• 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!

Judge blocks Trump rollback of Obamacare contraception mandate

Rogue Valley

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,109
Reaction score
82,393
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Judge blocks Trump rollback of Obamacare contraception mandate

By VICTORIA COLLIVER 12/15/2017

980x.jpg


A federal judge in Pennsylvania on Friday blocked the Trump administration from enforcing new rules that would allow virtually any employer to claim a religious or moral objection to Obamacare's birth control coverage mandate. Judge Wendy Beetlestone granted Pennsylvania's request for a preliminary injunction, saying the commonwealth could suffer "serious and irreparable harm" from the rules. The Affordable Care Act requires employers to cover birth control with no cost sharing, with narrow exemptions. The Trump administration, in issuing its directive, has said it was acting to protect individuals and groups from being forced to violate their religious beliefs while downplaying concerns that more women would struggle to afford birth control.

A federal judge in California heard arguments over the same issue earlier this week and is expected issue a ruling soon. Four other states — Delaware, Maryland, New York and Virginia — have joined California in the motion. Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro said in a statement Friday that Congress hasn't changed the birth control requirements in the ACA, so the president "can’t simply ignore it with an illegal rule." "Donald Trump broke the law to undermine women’s health, and women here in Pennsylvania stood up and proved that in court. Together we’ve won a nationwide halt to these rules, protecting women across the country," he said.
Click to expand...

Trump and his [mis]administration seem to think the executive branch can arbitrarily change US law via the stroke of a pen.
 
Not just good news for women, good news for us all. Imagine a world in which ALL pregnancies are carried to birth.


Yikes.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, because before PPACA that was the case.
Click to expand...

No, but there were plenty of instances in which health insurance companies denied coverage of contraceptives.


Was I hyperbolic? Yes. To prove a point. An ounce of prevention is worth pounds or cure.
 
I've always been confused as to why birth control should be covered by health insurance.

I've always bought my own condoms, even as a kid.

It's one thing to fund a "public service" organization like Planned Parenthood, where people can get free (or low cost) contraceptives.

Health insurance premiums come from use of the plans. The more people that use them, the higher the premiums grow.

That's because it's a "profit" business, not a public service.

I just don't see how this should fall under "health insurance."
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
I've always been confused as to why birth control should be covered by health insurance.

I've always bought my own condoms, even as a kid.

It's one thing to fund a "public service" organization like Planned Parenthood, where people can get free (or low cost) contraceptives.

Health insurance premiums come from use of the plans. The more people that use them, the higher the premiums grow.

That's because it's a "profit" business, not a public service.

I just don't see how this should fall under "health insurance."
Click to expand...

Unlike a condom, the pill is not some OTC medication, it dramatically alters a woman's body chemistry, requires a prescription, Dr visits, etc.
 
KevinKohler said:
Unlike a condom, the pill is not some OTC medication, it dramatically alters a woman's body chemistry, requires a prescription, Dr visits, etc.
Click to expand...

Hence, Planned Parenthood...which is already funded by tax dollars.

Why should I pay twice?
 
KevinKohler said:
No, but there were plenty of instances in which health insurance companies denied coverage of contraceptives.


Was I hyperbolic? Yes. To prove a point. An ounce of prevention is worth pounds or cure.
Click to expand...

The are many, in fact most, medical procedures and medicines that are not offered at no out of pocket costs. You do realize that if X, Y and Z are covered at no out of pocket cost then all premiums are adjusted upwards to cover those "no cost" perks.

This is the marketing BS that is used to say that the purchase of X includes free local delivery and set up - that does not mean that delivery and setup are done for no cost (by some mysterious volunteers) it simply means that those costs were included in the purchase price of X.
 
KevinKohler said:
Unlike a condom, the pill is not some OTC medication, it dramatically alters a woman's body chemistry, requires a prescription, Dr visits, etc.
Click to expand...

But “reproduction management” is the basics of being a woman. I don’t believe we should all chip in when we can’t even stop the mentally ill from reproducing.
 
KevinKohler said:
Unlike a condom, the pill is not some OTC medication, it dramatically alters a woman's body chemistry, requires a prescription, Dr visits, etc.
Click to expand...

So is warfarin (coumadin) which can be both medically necessary and life saving - why was that not mandated to be covered at no out of pocket cost?
 
Greenbeard said:
Let me guess, you also complain about the cost of maternity coverage?
Click to expand...

No, not at all. Why would you think so?

One is purely medical, i.e. the progressive examination of the ZEF development to monitor for problems, and the delivery and subsequent in-hospital care.

How that compares to paying for peoples contraceptive so they can have sex without having a baby, I certainly don't know. How about a little personal responsibility in at least THAT area. :coffeepap:
 
Geesh, what stupid thinking in this country! No wonder we are going broke.

Contraceptives are NOT a medical necessity.
In Britain it is covered by its health care system.
In Germany it is NOT covered by its health care system.

Which health care system is better off?
 
chuckiechan said:
But “reproduction management” is the basics of being a woman. I don’t believe we should all chip in when we can’t even stop the mentally ill from reproducing.
Click to expand...

Then how about you masturbate into a plant or get a vasectomy?
 
Rogue Valley said:
Judge blocks Trump rollback of Obamacare contraception mandate



Trump and his [mis]administration seem to think the executive branch can arbitrarily change US law via the stroke of a pen.
Click to expand...

The contraceptive mandate isn't "US law." The contraception mandate was HHS regulation. The regulation was promulgated by HHS; it can be rescinded by HHS.

In other words, the executive branch can indeed undo what the executive branch put into place.

(Never mind that the Obama administration indeed arbitrarily changed immigration law via the stroke of a pen, by their own words. Some of us warned you all that "I have a pen, and a phone" set a lousy precedent that Trump was going to be able to take full advantage of, but some were way too busy cheering that you were getting what you wanted to take heed.)
 
Last edited:
Barnacle said:
What a load of rubbish!

Giving birth is a normal occurrence, preventing it is abnormal.
If you don't want to give birth, pay for your own prevention.
Click to expand...

I don't what "normal vs abnormal" or financing have to do with the question of whether contraception and maternity are related. It should be obvious that they are.
 
Greenbeard said:
I don't what "normal vs abnormal" or financing have to do with the question of whether contraception and maternity are related. It should be obvious that they are.
Click to expand...

As soon as your English is understandable I'll try to give you an answer.
 
Barnacle said:
As soon as your English is understandable I'll try to give you an answer.
Click to expand...

I'm not asking you a question. I'm stating the contraception and maternity are intimately related. No pun intended.
 
Captain Adverse said:
No, not at all. Why would you think so?

One is purely medical, i.e. the progressive examination of the ZEF development to monitor for problems, and the delivery and subsequent in-hospital care.

How that compares to paying for peoples contraceptive so they can have sex without having a baby, I certainly don't know. How about a little personal responsibility in at least THAT area. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

This is Limbaugh Logic. My wife took contraceptives before she became sexually active, to regulate a cycle that caused problems for her. The drug is used in ways other than for women to be sluts.
 
Nickyjo said:
This is Limbaugh Logic. My wife took contraceptives before she became sexually active, to regulate a cycle that caused problems for her. The drug is used in ways other than for women to be sluts.
Click to expand...

1. Don't call women "sluts." (I certainly didn't. :doh )

2. Then buy an insurance rider for your particular need. Why should everyone else pay for that?

A rider is an add-on provision to a basic insurance policy that provides additional benefits to the policyholder at an additional cost. Standard policies usually leave little room for modification or customization beyond choosing deductibles and coverage amounts. Riders help policyholders create insurance products that can meet their specific needs.
Click to expand...
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rider.asp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom