Republican candidates and birth control... (party, election, vs, administration)
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.
Even the History channel had a program about the 60's when birth control was introduced and how Free Love and Sex was much more rampant. They even stated it gave women more freedom to be sexual. Nothing wrong with that, but have you seen the number of single moms and unwanted babies compared to before the pill.
This is what they would consider IMMORAL,not the pill itself.
The teen pregnancy rate hit its PEAK in the 1950s, 1957, I believe. I have posted links before, not going to dig it up again; do a search. The number of pre-marital conceptions is probably the same as ever. I think there are fewer "unwanted" babies now. You are free to disprove me if you can.
Ad hominem and anecdotal not to mention how often do you encounter a patient needing a specific vax for travel to malaria-endemic areas? You of all people should know that if you have an approved medical diagnosis, coverage is rarely a problem and getting a PA or submitting an appeal is not even necessary. I've stated that fact several times. Why do you keep avoiding it?
Actually, our practice encounters such quite frequently. We have a lot of people going on medical missions.
Moving the goal posts are you? First you ask for "proof", then when I give it, it's "ad hominem" (???) and "anecdotal".
whatyousay, while i disagree with katiana on many issues surrounding health insurance, she is right regarding insurance companies, both private and government, in regards to getting pre authorizations for medications, EVEN IF you have a real medical condition. for instance i suffer from anemia, and i often have problems getting my insurance to cover procrit injections on a regular basis, despite having tried other treatments that failed. and heaven forbid my iron levels should fall low enough that procrit isnt effective as getting a PA for venifer is also like getting the current senate to vote on a bill that was sent over by the current house. i have been dealing with this, and other medical issues, for a number of years now and it doesnt get any better.
whatyousay, while i disagree with katiana on many issues surrounding health insurance, she is right regarding insurance companies, both private and government, in regards to getting pre authorizations for medications, EVEN IF you have a real medical condition. for instance i suffer from anemia, and i often have problems getting my insurance to cover procrit injections on a regular basis, despite having tried other treatments that failed. and heaven forbid my iron levels should fall low enough that procrit isnt effective as getting a PA for venifer is also like getting the current senate to vote on a bill that was sent over by the current house. i have been dealing with this, and other medical issues, for a number of years now and it doesnt get any better.
wonder why they don't want insurance to pay for BC coverage? BC is not just for BC it has other benefits. some conservatives want everyone to live their lives according to their moral value.
wonder why they don't want insurance to pay for BC coverage? BC is not just for BC it has other benefits. some conservatives want everyone to live their lives according to their moral value.
it has been said MANY TIMES, if there is a real need for birth control pills to help with a medical condition, most people, conservatives included, have no problem with them being covered by insurance. on the other hand however, is the only reason someone is taking birth control pills is to prevent pregnancy, then they should be paying for it themselves.
same with viagra and other ED treatments. there are good medical reasons other than ED to take viagra, but if guys are taking ED pills to get a woody, then they need to pay for it themselves. what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
it has been said MANY TIMES, if there is a real need for birth control pills to help with a medical condition, most people, conservatives included, have no problem with them being covered by insurance. on the other hand however, is the only reason someone is taking birth control pills is to prevent pregnancy, then they should be paying for it themselves.
And who will be deciding if a woman needs them for pregnancy prevention, or for a medical need?
And seriously, all someone would have to do is tell their Dr. that their insurance won't cover it if it's for pregnancy, yet WILL cover it for medical reasons, and the Dr. will make a note about it in their chart. Happens ALL the time.
Of you that make the distinction, how will you handle cases like that?
it has been said MANY TIMES, if there is a real need for birth control pills to help with a medical condition, most people, conservatives included, have no problem with them being covered by insurance. on the other hand however, is the only reason someone is taking birth control pills is to prevent pregnancy, then they should be paying for it themselves.
same with viagra and other ED treatments. there are good medical reasons other than ED to take viagra, but if guys are taking ED pills to get a woody, then they need to pay for it themselves. what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Ah but the problem is that the GOP wants employers to disallow coverage for whatever they wish based on religious arguments and that is indeed a slippery slope.
Your argument appears to be based on logic: if you are engaging in recreational sex, your medically related expenses should be out of pocket and not reimbursible or covered. Fair enough.
But why should insurance providers be obligated to operate against economic considerations? What are the consequences of a guy not being able to get it up? Well for one thing it decreases the likelihood of someone getting pregnant. However the possible consequences of a woman not getting BC are pregnancy, will not only life changing considerations but also increased cost for the insurer. Pregnancies are a LOT more expensive than brith control.
So why is the GOP now trying to stick its nose not only into people's sex lives by injecting religious considerations, they want businesses to operate against their own self interest?
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.
wonder why they don't want insurance to pay for BC coverage? BC is not just for BC it has other benefits. some conservatives want everyone to live their lives according to their moral value.
