Are oral contraceptives healthcare? - Page 9Register Today!
- Mar 8, '12 by CountyRatCountrydancer358
I am flattered that you took time to respond to the questions that I posted earlier; however, I clearly owe you an apology. Since your response does not directly address any of the points that I raised, I must not have been clear. Please allow me a chance to try to do a better job, while being as brief as I can:
I asked whether the President has the authority to “order a business to offer a product or service at no cost.” You responded by referencing Title X of the Federal Code. Title X is not a presidential order, nor does it require any business to provide free services. Title X is a law passed by the US Congress that affects what agencies that accept federal funds (like the Tulsa County Health Department that you mention in your post) must provide. I never questioned Congresses authority to pass legislation affecting how recipients of federal funds use those funds (which is what Title X does). I questioned whether the president (not congress) has the authority to order (without congress first passing legislation) citizens who work in private companies (not recipients of federal funds) to provide a particular product or service at no charge.
You also commented on how inexpensive birth control is, and noted that that cost is lower than the cost of healthcare for a woman who is pregnant and delivers her child. I do not know why you made this point, since I never brought the subject up. I am sure that, having read my post carefully, you remember that I said that I was not commenting on the cost, value, or advisability of birth control, only posing questions about whether, in the United States, the Constitution has assigned power to order the provision of birth control by executive command.
You ask if I am a nurse, and the answer is yes, I am a registered nurse, and have been for 30 years. Although you do not ask, it might clarify things if I mention that, in addition to working for a living, I provide free nursing services in three local volunteer agencies. I think that it is desirable for nurses to serve their community by doing volunteer work (i.e., work for which we are not paid) to help underserved and distressed people, when those nurses’ lives allow them to. However, this is not relevant to my post since President Obama did not call for private citizens to volunteer to give goods and services to others, he ordered them to. I wrote no comment about whether what the president ordered is a good or a bad idea, I merely asked whether, in the United States, our elected officials have the legal authority to order us to do what we do to make a living without compensation.
You comment that the president is not “compelling anyone to act against their sincerely held beliefs,” and attempt to make your point by referring to the many people that you see who have access to birth control but do not use it. First, if the president does not intend for his order to be “compelling,” does that mean that the people who work in insurance companies can ignore President Obama’s order with impunity? If so, it would not be an order, it would be a request. I never suggested that the president should not request that people do good and responsible things. However, the president did not request anything; he ordered it. As for individuals not using birth control, I am at a loss to understand how that is relevant to our discussion. People who do this are making a choice. Whether they are making a wise or a foolish choice is an valid question, but it is not a question I posed, so I am not sure how it is relevant to this discussion. The issues I raised in my post were related to the question of whether an elected official has legal authority to issue orders on this issue, not whether what he or she orders is wise or not.
Finally, you ask what I would do if my health insurer did not cover nursing care. My answer is, I would drop their coverage and purchase an insurance policy from another company that was better able to meet my needs. Understanding what my health insurer does and does not cover is my responsibility, so it is my job to make sure that my coverage is adequate for my family and me, just as it is my job to wisely choose the foods we eat, the house we live in, and how we meet our other needs. Again, I am not clear on how this relates to my questions, all of which were related to government authority, not what I or any other citizen can or should do.
Thank you again for your comments. I hope that I have done a better job of expressing myself. I am grateful that we live in a country where people of all opinions can ask questions and discuss them with one another, as you and I have here. It is wonderful to enjoy such freedom, don’t you agree?
Very best wishes to you!
- Mar 8, '12 by MunoRNQuote from CountyRatSorry to butt in, but covering contraception without a co-pay was not a Presidential order, it comes from the Affordable Care Act, a law passed by Congress. The law does not require insurance companies to provide contraception free of charge to people who aren't already paying them for healthcare coverage, it requires that insurance companies not charge an additional cost over what is already being paid for coverage (co-pay).
I asked whether the President has the authority to “order a business to offer a product or service at no cost.”
- Mar 8, '12 by nurseguysfinishfirstIt remains to be seen if the Affordable Care Act is even constitutional and the WAY that it was passed is more than suspect.
Lies,deals,threats...................typical Democratic /Chicago Politics as far as I can see. We will see how the court sees it.
- Mar 8, '12 by wildbooI believe the President way over-stepped his bounds! That is why we have a checks-and-balances system, to avoid this kind of thing. Otherwise, it makes our "president" a dictator, which he seems intent on being. Forcing people to buy government-sponsored health insurance (which congress and government officials, of course, aren't made to buy) and then charging them a penalty if they don't buy it? My hospital offers me health insurance. I take it, because I need it. But, I have the option to decline it, even though it would leave me uninsured. Stupid? Yes, but still my choice as a free citizen of this country. My money, my choice.
The government SHOULD pay more attention to how they spend OUR money, but has no business, right or authority telling a private company what it should do with theirs.
- Mar 8, '12 by VioletKaliLPNWhat I find interesting is that women already pay more in premiums for health coverage, I certainly did when I owned an individual health ins policy. I owned the policy for nearly 10 years, and it DID cover birth control with standard copay. It covered my IUD with a 25$ office copay, AWESOME! In my state, every individual policy on the market covers birth control, but they do not cover maternity without paying for an extra rider.
If we already pay more for health insurance, because they know we use more services, specifically family planning/gyn, why not cover BC? It makes sense fiscally. BC is cheaper than maternity care and labor and delivery. Medicaid covers birth control because it is cheaper than paying for maternity care. It is smart fiscally.
Think about it.. Many women have health insurance policies that do not cover maternity OR birth control. They become pregnant and then use medicaid, government assistance, to care for their prenatal care as well as L&D and baby care. I know women who have health insurance that does not cover BC, yet covers maternity, but they still use medicaid as a secondary payment because they could not afford to have a baby.
You may ask "Why not just abstain." Well, it is not going happen. Logically we know this, we can count on it, so why not make a fiscally smart move and cover BC for everyone! It is better than paying what we pay in medicaid for many women to labor and deliver.
People are going to do what they want to do, have sex rather than abstain, and YOU the taxpayers still pay for it!!!! You pay the tens of thousands in Maternity care, more if the baby has health issues-goddess forbid... So I say make BC free for anyone who wants it, even FREE BC would save a lot of money.
- Mar 8, '12 by MunoRNQuote from wildbooThe individual mandate is from the Affordable Care Act, which came from Congress, a different branch of government from the President. How were checks and balances not used?I believe the President way over-stepped his bounds! That is why we have a checks-and-balances system, to avoid this kind of thing. Otherwise, it makes our "president" a dictator, which he seems intent on being. Forcing people to buy government-sponsored health insurance (which congress and government officials, of course, aren't made to buy) and then charging them a penalty if they don't buy it? My hospital offers me health insurance. I take it, because I need it. But, I have the option to decline it, even though it would leave me uninsured. Stupid? Yes, but still my choice as a free citizen of this country. My money, my choice.
The government SHOULD pay more attention to how they spend OUR money, but has no business, right or authority telling a private company what it should do with theirs.
The individual mandate was the Republican's contribution to the Affordable Care Act and has long been a Republican premise for health care policy as an alternative to a single-payer system.
The Heritage Foundation, a prominent source of Republican policy has been a strong proponent of the individual mandate since 1989. Newt Gingrich's Center for Health Transformation advocated for individual mandates and HW Bush's attempt at Healthcare reform also was based on an individual mandate.
- Mar 9, '12 by TiffanybaybayI must bring it up.
How can the republicans jump on this "president forcing" people against their religious beliefs then also turn around and vote for FORCED transvaginal probes prior to any abortion?
Why can the government FORCE a probe in a woman's vagina but NOT force companies to take a metaphorical probe up their uncomfortable place as well?!
Talk about forcing? be careful or else you will sound hypocritical.
From what I see the government is doing a lot of forcing all over. And this isn't an order for an individual it is an order for businesses with a religious exemption so actual Churches don't have to cover it. Only a religious hospital or nursing home will have to cover bc. On the other hand this bill will provide for any business owned by Jehovas witnesses to withhold coverage for blood transfusions due to their religious qualms with it. That sounds stupid... Again hypocritical because when it's not OUR religion suddenly using religion as a guide for insurance coverage sounds stupid.
I'm a christian and I get really irritated when i hear people using religion to control or belittle others. My belief is that God is actually a REAL being and if he's not standing in the doors of birth control clinics then who am I to think I can do his job better. It's wrong, people will have to pay, but we are not judge and jury, we don't have a hell to put people in. If they want to do it, you really have no right to stop them. And if we as a country cover medical stuff under the guise of insurance, who are we to pick and choose which medical things they can have? Not covering BC will only increase abdominal traumas (LOL) and dead babies in trash cans. Not covering BC will just cause people to do more radical things to get their way. People understand when they seek the abortion that it's wrong. They don't care so this argument from a religious point is moot. You can't force a person into "not sinning."
Anyways there is no other sin that we place laws around to force people into. Well besides murder, robbery, and stealing. lol. But no laws against coveting, adultery, sodomy, sexual immorality... LOL look at TV!
So i guess when it comes down to it I do believe that birth control should be covered. I work in an ED and people have a sense of entitlement ALREADY! most abusers at the ED are all POOR! The only people that charging money affects is the middle class who have the $$ to pay. They don't get treatment and wait until they have the money. All of the other very poor people with the sense of entitlement are at the ED every single freaking day expecting sandwiches and percocets!
So in my job and the other places where I've worked I don't see what they're seeing. Most of the people i care for are extremely poor and never have paid taxes in their life. So I'd like to see an excuse that has numbers behind it, not just assuming that poor people are staying at home when they're sick. I've NEVER seen that to be true.
- Mar 9, '12 by JDougRNI do believe it should be covered- it is necessary to see an MD or mid-level provider in order to get a script- to me , that makes it a medical issue. It isn't religion. A person who is Jehovah's witness and is a business owner has no right to have an insurance that precludes blood products- That's insane. If your religion says using BC is wrong- easy DON'T DO IT!!!!! But don't try to legislate somebody elses health.
I'd like to make some observations though. The battle against country wide healthcare is short-sighted, to say the least. It isn't homeowners insurance, it isn't car insurance- It's people's health. EVERYONE gets sick at some point in time. EVERY SINGLE PERSON. It isn't something you can decide to do without. Often, people without medical insurance put off being seen, until their issue is too far advanced to do much with- I've personaly triaged a lady who had a grapefruit sized hole in her face- she'd had this for almost 2 years, and had managed to hide it behind a bandage and artful hair style. It wasn't until it grew to affect her eye, that she FINALLY came to the Emergency Department. If she had health care insurance, chances are she would have been seen much sooner.
The fact of the matter is, even if you had an "opt out" option, where people could choose to be exempt from the national healthcare coverage, chances are at some point, they will develop some sort of debilitating/painful issue that will send them to an ED. And once there, if they have nothing, they will get signed up for Medicaid/Medicare.We pay for it anyway. If they aren't eligable, they will get stabalized, get discharged home with a MASSIVE bill, and won't be able to afford the follow up. Then they keep coming in as an emergent case, until they die from something that could have been treated. If they have worked and managed to aquire a home or property, a disease like cancer will easily wipe out everything they have.
I'm a 40 y.o. nurse- have my BSN, have worked in hospital nursing for the SAME hospital system since I graduated in 1993. I pay 200+ a paycheck for just my husband and I to have health insurance.. We are both healthy, but recently I had an issue where I had to go to an ED for blood and an emergency D&C. I'm STILL getting bills for co-pays and deductibles. It's close to 2,000.00 already.I didn't even spend the night in the hospital, and I CAN'T AFFORD TO GET SICK! God forbid my husband or I get cancer or renal failure. The middle class is getting killed!
We see MILLIONS of dollars wasted by people on welfare- sometimes it's abuse, but often it's because no provider will take the paltry reimbursement that Medicaid pays. So in they come for their warts and sniffles and such. By removing the "Big business" from the insurance industry, you will cut down on the cost. Insurance companies inflate costs.
One more point I'd like to make- too often, people (Republicans, as well as Democrats) immediatly pull the "It's Socialism!!!!!" card. Um.....excuse me, but WHAT IS MEDICAID, if not for socialized medical care for the elderly?
People immediatly start screaming about the "Death Panels, that will decide Gramdpa is too old for a pacemaker, so he'll just DIE!!!!"Alarmists who are trying to push the emotion hot button. I know it may sound harsh, and possibly politically incorrect, but IMHO, we as a society NEED to start educating the public about the extensive, expensive, painfull procedures we put our population through. It's common sense- should my tax dollars go to fund dialysis 3 x a week, for a 90+ YO pt who has had dementia for the last 10 yrs, has NO QUALITY of life to the tune of HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars a year, or would that $ be better spent with breast and colon cancer screenig for people who are in their 40's and 50+? Society shouldn't be subsadizing torture of our elderly (Another topic-moving on).
With all of the medical technology we have, the emphasis should certainly be on preventative screening/medicine, instead of waiting for something to get incredibly broken before it gets fixed. People are screaming about spending a Billion now- but are too shortsighted to see it will save us BILLIONS in the future, as well as give us a healthier population. The healthcare issue in our country- ie. Medicare/Medicaid is going to break this country- it HAS GOT to be fixed. All of you complaining about the President's plan- OK- great. Let's hear YOUR solution on how we can fix it.
- Mar 9, '12 by PMFB-RNQuote from Jolie*** How silly. Of course they do. How mant abortions would happen if there was no effective BC? I am not even sure how many abortions effective BC prevented in my own life but it's more than a few.That's not my point at all. My point is that contraception doesn't lower abortion rates.
After 9 year of marriage, at ages 28 & 30 my wife and I decided to have children. She became preganant almost immediatly after having her IUD removed. I think it's safe to assume that both of use where in good health and fertile. How many babies would we have had to abort in the previous 9 years of marriage and 2 years of non married relationship before that without effective birth control?
As it happens after the birth of our second and final child I was working for a Catholic hospital. This hospital refused to cover any sort of borth controll other than OCs (only covered cause of patient privacy and the possibiliety they were prescribed for a health condition). My wife could not tolerate OCs. Our first choice was to get a vacectomy but since we would have to cover the whole cost ourselves it was beyond our means. While we were searching for other affordiable options my wife did become pregant for a third (unplanned & unwanted) time and we had an abortion. After that we found a family plannng clinic that would place an IUD at a reduced rate that we could afford.
To say that effective borth control doesn't prevent abortions is nonsensical.
- Mar 9, '12 by nurseguysfinishfirstMunoRN,That the Republicans had ANY input into the Affordable Care Act is just a complete lie.I am not sure if your memory is short or mine is long but it was not that long ago. It was a closed door meeting of Democrats that developed it and the Speaker actually made the statement "You will have to pass the bill to see what is in it." They passed the legislation along party lines so quickly that it was impossible for it to be read in the time between its inception and it being passed. Even the Democrats would not pass it until a boatload of shenanigans,promises and outright payoffs were put into play.The more I see of the act the more I can see why they had to do it that way.Nobody in their right mind would have passed this.(Explains a lot)
JDougRN,It is hard to even know where to start with you.
The lady with the grapefruit sized hole.Did she get healthcare?Could she have 2 years earlier?Then why do you think she would have shown up sooner if she would have "had health insurance"? Many people wait until they HAVE to go to the Dr. - with or without health insurance.
You ask"WHAT IS MEDICAID !" and I have to answer "A system that is so failed and expensive that there is no fix for it." If your answer is to turn the WHOLE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM into that,then I have to ask you what sense that makes.
On death panels,you run straight to the extreme. Is a 60 year old person too old for Dialysis? 55 ? 50 ? 44 ? and who exactly will decide ? A bureaucrat ? If someone has the money to pay for the procedure do they get to have it,or is that not an option for them? If a small group of people want to get together and pull their resources and decide for themselves by choice what it will and won't pay for among themselves,is that O.K. ?..........................we call that HEALTH INSURANCE ! You can CHOOSE it.
NOT a government bureaucrat ! I know that is just "Big Business" but I would bet that you do not do your job for free.Any investments for you ? 401K maybe ? Do you expect them to produce a profit for the hard earned money that you have put into them ? Do you think any of that is invested in healthcare or pharmaceuticals ?...............it probably is. That makes YOU the culprit !
"People are screaming about spending a Billion now-" I believe that the report just the other day estimated that the Affordable Care Act will cost One Hundred and Eleven BILLION dollars MORE than the PREVIOUS ESTIMATE ! ......and we have not even seen all of the details yet. It is money taken from your unborn grandchildren and great grandchildren.We borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend. DO THE MATH ! Where did you think that money came from ? Obama's "stash" ?
You ask for my solution ? STOP PAYING FOR EVERYBODY'S EVERYTHING AND GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF IT !
As soon as a 3rd party starts to pay for things,the price goes up because the people receiving the service have no stake in making it efficient.When I was a kid we had major medical for the big things and Mom paid the Dr. in cash AND paid for the Penicillin with CASH..........................AND IT WORKED ! If the Dr. would have jacked up the price,we would have found a new one (Free Market).
You can see how that 3rd party thing works (or should I say does not work) in lots of other places,not just in healthcare. Price of college,HUD housing,government contracts,and government generally.
You seem to trust the federal government a whole lot more than I do.I would like to know what you could possibly be basing that on.