• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Contraceptive Recommendation Creates New Controversy for Health Care Law

liblady said:
what i am saying is that if your insurance covers medications, except your copay, it should also cover BC with a copay. there should be no distinction between viagra and bc as far as what ins covers.
Click to expand...

I see. Sorry. I can't argue against that point other than to wonder how many insurance companies don't cover B.C.?

as for planned parenthood, that's where i got mine way back when. but it seems PP is being defunded in some states. what a shame.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that is what happens when non profits get too heavily involved in politics.
 
1Perry said:
I see. Sorry. I can't argue against that point other than to wonder how many insurance companies don't cover B.C.?


Unfortunately that is what happens when non profits get too heavily involved in politics.
Click to expand...

no, that's what happens when rabid religious right wingers scream loud enough. no more planned parenthood, and thus low cost bc availability, for some backwrad states.
 
liblady.... especially when birth control isnt always prescribed just to prevent pregnancy.. but for other health related issues as well.
 
1Perry said:
It may be a great mandate but the point is, it's NOT free.
Click to expand...

A condom is a hell of a lot cheaper than either pre-natal care or an abortion.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Walmart has contraceptives.
How much easier can it get?
Click to expand...


I propose a mandate that provides an 800 number were persons can call and have a government employee dispatched to administer the birth control. We cannot expect a person to be responsible enough to do it for themselves.
 
Baralis said:
I propose a mandate that provides an 800 number were persons can call and have a government employee dispatched to administer the birth control. We cannot expect a person to be responsible enough to do it for themselves.
Click to expand...

What about sex position experts?
We need those to be free as well.

It will make people happier.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
No but it adds to cost of insurance for everyone.
People should buy their own damn rubbers, they aren't expensive.
Click to expand...

How much do unwanted pregnancies add to the cost of insurance/tax burden for everyone?
 
Deuce said:
How much do unwanted pregnancies add to the cost of insurance/tax burden for everyone?
Click to expand...

So force insurance companies, by government decree, another unfunded mandate and paid for by policy holders, to be responsible for the irresponsible. Got it...
 
So force insurance companies, by government decree, another unfunded mandate and paid for by policy holders, to be responsible for the irresponsible. Got it...
Click to expand...

You have conveniently skirted the entire point of his argument (and my post in response to you earlier in this thread). Is there a reason for that? Perhaps because you can't respond? Perhaps because, if government mandate causes lower net insurance payouts and therefore has the possibility of lowering premiums while at the same time sharply decreasing the number of unwanted pregnancies (a source of numerous social problems), that a government mandate is in this instance actually doing something good, which you can't accept?
 
Last edited:
Μολὼν λαβέ;1059673850 said:
So force insurance companies, by government decree, another unfunded mandate and paid for by policy holders, to be responsible for the irresponsible. Got it...
Click to expand...


Forcing health insurance to cover health care. What an amazing concept!
 
winston53660 said:
Forcing health insurance to cover health care. What an amazing concept!
Click to expand...

I do not consider birth control as health care. If you are having sex while using contraception you are in it for the enjoyment only. So "forcing health insurance to cover safe entertainment" would be a more accurate wording. Whats next? Will we force agencies to pay for bicycle helmets and the like?

If pregnancies spontaneously occurred you could have an argument but since it is a direct result of a persons actions, I do not feel it is anyone elses responsibility to insure you have no unwanted children. I have never caused a pregnancy. Why? because I use proper protection or do not have sex. It is really very elementary.
 
Baralis said:
I do not consider birth control as health care. If you are having sex while using contraception you are in it for the enjoyment only.
Click to expand...

Ya know enjoyment is a part of a happy healthy life. And having sex with out the intent of procreation serves more of a purpose than just enjoyment.

So "forcing health insurance to cover safe entertainment" would be a more accurate wording. Whats next? Will we force agencies to pay for bicycle helmets and the like?
Click to expand...

In Texas people are already forced to buy them.

If pregnancies spontaneously occurred you could have an argument but since it is a direct result of a persons actions, I do not feel it is anyone elses responsibility to insure you have no unwanted children. I have never caused a pregnancy. Why? because I use proper protection or do not have sex. It is really very elementary.
Click to expand...

Broken arms usually aren't spontaneous either. A lot of times people get them doing enjoyable activities. Should they not be covered either?
 
I'm all for it. Anything that reduces unwanted pregnancies, along with all the emotional wreckage such pregnancies wreak, is a financially prudent thing to do. I must confess that with all the cash the government flings around and wastes on a daily basis, that this is what causes such angst amongst certain folks.

It also is profoundly confusing that those who do not want women with unwanted pregnancies to have the choice of terminating them would not be delighted by a government program that is practically guaranteed to substantially reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, along with the number of abortions performed. Why would they possibly oppose such a thing? Unless, of course, the anti-choice stance is just an excuse and part of a larger agenda of preventing any reproductive choice at all for women, including the choice of preventing pregnancy in the first place.

'Tis a puzzlement. :)
 
winston53660 said:
Hmm I wonder why Fox news put it that way?
Click to expand...

Perhaps because they are reporting the facts in this case as news?

Unless of course you have evidence that FOX made it all up .... please... post it up.
 
Deuce said:
How much do unwanted pregnancies add to the cost of insurance/tax burden for everyone?
Click to expand...

Yes yes we know... and how many more welfare recipients, and how many more food stamp recipients, and poor, and diseased, and homeless, and don't forget crime and then incarceration. Best to just cut the middleman out Deuce and just pay once for the operation and render people infertile. A modified broken window fallacy.
 
With insurance BC costs as much as your co-pay. It isn't expensive and if you have insurance you can probably afford the $15 or $25 a month. If you can't, spend the $7 on a box of condoms. Reproductive health and contraception are the responsibility of the individual. I hate that the immediate solution to problems seems to involve diminishing the affected party's responsibility in handling their own affairs.
 
I have two questions.
1. Is the co-pay on birth control typically higher than on other drugs?
2. How much of an impact will this have if it only affects women with insurance? Meaning, what percentage of unwanted pregnancies occur in women without insurance?
 
Layla_Z said:
I have two questions.
1. Is the co-pay on birth control typically higher than on other drugs?
2. How much of an impact will this have if it only affects women with insurance? Meaning, what percentage of unwanted pregnancies occur in women without insurance?
Click to expand...

I pay my perscription co-pay for birth control. Yaz has a generic (though there's a lawsuit..the generic wasn't supposed to release until late 2012..but whatever) so I pay $15 instead of paying $25 for a name brand. I've been covered by BCBS, United Healthcare, Aetna, and one other I can't remember now and all of them treated birth control as a normal perscription. Some of them even allowed the yearly woman's exam to be performed w/no copay for the doctor's visit.

For other forms of birth control (Mirena, Nuvaring, the patch, etc) there are no generics. Mirena requires that you undergo an extensive procedure, so it's a bit more expensive because of that. Nuvaring was $25/month for me, no idea on the patch because I never tried it.

Can't answer #2 without lots of googling. :(
 
1Perry said:
It may be a great mandate but the point is, it's NOT free.
Click to expand...

They will never get it.

The left is utterly and irretrievably hopeless when to comes to governments or taxation. They sincerely believe that if the government is behind it, it must free.

This could be the result of a 'free' education.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
You have conveniently skirted the entire point of his argument (and my post in response to you earlier in this thread). Is there a reason for that? Perhaps because you can't respond? Perhaps because, if government mandate causes lower net insurance payouts and therefore has the possibility of lowering premiums while at the same time sharply decreasing the number of unwanted pregnancies (a source of numerous social problems), that a government mandate is in this instance actually doing something good, which you can't accept?
Click to expand...

So the theory here is that women are becoming pregnant because nether she nor the man involved can afford a condom?

It is therefore expected that if condoms are 'free' they will used in a responsible manner and there will then be fewer unwanted pregnancies.

This theory would have to assume that those who can't afford condoms are also sober and responsible people. How likely is that?
 
BamaBrat said:
That I totally agree with. Medicine is medicine and if you do have insurance, all insurance should cover medication with a copay.
Click to expand...

Birth control pills aren't "medicine" in one sense (it can be if it's helping to regulate a woman's period) - it's preventative in nature.

The argument is this, as I see it: right now it covered in the same way that therapeutic medicine is covered (if it's covered at all, the company I used to work for didn't cover it UNLESS it was therapeutic) and not covered as other preventative health measure are. Many plans pay 100% of preventative costs.

Again, all states have regulatory boards and pass laws that require insurance companies to cover one thing or another. This is nothing new and it happens all the time.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Birth control pills aren't "medicine" in one sense (it can be if it's helping to regulate a woman's period) - it's preventative in nature.

The argument is this, as I see it: right now it covered in the same way that therapeutic medicine is covered (if it's covered at all, the company I used to work for didn't cover it UNLESS it was therapeutic) and not covered as other preventative health measure are. Many plans pay 100% of preventative costs.

Again, all states have regulatory boards and pass laws that require insurance companies to cover one thing or another. This is nothing new and it happens all the time.
Click to expand...

It's said that an aspirin a day will help to prevent heart attacks.

If the government decides to give out 'free' aspirins to people, I'd suggest buying stock in Bayer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom