The Birth Control Controversy

Originally posted by Honor93
then your radar needs calibrated or you could just read over my post history

YOu clearly LOVE Obama after checking that history

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.

Well, like I said we can get very technical and realize that religious people of any affiliation
contribute to the pool that also includes people who do participate in contraception who do
not work for that organization. So even if this was not an issue a priest would be in the
same risk and capital pool as a woman who did have contraceptive coverage and that priests
participation in that group covers things he is religiously opposed to. You seem to think that
money from one organization is contained, it is not, it is added to other groups for larger/cheaper
assessment value. So that priest fro a catholic school is paying for an IUD of a secretary and
she is paying for his diabetes due to his eating habit.

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

(see, i give credit where it is due

)

Especially improving numbers

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 think Aflac is great,,, sorry then.

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 like I said religious peoples pooled money pays for everything that is actioned by any member
in that group. Which kind of moots the point seeing as they pay for it all to some degree

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.

Sorry, I'm lost... won't be the last time either

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???

Yes of course it occurs to me, if that is you, I am very sorry.

Nothing,

Originally posted by essanance
reply to post by mastahunta

 

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

Oh yes, I am rolling in the stars and flags

Especially when I am getting mod-ed three times a week

reply to post by mastahunta

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

shhhhhhh ... that's a really big problem in my state but not so much with contraceptives (at least i don't so anyway) ... don't care to be affiliated with any such nonsense but thanks for the offer

I guess because I was raised to believe in helping other people, helping other people makes
me feel alive and fulfilled.

i'm leaning toward this and your astrological birth conditions rather genetics.
some ppl are more inclined to help than others, that's just how life is.
it's a chitty concept to accept but it is what it is. i do my best to help where i can but i expect nothing in return ... probably why i'm not an entrepreneur but again, my youth likely has alot to do with that perspective.

after being around such a variety of people over many years, i've come to realize a few important tendencies ... those who can help do, those who want to help, try and those who don't are usually the first to take from those who do. 'nuf said ??

grapefruit extract ?? never tried it, i have the fruit on trees here.
Vitamin C, well, that's a given ... i like E too, good healer inside and out.

awe shucks, (blushes) thank you for those kind words ... good debates are part of what help form solid opinions and i enjoy good debaters of which you can be or we wouldn't be here

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...

mostly agreed, however, i've been disenchanted with this administration long before this bill was introduced.

If I were completely honest I was hoping for a single payer program that could have sat
along side the private industry.

i too liked this proposal as it began. especially because it hasn't really been tried before and i think competition is vital to maintain a healthy industry not just a healthy population.

alas, even after all of this, my original question has gone unanswered ... so, let's try this again
WHO exactly is expected to pay for any of this IF multiple religious groups are exempt ??

regardless of risk assessment, the cost will fall to those who have no interest in consuming it and i just don't see any equality in that.
personally, from A woman's perspective, i'm rather shocked that more men aren't demanding it be covered as any other medication, what does sex really have to do with it ??

as for risk assessment, this is exactly why i refuse medical insurance these days (when offered) ... i have no need for the services provided and like another poster mentioned, i cannot GET what i do want ... catastrophic coverage ... so how is that fair to either of us ??
if that poster is a taxpayer like myself, we are ALREADY paying for medical needs of the poor, through multiple programs so that really is a non-issue.

question -- once i've paid premiums for 10yrs and never turned in a claim, shouldn't i be entitled to a refund of those premiums ?? because i'm not and because i know those premiums paid dividends and bonuses is exactly why i'll never buy another.

The government has been trying to tie birth control and abortion with everything from feminism to healthy medical practice since the 1960's. It's all about social engineering, destroying the family and population reduction. Planned Parenthood was started by William H. Gates Sr., Bill Gates father, who was also a member of the British Eugenics Society. Don't you get it?

Originally posted by iamconcerned
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)

Free pot? Sure have some more for all I care.

I thought I was jaded... You must be half green by now.

All those woman having fatherless diseased babies with alpha males sounds grim, pot makes
sense in that case.

reply to post by mastahunta

It's quite the grim existence, but you can live in your bubble if you prefer. I'm willing to bet money the bubble you live in is paid for by someone else. Usually it's the ladies on the pill and alphas who are diseased but I suppose herpes along with many other stds get transferred to the child :/ So it's settled then, the pharmacy that gives out free pills and condoms will also dispense free beer and pot. Please pass me the petition so I may sign.

reply to post by Pixiefyre

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.

really ?? you don't see it plain as day ??
well ok then, take your blinders off first and look again .... closer.

first, the government cannot force a private industry to absorb a specific expense
[ BP or the oil industry anyone? ]

second, even if the industry is mandated, as has been done many times before (see the coal industry), plenty of insiders know just how to tweak whatever numbers are necessary to present a contrived outcome (CBO anyone?)

also, let's go back to the religious groups --> currently, those who want the medicine take other avenues to obtain it, hence, if their insurance now covers it, (as premiums will reflect it) they are more likely to get it via their insurance raising the profit ratio of those companies who do not currently offer it.
make a little more sense now ??

I see the intent to force them to absorb the loss of the normal charges they would receive for providing the coverage

i too clearly see the intent, what i'm stating is in the real world, it'll never happen that way. business has ways of extending such costs, always has, always will, no mandate will change that.

if you still don't follow, ask yourself why the government pays $300 for the same toilet seat you can get at wally world for $5 ... it's all in the numbers, per se.

I don't see any provisions to provide them any type of financial incentive to reward them for it.

that's because you're not supposed to, we're not supposed to but some of us looook haaarrrrddder before we jump on a moving wagon.

hmmmm, i suppose generating roughly 15 million NEW subscribers, [at much higher premiums] shouldn't be perceived or implied as any financial incentive eh ???

Originally posted by Honor93
shhhhhhh ... that's a really big problem in my state but not so much with contraceptives (at least i don't so anyway) ... don't care to be affiliated with any such nonsense but thanks for the offer

I don't mean crack or anything, I just mean they would probably be willing to say they needed
the pill, which they would pass on to you each month. I mean they would have to like you as
a person obviously. I understand if your against such things

i'm leaning toward this and your astrological birth conditions rather genetics.
some ppl are more inclined to help than others, that's just how life is.
it's a chitty concept to accept but it is what it is. i do my best to help where i can but i expect nothing in return ... probably why i'm not an entrepreneur but again, my youth likely has alot to do with that perspective.

I don't know, I believe in astrology, but my father was the same sign and he was NOT
generous in any sense of the word. My mother is a virgo and she is generous to a fault, I
am a gemini and it shows. I am an entrepreneur, but I am not very good at it

after being around such a variety of people over many years, i've come to realize a few important tendencies ... those who can help do, those who want to help, try and those who don't are usually the first to take from those who do. 'nuf said ??

ya I guess so

grapefruit extract ?? never tried it, i have the fruit on trees here.
Vitamin C, well, that's a given ... i like E too, good healer inside and out.

Grapefruit SEED extract, it is so bitter it is foul, but it one of the most potent antimicrobials
found in nature. I believe there are very few producers of the product, if not only one.
GSE (the companies name???)

awe shucks, (blushes) thank you for those kind words ... good debates are part of what help form solid opinions and i enjoy good debaters of which you can be or we wouldn't be here

mostly agreed, however, i've been disenchanted with this administration long before this bill was introduced.

Fair enough.

alas, even after all of this, my original question has gone unanswered ... so, let's try this again
WHO exactly is expected to pay for any of this IF multiple religious groups are exempt ??

All the individuals in the group absorb the cost, but you have to keep in mind that the same is true
when a priest has a policy in a pool where any person opts into contraception. That priests money
is paying for that and everything that every members does or engages in.

regardless of risk assessment, the cost will fall to those who have no interest in consuming it and i just don't see any equality in that.

Well Women Pay for ED pills via the same pooling effect. people pay for smokers and unprotected
sex and drug use and no exercise and all kinds of thing which constitutes covered items or behavior
of anyone in the group.

personally, from A woman's perspective, i'm rather shocked that more men aren't demanding it be covered as any other medication, what does sex really have to do with it ??

You mean men don't want pregnant woman???

as for risk assessment, this is exactly why i refuse medical insurance these days (when offered) ... i have no need for the services provided and like another poster mentioned, i cannot GET what i do want ... catastrophic coverage ... so how is that fair to either of us ??

its not fair I suppose, but I am not sure how this applies to BC pills

if that poster is a taxpayer like myself, we are ALREADY paying for medical needs of the poor, through multiple programs so that really is a non-issue.

question -- once i've paid premiums for 10yrs and never turned in a claim, shouldn't i be entitled to a refund of those premiums ?? because i'm not and because i know those premiums paid dividends and bonuses is exactly why i'll never buy another.

Well, I think in the case were you have never had a claim yes... I think there should at least be a thresh
hold to symbolize the use of the policy. If you never used it, you should get a refund. Once you
use in, no, that would be an equatable practice, but it might not be economically feasible.

Originally posted by iamconcerned
reply to post by mastahunta

 

It's quite the grim existence, but you can live in your bubble if you prefer. I'm willing to bet money the bubble you live in is paid for by someone else. Usually it's the ladies on the pill and alphas who are diseased but I suppose herpes along with many other stds get transferred to the child :/ So it's settled then, the pharmacy that gives out free pills and condoms will also dispense free beer and pot. Please pass me the petition so I may sign.

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

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

Who paid for my bubble?

is this like an inquisition thats starting in America? I paid for that toilet seat you sat on when
you were at the park.

I think BC and pot are the least of the worlds problems.

Originally posted by Konduit
The government has been trying to tie birth control and abortion with everything from feminism to healthy medical practice since the 1960's. It's all about social engineering, destroying the family and population reduction. Planned Parenthood was started by William H. Gates Sr., Bill Gates father, who was also a member of the British Eugenics Society. Don't you get it?

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

No, not really, is the computer a form of eugenics too?

reply to post by Honor93


I do understand what you are saying,corporations will take every they can and then some. Which is why I tagged that last part on saying

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.

With that thought in mind, even if the government did not provide the language in this to allow the employee to request coverage from from the insurance provider on her own and have it provided to her free of charge, the end result would be no different. The employee's of the religious organization would have to finance their own needs or desire to use drugs in that category but either way the financial cost for the religious institution would most likely remain the same.

Originally posted by Pixiefyre
The employee's of the religious organization would have to finance their own needs or desire to use drugs in that category but either way the financial cost for the religious institution would most likely remain the same.

By entering an insurance pool, the religious organization is in effect paying for birth control
anyways. The money is not contained in a box, it is combined with other groups of cash.
This characterization of contained money is not reflective of reality... The churches money
is not in a box kept away from the Fornicators money, rather, the money is intermingled
with many sources of money. So the church pays for fornicators and the fornicators pay
for the holy rollers.

reply to post by mastahunta


'I think BC and pot are the least of the worlds problems.'
What problems are you trying to address by handing out free pills to ladies (sorry dudes you gotta man up and pay)?
Do you feel there is a lack of access to contraceptives that is the root of unwanted babies?

Since most of the Catholic hospitals are doing work for the community for free, and this pisses them off, wouldn't that be an incentive for them to close the hospital? Who loses then?
Are you going to pass a law to force them to provide you the hospital service for free?

reply to post by Pixiefyre

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.

packaging and pricing are two separate things and one is not relevant to the other in this case as Obamacare is scheduled to be equitable for all.

packages may vary but the risk assessment is what drives the premiums and depending on the potential for any given group (religious or not) will have a "trickle down" effect on every other policyholder. (just like it does today) ... ever wonder why premiums don't vary between male and female as much as other factors?

it's the whole one-size fits all, cookie-cutter method and too much dough gets lost in the process IMHO.

whether your perceived outcome is logical or not is really irrelevant to the mandate being discussed. that mandate, in and of itself is UnConstitutional and hopefully will be declared as such.

the religious specific questions you have will need to be asked of someone who adheres to the doctrine, that isn't me. I understand the "enabling" issue being presented by the church and am somewhat surprised it surfaced here rather across the pond.

my understanding of their argument is this ... contribution kills.
by contributing to (what they believe is delinquent behavior) is totally against their doctrine.
it would be akin to asking the priest to perform an abortion himself.
whether i agree with the belief or not is irrelevant, but i do understand.

by being forced to even cooperate with the devil in this case is taboo at the very least.

i am not an actuary with any insurance affiliate hence i am not going to touch that supposition, what i do suppose is, we'll see.

i would venture to guess that it will make as much a difference then as it does now because not all drug plans cover the pill and their premiums certainly vary, extensively.

reply to post by mastahunta

this thread isn't about Obama personally, i wish you'd quit dissing him that way.
i have no love or hate for the man, that's his wife's job.
i am not impressed with his leadership, his falsehoods, his fellowships or his failures along the way.
i have (on these boards) praised his successes when appropriate
(although you might have to dig to find one )
and, for someone seemingly so concerned about the impressions of others regarding him, i have to ask, what's your connection ??

Especially improving numbers

yes, he sure does, i've never seen that debt clock spin so fast since its inception

AFLAC .. see we CAN agree on the good stuff

well like I said religious peoples pooled money pays for everything that is actioned by any member
in that group. Which kind of moots the point seeing as they pay for it all to some degree

Especially because i am not part of that group is why i have no business dictating anything to that group. what health decisions they make should be as private to them as they are to you and i.

expansion on that topic isn't necessary in this thread anyway ... (care for those born & unwanted)

Yes of course it occurs to me, if that is you, I am very sorry.

thankfully, it is not in reference to any suffering i've personally experienced although i know many who have.

as for Bush then, why bring it up ?? i didn't care for Clinton, Carter, Ford or Nancy Reagan and i could list others but why bother ... they are all the same in the end, destructive, dishonorable and in some cases, downright demented.

reply to post by mastahunta


no silly, i'm in FL remember ??
we have a really big issue with "pill mills" here (in case you haven't heard , is that possible?)

anyway, i got your point and thought it was a humorous response but i guess not.
point is, the way "pill mills" are being addressed right now, i don't desire any affiliation with obtaining any pills in a manner less then prescribed by current law.
but i still appreciate the offer

ahhh, gemini eh ?? that's an interesting sign indeed and i'd bet some days you'd like to strangle me too but that's all part of who you are. me, i'm more of a mixed breed as a Virgo/Libra cusp. it's almost as challenging in some ways as your gemini and on some of the same issues too.

well, considering i use a juicer and generally don't de-seed the grapefruit, i guess i'd make # 2 , just not commercial like and, mine doesn't taste bad at all but i'm guessing yours is more concentrated.

All the individuals in the group absorb the cost, but you have to keep in mind that the same is true
when a priest has a policy in a pool where any person opts into contraception. That priests money
is paying for that and everything that every members does or engages in.

somehow, i suspect policies offered to members of a specific religious affiliation are generally catered to their needs, which in most cases would exclude contraceptives of all kinds.
i wish someone who knows for sure (has a religious-affiliated policy) would clarify.

Well Women Pay for ED pills via the same pooling effect.

ONLY those willing to participate ... i don't, i don't care to and i resent the forced implication that i should.

ppl who pay taxes are already paying for all of those things you listed and many more that you didn't, so how does this Obamacare not equate to another TAX ??

i know quite a few men who don't want to impregnate women, is this news to you?
and, i know a few men who wish pregnancy didn't involve women at all.
i also know quite a few men who impregnate multiple women then bail.
and on top of that, i know men who will impregnate a minor while their pregnant wife sits at home.
so, since my tax dollars are already paying for all of the above bad behaviors, why do we need Obamacare as it is passed and presented ??

well, at least you agree i deserved a refund ... but i'm sure i'm not the only one.
point is, i'm not against helping those who need but i am against paying for what is supposed to be my benefit then turns out to improve the lives of everyone BUT me.

so, where and which pharmacy is going to implement this new fairness rulemaking of condoms, pills, pot & beer or something like that ??
count me in and ... i thought i'd apply early

reply to post by mastahunta

The pill cost about $12 a month. Come on if this chick cannot come up with $12 then how is she able to be in law school.

Bottom line; this is just another free handout. Plus, if insurance companies want to cover birth control they do not need Washington to give them permission. I would be embarrassed if that was my daughter begging Washington to pay for her birth control. She has $120,000.00 to go to law school but cannot come up with $12 a month for the pill. Messed up!!!!

I want to know why health care insurance has gone up 50% since Obama health care plan became law. I think I remember he said his plan would lower cost and cover the 10% of the population without health care. I still do not have health care and with it being even more expensive it appears I will never be able to afford it.

reply to post by Pixiefyre

since you understand this ...

The employee's of the religious organization would have to finance their own needs or desire to use drugs in that category but either way the financial cost for the religious institution would most likely remain the same.

the argument about contribution should also make sense to you.

you said it right here ...

but either way the financial cost for the religious institution would most likely remain the same.

which is derived from what ?? risk and where a woman exists, so does the risk.

hence, every religious group will be paying based on risk not usage and that's an even bigger profit margin, don't you see that?

reply to post by mastahunta

'Who paid for my bubble?

is this like an inquisition thats starting in America? I paid for that toilet seat you sat on when
you were at the park.'

Sorry you misunderstood. I'm willing to bet money you don't earn your rent. You know like, with a like, job. Perhaps that is a bit clearer for you. Half of these entitlement threads are people in college or people living at their parents. I need the beer money, please someone bet me.

Originally posted by Honor93
which is derived from what ?? risk and where a woman exists, so does the risk.

hence, every religious group will be paying based on risk not usage and that's an even bigger profit margin, don't you see that?

Actually what I was referring to is that when it comes to prescription drug coverage the removal of one category of drug from coverage would not effect costs because prescription drug coverage is more focused on co--pay levels and pushing for generics over name brands. Individual drug categories are are not as much of a risk focus as the physical health insurance coverage ie; hospital, doctor, emergency is

After my last post i did search a number of group insurance provider site to see if there were variances in prescription drug coverage based inclusion or elimination of any drug categories and could find nothing. What I did find was variations on the physical side as described above based on deductibles, PPO's HMO's and so forth.