Author Topic: AZ gone certifiably insane. it's official  (Read 2933 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10641
  • Darwins +266/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: AZ gone certifiably insane. it's official
« Reply #87 on: March 28, 2012, 03:08:43 AM »
First of all, there are dozens of forms of birth control.  Pills, mini-pills, depo prevera shots, nuvarings, iuds, diaphragms, sponges, condoms, sterilization, etc.  Each method has its pros and cons. 

Condoms have cons? I wasn't aware of this.[1]

I'll assume that you're including me in this.

Dunno if I am. I remember that some people in this thread overreacted (from my perspective) and I wanted to understand why.

@Everyone:
I'm not going to spend my time replying to every post, simply because you're all right. Thanks for the explanations.
 1. Not sarcasm.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6247
  • Darwins +787/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: AZ gone certifiably insane. it's official
« Reply #88 on: March 28, 2012, 04:30:03 PM »
I think this is one of the issues that women have to think about and talk about a lot, but men do not generally have to deal with in any detail. That is why they can ask simplistic things like "Why don't they just use condoms?" And we women get pissed off, because we have to deal with real world issues and situations that men are never even aware of.

Maybe she is with a man who refuses to use condoms, because he thinks it means he has a disease, or does not like the way they feel, or associates them with prostitution, or secretly wants her to get pregnant so he will feel like a man.

Or maybe she is already using condoms as well as bc pills because she really can't take a chance on getting pregnant, plus she wants the protection from STD's.

Or maybe she has several partners and uses condoms with some of them and not with others but still needs the bc pills for pregnancy.

Or maybe she has sex sometimes when drunk or high and can't remember to always use a barrier method.

Or (a real example I encountered) she has to hide the fact that she is using birth control from the man and keeps the pills under the floorboards of her house. Cannot hide the fact of using condoms or most other methods.

Or. Or. Or.

It is not anyone's business why she uses one form or another. The main thing is that she has all the options to choose from, no matter what her job is or what state she lives in. Life is already complicated enough without having random strangers all up in your cooter.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2629
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: AZ gone certifiably insane. it's official
« Reply #89 on: March 30, 2012, 04:26:14 PM »
I just wonder why none of the health plans I have seen cover condoms.

I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2280
  • Darwins +122/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: AZ gone certifiably insane. it's official
« Reply #90 on: March 30, 2012, 07:27:01 PM »
Condoms are available OTC (over-the-counter). Since a doctor's prescription is not required to obtain them, they are not covered by health plans.
John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1627
  • Darwins +175/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: AZ gone certifiably insane. it's official
« Reply #91 on: March 30, 2012, 09:11:37 PM »
jaybwell, you can't possibly have hung out around here long enough to make more than seventeen hundred posts and still be that dense - not unless it's willful.

Get these simple facts clear: condoms are significantly less reliable  than the birth control pill at preventing pregnancy. Thus, if your reason for using a form of birth control is to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, the more reliable option would be the preferred option, obviously. So your condom option is dismissed out of hand as "missing the point." (To clarify - the ideal solution is actually to use both, at the same time.)

But to repeat a point made earlier by another (I apologize for not remembering who said it first), condoms are, in fact, covered by medical insurance if you have a prescription for them. Not all insurance (coverage varies on all kinds of things, not just this one), and to be fair, it's been a long time since I've had any awareness of that issue, so I don't know what my current insurance would cover. I'm almost curious enough to call and find out.

Next, in order to get access to birth control in the form of "the pill", a completely legal medical product, one is required to have a prescription from a doctor. It's not available over the counter, thus, as with any other medical product prescribed by a doctor, it should be subject to the same co-pays, and any other pertinent obligations. If it were available without a prescription, then of course it should be paid for out of pocket. In reality, it isn't and that reality is being used to target women's rights and freedoms. Note that no other medical product is scrutinized for whether or not Christians, or any other religious types, are "okay with it." As it happens, I work in the medical device industry, and I'm very familiar with what the general public pays attention to regarding these things.

The reason for the prescription is completely irrelevant. Why aren't we having the same screeching legislative debates about Viagra? Using your logic, there is no medical reason for a pill that makes your weenie work. Your ego probably benefits, but not your actual health. Why is no one  insisting that if God wanted you to continue to have sex, you would still be able to get an erection without chemical intervention? I'm not being flippant when I say I don't see the difference, based on the arguments. Oh, and this also shuts down your "does nothing to promote womens health" BS too.

Why on earth should I go to a "free" public health clinic and have a vaginal exam performed by a doctor other than my gynecologist to obtain a prescription for a legal drug? Why should I go outside my normal medical care to gain access to it? What purpose does this serve, other than to impose a segment of the population's ideology on others, and make it damned inconvenient for women? And how is this a better option - are any of your insurance or tax dollars supporting this "free" care?

You can't be that dense.

If this ridiculous piece of trash actually passes, I predict a sharp upswing in prescriptions for the pill, but now being prescribed to treat acne. Did you know that clearing up acne is an unplanned for, unintended side effect of the pill? It also treats cramps. Are you aware that there are lots of women who actually have debilitating cramps during their period? And really, even if they aren't that bad, who wants back and stomach (more or less) cramps for a week every month? Would you? Even if the point is to prevent pregnancy, how is that anyone's business?  Doctor's won’t out up with that nonsense, they'll just prescribe for one of the extra benefits and figuratively flip the law off.

If nothing else, people should be outraged that THIS is what we're talking about at any level of government right now. What a waste of time, resources, and money. It won't serve the purpose it appears to support even if it manages to pass. And it will get overturned if it does.

It's a distraction - what else do they have to talk about? Americans love nothing more that to get judgmental about other people's sex lives.

Edited a spelling error.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2012, 09:15:00 PM by Jag »
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1627
  • Darwins +175/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: AZ gone certifiably insane. it's official
« Reply #92 on: March 30, 2012, 09:20:37 PM »
Clarifying: I don't mean to imply that jaybwell32 uses Viagra. The "you" I kept stating in that paragraph should have been "one", both for grammar and for clarity.

I do apologize if that offended. I try very hard to be clear and that was unintentional.
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3560
  • Darwins +110/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: AZ gone certifiably insane. it's official
« Reply #93 on: March 30, 2012, 09:29:14 PM »
Condoms are available OTC (over-the-counter). Since a doctor's prescription is not required to obtain them, they are not covered by health plans.

So is Advil, and you can get a prescription for that[1].  I suspect that you could probably get a prescription for it, if you needed a special type but that most doctors wouldn't bother otherwise.

If BC was available over the counter for women, and comparably priced I'm sure we'd see the same thing happen.
 1.  usually for large doses
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2280
  • Darwins +122/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: AZ gone certifiably insane. it's official
« Reply #94 on: March 30, 2012, 11:31:19 PM »
Condoms are available OTC (over-the-counter). Since a doctor's prescription is not required to obtain them, they are not covered by health plans.

So is Advil, and you can get a prescription for that.  I suspect that you could probably get a prescription for it, if you needed a special type but that most doctors wouldn't bother otherwise.

If BC was available over the counter for women, and comparably priced I'm sure we'd see the same thing happen.

I am not aware of any condoms that require a prescription, but maybe they should? Higher doses of ibuprofen and acetaminophen used to be available only by prescription until they were finally made available OTC. Tylenol II was a prescription drug until ... 1990? when it became "extra-strength" Tylenol.

There is a benefit to the pharmaceutical companies that birth control pills be available only by prescription -- they can charge more. While some birth control prescriptions can cost just $25-35/month, there are other ones that cost $100/month. My daughter had a prescription for a special "low-dose" variety of birth control pill that, not-so-coincidentally, is produced by only one manufacturer, a manufacturer that successfully sued another company that was producing a low-cost generic. Overnight, a $35/month prescription soared to $100/month. Did it really cost that manufacturer another $65/month once they became the only producer? Nope. Oh, by the way, my daughter wasn't on birth control pills because she was having sex -- she was on them to get better control of certain hormones.

Now, as a side issue, one reason that it might be beneficial to have birth control pills available only by prescription is that most women who obtain the pill usually have to get a GYN exam at the same time. Given the number of gynecological problems women can have, especially during their reproductive years, this particular consequence is good.

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Offline jynnan tonnix

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1733
  • Darwins +82/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: AZ gone certifiably insane. it's official
« Reply #95 on: March 31, 2012, 12:06:25 AM »
Late to this topic, but I've been reading it with interest. I guess I fall into the middle ground on all the arguments. As a woman, but a rather late bloomer who first had sex at the age of 25 with the man I would later marry, I suppose I'm more aligned with Christians in some ways on the strictly physical concerns. Even though I got pregnant while engaged but not yet married, we were not being overly diligent since having children right away was something we were looking forward to. Thus, for me, birth control was never really an issue. I'm sure I am out of touch with the dilemmas of a 16 year old in the throes of what she believes is the relationship to end all relationships, or the 35 year old who has multiple partners as a matter of course, but needs nothing less than a baby to complicate her life.

It does seem, though, that condoms are preferable in many ways to other methods. I took the pill for several months when  dating my husband-to-be, but found that the physical side effects (I just felt pregnant all the time, for all intents and purposes) were simply not worth it. Since my fiance was in the Navy, and gone for time periods of various lengths, it just made more sense to use condoms when needed rather than keep taking the pill for no reason (given that the side effects were annoying). We got married, had two more planned children, then proceeded to use condoms and the rhythm method until my husband had a vasectomy a couple of years after the last was born.

I'm not going to get all conservative and judgemental...I completely understand how all sorts of situations could align to make this sort of methodology impractical...and have no serious problem with effective & timely remedies, be they before or after conception. Granted I'm Mommy enough to cringe a bit at the thought of a potential baby being purpously disposed of, and completely understand the appeal of birth control methods which don't require constant monitoring of fertility and/or consistent application of barrier methods, but the fact is that these methods, in conjunction, are probably (admit I don't have statistics on this) close to as effective as any drug, and easy enough to apply.

Honestly...not looking to point fingers here, or try to tell people what to do, but for a woman not confronted with a rape situation or a with a man unwilling to take any responsibility, how difficult is it to monitor things, take precautions when necessry, or simply forego sex for a few days a month? Not to say I'm against their having options, but a little bit confused as to how "natural" methods seem so unthinkable to so many.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12211
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: AZ gone certifiably insane. it's official
« Reply #96 on: March 31, 2012, 12:11:57 AM »
Because some people don't want the same things that you do.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2280
  • Darwins +122/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: AZ gone certifiably insane. it's official
« Reply #97 on: March 31, 2012, 12:57:07 AM »
According to the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, the birth control pill has a higher effective rate over condoms because it has the fewest points of failure, but IUD/implants are better than BCP.


John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2629
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: AZ gone certifiably insane. it's official
« Reply #98 on: March 31, 2012, 01:23:27 AM »
jaybwell, you can't possibly have hung out around here long enough to make more than seventeen hundred posts and still be that dense - not unless it's willful.

Believe what you wish...but I assure you it's not willful. Welcome to the forums by the way.

Quote
Get these simple facts clear: condoms are significantly less reliable  than the birth control pill at preventing pregnancy. Thus, if your reason for using a form of birth control is to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, the more reliable option would be the preferred option, obviously.

Well, If reliability is the issue then why not the copper IUD? It's far more effective at preventing pregnancy than the pill and it has far fewer side effects.

Quote
But to repeat a point made earlier by another (I apologize for not remembering who said it first), condoms are, in fact, covered by medical insurance if you have a prescription for them.

No, they are not...I think you misread. However, female condoms are available over the counter AND covered by insurance AND available at your public health department.

Quote
I'm not being flippant when I say I don't see the difference, based on the arguments. Oh, and this also shuts down your "does nothing to promote womens health" BS too.

From the FDA

The Pill

Some Common Risks
Headache, nausea/vomiting, changes in your period/spotting or bleeding between periods, breast tenderness, changes in mood, weight gain.
 

Uncommon Risks
It is not common, but some women who take the pill develop high blood pressure. It is rare, but some women will have blood clots, heart attacks, or strokes.

The "mini pill"

Some Common Risks
Irregular periods.
Light spotting or bleeding between periods.
Weight gain.
Breast tenderness.
Less protection against ectopic pregnancy (pregnancy in the fallopian tubes)than the combination pill.


How are my concerns about the side effects in regards to women's health IF all they are using it for is birth control BS?

Quote
Why on earth should I go to a "free" public health clinic and have a vaginal exam performed by a doctor other than my gynecologist to obtain a prescription for a legal drug? Why should I go outside my normal medical care to gain access to it? What purpose does this serve,

This is actually the best argument I have read concerning the issue.

Quote
other than to impose a segment of the population's ideology on others, and make it damned inconvenient for women? And how is this a better option - are any of your insurance or tax dollars supporting this "free" care?

Until you went here. Do you think that the representatives crafting this bill's sole intention is to make it inconvenient for women to have access to birth control? And as far as the public health centers go, yes my tax dollars go towards that. But don't get me wrong...that does not bother me in the least and is not a point of concern or contention for me personally.

Quote
You can't be that dense.

I know it's hard to believe but here we are.

Quote
It's a distraction - what else do they have to talk about? Americans love nothing more that to get judgmental about other people's sex lives.

yup

Listen...all I want is free condoms.

I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3560
  • Darwins +110/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: AZ gone certifiably insane. it's official
« Reply #99 on: March 31, 2012, 03:09:31 AM »
Well, If reliability is the issue then why not the copper IUD? It's far more effective at preventing pregnancy than the pill and it has far fewer side effects.

I've often wondered that myself, for the same reason.
My speculation is that it's scary looking and not a lot of people understand how they work.



Now, as a side issue, one reason that it might be beneficial to have birth control pills available only by prescription is that most women who obtain the pill usually have to get a GYN exam at the same time. Given the number of gynecological problems women can have, especially during their reproductive years, this particular consequence is good.

Good point. As side effects go, it's a pretty good one.

Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2280
  • Darwins +122/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: AZ gone certifiably insane. it's official
« Reply #100 on: March 31, 2012, 06:47:05 AM »
Quote
But to repeat a point made earlier by another (I apologize for not remembering who said it first), condoms are, in fact, covered by medical insurance if you have a prescription for them.

No, they are not...I think you misread. However, female condoms are available over the counter AND covered by insurance AND available at your public health department.

I'm not aware of any plans that pay for the cost of female condoms due to the fact that they are available OTC. A plan that offers to pay for anything available OTC runs the risk of everything OTC becoming payable. Some health plans offer discounts on OTC goods and services, which may be confused with something actually being covered by the plan.


Well, If reliability is the issue then why not the copper IUD? It's far more effective at preventing pregnancy than the pill and it has far fewer side effects.

I've often wondered that myself, for the same reason.
My speculation is that it's scary looking and not a lot of people understand how they work.

The Dalkon Shield made the acronym of "IUD" a bad word for many women while it was on the market because it was "the IUD". The current batch of IUDs (which are progressively being called IUCs, instead) have suffered from the history of the Dalkon Shield, so a lot of women are not asking for them and will shy away when offered. However, the new products are quite good at what they do and, at worst, cause cramping and pain in some women. The problem with the IUDs/IUCs, the current ones, is that they cost more than the pill in the short term, they have to be inserted by a gynecologist (more expense) and if they cause women problems (pain, cramping), then these women have invested more than with the pill. The pill is easier and women don't have to revisit their doctors when they want to stop taking the pill, but women must pay again to have the IUD removed. Additionally, the only IUD that emits a hormone limits the effect to the uterus and not the ovaries, so women who need additional hormonal therapy for other problems will still need to use a BCP.



When it comes to birth control, women should get whatever method they prefer at zero cost.

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10641
  • Darwins +266/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: AZ gone certifiably insane. it's official
« Reply #101 on: March 31, 2012, 06:49:24 AM »
When it comes to birth control, women should get whatever method they prefer at zero cost.

But jaybwell32 raises a good point - why shouldn't men have the same benefit? If you're going to argue that making women pay for birth control methods is discrimination against women, then the same applies to men, right?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2280
  • Darwins +122/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: AZ gone certifiably insane. it's official
« Reply #102 on: March 31, 2012, 07:17:34 AM »
The focus here is on women. They have the babies. They are, without doubt, far more proactive about birth control than men because they have a capacity and burden that men don't.

However, if it warms your cockles to know that men can receive absolutely free birth control methods, then so be it. I have no problem with that. Beyond condoms (which are often available for free at county health clinics), about the only other form of birth control for men to accomplish is vasectomy, which historically had been covered by health plans, much as tubal ligations were for women. Some health plans eliminated coverage for these surgical procedures either to cut costs, satisfy religious nut jobs or as a consequence of other state legislation that interfered (yes that can and does happen).

Ergo, making this discussion equal for men is of relatively little consequence because men can't give birth. Since men often don't like to use condoms and often recoil at having their plumbing snipped, men have a vested interest in women easily receiving the birth control they desire because our society often expects men to pay for the smaller consequences that otherwise develop into larger consequences.

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10641
  • Darwins +266/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: AZ gone certifiably insane. it's official
« Reply #103 on: March 31, 2012, 07:27:08 AM »
The focus here is on women. They have the babies. They are, without doubt, far more proactive about birth control than men because they have a capacity and burden that men don't.
<snip>
Ergo, making this discussion equal for men is of relatively little consequence because men can't give birth.

If you're going to argue that women are being discriminated against because they don't get birth control for free, how will making men exclusively pay for it make things any better? In fact, how is it discrimination in the first place if both genders have to pay for it?

As for your "women get pregnant so women should have access to it for free" argument, that's still a bad argument. Not all men are irresponsible, just like not all women are responsible. Making something available for free for one specific gender is discrimination against the other.
Even if we were to ignore that, what about male homosexuals who want to have sex? Why don't they get condoms, which are the only worthwhile protection (that I know of) against STD's? Is that not discrimination?

In addition, I'd like to see your statistics for "men often don't like to use condoms", as well as the corollary "women often like to use birth control".
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10294
  • Darwins +177/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: AZ gone certifiably insane. it's official
« Reply #104 on: March 31, 2012, 08:44:48 AM »
Women pay for their insurance or their business pays for their insurance.  It is part of a package.  It is not free then.  The birth control truck is not going thru neighborhoods ringing the bell having women run out to get free birth control.

Besides, it does not matter now.  Supreme Court has seen to that.  Maybe we will eventually see sick people set themselves on fire in the middle of streets to end pain from lack of treatment.  You must remember...America is an exceptional country that takes care of its own.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2012, 08:47:14 AM by Nick »
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2280
  • Darwins +122/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: AZ gone certifiably insane. it's official
« Reply #105 on: March 31, 2012, 09:21:38 AM »
If you're going to argue that women are being discriminated against because they don't get birth control for free ...

I don't recall making such an argument, nor implying one. I have only recognized a biological fact and a social prominence.

... how will making men exclusively pay for it make things any better?

Men end up, with rare exception, paying for the end product of sexual encounters for many years. If I were to argue as you claim, it would be to reduce the financial burden of men. Even if the men didn't want the children, they must still pay for them. Birth control is much cheaper than children.


In fact, how is it discrimination in the first place if both genders have to pay for it?

First, I haven't said that there is discrimination. Second, if we are comparing the cost of condoms versus the birth control pill, condoms are far cheaper, no doubt. Vasectomies are quicker, easier and cheaper than tubal ligations, as well. Is the higher cost to women a form of discrimination? Yes. But discrimination has a negative connotation in colloquial speech. If the cost to provide a service is higher, shouldn't the price paid also be higher? If so, that is justifiable discrimination (notice how we must modify the word discrimination to obtain a different meaning due to its historically charged negative connotation?).


As for your "women get pregnant so women should have access to it for free" argument, that's still a bad argument. Not all men are irresponsible, just like not all women are responsible. Making something available for free for one specific gender is discrimination against the other.

This is not about whether men are irresponsible or whether women are responsible. We have an overriding biological fact to deal with: women have uteruses, men don't. That kind of discrimination starts at conception and there is nothing we can do about it. Unless and until men start growing uteruses, there will be a discrimination of one sort or another. Men and women both have breasts and nipples, but men don't have the volume and can proudly display theirs in public. Women have the volume and we require women to keep theirs covered up. Discrimination? Yes. Justifiable? No. Where's the outcry against that? We have successfully ingrained into women that they cannot show their breasts in public -- we even make laws about it. However, when it comes to her uterus, we are telling her that it is solely her problem because she was born with it? So, she can't show her chest in public or be arrested and she can't get assistance in birth control? If you want to talk about discrimination, that's one helluva way to do it. However, my only discussion here is to point out obvious biological differences and costs, and how we deal with them. If men in our society, by something like 95%, leave it up to women to engage in birth control, then why shouldn't we assist with the cost? It seems only fair.


Even if we were to ignore that, what about male homosexuals who want to have sex? Why don't they get condoms, which are the only worthwhile protection (that I know of) against STD's? Is that not discrimination?

Unless there are budget cuts in place, condoms are available to anyone at county health clinics across America. Typically you pay a small contribution, something like $5-10 (people on public assistance get waivers), agree to sit through a program about sex, sexual health, sexually transmitted infections (a more common term than STDs nowadays) and how to use various methods of birth control, then you get access to condoms for free or for nearly free, perhaps a token cost of $1 for 10. So, yeah, if gays want condoms, they can have them. Many of the AIDS activists groups will distribute condoms for free in addition to whatever the local health department offers.


In addition, I'd like to see your statistics for "men often don't like to use condoms", as well as the corollary "women often like to use birth control".

My statistics? I don't have particular statistics. Ask the ladies of the forum how often their men use condoms. Jynnan's already chimed in. Others?

Go into any typical standalone pharmacy in America: CVS, RiteAid, Walgreens, etc., and see the amount of shelf space dedicated to condoms. Then, go to the section where you find men's shaving products. Compare the shelf space of each. Either American men aren't getting much sex or there are a lot of metrosexuals demanding 1000 choices in shavers, blades, creams, powders, after-shaves, etc., and if they are that worried about their shaving products they either aren't getting sex or know that their women have already taken care of the contraception issue (and can focus instead on that sexy smooth face, which even in a time when facial hair is yet again stylish they still manage to buy a lot of shaving products).

Also, look at the site ARHP.org and examine all of the different types of birth control out there. How many are for men, and how many are for women? Women have lots of choices. Men? Men can have condoms.

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10641
  • Darwins +266/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: AZ gone certifiably insane. it's official
« Reply #106 on: March 31, 2012, 09:35:07 AM »
I don't recall making such an argument, nor implying one.
<snip>
First, I haven't said that there is discrimination.

My apologies. My problem is with those who claim that women not having access to birth control for free is discriminatory against women; therefore this discussion is pointless.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2629
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: AZ gone certifiably insane. it's official
« Reply #107 on: March 31, 2012, 09:38:54 AM »
I'm not aware of any plans that pay for the cost of female condoms due to the fact that they are available OTC.

You may be right about that, it's not a real important detail but I may be mistaken about it.

Quote
The problem with the IUDs/IUCs, the current ones, is that they cost more than the pill in the short term, they have to be inserted by a gynecologist (more expense) and if they cause women problems (pain, cramping), then these women have invested more than with the pill. The pill is easier and women don't have to revisit their doctors when they want to stop taking the pill, but women must pay again to have the IUD removed. Additionally, the only IUD that emits a hormone limits the effect to the uterus and not the ovaries, so women who need additional hormonal therapy for other problems will still need to use a BCP.

With the Copper IUD the procedure (if all goes well) is good for 12 years. What is the cost difference over the span of 12 years? And I am not going to just assume again but isn't this procedure covered under insurance?


We are starting to get into the territory of why I couldn't see the controversy. Has nothing to do with religion[1] or rights. What are the most effective, least expensive and safest forms of birth control available?

The best possible combinations would seem to be Copper IUD's used with Condoms. I am not suggesting that these be the only two options. All the options should be on the table. But why the push to protect the pill? I think you nailed it with the idea of convenience. Plus, there is the tendency for some peoples brains to shut down the instant anyone suggests any discussion about the pill, as if it is some sort of sacred cow.
 1. At least it shouldn't in my mind
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10641
  • Darwins +266/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: AZ gone certifiably insane. it's official
« Reply #108 on: March 31, 2012, 09:39:36 AM »
I feel I should point out that I do not disagree with the conclusion that women should have access to birth control for free. I just disagree with the premise that not doing so is discriminatory. I also disagree with the premise that not giving men the same benefit is not discriminatory.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6247
  • Darwins +787/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: AZ gone certifiably insane. it's official
« Reply #109 on: March 31, 2012, 09:58:51 AM »
Birth control with the fewest problems would be condoms plus diaphragms/sponge and being aware of fertile times of the month. No hormonal side effects or worry about STD's. You only use them when you need them, not having to have hormones or an IUD in all the time for the relatively few times you need them. In fact, that is what I did for most of my life until the hysterectomy.

However, for women who are with partners who do not want to have any part in the whole bc business, women who have to hide the fact that they are using birth control--fundies? Catholics? young teenagers?--, women who have sex when drunk or high, women who have other health problems that bc pills help with, women/men in stable relationships who are not worried about STD's-- why bother trying to use condoms? With bc pills there is no worry about one slip up, one instance of forgetting or one broken condom leading to pregnancy.

A lot of women in other countries commonly use IUD's and Norplant. They are very effective against pregnancy, although you still need the condoms for STD's.[1]US women are afraid of them and I don't blame them entirely. I am leery of having something in my body that may start to hurt or cause problems; then I have to go to the doctor and pay to have removed. With barrier methods and bc pills the women can just stop using them herself if she doesn't like them.

When I used bc pills, (from the health department since I was uninsured) I got a rare side effect of severe leg cramps, plus morning sickness. I called the health dept and they said stop using them. Blam.  I stopped using them immediately. No appt or payment needed. If it had been an IUD or norplant I would have had to go and sit for several hours (anyone used public health clinics?) or make an appt and wait several days or even weeks, and pay to have them removed.
 1. I think that women in Japan almost never use bc pills due to fears about the hormones, and exclusively use condoms. The bc truck does come by and delivers them to the home. But abortion is much more accepted there and women get no hassle about using it as the backup bc method. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2629
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: AZ gone certifiably insane. it's official
« Reply #110 on: March 31, 2012, 01:07:41 PM »
A plan that offers to pay for anything available OTC runs the risk of everything OTC becoming payable. Some health plans offer discounts on OTC goods and services, which may be confused with something actually being covered by the plan.

I just remembered. I was recently prescribed Clariton for allergies. So I am guessing that a doctor can prescribe just about anything. Are their no health insurance guru's in these forums?

Quote
When it comes to birth control, women should get whatever method they prefer

100% agree

Quote
at zero cost.

This represents the idea that bugs me most I guess.


Birth control with the fewest problems would be condoms plus diaphragms/sponge and being aware of fertile times of the month. No hormonal side effects or worry about STD's. You only use them when you need them, not having to have hormones or an IUD in all the time for the relatively few times you need them. In fact, that is what I did for most of my life until the hysterectomy.

Very sensible. The reason I am not opposed to having options is because there is no one universal fit for everyone. Some people are so horrified of surgery or having foreign bodies implanted in them that the IUD is right out the window for them. Some women are, sadly, like me. Forgetful. My wife is one of them. She received her prescription from the health department as well. She was 19 and had never had a pap or even been to see an OBGYN. The thought of letting someone exam her private parts was extremely uncomfortable for her. All I could do was reassure her. However, as it turns out...she regularly missed her doses. She wanted to wait until she finished college before having kids, which I supported. Had we known more about our options and personalities we probably would have gone with an IUD. The pill was her idea by the way... we discussed the idea of tracking her cycle and using extra extra caution during the fertile window. I think some of her friends convinced her to try the pill. When it comes to women's health issues she trusted women more than me...can't say I blame her  ;D

Quote
However, for women who are with partners who do not want to have any part in the whole bc business, women who have to hide the fact that they are using birth control--fundies? Catholics? young teenagers?--, women who have sex when drunk or high, women who have other health problems that bc pills help with, women/men in stable relationships who are not worried about STD's-- why bother trying to use condoms? With bc pills there is no worry about one slip up, one instance of forgetting or one broken condom leading to pregnancy.

In these examples you cover a wide spectrum of reasons women should have access to the pill. We have to run with several assumptions about the women and the men involved. There is still plenty of room for slip ups. My first child was conceived because my wife spaced for a whole week on the pills.[1] Neither of us were keeping track of her cycle and I didn't pull out fast enough. Nine months later...beautiful baby girl.

In the situations where women feel the need for secrecy...I feel for them, I really do. I wish it were easier for people to find like minded mates. I met a woman once who said something very profound to me. She was in her 50's looking for a man. She had been through so much hell in her life that she was about to just throw in the towel and give up. She said "I am not looking for a man to take care of me or lead the way. I don't want a man who just follows me. I just want someone to walk beside me."

It's a distracting line of thought tho because there was nothing in the proposed legislation which seeks to prevent women from obtaining the pill by other means. And as far as I recall, I don't think anyone in this discussion has supported the idea of axing the pill as an option. The whole debate is over who's going to pay for it. 

Quote
I am leery of having something in my body that may start to hurt or cause problems; then I have to go to the doctor and pay to have removed. With barrier methods and bc pills the women can just stop using them herself if she doesn't like them.


Do you just mean the co-pay to have it removed? Because it sounds like you are saying that the procedure isn't covered at all. Having to pay a co-pay is bad enough tho, I agree. I need to verify this but my sister in law had the norplant. I don't remember her talking about having to pay anything for it. Later, she developed complications from the implant and had to have it removed. Again, no mention of having to pay. I am pretty sure she was part of a class action against norplant. I'll have to talk to her later.

Quote
When I used bc pills, (from the health department since I was uninsured) I got a rare side effect of severe leg cramps, plus morning sickness. I called the health dept and they said stop using them. Blam.  I stopped using them immediately. No appt or payment needed. If it had been an IUD or norplant I would have had to go and sit for several hours (anyone used public health clinics?) or make an appt and wait several days or even weeks, and pay to have them removed.

This makes one wonder why it is still only available by prescription. Historocity provided a link to another story about a move to get BC Pills available over the counter. The argument against it is that people can't be trusted to choose the right product because of the effects it has on hormones. The argument for it was that doctors don't actually take any blood work or do anything special to pick the right pill for their patients. Try one, if it doesn't work for you stop taking it and try a different one.

Chronos brought up a good point about the price of BC Pills. If they were available over the counter I bet they would have to lower the price of their product if they wanted to stay in business.

There is more I want to touch on if the conversation isn't too far off track when I get back.
 1. We were on our honeymoon and she forgot to pack them
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10641
  • Darwins +266/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: AZ gone certifiably insane. it's official
« Reply #111 on: March 31, 2012, 01:12:11 PM »
Quote
at zero cost.

This represents the idea that bugs me most I guess.

Why?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: AZ gone certifiably insane. it's official
« Reply #112 on: March 31, 2012, 01:56:41 PM »

A plan that offers to pay for anything available OTC runs the risk of everything OTC becoming payable. Some health plans offer discounts on OTC goods and services, which may be confused with something actually being covered by the plan.

I just remembered. I was recently prescribed Clariton for allergies. So I am guessing that a doctor can prescribe just about anything. Are their no health insurance guru's in these forums?




I am by no means a health insurance guru, but I know a bit about the topic, and i kind of feel as if I already addressed this issue on the first page of this thread. 

My employer pays nearly $10K per year for my health insurance, and I would be OUTRAGED if birth control were not included as one of my benefits.

Does that include condoms?

My health insurance does not cover things items that can be purchased "over the counter" like aspirin or suntan lotion or vitamins, unless a doctor writes a prescription for it, in which case, the patient makes the appropriate co-payment.  I imagine that if a doctor wrote a prescription for condoms, the patient would pay the co-payment.  Not sure it would end up costing any less.
But for items that can only be purchased with a prescription, (such as birth control pills, which average about $60 per month out of pocket) or items that must be inserted by a doctor, (such as an IUD) my insurance covers it.  Patients make the appropriate co-payment.


And in terms of condoms, I said the following. 

Yes.  Condoms are the best for preventing STD’s and most specifically HIV.  But lots of people don’t like them.  Birth control methods that people don’t like are birth control methods that people sometimes forget or decide not to use, and then there is no birth control.  You may be as judgmental as you like about how people *should* always use a condom (or a diaphragm or a sponge or whatever barrier method they have selected as their primary form of birth control) but if they don’t use it, it doesn’t work. 


I feel like we are going around in circles here. 

Different options work for different women. 

It is not the government's business.  It is not the employer's business.  And it is a medical issue that should be covered by insurance!

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6247
  • Darwins +787/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: AZ gone certifiably insane. it's official
« Reply #113 on: March 31, 2012, 08:44:14 PM »
I know we are mainly dealing with what insurance should cover, but uninsured women need access to bc as well-- maybe even more!

That is when cost really matters-- money cost as well as time cost. Public clinics are cheaper but you pay in time. You have to wait in line forever sitting on a dirty plastic chair while more urgent cases like babies with asthma are (understandably) taken ahead of you. Birth control is never an urgent medical concern, so forget about getting it fast if you want it cheap. I am not putting down public clinics, because they provide a great service, but they are so underfunded that they are not nice places to get care.

In my ideal fantasy world you could just order over the internet and have condoms, pills, sponge, Plan B, or whatever delivered regularly to your home like netflix. Anything that does not require a doctor to actually put it in. And it would be sooooo nice if the right wing lie of women getting diaphragms, norplant and IUD's from a skilled professional at the local Walgreens was actually true.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2280
  • Darwins +122/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: AZ gone certifiably insane. it's official
« Reply #114 on: March 31, 2012, 09:24:09 PM »
With the Copper IUD the procedure (if all goes well) is good for 12 years. What is the cost difference over the span of 12 years? And I am not going to just assume again but isn't this procedure covered under insurance?

I wouldn't make such an assumption.

Historically, insurance policies pay for treatment of illnesses or injuries and normally exclude expenses for things that are considered "wellness". Since most insurance policies are held by employers, and since employers and/or insurance companies would try to reduce health care expenses, certain "wellness" expenses were added over time -- annual physicals, blood tests and surgical procedures for birth control -- vasectomies and tubal ligations. So, even 30-40 years ago we could see the value of first-dollar coverage of wellness care to prevent or reduce the costs of future illnesses (or pregnancies).

Also, historically, since there were few medications to take many insurance policies didn't include coverage for prescription drugs. They would cover drugs administered (injected) while hospitalized or at a doctor's visit, but not at a pharmacy. As the field of pharmacology grew, as did prescription drugs, insurance plans added the feature to pay for the cost of drugs, but again only for illnesses or injuries. Later, some plans offered to cover the cost of the birth control pill as it would for any prescription drug or the plans would offer it as a courtesy discount from a particular network of pharmacies, which makes people think the pill is covered when it's just a discount perk. The latter was far more common.

Now, confusing this whole issue is a state-by-state patchwork of laws that require various things from the health insurance plans that cover each state's citizens. Some laws would require that particular wellness services would be covered by plans in the same manner that the services are covered whenever an illness or injury is present. Additionally, some states required that birth control services be covered like other medical expenses if the plans covered normal pregnancy (which is not an illness or an injury). Worse, some states mandated coverage for in-vitro fertilization procedures if the plan covers normal pregnancy expenses.

So, given the legislated coverage increases, the insurance plans would have to charge more to cover the extra expenses they were paying as a result. These expenses were/are not born equally. A company with a largely older employee base would make little use of pregnancy-related services, so they would pay lower premiums to reflect the lower risk. A company with a largely younger employee base would routinely make use of such services and would have to pay higher premiums to reflect the higher likelihood of usage. As general medical costs began to rise, some plans stopped offering coverage for any wellness services by either (1) requiring large deductibles or (2) ceasing to offer coverage for normal pregnancy but allowing it to be added back for additional cost. If you can imagine some employers opting out of pregnancy coverage to reduce their premiums while other employers would opt to add it back were spreading the costs of pregnancy among fewer and fewer people. These are very valid insurance pricing principles to match premiums to risks, but they end up with poor results for covering the cost of general health care to the public. This is one among many reasons why insurance is not an appropriate solution for the subject of human health care.

Does this mean that health insurance won't pay for insertion of an IUD? No, it's possible, but I am more likely to assume that it isn't covered because it is (1) not the treatment of an illness or injury and (2) it is not a prescription drug. If you happen to live in a state that mandates coverage for the insertion of an IUD, then you may be lucky enough to have it covered. However, that mandate may be after your plan deductible or with a hefty co-pay. If IUDs are first-dollar coverage, then you are paying more premiums than people in other states (all else being equal).


We are starting to get into the territory of why I couldn't see the controversy. Has nothing to do with religion ...

Yes and no. Obviously, some employers have gotten byes for not having to provide coverage for certain goods or services that are inconsistent with their beliefs, primarily religious beliefs. The current screeching about the birth control pill, as an example, is a manufactured argument to attack a Democratic president who is trying to cover everyone, which makes him "socialist". Many existing religious organizations have offered various birth control methods as part of their employer health plans, all without any particular controversy. Most insurance companies have off-the-shelf plans where the employer can pick and choose some coverages (but not many) and then other state coverages must be added per regulations. This prevents the employer from eliminating objectionable coverage, though the recent attempts to let employers remove coverage is itself objectionable. Even Medicare pays for blood transfusions (after the first 3 pints), yet we don't have an outcry from the Jehovah's Witness that their tax dollars are being used to pay for objectionable services like we do for your typical right-winger who repeatedly protests where abortion dollars are sourced. Is it because they are JWs and not Catholics that we don't lend them credibility? Seems so.

The true controversy, therefore, is that this particular issue has revealed quite pointedly why health care should have no relationship to your personal employment. Health care should be universal, consistent and fair. If health care were universal, we wouldn't have the dozens of problems in which this item isn't covered, or that person must go without service or the members of one sex have to pay more than the other for their care. That which is deemed to be infringement of personal liberty is actually not -- relieving a person of having to guess where and how they will get medical care is quite liberating. Why should your employer or your employer's religious beliefs have anything at all to do with your medical care? It shouldn't.


What are the most effective, least expensive and safest forms of birth control available?

The best possible combinations would seem to be Copper IUD's used with Condoms. I am not suggesting that these be the only two options. All the options should be on the table. But why the push to protect the pill? I think you nailed it with the idea of convenience. Plus, there is the tendency for some peoples brains to shut down the instant anyone suggests any discussion about the pill, as if it is some sort of sacred cow.

The best form of birth control is whichever one works for you to prevent a pregnancy. Everyone is different and not everyone can or wants to use every method. Besides being very easy to start, the birth control pill became the most popular method because that was the form of contraception that most health plans would pay for and the least invasive. As with my own personal experience, the cost of birth control pills can vary widely for reasons that have nothing to do with the actual costs of manufacturing and distributing the pill.


« Last Edit: March 31, 2012, 09:32:40 PM by Chronos »
John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3560
  • Darwins +110/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: AZ gone certifiably insane. it's official
« Reply #115 on: March 31, 2012, 11:53:07 PM »
Does this mean that health insurance won't pay for insertion of an IUD? No, it's possible, but I am more likely to assume that it isn't covered because it is (1) not the treatment of an illness or injury and (2) it is not a prescription drug. If you happen to live in a state that mandates coverage for the insertion of an IUD, then you may be lucky enough to have it covered. However, that mandate may be after your plan deductible or with a hefty co-pay. If IUDs are first-dollar coverage, then you are paying more premiums than people in other states (all else being equal).

Hmm. I was under the impression that insurance plans, and indeed 'general medicine' had to cover the full spectrum of reproductive services.
I could be wrong, I'll have to look it up.


With the Copper IUD the procedure (if all goes well) is good for 12 years. What is the cost difference over the span of 12 years? And I am not going to just assume again but isn't this procedure covered under insurance?

Currently it should be (see above), but not if the Arizona law takes effect, contraceptives are treated as morally/religiously objectionable under the text of the law.  Employers would be allowed to decide they don't have to let it be covered.

There are so many problems with that law that it isn't even funny, it's scary.  It's basically writing SPAG into law.



*edit* inserting Chronos' into this as it's relevant.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2012, 12:02:00 AM by MadBunny »
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.