Why must contraceptives be FREE?

[Lobohan]

@WillFarnaby

Wrong. Why did they wait until the Catholic Church started getting riled up about the previous rule to make it policy? It was a political move, nothing more. Of course when you start giving out things for “free” people are going to be on your side. This is the first commandment of the Democratic Party.

You are wrong about the timeline. The Catholic Church was pissed in response to the rule. This lead to the “compromise” that all but the most ideological Catholics and Republicans are okay with. You really should know that if you’re gonna be talking about it in a thread.

It isn’t free at all, though. The insurance company has to buy the contraceptives still. They’ll just take the money from the policy holders.

No shit. I said as much in my post. Tell me, do you actually have a point?

[Little_Nemo]

@ITR_champion

Obviously the question Elendil’s Heir wants to see addressed is, why are some people so obsessed about everyone getting all forms of contraception covered by insurance with no copay, while exhibiting no interest in getting other medications covered in the same manner.

@ITR_champion

That doesn’t explain why we see people so obsessed with the need to cover birth control while apparently not caring about coverage of anything else.

I don’t think this was supposed to be a big issue. I think the government issued what it thought would be a fairly non-controversial policy about health care (preventive treatment saves money so encourage preventive treatment).

Then the Republicans jumped on it and blew it up into a major issue about religion and freedom and prostitutes. If anti-depressants could be used as a wedge issue, you’d probably see partisan arguing over that as well.

[tullsterx]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

If you honestly think the Republican position can be comfortably described as a concern for the independence of the individual, I’ve got a shitload of “what abouts” ready for you to address.

And I could point out how Democratic positions have hurt the welfare of all too. But, I don’t think that would further the point of the thread.

[gamerunknown]

Surely paying for someone’s anti-depressants is cheaper than covering the costs of a suicide attempt.

Possibly not. Depends on what method they use and whether they’re successful as well as how severe their depression is. Not to mention that some anti-depressants actually increase suicidal ideation… Also, anti-depressants are most effective when combined with therapy, which is likely what they’ll go through after a suicide attempt. When a woman has a pregnancy she doesn’t need to remain on birth control through the duration of it, nor immediately after (assuming she breastfeeds).

And I could point out how Democratic positions have hurt the welfare of all too. But, I don’t think that would further the point of the thread.

Edit: Feel free, though. I’m interested (perhaps start another thread?).

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@gamerunknown

Edit: Feel free, though. I’m interested (perhaps start another thread?).

Seconded! I’d very much like to see support for the idea that there are any, let alone some meaningful number, of Democratic positions that have hurt everyone.

[rat_avatar]

@ITR_champion

That doesn’t explain why we see people so obsessed with the need to cover birth control while apparently not caring about coverage of anything else. My employer shopped for insurance plans and chose a plan that requires a sizable copay for my anti-depressants. While I can pay it without difficulty, a poorer employee could have trouble making that copay. So with regard to such a poorer employee, wouldn’t the employer be “in the position of making health care decisions”? If so, then how is that situation with anti-depressants any different from the same decision with birth control?

Further, though you wouldn’t know it from listening to Democratic Party announcements, Obama’s mandate does not cover all employers. Employers who hire fewer than fifty employees are not covered by the mandate. So if it’s wrong for employers to make health care decisions for their employees, why aren’t the liberal activists all worked up about the prospect of employers with less than fifty employees having exactly that power?

Employers with fewer then 50 employees aren’t required to give ANY coverage, get your facts straight.

[rat_avatar]

It should also be noted that the goal is comprehensive health care, it is the Conservatives that are obsessed with sex.

They are the ones trying to limit access to safe and effective medicine to further moral “costs” for participating in an important human bonding behavior.

[Rucksinator]

I apologize if this is a hijack, but it is related. Someone on my FB feed posted this: “At a Romney rally, a girl asked him are you for freedom and pursuit of happiness? Romney answered yes. She said then why don’t you want me to have free birth control? He said if you want a bunch of free stuff, vote for the other guy! That is awesome.”

I said that this girl must have been a plant and/or that this must have been staged. It sounds like too neat of a smackdown to not be. Did this actually happen? Is there a Youtube video?

[Marley23]

No, it looks like that one actually happened. It helps Romney that the questioner raised the issue in a stupid way by saying “free birth control” “makes me happy” rather than saying it’s a good idea for any number of reasons.

[gamerunknown]

So, what exactly would be the benefit of a Romney administration though?

I mean, I’m sure he has a pretty solid grounding in economics, but so did Bachmann. He didn’t explain the minutiae behind his (I assume) opposition to providing contraception without copay. I’m sure the rhetorical points won’t hurt though.

[Lobohan]

@gamerunknown

So, what exactly would be the benefit of a Romney administration though?

I mean, I’m sure he has a pretty solid grounding in economics, but so did Bachmann. He didn’t explain the minutiae behind his (I assume) opposition to providing contraception without copay. I’m sure the rhetorical points won’t hurt though.

I’m pretty sure no national Republican understands even basic economics. “Cutting taxes on the rich raises revenue. Because Jesus. Fact.”

[rat_avatar]

@Rucksinator

I apologize if this is a hijack, but it is related. Someone on my FB feed posted this: “At a Romney rally, a girl asked him are you for freedom and pursuit of happiness? Romney answered yes. She said then why don’t you want me to have free birth control? He said if you want a bunch of free stuff, vote for the other guy! That is awesome.”

I said that this girl must have been a plant and/or that this must have been staged. It sounds like too neat of a smackdown to not be. Did this actually happen? Is there a Youtube video?

As a Governor he passed a law that provides free health care insurance for for those earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level, including birth control.

So it is just rhetoric and not a “smack down”

[Kolga]

@ITR_champion

That doesn’t explain why we see people so obsessed with the need to cover birth control while apparently not caring about coverage of anything else. My employer shopped for insurance plans and chose a plan that requires a sizable copay for my anti-depressants. While I can pay it without difficulty, a poorer employee could have trouble making that copay. So with regard to such a poorer employee, wouldn’t the employer be “in the position of making health care decisions”? If so, then how is that situation with anti-depressants any different from the same decision with birth control?

The only people who are “obsessed” with the need to cover birth control are the Republicans, and their obsession is to make sure that any employer, for any reason, anywhere, can refuse to offer insurance plans that cover medical care that is specific to one segment of the population and not another. The reason why this issue is different is that the Republicans DO see birth control as different than anti-depressants, and they want to make sure that they can arbitrarily not offer the first. The difference, of course, is that the birth control in question is prescribed only for women, whereas anti-depressants are used by both men and women.

@ITR_champion

Further, though you wouldn’t know it from listening to Democratic Party announcements, Obama’s mandate does not cover all employers. Employers who hire fewer than fifty employees are not covered by the mandate. So if it’s wrong for employers to make health care decisions for their employees, why aren’t the liberal activists all worked up about the prospect of employers with less than fifty employees having exactly that power?

Because in your example the mandate involves employers offering insurance or not, not whether or not those employers can determine based on their own personal morality what to cover.

But you knew all this.

[ITR_champion]

@rat_avatar

Employers with fewer then 50 employees aren’t required to give ANY coverage, get your facts straight.

Huh? Did I say that employers with fewer than 50 employees are required to get any coverage? If not, then what are you complaining about?

The question is this. Democrats are saying that if religious organizations are allowed the freedom to buy the insurance plans of their choice, this will mean that those employers are “making health care decisions for their employees”, that this constitutes a war on women, that it’s a plan to send us back to the dark ages where women were property, and so forth. If this is actually true, then why don’t those same Democrats object to the fact that Obama allows employers with fewer than 50 employees the freedom to buy the insurance plans of their choice, and thus Obama apparently supports those employers making health care decisions for their employees, wages war on women, and plans to send us back to the dark ages when women were property?

[Marley23]

@rat_avatar

So it is just rhetoric and not a “smack down”

Democrat big government something something something.

[rat_avatar]

@ITR_champion

Huh? Did I say that employers with fewer than 50 employees are required to get any coverage? If not, then what are you complaining about?

The question is this. Democrats are saying that if religious organizations are allowed the freedom to buy the insurance plans of their choice, this will mean that those employers are “making health care decisions for their employees”, that this constitutes a war on women, that it’s a plan to send us back to the dark ages where women were property, and so forth. If this is actually true, then why don’t those same Democrats object to the fact that Obama allows employers with fewer than 50 employees the freedom to buy the insurance plans of their choice, and thus Obama apparently supports those employers making health care decisions for their employees, wages war on women, and plans to send us back to the dark ages when women were property?

OK so it was a red herring…noted and ignored.

[Lobohan]

@ITR_champion

Huh? Did I say that employers with fewer than 50 employees are required to get any coverage? If not, then what are you complaining about?

The question is this. Democrats are saying that if religious organizations are allowed the freedom to buy the insurance plans of their choice, this will mean that those employers are “making health care decisions for their employees”, that this constitutes a war on women, that it’s a plan to send us back to the dark ages where women were property, and so forth. If this is actually true, then why don’t those same Democrats object to the fact that Obama allows employers with fewer than 50 employees the freedom to buy the insurance plans of their choice, and thus Obama apparently supports those employers making health care decisions for their employees, wages war on women, and plans to send us back to the dark ages when women were property?

That’s nonsense of course. No one is required to provide insurance. A small company can choose not to without penalty. Which would put their employees on the exchange.

A larger company is perfectly free to not provide insurance. They just pay a penalty.

[ITR_champion]

@Kolga

The only people who are “obsessed” with the need to cover birth control are the Republicans, and their obsession is to make sure that any employer, for any reason, anywhere, can refuse to offer insurance plans that cover medical care that is specific to one segment of the population and not another. The reason why this issue is different is that the Republicans DO see birth control as different than anti-depressants, and they want to make sure that they can arbitrarily not offer the first. The difference, of course, is that the birth control in question is prescribed only for women, whereas anti-depressants are used by both men and women.

So your position is that it’s quite okay for employers to be able to decide whether their insurance covers certain types of medical services, just as long as the services in question are prescribed equally for men and women. It’s just not okay for employers to do the exact same things in cases where the services are prescribed only for women?

First of all, both men and women do purchase birth control. Women purchase it more than men, but it’s not as if women purchase it exclusively.

Secondly, there are numerous medical services that are used exclusively or mainly by one gender but not the other. Do you hear Democrats clamoring that all such medical services–or at least the preventive ones–should be required to be covered by all medical plans with no copay? If not, then it’s back to the original question: what’s so special about birth control.

[DianaG]

Only women purchase *prescription *birth control. Health insurance covers prescriptions. I’m pretty sure that point has been covered in every thread. Bored now.

The multiple threads on this topic have convinced me is that what’s so special about birth control is that by definition it reduces the number of idiots in the world.

[Kolga]

@ITR_champion

So your position is that it’s quite okay for employers to be able to decide whether their insurance covers certain types of medical services, just as long as the services in question are prescribed equally for men and women. It’s just not okay for employers to do the exact same things in cases where the services are prescribed only for women?

First of all, both men and women do purchase birth control. Women purchase it more than men, but it’s not as if women purchase it exclusively.

Secondly, there are numerous medical services that are used exclusively or mainly by one gender but not the other. Do you hear Democrats clamoring that all such medical services–or at least the preventive ones–should be required to be covered by all medical plans with no copay? If not, then it’s back to the original question: what’s so special about birth control.

Your questions have been answered multiple times by multiple people in multiple threads on multiple days, in multiple ways. At this point, you’ll just have to admit that you disagree with the answers rather than continue to state that the answers haven’t been provided.