Mitt Romney's candidacy

I think we want, or should want, intellectually sophisticated candidates for chief executive who're sincerely interested in improving America, and indeed the world, and all that that entails, even if it entails going against certain elements of the status quo. Which, imho, it does.

Romney's not, imho, that sort of candidate. I currently believe that a Romney presidency would be pretty much business as usual. Which, imho, isn't acceptable. America can, and should, imho, do better than that.

Not that a Romney presidency would be disastrous. Just not particularly focused on positive change. There are, it seems to me, some rather obvious problems with the American political, corporate, and financial sectors, and I get the impression that Romney isn't interested in even considering these problems as problems, much less leading the way to actually doing something about them.

The issue isn't contraception - it's about the Government exerting influence over a church.

The real issue with contraceptives is why should an insurance policy pay for birth control - it will raise all or of premiums. Before anyone says pay now or later - the norm is to add maternity to your coverage before you need it - the premiums increase is by and large an offset against the future claim.

Only if you assume the consequence of no birth control is the timing of a set number of kids. If no birth control means you wind up having more kids than you wanted, then birth control saves the insurance company money.

From the insurance company's perspective, I think the issue would be whether free contraceptives or the lack of free contraceptives would really influence behavior. If employees stop using contraceptives because they have to pay for them themselves, then insurance premiums should increase for policies that don't provide free contraceptives. If contraceptives are cheap enough that having to pay for them themselves doesn't affect employee behavior, then insurance premiums should decrease for policies that don't provide free contraceptives.

Insurance is the transference of risk - not a maintenance agreement.

Insurance is the transference of risk - not a maintenance agreement. Car insurance doesn't pay for oil changes. If you choose not to change your oil or maintain the correct level - you might destroy your motor - also not covered by the car insurance.

Bad analogy to health insurance- if car insurance DID cover engine damage, it would be in their interest to cover oil changes.

Yes perhaps so but not from insurance companies please. Let them provide ..... insurance.

There are policies that do extend coverage for motor and drive train - failure to change your oil (personal responsibility) voids coverage.

If the health insurance didn't cover birth control, could failure to purchase birth control on their own void their coverage if they get pregnant? If so, then failure to cover contraceptives would definitely reduce the cost of health insurance.

Facetious, perhaps, but it's really hard to compare health insurance to other types of insurance when health insurance typically covers planned events, such as pregnancy. If it were purely insurance against unplanned sickness, accidents, etc, then I guess many more people would be delaying childbirth one way or another - or doctors/hospitals would raise the rates for covered events even higher to cover the losses they were absorbing when people who can't afford kids have kids anyway.

Many individual health plans offer maternity as a rider - added on to the basic coverage for additional premium. It's not unusual for the premiums to equal the cost of the event over 24-30 months - basically a set aside.

I'm Canadian. I have no idea what my daughter cost me.

I understand the thought, You can save it or they can save it for you.
... but, can you please plug in some dollar values.
I'm Canadian. I have no idea what my daughter cost me.
Other than regular OHIP payments, I received no bill. ( perhaps a few minor ones .. )
So I'm just curious.

Today is the big day in MI and AZ. Romney is not happy with the robo-calls attempting to attract Democrats to vote against him.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...gceR_blog.html

While not the dirtiest trick of all time - IMO - it might strengthen support for Romney with the Republican base.

If Republicans weren't so cheap as to put Obama's name on the ballot so they could get taxpayer funding, they wouldn't have to worry about crossover voting.