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.

 

The Birth Control Controversy

page: 8
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Taking birthcontrol is not a lifestyle choice. Unless your saying that being a sexually active woman is a "lifestyle". Having sex is a natural part of life that, historically, has never been experienced solely for the purposes of recreation. It was doctors who suggested that birth control be covered as a normal part of any health care program for a woman.

Did you know they came up with a birth control for men? Yup! Lets see how the debate turns on its head in the next few years as it becomes more available. You think anyone is going to call men sluts and prostiutes for taking birth control and complain about their chosen " lifestyle"? I highly doubt it.




posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by mastahunta
 

finally, a point that deserves attention.

And Obama created an opt out so that Christians, Catholics and theocrats can chill out
and relax.
while this may be true (although i'm not really sure), when you couple that with the fact that muslims, amish & scientologists are already exempt from many of the potential mandates (based on religious reasons), WHO is gonna pay for this?


Insurance has been offering contraceptive options for decades...
You tell me?

actually, what i will tell you is that i am an endometriosis sufferer for more than 2 decades now and i cannot afford the medication that could help me.

when i was younger, i did get contraceptives from Planned Parenthood as they were not as readily available as they are today. and, today, PP isn't so into the endocrine troubles endo presents so they refer me to a specialist, and without insurance, that's useless to me.

You should go to a different PP and claim you need Birth Control then, I would figure out
a way to get them to fulfill your request somehow. It is your health, not a luxury.



now, completely ignoring the religious aspect of this argument, i'm concerned about the availability and coverage of MEDICINE, period.

however, since we are discussing medicine, not sex or sexual acts when utilizing said medication, where's my coverage? and are you willing to pay for it?
(keep in mind, i cannot afford insurance as i am unemployed)


I am willing to pay towards it, yes. I cannot pay for the entire payment each month, but I would
chip in as the saying goes. I would hope that you would chip in for me later when you are back on
your feet. Most people I know would feel a duty to do so, but if you didn't I would consider you
to be an outlier and feel less inclined to help you later.



and what i would recommend to everyone ... what is definitely worth the time investment to learn is Natural remedies. many of my current medicines come from the garden.


I agree about remedies, the two best thing I have found are oil of oregano and exercise



ppl really need to stop comparing condoms with the pill ... they are two very different applications serving many different issues concerning EACH user. while they are both preventatives, they are not equal in the world of medicine.

almost forgot ... i've not been without insurance forever but when i did have it, the condition was labeled "pre-existing" hence, no coverage ... so again, what good is insurance?
edit on 3-3-2012 by Honor93 because: add text


Under the new healthcare thingy, many preexisting things have been legislated out of
existence, I understand many have to do with women's health because insurers use to
target females more due to the more pricy nature of gender specific issues.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pixiefyre


The insurance companies will be required to provide the coverage free of charge.


Well I may be a bastard, but GOOD


They have killed so many people with their rescission processes over the years it is time they
pay it forward.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   
hmmm...

I wish the insurances companies would be De-regulated rather then Further Regulated. If this was done, the invisible hand of the Free Market would handle this issue just like anything else. If enough people really wanted insurance companies to cover this and were willing to pay an additional premium, They would certainly provide this option. My personal opinion. This is NOT an issue that Americans should rely on insurance companies for.

I personally have No health Insurance, I pay for all my own Health Costs and I would pay for a High Deductable policy which would only Cover Catastrophic health risks... but I cannot purchase this policy. The insurance companies are regulated to not Allow me to purchase the product that I want from them.

I on the other hand am not Willing to pay the Rediculous premiums that they want or to accept the policies which force me to buy coverage for 1000's of preventative health measures/ routine care and testing that I have no interest in taking advantage of. I Don't want this coverage... but I would be forced to buy it in order to get the Catastrophic coverage I do want.

This of course is designed to make me pay for all the people who want to take advantage of the insurance coverage and milk it for all its worth. For me however this situation makes Health Insurance unafordable for me. If I was like Miss Fluke, I would cry and complain and ask for a handout. But I'm not and no system can possibly function well if Everyone was like Miss Fluke.

In the end the Government Should not be deciding who gets what handed to them... That is not a role envisioned for the Government by the founders... nor does the Government do much good when it attempts this. You can't look at soceity and tell me that we are better off now then we were 50 years ago as a collective. A large reason for this is the Governments increased control and facilitation of more and more aspects over the private sector of the economy and our central financial institutions. And this is just one more, albeit small, issue in the larger view of how we as a nation should handle the struggles of Living on this big Rock.

I can tell you one thing for certain, the Government mandating and enforcing more and more regulations and laws is NOT the path to a utopian paradise (not that this is even possible).

I would also submit that a much better path is a country with Minimal Regulation and A Majority of Citizens with High Moral Character, Ambition, and a good work ethic. America used to be such a place.... it is no longer.

Soul



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Sorry I am a bit confused. Are people upset that insurance companies are giving out free contraception as it is cheaper than having to pay for the medical bills associated with a child?

Surely it's a good thing? Insurance companies win, people not intending to get pregnant win, scores of parents with young children win (without knowing it!)

It's hard for me being from the UK to grasp why this is such an issue in America as over here there is little or no religious opposition to contraception. Just look at countries in the 3rd world that have little access to contraception because of religious rhetoric. Look at al the suffering caused by children who starve to death every day as there are too many mouths to feed. I would love every religious person against contraception to go and see these places because if they were against it then there is something seriously wrong with them. Sperm is NOT the same as a fetas or young child.

Also are these religious people also against oral sex or anything which wastes sperm? Sorry if I have got the issue confused, but could someone explain please?



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Pixiefyre
 

hello Pixiefyre, thanks for your response and diligence (i wasn't gonna look
), but since you did let's look at what he says vs what the plan is ... comprehensive (supposedly).

now, aside from the fact that everyone won't be covered anyway [that crack will be big enough for me to fall right through] ... and the fact that this plan is intended to be a collaboration of cash to effect expense not availability ... leads me to think (as it should everyone) that the underlined parts of his words are nothing more than white-wash, propaganda, rhetoric, BS or whatever adjective you choose to use.
from your link ...

Specifically, the Departments plan to initiate a rulemaking to require issuers to offer insurance without contraception coverage to such an employer (or plan sponsor) and simultaneously to offer contraceptive coverage directly to the employer's plan participants (and their beneficiaries) who desire it, with no cost-sharing. Under this approach, the Departments will also require that, in this circumstance, there be no charge for the contraceptive coverage.

now, the first underlined part is NOT possible in a collective as this is proposed and passed.
the second part implies there will be no expense for this rulemaking proposition, hence it is total BS.

as every expense is valid in terms of cost, and in this case, shared-cost, you cannot escape the religious impact of such a mandate to all parties whether they consume the product or not.

while the collective monies are intended to support individual treatments, for anyone to think that they are NOT PAYING for the next guy (regardless of their life choices) is utter nonsense.

as for the video, sorry, i cannot listen to that man's lisp another moment ... it is seriously disturbing.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


The intent implied is to require the insurance companies to provide this free of charge, 'ie absorb what they would normally charge as a loss. In view of what their over all profits are I doubt this would significantly impact the insurance companies net worth.

If such is the case than the issue is fair and equitable, while they are dealing with the same company that is providing the coverage, the religious institution is not being required to take part in the transaction, so logically it should have no more impact on the religious institution's belief system than going to grocery store regularly and being rung up by a cashier who is on birth control.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by clintdelicious
Are people upset that insurance companies are giving out free contraception as it is cheaper than having to pay for the medical bills associated with a child?


No. People are upset because this lady didn't like the services she was being supplied with and instead of finding another service that suits her needs or writing a complaint/protesting the provider, she goes to the state and asks the state to put a gun to the provider's head and threaten to shoot them if they don't give her what she wants.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Pixiefyre
 

hello Pixiefyre, thanks for your response and diligence (i wasn't gonna look
), but since you did let's look at what he says vs what the plan is ... comprehensive (supposedly).

now, aside from the fact that everyone won't be covered anyway [that crack will be big enough for me to fall right through] ... and the fact that this plan is intended to be a collaboration of cash to effect expense not availability ... leads me to think (as it should everyone) that the underlined parts of his words are nothing more than white-wash, propaganda, rhetoric, BS or whatever adjective you choose to use.
from your link ...

Well I detect that you dislike Obama SO much that you are willing to see anything associated
with him as bad. If everyone at the Catholic place of employment wants to follow the word of
Pope, nobody will seek at the contraception. Applying those terms will be assessed to the insurance
actuary, but they will likely be written off once the actuals relating to pregnancy are factored into
to the risk assessment. What the underlined phrases ensure is that a company detecting those
costs, which are segmented, will put the Insurance company in direct contempt of the regulation.
If those costs are not written off, then some cost will be added to the entire risk group.
Like fat people, smokers, drinker, alcoholics, old people, retarded people, depressive people...
all do. It would be like trying to identify who's exhaust pipe produced a specific incidence of
air pollution.




Specifically, the Departments plan to initiate a rulemaking to require issuers to offer insurance without contraception coverage to such an employer (or plan sponsor) and simultaneously to offer contraceptive coverage directly to the employer's plan participants (and their beneficiaries) who desire it, with no cost-sharing. Under this approach, the Departments will also require that, in this circumstance, there be no charge for the contraceptive coverage.

now, the first underlined part is NOT possible in a collective as this is proposed and passed.
the second part implies there will be no expense for this rulemaking proposition, hence it is total BS.


Are you sure its not just BS because you hate the man??? Insurance can models be changed to
reflect many models, if this criteria is inserted into the model, it can be detected by an auditor.



as every expense is valid in terms of cost, and in this case, shared-cost, you cannot escape the religious impact of such a mandate to all parties whether they consume the product or not.


What religious impact, I thought god had relationships with individuals not groups?
God does not damn you to hell because I am bad does he?



while the collective monies are intended to support individual treatments, for anyone to think that they are NOT PAYING for the next guy (regardless of their life choices) is utter nonsense.

as for the video, sorry, i cannot listen to that man's lisp another moment ... it is seriously disturbing.


Well we can break into all out war and get real technical on this kind of thinking. I could use
the same argument to eliminate woman who has to many babies as they create much more
cost than a sterile person for example.

I know you cannot stand him, I couldn't stand the last guy so I can relate to that.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 

thanks for the tip but at my age and with my female history, i doubt they'd buy any bullshizzle i could possibly conjure


and besides, i don't BS in person very well at all.

You should go to a different PP and claim you need Birth Control then, I would figure out a way to get them to fulfill your request somehow. It is your health, not a luxury.
thanks for your willingness to assist, will ya mail me a check? just kiddin


nah really, i do help those i can (we've walked this road before) but my point here is ... regardless of how much i help others or have insurance, my HEALTH issue is not being addressed unless I DO IT or pay astronomical prices to a guy/gal whose best offering is ...
"this might help" ??
but, better yet, why would you be willing to pay for that?

oregano and exercise is all you've found??? u2u me, i'll share sooooo much more.
both are good btw, but i don't go anywhere without Tea Tree Oil and i swear by Echinacea. [unless you have botanical allergies]
of course, no natural herbal is gonna do much for the additional preventative being discussed here but not all conditions are treated with pharmaceuticals.


Under the new healthcare thingy, many preexisting things have been legislated out of
existence, I understand many have to do with women's health because insurers use to
target females more due to the more pricy nature of gender specific issues.
ya know, as true as this is and a bonus for many, it isn't enough to make the whole of Obamacare palatable ... not to me, anyway.
something about that word many ... should have been ALL or something similar.
[and yes, i'm quite familiar with the text of the monster ... i was one of the people complaining publicly when certain provisions magically disappeared or were moved and re-labeled with a new section listing.]

in case you forgot, i'm aware your position is in favor of this legislation, as a reminder, i am not.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by SoulReaper
hmmm...

I wish the insurances companies would be De-regulated rather then Further Regulated. If this was done, the invisible hand of the Free Market would handle this issue just like anything else.


Like the hand has done with Oil and Gas prices... the sun doesn't shine on that hand anymore.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pixiefyre
reply to post by Honor93
 


The intent implied is to require the insurance companies to provide this free of charge, 'ie absorb what they would normally charge as a loss. In view of what their over all profits are I doubt this would significantly impact the insurance companies net worth.

If such is the case than the issue is fair and equitable, while they are dealing with the same company that is providing the coverage, the religious institution is not being required to take part in the transaction, so logically it should have no more impact on the religious institution's belief system than going to grocery store regularly and being rung up by a cashier who is on birth control.

yes, i understand intent but that doesn't translate to achieve.
nothing is free and that cost is absorbed somewhere down-line, always is.
you can claim the expense belongs to the insurance companies but that isn't where it will remain.

i have no concern for their net worth, or their expenses ... what does matter is their ALREADY inflated profits becoming moreso as an option already readily available serves to line their pockets with MORE money from people who will NEVER use it. in some places, that could be considered, extortion.

it doesn't matter if that percentage of people is 20%, 2% or .2% ... it is therefore, unattainable as suggested.

how is giving the insurance companies more money for what is already accessible, fair and equitable ??

no offense intended here, but if this is exemplary of your logical skills, perhaps you should think this through a bit more.

so logically it should have no more impact on the religious institution's belief system than going to grocery store regularly and being rung up by a cashier who is on birth control.

a more comparable analogy would be akin to you escorting your minor child into an Adult Toy Store and choosing their toys for them because you're paying.
remember ... this doesn't affect adults only ... this applies to your children also. (and in some cases, without parental consent)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by mastahunta
 

thanks for the tip but at my age and with my female history, i doubt they'd buy any bullshizzle i could possibly conjure


and besides, i don't BS in person very well at all.


I know several gals who would probably be happy to help be your surrogate "pill collector"...



You should go to a different PP and claim you need Birth Control then, I would figure out a way to get them to fulfill your request somehow. It is your health, not a luxury. thanks for your willingness to assist, will ya mail me a check? just kiddin

nah really, i do help those i can (we've walked this road before) but my point here is ... regardless of how much i help others or have insurance, my HEALTH issue is not being addressed unless I DO IT or pay astronomical prices to a guy/gal whose best offering is ...
"this might help" ?? but, better yet, why would you be willing to pay for that?


I guess because I was raised to believe in helping other people, helping other people makes
me feel alive and fulfilled. Maybe I am genetically programmed to be that way to, which is
why I personally believe there is such a constant and fairly precise divide in regards to
politics. But that aside, I think you are a human and I think your health is more important
than the ideas of business, you are alive, business is a concept. Again, probably due to
my genetics or whatever you'd want to call it.



oregano and exercise is all you've found??? u2u me, i'll share sooooo much more.
both are good btw, but i don't go anywhere without Tea Tree Oil and i swear by Echinacea. [unless you have botanical allergies]
of course, no natural herbal is gonna do much for the additional preventative being discussed here but not all conditions are treated with pharmaceuticals.


No, I think those are my favorites, I also love GFE Grapefruit seed Extract, Mage C doses and proper
hydration.


Under the new healthcare thingy, many preexisting things have been legislated out of
existence, I understand many have to do with women's health because insurers use to
target females more due to the more pricy nature of gender specific issues.


ya know, as true as this is and a bonus for many, it isn't enough to make the whole of Obamacare palatable ... not to me, anyway. something about that word many ... should have been ALL or something similar.
[and yes, i'm quite familiar with the text of the monster ... i was one of the people complaining publicly when certain provisions magically disappeared or were moved and re-labeled with a new section listing.]

in case you forgot, i'm aware your position is in favor of this legislation, as a reminder, i am not.


I know, but I cannot help but like you, you are a very reasonable and honorable debater and
if I every get agro on you, please smack my nose and remind me of my manners.


I am not fully enchanted or disenchanted with the bill, I am very glad rescission is gone
and I am glad preexisting conditions have been addressed. I think mandates are a bad idea...

If I were completely honest I was hoping for a single payer program that could have sat
along side the private industry. That way the private industry would have real competition.
As it is the industry seems to work as a single entity, board members grace many different
companies, as do the policies they contractualize


edit on 4-3-2012 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-3-2012 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-3-2012 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


Well I detect that you dislike Obama SO much that you are willing to see anything associated
with him as bad
then your radar needs calibrated or you could just read over my post history



If everyone at the Catholic place of employment wants to follow the word of
Pope, nobody will seek at the contraception.
yeah, ok, but that says nothing about them contributing to the cost of the process.
just because Obama SAYS so, doesn't mean it IS so.


once the actuals relating to pregnancy are factored into to the risk assessment
so, if you understand what you typed, why are you arguing that the COST won't be figured in to the expense of the coverage (with or without the product offering) ??
[risk assessment = speculation at the highest levels]

making numbers disappear or morph is getting to be one of Obama's better talents

(see, i give credit where it is due
)


If those costs are not written off, then some cost will be added to the entire risk group.
yeah, no kiddin ?? and with Obamacare, that's supposed to be EVERYONE, even the religious folk.

after my experiences with medical insurance, the only one worthy the investment for me is Aflac (when i can afford it).

who said i "hate the man?" -- are you really gonna start putting words in my mouth ??

i don't do religion so i'm not going to engage that conversation other than to agree this rulemaking doesn't absolve the infraction implied against the First Amendment.
with that argument, i agree.


Well we can break into all out war and get real technical on this kind of thinking. I could use
the same argument to eliminate woman who has to many babies as they create much more
cost than a sterile person for example.
you could but then you'd have to justify the church's role in the care of said offspring of which isn't taxpayer supported.

did it ever occur to you that sometimes, one is too many for some women, especially those who may have lost their significant other or had them returned in pieces ???

ps: i couldn't stand the last guy either or his daddy before him but what's that got to do with the dude blowing smoke these days???



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by SoulReaper
hmmm...

I wish the insurances companies would be De-regulated rather then Further Regulated. If this was done, the invisible hand of the Free Market would handle this issue just like anything else.


Like the hand has done with Oil and Gas prices... the sun doesn't shine on that hand anymore.
ever checked to see how many of those hands are the same ones manipulating the insurance scams??? i assure you, quite a few.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 02:15 AM
link   
I have to admit that I am a bit confused here, maybe it was all that searching I did earlier



Originally posted by Honor93

i have no concern for their net worth, or their expenses ... what does matter is their ALREADY inflated profits becoming moreso as an option already readily available serves to line their pockets with MORE money from people who will NEVER use it. in some places, that could be considered, extortion.

it doesn't matter if that percentage of people is 20%, 2% or .2% ... it is therefore, unattainable as suggested.

how is giving the insurance companies more money for what is already accessible, fair and equitable ??


How does forcing them to absorb the cost of providing birth control coverage give them more money to line their pockets, I am missing something here. I see the intent to force them to absorb the loss of the normal charges they would receive for providing the coverage but I don't see any provisions to provide them any type of financial incentive to reward them for it.


Originally posted by Honor93
a more comparable analogy would be akin to you escorting your minor child into an Ao is on birth control. dult Toy Store and choosing their toys for them because you're paying.remember ... this doesn't affect adults only ... this applies to your children also. (and in some cases, without parental consent)


How so? As it is the insurance company will most likely have several "packages" for the religious organization or any other of their business clients to choose from, it's unlikely that an insurance company providing corporate insurance packages would would limit their earnings potential by catering only to companies strictly adhering to Catholic Doctrine, so logically speaking the company is providing contraceptive benefits to others. (So this is where I am confused) How would it effect their belief systems as horribly as you describe to have their employee go to their insurance company and request coverage? See i see this as no different than the insurance company continuing to provide varied packages for their clients some of which surely will include contraceptive coverage, while also serving the religions institution's requirements. Is it because their employee is being allowed to use birth control while in their employ or ???

Please clarify?

In all likelihood since it is only one category of drug they are not providing coverage for, unless the company is not offering any prescription coverage it's unlikely the cost to the religious institution for prescription coverage would be any lower than if they did provide coverage for the drug category.
edit on 3/4/12 by Pixiefyre because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by SoulReaper
hmmm...

I wish the insurances companies would be De-regulated rather then Further Regulated. If this was done, the invisible hand of the Free Market would handle this issue just like anything else.


Like the hand has done with Oil and Gas prices... the sun doesn't shine on that hand anymore.
ever checked to see how many of those hands are the same ones manipulating the insurance scams??? i assure you, quite a few.

That's my point, the invisible hand is owned now and when it comes to meta market I think
it always has been. How can supply and demand function when supply and distribution are
regularly the same hand?

Oh no, there is less gas being produced! (because I shut down two
refineries)

and distribution is disrupted (I am painting the tanker fleet) too bad,

prices are gonna increase (and I already positioned my self to benefit from it)

That is the invisible hand, at least that seems to be the real nature of the hand
as opposed to the legend where the hand is tens feet tall...



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


ah yes bring this topic up for easy stars and flags ..sigh



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   
From a purely economical standpoint, giving out birth control via tax payers is a ton cheaper then paying for 9 or so months of Dr visits, ultrasounds and the actual birth. For the birth of my child the state paid for all of it. the 4 day hospital stay (with a c-section mind you) was 25,000$ not including all the Dr visits etc... in the previous 9 months. A natural birth is about 10-15k in my state but even then it's a lot cheaper to pay for it then not.


For her to wear the birth control patch or pill or shot for a year it would cost about 1000$. Financially giving out birth control saves people that don't believe in it a ton of money.

But in the same regard you should not EVER make ANY religious company pay for something that directly violates their own beliefs. I am an atheist/agnostic and I can even see there is something wrong with the whole thing.

Birth control and abortion should be a personal choice NOT governed by the federal government or state government.

But having said that the freedom to have Birth control and abortion rights in this country should not EVER be controlled by a church or religion, NO MATTER WHAT.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


This thread is nuts. So not only do we have to pay full tuition for someone, we have to pay for their pill as well because they 'might drop out' if they get pregnant. If an elective like sex is subsidized, then I want my free beer/pot obviously, like the other thread so eloquently stated. Sex is not necessary for life. If you don't have sex for a few years, you dont die. So if women get the free pill, then the men get the free pot. All the women who get the free pill will benefit, since they will all be sharing the 10% of men they consider alpha, and passing around diseases and fatherless children (ooops I forgot my prescription that week). I say the men get free pot. This is all about FAIRNESS after all.
edit on 4-3-2012 by iamconcerned because: (no reason given)


P.S. If this is about insurance companies saving money in the long run, I support sterilization like tubes tied and vasectomy. The pill doesn't save insurance companies any money, as we can clearly see today.
edit on 4-3-2012 by iamconcerned because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-3-2012 by iamconcerned because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-3-2012 by iamconcerned because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join