PLAYER57832 wrote:Night Strike wrote:And this issue has exactly NOTHING to do with medical care. As the liberals are quick to point out, approximately 98% of people use or have used some form of contraception. This means there is NOT a lack of access to contraception.
Well, right now, insurance is mandated to cover this, plus states cover it. Even so, while a high percentage of
women use it at some time in their life, you neglect the part where women get estrogen for many, many reasons. I took it for several years because of essessive pain and bleeding, though I was not sexual active at the time. Later, I had to take progesterone, which has at some points also been considered "birth control", so that I would not miscarry my sons. Older women commonly have to take such supplements during pregnancies.
And while I have cited my own personal history because I am not legally allowed to cite other people's medical histories, i assure you I am very far from alone.
So, again.... GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT before voicing and opinion on this!
Oh look, legitimate medical issues for needing prescriptions that could otherwise be used as contraceptives. Oh look also, they're already covered under insurance. Oh yeah, this has NOTHING to do with the current debate of providing prescriptions for free for the sole use of contraception. It's a distraction to get the dumb masses on your side by lumping in things that are currently covered with things that are not. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!
PLAYER57832 wrote:Night Strike wrote: Furthermore, if the prescription is being used for actual medical issues, that IS covered by insurance. Even insurance provided by religious organizations. In light of those facts, it becomes clear that this issue is only an assault on religious freedoms in order to give the government the power to unconstitutionally prohibit the free exercise of religion.
NO, this is poppycock. You have made this claim, but it is not the truth. The truth is that it will be up to women to justify to insurance companies that they need this.. and, because there is no longer a mandate for coverage, many plain won't get it.
Maybe if MORE medicines and treatments were justified as to why they were needed and if they're the cheapest option in the market that will still do the job, we wouldn't see the constant increases in insurance costs that we do now. But that would be a free market principle, which we can't have any of in our move to big-government control of health care and every other market.
By the way, since this is a fact so I know you will dismiss or distort it, but if the government did not mandate contraceptive coverage, how did 95-98% of the population have access to contraceptives? How will that change if this new mandate is NOT put in place? Under your logic, women will suddenly lose all contraceptive coverage, whether it's used for birth control or medical issues. If this is not the case before the mandate was written, why would it be the case after the mandate is rescinded? My guess would be because this has absolutely nothing to do with women's health and everything to do with more governmental power and infringement on our rights.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Also, hormones are one of those drugs that cannot always be substituted in generic version because even very, very tiny differences can matter a lot. Now insurance covers it all, but they won't any longer.
See above. But if they're covering it before the mandate, why would it suddenly disappear? Of course, that's liberal logic for you.