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.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
Poverty is the key indicator to early teenage pregnancy.
There is an association between poverty, single parent households and lower education.

So--what we are asking is--that a teenage child, who lives in poverty, likely has more contact with peers and multimedia than her single working parent, likely has no hopes for a college education (or examples/parental motivation to seek one)---to spend their money wisely and purchase contraception with what limited funds they have--or ignore hundreds of thousands of years of biological hardwiring and not engage in sexual acts.

That's not a bet I would be willing to take.

That's happening now...

Unwanted pregnancies happens all the time.

 whembly wrote:

Or can't we have a "win-win" system here? Contraceptive IS readily available and if it's not free now, you CAN get them cheaply.

How is that a win/win situation? To me it seems like a win for people who are against contraceptives, and a loss for everyone else.

 whembly wrote:

I agree with the OP that this is assinine. His point ( I gather ) is that insulin is more LIFE THREATENING requirement than having cheap contraceptives to prevent pregnancies... I think that's his point about "the priorities".

Sure, but he has gone in the wrong direction in assuming that, because his sister has to pay for insulin, everyone should pay for their own medication. I would prefer a system in which the cost for all medication were spread across all contributors. I'll also add that his sister must have an awful health plan.

 whembly wrote:

Eh... I don't think Americans would object to Universal Health Care in the same way as the Canadian/NHS model as much as the opposition to ObamaCare.

I doubt that, there was massive public outcry to push Obamacare away from a single-payer system.

 whembly wrote:

But, force them to purchase/manage packages that runs contrary to their belief... its no surprise why they up in arms.

They would still have to pay taxes on a system contrary to their "beliefs", which is to say refrain from imposing their beliefs on others.

 Manchu wrote:
There is a perception that contraceptives are a recreational product.

Barring examples where contraceptives are used medicinally (let's not pretend this isn't a completely separate issue), can anyone tell me why this perception is false?

It isn't, but what insurance company will not cover surgery due to an injury sustained in a recreational activity? Like, for example driving when not going to work.

 Manchu wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
The nul hypothesis would be that contraceptive drugs are medicinal drugs

No it's not.

Contraceptive drugs are medical drugs. They are prescribed by a healthcare professional to treat, mitigate or prevent some biological function and they also alter the behaviour of the body. Thus they are a medicinal drug (differentiated from simply being a "drug" by their use). They are also incidentally licensed worldwide for use as a medicinal drug and are described as such in the codes of law of pretty much every country.

There are several medicinal drugs which are also characterised as recreational drugs, however, that involves a further characterisation.

Since contraceptive drugs are already clearly defined as medicinal drugs, the nul hypothesis is that contraceptive drugs are medicinal drugs. I grant you that if you want to throw out everything already known about drugs, the nul hypothesis would be that contraceptive drugs have no effect on the body at all... but I thought we might want to skip going right back to first principles and work from already well established knowledge.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Or can't we have a "win-win" system here? Contraceptive IS readily available and if it's not free now, you CAN get them cheaply.

How is that a win/win situation? To me it seems like a win for people who are against contraceptives, and a loss for everyone else.

?? A win/win is like this:
Win #1: keep contraceptive cheap and easy to get (like now)... OBGYN office regularly give months worth of samples... Go to your local PP office... Walmart sells 'em dirt cheap...

Win #2: allow religious institutions to NOT cover them on their plans... because Win #1 is still there.

 whembly wrote:

I agree with the OP that this is assinine. His point ( I gather ) is that insulin is more LIFE THREATENING requirement than having cheap contraceptives to prevent pregnancies... I think that's his point about "the priorities".

Sure, but he has gone in the wrong direction in assuming that, because his sister has to pay for insulin, everyone should pay for their own medication. I would prefer a system in which the cost for all medication were spread across all contributors. I'll also add that his sister must have an awful health plan.

Eh... he does have a point.

I think the MAJOR disconnect here is thinking that "hey I have insurance, so everything should be free/accessible once I paid my premiums". That's not how insurances work here...

 whembly wrote:

Eh... I don't think Americans would object to Universal Health Care in the same way as the Canadian/NHS model as much as the opposition to ObamaCare.

I doubt that, there was massive public outcry to push Obamacare away from a single-payer system.

Okay... I'm sure you think I'm some red-blooded Conservative here...

But, if I can be convinced that without raising major taxes and replacing ObamaCare/Medicare/Medicaid with the Canadian model AND allow private insurances to offer additional plans for "more electives, faster service, etc"... then tell me where to sign up!

(fyi... I'm socially liberal, but governmentally conservative... so, I'd like to think of myself as a "South Park Conservative"!)

 whembly wrote:

But, force them to purchase/manage packages that runs contrary to their belief... its no surprise why they up in arms.

They would still have to pay taxes on a system contrary to their "beliefs", which is to say refrain from imposing their beliefs on others.

There is a difference paying/managing a plan vs paying a "tax" that goes towards that.

There's catholic institutions in Canada/Britian/Italy/etc... I'm sure the do fine there.

Yeah, the Catholic would bitch/moan about it... but they'll deal with it.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Contraceptive drugs are medical drugs. They are prescribed by a healthcare professional to treat, mitigate or prevent some biological function and they also alter the behaviour of the body. Thus they are a medicinal drug (differentiated from simply being a "drug" by their use).

This is called "begging the question" plus I already dealt with the idea of contraceptives as prescribed for non-contraceptive purposes (i.e., we're not actually talking about that). So what that leaves is everything that can be compared to a condom bought whenever by whomever in a store.

 whembly wrote:

Win #1: keep contraceptive cheap and easy to get (like now)... OBGYN office regularly give months worth of samples... Go to your local PP office... Walmart sells 'em dirt cheap...

Win #2: allow religious institutions to NOT cover them on their plans... because Win #1 is still there.

That's not a win/win. That system allows any hypothetical company to deny exemption according to religious exemption, not matter how absurd, much as the Catholic Church is presently doing.

 whembly wrote:

Eh... he does have a point.

I think the MAJOR disconnect here is thinking that "hey I have insurance, so everything should be free/accessible once I paid my premiums". That's not how insurances work here...

No, it isn't, but requiring the coverage of birth control stems from the same sentiment that requires the coverage of insulin. Saying that because insulin isn't covered that birth control shouldn't be either completely misses the point.

This is why its called healthcare reform.

 whembly wrote:

Dogma... not necessarily in this case, but do you draw a line of personal responsiblity anywhere?

Yes, but its extremely case-based. I don't engage with mass politics on a personal level.

 dogma wrote:
It isn't, but what insurance company will not cover surgery due to an injury sustained in a recreational activity? Like, for example driving when not going to work.

The difference of course is that we're not talking about an injury that has already been sustained (and that is a poor way to think of conception, but I'll leave it aside). A better example would be whether insurance should cover a course that gets you fit enough to climb Mt. Everest (or at least to the point of having a very low probability of injury resulting from being out of shape).

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Win #1: keep contraceptive cheap and easy to get (like now)... OBGYN office regularly give months worth of samples... Go to your local PP office... Walmart sells 'em dirt cheap...

Win #2: allow religious institutions to NOT cover them on their plans... because Win #1 is still there.

That's not a win/win. That system allows any hypothetical company to deny exemption according to religious exemption, not matter how absurd, much as the Catholic Church is presently doing.

How is that NOT a win/win?

You'd have a point if contraceptive is too expensive...

 whembly wrote:

Eh... he does have a point.

I think the MAJOR disconnect here is thinking that "hey I have insurance, so everything should be free/accessible once I paid my premiums". That's not how insurances work here...

No, it isn't, but requiring the coverage of birth control stems from the same sentiment that requires the coverage of insulin. Saying that because insulin isn't covered that birth control shouldn't be either completely misses the point.

This is why its called healthcare reform.

He's not saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that because insulins isn't covered, contraceptives shouldn't be... he's saying that when setting up an insurance plan, the priorities need to be better defined.

 whembly wrote:

Dogma... not necessarily in this case, but do you draw a line of personal responsiblity anywhere?

Yes, but its extremely case-based. I don't engage with mass politics on a personal level.

 Manchu wrote:
There is a perception that contraceptives are a recreational product.

Barring examples where contraceptives are used medicinally (let's not pretend this isn't a completely separate issue), can anyone tell me why this perception is false?

It doesn't matter IMO. Recreational sex is an essential part of intimate relationships. You can't seriously expect people of all walks of life, even those married many years, never to have sex unless they are specifically trying for children, it's stupid and unfair. Having a healthy sex life is good for you mentally and physically. The majority of sex may be 'recreational', but lets not pretend that means it's like watching the TV or playing football.

Contraceptives absolutely should be free because they serve a responsible and healthy society. Providing contraceptives will always be cheaper than supporting the otherwise higher number of children born into impoverished backgrounds, certain contraceptives prevent the spread of STDs, and they help people plan their families responsibly to have children when they able to raise them properly. The people against this simply refuse to see the economic and social benefits. And many are likely are moralising christians who insist on pushing the ludicrous ideal that abstinence education is effective and is realistic for everyone to live by. Or those leading the moral panic on things like proper sex education, condoms being available in schools, or things like the HPV vaccine (which apparently turns children into whores as a vaccine against one STD means they'll want to have lots of meaningless sex ASAP)

 Manchu wrote:
There is a perception that contraceptives are a recreational product.

Barring examples where contraceptives are used medicinally (let's not pretend this isn't a completely separate issue), can anyone tell me why this perception is false?

There are several serious commentaries in the Talmud about when and how contraceptives should be used, then again recreational sex isn't forbidden in Judaism either.

@Howard & Auston: I have nothing against recreational sex. I just don't think the various accouterments associated with it, whether condoms or KY for Him and Her, are the kind of thing insurance providers have a duty to cover.

 Manchu wrote:
The difference of course is that we're not talking about an injury that has already been sustained

In neither case are we doing so. No insurance company, absent present legal provisions, would ever pay for a broken leg you sustained prior to their coverage. Nor would they compensate you for birth control you didn't buy through them.

If birth control is recreational, and therefore should not be covered by federally subsidized policies, then neither should we consider driving a car absent necessity, playing soccer, or walking on ice. Insurance companies cover all kinds of recreational things by way of category, this should be no different.

This whole issue is about an obscene appeal to traditionalism.

whembly wrote:Yeah, the Catholic would bitch/moan about it... but they'll deal with it.

It appears that you have no idea about who it is that you are talking about, historically speaking.

Did you know that this Hallowe'en marks the 20th anniversary of the Catholic Church accepting that the Earth orbits around the Sun?

whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Win #1: keep contraceptive cheap and easy to get (like now)... OBGYN office regularly give months worth of samples... Go to your local PP office... Walmart sells 'em dirt cheap...

Win #2: allow religious institutions to NOT cover them on their plans... because Win #1 is still there.

That's not a win/win. That system allows any hypothetical company to deny exemption according to religious exemption, not matter how absurd, much as the Catholic Church is presently doing.

How is that NOT a win/win?

You'd have a point if contraceptive is too expensive...

It is too expensive for a lot of people. There are millions of people in the US living hand-to-mouth, and even as little as $9 a month is $9 they don't have.

 Manchu wrote:
@Howard & Auston: I have nothing against recreational sex. I just don't think the various accouterments associated with it, whether condoms or KY for Him and Her, are the kind of thing insurance providers have a duty to cover.

Why? There are far more people having sex then need insulin, but we'll pay for that (or we should), so it seems odd that one of the fundamental activities of being human beyond eating and sleeping should be such a bugaboo for being healthy and responsible, and we are even talking about having to use huge sums of money to do it. Forgoing any other argument, it is cheaper for the provider than STD treatment, or pregnancy related costs. It just seems to me that the cons don't come close to outweighing the pros, unless you start inserting non-medical, non-fiscal reasoning, like religion, or general fear of the boobies and other lady parts.

 Manchu wrote:
@Howard & Auston: I have nothing against recreational sex. I just don't think the various accouterments associated with it, whether condoms or KY for Him and Her, are the kind of thing insurance providers have a duty to cover.

Has anyone actually proposed insurance covering condoms and lube? I was pretty sure this was confined to BC and plan B.

Manchu wrote:@Howard & Auston: I have nothing against recreational sex. I just don't think the various accouterments associated with it, whether condoms or KY for Him and Her, are the kind of thing insurance providers have a duty to cover.

While this point doesn't cover apply to birth control, it does to some other contraceptives: condoms are a lot cheaper than AIDS cocktails. So it is in the insurance companies' best financial interests to cover contraceptives.


I think this discussion would be a lot more honest if both sides would just acknowledge that the real debate at issue is that Christian churches are against sex and want their dogma in your bedroom, and this entire insurance issue is just the church actinging in a passive-aggressive manner.


EDIT: Holy gak, I got ninja'd twice!

Protip: KY Warming Sensation is for vaginal use only.


ONLY!!!

kronk wrote:Protip: KY Warming Sensation is for vaginal use only.


ONLY!!!

It also makes a great base for fake Hallowe'en blood.

 kronk wrote:
Protip: KY Warming Sensation is for vaginal use only.


ONLY!!!

What is nice about life is that you can still learn new things everyday.

At my old school district, of the 6 or so Highschools they had, They had one specifically for pregnant moms, with nsite play areas, daycare and im pretty sure better food.
And i mean a real good one,
All that money could have been spent on condom dispensers in the boys locker room. My friend was so surprised when we went to college to see a condom machine in the boys bathroom.

 Manchu wrote:
@Howard & Auston: I have nothing against recreational sex. I just don't think the various accouterments associated with it, whether condoms or KY for Him and Her, are the kind of thing insurance providers have a duty to cover.

What Manchu is becoming a Libertarian now?

"You can do what you want, just leave me alone."
-Frazzled, not caring about anything other than he just ran out of Swiss Cake Rolls, and now its time for the world to pay.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
@Howard & Auston: I have nothing against recreational sex. I just don't think the various accouterments associated with it, whether condoms or KY for Him and Her, are the kind of thing insurance providers have a duty to cover.

What Manchu is becoming a Libertarian now?

Manchu is all things to all people.

And, let us be honest, your motto is more "You can do what you want, just leave my family alone, and let me pretend like some creepy guy in a horror movie that we don't exist in a place where other humans live and I have them all to myself".

 dogma wrote:
In neither case are we doing so.

Sure we are. In one instance, the coverage is for treatment of an injury as/when it is suffered. In the other case, there is coverage for something without regard to an injury suffered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
What Manchu is becoming a Libertarian now?

Hey now, no need to call me dirty names.

In all honesty, and this is for dogma I guess, I see nothing wrong with people using birth control and I honestly think the Catholic teaching on the issue is altogether political (curial rather than US politics, mind) rather than moral. But I'm just not sure why there is any obligation for insurance companies to cover it except when its prescribed for reasons unrelated to preventing conception.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
@Howard & Auston: I have nothing against recreational sex. I just don't think the various accouterments associated with it, whether condoms or KY for Him and Her, are the kind of thing insurance providers have a duty to cover.

What Manchu is becoming a Libertarian now?

Manchu is all things to all people.

And, let us be honest, your motto is more "You can do what you want, just leave my family alone, and let me pretend like some creepy guy in a horror movie that

Dude stop while you are ahead. Its perfection right there. I always wanted to be the creepy guy in the horror movie.

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:Yeah, the Catholic would bitch/moan about it... but they'll deal with it.

It appears that you have no idea about who it is that you are talking about, historically speaking.

Uh... aren't there Catholic institutions in Canada?

Did you know that this Hallowe'en marks the 20th anniversary of the Catholic Church accepting that the Earth orbits around the Sun?

Wait... what?

REALLY? Plz tell me that this is true... more stuff to tease my Catholic friends!

whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Win #1: keep contraceptive cheap and easy to get (like now)... OBGYN office regularly give months worth of samples... Go to your local PP office... Walmart sells 'em dirt cheap...

Win #2: allow religious institutions to NOT cover them on their plans... because Win #1 is still there.

That's not a win/win. That system allows any hypothetical company to deny exemption according to religious exemption, not matter how absurd, much as the Catholic Church is presently doing.

How is that NOT a win/win?

You'd have a point if contraceptive is too expensive...

It is too expensive for a lot of people. There are millions of people in the US living hand-to-mouth, and even as little as $9 a month is $9 they don't have.

One does not have to use contraceptives in order to have or enjoy sex, per se. The point is to reduce the chance of pregancy.

I don't know if that makes them a recreational product.

Frazzled wrote: -Frazzled, not caring about anything other than he just ran out of Swiss Cake Rolls, and now its time for the world to pay.

I think it's time for you to pay.



For more Swiss Cake Rolls.

In the sense I hope we can agree to, contraceptives do not treat an injury sustained. They are conducive although not necessary to a recreational activity. As I see it, they are much more like other recreational sexual products (one might imagine a spermicidal lubricant) than any kind of medication or treatment.

Medicine is not purely for the purpose of treating existing physical injuries. However I take your point that sex is a voluntary activity.

Let us suppose a wife, required to procreate within marriage, was prevented from doing so by very painful intercourse due to a lack of lubrication -- perhaps caused by a hormone imbalance -- would a sexual lubricant be considered necessary to the activity?

Let me see if I understand the question: if lubricant made an otherwise impossible sex act possible would it be necessary to that sex act? I'd have to say yes. But should there be a government mandate that insurance providers cover treatments that make procreative sex possible? I don't think so, although that is something I think parties should be able to privately negotiate.