Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump Administration’s Birth-Control Rule

blackribbon · Dec 17, 2017

szechuan said:
No it completely makes sense. Insurance should cover everything including the Medicinal use of Birth Control. Birth Control is preventative medicine.

I think we should be able to pick the the things we want covered and the price of the insurance should reflect that. Diet and exercise are also preventative medical interventions but nobody expect medical insurance to cover their health club fees or their grocery bill. I think as a menopausal woman that I shouldn't have to pay for an insurance plan that covers birth control or pregnancy (I did pay for my own birth control for years and was responsible enough to make sure I didn't get pregnant when it was not a good time to get pregnant).

blackribbon · Dec 17, 2017

szechuan said:
Don't have sex. Practice Abstinence like Rick Perry and teach that in Texas schools like he did because it works so well.

The the Republicans seem to want you to make it harder to practice SAFE SEX like usual.

Safe sex is NOT birth control pills, IUD, or injections. It is CONDOMS and I don't know a single plan that covers condoms. It isn't pregnancy protection but rather it is designed to prevent the spread of communicative diseases.

blackribbon · Dec 17, 2017

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:
I don't want to get pregnant and my insurance should cover that nightmare. I don't give a dam about whether or not a pregnant women can or can not control their pregnancy. That's their business. I have to pay into insurance, which includes the high price of pregnancy. Why shouldn't I get BC?

Why should someone else pay for your birth control? The doctor appointment to determine that you are healthy and a candidate for prescription versions of birth control if that is what you prefer should be covered, but not the necessarily medical birth control. Pregnancy is NOT a nightmare but rather a gift from God. Considering there are only about 4 days a month that a woman is actually fertile, I don't think it is as big of a deal as you seem to make it out to be. You should be allowed to buy a plan that covers it...but I should also be allowed to buy a plan that doesn't.

blackribbon · Dec 17, 2017

szechuan said:
Women aren't too stupid, it's called ACCESSIBILITY and AFFORDABILITY. Some things Republicans don't like when it comes to healthcare.

People afford cell phones. All birth control is cheaper than most cell phone plans. It is called priorities. And birth control pills in a generic form are available to stores like Walmart for under $10/month. I consider that "affordable" and since most areas have a Walmart, that makes them "accessible". Same goes for condoms.

blackribbon · Dec 17, 2017

Vitamins are preventative. They are not covered by insurance. A million over-the-counter medications that actually treat illnesses are not covered by insurance. If birth control is covered, do you believe that female products like pads or tampons should be covered? These are necessary for quality of life. Heck, flouride toothpaste is more significant for health and it isn't covered. What determines what should be provided for with insurance and from what I understand, currently birth control was mandated to be provided without a co-pay...so free for the consumer. Why shouldn't the person using it be required to at least pay for part of it?

Again, I am not against insurance covering birth control but I do not think it should be mandated that all plans cover it and the consumer should be able to shop for the plan they want and can afford to pay for.

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN · Dec 17, 2017

blackribbon said:
Why should someone else pay for your birth control? The doctor appointment to determine that you are healthy and a candidate for prescription versions of birth control if that is what you prefer should be covered, but not the necessarily medical birth control. Pregnancy is NOT a nightmare but rather a gift from God. Considering there are only about 4 days a month that a woman is actually fertile, I don't think it is as big of a deal as you seem to make it out to be. You should be allowed to buy a plan that covers it...but I should also be allowed to buy a plan that doesn't.

Why should I put money into health insurance to pay for everyone else's crap. And not get BC. It's my buisness not your. And yes children, that are not wanted are nightmares. Some one trying to be responsible and get BC., But it gets blocked. Because people cant mind their own business. Why should we have to deal with this crap. Yes it's a big deal, when people are trying to be responsible. And business pretending to care about baby, tries their best to block this.

blackribbon · Dec 17, 2017

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:
Why should I put money into health insurance to pay for everyone else's crap. And not get BC. It's my buisness not your. And yes children, that are not wanted are nightmares. Some one trying to be responsible and get BC., But it gets blocked. Because people cant mind their own business. Why should we have to deal with this crap. Yes it's a big deal, when people are trying to be responsible. And business pretending to care about baby, tries their best to block this.

Can you not afford $10/month to buy it for yourself? or use condoms.

Either you want government in your reproductive decisions (mandating birth control be covered) or you want to keep your reproductive decisions private and make them yourself (and you pay for it). You can't say ... "pay for it but mind your own business".

If the government is involved, then it isn't that huge of a step before they pick and chose how many babies a person can have or mandates mandatory birth control even if the woman wants a baby. And they will have that right since they are paying for it.

jayem · Dec 17, 2017

blackribbon said:
Why should someone else pay for your birth control?

She is paying for it with her premium. And she's also paying for everyone else who has the same coverage. She's paying for the treatment of prostate problems in older guys. And for their Viagra, or Cialis, or whatever ED medications are on the formulary.

Don't you understand what insurance is? It's cost-sharing. Every covered individual pays for him/herself, and partly for everyone else. It's a collective enterprise by its very nature. It cannot be a Chinese menu, where you pick specific coverages you want from columns A, and B, and so on. That would be impossibly complicated to administer, and prohibitively expensive. Especially for people with complex medical conditions who need comprehensive health insurance the most. You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is. And it's not gonna change.

blackribbon · Dec 17, 2017

jayem said:
She is paying for it with her premium. And she's also paying for everyone else who has the same coverage. She's paying for the treatment of prostate problems in older guys. And for their Viagra, or Cialis, or whatever ED medications are on the formulary.

Don't you understand what insurance is? It's cost-sharing. Every covered individual pays for him/herself, and partly for everyone else. It's a collective enterprise by its very nature. It cannot be a Chinese menu, where you pick specific coverages you want from columns A, and B, and so on. That would be impossibly complicated to administer, and prohibitively expensive. Especially for people with complex medical conditions who need comprehensive health insurance the most. You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is. And it's not gonna change.

Actually, we used to be able to pick and chose. A person could pick catastrophe coverage which only covered major issues but not day to day stuff...and it was very cheap. Or a person could buy a plan that didn't cover pregnancy. Or a person could buy a plan that covered everything.

And yes, these plans that cover everything mean that the middle class can't afford insurance anymore. I don't know where I'd get an extra $1200 a month to pay for insurance for my family and then still be responsible for a couple thousand dollars worth of co-pays before the insurance would pay. I am lucky that my company subsidizes insurance or else I would be without medical insurance.

Insurance is not supposed to be "cost-sharing" though Obama care was set up to be that way. Turns out not to work because company after company is leaving the government market because the cost is more than the money being paid in.

jayem · Dec 18, 2017

blackribbon said:
Actually, we used to be able to pick and chose. A person could pick catastrophe coverage which only covered major issues but not day to day stuff...and it was very cheap. Or a person could buy a plan that didn't cover pregnancy. Or a person could buy a plan that covered everything.

Until I retired, I always had job-based group health coverage. I never remember being able to pick and chose specific benefits. The only choices I had were how much co-payment and how much of an annual deductible I wanted. And for a somewhat lower premium I could enroll in an HMO. In which case I have to accept a much more limited choice of providers.

Insurance is not supposed to be "cost-sharing" though Obama care was set up to be that way. Turns out not to work because company after company is leaving the government market because the cost is more than the money being paid in.

Then let's call it risk sharing. Health insurance has always been about having enough healthy people paying for coverage they won't use. That's what keeps premiums affordable for high utilizers. The healthy have always subsidized the sick. At least in the group market. And back in the bad old days, if you weren't eligible for group coverage, you might not be able to buy health insurance at any price. Because in most states, if you already had medical problems, insurers could declare you uninsurable. Or price your coverage exorbitantly. It was a despicable practice, and terminating it was one of the very good reforms of ACA.

The biggest reason premiums on the exchanges are rising (in some, but not all states) is the insurance companies' own miscalculation. They priced insurance plans too low to begin with. They wanted to sell policies, and they either didn't use good actuarial data to set premiums, or they ignored it. They didn't plan for how many sick people would sign up for coverage. So now they have to make up for a couple years of losses. It's not the fault of ACA. It's their own.

I worked in health care for 40+ years. More and more, I realize that private, for-profit health insurance companies cannot provide comprehensive health coverage affordably. The technologically advanced medical care Americans expect is just too expensive. For-profit health insurance is like DDT manufacturing. It's an obsolete industry that does more harm than good.

cow451 · Dec 18, 2017

blackribbon said:
Why should someone else pay for your birth control? The doctor appointment to determine that you are healthy and a candidate for prescription versions of birth control if that is what you prefer should be covered, but not the necessarily medical birth control. Pregnancy is NOT a nightmare but rather a gift from God. Considering there are only about 4 days a month that a woman is actually fertile, I don't think it is as big of a deal as you seem to make it out to be. You should be allowed to buy a plan that covers it...but I should also be allowed to buy a plan that doesn't.

Let’s say you are blessed by irregular ovulation and an unexpected pregnancy with some not uncommon complication..... how do you plan to pay for the $50,000 + birth? Uncommon complications run well into six figures.

The biggest most complicated and expensive medical care are for things nobody plans to have happen.

blackribbon · Dec 18, 2017

jayem said:
Until I retired, I always had job-based group health coverage. I never remember being able to pick and chose specific benefits. The only choices I had were how much co-payment and how much of an annual deductible I wanted. And for a somewhat lower premium I could enroll in an HMO. In which case I have to accept a much more limited choice of providers.

Then let's call it risk sharing. Health insurance has always been about having enough healthy people paying for coverage they won't use. That's what keeps premiums affordable for high utilizers. The healthy have always subsidized the sick. At least in the group market. And back in the bad old days, if you weren't eligible for group coverage, you might not be able to buy health insurance at any price. Because in most states, if you already had medical problems, insurers could declare you uninsurable. Or price your coverage exorbitantly. It was a despicable practice, and terminating it was one of the very good reforms of ACA.

The biggest reason premiums on the exchanges are rising (in some, but not all states) is the insurance companies' own miscalculation. They priced insurance plans too low to begin with. They wanted to sell policies, and they either didn't use good actuarial data to set premiums, or they ignored it. They didn't plan for how many sick people would sign up for coverage. So now they have to make up for a couple years of losses. It's not the fault of ACA. It's their own.

I worked in health care for 40+ years. More and more, I realize that private, for-profit health insurance companies cannot provide comprehensive health coverage affordably. The technologically advanced medical care Americans expect is just too expensive. For-profit health insurance is like DDT manufacturing. It's an obsolete industry that does more harm than good.

They miscalculated based on false info from Obamacare...like how many young health people would just pay the fine because they couldn't afford insurance...and how many very sick people would suddenly jump into the pool without having paid anything in. Also, the programs were subsidized by the government so people didn't really see the "real" cost of their insurance plans and each year a little less is subsidized.

The problem with going to single payer is that there is a limited amount of money available and that has to cover everyone. What will happen is that care will become rationed instead of everyone getting the latest greatest treatments. Rationing can be refusing treatment to people or limiting how many people can get a treatment each month and therefore making long waits for care...and then the critical patients just die before they get to the point where they can actually get care that might have saved them.

I have been discussing hysterectomy and menopause care with some ladies in England and Canada...and the lack of care they are getting sort of horrifies me. It takes forever to get seen...and then they are poo-poo'd and send home without things that are standard care here. When my husband was fighting cancer, I was online with a woman who had the same strange type of cancer. In the time he had 3 surgeries and a 4 months of chemo, she was required to wait for the scan that would help diagnose her cancer. However, since this was a very aggressive cancer, chances are that she was dead before she got this simple PET scan...and if not, she was beyond treatment. My husband was in surgery within 10 days of finding out he had this aggressive strain....and 4 of those days were waiting to get in with the right specialist.

I also work in healthcare and the idea of single payer care scares me to death. Research will go away because there is no profit in it (profit is needed to pay for the studies and the treatments that don't work). I also think they will overwork the people in the hospitals until all the quality people leave for other professions. I know how much my unit has changed since Obamacare has kicked in and decisions are made based on the budget and not what is best for the patient or the staff.

We already have a model of government run single payer medical system...The VA Hospital System. I don't know how that idea excites anyone? (My husband and brother both had care by the VA...good medicine but no luxuries at all and you go home the minute the matrix says you qualify. Never mind how you feel.

Don't believe me? This is a problem in Canada right now. This young girl was approved for a treatment that was likely to put her leukemia in remission if not cure her. However, the hospital only budgeted for 5 beds a month to receive this treatment. There were 30 people in front of her and she died waiting. (Note, she wasn't waiting for an organ to become available but rather a BED in the hospital...an appointment for the procedure, in otherwords.) Rationed healthcare at its finest.
Plea from dying teen: Please help | Toronto Star

blackribbon · Dec 18, 2017

cow451 said:
Let’s say you are blessed by irregular ovulation and an unexpected pregnancy with some not uncommon complication..... how do you plan to pay for the $50,000 + birth? Uncommon complications run well into six figures.

The biggest most complicated and expensive medical care are for things nobody plans to have happen.

Pay for the birth control shot @ $60 for 3 months coverage. Or pay for birth control pills @ $10 a month. The question isn't really about birth control versus pregnancy but WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT. If you have wifi service, a cell phone, and/or cable tv, then you can afford to prevent pregnancy. Cut out some luxury in your life. If you really can't afford it, there are government clinics that will provide it at reduced cost. And since most birth control methods don't protect from STDs so a condom probably should still be the first method chosen.

Not getting pregnant really isn't rocket science nor does it come with a space program price tag.

cow451 · Dec 18, 2017

blackribbon said:
They miscalculated based on false info from Obamacare...like how many young health people would just pay the fine because they couldn't afford insurance...and how many very sick people would suddenly jump into the pool without having paid anything in. Also, the programs were subsidized by the government so people didn't really see the "real" cost of their insurance plans and each year a little less is subsidized.

The problem with going to single payer is that there is a limited amount of money available and that has to cover everyone. What will happen is that care will become rationed instead of everyone getting the latest greatest treatments. Rationing can be refusing treatment to people or limiting how many people can get a treatment each month and therefore making long waits for care...and then the critical patients just die before they get to the point where they can actually get care that might have saved them.

I have been discussing hysterectomy and menopause care with some ladies in England and Canada...and the lack of care they are getting sort of horrifies me. It takes forever to get seen...and then they are poo-poo'd and send home without things that are standard care here. When my husband was fighting cancer, I was online with a woman who had the same strange type of cancer. In the time he had 3 surgeries and a 4 months of chemo, she was required to wait for the scan that would help diagnose her cancer. However, since this was a very aggressive cancer, chances are that she was dead before she got this simple PET scan...and if not, she was beyond treatment. My husband was in surgery within 10 days of finding out he had this aggressive strain....and 4 of those days were waiting to get in with the right specialist.

I also work in healthcare and the idea of single payer care scares me to death. Research will go away because there is no profit in it (profit is needed to pay for the studies and the treatments that don't work). I also think they will overwork the people in the hospitals until all the quality people leave for other professions. I know how much my unit has changed since Obamacare has kicked in and decisions are made based on the budget and not what is best for the patient or the staff.

We already have a model of government run single payer medical system...The VA Hospital System. I don't know how that idea excites anyone? (My husband and brother both had care by the VA...good medicine but no luxuries at all and you go home the minute the matrix says you qualify. Never mind how you feel.

Don't believe me? This is a problem in Canada right now. This young girl was approved for a treatment that was likely to put her leukemia in remission if not cure her. However, the hospital only budgeted for 5 beds a month to receive this treatment. There were 30 people in front of her and she died waiting. (Note, she wasn't waiting for an organ to become available but rather a BED in the hospital...an appointment for the procedure, in otherwords.) Rationed healthcare at its finest.
Plea from dying teen: Please help | Toronto Star

My preference is Universal coverage rather than single payer (lots of people incorrectly use the terms interchangeably). Universal coverage, which Trump openly supported early in his campaign, simply means a guaranteed coverage with a default option for those not accessing employer based care or other already available plan.

Unfortunately Americans want a free ride and politicians promise it.

cow451 · Dec 18, 2017

blackribbon said:
Pay for the birth control shot @ $60 for 3 months coverage. Or pay for birth control pills @ $10 a month. The question isn't really about birth control versus pregnancy but WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT. If you have wifi service, a cell phone, and/or cable tv, then you can afford to prevent pregnancy. Cut out some luxury in your life. If you really can't afford it, there are government clinics that will provide it at reduced cost. And since most birth control methods don't protect from STDs so a condom probably should still be the first method chosen.

Not getting pregnant really isn't rocket science nor does it come with a space program price tag.

Please explain that to Bristol Palin.

There is no 100% effective birth control for sexually active people. And, unlike you, a significant number of people (even married conservatives) make at least one bad relationship choice. Adam and Eve, for example.

Insurance of all kinds is about probabilities.

blackribbon · Dec 18, 2017

cow451 said:
Please explain that to Bristol Palin.

There is no 100% effective birth control for sexually active people. And, unlike you, a significant number of people (even married conservatives) make at least one bad relationship choice. Adam and Eve, for example.

Insurance of all kinds is about probabilities.

I don't disagree that there isn't a 100% effective birth control for sexually active people....especially if you don't use them correctly. Who pays for it doesn't change it's effectiveness though so I don't understand your point. (and really don't get how this has anything to do with bad relationships).

My point is that birth control is affordable in the US....and I think that birth control is a individual's responsibility like buying pads and tampons.....or diapers if you opt not to buy it.

szechuan · Dec 18, 2017

blackribbon said:
My point is that birth control is affordable in the US....and I think that birth control is a individual's responsibility like buying pads and tampons.....or diapers if you opt not to buy it.

I disagree, this is about making babies. It's about safe sex, and unwanted Pregnancy is not good especially if you don't have the funds and or tight on money as well as many other issues.

blackribbon · Dec 18, 2017

szechuan said:
I disagree, this is about making babies. It's about safe sex, and unwanted Pregnancy is not good especially if you don't have the funds and or tight on money as well as many other issues.

No, Trump did not make any decision on pregnancy or safe sex or even access to birth control...just who is going to be forced to pay for birth control.

How is birth control payment related to safe sex? And prior to 2012, everyone had to find a way to buy their own birth control without the world falling apart. My insurance subsidized my pills but I had to pay my share. We paid for the condoms, even when they were for protecting me from getting a dose of my husband's chemo and not really preventing pregnancy. I think that was a real medical issue. And one we paid out of pocket for. Insurance does not pay for everything medical. It can't.

szechuan · Dec 18, 2017

blackribbon said:
No, Trump did not make any decision on pregnancy or safe sex or even access to birth control...just who is going to be forced to pay for birth control.

Tax Payers. Who? The Church doesn't even pay taxes.

blackribbon said:
How is birth control payment related to safe sex? And prior to 2012, everyone had to find a way to buy their own birth control without the world falling apart. My insurance subsidized my pills but I had to pay my share. We paid for the condoms, even when they were for protecting me from getting a dose of my husband's chemo and not really preventing pregnancy. I think that was a real medical issue. And one we paid out of pocket for. Insurance does not pay for everything medical. It can't.

When it comes to Birth Control yes, Birth Control is not everything nor is it crossing any lines as it is for SAFETY.

Birth Control is related to SAFE SEX. Safe Sex is not only about AIDS and HIV.

blackribbon · Dec 18, 2017

szechuan said:
Tax Payers. Who? The Church doesn't even pay taxes.

When it comes to Birth Control yes, Birth Control is not everything nor is it crossing any lines as it is for SAFETY.

Birth Control is related to SAFE SEX. Safe Sex is not only about AIDS and HIV.

Safe sex IS about preventing STDs...and only about preventing STDS. It isn't about pregnancy. Pregnancy is a temporary and a curable condition and isn't communicable.

Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump Administration’s Birth-Control Rule

Not a newbie

Not a newbie

Not a newbie

Not a newbie

Not a newbie

My dad died 1/12/2023. I'm still devastated.

Not a newbie

Naturalist

Not a newbie

Naturalist

Standing with Ukraine.

Not a newbie

Not a newbie

Standing with Ukraine.

Standing with Ukraine.

Not a newbie

Newbie

Not a newbie

Newbie

Not a newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency