Susan G Komen policy change...

[Woodruff]

2. If the government is mandating ALL forms of birth control, then they're doing nothing to cut the costs of health care (which was supposedly why they put in this stupid health care law). If you mandate something like birth control, then they should only be forced to cover the cheapest form out there. Maybe the two cheapest forms. However, you shouldn't be mandating that forms that cost more than $100 per dosages be covered without a copay. That just raises the costs for everybody else.

No, in fact few companies need to be mandated because it IS cost-effective. HOWEVER, you have the Roman Catholic church attempting to subvert their not even Roman Catholic employees rights to the kind of coverage they need. THAT is why a mandate is necessary. It is necessary to ensure that all women who want this have access to the coverage.

Generic birth control pills are $9 a month. You can afford that without insurance. Mandating that insurance pay for shots that cost hundreds of dollars just raises the rates for everybody else when there are many cheaper options available.

Unless there are medical reasons for it (allergies or what-not), I agree with this. I do believe that in those situations, an option should be required.

[Night Strike]

2. If the government is mandating ALL forms of birth control, then they're doing nothing to cut the costs of health care (which was supposedly why they put in this stupid health care law). If you mandate something like birth control, then they should only be forced to cover the cheapest form out there. Maybe the two cheapest forms. However, you shouldn't be mandating that forms that cost more than $100 per dosages be covered without a copay. That just raises the costs for everybody else.

No, in fact few companies need to be mandated because it IS cost-effective. HOWEVER, you have the Roman Catholic church attempting to subvert their not even Roman Catholic employees rights to the kind of coverage they need. THAT is why a mandate is necessary. It is necessary to ensure that all women who want this have access to the coverage.

Generic birth control pills are $9 a month. You can afford that without insurance. Mandating that insurance pay for shots that cost hundreds of dollars just raises the rates for everybody else when there are many cheaper options available.

Unless there are medical reasons for it (allergies or what-not), I agree with this. I do believe that in those situations, an option should be required.

Then the individual should be the one responsible for proving why they need the more expensive drug instead of the government mandating that the insurance company simply pass it out. Furthermore, ALL of the forms should come with some sort of copay, just like every other medicine.

[Juan_Bottom]

Furthermore, ALL of the forms should come with some sort of copay, just like every other medicine.

why

[thegreekdog]

I would prefer to also not give my money to entities that hand out free contraceptives. I'm quite familiar with the discussion points in favor of contraceptives (that they will reduce abortions, if you don't give out contraceptives people will still have sex, etc.).

I'm kind of disappointed at the responses in this thread (all around). On the one hand, this has turned into a discussion on abortions (which shouldn't really shock me). Then we have people trying to convince me to keep giving my money to Susan G. Komen, which is really weird. Then we have people trying to convince me that Planned Parenthood doesn't provide money for abortions (I believe Woodruff's website said 300,000 last year).

The bottom line is this - Komen made a stupid mistake distancing itself from Planned Parenthood. They may have had a reason, but the backlash was much worse than the reaction when they did give money. I only pointed out my own donation practices as a way to illustrate the reaction people had to Komen when they did give money to Planned Parenthood (namely, there was no reaction). I'm sober this morning, unlike when I typed that profanity-laden tirade earlier, but as to who I donate my own money to, I stand by that post (but probably shouldn't have brought it up in the first place).

[natty dread]

I would prefer to also not give my money to entities that hand out free contraceptives.

Why is that?

Do you hate sex?

[thegreekdog]

I would prefer to also not give my money to entities that hand out free contraceptives.

Why is that?

Do you hate sex?

No. I prefer not to give my money to entities that encourage pre-marital sex.

[natty dread]

I would prefer to also not give my money to entities that hand out free contraceptives.

Why is that?

Do you hate sex?

No. I prefer not to give my money to entities that encourage pre-marital sex.

What's your problem with pre-marital sex? Is there a difference between pre-marital sex and marital sex, other than a piece of paper?

Why does a piece of paper make sex "ok", if it's such a bad thing without it?

[thegreekdog]

I would prefer to also not give my money to entities that hand out free contraceptives.

Why is that?

Do you hate sex?

No. I prefer not to give my money to entities that encourage pre-marital sex.

What's your problem with pre-marital sex? Is there a difference between pre-marital sex and marital sex, other than a piece of paper?

Why does a piece of paper make sex "ok", if it's such a bad thing without it?

Woah. I have no problem with premarital sex at all. You're having trouble differentiating between concepts. Try to work on that.

[comic boy]

Guys
Are you advocating the advancement of thought police , should we now monitor and censure what people believe
If Greek chooses to base certain decisions on a particular moral imperative then that is entirely his own perogative and frankly we have no right to take issue with him. If he were trying to impose his views on us then that would be a different story , but he isn't so back off.

[Woodruff]

I would prefer to also not give my money to entities that hand out free contraceptives.

Why is that?

Do you hate sex?

No. I prefer not to give my money to entities that encourage pre-marital sex.

Truthfully, I don't believe that free contraceptives really encourages pre-marital sex very much if at all. If I thought that it did, I wouldn't be as in favor of it as I am (because I agree with you on that).

People are still going to have sex, regardless. Hell, I had access to free contraceptives when I was a teenager and I still got my future wife pregnant because I was a stupid, horny teenager and just didn't want to bother.

[BigBallinStalin]

I would prefer to also not give my money to entities that hand out free contraceptives.

Why is that?

Do you hate sex?

No. I prefer not to give my money to entities that encourage pre-marital sex.

Truthfully, I don't believe that free contraceptives really encourages pre-marital sex very much if at all. If I thought that it did, I wouldn't be as in favor of it as I am (because I agree with you on that).

People are still going to have sex, regardless. Hell, I had access to free contraceptives when I was a teenager and I still got my future wife pregnant because I was a stupid, horny teenager and just didn't want to bother.

Congratulations?

[natty dread]

I prefer not to give my money to entities that encourage pre-marital sex.

I have no problem with premarital sex at all.

Explain.

[thegreekdog]

I prefer not to give my money to entities that encourage pre-marital sex.

I have no problem with premarital sex at all.

Explain.

The key words are "give my money." You seem like a smart guy. One would think you would understand this.

[BigBallinStalin]

"I don't support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan."

"Oh, so you don't support our troops!? You're a racist, and violent organization!"

"Um... okay..."

[natty dread]

I prefer not to give my money to entities that encourage pre-marital sex.

I have no problem with premarital sex at all.

Explain.

The key words are "give my money." You seem like a smart guy. One would think you would understand this.

Ok, so you have no problem with premarital sex. But you say you prefer not to give money to entities that encourage premarital sex.

In this context, we were talking about donating to charities, which leads me to reasonably assume that you would donate money to this hypothetical charity if only they didn't "encourage premarital sex". In other words, the encouraging of premarital sex is the dealbreaker to you, which prevents you from donating money to them. This leads me to believe that you are in fact not ok with premarital sex.


What I'm trying to say is, it seems to me that if you really had no problem at all with premarital sex, then the perceived encouragement of premarital sex would not be an issue that prevented you from donating money to an organization, if you otherwise agreed with the goals of said organization. Does this make sense to you?

[thegreekdog]

I prefer not to give my money to entities that encourage pre-marital sex.

I have no problem with premarital sex at all.

Explain.

The key words are "give my money." You seem like a smart guy. One would think you would understand this.

Ok, so you have no problem with premarital sex. But you say you prefer not to give money to entities that encourage premarital sex.

In this context, we were talking about donating to charities, which leads me to reasonably assume that you would donate money to this hypothetical charity if only they didn't "encourage premarital sex". In other words, the encouraging of premarital sex is the dealbreaker to you, which prevents you from donating money to them. This leads me to believe that you are in fact not ok with premarital sex.


What I'm trying to say is, it seems to me that if you really had no problem at all with premarital sex, then the perceived encouragement of premarital sex would not be an issue that prevented you from donating money to an organization, if you otherwise agreed with the goals of said organization. Does this make sense to you?

I don't think you're able to differentiate between perceived encouragement of premarital sex and premarital sex itself. Actually, I think you just don't like that people have different beliefs than you do (but let's leave that alone for now, although I find it really amusing).

In any event, all of what I'm about to type are my personal beliefs and I would not foist them upon others. I am not in favor of a law banning premarital sex or a law prohibiting people from paying for condoms to be distributed to minors so that they may engage in premarital sex. I wouldn't support people having premarital sex (in a nonfiscal manner), but I wouldn't necessarily think any less of a person who had premarital sex. I'm not keen that my tax dollars go to support initiatives that may be perceived to encourage premarital sex or to pay for abortions, but that's another matter entirely.

Again, I think you're missing the "giving my money" part of this, which is a euphemism for "supporting." What if I put it another way? I would not encourage or support the perceived encouragement of my siblings or my children to have premarital sex.

I'm not forcing you to do anything. I'm not forcing Planned Parenthood or Susan G. Komen to do anything. I'm not forcing anyone else to do anything.

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh quit being so libertarian, and get on the liberal train, TGD! Here, on the liberal train, we are tolerant of everyone's views, unless of course they don't sync with our own views.

[Woodruff]

I would prefer to also not give my money to entities that hand out free contraceptives.

Why is that?

Do you hate sex?

No. I prefer not to give my money to entities that encourage pre-marital sex.

Truthfully, I don't believe that free contraceptives really encourages pre-marital sex very much if at all. If I thought that it did, I wouldn't be as in favor of it as I am (because I agree with you on that).

People are still going to have sex, regardless. Hell, I had access to free contraceptives when I was a teenager and I still got my future wife pregnant because I was a stupid, horny teenager and just didn't want to bother.

Congratulations?

Well, we've been very happily married for 26 years now, so yes...I would say so. <smile>

[BigBallinStalin]

Why is that?

Do you hate sex?

No. I prefer not to give my money to entities that encourage pre-marital sex.

Truthfully, I don't believe that free contraceptives really encourages pre-marital sex very much if at all. If I thought that it did, I wouldn't be as in favor of it as I am (because I agree with you on that).

People are still going to have sex, regardless. Hell, I had access to free contraceptives when I was a teenager and I still got my future wife pregnant because I was a stupid, horny teenager and just didn't want to bother.

Congratulations?

Well, we've been very happily married for 26 years now, so yes...I would say so. <smile>

Then congratulations!

[natty dread]

Actually, I think you just don't like that people have different beliefs than you do

Oh, I'm sorry. Asking questions is dissin your beliefs now? Huh. Go figure.

I don't think you're able to differentiate between perceived encouragement of premarital sex and premarital sex itself.

No, I can differentiate just fine, thank you. I however don't think you can give straight answers to questions.

If you have no problem with premarital sex, then why do you have a problem with the encouragement of premarital sex? Seems to me that if you don't want premarital sex to be encouraged, then you do not see premarital sex as a positive thing.

It's fine if you have a problem with premarital sex. I'm not here to judge your beliefs. But I think claiming that you have no problem whatsoever with premarital sex, and then saying you "don't want it to be encouraged" is a bit dissonant.

Here, on the liberal train, we are tolerant of everyone's views, unless of course they don't sync with our own views.

I don't know what train you're on, but it seems to have missed a couple of stations. Here on my zeppelin, which incidentally flies where the fuck it wants independently of any train tracks, we are tolerant of other people; however, we don't use "tolerance" as a strawman to silence any questioning of our beliefs.

[PLAYER57832]

2. If the government is mandating ALL forms of birth control, then they're doing nothing to cut the costs of health care (which was supposedly why they put in this stupid health care law). If you mandate something like birth control, then they should only be forced to cover the cheapest form out there. Maybe the two cheapest forms. However, you shouldn't be mandating that forms that cost more than $100 per dosages be covered without a copay. That just raises the costs for everybody else.

No, in fact few companies need to be mandated because it IS cost-effective. HOWEVER, you have the Roman Catholic church attempting to subvert their not even Roman Catholic employees rights to the kind of coverage they need. THAT is why a mandate is necessary. It is necessary to ensure that all women who want this have access to the coverage.

Generic birth control pills are $9 a month. You can afford that without insurance. Mandating that insurance pay for shots that cost hundreds of dollars just raises the rates for everybody else when there are many cheaper options available.

1. Nope. Not available for $9.00 here.
2. Regardless of the form, the cost savings is in fewer complications from pregnancies and such. (again..enough info for another thread).
3. Even if your idea of the cost were correct for the generic version, not everyone can take the generic version. Hormones are among the trickiest of drugs to regulate. WHICH drug to provide is a medical decision, but the only reason to NOT supply it is being made by religious bullies.

[PLAYER57832]

2. If the government is mandating ALL forms of birth control, then they're doing nothing to cut the costs of health care (which was supposedly why they put in this stupid health care law). If you mandate something like birth control, then they should only be forced to cover the cheapest form out there. Maybe the two cheapest forms. However, you shouldn't be mandating that forms that cost more than $100 per dosages be covered without a copay. That just raises the costs for everybody else.

No, in fact few companies need to be mandated because it IS cost-effective. HOWEVER, you have the Roman Catholic church attempting to subvert their not even Roman Catholic employees rights to the kind of coverage they need. THAT is why a mandate is necessary. It is necessary to ensure that all women who want this have access to the coverage.

Generic birth control pills are $9 a month. You can afford that without insurance. Mandating that insurance pay for shots that cost hundreds of dollars just raises the rates for everybody else when there are many cheaper options available.

Unless there are medical reasons for it (allergies or what-not), I agree with this. I do believe that in those situations, an option should be required.

He is wrong, though. He is wrong about the cost, at least in my area. Also, no one is being required by insurance to take the more expensive version. That decision rightly lies with the doctor and patient.

NOW.. I believe what you are saying is that insurance companies should be able to restrict which form they cover and only cover more expensive versions when they are medically required. That is reasonable, though I would have to see more data showing this is a problem.

[natty dread]

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/07/komen_s ... en_handel/

[Night Strike]

2. If the government is mandating ALL forms of birth control, then they're doing nothing to cut the costs of health care (which was supposedly why they put in this stupid health care law). If you mandate something like birth control, then they should only be forced to cover the cheapest form out there. Maybe the two cheapest forms. However, you shouldn't be mandating that forms that cost more than $100 per dosages be covered without a copay. That just raises the costs for everybody else.

No, in fact few companies need to be mandated because it IS cost-effective. HOWEVER, you have the Roman Catholic church attempting to subvert their not even Roman Catholic employees rights to the kind of coverage they need. THAT is why a mandate is necessary. It is necessary to ensure that all women who want this have access to the coverage.

Generic birth control pills are $9 a month. You can afford that without insurance. Mandating that insurance pay for shots that cost hundreds of dollars just raises the rates for everybody else when there are many cheaper options available.

1. Nope. Not available for $9.00 here.
2. Regardless of the form, the cost savings is in fewer complications from pregnancies and such. (again..enough info for another thread).
3. Even if your idea of the cost were correct for the generic version, not everyone can take the generic version. Hormones are among the trickiest of drugs to regulate. WHICH drug to provide is a medical decision, but the only reason to NOT supply it is being made by religious bullies.

So you're not going to say how much they cost?

And if there are medical reasons for needing other options, then those options should be available at coverages and copays similar to all other medicines that are currently on the market and covered by insurance.

[PLAYER57832]

I would prefer to also not give my money to entities that hand out free contraceptives. I'm quite familiar with the discussion points in favor of contraceptives (that they will reduce abortions, if you don't give out contraceptives people will still have sex, etc.).

I'm kind of disappointed at the responses in this thread (all around). On the one hand, this has turned into a discussion on abortions (which shouldn't really shock me). Then we have people trying to convince me to keep giving my money to Susan G. Komen, which is really weird. Then we have people trying to convince me that Planned Parenthood doesn't provide money for abortions (I believe Woodruff's website said 300,000 last year).

The bottom line is this - Komen made a stupid mistake distancing itself from Planned Parenthood. They may have had a reason, but the backlash was much worse than the reaction when they did give money. I only pointed out my own donation practices as a way to illustrate the reaction people had to Komen when they did give money to Planned Parenthood (namely, there was no reaction). I'm sober this morning, unlike when I typed that profanity-laden tirade earlier, but as to who I donate my own money to, I stand by that post (but probably shouldn't have brought it up in the first place).

I would agree, except that there is just too little clarity when it comes to abortion. Essentially, the right's position is that they have the right to make these decisions for other people, and that the person involved's religion, creed, etc just don't matter.

The claim that this is about freedom of money is a red herring. It makes as much sense as saying that you get to decide which part of your taxes go to highways, to the military, etc. Some decisions have to be made universally, based on evidence and not individual ideas of preference.