It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Rolls Back Obama’s Birth Control Coverage Rule

page: 10
22
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Birth control used properly is not 100% effective. Heck even tubal ligations fail and vasectomies fail. All the men who do not want to pay for contraception still have to pay taxes for schools and prisons. All these pregnancies involve men and sometimes they do not want kids or more kids. The burden always falls on the woman if she gets pregnant as it is obvious that she had sex. The "father" gets to walk away. Men do not have to take pills every day that affects their hormone levels and if it fails they are not pointed out as a moral failure. Shame shame. Maybe it is $1 a day for BC, but first you need to see a doctor every year, then find a pharmacy every month without fail by a certain time or risk a pregnancy. In some places neither of these are easy.

Two separate basic insurance plans, one for people who do not want anyone to have contraception but has to pay for pregnancy and health care for all children, and a second for people who believe that contraception and pregnancy coverage plus health care for children.

I remember when SAFE legal abortion was fought for. Some people do not realize that there was always abortion even when it was illegal. There will still be abortion even if it is outlawed. Rich women will go abroad, middle class will support another child or find a hopefully safe black market abortion and poor women will die just like they always do from unsafe methods..




posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 04:50 PM
link   

edit on 1062017 by LeoLeoMidWest because: double post



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: UKTruth



There are preventative checkups covered on insurance.

Expecting sex not to happen is not realistic.


Of course, it will happen. No one is expecting it not to.
Just pay for your own protection for your own lifestyle.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar
A simple "no" would have been sufficient.

Viagra is not covered by ACA in any way. What is covered is prescriptions for sildenafil (for all sexes, as well as all age groups, situation and dosage dependent), which, until 2012, was only available in the US via Pfizer's Viagra and Revatio (exact same pill, 1 patented for heart treatment, 1 for ED).

Thankfully, Pfizer will lose almost all patent protection by the end of this year, so expect to see a lovely host of generics (like we have in Canada), so you can get heart treatment without everyone suspecting that you are a closet sex fiend.

If you want ED coverage in the US, it costs extra.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Anything on the list that subsidises a chosen lifestyle should not be on the list.
Those on the list that do not involve choice make sense. For example, one does not choose to catch the flu, and there is little protection against it from your own actions.

This is precisely the problem with health insurance and why it is untenable in it's current form.

edit on 6/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I don't see a problem with it. Work benefits are just that, benefits, not rights.if you don't think your employers providing you the things you need, you can always go find another employer that gives you the benefits that you would like. That's how this all works.
edit on 6-10-2017 by avgguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



Anything on the list that subsidises a chosen lifestyle should not be on the list.


Sexuality activity and contraception aren't lifestyles any more than menstruation, pregnancy or being a mother is a life style.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth



Anything on the list that subsidises a chosen lifestyle should not be on the list.


Sexuality activity and contraception aren't lifestyles any more than menstruation, pregnancy or being a mother is a life style.



Controllable choice - you know where, when, how often, with who. Thus pay for your own lifestyle.
You are acting as if people have no control of what they are doing and need others to help them avoid the consequences of some uncontrollable actions. That's plain wrong.

edit on 6/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


Your lifestyle argument makes no sense. Like 99% of adults are having sex. That's not a lifestyle, it's a bodily function.

Go somewhere else with your ridiculous logic. Contraception is covered, unless some religious nut decides it's immoral for his employees and their families.

Let the lawsuits continue to come. ACLU Sues Trump Administration Over Birth Control Policy



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   
I think most of you are forgetting the therapeutic use of the oral contraceptive pill.

For example: I'm not sexually active, however I must take OC as part of my treatment for PCOS and Endometriosis.

There are women no doubt, in the USA, that also require OC for reasons such as these or others.

Just my 2 cents.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: fiverx313
this is such BS... covering birth control is a public good and a human right.

if old men are getting free boner pills but women can't have birth control, it really shows you the priorities of the old men in congress and the white house...


How is birth control a right?



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth


Unacceptable. Women shouldn't have their sexuality under religious scrutiny to get and keep a job.



But the religious should subsidize it all the same?
edit on 6-10-2017 by Wardaddy454 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454





How is birth control a right?


Under the Affordable Care Act, insured women are guaranteed access to birth control.



But the religious should subsidize it all the same?


Please see Title X

We're not talking about "the religious" though. Religious people don't have the option of choosing a plan that excludes birth control, only religious employers. The actual people that are forced to pay premiums or lose their coverage don't have a say.



edit on 6-10-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: carewemust

then you must also have a gripe about all of the preventive care mandates, some of which, I believe, may have been in effect before obmamcare.



The Preventive Care benefits that most health insurance companies offered before ObamaCare were not government mandated, and certainly weren't free to the patient.

It was up to the individual if he/she wanted to have co-pays for those preventive care benefits. Most middle/upper-middle class earners, opted not to have Co-pays for ANYTHING. This kept their premium relatively low.

Like ObamaCare is doing today, when you want something at little cost to you, the price is always higher than it should be. All ObamaCare did is shift that higher price to American taxpayers, in the form of increased prices for lots of things we use and buy. Unfortunately, ONLY those with less than middle-class incomes are getting additional taxpayer help with the premiums. It's a system that sucks dearly. Republicans who failed to vote for repeal will be gone in 14 months.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

So basically, we have to pay extra taxes so people can whore themselves out? How about self control? Or like, you know, paying for things you need out of pocket? I guess when it comes to spending others money, leftists know best huh?



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Hmm so let me get this straight....


You don't want the lower income and welfare earners to have access to free birth control.

You don't want them to have abortions either.

And you don't want them to be a burden on society.

I'd say bringing a baby into a welfare reliant family will be more of a burden than giving out free birth control, wouldn't you say??



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   
These are the kinds of things that make Trump such a #ty/contemptible, worthless president.

Why would he make this an issue again? It was already settled so this just looks like him throwing a tantrum to annoy people.

Oh well, he should be a one term president the next one will have to clean up his mess.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

umm... the last time I had insurance coverage was before obama care and was through the little screen printing company that I was working for. When I have first started working there, we had some choice between a couple plans we could opt into, but I think that was the first year I was there...
so no, there was no choice, at least for the employer as to what our plan consisted of, weather or not we wanted co-pays or anything else. every year those benefits would became less appealing, the deductible became higher and higher, and when my boss met with the insurance company, the meeting lasted longer and longer as they tried to find something that was a halfway decent for us. We were a small company, only consisted of about 30 or so employees and most of them were closer to retirement age, if not passed that. Guess what was included in that health plan?? free preventive services.. free cancer screenings, free colonoscopies, free annual checkups, ect.
I'm sorry, but I find it real hard to believe that the bigger companies, with a younger group of employees didn't have those things included in their health plans!!!



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Aegeus
the only way you will end up paying extra taxes is if the employees that have lost the birth control coverage, because of the "deeply held beliefs of the employer of course" end up being eligible through title x to get their birth control..
basically what is happening is they are letting the companies off the hook and putting the taxpayers onto it!!!



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Aegeus




So basically, we have to pay extra taxes so people can whore themselves out?


Who's "we"? This new rule only concerns religious employers. If their employees have to go a public, tax funded clinic to get their care, because their own health care insurance, that they pay for, won't cover them, then tax payers will have to pick up the bill.

And, by "people" you mean women, women like your mother, sister, cousin, aunt, your wife, using contraceptives to "whore themselves out".




top topics



 
22
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join