<p>mini,
That nearly 100% of insurers already cover birth control does not justify the federal government mandating it.</p>
<p>To me, the government telling insurance companies they have to cover birth control is the same as the government telling insurance companies they have to cover immunizations, or mammograms. Which is the same as a state law telling insurance companies they have to cover something. As to whether there is a co-pay or not, that would probably depend on whether they cover preventive services (which birth control is) with no co-pay customarily, but the government could mandate that as well.</p>
<p>In another time and place, there might be religious objections to immunizations. Oh wait, there already is, among some religions. And the way they handle that is that the people who object, don’t get the immunization. The insurance doesn’t refuse to cover the immunizations.</p>
<p>“That nearly 100% of insurers already cover birth control does not justify the federal government mandating it.”</p>
<p>Agreed. I think it is justified because it is the considered recommendation of the leading public health and medical experts in the country, and hence included in the list of recommended preventive health services. I work in public health, and I don’t take such recommendations lightly. The fact that it is also in keeping with current private insurance practice, and public opinion (including among Catholics) is just icing on the cake.</p>
<p>“To me, the government telling insurance companies they have to cover birth control is the same as the government telling insurance companies they have to cover immunizations, or mammograms.”</p>
<p>It’s not just to you. It is the same, and is in the same mandate.</p>
<p>Last post of the night for me, got an SAT tomorrow. Either way you might believe on this issue, why should the government have to mandate anything? Isn’t that considered “too much” government intrusion? It’s almost like a “dictatorship”, where the government decides what is required and what isn’t.</p>
<p>We have a representative form of government. So, not so much a dictatorship. We elect our officials and they vote on the issues. </p>
<p>In this case, however, the mandate comes from the recommendations of health professionals based on findings of the best outcomes for the population. So, not so much a dictatorship.</p>
<p>Now, back in the day when there were Kings, Henry did have to leave the Catholic Church in order to get a divorce, though there are those who suspect his “real” motivation was not so much Ann Boylen as the fact that his kingdom was in debt and he was able to strip all the catholic churches and take the treasure. Given that Henry’s religion, known as Anglican today, was also supposed to be “austere”, his kingdom was able to become much more wealthy because of this.</p>
<p>I’m not sure what that has to do with government or religions, though. ;)</p>
<p>ETA: Good luck on the SAT!</p>
<p>Bay:
</p>
<p>Yes, yes,yes,yes…and none of this generic two buck chuck stuff. We need the forumulary namebrand stuff!</p>
<p>“Since red wine is proven to have preventive qualities, should the government mandate that insurance companies cover it at no co-pay and no deductible?”</p>
<p>If you can convince the U.S. Preventive Health Task Force, more power to you. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well that settles it…I volunteer to start the Napa Valley Preventative Miracle Grape task force. Of course I will need some funding…I’ll set up a paypal account and all can contribute - from each according to his ability to me according to my need. ;)</p>
<p>A glass of wine is good for your health, yes. However, it doesn’t treat or cure anything directly any more than a good diet and exercise does. Wine is also widely available over the counter to those of legal age.</p>
<p>If it is proven that something in there is helpful, they’ll isolate whatever it is that makes it effective and sell it in pill form which will be covered by insurance. </p>
<p>Birth control DIRECTLY treats and prevents many conditions, including (but not limited to) preventing pregnancy. Birth control is available by prescription only. </p>
<p>Birth control and wine are not remotely on the same level. If politicians that we cover elliptical machines under insurance, then sure- you can argue for your wine to be covered. If birth control is available over the counter for cheap, then sure you can argue that wine and birth control are more on the same level. As it stands now though, no, they’re not comparable.</p>
<p>Let’s make wine available by prescription only. It will only be permitted for treatment or prevention for a medical reason. It can never be consumed for the simple enjoyment of the drink itself. Then and only then will the analogy of wine being on the same level as birth control be a viable debate rather than having no valid grounds for comparison as it currently stands.</p>
<p>Also, let’s not forget that grapes differ in quality based on type, where they were grown, how they were grown, and when they were picked. Oh, and let’s not forget that the process to produce the wine from those grapes can and does differ. This means the resulting product will have differing properties from vineyard to vineyard. So of course there is going to be a difference between brands. It is not out of the realm of logical reasoning that one vineyard’s product might agree with a person’s individual system better than another vineyard’s product despite being the same formulation.</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>Kender: You make some very good points. Obviously we need a super PAC for the NVPMG lobby group.</p>
<p>I’m sure there are people who would love to have wine as a prescription! I bet for those that like it, it must taste a good deal better than some other liquid medications. I’ll never forget that dreaded “bubble gum” medicine the pharmacy changed to when I was little. It was so awful that I had to be held down just to get me to take it. I did like the old formulation/old brand they had, though, and would have happily guzzled the entire bottle down in one sitting.</p>
<p>Hrm… maybe making a medication taste good could be a bad thing?</p>
<p>Yeah, yeah, I’m getting too silly. Admit it, though! You laughed! Or I hope you did :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I did. And, IMHO…that is about the only thing left to do on this thread. No one’s mind has been changed, the same arguments have been made over and over again, the lines are drawn, sides have been taken…and this is the song that has no end…it goes on and on my friend…no different in content or content providers than the 'Availability of Contraception on Catholic Campuses" thread which I think got closed when posts hit around the 600 mark. And yes I am guilty (albeit on a very small level) in contributing to the ongoing the circle J.</p>
<p>Anyway…continue to enjoy…it is only the electrons which are inconvenienced.</p>
<p>[Dark</a> Chocolate & Your Heart: Delicious Advice - Nutrition and You! - Boston.com](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/blog/nutrition/2012/02/dark_chocolate_your_heart_deli.html]Dark”>http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/blog/nutrition/2012/02/dark_chocolate_your_heart_deli.html)</p>
<p>Forget the wine. I want my insurance company to pay for my chocolate.</p>
<p>cartera45: yes again! But as before, the good stuff - non of this Walgreens, CVS, Dollar Store last minute ‘need to bring a gift’ thingy with a high content of candle wax. We are talking…DEMANDING…Belgian, Godiva…with milk from hand groomed, Mozart lullabyed Alpine cows which have been grazing on a pristine, organic wild flower pasture just down the hill from Heidi’s hut. Finally, a mandate I can support!</p>
<p>It is a mandate because the SCIENCE shows that contraception have a large health BENEFIT.</p>
<p>The idea that an insurance plan should omit any such benefit is absurd and anti-scientific. </p>
<p>The comparison to the benefits of red wine is just as absurd and shows the abysmal state of medical reporting. Any benefits of red wine are very marginal. The benefits of contraception are larger by orders of magnitude.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Especially when one is under the influence of said red wine (preferably consumed with dark chocolate of course)</p>
<p>dietz - I like cheap chocolate too but I can pay for that. I’ll need insurance for the good stuff. Kind of like condoms vs BCP.</p>
<p>But a MANDATE for chocolate coverage would take care of the cost problem. It would be FREE FREE FREE! And why be burden with paying for any of it?</p>
<p>
I was quite taken aback by this idea. As mini essentially points out, the decision of what is murder and what isn’t is a collective decision that we make as a society–and we may be one Supreme Court Justice away from abortion being declared to be murder. If you want to be picky, there are people who believe that abortion is the killing of an innocent person and that it should be treated by the law as murder, and others who (apparently) believe that it isn’t the killing of a person and shouldn’t be treated by the law as murder. Kluge, interestingly, doesn’t know if it is murder or not and believes, therefore, that the default position should be that it isn’t murder unless the particular woman thinks it is. I suppose that makes some sense, but certainly others would argue that the default should be to protect the more vulnerable individual. Of course, you have to decide whether an unborn person is a person at all–and again, it seems to me that this is a collective decision that we make through our laws. Right now, the “personhood” of the unborn is a bit murky–but we can talk about what we think it should be, or not be.</p>
<p>And those of you who think that my views are extreme don’t get what I am saying at all.</p>