Now Insurers Must Cover 100% of Birth Control, Other Female Services

[BDBoop]

I hated it "as many of women do"? Aside from the crap grammar, cite your stats, please.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Breastfeeding is a good thing. The government need not subsidize every good thing.

Red wine can be good for you too. Where's my wine check?

Dark chocolate is very good for the heart. Where's my Godiva subsidy?

 

[daveman]

May I change the subject for a moment? Is there a birth control pill/patch for men? Just curious.

Hey, wait, I saw this scene at a BDSM party once . . .

That dude ain't gettin' ANYBODY pregnant. 0% failure rate.

 

[Trajan]

It's not a strawman argument. You are bemoaning the decay of society as the root of the problem. That may or may not be true.

We are proposing that it's more pragmatic to address it through birth control then to try and put a genie in a bottle.

below is the sum total of what I have said addressing the topic, then the whirligig started, you apparently know and have explained my position for me, cause lord knows I haven't.

and what is; "low rent"?




I don’t know, I am trying to get my head around my neighbor asking me to foot the bill for his daughters contraception, and then me asking him to foot the bill for my daughters abortion…….just cannot get my head into either one of those.

wasn't there supposed to be a codicil to obamacare via exec. order forbidding abortion form being paid for?


and Chanel, nothing is ever free

____________________

because it addresses the symptom not the disease...as a budding MD you should appreciate that
________________

lack of self control, will, personal responsibility. and yes society has done their part to contribute to that, mightily, so there is a correlation and a fair amount of causation.

Where in this bill has the status quo changed to allow for federal funding of abortion?

I don't know, I framed it as a Question, I was supposing as in I thought.

If I recall there was or thought, there was a lot of hub re: the Stupak amendment, which I thought then was crazy because the pres. , I THINK, or suppose, cannot sign an exec. order waiving statutes?

and, I am still curious, what is low rent?

 

[geauxtohell]

below is the sum total of what I have said addressing the topic, then the whirligig started, you apparently know and have explained my position for me, cause lord knows I haven't.

and what is; "low rent"?




I don’t know, I am trying to get my head around my neighbor asking me to foot the bill for his daughters contraception, and then me asking him to foot the bill for my daughters abortion…….just cannot get my head into either one of those.

wasn't there supposed to be a codicil to obamacare via exec. order forbidding abortion form being paid for?


and Chanel, nothing is ever free

____________________

because it addresses the symptom not the disease...as a budding MD you should appreciate that
________________

lack of self control, will, personal responsibility. and yes society has done their part to contribute to that, mightily, so there is a correlation and a fair amount of causation.

Where in this bill has the status quo changed to allow for federal funding of abortion?

I don't know, I framed it as a Question, I was supposing as in I thought.

If I recall there was or thought, there was a lot of hub re: the Stupak amendment, which I thought then was crazy because the pres. , I THINK, or suppose, cannot sign an exec. order waiving statutes?

and, I am still curious, what is low rent?

The federal government still does not fund abortion. I don't really see any point in introducing a hypothetical about that.

Your jab at jillian was pretty low rent, IMO.

 

[Trajan]

Where in this bill has the status quo changed to allow for federal funding of abortion?

I don't know, I framed it as a Question, I was supposing as in I thought.

If I recall there was or thought, there was a lot of hub re: the Stupak amendment, which I thought then was crazy because the pres. , I THINK, or suppose, cannot sign an exec. order waiving statutes?

and, I am still curious, what is low rent?

The federal government still does not fund abortion. I don't really see any point in introducing a hypothetical about that.

The Mexico City Policy, also known by critics as the Mexico City Gag Rule and the Global Gag Rule,[1] was an intermittent United States government policy that required all non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services, as a method of family planning, in other countries. The policy is a political flashpoint in the abortion debate, with Republican administrations adopting it and Democratic administrations rescinding it. The policy was in place from 1984 through January 1993 when it was rescinded by Democratic President Bill Clinton, was re-instituted in January 2001 when Republican President George W. Bush took office, and was rescinded January 23, 2009, shortly after Democratic President Barack Obama took office.[2]

Mexico City Policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


*shrugs* then theres planned parenthood.

Your jab at jillian was pretty low rent, IMO.

humm, I would say that unless you are privy to all of the back history, your comment was presumptuous.

 

[Care4all]

I see no problem in covering a woman's yearly gyno appointment as part of the policy that these women are paying thousands of dollars a year for....

Why shouldn't young people on insurance get something for themselves?

they are paying for their policy, just like the old man is paying for his policy who gets a 100% paid for PSA test for prostate cancer at the age of 50, or the woman who is over 40 who gets a 100% covered, yearly Pap smear....or the older woman who gets 100% paid for Mammogram each year.

why shouldn't the younger woman of child bearing years get something for themselves out of the insurance policy they pay for?

*they have to pay more for their insurance for the man getting the PSA test or the older woman getting a mammogram?

 

[chanel]

They do care4all. They get childbirth expenses paid for. How much does a C-section cost these days - 20K?

I have no problem with birth control pills being covered under a prescription plan, just like any other drug. But I don't know of any other drug that is "free".

 

[Cecilie1200]

I see no problem in covering a woman's yearly gyno appointment as part of the policy that these women are paying thousands of dollars a year for....

Why shouldn't young people on insurance get something for themselves?

they are paying for their policy, just like the old man is paying for his policy who gets a 100% paid for PSA test for prostate cancer at the age of 50, or the woman who is over 40 who gets a 100% covered, yearly Pap smear....or the older woman who gets 100% paid for Mammogram each year.

why shouldn't the younger woman of child bearing years get something for themselves out of the insurance policy they pay for?

*they have to pay more for their insurance for the man getting the PSA test or the older woman getting a mammogram?

Why are left-leaners so unable to tell the difference between "this is a good idea" and "the government should do this/the government should force others to do this"?

 

[Care4all]

They do care4all. They get childbirth expenses paid for. How much does a C-section cost these days - 20K?

I have no problem with birth control pills being covered under a prescription plan, just like any other drug. But I don't know of any other drug that is "free".

chanel, the drug is NOT FREE.....it costs these women in their policy price a minimum $5000 a year for their health care policy....

I have no idea why you keep saying this is free....someone is paying the insurance company thousands of dollars for each policy....???

And Vaccines are medicines that do not have deductibles.....

 

[geauxtohell]

I don't know, I framed it as a Question, I was supposing as in I thought.

If I recall there was or thought, there was a lot of hub re: the Stupak amendment, which I thought then was crazy because the pres. , I THINK, or suppose, cannot sign an exec. order waiving statutes?

and, I am still curious, what is low rent?

The Mexico City Policy, also known by critics as the Mexico City Gag Rule and the Global Gag Rule,[1] was an intermittent United States government policy that required all non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services, as a method of family planning, in other countries. The policy is a political flashpoint in the abortion debate, with Republican administrations adopting it and Democratic administrations rescinding it. The policy was in place from 1984 through January 1993 when it was rescinded by Democratic President Bill Clinton, was re-instituted in January 2001 when Republican President George W. Bush took office, and was rescinded January 23, 2009, shortly after Democratic President Barack Obama took office.[2]

Mexico City Policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


*shrugs* then theres planned parenthood.

So you have to go offshore to prove your point?

Your jab at jillian was pretty low rent, IMO.

humm, I would say that unless you are privy to all of the back history, your comment was presumptuous.[/QUOTE]

Whatever.

 

[Care4all]

I see no problem in covering a woman's yearly gyno appointment as part of the policy that these women are paying thousands of dollars a year for....

Why shouldn't young people on insurance get something for themselves?

they are paying for their policy, just like the old man is paying for his policy who gets a 100% paid for PSA test for prostate cancer at the age of 50, or the woman who is over 40 who gets a 100% covered, yearly Pap smear....or the older woman who gets 100% paid for Mammogram each year.

why shouldn't the younger woman of child bearing years get something for themselves out of the insurance policy they pay for?

*they have to pay more for their insurance for the man getting the PSA test or the older woman getting a mammogram?

Why are left-leaners so unable to tell the difference between "this is a good idea" and "the government should do this/the government should force others to do this"?

if I were a single young woman, is it a good idea that I have to pay for some old man to get his annual PSA test or for some old broad to get her yearly mammogram with no deductible?

that's how policies are set up....what makes the older woman getting her mammogram 100% paid for with no deduction, and that man or woman over 50 getting a colonoscopy with no deductible any different from the young woman getting her annual gyno visit without a deductible?

It's a good idea and should be included in her $5k minimum a year policy....

she is not getting that colonoscopy, and she is not getting yearly mammograms paid for yet in the cost of her policy, she is sharing in paying for those costs for other individuals....? Why shouldn't she get her annual gyno visit at 100% with no deductibles like all those other folks get their recommended yearly tests with no deductible?

you guys are just bitching for the sake of bitching in my humble opinion and have no idea how your own insurance policies work....

 

[Trajan]

The Mexico City Policy, also known by critics as the Mexico City Gag Rule and the Global Gag Rule,[1] was an intermittent United States government policy that required all non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services, as a method of family planning, in other countries. The policy is a political flashpoint in the abortion debate, with Republican administrations adopting it and Democratic administrations rescinding it. The policy was in place from 1984 through January 1993 when it was rescinded by Democratic President Bill Clinton, was re-instituted in January 2001 when Republican President George W. Bush took office, and was rescinded January 23, 2009, shortly after Democratic President Barack Obama took office.[2]

Mexico City Policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


*shrugs* then theres planned parenthood.

So you have to go offshore to prove your point?

Your jab at jillian was pretty low rent, IMO.

humm, I would say that unless you are privy to all of the back history, your comment was presumptuous.

Whatever.[/QUOTE]

yea, whatever.

and the forum claims another victim. nice talking to you while it lasted.

 

[geauxtohell]

yea, whatever.

and the forum claims another victim. nice talking to you while it lasted.

Vaya con Dios.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I see no problem in covering a woman's yearly gyno appointment as part of the policy that these women are paying thousands of dollars a year for....

Why shouldn't young people on insurance get something for themselves?

they are paying for their policy, just like the old man is paying for his policy who gets a 100% paid for PSA test for prostate cancer at the age of 50, or the woman who is over 40 who gets a 100% covered, yearly Pap smear....or the older woman who gets 100% paid for Mammogram each year.

why shouldn't the younger woman of child bearing years get something for themselves out of the insurance policy they pay for?

*they have to pay more for their insurance for the man getting the PSA test or the older woman getting a mammogram?

Why are left-leaners so unable to tell the difference between "this is a good idea" and "the government should do this/the government should force others to do this"?

if I were a single young woman, is it a good idea that I have to pay for some old man to get his annual PSA test or for some old broad to get her yearly mammogram with no deductible?

that's how policies are set up....what makes the older woman getting her mammogram 100% paid for with no deduction, and that man or woman over 50 getting a colonoscopy with no deductible any different from the young woman getting her annual gyno visit without a deductible?

It's a good idea and should be included in her $5k minimum a year policy....

she is not getting that colonoscopy, and she is not getting yearly mammograms paid for yet in the cost of her policy, she is sharing in paying for those costs for other individuals....? Why shouldn't she get her annual gyno visit at 100% with no deductibles like all those other folks get their recommended yearly tests with no deductible?

you guys are just bitching for the sake of bitching in my humble opinion and have no idea how your own insurance policies work....

Given that private insurers generally don't cover old people, instead expecting them to go on Medicare, it's highly unlikely that any young person is paying into a policy that also covers seniors.

If you mean "paying for" them in the sense that taxpayer dollars go to paying their Medicare, well, that would be the whole "It's a good idea for them to have it, therefore it's a good idea for the government to do it" syndrome again.

However, you go on to babble about how policies are set up, and once again, you're not getting the difference between "it's a good idea for insurance policies to cover XYZ" and "it's a good idea for the government to FORCE insurance companies to cover it". It doesn't matter whether it's a good thing for the insurancy company to do or not. It's ALWAYS a bad idea for the government to be dictating products and prices to the private sector.

 

[logical4u]

NO, I am repeating history. Socialism/Communism/Islam all work great until you run out of other people's money. In the most violent of those, that is where the "gov't" kills those that cannot be taxed any longer, so they murder them and steal any inheritance to give it to the "mob"/legion.

Wow. I wasn't aware that "Islam" was an economic philosophy.

Apparently, you are not "aware" of a lot. Read history, islam is all about taking other cultures' money and subjugating their people. Islam is more obvious about it, because they have been using the same methods (though now they are using dems/socialist/communist too) for fourteen "hundred" years. I can see why you missed it.

 

[logical4u]

below is the sum total of what I have said addressing the topic, then the whirligig started, you apparently know and have explained my position for me, cause lord knows I haven't.

and what is; "low rent"?




I don’t know, I am trying to get my head around my neighbor asking me to foot the bill for his daughters contraception, and then me asking him to foot the bill for my daughters abortion…….just cannot get my head into either one of those.

wasn't there supposed to be a codicil to obamacare via exec. order forbidding abortion form being paid for?


and Chanel, nothing is ever free

____________________

because it addresses the symptom not the disease...as a budding MD you should appreciate that
________________

lack of self control, will, personal responsibility. and yes society has done their part to contribute to that, mightily, so there is a correlation and a fair amount of causation.

Where in this bill has the status quo changed to allow for federal funding of abortion?

I don't know, I framed it as a Question, I was supposing as in I thought.

If I recall there was or thought, there was a lot of hub re: the Stupak amendment, which I thought then was crazy because the pres. , I THINK, or suppose, cannot sign an exec. order waiving statutes?

and, I am still curious, what is low rent?

Low rent is cheap, "ghetto" (only it is made to sound not racist).

 

[logical4u]

I see no problem in covering a woman's yearly gyno appointment as part of the policy that these women are paying thousands of dollars a year for....

Why shouldn't young people on insurance get something for themselves?

they are paying for their policy, just like the old man is paying for his policy who gets a 100% paid for PSA test for prostate cancer at the age of 50, or the woman who is over 40 who gets a 100% covered, yearly Pap smear....or the older woman who gets 100% paid for Mammogram each year.

why shouldn't the younger woman of child bearing years get something for themselves out of the insurance policy they pay for?

*they have to pay more for their insurance for the man getting the PSA test or the older woman getting a mammogram?

Why are left-leaners so unable to tell the difference between "this is a good idea" and "the government should do this/the government should force others to do this"?

if I were a single young woman, is it a good idea that I have to pay for some old man to get his annual PSA test or for some old broad to get her yearly mammogram with no deductible?

that's how policies are set up....what makes the older woman getting her mammogram 100% paid for with no deduction, and that man or woman over 50 getting a colonoscopy with no deductible any different from the young woman getting her annual gyno visit without a deductible?

It's a good idea and should be included in her $5k minimum a year policy....

she is not getting that colonoscopy, and she is not getting yearly mammograms paid for yet in the cost of her policy, she is sharing in paying for those costs for other individuals....? Why shouldn't she get her annual gyno visit at 100% with no deductibles like all those other folks get their recommended yearly tests with no deductible?

you guys are just bitching for the sake of bitching in my humble opinion and have no idea how your own insurance policies work....

Yeah, this would be great if these young women were actually paying for it. The reason it is bothering so many people is because "medicaid" will be paying it (read taxpayer). The people on "medicaid" will pay NOTHING, NOTHING for it, but we will.

 

[Greenbeard]

Yeah, this would be great if these young women were actually paying for it. The reason it is bothering so many people is because "medicaid" will be paying it (read taxpayer). The people on "medicaid" will pay NOTHING, NOTHING for it, but we will.

These regulations pertain to private insurance ("a group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage").

 

[logical4u]

Yeah, this would be great if these young women were actually paying for it. The reason it is bothering so many people is because "medicaid" will be paying it (read taxpayer). The people on "medicaid" will pay NOTHING, NOTHING for it, but we will.

These regulations pertain to private insurance ("a group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage").

You are right. Sorry. It will go on the taxpayer because it will allow the insurance companies to declare bankrupcy. It is against the Constitution for the gov't to tell a company what services they "must" offer.
Why is it when it comes to sex the left is all about choice and freedom, but when it comes to others ability to reject those views, it is all about mandates and force?