President Obama Recasts Contraception Debate as Women's Issue Not Religious One

[Wind Song]

Courting female voters is central to Obama’s re-election strategy. He won the White House in part because of a significant gender gap in the general election voting.
http://www.rgj.com/article/20120303/NEWS19/303030037/President-Obama-recasts-birth-control-debate-own-terms (http://www.rgj.com/article/20120303/NEWS19/303030037/President-Obama-recasts-birth-control-debate-own-terms)

[Noir]

It is and isn't a womans issue because there are two different arguments within the same question, one of which (IMO) should be granted and one not.

IF a woman suffers greatly from her periods in such a way that it has enough of a negative impact on her life for a doctor to prescribe to her the pill/injections or some other way to reduce the effects/stop the period then i think that should be covered by whatever medical insurance she has. It would be unfair to expect a woman to have to pay for something which is a part of nature and something only applicable to woman.

IF she just wants it to stop herself getting preggers then i think its up to her and her mate to make sure their sex is safe(r). I'm sure that there are charity/family planning groups that give out free condoms etc and maybe in return those people can donate/volunteer for the charity or at least spread the word of the good work they do.

[fj1200]

Courting female voters is central to Obama’s re-election strategy. He won the White House in part because of a significant gender gap in the general election voting.
http://www.rgj.com/article/20120303/NEWS19/303030037/President-Obama-recasts-birth-control-debate-own-terms (http://www.rgj.com/article/20120303/NEWS19/303030037/President-Obama-recasts-birth-control-debate-own-terms)

Correct me if I'm wrong but there is pretty much always a gender gap so it's not just a BO thing.

Also, I don't recall which mess of a thread you stated that BC should be covered because it's medication... Maybe so but birth control is a planned event and last I checked insurance was not really meant for planned events. Insurance, in the traditional sense, is risk mitigation. Unfortunately, it has been transformed into a health care payment plan and this type of ruling is one more step down that path and is one of the drivers of our skyrocketing health care costs.


It is and isn't a womans issue because there are two different arguments within the same question, one of which (IMO) should be granted and one not.

IF a woman suffers greatly from her periods in such a way that it has enough of a negative impact on her life for a doctor to prescribe to her the pill/injections or some other way to reduce the effects/stop the period then i think that should be covered by whatever medical insurance she has. It would be unfair to expect a woman to have to pay for something which is a part of nature and something only applicable to woman.

Agreed. I don't think anyone would deny something like this is basic coverage.


IF she just wants it to stop herself getting preggers then i think its up to her and her mate to make sure their sex is safe(r). I'm sure that there are charity/family planning groups that give out free condoms etc and maybe in return those people can donate/volunteer for the charity or at least spread the word of the good work they do.

Yup, also why does one need to involve a bureaucracy of an insurance company to pay higher premiums on one side just to reduce the premiums on the other side. When people feel the effects of their health care decisions via their dollars then they have an incentive to search out the most cost effective solution. Another example of the health care consumer being isolated from the true costs of their actions/choices.

[SassyLady]

Courting female voters is central to Obama’s re-election strategy. He won the White House in part because of a significant gender gap in the general election voting.
http://www.rgj.com/article/20120303/NEWS19/303030037/President-Obama-recasts-birth-control-debate-own-terms (http://www.rgj.com/article/20120303/NEWS19/303030037/President-Obama-recasts-birth-control-debate-own-terms)

It totally disgusts me that it is the prevalent thought that birth control is the only thing a woman is focused on when it comes to electing the leader of the free world. What utter bullshit!!!

[SassyLady]

It is and isn't a womans issue because there are two different arguments within the same question, one of which (IMO) should be granted and one not.

IF a woman suffers greatly from her periods in such a way that it has enough of a negative impact on her life for a doctor to prescribe to her the pill/injections or some other way to reduce the effects/stop the period then i think that should be covered by whatever medical insurance she has. It would be unfair to expect a woman to have to pay for something which is a part of nature and something only applicable to woman.

IF she just wants it to stop herself getting preggers then i think its up to her and her mate to make sure their sex is safe(r). I'm sure that there are charity/family planning groups that give out free condoms etc and maybe in return those people can donate/volunteer for the charity or at least spread the word of the good work they do.

"You must spread reputation around"

Great stance Noir.

[avatar4321]

So Obama lies about what the real issue is and we are supposed to just follow him off the cliff like good little lemmings?

Not a chance. He doesnt get to choose what the issue is. He doesn't get to attack our religious liberty without a fight. Nor does he get to spend our tax money just because some activist he agrees with demands we pay for her stuff.

[logroller]

To me, this debate revolves around two premises:
1)there a social interest in people having healthcare insurance
2)third parties can and should act to further that interest at their discretion

I happen to agree with the first, but I think the second is problematic.

[jimnyc]

To me, this debate revolves around two premises:
1)there a social interest in people having healthcare insurance
2)third parties can and should act to further that interest at their discretion

I happen to agree with the first, but I think the second is problematic.

Another thing that is related to healthcare insurance, that is rarely fully paid for these days, if at all - eye/vision care. This has always been something that is a rare perk, and even when it is covered, it's usually very generic and anything of value isn't covered. In other words, from someone who has had like 5 different plans over the years, they generally cover a yearly eye checkup.

Isn't eye care important, you know, people being able to see? LOL I needed reading glasses, and had to pay for them myself. My wife needs glasses for driving, and paid for them herself. No surgeries have ever been covered in any of our family plans.

What I'm getting at is that there are TONS of things that can be covered, or better covered in insurance plans. But we are focusing on people being able to be protected when they have sex. Because God knows they can't help but have babies if we don't stop them from doing so!

So what if groups start protesting for full vision coverage next, and free, as you know, it's costly for students. Should we have a mandate for that next?

[jimnyc]

Oh, and dental care. Almost every plan I have ever had only covered a few checkups/cleanings per year. I happen to think having healthy teeth are very important. But that's another cost I simply can't afford while I'm in school. There should be a mandate to help me with my teeth on my insurance, and it should be free.

[logroller]

Another thing that is related to healthcare insurance, that is rarely fully paid for these days, if at all - eye/vision care. This has always been something that is a rare perk, and even when it is covered, it's usually very generic and anything of value isn't covered. In other words, from someone who has had like 5 different plans over the years, they generally cover a yearly eye checkup.

Isn't eye care important, you know, people being able to see? LOL I needed reading glasses, and had to pay for them myself. My wife needs glasses for driving, and paid for them herself. No surgeries have ever been covered in any of our family plans.

What I'm getting at is that there are TONS of things that can be covered, or better covered in insurance plans. But we are focusing on people being able to be protected when they have sex. Because God knows they can't help but have babies if we don't stop them from doing so!

So what if groups start protesting for full vision coverage next, and free, as you know, it's costly for students. Should we have a mandate for that next?

Its funny you'd highlight the first premise, I'd say the issue you described is attributable to the 2nd. Who selected the insurance plan which didn't cover eye care...a third party?

[jimnyc]

Its funny you'd highlight the first premise, I'd say the issue you described is attributable to the 2nd. Who selected the insurance plan which didn't cover eye care...a third party?

My wife had multiple job offers on the table, and insurance plans for the family in hand. She chose the company she is at now. All were chosen by 3rd parties, and all of them only offered the bare minimum when it came to vision and dental. It's either accept what they have to offer on the current insurance plan, or get your own insurance outside of the company.

Not all, but almost all companies/insurance only cover the basics when it comes to both. But they SHOULD cover it all, and for free, as our eyes and teeth are imnportant, and this stuff is a helluva lot more expensive than condoms or the pill!

[logroller]

My wife had multiple job offers on the table, and insurance plans for the family in hand. She chose the company she is at now. All were chosen by 3rd parties, and all of them only offered the bare minimum when it came to vision and dental. It's either accept what they have to offer on the current insurance plan, or get your own insurance outside of the company.

Not all, but almost all companies/insurance only cover the basics when it comes to both. But they SHOULD cover it all, and for free, as our eyes and teeth are imnportant, and this stuff is a helluva lot more expensive than condoms or the pill!

Two separate issues, aren't they?
She should choose the company she works at based solely on the work. Likewise, she should choose her insurance plan based solely on the healthcare expenses she anticipates. I mentioned this before, and it just seems so simple that I can't move past it. Having to consider both in relation to one another makes ABSOLUTELY no sense, as it can only lead to a derisive consideration of the other. It could make no difference at all, but I don't see how it can be constructive.

[jimnyc]

Two separate issues, aren't they?
She should choose the company she works at based solely on the work. Likewise, she should choose her insurance plan based solely on the healthcare expenses she anticipates. I mentioned this before, and it just seems so simple that I can't move past it. Having to consider both in relation to one another makes ABSOLUTELY no sense, as it can only lead to a derisive consideration of the other. It could make no difference at all, but I don't see how it can be constructive.

Either way, employers should be free to pay and offer what plans they choose, employees should be free to choose employment they like, and all individuals should be free to shop around and purchase insurance they think best suits them.

But no where in there do I see it appropriate for it to be MANDATED coverage, and no where should it be a freebie for certain coverage. But if we do go down that road, and force certain coverage, then how do you say "no" to others who have no coverage for things THEY deem more important?

I think you stated in another thread, have the employer offer more $$ in lieu of health insurance, and let the employee go out and get their own. That I can go along with, so long as people stop demanding what is in their policy, and demanding it for free.

[logroller]

Either way, employers should be free to pay and offer what plans they choose, employees should be free to choose employment they like, and all individuals should be free to shop around and purchase insurance they think best suits them.

But no where in there do I see it appropriate for it to be MANDATED coverage, and no where should it be a freebie for certain coverage. But if we do go down that road, and force certain coverage, then how do you say "no" to others who have no coverage for things THEY deem more important?

I think you stated in another thread, have the employer offer more $$ in lieu of health insurance, and let the employee go out and get their own. That I can go along with, so long as people stop demanding what is in their policy, and demanding it for free.

These two actions create a conflict; I wish it weren't so-- but in reality, they do.

I think people should be able to select policy which best suits them, if that's "free" birth control, then so be it-- let the premium reflect that demand.. What has happened though, is institutional classes have entered into the market and dictate what is the status quo; and despite the oft mentioning of an individual being able to enter the market on their own, We, as individuals, have a clear bargaining disadvantage compared to the institutional class of buyers, because there is little incentive for insurance companies to cater to individuals-- which, in effect, isn't so much a barrier to entry, as it is an individual tariff. Its not as though we're talking about any generic commodity here either, institutions don't need healthcare, they don't go to the doctor-- their only function in the market is restricting free-trade. People get up in arms about government sponsored healthcare, when employer-sponsored healthcare suffers from the same effects but is far more insidious.

[jimnyc]

Then if we go forth catering to the "contraception" crowd, or at least dictating healthcare in that manner, then they should also mandate other coverage, things that many others think are MORE important than someone's contraception - like dental and vision. One is 100% avoidable, if chosen, and has many lesser expensive ways to go about things. We don't have those choices with our eyes and teeth. And that's just for beginners. I can make a helluva list of things that aren't covered, or are barely covered. Should we start a mandate for all of these things? At what point do we stop telling others what they must provide at little or no cost? Who determines the importance of each?

[krisy]

Insurance doesn't pay for hearing aids either.Where's the outrage from the Obama people?! Isn't my daughter's ability to hear important?

Obama isn't winning over any women I know. As far as Rush Limbuagh,no one is going to change their vote because of what he said.

[jimnyc]

Insurance doesn't pay for hearing aids either.Where's the outrage from the Obama people?! Isn't my daughter's ability to hear important?

Obama isn't winning over any women I know. As far as Rush Limbuagh,no one is going to change their vote because of what he said.

Yep, like I said, there are MANY things that "I" consider more important than contraception. And if you FORCE one to be covered, then you should force others.

[fj1200]

Yep, like I said, there are MANY things that "I" consider more important than contraception. And if you FORCE one to be covered, then you should force others.

Which exacerbates the problems with mandating coverages that we already have.

[jimnyc]

Which exacerbates the problems with mandating coverages that we already have.

Agreed. That's why I think the answer is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. This could be crossing your legs, searching for better coverage, or paying out of pocket. These "handouts" weren't even there 30 years ago and I'm baffled as to why people act like the world is going to end if they don't have it now. Even Gabby stated in one post, that if the contraceptives weren't covered and free, that we would then be dealing with more unwanted pregnancies, welfare and other crap. Huh? If you can't get freebies it automatically means your presonal responsibility goes out the window and your stuck with poor decisions?

[krisy]

I was curious as to what the pill costs these days and looked it up. I thought this was interesting.

http://www.estronaut.com/a/cost_of_pill.htm

I'm sure some pills cost more than $15-25 a month,but that's not bad,if accurate.. Insurance will pay for the doctor visit itself. They also mentioned planned parenthood.

They also suggest the partner helps out with the cost.Good idea.

Found this too.

http://health.costhelper.com/birth-control-pills.html

[logroller]

Then if we go forth catering to the "contraception" crowd, or at least dictating healthcare in that manner, then they should also mandate other coverage, things that many others think are MORE important than someone's contraception - like dental and vision. One is 100% avoidable, if chosen, and has many lesser expensive ways to go about things. We don't have those choices with our eyes and teeth. And that's just for beginners. I can make a helluva list of things that aren't covered, or are barely covered. Should we start a mandate for all of these things? At what point do we stop telling others what they must provide at little or no cost? Who determines the importance of each?

You're still considering this within the context of what we have now. All you propose is a logical extension of the fundamental paradigm that is third-party provisioning-- be it through the employer, school, or govt-- the root cause is people being unable to wholly make one's own decision. Letting employers and institutions determine what is covered and what isn't is wrong..period...I don't care if they pay for it or not, they shouldn't be paying for it, not directly anyways, because its not of their concern IMO-- and we need to stop letting them and demand they just pay us whatever they think is fair for our services rendered.

If society deems healthcare insurance to be valued to the extent everybody should have it-- which I do, BTW-- than enforce the individual mandate and if you don't like it than pay the tax-- we'd be better served with that than what we have now; where nobody's really happy because we're left only with a decision forlorn.

Where these policies might lead is moot, as the existing conditions are already in a state of failure-- each individual needs to take the responsibility back from their employer, school and government; not accept the decision made by some entity gracefully-- that is the antithesis of freedom and responsibility.

[Abbey Marie]

We have heard forever that group insurance is incredibly cheaper than individual insurance.
If we go individual, the cost increase may well be prohibitive.

[logroller]

We have heard forever that group insurance is incredibly cheaper than individual insurance.
If we go individual, the cost increase may well be prohibitive.

A vendor has 50 oranges: 40 of which are select,the remaining 10 are premium. I am buying for a school bus full of 35 kids; it would make sense that the vendor would cut me deal, right? He's not going to sell me the premium oranges, nor am I willing to pay premium prices for a product I don't really need-- its for the kids, not me. But here's the thing, the vendor needs to both move product and maximize his profit. So he cuts me a deal, which moves oranges and charges you a premium price for the remaining oranges; and may even go so far as to raise the prices of the remaining 5 select oranges, again, to maximize his profit. Now you don't have much choice do you, other than not buying oranges, because you have little bargaining power buying only a handful of oranges.

Obviously, we're talking healthcare, not oranges; and as the idiom so implies-- they are completely different. Specifically, unlike a commodity such as apples and oranges, and unless you consider going hungry a viable substitute for oranges--there is no substitute for healthcare insurance.

Inevitably, when you enter into a group agreement, compromises are made. The cost of your free-choice is forgone in the effort to mitigate your financial expense and in so doing, we have waived an aspect of our personal responsibility as well.

So I must ask, is group insurance really cheaper? Or is it that we as a society have accepted the fact that entering into a third-party healthcare insurance plan involves an acceptable level of compromise of our free choice to save us money. Because if that is the case, the logical extension of that same reasoning would support increased socialization, including free birth control, as that would certainly decrease the overall cost of unplanned pregnancy; which I was under the impression would not be in our best interests.

[fj1200]

We have heard forever that group insurance is incredibly cheaper than individual insurance.
If we go individual, the cost increase may well be prohibitive.

There is presently no competition at the individual level; that would change. You, and I mean most people, also have no idea what your health care costs, neither the true cost of insurance nor the true cost when you go see the doctor.