I can just imagine sending Batman to buy the pill and him standing in the checkout line, heaving a deep sigh, moving one place in line forward at a time, with a face of "why am I doing this?".
Personally, my biggest issue and reason for why Republicans shouldn't be in charge is their direct opposition to science and history when it contradicts their religious or political viewpoint. While this has less implications at the federal level (except for the global warming issue), it definitely needs to be taken not of when republican state legislatures and board appointees corrupt education standards because they can't understand that the earth is much older than 9000 years and that Thomas Jefferson was not a religious person.
It shows both a complete disregard for the truth and the absolute willingness to harm other people (by lying to them) in order to further a political goal. It is utter sociopathy.
Republican politicians, for the most part, are fully aware of all of those things. There's one or two truly clueless senators or reps, maybe, and they make good sound bites, but for the most part, the GOP is just pandering to their base, who they had to round up in order to stay relevant as conservatism falls more and more out of fashion among thinking people.
yea depending on what works for you conception can be way more expensive then 30 dollars a month. The price could be anywhere from 9 dollars to 112 dollars depending on all sorts of factors.
You folks do realize that the argument you are pushing is that making someone pay for something is the same as blocking someone from having that something?
Is McDonalds blocking access to Big Macs because they make people pay for them?
Blocking access is when access is truly blocked. For example during the shutdown the National Park Service is BLOCKING ACCESS to open air monuments in DC. Access to birth control is not being blocked.
If you want to argue that birth control pills should be available without a co-pay via insurance because of their preventive care health benefits then just say so. However when you say that people are being blocked from getting them because they have a monetary cost well, you sound like an idiot.
Only because you think that being practically blocked from getting something (e.g. because it's economically infeasible for somebody) is less bad than being legally blocked from doing so, while I think they're equivalent.
Hell, isn't the whole point of the Affordable Care act to make is so that people can practically get health care? I mean, it's not like they've been legally barred from doing so in the past.
If the medicine costs $100 on the open market and your insurance says $10 co pay how is that blocking access? They are covering 90% of the cost. They are clearly increasing access. Yet the view on the left appears to be that anything other than free (when it comes to BC pills) is blocked access???
Well, we're mostly fighting against Republicans who want to make health insurance that specifically doesn't cover birth control at all, meaning they wouldn't have the benefits of co-pays.
Also it's not like you can get the health insurance coverage when you don't have health insurance.
Of course, in my opinion nearly all forms of health care, including contraceptives, should be free.
Just look at stuff like morning after pills. YES. They are trying to use government regulation to make the products completely unobtainable, even with your own cash, by an adult. I just don't fucking understand how we can push for smaller, fiscally responsible government and support such idiotic stances at the same time.
The morning after pill is not a traditional birth control pill. That falls under the 'abortion' debate as far as Republicans are concerned. That pill also has no other purpose other than terminating a potential pregnancy after the sexual act. The traditional birth control pill has numerous benefits aside from preventing pregnancy and is also taken proactively.
EDIT: As to the morning after pill... Wasn't that put to rest this past June? Isn't it currently for sale OTC to anyone over 17 and with prescription for thus under that age?
They're stonewalled many different versions of the pill (read: new and improved) so that the only version available in most areas is just a single version. So yeah, bullshit tactics in play.
In the case of employers paying so little that their employees could not conceivably afford the medication without support, yes, they are blocking access.
It would be nice, Steve, if we had a perfect free market and everything worked like Capitalism explained in a High School Civics course. Unfortunately, what we have is not that.
The real solution is Single Payer, but half the country, with apologies to Linkigi, are *drooling morons*. That's the political environment that we have to work in, and so we get this imperfect, set upon half solution instead. Single Payer would resolve all of your "Catholic business owner" issues in one stroke.
Contraceptive and abortion access are public health issues. It is ridiculous to not provide free access to both: it's a net good all around to do so, and is a huge aspect of quality of life for women.
So an insurance plan that covers 90% of a drugs cost constitutes blocking access to that drug? Does this also mean that an insurance plan that charges co-pays for Dr visits is also blocking access to doctors?
Can't you see that I am attacking your classification of anything other than free as being blocked access? Can't you see the silliness of your view?
Contraceptive and abortion access are public health issues. It is ridiculous to not provide free access to both: it's a net good all around to do so, and is a huge aspect of quality of life for women.
Contraceptive and abortion access are public health issues. It is ridiculous to not provide free access to both: it's a net good all around to do so, and is a huge aspect of quality of life for women.
So an insurance plan that covers 90% of a drugs cost constitutes blocking access to that drug? Does this also mean that an insurance plan that charges co-pays for Dr visits is also blocking access to doctors?
Can't you see that I am attacking your classification of anything other than free as being blocked access? Can't you see the silliness of your view?
It's been said at least once that this conversation is, at least in part, about folks who don't have that type of insurance coverage.
Also, I know for a fact that some folks on the right argue that they shouldn't have to pay into any insurance plan that provides coverage for contraception. That's the reasoning that some employers use to "justify" not providing said insurance.
The Republicans repeatedly push to ensure that insurance policies are not required to cover that sort of care. Shitheads actually want to prevent their employees from having that coverage, and the Republicans want to enable them.
Contraceptives being freely accessible is a public health issue. Requiring that level of coverage is a public health issue.
Contraceptive and abortion access are public health issues. It is ridiculous to not provide free access to both: it's a net good all around to do so, and is a huge aspect of quality of life for women.
Again, the point is being missed.
Not really, or you're the one missing it. Putting any barrier to entry at all on broadly impactful public health and safety issues is stupid. Contraception of absolutely all kinds should be government paid. The end. Ditto every type of vaccination. Putting a cost of even one dollar places an unnecessary barrier to entry on an act that it is in the best interest of society to have all interested parties perform.
This started when Rym stated that Republicans are pushing for federal restrictions on contraceptive access. I pointed out that asking people to pay for something that is available does not constitute blocking.
I still assert that claiming anything other than free access constitutes blocked access is a bad argument.
If you believe birth control should be covered 100% by insurance than argue for that but don't expect to get away with a claim that anything other than free constitutes a block of access.
It does block access, to an increasing pool of people as the copay climbs. It's not false. Like it or not there are people in this country for whom $15 is a hardship, and those are probably exactly the people who would greatly benefit from contraception.
Sometimes reading this shit is so depressing, but then I realize it's cool guys arguing for women and healthcare. That's awesome. Also, it's good to see the how the opposition is trying to rationalize their arguments against it so I can figure out how to answer said opposition.
Comments
It shows both a complete disregard for the truth and the absolute willingness to harm other people (by lying to them) in order to further a political goal. It is utter sociopathy.
Is McDonalds blocking access to Big Macs because they make people pay for them?
Blocking access is when access is truly blocked. For example during the shutdown the National Park Service is BLOCKING ACCESS to open air monuments in DC. Access to birth control is not being blocked.
If you want to argue that birth control pills should be available without a co-pay via insurance because of their preventive care health benefits then just say so. However when you say that people are being blocked from getting them because they have a monetary cost well, you sound like an idiot.
Hell, isn't the whole point of the Affordable Care act to make is so that people can practically get health care? I mean, it's not like they've been legally barred from doing so in the past.
Also it's not like you can get the health insurance coverage when you don't have health insurance.
Of course, in my opinion nearly all forms of health care, including contraceptives, should be free.
EDIT:
As to the morning after pill... Wasn't that put to rest this past June? Isn't it currently for sale OTC to anyone over 17 and with prescription for thus under that age?
It would be nice, Steve, if we had a perfect free market and everything worked like Capitalism explained in a High School Civics course. Unfortunately, what we have is not that.
The real solution is Single Payer, but half the country, with apologies to Linkigi, are *drooling morons*. That's the political environment that we have to work in, and so we get this imperfect, set upon half solution instead. Single Payer would resolve all of your "Catholic business owner" issues in one stroke.
Can't you see that I am attacking your classification of anything other than free as being blocked access? Can't you see the silliness of your view?
Also, I know for a fact that some folks on the right argue that they shouldn't have to pay into any insurance plan that provides coverage for contraception. That's the reasoning that some employers use to "justify" not providing said insurance.
Contraceptives being freely accessible is a public health issue. Requiring that level of coverage is a public health issue.
I still assert that claiming anything other than free access constitutes blocked access is a bad argument.
If you believe birth control should be covered 100% by insurance than argue for that but don't expect to get away with a claim that anything other than free constitutes a block of access.
Must find the silver lining...
Notice he is "asking" the House, doesn't sound too confident.
How much you want to bet that Social Security cuts come out of this mess in the end?