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 can understand rejecting health care for worker because of cost but to eliminate certain items from a basic healthcare package for no other reason but political views is another story. It turned out that in the end the health care company would pick up the cost of services. McConells statement that he would campaign to allow employers to eliminate birth control really flies in the face of common sense.
The employer should be allowed to adjust the coverage THEY pay for in any way they want, just like they can adjust pay rates.
The insurance company will not be giving anything for free. Somehow it will get paid for. How would you like the King telling your company that you have to give some of your product away for free?
Some people are trying to say the insurance company wants to give it away for free because it is cost effective,ie cheaper than unwanted births. If that was the case they would have been giving it away all along.
Any woman can buy and use birth control. The employer is not stopping her access to birth control.
Spoken like somebody who's never been to the gynecologist. You can't "buy and use birth control" like you buy and use a carton of milk.
Birth control can be dangerous to a woman's health. It has both risks and benefits, which need to be discussed with the woman in question by a medical doctor and the BC needs to be provided and monitored under medical supervision.
If you provide coverage for any other medical condition you should provide coverage for this one too. It doesn't make any sense to separate it from regular health care. It is regular health care.
How about employers decide to not cover prostate exams, because they find the act of the doctor checking one's prostate distasteful or immoral? Makes about as much sense.
I beg to differ--you're forgetting about the personhood legislation that's popping up all over the country that bans any form of birth control that prevents implantation, including the pill and the IUD. Virginia is in the middle of a battle over it right now, Mississippi defeated a ballot measure a few months ago, but it's being proposed all over the country.
Your link has nothing to do with birth control pills. It is about abortions and abortion pills.
"Despite being defeated by voters in Mississippi, an initiative that would define a fertilized egg as a person with full legal rights soon may reach more state ballots if supporters have their way."
Further
"Mississippi is probably one of the strongest pro-life states" in the country, he said. "If it was soundly defeated there, it certainly doesn't look good for other initiatives.
Spoken like somebody who's never been to the gynecologist. You can't "buy and use birth control" like you buy and use a carton of milk.
Birth control can be dangerous to a woman's health. It has both risks and benefits, which need to be discussed with the woman in question by a medical doctor and the BC needs to be provided and monitored under medical supervision. Just because an insurance company covers birth control doesn't mean a woman won't need to follow a doctors advice to get it. If it is not covered a woman can still go to a doctor and get it , or get it free from PP.
If you provide coverage for any other medical condition you should provide coverage for this one too. It doesn't make any sense to separate it from regular health care. It is regular health care. Employers can decide the level of coverage they pay for.
Once again, not provide something for "free" does not equate to a "ban" no matter how much the Progressive entitlement minded statists would like others to believe.
Furthermore, employers do not "deny contraceptive services", the amendment proposed addresses the ability of the employer to choose not to provide coverage. There is a difference between services and coverage.
Intellectual honesty from the far left would be a refreshing change but I won't hold my breath in this thread either.
Intellectual honesty from the far right would be refreshing for once.
Your link has nothing to do with birth control pills. It is about abortions and abortion pills.
"Despite being defeated by voters in Mississippi, an initiative that would define a fertilized egg as a person with full legal rights soon may reach more state ballots if supporters have their way."
Further
"Mississippi is probably one of the strongest pro-life states" in the country, he said. "If it was soundly defeated there, it certainly doesn't look good for other initiatives.
Of course it does. You've got to be a guy and very, very young (as in never had a female in your life dealing with birth control) because you are completely clueless. The IUD and the pill stop the implantation of fertilized eggs in the uterus. The personhood bills would ban that along with treatment for conditions like ectopic pregnancies where the egg is fertilized in the fallopian tubes (and where women will die without treatment). It would also stop in vitro fertilization for families who can't have children any other way. It's wacky, and it very much is a ban on the most common forms of birth control. Get a clue.
Just because they defeated it in Mississippi doesn't mean they're not introducing it all over the country. Watch the news for once, or read a paper. Virginia just passed this legislation through their house.
Just because an insurance company covers birth control doesn't mean a woman won't need to follow a doctors advice to get it. If it is not covered a woman can still go to a doctor and get it , or get it free from PP.
Employers can decide the level of coverage they pay for.
Then please explain the point of employer's insurance to me, as far as women are concerned. You want me to go to a different doctor, or the much maligned PP, to discuss a regular health maintenance issue, because you don't want to "pay" for me to have sex.
Wot? How much sense does that make?
Neither YOU nor an employer has any idea WHY a woman chooses to go on BC. It's quite frankly none of your business. Does a woman need to go into the CEO's office now to explain that she has such heavy periods that she can't function, so she needs a gynecological visit? Is that what we need to do, to stop this ridiculousness? Embarrass employers into coverage?
So either offer proper benefits for both sexes, or don't bother.
The Obama campaign and all the media that is controlled by Obama are trying to make an issue that isn't there. No major republican is calling for a ban on birth control. Anything is better than running on his record.
It IS the ultimate goal of the right-to-lifers, go to their website and they state it clearly for all to see. SO, if they got someone such as Santorum into the Whitehouse you can count on them pushing it. You seem to think that simply because a politician does not state publically that they would go this far automatically translates into them not being willing to do it, that is simple ingorant or naive thinking. The track record of politicians doing things when in office that they never said they would do, or doing the opposite of what they stated when they ran for office, is out there for all to see.
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.
