Dem Booed Over Birth Control at Town Hall

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm sorry, are you asking me to provide figures to prove that the health insurance cost of contraception is not greater than the health insurance cost of having children??

Children that will then be beneficiaries of said health insurance?

Really? You need proof of that?

Yes

considering the Left's poor history on economic figures

So exactly how many children are being born that should not be
that are causing the necessity of this gov't dictate

You can go to:

Ortho Tri-Cyclen Birth Control -

And buy 3 months of Birth Control for $45.00.

That's $15.00 per month, or $180.00 per year.

The average cost of a single, uncomplicated childbirth is about $9,000 dollars.

Complications can raise the price of birth significantly.

The average cost of a preemie childbirth, for instance, is $47,000.00.

The Average Cost of Child Birth | eHow.com

The average health care cost for each child, after birth, is about $70.00 a month.

The Cost of Raising Children - University of Minnesota Extension

All of which makes giving birth and raising a child MUCH more expensive than birth control.

So you agree with me that this isn't going to be free, nice to know.

 

[saveliberty]

And one more thing. If you are for less gov't intrusion then you are for the get out of my bedroom and out of my wife's womb. The gov't has no business there whether she is pregnant or not. Let the man and woman take care of things. Nobody else should have a say. Not their business.

Like they won't find out when you get the birth certificate...

 

[Neotrotsky]

And one more thing. If you are for less gov't intrusion then you are for the get out of my bedroom and out of my wife's womb. The gov't has no business there whether she is pregnant or not. Let the man and woman take care of things. Nobody else should have a say. Not their business.

Not to be rude
but the issue is not your bedroom or your wife's womb

The issue is the Federal gov't violating the First Amendment

 

[francoHFW]

BC does lower rates of some kinds of cancers and disease too. And family planning is not a marxist conspiracy, morons.

 

[Neotrotsky]

No of course not

but stepping all over the Constitution could be, at worst
at best, just another radical Leftist attempt to empower the
gov't even more

 

[initforme]

Well then let whomever doesnt want to sell the stuff do their own thing. Done deal. People can go somewhere else. I just believe we need to promote the use of birth control big time despite the wrong opinions of some out there opposed to any form of it, which frankly is anti american.

 

[francoHFW]

No of course not

but stepping all over the Constitution could be, at worst
at best, just another radical Leftist attempt to empower the
gov't even more

Where are all those commie Marxists anyway? How dare they save us money and abortions? And incredible cruelty and stupidity in the richest country in the world?

The only question is, how horrible IS the most partisan and arrogant SC ever?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Almost all of them already do.

It was only an issue for these particular ones because of the church's requirements.

Wrong again.

About 20% of insurance companies cover contraceptives right now, and all of them charge a higher premium to those who opt into this coverage. If you thought about it from a numbers stand point you will see why so few actually do cover it, the only way this will actually pay for itself is if everyone stops having kids. Even 1 child born to a woman who they are forced to cover will negate a lifetime of supposed savings. The only way this would be economical across the population of the US is if women stopped having kids.

Look, I don't know where you get your numbers, but:

Since over half of the states in the United States have already enacted legislation requiring insurers to cover birth control...

Birth Control and Health Insurance

And most of those states are most assuredly large-population liberal leaning states...

Unless said insurance companies are breaking the law, they are giving coverage for contraception.

I can prove you are wrong with your own link.

Over half of the states in the U.S. have enacted legislation requiring insurers that provide prescription drug benefits to also offer some birth control coverage. In 1998, women’s right proponents also won a major victory that required health insurance coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices for all federal employees. Many liken health insurers’ reluctance to cover contraceptives to their former hesitation to cover prenatal care. In fact, health insurers did not begin covering prenatal care until about 25 years ago. Here are some other interesting facts on insurance coverage for birth control:

See that? They are only required to cover birth control if they cover prescription drugs. I think I pointed that out more than once to people, like you, who insisted that 28 states already require insurers to cover birth control, and you all ignored it. Prescription drug coverage always, repeat always, has a copay, and is an opt in coverage for all but the most expensive health insurance plans, the same ones that Obamacare places a 35% tax on. Now he suddenly wants everyone to have a Cadillac plan that will, under the rules of Obamacare, be subject to a tax, and he wants insurance companies to pay for all of this.

Please, keep throwing numbers at me. It makes me proving you wrong go from a minor inconvenience to a task of pure joy.

 

[saveliberty]

Well then let whomever doesnt want to sell the stuff do their own thing. Done deal. People can go somewhere else. I just believe we need to promote the use of birth control big time despite the wrong opinions of some out there opposed to any form of it, which frankly is anti american.

Births of Americans is unamerican?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Again, it does not support your claim that industry wide it would produce savings

Yes, in fact it does. Unless insurance companies have arbitrarily decided to pay ridiculously high rates for birth control.



Even with these monies included, the difference between what you pay for a family plan as opposed to what you would pay for two individual insurances, would not be $70.00 a month, now would they?



And to hedge against those costs, they pay extra per normal birth.

Again, your analysis is limited to support your claim that industry wide they would be saving money enough for them to "support" it.

Honestly, as long as the profit margin is the same under either case, then at best they
would be indifferent to the policy change.

Under your claim, one would have to assume that they had no profit rate to justify the costs and that profit rates would

Like I said before, a full real study, may show your point to be true

But it is still no reason to overstep the limits put on the Federal gov't by the Constitution.

And since it would literally take 50 years of taking birth control to simply equal the initial cost of a single childbirth itself, without any complications, there can simply be no doubt that birth control is more cost-effective.

Especially when one factors in multiple children.

Again
it is static
where is the total cost benefit analysis ?
Do you factor in the extra monies for family plans- no
Do you factor in the savings from people with children living a healthier life- no
For that matter, how about the long run analysis? Won't some of these children
grow up to pay future costs? Would having less younger people pay into a system with
more seniors be better for savings or worse?
Have you shown that insurance companies were lacking of profit from all these "lost savings"
- which would require you to show that they underestimated the costs in their price point

As I said
your static approach leaves something to be desired

In your approach, just killing people would produce "savings"
and help the industry or for that matter, so would sterilization



Note
Even if you were able to fully prove your point
It is still not reason to ride over the Constitution
not matter what the reason

Which is the core of the issue
No one wants to argue savings, except the Left, combined with their concern on condoms
because they want to spin it away from the truth of what it is,,,,

A dictate by the Federal gov't that is unconstitutional, straight up

No one cares about
"cash for condom" program, except the Left

It has to save money, Obama said it would. The minor detail that people are still going to have babies, and the even more minor detail that 99% of women already use birth control and still have babies, are completely irrelevant. It will magically save money anyway.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well then, I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree.

Since the average family with children has an average of 1.86 children, I cannot imagine any scenario where it would be cheaper to provide health care to a family with children, than it is to provide birth control.

A woman could only conceivably use an absolute maximum of 30-35 years or so of birth control, with a much smaller average, due to the fact that not all women would be continuously sexually active for their entire fertile window.

So, 30 x 180 = a grand total of about $5400.00 over the woman's entire life.

If your insurance isn't covering more than $5400.00 of cost, for two children, over 26 years, then I would suggest getting some better insurance.

Does the pill ever cause strokes or cancer?
Were these factored in,....


I agree we do disagree

But to me the main issue is not savings

The savings don't even exist.

 

[initforme]

Its anti american for anyone to tell me that they dont think I should being using birth control. Of what business is it of theirs? They are invading my rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Just like the pill can cause strokes and cancer

so yes

The full cost benefit study is, in the words of Papa Obama,
beyond our "pay grade"

And yes, the pill does have unwanted side-effects once in a blue moon. But childbirth has unwanted side effects on a much more frequent basis.

Actually, the pill almost always has side effects, which is why you need a prescription for it.

Birth Control Side Effects

 

[saveliberty]

Vast, if there are no children, who is going to take care of you in the home? Kids are not unwanted problems with only economic meaning.

 

[saveliberty]

Its anti american for anyone to tell me that they dont think I should being using birth control. Of what business is it of theirs? They are invading my rights.

Go out and buy yourself some birth control pills then. Catholics have their rights and you have yours. When you tell them they have to do something against their will, you lose.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Its anti american for anyone to tell me that they dont think I should being using birth control. Of what business is it of theirs? They are invading my rights.

Who told you you can't use it?

 

[initforme]

"When you tell them they have to do something against their will, you lose. "

I agree. Not arguing that point. I'm simply stating my beliefs about the wackos out there who are critical of those who know that contraception is an important and vital thing to have access to. If they dont want to have to provide it then I say dont make them. Hopefully you can read that statement and comprehend it.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Its anti american for anyone to tell me that they dont think I should being using birth control. Of what business is it of theirs? They are invading my rights.

Who told you you can't use it?

The lines are so contrived

Odds are the poster is one of Goon,,,, er "Truth Team" members
or just another poorly informed Democrat

tough call

 

[snjmom]

What other federal dictates are religions free from when they enter the public sphere of employment?

Are they free from overtime law?

Are they free from paying FICA?

Are they free from paying unemployment insurance?

How far does this exemption go?

 

[Zoom]

Well then, I hope you have good memory, because you're going to be pretty upset when he wins over all the shitty candidates you have competing against each other.

You are not kidding.