Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fired!

[beebrisk]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

I'm calling BS. BC and abortion are health care matters. Period. It's well past time for the US to have a health care system that covers everyone. Period. Germany accomplished this under Bismark in the 19th century. The US spends roughly 2x its GDP for health care than every other country in North America and Europe, for drastically inferior outcomes, and has 50 million uninsured. And we spend our time trying to prevent women from getting BC if it's going to be used for... wait for it... BC.

+1

BC is only available by prescription. That alone defines it as a healthcare matter. I can't think of another single prescription product that is excluded from health care coverage. Advil, Nyquil and condoms, however, are available over the counter. Therefore not a health insurance matter because it doesn't require a doctor visit or prescription. Besides Imdanny's excellent post above, you simply can't make the argument that it's not a healthcare matter.

And if we're going to allow religious organizations to refuse coverage of BC (and I can only assume that those who favor this type of legislation will ALSO INSIST that it includes male vasectomy and recreational use of Viagra), then let's see how you feel about other religious organizations refusing treatment for employees who indulge in various other behaviors which violate their ethics. Have drug/alcohol/caffeine/smoking related illness? Forget coverage from any Mormon employer. Have high cholesterol and heart disease? Bet your Hindu employer won't want to cover it after seeing you eat all those hamburgers. Need a blood transfusion? Well, you're SOL because your employer is a Jehovas Witness, so no treatment for you! But strangely, I haven't seen any other religious groups' ethical dilemmas brought into the debate. But it's not an attack on women, right?

What people are suggesting, that religious employers should not be required to offer a medical plan that covers any treatment that violates their religious beliefs, is impossible. Health plans are not designed a'la carte - employers can't just pick and choose specific services. These religious employers can offer broad medical benefits, or none. This is not about the rights of religious employers. It's about taking freedom and liberty away from women and pushing specific political anti-health care reform and social agendas.

For those who support this type of legislation, and who think that BC coverage should be removed from health care reform in order to honor the beliefs of one minority group among millions (most businesses are not religious in nature), please confirm your agreement that vasectomy and Viagra should also be removed from all health care coverage. And let's also remove all STD diagnostics and treatment too, because recreational sex that doesn't result in pregnancy is against the beliefs of these religious institutions. And let's also stop covering gay people because religious organizations don't like homosexuality, so let's exclude them from all health care coverage in order to satisfy religious employers.

Because until you do, you will never convince me that you're not waging an attack on women.

WOW. Great post. Truly great.

And I am absolutely fine with my vendors having opinions on stuff like this. They are people too and part of this community. As long as they respect the posting rules about their business, the rest is all good.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree and I am in fact very pleased that Erica posted her thoughts here. I find it refreshing that she is willing to share her thoughts on this critical topic.

Curious if you (or most people here) would still find Erica's comments (or those of any other vendor or poster) "refreshing" if their opinions didn't align with yours and the majority of posters on this board ?...

Would a dissenting opinion on a critical topic be considered equally "refreshing" -- Or as demonstrated over and over again, would those comments be met with snarky responses and verbal attacks that border on breaking PS rules?

Just something to ponder......

 

[missy]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

I'm calling BS. BC and abortion are health care matters. Period. It's well past time for the US to have a health care system that covers everyone. Period. Germany accomplished this under Bismark in the 19th century. The US spends roughly 2x its GDP for health care than every other country in North America and Europe, for drastically inferior outcomes, and has 50 million uninsured. And we spend our time trying to prevent women from getting BC if it's going to be used for... wait for it... BC.

+1

BC is only available by prescription. That alone defines it as a healthcare matter. I can't think of another single prescription product that is excluded from health care coverage. Advil, Nyquil and condoms, however, are available over the counter. Therefore not a health insurance matter because it doesn't require a doctor visit or prescription. Besides Imdanny's excellent post above, you simply can't make the argument that it's not a healthcare matter.

And if we're going to allow religious organizations to refuse coverage of BC (and I can only assume that those who favor this type of legislation will ALSO INSIST that it includes male vasectomy and recreational use of Viagra), then let's see how you feel about other religious organizations refusing treatment for employees who indulge in various other behaviors which violate their ethics. Have drug/alcohol/caffeine/smoking related illness? Forget coverage from any Mormon employer. Have high cholesterol and heart disease? Bet your Hindu employer won't want to cover it after seeing you eat all those hamburgers. Need a blood transfusion? Well, you're SOL because your employer is a Jehovas Witness, so no treatment for you! But strangely, I haven't seen any other religious groups' ethical dilemmas brought into the debate. But it's not an attack on women, right?

What people are suggesting, that religious employers should not be required to offer a medical plan that covers any treatment that violates their religious beliefs, is impossible. Health plans are not designed a'la carte - employers can't just pick and choose specific services. These religious employers can offer broad medical benefits, or none. This is not about the rights of religious employers. It's about taking freedom and liberty away from women and pushing specific political anti-health care reform and social agendas.

For those who support this type of legislation, and who think that BC coverage should be removed from health care reform in order to honor the beliefs of one minority group among millions (most businesses are not religious in nature), please confirm your agreement that vasectomy and Viagra should also be removed from all health care coverage. And let's also remove all STD diagnostics and treatment too, because recreational sex that doesn't result in pregnancy is against the beliefs of these religious institutions. And let's also stop covering gay people because religious organizations don't like homosexuality, so let's exclude them from all health care coverage in order to satisfy religious employers.

Because until you do, you will never convince me that you're not waging an attack on women.

WOW. Great post. Truly great.

And I am absolutely fine with my vendors having opinions on stuff like this. They are people too and part of this community. As long as they respect the posting rules about their business, the rest is all good.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree and I am in fact very pleased that Erica posted her thoughts here. I find it refreshing that she is willing to share her thoughts on this critical topic.

Curious if you (or most people here) would still find Erica's comments (or those of any other vendor or poster) "refreshing" if their opinions didn't align with yours and the majority of posters on this board ?...

Would a dissenting opinion on a critical topic be considered equally "refreshing" -- Or as demonstrated over and over again, would those comments be met with snarky responses and verbal attacks that border on breaking PS rules?

Just something to ponder......

Yes, for me it would. I am the first to admit I don't know everything and more than once I have swayed my opinion on topics. I enjoy hearing all sides and pondering that. The thing is it is not always black and white or hard and fast or right and wrong. There are many gray areas and it helps to hear all perspectives. KWIM? It is incredibly scary to me though that the government wants to get up into our personal affairs (literally and figuratively) and I will never change my mind on that one.

(Though I do agree that snarkiness has no place in an intelligent, honest and open conversation).

FWIW you make many points I agree with beebrisk. The main one being about personal responsibility.

 

[beebrisk]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

I'm calling BS. BC and abortion are health care matters. Period. It's well past time for the US to have a health care system that covers everyone. Period. Germany accomplished this under Bismark in the 19th century. The US spends roughly 2x its GDP for health care than every other country in North America and Europe, for drastically inferior outcomes, and has 50 million uninsured. And we spend our time trying to prevent women from getting BC if it's going to be used for... wait for it... BC.

+1

BC is only available by prescription. That alone defines it as a healthcare matter. I can't think of another single prescription product that is excluded from health care coverage. Advil, Nyquil and condoms, however, are available over the counter. Therefore not a health insurance matter because it doesn't require a doctor visit or prescription. Besides Imdanny's excellent post above, you simply can't make the argument that it's not a healthcare matter.

And if we're going to allow religious organizations to refuse coverage of BC (and I can only assume that those who favor this type of legislation will ALSO INSIST that it includes male vasectomy and recreational use of Viagra), then let's see how you feel about other religious organizations refusing treatment for employees who indulge in various other behaviors which violate their ethics. Have drug/alcohol/caffeine/smoking related illness? Forget coverage from any Mormon employer. Have high cholesterol and heart disease? Bet your Hindu employer won't want to cover it after seeing you eat all those hamburgers. Need a blood transfusion? Well, you're SOL because your employer is a Jehovas Witness, so no treatment for you! But strangely, I haven't seen any other religious groups' ethical dilemmas brought into the debate. But it's not an attack on women, right?

What people are suggesting, that religious employers should not be required to offer a medical plan that covers any treatment that violates their religious beliefs, is impossible. Health plans are not designed a'la carte - employers can't just pick and choose specific services. These religious employers can offer broad medical benefits, or none. This is not about the rights of religious employers. It's about taking freedom and liberty away from women and pushing specific political anti-health care reform and social agendas.

For those who support this type of legislation, and who think that BC coverage should be removed from health care reform in order to honor the beliefs of one minority group among millions (most businesses are not religious in nature), please confirm your agreement that vasectomy and Viagra should also be removed from all health care coverage. And let's also remove all STD diagnostics and treatment too, because recreational sex that doesn't result in pregnancy is against the beliefs of these religious institutions. And let's also stop covering gay people because religious organizations don't like homosexuality, so let's exclude them from all health care coverage in order to satisfy religious employers.

Because until you do, you will never convince me that you're not waging an attack on women.

WOW. Great post. Truly great.

And I am absolutely fine with my vendors having opinions on stuff like this. They are people too and part of this community. As long as they respect the posting rules about their business, the rest is all good.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree and I am in fact very pleased that Erica posted her thoughts here. I find it refreshing that she is willing to share her thoughts on this critical topic.

Curious if you (or most people here) would still find Erica's comments (or those of any other vendor or poster) "refreshing" if their opinions didn't align with yours and the majority of posters on this board ?...

Would a dissenting opinion on a critical topic be considered equally "refreshing" -- Or as demonstrated over and over again, would those comments be met with snarky responses and verbal attacks that border on breaking PS rules?

Just something to ponder......

Yes, for me it would. I am the first to admit I don't know everything and more than once I have swayed my opinion on topics. I enjoy hearing all sides and pondering that. The thing is it is not always black and white or hard and fast or right and wrong. There are many gray areas and it helps to hear all perspectives. KWIM? It is incredibly scary to me though that the government wants to get up into our personal affairs (literally and figuratively) and I will never change my mind on that one.

(Though I do agree that snarkiness has no place in an intelligent open conversation).

I fully admit that I have in the past, been an egregious practitioner of snark

That said, I would bet just about everyone here would wholeheartedly agree with you that Erica's comments are welcome and her willingness to share is "refreshing", right?

However, the reality is that a dissenting viewpoint (dissenting from the majority of opinion) is almost never met with such openness and acceptance--no matter what the topic.

 

[Circe]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

I'm going to have to go with a "yes."

So long as an opinion is expressed in an informative, honest, and eloquent fashion, I'm always happy to engage with its holder. BJ and I disagree on almost everything political, but I'm always eager to see what she has to say - and even if the exchanges get heated, that doesn't mean I respect her any less. Without well-matched opponents, what's the point of debate?

 

[missy]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

I'm going to have to go with a "yes."

So long as an opinion is expressed in an informative, honest, and eloquent fashion, I'm always happy to engage with its holder. BJ and I disagree on almost everything political, but I'm always eager to see what she has to say - and even if the exchanges get heated, that doesn't mean I respect her any less. Without well-matched opponents, what's the point of debate?

Circe, can we be flexible on eloquent please LOL. Not everyone is as well spoken as you. I love reading your posts and wish I could write as well as you but as long as we communicate the point (however crudely) could that be sufficient?

However I could not agree more and that was what I was trying to say. Debate/discussion is nothing without different viewpoints.

However, the reality is that a dissenting viewpoint (dissenting from the majority of opinion) is almost never met with such openness and acceptance--no matter what the topic.

That may well be and I myself have been skewered on an occasion or 2 but that doesn't mean it's OK. And that won't stop me from expressing my thoughts/opinions. That reflects badly on the people behaving rudely and won't change my (polite) behavior.

 

[Circe]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

I'm going to have to go with a "yes."

So long as an opinion is expressed in an informative, honest, and eloquent fashion, I'm always happy to engage with its holder. BJ and I disagree on almost everything political, but I'm always eager to see what she has to say - and even if the exchanges get heated, that doesn't mean I respect her any less. Without well-matched opponents, what's the point of debate?

Circe, can we be flexible on eloquent please LOL. Not everyone is as well spoken as you. I love reading your posts and wish I could write as well as you but as long as we communicate the point (however crudely) could that be sufficient?

However I could not agree more and that was what I was trying to say. Debate/discussion is nothing without different viewpoints.

However, the reality is that a dissenting viewpoint (dissenting from the majority of opinion) is almost never met with such openness and acceptance--no matter what the topic.

That may well be and I myself have been skewered on an occasion or 2 but that doesn't mean it's OK. And that won't stop me from expressing my thoughts/opinions. That reflects badly on the people behaving rudely and won't change my (polite) behavior.

Missy, you are grossly underestimating yourself! I think you do honor to the Queen's English.

Seriously, though, the articulate population of this board is what keeps me around - call me an old fogey, but there are waaaaaaaaaaaaay too many places where "U mad, bro?" is the height of scintillating repartee ...