humok
Established Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 9:33:39 GMT -5
Posts: 265
|
Post by humok on Feb 13, 2012 10:05:24 GMT -5
I really do not care if Ins covers the "pill" or not but I do care that Obama is trying to dictate to teh states and the people what they have to do and accept. It is not the Fed Govt's place to force us to do anything but pay taxes and live within the law. Obama is a fascist dictator and has to go.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 13, 2012 10:20:44 GMT -5
I really do not care if Ins covers the "pill" or not but I do care that Obama is trying to dictate to teh states and the people what they have to do and accept. It is not the Fed Govt's place to force us to do anything but pay taxes and live within the law. Obama is a fascist dictator and has to go.
|
|
humok
Established Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 9:33:39 GMT -5
Posts: 265
|
Post by humok on Feb 13, 2012 10:23:36 GMT -5
I am glad you like that dez.. maybe you would like to go with him?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 6:31:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2012 10:24:14 GMT -5
BC is not singled out. There are several preventative measures which are being mandated for coverage, intended to bring down the overall cost to government of long term care and social services.
I want universal healthcare. What we have working now is supposed to bring us as close to that as possible, through a private industry model. If we had true universal care, it would be in our best interests to fund preventative measures fully... so the current initiatives are meant to give us what universal care should... while still enabling a private market to capitalize on the health care industry... the 'compromise' ....
To that end, yes, i think than anything that would reduce overall costs in a universal system should be worked into the current model... because ultimately it is society that pays for it all somehow, anyway, in the end...
Orthodontics. I actually may be on the fence with that one. The largest part of orthodontics is not related to procedures which prevent later problems/costs... however, if they are, then pehaps we should consider covering them in the program... The problem becomes determining at what line things are 'necessary' and/or 'cosmetic... My daughter had a cleft palate and they told me when she was born she'd need early orthodontics. However, she is the only one that had a cleft of about 10-12 of our group who went through expansion? Would you consider it necessary for her because of her underlying condition? Or all of them because it was doctor recommended? ... Certainly the second phase is cosmetic, rather than structural... On the other hand, there are several people whose children did not have expansion and should have had it... much harder to fix later, much more work and more costly, and there are limitations placed on children who have horrible teeth/structure... But some of that also is the society we have created...
For the most part, however, I would think that orthodontics does not pass the prevention test, and so there would be little indication for its inclusion in a preventative intervention structure...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 6:31:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2012 10:43:22 GMT -5
Dez--That statement was repeatedly made about Bush. All's fair in politics, I guess.
--------------------------------------------------- "BC is not singled out. There are several preventative measures which are being mandated for coverage, intended to bring down the overall cost to government of long term care and social services."
I said it's singled out in this thread. Please read what I write. It's hard to have a productive discussion when you don't. -----------------------------------------------------------
"What we have working now is supposed to bring us as close to that as possible, through a private industry model."
I know. And it's stupid. It's not a private industry model if the gov't is running it.
------------------------------------------ "For the most part, however, I would think that orthodontics does not pass the prevention test, and so there would be little indication for its inclusion in a preventative intervention structure... "
Fine. Then toilet paper, soap, and food. Should employers have to pay for all of that? Homes with heat prevent claims for frostbite. Should they pay for shelter and heat? Safety features in cars prevent injuries. Should they pay for those, too?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 6:31:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2012 10:56:12 GMT -5
It is singled out in this thread because of the current hoopla the Catholic Church is raising about it...
The government isn't running it... it is influencing it... After all it is the government who ultimately has to pay when we don't have a good preventative health care model. I agree that a purely government model would work better/more efficiently... but companies didn't want that...
The system provides for safety features on cars, and soap/food/heat for people who cannot provide them for themselves. The employer has not choosen to participate directly in that system. They have chosen to participate directly in the health care/insurance system.... Employers wanted to pay for health insurance. They wanted to maintain a model where they provide health insurance. They let themselves into the health insurance/care system... and so they have to play by those rules... Employers who do not want to provide private insurance can support the public system outright... or they can support a private system which does not place undue burdon on the public system.... They have a choice...
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Feb 13, 2012 11:01:06 GMT -5
It's really not all that hard to drive to Walmart and pick up a box of condoms. Or an emergency contraception pill.
Have you ever tried to get emergency contraception? I did, prior to it being OTC. I called my gyn office and told them that I needed a script for it. Despite the fact that I was a 40 year old woman, well used to fighting for myself, despite the fact that I had been into the office 4 months earlier for my annual visit, despite the fact that I had never screwed up like this and in a relationship, I was dragged over the freaking coals.
All that I could think of was that had I been younger and not used to fighting for what I wanted, had I not been aggressive or had I not had the persistance, I'd have hung up with my gyn's office. I was raked over the coals by the gatekeeper of the office, the freaking RECEPTIONIST, who would not refer me to the NP to get the care I needed. I was raked over the coals because SHE did not believe in Plan B. I hung up, called back and got another person who put me through to the NP, so I did manage to get what I needed. But it wasn't easy.
You assume that everything is easily accessible. That's an incorrect assumption. Despite the fact that I have excellent insurance, a regular healthcare provider and access to more than one pharmacy, *I* had difficulty getting what I needed.
If you are in a rural area, do not have reliable transportation to get to the closest city 50 miles away, have a single pharmacy, you can be totally screwed by circumstances.
Even though Plan B is available OTC, there are still some pharmacies who refuse to carry it. So perhaps you should put yourself in a poor woman's shoes and not assume that everything can be acquired so easily. It's not.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Feb 13, 2012 11:07:41 GMT -5
What's most ironic about this thread is that people have the naive notion that forcing an employer to pay for something will somehow actually benefit a person financially. It doesn't work that way. Employers look at total compensation when they make pay decisions. By driving up an employer's cost of healthcare by forcing them to pay for things at 100%, salaries and other benefits will suffer. Or the employee's share of the premium will rise.
What I find that is ironic about this thread is that b/c is far, FAR cheaper than even a healthy pregnancy and childbirth. Have a preterm infant and the costs increase exponentially. I believe you know this, Bob......
So in the be all and end all of insurance costs, arguing that paying 100% for b/c is cost prohibitive does not fly well. $500 max/year for annual exam and b/c (and this is a high estimate), $10,000 for an uncomplicated childbirth or $250,000 for an infant who winds up in NICU. Nope, doens't fly.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Feb 13, 2012 11:11:30 GMT -5
What's most ironic about this thread is that people have the naive notion that forcing an employer to pay for something will somehow actually benefit a person financially. It doesn't work that way. Employers look at total compensation when they make pay decisions. By driving up an employer's cost of healthcare by forcing them to pay for things at 100%, salaries and other benefits will suffer. Or the employee's share of the premium will rise.What I find that is ironic about this thread is that b/c is far, FAR cheaper than even a healthy pregnancy and childbirth. Have a preterm infant and the costs increase exponentially. I believe you know this, Bob...... So in the be all and end all of insurance costs, arguing that paying 100% for b/c is cost prohibitive does not fly well. $500 max/year for annual exam and b/c (and this is a high estimate), $10,000 for an uncomplicated childbirth or $250,000 for an infant who winds up in NICU. Nope, doens't fly. You can always use condoms. BC pills provide no health benefit, there is not disease they cure or prevent.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 6:31:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2012 11:20:14 GMT -5
"So in the be all and end all of insurance costs, arguing that paying 100% for b/c is cost prohibitive does not fly well."
I'm not going to follow you into a pointless discussion of some fantasy world where people stop having babies. Especially when that would lead to the complete destruction of our society. If destroying families and causing society to collapse is part of the goal of this, the measure becomes more assinine, not less.
There are plenty of countries in this world that have birth rates so low that it's causing them significant problems. If we as a country are stupid enough to look at those examples and then follow down the same road, we're doomed.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 6:31:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2012 11:22:49 GMT -5
Actually birth control pills are often used to treat women's conditions. They regulate cycles, and treat everything from endometriosis to acne... They also are protective against some forms of cancer as a nice side effect.
Birth control pills are also more effective than condoms, which are only about 85% effective...
In addition, one should remember this argument is not just about pills, but all forms of birth control, including sterilization...
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Feb 13, 2012 11:35:17 GMT -5
You can always use condoms. BC pills provide no health benefit, there is not disease they cure or prevent.
You'd be wrong there, SF. They help with both PCOS and if you have fibriod tumors, can keep the symptoms at bay. If you have debilitating menstrual cycles (the type that keep you in bed with a heating pad), it can alleviate the symptoms enough to get your ass into work.
But in my case, I already had a script for b/c pills that I used religiously. My mistake was that I went out of town for an emergency and forgot to take my next package of BCPs. Since today's pills contain very little hormone, missing a few days is much more critical than it used to be even 15 years ago.
Yeah, I screwed up. I also did what was necessary for me to avoid pregnancy, but it was not easy. THAT was my point. My point was also that many women who are in underserved areas of the US may only have access to a single pharmacy and/or clinic. If you get a gatekeeper that has a personal opinion, then you must be persistant. Not every woman is as persistant, or can stand up to a receptionist who has no call to define YOUR medical care.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Feb 13, 2012 11:39:55 GMT -5
I'm not going to follow you into a pointless discussion of some fantasy world where people stop having babies. Especially when that would lead to the complete destruction of our society. If destroying families and causing society to collapse is part of the goal of this, the measure becomes more assinine, not less.
You were the one that brought up the issue in the first place that paying 100% for contraception was cost prohibitive. If the choice is that you either pay for contraception or a pregnancy and childbirth (the natural result of lack of contraception), are you going to tell me that you think that that's not an issue?
If a couple decided to have 2 children and wound up with 4, do you really think that those 2 additional pregnancies are not going to add to the insurance company's bottom line?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 13, 2012 11:51:21 GMT -5
Hey guys (and I mean males), When you are done explaining birth control to the ladies, you might want to start teaching them about birthin' babies.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Feb 13, 2012 11:54:30 GMT -5
Bills,
Your right!
I will impart everything I learned from taking Lamaze 3 different times.
Breath, HEEEEEHEEEEEHEEEEEEE push, Breath, HEEEEEEHEEEEEEEHEEEEEE push, Breath HEEEEEEHEEEEEEEEHEEEEEE push. Where is the pain pills and can we have a c-section.
There all imparted.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 6:31:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2012 11:55:56 GMT -5
epidurals are where it's at.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 6:31:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2012 14:45:30 GMT -5
I hear if you just give birth in a bathtub of warm water, it's actually a pretty relaxing and beautiful experience.
|
|
Don Perignon
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2, 2011 18:46:42 GMT -5
Posts: 2,024
|
Post by Don Perignon on Feb 13, 2012 15:47:44 GMT -5
I get the distinct impression that some people harbor the illusion that increased birthrate is a factor that stimulates the economy and determines whether or not a nation is economically prosperous. How does that work? For example, an increased birthrate increases the need for educators, and the need to increase taxes to pay teachers' salaries. Increased birthrate increases the need and the demand for every kind of publicly-funded Social Service, from WIC to Corrections... all the way to Social Security. I just can't see how it benefits society to mandate the increase in the birthrate of those who are unable to bear the expenses of raising a child... ?
|
|
diamonds
Senior Member
Not as Tame as I Look!!
Joined: Feb 8, 2011 11:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 3,522
|
Post by diamonds on Feb 13, 2012 16:07:09 GMT -5
Actually birth control pills are often used to treat women's conditions. They regulate cycles, and treat everything from endometriosis to acne... They also are protective against some forms of cancer as a nice side effect. Birth control pills are also more effective than condoms, which are only about 85% effective... In addition, one should remember this argument is not just about pills, but all forms of birth control, including sterilization... Birth control pills are the easiest, however women with a history of breast cancer or predisposition are restricted to anything containing estrogen. So, a blanket statement as such is not good, as one size does not fit all.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 13, 2012 20:12:16 GMT -5
Message deleted by moonbeam
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 6:31:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2012 21:00:37 GMT -5
"I get the distinct impression that some people harbor the illusion that increased birthrate is a factor that stimulates the economy and determines whether or not a nation is economically prosperous."
It does. --------------------------------------------------- "I just can't see how it benefits society to mandate the increase in the birthrate of those who are unable to bear the expenses of raising a child... ?"
I don't disagree with this statement. And the problem you describe is most aparent in poor, developing countries. If population growth doesn't come under control soon, it will happen automatically via mass starvation in these poorer countries.
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,052
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on Feb 13, 2012 21:30:11 GMT -5
Paul.. the 'no religious related posts' policy still has not changed...
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 13, 2012 22:46:44 GMT -5
I am glad you like that dez.. maybe you would like to go with him? Most of the statement is a opinion but when it's finished off with the " Obama is a fascist dictator " My only other response would most likely get me a moderator posting in BOLD, caps in RED in a chastising way so to use smileys is the safest way to express ones feelings on the subject with out getting into some brooha with those with the power to ZAP, ZAP oneself or doings along those lines... and to another who suggests that because some idiots in the past posted in the past " well they did the same to BUSH thus to do it , Yadda, yadda..all fair in love and more yadda"..I never did the posting against Bush and friends , slightly remembered though a bit fuzzy, been a while..beyond calling into question disagreements of trying to invade Iraq on the cheap..so many less troops then wanted by those who were in charge of those things, conducting wars..they are called Generals, Admirals..the professionals but then civilians come in and browbeat them down and the only way to counteract that is to quit in disagreement with..after spending over 30 plus years putting the time and sacrifice in to get to that position a hard thing to do actually....and those non professional types will just bring in more of those types till they get one to go along with their wants..so it gained these professionals nothing.. or objecting when the populace went nuts and went out of control and rioted and broke into Govt buildings, museums, private businesses, looting , spoiling, breaking ..and there is no law enforcement available to stop that , again because all those types were sent home and never replaced..and the same civilians who are running the show feel that they are not responsible to stop that type of action and it's no biggie anyway..this country has a history of over 5000 years of civilization..we are what, 300 years old or so..and it's no biggie , the dismantling of the country....and other policy decision made by that Administration along those lines..which to me is a legitimate complaint against those who were running the show..but no silly phrases, IMHO, that they are fascists dictators etc..
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 14, 2012 8:49:22 GMT -5
Paul.. the 'no religious related posts' policy still has not changed... The post could not have been more "on topic" since this entire thread is about the Preisdent's attack on religion. The article I posted explained how we got to the point where Catholics are under fire by the Obama regime. It wasn't a discussion of 'religion' per se. It was spot on the topic of the Catholic Church's struggle with the state. That IS what this thread is about, correct? So, technically you will have to delete the whole thread since it mentions religion in the political context.
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,052
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on Feb 14, 2012 10:58:27 GMT -5
I am more than happy to delete it.. since no one ever listens anyway.
|
|