<p>But we’re not talking about nothing. We’re talking about something else. Something might cost more than something else, but it might not.</p>
<p>Mr. Fang says, windshield wipers. They cost money, but crashing because of no windshield wipers would cost more. Or what about the welcome mat at my front door? I had to buy it, with money, but otherwise people would track mud in and ruin my wood floors. Refinishing a floor costs a lot more than a mat.</p>
<p>Paying for contraception costs money, money the insurance company wouldn’t have to pay if it didn’t provide the service. Prenatal care and childbirth also cost money, money the insurance company wouldn’t have to pay if the woman had used contraception and not gotten pregnant. Which is bigger? Why are you so sure that the prenatal care and childbirth is necessarily smaller?</p>
<p>New CBS/New York Times poll shows most Americans, and most Catholics, support the policy mandating that religiously-affiliated employers offer contraception:</p>
<p>Ready access to contraceptives tends to encourage more sexual activity, especially among the relatively irresponsible, which, in turn, leads to more unintended pregnancies and abortions.
If you really want to try something that cuts down on unintended pregnancies, abstinence works wonders. And, unlike contraceptives provided by one’s employer, it really is “free.”</p>
I certainly didn’t say that. What I am saying is that in a pool of infinite resources, I do not think birth control pills should have special status by requiring no co-pay. Aside from the finances, the skin in the game, there is the inherent fairness issue. How do you tell 58 year-old, diabetic Sarah that she needs to pay the co-payment and 28 year-old Susie is exempt? Access is one thing. That’s not my argument.</p>
<p>The IRS code allows for special treatment for homeowners by making mortgage interest deductible. Homeowners get special tax treatment on any profit on the sale of their home after a certain number of years. Taxpayers with accumulated wealth who can leave their investments alone for a sufficient amount of time get special tax treatment upon sale.</p>
<p>While it is a matter of ones personal system of valuing importance, I as a taxpayer would rather the government encourage only planned births through free birth control than pay for death delaying medicine and procedures if that is an either or choice. See above for why it probably is not “either or.”</p>
<p>Abstaining from sexual activity isnt as easy as it sounds. Even some of those who have taken vows of chastity and married the Church seem to have problems with it.</p>
<p>Please explain to me why we cannot expect irresponsible people to abstain from sex if they are unprepared to parent a child, but we CAN expect these very same irresponsible people suddenly to decide to obtain and properly use the contraception that has always been available to them, solely because they no longer have the enormous financial burden of a co-pay or deductible. </p>
<p>A second question might be why private insurance companies should be taking advice from the federal government – which cannot seem to gracefully manage its own enormous resources – on how to save money by spending more money.</p>
<p>07Dad, so much energy for so many strawmen!</p>
<p>
We aren’t talking about “the government.” That’s another issue and one on which I might agree with you. But we are talking about the benefits provided within the same company to similarly-situated employees. And, of course it is “either or” because, well, it IS either/or. One subset of the same class of employees is receiving a benefit that the other isn’t.</p>
Even poor and unprepared people have a right to their sexuality. This is just a bridge too far for me. I’m uncomfortable with the state mandating employer benefits, but I’m much more uncomfortable with anyone dictating anyone else’s sexuality.</p>
<p>Personally and professionally, we are all going to be legislated to death. I’m sure all other professions are the same as mine–the crushing burden of compliance is killing us. There’s no way to be in compliance with business or life anymore.</p>
<p>That’s a little off-topic, but so have been the last 400 posts. I’m sick of the gov’t telling me what to do. Like some others, I hate spin factor. I wish gov’t (any and all parties) would be more transparent with their agendas). If they want population control, then say so. If they want free bc, then do so, but give/pay for it through the gov’t. Several have made the argument bc is cheaper than pregnancy/abortion. Then why isn’t the gov’t giving it out? I feel they shouldn’t force insurance to do their work.</p>
<p>Aren’t poor people having a disproportionate amount of births? Are they receiving Medicaid? Does Medicaid pay for free bc? (I don’t know) If it does, then why are these poorer women still having more births? Does that mean free bc doesn’t overcome being irresponsible?</p>
<p>claremarie, I’m trying to follow your argument, but it seems contradictory. In the first post, you seem to be saying:
Irresponsible people will take advantage of the availability of contraceptives, which increases their level of sexual activity.
But in the second post, you seem to be saying:
Irresponsible people will not take advantage of the availability of contraceptives because they are…irresponsible. </p>
<p>How can both 1) and 2) be true? Thanks in advance for clarifying. I’m just trying to predict how the behavior of students on Catholic campuses–both responsible and irresponsible students–might change if contraceptives were readily available.</p>
<p>Mary-I had a kid on a Catholic campus. I don’t think the behavior would change. They were having sex and getting contraception otherwise. This was as well understood as the fact that a crucifix would be in every classroom. I find it extremely difficult to believe any student would show up on a Catholic campus (at least the one my son attended) thinking condoms/bc were going to be available.</p>
<p>D has health issues. I will send her to college with dr. visits done, medications filled, and procedures in place for refills. I don’t understand why bc would be any different, whether attending a Catholic college or not. As mentioned in various posts, sex happens, and it’s not always planned. But…bc pills need to be taken everyday, at the same time, to be most effective. It needs done ahead of time. I’m not discussing morning-after; I know that’s different.</p>
<p>I’m all for OTC bc. I don’t buy the notion that a campus is so remote one can’t possibly get to the local cvs/Walmart/Walgreens. Kids go off campus all the time for tons of reasons. IMO, those drugstores are often a lot more convenient, have better hours, and aren’t so swamped as a campus health center.</p>