Are oral contraceptives healthcare?

[cargalrn]

My fiance is very angry to mandate that oral contraceptives should be paid for by health insurance. I feel it is a woman's right, and it is a medication, in additional to medical uses besides preventing pregnancy. But is it a health care issue to prevent pregnancy, like a medication that treats a disease, such as insulin? Or is that beside the point, because it is a choice? It is a useful medication for the personal choice of deciding when and if a woman will conceive. It will save millions of dollars in healthcare for the cost of unwanted deliveries, illnesses during pregnancy, not to mention the savings for raising children, their healthcare and education. Your respectful opinions are appreciated.

[Jolie, BSN]

i apologize if i misconstrued your post. you stated, " i doubt it would work here since it depends on a very high level of personal responsibiliety among citizens."

i took carried that further by assuming that a perceived lack of personal responsibility among our citizens was due to an entitlement mentality.

sorry, my bad.

about the incompetence of our government, we agree :)

[msn10]

This debate started because a Christian organization did not want to pay for contraception for their employees because of their religious beliefs. Although I do not agree, I understand their reasoning.

However, if the religious organizations do not want to offer birth control, don't want to allow women to have premarital sex (referring to recent case where woman got fired from church job for doing so), refusing to hire homosexuals at the establishments, and a plethora of other discriminatory positions, then I am not sure why they continue to receive tax breaks from the non-discriminatory, equal rights for all government. It should be one or the other. Just my 2 cents.

[nurseguysfinishfirst]

PMFB-RN, You being "happy to pay for my healthcare" is not the same as me being "forced" to pay for yours. I am always happy to help out someone in "need",but not so happy to pay for someone who does not have the desire to take care of their own.

[Karen]

If religious employers such as hospitals and universities want to discriminate then they should not take any medicaid/medicare or other federal monies. Easy as that, no responsibility to government because you take nothing from them. There is no reason I should pay for health insurance every month and not receive any basic medical care and if for me basic medical care is contraception then so be it. Doesn't any one see how basic health care is of national importance? You wouldn't leave the military up to individual states. The priority of for profit health care is to eek out as much for their share holders as possible leaving patients with the minimum. I live in Florida where our current governor was CEO of a company that was fined millions for defrauding medicare---Great he's in charge and dismantling the public health system and decimating medicaid. I live where one of his hospitals was located and during the time that Columbia owned it the care was so bad, the facility so bad I could no longer take students there for clinical because everyday in post conference I would have to start with "That's an example of how things shouldn't be", and almost as bad at a not for profit hospital nearby the ceo makes $500,000 a year to manage 2 hospitals and some medicenters while on telemetry they wanted us to have 5 patients regardless of acuity and 2 nursing assistants for 26 patients, after they decided to add the stroke patients to our unit that was it for me.

[Overland1, RN]

[video=youtube;v7dFyaq-pYc]

[PMFB-RN, RN]

PMFB-RN, You being "happy to pay for my healthcare" is not the same as me being "forced" to pay for yours. I am always happy to help out someone in "need",but not so happy to pay for someone who does not have the desire to take care of their own.

*** When I say I am happy to help pay for your care I mean I don't mind being forced, and I am. No more than I mind helping pay for national defence. I recognize that my family and I benifit.

And yes it's exactly the same. Only difference is in our perspectives.

[nurseguysfinishfirst]

Providing for the national defense is specifically mentioned as one of the responsibilities of government in the American Constitution while no mention is made of healthcare anywhere.

I am always amazed at how the "compassionate" party is always willing to give away MY money ,but are not so willing to give to charity themselves. If you don't believe me,go look for yourself. Compare Bush and Obama,Biden and Chaney or red states and blue states and you will find that it is true.

[cdsga]

I suppose that the healthcare today was not available when the Constitution was written. But it does state that the gov't is to guard the general welfare of the citizenry. General statement, but health is part of that general welfare. That doesn't mean you have to provide everything to everyone, but it is somewhat necessary to help those in need, if private sources can't do it then basic healthcare should be made available just as a court appointed attorney, which the Constitution so plainly states.

[Karen]

Yes healthcare for all would guard the general welfare. If you look at what was considered healthcare in 1776, there really wasn't any. Nor could they forsee or even imagine the possibilities of today.

[msn10]

I suppose that the healthcare today was not available when the Constitution was written. But it does state that the gov't is to guard the general welfare of the citizenry

I don't think we can even refer to the original constitution when assessing the feasbility and constitutionality of healthcare for all. As far as our founding fathers were concerned, only white, male, landowners could vote or had rights. Glad things have changed even if healthcare is a mess.

[nurseguysfinishfirst]

msn10 needs a history lesson.................or two !

[msn10]

msn10 needs a history lesson.................or two !

How so? I said only white male landowners could vote. I don't remember learning that women or slaves (even those owned by the founding fathers) having the right to vote. When the delegates finally agreed to having "the people" elect the lower house, they were referring to a select portion of the population that excluded all white males without property; all females, Native Americans, and indentured servants. Also excluded were slaves—25% of the entire population. Furthermore blacks could basically be killed in the street with minimal retribution. Basing our current culture's desire to "guard the general welfare" is a very different viewpoint that those of the original authors/framers of the constitution.

I have to laugh when I hear "our founding fathers wanted..." because although there was a great deal of insight and forethought concerning human rights, the realization is that those rights only helped a certain group of people, not 'liberty and justice for all' as we would all like to believe.

My point being, if you want to have healthcare be a right instead of a privilege, you need to create a new set of laws and not depend on and retrofit the ones from the 1700's.