<p>I really should stop looking at this thread.</p>
<h1>828. “content themselves” with less effective treatment !!!???</h1>
<h1>831. ED tablets=chemical peel???</h1>
<p>Really, aren’t any of you like married to men? Have sons, fathers? Where is all this man hate coming from. Is it really us against them?</p>
<p>
Get a grip. There is no hate there. I’m not saying they can’t get these things or shouldn’t get them, just that they should be fully responsible for paying for those products. Money is a finite resource and needs to be utlized wisely. If a man wants an ED tablet, he should certainly take it up with his doctor and then pay for it.</p>
<p>Personal responsibility! What a concept.</p>
<p>“To me this is a no-brainer. Making birth control available at no cost won’t eliminate unwanted pregnancies, but it will reduce the rates of unwanted pregnancy, abortion, and unwanted children being born and then in most cases raised at taxpayer expense.”</p>
<p>It’s a no-brainer ONLY if the cost of birth control is the primary reason for nonuse or incorrect/inconsistent use. But it’s not. </p>
<p>“However, the general
pattern is clear: the leading reason
given for nonuse of contraception was
You did not think you could get
pregnant, cited by 44% of these
women who had unintended
pregnancies in recent years. About
14% said that they did not expect to
have sex, 23% said they didnt really
mind if they got pregnant, and 16%
said they were worried about the side
effects of birth control methods. The
proportions of women citing the other
reasons were smaller.” </p>
<p><a href=“NCHS - 404 Error - Resource Not Available”>NCHS - 404 Error - Resource Not Available;
<p>Insurance doesn’t pay for Viagra even if post surgery for prostate cancer. But why should BCP be without copay and not viagra which is $200 for 14 pills but BCP can be $9 per month.</p>
<p>
I don’t think BCP should be co-payless under insurance.</p>
<p>So as in#842 you believe if a women wants BCPs she should certainly take it up with her doctor and then pay for it.</p>
<p>Personal responsibility, what a concept.</p>
<p>
You’ve missed way too much to rehash all of this. THe short answer is that in the prior thread I repeated over and over that if an insurance company requires a co-pay, it should require a co-pay for BCP (not all plans have any co-pay).</p>
<p>As far as BCP, since you asked so nicely (actually, you were obnoxious, but why quibble?) I will say that what I think is that the Obama administration didn’t need to open this particular can of worms and rile up the Catholics in order to achieve its goals. Also, I vehemently support encouraging all sexually active women who are not planning pregnancy to become educated about condoms.</p>
<p>You don’t get it. The more foolish and short-sighted a woman is, the LESS likely she is to “choose” birth control pills, AND use them correctly, because proper use requires a level of discipline and motivation that she simply does not possess. Her method of birth control is actually the least of her “choice” issues – she is making lots of poor choices regarding education, employment, and sexual partners. And those problems won’t be solved by forcing employers to provide birth control free of copays.</p>
<p>=========</p>
<p>Claire-marie is very right. There are women that are so flakey that they wouldn’t take the pills with any regularity. Heck, young teens (even the non-flakey ones) will forget to take a pill, just like they forget the other stuff they have to do in their lives. </p>
<p>This shouldn’t surprise anyone. We’ve had threads about adults who are too-freaking lazy to even pour milk into a cereal bowl for their kids every morning. Think those folks will remember to take a pill? lol …no.</p>
<p>“I will say that what I think is that the Obama administration didn’t need to open this particular can of worms and rile up the Catholics in order to achieve its goals.”</p>
<p>They didn’t rile up Catholics. They are supported overwhelmingly by Catholics. They riled up a tiny number of supposedly celibate old men who don’t use birth control, and who, when it comes to this issue, are ignored or opposed by an overwhelming number of Catholics - men and women alike, and Catholic institutions as well…</p>
<p>“There are women that are so flakey that they wouldn’t take the pills with any regularity. Heck, young teens (even the non-flakey ones) will forget to take a pill, just like they forget the other stuff they have to do in their lives.”</p>
<p>There are people don’t immunize their kids either. So?</p>
<p>Alh: #799 My point was that I don’t want to tell other women how to live. I want them to have a variety of options and choose what is best, in their minds, for their own circumstances. If they want the pill, I want them to have it. </p>
<p>I “get” that. I was just asking you WHY you personally prefer barrier methods over hormone methods? You must have a reason…what is it??</p>
<p>And…if you were rather certain that info that these hormone methods are very dangerous, wouldn’t you want to speak out? Why would that be any different than people who speak out because they believe that some baby shots cause autism (and what if there were strong data suggesting that?) Should those people just sit back and say, “well, these people should have a choice and I’m not going to interfere.”</p>
<p>Mini…my point was that birth control availability doesn’t necessarily stop pregnancy. Many people who have unplanned pregnancies actually had access to BC…and even had it in their homes.</p>
<p>I do NOT think birth control pills are very dangerous, nor do I think ultrasounds are very dangerous. I think both the pill and ultrasounds are sometimes very beneficial. I think there is (well - was ;)) no reason for me to take the pill for birth control if a barrier method works for me. I don’t like unnecessary drugs. My personal choice. I don’t like unnecessary medical tests on my children (even in utero :)) again - my personal choice.</p>
<p>Do you think I have a responsibility to speak out about anything I think is very dangerous?</p>
<p>
I can assure you that many Catholics in my area are extremely, extremely riled up.</p>
<p>“There are women that are so flakey that they wouldn’t take the pills with any regularity.”</p>
<p>This is one reason why it’s great that the patch, the ring, injectable, and implantable contraception can provide the same medication as the pill without any daily action. The new IUD is also extremely effective and safe, and you only need to think about it once every five years. I’d like to see all of these options readily available at no cost. Plenty of flaky people know that they are flaky, and would jump at the chance to protect themselves in the longer term.</p>
<p>“my point was that birth control availability doesn’t necessarily stop pregnancy.”</p>
<p>It doesn’t necessarily stop any particular pregnancy. But when you provide it to a whole population, it makes a dent. That’s enough to make it good policy in my book.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Au contraire. I have never read anything on cc that supports insurance reimbursement for ED.</p>
<p>“I can assure you that many Catholics in my area are extremely, extremely riled up.”</p>
<p>And I can assure that a very much larger number are extremely, extremely pleased. Including the Catholic Health Association. And that the hundreds and hundreds of Catholic institutions and organizatiopns - with priests and nuns and Catholics on their boards - already providing BCPs as part of preventive health services - are feeling validated. And their members are happy!</p>
<p>
I’m surprised to return 12 hours later and find that no one has commented on this remarkable claim. While it’s true that only women can bear children, to the best of my recollection I did participate in my kids’ conception.</p>
<p>I am not a woman, incidentally. :)</p>
<p>
Yes, it would logically follow from what you’ve written before that they would be excluded. What it doesn’t do is answer my question: Does that really happen? If it’s equally logical as the ban on BC pills, but not actually done, wouldn’t that tend to weaken the argument that this is about “respecting religious doctrine” instead of keeping uppity women in their place?</p>
<p>
Yes, I do. (This came up in connection with discussion of abortion as “murder”, BTW.) Nothing should be “a crime” unless there’s a clear societal consensus about it. I have good philosophical reasons for this position, but the practical reasons are good enough. Exhibit A: Prohibition. If 51% think something should be illegal and 49% disagree, the 49% are going to keep doing it. And then you have a lot of bad things happening. It’s bad policy.</p>
<p>I have no problem with setting sales taxes, locating freeways, staffing fire departments, etc. by a plain majority vote - that’s how a democratic republic does business. But labeling people as criminals should only be done in clear cases. </p>
<p>I find it ironic that in California you could pass a law through the initiative process that would make chewing gum a misdemeanor with a mandatory 6 month jail sentence (I’d vote yes - I hate that stuff. And it’s already illegal in Singapore, I’m told.) But it takes a 67% majority to raise income taxes by 1%. </p>
<p>Seriously screwed up priorities, IMO.</p>
<p>“Plenty of flaky people know that they are flaky, and would jump at the chance to protect themselves in the longer term.”</p>
<p>Except that when it comes to contraception, they don’t. Remember that well over half of women who experienced unintended pregnancies while not using any contraception listed “thought I couldn’t get pregnant” or “was not planning to have sex” as the reason for their nonuse. You may describe these women as “flaky,” or “irresponsible,” or “struggling with basic life skills,” or even “incredibly stupid,” but however you slice it, they are NOT going to behave in the same strategic, careful, and consistent way that most of you are raising your daughters to behave.</p>
<p>
I find that a very interesting philosophy. Personally, I believe that some things are wrong independent of what some people believe about them (not referring specifically to abortion here), or of what percent of the population believes it. </p>
<p>I can see your point about the pointlessness of banning something that most people overtly or covertly support, wrong or not, although sometimes the penalties associated with criminality do change behavior in and of themselves. And as behavior changes, views can as well. It can be difficult, one supposes, to change the minds of the majority, if the wrong is not being done to them personally.</p>
<p>I suppose I have good philosophical reasons for my views as well, but then I’m not a lawyer ;).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps they recieved abstinence only sex education. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>^^you took the words right out of my mouth poetgrl</p>
<p>also, claremarie, who is the “they” you keep referencing??</p>