Birth control and healthcare insurance/Obamacare

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 10, 2014 6:19 PM GMT
    I believe in people using birth control. I believe in a woman's right to an abortion.

    But that healthcare insurance/Obamacare can mandates birth control coverage or pay for an abortion (unless for a valid medical reason) is nonsense and is un-Constitutional. My opinion has nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

    I don't think the population as a whole should pay for your birth control. Buy some damn condoms.

    If insurance does cover birth control, then it should provide a free dildo also.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 10, 2014 6:34 PM GMT
    i2ci2i saidSorry fella, abortion laws are one issue I ain't touching with a twenty foot pole.

    slan go foil!


    it's not an abortion issue at all, not even close (maybe a touch ... on the periphery). It's an issue of who should pay for you not wanting to get knocked up.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Feb 10, 2014 7:23 PM GMT
    I think it's part of the whole, being a woman is not a preexisting condition, same as men's healthcare, regarding prostate health.

    Also, women and men who choose to never have sex still have to pay.

    It is socialistic, but we've had socialized healthcare for decades.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 10, 2014 7:35 PM GMT
    This is an example of a larger general issue of whether a taxpayer in general should ever be required to share the financial cost of anything that doesn't benefit him or her personally. Where you are on the political spectrum generally (from the Randian right to the Marxist left) will usually determine at least your initial response. The big problem with the Affordable Care Act is that it tries to advance the progressive goal of universal health care in a less-than-half-assed manner. As long as we treat healthcare (birth control being just one small example of healthcare) as private good rather than a public commodity,
    we'll have seemingly odd examples like this (or like the fact that my new health insurance policy includes dental coverage for family members under age 19 when I am single and have no children.)

    It all would make sense in the context of tax-financed public national health care.

    It all seems odd in the current context of profit-based health care with a private insurance industry in the middle of it all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 10, 2014 7:52 PM GMT
    ^^

    it does not make sense, pregnancy is not a disease, injury or mal-affliction, so why should society pay to have it prevented?

    getting pregnant has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare and the cost of providing the resources is a drain on true healthcare
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 10, 2014 8:00 PM GMT
    ^^
    Unless you see the ability for a woman to be able to determine her own ability to have sex without having to carry a fetus to term as a health issue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 10, 2014 8:09 PM GMT
    duluthrunner said^^
    Unless you see the ability for a woman to be able to determine her own ability to have sex without having to carry a fetus to term as a health issue.


    true but that would be a valid mental health issue or a pre-existing or ensuing medical condition which would compromise the pregnancy
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 10, 2014 8:47 PM GMT
    somersault said^^

    it does not make sense, pregnancy is not a disease, injury or mal-affliction, so why should society pay to have it prevented?

    getting pregnant has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare and the cost of providing the resources is a drain on true healthcare


    Actually it does. Throughout pregnancy, and then giving birth costs a lot of money; doctors visits, amnios to check for defects, ultrasounds, then delivery, then follow-ups, as well as complications from the above. Bear in mind the following stats:

    [url]http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-health-topics/reproductive-health/states/tx.html[/url]

    Personally, I think you should be able claim portions of condom expenses, both gay and straight, as they prevent a whole lot of costs to the system as well. We need this to happen in Canada, too. Our universal system doesn't cover condoms. HIV is very expensive to treat.

  • thadjock

    Posts: 2183

    Feb 10, 2014 8:49 PM GMT
    duluthrunner said
    It all would make sense in the context of tax-financed public national health care.

    It all seems odd in the current context of profit-based health care with a private insurance industry in the middle of it all.


    this ^^ exactly.

    what obama accomplished is creating the worst crossbreed hybrid healthcare system possible.

    it was bill written by the insurance cos. as a gift to the insurance cos. it handed them 30% more customers and didn't regulate costs at all. It spreads the price of insuring all the uninsured by increasing the premiums on all of us who were already buying out own insurance. it's a TAX, through higher premiums.

    I can only hope this is one small-step strategy in getting full bore single payer coverage that fucks the insurance companies out of the loop.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 10, 2014 9:34 PM GMT
    thadjock said
    duluthrunner said
    It all would make sense in the context of tax-financed public national health care.

    It all seems odd in the current context of profit-based health care with a private insurance industry in the middle of it all.


    this ^^ exactly.

    what obama accomplished is creating the worst crossbreed hybrid healthcare system possible.

    it was bill written by the insurance cos. as a gift to the insurance cos. it handed them 30% more customers and didn't regulate costs at all. It spreads the price of insuring all the uninsured by increasing the premiums on all of us who were already buying out own insurance. it's a TAX, through higher premiums.

    I can only hope this is one small-step strategy in getting full bore single payer coverage that fucks the insurance companies out of the loop.


    +1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2014 1:38 AM GMT
    meninlove said
    somersault said^^

    it does not make sense, pregnancy is not a disease, injury or mal-affliction, so why should society pay to have it prevented?

    getting pregnant has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare and the cost of providing the resources is a drain on true healthcare


    Actually it does. Throughout pregnancy, and then giving birth costs a lot of money; doctors visits, amnios to check for defects, ultrasounds, then delivery, then follow-ups, as well as complications from the above. Bear in mind the following stats:

    [url]http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-health-topics/reproductive-health/states/tx.html[/url]

    Personally, I think you should be able claim portions of condom expenses, both gay and straight, as they prevent a whole lot of costs to the system as well. We need this to happen in Canada, too. Our universal system doesn't cover condoms. HIV is very expensive to treat.



    you completely miss the point, I'm talking about birth control (e.g, pregnancy prevention), not the costs associated while being pregnant - those are completely different issues
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2014 3:07 AM GMT
    I believe in people using birth control.

    I believe in people using birth control.

    I believe in people using birth control.


    AMEN.