|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
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)?
It is just for the women vote. Why else would it be mandated to be free contraception, including sterilization. If a man wanted to get a vascetomy, would he be able to get that free as well?
It gets worse when you hear some of the arguments for it as well.
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.
source
I've also heard that on the radio as well and multiple occasions.
The problem is that, yes it is not your employer's business, but that does not mean it has to be covered for free under their health plan. Birth control has no bearing on health besides not getting pregnant, unless you are using it to treat an illness which in some cases it is. They are treating pregnancy as if it's an illness. But like I mentioned earlier, if they want to provide contraception for free, I want my maintenance drugs I need to take to live for free as well because after all, I am paying pretty much what the pill would cost a month every month and that is only the co-payments.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.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png) "Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
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.
Because our government is under the false pretense that by offering free birth control they can control the amount of unwed mothers, and chidren on welfare, like those people are thinking about birth control when they are doing the deed.
Because they can't cut the programs or they lose votes, so they hope they can affect a long term solution by lessening the population in need.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
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.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423 |
I think that what it has done is really give kids permission to have sex more than anything else.
I remember when I was ... maybe 20ish. I worked with a girl who was 15 years old, and she already had a baby. Man ... that was unheard of in those days. Most people I knew didn't even have kids at 18-19. (although I knew a few, it was not nearly as common as today)
We should be teaching a more complete and well rounded version of sex education if we are going to teach it. It should include that it is OK to wait, and that celibacy is not something to be ashamed of ..... that sex is not a cure all for a bad relationship ..... birth control, and the risks of different methods ...... that you should never allow someone to pressure you in to sex ..... the risks of drinking and drugs as far as pregnancy ....and so on. Instead kids get some idiotic mixed message that teaches them nothing.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Teaching about contraception is leading to the destruction of our society.
That's insane.
That's like saying that since guns are dangerous, gun safety training is a bad idea, and we should instead merely teach that guns are dangerous and should be avoided.
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
The source you cite gives a failure rate of 5%. And most research and studies put it at 1-2%.
Your source is citing typical use over proper use (i.e. not knowing how to properly use a condom, the teaching of which you oppose) and is also separating spermicide from the equation, which just about every major condom manufacturer provides.
Condoms aren't perfect, but when used correctly, they're highly effective in preventing pregnancy.
The problems with a condom's effectiveness are directly tied to the knowledge of the person using one. Pregnancy rates among those who use a condom containing spermicide properly is around 1-2%.
Quote:
Abortion may be legal but how many people will honestly get one?
In the U.S., about 1.3 million women per year.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
Instead kids get some idiotic mixed message that teaches them nothing.
Until our society stops positively reinforcing and in some cases celebrating things like "Teen Mom" and "Pregnant at 16" and even stuff like "Jon and Kate Plus 8" or "19 Kids and Counting", many people will continue to see having a kid as an accessory and not a responsibility. Rewarding people for getting pregnant in their teens or having a gazillion kids by putting them on television and giving them national notoriety sends the absolute wrong message.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 |
Quote:
Abstinence until Marriage is the path to the moral high ground and there are no shortcuts when it comes to morality.
If you mean Christian moral high ground, yes. You don't have to be a Christian in order to be moral.
What if two people who are committed, exclusive, and love each other? Is it immoral, removing religious morality, for them to be sleeping together?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,404
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,404 |
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)?
Bingo!
I think we'll hear from the Supreme Court on this one...sadly one could probably just ask Justice Kennedy what he thinks and we'll see if this whole thing stays afloat.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
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?
I put words in your mouth, and that was not fair of me. I just feel they are different institutions with different missions. A hospital specializes in acute care, deals with more life and death decisions, the patient population is more transient, and must treat anyone who comes through the door with an emergency. A nursing home specializes in long term care, has less life and death decisions, the patient population stays longer and is more of a community, and can be selective in who they accept. A nursing home is closer to a private institution IMO.
From a purists perspective, the bacon rule at nursing homes is silly if very few involved with the home are Jewish, and the majority of the money comes from non-Jewish sources. In practice though, who wants to waste time fighting that, even if it is universally unpopular.
In contrast, the majority of people (including a number of nuns) side with the President on this one. It is about personal health and medical care, which IMO is quite a bit more important than bacon.
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.
First off, I assumed that Jewish nursing home meant that it had a large population of Jewish residents. My mistake. If the institution is dominated by non-Jewish patients, employees, and money, then 1. why is it called "Jewish" and 2. why are rules being set according to what a group with a minority stake wants?
The point here is that all businesses will be required to provide contraception as part of their coverage. Catholics want an exception (and got one, rightly so) for their churches and schools. They also want exceptions to push their will in institutions in which they have a minority stake, which I can't agree with. Why is "religious freedom" perceived as the right to push a religious agenda down other people's throats?
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?
Are you sure that the Church is providing coverage? I know for a fact that the Clinic pays 80% of ours, and we pay 20%. The Church pays 0% and has a very minor stake in the hospital, but gets to tell us we can't have certain coverage, even though someone working at the Clinic main campus and everywhere else gets the coverage. Where is the "religious freedom" argument there?
Second, the Clinic does dictate to a certain extent (mostly by charging more if people don't make an effort to improve their health if they are able. I think that's a good model). But they have evidence-based medical reasons. They aren't dictating from a religious moral high ground that has no medical basis.
Quote:
I don't think the 'no blood transfusion' hospital would be too popular. If you want to open one, knock yourself out.
That wasn't my point. The point is that lots of religious beliefs clash heavily with evidence-based medicine. In a public center for evidence-based medicine (a hospital), they should be practicing evidence-based medicine, not any particular form of faith-based medicine.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
thanks. when i searched, i only found a few sites that seemed pretty flaky. those are better.
to blotto: teaching about 'safe sex' is not teaching cause/effect? that seems silly. it is teaching that having sex can lead to babies and std's so you better protect yourself from them as best you can if you don't want them. that's pretty straight cause/effect teaching to me.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,135
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,135 |
j/c All religious implications aside..... I was always under the impression that insurance was to cover unexpected expenses resulting from illness, injury or property damage.....not payment for items in a normal course of events. What next, are we to expect auto insurance to pay for oil changes or homeowners insurance to pay for house painting? Birth control is NOT a medical emergency, nor is it treatment for illness or injury.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
I would argue that insurance should (and does, usually) cover preventative measures. One shouldn't incur medical expenses only when ill. It should cover preventative health care as well. It makes logical and long-term fiscal sense as well.
I consider contraception to be preventative.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,135
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,135 |
Quote:
I would argue that insurance should (and does, usually) cover preventative measures.
How so? Are you saying health club memberships, vitamins, oil changes, new tires, furnace filters, etc.? That'll sure keep insurance costs down. I could see insurance companies covering an annual physical, but other than that, health, car and home maintenance should be the responsibility of the individual.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423 |
A hot little blonde would help keep my blood pressure down ...... can I put one on my insurance? 
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,135
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,135 |
I might have to give Obamacare a second look! 
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
If you were married that hot little blonde would raise your insurance rates.
Oh wait, we're not talking life insurance in this thread are we?
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423 |
Thank goodness I'm not married then. 
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,135
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,135 |
j/c Wow. Lot's of respect shown the religious leaders invited to testify. Here's an interesting exerpt from the hearings today: Examiner Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., told religious leaders testifying in Congress today that they were engaged in "shameful" acts of "political demagoguery" unworthy of their religious offices. "I believe that today's hearing is a sham," Connolly told a panel of one priest, three pastors, and a Jewish rabbi during a House Oversight and Government Reform hearing today. "Here you are being asked to testify about your rights being trampled on -- an overstatement if there ever was one -- while you're on a panel, and your participation on the panel makes you complicit in of course the trampling of freedom, because we were denied, on this side of the aisle, any witness who might have a differing point of view. And I think that's shameful." Committee chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., noted at the beginning of the hearing that he had approved one of the two witnesses called by Democrats to testify. The Democrats, Issa explained, chose not to have that witness testify, asking instead that he allow a young woman who attends Georgetown University to testify about the importance of the contraception mandate to her health care. Continuing his monologue, Connolly made a harsh rebuke of the religious leaders. "I say to you, as a member of this committee who actually shared the concerns you say you have last week, that I think this is a shameful exercise," he said. "And I am very sad you have chosen to participate and be used the way you're being used. Just as you were in the previous questioning, as if people are going to jail over this. Shame! Everybody knows that's not true." The church leaders had agreed, before Connolly spoke, that they would prefer to go to jail rather than violate their consciences by providing contraception and abortifacients to women. Denouncing Republicans for trying to hurt President Obama politically, Connolly faulted the assembled ministers for "overstating [the religious freedom issues in the mandate] and making charges that are just outlandish and frankly beyond the pale." Such testimony "serves no purpose other than political demagoguery in an election year," he said. "And men and women of the cloth, it seems to me, ought to run not walk away from that line."
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
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.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
the contraception mandate to her health care.
Since when was pregnancy a disease?
I can see prenatal care, post-natal case, but not prevention as a health issue unless it is really dangerous for a woman to get pregnant, but those are few and far between.
Contraception is not healthcare, but a choice.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438 |
j/c Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but why would an employer be forced to pay for contraception? Health benefits and other benefits shouldn't be required of any employer, they are "benefits" As in something that makes an employer competitive in the marketplace when it comes to hiring the most talented employees. Why would it be up to a business to be responsible for people's personal lives?
If I am confused, and what this really means is that Insurance Companies have to provide contraception coverage on their health plans, that I can agree with. People pay for coverage, they should receive coverage. The amount of things Health Plans don't cover is obscene considering how much we pay for them in premiums every month.
But I'm really not seeing why an employer should be responsible for the sex lives of it's employees.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423 |
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.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
That's just it, we shifted from Health "Insurance" to Health "Coverage" over the years. Part of the reason I think our costs are so high, it's no longer a method to help with extreme health costs, it's a method to pay for even the minor stuff. If people had to pay a 70 or 80 dollar doctor office visit versus a 15 or 20 copay, they wouldn't go for every sniffle or sneeze. A side benefit is it wouldn't take 2 months to get an appointment. 
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
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.
I've stayed out of this debate, because it's pointless and no one's minds will be changed, but this is a great point. People who think that the pill is solely used for preventing pregnancy have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.
From here.. link
Quote:
The FDA has also stated that there are definite health benefits to taking combined oral contraceptives (COC) pills that
contain both estrogen and progestin. This was based on their analysis of epidemiological studies that largely used oral
contraceptive formulations containing more than 0.035 mg (or 35 micrograms) of ethinyl estradiol (a type of estrogen).
However, recent studies have shown that the benefits related to taking low-dose COCs (those with less than 35 micrograms
of ethinyl estradiol) are probably as good as those attained from a high-dose pill.
So what are these benefits?
Use of the pill for more than two years can decrease the future risk of ovarian cancer by as
much as 70 percent and endometrial cancer by 50 percent. It can also decrease blood loss by 45 percent, decrease cramps by as much as 50
percent, acne, 50 percent, and benign ovarian tumors by 20 percent. Obviously, it can also protect against pregnancy. Finally, higher-dose pills
have been shown to decrease the development of ovarian cysts and fibroids (though low-dose pills may not be as effective).
With regard to your concern about breast cancer, studies have shown that women with a family history of breast cancer are not at an increased
risk of developing the disease with COC use. Moreover, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) has stated that the current or past
use of birth control among 35- to 64-year-old women didn't increase their risk of breast cancer. They even checked women who are known to have
a mutation in the genes related to breast and ovarian cancer (called the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes) and found that a low-dose pill still didn't
increase their breast cancer risk. They have found, though, that COC use will decrease the risk of ovarian cancer in these women.
Dr. Reichman¶s Bottom Line: If you like the fact that your periods are regular and easier, and you want some of these noncontraceptive health
benefits, I don't think you need to take a break from the pill. And remember, when it comes to ovarian cancer, combined oral contraceptives are
the only current mode of prevention.
And furthermore, I think it's a pretty simple issue. If you're going to take public taxpayer money from non-Catholics (which the majority of taxpayers are) then you should follow the rules they set forth. If you want to dictate your own healthcare, give up the tax exemptions, regardless of faith.
![[Linked Image from i190.photobucket.com]](http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z33/booger52/phpGGRdhwAM.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423 |
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.
However, it won't be treated as any other prescription drug treatment. It is expected to be paid for 100% by the insurance company or employer ..... not covered as a prescription drug subject to deductible. Why should that be the case? Why should someone get birth control covered at 100%, for example, where another person who needs blood pressure medicine, does not?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438 |
I never said that insurance companies have to pay 100% of the bill. I said that is was unfair to force employers to pay 100% of the bill because that makes no sense, and that health insurance companies should cover contraception, which they should if they don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423 |
But how should they cover contraception? At what level? Should it be treated as subject to a deductible, or not? Should they cover a guy who wants condoms for the weekend? Should it only be for women? If so, why? Under Obamacare, employers are going to be responsible for providing healthcare to their employees ...... and under this plan, their insurance will have to cover birth control ...... and nothing is free, so prices for everyone will wind up going up. Is the price increase going to off-set the minimal expense of birth control? I mean, looking it up online, WalMart covers several birth control drugs, (generics) including some used to treat other conditions, for $9 for a 30 day supply. Is this really out of reach for most women? http://i.walmartimages.com/i/if/hmp/fusion/customer_list.pdf
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438 |
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. It's great when businesses go above and beyond that and offer other programs to employess, but they shouldn't be legally required to do so. That puts an undue and unfair burden on businesses, and it's really not their role.
If Obama wants women to have contraception, then he need to work with the health insurance companies on that. Healthcare problems need to be dealt with in the health care industry. Trying to force this on business is like trying to avoid the problem, and everyone knows that healthcare is a big problem.
When you try to make businesses responsible for something like that, it sets a bad precedent for down the road. Employers don't belong in people's personal lives. You are at work to do a job, and they are to pay you for your work. That's it and that's all. Businesses struggle enough as it is, without having extra burdens of paying for people's personal lives heaped on them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
j/c
The overwhelmingly LARGER issue here - that seems to be overlooked - is: How is our gov't. allowed to dictate and mandate what is and what is not (by consequence) covered?
On a purely "this is a contraception issue, some women need it for health reasons, but not all..........blah blah blah", I'm not interested in it.
If the president can mandate this - what's next? Is it mandated that obese people should get paid for diets from insurance companies?
Should our gov't. be able to mandate that, at no cost to anyone other than the insurance company, this or that treatment is covered?
What's next after that? If gov't.is allowed to mandate things - can, or will they start telling insurance companies what they CAN'T cover?
The contraception thing is just the tip of the iceburg - actually - it is nothing but a speck of ice on the iceburg. There is a much larger concern here, for me, than contraception.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423 |
Oh I agree 100%.
However, I think that whole argument that birth control is somehow priced out of reach for ordinary women is not an honest argument to start with.
I just looked at Rite Aid's list of drugs on their program, and they have 25 different drugs/or dosages of generic birth control drugs available with a 28 day supply costing $19,99. I bet that's less than 20% of what some women spend on their nails.
I just don't see that as a prohibitive cost ..... especially when the poorest women with children already get Medicaid in many cases.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
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?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
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.
Actually their responsibility should end at giving you a paycheck. If they want to offer you health insurance then they will be able to attract better employees and have happier and more productive employees.. if they want to offer no health care then people should demand higher pay to work there if they have to cover it themselves..
This was one of the biggest problems with Obamacare from the beginning, this is just one of the first "mandates" to come.. they will continue to grow and grow and grow.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
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.
My fear is that in the interest of being "fair", once we start down the road of government mandates, that nothing will be off limits.. diet pills, energy drinks, gym memberships, personal trainers, stop smoking pills, stop drinking pills, massages for anxiety, breast enlargements for self-esteem... when will it end? If people can show that somebody "needs" these things for "medical" reasons, then eventually the government will require that they be covered..
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438 |
I completely and totally agree with you. I'm a libertarian. That should say enough about my opinion on the government lol.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
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.
If Birth Control is being used to treat different issues and not primarily as a contraception, it is a completely different issue and should be covered by insurance at the rates of the co-payment schedule just like any other drug. Why should it have some special free connotation in the system? What makes it so special? There's cheaper drugs out there that still require a co-pay and there's more life-maintaining drugs out there that do as well.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Should condoms be covered? 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Catholic Contraception Debate
|
|
