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.
Let's start the thread with another fact: no one is proposing, suggesting, or even giving veiled hints that women should not be able to keep and bear all the contraceptives that they desire. Men, too, for that matter. If Sandra Fluke wants a semi-trailer full of condoms, b.c. pills, and sponges to pull up to her DC apartment and offload by the pallet, she can. No permit from MPD required.
No, what's at issue here is who is going to pay for the contents of the semi-trailer. Do we want a law that in effect says that she can reach into my pocket, your pocket, or the pocket of the Catholic church in order to pay for her contraceptives? Democrats say yes--this variant of theft/enslavement, of capturing one person's life energy and giving it to another, is all well and good. Republicans are saying no, if you wish to keep and bear contraceptives, you pay for them.
All while we pay for old men to get viagra, cialis, etc?
No, what's at issue here is who is going to pay for the contents of the semi-trailer.
What's at issue is why anyone want's to exclude any drug used for legitimate health care from being covered under an Rx policy. There are a ton of "lifestyle choice" related health issues we cover drugs for now, we always have and we always will, and pregnancy is pretty much up there when it comes to women's health. Consumers have a right to demand a product that meets their needs and not be undercut by anyone/anything for religious reasons or their own personal ideas.
If you don't have insurance then you are still on the hook for the full payment at least until Obamacare kicks in full in 2014.
But we still have to pay the co-pay on our heart and diabetes and cancer meds. What's so special about bc all of a sudden that it trumps meds for actual illnesses?
For religious institutions to not get an exemption from the law. Every insurance company is now required to cover basic health care needs, including contraception and birth control pills. The only form she mentioned in her testimony was the pill, I believe, which has many more benefits than preventing pregnancy.
Religious institutions want to prevent women from basic, modern, healthcare based on a reading of a 1700 year old book. I don't think, nor does Ms Fluke, that they should get that exemption.
Remember her testimony was about a Republican amendment that would free all health care companies from not providing any service they objected to.
What, you don't go bankrupt, have a mental breakdown and grow cancerous tumors if you don't get to bump uglies?
Her testimony was about women who need birth control pills for medical reasons. BC pills are commonly prescribed to treat multiple conditions, and it can be expensive to maintain the prescription without coverage.
She did not talk about her personal use of condoms or pregnancy prevention. That was a bit of Rush "flourish" when he was trying to make his point.
It's one of the reasons this is biting him in the ass so hard. He said some pretty disgusting things about her based on things she didn't actually say.
If a woman is not having a lot of sex and doesn't need bc for medical purposes, it seems like a waste of money for everyone, whether the user is paying or the insurance company. Maybe it would be better to use something else which doesn't require a prescription and messing with hormones.
But we still have to pay the co-pay on our heart and diabetes and cancer meds. What's so special about bc all of a sudden that it trumps meds for actual illnesses?
You know what I discovered when I was researching health insurance for myself? There are some things covered with no copay now. For everyone. Annual exams and mammograms for example. Colonoscopies might be in there too, I'm not 100% about that. And there are some Rx policies that cover preventative drugs with no copay too.
Are you mad that there might be no copay or mad that the Catholics might have to have insurance that covers it offered to their employees? It's so hard to get a grip on what people are even upset about.
Her testimony was about women who need birth control pills for medical reasons. BC pills are commonly prescribed to treat multiple conditions, and it can be expensive to maintain the prescription without coverage.
She did not talk about condoms or pregnancy prevention. That was a bit of Rush "flourish" when he was trying to make his point.
It's one of the reasons this is biting him in the ass so hard. He said some pretty disgusting things about her based on things she didn't actually say.
So you are saying MS Fluke would be satisfied if the BC coverage was only for medical reasons? Then where is the problem---all agree on that. She could have saved every body's time and not testified.
Her testimony was about women who need birth control pills for medical reasons. BC pills are commonly prescribed to treat multiple conditions, and it can be expensive to maintain the prescription without coverage.
She did not talk about her personal use of condoms or pregnancy prevention. That was a bit of Rush "flourish" when he was trying to make his point.
It's one of the reasons this is biting him in the ass so hard. He said some pretty disgusting things about her based on things she didn't actually say.
Quote:
Leader Pelosi, Members of Congress, good morning, and thank you for calling this hearing on women’s health and allowing me to testify on behalf of the women who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation. My name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third year student at Georgetown Law, a Jesuit school. I’m also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ.
Quote:
Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any longer. Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.
Quote:
This is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends. A woman’s reproductive healthcare isn’t a necessity, isn’t a priority.
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.
