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.
Okay, I'll bite. What's the reason that you think "those people" are not the ones using birth control? Give me a historical/sociological reason.
Because they keep making babies. Awhile back there was an article about tearing down Cabrini Green and they interviewed two long time residents. One had 5 kids, the other 6, obviously they aren't using birth control.
I rather pay for folks BC pills than folks going on the dole.
Is there is any insurance company that Hobby Lobby etc can used to customize their own plan on what they want/not covered?
I'd rather people who can't afford birth control pills not have sex. Instead of finding the cheapest way to subsidize peoples' irresponsible behavior, how about we just not subsidize it?
No, I'm not seriously suggesting that. But I'm just pointing out the attitude. Spread across all of society, that's how we get hundreds of billions of dollars in deficits. By treating the symptoms of problems instead of fixing the problems themselves. We don't lower education costs, we increase education funding. We don't lower healthcare costs, we expand coverage. We don't treat mentally ill people, we expand gun control. And we don't discourage people from having irresponsible sex, we just pay for their birth control.
There needs to be a balance. The fact that you won't stop all irresponsible sex is not an excuse for going in the other direction and actually encouraging it. We can provide people with the protection for doing it without actually encouraging them to do it. It's your right to smoke and cigarettes are available, but we pretty strongly discourage you from doing it because of the consequences. Sex should be the same thing. Here's the products you need if you're going to do it, but we discourage you from doing it unless you're ready to deal with the potential consequences.
Here's the thing though, those people aren't the ones who are using birth control. That's why the whole idea is a lie
I don't know if it's a lie. Studies have shown if the Pill was OTC more women would use them.
Most younger uneducated women don't even go to doctors until they have to, let alone get
a RX for the pill...
Actually I have stated I oppose tax breaks for the rich, especially with regards to outsourcing. Besides that, exactly what rich people am I buying stuff for?
Really! Well, you barely say it. However, there you are, waving your "I-HATE-THE-POOR" flag every day, at every moment, and high-fiving other right wingers who also hate the poor. What sort of Catholic are you, anyway?
No, my arguement is there are no worngs. If you and your Dr think and Rx will improve your quality of life (whether it be getting an erection or not getting pregnant) then that's that. Thinking we should be able to micromanage what we don't like which effects the lives of other people, insurance or taxes, is the only wrong.
I disagree. Whether a particular person gets a particular service that is covered, not my business. Whether a particular service is covered at all is my business. If it is my insurance plan I should have a say in what is in it (or rather a choice of which plan to get to be more accurate).
Also, what you're typing out in the message is that it should be between the doctor and patient. But what you're actually saying is that it should be between the doctor, patient, and government. Because the only way for the doctor and patient to decide for the patient to get that service is if the government orders the insurance company to cover it.
How does BC improve someone's quality of life over say, correctly using condoms given that condoms also lower your risk of contracting an STD which is a benefit to society as a whole?
This isn't a quality of life issue. It's a preference issue. Your preference, your choice. BC doesn't improve your quality of life. It lets you have sex without a condom. I don't think I owe it to you to pay for that for you.
I can make an argument for free condoms but I can't make one for free BC. Free condoms not only prevent pregnancy they prevent the spread of disease. That benefits society and the insurance company. You get a two for one deal here and it's cheaper than BC without the risk of things like blood clots.
Good points. Plus it is equal treatment for single men. Married men like myself get the benefit of BC since my wife is covered. But single men are in a different spot.
Of course single men aren't the ones actually carrying the child, but once you bring STD prevention into it then single men have the same needs as everyone else.
I really like these "debates" on BC coverage in Health Insurance plans(it tells a lot about the people according to their opinions on it).
I am 100% FOR all BC to be covered as part of a comprehensive health plan, co-pay same as all other medications.
Me too.
Quote:
Commonly known "Birth Control" pills can be prescribed for many ailments unrelated to pregnancy prevention(research is your friend), but some want to block ALL uses.
Well, this makes sense. I mean the reason the people want to block use of it is because it prevents pregnancy. So even if you are using it for a different reason, it still blocks pregnancy. Your reason for using it doesn't change the effects it has. Those same people want to block use of prophylactics too even if you are using them because of STDs and not because of pregnancy.
Quote:
If your personal WELL INFORMED position is to not use Birth control, then don't, but don't tell others they can't either.
I agree, with the exception of religious organizations whose reason for blocking contraception is related to their religious doctrines and they only attempt to block usage to people who follow those doctrines or block usage by not using their own money for it. IE, I say a church has every right to ask its members to never use contraception, and to ask nonmembers to not use church resources for contraception.
Quote:
Females pay MORE than males for comparable Health Insurance plans, on group plans this is built into the group premium.
I do not believe this is true. I read a few articles a couple years ago about insurance companies being forced to not consider race or gender when determining health insurance rates. It may have changed since I read that. There were specific complaints because women statistically have higher medical costs but were prevented from being charged higher premiums, while men who have statistically more car accidents were being charged higher car insurance premiums.
Quote:
I don't know where anyone got this "free" idea from, I have ideas, but ...
The "free" idea comes from one particular service only used by a segment of the people carrying the insurance being mandated to have no copay while all other services did have copays. Since the people eligible for receiving the service were not paying higher premiums and not paying a copay, the service is free to them.
Quote:
There are many(including some posting in this thread) that DO want to control female's sex lives because they have the opinion that sex is dirty, perverted, or evil and/or is for procreation only.
I could make a list of the posters in this thread and place them in columns based on how much sex outside procreation(if any) they take part in and be pretty accurate.
That's just standard Democrat "you only oppose Obama because he's black" stuff to dismiss what someone says with an ad hominem attack on the person saying it.
Quote:
Oh, for poor people on Medicaid, "Birth Control" has ALWAYS been covered, it has nothing to do with "Obamacare".
But that's entirely different. That's means tested. The mandate under discussion is entirely gender based. Oprah Winfrey and Bill Gates' wife get free birth control under this mandate. The mandate affects the medication itself, regardless of the user's ability to pay for it.
The whole you need a 'prescription' is a racket by doctors and insurance companies. Put a warning on the bottle, and sell any medicine without a prescription. If someone wants to ignore the warnings then let him pay the price.
This goes with BC. I honestly don't care about this issue. I didn't bother reading to see if anyone cares but I don't care.
It's not as simple as that because medicines interact with each other. You could buy two different medications that are fine on their own, take them togethr, and get sick. And without medical training you'd have no warning of that. Warning labels on bottles can't cover everything.
Really! Well, you barely say it. However, there you are, waving your "I-HATE-THE-POOR" flag every day, at every moment, and high-fiving other right wingers who also hate the poor. What sort of Catholic are you, anyway?
Please state where I said I hate the poor. No I hate abusers because they cost me more in money. I asked you in another thread if you give to the poor whether financially or volunteering and you didn't answer, which leads me to believe you don't. Also, leads me to believe perhaps you are on assistance and feel you deserve to abuse the system.
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.
I don't think I owe it to you to pay for that for you.
