Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:AND... before you start dismissing this as "spurious" and "irrelevant", stop and think. Why is it that THIS belief gets such precedence, unlike any of those which are very much firmly held by members of various churches.
Because contraceptives to prevent pregnancies is a personal choice, not a treatment of a medical condition. If a person wants contraceptives for family planning, then they can pay the $9 per month it takes to buy the generic pills. It's not the proper role of the government to force all employers to pay for all forms of elective medications regardless of their costs.
A. it is a medical item. Just because it is only for women or about pregnancy doesn't change that. IF it WERE just about not getting pregnant, then the rythm method or a few other techniques could be used. Funny part is most of those require MALE control, restraint, ability. For women to control their own reproductivity, the pill is the best and sometimes the only method that works.
B. it costs a LOT more than $9 a month, even for generic. Also, its a hormone and like any hormone, is not a "one size fits all" deal. There was exactly ONE type I could use (tried 5 ), and definitely not for birth control purposes. In fact, if I had not been on it, I probably would not have been able to later get pregnant. (according to my doctor.. you can argue with them since you seem to feel you are a better doctor than they
Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:Sorry, but freedom is not about you doing just what you want, its ALSO about acknowledging that other people have rights and that your right to dictate stops when you are denying other people the right to do as they see fit, in this case, to recieve the medical care they and their doctors feel is warranted.
How is a person being denied medical care? Are their employers blocking them from buying their own birth control with their own money?
People have insurance because medical care is EXPENSIVE. I have no idea where you get your "its only $9 a month) garbage.. that might be true in a SUBSIDIZED clinic in big cities, but not here and not in any of the roughly 12 different locations in 9 different states where I have lived (and did check with contacts there
BUT... even if it were true, $9 a month is $108 toward the $500 individual deductable and $1000 family deductable the moderate grade insurance policies now have (the lower end ones now have $1000 per person deductable). So, yes, it does take away from even what you call "real" medical care. AND.. you have to get a medical exam to get that medication! That is a minimum of $50, without any tests or checks to see just a PA.
BUT.. the real issue is what right do you, not a medical doctor, or Physicians Assistant have to decide that this medication is not necessary. You have never and will never experience the symptoms women experience, have no idea what is involved. You are messing not just with my rights, but my doctor's right to practice medicine.
Night Strike wrote: All we're asking for is to keep freedoms of employers to pay for the coverage they see as necessary, not mandates on elective coverage from the government. We might as well force employers to pay for all types of elective plastic surgery as well since some people may need that to enhance their self-esteem. They should all be forced to provide liposuction and other fat-reducing treatments as well because of the obesity problem we have.
No, your asking to allow employers, employers with no medical training or knowledge of their employees personal medical histories to make medical decisions for them.
Those other situations have been deemed by the medical profession
, by trained doctors, to be optional. HOWEVER, the irony is a lot of employers do cover those things, but now will elect not to cover birth control for women.
You have tried to claim that women with medical necessity can still get it. But, you have no idea what is required, the expense of tests, etc needed to make that determination. You have, flatly no medical knowledge and are claiming that you do becuase it meets your POLITICAL desires.
Again, you are demanding that employers be allowed to make medical decisions.
NOTE-- I would be very happy to have all medical insurance completely divested from employers. However, that is an even bigger anathema to you, becuase it essentially means some kind of socialized system.
PLAYER57832 wrote:They are allowing corporations, employers of more than 50 people to decide to not cover certain medical procedures and medications based on the employer's religious or other preference, and because most people cannot afford medical care without insurance ... yes, it is effectively allowing some wealthier individuals to deny this to people they happen to employ, whether they are members of the same church and subscribe to similar beliefs or not.
$9 a month. That can be afforded by the vast majority of people in the modern United States if they really want it.[/quote]Your figures are wrong.
According to Planned Parenthood, the average cost is $15 to $50 a month. BUT, as the article below points out, if the cheapest method is ineffective or difficult to use (more touchy, etc.) then it becomes very expensive indeed to deal with an unitended pregnancy (whether that means raising the child, giving it up for adoption or other issues).
Here, read this: http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/alp ... h-control-
Night Strike wrote: And if they can't afford it, I'm sure organizations like Planned Parenthood would be happy to divert some of their money gained from abortions that cost hundreds of dollars to provide the contraceptives for free.
Well, this pretty much shows yoru REAL thinking... and just exactly how inaccurate your "data" is.
And, there is this as well. Employers are constantly opting for cheaper and cheaper insurance, without regard for how effective the policies they obtain are. how long do you think it will be before ALL employers stop offering birth control? I am sure a few prominent cases will fight this in court on somewhat legitimate religious grounds, but the real impact is that employers will get to decide... and decide something that mostly won't impact them, it will only impact women. (because even today, most employers, as opposed to workers are still men).