Not the same thing at all.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Not the same thing at all.

No, it isn't. The woman on the left is a fake. Pretending, like an actor in a B-movie. A feckless nothing. An NRA calendar girl. The woman on the right is the real thing.
yrs,
rubato

Well I'm surprised to see such partiality toward a real murderous terrorist who'd like nothing better than to really actually in fact honest-to-goodness kill American children, women and men.

Clearly a very attractive young lady with a sense of humour and no desire whatever to kill her fellow citizens is most definitely inferior in every way and deserves as much sneering bigotry as can possibly be directed at her.

[Lord Jim]

Yes, one must wonder at the "sense of values" that leads a person to rate a stone-cold Islamo-fascist murderer as being somehow admirable compared to a young woman whose only threat is her sense of humor...

[Joe Guy]

How is rubato showing partiality? He wrote that the woman on the left was acting and feckless and the one on the right is a real terrorist who apparently has feck...

[Gob]

Feck all

[Lord Jim]

Well now that's awful....

[oldr_n_wsr]

When I "came of age" there was no medical plan (that I had) that paid for birth control. My wife and I paid for condoms, diaphrams, the pill, out of our own pockets. For many years we bought the pill every month. I know, it's cheaper to cover birth control than to cover a child that is the result of not having access to birth control. But who does not have access to birth control? Planned parenthood gives out condoms. Gives out cheap irth control. I think those that want to use birth control, find a way to use it. Others just press thier luck and let the chips fall where they may.

I keep hearing that the government has no right inserting itself into a womans reproduction/body, yet they want the gov (or an insurance plan) to pay for those things.

And I don't think a plan should pay for viagra and other such "enhancements" either. If an employer chooses a plan that offers those things, fine, if not, that's fine too.

[Guinevere]

You are absolutely wrong. Effective birth control is no cheap (condoms are not terribly effective), and there is loads of data that says many many women cannot afford birth control, so do not have it.

Regardless, it is GOOD POLICY to make birth control easily accessible and affordable. Congress already made that determination. It is not the Supreme Court's place to legislate otherwise.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Just looked at the planned parenthood sight which states birth control pills are $15-$50 per month. Doesn't seem like alot but for some, but I agree, it may be too much for others. But most perscriptions in any insurance plan, carry a co-pay anyway. Do birth control pills have a co-pay? Is $5-$20 copay too much?

If we want to make birth control "free", then we should just do that. Have the PP sites just give it away. Seems that is what you are advocating. I don't really disagree with that path. The gov pays for other, less worthy things.


ETA
and from what I read, condoms are 98% effective if used correctly. Over 80% effective if used incorrectly.

[Big RR]

If an employer chooses a plan that offers those things, fine, if not, that's fine too.

Do you honestly think and employer pays for insurance out of his/her/its own pocket? No, anymore than an employer gives an employee money every week; salary and benefits are the exchange for the work performed, not charity or a gift.

So then it comes down to whether an employer should be able to force his or her moral view on the employees, especially in something as personal as healthcare and what drugs to take/avoid. Should a company owned by Jehovah's witnesses be able to say they will not pay for blood transfusions? Should one owned by christian scientists say they will not pay for any medical procedures but refer you to practitioners. The USSC set a dangerous precedent here, saying (at least economically) that religion can trump science and an employer can enforce its religious beliefs on its employees.

I think the employer provided health benefits have led to a skewed way of thinking; people actually look at the insurance as being provided by the employer, and the courts say an employer has the right to determine what it will spend his/her/its money on. Somehow the value of the work given in exchange and the right of an employee to live his or her life as (s)he sees fit is gone. and the sad thing is that the ACA will perpetuate this.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Health care used to be a benefit. Lately it is a "cost" that the employee opts in or out of. My cost seems to be going up all the time and I'm sure my companies cost is going up also.

How, or for what reason a company chooses a certain health plan is really not my business. If I choose to work there and choose to partake of their health plan, then I agree to it's conditions. I may not like the co-pay or deductable or any other parts of the plan. But I can not opt in and get my own (and pay big bucks) or I can opt in and live with what I get. 30 years ago my health plan did not cover birth control. Don't remember when it started to cover it. It did pay for my vasectomy (after co-pay and deductables) so we haven't use the birth control portion for a while now. (had my vasectomy sometime in the late 1990's).

As I have said before, I am anti-ACA (and the "Affordable" part of the name should go ). A company should be able to offer any type of plan they want to, or none at all, which is where I believe the ACA will take us.
And that is not such a bad thing either. I think if people really saw the actual cost of a health plan, not just their piece they pay in their paychecks, costs may start to get a little under control. Nothing like paying out of your own pocket to make people control their spending. And if they shop around and get a better deal, then other insurance companies will take notice and perhpas lower prices or make more things covered.
Look at car insurance. While not cheap by any stretch of the imagination (here in the north east anyway), how many commercials are advertising lower rates. E-surance, geico, statefarm, allstate, blah blah blah are all competing for my dollars. Seems I can save 15% in 15 minutes, or more in less time depending on who I call.

[Big RR]

Car insurance is a good point; I recall when we were promised that No Fault insurance that we were also promised rates would drop--they didn't. Ditto for accepting filing suit; rates didn't drop. I predict the same with ACA; although I disagree with you about what drives the ACA; healthcare is far to expensive for us to fund ourselves, so those who are improvident and don't insure will, like the proverbial grasshopper, come banging on our door when the first problem arises--universal insurance (with all sharing the costs, is the better choice). As for employers, well if they are willing to increase salaries by the $10,000-$20,000+ they pay for healthcare insurance and employees are forced to pay for insurance directly, it may well be a plus (at the very east it would stop silly disputes like Hobby Lobby), but I don't expect to see this.

healthcare is expensive, and we will have to pay for it one way or the other. Or just set up a system of the haves and the have nots and live with it--if we can.

[Gob]

Most types of contraception are available free in the UK. Contraception is free to all women and men through the NHS. Places where you can get contraception include:

most GP surgeries – talk to your GP or practice nurse
community contraception clinics
some genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics
sexual health clinics – they also offer contraceptive and STI testing services
some young people's services (call 0300 123 7123 for more information)

Find your nearest sexual health clinic by searching by postcode or town

[oldr_n_wsr]

Most types of contraception are available free in the UK. Contraception is free to all women and men through the NHS. Places where you can get contraception include:

most GP surgeries – talk to your GP or practice nurse
community contraception clinics
some genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics
sexual health clinics – they also offer contraceptive and STI testing services
some young people's services (call 0300 123 7123 for more information)

Find your nearest sexual health clinic by searching by postcode or town

Panned Parenthood offers much of the same. I really don't see the problem with birth control. If one really wants to "control" their reproduction, there are ways (very inexpensive ways) to obtain what they need/want. A condom is in the 90%-tile effective. It cost $1 at the local 7-11. It's free at planned parenthood. The pill is less than $50 a month. IF hardship is shown, I would bet it is far less. And Hobby Lobby did not eliminate birth control from it's coverage. It still covers the pill and the like. It just didn't want to cover things like the "morning after" pill.

No Fault insurance that we were also promised rates would drop--they didn't

Yeah, no fault. That means everyone is at fault so everyone gets to pay. bigest scam this side of Maddoff.

[Guinevere]

The CDC reports that the average failure rate for condoms is 18%, that is unacceptably high. Meanwhile the failure rate for IUDs (including those complained about by Hobby Lobby) is under 1%. For the pill, it's 5-6%.

And $50/month is a LOT OF MONEY for someone existing on minimum wage ($10/hour x 40 hours/week x 50 weeks/year) = $20,000/year. Try living on that anywhere and paying for food, transport, and housing and having an extra $50 bucks each month.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Much of the birth control can be obtained for minimal cost at any planned parenthood office.
The condom failure rate of 18% is when they are incorrectly used. It is higher when correctly used as I stated earlier.
I have no problems with making any and all birth control available. But at what point does it become a personal responsibility?
80%+ is better than nothing and it only costs $1. The pill is better and at $15-$50 a month is not that expensive. Sure, some will say it's too expensive, but the copay on perscriptions is in the $20 range anyway. That is in line with the cost of the pill.
I pay extra on my home owners policy because I choose to have a dog (and have trees on my property). I pay extra on my life insurance because I smoke, I ride a motorcycle, I ride snowmobiles and I hunt. If you can't afford to do what you want, don't do it. (oh but having sex is my God given right. Well yes, but the consequences are yours to own)

I keep hearing that women want hte gov and others to stay out of their reproductive rights, that they want to choose what they want to choose. Yet they then turn and say that they want the cost of their choices to be paid for by the rest of us.

I choose to smoke, to ride and hunt. I pay the extra. I don't ask anyone else to pay for my choices. You want reproductive freedom, fine, pay whatever that entails.

[rubato]

IUDs and norplant are the two most effect and long-term cost effective forms of birth control. High initial costs prevent a lot of women from getting them; an ideal candidate for an insured benefit or one at public cost.


One of the best ways of avoiding poverty for children as well.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... n/1613691/

Free birth control project cuts teen births, abortions
Kim Painter, Special for USA TODAY 12:34 a.m. EDT October 5, 2012
hormonal implant


An experimental project that gave free birth control to more than 9,000 teen girls and women in one metropolitan area resulted in a dramatic decrease in abortions and teen pregnancies, a new study shows.

It wasn't just the "free" part that led to rates far below national averages, researchers say. They also credit the long-acting highly effective methods of contraception chosen by 75% of the participants – namely intrauterine devices (IUDs) and hormonal implants.

The findings come as cost-free birth control is becoming available to more women under a much-debated provision of the federal health care law. The provision was supported by many women's health advocates but
strongly opposed by the Catholic Church and many social conservatives. Dozens of lawsuits have been filed around the country. The study also comes weeks after the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists declared IUDs and implants front-line contraceptive choices for sexually active teen girls.

The study, published online in Obstetrics & Gynecology, was carried out in the St. Louis area from 2007 to 2011 and included participants ages 14 to 45 who said they wanted to avoid pregnancy for at least a year.

All were told about various methods of birth control and allowed to choose among them – but they did get counseling that stressed that IUDs and implants are much more effective than birth control pills and other methods, says lead researcher Jeffrey Peipert, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University School of Medicine.

Data suggest IUDs and implants fail up to 20 times less often than pills, which failed at a rate of about 4.5% in this study. Yet just 8.5% of U.S. women used IUDs and implants in 2009, says Megan Kavanaugh, senior research associate at the Guttmacher Institute in New York.

So the St. Louis researchers were stunned when 58% of the participants chose IUDs and 17% chose implants, Peipert says: "We found that when cost is not an issue, what is really important to women is that a method work really well."

Among the results:

-- A teen birth rate of 6.3 per 1,000 in the study, compared with 34.3 per 1,000 nationwide.

-- Annual abortion rates ranging from 4.4 to 7.5 per 1,000 women in the study vs. 13.4 to 17 per 1,000 in the region and to 19.6 per 1,000 nationwide in 2008, the most recent national data available.

-- Falling rates of repeat abortions in the entire St. Louis region but not nearby Kansas City. The researchers say this is linked to their study, which recruited some women from abortion clinics.

"These findings really show promise for what could happen on a national level," with a combination of free birth control and promotion of the most effective methods, Kavanaugh says.

Jeanne Monahan of the conservative Family Research Council suggested contraceptive use can encourage riskier sexual behavior. "One might conclude that the Obama administration's contraception mandate may ultimately cause more unplanned pregnancies since it mandates that all health plans cover contraceptives, including those that the study's authors claim are less effective," Monahan said.

The devices and insertion can cost several hundred dollars. An IUD, which contains copper or a progestin hormone, is inserted in the uterus and lasts five to 10 years. Hormone implants, the size of a matchstick, are placed in the arm and last three years.

Cost is not the only barrier to more widespread use, says Tina Raine-Bennett, research director at the Women's Health Research Institute at Kaiser Permanente Northern California. Many doctors don't suggest the long-acting methods, she says, because they are not trained to insert them or remember outdated information about a faulty IUD discontinued decades ago.

Raine-Bennett led the committee of obstetricians and gynecologists that recently recommended IUDs and implants for teens. "They are as effective as sterilization, but they are reversible," she says.

Under provisions of the Affordable Care Act that went into effect in August, insurers must cover birth control as well as many other preventive health services for women. Colleges, non-profits and other employers affiliated with religious organizations that object to the rule have been given an extra year to comply. A number of legal challenges by states and employers are underway; one was dismissed this week.

yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

I hope the IUD's of today are better than those of the past. My aunt lost her uteris to the "shield" thingy. (my spelling sucks, sorry)
Of all the crap the gov funds, they should just avoid the lawsuits and legal challenges to the ACA and give away birth control. The money they are paying to lawyersto defend what they want is likely more than the cost of providing the birth control to all for free.

[Guinevere]

Much of the birth control can be obtained for minimal cost at any planned parenthood office.
The condom failure rate of 18% is when they are incorrectly used. It is higher when correctly used as I stated earlier.
I have no problems with making any and all birth control available. But at what point does it become a personal responsibility?
80%+ is better than nothing and it only costs $1. The pill is better and at $15-$50 a month is not that expensive. Sure, some will say it's too expensive, but the copay on perscriptions is in the $20 range anyway. That is in line with the cost of the pill.

Saying it over and over does not make it any more correct than when you said it the first two times. $50/month, even $25/month is not "cheap" for many many women.

And the 18% is the average failure rate -- that includes using condoms correctly and incorrectly. They slip, they break, even if you use them right, a condom is not the best form of birth control.

And finally, smoking and hunting are not fundamental rights under the US Constitution. The right to procreate, or not, procreate is a fundamental right. Someone's religious beliefs should not be able to interfere with that right.

[MajGenl.Meade]

The right to procreate, or not, procreate is a fundamental right. Someone's religious beliefs should not be able to interfere with that right.

Choosing to procreate (or not) seems pretty fundamental to me. However, "procreate or not" is not the issue. Really what is under discussion is the "right" to enjoy sexual activity with someone else paying the costs of pregnancy prevention.

Outside the arena of illegal nonconsensual activity, women already have the ability to decide whether or not to have sex - those who do not wish to procreate can choose not to engage in the behaviour that brings that result. It's quite a simple (and cost free) option - don't screw.

Should any company (in the same category as the subject one) have the right to refuse to subsidise a person's desire to have sex without the risks that attend it? Yes of course. People can go work somewhere else; they can buy their own measures to prevent pregnancy; they can decide not to engage in the sexual activities that lead to pregnancy and still have a good time.

Aside from (I say again) non-consensual acts (which are crimes), women have the same perfect freedom to say "no". It's an oral contraceptive

[oldr_n_wsr]

The right to procreate, or not, procreate is a fundamental right. Someone's religious beliefs should not be able to interfere with that right.

I don't see where any of this interferes with anyones right to procreate.
I see it as who is going to pay for their right to bang away and NOT procreate.
And I have not seen the word "procreate" in the "rights" portion of the constitution. Maybe I missed it.
And how much money is too much money? As I said, stop all the lawsuits and use the money saved to give to PP and let them distribute wahtever the ladies need.
Oh but now it's too much of a journey to get to PP. Lets pay for bus/cab fare.
Slippery slope i have here.