ObamaCare

[BigBallinStalin]

rather than (admittedly, passively) encouraging couples to have babies that they can't support.

The government's encouragement of procreation is not a passive activity. There are direct tax subsidies for having children. While my income has increased, my tax burden has decreased substantially since we started having children.

Sure, but the government's encouragement of procreation through the withholding of contraception is a passive activity, which is what I was actually talking about in my comment.

Wait... the government is withholding contraceptives? Since when?

Ironically, if you have money.. you are free not to have children. If you need help for healthcare, either get it through your employer or through a goverment program, then you don't.

Yet... haven't several here essentially argued that people with money are the ones who should be having the kids?

Oardg gudhr adyard yarga yarga yard gllll gdderrr gale al go

furhtermoe, oddh tod lgo todane done quen odng ekak dinb eos but hey who woulda thunk it? govenment

[PLAYER57832]

That's specific welfare, not general welfare. And if contraceptives are so much better for a company's budget, they would choose to provide it without governmental mandates. These mandates are for the government to force their views on people who disagree with contraceptives and to earn votes through handouts from another constituency.

I see, so people working for corporations run by CEOs who are Jehovah's Witnesses have no right to coverage for blood transfusions?

People working for Christian Scientists or Scientologists must only go to Christian Science Or Scientology Practitioners, respectively.. unless they want to pay the FULL, not tax-free cost of coverage?

And what is next? Declarations that some companies should not be forced to hire women, or to hire people of different races... perhaps even people married to someone of another race.

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.

The Amish do recieve some few exceptions, but they are heavily proscribed. Similarly, some conscientious objectors get some consideration. However, each of those involved them and their families. NO where is a company allowed to just decide to deny a legally mandated benefit to EMPLOYEES, to other people, simply because the owners dislike it, .
The answer is pretty clear. If you dislike the rules required in doing a business, then you have no business doing business in this country!

As a US government employee, my colleague was very much spurned by male visitors from the mideast, people who were supposed to be learning our techniques, but who considered learning from a woman to be beneath them.

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.

[PLAYER57832]

rather than (admittedly, passively) encouraging couples to have babies that they can't support.

The government's encouragement of procreation is not a passive activity. There are direct tax subsidies for having children. While my income has increased, my tax burden has decreased substantially since we started having children.

Sure, but the government's encouragement of procreation through the withholding of contraception is a passive activity, which is what I was actually talking about in my comment.

Wait... the government is withholding contraceptives? Since when?

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.

[PLAYER57832]

rather than (admittedly, passively) encouraging couples to have babies that they can't support.

The government's encouragement of procreation is not a passive activity. There are direct tax subsidies for having children. While my income has increased, my tax burden has decreased substantially since we started having children.

Sure, but the government's encouragement of procreation through the withholding of contraception is a passive activity, which is what I was actually talking about in my comment.

Wait... the government is withholding contraceptives? Since when?

Ironically, if you have money.. you are free not to have children. If you need help for healthcare, either get it through your employer or through a goverment program, then you don't.

Yet... haven't several here essentially argued that people with money are the ones who should be having the kids?

Oardg gudhr adyard yarga yarga yard gllll gdderrr gale al go

furhtermoe, oddh tod lgo todane done quen odng ekak dinb eos but hey who woulda thunk it? govenment

Nice to see you have no intelligent response.

[Night Strike]

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.

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? 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.

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. 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.

[PLAYER57832]

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

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.

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.

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-

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).

[Night Strike]

People have insurance because medical care is EXPENSIVE. I have no idea where you get your "its only $9 a month) garbage..

Our monthly receipt from buying it.

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.

And those exams are already covered by insurance.

[jj3044]

People have insurance because medical care is EXPENSIVE. I have no idea where you get your "its only $9 a month) garbage..

Our monthly receipt from buying it.

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.

And those exams are already covered by insurance.

Is the $9 your CO-PAY for the BC medication or the actual cost? Because my wife's generic BC is $35 a month (actual cost)... but when we had different insurance it was only $7 because that was what the co-pay was...

[PLAYER57832]

People have insurance because medical care is EXPENSIVE. I have no idea where you get your "its only $9 a month) garbage..

Our monthly receipt from buying it.

Then it is SUBSIDIZED by MY taxes.

My figures, to contrast come from nationwide statistics, not some carefully selected data that ignores the reality that just because generics work for your female partner doesn't mean they work for every woman.

But hey, understanding that would require you do actually pay attention to medical science instead of politics!

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.

And those exams are already covered by insurance.

ONLY if you have another reason to see the doctor. You seem to have forgotten that part.

Otherwise, most insurance plans only cover exams every 2 years, not every year or every 6 months as is needed for many birth control methods. In fact, many insurance policies carefully do NOT cover general physicals.

So.. again, you assume, rather than actually doing any research to verify before you start deciding you have the right to tell other people how to live.

[jj3044]

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.

And those exams are already covered by insurance.

ONLY if you have another reason to see the doctor. You seem to have forgotten that part.

Otherwise, most insurance plans only cover exams every 2 years, not every year or every 6 months as is needed for many birth control methods. In fact, many insurance policies carefully do NOT cover general physicals.

Actually under the new healthcare law, annual well visits, among many other preventive services now must be offered at $0 out of pocket costs, unless your plan grandfathered themselves of course. Even if they grandfathered, that (I believe) will end in 2014.

[PLAYER57832]

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.

And those exams are already covered by insurance.

ONLY if you have another reason to see the doctor. You seem to have forgotten that part.

Otherwise, most insurance plans only cover exams every 2 years, not every year or every 6 months as is needed for many birth control methods. In fact, many insurance policies carefully do NOT cover general physicals.

Actually under the new healthcare law, annual well visits, among many other preventive services now must be offered at $0 out of pocket costs, unless your plan grandfathered themselves of course. Even if they grandfathered, that (I believe) will end in 2014.

Excpet Nightstrike is demanding that Obamacare be rescinded, so if he had his way then we would go back to it not being covered. My basic point is that NIghtstrike objects without even being aware that this is a new change. He is under the impression that this has always been true for everyone. As you noted, it is not now, and won't be unless the provisions of Obama Care are continued.

Also, he has a habit of pretending that the absolute lowest cost found anywhere is some kind of average widely available.... and ignores any real medical reasons why costs might vary.

[Phatscotty]

what better timing to cram health care into the federal budget....

This is going to be a disaster

[Night Strike]

People have insurance because medical care is EXPENSIVE. I have no idea where you get your "its only $9 a month) garbage..

Our monthly receipt from buying it.

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.

And those exams are already covered by insurance.

Is the $9 your CO-PAY for the BC medication or the actual cost? Because my wife's generic BC is $35 a month (actual cost)... but when we had different insurance it was only $7 because that was what the co-pay was...

Actual cost as we don't use our insurance card for it and were paying that amount both before and after having insurance.

People have insurance because medical care is EXPENSIVE. I have no idea where you get your "its only $9 a month) garbage..

Our monthly receipt from buying it.

Then it is SUBSIDIZED by MY taxes.

Highly doubtful. I don't live off the government and demand someone else pay for the things I need.

[stahrgazer]

Highly doubtful. I don't live off the government and demand someone else pay for the things I need.

Typical costs:

For patients not covered by health insurance, birth control pills typically cost $20 to $50 a month.
For patients covered by health insurance, out-of-pocket costs typically consist of a prescription drug copay. Most insurance plans offer the lowest copays on generic medication -- usually $5 to $15 -- and higher copays of $30 to $40 for non-preferred brands.

Additional costs:

Birth control pills are available only with a prescription; getting one requires visiting a doctor for a pelvic exam and sexually transmitted disease tests. This can cost $35 to $200, or a copay of $10 to $30 for patients covered by health insurance.

There are more than 40 brands of birth control pills available in the United States, each with slightly different doses or forms of hormones. Because women's bodies can react to even slight changes in formulation, sometimes several brands will have to be tried, with the help of a doctor, to get the fewest negative side effects -- such as mood changes or weight gain -- or the desired positive side effects -- such as better skin and less menstrual cramping.

(Remember, each time the woman has to try something new, she's got that up-to-$200 exam fee in addition to the up-to-$50 for the medication.)

Discounts:

Clinics such as those operated by Planned Parenthood offer discounted birth control pills to women who qualify. And most college campus health centers do the same for enrolled students.
In most states, Wal-Mart, Target and Kroger pharmacies offer a limited selection of generic birth control pills for $9 per month.

I think that must be where NS gets the birth control; interestingly, though, if those retailers are offering a discount, it means consumers are paying for it by higher prices on other products, but NS is okay with being subsidized by consumers, as long as it's not subsidized by taxpayers.

http://health.costhelper.com/birth-control-pills.html

This section was interesting:
Birth control pills, the most commonly covered contraceptive, are covered by more than 80 percent of health insurance plans, according to the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. And in some states, it's mandatory; the Kaiser Family Foundation lists 33 states that require coverage of birth control.

So, the Affordable Care Act merely borrowed an idea already enforced in 33 states.

[PLAYER57832]

People have insurance because medical care is EXPENSIVE. I have no idea where you get your "its only $9 a month) garbage..

Our monthly receipt from buying it.

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.

And those exams are already covered by insurance.

Is the $9 your CO-PAY for the BC medication or the actual cost? Because my wife's generic BC is $35 a month (actual cost)... but when we had different insurance it was only $7 because that was what the co-pay was...

Actual cost as we don't use our insurance card for it and were paying that amount both before and after having insurance.

This site offers a more realistic view:

http://health.costhelper.com/birth-control-pills.html

People have insurance because medical care is EXPENSIVE. I have no idea where you get your "its only $9 a month) garbage..

Our monthly receipt from buying it.

Then it is SUBSIDIZED by MY taxes.

Highly doubtful. I don't live off the government and demand someone else pay for the things I need.

Sure, once its already here..but you are very fond of ignoring how many other people paid to make sure the medicines and services you now use came into being.

Let's just put it this way... EVERY figure I can find says that the average cost of birth control is between $15 and $35. The AVERAGE. That means some people get it lower, some higher. You apparently are fortunate to find a lower cost source. That doesn't mean it is THE cost that everyone can get. Also. you specifically said you get a generic version, but hormones are not like aspirine or even penicillin, where the generic works exactly the same as the name-brand. Very, very minor differences make a BIG deal in hormones.

So, like I said... you ignore medicine, claim that the lowest cost you find is "the" cost.. and then pretend you actually know what you are talking about.

Oh yeah..and you like to throw out idiotic claims like saying my family is (or ever has been) on welfare... I want kids to just die, etc, etc, etc....

You are not simply ignorant, but wilfully and intentionally igorant of facts in a way that harms everyone around you.