• 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

Free? It shouldn't be free. It should be treated like any other medication. If you can afford it, pay for it yourself. Insurance companies should charge a co-pay like they do any other medication. Medicaid should distribute it like they do any other medication. This idea is like the massive drug bill that passed when George Bush was in office. People need to pay based on their ability to pay. No more massive government handouts.
 
jambalaya said:
Free? It shouldn't be free. It should be treated like any other medication. If you can afford it, pay for it yourself. Insurance companies should charge a co-pay like they do any other medication. Medicaid should distribute it like they do any other medication. This idea is like the massive drug bill that passed when George Bush was in office. People need to pay based on their ability to pay. No more massive government handouts.
Click to expand...

Uhmm this mandate is on the insurers not the government.
 
Gladiator said:
Maybe cost effective?


Maybe cheaper than FREE, because contraceptives save money in avoiding the costs of unintended pregnancies, like Casey Athony. How much did Caylee end up costing?

..
Click to expand...

I get your point... but casey anthony is a bad example to use. she wanted her kid...didnt use contraceptive. And is now talking about having another baby because she misses Caylee. She wouldnt be using it even if it was free.
 
MrVicchio said:
Which is about to add millions to government healthcare.

Or did you miss that?
Click to expand...

It will add millions in providing contraception and subtract tens or hundreds of million in providing pregnancy care.
Or did you miss that?
 
Deuce said:
It will add millions in providing contraception and subtract tens or hundreds of million in providing pregnancy care.
Or did you miss that?
Click to expand...

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?

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 won’t.

I don’t buy the religious opposition though, it’s still a choice. A woman doesn’t 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?
 
MrVicchio said:
"Free"? Really? Just mandate it and it's "Free"? Is it any wonder we're so far in debt we can't begin to see straight?

Wow, I mean, just ****ing wow.
Click to expand...

Okay, the use of the word "free" is the Fox reporters choice.

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 choose!

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:
1Perry said:
Yes well......I'm not that surprised that they are unable to understand how things work either.



I wouldn't do this to a quote of a poster but why is it so difficult for news sources to make their articles accurate?
Click to expand...

Maybe because it is accurate? They are saying that the insurance companies have to provide this coverage for free to the customers. 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).

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.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Maybe because it is accurate? They are saying that the insurance companies have to provide this coverage for free to the customers.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing.

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).
Click to expand...

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.

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.
Click to expand...

I imagine a good portion of that is true. My complaint is less concerned over who does it but the fact it's done.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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).
 
MrVicchio said:
"Free"? Really? Just mandate it and it's "Free"? Is it any wonder we're so far in debt we can't begin to see straight?

Wow, I mean, just ****ing wow.
Click to expand...

I think contraception should be AFFORDABLE - but whatever means you use, it costs money to produce said product. Someone MUST pay for it regardless. . . I'd like to think that people are capable of at least covering a portion of their BC.
 
How much cheaper does birth control really need to be for folks to get it???? My daughter is covered under my husbands insurance...she only pays ten bucks a month. When I was younger, I got them from planned parenthood practically free. Birth control is easily available to anyone who really wants it. And condoms are handed out all over the place for free.
 
BamaBrat said:
My daughter is covered under my husbands insurance...she only pays ten bucks a month.
Click to expand...

Great, and not everyone has your husband's insurance plan so your post is pointless.
 
BamaBrat said:
How much cheaper does birth control really need to be for folks to get it???? My daughter is covered under my husbands insurance...she only pays ten bucks a month. When I was younger, I got them from planned parenthood practically free. Birth control is easily available to anyone who really wants it. And condoms are handed out all over the place for free.
Click to expand...

i think the point is some of us would like for all insurance to cover birth control the same as other meds. viagra, for example.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Great, and not everyone has your husband's insurance plan so your post is pointless.
Click to expand...

That was only part of her post and secondly, this is a discussion about people with insurance.
 
liblady said:
i think the point is some of us would like for all insurance to cover birth control the same as other meds. viagra, for example.
Click to expand...

But nobody wants to pay for it.
 
1Perry said:
That was only part of her post and secondly, this is a discussion about people with insurance.
Click to expand...

Then the other part of her post is irrelevant, which is why I ignored it. It's also probably no longer true considering that Planned Parenthood is going through a budget crisis of its own.
 
Last edited:
liblady said:
i think the point is some of us would like for all insurance to cover birth control the same as other meds. viagra, for example.
Click to expand...

Oh I definitely agree with that. Im just sayin... even if you dont have insurance at all, birth control is available and you can get it for pretty much free or very cheap. Planned parenthood still does it on a sliding scale according to what a persons income is.
 
1Perry said:
But nobody wants to pay for it.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
 
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.

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...

That I totally agree with. Medicine is medicine and if you do have insurance, all insurance should cover medication with a copay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom