Think Hobby Lobby is just about 4 forms of birth control? Think again!

[Fanatical Meat]

You're right, if birth control is to be provided at 100% so should Viagra or testosterone therapy prescriptions/injections.

Technically these increase pregnancies. However its a good point and I'm fine with this.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Technically these increase pregnancies. However its a good point and I'm fine with this.

Viagra may increase the chances due to more sex taking place though I would say most that are taking it have wives that are post menopause. Testosterone therapy on the other hand reduces sperm count.

Both improve the quality of life of older men.

 

[her209]

I just can't wait until the government is in total control of what covered and what isn't.

As opposed to a corporation that can potentially refuse to provide insurance to their gay employees because "God hates gays". I have no problems with government setting a baseline for and regulating what is called "medical insurance".

 

[Dman8777]

Employer doesn't pay for their lunch either. Don't employees need to eat?

Employer doesn't pay for their home. Don't employees need shelter?

Um, technically they do pay for those things... it's just indirect.

 

[RandomWords]

No. It is not about controlling women. I don't think they should be required to provide birth control or abortion pills to anyone if they do not want to. They do not provide you guys with rubbers do they? Why not? It is the same thing. Women's health has nothing to do with birth control. They are two different things. Birth control doesn't make you healthier. Plus they are not stopping these women from getting birth control, they can purchase it any time they want. Just as I can buy a pack of rubbers.

This - if places are required to purchase birth control for women they should be required to cover condoms / viagra for males - just as if they are required to pay for abortions they should be required to pay for women who want to get pregnant to go through in vetro fertilization - but those women don't get their procedure paid for - why is only one side of the equation getting benefits... these aren't health issues - they are elective procedures / items and should not be covered.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

^^to me the big difference is condoms are no prescription and BC is prescription only.

 

[Spungo]

^^to me the big difference is condoms are no prescription and BC is prescription only.

I think we both know the answer to this - make condoms prescription-only so they cost 10x as much and are rarely used. It's the American way.
I'm curious what would happen if birth control pills did not require a prescription. If alcohol and getting pregnant requires no prescription, I don't see a reason for birth control needing one. This would immediately fix the cost argument. Mass marketing makes things cost less.

 

[nehalem256]

If its an unwanted pregnancy they in fact do have health benefits.

By that argument if a woman has an unwanted small breast size, a boob job has health benefits.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

By that argument if a woman has an unwanted small breast size, a boob job has health benefits.

Please explain this I'm interested in the logic

 

[Veliko]

Please explain this I'm interested in the logic

Heh.

Never seen a nehalem post on a thread about women before? They're hilarious and the 'logic' is non-existent.

 

[soulcougher73]

You're right, if birth control is to be provided at 100% so should Viagra or testosterone therapy prescriptions/injections.

Why Viagra? By not giving it out its a form of bc because he can't get it up

 

[soulcougher73]

Please explain this I'm interested in the logic

Lol good luck finding any of that from his brain.

 

[Sunburn74]

This - if places are required to purchase birth control for women they should be required to cover condoms / viagra for males - just as if they are required to pay for abortions they should be required to pay for women who want to get pregnant to go through in vetro fertilization - but those women don't get their procedure paid for - why is only one side of the equation getting benefits... these aren't health issues - they are elective procedures / items and should not be covered.

Most insurance plans do cover viagra for men. Condoms are not considered a medical device however and so are not covered (physicians do not prescribe condoms). Devices like vacuum and implantable penis pumps, are covered as they are medical devices prescribed by physicians. Furthermore surgical procedures such as vasectomies are also covered.

In terms of women, oral contraceptives are prescription FDA approved medications and so are covered by most insurance plans. Implantable contraceptives such as IUDs and surgical contraception such as fallopian tube libagation, and etc are also covered. Most insurance plans will cover routine assistance with fertilization (ie GNRH agonists, OCPs, etc; medications commonly used for women with fertility issues). These insurance plans also cover medical assistance for men with fertility issues in a similar capacity (low sperm count problems can be treated with similar medications used to improve fertility in women, etc). In vitro fertilization coverage, is variable depending on your insurance plan with some plans covering and some not (its very expensive and completely elective).

 

[ivwshane]

Most insurance plans do cover viagra for men. Condoms are not considered a medical device however and so are not covered (physicians do not prescribe condoms). Devices like vacuum and implantable penis pumps, are covered as they are medical devices prescribed by physicians. Furthermore surgical procedures such as vasectomies are also covered.

In terms of women, oral contraceptives are prescription FDA approved medications and so are covered by most insurance plans. Implantable contraceptives such as IUDs and surgical contraceptions such as fallopian tube libagation, and etc are also covered.

Good job! Way to get yourself on the righties ignore list with your facts!

 

[Sunburn74]

Other than a monthly limit on the amount of viagra the insurance company covers, there usually is no problem with viagra.

 

[glenn1]

Other than a monthly limit on the amount of viagra the insurance company covers, there usually is no problem with viagra.

It shouldn't be covered either, although I'm surprised Democrats didn't mandate it be covered with no copay as well. Who knows it might be in somewhere in the depths of the law.

 

[MtnMan]

And if the company owners are Christian Scientists, your health coverage will consist a book of prayers, no doctors, no hospitals, no drug coverage, but perhaps a toll free number to a prayer line.

 

[Sunburn74]

I think it should be covered.

If a condition is a consequence of a pathologic process (erectile dysfunction is most commonly caused by the same process that causes heart attacks, stroke, and peripheral vascular disease: accumulation of cholesterol in arteries) and treatment is proven to improve a patient's quality of life, the treatment should be covered. If it were up to me, IVF would be covered as well (often infertility can be linked to pre-existing medical disease).

OCPs also improve the quality of lives of many women. Prevention of pregnancy is important (many married couples do not want children and wish to avoid this issue), and these drugs have many non-contraceptive uses including for example managing hemorrhaging from menses, treatment of cystic ovarian disease, management of endometriosis, treatment of perimenopausal symptoms, management of atrophic vaginal disorders, etc etc

At the end of the day, I think its hard to judge what is NEEDED and what is elective. I mean, if a man has knee pain and only surgery can allow him to walk, does he NEED that surgery? He can after all just use a wheelchair or crutches and take pain killers. If a man has a disfiguring skin disorder that is life threatening, once the life threatening portion is taken care of, does he NEED medical care to address the disfigurement? After all its just looks and he doesn't have to look attractive to anyone? (The treatment of acne BTW is covered by pretty much all insurance plans). Such thoughts to me are appalling. You can't put a price on the value of some feature of health to a person. I'd lean towards covering most things, more often than not. Anyway I've said enough. I think I will bow out of the rest of this thread.

 

[senseamp]

And if the company owners are Christian Scientists, your health coverage will consist a book of prayers, no doctors, no hospitals, no drug coverage, but perhaps a toll free number to a prayer line.

Don't worry, the five Republican Clerics on SCOTUS will decide which religions are legitimate, and which are undeserving of having their beliefs protected.

 

[werepossum]

http://www.businessweek.com/article...oneer-faces-boycotts-over-birth-control#r=rss

There goes that BS argument.

Hmm, shouldn't you be praising Hobby Lobby for providing free birth control even though they consider it “almost always involve immoral and unnatural practices” as long as it is short of what they consider murder?

 

[nehalem256]

If its an unwanted pregnancy they in fact do have health benefits.

Please explain this I'm interested in the logic

Its not my logic its yours.

Apparently you are redefining the body acting properly, but in a way that annoys you, as a health condition that needs treating

So by that logic if your boobs don't grow big enough, and that annoys you, getting a boob job would have health benefits.

 

[nehalem256]

It shouldn't be covered either, although I'm surprised Democrats didn't mandate it be covered with no copay as well. Who knows it might be in somewhere in the depths of the law.

Why?

Viagra is used by men. Democrats don't give a shit about men. And view them merely as slaves to serve women.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Its not my logic its yours.

Apparently you are redefining the body acting properly, but in a way that annoys you, as a health condition that needs treating

So by that logic if your boobs don't grow big enough, and that annoys you, getting a boob job would have health benefits.

Interesting, you made quite a leap there with "my logic"

 

[zinfamous]

No. It is not about controlling women. I don't think they should be required to provide birth control or abortion pills to anyone if they do not want to. They do not provide you guys with rubbers do they? Why not? It is the same thing.

Women's health has nothing to do with birth control. They are two different things. Birth control doesn't make you healthier. Plus they are not stopping these women from getting birth control, they can purchase it any time they want. Just as I can buy a pack of rubbers.

they are absolutely not the same thing.

this is why you are stupid.

 

[Ancalagon44]

The real reason is that they want women to have more babies to provide a cheap source of uneducated labour.

But if anyone asks, you didn't hear this from me and I don't exist.

/tinfoil hat on