Why should contraception be free?

[manualman]

Don’t derail the thread.

Global warming is a different issue, though I agree that many in the neo-religious global warming cult see babies as the enemy. Doubt me? Google VHEMT. I’m fairly sure it’s not satire. (But only fairly sure!)

Subject for another thread: the difference between the science of global climate / climate change and the neo-religious reactions to interpretations of that science. They are separate, but related like evolution and eugenics.

 

[turtle18]

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.

But there are so many women who have OTHER, more serious conditions and they have to pay $50 a month co-pay for their medicine. Like woman who have diabetes, MS, high blood pressure, depression. These issue are much more serious, IMO, than having birth control covered. My friend almost died from not being able to afford her medicine for diabetets; no one is going to die from not being able to afford birth control.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

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.

It’s because Obama needs votes this year. Free stuff is good. Free prevention of more people is even better (I know there is no logic in that but tell that to the party of death).

 

[3DOCTORS]

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.

THANK YOU. :bowdown2: About time somebody pointed this out. Good for you. I gave this thread 5 stars. And the women who do need some kind of hormonal intervention for legit health reasons wouldn’t have to be left out in the cold.

I think the global warming thing isn’t too far off the mark either - in my day, it was the ZPG (Zero Population Growth) argument. Basically the Culture of Death has convinced so many that humans are a blight on the face of the earth. If carried to its logical extreme, we might as well stop having kids at all and line up to drink the cyanide-tainted Kool-Aid.

People don’t recognize how deeply this mentality has invaded our culture. Think Dr. Kevorkian. Think Peter Singer, who defends animal rights but believes parents should have the right to put their handicapped baby to death. It’s a spiritual battle, fought by the Prince of Darkness against the Kingdom of God, and if we don’t educate ourselves as to what’s really going on, we are merely pawns.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

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.

[sign]Congratulations![/sign]

 

[TheRealJuliane]

THANK YOU. :bowdown2: About time somebody pointed this out. Good for you. I gave this thread 5 stars. And the women who do need some kind of hormonal intervention for legit health reasons wouldn’t have to be left out in the cold.

I think the global warming thing isn’t too far off the mark either - in my day, it was the ZPG (Zero Population Growth) argument. Basically the Culture of Death has convinced so many that humans are a blight on the face of the earth. If carried to its logical extreme, we might as well stop having kids at all and line up to drink the cyanide-tainted Kool-Aid.

People don’t recognize how deeply this mentality has invaded our culture. Think Dr. Kevorkian. Think Peter Singer, who defends animal rights but believes parents should have the right to put their handicapped baby to death. It’s a spiritual battle, fought by the Prince of Darkness against the Kingdom of God, and if we don’t educate ourselves as to what’s really going on, we are merely pawns.

Margaret Sanger, founder of abortion giant Planned Parenthood, was a racist eugenicist. Her mission carries on unabated.

 

[3DOCTORS]

Margaret Sanger, founder of abortion giant Planned Parenthood, was a racist eugenicist. Her mission carries on unabated.

Some know the real truth - check out

Black Catholics Apostolate for Life - check out their mission statement and prayer!

blackcatholicsforlife.org/

or Dr. Alveda King (niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.)'s testimony: silentnomoreawareness.org/testimonies/alveda-king.html

 

[He_Man]

It’s because Obama needs votes this year. Free stuff is good. Free prevention of more people is even better (I know there is no logic in that but tell that to the party of death).

One of the four most common meds for MS in its earliest, least nasty stages costs $4200/month. Better hope you have a good copay.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

One of the four most common meds for MS in its earliest, least nasty stages costs $4200/month. Better hope you have a good copay.

I have no copay.

That is, my deductible is $5000. We are self-insured because my husband has his own company. We pay $1000/mo. for essentially zero coverage except catastrophic. We pay cash for doctor visits and medication. Medication is almost full price.

 

[Castello]

But there are so many women who have OTHER, more serious conditions and they have to pay $50 a month co-pay for their medicine. Like woman who have diabetes, MS, high blood pressure, depression. These issue are much more serious, IMO, than having birth control covered. My friend almost died from not being able to afford her medicine for diabetets; no one is going to die from not being able to afford birth control.

Because it is not about contraception, it is about tearing down the Church and using the fact that sex is our new god to do it.

 

[Castello]

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.

Please, contact popepaulvi.com/ they will help you find a solution!

 

[LizzieAngel]

[sign]Congratulations![/sign]

Thank you! I am very much thrilled, even if it’s been a struggle. James finally felt the little one kick for the first time on Sunday.

@ Castello -Happily, I think we have found the closest thing to a solution possible at this time. At this point in my life, I no longer need assistance paying for medication, but that was NOT the case in college. I went to a Catholic school, so I couldn’t get my pills there, I had to go off campus into a really shady neighborhood.

And despite what everyone thinks about places just handing birth control out like candy, not even Planned Parenthood would give me a discount on the medication when I was in college, probably because I was working as well, trying to pay my own way.

@ Turtle18 - I don’t mean to split hairs here, but the VAST majority of cases of diabetes in the USA today are self-inflicted. Type 2 diabetes is serious condition, but one that can be prevented. And just as you feel that you shouldn’t have to pay for BC in any case, some people, like myself, feel like we shouldn’t have to pay for others’ self-destructive choices, like smoking and over-eating to the point of giving yourself a terminal illness. I feel it is wrong to disrespect the body God gave you like that, but I still pay for their treatment.

I inherited my condition from my mother, who had similar issues when she was young. Considering that the side effects of my condition include developing uterine tumors (my mother had cancer twice and a hysterectomy by age 35), and I did not have health insurance, in my case, long periods of time without medicine could very well mean I would have died, unable to afford treatment when prevention costs pennies a month.

I have always felt a strong calling to be a mother, and am beyond grateful that God has blessed me with this opportunity. Not all birth control is for baby-haters, or sexually promiscuous women.

The long and short of it is that this issue is not simply an open and shut case. Insurance waivers for certain conditions take many months. Should everyone just get whatever drugs they want for free? No. But many people complaining about the cost of their drugs make well above minimum wage and they are actually able to afford them out of pocket. Some people can not, and it is for those people that state programs exist. This may include single moms, students, people without familial support systems, veterans, etc. Should we not show them compassion, in the hope that they will make the right decisions?

 

[iloveangels]

Thank you! …

Nah, people usually pay for hit men. That’s the normal rule. I don’t see why abortion and birth control should be any different. It’s still a person that’s getting knocked off.

 

[turtle18]

Thank you! I am very much thrilled, even if it’s been a struggle. James finally felt the little one kick for the first time on Sunday.

@ Castello -Happily, I think we have found the closest thing to a solution possible at this time. At this point in my life, I no longer need assistance paying for medication, but that was NOT the case in college. I went to a Catholic school, so I couldn’t get my pills there, I had to go off campus into a really shady neighborhood.

And despite what everyone thinks about places just handing birth control out like candy, not even Planned Parenthood would give me a discount on the medication when I was in college, probably because I was working as well, trying to pay my own way.

@ Turtle18 - I don’t mean to split hairs here, but the VAST majority of cases of diabetes in the USA today are self-inflicted. Type 2 diabetes is serious condition, but one that can be prevented. And just as you feel that you shouldn’t have to pay for BC in any case, some people, like myself, feel like we shouldn’t have to pay for others’ self-destructive choices, like smoking and over-eating to the point of giving yourself a terminal illness. I feel it is wrong to disrespect the body God gave you like that, but I still pay for their treatment.

I inherited my condition from my mother, who had similar issues when she was young. Considering that the side effects of my condition include developing uterine tumors (my mother had cancer twice and a hysterectomy by age 35), and I did not have health insurance, in my case, long periods of time without medicine could very well mean I would have died, unable to afford treatment when prevention costs pennies a month.

I have always felt a strong calling to be a mother, and am beyond grateful that God has blessed me with this opportunity. Not all birth control is for baby-haters, or sexually promiscuous women.

The long and short of it is that this issue is not simply an open and shut case. Insurance waivers for certain conditions take many months. Should everyone just get whatever drugs they want for free? No. But many people complaining about the cost of their drugs make well above minimum wage and they are actually able to afford them out of pocket. Some people can not, and it is for those people that state programs exist. This may include single moms, students, people without familial support systems, veterans, etc. Should we not show them compassion, in the hope that they will make the right decisions?

I personally believe that is a terrible, very un-Christian attitude to have. Jesus commands us to care for our sick brothers and sisters, not blame them for their illnesses. So anyone with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, high blood sugar or even orthopaedic injuries resulting from exercise obsesssion wouldn’t make your cut, eh? What about alcoholics and people addicted to drugs? What about people who suffer from AIDS and other STDs? You don’t want to pay for any of these things because all of these are “self-inflicted” conditions, heh? But we should pay for your condition because you were born with it?

What about people who suffer from mental illness? Why isn’t the co-pay for their drugs free? Without their medicine they become homeless, suicidal and so on.

I just don’t see why people who have “female” conditions should be given special preference on co-pay treatments over any any one else who has other medical conditions. You are making a real judgement on other people and their sufferings when you do that.

 

[iloveangels]

I personally believe that is a terrible, very un-Christian attitude to have. Jesus commands us to care for our sick brothers and sisters, not blame them for their illnesses. So anyone with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, high blood sugar or even orthopaedic injuries resulting from exercise obsesssion wouldn’t make your cut, eh? What about alcoholics and people addicted to drugs? What about people who suffer from AIDS and other STDs? You don’t want to pay for any of these things because all of these are “self-inflicted” conditions, heh? But we should pay for your condition because you were born with it?

What about people who suffer from mental illness? Why isn’t the co-pay for their drugs free? Without their medicine they become homeless, suicidal and so on.

I just don’t see why people who have “female” conditions should be given special preference on co-pay treatments over any any one else who has other medical conditions. You are making a real judgement on other people and their sufferings when you do that.

P.O.L.I.T.I.C.S. That’s the only reason.

 

[LizzieAngel]

I personally believe that is a terrible, very un-Christian attitude to have. Jesus commands us to care for our sick brothers and sisters, not blame them for their illnesses. So anyone with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, high blood sugar or even orthopaedic injuries resulting from exercise obsesssion wouldn’t make your cut, eh? What about alcoholics and people addicted to drugs? What about people who suffer from AIDS and other STDs? You don’t want to pay for any of these things because all of these are “self-inflicted” conditions, heh? But we should pay for your condition because you were born with it?

What about people who suffer from mental illness? Why isn’t the co-pay for their drugs free? Without their medicine they become homeless, suicidal and so on.

I just don’t see why people who have “female” conditions should be given special preference on co-pay treatments over any any one else who has other medical conditions. You are making a real judgement on other people and their sufferings when you do that.

I’m just trying to point out a fallacy in the logic that people can pick and choose about what is covered by insurance for personal reasons. Your moral objection regarding covering my medicine, which I can not control my need for, is not necessarily more valid than my devil’s advocate argument about people who disrespect their bodies.

Similarly, there are many conditions/medicines that you can make a strong moral argument for not covering (methadone, etc). However, they are still covered, as they should be. *Politics and personal opinion do not belong in health care. Any person, regardless of their choices (which give them STDs, result in addiction/organ failure, etc), is entitled to receive basic health coverage as a human being, even inmates on death row with cancer. *This is, of course, my personal opinion. It is certainly a far cry from reality, both in this country and on a global scale.

I’m not claiming people like me deserve special preference, but merely equal coverage/access. I perhaps am not as well informed about what the recent change in the proposed law suggests, but I was not under the impression that anything would be free, it would simply be required to be covered by all insurance carriers?

Why shouldn’t “female” conditions be covered? “Male” conditions all are. It’s okay for someone like me to not get medicine, but Viagra and prescription medication for male hair regrowth are covered by virtually all heath care plans?

 

[iloveangels]

I’m just trying to point out a fallacy in the logic that people can pick and choose about what is covered by insurance for personal reasons. Your moral objection regarding covering my medicine, which I can not control my need for, is not necessarily more valid than my devil’s advocate argument about people who disrespect their bodies.

Similarly, there are many conditions/medicines that you can make a strong moral argument for not covering (methadone, etc). However, they are still covered, as they should be. *Politics and personal opinion do not belong in health care. Any person, regardless of their choices (which give them STDs, result in addiction/organ failure, etc), is entitled to receive basic health coverage as a human being, even inmates on death row with cancer. *This is, of course, my personal opinion. It is certainly a far cry from reality, both in this country and on a global scale.

I’m not claiming people like me deserve special preference, but merely equal coverage/access. I perhaps am not as well informed about what the recent change in the proposed law suggests, but I was not under the impression that anything would be free, it would simply be required to be covered by all insurance carriers?

Why shouldn’t “female” conditions be covered? “Male” conditions all are. It’s okay for someone like me to not get medicine, but Viagra and prescription medication for male hair regrowth are covered by virtually all heath care plans?

From the VATICAN website:

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

You say you’re Catholic.

BTW, the “75” and “76” you see there are footnotes to ancient sources. The Catholic Church has always taught this, and the Jews before them. Abortion has never been permissible for any Catholic. In fact, participation in the procurement of abortion is an automatic excommunication offense.

 

[Holly3278]

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

Why? The Catholic Church is against contraception and sterilization, is it not? Contraception and sterilization are immoral, are they not? If I were to say that the selling of pornography would be banned would you still be thankful that I had no authority in that matter?

 

[St_Francis]

The question is, why should artificial birth control, elective sterilization, and abortifacient drugs be provided free, without a co-pay?

All other meds and treatments seem to be requiring a co-pay but these. Drugs for diseases like MS would require a co-pay. Why not artifical contraceptives,'voluntary sterilizations, and/or abortifacient drugs?

 

[Havard]

Why? The Catholic Church is against contraception and sterilization, is it not? Contraception and sterilization are immoral, are they not? If I were to say that the selling of pornography would be banned would you still be thankful that I had no authority in that matter?

Civil laws should be based on morality, but let’s not blur the lines and think they are the same things.

Next thing you know, we’ll be seeing men charged with looking at women with lust in their hearts. Can you imagine the trial? “The defendant just had that creepy look in his eye, I was sure he was ogling me.”