The Health Care Law.

[mom'sfolly]

Many unplanned pregnancies I know of are within a marriage. I just think the ones outside of marriage are more visible. Anyway, talking about birth control within or without a marriage should be irrelevent to any discussion of medical coverage. The biggest health concern of any healthy pre-menopausal woman is reproductive health. This means issues of birth control, fertility, infertility and birth. Birth control is a genie that will not be put back in a bottle. One of the big reasons Santorum wasn't electable was his ideas on banning birth control. There is no way you could convince a majority of American women that banning birth control would be in their best interests.

My husband's vasectomy was covered by insurance, as was that of at least 4 friends and family members. Most tubal ligations are done under insurance also. Insurance companies like permanent birth control.

Not all types of birth control are for women...condoms are for men. All prescription birth control that I know of is for women. An effective pill for men should be developed. A healthy woman can produce one child per year, approximately. A healthy man can produce far, far more.

 

[ONSTAD1]

Thank god chickens don't talk about politics!

 

[chickened]

Birth control requires prescriptions and doctors visits. If you were arguing for OTC birth control pills instead of insurance coverage for the prescriptions and visits, I might agree with you.

$50 a month to a low or even middle income family is not a small bill. That same cost would be pennies to the insurance company, probably pennies a year because of pharmaceutical deals.

Your argument, Chickened, is illogical. Even if the gop win this argument, the consequences will be felt by everyone.

Low income need not worry about access to pills their problem is being responsible enough to take them once they are given to them by the state.

 

[mom'sfolly]

I don't think implying that the poor are irresponsible helps your argument....it's just a cheap pot shot.

I

 

[Stephanie739]

Seems harmless. I would like to know what things I pay for and provide for my employees is a legitimate need. Lots of things are disgraceful yet still we need to do them.

Benefits should be a voluntary aspect of a job, not a government requirement. What happened to our 4th amendment rights? The only people who really should have access to our medical records are the doctors.

 

[chickened]

And I suppose you are completely against abortion at all stages, as well as financial assistance for children living in poverty.....how about legal assistance to a women to prove rape or custody?

Why not just allow an insurance company pay for birth control? Do you even have a clue at the small cost you are talking about vs the huge expenses that occur for not easing access to birth control? Your personal convictions whether it be for moral reasons or greed are tiny when compared to the issue. Again it only highlights the stupidity of the gop's position in this situation.

Again I am not against insurance paying for BC!!! I just want it seperate as maybe a choice ( you know women and the choice thing) for women to elect that coverage at thier expense... not someone elses. Is that unreasonable? Men should be responsible also, If I was a single male tom catting around I would get fixed on my own dime just for the simple reason of child support... but then I have something to lose also.

 

[chickened]

Benefits should be a voluntary aspect of a job, not a government requirement. What happened to our 4th amendment rights? The only people who really should have access to our medical records are the doctors.

That is right, but now Uncle Sam has access and this is just a theory but some records are accessible to the public when they become government property and I am sure of that... I work for the government as a contractor.

This is what you all got here from Obama.

 

[Stephanie739]

Low income need not worry about access to pills their problem is being responsible enough to take them once they are given to them by the state.

The lower middle income bracket do not qualify for any medical assistance. It is these who you are saying should pay the extra $50 a month for birth control, people most unable to pay the extra cost. Why argue over it? Where is your logic? Do you really believe an insurance company is going to dramatically increase premiums if they pay for birth control vs the costs they will have to pay for extra pregnancies? Which is the greater expense?

 

[Stephanie739]

Again I am not against insurance paying for BC!!! I just want it seperate as maybe a choice ( you know women and the choice thing) for women to elect that coverage at thier expense... not someone elses. Is that unreasonable? Men should be responsible also, If I was a single male tom catting around I would get fixed on my own dime just for the simple reason of child support... but then I have something to lose also.

Okay we can find agreement here. Making certain people who do not have much say in their health care plans are at least offered reproductive options for an additional amount is acceptable. I still think the most logical option is to provide it anyway. It isn't a serious cost for the company, and will help curb unplanned pregnancy.

 

[chickened]

I don't think implying that the poor are irresponsible helps your argument....it's just a cheap pot shot.

I

Personally if the government is going into the BC business the Norplant is my first choice.