More Birth Control = Fewer Abortions

[Dragonlady]

Funny how the left think a 50 year old male should be covered for maternity.

This is the way medical insurance has always worked. No one bitched about it until the Republicans came up with this clever idea as part of repeal and replace Obamacare. People could pick and choose their coverage like a salad bar. It wasn't voted in because IT DOESN'T WORK. So get over it. Women have always paid for men's enlarged prostate and erectile dysfunction.

Sorry, I was never covered for maternity in all my life.

Yet now it’s a right that makes men and post menopausal women pay for it.

What insurance did you have?

All the big ones, none of which said this male was covered for giving birth or mammograms

And yet male breast cancer is a very common problem so men should be covered for mammograms.

 

[Defiant1]

Funny how the left think a 50 year old male should be covered for maternity.

This is the way medical insurance has always worked. No one bitched about it until the Republicans came up with this clever idea as part of repeal and replace Obamacare. People could pick and choose their coverage like a salad bar. It wasn't voted in because IT DOESN'T WORK. So get over it. Women have always paid for men's enlarged prostate and erectile dysfunction.

Sorry, I was never covered for maternity in all my life.

Yet now it’s a right that makes men and post menopausal women pay for it.

What insurance did you have?

All the big ones, none of which said this male was covered for giving birth or mammograms

And yet male breast cancer is a very common problem so men should be covered for mammograms.

Are we going to get our own month?

 

[OldLady]

So the only "defense" as to why Trump is undermining birth control in this country is because he's selfish and penny wise, pound foolish?

Trump is not undermining birth control.
There are very few companies involved.

He has given them a wide open door. I hope it remains a very few companies, but I don't understand why he is doing this to begin with. The Little Sisters of the Poor had a perfectly acceptable work around offered to them that any business could have used without giving them the basic green light to stop offering birth control to their employees.

That and the continued attacks on Planned Parenthood convince me that I'm not making this up.

 

[Dragonlady]

The religious right believes that access to effective birth control is the root cause of the moral decay of the country. Without access to birth control women would go back to being virgins before marriage, and sleeping around would be a thing of the past. They've completely forgotten about the orphanages that existed back then where women dumped the results of out of wedlock pregnancies prior to Roe v Wade.

It was expected that the birth rate would decline when abortion was legalized but that didn't happen. This is proof positive the just as many women were getting illegal abortions before the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion as they did after.

Religious conservatives think that women will stop having sex if they restrict access to birth control. There really is no cure for stupid.

 

[Defiant1]

So the only "defense" as to why Trump is undermining birth control in this country is because he's selfish and penny wise, pound foolish?

Trump is not undermining birth control.
There are very few companies involved.

He has given them a wide open door. I hope it remains a very few companies, but I don't understand why he is doing this to begin with. The Little Sisters of the Poor had a perfectly acceptable work around offered to them that any business could have used without giving them the basic green light to stop offering birth control to their employees.

That and the continued attacks on Planned Parenthood convince me that I'm not making this up.

When did Trump attack PP?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Abortion should be an elective like a face lift or nose job.

 

[The Derp]

Abortion should be an elective like a face lift or nose job.

Abortion is none of your business. It's a decision between the woman and her doctor. You aren't a part of that. You do not matter. Get over yourself.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Funny how the left think a 50 year old male should be covered for maternity.

This is the way medical insurance has always worked. No one bitched about it until the Republicans came up with this clever idea as part of repeal and replace Obamacare. People could pick and choose their coverage like a salad bar. It wasn't voted in because IT DOESN'T WORK. So get over it. Women have always paid for men's enlarged prostate and erectile dysfunction.

Sorry, I was never covered for maternity in all my life.

Yet now it’s a right that makes men and post menopausal women pay for it.

What insurance did you have?

All the big ones, none of which said this male was covered for giving birth or mammograms

And yet male breast cancer is a very common problem so men should be covered for mammograms.

The left hate science. That is for sure.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The religious right believes that access to effective birth control is the root cause of the moral decay of the country. Without access to birth control women would go back to being virgins before marriage, and sleeping around would be a thing of the past. They've completely forgotten about the orphanages that existed back then where women dumped the results of out of wedlock pregnancies prior to Roe v Wade.

It was expected that the birth rate would decline when abortion was legalized but that didn't happen. This is proof positive the just as many women were getting illegal abortions before the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion as they did after.

Religious conservatives think that women will stop having sex if they restrict access to birth control. There really is no cure for stupid.

Clueless. The left are totally clueless.

 

[The Derp]

Clueless. The left are totally clueless.

The right wing abhors when people (women in particular) have sex for reasons other than procreation. They view having a child as a "punishment" for those who have sex for reasons other than to procreate. So because this is their guiding belief, they want there to be as many consequences as possible from people having sex. Conservatives want to take the pleasure out of sex and put God into it. I mean, I like threesomes as much as the next guy...but when one of the people in that threesome is invisible and doesn't exist, it's not really a threesome anymore. It's just regular, old, boring sex.

 

[RealDave]

This is an informative article on what really happens when people try to legislate sexual morality and insist others live according to THEIR religious beliefs. Sadly, this is not going to have the effect the moral warriors are hoping for. Limiting birth control options by making them more costly or harder to access is going to lead to more abortions or more poor outcomes for both the mothers and children. Abstinence based initiatives have been studied and shown to have no measurable impact on abortion rates. Birth control use did. In a big way. Don't like abortion? Make birth control MORE available, not less.

So why is the current Administration trying to make birth control harder to come by?

Trump jeopardizes progress in reducing teen pregnancy and abortion rates


Teen birth rates have been cut in half over the last decade, which is beneficial not only to young women but to Americans as a whole. The decline is attributed to public health outreach and better use of contraception.

President Donald Trump has put that access to contraception in jeopardy with his rollback of a rule that required employers, with some narrow exceptions, to include contraception, at no cost, in their health insurance plans....

The Trump administration has already quietly cut more than $200 million for ongoing research into the most effective ways to prevent unwanted teen pregnancies, a decision most likely driven by ideology rather than science.

Three-quarters of U.S. teen pregnancies are unplanned and nearly a third end in abortion, which is much higher than the overall abortion rate of 14.6 percent. That’s the lowest rate since 1973, the year of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision.

Teen pregnancy has multi-generational consequences. Only half of teen mothers receive a high school diploma by age 22, compared with 90 percent of women who do not give birth as teens.

The children of teenage mothers also are more likely to drop out of high school. In addition, they are more likely to have more health problems, be incarcerated at some time during adolescence, give birth as teenagers, and face unemployment as young adults.

No government official is preventing anyone from getting birth control.
All that is happening is the removal of mandates forcing people to do things against their will.
I thought you were against rape.

If there's no funding or mandates many women will not have access to birth control. Insurance covers viagra no questions asked. Why can't birth control be treated the same?

Viagra treats a medical problem.

What affliction does birth control treat?

Yes I know about female issues. Most employers make exception when proscribed for those issues.

Here is the thing, when I complete my 40+ hours of work per week I have earned my money to spend how I want. I have also earned my right to use my insurance as I want. If you do not want your paid wages to go to birth control nobody sais you have to be an employer. My boss has no right to tell me what to do with my money or my insurance. I get freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

When an employer provides healthcare insurance to the employees, the employer is buying the insurance package.
The employer should be the one to decide what is included and not included in the package.
If you do not like the package the employer has purchase, you can get a different job.
Your employer is not telling you what to do with your money. The employer is choosing what to do with his money.

So why would an employer not want their employees to have access to good birth control?

You asswipes have no clue that birth control has a relationship with women getting pregnant, the cost of which will be born by the Employers insurance policy leading to future increases.

 

[Dragonlady]

Yes we frequently see posters here say in that when a woman "spreads her legs" for a man, she needs to accept the consequences of her decision. That expression completes ignores that the man the woman is "spreading her legs" for is, more often than not, her husband and the father of her children. These idiots think that the only women getting abortions are teenagers and young single women living a promiscuous lifestyle who can't be bothered using readily available contraception.

Abortion statistics tell a different story. Fewer than 20% of those getting abortions are teenagers. More than half of the women getting abortions are married or in a committed relationship and more than half confirm having used birth control when they got pregnant. Most telling is that 80% of women getting abortions live below or just above the poverty line.

Religious conservatives completely ignore the results of their own attempts at controlling their daughters. Virginity pledges which are popular at Christian high schools with elaborate ceremonies where young women promise to be virgins on their wedding night. The promises have lead to shocking increases in teenagers have more dangerous anal sex as well as oral sex. Everything goes with these kids except vaginal sex. Gotta keep that hymen intact.

Conservatives also ignore the numerous studies which have shown that a healthy active sex life improves both physical and mental health of adults and reduces the chances of contracting some forms of cancer. Reduces the chances of contracting some forms of cancer. The hormones released during sex are necessary to our health and well-being.

There's my former roommate used to say "If God hadn't intended for us to use it, He wouldn't have issued us the equipment".

 

[Defiant1]

No government official is preventing anyone from getting birth control.
All that is happening is the removal of mandates forcing people to do things against their will.
I thought you were against rape.

If there's no funding or mandates many women will not have access to birth control. Insurance covers viagra no questions asked. Why can't birth control be treated the same?

Viagra treats a medical problem.

What affliction does birth control treat?

Yes I know about female issues. Most employers make exception when proscribed for those issues.

Here is the thing, when I complete my 40+ hours of work per week I have earned my money to spend how I want. I have also earned my right to use my insurance as I want. If you do not want your paid wages to go to birth control nobody sais you have to be an employer. My boss has no right to tell me what to do with my money or my insurance. I get freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

When an employer provides healthcare insurance to the employees, the employer is buying the insurance package.
The employer should be the one to decide what is included and not included in the package.
If you do not like the package the employer has purchase, you can get a different job.
Your employer is not telling you what to do with your money. The employer is choosing what to do with his money.

So why would an employer not want their employees to have access to good birth control?

You asswipes have no clue that birth control has a relationship with women getting pregnant, the cost of which will be born by the Employers insurance policy leading to future increases.

It doesn't make any difference why, it's their choice.
You're all for choice, aren't you?

 

[Blackrook]

This is an informative article on what really happens when people try to legislate sexual morality and insist others live according to THEIR religious beliefs. Sadly, this is not going to have the effect the moral warriors are hoping for. Limiting birth control options by making them more costly or harder to access is going to lead to more abortions or more poor outcomes for both the mothers and children. Abstinence based initiatives have been studied and shown to have no measurable impact on abortion rates. Birth control use did. In a big way. Don't like abortion? Make birth control MORE available, not less.

So why is the current Administration trying to make birth control harder to come by?

Trump jeopardizes progress in reducing teen pregnancy and abortion rates


Teen birth rates have been cut in half over the last decade, which is beneficial not only to young women but to Americans as a whole. The decline is attributed to public health outreach and better use of contraception.

President Donald Trump has put that access to contraception in jeopardy with his rollback of a rule that required employers, with some narrow exceptions, to include contraception, at no cost, in their health insurance plans....

The Trump administration has already quietly cut more than $200 million for ongoing research into the most effective ways to prevent unwanted teen pregnancies, a decision most likely driven by ideology rather than science.

Three-quarters of U.S. teen pregnancies are unplanned and nearly a third end in abortion, which is much higher than the overall abortion rate of 14.6 percent. That’s the lowest rate since 1973, the year of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision.

Teen pregnancy has multi-generational consequences. Only half of teen mothers receive a high school diploma by age 22, compared with 90 percent of women who do not give birth as teens.

The children of teenage mothers also are more likely to drop out of high school. In addition, they are more likely to have more health problems, be incarcerated at some time during adolescence, give birth as teenagers, and face unemployment as young adults.

Birth control is available at every pharmacy in America. This is a very stupid article.

 

[sakinago]

If it opened up the market yes, the whole point is that over regulation is bad for pretty much everyone, except the big dogs in that specific industry. And it is more constitutional, with the commerce clause, than not allowing the commerce to commence outside of state lines, and regulating the bejesus out of us. I am for the free market, if the states are obstructing it, than I’m not for the states, if it’s the Fed, then I’m not for the Fed doing it.

OK, but why do you assume allowing insurance companies to operate across state lines will result in lower costs and not an oligopoly? Because we tried that very thing with cable companies and it didn't result in lower costs there. I am not sure you really know what it is you want. We all need health care, and that health care has to be paid. The debate isn't that insurance companies provide health care; they don't. The debate should be around why it matters to the patient who reimburses their doctor after the doctor delivers health care. I have not seen a viable, credible argument that a private insurer does it better than Medicare. In fact, Medicare does it cheaper and more efficiently than insurers, and Medicare already operates in all 50 states and has one of the highest patient satsifaction, second only to veterans' health care:

Now, do you think that satisfaction number would go up if private insurers were to operate as Medicare does? Let me ask you this; are you satisfied with the customer service you get from Comcast, Time Warner Cable, or any other cable provider? Most Americans aren't. In fact, they rate cable companies' customer satisfaction the lowest of all industries, right at the bottom with banks and telecoms. So why would the opposite be the case if insurers operated as cable companies; across state lines as massive oligopolies?

I am NOT for the Fed clearly overstepping its bounds, or using coercion when it comes to states rights, which it does frequently. I am pro 10th amendment, but with the commerce clause this is constitutional.What is mentally messed up with you peoples heads? You either have to be 1000% on this side, or 1000% on this. It’s gotten far passed silly at this point, and is starting to become mental illness, it’s just ridiculous.And stop saying that opening up the risk pools won’t work for this reason or that reason....it’s already being done successfully in Switzerland. It works very well for them.

You know why it succeeds in Switzerland? Because they have universal coverage.

Oligopolies do not happen without some sort of help from government, and that help comes in the form of regulation 9 times out of 10. I am familiar with the cable/internet oligopoly, and they co-opted government to make themselves the gatekeepers of cable/fios/broadband lines. They have successfully pulled the ladder up, so that no competition can survive without them. The problem isn’t that these companies are too big to fail, it is that they’ve stomped out any new/better/cheaper and more practical competition. People have this false perception in their minds that the big players buy out politicians to remove regulation out of their way, so they can cut corners and make a few extra bucks. This is not the case, they push for more regulation very often, even though it may hurt them in the short run. But they play a longer game, and they know that if they add more and more corners for smaller companies to transverse, those smaller companies have a much harder time working their way up. They need teams of expensive lawyers that the big companies already have in place and can afford. And if the smaller competition inadvertently cuts one of the many corners, they can immediately hop on them, call in the g-man and create a very expensive problem for the competition. I cannot think of a oligopoly or monopoly that got there without some sort of help (usually a lot of help) from the government. It’s theoretically possible, but highly improbable if a small guy can come in at any time and do it faster/cheaper/better etc. What usually stops the small guy is regulation, and keeping compliant with them. It’s pretty telling when 60% of the cost of a new house goes into keeping compliant with regulation, not the land, not the building materials, not payroll, equipment, maintenance, etc. but keeping compliance.

And yes, Switzerland does have universal care, but universal means all have to have it. Which is pretty much what we have now. They still have a much freer system than we do. It’s basically a lot like our car insurance laws, which are if the vehicle is on the road, it needs insurance. I’m not a fan of a universal system, but that is an area I can comprismise on...as long as we are freeing up the system, and we don’t have these gatekeeper dinosaur corps that should have been extinct long ago, had there been real competition.

 

[sakinago]

But not everybody is in the same risk pool.

Welll, but who is determining who goes in which risk pool? That's my point. If you start siloing people into different risk pools, you're just perpetuating the same problem from before; you're segregating out "presumably" healthy people with "presumably" unhealthy people, but the point of insurance isn't to segregate, it's to lower the risk. So the larger the pool, the lower the risk. So the largest pool possible will result in the lowest risk possible, will it not? So how are you not making a case for a single payer system, where everyone is on the same insurance plan?

Try to think of this in terms beyond just yourself. I know that's challenging for some people who lack empathy, but health care and health insurance isn't an individual issue, it's a social one.

If that were true it would happen in any other insurance industry, but it doesnt, Basically insurance is all about statistical risk numbers that pretty much garuntee a profit vs risk. So let’s say we’re tlaking about fire insurance for a house, they know that statistically (I’m making these numbers up) 1 out of every 100 houses will catch on fire, if we charge x amount per 100 house we will statistically make x profit. And in the event of a fire, it will take x number of houses with our insurance to cover that, and we’ll still make a profit. Or take for instance life insurance, death is imminent, but the earlier you start paying into it, you can keep that low rate over time, because statistically you should live to your 70s and if you’ve been paying x amount since your 30s they will make a profit. Or if you get into life insurance in your 50s they will increase the amount you pay, because they have 20 statistical years to make a profit. And let’s say the company is unlucky and has extra fires, or deaths at a certain time, well it should be covered because they have a much larger pool they are drawing from.

But the problem with our health insurance is that we are no longer looked at in our respective groupings, were grouped together in much smaller groupings that are more diverse, so the risk is higher, and rates need to be higher to cover the risk. And you need to charge people for things like pregnancy, who are at zero risk of pregnancy. Or need to charge the young higher rates to cover the old who are more likely to require healthcare.

So going back to the fire insurance example, instead of offering coverage to every house, you’re only allowed to offer coverage to these 3 blocks of houses, and in the 3 blocks, 2 of the those blocks are all connected townhomes, and in those town homes, 10 of these houses have an indoor turkey frying competition against each other. And to make matters worse, you are only allowed to offer up these houses on this block 3 different plans, non of them are able to be customized to the unfortunate neighbors of the turkey fryers. That becomes a problem for all the other houses, even the single family houses that don’t do the stupid turkey frying competition. All their rates go up, because at any time a row of houses could catch on fire, and it becomes a case of a couple of bad apples.

 

[RealDave]

If there's no funding or mandates many women will not have access to birth control. Insurance covers viagra no questions asked. Why can't birth control be treated the same?

Viagra treats a medical problem.

What affliction does birth control treat?

Yes I know about female issues. Most employers make exception when proscribed for those issues.

Here is the thing, when I complete my 40+ hours of work per week I have earned my money to spend how I want. I have also earned my right to use my insurance as I want. If you do not want your paid wages to go to birth control nobody sais you have to be an employer. My boss has no right to tell me what to do with my money or my insurance. I get freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

When an employer provides healthcare insurance to the employees, the employer is buying the insurance package.
The employer should be the one to decide what is included and not included in the package.
If you do not like the package the employer has purchase, you can get a different job.
Your employer is not telling you what to do with your money. The employer is choosing what to do with his money.

So why would an employer not want their employees to have access to good birth control?

You asswipes have no clue that birth control has a relationship with women getting pregnant, the cost of which will be born by the Employers insurance policy leading to future increases.

It doesn't make any difference why, it's their choice.
You're all for choice, aren't you?

I know what choice you are for: the choice not to serve certain people.

 

[Defiant1]

Viagra treats a medical problem.

What affliction does birth control treat?

Yes I know about female issues. Most employers make exception when proscribed for those issues.

Here is the thing, when I complete my 40+ hours of work per week I have earned my money to spend how I want. I have also earned my right to use my insurance as I want. If you do not want your paid wages to go to birth control nobody sais you have to be an employer. My boss has no right to tell me what to do with my money or my insurance. I get freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

When an employer provides healthcare insurance to the employees, the employer is buying the insurance package.
The employer should be the one to decide what is included and not included in the package.
If you do not like the package the employer has purchase, you can get a different job.
Your employer is not telling you what to do with your money. The employer is choosing what to do with his money.

So why would an employer not want their employees to have access to good birth control?

You asswipes have no clue that birth control has a relationship with women getting pregnant, the cost of which will be born by the Employers insurance policy leading to future increases.

It doesn't make any difference why, it's their choice.
You're all for choice, aren't you?

I know what choice you are for: the choice not to serve certain people.

Exactly. The choice of FREEDOM.

 

[RealDave]

Here is the thing, when I complete my 40+ hours of work per week I have earned my money to spend how I want. I have also earned my right to use my insurance as I want. If you do not want your paid wages to go to birth control nobody sais you have to be an employer. My boss has no right to tell me what to do with my money or my insurance. I get freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

When an employer provides healthcare insurance to the employees, the employer is buying the insurance package.
The employer should be the one to decide what is included and not included in the package.
If you do not like the package the employer has purchase, you can get a different job.
Your employer is not telling you what to do with your money. The employer is choosing what to do with his money.

So why would an employer not want their employees to have access to good birth control?

You asswipes have no clue that birth control has a relationship with women getting pregnant, the cost of which will be born by the Employers insurance policy leading to future increases.

It doesn't make any difference why, it's their choice.
You're all for choice, aren't you?

I know what choice you are for: the choice not to serve certain people.

Exactly. The choice of FREEDOM.

So, you want the freedom to be a racist fuck & discriminate?

 

[Defiant1]

When an employer provides healthcare insurance to the employees, the employer is buying the insurance package.
The employer should be the one to decide what is included and not included in the package.
If you do not like the package the employer has purchase, you can get a different job.
Your employer is not telling you what to do with your money. The employer is choosing what to do with his money.

So why would an employer not want their employees to have access to good birth control?

You asswipes have no clue that birth control has a relationship with women getting pregnant, the cost of which will be born by the Employers insurance policy leading to future increases.

It doesn't make any difference why, it's their choice.
You're all for choice, aren't you?

I know what choice you are for: the choice not to serve certain people.

Exactly. The choice of FREEDOM.

So, you want the freedom to be a racist fuck & discriminate?

I'm not racist. I do not have the power to effect an entire race.

I do discriminate, as it is my right to do so.