E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSby Julie Appleby
Kaiser Health News
While controversy over one aspect of the Obama administration's contraception rule – whether and when religiously affiliated employers must comply – has dominated recent headlines, that debate has obscured other questions about how the rules will actually be implemented.
Under the health law, insured women will qualify for contraceptives without a copayment as part of a range of preventive medical services. But insurers and advocates are frustrated by the lack of details. They’re asking, for example, whether surgical procedures must also be covered at no additional cost to patients.
"The unknown answers to the myriad of questions remain very worrisome," says Judith Lichtman, senior advisor to the National Partnership for Women and Families, an advocacy group in Washington D.C.
America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the industry lobbying group, sent a list of questions to the Department of Health and Human Services (HSS) in September, asking for clarification on what types of contraceptives must be covered and how insurers should structure their policies. A spokesman for AHIP says the group is still awaiting answers to some questions.
Contraceptives are part of a package of women’s preventive health care services under the Affordable Care Act -- including screening for diabetes, counseling about sexually transmitted diseases and breast feeding support -- that must be provided without deductibles or co-pays in all new policies beginning Aug. 1. The package was drawn up after recommendations from the Institutes of Medicine (IOM). Other parts of the health law also provide no-cost-sharing preventive services for children and all adults, such as certain cancer screenings and immunizations.
Senate defeats limit on birth control coverage
Here are some questions, and answers when we could determine them, about the rules:
1. Are male-based contraceptive methods, such as vasectomies or condoms, covered by the rule?
An HHS official said last week that women’s preventive services guidelines apply to women only.
Guidelines issued by the Health Resources and Services Administration, part of HHS, require coverage without cost sharing for "all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity" as prescribed by a provider, according to the Federal Register.
The insurers' letter from September says they interpreted the rule to include only female-based contraception and that the requirement to waive co-payments "does not apply to methods and procedures intended for males."
But Adam Sonfield, senior public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research group, says the language is unclear, and it would be foolish to exclude vasectomies. For one thing, he says, they are less expensive and pose a lower risk of complications than female surgical sterilization methods. Plus, he says, waiving co-payments for services for one sex but not the other raises issues of discrimination.
“I can’t see how it would be in anyone’s interest to treat them differently,” says Sonfield.
2. Are over-the-counter products like female condoms, spermicides, sponges covered by the rules and, if so, will they require a prescription and how will insurers reimburse policyholders for purchases at retail stores?
Products that must be covered without cost-sharing include over-the- counter contraceptives when they are prescribed by doctors, the HHS official said Friday. But getting a prescription for such items raises other issues, say advocates and insurers.
Insurers wrote HHS in September that "it is unclear what specific over-the-counter products are to be included."
In addition, the letter warned that requiring a prescription for such items "would increase the burden on an already over-burdened primary care system and drive up administrative costs."
Insurers wrote the industry has no simple way to track and reimburse policyholders who purchase those items at retail stores. Setting up such systems, "could cost tens of millions" and exceed the cost of the products themselves.
Requiring a prescription should definitely not be required, says Lichtman, who said such a move would make using contraception more difficult and expensive for women.
3. If a hospital stay is required for surgical procedures, such as when a women gets her tubes tied, would the procedure be covered without cost sharing?
Insurers say it is not clear if hospitalization or complications that might occur from surgery would be covered without the patient paying a co-payment or a deductible because they are not considered preventive.
Sonfield at Guttmacher argues they would be covered.
"It’s like saying you have to cover blood transfusions, but not the hospital stay," he says. "That doesn’t make sense. If you’re covering it, you’re covering it all."
HHS has not weighed in on this question, but is expected to issue additional guidance in the coming months.
4. Will insurers be required to cover all products in a class, such as all IUDs, or all birth control pills? Can insurers require a co-pay for a brand-name drug if a generic is available?
Many insurers have "tiered" pharmacy benefits under which patients pay differing amounts for brand-name, as opposed to generic, products. Some require patients who choose a brand-name drug, when an equivalent generic is available, to pay the price difference between the two. Insurers say HHS guidance allows them to use such "reasonable medical management" to help control costs. That would include allowing insurers to charge patients for brand name drugs, it says.
Insurance coverage might steer women to costlier -- but more effective -- birth control
The HHS official confirmed that, but stressed the plan must "accommodate any individuals for whom it would be medically inappropriate by having a mechanism for waiving the otherwise applicable cost-sharing for the branded version."
Advocacy groups and insurers are in discussions with HHS over those and other questions related to preventive care, says Lichtman. Her group hopes the agency will soon release additional guidelines that “are broad enough so that all methods prescribed by doctors necessary for women’s health will be covered.”
5. Who will be covered for contraceptives without co-payments?
The package of women’s preventive care benefits must be offered in all new insurance policies sold to individuals and employers starting Aug. 1, as well as in most policies that renew afterwards on the date that they renew. There is an exception for insurance provided by certain nonprofit religious employers who object to birth control.
Twenty-eight states already require insurers to cover contraceptives, although large, self-insured employers are generally exempted from state rules. But a 2010 Kaiser Family Foundation/HRET survey of employers found that 85 percent of large firms offered prescription contraceptives in their plans, although they often required a patient co-pay or deductible. (KHN is a program of the foundation)
As for the types of procedures covered, the IOM cites a 2011 Bureau of Labor Statistics analysis of 3,900 employer plans, which found that policy documents representing about 70 percent of participants did not mention sterilization. But when sterilization services were mentioned, nearly 90 percent of the policies covered both female and male surgical sterilization procedures.
Related:
Another batch of birth control pills recalled
Leave a Comment:
Generally speaking, it's much cheaper in the long run to pay for contraception than to pay for raising a child. From a strictly monetary perspective, this is a no-brainer.
When you throw in all the other stuff ... rights, fairness, religious freedoms, blah blah blah, that's when it gets complicated.
The world is complicated enough already. Just let anyone who needs it have birth control. Compared to pregancies, pre-natal and post-natal care, hospital stays, and then potentially another 18 or more years of various government assistance, a pack of birth control pills is pretty cheap.
Everyone who needs it ALREADY has it available to them. Condoms aren't that expensive and simply saying no costs you nothing.
JJ, agree. And, the liberal sacred shrine, Planned Parenthood, gives it away for free! It's really amazing as this issue is discussed that people want to present that women have NEVER had birth control before!
Sounds a whole lot like "I got mine, now what can I do from having to share.". The cost of raising a child is more than offset by the potential positive economic impact of that child producing for another 50 yrs. You point is well....pointless.
Another great (lol) point you make is attributing everything else to stuff. You are the prime example of today's wannabe socialist. "rights, fairness (what the hell does that mean), religious freedoms blah blah.."
No one is denying birth control, the point is who should pay for it.
Please either spend the time to make a real point, or relegate yourself to the back of the sheep pen.
Plan parent hood does not give out FREE pills, they have a sliding scale, and if you make too much money you do not quailify........so if you do not qualify for plan parenthood, and your insurance does not cover it, you end up paying $300.00 a month for birth control.
all we hare saying is the insurance plan should cover it. great if it is free, but even if you had a $10.00 copay, at least COVER IT.
And there are many women out there that do not have coverage for birth control pills, but amazingly enought Viagra is ALWAYS covered.
Really,?- The pill is not 100% effective.
Actually, my thought on the article was the part where they were talking about generic options. There is no option when it comes to the pill. Each woman needs a specific pill that is chemically balanced to their reproductive system. There is no good enough option. It is either correct or ineffective.
Lisa - Plenty of insurance companies DO cover contraception already. It all depends on the plan either your employer has or on which one YOU pick if you are self insured. However, why do you feel ANY President should have the power to dictate what products a private company must carry, how much they can charge you for it, and how they must cover their cost for carrying that product? Remember once you give one President this power they have it and others will use it.
Will you be as supportive of this power when some future President decides that every insurance company must cover 100% of the cost of a firearm for every renter and home owner and they can pass on the cost by increasing the premiums for those who do not carry theft insurance in their policy? You see, THAT is the real issue here...government power, not contraception.
Lisa
Absolutely false.
Maingear, proof would be nice. You only need one man to prove this wrong. Too much?
Responding to concerned memphian -
I completely agree -
Perhaps some medical professionals out there would give us the current dollar costs of birth control pills per month, the cost of an uncomplicated vaginal delivery, the cost of a C-section, and the cost per day in the NICU for a preemie.
Anyone who is not aware that the world is greatly over-populated with humans now needs a serious reality check. When all the starving children world-wide are fed, then feel free to go forth and multiply.
Yes, it is much cheaper to pay for contraception than to pay for raising a child, which is why Ms. Fluke and her friends should be more than willing to pay for their contraception.
Iowa Guy:
If birth control had to be that much of a custom job (a pill working for one not working for anyone else) there wouldn't be birth control. As a point of fact there is, and must be, a point where good enough is good enough.
Mac:
My interpretation of Maingear's comment was that he has insurance and that it doesn't cover Viagra. It would make sense that he is speaking from direct experience and thus is the counter-example.
Carolart:
Am I to understand that you would like to prohibit fertility treatments? I am actually for such an option.
This is obviously coming from someone who DIDN'T have to try 5 different kinds of birth control before they found one that didn't make them sick or have other bad side effects.
If you have sex often like I do with my husband, condoms can get pretty pricey.
I refuse to say No. I am married. I should not have to say no.
Planned Parenthood is not accessible to everyone. They are not on every street corner, and Im pretty sure there are states that they are not even in. Also, birth control is not free at planned parenthood. They base it off your income. I used to pay 20$ a month for pills from planned parenthood. I had insurance from my employer that I paid 400$ a month for just myself. They didnt cover pills. Not even if I needed it for medical issues. It would have cost me 80$ a month, if I did not go to planned parenthood. I shouldnt have to pay that much for a Rx that I need for medical reasons. I honestly dont care if it BC were completely free, or you pay a small copay similar to other drugs. BUT it should not be that expensive when you are already paying so much for the insurance.
I moved across the country, and there is no planned parenthood very close to me (within 50 miles at least) Im really glad my coverage I have currently allows it to be the same cost as any of my other Rx... about 12$/mo. Much more reasonable than 80$ Especially since I was paying 400$ a month just for insurance, that didnt cover a necessary Rx.
You can get pregnant on the pill, even if you take it daily. It happened to me, and NO I did not screw up.
I cant get free pills. There is no place close to me, and if were to drive really far away to go to a clinic, it still wouldnt be free. All the clinics I know of base off of income.
The person said it was false. "He" did not say that it happened to him. You are ASSuming way to much...
Becca:
I don't think so. By stating the claim was "absolutely false," he was indicating that he knows (of his own direct knowledge) that the claim was false. In my experience, such a reaction usually indicates a personal experience with the falsity of a claim. It is a reasonable, though not guaranteed, conclusion that he is speaking from personal experience. There is an obvious way that he could be speaking from personal experience. And it is reasonable to hold that that is the case until there is some contrary evidence. Your objection that he was not sufficiently verbose does not constitute that evidence.
Mandy:
That's still a far cry from birth control being unique to the individual.
For those of you who actually say "Just say no" what kind of drugs are you on? Just say no has always worked sooooooo well. The cost of contraception versus pregnancy is pennies on the dollar. Even the insurance companies are not joining this fight. They would much rather pay for pills than babies!
Are you kidding? They are all for it. But not for the reasons you state. They can pass on the cost (plus a profit to themselves) to their customers who want insurance in case of catastrophic events but don't want to pay for something purely elective like someone else's birth control.
"...must be provided without deductibles or co-pays in all new policies..."
Since when can the government tell a private company what they must carry and how much they can charge for it? This is anathema to the entire idea of our economic system. I know they have a list of drugs a pharmacy must carry and that list is geared towards life saving medicines, but even that does not say what they can charge and how much profit they can or cannot make from them.
For those of you support this, consider what giving this power to government opens the door to if people you don't like have it as well. Consider a law which requires department stores to carry firearms for example and that they must be sold for $X so that even poor people can afford them for self protection. Is that REALLY the kind of power you want to give to a bunch of professional politicians more interested in buying votes than what is best for our country?
And, of course, there's the whole ACA issue of why the government is able to force people to buy a product. I wonder , too, how it is that the president writes law now? It wasn't in the bill that it would be free and that insurance companies would have to pay for it. Expect another possible lawsuit.
dirt - Great point. Are we handing this power to a single person now? Imagine what liberals think of as the unthinkable - Palin as President. Would they want her to have the ability to force insurance companies to cover every home owner or renter for the purchase of a firearm and not charge them for it?
Dirt & JJ, do you live in a state that requires you to purchase insurance to drive? Mine does.
Mac:
I can (and do) opt out of driving. I just don't need that expense. Where is the opt-out provision on this one?
No, there's only one thing everyone needs to know about the "birth control mandate".
It is a naked and shameless attempt by the right wing to subjugate women. The fight is to return women to a role as chattel, as the possessions and property of men. Period.
David, you act like women have NEVER had birth control. This is about whether I should have to pay for somebody else's birth control. Nothing is free. Insurance companies will jack the prices up on other things to cover it.
I often see libs writing here about Reps wanting to be in people's bedrooms. How is this any different? And, why are people so willing to give up rights? You see, if govt can give this to you, they can take it away. You've lost control of your own life. But, that's what Obama wants in his Progressive agenda, to take control of every aspect of your life.
David - How do you figure? Birth control is available to women and it is available in more forms than ever before. You can get over the counter contraception, prescription contraception, even surgical contraception. ALL of that is available to women today. Some insurance companies already provide coverage for some of these, some do not. It's called a business decision...a CHOICE.
Apparently you believe that by giving people a choice NOT to do something that is subjugating someone else, but FORCING someone to do something is actually free choice. You live in a very odd world.
Oh please! Spare us the victim mentality. If anything, a woman pumping herself full of body altering, cancer-causing hormone drugs only serves to further reduce women to mere sexual objects. If a woman's partner doesn't have enough respect for her (or respect for herself) to simply wait until her body is not in a fertile period then she needs to seek out a new partner (or reassess her own self-image). When a woman uses contraceptives so that she can be available for sex with a man whenever HE wants to satisfy HIS sexual desires it renders her powerless and makes her just a sperm receptacle.
When I reads words in this article like "not clear", "unclear", and "(HHS) expected to issue additional guidance..." it sounds like the administration has NO idea what they are doing and simply making this up as they go along.
It is a sad state of affairs when pregnancy has been reduced to a diagnosed disease or a financial liability.
Most insurance policies ALREADY include birth control pills.
And Scrooge - pregnancy is a diagnosis & has been. There's a whole section in the ICD-9: 11. Complications of pregnancy, childbirth, and the puerperium (630–679)
Naked and shameless...dare I say LMAO?
Women HAVE the right to make a choice....albeit a right to make a choice for both her AND the man, but that is another debate about equality.
The point is who is forced to pay for her choice. Get a clue
wryview:
I understand the diagnosis. My point is that the HHS now considers it a "disease", like a tumor.
"It is a naked and shameless attempt by the right wing to subjugate women. The fight is to return women to a role as chattel, as the possessions and property of men. Period."
Actually David I see it differently. I see it as a hidden attempt (that got exposed) by the left wing (that believes religion is bad) to control religion. Which is a violatin of the first admendment to the constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Mark #'s: Really? All we hear from Congress is that Religious freedom is being stomped on. These past weeks when contraception became the latest 'thing' to throw around, I've never had so much of other's religion shoved down my throat! The GOP candidates talk about the importance of Chrisitan or Catholic values. Thanks... but no thanks. I'm Jewish and prefer to follow my own religion.
You're correct about separation of church and state -- it's just too bad the GOP can't seem to honor that.
Hey "DIRT" your INSURANCE Companies pay for VIAGRA...so shut the PHUCK UP about WOMEN'S HEALTH ISSUES you MISOGYNIST MORON!!!
And just keep rotting behind keyboard while you beat off to Greta Van Ugly and Flesh Phlegmball!!!
@ Scrooge - Waiting until an infertile period is like playing the lottery, as it is nearly impossible to know 100% exactly when that is. You can take an educated guess, and 99% of the time, you will be correct, but it is that other 1% that makes an unwanted child.
On top of that, you are making the fundamental error that women only have sex when the man wants it. Rather a male dominant statement to make, in my opinion. My husband and I are equal partners in our love life. If your wife/gf/partner is not, I feel sorry for you both.
On top of that, we are talking about the prevention of pregnancy, not pregnancy itself. As I am primarily pro-life, I would much rather see pregnancy prevented than terminated. And birth control is much cheaper than pregnancy or abortion.
David You are absolutely correct. Thank you for your support for women. These male chauvinistic fools should take control of their sex lives. I've been fighting for women rights for 65 years and we finally get almost to a equal playing field and the men get scared they might lose control of one of their possessions (women) and they start to take away our rights. MEN you haven't seen anything yet!!!!! wait until all of us start to march and take over 'your' rights. You are the weaker sex. Women live longer by a number of years.
Cathy - So what exactly about religion has been thrown in your face beyond the government isn't supposed to be "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? No one is trying to make you a Christian or even make you follow their beliefs. They are saying don't let the government force us to do something against our beliefs. NO ONE is trying to ban contraception, heck it's in almost every insurance plan right now and no one complains about it. However, FORCING someone to carry a plan which includes something they fundamentally disagree with is not the job of the government whether it is a religious organization or not.
How would you like it if a President decided that kosher food was not healthy and used this same power to ban its sale? Now is that an attack on religion or on obesity? Doesn't matter if your Jewish, the results are the same. The government is forcing choices on you that your religion disagrees with.
JJMurray:
A business decision is it? Then perhaps you'd explain how this has become a question of violating a person's religious beliefs. It's business. Your words.
That said, please explain this. A non-religious business person offers a standard insurance package to his employees, which includes the full-range of medical care for a woman, including contraception. This non-religious business owner is obliged to follow all labor laws just like anyone else.
The next day, our non-religious business person makes a business decision. He or she sells the business to a religious organization. I digress to point out that it seems strange that an outfit whose purpose is to deal with one's relationship with his/her creator, finds a business to be a logical extension in the search for the full actualization of one's spirituality. But hey, I was one of those non-religious business owners, so what the hell do I know?
Anyway, we now have that same business being operated by a "religious organization" that believes it is exempt from labor law, all by virtue of the fact that they ALSO believe in an invisible guy in the sky. Pretty shaky stuff in my world.
You'd be laughed out of court if you defended your refusal to follow the law based on an invisible bad guy - Shall we say, SATAN. But somehow, you seem to think it's perfectly natural to refuse to follow labor law based on your belief in an invisible good guy - Say, God, Yahweh, or Allah. Really? Seriously?
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God, that.........you know the rest, right?
JJ:
I think I would state it differently. Suppose the government issued a requirement that all commercial food production facilities (including restaurants and delis) were required to serve ham at $X/pound. Furthermore, no facility was allowed to segregate the tools used to prepare the ham from the tools used to prepare anything else. (Cathy, does this sound like a good law to you? I don't know all of the kosher guidelines. But I do know that such a law would mean that the only way you could get food that your religion allows you to eat would be to grow it and prepare it yourself, every step of the way.)
David:
Free exercise of religion includes the right of someone to make his business decisions conform to his religious beliefs. What do you think of a ham requirement for all commercial food preparation? Would you be okay with it if the government imposed that?
What if a woman wants to use contraceptives so that she can be available for sex with a man when SHE wants to satisfy HER sexual desires?
This is the problem with the way people think in this country. Women are not allowed to want sex. They are only sex objects for guys, and are not allowed to feel pleasure themselves. I like sex. I have sex when I want to have sex. I have sex almost every day, because me and my husband BOTH want to have sex. Also, I never know when I will be in a fertile period. If I have sex the day before I become fertile, I could easily become pregnant.
Also, what about the women who use BC for issues unrelated to preventing pregnancy? Is she not allowed to do so because YOU think it makes her powerless? Why is that your decision to make?
You are REALLY behind the times, and I feel bad for any woman you might have sex with... I am sure you are the kind of guy that does not make sure the woman is satisfied.
Becca:
I do not have any objection to you, or any other woman, wanting sex. It is one of your chosen venues of entertainment and, of itself, does not harm anyone. Now, you don't pay for my entertainment. Why should anyone else have to pay for yours?
Yet again PVblivs, when has anyone ever wanted someone else to pay for it? You are totally missing the point. It is a prescription medication. It should be covered just like any others. Its between a woman, her doctor, and her insurance company. It should have NOTHING to do with the religious feelings of the employer. THE END.
Some people cant handle women's rights. Is it not the right of a women to use birth control a prescribed medication. Those with beliefs against do you not have beliefs against promiscuity? Now could Viagra or a penis pump lead to promiscuity in men? But even Medicaid covers both.
Mandy:
Every time they say "It should be covered just like any others." You are calling on the insurance company, and by extension the customers who aren't using the product in an elective manner, to pay for it. In the case of employer provided coverage, it is calling on the employer to pay for it. If you want the employer to have no say, don't ask him to contribute financially.
The fact is that the only way insurance saves on the cost of recreational medications is by cheating the people who don't use them recreationally. But, even then, people can purchase their own policies from insurance companies. They don't have to rely on the employer's plan.
Roc:
I would bar Viagra and penis pumps from being covered. They also constitute recreational use and should be paid for by the people that want to use them.
pvblivs: I noticed you quit reading after the first sentence of my comment, so here it is again:
It should be covered just like any others. Its between a woman, her doctor, and her insurance company. It should have NOTHING to do with the religious feelings of the employer. THE END.
Its a PRESCRIPTION. Meaning a DOCTOR has decided that you need it. Its not recreational. Its MEDICATION. How YOU feel about what MY doctor and I have decided should mean absolutely nothing.
Not true. It's just that I find that when people put "THE END," "END OF DISCUSSION," "AND THAT"S FINAL," or something similar into their "arguments" that what they are saying is without merit.
That sort of reasoning might have been valid at one time. Unfortunately, it is no longer the case. Just like Viagra, to be able to have sex, is purely recreational (even though it requires a prescription) birth control to prevent pregnancies (except in rare circumstances where a pregnancy would be dangerous or deadly) is recreational. It has gotten to a point where doctors are prescribing things the patients want rather than what they need. In fact, if doctors only prescribed what patients needed, there would be no prescription drug advertising aimed at patients.
Funny, I haven't had sex recently, yet I'm still taking my birth control.
Birth control does more things than just prevent birth. It helps with a number of things. How do you know what people are taking it for? Oh thats right, you don't. you are just ASSuming.
But it is named for its primary use. And the whole point of the article is that people want it covered for free for that use.
Who cares if the country goes bankrupt as long as everyone is sexually satisfied, right? If the $16 trillion deficit is keeping you awake at night, no worries. The government will keep you well-stocked with free contraceptives and erectile dysfunction pills so you can now enjoy all those sleepless hours.
right on, rj
The federal government has never run, is not currently running, and is not projected to run a $16 trillion deficit. The budget deficit for FY2011 was approximately $1.3 trillion (source: treasurydirect.gov).
The public/national debt, which results from cumulative deficits, is (as of today), approximately $15.489 trillion (source: treasurydirect.gov).
They aren't free. The person who gets birth control pills pays for them when they pay their insurance premiums and/or when they earn the health coverage provided by their employer. How is it free if you're paying? The question is about whether companies should be required to provide contraceptives. About 60% of women who take birth control pills use them partly or completely to treat medical problems, such as severe menstrual pain. So, it isn't just about sex. It's also about health problems.
Dear Rush Limburger (or what ever your name is),
I tend to vote republican in presidential elections, but your comments about the law student's support of the birth control mandate just shoved me the other way. Ironically, I do not believe the government should legislate morality, but I am beginning to see a need for a bill mandating good manners.
I believe the birth control option should be offered, and it should be the individual person's right to take it or not - just for clarification. However, I am willing to mandate birth control for anyone willing to procreate with you because we do not need more of your type.
Sincerely,
An American woman who used to vote republican on a fiscal ideology, but now cannot stomach the hatred and rudeness spewing forth from republican mouth pieces.
P.S. I think you will be sorry to know that there are a lot more like me. I am against socialism, but I am more against the hatred you espouse.
some, go ahead and vote for the socialist. then, you won't even have the right to oppose another person's opinion. You won't have any choice about as govt will control your entire.
And, do keep in mind, Limbaugh is NOT a republican official, candidate. I'm curious, tho, when you watch late night talk shows are you equally offended by the vile, vulgar things those hosts say about republicans?
"some" - If a few comments by a guy on the radio are what decides who you vote for then apparently you don't think for yourself very much and will probably be more comfortable voting for liberals who will be happy to tell you what to think and legislate that as well.
While good manners SHOULD be practiced by all, you simply cannot legislate that. The results of trying to are clear in the over the top PC actions you can read about every day. Accept that there will be people who make remarks that you find offensive, that there will be people who disagree with you, that there will be people who say things you find stupid. Accept that, gather the information you need from various sources and then make up your OWN mind.
Somebeffudeled is a liar..yes I said it and mean it. Why to these socialist dweebs attempt to post this...I usually vote Republican....drivel. Just review the posters record before you bother responding to their bullshyt. If they don't have a posting record....don't respond...they are just trolling.
dirtand anyone, I tend to find most talk show hosts rude and unconcerned by common courtesy. In fact, I rarely listen to any of them. I would never have know that Limburger said what he did if not for MSNBC and NBC Today. Most of the political pundits are in it for the money. Their vitriol leads the gullible to believe what they say - until the next hatred spewer changes your mind.It is time for the extremist to get themselves educated and under control, so the moderates can actually get work done. That applies to both sides, but I doubt you can see that. You are one of these I see commenting here without thought. You all just want to scream your viewpoint at the other side.
PS Anyone, I think you are the worst of the lot. You throw @#$% just to see if it sticks and rile people up.
Just called it as I see it befuddled...check your own postings. I never even exposed an opinion on your comment except that you are the same type that tries to sway opinion by claiming to be what you are not...of course you may be just extremely.......befuddled.
Sorry it hit so close to home...
It seems to apply as well to you as it does to anyone.
JJ:
It is my experience that there are plenty of "liberals" and plenty of "conservatives" that will be more than happy to tell you what to think do and say. It's not exclusive to any point on the political spectrum.
I got an idea. Do away with laws requiring it to be free. If you can't afford it, then you don't get it. Everybody should pay for their own healthcare. If you can't afford it, take out a loan, or cut back on other expenses. Maybe its time to cancel your cable, or do away with your expensive cell phone plan. People need to stop expecting everybody else in the country to pay their bills. I'm tired of having money taken out of my pay check to pay for welfare benefits for somebody else.
Absolutely, Bill. In the last few days, you saw a law student who CHOOSES to spend $65000 per year to attend Georgetown and gets a scholarship. Yu know she probably has student loans too and yet she wants us to believe she can't afford birth control pills. And, why isn't she smart enough to go to the liberal sacred shrine, Planned Parenthood, where they give it away for free! People are too blind to see that the progressives are doing this with other motives in mind. It's one more step in taking control of people's lives. Sickening.
Then Viagra shouldn't be covered either.
Bilis,
So why is any drug covered then? If you feel that way how about no high blood pressure meds, no anything covered.
Why does my insurance premium go to pay for any of your meds???
Good idea! Let millions of people die of cancer because they can't afford to spend $10,000+ a month on any medications. You better hope you never have any disease or illness that makes you have to get a second mortgage or move into section 8 because you can't afford to pay for your treatment otherwise.
When you buy a health insurance policy or earn it through your employment, you are paying for your own healthcare. The women mentioned by Sandra Fluke in her testimony were paying for health insurance but it didn't cover contraception. So, they had to pay for both insurance and pills, which can easily cost $100 a month. College students generally don't have much money. Some of the women ended up becoming seriously ill because they couldn't afford pills that could have treated their health problems.
Birth control pills would only be free in the sense that regular check ups are free. There would be no deductible or co-pay. But they aren't free when you spend hundreds a month on an insurance policy. The religion of your employer or university shouldn't determine the kind of healthcare you can get when you are actually paying for or earning the health insurance.
Wryview:
I already think that Viagra shouldn't be covered.
------------
I'd like to talk about what insurance used to mean. Say there is an expensive procudure ($100,000) but there is only a 1 in 1000 chance that you will ever need it. You can either not buy insurance and, if you are the unlucky 1 in 1000, pay the full cost yourself. Or you can pay $110 up front (the extra $10 being for administrative costs and the incentive for the insurance company to stay in business) and, if you end up needing the procedure the insurance covers it. On balance, the insuranced company comes out a little ahead and stays in business and you are covered in case of catastrophe. It's not supposed to be "I want this $30 product, so I will pay $5 in insurance and they have to cover the cost." That's a condition in which the insurance company loses money. They will not want to continue doing that. Either they go out of business, or they pass on the costs to customers that aren't going for that completely voluntary product. Anything that is used in a completely elective and recreational manner has no business being covered by insurance. If something has both elective and rare critical uses, insurance should only be for the critical use.
The easiest way to solve this problem is to make oral contraceptive and over-the-counter medication. Problem solved.
Stupid liberals, writing bills when they don't even know what they are writing. Why should womens health procedures and products be covered but not mens? Sounds like a serious case of gender discrimination. This obumbler-care debacle keeps getting worse and worse.
BTW why SHOULD I pay for some woman I never met to have sex. Should that be HER and HER PARTNER'S responsibility?
Healthcare reform also requires mens yearly preventative care ie. your yearly physical and basic blood work to check for Diabetes, High Cholesterol ect to be covered at 100% with the deductible waived. Preventative care keeps insurance costs down, I don't have a problem paying for someone I have never met to have it, in the long run it will save me money in insurance costs.
Also if you were educated at all on the BCP, you would know it's not only for birth control.
A bunch of men speculating and making false assumptions about birth control. Priceless. When you buy insurance, you are paying for your own care. IUD's are cheaper in the long run, and more reliable than pills. They cost about 1000but the copper IUD lasts for ten years. Women who don't want or cannot care for a child are certainly inclined to remember to take a pill, though, so that argument is just....well, you know. Also, about the liberal shrine of planned parenthood giving away free contraception. Wow A woman with a job and insurance being directed to get her care from a program designed to help low income women. Gee, what do you think will happen? Especially since you yahoos are always bitching about pp getting funding. What it sounds like to me is a bunch of aging baby boomers who are still trying to impose their will....you guys had your chance, and we have plenty to "thank" you for, but now it's our turn.
No, the point is that when we ALL pay into the insurance program, the cost is split. I don't pay LESS because I choose not to get contraceptives, my premium covers any excess by other members as well. And by having a mandate, I can't CHOOSE to go with another health insurance company that doesn't provide those items to people. As a 28-year old Catholic female, I am disgusted that I am being forced to pay into a system that supports birth control and other contraceptives. It's like being forced to donate my hard-earned money to Planned Parenthood. What's next, forcing all hospitals to perform abortions for anyone who wants one? When that happens, I'm moving to Canada.
And don't make sweeping generalizations for "our" generation, when SOME of us have a brain and see the downward spiral this country is headed for.
Wait, before someone jumps all over me, I won't move to Canada because they are one of only a few countries that has NO restriction on abortion... guess I'll have to plan a bigger move than just over the north border...
Jess, the RCC takes *my* money for their "faith-based" initiatives and from Medicare and Medicaid through their "church-hospitals." I'm disgusted by that. I don't want my money going to support pedophiles and pedophile enablers! Is there an opt-out for that?
Jess, something like 98% of Americans support birth control, including Catholics; so yes, it makes sense that the "system" supports it. And the people who think that contraceptives indicate some kind of "downward spiral" for America are, basically, you and Rick Santorum.
Hey Jess-3731876 since you're so against birth control, which prevents unwanted children from being born in the first place AND prevents abortions, then let's allow all kids from unplanned pregnancies, incest and rapes to move into YOUR house and YOU can support them for the rest of your life. How does that sound???
All this rhetoric about contraceptives etc., is really secondary to the point that Obama has overstepped his power as the President...neither the federal gov't nor state gov'ts can mandate that a private company (in this case an insurance company) provide a product free of charge or mandate that they provide a certain product at all. This is a blatant abuse of power and a mockery of our constitution. I continue to be amazed that there aren't more people that are outraged by what our president is actually doing. He doesn't even hide the fact that our constitution is just really inconvenient for him and his anti-constitutional ideology.
Jess, I don't approve of people eating a lot of unhealthy foods or not exercising. Should I demand that illness caused by bad lifestyle choices not be covered by the insurance people with poor lifestyles actually pay for? Nothing would be covered under health insurance using your logic. I'm sure people who don't want contraceptives covered by insurance would be outraged if their health needs weren't covered because of someone else's disapproval of their lifestyle. Paying for things you don't approve of is part of life. Get used to it.
Athena:
Of course. You can go to a hospital that is not affiliated with the RCC. Then your money will not go to any RCC programs. You see, you can "go to another store" that does not promote catholic beliefs. Jess has a very legitimate complaint if all "stores" are required to put money to something that she neither uses nor supports for those that want it in a purely elective capacity.
"Hot in Miami":
Most of what you are talking about with "unplanned pregnancies" is due to the strictly voluntary actions of the participants. So I'm hearing "I want lots of sex without responsibility. If you don't want to pay for my birth control, you have to pay to raise the kids so that I can still be irresponsible." That sounds horrible. Hey, I know, I'd like to have you pay for everything that I want so that I never have to lift a finger in effort again. It's just like your plan except you get to foot the bill. Sound good to you?
I, personally, support "Plan B" for the instance of rape. This might put me in disagreement with Jess. But that's okay. I don't expect to agree with anyone on everything.
GPC:
I'm sure you can buy a policy that does not cover for such poor choices and thus avoid your unwanted expense. The fact is that most usage of contraceptives is completely elective. As such that usage should not be covered by insurance.
This entire issue would be moot if we had single-payer health insurance.
I don't follow your logic. And I am not saying single-payer insurance is or would be bad. But there would still be political fights and debates and all that about WHAT would be covered by said single-payer insurance.
- What drugs will be covered with this dollar co-pay, and which will require this dollar co-pay, and how many will be free with no co-pay ...
- Which drug manufacturer will drugs be purchased from ...
- Which patients get the first heart / lung / cornea / kidney available for implant ...
- What birth control methods will be covered for what age groups ...
the list goes on and on
The current political football is the notion that your employer should be able to pick and choose what medical procedures thier employees health insurance will cover based on the employers moral justification. The Blunt/Rubio bill.
A single-payer health care system (like modern nations use) eliminates this issue by removing employers from the picture. Citizens are covered, employed or not.
I agree that the details of such a system will drive many debates, but no more than we already face with Medicare (which I believe is a good model for a national single-payer plan).
There will always be people who object to the choices of others. At least this way we wont have to worry if they also happen to be our employer too.
Once again I am going to say....if suddenly tomorrow Men became the sex that gets pregnant - well I am sure birth control would be covered on all insurance for any reason what-so-ever. I bet there would be no co-pay either and the debate would suddenly disappear. If only.
If men could get pregnant... There would be DRIVE-THRU ABORTIONS at McDonalds, 18 years PAID MATERNITY LEAVE and ZERO POPULATION GROWTH...
beacause we all know men can't take a big ol' S— _T without boo-hooing about it!
key2joy - If you object to sexism then you shouldn't practice it yourself. It might make you look like a big ol' hypocrite.
To all you bozos who think that opponents of this mandate are trying to trample on women's rights. You are a bunch of reactionary non-thinkers. Nobody, not even the Catholic Church, is trying to outlaw contraception. The Church opposes contraception for many reasons, not the least of which is that the pill acts as an abortifacient, preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Thus, it is the scientific and moral equivalent of an abortion, and the Church is very clear on its reasoned opposition to abortion. Contraception is available free or VERY cheap everywhere, even your corner gas station. Can't afford it? Planned Parenthood offers it for free. Still can't get access? Choose RESPONSIBILITY and don't put yourself in the position of getting pregnant. I'm outraged that our government mandates us to pay for somebody else's convenience, not to mention forcing organizations to violate their conscience. There are 270 Catholic colleges/universities; one sixth of all hospitals in the US are Catholic. They should not be forced to act in violation of their teachings, period.
Bill s
your lack of understanding of how things really work is truely terrifing. And I agree, If you men were the ones who got pregnant we would not even be having this debate. They would put birth control in the water.
WOW...the CATHOLIC CHURCH never got this UPSET about their CLERGY RAPING LITTLE BOYS, they just covered it up for CENTURIES.........................PHUCKING HYPROCRITES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are confusing birth control pills with morning after pills. Birth control pills prevent pregnancy by tricking the body into believing that it is already pregnany, thereby preventing an egg from being released from the ovary in order to be fertilized. Morning after pills prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. You really should do your reproductive homework before you go spouting off in a public forum.
"There are 270 Catholic colleges/universities; one sixth of all hospitals in the US are Catholic."
Maybe that's the problem. People were so terrified over the possibility of a secular government taking over part of health care (which was never even proposed); so why aren't we even more terrified that a Church dominates our health care so much, and can decide what services are insured by the whims of their religion?
Whoa, a fertilized egg is a human being?????????, then I say prosecute all those men who spill their seed, that could have become a human being once united with the egg. And don't say I am nuts cause it says so in the Bible. It is a mortal sin to waste your potential seed, you guys. Duh and then women should clone their eggs, every single one of them cause after all they could be a human being?????? get an education.
Just a clarification - the current scientific understanding is that most if not all (perhaps with exception of post-coital IUD implantation) emergency contraception (morning after, plan B) works by preventing the release of the ovum (egg), not by preventing implantation of the embryo.
Since sperm can live inside the woman's reproductive tract for days after sex there is a window where fertilization can be prevented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception
This is why employers should not be involved in health care on any level. What makes an employer a better judge of medical decisions for an individual than the government?
Health care is not a democratic decision. When I need medical help, popular consensus and politics should not be making the decisions. My doctor and I get to decide. All of this stupidity makes the hippocratic oath irrelevant. And impossible for doctors to honor. If this bs continues politicians and employers should take the oath as well.
Single payer is the way to go. Opposition to that boggles the mind.
To all the blubbering boys who are crying about contraception being "free." Women pay for health insurance out of pocket or it is part of a compensation package for a job they do. Women pay taxes. Women aren't here just to cater to men's special needs. If you are a blubbering boy who is bawling about women getting something for "free," you might want to stop with the victim mentality and the blubbering boy precious snowflake entitlement attitude.
And since men don't get pregnant, men don't carry the serious and costly physical harms that result from pregnancy, and thus contraception is not preventive medicine for men. Try to keep up with basic biology. That said, I'd be completely in favor of covering men's vasectomies if they chose it, or whatever other medicine could be used to prevent physical harm to women that results from uncontrolled fertile sperm.
If women have "right" to FREE "birth control", WHERE IS MY FREE GUN?
You could always join the military if you want a free gun.
I know! The Hi-point 380 under my bed ain't cuttin' the f*ck*n' mustard! I want free weed and cable, too! It's my right! Not having adequate protection from intruders can lead to serious injury, and boredom can lead to manic tendencies, and that's a diagnosable mental condition. If you don't agree, you can just get outta my life and quit taking away my CHOICES!
Perhaps you could just go ahead and make the case to your insurance company or whomever that guns are boner pills. See how far it gets you.
It's in your pants, Genius
Athena - Yes, because the only reason a person would own a gun is to make up for their "shortcomings." Protection from crime is not needed, since crime only happens in Fantasyland, not in America. I'll just make sure to tell my neighbor, who got robbed at gunpoint in front of my apartment, that Athena from the internet said that you were imagining things and delusional. Athena, I'm glad you live in the "'burbs bubble," but us 99 percenters have to make do otherwise.
I'm pretty sure there has never been a call for "free" birth control.
This is a call for religious employers not to dis-include womens health care simply because of some backwards "moral" standard.
get a clue. better yet, actually try talking to a woman for a change.
I have read most of the post here and all I have to say is: Do you really want more government in your lives than is already there? I don't care what party is in power, we don't need the government in all aspects of our lives. Think about this when you vote.
Yes. I want more government because the private sector is screwing everything up.
Since Mr. Limbaugh thinks paying for birth control makes a women's sex life open for public viewing I wonder if he includes men who take Viagra? Since Viagra is covered and paid for by us! How would men feel if this was taken away from them or they had to pay for it themselves? I love the fact that MEN speak the loudest about a women's issue. Since they have NO way of knowing how it would impact their lives and their bodies.
I used to be asked if I agreed with draft dodgers who didn't want to go to Vietnam. My reply was...I can't judge since, as a women, I don't know how it would feel to have a gun put in my hands and be told to pull the trigger. If I did voice an opinion it wouldn't be valid because unless it was real for me I would only be speculating. All the men that are sooo adamant on this subject are only speculating!
I have a solution: how about we women do this: not one piece until men realize that we women get to choose what we do or do not do with our own bodies; not one piece until people stop trying to force their religious values on everyone and anyone; not one piece until churches realize that they cannot dictate health insurance policies or government policies. (and that means not one piece for the priests, bishops, and cardinals who do not adhere to their vow of celibacy....)
Where did I get such an idea? It's as old as the hills or ancient Greece:
Lysistrata Λυσιστράτη is one of the few surviving plays written by Aristophanes. Originally performed in classical Athens in 411 BC, it is a comic account of one woman's extraordinary mission to end The Peloponnesian War. Lysistrata persuades the women of Greece to withhold sexual privileges from their husbands and lovers as a means of forcing the men to negotiate peace — a strategy, however, that inflames the battle between the sexes. The play is notable for being an early exposé of sexual relations in a male-dominated society.
So, how about it, ladies? If your significant other supports your choice, then he's in luck. If not, let him go without.... ;)
You're ridiculous. The issue is about not letting the government force us into paying for something that some of us don't want. People who don't want this crappy mandate aren't against women's rights. I love and respect my wife and mother. What I don't want is to pay for someone elses contraceptives (for men or women). If you have a medical condition that requires a "contraceptive" medication to control, then by all means, let us chose insurance companies that will cover it. If you just don't have the money to buy contraceptives... how about using (shocker coming) personal judgment, restraint, and a little planning to avoid having sex on fertile days. From what I understand, there are only about 5 days a month, that a woman can get pregnant (including the lifespan of sperm).
You're making this some issue about allowing women to control their own bodies... well do it then. Control your own bodies, and quit making the rest of us monetarily responsible for your sexual irresponsibilty.
Epithermal, there may only be five fertile days (more like 8, but who's quibbling) each month, but which 5 or 8 days? There is no way to know with 100% accuracy. As I said earlier in this discussion, you can make an educated guess, but that is all it is - a guess. You can use thermometers, urine tests, all the technology we have, but you cannot KNOW with 100% accuracy when an egg is released unless you have an ultrasound, and most of us don't have ultrasound machine in our homes. And even if we did, the sperm from three days ago would still be volatile and fertile if ovulation occurred today. A woman's cycle can vary every month. An egg can be released just a few days after the last cycle ends. It is not something that can be relied upon, as is proven by the size of many families who practice the rhythm method of birth control.
Don't want to cover birth control? Well, to make it fair, don't cover Viagra either.
Epithermal, do you nurse resentment over people who take statins to prevent heart attacks? That's a condition largely brought on by lifestyle choices. Or is it that contraception is used as preventive medicine for women, and thus, you're just so durn mad about it?
Well, I wouldn't say I was mad about the issue. I was questioning the logic of the original commentor about how she could say
"not one piece until men realize that we women get to choose what we do or do not do with our own bodies; not one piece until people stop trying to force their religious values on everyone and anyone; not one piece until churches realize that they cannot dictate health insurance policies or government policies."
Paraphrase... How dare the church say that they should be exluded from this mandate. They shouldn't tell us women what we can do with our bodies. That's the governments' job.
In this case, the church isn't trying to force their views on anybody. They are trying to keep the government from forcing their policies on them. Abby obviously has the situation reversed. She says that men or church shouldn't be telling them/women what we can do with their bodies (I agree with her on that). What I don't agree with, is that she's then says that it's alright for the government to force their policies on us.
And... to Athena and Hot-in-Miami. If someone has a medical condition (like erectile disfuction, heart problems, or ovarian cysts), then they should be able to count on their insurance to help them with the cost of treating their problem. If some guy is just popping viagra to have a 2 hour orgy... I don't think I should have to pay for that either. Therefore, if someone has a doctor prescribed need for something, then sure, let's add it to the insurance. If I'm asked to pay for some college co-ed's condoms and contraception pills... I say no.
So, in some ways I agree with Abby... Not one piece until people stop trying to force policies on us that we don't want.
With the average cost of pregnancy and childbirth at about $15,000 (and that's before you add the cost of healthcare for an infant), your insurance can pay for a lot of birth control for the cost of a pregnancy. I can't imagine that insurance companies don't see the cost benefit of including birth control in their plans, and, if you notice, they are being pretty silent on the issue. The geniuses who think they are being ripped off by insurance coverage for birth control apparently can't do math.
And, by the way, if employers are allowed to provide health insurance that only covers healthcare they personally find morally acceptable, I'm sure we will see a huge jump in the number of Christian Scientists who will only cover faith healing.
So let me see if I have this straight...you resent feeling like you're being told what you can and can't do, but then you're suggesting that women try to force men to agree with YOUR perspective. Interesting.
That's because women's perspective is centered on thier own bodies. Yours is also centered on their bodies.
You don't see any issue with this?
how is us gaining the right to our own bodies forcing men to do anything?
All this trouble started because birth control pills require a prescription. If they were over the counter like they ought to be, none of this would have gotten off the ground and everyone would pay for their own things.
Excellent! Yes, let's allow a medication that is a known carcinogen (a Class I carcinogen, according to the World Health Organization) that has the potential for rather serious side effects to be available to any woman who wants it without consulting a health care provider. As a pharmacist who works in a hospital, I have seen many women come in with blood clots and pulmonary embolisms, sometimes life-threatening, and a major contributing factor was their birth control pills. They are not some benign medication, they carry risk. Just because there is a large population of women who take birth control pills does not mean that they are safe for everyone. There is a reason why prescription medications require a prescription.
I have no isue with a reasonable co-pay. I pay $10 a month for the pill that I use for non-birth control related medical issues. I have no problem continuing to pay my $10 a month. I would be joyed if it was one of the $4 generics too. I don't need to get it free, just don't tell me it isn't covered at all becuase of someone else's moral objection to me having a regular, pain-free cycle and I have to pay full price for it... since I DO pay into my insurance plan with each paycheck.
Your insurance company is a for-profit enterprise, and so are the pharmaceutical companies. It is a good move to require the insurance companies to provide better health care.
You are very lucky that you only pay $10 per month for something you need. I pay over $15,000 per year for my health insurance and all the things that they decide not to cover. And despite what all the politicians say, it is not easy to find affordable health care. It is so expensive that I am considering leaving the country.
There's a 6th thing you need to know that seems to have been overlooked in this entire question. NO ONE has to file a claim with their insurance company if they don't want to be reimbursed for contraception. My insurance providers cover my office visits, dental checkups, eye exams, etc. but I don't have accept that if I don't want. Making the availability of coverage mandatory for contraception doesn't mean it's mandatory to use it.
Why is this an issue that the GOP is pushing? Simple, they have nothing else to run on. Economy is very very slowly picking up, stocks are up, bin Laden is dead, more terrorists dying almost every day, etc.
So the GOP cannot stop the economy, ect, so they use social issues to get people away from their years of bad policies that caused this economic mess. And in doing so, they have lost a lot of women's votes.
An OK state Senator, a Demo, was seen holding a sign, it said, "If I wanted the govt in my womb, I would F a Senator. Best sign I've seen in a long time. and the F was spelled out, all four letters.
Do you know than in Latin America where the Catholic Church exerts a lot of power upon people you can find free vasectomies, socialized medicine for workers, free clinics in the metro stations available to all, free family planning services and government programs that advertise "a smaller family lives better"? I know, the first thing you'll say is that those are third world countries and they keep having children which is why they are poor, right? If they have all these programs available to them why don't they work? There's a simple answer: The Catholic Church tells them all these are a sin so they don't use them.
Mexico City has just installed free clinics in the metro station since over 5 million people a day use this most efficient public transit system and it is available to every citizen who wants it. Workers of affiliated employers have access to their social security medical system which is socialized medicine, they give free vasectomies and family planning services. Sure it's a clinic system and you have to wait but it's there and covers people from birth until death. Yes, there are problems, but it's there and has been there for many, many years. They are promoting smaller family sizes to relieve poverty yet these programs haven't been as successful as they could have been due to families relying on their parish priests who tell them it's a sin to use ANY type of birth control at all. As you might imagine, there are a lot of teenage pregnancies too. The affluent use birth control, have smaller family sizes and are richer than ever, they are also Catholic but have no problems of conscience and are not ruled the same as the poor by the Church.
The party that is known as the Catholic Party denounces the advances made by the Socialist Party (they also wanted to lower government workers pay and benefits, give more to the people, etc.) while the old Establishment Party wants to get back in power (they where known as the corrupt party), see any similarities there? Yet the Catholic Church still wields a lot of power and has never been open to coming into the 21st Century to see what people really need or accept the fact that the world has changed bringing with it new challenges, needs and issues. Even in this Catholic country, the church is loosing many, many people who no longer see the church as being relevant in their lives..... males no longer want to become priests, women don't aspire to being nuns either....
I believe that religion is a living thing that should grow and be aware of its followers, it should understand and be comforting to those that need it, yet all I see is inflexibility, old doctrine and no charity. I firmly believe that is JC walked among us, he wouldn't be happy with the state of things and would take matters in hand and we would see many changes more along the lines of socialism of which he was a promoter of. Yes, things are out of control but not because of religion but because of the way MAN decided to impart the religion and anytime man gets into the action, corruption, bias, discrimination and more ensues.
Live and let live and keep religion out of my life. If I choose it to be there then I will do so, but I want no part of yours or anyone else's to intrude into my life as a citizen. I am free to practice but be discreet. When I vote for someone, that someone should represent me as a free person and I don't care what church he attends nor should I have to, I don't want to hear about it because he/she should be focused on doing his job as a representative of ALL people and not just those he likes or feels think as he does. In that sense I want someone who wants the best for society as a whole.
This is a giant slap in the face to the founders and framers of the Constitution. When the gov. mandates what you have to purchase because they say so, then what will they mandate next? Obama has made this into another crisis, which is what he wants. Go buy your own condoms or get them free on any campus or any clinic in this country. This is already free stuff. Nobody should be forced into a ridiculous gov. takeover like this. Rush is right on this one. Now, how about the gas prices and jobs? Anybody? Obama can't run on his disatrous record so he has to create a distraction.
This does not "Mandate" you to buy the frigging pill! --- No wonder you are "self-employed", nobody in their right mind would hire you!
The President does not control the price of gas.... Dude, get a life!
Jim, this mandates the employer providing health insurace to his/her employees to provide coverage for the birth control pill, regardless of the employer's personal beliefs - therefore, mandating the employer to pay for this! Indeed, I can't imagine how the founders and framers of the Constitution would feel about the government mandating private citizens to purchase a particular product. This flies in the face of the principles our country was founded upon. How is this any different from the government saying to the media, ok, well, if you're going to broadcast your news program, from this time to this time, you must talk about x, y, and z.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." -Gerald Ford
Yup, like taking away our First Amendment rights...