Quote:

---

Shouldn't it be the individual's responsibility to adhere to their beliefs? The Church won't have to pay for birth control if the employes don't try to get a prescription, right?

---

Quote:

---

Shouldn't it be the individual's responsibility to adhere to their beliefs? The Church won't have to pay for birth control if the employes don't try to get a prescription, right?

---

Quote:

---

i don't think it will matter. there is absolutely no way that the courts will allow it to stand.

---

Quote:

---

Catholic churches have beautiful masses. My grandmother was Catholic and I always liked their masses much more than the Lutheran services I grew up with. Do you guys attend mass often? My uncle is a catholic / salesian teacher down in Mason.

---

Quote:

---

Just wondering what you all think about this. As a catholic, it really bother me that the government is trying to place their values on catholic institutions. I just don't know where they get off making the catholic church go against their beliefs and pay for birth control/contraceptives.

The government seems to have an overreaching hand here, and it is a slippery slope. It just seems to me that catholics are getting beat on again (as usual). My religions seems to be the easy target (and i don't want to make this argument about that).

My girlfriend lives over in Germany (going to graduate school), she pays about 40 dollars a month for birth control. Their health care doesn't pay for that. If she can't afford it, I will buy it/make up the difference, especially if i'm going to be there for any length of time. 40$ a month is affordable, and even if it isn't for you, there's places where you can get it for free. I understand that it isn't just for contraception, but it also is used for contraception (that goes against the church's values), and having doctors sign off on same waiver is not some answer. I don't trust the values of many doctors who sign off on things just to be convenient for you.

If the government wants to do this garbage, find some funding outside of the catholic church and make it available to these employees. Do not force the church into something they see as a sin.

I just don't see why the church should be subsidizing a value that they don't believe in. It isn't like they don't want to provide health care, they just don't want to provide contraceptions which goes against its values.

I understand that many Catholics are on the pill, there's no question about that. But that's something between us and god, don't bring our church down.

I'm really hoping that the President changes his mind about this issue today in this speech of his. I know it's a long shot, but it's just another thing that pisses me off about the guy

---

Quote:

---

Except they aren't making the church pay for anything, the church pays insurance premiums just like everyone else, and that insurance company in turn pays the claims by the employee, not by the church's request. No different than the church paying a salary to someone, they have no right to tell that person what they can and cannot do with the money once it becomes thiers.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Except they aren't making the church pay for anything, the church pays insurance premiums just like everyone else, and that insurance company in turn pays the claims by the employee, not by the church's request. No different than the church paying a salary to someone, they have no right to tell that person what they can and cannot do with the money once it becomes thiers.

---

But birth control is an add-on to most insurance policies that you can pay for or not pay for.. if the Catholic Church (or any company that provides insurance to it's employees) doesn't want to pay for it as part of their premiums, they shouldn't have to.

With that said, it always baffled me that insurance companies don't automatically cover it. They will pay $15K for you to have a baby but not cover $40 a month for you to NOT have a baby? I suppose they have run the numbers and figured out that over a large group of people it works out in their favor but it still seems odd to me.

---

Quote:

---

My girlfriend lives over in Germany (going to graduate school), she pays about 40 dollars a month for birth control.

---

If your here and she's over there,, why does she need birth control

Just funnin you man

Anyway, I grew up catholic as well. But me and the church are on the outs for other reasons. (didn't like the way they handled the priests that messed with little boys)

But I'm gonna say this and I'm gonna get beat upon for it, but here goes, I don't think it's the governments business what a person chooses to do with thier body.

Regarding the church, They have no place in the discussion either if the person doesn't want them there.

JMHO..

I'm preparing for the onslaught of beatings I'll now receive

Quote:

---

With that said, it always baffled me that insurance companies don't automatically cover it. They will pay $15K for you to have a baby but not cover $40 a month for you to NOT have a baby? I suppose they have run the numbers and figured out that over a large group of people it works out in their favor but it still seems odd to me.

---

Quote:

---

Anyway, I grew up catholic as well. But me and the church are on the outs for other reasons. (didn't like the way they handled the priests that messed with little boys)

---

Quote:

---

Allowing the insurance provider to offer those benefits a la carte and at the expense of the consumer seems like a reasonable compromise.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

With that said, it always baffled me that insurance companies don't automatically cover it. They will pay $15K for you to have a baby but not cover $40 a month for you to NOT have a baby? I suppose they have run the numbers and figured out that over a large group of people it works out in their favor but it still seems odd to me.

---

Yeah, this one.

---

Quote:

---

But birth control is an add-on to most insurance policies that you can pay for or not pay for.. if the Catholic Church (or any company that provides insurance to it's employees) doesn't want to pay for it as part of their premiums, they shouldn't have to.

---

Quote:

---

Under the new plan put forward by the White House insurance companies, rather than the employer, will be required to offer contraception directly to employees of religious-linked institutions if requested.

Religious institutions would not be required to subsidise the cost of offering birth control to their employees, nor would they be asked to refer them to organisations that provide it.

---

Quote:

---

Outraged Catholic leaders said that the provision would force them to violate religious beliefs.

Under the original terms of the ruling, Church-linked institutions would have had to cover birth control costs in their health insurance plans.

Word of the compromise came shortly after top Republicans joined the outcry against the contraception rule.

---

Quote:

---

Just to add in a sidenote - what about women who need birth control for non-contraception related issues (hormonal etc.)?

Should they be covered then to treat the other condition, even if as a side effect they make you temporarily unable to get pregnant?

---

Quote:

---

Catholic agencies employ a good number of non-Catholics. Should non-Catholic employees be shut out of contraception benefits?

---

Quote:

---

The only thing I would object to is forcing churches to perform such ceremonies, or to recognize such marriages that are opposed to their beliefs. (or forcing them to hire people living a lifestyle that goes contrary to their beliefs and teachings) Other than that ... I just don't care anymore.

---

Quote:

---

j/c

Okay, so Obama apparently just changed the rules. Religiously affiliated schools and hospitals will not be required/forced, to offer contraceptive coverage to their employees. BUT, insurance companies will be forced to offer contraceptive coverage at no cost to women that work for any of those organizations.

How does that work? The president can just make the rules? I don't get it. The president can just tell insurance companies what they will cover, and mandate that the users don't have to pay any extra?


http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/10/politics/contraception-controversy/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

---

The dictator can dictate what he wants.

Election time is creeping up on the big 0 and he knows that if this stood, separation of church and state would bite him in the arse. This isn't reconsidering anything as far as ideology / socialist ideals. Its about votes and having to answer this question time and time again against the Republican nominee. This is akin to the criminal who apologizes not because he is sorry for the crime, but because he is sorry he got caught.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Catholic agencies employ a good number of non-Catholics. Should non-Catholic employees be shut out of contraception benefits?

---

Yes. Without a doubt. The culture of the business should dictate what benefits they offer and the government should stay the heck out of it.

---

Quote:

---

Of course not. ... and in my original post, I agreed that religious organizations shouldn't have to PAY to provide contraception benefits. I merely suggested that permitting insurance companies to offer them a la carte at the consumer's expense seemed like a decent compromise.

---

Quote:

---

ED drugs should absolutely not be covered by insurance. That is ludicrous.

If an old man can't get his willy up, then why should I have to help pay him to do it? He should consider it an "entertainment" expense not a medical one.

---

Man, are you an elderly bigot or what?

If anyone should get free stuff in this country it's our elderly folks.

I say, UP WITH WILLY'S!

Quote:

---

what about taxes that go to paying government assistance to families where the parents weren't financially prepared to care for children on their own?

Contraception is a good thing. especially in countries that are "12% to 15% overpopulated."

---

Quote:

---

The Catholic view that helping women control their own reproduction constitutes "material cooperation with evil" is, I suppose, outside the scope of the Moneybox beat but the fusionist view that even secular people should endorse Catholic obscurantism on broadly libertarian grounds is on the inside. This strikes me as simply one of those cases where a strong form of libertarian opposition to subsidizing anything at all just ends up flying in the face of the common sense view that public policy should aim to make things better. Here Ben Smith quotes a study (PDF) from the Business Group on Health which argues that "Unintended pregnancies result in substantial excess direct medical claims costs and indirect costs such as disability, employee replacement costs, lost productivity, and presenteeism."

The point here is simple. While birth control costs more than nothing, it costs less than an abortion and much less than having a baby. From a social point of view, unless we're not going to subsidize consumption of health care services at all (which would be a really drastic change from the status quo) then it makes a ton of sense to heavily subsidize contraceptives. Now of course sometimes the economically rational course of action (kill everyone in Alberta and steal their oil) is immoral (killing is wrong) and therefore we don't do it. But just on the dollars and cents subsidizing birth control is a no-brainer. The unfortunate thing is that under the American setup the subsidies tend to be passed through the employer, which has set the stage for this controversy.

Another point worth making is that this is one of these issues where the actual incidence of the costs of a policy and the legislative incidence are going to be quite different. Liberals often like making "employers" pay for things as an alternative to taxing people. But in practice, employers are making a tradeoff between health care spending and wages. If your employer shifts from not subsidizing contraceptives to subsidizing them, what happens is that the workers who don't use contraceptives are providing cross-subsidy to those who do. It's in effect the same as financing a free birth control policy through a tiny increase in the payroll tax, which seems to me like a totally reasonable course of action, but like it or not employers are only bearing the cost in a very formalistic sense.

---

Quote:

---

Yeah, I don't get the "free" part (well, I do since it's the government, but that's a separate issue...). I'd be OK with insurance companies offering contraceptive coverage at the negotiated rates they can make available to their customers (often there's a co-pay of $5 or less). Telling insurance companies they have to provide it free of charge only pushes the expense back to the church-based organization in the form of higher premiums. Makes no sense.

---

Quote:

---

If people can get birth control at no charge, I want my maintenance drugs that I need to keep me going for free as well. Birth control pills are not a life and death situation and they are being forced to provide them free of charge. I want my medication, which is a life and death situation for free as well.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If people can get birth control at no charge, I want my maintenance drugs that I need to keep me going for free as well. Birth control pills are not a life and death situation and they are being forced to provide them free of charge. I want my medication, which is a life and death situation for free as well.

---

I don't see the "free of charge" part - I think it's supposed to be the normal co-pay?

---

Quote:

---

When has an insurance company ever given anything away for "free"?

This will bump up insurance costs, because the more thing get paid for, the more insurance will cost. It's a pretty simple formula.

Personally I think that a few shots of Crown and a cute blonde every once in a while are good for my health.Can I get those paid for by my insurance company?

This is a massive overreach by the Obama administration, and I think that it will bite them squarely in the ass. I see if going to the Supreme Court right after the Obamacare fight.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

When has an insurance company ever given anything away for "free"?

This will bump up insurance costs, because the more thing get paid for, the more insurance will cost. It's a pretty simple formula.

Personally I think that a few shots of Crown and a cute blonde every once in a while are good for my health.Can I get those paid for by my insurance company?

This is a massive overreach by the Obama administration, and I think that it will bite them squarely in the ass. I see if going to the Supreme Court right after the Obamacare fight.

---

Not if the insurance companies find that contraceptive care lowers cost (as the cite I posted above reasoned) - sure maybe cost increases in the short run "hey, we're providing this so we will charge more", but given competition, a lower equilibrium should be established.

---

Quote:

---

I almost want to laugh ...... because I cannot ever, ever remember my insurance costs going down.

Not once.

Has your health insurance cost gone down in the past decade or 2?

---

Quote:

---

jc...

How do religious employers of Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Zoroastrian and sundry other faiths feel about this plan?

---

Quote:

---

ED drugs should absolutely not be covered by insurance. That is ludicrous.

If an old man can't get his willy up, then why should I have to help pay him to do it? He should consider it an "entertainment" expense not a medical one.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

jc...

How do religious employers of Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Zoroastrian and sundry other faiths feel about this plan?

---

I believe muslims were a little upset as well over this, but the others I don't think so much. Catholics are more inclined to have the belief that sex is only for procreation than the others.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

jc...

How do religious employers of Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Zoroastrian and sundry other faiths feel about this plan?

---

I believe muslims were a little upset as well over this, but the others I don't think so much. Catholics are more inclined to have the belief that sex is only for procreation than the others.

---

Quote:

---

Just a point of clarification - it doesn't have to be solely for procreation - the rule is you just always have to be open to procreation. The Church has okayed NFP.

---

Quote:

---

There are many Jewish retirement/nursing homes near me. Few, if any, employees are Jewish. Many patients are not Jewish. They receive tax dollars for payments.

Do employees have the right to cook bacon in the microwave? Do patients have the right to bring in ham?

Your "they serve the public" argument is specious, in my opinion.

---

Quote:

---

I detailed several reasons why hospitals are public institutions. Do you have any reasons why they aren't?

---

Quote:

---

Cooking bacon in a Jewish nursing home, something that is directly offensive and in the face of patients, is quite different than an employee's personal sex life and/or their personal health problems (as a significant percentage of women need birth control for health problems).

---

Quote:

---

IMO, there is little place for religion in evidence-based medicine. If a person wants to forego medical treatment on religious grounds, they are welcome to do so. They should not be telling other people how they should utilize medical treatments based on their own beliefs. To me it is extremely ironic that not being allowed to dictate to someone how they treat their own body is somehow infringement upon religious rights. In my wife's case, it is absolutely preposterous b/c the Cleveland Clinic provides 80% of the benefits and the employee pays the other 20%. The Church pays 0%, yet gets to state that the coverage can't include birth control.

---

Quote:

---

Some other examples of where religious belief and medicine don't necessarily mix: I went to high school with a person who was a practicing Jehovah's witness. He didn't believe in blood transfusions. Why don't we have Jehovah's witness hospitals that won't cover blood transfusions for its employees? Or imagine if a religious hospital wouldn't cover antibiotics because they don't believe in evolution (you may laugh at this, but I encountered a med student at the school I used to work at who didn't believe in evolution. I never asked her, but I wonder how she thought that antibiotic resistance arises?)

---

Quote:

---

Can anyone at all explain why, other than buying the female vote, this is being required of ANYONE?? Forget the church.... why does Caterpillar or IBM or Bob's Tire and Computers have to do this??

Am I the only one that sees that the entire contraception insurance mandate is dumb as hell (and where the heck does the Pres get the authority to mandate this, anyway)?

---

Quote:

---

All of this adds up to the fact that, frankly, my reproductive choices are none of my employer's damn business.
Healthcare decisions are made between my doctor and me. My employer has no place in that equation. My life, my body and my health are mine.

---

Quote:

---

Why do I not get my medications for free as well when the medication they want for free is optional whereas I HAVE to take mine.

---

Quote:

---

I would like to see a study on % of unwanted teen pregnancies each decade for the last 40 or so years. There has definitely been more education about protection since the HIV-scare in the early 90s. I would like to see if it is really having an effect or not.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I would like to see a study on % of unwanted teen pregnancies each decade for the last 40 or so years. There has definitely been more education about protection since the HIV-scare in the early 90s. I would like to see if it is really having an effect or not.

---

http://www.guttmacher.org/sections/pregnancy.php

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-Unintended-Pregnancy-US.html

U.S. TEEN PREGNANCY RATE AT LOWEST LEVEL IN NEARLY 40 YEARS

Review finds no evidence to support Abstinence-Only Education

---

Quote:

---

Teaching about contraception is leading to the destruction of our society.

---

Quote:

---

Condom's don't always work, their failure rate is 15% according to research done by the American Pregnancy.

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/malecondom.html

---

Quote:

---

Abortion may be legal but how many people will honestly get one?

---

Quote:

---

Instead kids get some idiotic mixed message that teaches them nothing.

---

Quote:

---

Abstinence until Marriage is the path to the moral high ground and there are no shortcuts when it comes to morality.

---

Quote:

---

Am I the only one that sees that the entire contraception insurance mandate is dumb as hell (and where the heck does the Pres get the authority to mandate this, anyway)?

---

Quote:

---

I didn't claim hospitals are not a public institution. Why don't the same reasons apply to the nursing home? They collect Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security and accommodate everyone. What is your perceived difference between the hospital and the nursing home?

---

Quote:

---

So cooking bacon is offensive to you? Then I frequently offend you. What about bringing in a ham sandwich for lunch, and keeping it in the fridge? Is that OK? The prohibition against pork is just a tenet in Judaism, much like some birth control is to Catholics. I went to Catholic school for 12 years, and had a lay teacher who's wife was on birth control pills for health reasons. It was OK then, and it's OK now.

Again, many if not most of these patients are not Jewish. It is just a Jewish facility. The patients and staff are not allowed to eat a cheeseburger, or drink a glass of milk with that roast beef sandwich, or have cream in their coffee with dinner.

They can buy and consume this stuff outside of the facility with their own money, the same as the Catholic employees can buy birth control with their own money.

---

Quote:

---

This isn't a "we don't offer health insurance" case. The church is providing coverage, otherwise it wouldn't be an issue.

The Cleveland Clinic does dictate how people treat their own bodies. Do you have a problem with this or not?

---

Quote:

---

I don't think the 'no blood transfusion' hospital would be too popular. If you want to open one, knock yourself out.

---

Quote:

---

I would argue that insurance should (and does, usually) cover preventative measures.

---

Quote:

---

one priest, three pastors, and a Jewish rabbi

---

walked into a bar...

Way to keep it professional Rep. Connolly. Way to act with class and dignity... and you wonder why Colt McCoy has a higher winning percentage than congress's approval rating.

Quote:

---

the contraception mandate to her health care.

---

Quote:

---

The President's "Obamacare" program will require employers to provide healthcare for their employees, or else pay a hefty fine per employee. (smaller employers are exempt, for now)

The President has now decided that employers much provide contraception as a free added benefit. Because of the controversy regarding Catholic and other religious employers objecting to something that goes against their beliefs ... so now the President has decided that insurance companies must now include this as a free benefit.

Of course, many Catholic organizations self insure, with benefit administration and a catastrophic umbrella through an insurance company. However, the bottom line is the same, and Catholic organization must still pay for birth control, which goes against their teachings and beliefs.

I disagree strongly with forcing insurance companies to pay for birth control. Insurance should be for preventative care and major coverages. People should be able to decide on what they want covered, and should only have to pay for those items. However, this is about this White House forcing their beliefs on all people, regardless of what the legalities may be, and despite what certain people may believe from a religious and moral standpoint.

This will be yet another thing that will wind up at the Supreme Court.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The President's "Obamacare" program will require employers to provide healthcare for their employees, or else pay a hefty fine per employee. (smaller employers are exempt, for now)

The President has now decided that employers much provide contraception as a free added benefit. Because of the controversy regarding Catholic and other religious employers objecting to something that goes against their beliefs ... so now the President has decided that insurance companies must now include this as a free benefit.

Of course, many Catholic organizations self insure, with benefit administration and a catastrophic umbrella through an insurance company. However, the bottom line is the same, and Catholic organization must still pay for birth control, which goes against their teachings and beliefs.

I disagree strongly with forcing insurance companies to pay for birth control. Insurance should be for preventative care and major coverages. People should be able to decide on what they want covered, and should only have to pay for those items. However, this is about this White House forcing their beliefs on all people, regardless of what the legalities may be, and despite what certain people may believe from a religious and moral standpoint.

This will be yet another thing that will wind up at the Supreme Court.

---

Contraception has more purposes than just birthcontrol though. There are very many women who have terrible hormonal cycles, extremely painful cycles, and bleeding issues. Contraception provides relief for that. It is more than just preventing babies, it is used to treat health problems. It isn't a choice for very many women, not any more than having diabetes is a choice, or having high blood pressure, or any other illness. It should be covered by health plans just as any other medical treatment is covered by health plans.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The President's "Obamacare" program will require employers to provide healthcare for their employees, or else pay a hefty fine per employee. (smaller employers are exempt, for now)

The President has now decided that employers much provide contraception as a free added benefit. Because of the controversy regarding Catholic and other religious employers objecting to something that goes against their beliefs ... so now the President has decided that insurance companies must now include this as a free benefit.

Of course, many Catholic organizations self insure, with benefit administration and a catastrophic umbrella through an insurance company. However, the bottom line is the same, and Catholic organization must still pay for birth control, which goes against their teachings and beliefs.

I disagree strongly with forcing insurance companies to pay for birth control. Insurance should be for preventative care and major coverages. People should be able to decide on what they want covered, and should only have to pay for those items. However, this is about this White House forcing their beliefs on all people, regardless of what the legalities may be, and despite what certain people may believe from a religious and moral standpoint.

This will be yet another thing that will wind up at the Supreme Court.

---

Contraception has more purposes than just birthcontrol though. There are very many women who have terrible hormonal cycles, extremely painful cycles, and bleeding issues. Contraception is commonly used as a treatment for that regardless of whether or not a woman is sexually active. It is more than just preventing babies, it is used to treat health problems. It isn't a choice for very many women, not any more than having diabetes is a choice, or having high blood pressure, or any other illness. It should be covered by health plans just as any other medical treatment is covered by health plans.

---

Quote:

---

Contraception has more purposes than just birthcontrol though. There are very many women who have terrible hormonal cycles, extremely painful cycles, and bleeding issues. Contraception is commonly used as a treatment for that regardless of whether or not a woman is sexually active. It is more than just preventing babies, it is used to treat health problems. It isn't a choice for very many women, not any more than having diabetes is a choice, or having high blood pressure, or any other illness. It should be covered by health plans just as any other medical treatment is covered by health plans.

---

Quote:

---

And actually, what I guess I'm really meaning to say is that health care is not the responsibility of businesses. Their responsibility ends at offering health insurance to employees.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Contraception has more purposes than just birthcontrol though. There are very many women who have terrible hormonal cycles, extremely painful cycles, and bleeding issues. Contraception is commonly used as a treatment for that regardless of whether or not a woman is sexually active. It is more than just preventing babies, it is used to treat health problems. It isn't a choice for very many women, not any more than having diabetes is a choice, or having high blood pressure, or any other illness. It should be covered by health plans just as any other medical treatment is covered by health plans.

---

Then those women can get a prescription and get it from the pharamcist for a co-pay like every other medication prescribed by a doctor... what's the problem? If I want Tylenol I pay for it, if I want heavy duty Tylenol prescribed by a doctor it's covered under my insurance. Why couldn't the pill be handled the same way?

---

I agree with you. My original response was to someone saying that insurance shouldn't cover the pill. I was saying that it's more than just pregnancy prevention, so it needs to be covered by insurance.

I don't like any of this Obama forcing anyone to do anything. I do think the healthcare system needs to be addressed. As a person with chronic illness, and very expensive insurance that pretty much doesn't cover any of my very expensive medications, the healthcare system is broken. But that's really a whole entire different discussion.

Quote:

---

I agree with you. My original response was to someone saying that insurance shouldn't cover the pill. I was saying that it's more than just pregnancy prevention, so it needs to be covered by insurance.

---

Ok.. gotcha.. I agree that when it is not purely for birth control, that it should be covered..

Quote:

---

I don't like any of this Obama forcing anyone to do anything. I do think the healthcare system needs to be addressed. As a person with chronic illness, and very expensive insurance that pretty much doesn't cover any of my very expensive medications, the healthcare system is broken. But that's really a whole entire different discussion.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Contraception has more purposes than just birthcontrol though. There are very many women who have terrible hormonal cycles, extremely painful cycles, and bleeding issues. Contraception is commonly used as a treatment for that regardless of whether or not a woman is sexually active. It is more than just preventing babies, it is used to treat health problems. It isn't a choice for very many women, not any more than having diabetes is a choice, or having high blood pressure, or any other illness. It should be covered by health plans just as any other medical treatment is covered by health plans.

---

Then those women can get a prescription and get it from the pharamcist for a co-pay like every other medication prescribed by a doctor... what's the problem? If I want Tylenol I pay for it, if I want heavy duty Tylenol prescribed by a doctor it's covered under my insurance. Why couldn't the pill be handled the same way?

---

I agree with you. My original response was to someone saying that insurance shouldn't cover the pill. I was saying that it's more than just pregnancy prevention, so it needs to be covered by insurance.

I don't like any of this Obama forcing anyone to do anything. I do think the healthcare system needs to be addressed. As a person with chronic illness, and very expensive insurance that pretty much doesn't cover any of my very expensive medications, the healthcare system is broken. But that's really a whole entire different discussion.

---