Court strikes down mandate for birth control in ObamaCare

reply to post by Helious

In context, "Extracurricular" within my last post means "sex" and "pregnancy" and not skiing in the alps if you happen to break your leg. You see, one of those is medically necessary and one is not. Can you figure out which one is which?

Sex and pregnancy are biological functions, avoiding pregnancy is a female medical concern.

I gather from your post that you think that family planning, pregnancy and maternity leave shouldn't be covered by employer provided insurance.

I don't think an employer should have any say over, or to be able cherry pick what is "acceptable extracurricular activities" and what isn't.

justreleased
Good.

I'm a male. I don't need "BC" in my healthcare policy.

Simple.

This is really such a stupid argument.

Insurance doesn't work by you picking and choosing which services you need or think you will need. You become part of a pool...you pay into that pool to help pay for EVERYONE in that pool and whatever services they need. Oh, and by the way...females are in this pool with you...and they are paying for services only males would receive such as vasectomies.

So please, drop this incredibly stupid argument.

reply to post by benrl

And guys buy their own condoms with out government subsidies, not sure why females get the added benefit.

You don't need a doctor's prescription to get condoms...you do for birth control pills.

Condoms are not a medical device...the pill is a prescription drug...if you honestly don't see the difference then there is no use trying to converse with you.

Is interesting that birth control pills are a medical issue, they are regulated by the government like any other prescription drug and you need a prescription to get them now many religious right argue that birth control coverage should not be forced upon employers due to personal believes.

But if birth control were sold over the counter this will be the easier solution, or perhaps the health department could give them away free of charge, but again religious rights will go off their way to make sure that this will never happen.

This bring the question of who is pushing for what and why.

Religious rights and their agenda of anti contraceptives due to encouraging promiscuity? or the big pharma about to lose profits if their products become readily available.

At the end I find that a health insurance policy should cover any aspect of medical needs regardless of gender and religion should not be an issue. After all a medical issue is something that becomes a need, and medicine is regulated, religion in other hand is a choice and a preference and it have not regulations.

reply to post by AlienScience


Well said and something I agree with you one hundred percent.

Aleister
reply to post by xuenchen

 

If this goes to the Supreme Court that could be quite a case and ruling. Personally I hope it's overturned, as citing birth control as against anyone's religion is really stretching the religious objection.

Except that it isn't applied equally and aims only to serve female contraceptives and not cover males? The point is valid. Why does a female get coverage, but not a male?!

Here are some questions, and answers when we could determine them, about the rules:

1) Are male-based contraceptive methods, such as vasectomies or condoms, covered by the rule?

An HHS official said on Friday that women’s preventive services guidelines apply to women only.

The mere fact that they are only covering women and not including males means this should go all the way to the top; regardless of the obvious First Amendment violations presented therein.

AlienScience
reply to post by benrl

 

And guys buy their own condoms with out government subsidies, not sure why females get the added benefit.

You don't need a doctor's prescription to get condoms...you do for birth control pills.

Condoms are not a medical device...the pill is a prescription drug...if you honestly don't see the difference then there is no use trying to converse with you.

Female condoms are included in the coverage as well as spermicides and sponges...

Products that must be covered without cost-sharing include over-the- counter contraceptives when they are prescribed by doctors, the HHS official said Friday. But getting a prescription for such items raises other issues, say advocates and insurers

While they are "prescribed", they are surely over the counter. It leaves a large ambiguous hole for the law to determine in my opinion.

The more mandates ACA has then obviously the more expensive the coverage becomes. Women and men should have different coverage plans because they have somewhat different needs. I dont think of birth control as evil, I think it is very beneficial for society. This is where I disagree with the religious right, in that its not about encouraging promiscuity as they seem to think, its about family planning and preventing unwanted pregnancies for any given reason. Its either this or encouraging abortions, which most of the time is evil because a fetus is killed in the womb. You cant realistically be against both abortions and birth control and push for abstinence as the hardcore religious right does.

In any case the entire bill was a disaster from the beginning and should be scrapped. Instead of premiums going down, they have become more and more inflated. Discussing individual mandates is quite pointless.

There is a real issue with healthcare in america and this is never discussed. It would open up a can of worms for the church, for politicians, and for big pharma, but be beneficial for the average person.

EarthCitizen07
The more mandates ACA has then obviously the more expensive the coverage becomes. Women and men should have different coverage plans because they have somewhat different needs.

The problem is, this isn't how insurance works. The idea of insurance is that a bunch of people buy into the system as one giant risk pool in order to pay for catastrophic incidents. It's the same idea as the Republicans "plan" of wanting to sell insurance across state lines in order to make the risk pools larger. With a larger risk pool comes an economy of scale and things get a little cheaper for everyone. This only works however if everyone is paying into the system, not saying "Take $10 off my bill because I'm male so I don't need a birth control pill".

I find it hilarious when people talk about one specific type of insurance being socialist. The entire concept of insurance is socialist to begin with. It's all about spreading losses out among a large population so that when something bad happens to the individual they have a safety net. That's simply how it works, there's no magic to it... just math. The more you try and customize it to an individual, the smaller your risk pool becomes and the more expensive it gets for everyone.

reply to post by Helious

Helious
reply to post by windword

Birth control is used to treat polycystic ovarian disease (PCOS), among other common maladies such as PMS, acne and endometriosis, just to name a few.

You are quite correct, kind of. You see, the ailments you have listed there, which I assume you already know can be safely and properly treated by other means that are quite commonly accepted in the medical industry as "safer" than the birth control pill which carries enormous risk both in the short and long term in a multitude of different spectrums for females. This pill would never be prescribed on it's own for such afflictions but in the rarest of occasions. I'm guessing you know this already though?

I didn't read the entire ruling, but I assume that any treatment that falls under the major heading of "birth control" would be excused from the requirements. Birth control pills come to mind at first. But, other treatment modalities like Depo-Provera injections would also be considered BC. I know firsthand of a few women who use, or have used, Depo to treat extremely painful periods. They tried other options, but Depo was the most successful.

For my part I don't see the logic of allowing religious beliefs to dictate what methods of treatment a healthcare professional may prescribe to a patient. Even if those treatment modalities are still available to the patient at his/her own expense, the cost may effectively put them out of reach. Ultimately the patient loses out on a valid and relatively safe treatment for a condition that is not related to the reason that the treatment procedure was taken off the table to begin with.

Just my 2 cents...

Dex

reply to post by justreleased


You don't need it, therefore no woman should be covered for birth control?

Obviously, you don't care if your partner gets pregnant.

Selfish, just a little?

reply to post by xuenchen


Birth control should have been mandatory for everyone under 21 for a while now.

Bites
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Birth control should have been mandatory for everyone under 21 for a while now.

Force an individual to be prescribed and administered a drug? Regardless if they want it or not? Okay...

reply to post by TKDRL


Last I checked, gay couples choose to have families all the time. Still takes two.

July 8, 2020

The Supreme Court gives Little Sisters of the Poor, and all employers who want to not cover Contraceptives, as mandated by OBAMACARE, a huge WIN today.

www.foxnews.com...

The worst parts of ObamaCare continue to be struck down...one mandate at a time.

a reply to: windword

If I am understanding it right...
One only has to have a belief that something is morally wrong... regardless of religion...

Meaning...
I dont have to keep my lawn mowed anymore!!!

originally posted by: TKDRL
reply to post by MOMof3

 

Ummmmm, in a male relationship. I believe he is saying he is gay. Can't get a guy pregnant last I checked, no matter how good your sperm count is.

That sounds sexist... Men can do anything if they try hard enough !

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
reply to post by jimmyx

 

Why would anyone want our government deciding our health care.

I often find it funny that people who say they don't want government in thier bedroom; are the very same people demand that government provide the furniture in it.... If you catch my drift...

originally posted by: MOMof3
reply to post by TKDRL

 

Last I checked, gay couples choose to have families all the time. Still takes two.

Rofl... Uh.... Please explain how Birth control provided or not provided by government mandated insurance was what allowed a gay couple to have a family...