Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump Administration’s Birth-Control Rule

[szechuan]

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.

Pregnancy Costs a lot of Money Kids cost a lot of money.

 

[cow451]

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.

I said what I meant to say. Good work.

 

[jayem]

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

The VA is irrelevant. We've had a different model of single payer health insurance in this country for over 50 years. Which is extremely well-liked (you might even say cherished) by its beneficiaries. Technically, It's a hybrid single payer sytem that combines private insurance with tax-funded coverage. It's called Medicare. Participation is mandatory--everyone who works (legally, at least) and all employers must pay into the system. Along with SS, it is the most popular government program ever enacted. (And if you don't think so, try running for office on a platform of eliminating Medicare. See how far you get.) This is the template that should be used for all health coverage in this country.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

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.

I want my job not to purposely take BC out of my insurance. Since its none of their business. I pay for insurance.I should have BC if I want to use it. Just like people use insurance when they have babies. Or when they go to the hospital over a migraine. Which cost way more then preventing pregnancy.

 

[DaisyDay]

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.

Safe sex is also about pregnancy - especially in the US. We have a very high rate of maternal deaths compared to other developed countries - especially for minority women, even across class lines.

Among our key findings:

• More American women are dying of pregnancy-related complications than any other developed country. Only in the U.S. has the rate of women who die been rising.
  
• There's a hodgepodge of hospital protocols for dealing with potentially fatal complications, allowing for treatable complications to become lethal.
  
• Hospitals -- including those with intensive care units for newborns -- can be woefully unprepared for a maternal emergency.
  
• Federal and state funding show only 6 percent of block grants for "maternal and child health" actually go to the health of mothers.
  
• In the U.S, some doctors entering the growing specialty of maternal-fetal medicine were able to complete that training without ever spending time in a labor-delivery unit.

U.S. Has The Worst Rate Of Maternal Deaths In The Developed World

 

[DaisyDay]

The VA is irrelevant. We've had a different model of single payer health insurance in this country for over 50 years. Which is extremely well-liked (you might even say cherished) by its beneficiaries. Technically, It's a hybrid single payer sytem that combines private insurance with tax-funded coverage. It's called Medicare. Participation is mandatory--everyone who works (legally, at least) and all employers must pay into the system. Along with SS, it is the most popular government program ever enacted. (And if you don't think so, try running for office on a platform of eliminating Medicare. See how far you get.) This is the template that should be used for all health coverage in this country.

Oh well, wait for the budget talks next year. Ryan will be gunning for Medicare; after all, we have to pay for the tax cuts somehow.

 

[jayem]

Oh well, wait for the budget talks next year. Ryan will be gunning for Medicare; after all, we have to pay for the tax cuts somehow.

Yep. He could invoke the PAYGO law. Which requires mandatory spending cuts if Congress passes any bill that increases the deficit without off-setting revenue increases. SS and Medicaid are exempt from Paygo. Medicare is not. But by law, Medicare spending cannot be cut more than 4% in a year. Though that is still is over $20B. And the cuts won't be in the benefit structure, but in reimbursements to providers--which will probably be hospitals for the most part. Although, Congress can waive Paygo. And Donald Trump said during the campaign that he would not touch Medicare. Also, 2018 is an election year, and I'm doubtful that Senate Republicans will want to provoke the ire of Medicare beneficiaries. But who knows? We live in interesting times.

 

[szechuan]

nvm

 

[blackribbon]

Safe sex is also about pregnancy - especially in the US. We have a very high rate of maternal deaths compared to other developed countries - especially for minority women, even across class lines.

You wanting to change the definition doesn't make it so.

safe sex /ˌsāf ˈseks/
noun'
sexual activity in which people take precautions to protect themselves against sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS

and your graph doesn't tell where it from or even what it is measuring ... it is useless ...

 

[blackribbon]

Safe sex is also about pregnancy - especially in the US. We have a very high rate of maternal deaths compared to other developed countries - especially for minority women, even across class lines.

I found the article. It doesn't make sense to me. "boom" the first mother dies...no explanation of what she died of. This is actually one of the types of nursing I do...postpartum maternal care. We monitor the mothers just as closely as we monitor the babies. I am trained to recognize pre-eclampsia and post partum hemorrhage and would have a doctor in my patients room within 5 minutes of calling an emergency situation. A known pre-eclampsic patient gets very close monitoring...more so than their new babies unless the babies are in the NICU (and it still is probably more than many of the NICU babies). There are no references in this article so I believe it is more a scare tactic than news. In three years, I am not aware of a single mother that has died in our hospital and very few NICU babies, even among the micropreemies. We have had a few very sick new mothers and they get transferred to ICU for appropriate care....and get transferred back to our units before they go home to learn how to take care of their babies.

This might be more of an issue in smaller hospitals but they wouldn't have NICU units for babies in distress either. I haven't seen that pre-eclampsia effects any one race more than another....and post partum hemorrhaging isn't racial either.

And since all the pre-eclampsic mothers I have cared for had intentional and wanted pregnancies... birth control wouldn't have prevented the condition. I am sort of wondering what this has to do with Trump saying that organizations that do not believe that birth control is moral, not being required to pay for insurances to cover it. To have a maternal health condition...um, you sort of have to have made it to the pregnant status.

 

[szechuan]

You wanting to change the definition doesn't make it so.

safe sex /ˌsāf ˈseks/
noun'
sexual activity in which people take precautions to protect themselves against sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS

and your graph doesn't tell where it from or even what it is measuring ... it is useless ...

Safe sex - Wikipedia
"Although safe sex is used by individuals to refer to protection against both pregnancy and HIV/AIDS or other STI transmissions, the term was born in response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic."

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't understand why so many conservative Christians are against contraceptive coverage. Most conservative Protestants do not regard contraception as sinful.

 

[szechuan]

I don't understand why so many conservative Christians are against contraceptive coverage. Most conservative Protestants do not regard contraception as sinful.

Because talking to kids about Sex is too hard for Republicans.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Because talking to kids about Sex is too hard for Republicans.

Dealing with children in general is avoided... until a school full of them gets shot up... then it's all "thoughts and prayers."

 

[DaisyDay]

I found the article.

Well, duh - the link is included in the quote. How hard was that to find?

and your graph doesn't tell where it from or even what it is measuring ... it is useless ...

Maternal Deaths per 100,000 live births by Country over 25 years ending in 2015.

I haven't seen that pre-eclampsia effects any one race more than another....and post partum hemorrhaging isn't racial either.

Yet minority women die in greater numbers in the USA during the maternal period.

It doesn't make sense to me. "boom" the first mother dies...no explanation of what she died of.

It's in the article, just above the mysterious graph:

In the U.S., on the other hand, preeclampsia still accounts for about 8 percent of maternal deaths— 50 to 70 women a year. Including Lauren Bloomstein.
​

And since all the pre-eclampsic mothers I have cared for had intentional and wanted pregnancies... birth control wouldn't have prevented the condition.

That's nice for them - but unintentional and unwanted pregnancies are still dangerous and birth control will prevent most of them.

 

[blackribbon]

Well, duh - the link is included in the quote. How hard was that to find?

Maternal Deaths per 100,000 live births by Country over 25 years ending in 2015.

Yet minority women die in greater numbers in the USA during the maternal period.

It's in the article, just above the mysterious graph:

In the U.S., on the other hand, preeclampsia still accounts for about 8 percent of maternal deaths— 50 to 70 women a year. Including Lauren Bloomstein.
​

That's nice for them - but unintentional and unwanted pregnancies are still dangerous and birth control will prevent most of them.

Again...how is this related to the OP?

The reason the US has a higher maternal death rate is related to a greater of older women getting pregnant, more co-morbid conditions that aren't under control at conception, more obese women getting pregnant, less compliancy with recommended self-care by pregnant woman, etc...

And although I wish that no woman ever died of a pregnancy related condition, .025% is not a huge number of women dying, especially when you consider the number of high risk pregnancies that are in the US pool of pregnant women.

Your argument almost seems to say that minority women are not intelligent enough to prevent pregnancy if we don't force their employers to pay for their birth control....or that maybe we should control the number of minority women who are allowed to get pregnant and have minority children.... (safe sex? no, pregnancy prevention is not about safe sex...it is about limiting births and if you are focused on minority women, this means limiting births in the minority population...)

 

[blackribbon]

The VA is irrelevant. We've had a different model of single payer health insurance in this country for over 50 years. Which is extremely well-liked (you might even say cherished) by its beneficiaries. Technically, It's a hybrid single payer sytem that combines private insurance with tax-funded coverage. It's called Medicare. Participation is mandatory--everyone who works (legally, at least) and all employers must pay into the system. Along with SS, it is the most popular government program ever enacted. (And if you don't think so, try running for office on a platform of eliminating Medicare. See how far you get.) This is the template that should be used for all health coverage in this country.

Um...do you know that Medicare doesn't pay enough to cover the care provided. I have a friend whose office provides the cost of a visit for $1 for medicare patients because they lose money by filing the paperwork. The deficit is covered by insured patients in the hospitals. This is also why most primary care doctor offices limit how many medicare patient they can have as clients.

 

[blackribbon]

Because talking to kids about Sex is too hard for Republicans.

Contraception isn't the issue. Requiring companies whose ownership doesn't believe contraception is ethical to pay for contraception is. Nobody is saying that people shouldn't be able to get contraception. However, a Catholic owned and run business shouldn't be mandated to pay for something they believe is sinful. This is like mandating that all restaurants must provide a pork option on their menu...even if the owners don't eat pork and it goes against their religious beliefs, like Muslims.

 

[jayem]

Um...do you know that Medicare doesn't pay enough to cover the care provided. I have a friend whose office provides the cost of a visit for $1 for medicare patients because they lose money by filing the paperwork. The deficit is covered by insured patients in the hospitals. This is also why most primary care doctor offices limit how many medicare patient they can have as clients.

You may be confusing Medicare with Medicaid. Medicaid, in some states, has lost providers due to reimbursement issues. The latest Medicare data I could find is from a 2015 Kaiser Foundation survey. 93% of non-pediatric primary care physicians accept Medicare assignment. Virtually the same as the 94% who accept private insurance. Though 21% are not accepting new Medicare patients, compared to 14% who don't accept new privately insured patients. The article notes that 76% of younger physicians (under age 55) accept new Medicare patents, compared with 67% of physicians over 55 who do. I'm sure some of the difference is because Medicare patients obviously are older, and likely to have more challenging medical problems. Which older providers are less willing to take on. But on the whole, a significant majority of primary care providers accept Medicare, and accept new Medicare patients.

Primary Care Physicians Accepting Medicare: A Snapshot

Though this will be largely a non-issue when some type of single-payer insurance is implemented. If a provider doesn't accept the insurance plan, he'll have to make a living solely from patients who are willing to pay full boat fees out-of-pocket. Which will probably be rather few in number.

 

[blackribbon]

You may be confusing Medicare with Medicaid. Medicaid, in some states, has lost providers due to reimbursement issues. The latest Medicare data I could find is from a 2015 Kaiser Foundation survey. 93% of non-pediatric primary care physicians accept Medicare assignment. Virtually the same as the 94% who accept private insurance. Though 21% are not accepting new Medicare patients, compared to 14% who don't accept new privately insured patients. The article notes that 76% of younger physicians (under age 55) accept new Medicare patents, compared with 67% of physicians over 55 who do. I'm sure some of the difference is because Medicare patients obviously are older, and likely to have more challenging medical problems. Which older providers are less willing to take on. But on the whole, a significant majority of primary care providers accept Medicare, and accept new Medicare patients.

Primary Care Physicians Accepting Medicare: A Snapshot

Though this will be largely a non-issue when some type of single-payer insurance is implemented. If a provider doesn't accept the insurance plan, he'll have to make a living solely from patients who are willing to pay full boat fees out-of-pocket. Which will probably be rather few in number.

No, I am not mistaken. I know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid. I also know that although most doctor accept Medicare, there is a maximum number of patients that a doctor can handle and only so many of those can be Medicare. They may limit some insurances as well.

The only thing that becomes a non-issue is that care will become rationed and limited. Wealthy people will be the only ones getting cutting edge and "the best" medical care ... while the rest of the country will be waiting 6 months for important critical care or "won't qualify" for the needed care. And nurses will quit even faster than they are now because they will be asked to care for too many patients and the best young minds won't be going into medicine but rather professions that actually pay well without the stress of residency. And you won't even get to see a doctor until you have gone through a mid-level provider such as a Physician Assistant or a Nurse Practioner.