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.

 

Insanity! Federal Govt. To Force Insurance Companies To Cover Birth Control, Making It "Free" For

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   

The federal Department of Health and Human Services was to announce historic women's healthcare guidelines Monday that would require insurance companies to cover women's preventive services, including birth control, for what amounts to no cost.

The guidelines, under the new healthcare law, would force insurance companies to not only cover the costs, but to eliminate co-pays and deductibles

www.cbsnews.com...



Services covered will include well-woman exams, screening for gestational diabetes, breastfeeding support, domestic violence screenings, and all FDA-approved birth control methods — including emergency contraception like the morning-after pill

www.rawstory.com...

What the hell is this?????


First of all I did a thorough search and no news outlets are asking the right questions, everyone is asking about abstinence and morality and nobody is asking about how this affects either insurance fees or taxpayer money.
I'm just throwing taxpayer money in there with insurance fees because who knows what's in the fine print of this act.

Morality aside for a sec man, wake the hell up, there is no such thing as "Free", someone or everyone will be paying for this to subsidize promiscuity.

And another thing, what the hell man.... how does the Federal Govt. have jurisdiction in FORCING companies to do anything like this?




posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
To tell you the truth I cannot comprehend why everybody over here doesn't have universal healthcare and every other country has it. Makes absolutely no sense



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
I'm just throwing taxpayer money in there with insurance fees because who knows what's in the fine print of this act.


What is the cost to the taxpayer when a child has a child and ends up on a continuous rollercoaster of welfare?



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Birth control = fewer unwanted leeches on society. Fewer rape babies. Fewer incest babies. Fewer babies left in trash cans and dumpsters. Birth Control = not just randomly plopping out new consumers because someone decided to impregnate you. Yes, I said someone decided to impregnate you. When 100% of all pregnancy are the result of voluntary sex we can revisit that.

In the long run it will be cheaper and easier on society to not let every egg and seed meet become a person in need of millions of dollars of resources to keep them alive, safe, and happy.
edit on 1-8-2011 by Undertough because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Can I not get free condoms? This seems like an awfully sexist new program.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by eNumbra
Can I not get free condoms? This seems like an awfully sexist new program.


Seriously? Free condoms are available EVERYWHERE. My high school handed them out. PP hands them out. There are several low income health centers here in the city that have BARRELS of condoms by the door for you to grab on the way out.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heartisblack
To tell you the truth I cannot comprehend why everybody over here doesn't have universal healthcare and every other country has it. Makes absolutely no sense


Same here, and I definitely think birth control should be included. The added cost of unwanted babies, or babies no one can take care of properly is IMMENSE...a problem the anti-baby pill solves. It'll SAVE money and makes total sense.

What's the alternative to birth control? Bristol Palin's "advice"?



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Pretty much this.

I don't know what is wrong with everyone else. This is cutting costs way into the future; it's called planning ahead.
There should be no problem with this idea, not at all. You all complain about the fact that Government is too big all the time, well, this action insures that Government will provide less of a welfare state in the future.

I fail to see the problem here.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by TheOneElectric
 


That's what's baffles me too. You can whine about bureaucracy all you want, but everyone has to admit the government does some sensible things...like birth control...or making sure your babies don't die of lead paint toys.

Only fundamentalist Christians (and Muslims ofc) could be against this, but I for one don't think we should listen to America's village idiots



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by TheOneElectric
 


Thats because you are not thinking logically.

THERE IS NO FUTURE.

The future is now, and the last thing that we need at THIS MOMENT, is to spend money on a bunch of slutty whore bags.

And theres A LOT of those out there.

Not to mention its more than likely illegal to force someone to pay for someone elses sluttyness.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
If we can't keep them pregnant then how are we supposed to control them? Next thing you know they will be handing out shoes



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
unwanted babies has a simply answer

keep your pants zipped up

then it wont cost anything.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
I don't know what is wrong with everyone else. This is cutting costs way into the future; it's called planning ahead.

Yes it is called planning ahead
In the sense that Govt. is planning ahead to be able to force companies to do anything they want it to do
It starts like this

And this will NOT cut costs
Time to WAKE UP America!

Insurance companies are one of the biggest lobbyists on the planet
There must be something sinister here
There is one law in the western world, no matter what route is taken, insurance companies ALWAYS WIN!


Originally posted by TheOneElectric
There should be no problem with this idea, not at all. You all complain about the fact that Government is too big all the time, well, this action insures that Government will provide less of a welfare state in the future.
I fail to see the problem here.

This does not at all address the welfare state whatsoever

You cannot force people who live simple lives to pay for other people's "having a good time"
That's just disgusting

And the majority of leeches that will use this program will be prostitutes



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
unwanted babies has a simply answer

keep your pants zipped up

then it wont cost anything.


Coming up on 50.... no prob.

40's... no prob.

30's... urm, a little problem but smart enough to wrap it up.

20's... huge problem but still, luck can be on your side. It was for me. Whew.

Teens... not a hope in hell. That's going down without easy contraception or not. See my point?



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
unwanted babies has a simply answer

keep your pants zipped up

then it wont cost anything.


Yes, I said someone decided to impregnate you. When 100% of all pregnancy are the result of voluntary sex we can revisit that.

Try again.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
And the majority of leeches that will use this program will be prostitutes


I wouldn't mind seeing a link to back that up. My understanding is that condoms are the preferred application of BC as it is much better preventing STI's as well.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Common Good
reply to post by TheOneElectric
 


Thats because you are not thinking logically.

THERE IS NO FUTURE.

The future is now, and the last thing that we need at THIS MOMENT, is to spend money on a bunch of slutty whore bags.

And theres A LOT of those out there.

Not to mention its more than likely illegal to force someone to pay for someone elses sluttyness.


Just humor me. Lay out the cost of birth control vs the cost of unwanted and uncared for children.
You know, just for fun.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
And the majority of leeches that will use this program will be prostitutes


Prostitutes number 1 concern: Not being killed.
Prostitutes number 2 concern: Not getting a disease.
Prostitutes number 3 concern: Not getting pregnant.

Pregnancies can be fixed far easier than STDs can. Maybe a little sex ed is necessary here as birth control for women do not prevent STDs.
edit on 1-8-2011 by Undertough because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


The screenings
The exams
The pay of the medical staff
The materials in the clinics
The medicines

All free. Er. . . um. . . . I guess the new definition of "free" is when someone takes your money and buys stuff for other people.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


I completely agree with your points about it being not "free" and the US taxpayers would end up paying for it, and people with insurance that actually do pay, will end up paying for this too.. But think about it for a second... This is actually REALLY good. There are a lot of women I know and have spoken to that don't want kids but want to actually "feel" with their partners, but can't because male contraceptives are not nearly the same as birth control. I don't think it should be forced either, but seriously, there is a lot of good that can come out of this. I would spent tax dollars on this honestly. I must say though... recklessness should NOT be payed for(morning after pill)




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join