Derp!!!

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

I am LOVING this scandal because of how it's exposing how many on the right view women.

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

What you've heard is incorrect. It's not a strawman. Non-contraceptive use of birth control pills is usually far more expensive than standard birth control. Clearly, you haven't bought birth control pills because you don't know much about it. So, you're wrong.

"Far more expensive" is still affordable. Even PP puts the high end cost at $50/month. If you have a job that can afford to give you insurance at all, this isn't really an issue.

Nobody would bitch about "exemptions for condoms" because they're dirt cheap and CAN BE HAD WITHOUT A PRESCRIPTION therefore they are not PRESCRIPTION MEDICINE durp durp durp

So, in other words, there is cheap, affordable, over-the-counter contraceptives already available? Thanks for proving our point that this isn't necessary!

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

excuse me but YOU do not get to decide what "still affordable" means when it comes to a drug you do not have the least bit of experience with. Doesn't work that way. I don't make blanket statements about dealing with testicular cancer, you do not get to tell us what is you very of "affordable" when it comes to female-hormone based pills. The pills available at PP are a very limited scope of BC available, so you're wrong about that too. There's also the dr visits so you're wrong about that too.



Face it Jeff you really don't know much about this. You don't have a dog in this fight. You're just taking that side because you're so used to doing it. Why not back away and remain neutral?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

excuse me but YOU do not get to decide what "still affordable" means when it comes to a drug you do not have the least bit of experience with.

Sure I do! Guess what - if you're at a job that can offer insurance, a median price of $33/month is affordable! Or, conversely, you can buy a box of condoms for a fraction of that. Or go to a place like Planned Parenthood that exists specifically for situations like this.

I don't make blanket statements about dealing with testicular cancer, you do not get to tell us what is you very of "affordable" when it comes to female-hormone based pills.

I welcome you to make blanket statements about dealing with testicular cancer if you've done the research. You have every right!

The pills available at PP are a very limited scope of BC available, so you're wrong about that too. There's also the dr visits so you're wrong about that too.

Actually, I'm right about a lot of it. No, PP doesn't carry everything, that's obvious. But let's not pretend that this is somehow out of reach of working women who qualify for health insurance. It's not.

Face it Jeff you really don't know much about this. You don't have a dog in this fight. You're just taking that side because you're so used to doing it. Why not back away and remain neutral?

My dog in this fight is the religious freedom angle. It works both ways - as an atheist, should I have to pay for people's faith healing?

My dog in this fight is the mandate angle. If the government can force my employer, or me as an employer, to purchase health insurance for my employees, what can't they force me to do?

My dog in this fight is the cost angle. If the government can force my insurer to cover all FDA approved contraceptives, where will the cost controls come into play? Should everyone's insurance have to go up because the government never thinks before asking?

But no, let's talk about women's health more, and how much the right wing hates women. That's certainly more productive, and is obviously the broader issue. You know, except for the Constitution. Except for good government. No, none of that is important because we have to make sure our employers pay for something anyone who can afford insurance can get on their own. Sure.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

Ultimately Jeff, its not about religious freedom for the religious people, its about special treatment. Certain religious institutions want to run organizations that get teh best of both worlds: government subsidies and charity-focused funding, but tax-exempt status and exemptions from corporate laws. SOrry churches, if you are going to run hospitals and charities that claim separation from the church in order to receive the perks of government subsidizing then you don't get to turn around and claim religious exemptions for anything.


And also, you still show clearly you don't really know what you're talking about in this discussion.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I'm not seeing where they're asking for special treatment, either. The exemption isn't only for Christian organizations, after all.

And also, you still show clearly you don't really know what you're talking about in this discussion.

How so?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

My dog in this fight is the cost angle. If the government can force my insurer to cover all FDA approved contraceptives, where will the cost controls come into play? Should everyone's insurance have to go up because the government never thinks before asking?

The cost of covering all sexually active people in the country, including waste or excesses beyond, will pale in comparison to the long term savings had by avoiding unwanted pregnancies.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

The fiscal conservative approach would be to subsidize birth control everyone to avoid the cost of unwanted babies.

Pound wise and penny foolish.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The fiscal conservative approach is to not waste tax dollars on any of it.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Fantasy bubble.

If you do as you suggest, then you have unwanted babies.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

if you're at a job that can offer insurance, a median price of $33/month is affordable!

So part-time jobs at minimum wage that offer insurance allow one to afford $33/month?
Sorry, not buying that. That's just a straight out fib.

I welcome you to make blanket statements about dealing with testicular cancer if you've done the research. You have every right!

Nope. NHY is not a guy. Doesn't have testicles. Therefore, no right to speak on it.

[fornikate.livejournal.com]

"Compared with use of no contraception, contraceptive methods of all types result in substantial cost savings over 2 years, ranging from US$5907 per woman for tubal sterilization to US$9936 for vasectomy and health gains ranging from 0.088 QALYs for diaphragm to 0.147 QALYs for depot medroxyprogesterone acetate. Compared with nonuse, even with a time horizon as short as 1 year, use of any method other than sterilization results in financial savings and health gains. Most of the financial savings and health gains were due to contraceptive effects. In a population of patients, even modest increases in the use of the most effective methods result in financial savings and health gains."

http://www.contraceptionjournal.org/article/S0010-7824(04)00102-7/abstract

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Okay. I don't see where I've ever disagreed about the comparative cost.

[fornikate.livejournal.com]

just heading it off in advance.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

So pennywise and pound foolish. How much do orphanages, prisons, and welfare cost us, again?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Yes, women who do not want to get pregnant should purchase birth control if they want to be sexually active. It is much cheaper.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

If my tax dollars have to support blowing up Iraqis for the collective good, then some Godhead's employment coverage can certainly include supporting contraception for the collective good.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

War is a function of government. Contraception is not.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

My god says paying for war is bad.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Then I hope that your employer isn't mandated to pay for you to make war.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

wow my god does too! I'm a quaker.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Again (http://politicartoons.livejournal.com/2888221.html?thread=68597789#t68597789), why should war be a function of government?

[pacotelic.livejournal.com]

You didn't read Fluke's prepared speech, didja?

Most of her examples were not about recreational sex at all.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Oh, I did. Some of them were, which is where the protests come from, and I'm hearing from some areas that non-contraceptive use is often covered anyway.

[pacotelic.livejournal.com]

By the way, I salute your ability to argue like a Gnu in a pack of Lions.