Saturday, March 10, 2012
On Obama and the Concept of Free Birth-Control
And what's with this whole no co-pay bullshit? I have to dish out $15 for all of my prescriptions (save, of course, for the occasional $4 generic from Walmart) and Mr. Obama wants to make contraception coverage totally free....for everybody (regardless of their ability to pay)? Naaadon't think so......................................................................................Look, folks, I've generally been pretty supportive of Mr. Obama (my tweaking of the fellow much more directed at his minions). I voted for him once and probably will again, AND I've defended him against charges of extremism, "weak on defense", etc.. But, on this particular issue, he really IS starting to piss me off some....Free contraception, please!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Because you're a man?
We have out doubts about what side of the plate you are hitting from WD.Not thats its a bad thing.
Unwanted pregnancy is a serious medical problem that is very expensive for us to deal with. It may not be so bad.
ACTUALLY, I AM in favor of free contraception for certain people; i.e., those who obviously can't afford it. But this whole no co-payment for every living American is ridiculous.............And, just for the record, wd, I'm not in favor of free Viagra, either.
Will my friend; have you never felt the rushing disappointment of being turned down because the objet of your affection didn't have money for pills that month?
You are callous and foolish.
First of all, no copay is not free.
Secondly it is part of preventive care which is designed to have no copay to encourage people to get preventive care. There is no doubt that preventive care reduces health care costs.
The question really is should contraception be part of preventive care?
I wonder what the argument would look like if condoms required a doctors prescription?
Also, what kind of explosion would we see if it was decided that prescription coverage would no longer cover Viagra?
It's not free birth-control so, I don't know if I even need to address anything else in this post.
But, this slut-shaming crap from the Right needs to be continually fought. It's no joke, no apology will suffice the conservative totalitarian sex control shit must be destroyed.
I thought that I heard Mr. Obama say that there wouldn't be a co-payment for birth control coverage. I'll just have to double-check, I guess. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.............And I'm not opposed to the government providing help with these things in regard to poor. My whole thing here is that the government should not be mandating to self-insured religious institutions that they provide services to which they personally find morally reprehensible. If the government thinks that these employees should have these services, fine. But do it the form of clinics, rebates, etc.. As for the rest of the folks, if I can afford a $15 dollar co-pay at CVS (Walmart doesn't offer $4 generics on everything), then they can afford a $9 price-tag at Target or Walmart.
I mean, come on, guys, THERE IS NO PROBLEM HERE. a) Poor people (with thanks to Title 10) can get their birth control free at clinics. b) Everybody else can either get it at Walmart/Target or through their personal insurance (self-insured faith-based institutions represent but a tiny fraction of the employers). There is no need to trample on religious liberty.
If by "self-insured faith-based institutions" you mean the churches themselves, they are exempt. What are not exempt are church businesses, like hospitals that employ non-religious people and are open to the public. They should follow the same business and labor regulations and laws as any other business.
Moderate Will is correct on this one.Someone from the left please give a cogent reason why we citizens should pay for all birth-control? And please dont use the "its far less expensive then a live birth" B.S. talking point.That one is like the right saying "abortion is legal so a women can have sex with a man they have absolutly no intention of marrying."
.
"... give a cogent reason why we citizens should pay for all birth-control?"
It is simple. Can you say comprehensive quality health care?
It means comprehensive, quality, health care. Comprehensive mean all aspects of effort to achieve the desired goal of administering quality medical treatment of a person.
Prevention by the way, is recognized as being far less expensive than treatment. It is one of the fundamental concepts of modern life.
"... dish out $15 for all of my prescriptions ..."
Now that is wrong! It should be universally free comprehensive quality health care, for all!
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
"It is simple. Can you say comprehensive quality health care?"
No, not at all. Complete government control and taxpayer funding is not necessary at all for "quality health comprehensive care". It is fallacious to argue that things only work well when the State controls everything.
"Now that is wrong! It should be universally free comprehensive quality health care, for all!"
That's ridiculous. There is no good reason at all that the government should hand out free health care to those who can afford it on their own. As a safety net? Yes, of course. But not as a hammock for those of means. Welfare for the wealthy and well-off is a very bad idea.
.
"Complete government control and taxpayer funding is not necessary at all for "quality health comprehensive care""
Now focus. Your boggy-man won't rise. Besides you, who said anything about government control?
Taxpayers should absolutely insist on getting top quality all-inclusive health care for its money. Why settle for less?
~@:o?
.
Ema said,"it should be universally free comprehensive quality health care for all."
So,it should be absolutly free?
No one pays anything.Would the doctors also work for free?How about the nurses? Perhaps the administrative staff? Maybe the drug companys will donate the drugs?Hell,perhaps GE will give CT and MRI machines free.Could we just put up the buildings to hold all this stuff for free.
Its always a good chuckle when someone on the left asks for something "free." Nothing is free sweet pea.
Oh hell,lets just make the rich people pay for it.
Jerry, I repeat, if the President can give his SEIU buddies a waiver, then he can give a 2,000 year-old religion a break on this ONE thing. And it's just the self-insured businesses that are being impacted here, a very small minority. Those employees can go to either Planned Parenthood (which I favor funding for), Walmart, or Target. Nobody loses. NOBODY.
Single payer is the answer.
I'm not a fan of single payer (I much prefer Dr. Emanuel's market-oriented approach), but I'd probably take it over that Byzantine quagmire that those clowns down there ultimately passed.
Ema said: "Now focus. Your boggy-man won't rise."
You raised it. I smack it down.
"Besides you, who said anything about government control?"
You did. You demanded it in your comment.
"Taxpayers should absolutely insist on getting top quality all-inclusive health care for its money."
Rather than have taxpayers insist on the best possible fascist "one size fits few" government controlled healthcare, why not just get government mostly out of it? Then the taxpayers won't have to petition to these powerful self-interested ruling elites. They will be able to make the decisions themselves.
-------------
WD said: "Single payer is the answer."
Only if the question is. "How do we destroy health care, take away everyone's choice, and let the ruling elites accomplish a significant fascistic power grab?"
Your answer is perfect.
-----------
Will said "Those employees can go to either Planned Parenthood (which I favor funding for), Walmart, or Target. Nobody loses. NOBODY."
The SEIU and the Left hate Walmart because they don't force their workers to joiu unions, and do the outrageous thing of paying low-skilled low-value workers a fair wage for their work. So the SEIU would lose on this one.
Post a Comment