Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: For Those of You Who Scoffed at the Idea...

Zen Peach





Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/12/2012 at 01:50 PM
For those of you who laughed at the thought that republicans were trying to take away women's birth control.....here you go!

http://www.examiner.com/article/republicans-vote-to-ban-contraception-misso uri-for-religious-reasons?cid=db_articles

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 
Replies:

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6014
(6013 all sites)
Registered: 7/3/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/12/2012 at 11:43 PM
quote:
For those of you who laughed at the thought that republicans were trying to take away women's birth control.....here you go!

http://www.examiner.com/article/republicans-vote-to-ban-contraception-misso uri-for-religious-reasons?cid=db_articles


I know I am gonna regret this........

All due respect Ann, as I know your feelings on this issue, but there is a difference between taking away a persons access to birth control pills and having you pay for your birth control pills.

Here is the conundrum for me, I am pro choice all the way, but I do not feel like the government should pay for contraception with tax payer money. The right of those oppose to contraception are just as important as those for it. So to me I want to say this is the compromise, everyone pays for their contraceptives out of their own pockets, men and women.


Edited for grammar






[Edited on 11/13/2012 by er1016]

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/13/2012 at 12:19 AM

To make a woman pay for birth control on top of premium payments has real economic consequences.Thatís the equivalent of five weeks of basic groceries for a family of four, or 14 tanks of gas in the minivan or four hours of tuition at a community college. For a family living paycheck-to-paycheck, imagine the impact as they might have to make a choice between birth control and groceries."

The numbers Rep. Schupp was quoted are readily available on the Planned Parenthood website, and contraceptives are priced between $15 - $50.



It's not that women want free birth control. They don't want to be penelized by having to pay for them on top of their insurance premiums. Viagra is covered under insurance policies but forcing women to pay extra for the coverage is a direct attempt to control their reproductive freedom. If men were forced to pay extra for their viagra I would be more inclined to understand the reasoning. As it is, the far right is trying to close down Planned Parenthood, cut programs that benefit children and then want to force women to either pay extra for their contraception or give birth. It makes no sense to me what-so-ever.

If people are pro-birth then they need to allow women access to forms of birth control that would cut down on the number of abortions they're so against. They want to do away with abortion, make birth control more costly and cut kids programs. It makes no sense and it's a genuine economic hardship on both single and married women.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!




 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/13/2012 at 12:21 AM
But, going back to my original premise....the article illustrates what's going on with women's reproductive choices when some people in here were scoffing at the premise there was any attempt at all.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!




 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6014
(6013 all sites)
Registered: 7/3/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/13/2012 at 12:24 AM
quote:

To make a woman pay for birth control on top of premium payments has real economic consequences.Thatís the equivalent of five weeks of basic groceries for a family of four, or 14 tanks of gas in the minivan or four hours of tuition at a community college. For a family living paycheck-to-paycheck, imagine the impact as they might have to make a choice between birth control and groceries."

The numbers Rep. Schupp was quoted are readily available on the Planned Parenthood website, and contraceptives are priced between $15 - $50.



It's not that women want free birth control. They don't want to be penelized by having to pay for them on top of their insurance premiums. Viagra is covered under insurance policies but forcing women to pay extra for the coverage is a direct attempt to control their reproductive freedom. If men were forced to pay extra for their viagra I would be more inclined to understand the reasoning. As it is, the far right is trying to close down Planned Parenthood, cut programs that benefit children and then want to force women to either pay extra for their contraception or give birth. It makes no sense to me what-so-ever.

If people are pro-birth then they need to allow women access to forms of birth control that would cut down on the number of abortions they're so against. They want to do away with abortion, make birth control more costly and cut kids programs. It makes no sense and it's a genuine economic hardship on both single and married women.


Does insurance pay for Rubbers? The cost is comparable to that of the pills.... As for the Viagra I say the same thing, I think that should be an out of pocket expense...

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/13/2012 at 02:11 AM
I think Viagra should be an out of pocket expense too if they're going to try to make women pay extra for birth control. As far as the cost of condoms....our daughter was paying $80 a month for her pills even with insurance....if you're paying that much for condoms each month you're getting more action that most. And for a lot of women, birth control pills are prescribed for medical reasons that have nothing to do with sex. Two of our grandchildren were put on the pill for pms long before they were sexually active. Why should women have to pay extra for treatment for medical conditions? Would you expect someone to pay more for their heart medication? Just putting some topics for discussion out there.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!




 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11689
(12132 all sites)
Registered: 1/8/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/13/2012 at 02:33 AM
If a doctor prescribes it insurance should cover it. Seems simple to me.

 

____________________
We'd all like to vote for the best man, but he's never a candidate.

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5822
(5827 all sites)
Registered: 7/4/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/13/2012 at 08:36 AM
quote:
quote:
For those of you who laughed at the thought that republicans were trying to take away women's birth control.....here you go!

http://www.examiner.com/article/republicans-vote-to-ban-contraception-misso uri-for-religious-reasons?cid=db_articles


I know I am gonna regret this........

All due respect Ann, as I know your feelings on this issue, but there is a difference between taking away a persons access to birth control pills and having you pay for your birth control pills.

Here is the conundrum for me, I am pro choice all the way, but I do not feel like the government should pay for contraception with tax payer money. The right of those oppose to contraception are just as important as those for it. So to me I want to say this is the compromise, everyone pays for their contraceptives out of their own pockets, men and women.


Edited for grammar
[Edited on 11/13/2012 by er1016]



Amen to that the government is NOT in the business making sure a woman has birth control they need to be responsible and get their own.. it is accessible to everyone in this country who is of age or has parents permission.







 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 12503
(12493 all sites)
Registered: 4/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/13/2012 at 09:10 AM
quote:
All due respect Ann, as I know your feelings on this issue, but there is a difference between taking away a persons access to birth control pills and having you pay for your birth control pills.

Having it not covered by health insurance is the same as taking away access for many. And as Anne said, it isn't always about contraception, there are other medical reasons for women to be prescribed the pill. It's not like anyone is talking about having condoms covered by health insurance.

quote:
Here is the conundrum for me, I am pro choice all the way, but I do not feel like the government should pay for contraception with tax payer money.

I think the issue is whether HEALTH INSURANCE should cover it, not whether the gov't should pay for it.

 

____________________
I pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. http://www.r-word.org/

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5747
(5754 all sites)
Registered: 2/2/2008
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/13/2012 at 09:51 AM
This is a medical/insurance issue and should not be turned into a religious one. If the religious right can exclude contraception from Health Plans offered to their employess what is next? People who work for Jehova's Wittness can be excluded from Blood Transfusions? If something is medical/non-cosmetic every health plan must cover it.
 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9704
(9729 all sites)
Registered: 4/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/13/2012 at 10:06 AM
Regarding the link, let the people of Missouri sort out their own affairs. The politicians pushing and enacting those bans are elected officials, the people will determine what course their state should take and what goods or services are available or not at the ballot box when those individuals come up for reelection.

Personally as for Viagra or any contraception being covered by the insurance companies, that is up to the individual insurance companies. Not all drugs are covered by all insurance companies, they pick and choose, just as consumers can pick and choose the providers that have the covered products at acceptable rates they seek.

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3218
(3217 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/13/2012 at 10:28 AM

Suffering from no lead in your pencil is a medical condition. I would think this is why these types of meds would be eligible for coverage under insurance plans.

 

____________________

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6014
(6013 all sites)
Registered: 7/3/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/13/2012 at 12:00 PM
As others have stated and having had 2 wives and a daughter myself I am well aware of the different reasons for it's (contraceptives) use as well as the actual cost of "the pill." I do not see cost as being such that it would keep people from obtaining it. And why aren't condoms relevant to the conversation? They are just as much about preventing disease as they are preventing unwanted pregnancies. But it appears to me that it's no problem for people to have to pony up for them.....Just saying...

The issue changes from whether health insurance should pay for contraceptives the second the federal government took over the role as overseer with the affordable care act. And in the process made it mandatory to have insurance and used public money to subsidize it. Additionally the law forces institutions such as religiously affiliated hospital and clinics to provide these services that are clearly against their beliefs.

As I originally stated, I am as pro choice as it gets. But I think both sides rights should be considered and to go the route that MO. has, seens like the obvious compromise, to me.

 

Peach Pro



Karma:
Posts: 490
(490 all sites)
Registered: 12/12/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/13/2012 at 12:58 PM
Personal opinions:

If it is determined that women need access to birth control pills without having to pay out of pocket expenses, then that is a social policy/a subsidy and not part of any insurance plan (i.e. kind of like needle exchanges). What would the insurable risk be here?

The above logic also applies to condoms (both male and female)!

Now, if a doctor prescribes birth control pills for a medical reason, then it should/could be covered under an insurance plan, depending on the insurance plan purchased. This would be considered an insurable risk and access should be available to the needed prescription under an insurance plan (i.e. like penicillin) !

While I personally believed that Viagra costs should be out of pocket too (i.e. not covered under an insurance plan), I believe I could see an argument that this is actually an insurable risk (i.e. a 'loss' can be incurred and a man doesn't know if/when he will need Viagra). Again, I personally, believe Viagra should be out of pocket too!

 

____________________
Many into one!

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/13/2012 at 01:43 PM
Valid points in a number of the posts but again, it's about women being specifically targeted by a law. The general thought in a lot of these laws seem to be ignorance of why specific medications are used and the biology of a woman's body. There doesn't seem to be much consideration for the pill and its uses for other than birth control. The laws aren't targeting men for their Viagra meds, they're going after women and their medications. It's another way of forcing women to conform to someone else's religious beliefs. Granted....a lot of women can afford the $80 or so a month cost for the medication, but there are women who can't. Shutting down Planned Parenthood takes away a cheaper alternative for them. I say this again....if the right wing doesn't stop these attacks then there will be election consequences they aren't going to like. It's already cost them in this past election and it's going to continue to cost them as long as they keep up the assault on women.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!




 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11689
(12132 all sites)
Registered: 1/8/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/13/2012 at 01:45 PM
Maybe government shouldn't be involved in healthcare.

 

____________________
We'd all like to vote for the best man, but he's never a candidate.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/13/2012 at 01:53 PM
Shortly after portions of 'Obamacare' took effect, the price of birth control dropped considerably. I supported and still support the Affordable Healthcare Act. What shouldn't happen is religion interfering with government. If someone doesn't believe in birth control....don't use it. As for the Catholic organization who sued about the issue, it would have meant more had they not already been offering birth control through the health plan under which their employees were covered.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!




 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11689
(12132 all sites)
Registered: 1/8/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/13/2012 at 02:43 PM
quote:
Shortly after portions of 'Obamacare' took effect, the price of birth control dropped considerably. I supported and still support the Affordable Healthcare Act. What shouldn't happen is religion interfering with government. If someone doesn't believe in birth control....don't use it. As for the Catholic organization who sued about the issue, it would have meant more had they not already been offering birth control through the health plan under which their employees were covered.

I agree religion should not affect government, but in reality as long as religious groups have influence in politics this is what we'll get. That is not going to end anytime soon. So an unintended consequense of government healthcare is that special interests, including religious groups, may affect your healthcare plan.

 

____________________
We'd all like to vote for the best man, but he's never a candidate.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6014
(6013 all sites)
Registered: 7/3/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/13/2012 at 02:53 PM
Playing devil's advocate (no pun intended) There are those that would invoke the separation of church and state. And would have an argument that the law is imposing the governments will upon religion.
 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11689
(12132 all sites)
Registered: 1/8/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/13/2012 at 02:58 PM
quote:
Playing devil's advocate (no pun intended) There are those that would invoke the separation of church and state. And would have an argument that the law is imposing the governments will upon religion.

Sounds like a landmark Supreme Court case is in the making.

 

____________________
We'd all like to vote for the best man, but he's never a candidate.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 12503
(12493 all sites)
Registered: 4/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/13/2012 at 02:58 PM
quote:
Playing devil's advocate (no pun intended) There are those that would invoke the separation of church and state. And would have an argument that the law is imposing the governments will upon religion.


There is always an argument to be made. About pretty much anything. Not even the SCOTUS justices agree on everything.

 

____________________
I pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. http://www.r-word.org/

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/13/2012 at 04:41 PM
If religious organizations are engaged in a 'for profit' business then they should adhere to the law of the land. I'm a firm believer in churches losing their non-profit status when they start engaging in politics.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!




 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6014
(6013 all sites)
Registered: 7/3/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/13/2012 at 05:14 PM
quote:
If religious organizations are engaged in a 'for profit' business then they should adhere to the law of the land. I'm a firm believer in churches losing their non-profit status when they start engaging in politics.



Does this sentiment apply to planned parenthood as well? They enjoy non-profit status and are very politically active.

 

Peach Pro



Karma:
Posts: 476
(476 all sites)
Registered: 1/23/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/13/2012 at 05:16 PM
I'll make a deal with women. I'll keep my politics out of your vaginas if you promise to keep your vaginas out of my wallet. Healthcare insurance covers too much. Insurance is for tail risks not everyday expenses. It has morphed into health insurance covering everything and people wonder why it is so expensive.
 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/13/2012 at 05:27 PM
quote:
quote:
If religious organizations are engaged in a 'for profit' business then they should adhere to the law of the land. I'm a firm believer in churches losing their non-profit status when they start engaging in politics.



Does this sentiment apply to planned parenthood as well? They enjoy non-profit status and are very politically active.


First of all, planned parenthood isn't enjoying the same status as churches and to my knowledge there is nothing mentioned in the constitution about separation of planned parenthood and state. Flawed reasoning in the above statement.

Second, about drugs being covered by insurance.....the whole point is being missed by some men in this group. Birth control pills are often used for medical reasons unrelated to birth control. It has nothing to do with 'vaginas in your wallet' and that is a ridiculous statement. Unfortunately, you can't discuss serious issues with people who prefer to remain ignorant of the facts.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!




 
<<  1    2  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com