I think the point was that the Pill is cheaper than either birth related costs or an abortion.
That's a great point made a couple of times. Rick, what about the Pill used for other medical reasons? Is that acceptable?Dust1n said:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If your health insurance did not cover contraception, would you still have access to birth control?
- Thread starter Reverend Rick
- Start date
I think the point was that the Pill is cheaper than either birth related costs or an abortion.
Drolefille
PolyPanGeekGirl
When it is not done right?
Yes I do. I have a wife and daughter I provide for.
[/quote]
Ok so you're aware that birth control is not just for "controlling birth" and even when it is, it's not just for "recreational sex" as written in a way to make it seem like it's about being irresponsible. It's for a variety of purposes, including controlling birth.
In fact, birth control is one of the major things that allows women to work, get graduate degrees and so on. "But they could just not have sex!" you may say, and yet the expectation for men is not the same and the consequences lie disproportionately on the women.
This is stupid because I never said the government should provide me with tampons. Living in a western country where they're available and I can attend school 4 weeks out of 4 rather than 3 weeks out of 4 sure is nice though.
Sorry, where did I say that? I'm not on any right now because it's too expensive and HBC messes with me too much. You should want to have it provided because it's cheaper than paying for abortion or birth. It's fiscally conservative. Unless of course you have another plan for women who cannot afford to pay thousands of dollars to a hospital for a birth? Like, make them squat on the street or something?
You do realize we all pay for people who receive medical care but cannot pay, right?
No, it's really not. I could go get a $10 a month pill, maybe, if I could find a Planned Parenthood still open. But that pill might not work right for me. If I'm lucky there'll be a generic, if I'm not, i could spend $150 a month or more on it. If I could afford that, I'd not be worrying about bills so much every month.
HBC is far more effective than condoms (as is an IUD) but even condoms add up quickly if used every single time and used properly - replaced if they slip off for example.
This is ignorant. Just because the guy on TV says there's no women going without HBC due to cost, doesn't mean that's true. Do some research.
Or it boils down to a society providing basic health care to the people in it. Because option B is getting knocked up and giving birth at home with no trained professionals because the hospital won't take people who aren't responsible for themselves -afterall, paying for the poor is irresponsible. Yay back to high levels of women dying of childbirth.
Women suffer disproportionately from lack of healthcare access than men do, because of childbirth in particular. Paying for this saves lives, improves standards of living, reduces the number of unwanted children, reduces the number of abortions and is cheaper than paying for births, abortions, and other more complicated treatments that are prevented by simple HBC.
We established that it's all recreational, even if you want a kid. I thought sex was also supposed to be some sort of bonding thing between husband and wife, my bad.
Yeah your line of thinking is REALLY dumb. It must be nice to have a penis, I swear. Obviously I'd just get it then, and could tell all the people with uterii how wrong they are about their own bodies! Yay privilege. (See also the fact that the panel Congress held was all men. ALL MEN.)
I made no such assumption, you did though.
Your options here, as a fiscal conservative, would be to a) support providing contraception as a cost saving measure or b) refuse all care to people who are irresponsible enough to be poor and let women die in childbirth because they don't have the Benjamins to get treatment. Let me know what you decide.
Yes, he missed my point and I think the answer is still "blah blah irresponsible blah, recreational sex."
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Oh, and I would add that listening to Rand Paul explain why he thinks choosing which services are available through your insurance coverage is a matter of "economic liberty," I am now quite sure it is safe to conclude he is an idiot with a tenuous grasp of basic economics and absolutely no grasp whatsoever of the nature, purpose and function of insurance.
Also, if Rev. Rick's point is to single out birth control coverage for women (as opposed to his more general statement about putting more consumer responsibility for everyone in their health care choices), then the good Rev. is also seriously lacking an understanding of how insurance works.
Also, if Rev. Rick's point is to single out birth control coverage for women (as opposed to his more general statement about putting more consumer responsibility for everyone in their health care choices), then the good Rev. is also seriously lacking an understanding of how insurance works.
I think it boils down to some people want to live in a socialist country at the expense of others.
Why should any drugs be provided to you at no expense?
We have medicaid for the poor which pays for all this already at great expense I may add.
Why should people who are not poor not take responsibility for themselves?
I'm always seeing these so called poor younger generation folks wearing 200 dollar tennis shoes and designer clothes. Then they wonder why they don't have money for their basic necessities.
You go to a local upscale resturant and there these folks are again, talking about the latest movie they seen.
My daughter is the same way, great child, good grade in college. No money for an oil change but is sporting perfect nails and haircut.
Why should any drugs be provided to you at no expense?
We have medicaid for the poor which pays for all this already at great expense I may add.
Why should people who are not poor not take responsibility for themselves?
I'm always seeing these so called poor younger generation folks wearing 200 dollar tennis shoes and designer clothes. Then they wonder why they don't have money for their basic necessities.
You go to a local upscale resturant and there these folks are again, talking about the latest movie they seen.
My daughter is the same way, great child, good grade in college. No money for an oil change but is sporting perfect nails and haircut.
Let me put it another way:
Say someone finds out that they're looking at an expensive chronic condition and they have health insurance with a for-profit company. That company will have a major incentive to drop this customer at their first opportunity rather than pay out thousands of dollars a month for prescription medication.
If his insurance is through a group plan at work, this means that he's now stuck in his job, because if he leaves to go somewhere else, he'd have to get new insurance and his chronic condition would be considered "pre-existing" on a new plan. So all he can do is stay at his job and hope nothing happens to his company, because if it goes under or lays him off, he's snookered.
Or say a similar situation happens where it's the employee's child that has the chronic condition - at some point, she'll hit the age limit to be on her father's plan, so she'll have to get insurance on her own... but again, her expensive chronic condition will be "pre-existing" and won't be covered.
In both these cases, you have people who acted as responsibly as they could, but are going to be bankrupted by their prescriptions if they're forced to pay for them themselves. Without intervention, these people will become the ones you described: the poor who get medicaid... they'll be left in the situation where even though they could work, they can't afford to because then they'd lose their "insurance of last resort".
Don't you think it would be better to set up a system where these people can be confident that they'll have health coverage even when they're afflicted by misfortune beyond their control? Don't you think it's better to have them as good workers, taxpayers, and contributing members of society than out of work and on the dole by necessity?
THAT'S the biggest reason to have health insurance not motivated by profit, IMO. People who did everything right still have a real risk of financial ruin, but if that cost is spread out over everyone, we'd barely feel it.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Now you're just being silly. It doesn't 'boil down' to that in any place other than empty propaganda.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
Right! Dang socialists always wanting society to do something for them. I bet they even expect someone to put out fires for them and solve crimes too. You know it never ceases to amaze me the audacity these people have. They need to find their own health care, crime prevention, and fire fighting like every other person does.:sarcastic
IMO, because government health insurance for everyone is a political non-starter in the US.
However, I do think that would be a better arrangement. IMO, it's kinda bizarre to attach basic health care to employment.
How is paying for a health insurance plan that covers birth control equate to getting birth control at no expense?
I guess it depends on who is and who is not paying for this.
What where employers thinking when they wanted to provide their employees a tax free benefit?
Arrgh.What where employers thinking when they wanted to provide their employees a tax free benefit?
I understand why employers would want to provide it, and I understand why employees would find it valuable, but I'm looking at things from a societal level, taking as given that the government should ensure that every person is insured, which I would say the US government in general has advocated, even if you don't personally agree.
In that context, employer-based delivery makes no sense. I mean, what if vehicle registration worked in a similar way? What if you had to turn in your car's licence plates when you left one job and got a new set when you started another? Even the most ardent conservative would probably that was a crazy way to do things.
It's Rube Goldberg-style service delivery, IMO.
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
No Rick, we just want to live. That's all.
It's a livin' thing.
Yes, those families that make $22,000 collectively, but not the one's making $23,000.
Medicaid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As far as the amount, with medicare included it about 4% GDP.
Medicaid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think you'll find well off people taking great care of themselves.
Yes, let's pick on "some" youth and their clothing to bolster the point that contraception shouldn't be given to those that can't afford children. :sarcastic
I would have complained to the restaurant manager and have those people thrown out!..... Did they order cake???
My daughter is the same way, great child, good grade in college. No money for an oil change but is sporting perfect nails and haircut.
Rick, how do you manage?
Hard work and sacrifice. I guess I am just the last generation of that mindset. I was raised to have too much pride to let anyone provide anything for me that I could not go out and get on my own.
People need help, I understand that completely. People also need to take some responsibility too.
Folks who rely totally on the government may get disappointed one day.
Greece comes to mind.
But when it comes to health insurance, everyone but the absolute richest have to rely on someone. A major injury or disease can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat in a hospital. A serious chronic condition can cost millions in prescriptions and ongoing care over a person's life. The average person simply can't save the kind of money they'd need to protect themselves against this.
If you have to rely on someone, who would you rather rely on? Yes, governments sometimes run into trouble, but corporations do as well. In fact, I'd argue that in most parts of the world, corporations go out of business much, much more often than governments fail.
And in the case of health insurance, private companies have strong financial incentives to avoid paying out, and history has shown that they'll do whatever they can to do this.
For instance, a few years back, there was a development that got a lot of people in the amateur auto racing community up in arms: apparently, many insurance policies have an exclusion clause for "dangerous pursuits", which they defined as including rather mainstream activities like horseback riding and motorcycle riding along with things people normally think of as dangerous like auto racing and skydiving). How most people interpreted these exclusion was that if they were injured doing their "dangerous pursuit", they wouldn't be covered... fair enough, if they sign up for it voluntarily. However, what happened was that the insurance companies decided to interpret the clause a different way: everybody who participated in a "dangerous pursuit" was excluded, period. Without telling their customers that they had changed their interpretation this way, they had decided that anyone who engaged in a "dangerous pursuit" wouldn't get their claims paid out, regardless of the cause of their injury or disease. IOW, if you got cancer, your insurance company would deny you coverage because you rode horses on weekends.
This kind of crap doesn't happen in places with public health insurance, because at least then, since the insurer isn't profit-driven, there's not the same financial incentive to find any loophole they can to avoid paying out.
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
First, I want to say that I'm not sure that I completely agree with Reverend Rick. He stated the following:
and
Pregnancy is a life event and should be planned for. Contraception, particularly that which is prescribed, in my opinion, falls underneath the auspices of that which is being provided for an event which requires planning. As a woman I certainly know that birth control, particularly prescribed methods, are not prescribed exclusively for recreational sex.
Personally, I do not utilize prescribed contraception. I pay out of my own pocket for over the counter contraceptive methods when utilized. And yes, if insurance did NOT cover that which you have mentioned, I would be prepared to take responsibility financially for costs incurred.
My health is my financial responsibility.
I do feel that reproductive health related care and prescriptions should be covered under health insurance and I work my rear off to pay for my insurance.
If such services were not covered, I'd plan responsibly and wouldn't expect anyone else to cover such costs. I view every facet of health care as a business and I'm NOT disgruntled over this.
Last edited:
Mathematician
Reason, and reason again
My only caveat is that once the male birth control pill comes out, it too should be covered by this law, otherwise it's discriminatory.