The battle of the pill

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

The Big Al

Meteorologist
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
3,799
Reaction score
10
Alright, my state there is the beginnings of bill to make birth control, contraceptives, and sexual protection covered by state medical benefits.

I for one am for it. We should have done it a long time ago. People aren't going stop having sex just because they can't buy condums or birth control pill. This would reduce the abortion rates and the transmission of STD's. Grant it won't stop it, but it would improve the situation.

Now here's the bad news. The morons preaching "abstinance only" are saying that it will encourage people to have sex.

I was listening to Nancy Sinker on Friday. She had this doctor from some religious institute on reproductive science or something. Anyway, this doctor equated sex out of wedlock with drunk driving. I was floored with this woman's logic (or lack there of).

Anyway, this woman basically said, no one should have sex out of marraige and only have sex with their mariage partner. That would be great if we lived in a perfect world but sadly, we don't.

Anyway, do you believe state and federal medical benefits should pay these products. They already pay for Viagra.
 
I don't think it's right for contraceptives to be part of state medical benefits. I mean, it's one thing if you're on the pill for some other reason, but not for this. And how do condoms cost? Chances are that this won't change ANYTHING. At all. AT...ALL. That is MY guess. IF this even passes.

And now...I head back to persecuting Christians...because it's the "in" thing (and no, this last sentence has nothing to do with anything in particular).
 
I am for having contraceptive/ birth control be legal, but not paid for by the state (except in the case of rapes...maybe). I don't think sex should be treated as a lightly as, say, kissing.
 
I don't get the equation of premarial sex with drunk driving, either. However, as far as it being covered by insurance plans, that makes complete sense to me. After all, contraceptives aren't used solely for prevention of pregnancy. Other conditions treated by various contraceptive medications include:

Acne, recalcitrant (resistant to treatment)
Amenorrhea (absence of menstruation)
Cystic ovaries
Dysfunctional uterine bleeding (DUB)
Dysmenorrhea (painful or difficult menstruation)
Endometriosis
Hirsutism secondary to ovarian dysfunction (excessive hairiness)
Menorrhagia (excessive bleeding)
Oligomenorrhea (infrequent menstruation)
Polycystic ovary syndrome (many cysts on the ovary)
Perimenopausal symptoms - hormone replacement for menopause
 
My biggest problem with the current situation is that it pays for "medication" to facilitate sex, yet doesn't for protection. You're right Barb, daily birth control pill are used for more than preventing preganacies.
 
I think one of the biggest issues concering this is not contraception itself, but the 'morning-after pill' as it's been dubbed in the media. Basically, a pill you can take after having unprotected sex. I can see why some conservative groups would be up in arms over this, but Roses Ablaze made a good point about having something available for rape victims.
 
These people want to deny it even to rape victims. That why their trying to pass "personal morality" laws so good Christian pharmacists don't have to give people these kinds of medications.
 
Amusing factoid : the same conservative who pushes for these laws are often the first to speak up to denounce the "EVIL" muslims country with legal system inspired by the Charia, all the while pushing their own biblically-inspired moral code into law...
 
Damian, do you own the whole CD boxed set of "The Moral Equivalency Jingle"?

Because if you don't, I mean, I can always send you whatever CDs you're missing from Amazon. I'm sure they're not expensive :)

Now then, as the only person in this thread (I'll assume) who works in the insurance industry, I'll say this:

This is a stupid idea on many levels. First of all, you're adding something which is very widely used, widely offered and widely accepted into a state insurance plan. Pretty much, this means that the premiums paid by the state will jump a decent percentage, nothing tremendous, of course, but there will be an increase nonetheless. Of course, it doesn't have to be a lot of money for it to be bad on principle alone, which it is.

The whole crux of the issue is: should sex in any form be subsidized by the state? As this is for state employees (I'll assume, as there was no link), that's pretty much where the line is drawn. I don't believe a good comparison can be made between unprotected sex and drunk driving, as the latter is illegal. I think a better one would be racking up debt on a credit card. Buying a plasma TV on your credit card is a mistake if you can't pay for it.. Guess what, so is having unprotected (or for that matter, PROTECTED) sex. I have no problems with people obtaining morning after pills, etc. but not on the state's dime.

But of course, it's much easier to lump everyone into one group :)

And didn't we already have a thread about Christian pharmacists? oO;
 
If the state can pay for 60-something men to get erections with Viagra, it can pay for medications that protect a woman's reproductive health. Although, it should be noted, that many large health insurance plans (including Aetna) do pay for contraception but generally only if the member has one of the conditions I listed above.
 
I never said they should pay for Viagra, etc. However, a better case can be made for Viagra (where something isn't um.. "working") vs. Birth control (where you're preventing an unwanted "side effect" from a voluntary activity).
 
As opposed to, say, breaking your leg skiing.
 
I'm well aware of the side benefits of many bc pills. This whole argument should ignore those benefits, as the main point deals with bc as a part of a state health plan, not acne medication.
 
Barb said:
After all, contraceptives aren't used solely for prevention of pregnancy. Other conditions treated by various contraceptive medications include:

Polycystic ovary syndrome (many cysts on the ovary)
Click to expand...
I happen to suffer from Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome and being a condition which actually prevents ovulation in women (many of them wanting to start families), I don't know of any contraceptive known to treat this condition. Of course, I could be wrong, but I've been treated with Metformin since my diagnosis a few years ago.


As for the topic at hand, at least they're not stupid enough to be paying out $3000 per family for every child born (regardless of the financial status of the family), like the Australian government is. It has to be one of the most ridiculous enterprises our government has taken on. Talk about giving teenagers etc, an incentive to become pregnant... Politicians are idiots...
 
Medications used to treat PCOS

Metformin is one of the methods, but also included are combination estrogen/progestin hormones such as birth control pills. And as enchantress mentioned, the condition prevents ovulation so the type of treatment recommended would depend upon whether or not the woman in question wants to become pregnant.
 
Damian Silverblade said:
As opposed to, say, breaking your leg skiing.
Click to expand...

Right, but there are certain wordings in health insurance policies that will not cover injuries sustained while doing certain outrageous things. Of course, you can pay more to be covered, as I'm sure professional skateboarders, etc. are. But basic insurance plans that have exceptions are nothing new.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom