On the one hand, paying $100 a month (a number I saw yesterday some women claimed was how much her contraception cost her) is cheaper than paying $10,000 if she had a baby.
On the other hand, fuck that. They can pay for their own fucking birth control pills. And, I don't see any health insurance plans covering condoms for men (pun).
AND, there should be paternity insurance... "Bitch told me she was on the pill..." that would cover a man's paternity costs for a pregnancy he never wanted. But of course THAT will never happen... too much risk for the insurance company.
Female contrception/health insurance
I think health insurance should cover whatever it wants and build it into the premium. But that's also assuming people, and not me, are paying for their own insurance.
If it's me that's paying, then no, no pills for the whores. Yes Rush, I agree with you. Whores. Because I don't want to pay for other people's insurance. Mine is expensive enough.
Oh ya. Doesn't Planned Parenthood already give out free birth control to those who can't afford it?
Edited By Cakedaddy on 1331859703
If it's me that's paying, then no, no pills for the whores. Yes Rush, I agree with you. Whores. Because I don't want to pay for other people's insurance. Mine is expensive enough.
Oh ya. Doesn't Planned Parenthood already give out free birth control to those who can't afford it?
Edited By Cakedaddy on 1331859703
I think health insurance should cover whatever it wants and build it into the premium.
Rather, health insurance should cover whatever the consumers want and build it into the premium.
Yes, they should be covered by health insurance. But, no, it shouldn't be paid for by tax dollars or shifting around the costs to other customers. All because I think it's good business for the insurance company to offer it and a good decision for many women to choose it doesn't mean I'm automatically some stupid liberal that thinks the "community" should pay for it. And offer to pay full costs for any woman on their insurance who agreed to get her tubes tied and then give her a discount on her premium for it; that would save a lot in the long run in both contraception costs as well as the cost of potential unwanted children.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Cakedaddy wrote:I think health insurance should cover whatever it wants and build it into the premium.
I agree.
And I think it's good business to include birth control, but if they want to design policies that don't cover it that's their business. Let the free market decide who people go to for insurance.
However, I also wouldn't mind offering free government issued birth control. Give welfare woman a little extra for keeping up with Depo-Provera shots. While I dislike paying for their bedroom activities with my tax dollars, in the long run that's a lot cheaper than paying for her visits to the clinic, the birth, and then 18 years child welfare (per kid). Then whatever kids that child pops out 16 years later.
Edited By Paul on 1331897548
If they are taking a pill to cure a health issue, then it isn't technically birth control... failure to get pregnant would be a side effect of whatever medical problem was being treated with that drugh.Cakedaddy wrote:I've known females that have had BC prescribed as well. Never talked about costs though. If they didn't take it, their 'stuff' would fall apart and all kinds of nasty cancer like stuff would start happening.
Tired of medication being referred to as "birth control" and used in that argument.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
But I am saying that when it is prescribed to treat an illness, it isn't birth control, it is medicine.TPRJones wrote:The point is sometimes the pills regularly prescribed as "birth control" do have legitimate and necessary medical purposes beyond avoiding pregnancy. But some people only see them as slut pills.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
When someone is using it for fun, it isn't being used as a medicine any more. No one says, "
I am too tired to make a cogent point.
Just saying that context matters. I think it is dishonest to use the argument, "You are waging a war on womens health by not paying for their birth control because sometimes those same drugs are used to treat other illnesses."
I am saying that when it is being used as a medicine, then it is no longer being used as birth control... birth control just becomes a side effect. I have never heard anyone say medicine, to treat an illness, should not be covered. In fact, usually that argument is followed by, "Because these republicans think those sperms and eggs are really babies and they think women should be pregnant and in the kitchen, and they are all secretly gay anyway, and also God and Jesus and the Bible."
It is a dishonest argument.
I don't think birth control should be covered, and I don't think Viagra should be covered. I see it as recreational. But I have no problem with prescribing 'the pill' to even out a cycle, or Viagra if it helps clear up blocked arteries (thanks House).
I don't see any difference between covering 'the pill' as straight birth control, and covering condoms. Peeps can pay for their own leisure-time activities, I sez.
Edited By GORDON on 1332935284
I am too tired to make a cogent point.
Just saying that context matters. I think it is dishonest to use the argument, "You are waging a war on womens health by not paying for their birth control because sometimes those same drugs are used to treat other illnesses."
I am saying that when it is being used as a medicine, then it is no longer being used as birth control... birth control just becomes a side effect. I have never heard anyone say medicine, to treat an illness, should not be covered. In fact, usually that argument is followed by, "Because these republicans think those sperms and eggs are really babies and they think women should be pregnant and in the kitchen, and they are all secretly gay anyway, and also God and Jesus and the Bible."
It is a dishonest argument.
I don't think birth control should be covered, and I don't think Viagra should be covered. I see it as recreational. But I have no problem with prescribing 'the pill' to even out a cycle, or Viagra if it helps clear up blocked arteries (thanks House).
I don't see any difference between covering 'the pill' as straight birth control, and covering condoms. Peeps can pay for their own leisure-time activities, I sez.
Edited By GORDON on 1332935284
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
GORDON wrote:I think it is dishonest to use the argument, "You are waging a war on womens health by not paying for their birth control because sometimes those same drugs are used to treat other illnesses."
Ah, here is where we differ. What I am saying is that "You are waging a war on womens health by not paying for their necessary medicine because sometimes those same drugs are used as birth control."
Well, not you you. You know who I mean. Clearly from the rest of the post you understand. But many of the people opposing this think sperms and eggs are really babies and they think women should be pregnant and in the kitchen, and they are all secretly gay anyway, and also God and Jesus and the Bible.
When you get down to it, though, who cares? The whole thing is unconstitutional and an abomination anyway. We shouldn't be paying for any of this shit with tax money in the first place, nor forcing anyone to buy anything upon threat of government violence for non-compliance. Fucking socialist authoritarian pigs, etc etc.
Edited By TPRJones on 1332943269
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
But some people only see them as slut pills.
I've spent the past 5 minutes picturing a world where slut pills were real.
Any plan should absolutely cover drugs needed for medical purposes. End of story there.
However, I also think some "recreational drugs" should be covered.
For women, birth control pills help regulate their periods and stop unwanted pregnancies. Does it make them sluts? No. Is it a small cost versus paying for a pregnancy? Yes. I'd rather pay for a woman's pills than her bastard child.
For men, Viagra is simply for sex. However, a healthy sex life makes for a healthy person. Studies have been done showing that folks who do the hibbity bibbity on a regular basis are healthier than folks who don't. So why not pay for someone to be healthier?
Point being, certain people need to untwist their panties and realize that sex is very important. It's not always just about getting your rocks off. Human companionship and contact has been proven to be important to a person's overall physical and emotional health.
I think the line in the sand is being drawn in the wrong spot. Sex is important, and Republicans know it. Per various studies that have been linked here multiple times in the past, Republicans are getting it on more often, and in freakier ways than Democrats, yet Republicans get all pissy about stuff like this. The difference in this debate is the pachyderms want folks to be 18+ and married before they start getting frisky, while donkeys want folks to start banging as soon as they want.
So why not draw the line in the sand elsewhere?
Every OB-GYN in the country will get around any "no birth control for recreation" rule by stating their patients need it for medical reasons. Accept that as fact, and instead of protesting and calling them slut pills, why not say fine, but the person receiving them must get some sort of education on sex?
As for Viagra, if you need it, you need it. Set the age limit at 18+ and call it a day. Although, to avoid abuse, I'd set a limit on it. Everyone has the right to screw as much as they want with a willing partner(s), but if the public has to pick up the tab, then tough shit.
"Happy slaves are the worst enemies of freedom." - Marie Von Ebner
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
I hear what y'all are saying. TPR's dismissal of the entire argument is correct... it is all commie bullshit anyway.
Leisher made a valid argument by saying "hibbity bibbity," though I think if Obamacare passes, and Leisher is correct in saying that sex is important part of a healthy life, that the Feds will be outlawing marriage, next, because that is a sex killer.
My minor disagreement comes from the suggestion that women can only avoid unwanted, expensive pregnancy with contraception.... there is also the extremely radical idea that they can just keep it in their fucking pants, and not expect their neighbors to subsidize her fuck pills. No one ever suggested they wouldn't be allowed to pay for them on their own.
Here's my one exception: if she's fucking me, I'll pay for her fuck pills. Otherwise, whoever she is fucking can pay for them. Fair's fair. I don't want to pay for birth control that I don't even get to enjoy.
Know the difference between a slut and a bitch? A slut will sleep with anyone. A bitch will sleep with anyone except you.
Edited By GORDON on 1332943555
Leisher made a valid argument by saying "hibbity bibbity," though I think if Obamacare passes, and Leisher is correct in saying that sex is important part of a healthy life, that the Feds will be outlawing marriage, next, because that is a sex killer.
My minor disagreement comes from the suggestion that women can only avoid unwanted, expensive pregnancy with contraception.... there is also the extremely radical idea that they can just keep it in their fucking pants, and not expect their neighbors to subsidize her fuck pills. No one ever suggested they wouldn't be allowed to pay for them on their own.
Here's my one exception: if she's fucking me, I'll pay for her fuck pills. Otherwise, whoever she is fucking can pay for them. Fair's fair. I don't want to pay for birth control that I don't even get to enjoy.
Know the difference between a slut and a bitch? A slut will sleep with anyone. A bitch will sleep with anyone except you.
Edited By GORDON on 1332943555
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
So what you're saying is, the government should provide you with hookers because you pay taxes? 
"Happy slaves are the worst enemies of freedom." - Marie Von Ebner
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell