Thread: Contraception

Originally Posted by Dickieboy

And while you are ‘chewing on that’ consider this:

From Ms. Fluke’s testimony:

Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.


And from Ms. Fluke’s quoted source, Guttmacher Institute:
Page 3

“Nationally, the annual per-client cost for contraceptive care in 2008 was an estimated $257.”

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/win/c...needs-2008.pdf

WOW, does law school last 11 years (3,000/257)?

"Nationally, the annual per-client cost for contraceptive care in 2008 was an estimated $257. By comparison, the national average cost for one Medicaid-covered birth (including prenatal care, delivery, postpartum care and infant care for one year) was $12,613"

so..lets see, four years at 257 dollars would be $1000 for basic BC pills, I see how it CAN cost over 3000 in more complicated situations.

Originally Posted by tecoyah

so..lets see, four years at 257 dollars would be $1000 for basic BC pills, I see how it CAN cost over 3000 in more complicated situations.

HUH? Are you comparing BCPs with 'Medicare-covered birth'? Seems like a contradiction...but whatever.

And what is 'four years'? Law school is typically 3 years AFTER an initial 4 year degree...so it's either 3 or 7 depending on how you want to argue it. Considering Ms. Fluke specifically stated 'law school' I tend to understand the 3 year to be suggested.

Originally Posted by Dickieboy

HUH? Are you comparing BCPs with 'Medicare-covered birth'? Seems like a contradiction...but whatever.

And what is 'four years'? Law school is typically 3 years AFTER an initial 4 year degree...so it's either 3 or 7 depending on how you want to argue it. Considering Ms. Fluke specifically stated 'law school' I tend to understand the 3 year to be suggested.

Ok...my mistake "
so..lets see, three years at 257 dollars would be $750 for basic BC pills, I see how it CAN cost over 3000 in more complicated situations,not including birth...since that averages around $10,000.

"According to a new report from The Center for American Progress, the cost of birth control is prohibitive or hardship-inducing for a number of women that would likely cause Rick Santorum's sweatervest to burst into flames. Three fourths of women of reproductive age have private insurance, but even with private insurance, women often have to shoulder more of the cost of birth control than do plan participants with other prescriptions, which can run upwards of $50 per month, depending on the method.

The high cost of birth control has prompted 25% of women who make less than $75,000 per year to put off going to the doctor. About 29% of women in the same income range have used their birth control method incorrectly in an attempt to try to make it last longer. And half of women haven't used their method as directed because it's cost-prohibitive.
The CAP report cites economic hardship or prohibitive cost of child rearing as women's primary reason for delaying pregnancy, which counters the conservative meme that women on birth control don't want to have babies so they can go clubbing every night and spend their days laying on their zebra print couches and eating penis-shaped bon bons.
Without insurance, women could have it even worse. The Pill, for example, can cost $850 per year when you include the cost of a doctor's visit. The patch and ring can set users back $1200 per year. And sterilization costs around $6,000 without insurance. More methods and their costs can be found in this handy chart."
Actually, Birth Control's Pretty Expensive



That Better?

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Ok...my mistake "

That Better?

Yes, thank your for correcting yourself...

Conservatives don't want to ban contraceptives, we just don't want the government to MANDATE insurance companies to provide contraceptives. people don't have the money to buy contraceptives=don't have sex. people want to have sex=buy contraceptives and be RESPONSIBLE.

Originally Posted by OnWisconsin

Its funny with all the religious conservatives wanting to ban contraceptives. They think that people are somehow going to stop having sex. Which kind of plays right into their book.. The more poverty level babies, the more people on welfare, the more they can complain about people on welfare, the more they can propagandize the whole situation to their favor. Therefor, have sex, have babies because you weren't using contraceptives, find yourself poor, get on welfare, be accused of using the system when all along you coulda just taken a F'n pill and avoided the whole situation..


Sorry for the "taboo" topic conservatives, I realize this may offend some of you to even talk about the situation but c'mon.. really?

Originally Posted by Red Crow

Conservatives don't want to ban contraceptives, we just don't want the government to MANDATE insurance companies to provide contraceptives. people don't have the money to buy contraceptives=don't have sex. people want to have sex=buy contraceptives and be RESPONSIBLE.

And just how does that work out in the real world?

Originally Posted by Red Crow

Conservatives don't want to ban contraceptives, we just don't want the government to MANDATE insurance companies to provide contraceptives. people don't have the money to buy contraceptives=don't have sex. people want to have sex=buy contraceptives and be RESPONSIBLE.

If the don't use contraceptives they will still have sex as is proven by males who don't wear condoms. The abortion rate will go up and you will have something else to bitch about.

Originally Posted by katiegrrl0

If the don't use contraceptives they will still have sex as is proven by males who don't wear condoms. The abortion rate will go up and you will have something else to bitch about.

So because they are against abortion they have to support a government action they find is a violation of rights because people are irresponsible? Does that makes sense when you say it back to yourself?

Originally Posted by Red Crow

Conservatives don't want to ban erections, we just don't want the government to MANDATE insurance companies to provide viagra. people don't have the money to buy viagra=don't have sex. people want to have sex=buy viagra and be RESPONSIBLE.

........Fixed.......

Ever think you might not quite understand what a woman needs...?

Originally Posted by Henrin

So because they are against abortion they have to support a government action they find is a violation of rights because people are irresponsible? Does that makes sense when you say it back to yourself?

No, but if they wish to lessen the Abortion rate...preventing the pregnancy in the first place might help.