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.
Unfortunately for America, it means that our population replacement rate will likely further decrease as well. The USG has a tightrope to walk in looking to reduce the costs of unplanned/unhealthy pregnancies while also addressing the need for America to expand its tax base through population replacement. Millions of additional women on birth control might be cost beneficial in the short term, but what does it mean when those otherwise reproductive women don't contribute to population growth any longer?
Grocery stores, convenience stores etc. sell them and using Walmart as an example, a pack of 3 costs $1.68 - not hard to access.
Not every where has a wal-mart within 20 miles of it. And those grocery stores and convenience stores cost money. When you are paying every cent you have just to scrape by and pay the rent, well....
Rose colored glasses friend, the world is much dirtier then many would like to believe.
I am actually against an employer mandate because I think its a government overstep without amendment to the constitution. But your argument doesn't hold water.
If used correctly they are quite effective. Similarly, the pill must be used correctly. If you want 100 percent effectiveness, the options are pretty limited.
How are birth control pills free, if you first have to buy an insurance policy to be covered?
I think the problem is with the government deciding what services a business has to provide. And I see it as wrong to require an employer to buy the insurance coverage or to mandate what an insurance policies will cover. It should be optional either way and individuals or employers can decide to buy insurance or not. Why should anyone's employer be required to provide health insurance at all?
If used correctly they are quite effective. Similarly, the pill must be used correctly. If you want 100 percent effectiveness, the options are pretty limited.
Condoms fail. Birth control, even the most effective, can fail.
My sister had her third child while on the IUD, which is 99.99999% effective.
Have you seen the profit margins for Big Pharma?
Govt has nothing to do with that.
Those profit margins for the producers of contraceptives will increase with the Obama administration's HHS mandate. This is a payback to big Pharma from this administration for going along with Obamacare.
Paybacks to corporations over upholding and defending the US Constitution.....the Obama way!
I'm railing against it from another angle: The people who need to use birth control the most aren't likely to have an employer and insurance to provide birth control coverage to begin with. BC is already available to the poor and uninsured, but yet the poor and uninsured keep pushing out babies by the millions.
The women who don't need government interference to fortress their own values of personal responsibility are the same women who will be employed with insurance and would use birth control anyway even without the "free" mandate.
In other words, I don't see mandating "free" birth control via insurance coverage as an option that will reach the people who actually need to use it.
What you say here is true. I think the whole thing is another attempt to put the health insurance companies out of business, so that the government can take control of our health care.
Not every where has a wal-mart within 20 miles of it. And those grocery stores and convenience stores cost money. When you are paying every cent you have just to scrape by and pay the rent, well....
Rose colored glasses friend, the world is much dirtier then many would like to believe.
I am actually against an employer mandate because I think its a government overstep without amendment to the constitution. But your argument doesn't hold water.
Sure they cost money, but it's less expensive than diet coke. Secondly, we're talking about an employer mandate so the people we're discussing have some money and can probably figure out a way to come up with $.25-$.50 each. If each partner shares the expense, it really gets to be affordable.
The GOP has nothing, so they just offer up birth control and the attack on women, as a diversion. Anything to avoid doing something to help the Dems on job growth. I don't think the American people are quite that easily duped.
How are birth control pills free, if you first have to buy an insurance policy to be covered?
I keep wondering the same exact thing.
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.
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.
