The "WAr On Women??"

[Punish_her]

Not repressed, just not given equal treatment. How many men would, for example, willingly submit to unnecessary, invasive medical procedures for the sole purpose of satisfying some woman's religious prejudices? Would you, as someone else put it, submit to a transurethral ultrasound before getting a prescription for ED medication, in order to insure that you are fertile, and therefore using the medication to actually father a child? Because someone's religion says that the only purpose for sex is to have babies?


Of course! Forcing them to get better pay than their female counterparts; forcing them to risk suffering and death to have the baby inflicted upon them by their rapist; forcing them to file all that paperwork so their insurance can pay for their V*agra! Such hardships!

i really wanted to find a clip of george costanza going crazy over an unresolved issue but to no avail
anywho . . . http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/sh...mination/page3 . . . we've already been over this with no catharsis

[thir]

It seems like no agreement was reached in the thread "Male Discrimination" so someone changed the name and here we are again.
Thorne thinks women are repressed
I think society royally shafts men
not getting involved in this one again

It is up to you to involve yourself in what you want, no need to get into something that distresses you (generic you)

But just for clarity, the two topics were started by two different people.

[leo9]

I am as pro-choice as they come...but I still believe this so called War on Women is a fabrication for political gain.

Well, yes, but by whom and for whose gain?

In the same way that the creationist issue is not fundamentally about Darwin, but about the religious right dictating what can be taught in schools (like sex ed,) and gay marriage is just the latest target in the war over what sexual behaviour is allowed, so the ongoing pressure on ordinary people's rights is currently focussed on women's rights in the belief that it's a soft target (because it can be presented to the base as liberals versus ordinary God-fearing folks.)

"War on women" is perhaps not as technically correct as "political agenda to reverse a range of legal protections of women's rights, women's health issues and reproductive freedom," but as soundbites go, it's close enough.

"Ordinary people's rights" because these changes in the law never touch the political class. They don't need their contraception covered by insurance any more than they need Medicare or Obamacare, they can always get a discreet abortion for their daughters, and battered wives' protection is all about whose legal firm can beat up whose. This is about keeping the little people in their place, male and female; women's rights are just the current target.

[Thorne]

This is about keeping the little people in their place, male and female; women's rights are just the current target.

Well said, Leo. It reminds me of a line from the movie, Titanic: When informed that half the people on the ship were going to die, Cal Hockley muttered, "Not the better half!" What we're seeing from our supposed representatives in Government, from local to federal levels, is an attempt to make certain that the "lower classes" don't overreach themselves and impinge upon the rights of the elite. Women are bearing the brunt of this attack now, but it won't be long before the rest of us come under attack as well.

[denuseri]

Well birth control pills can run anywhere from 1 to 3 dollars per pill.

Which comes out to around 30 dollars a month.

I certainly don't need my insurance to cover that elective cost any more than I need it to cover botox or liposuction.

[Thorne]

Well birth control pills can run anywhere from 1 to 3 dollars per pill.

Which comes out to around 30 dollars a month.

I certainly don't need my insurance to cover that elective cost any more than I need it to cover botox or liposuction.

YOU may not need the help, but there are those who do! And not just so they can feel safe while having sex, but for valid medical reasons. They are used to control severe cramping, even excessive bleeding, during menstrual cycles, problems which can virtually cripple some women for long periods of time each month. How can this NOT be covered by insurance? Just because it's branded as birth control? So rebrand it as hormonal therapy! Unlike botox or liposuction or other optional treatments, this can be a life-altering benefit for many women. Even if its only purpose is to keep her from getting pregnant by her randy, abusive mate.

I take daily doses of antibiotics to control my rosacea. The pills are cheap, less than $20 per month without insurance. Yet they are covered by my plan, dropping the cost to under $5 per month. For acne control! How can anyone justify NOT covering medication which can help millions of women to function almost normally? If you can afford it without insurance, denuseri, more power to you. For some, though, that $30 each month can mean an extra pair of shoes for her kids, or maybe buying the kid a half-way decent birthday present. Or eating something beside Ramen noodles every day. Not everyone has that much extra cash every month.

Ahh, there's the reason right there! Because it's for WOMEN! And uppity women at that! The kind who want to be able to go to work every day, or go to school everyday, without pain.

[StrictMasterD]

correct but you HAVE THAT CHOICE which is what it is all about, you have the choice, if you want you can have it if not you don't have to have it

[Punish_her]

or maybe it's because if every woman is going to use a guaranteed 30$ a month she probably doesn't need to, then health insurance premiums are going to go up yet I will see no benefit myself

[StrictMasterD]

or maybe it's because if every woman is going to use a guaranteed 30$ a month she probably doesn't need to, then health insurance premiums are going to go up yet I will see no benefit myself

Most People do not see Benifits to anyting til they need the goods or serices in question
I have never had a car accient is 40 years of driving, but I am required to have it, not having it prohbits me from ownig car or driving

You may never need it but you are required by law to have car insurance, you may not need health insurance now, but what happens one day you get deadly sick, you need to go to the Hosptial but you have no insurance you are in aaccident and needto berushed to the Hospital, but you have no insurance, INSURANCE is just that it makes sure you can afford Health Care hopefully you wil never need Emercency Health Care Services, but what happens if you do, you can't say you wil neevr need to be rushed to a Hosptial or be in an Accident, nobody can but at least you know you have coverage if needed

[Thorne]

or maybe it's because if every woman is going to use a guaranteed 30$ a month she probably doesn't need to, then health insurance premiums are going to go up yet I will see no benefit myself

So, by the same logic, insurance companies shouldn't pay for prostate medications, because they only raise the premiums, but women don't get any benefit.

[Punish_her]

no, because insurance by its definition is defined as "a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss."
it's not insurance if there's a 100 percent chance there's going to be a problem, it's just passing the costs onto someone else.
in the US every 2 years you must have your car inspected. this costs money and it is related to automobiles. however, car insurance does not cover this because it is a guaranteed cost.
insurance, by definition must hedge against possible adverse effects, so if a man pays into insurance from age 25 and then gets prostate cancer at age 45, he should be treated because he's been hedging against possible adverse effects for 20 years. If a woman pays into insurance from age 25 and gets breast cancer at age 45, she shouldabsolutely be covered because she's been playing the insurance game for 20 years. The premiums people pay are a statistical probability of how much overage they want and the odds of them incurring medical costs. With women wanting birth control, it's a guarantee that every woman will be able to get it,so either the insurance premiums for women must increase by the exact cost of buying it themselves, or it gets passed onto me

[Thorne]

With women wanting birth control, it's a guarantee that every woman will be able to get it,so either the insurance premiums for women must increase by the exact cost of buying it themselves, or it gets passed onto me

You're assuming that the ONLY reason women want it is to avoid pregnancy. But even if that is so, aren't the low costs of birth control far more tolerable than the high costs of getting pregnant? Prenatal care, labor and delivery, post natal care, child care, etc., are all much higher costs to the insurance company, as well as the patients and society in general, than birth control.

But in the now-infamous Sandra Fluke case, immortalized by Rush Limbaugh, she was only talking about women who need those pills for medical reasons, not specifically as birth control pills. And that should be covered by insurance even by your standards.

[denuseri]

You're assuming that the ONLY reason women want it is to avoid pregnancy. But even if that is so, aren't the low costs of birth control far more tolerable than the high costs of getting pregnant? Prenatal care, labor and delivery, post natal care, child care, etc., are all much higher costs to the insurance company, as well as the patients and society in general, than birth control.

But in the now-infamous Sandra Fluke case, immortalized by Rush Limbaugh, she was only talking about women who need those pills for medical reasons, not specifically as birth control pills. And that should be covered by insurance even by your standards.

If they need the pill for medical reasons other than to prevent pregnancy or to make life more fluffy for them IE for other than "elective" reasons then I am all for it being covered by their insurance.

[StrictMasterD]

If they need the pill for medical reasons other than to prevent pregnancy or to make life more fluffy for them IE for other than "elective" reasons then I am all for it being covered by their insurance.

That's the whole Point, most people do not Realize Or Accept that Birth Control is used by Women for more then just Presenting them from getting Pregnant, it is for a Myriad of other Allements, I know people who receive Anti Deressents and the Filler card says "This Medication is to Treat the Symptoms of Depression OR OTHER MEDICAL ISSUES AS DIRECTED BY THEIR DOCTOR" so you can be on an Anti Deprssent not be Bi Polar but stil beneift from the Chemical Makeup of the Medciation
Women do use birth control for reasons beyond just not getting pregnant

[leo9]

The premiums people pay are a statistical probability of how much overage they want and the odds of them incurring medical costs. With women wanting birth control, it's a guarantee that every woman will be able to get it,so either the insurance premiums for women must increase by the exact cost of buying it themselves, or it gets passed onto me

Just one of the insane consequences of treating healthcare as an insurance issue, rather than a public health issue. The health issues which people need most protection against are the ones that are certain to occur. So the interests of insurers are the exact opposite of healthcare needs.

There was a time when fire brigades were paid for by the insurance companies, so if you had a fire and didn't have a sign on your house showing it had coverage, the firefighters wouldn't help. (I'm not making this up, you can see the signs in museums.) Draw your own parallel.

[Punish_her]

Just one of the insane consequences of treating healthcare as an insurance issue, rather than a public health issue. The health issues which people need most protection against are the ones that are certain to occur. So the interests of insurers are the exact opposite of healthcare needs.

not at all the case, not everyone gets cancer, not everyone has a stroke, not everyone has a stroke. it's the same logic behind insurance companies not accepting people, or charging vastly higher premiums, with pre-existing conditions. it's not the way insurance is supposed to work. you don't total your car, then call an insurance company to get a quote, sign up, and then mention your car was smashed. the system works with people paying into it who are young, paying their whole lives, so that when they are elderly and do need treatment (or in the cases of catastrophic events) they are covered. it is completely unfair for people who are already sick to expect coverage from those who are playing by the rules.

There was a time when fire brigades were paid for by the insurance companies, so if you had a fire and didn't have a sign on your house showing it had coverage, the firefighters wouldn't help. (I'm not making this up, you can see the signs in museums.) Draw your own parallel.

this also is not unreasonable. the fire department has to be paid by someone, either you can buy fire insurance or you can have higher taxes on a state or city run department

[leo9]

not at all the case, not everyone gets cancer, not everyone has a stroke, not everyone has a stroke. it's the same logic behind insurance companies not accepting people, or charging vastly higher premiums, with pre-existing conditions. it's not the way insurance is supposed to work. you don't total your car, then call an insurance company to get a quote, sign up, and then mention your car was smashed. the system works with people paying into it who are young, paying their whole lives, so that when they are elderly and do need treatment (or in the cases of catastrophic events) they are covered. it is completely unfair for people who are already sick to expect coverage from those who are playing by the rules.

My point exactly: the insurance business model does not work for healthcare. It only works for cars because maintenance and breakdown repairs are done on a different system, and people aren't cars.

It works moderately well in this country because the National Health Service picks up all the conditions that don't fall within the insurance-based systems, as well as supporting those who can't afford or don't want the extra coverage. I don't have to imagine what it must be like without that backup, I read enough American novels to know.

this also is not unreasonable. the fire department has to be paid by someone, either you can buy fire insurance or you can have higher taxes on a state or city run department

I thought the point was too obvous to need explaining. If your neighbour doesn't have fire insurance, are you going to be happy that the fire brigade leaves his house to burn? And set the whole block afire? Firefighting is a communal interest. So is healthcare.

[Punish_her]

My point exactly: the insurance business model does not work for healthcare. It only works for cars because maintenance and breakdown repairs are done on a different system, and people aren't cars.

It works moderately well in this country because the National Health Service picks up all the conditions that don't fall within the insurance-based systems, as well as supporting those who can't afford or don't want the extra coverage. I don't have to imagine what it must be like without that backup, I read enough American novels to know.I thought the point was too obvous to need explaining. If your neighbour doesn't have fire insurance, are you going to be happy that the fire brigade leaves his house to burn? And set the whole block afire? Firefighting is a communal interest. So is healthcare.

the insurance business model works just fine for healthcare if people play by the rules, but they don't want to

I thought the point was too obvous to need explaining. If your neighbour doesn't have fire insurance, are you going to be happy that the fire brigade leaves his house to burn? And set the whole block afire? Firefighting is a communal interest. So is healthcare.

as long as the rest of the block has the insurance, it's not their problem, as firefighters would be obligated to keep the fire away from those who did pay

[Punish_her]

if they actually do need the pill for medical reasons then yes it should be covered by insurance companies. i admit that i have no idea what percentage of women would qualify for it, but i assume it is the teeny tiny minority, and probably would not affect the vast majority of women seeking the pill

[Thorne]

if they actually do need the pill for medical reasons then yes it should be covered by insurance companies. i admit that i have no idea what percentage of women would qualify for it, but i assume it is the teeny tiny minority, and probably would not affect the vast majority of women seeking the pill

According to this site, "14% of pill users—1.5 million women—rely on them exclusively for noncontraceptive purposes." and that "more than half (58%) of all pill users rely on the method, at least in part, for purposes other than pregnancy prevention—meaning that only 42% use the pill exclusively for contraceptive reasons."

That's a lot of women who use the pill for reasons other than exclusively to prevent pregnancy.

[StrictMasterD]

According to this site, "14% of pill users—1.5 million women—rely on them exclusively for noncontraceptive purposes." and that "more than half (58%) of all pill users rely on the method, at least in part, for purposes other than pregnancy prevention—meaning that only 42% use the pill exclusively for contraceptive reasons."

That's a lot of women who use the pill for reasons other than exclusively to prevent pregnancy.

Thank You, for exspandingon what I have said Birth Control Pills are NOT used EXCLUSIVELY for Birth Control, and in this country (The UnitedStates if you do not wantto use them DON"T, all they laws says if you WANT TO they are paid for, that is NOT A MANDATE to getthem

[Thorne]

all they laws says if you WANT TO they are paid for, that is NOT A MANDATE to getthem

And, contrary to Limbaugh's bloviating, even if you do use the pill to prevent pregnancy, it doesn't mean you are using it so you can have unfettered sex as many times as you want with anyone you wish. Married couples use it so they can enjoy sex without worrying about the wife getting pregnant with a baby that they cannot afford and do not want. That doesn't mean they will hump like rabbits, all day every day. And, contrary to Limbaugh's implications, you don't take a pill every time you have sex. Unless you're using the aspirin technique.

[js207]

And, contrary to Limbaugh's implications, you don't take a pill every time you have sex. Unless you're using the aspirin technique.

As I recall, Limbaugh was mocking Fluke's hugely inflated claimed costs of buying contraception when 'the pill' was documented as being commercially sold for $9 per month within about 3 blocks of her university, as well as available free from Planned Parenthood and others - and, apparently, covered by the university's health plan as long as it's for non-contraceptive medical reasons, too. If I appeared in public complaining about how terrible a burden it is having to pay $300 per day* to commute to work, would it not be reasonable to mock my apparent international detour?

As you point out, greater activity wouldn't account for the greater costs, so someone calculated it in terms of contraception which does vary with usage instead - giving the figures of multiple times per day some then pointed to.

(* Fluke was claiming the $9/month pill Planned Parenthood give for free amounted to $1000 per year; $300/day would be roughly my current commuting costs inflated by a similar amount. Sadly for me, Planned Parenthood don't offer free transportation, though I suppose I could try switching to bus rather than train...)

[ksst]

I sure wish my health insurance would cover a single thing, much less birth control pills. Biggest scam ever, IMO.

[leo9]

I sure wish my health insurance would cover a single thing, much less birth control pills. Biggest scam ever, IMO.

It's inevitable given the clash of interest. The ideal model for business is to take the customers' money and give nothing back. This is particularly easy with insurance, where the payments are mandatory and the payouts are discretionary. The customers' solution is informed shopping around, but payroll insurance makes that impossible and introduces another conflict of interest: the employee wants the most generous insurance, the employer wants the cheapest.

With all these levels of systems aimed at making or saving money rather than providing healthcare, it's a wonder your costs are only twice or three times what the rest of the civilised world pays.

[denuseri]

And a shame too.

Greed over good yet again.

Take all that "profit" the insurance bastards make hoodwinking people away and we would be able to float a very good state run system imho. (the insurance lobby is why we got stuck with this mandatory insurance scheme btw)

[thir]

And a shame too.

Greed over good yet again.

Take all that "profit" the insurance bastards make hoodwinking people away and we would be able to float a very good state run system imho. (the insurance lobby is why we got stuck with this mandatory insurance scheme btw)

Good point! If we all have to pay anyway, why not pay where we get the most out of it = a system that doesn't have to show a profit, but just has to cover costs?

[js207]

Good point! If we all have to pay anyway, why not pay where we get the most out of it = a system that doesn't have to show a profit, but just has to cover costs?

In practice, that tends not to work; the small profit margin tends to help improve efficiency, which isn't generally something government bodies are known for.

[leo9]

In practice, that tends not to work; the small profit margin tends to help improve efficiency, which isn't generally something government bodies are known for.

Then why are healthcare costs in the US twice or three times as much as they are in all those "inefficient" government run systems in other countries? (For poorer health outcomes, in many areas.) Could it have something to do with the need for corporations to keep paying their shareholders? Or is it - as our recent economic disasters suggest - that the whole idea that capitalism automatically means efficiency is a myth?

[StrictMasterD]

Then why are healthcare costs in the US twice or three times as much as they are in all those "inefficient" government run systems in other countries? (For poorer health outcomes, in many areas.) Could it have something to do with the need for corporations to keep paying their shareholders? Or is it - as our recent economic disasters suggest - that the whole idea that capitalism automatically means efficiency is a myth?

No it is so Pharmcutial Comaspnies can send Billions upon Billions on R&D and pay thier CEO's etc $25,000,000 a year in slalry plus bonuses it is all about the money noting more,Pharmacitical Companies could care less about the average American Joe, they do it for the Money
They jsut said on the new tonight that the CIO of Chase, although she resigned do to the scandal, that she was paid $23 mill, in salary last years and got a "Serverence Check" today for $15 Million and she ovewr saw the issue and did noting so it cost Chase $2-4 Milioni n comapny money, they did mention money last was NOT customer money but their own money, yet she recieive as $15 miloin dolar bomus as service pay for costing her company to loos $2-4 Billion,?? No wonder our Costs and bank feesare so high, if i cost my company that kind of money I would not only be out a job but possibly facing criminal charges