Why is birth control coverage such a contentious subject? (program, problems, religion)
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 specifically said that insurance companies are for the law. Read what I said again.
No, not only them. Also people who don't believe government has any business doing what it is doing, entirely separate from religious convictions or the specifics of contraception itself. I would be one of those people. The federal government should not be mandating what is and is not covered in insurance policies and should not be setting prices for what is covered. That is not a power of government enumerated in the constitution and the 10th amendment states that the federal government is forbidden from exercising any powers not specifically granted to it.
No they are not. These people are not trying to forbid insurance companies from providing birth control with no copay. They are trying to forbid government from mandating insurance companies to provide birth control with no copay. The two are entirely different.
Funnily enough, I was responding to a different post of yours. Care to read that post? Here, I'll make it easy for you.
"This argument was used a lot during the healthcare debate. Reality doesn't bear it out. If a company wants to do something then you don't need a mandate to make them do it. You can't excuse a law forcing someone to do something by saying they wanted to do it anyway. If they did, they'd already be doing it and you wouldn't need a law.
And the answer comes back, well then why are they supporting the law? Because having the law gives them an excuse they can point to in justifying raising rates, and they'll just raise rates higher than the actual cost of complying with the law. Plus more regulations can give a larger insurance company an advantage over smaller companies since they have the resources to more easily deal with the regulations."
Now, I said INSURANCE COMPANIES WANT TO COVER CONTRACEPTIVES. And YOU responded, and I quote, "If a company wants to do something then you don't need a mandate to make them do it." And I pointed out that it wasn't insurance companies that didn't want to cover contraceptives, it was private companies that didn't want their insurance companies to do something. Those poor private companies, if they can't force their employees into behaving a certain way, they'll force insurance companies to pressure the employees to behave in a certain way. Because, evidently, it's all about control.
Your post that I responded to asked why insurance should not cover birth control if the pill can also be used to treat other conditions. I simply said then the medication wouldn't be birth control. It's about what people are arguing on this forum, not what companies are asking insurance companies to do. The answer would be then the insurance company needs to cover another treatment for those conditions. But that wasn't the point to begin with. You didn't ask why insurance shouldn't cover "medication X", you asked why insurance shouldn't provide free birth control. And my answer is that the pill isn't the issue that we are protesting, it is the use the pill is being put to that is the issue.
Yes, I understood what you said.
You clearly don't understand what companies are doing. They aren't asking that their insurance company not cover birth control. They are asking that their insurance company not cover medications used for birth control. So even if that particular medication is being prescribed to treat, say, endemetriosis, the insurance company won't cover that prescription because it is ALSO used for birth control. So, yes, I'm asking why insurance shouldn't cover "medication X", because only the doctor and patient know why the doctor is prescribing "medication X". The company doesn't know. Because it's none of their business. Privacy is important.
Yes it is. That's not a valid comparison. The comparison would be between prophylactics and BC, not between Viagra and BC. You can still have sex without birth control. If you don't want to get pregnant as a result of that sex, then that's your choice. It's a whole different issue. With BC you are trying to prevent your body from behaving in a healthy manner it is designed to do. With Viagra you are trying to enable your body to behave in a healthy manner it was designed to do, but cannot. Completely opposite.
1. So it all comes down to an anti-woman issue.
2. Isn't the woman paying the premium?
1. No, it isn't. Because it involves women, does not make it an anti-woman issue. As I said in another post, that's just using a "you only oppose Obama because he's black" argument. My wife's birth control is affected by this, so that affects me as well - I'm arguing against my own ability to get free birth control for my wife. And for those medications that only men use, my argument is the same. For example, I do not support Viagra being free any more than I support birth control being free. It's not against women, it is against mandating that a certain medication be provided without a copay while other medications aren't. I oppose it on behalf of other women who aren't taking birth control as well. If an insurance company chooses to provide a plan that has no copays for prescriptions, then I'm fine with that. But a government mandate that "this medicine" can never have a copay and "that medicine" can have a copay I am not fine with. It doesn't matter what the medications are or who is taking them.
2. Yes the woman is paying the premium. But the premium is the same regardless of whether you use birth control or not. So the woman can not in any way be legitimately said to be paying for the birth control with her premium since people who are not receiving the birth control are paying the same premium. The person receiving a prescription paying an equal premium does not in any way justify having that prescription having a special mandate that requires it to be unequally treated than other prescriptions.
Quote:
This isn't even about co-pays. Prior to this new requirement, most insurances paid for BC with a co-pay.
For me, it is about copays and mandates. I'm fine with insurance companies providing BC with a copay. I'm fine with insurance companies providing plans that have no copays on prescriptions. I'm just not fine with government mandating that prescriptions for one thing cannot have a copay while other prescriptions do have one.
Quote:
This is about the funniest thing I have ever read on CD! No sh*t!
You're digging yourself in deeper with this anti-woman stuff of yours. You've never heard of being coerced into sex? And I'm not talking about rape, I'm talking about 'If you loved me you'd do it", and "we're going to get married some day, why not start now?", etc. I once saw a TV show about the lines guys use on women to have sex with them, right out the horse's, er, mouth!
You don't get men being absolved of paying child support because the woman begged him to have sex and they were powerless to say no. Even if she went off the pill and told him she was still on it, he's still responsible for the child. But I'm digging myself into an anti-woman hole to say that women are responsible for their choices? Ridiculous. Sorry if you don't like it, but legal adults are responsible for their actions. Even women. If no means no then yes means yes.
You don't get men being absolved of paying child support because the woman begged him to have sex and they were powerless to say no. Even if she went off the pill and told him she was still on it, he's still responsible for the child. But I'm digging myself into an anti-woman hole to say that women are responsible for their choices? Ridiculous. Sorry if you don't like it, but legal adults are responsible for their actions. Even women. If no means no then yes means yes.
I want to know how men are powerless to say no to sex.
You clearly don't understand what companies are doing. They aren't asking that their insurance company not cover birth control. They are asking that their insurance company not cover medications used for birth control. So even if that particular medication is being prescribed to treat, say, endemetriosis, the insurance company won't cover that prescription because it is ALSO used for birth control. So, yes, I'm asking why insurance shouldn't cover "medication X", because only the doctor and patient know why the doctor is prescribing "medication X". The company doesn't know. Because it's none of their business. Privacy is important.
I'm not sure I buy this. Other than perhaps the "abortion" pill. I do not believe that companies are attempting to refuse to cover a pill used for PCOS if it happens to also be a contraceptive.
Some insurance companies do only cover meds for certain conditions. The doctor has to fill out a form with a diagnosis, it is between doctor and insurance company. Meds have to be approved all the time, it's red tape but sometimes it's necessary.
Funnily enough, I was responding to a different post of yours. Care to read that post? Here, I'll make it easy for you.
"This argument was used a lot during the healthcare debate. Reality doesn't bear it out. If a company wants to do something then you don't need a mandate to make them do it. You can't excuse a law forcing someone to do something by saying they wanted to do it anyway. If they did, they'd already be doing it and you wouldn't need a law.
And the answer comes back, well then why are they supporting the law? Because having the law gives them an excuse they can point to in justifying raising rates, and they'll just raise rates higher than the actual cost of complying with the law. Plus more regulations can give a larger insurance company an advantage over smaller companies since they have the resources to more easily deal with the regulations."
Now, I said INSURANCE COMPANIES WANT TO COVER CONTRACEPTIVES. And YOU responded, and I quote, "If a company wants to do something then you don't need a mandate to make them do it." And I pointed out that it wasn't insurance companies that didn't want to cover contraceptives, it was private companies that didn't want their insurance companies to do something. Those poor private companies, if they can't force their employees into behaving a certain way, they'll force insurance companies to pressure the employees to behave in a certain way. Because, evidently, it's all about control.
Yeah, I guess I got your response mixed up as to which issue it was in response to. My bad on that.
I think the solution to that is to come up with a certain list of things that you say every company must provide a plan to cover. Not to say every plan has to cover those things.
Then if you want the plan that covers X, you sign up for that plan. If you don't care about X you can go with a different plan. But the company has to give its employees the option of having X covered.
It seems like every couple weeks, I'm getting an e-mail from Planned Parenthood about the ongoing battle to get birth control covered in health plans. Why? What is the big deal about covering the pill?
Because some are against birth control for religious reasons and those who are should not be forced to pay for BC for their employees.
Also, because BC is not a medical need. It's a personal want. Abstinence works too, as do condoms and getting snipped. This is not a medical need but a personal want. BC is needed only if people are having sex. Sex is a personal choice. While we're at it, let's have insurance companies buy condoms and pay for internet dating sites so people can find people to have sex with.
Yeah, I guess I got your response mixed up as to which issue it was in response to. My bad on that.
I think the solution to that is to come up with a certain list of things that you say every company must provide a plan to cover. Not to say every plan has to cover those things.
Then if you want the plan that covers X, you sign up for that plan. If you don't care about X you can go with a different plan. But the company has to give its employees the option of having X covered.
I want to know how men are powerless to say no to sex.
They aren't, that was my point. It's absurd to say a man was powerless to say no to sex. That makes it equally absurd to say a woman isn't responsible for choosing to have sex just because a man was involved in the sex act, unless she was raped. Regardless of whether a man was involved in the act itself, she could have said no to the act to begin with. Women are not wholly incapable of making their own decisions about whether or not to sleep with a man.
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.
