You Dirty Sluts

[DanaC]

First time I went on birth control pills it was for non-contraceptive reasons. And like Clod, I was around 15 or 16 at the time.

It's actually quite common for the pill to be used for non contraceptive medical reasons. It helps a lot of, particularly young, women manage unusually painful and debilitating menstrual pains, for example.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by sexobon

Because ALL Medicine is NOT Preventive Medicine which is a fact of life that is lost on you. It's ALWAYS a matter of degree whether discussing immunizations, contraception; or, limiting medical intervention to prayer.

Your continuing approach, like the sensationalized title you ascribed to this thread, reflects attention whoring at the expense of a valid issue.

But again - Obamacare is clear in that it takes the stand that preventative coverage is included in Obamacare - that is to say, health insurance plans meeting the minimum standard of coverage are required to cover preventative services, including birth control.
Why, then, is birth control being singled out as a problem? Why not checkups or immunizations or whatever?

Originally Posted by lookout123

Ooh, a prescription costs a lot. Some people can't afford to have it. Shit happens. I've been on the shitty end of things not being covered an awful lot in the last few years. That still doesn't make me believe anyone or any organization should be compelled to pay for my expenses.

The only organization being compelled is the insurance companies who now need to provide coverage with a minimum standard of care that has raised to cover preventative services including birth control... and the POINT of insurance as a principle is that when "ooh, a prescription costs a lot, some people can't afford to have it"... the insurance company steps in to help. It's the same principle by which "ooh, chemotherapy costs a lot, some people can't afford to have it" so instead of saying "only rich people can survive cancer", we say "insurance coverage should be expected to cover them".

So therefore, to attack birth control coverage as YOU or TAXPAYERS or THE GOVERNMENT paying to give women birth control - which, as a supporter of a single-payer system, i think the government SHOULD - is flat out false. And so, the issue becomes, why should birth control be considered differently than any other medicine or prescription, when it comes to the mandated minimum standard of care? And if not, why single out birth control as a problem unless it's specifically with the intent of slut-shaming and trying to treat women differently - worse - than men?

[Stormieweather]

I'm just really astounded at the objections to covering a prescription drug that is used to either a) treat a medical condition or b) prevent an expensive medical condition.

It's insurance. That is what it is for. Just like dental insurance pays for bi-annual cleanings and molar sealings and health insurance pays for physicals, pap smears, prostate and breast exams. It is to prevent a potentially expensive issue later on. OR, to cover treatment of an illness.

The cost of covering birth control doesn't even come close to prenatal care, delivery, and 18 years of insuring an additional dependent. Not to mention taxpayer funded education and other civic expenses associated with another citizen.

If I have to pay for your insulin injections and glucose testers because of your eating habits, your rehab due to your drinking habits, your surgeries due to your lousy driving habits, your diet pills due to your excessive eating habits and your effing Viagra so you can continue to go have sex on demand...then why shouldn't my birth control be covered so I do NOT have to have a baby that I am unprepared for??

Makes no sense to me.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

The cost of covering birth control doesn't even come close to prenatal care, delivery, and 18 years of insuring an additional dependent. Not to mention taxpayer funded education and other civic expenses associated with another citizen.

Stormie Stormie Stormie

Don't bring the larger picture, you know...reality, into this argument. This is only for highly idealized calls for personal responsibility that has repeatably been shown to never work.

[footfootfoot]

Break out your tinfoil hats, Birthcontrol and abortions will always be available to the well-off. Saddling a person with a child is a great way to keep that person from moving up the economic ladder.

There's a local branch of a very popular Christian cult in my town. One of their M.O.s is to encourage lots o' babies for the members of the cult, at the same time education is generally discouraged and avoided. The upshot is, since you've given away all your worldly possessions before joining, and you now have a family of 7 or more to support, and you lack rudimentary skills like reedin and ryten and math. You aren't likely to up and leave.

The cult is more overt, but the same thing happens in our country.

Please put the tinfoil in the recycling bin when you are done.

[Spexxvet]

Yesterday, I read someone claim that birth control pills are a recreational drug.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by DanaC

First time I went on birth control pills it was for non-contraceptive reasons. And like Clod, I was around 15 or 16 at the time.

It's actually quite common for the pill to be used for non contraceptive medical reasons. It helps a lot of, particularly young, women manage unusually painful and debilitating menstrual pains, for example.

Yeah, but women deserve those pains because they tempted Adam with the apple...

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Yesterday, I read someone claim that birth control pills are a recreational drug.

Well, in a manner of speaking...

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Yeah, but women deserve those pains because they tempted Adam with the apple...

Sadly, the awesome Ricky Gervais standup bit about Adam and Eve and the Serpent has been removed from youtube. Whereas, the rest of the same entire bloody show is still there.

[infinite monkey]

Don't worry, the snake's all right.

There's always Viagra, paid for by insurance.

Ironic, eh?

[fargon]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

the subtle difference between a "dick" and a "prick."

I'd say a dick was more passive and apt to allow douchebaggery to occur on his watch, where a prick is more active and deliberate.

Dicks are the the way they are, 'cuz they are born that way. Pricks are that way 'cuz they get off on it. I am an insufferable prick.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Then it's Obamacare, not contraception coverage, you have a problem with.
Why, then, should you or anybody else single out contraception as an issue?

Is there something I've posted in the last 8 years that would make you think I don't have a problem with Obamacare? I don't care at all about contraception. I'm pretty sure my insurance plan covers it. I don't have an issue with anyone using it and if their insurance plan covers it they should absolutely take advantage of the savings available.

I have a problem with private companies being villified for choosing to cover some procedures and medicines but not others. They are private companies and so long as they are not discriminating by race, religion, or sex then they can do just about anything they want in my opinion. Either they will be competitive and thrive or they will falter in that highly competitive industry.

To make it very very clear Ibram, so you don't feel the need to rephrase what I've posted in a lame attempt to accuse me of some horrible thoughts. I don't support Obamacare.

[Aliantha]

so long as they are not discriminating by race, religion, or sex then they can do just about anything they want in my opinion

I think the issue is that some people feel contraceptive medication is excluded on the basis of it being morally wrong and based on religious beliefs.

That's my impression of it anyway.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by lookout123

...so long as they are not discriminating by race, religion, or sex then they can do just about anything they want in my opinion.

no, THIS is the real problem for most people. Your right to free religion doesn't mean you can discriminate based on sex, which contraception coverage does. We as a nation decided that we needed health care reform, and even if you dont want it, it's the LAW. why, then, should an insurance company be able to arbitrarily break the law just because they don't agree with birth control? Why does birth control not deserve to be just as legally protected as any other basic prescription coverage that we've also collectively coded into law that they must provide?

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Ibram

But again - Obamacare is clear in that it takes the stand that preventative coverage is included in Obamacare - that is to say, health insurance plans meeting the minimum standard of coverage are required to cover preventative services, including birth control.
Why, then, is birth control being singled out as a problem? Why not checkups or immunizations or whatever?

I appreciate that you're asking a question; however, when you have to repeat it after there's been ample time for a response, it's always a good idea to reexamine your question [I've done written test question validations including proctoring target audience pretests and post pretest statistical analysis]. Your question presupposes that checkups or immunizations or whatever have not previously been singled out as problems.

Checkups are covered. A thorough checkup would include a DNA analysis for predisposing factors of disease and other conditions. That information, whether it turns out to be an accurate prognosticator or not, could be used to segregate people and have dramatic consequences in their everyday lives. Checkups are covered to a degree; or, it becomes a problem. It's always a matter of degree.

Immunizations are covered. There have always been implied associations between immunizations and side effects whether they were accurate correlations or not (e.g. MMR or MMR plus thiomersol containing vaccines and Autism). The degree to which immunizations are covered rely on their statistical safety. Even though statistically safe, they are still held suspect via the media necessitating reassuring ad campaigns for vaccinations. It's always a matter of degree.

Contraceptives are covered. They can be used to treat other conditions in addition to preventing pregnancy. They are statistically safe. The degree to which they are covered depends on political influence. It's always a matter of degree.

The applications for insurance covered contraceptives are subject to scrutiny just as many other drugs (e.g. recreational marijuana VS medical marijuana) and procedures are for various reasons whether for prevention or treatment. The people affected would be better served if you presented arguments in support of the degree of application you desire rather than false analogies.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Actually, it's true. Just like Sandra Fluke's case example, I was on birth control pills from the age of 15 for medical non-contraceptive reasons. I am the very definition of a slut, here.

I'm delighted to see that you're taking responsibility for your actions.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I love every one of you. ...

I luv U 2.
(even though I've seen Codfobble's brain before morning coffee in a first draft reply)