretty iffy territory.
The government doesn't even have to worry about loading up the so-called freebies, because it won't cause them the budgeting problems it would if they were paying for it as they do other entitlements.
It's like the unfunded mandates they foist on the states, but they are foisting it on the citizens and employers instead.
I am surprised to find that Love is supporting Santorum for President over Obama today.
"... Hoosier - So can we all assume you refuse any form of employer financed insurance?.."
Why not tell us what medical procedures and products should not be covered and be the responsibility of the insured.
A solid 56 percent majority of voters support the decision to require health plans to cover prescription birth control with no additional out-of-pocket fees
What a shock that people want something for nothing. With the bangup political class we have and the shitty educational system they've erected to indoctrinate people into thinking that you can get something for nothing, then it's no surprise that 56% of Americans believe this can be done.
Why no complaints about coverage for Viagra? Or vasectomies?
Last I checked these are contraceptives and fall well withing what everyone here is talking about. Why keep changing the subject? The question is should insurance companies be forced to sell and insurance customers be forced to buy insurance they don't want.
Focus, man, focus!
How delicious would it be if Rasmussen called up 1000 likely voters and asked them essay type questions instead of the usual multiple choice fare?
Truth through polling.
I wonder what the universe would look like if that actually worked.
I guess it would change a lot.
There are things that don't matter. This is one of them. Who cares if health plans are mandated to cover contraceptives for women? The coverage is either in the plan or not; and similarly the requirement either in the regulations or not; and nobody is really worse off one way or the other. Just pay for the contraceptives yourself or else switch to a different plan if you are affected. Or, if you are a whining Republican, just accept that you can't have what you want all the time.
Most people have "health" expenses that aren't covered by their insurance, and won't be in the future, but those don't rise to the level of a "women's issue" so nobody cares. Indifference is the correct choice.
Then we have the Jesus-freaks who rant and rave about this, but remain silent as American drones kill unarmed people who are just trying to provide humanitarian care to injured people. The Christians who are upset about contraceptives should complain about that, 'cuz, you know, that's actually killing people. Instead they are silent hypocrites.
Funny how the Liberals are silent about the War stuff too...
This whole issue is a decoy. Obama's obstinacy, as well as the salivating indignation of social conservatives, are both distracting from hugely important issues, matters of life and death. By "hugely important issues" I mean War, of course! In two places-- Syria and Iran! And those are just the upcoming Wars, not the leftover ones.
Any hack of an oracle could look at America right now and reasonably prophesy that, as America burns, our rulers will be fiddling with health insurance regulation.
Once again: $400 to some is nothing. To others it might be the difference between paying rent or feeding their children or even themselves.
Correction: it is the difference between feeding their children and fucking.
You don't need contraception to live. You only need it to engage in recreational sex. If you want recreational sex, pay for it yourself.
Looks like the regulars here are on the wrong side of the argument
"Most Americans want to freeload" is not a shocker to anyone who has been paying attention to the last few decades. :)
Revenant wrote: You don't need contraception to live. You only need it to engage in recreational sex. If you want recreational sex, pay for it yourself.
That's pretty harsh. I'll bet somebody can find a penumbra calling out recreational sex as a right.
I read all the words in the memorandum describing the three separate policies the FRB offers its employees. ALL of the words. I was dismayed that so much attention and so many paragraphs on all three policy choices went into contraceptives and abortions. I related to my peers there the dismay I felt and questioned why so much emphasis was placed on it precisely. The direct declaratives about payouts is what I found so startling. The answer was, "Well, pregnancies are a lot more expensive for insurance companies."
So now I stopped reading all those words each year because they mostly do not apply to me directly. And I see how the other half lives quite regretfully and expensively. If it helps keep people out of trouble then I suppose I am for it.
chickenlittle said...
That's pretty harsh. I'll bet somebody can find a penumbra calling out recreational sex as a right.
Could that somebody please have a little chat with my wife? Please?
Hippasus is sometimes credited with the discovery of the existence of irrational numbers, following which he was drowned at sea. Pythagoreans preached that all numbers could be expressed as the ratio of integers, and the discovery of irrational numbers is said to have shocked them
Alex memorialized: I'm talking about shattering orgasms, making the lady squirt and all that.
*snicker*
This from a self-proclaimed "sophisticate" of sex.
Why is it that people who claim to be so elightened about sex spend so much time obsessing about it?
You're no longer 14. Grow up already.
"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
And then come those pesky facts to fuck the whole thing up.
Irrational people HATE that!
"Most people have "health" expenses that aren't covered by their insurance, and won't be in the future, but those don't rise to the level of a "women's issue" so nobody cares."
This is very true.
Call something a "women's issue" and it's automatically "we gotta do that!" Or else you're a meanie.
Because women are oppressed and unable to take responsibility for themselves, take care of their own problems or take charge of their own lives and reproduction. Note that we're not talking about making every woman take contraceptives in case she gets raped. Women, of their own free will are unable to harness their libidos. Particularly if they are poor.
There is no logical contradiction in saying Yes to both. Unless you take the absurd position that contraceptives are medical procedures. Which they aren't. In fact they aren't procedures of any kind; they are goods from the druggist. Question four has nothing to do with contraceptives, whether they should be available, or who should pay for them. It asks only about medical procedures.
Everybody is irrational to some degree. A lot of people just can't connect the dots, not even if there are only 2.
Althouse has now figured out that it is insane to think like a Democrat.
Yet Althouse still votes mainly Democratic.
Love,
"You can't do that now because of mandates such as the birth control"
Note the "mandates such as".
Second, the maternity coverage is not separate coverage. It is another mandate--health insurance providers MUST provide these benefits. You can't opt out. Here is a partial list:
Maternity coverage
Maternity stay minimum limits
Masectomy provisions
Dependent coverage to age 26
Conversion privileges for an insured former spouse
Dietary products for inborn metabolic errors
Diabetes coverage
$4,000 Adoption benefit (seriously)
Rules concerning minimal coverage of non-preferred providers.
There was a move several years ago to force insurance companies to cover bone marrow transplants. More recently, there was a move to require that a controversial drug treatment for autistics be mandated.
"the discovery of irrational numbers is said to have shocked them"
OK, but seriously, how many people was that? Pyth and his drinking buddies, so maybe 3 guys?
Couldn't they just require instruction in coitus interuptus - maybe a seminar or video training?
re: '92 Planned Parenthood decision:
Sometimes, when you stare into the decisis, the decisis stares back at at you!
- Frederick Nietzsche
Yes that is consistent
Question 1 is about genitalia
Question 2 is about pocketbook.
Two toally different parts of tha anatomy I think
bagoh20 said...
Couldn't they just require instruction in coitus interuptus - maybe a seminar or video training?
Point of order. ( literally )
The coitus interuptus is what happens after you have kids.
"Then we have the Jesus-freaks who rant and rave about this, but remain silent as American drones kill unarmed people who are just trying to provide humanitarian care to injured people. The Christians who are upset about contraceptives should complain about that, 'cuz, you know, that's actually killing people. Instead they are silent hypocrites."
People routinely pull up this canard, but never address the fact that there are plenty of anti-war Christians who are also against abortion. Like, you know, Catholics.
It's almost like instead of actually dealing with the objection, you just want to throw up a whining smoke screen and avoid the issues.
I think the bell curve needs to be adjusted -
GLOBAL WARMING UPDATE: The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows. “The world’s greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows. The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.”
Via Insty - I guess those models need to be tweaked, eh?
When can we get this relition out of our schools?
This isn't about the pill, this is a direct State assault on the Catholic religion and Christianity.
If the hospitals don't provide abortions, they will lose their funding and close. The bricks & morter will either be bought or torn down.
Typical progressive M/O. Whatever agreement they come up with won't be worth the paper it's written on.
IL is fighting w/Catholic Charities over adoptions to gays. CC lost the court case, IL did the happy dance, CC said we'll close. State went WHAAA??? State can't afford to have them leave, they do too much and pick up too much of the costs and follow-up services. Not to mention all those jobs, Chicago is still very Catholic.
So they want to keep "talking" to come up with a "solution.
... Wednesday, White House spokesman Jay Carney indicated there might be some wiggle room to appease those who are most concerned. The press secretary said Obama is “sensitive” to the concerns expressed by religious leaders and others on the contraception issue and said the administration was trying to find a way to implement the decision that can “allay some of the concerns expressed....”
...The spokesman also said the administration gave religious employers a one-year grace period so that it could work through their objections as it implements the policy. It’s a slight pivot from last week, when a senior administration official said the delay was included simply to give employers time to update their health plans.....
In short, shut up, we won, do as your told.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People routinely pull up this canard -
Yup. Ask Julius why, if he's such a fervant support of Civil Rights, he isn't over in Africa right now battling the slavers...
Wish our schools would drop the PCBS diversity nonsense and teach about rhetorical fallacy. But then, the liberals wouldn't have any clubs left in their bag.
If the hospitals don't provide abortions, they will lose their funding and close. The bricks & morter will either be bought or torn down.
I really think this is about
1) forcing the Catholic Church out of the health care bussiness. Obama and his socialists don't want the competition.
2) throwing a red meat issue to the Santorum/fundie base in hopes they will over-react and scare off the independents.
They're progressives, they spend their time going for the brass ring and that is progressiivism uber alles.
They either eradicate or absorb.
wv: fries !!! YUM!
The Catholic Church may well shut down their adoption agencies and hospitals rather than comply... or they may go the route of the midwives of the old testament that were told they must kill the boy babies of the Jews and lie and break the law.
The first rule of wise government is not to pass laws that honest people refuse to follow.
If every carrier was required to have one or more plans that covered contraceptives without co-pays etc. that would not necessarily preclude them from having one or more plans that covered only major medical procedures, would it?
And the polar icecaps aren't melting as badly either? LOLOLOLOL They're off by 30%
This is a textbook example of an meaningfull conclusion extracted via a not so exhaustive method.
On top of what Richard Nolan said the first question is not that clear. I can interpret it in at least two different ways:
- Should health insurance companies be required by law to cover ALL government-approved contraceptives for women if they offer a plan containing the option "planned parenthood" or should they be required by law to clearly state what contraceptive methods are covered by each plan?
Or
- Should ALL health insurance companies be required by law to cover all government-approved contraceptives for women?
And while pondering the answer to each of these two, actualy three, questions the respondent must consider, for each of them, if co-payments are OK or not.
And you said that 34% of the likely voters are irrational! To me this smacks of sloppy penmanship from the person who wrote the questions.
You are spot on though when you say that "Apparently, people feel sympathetic to individuals but not to (insurance) companies". And this has a very simple explanation. Too many organisations, comercial companies included, give the impresion that their only goal is their own well-being while forgeting that they exist simply because they fulfill people needs. And when they completly forget this, or when the public gets this impression, they become empty shells.
I beg your pardon, organisations have no conscience and, as such, they cannot think. I should have said 'people running too many organisations act as if they care only about the well being of the organisations they work for....'.
This is exactly why more and more individuals care less and less about organisations (insurance) companies included.
And yes, you are, once again, right. This IS an irrational attitude. Modern life is inconcievable without social organisation. So a rational answer to all this would be to bridge the gap between organisations and companies. For example by remembering that stakeholders are very, very important.
It just goes to show that polls are mainly useful as tools for propaganda and not much else.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा