Rush Limbaugh to student wanting free contraceptives : prostitute.

[Freedom&Liberty]

I guess you two have never heard of condoms. No insurance required and they are quite effective.

[Sparkly Mary]

I guess you two have never heard of condoms. No insurance required and they are quite effective.

I addressed the OTC contraceptive methods, which are not as effective as the prescription methods, even when used 100% properly. They are cheaper yes, but you get what you pay for.
A properly used condom that breaks is not nearly as effective as the pill when used correctly, or the Depo shot, or the implantable methods, or the Nuva Ring.

[hadit]

obviously. but we're not talking about men right now, because it wasn't a man that presented himself to congress in this circumstance. nobody wants to argue with you that men bear just as much responsibility for pregnancy as women do....we all know this. it seems like you're arguing with yourself, because you keep harping on a viewpoint that nobody here has. in the meantime, you've shared that you have been sterilized, and advertise that you live in "divorceland". your position is apparent, though your personal bone to pick with men is not the issue. the point i made was that women have 100% control over whether or not they get pregnant, despite the fact that the fluke girl and many on here would paint a different picture. seriously, isn't it ironic that a percentage of people go on and on about the need for women to have control over decisions involving their own bodies, yet we have people, including the one that testified before congress, that paint a picture of women as being so beholden to their own sexual urges that they think that pregnancy should be treated no differently than the common cold, in regard to how its prevention should relate to insurance?

here's the real meat of it. certain people are more than happy to rabidly stand by the idea that NO ONE has a say in what they do or don't do with their bodies, unless in asserting that sovereignty they are forced to the own the consequences of what they do or don't do. then, they are more than willing to cede their "absolute control", whether it be to government, or to whatever all-powerful, natural urge. that's the crux of the issue, and for anybody that was listening, that was the crux of what rush limbaugh was talking about. whether or not anybody was offended by the delivery has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the argument.

That is an awesome point. With absolute control comes personal responsibility, and yielding personal responsibility also yields control. No one is stopping anyone from obtaining whatever form of birth control their desire. They are simply saying "if you don't want the government to have any say in what you do with your body, don't ask the government to force others to pick up the tab".

[Sparkly Mary]

That is an awesome point. With absolute control comes personal responsibility, and yielding personal responsibility also yields control. No one is stopping anyone from obtaining whatever form of birth control their desire. They are simply saying "if you don't want the government to have any say in what you do with your body, don't ask the government to force others to pick up the tab".

How does requiring insurers to cover contraceptives hamper taking personal responsibility or allow the governtment to have a say in what I do with my body? If anything I'd think it would help personal responsibility by allowing the more effective methods to be available at a lower cost, thereby allowing more women to avail themselves of them.

There's not the requirement to USE birth control, but to cover the option for those that want to do so.

If the requirement were that women HAD to take prescription BC, then I'd be up in arms as THAT would equal government controling my body. Requiring coverage does not force me to use that coverage.
I'm not giving up any control of my body to the government simply because insurers have to cover contraceptives.

[hadit]

How does requiring insurers to cover contraceptives hamper taking personal responsibility or allow the governtment to have a say in what I do with my body? If anything I'd think it would help personal responsibility by allowing the more effective methods to be available at a lower cost, thereby allowing more women to avail themselves of them.

There's not the requirement to USE birth control, but to cover the option for those that want to do so.

If the requirement were that women HAD to take prescription BC, then I'd be up in arms as THAT would equal government controling my body. Requiring coverage does not force me to use that coverage.
I'm not giving up any control of my body to the government simply because insurers have to cover contraceptives.

I have no beef with insurers covering contraceptives. I just don't think that the law should require that EVERY employer has to buy it and give it to all their employees.

[Sparkly Mary]

I have no beef with insurers covering contraceptives. I just don't think that the law should require that EVERY employer has to buy it and give it to all their employees.

By that do you mean the requirement that ALL insurers have to provide them for no out-of-pocket cost? Because as far as I know, no insurer is required to "give" contraceptives to anyone, just provide them at no out-of-pocket cost to those that want them.

Which means that premiums will go up a bit to cover it. Just like they do every year. I have to pay higher premiums because of NICU stays for premature babies, heart, kidney, liver transplant costs, diabetes treatments, cancer treatments, etc. that my insurer covers during th course of the year whether "I" avail myself of those services or not.

I don't even use contraceptives anymore, so "I" will be one who pays for the insurers to cover something I will never need (like I won't ever need exams or treatment for prostate-related issues) but I'm not going to demand that my premiums don't go up because of that.

[Truth Teller]

Stores that sell BC are open to all.

OTC methods, yes they sure are. Even stores with 24-hour pharmacies are open to all.

Not in some rural areas.

[IFF]

I guess you two have never heard of condoms. No insurance required and they are quite effective.

but why should the female be totally dependent on the male using condoms properly?
should a male take it as guarantee before sex that the female is taking her birth control properly? No. and neither should the female do likewise.

take this scene from the BBC3 show "Pramface"



[please note: i do not endorse all the launguage used in the preview. I would however say that they are fictional characthers and not real people. any similarity to real people is purely coincidental]

[Cyclone Ranger]

I have no beef with insurers covering contraceptives. I just don't think that the law should require that EVERY employer has to buy it and give it to all their employees.

Employers have no right to dictate what insurers do or do not cover.

[Freedom&Liberty]

I addressed the OTC contraceptive methods, which are not as effective as the prescription methods, even when used 100% properly. They are cheaper yes, but you get what you pay for.
A properly used condom that breaks is not nearly as effective as the pill when used correctly, or the Depo shot, or the implantable methods, or the Nuva Ring.

The point is that there are alternatives that don't require insurance.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Government has no right to dictate what insurers do or do not cover.

Fixed that for you. You're welcome.

[Sparkly Mary]

The point is that there are alternatives that don't require insurance.

That aren't as effective.

If Advil can prevent 80% of arthritis pain, but prescription Y can cure 99% of arthritis pain, why should someone have to settle for 80%?

Generic Advil is $4 for 20 pills, prescription Y is $85 for 20 pills without insurance, but zero co-pay with insurance, but an organization has moral objections to prescription Y because of its underlying cause.

I guess I should take my 80% and be happy with it since I can't afford the 99%, and let my insurance company continue to deny coverage because they don't approve of it.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Do you want insurance to cover toothbrushes, soaps and razors as well? It seems reasonable to expect responsibility for acquiring your own personal health items. Why should BC be any different? This is starting to smack of a huge money making scam perpetrated by doctors and pharmcos.

[Sparkly Mary]

Do you want insurance to cover toothbrushes, soaps and razors as well? It seems reasonable to expect responsibility for acquiring your own personal health items. Why should BC be any different? This is starting to smack of a huge money making scam perpetrated by doctors and pharmcos.

I pay for all of my OTC stuff, and I pay my co-pay for my prescriptions.

My analogy was simply in response to the non-prescription vs prescription thing.
There are arthritis medications available OTC, just like BC that are cheap, but not as effective as what can be obtained by prescription.

[Freedom&Liberty]

I understand your point, SM. I just don't think it's appropriate for insurance to provide coverage for such a broad range of items and doctors and pharma make a fortune from the whole prescription thing. I don't see Obamacare addressing either of these issues. If government is going to force the people to buy health insurance for themselves and the poor, the most basic, catastrophic only, insurance is all that should be required. Why is BC even an issue? I've never heard of anyone dying because they didn't have BC.

[coolfun]

why not have people live in a communist country that will allow us not to pay for anything!

[Sparkly Mary]

I understand your point, SM. I just don't think it's appropriate for insurance to provide coverage for such a broad range of items and doctors and pharma make a fortune from the whole prescription thing. I don't see Obamacare addressing either of these issues. If government is going to force the people to buy health insurance for themselves and the poor, the most basic, catastrophic only, insurance is all that should be required. Why is BC even an issue? I've never heard of anyone dying because they didn't have BC.

I've never heard of anyone dying because they didn't have Viagra, but it's covered, too...

[Freedom&Liberty]

It shouldn't be.

[antiquity]

I guess you two have never heard of condoms. No insurance required and they are quite effective.

I am in favor of the 'French Tickler' for everyone.

[coolfun]

Anyone heard of SOCIALISM!!! Duh it is the solution to everything I <3 Karl Marxs