Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So I saw someone retweet a photo of a rally that the (in)famous Sandra Fluke hosted the other day (the crowd was in the tens... if not slightly less then ten) and it reminded me of the whole mess about how people are demanding contraceptives be covered by one's insurance, Obama even brought it up at the second debate. I want this cleared up because I'm not quite sure what I think about it over all... but I can say I do think it's equine gak that a group's whining and crying about having to pay for oral contraceptives... which let's face it aren't a medical necessity when my little sister has to pay for her insulin, which she will die without. Seems like a really screwed up priority list to me.

My wife was prescribed oral contraceptives for a medical condition not connected with contraception.

In my view your sister should be helped with her insulin, but that is not The American Way.

I agree KM. But I should point out, that like in KKs case, there are times when contraceptives are prescribed for medical reasons.

Were it up to me, it would be case by case. If it's needed for other medical reasons, then yeah its covered. If you just want it to not get knocked up, sorry, you're paying. Same thing with ED pills, and other medications that have multiple uses.

How interesting that we should disapprove the use of medication to get women pregnant and the use medication to stop women getting pregnant.

Contraception is cheaper than childcare (and indeed foster care, etc).

You guys really need to get yourselves an NHS. Contraceptive pills are free (without even a prescription charge). ED pills can be given on NHS prescription where you only need to pay the prescription charge (about £7 - only available if you have one of a select number of illnesses), whilst you can also get it on a private prescription (where you pay for the cost of the drug and possibly also the costs of prescription).

Plus you can still pay a fortune for private insurance too

Ya'll make it sound like Contraceptive are hard to get and that Government is needed to ensure access...

That is so far from the truth, its not even funny.

1) It's cheap and easy to get

2) Yeah, some religious institution don't cover it (except for off label use), but, see #1

3) This controversy is purely political (PP, Obamacare, Roe vs Wade, etc...)... it has nothing to do with with "access" to contraceptive.

It is definitely cheap and easy to get except when it isn't.

My wife needs them for a medical condition. Fortunately it's free on the NHS.

You are offering a false choice.

Yes, your sister should have her insulin covered for. Anything needed as bare necessities should be garanteed, even food.

Yes, women should have access to contraceptives regardless of their financial conditions.

I assume more people have issues with their contraceptive than with their insulin, which is why you don't have politicos using that issue.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So I saw someone retweet a photo of a rally that the (in)famous Sandra Fluke hosted the other day (the crowd was in the tens... if not slightly less then ten) and it reminded me of the whole mess about how people are demanding contraceptives be covered by one's insurance, Obama even brought it up at the second debate. I want this cleared up because I'm not quite sure what I think about it over all... but I can say I do think it's equine gak that a group's whining and crying about having to pay for oral contraceptives... which let's face it aren't a medical necessity when my little sister has to pay for her insulin, which she will die without. Seems like a really screwed up priority list to me.

If this is the person I think it is the issue wasn't so much free contraceptives as free contraceptives from an instiution run by people adamantly against contraceptives of any kind. (Georgetown)
If Georgetown offers 3rd party student health insurance not affiliated with the Church or School then there really wouldn't be an argument to be had. Since my understanding was the demand was made of the school I feel they are well within their rights to tell her to pound sand. shrug.

But, students needs to feth!

Perhaps people whose religion forbids them from using something should not go into a line of business in which they may be required to provide a client with the thing they dislike.

Kilkrazy wrote:Perhaps people whose religion forbids them from using something should not go into a line of business in which they may be required to provide a client with the thing they dislike.

Pretty much this.

EDIT: argument about tacit agreements as a requisite for being included in a society vs. freedom of religion to do whatever they want without responsibility in 3... 2... 1...

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I agree KM. But I should point out, that like in KKs case, there are times when contraceptives are prescribed for medical reasons.

Were it up to me, it would be case by case. If it's needed for other medical reasons, then yeah its covered. If you just want it to not get knocked up, sorry, you're paying. Same thing with ED pills, and other medications that have multiple uses.

See now with doing a brief amount of research I think I can agree with this latter suggestion. If it's a medical necessity why not cover it? If it's optional though, and you're making the choice to do it on your own, simply for the convenience of using oral contraceptives vs. alternative methods to offer yourself increased quality of life... yeah you should be on your own. I buy a year's supply of contacts every January, between the exam and the contacts themselves it's fairly expensive, I could easily just get a pair of glasses instead, but I prefer these, so I willingly fork out for it.

Planned Parenthood says that Birth Control pills cost $15-50 a month. So that's $180-600 a year, and I'm guessing the $50 is the type of stuff that's super pricey to account for medical conditions of some sort. Apparently Target carries offers Tri-Sprintec, the generic form of the birth-control pill Ortho Tri-Cyclen for $9 even. That's not factoring in other methods of birth control which are effective and cheaper. (My ex for example preferred alternative methods because she didn't like fething with her hormones)

Meanwhile my cost for contact lenses is $280 without counting the eye appointment. My contacts greatly effect my quality of life, but I'm not asking any one to pay for them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AustonT wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So I saw someone retweet a photo of a rally that the (in)famous Sandra Fluke hosted the other day (the crowd was in the tens... if not slightly less then ten) and it reminded me of the whole mess about how people are demanding contraceptives be covered by one's insurance, Obama even brought it up at the second debate. I want this cleared up because I'm not quite sure what I think about it over all... but I can say I do think it's equine gak that a group's whining and crying about having to pay for oral contraceptives... which let's face it aren't a medical necessity when my little sister has to pay for her insulin, which she will die without. Seems like a really screwed up priority list to me.

If this is the person I think it is the issue wasn't so much free contraceptives as free contraceptives from an instiution run by people adamantly against contraceptives of any kind. (Georgetown)
If Georgetown offers 3rd party student health insurance not affiliated with the Church or School then there really wouldn't be an argument to be had. Since my understanding was the demand was made of the school I feel they are well within their rights to tell her to pound sand. shrug.

Yeah I didn't quite get that either, I also want to know where she pulled $3000 from... what type of contraceptives was she using? Did they contain fragments of the true cross or something?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
what type of contraceptives was she using? Did they contain fragments of the true cross or something?

Is that why religious people get so bent out of shape when it comes to providing people access to contraceptives and other birth control related items?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps people whose religion forbids them from using something should not go into a line of business in which they may be required to provide a client with the thing they dislike.

Or they could just not offer the product? If I open a gas station and I despise Pepsi products I don't have to carry their product. Doesn't mean I can't go into business selling sodas, snack food and gasoline.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
what type of contraceptives was she using? Did they contain fragments of the true cross or something?

Is that why religious people get so bent out of shape when it comes to providing people access to contraceptives and other birth control related items?

That's my new theory!

Generally speaking yes birth control of all types is inexpensive and easy to attain.

Most universities, public health clinics, and low cost community health clinics, planned parenthood give condoms away for free. Take as many as you like, seriously.

If you insist on birth control pills, cost between $4 and $20 a month. Stop having drive through coffee or Starbucks and you have the money.

KM, I am sorry to hear that your sister is having difficulties getting her insulin.

Have you considered contacting the maker of the insulin? Most pharmaceutical companies have a low income/people in need program to obtain their medications for a much lower cost? It generally involves filling out a couple forms.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Or they could just not offer the product? If I open a gas station and I despise Pepsi products I don't have to carry their product. Doesn't mean I can't go into business selling sodas, snack food and gasoline.

No, because you're talking about a product with restricted access. Since you can't just buy various medical stuff without a prescription (and often insurance involvement) and you can't sell it without a license and training it's a lot harder to "just get it elsewhere". Therefore there's an expectation that if you get that license you're required to provide everything your customers need, not just the things you morally approve of. Don't like it? Don't go into business in that area.

Plus there's the fact that not being able to get Pepsi, even if you are magically in an area where you can't just go to the next gas station for it, is a trivial annoyance, while being unable to get birth control/abortions/whatever ranges from a major inconvenience (being unable to have sex even if you're married, which is not exactly good for a relationship) to a life-destroying event (having an unwanted child). The increased severity of the consequences means that it's entirely reasonable to expect that if you're providing medical services or products you must provide ALL required services and/or products.

Finally, let's not forget that in this specific case it was the employer refusing to offer coverage. It wasn't a case where you have free choice of competing insurance companies with a full range of policies to choose from, you're stuck with what your employer chooses to offer, and if you don't like it then too bad, your only alternative is to either go without insurance, or pay a ton of money for private insurance.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps people whose religion forbids them from using something should not go into a line of business in which they may be required to provide a client with the thing they dislike.

Something I wholeheartedly agree with, here in Phoenix one of our Catholic Hospitals lost it's Catholic affiliation for like a year or two because they performed an emergency abortion to save a mothers life. The Bishop started a witchhunt that ended in St Joes getting their affiliation back and the nun he excommunicated welcomed back into the church and the board of directors. In the end it proved that as a healthcare facility care comes before religion, it was a good stance for both STJ's and the Sisters of Mercy to take.

 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
If you insist on birth control pills, cost between $4 and $20 a month. Stop having drive through coffee or Starbucks and you have the money.

While this might be true for the average single middle-class woman, it's not true for everyone. Not everyone can afford that coffee in the first place, and even $20/month can be a heavy burden when you're just barely getting by (or even falling into debt).

Free, freely-available birth control saves the taxpayers money overall, gives poor women better control over their lives and families, and can help out even better-off women who are in a temporary situation of restricted finances, like in college or unemployed.

There is no moral grounds on which NOT to provide it. it's in our rational self-interest in a society. The religious strictures of those who oppose it legitimately apply only to its personal USE. If your religion forbids using contraception, then it would be immoral to force you to personally use it. But it is also immoral for you to impose your religion on empoyees who do not share that religious belief. Which is functionally what you're doing if you refuse to provide coverage for your employees. Especially the poorer ones.

IME the best Catholics (to choose one example) I know are very concerned with the plight of the poor, and I'm honestly shocked that organizations which are opposed to abortion are not gangbusters in FAVOR of wider and easier access to contraception. It seems a no-brainer. The only explanation I can come up with for it is that it's not, in its essence, about contraception being bad. It's about making it more difficult for women to control their own bodies and reproduction.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Meanwhile my cost for contact lenses is $280 without counting the eye appointment. My contacts greatly effect my quality of life, but I'm not asking any one to pay for them.

Contact lenses are also, essentially, a vanity product. If being able to see was the most important element of the need you could get a pair of glasses much cheaper, probably multiple pairs.

@Peregrine - no doubt. See the $4 Wal-Mart option, and if that is too much $, see the free condom option.

Both the wal-mart and free condom options are government-subsidized.

 Ahtman wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Meanwhile my cost for contact lenses is $280 without counting the eye appointment. My contacts greatly effect my quality of life, but I'm not asking any one to pay for them.

Contact lenses are also, essentially, a vanity product. If being able to see was the most important element of the need you could get a pair of glasses much cheaper, probably multiple pairs.

And I said that in my post. It's simply to improve my quality of life. As has been pointed out there's contraceptives cheap and available that are just as valid solutions as the pill. Unless you have to get a prescription for a box rubbers now and I didn't notice. The pill's a lot simpler though, it improves quality of life over all and makes things easy.

For me there's a significant vision difference between my contacts and my glasses. This change in quality of life is worth the extra money so I pay it.

Contraceptive medication also can be/is used to regular hormones and otherwise improve QoL, and (as was discussed earlier) is frequently prescribed to treat serious medical conditions, like endometriosis. One of the things Fluke originally testified about was the experience one of her classmates had with such a condition and not having coverage.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
And I said that in my post. It's simply to improve my quality of life. As has been pointed out there's contraceptives cheap and available that are just as valid solutions as the pill. Unless you have to get a prescription for a box rubbers now and I didn't notice. The pill's a lot simpler though, it improves quality of life over all and makes things easy.

For me there's a significant vision difference between my contacts and my glasses. This change in quality of life is worth the extra money so I pay it.

However, your glasses aren't only 99.something% effective. By using the pill in combination with other birth control products you only increase your protection. And has been pointed out, paying for birth control is cheaper than paying for unwanted babies and children.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I agree KM. But I should point out, that like in KKs case, there are times when contraceptives are prescribed for medical reasons.

Were it up to me, it would be case by case. If it's needed for other medical reasons, then yeah its covered. If you just want it to not get knocked up, sorry, you're paying. Same thing with ED pills, and other medications that have multiple uses.

See now with doing a brief amount of research I think I can agree with this latter suggestion. If it's a medical necessity why not cover it? If it's optional though, and you're making the choice to do it on your own, simply for the convenience of using oral contraceptives vs. alternative methods to offer yourself increased quality of life... yeah you should be on your own. I buy a year's supply of contacts every January, between the exam and the contacts themselves it's fairly expensive, I could easily just get a pair of glasses instead, but I prefer these, so I willingly fork out for it.

Planned Parenthood says that Birth Control pills cost $15-50 a month. So that's $180-600 a year, and I'm guessing the $50 is the type of stuff that's super pricey to account for medical conditions of some sort. Apparently Target carries offers Tri-Sprintec, the generic form of the birth-control pill Ortho Tri-Cyclen for $9 even. That's not factoring in other methods of birth control which are effective and cheaper. (My ex for example preferred alternative methods because she didn't like fething with her hormones)

Meanwhile my cost for contact lenses is $280 without counting the eye appointment. My contacts greatly effect my quality of life, but I'm not asking any one to pay for them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AustonT wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So I saw someone retweet a photo of a rally that the (in)famous Sandra Fluke hosted the other day (the crowd was in the tens... if not slightly less then ten) and it reminded me of the whole mess about how people are demanding contraceptives be covered by one's insurance, Obama even brought it up at the second debate. I want this cleared up because I'm not quite sure what I think about it over all... but I can say I do think it's equine gak that a group's whining and crying about having to pay for oral contraceptives... which let's face it aren't a medical necessity when my little sister has to pay for her insulin, which she will die without. Seems like a really screwed up priority list to me.

If this is the person I think it is the issue wasn't so much free contraceptives as free contraceptives from an instiution run by people adamantly against contraceptives of any kind. (Georgetown)
If Georgetown offers 3rd party student health insurance not affiliated with the Church or School then there really wouldn't be an argument to be had. Since my understanding was the demand was made of the school I feel they are well within their rights to tell her to pound sand. shrug.

Yeah I didn't quite get that either, I also want to know where she pulled $3000 from... what type of contraceptives was she using? Did they contain fragments of the true cross or something?

Do you think that spectacles should be covered by insurance?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
As has been pointed out there's contraceptives cheap and available that are just as valid solutions as the pill.

Except those other solutions aren't just as valid, since they place responsibility in the other person's hands and require the woman to trust them that they're doing everything right. It's entirely reasonable for women to want access to birth control options that they control.

 Peregrine wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
As has been pointed out there's contraceptives cheap and available that are just as valid solutions as the pill.

Except those other solutions aren't just as valid, since they place responsibility in the other person's hands and require the woman to trust them that they're doing everything right. It's entirely reasonable for women to want access to birth control options that they control.

Yes clearly the diaphragm, spermicide, cervical cap, etc are ALL solely controlled and utilized by the other partner.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I agree KM. But I should point out, that like in KKs case, there are times when contraceptives are prescribed for medical reasons.

Were it up to me, it would be case by case. If it's needed for other medical reasons, then yeah its covered. If you just want it to not get knocked up, sorry, you're paying. Same thing with ED pills, and other medications that have multiple uses.

See now with doing a brief amount of research I think I can agree with this latter suggestion. If it's a medical necessity why not cover it? If it's optional though, and you're making the choice to do it on your own, simply for the convenience of using oral contraceptives vs. alternative methods to offer yourself increased quality of life... yeah you should be on your own. I buy a year's supply of contacts every January, between the exam and the contacts themselves it's fairly expensive, I could easily just get a pair of glasses instead, but I prefer these, so I willingly fork out for it.

Planned Parenthood says that Birth Control pills cost $15-50 a month. So that's $180-600 a year, and I'm guessing the $50 is the type of stuff that's super pricey to account for medical conditions of some sort. Apparently Target carries offers Tri-Sprintec, the generic form of the birth-control pill Ortho Tri-Cyclen for $9 even. That's not factoring in other methods of birth control which are effective and cheaper. (My ex for example preferred alternative methods because she didn't like fething with her hormones)

Meanwhile my cost for contact lenses is $280 without counting the eye appointment. My contacts greatly effect my quality of life, but I'm not asking any one to pay for them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AustonT wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So I saw someone retweet a photo of a rally that the (in)famous Sandra Fluke hosted the other day (the crowd was in the tens... if not slightly less then ten) and it reminded me of the whole mess about how people are demanding contraceptives be covered by one's insurance, Obama even brought it up at the second debate. I want this cleared up because I'm not quite sure what I think about it over all... but I can say I do think it's equine gak that a group's whining and crying about having to pay for oral contraceptives... which let's face it aren't a medical necessity when my little sister has to pay for her insulin, which she will die without. Seems like a really screwed up priority list to me.

If this is the person I think it is the issue wasn't so much free contraceptives as free contraceptives from an instiution run by people adamantly against contraceptives of any kind. (Georgetown)
If Georgetown offers 3rd party student health insurance not affiliated with the Church or School then there really wouldn't be an argument to be had. Since my understanding was the demand was made of the school I feel they are well within their rights to tell her to pound sand. shrug.

Yeah I didn't quite get that either, I also want to know where she pulled $3000 from... what type of contraceptives was she using? Did they contain fragments of the true cross or something?

Do you think that spectacles should be covered by insurance?

Nope, I pay for mine and I don't quibble about it.