That's a given, but this all comes down to the fact that the really conservative (socially) people in this country would rather birth control not be used to better jive with their bronze age religion than look at things like a rational person and realize that contraceptives prevent disease and unwanted pregnancies, two of the things they seem to hate so much for costing them money.

stlouiedipalma;1103574 wrote:Sadly, there are millions who listen to Rush. Many on this site probably listen to him, although they'd never admit to doing so.

I guess this goes back to how many of you object to any kind of health care being free of charge. The fact that someone can get something for nothing must really stick in your craws. I wonder how many of you have health insurance that covers Viagra or one of the ED medications. Of course, you'd never admit to ever using it, would you?

I'll give Rush one thing, though. I'd be willing to bet he paid for all of the oxy he ate for all those years. So much of it that it cost him his hearing, I understand. Unless, of course, all of those prescriptions he shopped around for were covered by his health insurance. Wouldn't that be the end-all?

And for any of you to agree with his characterization of this student, I'd be willing to bet your wives, girlfriends or daughters never see your posts.

HitsRus;1103730 wrote:Oh, stop it with your hatred for religion and religious moral concepts....it clouds your usually perceptive judgement.

'Rational' informed people realize that birth control drugs/devices/procedures do not prevent disease( except for condoms which are not really the issue here.) Realize also that the government's own program, Medicaid, provides these services...and we see how well that is working, right?

Secondly, I can state that as a medical provider, that drugs have secondary uses as well as primary uses, and that all it would take to get a birth control drug covered would be a letter from a physician detailing why a certain drug is being used to treat a medical condition. Hence, a birth control drug for 'lifestyle' choices may not be covered under an insurance policy...but the same drug used as a hormonal regulator for ovarian conditions would be. Arguements that state that women suffering from medical conditions would be denied coverage are blatantly false.

HitsRus;1103328 wrote:No shocker that doggie posts that, and tries to spin that this is what it's about.
Fail.... Just like the loser party he identifies with.





People on welfare already have birth control provided on their medical cards. This is about private employers being mandated to provide it to people who have jobs...and who, for the price of a small flat screen TV, could afford to buy contraception on their own.

This is strictly about control( government control, not birth control) and a certain political party trying to buy votes by somehow making this a women's rights issue.

gut;1103711 wrote:I think the woman's argument was based on birth control used to treate a friend's ovarian condition. If she's including costs of doctor's visits, $1000 a year might not be far off. But that's kind of distorting the picture.

Like I said, if it's a problem then date guys with jobs that can pay for it. At the end of the day, is this argument really that different than demanding to be reimbursed for food, clothes, etc..? Sex, for the most part, is a consumption choice. We shouldn't be subsidizing consumption choices such as this. It's really not all that different from saying someone has a right to free toothpaste or free skin moisturizer (actually, you'd argue toothpaste is more of a basic need).

It's not a necessity or basic need - if you can't afford to have a kid or afford birth control, then don't have sex. It's really not something I, the taxpayer, should pay for. On the other hand, in cases where birth control is used to treat medical conditions, then perhaps it should be included. But otherwise the corollary I might make is this is similar to cosmetic procedures that typically are not covered by insurance.

The argument from these women basically goes "I want to have sex, pay for my birth control". Fantastic. I want a new car - should the taxpayer finance that, too?

HitsRus;1103328 wrote:No shocker that doggie posts that, and tries to spin that this is what it's about.
Fail.... Just like the loser party he identifies with.




People on welfare already have birth control provided on their medical cards. This is about private employers being mandated to provide it to people who have jobs...and who, for the price of a small flat screen TV, could afford to buy contraception on their own.

This is strictly about control( government control, not birth control) and a certain political party trying to buy votes by somehow making this a women's rights issue.

I don't know of any doctors who are going to prescribe a medication without an appointment. As a parent with 4 daughters I can tell you that 3000 a year for their "female" appointments is not out of line.

I can cite five examples: Three family members, my girl friend, and one friend, who all take birth control for health reasons. It is mainly to keep in check ovarian cysts, and Endometriosis. My examples don't use for it birth control, but to keep everything in check. So, there are health aspects, and us guys have no real concept of the issue at all.

BGFalcons82;1103927 wrote:Aren't mandates fun?! This is what happens when our central government commands all to comply. Eventually, everyone gets trampled.

2kool4skool;1103939 wrote:Lol. Sponsors start threatening to drop and Rush apologizes like a bitch

Mandate everyone breathing must have health insurance? Check
Mandate what policies all health care providers must provide? Check
Mandate what these policies must cost? Check
Mandate all health care providers must provide "free" contraception regardless of 1st Amendment violations? Check
What's next....mandating abortions must be provided "free"...and as often as possible?

isadore;1104170 wrote:gosh I am a jehovah witness employer and gosh and my beliefs don't allow me to provide funds to give my employees blood transfusions.
or I am a Christian Science and I dont believe in providing medical treatments for my employees.

Bigdogg;1103836 wrote:I don't know of any doctors who are going to prescribe a medication without an appointment. As a parent with 4 daughters I can tell you that 3000 a year for their "female" appointments is not out of line.

Manhattan Buckeye;1104227 wrote:No. The appointment is covered by insurance, what do you have, a $20 co-pay? Pills shouldn't cost more than $40/month, and that is on the expensive end.

Why does the "left" lie so much? What good it gain? Do you think everyone is so stupid to not pick out the BS? Hundreds of thousands of young women use birth control, do you really think it costs $1,000/year?

I'm at a loss.

How I am seeing this whole debate is bascially trying to frame birth control as just so women can have sex. Which, is false. It is a legit medication, just like other medications like Lipitor, Zoloft, and Cipro. As such, it should be framed under that context. Anything otherwise just ignores the reality of the many uses of it today.

isadore;1104170 wrote:gosh I am a jehovah witness employer and gosh and my beliefs don't allow me to provide funds to give my employees blood transfusions.
or I am a Christian Science and I dont believe in providing medical treatments for my employees.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

gut;1104196 wrote:Yeah, well in a free market the employer shouldn't be forced to provide any kind of healthcare at all. They could instead just give the difference in cash to their employees and leave them to fend for themselves. Otherwise you're free to seek other employment that provides better total comp.

Single people or people without children and/or living a clean/healthy lifestyle which actually be better off in such a scenario. These people already subsidize others in their group plan and now we want them to subsidize everyone else, as well. Such hidden taxes mask just how much the govt takes from our pocket.

I mean, do people honestly believe those employers who don't provide healthcare now are going to dip into their pocket out of a sense of righteousness? Heck no, those employers will pay for the added expense by elmiinating jobs and/or wage cuts.

BGFalcons82;1104325 wrote:By the way, where is FairwoodKing on this issue of free contraception for women? He should be on here demanding free condoms for men he dates I would think. How dare women think this issue is solely theirs to promote when the gay community clearly has a need for free condoms.

I wonder how the "religion of peace" followers would feel about providing free condoms to homosexual men? Their religion/Shari is squarely against the sexual practices of those like FairwoodKing.

ptown_trojans_1;1104289 wrote:I'm guessing he means with the appointments, procedures, and then the medication. Which, I could see, considering how often the examples I use head to the Doc. and obtain meds for their needed symptoms.

How I am seeing this whole debate is bascially trying to frame birth control as just so women can have sex. Which, is false. It is a legit medication, just like other medications like Lipitor, Zoloft, and Cipro. As such, it should be framed under that context. Anything otherwise just ignores the reality of the many uses of it today.

On your last point, spare me. Both sides "lie" as they see fit to construct their own arguments. I've seen articles from both sides that "lie" or leave out facts to support their own argument. Just saying the left does it is naive and illogical.

isadore;1104318 wrote:yes it would be best if we had single payer system for providing the basic right of healthcare.