Birth Control - Should it be FREE

Quote :

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. health insurance companies must offer women free birth control and other preventive health care services under Obama administration rules released on Monday, a historic decision supported by family planning groups and opposed by conservative groups.

Thoughts?

Birth control is way cheaper than unwanted pregnancy.

Yes. Ins. companies should cover birth control. I never understood why they'll cover 10-15,000 for the birth of a child (at least mine did) but not birth control. Doesn't this country have enough unwanted or uncared for kids?

Conservative groups don't agree? Shocking. Why? Because they think it promotes promiscuous or premarital sex? They need to get over themselves. It happens regardless.

Is viagra covered by insurance?

Some ins. co. used to cover it. I don't know about now. But if they do, it makes even less sense not to cover birth control.

motokid wrote:

Quote :

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. health insurance companies must offer women free birth control and other preventive health care services under Obama administration rules released on Monday, a historic decision supported by family planning groups and opposed by conservative groups.

Thoughts?

Birth control is way cheaper than unwanted pregnancy.

Even better, contraception could be mandatory, the antidote could be available after proper training and qualifications... kinda like a driver's licence or a passport...

Birth control is free. Don't fuck. ...which is not a dirty word, but rather an acronym BTW.

It's not "free" birth control. It's cost is borne by all paying policyholders.

Still confused as to how/why a health insurance policy should be required to pay for something involving a concensual act of pleasure.

Perhaps the administration is "in bed" with the pharma industry?

Rule292 wrote:

Still confused as to how/why a health insurance policy should be required to pay for something involving a concensual act of pleasure.

Oh it gets better than that:

Why should a private insurance company have to cover ANYTHING they don't want to put in their policy? If they only want their policies to cover broken left arms, broken on Sundays, between 5 and 7 pm, why isn't that entirely up to them?

If somebody writes better, more attractive policies, then they have just two choices: make their policies more attractive and competitive, or go out of business.

Just more government regulation piled on private business, to make providing services more expensive, and then when regulations like that cause costs to consumers to go up, the government says "that's why you need more government regulation and Obamacare"

Meanwhile, as the "everybody knows" crowd works themselves into a frothing frenzy about the evl insurance companies, it turns out government Medicare denied medical claims at nearly double the average for private insurers. Medicare denied 6.85% of claims, with an average denial rate of medical claims by private insurers of 3.88%. So while government insurance denies twice as many claims as private insurance, apparently we're supposed want more government meddling in health insurance and telling them what they have to cover and how they market their coverage.

X-Racer wrote:

Birth control is free. Don't fuck. ...which is not a dirty word, but rather an acronym BTW.

yeah - how's that system working by the way?

What grade would you give it?


I've seen reports that state roughly 1/3 of all pregnancies in the US are "unwanted", and that some research concludes that costs tax payers roughly 11 billion dollars a year.

Guess which segment of society is most likely to have unplanned or unwanted pregnancies?

taoshum wrote:

motokid wrote:

Quote :

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. health insurance companies must offer women free birth control and other preventive health care services under Obama administration rules released on Monday, a historic decision supported by family planning groups and opposed by conservative groups.

Thoughts?

Birth control is way cheaper than unwanted pregnancy.

Even better, contraception could be mandatory, the antidote could be available after proper training and qualifications... kinda like a driver's licence or a passport...

I'm with you. It's the only way out of our idioocracy.

Jäger wrote:

Rule292 wrote:

Still confused as to how/why a health insurance policy should be required to pay for something involving a concensual act of pleasure.

Oh it gets better than that:

Why should a private insurance company have to cover ANYTHING they don't want to put in their policy? If they only want their policies to cover broken left arms, broken on Sundays, between 5 and 7 pm, why isn't that entirely up to them?

If somebody writes better, more attractive policies, then they have just two choices: make their policies more attractive and competitive, or go out of business.

Ah, if only capitalism worked in practice as it theoretically is imagined. In reality, the companies with the most abusive policies leverage themselves so they can absorb the competent competition and, pretty soon, all companies only "cover broken left arms, broken on Sundays, between 5 and 7 pm." "All" meaning, the one or two left in the industry. Did you notice how many company executives were willing to stop the practice of "rescission?" (http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/story/health-insurers-refuse-limit-rescission-coverage) How about absolutely none? Not one company took the competitive advantage of becoming the one insurance company that actually delivered on its promise of medical coverage in the event of patient disease.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Health/story?id=7911195&page=1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBFKkXDSKWw
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/01/26/140965/insurance-company-veteran-cents/

IIRC I payed $500 bucks for my Arai XD3. I'd really like a pair of Alpinestars Tech 8's. And I just payed 50 bucks for some wrist braces.

Why doesn't obama mandate that my health insurer cover the cost of my protective gear for my motorcycling?

After all, it's the insurers and taxpayers that save when I'm geared up for safety.

Rule292 wrote:

Why doesn't obama mandate that my health insurer cover the cost of my protective gear for my motorcycling?

After all, it's the insurers and taxpayers that save when I'm geared up for safety.

If you were among the anti-helmet crowd you'd be arguing that not wearing a helmet saves taxpayers money because you wouldn't survive a crash.

motokid wrote:

Guess which segment of society is most likely to have unplanned or unwanted pregnancies?

My guess would be that many would be from the group that often lives in government provided, taxpayer financed housing.

That live off an assortment of government entitlement programs, financed by the taxpayer..

That are often unemployed, because most didn't have any more self discipline to finish the public school (provided again by taxpayers, and where they would have been taught about proper contraception) than they had to use birth control.

The ones that didn't use the taxpayer-funded, freely available family planning facilities available in their communities, where condoms are available for the asking - even "free" isn't sufficient to have them use birth control.

In short, those conditioned by our socialist programs to having an attitude that they're not REALLY responsible for their lives, or being personally accountable - providing and looking after them is the government's job; they have a right to that. And then, to their misery, they find out that an entitlement lifestyle is actually pretty awful.

Unplanned pregnancies touch all stratas of society, but my guess is the above is where the greatest identifiable group is from.

But... what the hell... it's probably George Bush's fault.

Jäger wrote:

motokid wrote:

Guess which segment of society is most likely to have unplanned or unwanted pregnancies?

My guess would be that many would be from the group that often lives in government provided, taxpayer financed housing.

That live off an assortment of government entitlement programs, financed by the taxpayer..

That are often unemployed, because most didn't have any more self discipline to finish the public school (provided again by taxpayers, and where they would have been taught about proper contraception) than they had to use birth control.

.

I'm no scholar...but you were mostly correct with this part of your statement.

If you read Freakonomoics, it should be the right wingers that favor abortion. Strange that they don't.....

Jäger wrote:

motokid wrote:

Guess which segment of society is most likely to have unplanned or unwanted pregnancies?

My guess would be that many would be from the group that often lives in government provided, taxpayer financed housing.

That live off an assortment of government entitlement programs, financed by the taxpayer..

That are often unemployed, because most didn't have any more self discipline to finish the public school (provided again by taxpayers, and where they would have been taught about proper contraception) than they had to use birth control.

The ones that didn't use the taxpayer-funded, freely available family planning facilities available in their communities, where condoms are available for the asking - even "free" isn't sufficient to have them use birth control.

In short, those conditioned by our socialist programs to having an attitude that they're not REALLY responsible for their lives, or being personally accountable - providing and looking after them is the government's job; they have a right to that. And then, to their misery, they find out that an entitlement lifestyle is actually pretty awful.

Unplanned pregnancies touch all stratas of society, but my guess is the above is where the greatest identifiable group is from.

But... what the hell... it's probably George Bush's fault.

kinda sounds like the non-combat elements of the army????

jimrobinette wrote:

If you read Freakonomoics,

Loved that book.

Jäger wrote:

motokid wrote:

Guess which segment of society is most likely to have unplanned or unwanted pregnancies?

My guess would be that many would be from the group that often lives in government provided, taxpayer financed housing.

That live off an assortment of government entitlement programs, financed by the taxpayer..

That are often unemployed, because most didn't have any more self discipline to finish the public school (provided again by taxpayers, and where they would have been taught about proper contraception) than they had to use birth control.

The ones that didn't use the taxpayer-funded, freely available family planning facilities available in their communities, where condoms are available for the asking - even "free" isn't sufficient to have them use birth control.

In short, those conditioned by our socialist programs to having an attitude that they're not REALLY responsible for their lives, or being personally accountable - providing and looking after them is the government's job; they have a right to that. And then, to their misery, they find out that an entitlement lifestyle is actually pretty awful.

Unplanned pregnancies touch all stratas of society, but my guess is the above is where the greatest identifiable group is from.

But... what the hell... it's probably George Bush's fault.

I sure hope you're not suggesting that most "poor" people are poor because they chose to be poor.

Motokid said :
I sure hope you're not suggesting that most "poor" people are poor because they chose to be poor.

Not that they are choosing to be poor but that they choose to continue living on government handouts rather than lifting their heads and pressing forward and striving for a better life. They choose to be victims in their own mind of a society where "The Man" is holding them down. The man can't be holding you down cause you the man. Click Here ----> You can't hold a man down, UNLESS...

IndigoWolf wrote:

they choose to continue living on government handouts

Yeah...one hell of an awesome choice to make....



Damn kid...living the high life....

Yes, it is a hell of a choice to make. The choice to move above and beyond societies expectations. To strive to Be Somebody! And make it... all it takes is someone to believe she can make it, and encourage, nurture, and mobilize this little spirit in the direction of success.

Its a shame you would place such a curse on this child. It is sad you don't believe.

encourage - in courage - input courage
discourage - dis courage - displace courage

How willing are you to be there for someone who needs help?

Who is holding you down? Ain't me never has been. Remember ... "you the man".

I think it's a HUGE oversimplification to suggest people chose to remain in poverty and chose to accept welfare over "success" and/or higher living standards.


Are there some? Sure. Does that include everybody? Hell no. Is it most? I'd say no to that as well.

Simply wanting something isn't enough.

Children born into generations of poverty can't simply decide to be more successful. They've got generations of issues to overcome.
If your parents are not engaged in your learning and development you'll have a very difficult time moving beyond the things that are "normal".

Can it be done? Sure. Is that the exception to the situation, or the norm? I'd say it's the exception.

It's very hard to escape the society and the environment you live in when it's so vastly limited in the first place.

Poor education, lack of nutritious food, drugs, violence, and most importantly - lack of HOPE go a long way towards setting limitations that are almost impossible to overcome.

Throw in parents that can't parent, or won't parent, or simply repeat the sins of those who came before them and you've got something much MUCH more complicated than people making a choice to live high off the lamb on government handouts.

Throw in that most probably don't have parents.....

The options for escaping poverty are so vastly limited when compared to the options those in the middle class and above have.

You can obviously point to a few select individual cases of people who have escaped the cycle.

Again - that's the exception, not the rule.

motokid wrote:

I think it's a HUGE oversimplification to suggest people chose to remain in poverty and chose to accept welfare over "success" and/or higher living standards.

. . . The options for escaping poverty are so vastly limited when compared to the options those in the middle class and above have.

You can obviously point to a few select individual cases of people who have escaped the cycle.

Again - that's the exception, not the rule.

There is an interesting environmentally induced handicap called "learned helplessness syndrome" that is even interesting to cube dwellers. Exposure to constant noise, as in urban environments, has been found to "teach" people to accept their situation as unchangeable.

I first ran into this when I worked for a company that designed noise backgrounds for cube-hell offices. Back in the 80's management was jabbering "employee empowerment" as part of quality management (when we still made stuff in the US). We found that offices with poor layout, and an associated requirement for more background masking noise, produced employee groups that were dramatically less inclined to take ownership of customer problems. It turned out that urban planners knew this in the 1950's (since I found it in a B&K "Noise Control" textbook) and the effect is particularly hard on kids.

What we focus on expands! That's it, if people focus on their goals, sooner or later, they will match them. However, if they focus on pulling, or tearing down others, they are focusing on their hatred, their jealousy, and that's what they will get more of...

You, are still blowing smoke. Pointing a finger and laying blame to divert responsibility.

The government is already providing free education, food, medical, dental, housing, and the list go's on... and you are wining about them not getting more free benefits?

WTF??

The non-profits, charities, and private industries, have done so much more to get people on their feet and motivated to make something better of themselves and their kids than the government free handout system ever has. The government system actually helps the cyclical pattern continue because blame is diverted and personal responsibility is zero.

Helping the poor should not be the responsibility of the government, they simply are not good/efficient at it. People are willing to give to charities providing they are not being bled to death by an excessive taxation system and an over indulgent government. ... Put that money back in the pockets of those that have earned it and those charities will thrive through generous donations. People are not cold hearted in general.

Maybe its you... Step away from the dark side... Hope and expect better things.