republican war on contraception

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

This is what passes for a clever barb in your circles. You took the time to type that out, because you thought it was such a gem. You hit "submit," smiled slightly, and thought, "Mm-hm. I sure zinged him."

Mature response. Are you going to take your toys and go home now?

Keep it coming; you're on a roll! This may be the wittiest you've been your entire life.

[Anonymous]

You two need to get a room

[Anonymous]

It's just another step down the road to sharia law by the republicans.

[Anonymous]

The real issue is gay marriage. The right wants to create a president for rejecting law based on religious or moral beliefs.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:I was thinking about the cost of birth control versus the cost of giving birth and I had an epiphany. Who bears this cost? Individuals, government, or others? In the case of employer-provided health insurance, it is most certainly the insurance company (at least for birth if birth control is not covered). So, who then has an interest in seeing birth control covered? The insurance companies. In any contest between Catholic bishops and the insurance industry, it will a blow-out for the insurance industry where the Obama administration is concerned. That's not even a fair contest. Stalin once famously asked, "How many divisions does the Pope have?" The Obama equivalent would be, "How many bundled contributions can the Bishops make?" This is case closed as far as I'm concerned. Compromise or no compromise, birth control will be covered one way or another.

Cmon Jeff, admit it. Did you know what the compromise on this issue was going to be before it was announced to the rest of us? Otherwise it seems like you can see the future...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I was thinking about the cost of birth control versus the cost of giving birth and I had an epiphany. Who bears this cost? Individuals, government, or others? In the case of employer-provided health insurance, it is most certainly the insurance company (at least for birth if birth control is not covered). So, who then has an interest in seeing birth control covered? The insurance companies. In any contest between Catholic bishops and the insurance industry, it will a blow-out for the insurance industry where the Obama administration is concerned. That's not even a fair contest. Stalin once famously asked, "How many divisions does the Pope have?" The Obama equivalent would be, "How many bundled contributions can the Bishops make?" This is case closed as far as I'm concerned. Compromise or no compromise, birth control will be covered one way or another.

Cmon Jeff, admit it. Did you know what the compromise on this issue was going to be before it was announced to the rest of us? Otherwise it seems like you can see the future...

I agree with the bolded part above. However I am in HR and we've had a challenge over the years getting plans to include prescription birth control. I can't understand why as it seems to me that the cost analysis would indicate, free BC for all. But the insurance companies never seemed to see it that way in my past experience. At one point we had a really old plan that actually covered INFERTILITY, but would not cover BC pills. Go figure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I have in another forums, I have no idea why any health insurance should cover contraception or Viagra. I should not have to pay for someone else's sex life. Sorry.

No need to apologize; no one is seeking agreement from someone as unthinking as you.

Persuasive argument! So, should my health insurance cover my personal trainer? Why should I subsidize somebody's sex life? How are we going to control health care costs when life style choices become health care matters? How can we justify taking money from cancer victims or reducing doctor payments to cover the costs associated with contraception or Viagra?

Others and I have addressed the thin argument repeatedly in the other threads. The "Sorry" PP (don't know if that's you), among others, refuses to deal with the obvious counterarguments. If you're sincerely interested in reasoned debate, you can go read it and get back to me, but I'm not going to write it up for the hypocritical drones to ignore once again.

As they say, "Sorry."

And your argument is? Having a baby involves medical care for both mom and baby, as the lives of both can be at risk. Having sex as often as one wants or continuing to have sex at an older age is not a medical issue. What about legal drugs that build muscles? I want to get bigger, so let my insurer (and you) pay. In this scenario, I have no medical issues, but I simply have the desire to get bigger. What's the difference?

A baby only needs medical care if a woman opts to have one. It's a life choice. You act as though babies just "happen" and suddenly there is a medical need. But you have options, like ...wait for it.... birth control!

A woman who gets pregnant faces medical issues no doubt. A woman who simply wants to have sex without getting pregnant faces no medical issues. Neither does the old man who takes Viagra. And neither does the athlete who uses the local gym. Or the athlete who takes legal drugs to build muscles. I should not pay for birth control, Viagra, gym, or muscle building drugs. Birth control does not diagnose or treat a medical condition. And neither does Viagra, gym or muscle building drugs. It is pretty simple, actually.

That's a pretty tortured logic. A child who has a well exam has no medical issues either. We call those checkups "preventive", and we even give them shots for diseases they don't have. If you wait until the girl gets pregnant, you might as well wait until your child gets sick. Contraceptives prevent what you call a "medical issue". If you don't like prevention, we can cut a whole lot of medical care out.

Actually, the logic is pretty sound. Exams, like the flu shot, are preventive in nature (ie, preventing someone from being medically sick). Birth control does not prevent someone from being sick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I was thinking about the cost of birth control versus the cost of giving birth and I had an epiphany. Who bears this cost? Individuals, government, or others? In the case of employer-provided health insurance, it is most certainly the insurance company (at least for birth if birth control is not covered). So, who then has an interest in seeing birth control covered? The insurance companies. In any contest between Catholic bishops and the insurance industry, it will a blow-out for the insurance industry where the Obama administration is concerned. That's not even a fair contest. Stalin once famously asked, "How many divisions does the Pope have?" The Obama equivalent would be, "How many bundled contributions can the Bishops make?" This is case closed as far as I'm concerned. Compromise or no compromise, birth control will be covered one way or another.

Cmon Jeff, admit it. Did you know what the compromise on this issue was going to be before it was announced to the rest of us? Otherwise it seems like you can see the future...

I agree with the bolded part above. However I am in HR and we've had a challenge over the years getting plans to include prescription birth control. I can't understand why as it seems to me that the cost analysis would indicate, free BC for all. But the insurance companies never seemed to see it that way in my past experience. At one point we had a really old plan that actually covered INFERTILITY, but would not cover BC pills. Go figure.

In my mind, the real difference is whether insurance companies should be required to provide birth control or not. If an insurer wants to provide it based on a cost benefit anaylsis, that is the insurer's choice. But mandating it makes no sense. Mandating the provision of certain health care services (such as 24 hour stay after giving birth) is different, because insurers have an economic incentive to do the opposite: namely withhold treatment.

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:In my mind, the real difference is whether insurance companies should be required to provide birth control or not. If an insurer wants to provide it based on a cost benefit anaylsis, that is the insurer's choice. But mandating it makes no sense. Mandating the provision of certain health care services (such as 24 hour stay after giving birth) is different, because insurers have an economic incentive to do the opposite: namely withhold treatment.

They do have an incentive not to cover BC, namely the RC Church.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually, the logic is pretty sound. Exams, like the flu shot, are preventive in nature (ie, preventing someone from being medically sick). Birth control does not prevent someone from being sick.

Birth control is essentail. Pope lives in a mansion and will not be the one helping you raise your brood. The planet already has 7 billion people. Our society is not designed for that kind of breeding

[Anonymous]

Check out Nick Kristoff's op-ed in today's Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/opinion/sunday/kristof-beyond-pelvic-politics.html?hp). I think he does a good job of analyzing the Obama/bishops controversy. Here is the closing section:

Your freedom to believe does not always give you a freedom to act.

In this case, we should make a good-faith effort to avoid offending Catholic bishops who passionately oppose birth control. I’m glad that Obama sought a compromise. But let’s remember that there are also other interests at stake. If we have to choose between bishops’ sensibilities and women’s health, our national priority must be the female half of our population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I have in another forums, I have no idea why any health insurance should cover contraception or Viagra. I should not have to pay for someone else's sex life. Sorry.

No need to apologize; no one is seeking agreement from someone as unthinking as you.

Persuasive argument! So, should my health insurance cover my personal trainer? Why should I subsidize somebody's sex life? How are we going to control health care costs when life style choices become health care matters? How can we justify taking money from cancer victims or reducing doctor payments to cover the costs associated with contraception or Viagra?

Others and I have addressed the thin argument repeatedly in the other threads. The "Sorry" PP (don't know if that's you), among others, refuses to deal with the obvious counterarguments. If you're sincerely interested in reasoned debate, you can go read it and get back to me, but I'm not going to write it up for the hypocritical drones to ignore once again.

As they say, "Sorry."

And your argument is? Having a baby involves medical care for both mom and baby, as the lives of both can be at risk. Having sex as often as one wants or continuing to have sex at an older age is not a medical issue. What about legal drugs that build muscles? I want to get bigger, so let my insurer (and you) pay. In this scenario, I have no medical issues, but I simply have the desire to get bigger. What's the difference?

A baby only needs medical care if a woman opts to have one. It's a life choice. You act as though babies just "happen" and suddenly there is a medical need. But you have options, like ...wait for it.... birth control!

A woman who gets pregnant faces medical issues no doubt. A woman who simply wants to have sex without getting pregnant faces no medical issues. Neither does the old man who takes Viagra. And neither does the athlete who uses the local gym. Or the athlete who takes legal drugs to build muscles. I should not pay for birth control, Viagra, gym, or muscle building drugs. Birth control does not diagnose or treat a medical condition. And neither does Viagra, gym or muscle building drugs. It is pretty simple, actually.

That's a pretty tortured logic. A child who has a well exam has no medical issues either. We call those checkups "preventive", and we even give them shots for diseases they don't have. If you wait until the girl gets pregnant, you might as well wait until your child gets sick. Contraceptives prevent what you call a "medical issue". If you don't like prevention, we can cut a whole lot of medical care out.

Actually, the logic is pretty sound. Exams, like the flu shot, are preventive in nature (ie, preventing someone from being medically sick). Birth control does not prevent someone from being sick.

AAAAhhh, but you ALREADY defined pregnancy as a "medical condition" requiring treatment.

Checkmate, honey.

[takoma]

If BC is not medical because pregnancy is a natural condition, then cancer should not be covered because a cancer is just your own cells choosing to grow freely.

And a virus is a natural organism cohabiting with you, just like your pussy cat.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, the logic is pretty sound. Exams, like the flu shot, are preventive in nature (ie, preventing someone from being medically sick). Birth control does not prevent someone from being sick.

AAAAhhh, but you ALREADY defined pregnancy as a "medical condition" requiring treatment.

Checkmate, honey.

I'm not PP, but I don't think so. Treatment for a pregnant woman is itself preventative. Pregnancy obviously isn't a disease, so preventing it isn't like preventing the flu.

[takoma]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, the logic is pretty sound. Exams, like the flu shot, are preventive in nature (ie, preventing someone from being medically sick). Birth control does not prevent someone from being sick.

AAAAhhh, but you ALREADY defined pregnancy as a "medical condition" requiring treatment.

Checkmate, honey.

I'm not PP, but I don't think so. Treatment for a pregnant woman is itself preventative. Pregnancy obviously isn't a disease, so preventing it isn't like preventing the flu.

It's a medical condition, so preventing it has at least some similarity to preventing the flu. To be more precise, I see pregnancy as a parasitic invasion that brings discomfort, pain, and sometimes even death. Fortunately, although its duration is lengthy, it is not chronic. But it has side effects which can last your entire life, although they sometimes have beneficial aspects.