Ok let's dig here.

First of all if health insurance is an option and those who can afford the option want to include coverage for abortions, birth control and OMG even viagra then it SHOULD BE an option.

But if those who do not have the means to have an option are not offered those benefits then do you really think they can affort to purchase those things?

If they can't afford birth control then wouldn't it be in the best interest of the WHOLE society to make sure it's the insurance package they are required to have?

It's a really a no brainer. We ARE overpopulated and we have learned that the majority who grow up in poverty also live and die not far from it.

While there are many reasons for the poverty that some must live with, there is no reason to perpetuate that which can be controlled.

As for the comment about using self-control: I think we have to honest and ask ourselves a serious question - why should society ask those with the lowest of means to have greater self-control than those who can pay their way out of indulgent, petty, and thoughtless disregard?

And one more thing - contrasting two or more things means showing how they overlap, while comparing two or more things means showing their differences and similarities.

Now that we've defined those things I would like to know in what context plastic surgery was used in relation to birth control?

The only context I can immagine would be reparitive plastic surgery which is often required in cases of burns, accidents, secondary to other major surgeries and birth defects.

But it's beyond my capacity to understand why anyone would design an insurance package that did no include those things. Just as it makes no sense for a health package not to include birth control, abortion, and even viagra.

Being poor is not a crime but forcing people to think that financial success makes one more human should be a crime.

Ok let's dig here.

First of all if health insurance is an option and those who can afford the option want to include coverage for abortions, birth control and OMG even viagra then it SHOULD BE an option.

But if those who do not have the means to have an option are not offered those benefits then do you really think they can affort to purchase those things?

If they can't afford birth control then wouldn't it be in the best interest of the WHOLE society to make sure it's the insurance package they are required to have?

It's a really a no brainer. We ARE overpopulated and we have learned that the majority who grow up in poverty also live and die not far from it.

While there are many reasons for the poverty that some must live with, there is no reason to perpetuate that which can be controlled.

As for the comment about using self-control: I think we have to honest and ask ourselves a serious question - why should society ask those with the lowest of means to have greater self-control than those who can pay their way out of indulgent, petty, and thoughtless disregard?

And one more thing - contrasting two or more things means showing how they overlap, while comparing two or more things means showing their differences and similarities.

Now that we've defined those things I would like to know in what context plastic surgery was used in relation to birth control?

The only context I can immagine would be reparitive plastic surgery which is often required in cases of burns, accidents, secondary to other major surgeries and birth defects.

But it's beyond my capacity to understand why anyone would design an insurance package that did no include those things. Just as it makes no sense for a health package not to include birth control, abortion, and even viagra.

Being poor is not a crime but forcing people to think that financial success makes one more human should be a crime.

Im not opposed to things being made optional, Im opposed to non medical necessities being MANDATED for insurance companies to offer.

But do you opposed or favor the government making it an illegal option for any mandated insurance plan that is subsidised by our taxes?

And would you oppose the government using their power to make it illegal for any organization who benefits from government contracts or subsidies to deny abortions or contraceptives to anyone for any reason?

I guess I am really in the dark about these things. I hear a lot about and involve myself a lot in discussion re: the pro choice/ pro-life debate but are people/religious groups really that much against contraceptives or birth control of any kinda other than abstinence, withdraw and the ryhthm methods???
not sure how to post links hope this works

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/opinion/sunday/a-new-battle-over-contraception.html

I have a feeling this will be a a hot-point topic and will do my best to keep up...but will certainly read all responses...in an effort to understand.

edited to add abstinence..

Ok let's dig here.

First of all if health insurance is an option and those who can afford the option want to include coverage for abortions, birth control and OMG even viagra then it SHOULD BE an option.

But if those who do not have the means to have an option are not offered those benefits then do you really think they can affort to purchase those things?

If they can't afford birth control then wouldn't it be in the best interest of the WHOLE society to make sure it's the insurance package they are required to have?

It's a really a no brainer. We ARE overpopulated and we have learned that the majority who grow up in poverty also live and die not far from it.

While there are many reasons for the poverty that some must live with, there is no reason to perpetuate that which can be controlled.

As for the comment about using self-control: I think we have to honest and ask ourselves a serious question - why should society ask those with the lowest of means to have greater self-control than those who can pay their way out of indulgent, petty, and thoughtless disregard?

And one more thing - contrasting two or more things means showing how they overlap, while comparing two or more things means showing their differences and similarities.

Now that we've defined those things I would like to know in what context plastic surgery was used in relation to birth control?

The only context I can immagine would be reparitive plastic surgery which is often required in cases of burns, accidents, secondary to other major surgeries and birth defects.

But it's beyond my capacity to understand why anyone would design an insurance package that did no include those things. Just as it makes no sense for a health package not to include birth control, abortion, and even viagra.

Being poor is not a crime but forcing people to think that financial success makes one more human should be a crime.

I would oppose any type of absolute mandate for non medically necessary services or products. IF it doesnt control or manage illness, injury or disease, Im opposed to it being mandated in any way or regulated in any way. I believe all those types of things should be optional across the board, for insurers to offer.

more simply put

I oppose the government telling insurers they

A. must offer certain non medically necessary options

of

B. CANT offer certain non medically necessary options

Ok, so we may be discussing two different things.

The power of the government to decide for the people what is or is not a medical necessity

vs.

the government having the power to decide which organizations (federally funded or not) can subsidize medical options at the people's determination of medical necessity.


Is that an acurate assessment? If not please make corrections so that we are all discussing only one dimension of the issue at a time.

I think there should be an expectation for insurance to cover illness, sickness, and pain , not ELECTIVES (things that are a direct and personal choice as a matter of convenience or asthetics)

outside of those issues though, I dont want government mandating or criminalizing any electives insurance companies choose to cover or offer as options if they are not federally funded.

Federally funded insurance , because of the sensitive nature of taxpayers, should only cover medical necessity as it relates to managing or curing; illness, sickness, or pain.

Here's the thing, it seems you have already decided what people need. If a person has type II diabetes and doesn't STRICTLY follow doctors orders, would you deny coverage for any future 'illness, sickness or pain' that is related to type II diabetes?

If a person does not quit smoking would you deny coverage for medical treatment that can be linked to smoking?

If a person smoked and quit but later developed COPD should they be denied coverage becasue they 'elected' to do something that was a risk factor for getting COPD?

What is and is not necessary? Should we refuse to treat psychological illnesses, after all can we really cure them all?

What about a trans-sexual who develops cancer that some studies say are linked to the hormones they take. Should we deny them treatment?

We can't determine what is necessary for everyone when every situation is different. The legal system could not bear the strain of all the laws, much the lawsuits.

We have to look at an overall picture. If there cause to believe that an abortion is a 'necessary' procedure then who will be the one passing that judgement? If there is any believe at all, that any situation would make contraceptives or abortions a necessity then all cases must be approved.

It's really pretty simple - it's like human rights - if it's good one group, it must be good for all groups.

What about the women who use the Pill for things other than birth control or the man who doesn't use Viagra just for a longer erection but for ANY kind of erection after a health issue affects his ability to maintain one?

My daughter and I have both been put on the Pill due to intense uteral cramps, hers because of a condition that no one could have known about and the Pill is about the only thing that alleviates her cramps. If my insurance didn't cover it, I would not have been able to cover the payments along with the other bills I, as a single parent, have to pay. My ex wouldn't pay for any of her healthcare because he had it written in our divorce papers that healthcare was my responsibility. If I had "chosen" beforehand to not have coverage of the Pill and then decided to start with it after she was diagnosed, the insurance company would have denied it due to it being a "pre-exsisting condition."

As Dragoness said, most people do not know the uses for the Pill other than just as a form of birth control.

What about the men who sustain a minor spinal or neurological injury or come down type II diabetes that affects an erection? Should they be "punished" by not being able to get Viagra for either the duration of the injury or condition because of the same reasons as my daughter....a "pre-exsisting condition." Or would having a sex life with their partner be considered an ELECTIVE because they couldn't get an erection anymore?

Most insurance companies have an "open season" for when you can change your coverage, with my job it was Nov 17 thru Dec 17, and any changes had to be done ONLY at that time.....so what would happen if there was a choice for "chemotherapy" and I decided not to take it because I didn't have cancer, only to be diagnosed in January with (God forbid) breast/liver/lung/whatever cancer??? I would have to wait eleven months before I could try to get it....only to be denied AGAIN for the same reason....."pre-exsisting condition." Or even worse, pass away before "open season" when I could add it to my policy.


Just because your insurance company covers it doesn't mean YOU "HAVE" to use it, but it is covered for when you MIGHT have to use it. And it will be a relief when it is there.


If a health insurance company had to make so many plans with as many choices as car insurance companies do, who on earth could afford both kinds of coverage??????? I think it is easier for them to offer a blanket kind of coverage like they do now, and the individual uses what they need.

What about the women who use the Pill for things other than birth control or the man who doesn't use Viagra just for a longer erection but for ANY kind of erection after a health issue affects his ability to maintain one?

My daughter and I have both been put on the Pill due to intense uteral cramps, hers because of a condition that no one could have known about and the Pill is about the only thing that alleviates her cramps. If my insurance didn't cover it, I would not have been able to cover the payments along with the other bills I, as a single parent, have to pay. My ex wouldn't pay for any of her healthcare because he had it written in our divorce papers that healthcare was my responsibility. If I had "chosen" beforehand to not have coverage of the Pill and then decided to start with it after she was diagnosed, the insurance company would have denied it due to it being a "pre-exsisting condition."

As Dragoness said, most people do not know the uses for the Pill other than just as a form of birth control.

What about the men who sustain a minor spinal or neurological injury or come down type II diabetes that affects an erection? Should they be "punished" by not being able to get Viagra for either the duration of the injury or condition because of the same reasons as my daughter....a "pre-exsisting condition." Or would having a sex life with their partner be considered an ELECTIVE because they couldn't get an erection anymore?

Most insurance companies have an "open season" for when you can change your coverage, with my job it was Nov 17 thru Dec 17, and any changes had to be done ONLY at that time.....so what would happen if there was a choice for "chemotherapy" and I decided not to take it because I didn't have cancer, only to be diagnosed in January with (God forbid) breast/liver/lung/whatever cancer??? I would have to wait eleven months before I could try to get it....only to be denied AGAIN for the same reason....."pre-exsisting condition." Or even worse, pass away before "open season" when I could add it to my policy.


Just because your insurance company covers it doesn't mean YOU "HAVE" to use it, but it is covered for when you MIGHT have to use it. And it will be a relief when it is there.


If a health insurance company had to make so many plans with as many choices as car insurance companies do, who on earth could afford both kinds of coverage??????? I think it is easier for them to offer a blanket kind of coverage like they do now, and the individual uses what they need.

As Dragoness said, most people do not know the uses for the Pill other than just as a form of birth control.

When I said this:


I was referring to the original issue in this thread, that the Pill is seen by most people as only a form of birth control but that it has many other uses. Doctors should definitely know the uses for it, especially OB/GYNs who prescribe it.

But it was stated before that if insurance companies choose not to cover the costs for the Pill, I don't think they will turn around and change their minds on a case by case determination to cover it. Quoted for emphasis:

"It's really pretty simple - it's like human rights - if it's good one group, it must be good for all groups."

The medical professional could determine it necessary and the insurance company won't cover it and for someone like me who needs it for both myself and my daughter, $1,200 a year is something I don't have. (I don't go out and get junk food or designer coffee everyday so I can't be told "stop getting that and save the money". And when I do have the extra money to get something it's not like you can go to the pharmacy and say "I want to have sex/stop the pain I am in, here is $1.50 can I have one Pill, please?" It won't help then).

The new rules already exempt churches and other religious institutions from having to provide contraceptive coverage for their employees. That is similar to provisions in state laws upheld by the highest courts in New York and California.

Nevertheless, church leaders are calling for an expansive exemption for all employees of Catholic hospitals, charitable organizations, elementary and secondary schools, and colleges and universities. That would, in effect, deny coverage for contraceptives for millions of women who may not be Catholic and may disagree with the church’s stance on birth control.

Some opponents of contraceptives are pushing to allow all employers to opt out of providing contraceptives coverage if it offends their conscience.