Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on July 21, 2011, 01:42:24 PM
-
Sort of have mixed feelings about this. I might be ok with use of my tax dollars if it didn't include minors.
Birth Control Without Copays Could Become Mandatory
by Julie Rovner
The Institute of Medicine report is out earlier than expected, after an embargo was broken. Among other things, it recommends that the federal government consider putting "the full range of Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods" on the list of services for women that would be covered by insurers without a copay.
Is there nothing in last year's Affordable Care Act that people won't fight over?
The latest battle is set to come to a head Wednesday, when the independent Institute of Medicine is expected to make recommendations about preventive health care services for women. And one service that's drawing a lot of the attentions is contraception.
Depending on the group's recommendation, contraception could become part of a package of preventive benefits that every health plan would have to cover without patient cost-sharing. In other words, it would become effectively free.
That would have made a big difference for Andrea Leyva, of Tucson, Ariz. A few years ago, following the cancer death of one of her three children, she and her husband — both employed and with health insurance — were nonetheless struggling to pay the bills for them and their remaining two children.
The $25 copay for her monthly birth control prescription "began to fall into the category of a luxury for us," she said, and they stopped filling the prescriptions regularly. At age 36, Leyva found herself pregnant with what she calls her "blessed surprise," daughter Alexandria. "So while we're happy that she's here, it was not planned, and had we had some better finances, we probably could have made some better decisions," Leyva says now.
Deborah Nucatola, senior director for medical services for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, says Leyva's story isn't unique. "Half of all pregnancies that happen in the U.S. every year are unintended," she says. "And if we could prevent an epidemic of this proportion, that should be justification enough that contraception is preventive care."
But at the same time, says Nucatola, who's also an OB-GYN, birth control is about more than just preventing pregnancy. "We can also use it as essential preventive medicine for the 4 million women who have babies every year in the U.S.," she says. "Babies born at least 18 months apart are going to be healthier than those born closer together, and closely timed births are risky for their mothers, too."
Earlier this year, NPR and Thomson Reuters polled people for their views on whether private insurance plans should cover contraceptives. About three-quarters of Americans believe private insurance, including employer-based policies, should cover all or some of the cost of oral contraceptives. Support was just about the same when people were asked if government assistance was used to make the purchase of insurance more affordable.
But not everyone agrees that contraception should be available to the same extent as mammograms or childhood immunizations.
"There are two reasons we oppose the inclusion of contraceptives as a preventive service," says Jeanne Monahan. She's director of the Center for Human Dignity at the conservative Family Research Council.
One big problem, she says, is that requiring insurers to cover contraceptives violates the conscience rights of people who belong to religions that don't believe in artificial contraception. "Say for example that I had a problem with it; I would be paying into a plan that would be covering them," she says. "So in a way I would be forced to pay for it myself."
The other problem, says Monahan, is abortion. Specifically, abortion opponents argue that some emergency contraceptives — so called morning-after pills — can cause very early abortions by preventing the implantation of fertilized eggs into a woman's uterus.
"So those 7 to 10 days before a baby can implant, Plan B can prevent implantation and thereby cause the demise of that baby. So we'd be opposed to those drugs being included because they act as abortifacients."
Plan B is one of two emergency contraceptives that have been approved by the FDA. They are different from the abortion pill mifepristone. Neither can disrupt a pregnancy that has already begun. But Planned Parenthood's Deborah Nucatola says the argument about preventing implantation has been exaggerated by abortion opponents. "If people want to postulate on the theoretical risk of prevention of implantation, they're entitled to do that, but there is no scientific evidence that that is a mechanism of action," she says.
Still, it was the divisive politics of birth control that prompted the Department of Health and Human Services to punt the matter to the Institute of Medicine in the first place. On Wednesday, the IoM officially tosses the decision about whether insurers should cover contraception back into the government's lap.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/07/19/138483937/birth-control-without-copays-could-become-mandatory
-
This is why obamacare will cost everyone a fortune.
-
better than all those babies bein' birthed and then we have to pay for their care.
-
another small step for stricter laws on abortions...
-
Did you know in California a teacher cannot give a kid an asprin for a headache or minstral cramps but they can take them to an abortion clinic without the parents consent?
-
Did you know in California a teacher cannot give a kid an asprin for a headache or minstral cramps but they can take them to an abortion clinic without the parents consent?
yea i think oregon is like that as well, some other north/north eastern state that allows that bs too...::)
just plain ignorance.
-
Did you know in California a teacher cannot give a kid an asprin for a headache or minstral cramps but they can take them to an abortion clinic without the parents consent?
Obscene.
-
Did you know in California a teacher cannot give a kid an asprin for a headache or minstral cramps but they can take them to an abortion clinic without the parents consent?
fine by me.
-
And you wonder why I generally loathe gays?
-
Sort of have mixed feelings about this. I might be ok with use of my tax dollars if it didn't include minors.
Birth Control Without Copays Could Become Mandatory
by Julie Rovner
The Institute of Medicine report is out earlier than expected, after an embargo was broken. Among other things, it recommends that the federal government consider putting "the full range of Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods" on the list of services for women that would be covered by insurers without a copay.
Is there nothing in last year's Affordable Care Act that people won't fight over?
The latest battle is set to come to a head Wednesday, when the independent Institute of Medicine is expected to make recommendations about preventive health care services for women. And one service that's drawing a lot of the attentions is contraception.
Depending on the group's recommendation, contraception could become part of a package of preventive benefits that every health plan would have to cover without patient cost-sharing. In other words, it would become effectively free.
That would have made a big difference for Andrea Leyva, of Tucson, Ariz. A few years ago, following the cancer death of one of her three children, she and her husband — both employed and with health insurance — were nonetheless struggling to pay the bills for them and their remaining two children.
The $25 copay for her monthly birth control prescription "began to fall into the category of a luxury for us," she said, and they stopped filling the prescriptions regularly. At age 36, Leyva found herself pregnant with what she calls her "blessed surprise," daughter Alexandria. "So while we're happy that she's here, it was not planned, and had we had some better finances, we probably could have made some better decisions," Leyva says now.
Deborah Nucatola, senior director for medical services for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, says Leyva's story isn't unique. "Half of all pregnancies that happen in the U.S. every year are unintended," she says. "And if we could prevent an epidemic of this proportion, that should be justification enough that contraception is preventive care."
But at the same time, says Nucatola, who's also an OB-GYN, birth control is about more than just preventing pregnancy. "We can also use it as essential preventive medicine for the 4 million women who have babies every year in the U.S.," she says. "Babies born at least 18 months apart are going to be healthier than those born closer together, and closely timed births are risky for their mothers, too."
Earlier this year, NPR and Thomson Reuters polled people for their views on whether private insurance plans should cover contraceptives. About three-quarters of Americans believe private insurance, including employer-based policies, should cover all or some of the cost of oral contraceptives. Support was just about the same when people were asked if government assistance was used to make the purchase of insurance more affordable.
But not everyone agrees that contraception should be available to the same extent as mammograms or childhood immunizations.
"There are two reasons we oppose the inclusion of contraceptives as a preventive service," says Jeanne Monahan. She's director of the Center for Human Dignity at the conservative Family Research Council.
One big problem, she says, is that requiring insurers to cover contraceptives violates the conscience rights of people who belong to religions that don't believe in artificial contraception. "Say for example that I had a problem with it; I would be paying into a plan that would be covering them," she says. "So in a way I would be forced to pay for it myself."
The other problem, says Monahan, is abortion. Specifically, abortion opponents argue that some emergency contraceptives — so called morning-after pills — can cause very early abortions by preventing the implantation of fertilized eggs into a woman's uterus.
"So those 7 to 10 days before a baby can implant, Plan B can prevent implantation and thereby cause the demise of that baby. So we'd be opposed to those drugs being included because they act as abortifacients."
Plan B is one of two emergency contraceptives that have been approved by the FDA. They are different from the abortion pill mifepristone. Neither can disrupt a pregnancy that has already begun. But Planned Parenthood's Deborah Nucatola says the argument about preventing implantation has been exaggerated by abortion opponents. "If people want to postulate on the theoretical risk of prevention of implantation, they're entitled to do that, but there is no scientific evidence that that is a mechanism of action," she says.
Still, it was the divisive politics of birth control that prompted the Department of Health and Human Services to punt the matter to the Institute of Medicine in the first place. On Wednesday, the IoM officially tosses the decision about whether insurers should cover contraception back into the government's lap.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/07/19/138483937/birth-control-without-copays-could-become-mandatory
I don't like this, but I think it's a good thing.
-
Did you know in California a teacher cannot give a kid an asprin for a headache or minstral cramps but they can take them to an abortion clinic without the parents consent?
LOL at minstral, it would save money overall and reduce the exploding population of earth which and children born into poverty and sickness.
Its a good decision and the relgious argument above is silly because beliefs or faith (belief without evidence) should never dictate policy. If the economical impact is the concern, i honestly believe this will be a win for the economy and great for womens health also.
-
LOL at minstral, it would save money overall and reduce the exploding population of earth which and children born into poverty and sickness.
Its a good decision and the relgious argument above is silly because beliefs or faith (belief without evidence) should never dictate policy. If the economical impact is the concern, i honestly believe this will be a win for the economy and great for womens health also.
That assumes that the majority of women who would use the birth control would have children born into "poverty and sickness." How do you reach that conclusion? Or are you just making an assumption?
-
That assumes that the majority of women who would use the birth control would have children born into "poverty and sickness." How do you reach that conclusion? Or are you just making an assumption?
Well, we know that according to statistics, 14.9% of the population lives in poverty according to the 2009 numbers.
That's not a majority of people, but it is a large percentage.
If you cut back on unwanted pregnancy by 14.9 percent, that's a pretty good chunk.
-
Well, we know that according to statistics, 14.9% of the population lives in poverty according to the 2009 numbers.
That's not a majority of people, but it is a large percentage.
If you cut back on unwanted pregnancy by 14.9 percent, that's a pretty good chunk.
Giving out free birth control will reduce unwanted pregnancies by 14.9 percent, because 14.9 percent of the population lives in poverty?? That's pretty simplistic. And doesn't make sense.
-
Giving out free birth control will reduce unwanted pregnancies by 14.9 percent, because 14.9 percent of the population lives in poverty?? That's pretty simplistic. And doesn't make sense.
I'm not saying it's a 1 for 1 comparison, however, if 50% of those in poverty use the free birth control, that's a huge reduction in my tax dollars being used for welfare.
So, the idea makes sense, you still just don't like it.
-
I'm not saying it's a 1 for 1 comparison, however, if 50% of those in poverty use the free birth control, that's a huge reduction in my tax dollars being used for welfare.
So, the idea makes sense, you still just don't like it.
It makes zero sense, because you're pulling statistics out of your rear end. What percentage of kids are born to women who get pregnant solely because they cannot afford birth control? And how many of those kids are born into "poverty"? I'm fairly certain you don't know the answer. (I don't either.)
And what percentage of those in poverty are of child bearing years? How many are post-menopausal women? How many are infertile?
So no, neither your 14.9 percent figure, nor your 50 percent figure make any sense.
-
You don't need some statistic to understand it's common sense that people who are poor commit more crime and that people who are poor also can't afford birth control as easily as people who are more well off.
So it only stands to reason that if you can prevent unwanted pregnancies that society will be better off.
From just a fiscal standpoint it makes sense.
But of course. You disagree. Big shock there.
-
You don't need some statistic to understand it's common sense that people who are poor commit more crime and that people who are poor also can't afford birth control as easily as people who are more well off.
So it only stands to reason that if you can prevent unwanted pregnancies that society will be better off.
From just a fiscal standpoint it makes sense.
But of course. You disagree. Big shock there.
Yes, I disagree with your 14.9 and 50 percent figures. They are not tied to any reliable information.
Your comments don't have a lot to do with common sense. They are pure conjecture. (See the questions I posed earlier.)
It should come as no big shock that I disagree with things that don't make any dang sense. :)
-
It makes sense. But it doesn't fit in with your religion so it doesn't make sense to YOU.
-
he's looking it up in the big comic book that's been passed down since the begining of earth 6000 years ago ;D
-
That assumes that the majority of women who would use the birth control would have children born into "poverty and sickness." How do you reach that conclusion? Or are you just making an assumption?
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HHAAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHA HAHHAHAHHA!!!! ;D
-
And you wonder why I generally loathe gays?
We know u fear the gays, butt u Always omit the lesbians- where do they fit in with your phobias?
-
We know u fear the gays, butt u Always omit the lesbians- where do they fit in with your phobias?
Most lesbos I have met are not as annoying and are not wearing the victim patch on their sleeve 24 7.
-
It makes sense. But it doesn't fit in with your religion so it doesn't make sense to YOU.
This:
Well, we know that according to statistics, 14.9% of the population lives in poverty according to the 2009 numbers.
That's not a majority of people, but it is a large percentage.
If you cut back on unwanted pregnancy by 14.9 percent, that's a pretty good chunk.
makes zero sense.
-
This:
makes zero sense.
how are you a moderator? coming from a fellow moderator, you should be able to form cogent arguments and admit when you are wrong. You should also be accountable for false information.
how doesn't it make sense?
-
how are you a moderator? coming from a fellow moderator, you should be able to form cogent arguments and admit when you are wrong. You should also be accountable for false information.
how doesn't it make sense?
What board do you moderate?
Did you actually read the thread? I pointed out pretty clearly why I think his 14.9 percent analysis doesn't make any sense:
It makes zero sense, because you're pulling statistics out of your rear end. What percentage of kids are born to women who get pregnant solely because they cannot afford birth control? And how many of those kids are born into "poverty"? I'm fairly certain you don't know the answer. (I don't either.)
And what percentage of those in poverty are of child bearing years? How many are post-menopausal women? How many are infertile?
So no, neither your 14.9 percent figure, nor your 50 percent figure make any sense.
Do you want to address them, or are you just being a troll?
-
Yeah, in a technical sense Beach is right, I just took Tu to mean the overall picture that most unwanted pregnancies come from the poor.
I'm thinking the opposite though. Most unwanted pregnancies are those middle-class kids and up that don't want mommy, daddy, neighbors, etc., knowing about it.
If they're truly poor, more kids could mean more money and wanting more kids.
Who knows though, I haven't actually looked at any stats myself.
-
Yeah, in a technical sense Beach is right, I just took Tu to mean the overall picture that most unwanted pregnancies come from the poor.
I'm thinking the opposite though. Most unwanted pregnancies are those middle-class kids and up that don't want mommy, daddy, neighbors, etc., knowing about it.
If they're truly poor, more kids could mean more money and wanting more kids.
Who knows though, I haven't actually looked at any stats myself.
Correct. I haven't looked at the stats either, but it's a pretty big assumption to say that all kids born into poverty are from unwanted pregnancies, where the only reason the woman had the baby was because she couldn't afford birth control.
I think someone posted stats once (might have tony or even me) about the abortion demographic. It's not just, or even primarily, poor women from what I recall.
-
Correct. I haven't looked at the stats either, but it's a pretty big assumption to say that all kids born into poverty are from unwanted pregnancies, where the only reason the woman had the baby was because she couldn't afford birth control.
I think someone posted stats once (might have tony or even me) about the abortion demographic. It's not just, or even primarily, poor women from what I recall.
Of course it's not poor people... Poor people can't afford the abortions.
It still costs money.