Why should contraception be free?

[turtle18]

One of things that has me completely baffled in this entire conscience debate is the Administration’s notion that women should be provided free contraception. What exactly is it about this healthcare “service” that makes it so unaffordable? You can already get it free at most healthcare clinics. If you are insured, your co-payment would be at most $50 a month.

If they are really concerned about the healthcare of American women, why don’t they make every service and drug free? I have a friend who has severe type I diabetes and she cannot afford her insulin even though she has insurance. She will die if she doesn’t get her insulin.

 

[Leegal]

One of things that has me completely baffled in this entire conscience debate is the Administration’s notion that women should be provided free contraception. What exactly is it about this healthcare “service” that makes it so unaffordable? You can already get it free at most healthcare clinics. If you are insured, your co-payment would be at most $50 a month.

If they are really concerned about the healthcare of American women, why don’t they make every service and drug free? I have a friend who has severe type I diabetes and she cannot afford her insulin even though she has insurance. She will die if she doesn’t get her insulin.

Actually, HHS is not making it free. They are forcing the coverage free to the insured as part of the policy so no increase in premiums if the insured contributes to the health plan (there may be a co-pay depending on the plan); the Catholic organization would have to provide the coverage, pay for any increase in premiums, and while violating Church doctrine.

 

[TraditonRules]

This is cynical but accurate at the same time, because Obama feels he knows what is best for Catholics more than the Pope.

 

[Nate13]

The underlying current to this whole debate is global warming. These people truly believe they are saving the world by passing out contraceptives and doing everything they can to help make sure people have as few kids as possible. Also, remember that these are the same people who are pro-choice and believe women should be able to kill their children if they want to. If they are willingly to allow people’s lives to be taken in the name of women’s choice, it should be no surprise they are willingly to step on religious freedom should it?

 

[hannajomar]

Because if you’re against it being free, that means you hate women.

 

[dtoolis]

RE: HHS
What catholic organizations are you talking about? If schools are one of them, don’t you have to be catholic to work there? I’m not sure about hospitals and charities organization, are they also required to be catholic to work there?\

 

[Nate13]

RE: HHS
What catholic organizations are you talking about? If schools are one of them, don’t you have to be catholic to work there? I’m not sure about hospitals and charities organization, are they also required to be catholic to work there?\

No they have allowed people of other faiths to work there as well for quite awhile. Even if they only hired Catholics though this would not get them out of the requirement. They would also have to turn away people who wanted to get care at the hospital or go to school if they were not Catholic. The current mandate does not protect an organization unless it only hires people of their faith and only serves people of their faith. Religious freedom only is protected in the actual Church building under this mandate.

 

[jonbhorton]

The state would rather pay for the cheaper contraception than the more expensive food-stamp/section-8 child.

Because they think that society benefits from this, they foist the cost on society in direct contradiction to the enumerated powers, and the spirit of the Necessary and Proper Clause. This is largely unchecked so far because of Junior’s expansion of Executive powers in the wake of 9/11 and the leverage the national fervor provided.

The nation simply went off the hinges and became polarized instead of united.

The section of the population who stands to benefit most are the ones who won’t even really pay for it, and so they don’t care if they push for whatever they want, for a sacrosanct line becomes crossed automatically.

That government expansion result: the failure of public housing, minimum wage merely being passed back to the consumer and ultimately the various workers, the welfare mentality: the national equivalent of a 35 year old man living on his parents’ couch and playing video games all day.

But his car has great rims, though he can never afford gas to go anywhere.

And of course, he can’t afford a kid, even with the gubment help, so, he just snags the taxes-paid-for-them condoms, or drives his lady down to the planned parenthood, paid for in part by your taxes, or, he gets over by just having his employer pay.

Not very fair, legal, or ethical. Of course, nothing the modern political machine does is really fair, legal, or ethical save a few representatives who have become marginalized.

 

[Leegal]

RE: HHS
What catholic organizations are you talking about? If schools are one of them, don’t you have to be catholic to work there? I’m not sure about hospitals and charities organization, are they also required to be catholic to work there?\

No hospitals and Catholic universities employ people of many different faiths. The problem will really affect mainly Catholic hospitals and universities mainly. The Church, has an exemption so your parish will not have to provide contraception and abortificants – but other organizations run by the Church are not exempt since professors, secretaries, custodial staff, doctors, nurses, para-professionals can be of any faith.

 

[Holly3278]

In my opinion, contraception shouldn’t be sold at all with only one exception and that being that it is prescribed only for when it is needed to treat a serious health condition. And even then it should be the last available option.

 

[manualman]

Snarkiness aside, here is the logic from their side:

“Everybody uses contraception and eventually sterilization, except for a few kooks. But women usually end up bearing the cost burden of buying the pills and getting the tubes tied. That’s unfair. We should cover it in health insurance so that the cost is paid equally by men and women’s premiums.” (Quotes indicate this is THEIR logic, not mine)

What they fail to recognize or, more likely DO recognize and delight in it, is that this approach also forces those who object to the above to pay for it in those who want it. That’s how insurance works: the cost is spread over the many.

 

[LizzieAngel]

I always have to add my two cents to this argument. Some women, like myself, need birth control for medical, not sexual reasons. I’ve had amenorrhea (not menstruating regularly after menarche) since I was in middle school. This can cause a lot of serious issues, like ovarian cysts and endometriosis. It also meant my doctors have been telling me since I was a teenager that if I was going to have kids, it would require serious medical intervention, hormone supplements, fertility treatments, etc.
Eventually, the doctor prescribed me the Pill to help regulate my hormones to avoid the negative effects I was having. While on it, my cycle is regular and there are no issues. I’ve gone off it several times, including when I studied abroad in Latin America (first time in my life I was happy to have amenorrhea because health care products down there can be of very dubious quality). What I found was that usually I had one more cycle after going off before I went back to not having one.
Long story short, armed with this knowledge, I went off the birth control again after a year on it (following a few unsuccessful months right after our marriage), and we conceived the very next month. Eventually, when I stop nursing, I will have to go back on it again. For health reasons…and hopefully to set the stage for #2.
I guess my point is that, as rare as it is, some people are on birth control for real medical issues, and that is why I think it should be covered. Especially during college, $50/month for medicine is a lot of money.

 

[manualman]

I always have to add my two cents to this argument. Some women, like myself, need birth control for medical, not sexual reasons. I’ve had amenorrhea (not menstruating regularly after menarche) since I was in middle school. This can cause a lot of serious issues, like ovarian cysts and endometriosis. It also meant my doctors have been telling me since I was a teenager that if I was going to have kids, it would require serious medical intervention, hormone supplements, fertility treatments, etc.
Eventually, the doctor prescribed me the Pill to help regulate my hormones to avoid the negative effects I was having. While on it, my cycle is regular and there are no issues. I’ve gone off it several times, including when I studied abroad in Latin America (first time in my life I was happy to have amenorrhea because health care products down there can be of very dubious quality). What I found was that usually I had one more cycle after going off before I went back to not having one.
Long story short, armed with this knowledge, I went off the birth control again after a year on it (following a few unsuccessful months right after our marriage), and we conceived the very next month. Eventually, when I stop nursing, I will have to go back on it again. For health reasons…and hopefully to set the stage for #2.
I guess my point is that, as rare as it is, some people are on birth control for real medical issues, and that is why I think it should be covered. Especially during college, $50/month for medicine is a lot of money.

This can easily be accomplished via a medical descriptions in the prescription purpose, you realize. All it would take is an administrative code change for use.

 

[LizzieAngel]

I understand that. I’m just saying there are people like me out there, and insurance companies are a BEAR to work with if you have some special exception-it can take months (and so much personal aggravation!) to get something covered.

 

[Leegal]

This can easily be accomplished via a medical descriptions in the prescription purpose, you realize. All it would take is an administrative code change for use.

True. Exception, satisfactory to the Catholic Church, can be written into Obamacare that covers provision of ABC to correct a medical condition.

However, if I’m not mistaken this part of Obama care will force the Church to provide coverage for sterilizations and abortificants too.

The Catholic Church was fooled by this. Catholics in the Church hierarchy were persuaded to support Obamacare and told they would have the exceptions that dogma and doctrine require. And that now proved not to be the case. As we see, now that it gets rolled out I’m reminded that Pelosi said “we have to pass it to know what’s in it.” No truer words were spoken.

However, the Church has been around for 2,000 years and Obamacare is not even fully in force. What is the liklihood that a 2,000 year institution will change its doctrine for Obamacare? The Church will still be standing long after this President’s term expires.

EWTN filed suit. The cost to them alone, when they don’t comply, will be $600,000 per year in fines.

 

[rand42]

Nothing in life is free, especially if a politician is involved.

If our government can write waivers for corporations to opt out of Obama-Care, why can’t they let the RCC opt out of Obama-Care. I believe the Obama White House will back down, the election is too close and the race is getting tighter. They will fold like a house of cards. They can’t risk a court battle because if this provision is deemed unconstitutional then arguments can be made against the entire document.

 

[Rand2410]

In my opinion, contraception shouldn’t be sold at all with only one exception and that being that it is prescribed only for when it is needed to treat a serious health condition. And even then it should be the last available option.

Then I for one am thankful you had no authority in this decision.

 

[Rand2410]

True. Exception, satisfactory to the Catholic Church, can be written into Obamacare that covers provision of ABC to correct a medical condition.

However, if I’m not mistaken this part of Obama care will force the Church to provide coverage for sterilizations and abortificants too.

The Catholic Church was fooled by this. Catholics in the Church hierarchy were persuaded to support Obamacare and told they would have the exceptions that dogma and doctrine require. And that now proved not to be the case. As we see, now that it gets rolled out I’m reminded that Pelosi said “we have to pass it to know what’s in it.” No truer words were spoken.

However, the Church has been around for 2,000 years and Obamacare is not even fully in force. What is the liklihood that a 2,000 year institution will change its doctrine for Obamacare? The Church will still be standing long after this President’s term expires.

EWTN filed suit. The cost to them alone, when they don’t comply, will be $600,000 per year in fines.

Obama and the Senate must give in to avoid loosing more votes. This provision is nothing more than an attempt to buy votes, period.

 

[247cath]

The underlying current to this whole debate is global warming. These people truly believe they are saving the world by passing out contraceptives and doing everything they can to help make sure people have as few kids as possible. Also, remember that these are the same people who are pro-choice and believe women should be able to kill their children if they want to. If they are willingly to allow people’s lives to be taken in the name of women’s choice, it should be no surprise they are willingly to step on religious freedom should it?

Global warming(pollution)? The popes have spoken out about how polluting our environment is detrimental to the flock. Remember the teachings on stewardship?

The issue is not about science, which is a concept that the church agrees with. But whether our church can be compelled to provide for the payment of services that are contrary to its teachings.

As to people using birth control to save the world, that appears to be a stretch. It would seem that most users of ABC have reasons a little closer to home, like spacing out kids.

The church isn’t against that concept, but against the methods utilized. NFP OK, ABC not OK.

 

[Nate13]

Global warming(pollution)? The popes have spoken out about how polluting our environment is detrimental to the flock. Remember the teachings on stewardship?

The question is whether there is man-made global warming that threatens everyone’s lives potentially within the next couple centuries. The Church has in no way supported such extreme views. Of course protecting our environment is important and the Church defends that, but I have seen no call by the Church for a reduction in population, have you? Speaking on pollution is much different then speaking out on supposed man-made global warming that is going to result in a catastrophe within the next couple centuries or even sooner according to some.

The issue is not about science, which is a concept that the church agrees with. But whether our church can be compelled to provide for the payment of services that are contrary to its teachings.

I was explaining the intent behind the views of those in the government who want the mandate in place. If you have someone who truly believes man-made global warming is going to kill us all off in the next couple centuries if something is not done, don’t you think it would make a lot of sense that said people would do everything they could to limit the amount of CO2 producing babies that come into the World?

As to people using birth control to save the world, that appears to be a stretch. It would seem that most users of ABC have reasons a little closer to home, like spacing out kids.

Yes I would agree. The intentions of those in the government who are making decisions is who I was referring to. Many people who choose not to have kids or to only have one kid though cite, global warming as a reason for their decision. This is a much more common attitude in Europe as opposed to America right now though.

The church isn’t against that concept, but against the methods utilized. NFP OK, ABC not OK.

I have not heard the Church cite global warming as an acceptable reason to limit family size lol. Yes the Church allows for birth control via NFP, but it should be done for serious reasons. The threat of global warming is not one of them.