1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Will the Right Wing Continue to Attack and Condemn the Rights of American Women

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by earlpearl, Mar 3, 2012.

  1. kaethy

    kaethy Guest

    Messages:
    432
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #21
    Some pills are quite expensive. Some women need the pills for medical reasons quite aside from BC or sex. That was part of her testimony. We don't exclude any other drugs simply because some people use them for reasons some people don't like. And the insurance plan is paid for by the student or the employee, not the state.


     
    kaethy, Mar 4, 2012 IP
  2. ApocalypseXL

    ApocalypseXL Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,098
    Likes Received:
    101
    Best Answers:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    215
    #22
    If it's for a health damaging condition yes but AFAIK that type of medicine was available before . I mean a doctor will surely prescribe the drugs needed to treat the disease , that's their job . However offering free birth control for adults is pointless .
     
    ApocalypseXL, Mar 4, 2012 IP
  3. kaethy

    kaethy Guest

    Messages:
    432
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #23
    But that's the problem. These catholic institutions want to prevent BC pills no matter what. So if the pill is needed for medical reasons, and they win this fight, the pills will not be covered, regardless of why the doc prescribes them. And it's not free as in free the insured person pays nothing, they are paying for the insurance. How would you like to pay for insurance only to find out a drug you need is not covered because some people use that drug for purposes some other people don't approve of?

     
    kaethy, Mar 4, 2012 IP
  4. ApocalypseXL

    ApocalypseXL Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,098
    Likes Received:
    101
    Best Answers:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    215
    #24
    So are you trying to say that the only medication for some conditions is a substance present in the birth control pills ? TBQH i don't believe that there isn't specialized medicine for those conditions . A large number of drugs have temporary infertility as a side effect , are you saying that they are opposing those as well ? Or are they simply opposing the usage of the COCP as a alternative treatment ? AFAIK the pill acts at a hormonal level . Given the advent of hormonal therapy in the last 2 decades I'm pretty sure that there are quite a number of alternatives .

    I'm a bit confused as to what is the Catholic Church opposing and for what in what conditions are the COCPs seen as the only treatment . Would you like to provide some more details ?
     
    ApocalypseXL, Mar 4, 2012 IP
  5. robjones

    robjones Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,256
    Likes Received:
    405
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    240
    #25
    No, they want to prevent being the ones that provide them.

    I dont happen to agree with the Catholic stance on birth control, but I'm damned sure I dont agree the US Congress can pass laws that require them to provide something that is in direct contravention of their beliefs. The first amendment says they *can't* do that.

    Any time politicians want to take away a right they cleverly couch it in terms that *sound* like they are doing something to protect another right. There's a bill in front of the Utah legislature right now that offers a prime example. The bill offers to pay a bounty to hunters for every coyote they kill. Did they name it "The Bill to Encourage Hunters to Slaughter Coyotes"? Naah. They call it "The Mule Deer Protection Act". Plays better with the public. Who could resist protecting mule deer? Bear in mind they're STILL paying hunters to kill coyotes no matter what they call it.
     
    robjones, Mar 4, 2012 IP
  6. kaethy

    kaethy Guest

    Messages:
    432
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #26
    Part of Fluke's testimony was about a fellow student who needed a pill, I don't know exactly what kind, but couldn't afford the $300.00 cost. She ended up losing an ovary in the process. All because the catholic church opposed including the pill in the insurance plan.

    You are saying a woman and her doc should be able to come up with some alternative that is acceptable to the catholic church. How would you like to be in that position? The doc says you need this drug, it's usually covered by insurance, but because you work for or attend an institution run by a group that opposes a wide class of drugs, sorry, you have to pay $300 out of pocket. And don't forget, you are paying the insurance premium.

    I don't have more details. Lets do this the other way around. You provide details about alternative treatments that the catholic church doesn't oppose and the American Medical Assoc says will work. You are sure there are alternatives, prove it. The testimony Fluke gave is specific enough for me.

     
    kaethy, Mar 4, 2012 IP
  7. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,970
    Likes Received:
    204
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #27
    Sorry but that must be the most ridiculous thing I've read recently. The employer isn't obligated to provide health insurance in the first place. None. Zero. Zip. What health care options they provide have traditionally always been up to the employer. It is simply part of an overall compensation package, and the quality of the healthcare plan is just one more point of negotiation.

    Here is an idea. If the $300 copay is the only hangup, ask for an additional $300 as part of the salary. Here is another idea. Buy insurance from a different provider and take the bump in pay. Yet another idea. If the health care plan offered by the catholic employer was unacceptable, work someplace else. It isn't prison or indentured servitude.

    Besides, its pretty likely that, if she lost an ovary over the issue, some ambulance chaser found her case quite appealing and she cleaned up by suing both the employer and the insurance company.

    These insurance plans spell out with crystal clarity what is and is not covered, as required by law.

    The amount of minutia dictated by federal, state, and local governments as to how employers are to run their business is already burdensome to the extreme. Its just another offensive legally mandated benefit that costs employers money to provide and taxpayers money to confirm compliance. The fact that employers who disagree with this particular benefit for religious reasons are being forced to provide it is a direct violation of their first amendment rights. I suppose they have the option of going out of business..... gee, thanks uncle sam.
     
    Obamanation, Mar 4, 2012 IP
  8. kaethy

    kaethy Guest

    Messages:
    432
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #28
    LOL, yeah right. Just see what happens if you try to sue a catholic institution.

    The woman in question wasn't an employee, she was a student, paying for insurance thru the catholic university, so she couldn't ask for a salary increase. And if she were an employee, it's highly unlikely she could ask for a $300 pay increase and get it.

    Legal drugs should be a covered benefit.

    If it was a guy who lost a ball, this would be a different discussion.

     
    kaethy, Mar 4, 2012 IP
  9. robjones

    robjones Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,256
    Likes Received:
    405
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    240
    #29
    The first amendment precludes congress requiring a catholic institution to provide services that are in conflict with their conscience.

    If you or Obama dont like that, then see how you can do at getting the first amendment revoked. If not, you can scream to the heavens and the bill of rights STILL doesnt let congress pass laws mandating that the catholic church violate its own beliefs.
     
    robjones, Mar 4, 2012 IP
  10. Rebecca

    Rebecca Notable Member

    Messages:
    5,434
    Likes Received:
    331
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Articles:
    19
    #30
    With private and government funded insurance, there are always legal drugs that the insurance refuses to cover.
     
    Rebecca, Mar 4, 2012 IP
  11. kaethy

    kaethy Guest

    Messages:
    432
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #31
    Yeah cuz the insurance corporation should be able to make more profits from denying people access to medications they need to stay healthy. I can see why you would support that.

     
    kaethy, Mar 4, 2012 IP
  12. Rebecca

    Rebecca Notable Member

    Messages:
    5,434
    Likes Received:
    331
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Articles:
    19
    #32
    I'm not sure what the personal attack is for. I don't work for an insurance company. However, I do work for a corporation that owns over 50-60 medical centers. We take private and government funded insurance. It's actually with the government funded insurance that I see more denial to cover certain drugs to save money.
     
    Rebecca, Mar 4, 2012 IP
  13. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,970
    Likes Received:
    204
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #33
    What, you think catholic institutions are somehow more immune to nuisance lawsuits than any other organization?

    All the better. Here she is, at her choice of schools, paying for insurance from her choice of insurance providers. Choice. It is the key word. Now if you were arguing that the insurance didn't make it clear that it would not pay for contraception before she bought the policy, you would have something legitimate to complain about. What you are really saying is that she wanted to buy chocolate chip ice cream from her school but they only offered vanilla, so you want the state to force the school to offer both vanilla and chocolate chip, despite the fact that the institution feels the consumption of chocolate chip ice cream is a sin. Its idiotic.

    Why force a university a particular coverage when the reality is, they shouldn't have to offer them any insurance policy at all. All in the name of the public health.



    Ain't that the truth. The newest, hottest drugs are invariably not covered by your run of the mill insurance policies, but you can always go with a seven year old drug that is now generic. In California, the best doctors as well. You want to go to Steadman Clinic in Vail to have your knee operated on, they are not going to take most HMO policies. Hey, maybe the government should force either the Steadman clinic to lower their prices and take HMO insurance, or maybe the government should force all insurance companies to cover the top, most sought after physicians.
     
    Obamanation, Mar 4, 2012 IP
  14. ApocalypseXL

    ApocalypseXL Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,098
    Likes Received:
    101
    Best Answers:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    215
    #34
    Looks like your nuking yourself just like with the OWS thread . Some ambiguous details about someone anonymous and the result is a crippling . I'm sorry but this is bull 300 USD is nothing in the US and she could have borrowed the cash from 6 friends in 1 to 2 hours . I'm not in the states nor a Catholic which is why I've asked you for the details on the matter at hand .

    To me it looks like some emotional bull meant to set an example against the Catholic Church . After the first example of coercion is set then you can follow up with an avalanche of similar initiatives . It's ironic that you're trying to push a law that will force someone to something against their will while putting every scientific detail in blur . All i see is some feminist hate and prejudice . Law are intended to be precise and accurate , as long as the basis of the law is flawed and shady then how can the law be beneficial to all the parties involved ?

    The US has a shiton of problems and screwed up laws . Given the situation the Union is in at this moment and the controversy started by this initiative I think this is used as a smokescreen by the major players . A simple smokescreen to draw the attention of the public away from the real problems .
     
    ApocalypseXL, Mar 5, 2012 IP
  15. kaethy

    kaethy Guest

    Messages:
    432
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #35
    No, I didn't nuke myself. Can't respond to your second sentence, cuz I don't understand it, what were you trying to say?

    There's nothing ambiguous about BC being used for women's health care, it's common knowledge, but people in this debate are ignoring that FACT.

    Maybe you have friends you can get $300 from in a few hours, not everyone can.

    This is not emotional bull. It's fighting back against denial of necessary medical treatment being covered. The scientific details are not blurry, the pills are used for many things. The women who need them should not be discriminated against. The women who will be adversely affected are the ones who can't afford to pay the cost out of pocket, poor women.


     
    kaethy, Mar 5, 2012 IP
  16. ApocalypseXL

    ApocalypseXL Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,098
    Likes Received:
    101
    Best Answers:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    215
    #36
    And we're back to square one to the ye old emotion . You know what if you want COCP to be used by everyone for free then just reclassify it as a supplement . As long as it's used as a targeted drug there should be a clear list of conditions and therapeutic methods . Otherwise it sounds like you're trying to push make a drug mandatory because it "might help" in "some conditions" . TBH that's the type of arguments that the Legalize It activists use with the exception that those people have a clear list of diseases and effects .
     
    ApocalypseXL, Mar 5, 2012 IP
  17. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,970
    Likes Received:
    204
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #37
    Not sure if you were aware of this, but free health care, including birth control, day after pills, etc, is available to poor people in almost every state. I believe the annual income level cut off is somewhere between 18-24k a year.

    The fiction you are trying to create here is that a person making 25k a year couldn't produce $300 within an hour. Furthermore, you would have us believe this person could not walk into any planned parenthood and acquire the same birth control for free, regardless of income level. Hell, I believe she could get an abortion for the bargain rate of $4-500 at planned parenthood.

    Clearly its not an issue of the poor not receiving "life saving" contraception at an affordable rate. Its an issue of government control. Were you behind the public school inspection and seizure of student lunches that weren't deemed nutritious enough, only to replace them with chicken nuggets? Maybe we should have the state mandate every male child be circumcised. I hear going "uncut" is a health risk.

    Seriously, screw the religious aspects of this issue. The government needs to get the f*ck out of our individual lives and the operation of our businesses.
     
    Obamanation, Mar 5, 2012 IP
  18. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,970
    Likes Received:
    204
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #38
    Sorry for the long quote, though I only quoted about 40% of the story. Kristen goes on to recount story after story of liberal commentators indulging themselves in misogynistic commentary, and this is only about three years worth of history. The funny thing is, if these lefty commentators directed the same amount of vitriol at any racial minority that they do at women, they would be sued off the air. I guess women hold a lower position than any other group or racial minority among Democrats.
     
    Obamanation, Mar 5, 2012 IP
  19. kaethy

    kaethy Guest

    Messages:
    432
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #39
    And you continue the fiction that I want it for free. Not true, I want women who PAY FOR insurance to be fully covered.

    How do you know the doctors don't have a clear list of conditions? Just because I don't have a list to hand you, you assume it doesn't exist.

    "Sounds like" isn't good enough to deny women health care THEY PAY FOR by buying insurance.

    It's common knowledge the BC pills DO help some conditions. I didn't just make that up. If you want to ignore that truth to continue your argument, go ahead.

     
    kaethy, Mar 5, 2012 IP
  20. Rebecca

    Rebecca Notable Member

    Messages:
    5,434
    Likes Received:
    331
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Articles:
    19
    #40
    It's common knowledge BC pills help to prevent the condition of pregnancy.

    Anyway, if the insurance doesn't cover them, they're about $25 to $30 for a month supply self-pay.
     
    Rebecca, Mar 5, 2012 IP