U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-07-2014, 03:15 PM
 
8,343 posts, read 8,622,463 times
Reputation: 26094

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_human_being View Post
Of course they do. That's why we have group insurance in the first place. It spreads the costs around among the plan's policyholders. It's the fact that a non-injury, non-disease, drug is fully paid for that ticks me off and the fact that those receiving taxpayer subsidies to help pay for their insurance premiums is aiding in running our national debt through the roof. If a non-injury and non-medical conditional is mandated to be free of co-pay then mandate essential life-threatening meds for injury and bona fide medical conditions be without co-pay also. What's next? Anything the Democrats can think up to buy another group's vote at taxpayer expense. In other words, if you're going to get yours free of co-pay, give me mine free of co-pay as well, but I'm not going to sell my soul to you for doing it because I have paid my co-pay all these years and do not whine nor expect to force anyone else to pay my co-pays for me.
I don't know where you would get the idea that because the ACA mandates coverage for birth control that that is why insurance subsidies and taxes, are, in your own words, "aiding in running our national debt through the roof".

Paying for birth control will always be cheaper than paying for the expenses of a pregnancy and delivery. It will always be cheaper than paying to add an additional insured to a family's health insurance coverage. Just try to imagine all the expensive high risk pregnancies that are avoided by giving women access to birth control. If you want to save money, any actuary would tell you this is the way to go.

It seems to really chap your hide that money is being spent on a "non-disease drug". I think its time to understand that birth control may occupy a critical category of its own when we think about drugs and medications. Even when birth control is not being used to treat a disease or medical condition (and actually it is sometimes) its clearly a critical and relevant medication for 50% of the population. Women and men are not situated the same in life. Men will never have to worry about preventing becoming pregnant. Perhaps, if men did, than at least some of the five male supreme court justices that decided the Hobby Lobby case might have voted differently. For that matter, I understand all five were Catholic as well.

I am afraid this debate is just beginning. It does not bode well for conservatives.

 
Old 07-07-2014, 03:31 PM
 
Location: Chapel Hill, N.C.
36,437 posts, read 41,781,702 times
Reputation: 47043
I personally think the right wingnut Justices have shot themselves in the foot on this one. More people now than ever are seeing the ludicrous arguments of the christian right leaning folks and where they are trying to take this country--back at least 60 years. People are getting riled up and putting their money where their mouths are and donating to the organizations which support women's rights. They are boycotting stupid businesses which have made their prejudices against women known all the while happy to take their money for cheap and crappy "crafts' made in China where abortion is strictly enforced to the point of hauling off pregnant women kicking and screaming to abortion clinics.
 
Old 07-07-2014, 03:39 PM
 
Location: Pensacola, Florida
2,125 posts, read 1,148,122 times
Reputation: 556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeraldmaiden View Post
Actually, many, MANY women, including me, take hormonal birth control for non-contraceptive reasons. In further fact, I never needed the contraceptive aspect of these drugs because I am in fact infertile. Will you now try to tell me that my medication should not be covered because it also happens to be a contraceptive?

Read this Colorado claims contraceptive program caused big drop in teen birth rates - The Denver Post and tell me contraceptives will bankrupt the country. That idea is simply laughable, considering all of the costs of pregnancy, childbirth, and raising, feeding, and educating the resultant children. According to the article, the state of Colorado has saved $5.68 in Medicaid costs for every dollar spent on the program, as well as lowering the teen birth rate.
I take insulin for purely non-contraceptive reasons as well. Many women take insulin also. Will you please tell me why insulin shouldn't be covered for us just as contraceptives are covered for you? Our insulin requires a sizeable co-pay. I shall expect your check in the mail to help defray my out-of-pocket for my insulin.
 
Old 07-07-2014, 03:41 PM
 
Location: Pensacola, Florida
2,125 posts, read 1,148,122 times
Reputation: 556
Quote:
Originally Posted by JC84 View Post
"Pro-Life" movement does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to tackle the root cause of abortions, those being unwanted pregnancies. Let's also focus on how the Pro-Life movement instead INCREASES THE ABORTION RATE by opposing contraception access and supporting abstinence-only sex education.

"Studies have shown free birth control would reduce the abortion rate by 75%." WHY IS THE PRO LIFE MOVEMENT NOT SUPPORTING THIS?

Conclusion: not really pro-life.
I don't give a hoot what your prolife groups do or don't do. Why would you expect my tax dollars to pay for your abortion? I didn't knock you up. Did you help pay for my heart bypass surgery? NO!! You did not. Take care of your own problems, I didn't take you to raise.
 
Old 07-07-2014, 03:45 PM
 
Location: Pensacola, Florida
2,125 posts, read 1,148,122 times
Reputation: 556
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
I don't know where you would get the idea that because the ACA mandates coverage for birth control that that is why insurance subsidies and taxes, are, in your own words, "aiding in running our national debt through the roof".

Paying for birth control will always be cheaper than paying for the expenses of a pregnancy and delivery. It will always be cheaper than paying to add an additional insured to a family's health insurance coverage. Just try to imagine all the expensive high risk pregnancies that are avoided by giving women access to birth control. If you want to save money, any actuary would tell you this is the way to go.

It seems to really chap your hide that money is being spent on a "non-disease drug". I think its time to understand that birth control may occupy a critical category of its own when we think about drugs and medications. Even when birth control is not being used to treat a disease or medical condition (and actually it is sometimes) its clearly a critical and relevant medication for 50% of the population. Women and men are not situated the same in life. Men will never have to worry about preventing becoming pregnant. Perhaps, if men did, than at least some of the five male supreme court justices that decided the Hobby Lobby case might have voted differently. For that matter, I understand all five were Catholic as well.

I am afraid this debate is just beginning. It does not bode well for conservatives.
Since you are one great American with a heart as big as Texas, I shall expect a check in the mail to help pay for my insulin since it IS a disease related drug and you certainly wouldn't wish for a single moment that I go without it. Be looking in the mail. Hurry.
 
Old 07-07-2014, 03:46 PM
 
Location: Pensacola, Florida
2,125 posts, read 1,148,122 times
Reputation: 556
Quote:
Originally Posted by no kudzu View Post
I personally think the right wingnut Justices have shot themselves in the foot on this one. More people now than ever are seeing the ludicrous arguments of the christian right leaning folks and where they are trying to take this country--back at least 60 years. People are getting riled up and putting their money where their mouths are and donating to the organizations which support women's rights. They are boycotting stupid businesses which have made their prejudices against women known all the while happy to take their money for cheap and crappy "crafts' made in China where abortion is strictly enforced to the point of hauling off pregnant women kicking and screaming to abortion clinics.
Not my issue.
 
Old 07-07-2014, 03:49 PM
 
1,627 posts, read 2,644,222 times
Reputation: 2047
Since Corporations are people, then it is against the Constitution to mingle religion and politics they are separate.


This decision was made by men against women and this will be fought with women against me.
 
Old 07-07-2014, 04:05 PM
 
12,089 posts, read 5,635,486 times
Reputation: 13606
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_human_being View Post
I don't give a hoot what your prolife groups do or don't do. Why would you expect my tax dollars to pay for your abortion? I didn't knock you up. Did you help pay for my heart bypass surgery? NO!! You did not. Take care of your own problems, I didn't take you to raise.
You are not paying for anyone's abortion. You can claim that you do until you're blue in the face, you simply sound foolish.
 
Old 07-07-2014, 04:12 PM
 
6,401 posts, read 6,520,560 times
Reputation: 9803
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_human_being View Post
I take insulin for purely non-contraceptive reasons as well. Many women take insulin also. Will you please tell me why insulin shouldn't be covered for us just as contraceptives are covered for you? Our insulin requires a sizeable co-pay. I shall expect your check in the mail to help defray my out-of-pocket for my insulin.
Cute. Up until the ACA kicked in, I also paid a sizeable copay for my medication. I suggest that we would be better off in a single-payer system, or that perhaps that you get better insurance. Since I'm not in your insurance group, I don't subsidize your medications; talk to the other members.

Or, as y'all like to suggest to us, why don't you just use a cheaper form of insulin? There's not enough difference in them to matter, right? They're not all expensive, you know. We used to buy insulin for our cat, and it was pretty cheap.
 
Old 07-07-2014, 04:32 PM
 
Location: Pensacola, Florida
2,125 posts, read 1,148,122 times
Reputation: 556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeraldmaiden View Post
Cute. Up until the ACA kicked in, I also paid a sizeable copay for my medication. I suggest that we would be better off in a single-payer system, or that perhaps that you get better insurance. Since I'm not in your insurance group, I don't subsidize your medications; talk to the other members.

Or, as y'all like to suggest to us, why don't you just use a cheaper form of insulin? There's not enough difference in them to matter, right? They're not all expensive, you know. We used to buy insulin for our cat, and it was pretty cheap.
Why not pay a co-pay now? Are you so destitute that you cannot afford it? No you do not subsidize my meds but if you receive a subsidy to pay your premiums, I am certainly subsidizing yours.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top