One time I shook the hand of a breastfeeding woman. It was totally sick.
Birth control, breast pumps, counseling for abuse? Are we going to do pedicures & manicures as well?
Sorry, didn’t think I needed to in this case as it was in reply to a specific question by a single poster. But you’re right, I should have also provided some context. Apologies.
I never said that I thought all women were getting months of paid leave, but I still haven’t heard what the required allowance of six weeks is either. And yes, parents get special status from most employers, at least they still were in 2007 when last I worked.
OK, so my memory of my job was that they got 12 weeks - big difference here.
Sticky?
ducking and running…
This whole problem could be solved, to the satisfaction of the extreme right and the extreme left, if we made these hot lusty underage unwed girls have sex with each other. No boys = no preggers. No unwed moms and LezLib at the same time. Sign me up!
You don’t happen to work for Nestlé, do you?
So fertility is a health problem that not only must be insured against, but insured against with no deductible or copay?
Pumping breast milk is also a peril that we must pool our money to guarantee that we don’t fall victim to that fate?
This is my problem with the whole way we think about it. How do you “insure” against something that is guaranteed to be a need?
Apart from that, why not get rid of all copays? Is a woman’s birth control more important than a diabetic’s insulin, a cancer patient’s chemotherapy, or an epileptic’s seizure medication? If the idea is that we don’t want a copay to burden someone from receiving treatment (and again, fertility is not an indication of ill health) then why not eliminate all copays for things that have been diagnosed as necessities?
Also, as a man, since I won’t need birth control or breast pumps, do I get a discount?
Well, I’d imagine some of the posters in this thread are all for getting rid of all insurance premiums and copays, but that’s really not the discussion right now.
Your examples are all of base. Those are all treatments for a condition- birth control is preventative. I’d also be for nutrition or exercise classes to be offered for free to attempt to help folks minimize their risk of diabetes or various cancers (though certainly, I’m not suggesting a healthy diet and exercise guarantees one wont fall ill to either of these). Why? Because it can potentially save insurers in the long run and society.
Actually, come to think of it, when I had Kaiser, they offered free diet and nutrition counseling, as well as exercise classes. For free for members. Since it helps your long term health. Go figure.
You get Viagra, which is already covered.
Not at a zero deductible or copay.
ETA: And Viagra corrects a health problem. It is the normal state that a man can get an erection when aroused. If that does not happen Viagra is medication which can help that health issue.
Fertility is not such an issue.
So, on one hand you have a condition that affects a minority of the male population versus a “condition” which affects near 100% of the female population. When do I get my discount?
You get it when the woman you’re sleeping with or breeding with gets her free birth control or breastpump, asshole.
Men don’t need birth control?
:dubious:
But the risk of my having to pay child support or raising a child is not assumed by my health insurance.
You are comparing apples and assholes. The premium that people pay to their health insurance company does not reflect any future charges that a male would incur in paying for health expenses related to childbirth.
The normal state for an older man is a limp dick, and has been through time immemorial. If you are so concerned about the natural way or whatever, hang on to your floppy cock and shut your mouth. Men wanting to continue to act like 18 year olds is not a fucking medical problem, no matter what you may wish.
That’s silly. Of course men have trouble getting an erection with age just as age causes arthritis and dementia. Under your analogy, there would be no nursing homes because you would say, “Hey, your 90 years old. Of course you are batshit insane. Now just drool on yourself and get out of here. You wanting the mind of an 18 year old is not a medical problem.”
The “normal” state of getting old is that your dick stops getting hard. I’m not against insurance covering Viagra any more than I’m against it covering birth control, but let’s not pretend that aging is a “condition” any more than fertility is, or that as a man you have special rights to a satisfying sex life unimpeded by limp dick that I don’t have to a satisfying sex life unimpeded by pregnancy.
Or hers. Funny how that works.
I think Rios is a conservative asshole who in a just world would have died along time ago perferably from very painfull uterine cancer. But the anti-formula stuff that was being piled on pissed me off too. If some one wants to breast feed that’s their business (though the ones that talk about getting “pleasure” from nursing need to be looked into), but it shouldn’t be pushed on women.
Ah, I *knew *I was in for a treat when I saw that **ZPGZ **was the last poster in this thread. Thanks for clarifying that women who breastfeed are also rapists, like men who handshake.
But the insurance company assumes maternity and childbirth expenses for a woman. It’s a cost/benefit analysis for them: Pay for birth control for all women or pay for maternity/childbirth for the ones that wouldn’t use birth control and get pregnant without the coverage.
I hate insurance companies as much as the next person, but one thing that they are not is stupid. If they can save 10 cents they will. I tend to agree with Shodan upthread that preventive care in regards to childbirth doesn’t save them any money. You think it would, but it wouldn’t. I think that is for several reasons:
- What percentage of women say, “You know, I’m not going to pay that $30/month for birth control because I can’t afford it, yet I will assume the risk of an unwanted pregnancy and pay out of pocket for an abortion or tens of thousands to raise a child”?
You would agree that is a very small subset of the population.
-
Of this small subset, how many after faced with an unwanted pregnancy get an abortion at no cost to the insurance company? A significant non-zero amount making the number even smaller.
-
Of this even smaller class, how many will definitely get on birth control, and pay the $30 after the birth of their first child? Again, a significant non-zero number.
-
Of those people that had an unwanted child, how many will forego the birth of a 2nd or 3rd child, or in any way have more children than they would have otherwise? A significant non-zero number.
Say a woman wanted 3 children and planned to have them at 25, 28, and 30. She has one at 22 unplanned. Do you think she will continue on her plan and just have 4 children. A significant non-zero number will not.
After you whittle it down, I believe that the insurance company sees that providing birth control free of charge to all is not in their financial interests when offset by the increased number of children they will have to pay for.
If we want to make this a new social program, let’s have the debate on that, but let’s not pretend that this will save money in some way.
You should work for Glenn Beck. You’re reading comprehension would fit his staff so well.
And for a man.
Honey… put that goalpost down before you hurt yourself.
The question was where’s your discount, as a man. Your discount is that you don’t have to pay half for your sexual partner’s birth control or for your child’s mother’s breastpump. Birth control benefits both men and women, breastpumps benefit both mothers and fathers.