⚧ C.T.L.W. You figure it out
My Endo doc went over my blood work. "I see your estrogen level is now at 315, do you feel like you have too much Estrogen now?"
I told her "... N... N.. No..." and started crying.
It also doesn't solve the issue of sexual activities of minors, which usually necessitates the assistance of a parental unit. Some parents will utilize the free health care contraception plan and some wonít.
I donít buy the religious opposition though, itís still a choice. A woman doesnít have to take birth control unless she wants to.
I do agree with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, "It's feminist pork. It's a wish list, it's a dream list for feminists," she said.
Another big issue is that not all women who need it will have access to health care, even when Obamacare is implemented. What about the unemployed uninsured?
The actually wording would be that insurers should provide coverage of birth control pills at no cost to the consumer. Obviously, that will be factored into premiums, but much like most policies have a free annual physical exam (meaning free to the consumer), this would be covered similarly as preventative care.
Every state has mandated coverage laws. This is nothing new.
The whole issue here is "abortion, abortion, abortion". Nevermind that the intension behind the Institute's recommendation is to provide birth control to women who want it but can't afford it. If it were just a matter of distributing condoms, spermasidal gels (too messy), diaphrams (who uses those anymore?) or the pill, most people wouldn't have a problem with this. But because of the prospect of some female being issued the morning after pill - instant abortion - this is what has folks so up in arms about. Keep in mind that the woman may not even know if she's pregnant at all; she's merely taking the MAP as a precaution against unwanted pregnancy.
To me, it's not a moral question, but a matter of personal responsibility. Which would you rather have: Women going around aborting fetises whether at a legitimate clinic or at some illegal back alley office space by some pretend "wanna-be OB/GYN"? - Or - women being responsible using birth control responsibily?
You can't defund the single, most commonly used resource many women use to obtain their contraceptives then go around claiming, "the government's paying for abortions! the government's paying for abortions," when a leading institution suggests that private insurance companies should provide same to women for free. It's a recommendation, not an amendment to the law nor an executive order.
Folks who have their boxers and panties in a wod over this just need to chill. Besides, how many insurance companies would offer the MAP for free anyway or birth control pills for that matter? I'd like to read the report myself to see exactly what types of birth control methods the Institute is recommending but my guess would be they are the more tradition methods, i.e., condoms, diaphrams, gels. Ladies, correct me on this but don't you have to see your personal physician to have the pill prescribed?
Last edited by Objective Voice; 07-21-11 at 12:05 PM.
Also they probably used it because that is the word that medical advisory panel used. So its not really the news companies that are not being accurate...its the people that they are reporting on that is not saying it accurately.
I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang
My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang
Rates are going to go up also. But as you note, the ones who use the benefits are paying for it one way or another. You note that it is not free but then state it's accurate.If the customer doesn't have to pay directly for something then it is considered free. Sure they may pay for it via taxes...but they get the coverage for it from the insurance companies at no extra charge by the insurance companies..nothing is said of having to pay for it via something other than insurance companies (taxes).
I imagine a good portion of that is true. My complaint is less concerned over who does it but the fact it's done.Also they probably used it because that is the word that medical advisory panel used. So its not really the news companies that are not being accurate...its the people that they are reporting on that is not saying it accurately.
If providing contraception without cost to policyholders lowers the net total payout of insurance companies due to the decrease in costs associated with unwanted pregnancies (and other issues that would be prevented through the use of contraception), then premiums would go down (well, they should, but we know that insurance companies won't lower premiums, they'll just pocket the extra profit).And tax payers get to fund the program through rising insurance premiums, right? In a perfect world this might be perfect, but, what about fraud, which is prevalent in many government programs; and think this will stop the conception of "anchor" babies?
"I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."
A screaming comes across the sky.
It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow