Is Contraception 'Medically Necessary'?
	found on Reuters via Yahoo written by ms_sue_collins, edited by John (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Wed 5 Mar 5:33pm
		"Three female employees of Union Pacific Corp., with the support of Planned Parenthood, have filed a class-action suit claiming that the company's refusal to include contraception coverage in its healthcare plan violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on gender or pregnancy," ms_sue_collins writes. "Planned Parenthood enters this battle having just succeeded in a similar case against Seattle-based Bartell Drug Co. In 2001 a federal district court judge agreed that the pharmacy chain's refusal to cover prescription contraceptives violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The company had appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but this week a settlement was reached that gives female employees the coverage they demanded. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) had also ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in this case.

	Twenty states now have legislation requiring private insurance coverage for contraception, but state laws do not cover companies that are self-insured, so until federal legislation is enacted, companies like Union Pacific remain exempt. Planned Parenthood President Gloria Feldt views the failure of employers to provide coverage as an issue of gender equity and believes that the goal of universal insurance coverage for contraception will be realized by the year 2005: It is sex discrimination when male employees get their basic health care needs covered by insurance, but women are forced to pay for theirs. Union Pacific Corp. contends that its healthcare plan doesn't single out women, saying that it declines any treatments not considered to be medically necessary, such as vasectomies, cosmetic surgery, and fertility treatments and adds that very few of its 48,000 employees, about 5 percent of whom are women, have asked for contraceptive coverage: Our feeling is that this is not sexual discrimination," said Kathryn Blackwell, a spokeswoman for the Omaha, Nebraska-based railroad. "Our plan is based around medically necessary prescriptions and procedures.

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 156 commentsmost: 23 commentsbest: 6 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Logic?   by greta       at Wed 5 Mar 5:38pm score of 3 astute     So they aren't willing to cover a $10 or $25 prescription for contraceptives. Are they willing to pay for the 9 months of obstetric care, the labor and delivery, and the 18+ years of dependent coverage brought about by an unplanned pregnancy that could have been avoided by covering the contraceptives in the first place? Or is that also considered not "medically necessary?" Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, I'm a dumbass   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  Re: Logic?   by gordon shumway       at Wed 5 Mar 5:56pm score of 0.5 disingenuous   in reply to comment 1     Do you know any women who reason: "Well, since my insurance company won't pay for birth control pills, I guess I have no choice but to have unprotected sex and an unwanted pregnancy"? Of course not, they would go buy it themselves, which is why insurance companies don't pay for it.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   11.  I don't think so.   by glorfinde1       at Wed 5 Mar 6:17pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 5     Of course not, they would go buy it themselves, which is why insurance companies don't pay for it. That's some crappy logic. Do you really believe that insurance companies don't cover anything that people will go pay for by themselves? If so, then why do insurance companies bother covering basic doctor visits? When people are sick, they go to the doctor, whether insurance covers it or not (or even when they don't have insurance.) Insurance companies don't cover contraceptives because the financial and political cost of not doing so hasn't gone high enough to hurt them (yet.) When the pressure is there, they'll cave. Do you experience feelings of dread in your attic or basement?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   75.  Re: Logic?   by RebolMan       at Thu 6 Mar 10:19am score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 5     They cover the expenses of pregnancy - so in essence they are discriminating against women who _do not_ want to become pregnant. Additionally, a great many insurers cover Viagra! You might just be taking it so that you can walk around and see everything in a blue tinge, but I doubt it. One possible consequence of it's usage (in hetero relationships) is pregnancy... In essence they are stacking two costs; I just don't see how it's fair not to cover the costs of birth control - a woman's usage of "the pill" over her entire lifetime is unlikely to exceed the cost of 2 routine visits to the obstetrician during the course of a pregnancy!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   14.  Re: I don't think so.   by gordon shumway       at Wed 5 Mar 6:25pm score of 1   in reply to comment 11     I assume that insurance companies cover basic doctor visits because they think it's profitable. You seem to have an odd notion of the purpose of insurance companies, and what their obligations to consumers are.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   16.  Re: I don't think so.   by glorfinde1       at Wed 5 Mar 6:47pm score of 3 helpful   in reply to comment 14     You seem to have an odd notion of the purpose of insurance companies, and what their obligations to consumers are. No, I just fail to see the logical force of an argument that insurance companies don't pay for contraception because people will buy it themselves. Insurance companies pay for lots of things that people will buy themselves. They also pay for lots of preventative medicine (the first thing coming to mind is dentist visits.) But let's look at profitability. If contraception prevents one unwanted pregnancy, how much money has it saved the insurance company? Just guessing (never had a kid, so I don't know for sure) that the cost of pre-natal and post-natal care for the infant and mother runs around $100,000 (feel free to correct me if you have a better/more accurate figure.) What's the cost of birth control over the course of a woman's years of fertility? Let's say the average number of years a woman is fertil runs at roughly 35 years (say, 13 to 48 years of age.) If an insurance company covered birth control throughout that entire time (and it's doubtful that it would) it's total cost would run only $21,000. So you could cover 5 women for one unplanned pregnancy. The next figure that needs to be looked at is how many unplanned pregnancies are taken to term. Any ideas? And this doesn't even begin to address things that have already been brought up elsewhere in this thread, such as other medical conditions that are treated by birth control (uterine cysts, for example), or complications resulting from pregnancy. I gotta think that springing for contraception wouldn't lose insurance companies money. Do you experience feelings of dread in your attic or basement?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   19.  Re: I don't think so.   by gordon shumway       at Wed 5 Mar 6:51pm score of 1 astute   in reply to comment 16     Is it possible that insurance companies know more about running their business than you do? For what rational reason would they fight against covering something that would make them money?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   24.  Re: I don't think so.   by Leamur67       at Wed 5 Mar 7:35pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 16     Since you asked, it would take a very complicated pregnancy to cost $100,000. More like $10,000 for the full-tilt, total hospitalization, all-the-drugs-that-they-can-possibly-pump-into-you-plus-every-test-you-might-need variety. When I had my kid in '94, the full-tilt variety ran about $5K, which the insurance would've covered most of (it was good insurance). I opted for a birthing center, btw, and it ran less than $1500 all told and BC/BS was happy to pay nearly every dollar of it. So my figures are old; ob/gyn malpractice insurance has gotten particularly out-of-hand in recent years, so it might've increased more than I think it has... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Tell the truth. (Then run.)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   30.  Re: I don't think so.   by bigeyes       at Wed 5 Mar 8:01pm score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 24     I don't recall the whole thing, but I think my amnio/sonogram package was like $1500. Of course, my medical costs from various complications that came with delivery have run into the thousands each year since, not counting my son's medical costs. Seems to me that they'd do better to pay for the stinkin' pills in most cases. And, for the record, I recall a girlfriend who couldn't get our employer to pay for birth control back in the 80's did get an abortion paid for...the doc just called it a medically necessary d&c...I have no idea how they played that off, whether they called it an incomplete miscarriage, or what.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   43.  Re: I don't think so.   by glorfinde1       at Wed 5 Mar 11:06pm score of 2 compelling   in reply to comment 19     Sure it's possible. I never said it wasn't. But if you want to bring rationality into it, what rational reason does the government have for failing to fund needle exchange programs, comprehensive sex education, or medical programs that mention the word abortion? Is it possible that there are reasons other than the bottom line which would prohibit an insurance company from covering something? (A nearby Methodist hospital refuses to do abortions, elective sterilizations, and so forth. I assume the hospital is in business to make money, and could from these procedures, but chooses not to. Just an example.) Do you experience feelings of dread in your attic or basement?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   45.  Re: I don't think so.   by glorfinde1       at Wed 5 Mar 11:18pm score of 2 informative   in reply to comment 19     I realize Planned Parenthood will probably not be considered an unbiased source in this regard, but I found this information particularly interesting: Contraceptive coverage more than pays for itself. According to a 1995 report published in the American Journal of Public Health, a 15% increase in the number of oral contraceptive users in a health insurance plan generates enough savings in pregnancy costs to provide oral contraceptives for all contraceptive users in the plan.4 Just recently, the New York Business Group on Health released estimates calculated by Pharmacia and Upjohn Pharmaceuticals on the cost to employers of providing contraceptive coverage. Taking into account the cost of unintended pregnancies, Pharmacia and Upjohn estimated an overall savings of $40 per employee when contraception is a covered benefit.5 Do you experience feelings of dread in your attic or basement?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   50.  Re: I don't think so.   by gordon shumway       at Thu 6 Mar 2:01am score of 1   in reply to comment 43     An insurance company isn't the government, or a religious organization. "Is it possible that there are reasons other than the bottom line which would prohibit an insurance company from covering something? " What reason could that be? All insurance companies forego profits in order to be sexist? Why would they do that?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   54.  Re: I don't think so.   by glorfinde1       at Thu 6 Mar 6:32am score of 2.5 astute   in reply to comment 50     Go ahead and reply to the other comment I posted, please. As you've noted, I'm not an insurance company. But since the American Journal of Public Health, and studies conducted by Pharmacia and Upjohn indicate that covering oral contraceptives would not only be cost-effective, but save insurance companies money (neatly addressing your previous assertions), it suggests that insurance companies HAVE a reason other than profit. Your guess is as good as mine what that reason is. Do you experience feelings of dread in your attic or basement?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   61.  Re: I don't think so.   by Goldmund       at Thu 6 Mar 8:20am score of 1   in reply to comment 50     Insurance companies, as for-profit consumer organizations, are all ready regulated by the state to forego some profits in the interests of the consumer's rights. Providing women with birth control is sexist, yes, but so is providing men with viagra. Why not balance the two out? Then everyone's happy, limp dicks and the overly-fertile together.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   69.  Re: I don't think so.   by decurtis       at Thu 6 Mar 9:38am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 19     For what rational reason would they fight against covering something that would make them money? I have not clue why they would. I do know that I wanted to stop smoking. My doctor perscribed my the drug Zyban which is Wellbutrin, an anti-depressant. My insurance company would not cover the cost of Zyban. I paid for it myself. It has now been two months of being smoke free. Yippie! What is my point? Good question! My point is that the insurance company would not pay for a drug to help me stop smoking but they would be more than willing to pay for lung cancer treatment which is far more expensive.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   77.  Re: I don't think so.   by nmiguy       at Thu 6 Mar 10:26am score of 1   in reply to comment 24     Realistically today, depending on which part of the country you could say 20,000 is not unheard of. $100,000 is way off base for most deliveries. I think my son's delivery and everything was aroung the 10K mark you noted. Thank God for health insurance.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   81.  Re: I don't think so.   by bigdumbjerk       at Thu 6 Mar 10:53am score of 0.5 modappeal   in reply to comment 19     "Is it possible that insurance companies know more about running their business than you do? For what rational reason would they fight against covering something that would make them money?" Gordon, unless I've completely misunderstood the situation - it is not the insurance companies that are refusing to cover BC, it is the companies that are providing the insurance. (i.e. the employers) I'm sure insurance companies would be more than happy to provide coverage for these things if the employers asked for it.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   91.  Re: I don't think so.   by David Flores       at Thu 6 Mar 12:48pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 14     It's not a question of profits. It's a question of Civil Rights. Insurance companies pay for Viagra for men, even when loss of sex drive is a result of the normal aging process, and it in no way represents a threat to a man's health. If insurance companies did not cover Viagra, it's likely that many men would also simply buy it for themselves. Birth control is a preventitive health measure, just as regular dental visits and doctor's checkups are. It should be covered. GAFB and GAFB2   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   107.  Re: I don't think so.   by yellowbeard       at Thu 6 Mar 4:08pm score of 1   in reply to comment 69     Easy to get around. You get your doc to prescribe the Wellbutrin for depression, and it's covered. At least that's what a couple friends say. I am not infantile, you stinkybutt poopyhead!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   109.  Re: I don't think so.   by gordon shumway       at Thu 6 Mar 5:11pm score of 1   in reply to comment 54     The study was conducted by pharmaceutical companies, although I'm sure that's only a coincidence.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   114.  Re: I don't think so.   by Sporko       at Thu 6 Mar 6:28pm score of 1   in reply to comment 91     Most insurance companies don't cover Viagra. A few do. Almost all of them cover birth control, as many states require it. But come on, you're telling me that having your employer pay for birth control pills is a fundamental civil right? Toothpaste is a preventitive measure to help teeth, should dental insurance cover it? The question about the efficiency of paying for contraception is best left to actuaries, because they enjoy this sort of debate. And they use real numbers instead of inventing them randomly like others on this thread.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   135.  Re: I don't think so.   by glorfinde1       at Fri 7 Mar 7:17am score of 1   in reply to comment 109     The American Journal of Public Health is a pharmaceutical company? (Point noted on the Upjohn and Pharmacia studies, although there seem to be quite a few other studies that also point in this direction.) Do you experience feelings of dread in your attic or basement?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Great! Free condoms!   by sulli       at Wed 5 Mar 5:46pm score of 1.5 brilliant     (if they win that is.) What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Tout abus sera puni   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  Re: Great! Free condoms!   by bigeyes       at Wed 5 Mar 6:05pm score of 2.5 compelling   in reply to comment 2     OK, let's talk about that sauce. How about you guys find a way that YOU can miss work for OB/GYN appointments for 9 months, then miss work to recover from pushing a human being out of your body? Then, just for grins, why don't you guys go back to work, get bitched at every time your kid is sick and can't go to daycare, thereby causing you to miss work and jeopardize your employment? And, since your employer won't pay for these hypothetical condoms, and your girlfriend is a member of wimmin'sactivism.com, she won't pay child support because she thinks you could have opted for an abortion. Oh, and if you don't take her to court and force her to pay support, when you lose your job, you can't get any kind of help, because the welfare folks want to be able to go after her for support...catch 22! So now, you can keep looking for a new crappy job with the flexibility to let you care for your child, and maybe the next woman won't abuse your kid if you're lucky....... C'mon, sulli, men get screwed in custody cases, but birth control pills save the employer a lot more than they cost! And what about women who have such painful, heavy periods that they are prescribed birth control pills? Because they are birth control they won't be covered. They are medically necessary, but, too damn bad. Geez, you'd think we were asking for them to buy our tampons or something.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   10.  Re: Great! Free condoms!   by indiaink       at Wed 5 Mar 6:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 6     And what about women who have such painful, heavy periods that they are prescribed birth control pills? Because they are birth control they won't be covered. They are medically necessary, but, too damn bad. I have a friend who has a strong interest in issues concerning the coverage of birth control pills. Her body produces very high levels of estrogen. Her mother died of cancer, which may have been a result of having the same condition. The pill helps to control the hormone levels in the body but even in my friends case, insurance companies will not cover the cost of this treatment because it involves contraceptive pills. "Warning: Please exercise caution- mask and chest plate are not protective; cape does not enable wearer to fly."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   36.  Re: Great! Free condoms!   by sulli       at Wed 5 Mar 8:50pm score of 2.5 compelling   in reply to comment 6     but birth control pills save the employer a lot more than they cost! So do condoms. Think of the reduced STDs, not to mention the reduced cost of paying for someone's kid. Why the resistance? If birth control is medically necessary, it should be available to both sexes. I don't see why this is so offensive. Tout abus sera puni   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   82.  Re: Great! Free condoms!   by bigdumbjerk       at Thu 6 Mar 11:03am score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 6     Bigeyes - I don't know whether the parent of this thread was being sarcastic or not, but here's my 2 cents. (Not that you asked for it!) Why shouldn't condoms be covered by insurance if the pill is? Several of the women that I have dated have had major issues with the pill - severe mood swings, physical pain, as well as minor cosmetic problems (acne, etc.) (i.e. bad reactions are not uncommon.) Wouldn't a fair solution be that the woman not have to take hormone altering drugs and instead have another option? (That either she or her partner be provide with gratis condoms.) Of course I tend to think contraception is a public health issue, and any measure that promotes the responsibility of all parties involved... (Although I'm sure that we wouldn't disagree on this.) Bah, what's my point? Umm, condoms and any other contraception should be free to provide an alternative to hormone altering chemicals. (Would that make women who don't use the pill "organic" or "free range"? -Please don't take offence at this.)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   141.  Re: BigEyes Rant   by kbrownecon       at Fri 7 Mar 12:17pm score of 1   in reply to comment 6     "OK, let's talk about that sauce. How about you guys find a way that YOU can miss work for OB/GYN appointments for 9 months, then miss work to recover from pushing a human being out of your body?" Wow, it sounds like you womyn gots plenty of incentive to buy birth control pills without having your employer pay for it. "and your girlfriend is a member of wimmin'sactivism.com, she won't pay child support because she thinks you could have opted for an abortion" Are you saying you want to prevent women from choosing abortions? I assume you're pro-choice. But the man's decision to not pay child support follows directly from the premises of the pro-choice position. If a fetus isn't a human child at conception, and the decision to carry it to term is the choice a woman makes with her own body, then it's silly to even think that anybody else besides the deciding woman is obligated to help care for the resulting child. If you and I plant an acorn in your backyard, and you do not bother to ever dig up said acorn, then I am not obligated to care for the resulting tree.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   92.  Re: Great! Free condoms!   by bigeyes       at Thu 6 Mar 1:03pm score of 1   in reply to comment 82     Actually, if they could get the insurance companies to do that, fine. But, see goldmund's post, mayorbob's post. I'd like to see the insurance companies have to pay for boob jobs and tummy tucks, too. If you've been following along, it seems the insurance companies are more than happy to cater to male vanity and the male sex drive, but we women are expected to just deal with it when age and health affect our sex lives, and we're expected to shut up and pay for the pills even if there's a non-contraceptive reason for taking them. The point is health insurance coverage is a lot more fair already if you're a man than if you're a woman. What I object to is the childish hey, I didn't get anything new! tone of the argument. Reminds me of the arguments that if women get paid a dollar for every dollar men get paid, we'll be taking away from the men. Why is it that every time we talk about doing what is right, fair and just for one group, suddenly another group, who doesn't have it so bad to begin with, has to pipe up with what about me? Let insurance pay for women's birth control pills, the male birth control pill when it's approved, along with both vasectomies and tubal ligations, and I'll be happy to let individuals continue to buy their own condoms, tampons, etc. ;) But I want to see some equity in the quality of life/lifestyle items covered by insurance. People keep saying this isn't fair and that isn't fair, is it fair to cover viagra and hair restoration, but not to cover, say a boob lift, a breast reconstruction, maybe that twat tightening surgery? What about electrolysis for facial hair on women? How are these things different than the items for men that are covered? So some women ask for their birth control pills to be covered and some guys have the nerve to say it isn't fair? Geeez.. And I don't think you can even say it's the evil insurance companies trying to screw over women. I think it truly has not occurred to them that these things might be as important to us as men's baldness or erection problems might be to them. So, maybe someone needs to inform them of the facts, hmmmm? Or get a few more women in on the decison making process. ;)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   99.  Re: Great! Free condoms!   by ms_sue_collins       at Thu 6 Mar 1:56pm score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 82     Bah, what's my point? Umm, condoms and any other contraception should be free to provide an alternative to hormone altering chemicals. Please correct me if I'm missing some logical step here, but isn't the main difference between condoms and the birth control pill the simple fact that one is available over the counter and one is available only by prescription? To me, the argument shouldn't be about adding nonprescriptive items but simply leveling the field when it comes to which prescriptions are covered. If a healthcare plan provides for a range of products, it should not discriminate against a class of people, as the court concluded in the Bartell case: Title VII does not require employers to offer any particular type or category of benefit. However, when an employer decides to offer a prescription plan covering everything except a few specifically excluded drugs and devices, it has a legal obligation to make sure that the resulting plan does not discriminate based on sex-based characteristics and that it provides equally comprehensive coverage for both sexes. It's a dog's life   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   115.  Re: Great! Free condoms!   by evie       at Thu 6 Mar 7:12pm score of 1   in reply to comment 82     Bah, what's my point? Umm, condoms and any other contraception should be free to provide an alternative to hormone altering chemicals. But the alternatives aren't necessarily any better. If you use the diaghram, you need to use spermacide with it, and well, that just really kills any sexual variety. I mean have you ever tried to go back to oral sex after inserting ick! And the diaghram can block sensitivity to the g-spot. Even condoms leave an unpleasant taste (unless latex is your things). They also offer the same limited view of sex, kiss and foreplay now, then move on the "real" sex where penis enters vagina, stop when male comes. Most men tell me that it doesn't feel as good with a condom, and from a female point of view, I don't think it feels as good either - there's a drag, that is unpleasantly unlike skin-skin contact. If you are relying on condoms only, you'd better hope that the female partner is awfully good at orgasming before the male, or she's either left unsatisfied, or potentially pregnant as condoms have a tendancy to slip off. Most versions of the pill are mimicing the natural hormone cycles of women, so I'm not sure if the organic term is appropriate or not. However if you are using spermacide instead - definitely not organic. Your comment scores 100 on the Flesch scale of reading ease, making it comparable to selections from Dr. Seuss.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   132.  Re: Great! Free condoms!   by stevetherobot       at Fri 7 Mar 6:48am score of 1   in reply to comment 115     They also offer the same limited view of sex, kiss and foreplay now, then move on the "real" sex where penis enters vagina, stop when male comes. The sponge is available again. a www.wired.com link Can be worn for 24 hours.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   137.  related story   by sammy baby       at Fri 7 Mar 9:02am score of 1   in reply to comment 10     When my wife was in high school, she had extremely heavy periods, so much so that the word "anemia" got bounced around a bit. Her doctor wrote a prescription for birth control pills for her. When her father took the prescription to their supermarket pharmacist to fill it, he initially refused to accept their insurance. The fact that they'd been provided for a legitmate medical reason didn't impress the pharmacist, who asked, "How do you know what she's using them for?" - in my plastic heart, forever, for art: what kind of lover am I? (e. mckeown)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   148.  Re: BigEyes Rant   by ms_sue_collins       at Fri 7 Mar 2:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 141     Wow, it sounds like you womyn gots plenty of incentive to buy birth control pills without having your employer pay for it. Your statement, with the annoying spelling and all, does nothing but further the argument, now accepted by the appeals court, that companies are legally bound by Title VII to cover prescription contraceptives. It's a dog's life   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   149.  Re: BigEyes Rant   by Nephthys       at Fri 7 Mar 3:12pm score of 1   in reply to comment 141     Are you suggesting that because of Roe v Wade men get to fuck with impunity? And that tree in my backyard? I don't have to feed it every hour, change it's diapers, give it my undivided attention, and pay over $150,000.00 over the first 18 years of its life. Cake or Death? Cake, please.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   150.  Re kbrownecon is obtuse   by bigeyes       at Fri 7 Mar 3:17pm score of 1   in reply to comment 141     Are you saying you want to prevent women from choosing abortions? I assume you're pro-choice. Well, you know what they say about assumptions. I have a child. My pregnancy cost me my job, as a matter of fact. The EEOC couldn't help me because the company was too small to fall under EEOC guidelines. A lawsuit would have maybe garnered me back pay, but the Wage and Hour people told me bartenders as tipped employees could not prove income, so all I would get was the previously quoted shit hourly pay. It would not have been worth my time to sue. I also saw my son's heartbeat on the sonogram when I was exactly 4 weeks pregnant. It isn't just a little bit of tissue. Not everyone shares my feelings, and the law backs them up if they choose abortion, however. I want to see a society where it is not considered necessary to consider a child a choice or a liability. Nobody should have to decide their child is going to prevent them from getting raises or promotions. Right now, many women have to make that choice. Nobody should have to think their child will cost them their job if they have too many illnesses and can't go to daycare. Again, many women are told they aren't dedicated to their jobs because they have no choice but to stay home when their kids are sick. This costs them raises, promotions, and ultimately jobs. I imagine the reason it is the woman's choice whether or not to abort is because it is her body that will be affected, her job that will be affected, her life that could be lost, etc. It ain't perfect, but it is a lot more fair than the days when wealthy landowners could ignore their illegitimate children while the mother was denounced as a harlot. Now, WHAT THE HELL does any of this have to do with insurance companies covering birth control pills? And, more importantly, what the hell does an acorn have to do with a child?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   153.  Nepthys   by kbrownecon       at Fri 7 Mar 7:50pm score of 1   in reply to comment 149     "Are you suggesting that because of Roe v Wade men get to fuck with impunity?" I'm saying that if you are pro-choice, then it is unreasonable of you to want to use the force of the state to make men pay child support. If the child is not a human being at conception, then the man is not responsible for creating a child. It is solely the woman's choice, and therefore solely the woman's responsibility. And no matter how much you have to do for the baby, if you want the sole choice to carry it to term, then you must be willing to take sole responsibility for its care. If you want others to be responsible to your child, then you cannot have the sole choice of whether to have the child. The obligation cuts both ways. I believe that, so long as the sexual relations between man and woman were the result of voluntary choice by both parties, then the woman is responsible to carry the child to term, and the man is responsible for the care of the child during pregnancy and through childhood. I am not sure whether these obligations should be enforced by the state, but I do believe that if you choose to use state action to enforce one, then you must use state action to enforce the other.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   154.  Reply to BigEyes reply   by kbrownecon       at Fri 7 Mar 8:19pm score of 1   in reply to comment 150     If you are pro-life, then you are at least internally consistent. If you should be legally obligated to carry the fetus to term, then your partner should be legally obligated to help care for the child. I simply believe that the obligations cut both ways. If you are not legally obligated to carry the fetus to term, then your partner should not be legally obligated to care for your child, because the child results from your choice, and was legally not a child until you chose to carry it to term. "I want to see a society where it is not considered necessary to consider a child a choice or a liability. Nobody should have to decide their child is going to prevent them from getting raises or promotions. Right now, many women have to make that choice." Well, many women have to make that choice because having a child creates a lot of obligations and responsibilities. And those obligations and responsibilities may make super job performance more difficult. Now, if you don't want to face that, then you're really trying to slough off the costs of your choices on other people; specifically those who made different choices than you did. You want to be able to stay home with your kids and still get raises and promotions, but that would come at the expense of others who choose not to have kids in order to increase their chances of raises and promotions. Why shouldn't somebody be allowed to delay pregnancy in order to advance more rapidly in their career? You don't want people to have that choice between kids and career, but then that also means that people can't choose to dedicate more time to their job in order to gain more rewards. What if somebody doesn't even want kids, so they end up having more time to work? Why should you move up as rapidly as they do? In short, your position implies that having kids (and your kids) entitles you to something from everybody else. I don't think it does. I think having kids entitles you and your kids to support from their biological father. I'm even willing to use the gummint' to chip in for some services for your kids, like schooling and stuff, but you yourself are not entitled to spend quality time with your kids AND be as prosperous as somebody who did a better job of family planning. "And, more importantly, what the hell does an acorn have to do with a child?" If you believe that a fetus is not a child, then a fetus is to a child as an acorn is to a tree. And if you and a guy plant the acorn in your yard, and you don't dig the acorn up, then the resulting tree ain't his problem.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   156.  Re: Reply to BigEyes reply   by bigeyes       at Fri 7 Mar 9:55pm score of 1   in reply to comment 154     You want to be able to stay home with your kids and still get raises and promotions, but that would come at the expense of others who choose not to have kids in order to increase their chances of raises and promotions. Why shouldn't somebody be allowed to delay pregnancy in order to advance more rapidly in their career? It doesn't work that way. Women who don't have kids aren't advancing any faster than those of us who do, they just aren't losing their jobs over child-care issues. We've discussed this on plastic many times (not you and I, but some of us here) and that argument is bogus. You don't want people to have that choice between kids and career, but then that also means that people can't choose to dedicate more time to their job in order to gain more rewards. In a perfect world, people who show dedication to their jobs would all be rewarded, but they aren't. The wage gap still exists whether or not women forgo having children. It's been said over and over, nobody asks men how they expect to combine a family and a career. Again, bogus argument. In short, your position implies that having kids (and your kids) entitles you to something from everybody else. Wrong. My position is women should not be penalized for having children, as they currently are.>/I> but you yourself are not entitled to spend quality time with your kids AND be as prosperous as somebody who did a better job of family planning Now, see, that's where you crossed the line. I was sterile according to a couple of doctors and had about 12 years with no pregnancies following that diagnosis. We also used a condom on the night when I became pregnant, and I DO know exactly when it happened. Sometimes, it would seem, miracles happen. My planning had nothing to do with it. The fact that my boss at the time didn't want a pregnant woman working for him because he didn't think I would look sexy enough for his customers (I guess) is again, hardly my fault, and certainly not fair when you figure most people choose a bartender based on skill and personality, not whether or not they can have children. Since I was replaced by a woman who was an unemployed mud-wrestler (really!) who didn't even know how to mix drinks, I can assure you that my dedication to the job was not a factor. People don't always play fair, don't always give raises or promotions based on performance, and don't always fit into the little boxes you draw for them. You can believe a fetus is not a child all you want, but there's a little more to ending it's life or growth, if that makes you happy than just scooping up a little dirt and unplanting it. It isn't that simple. And, as was also pointed out earlier, it does not change the fact that the company is discriminating by not covering the birth control pills if they cover viagra or hair transplants. Yeeesh. And those obligations and responsibilities may make super job performance more difficult. Now, if you don't want to face that, then you're really trying to slough off the costs of your choices on other people; specifically those who made different choices than you did. Wrong again. Maybe you can explain to me how a woman who takes time off without pay so she can stay home with her child a few days a year is any less productive than a childless woman or man who is at work screwing off on Plastic several hours every day instead of doing their job?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   157.  Re: Reply to BigEyes reply   by kbrownecon       at Fri 7 Mar 11:20pm score of 1   in reply to comment 156     "It doesn't work that way. Women who don't have kids aren't advancing any faster than those of us who do, they just aren't losing their jobs over child-care issues." Actually, yes they are, and women do lose their jobs over child care issues because having children to care for does make it harder to work. "Me: In short, your position implies that having kids (and your kids) entitles you to something from everybody else. You: Wrong. My position is women should not be penalized for having children, as they currently are." What I've tried to explain is that the two statements are one and the same. Given that having children makes it more difficult to work and you want women to suffer no penalty at work for having children, that means you have to take it out of somebody else's hide, and that's going to be those who don't have children or who have agreed to specialize in out-of-housework so their partner could specialize more in childcare. "In a perfect world, people who show dedication to their jobs would all be rewarded, but they aren't. The wage gap still exists whether or not women forgo having children. It's been said over and over, nobody asks men how they expect to combine a family and a career. Again, bogus argument." Nothing bogus about it. The reason nobody asks men how they combine family and career is because, on aberage, men increase their labor supply in response to having a child, while women decrease theirs. That's because men and women, for whatever reason, usually (not always)agree to make the woman the primary caregiver. The wage gap simply reflects that women with children cannot put the same time into a career that men and childless women can. Remember, the wage gap is not driven by childless women; it is driven by women with children. "Now, see, that's where you crossed the line." Yes, and I apologize. I took an overly cheap shot. "People don't always play fair, don't always give raises or promotions based on performance, and don't always fit into the little boxes you draw for them." Of course not, but the people who do play unfair do put themselves at a long term disadvantage. If your bar owner hired someone who would bring in less money, then he didn't do himself any favors by firing you. This doesn't do you any good, of course, but it does show that free and competitive markets are a good way to reduce discrimination over time. And as unjust as your case appears to be, if we set up this massive system to correct it, how often will it really correct cases like yours, and how often will it just make the situation worse and create new injustices? "it does not change the fact that the company is discriminating by not covering the birth control pills if they cover viagra or hair transplants. Yeeesh." But the company (Union Pacific doesn't cover hair transplants, or even vasectomies (I have no idea whether they cover Viagra or not). Now you're just making shit up without even reading the story. At least read the freakin' story. "Wrong again. Maybe you can explain to me how a woman who takes time off without pay so she can stay home with her child a few days a year is any less productive than a childless woman or man who is at work screwing off on Plastic several hours every day instead of doing their job?" She probably isn't less productive. But some jobs may place a premium on availability, being there in case something comes up. For instance, there's this amazingly profitable and completely laid back Brazilian company called Semco. They have this guy that just sits at a desk reading a newspaper all day, unless there's a specific type of emergency (I think it's if something goes wrong with a pipeline), then he swings into action on the spot. The point is that guy can screw off all he wants, as long as he's there a whole heck of a lot so he can swing immediately into action if things go wrong. To the extent the guy wasn't able to be there, even if he was staying home with a sick child, he'd be less effective at his job. Now, there is an interesting point to what you say. Due to private information about effort levels and quality in some jobs, (where only the employee knows their own effort level and their quality of output is very difficult to measure) maybe the only way an employee can appear productive is to be at the office a lot. This is what economists call a signaling equilibrium, when you undertake a costly action that is usually correlated with some positive trait to separate yourself from someone else who can't take the costly action, and who is therefore less likely to have the positive trait. In this sort of situation, then it is possible that the labor market is then unfair to someone with children, because that person with children is productive, but can't undertake the costly signaling action because of their parenting duties.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   166.  More crap from kbrowne....(yawn)   by bigeyes       at Sat 8 Mar 2:37pm score of 1   in reply to comment 157     Our previous exchange "It doesn't work that way. Women who don't have kids aren't advancing any faster than those of us who do, they just aren't losing their jobs over child-care issues." Actually, yes they are, and women do lose their jobs over child care issues because having children to care for does make it harder to work. I can understand your confusion, let me break that down. Women who don't have kids are not advancing any faster than the rest of us, however women without kids are not losing their jobs because of childcare issues. But some jobs may place a premium on availability, being there in case something comes up. For instance, there's this amazingly profitable and completely laid back Brazilian company called Semco. They have this guy that just sits at a desk reading a newspaper all day, unless there's a specific type of emergency (I think it's if something goes wrong with a pipeline), then he swings into action on the spot. The point is that guy can screw off all he wants, as long as he's there a whole heck of a lot so he can swing immediately into action if things go wrong. To the extent the guy wasn't able to be there, even if he was staying home with a sick child, he'd be less effective at his job. So, in essence, this guy gets paid to be a do-nothing until there is an emergency. However, women are expected to be 100% productive at all times and never ever miss work, even if nothing is happening, or else they aren't dedicated to their jobs. And to top it off, even the ones who are completely dedicated to their jobs are penalized because of the anti-woman bias. There was an article I've quoted here before, (sorry there is no link, not online)_that reported on a survey showing that first-time fathers tended to get a 10% raise in pay that year, whether or not their performance and attendance were affected by being new fathers. Interestingly, the survey also reported that first-time mothers did not see the same kinds of financial bonuses at work, again , regardless of performance and attendance. Here's the kicker, though...the article was titled Dads Deliver. It should have been titled Mothers Screwed Again in the Workplace. Now, this discussion is about insurance paying for birth control. Let's take a look at what the kbrownecon boys choir has to say when women point out how this is the right thing to do: wonder what the "health risks" have been for your average, everyday infantry soldier throughout history? When are going to realize discrimination against you is all in your minds? I have to wonder the church's stance on keeping her legs closed. Women save a ton of money on drinks, dinners and movies. You won't die without birth control pills, you just won't get laid in the classic vaginal way, which sucks, but getting laid in that classic vaginal way isn't medically necessary (and isn't even necessary for a woman to achieve orgasm). In short, your position implies that having kids (and your kids) entitles you to something from everybody else. I don't think it does. I'm saying that if you are pro-choice, then it is unreasonable of you to want to use the force of the state to make men pay child support. If the child is not a human being at conception, then the man is not responsible for creating a child. It is solely the woman's choice, and therefore solely the woman's responsibility. I was thinking more about oral sex. Perhaps you haven't heard of it. From the tone of your post, I think perhaps you are due for some. Keep dancing for me, and maybe I'll throw you some change, little monkey. This causes me to think about the recent OTC status given to Allegra (I think) that the insurance companies pushed for. I wonder if birth control pills are next? Since most insurance companies don't provide any coverage for OTC drugs at all, this would pass the entire cost of the pill onto the consumers. Sounds like that would "solve" the insurance industry's problems with this issue entirely.I wonder if this is something that women want? Apparently, we %$#@&*& women should keep dancing, take it up the ass, give head, accept whatever crap insurance companies, employers and misogynists hand out without complaint, and everything will be just fine. Really, kb, this has been fun, but you guys should sit back and let sulli and whoarewe do the the talking. At least they use something besides pure hatred of women as the basis of their arguments. see ya next week.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   12.  Re: Great! Free condoms!   by Nephthys       at Wed 5 Mar 6:19pm score of 1   in reply to comment 2     I buy condoms for its STD protection and to ensure I have them just in case my male partner is forgetful. It's an bug barrier and a back up. I get the Pill for many reasons. The Pill is more effective than the condom when used properly to prevent unwanted pregnancy. More importantly I have a medical condition that is alleviated by the Pill. If I was not on the Pill I would be in excruciating pain and potentially bleed to death with every period. Whether I was having sex or not, I would forever be on a hormonal contraceptive. Finally, it is far cheaper for insurance to cover my birth control pills every month than it is to pay for prenatal care, birthing, and the coverage of a dependant. In conclusion, the Pill improves my health, is more effective than the condom, and its coverage is wiser fiscally. When the male Pill becomes available will you happily pay the $30-50 a month if it is not covered by insurance? Cake or Death? Cake, please.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   20.  Re: Great! Free condoms!   by Goldmund       at Wed 5 Mar 6:53pm score of 1   in reply to comment 12     Darling, don't you know? The male pill will most assuredly be covered by insurance. Wasn't it Andrea Dworkin who said that if men were the ones who got pregnant, abortion would not only be available everywhere, all the time, but Free, too.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   33.  Re: Great! Free condoms!   by MAYORBOB       at Wed 5 Mar 8:26pm score of 4.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 12     Lest this conversation get stuck in the rut of women's needs too much. Consider the plight of the post 40 year old male. Now, getting a regular erection was becoming a difficulty for us male gendered critters of the senior citizen variety. Did medical science come through for us with some sort of magic pill? Well, did it? Oh, uhm, yeah it did. And darned if a lot of those nice benevolent insurance companies didn't include them in your coverage. And, well, we were having that problem with receding hairlines. Did medical science rush through with a miracle potion that you rubbed onto your noggin to help the hairs sprout? Well, did they? Ah, uhm, yes they did that also. And, whattaya know, those nice insurance guys also included the costs of that hair gunk in your coverage. I mean medical science and the insurance industry are wonderful things that they can do all of that. What are you women complaining about, anyway? Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   49.  Re: Great! Free condoms!   by sulli       at Thu 6 Mar 12:45am score of 1   in reply to comment 12     When the male Pill becomes available will you happily pay the $30-50 a month if it is not covered by insurance? You're damn right I will. And if female birth control is covered while male is not, it's lawsuit time. (I actually suspect that the advocates in question here would favor including it, but one is never sure.) Tout abus sera puni   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   71.  Re: Great! Free condoms!   by SVDave       at Thu 6 Mar 10:00am score of 1   in reply to comment 33     And, well, we were having that problem with receding hairlines. Did medical science rush Rush? Tell me, how many decades elapsed between the introduction of the Pill and the introduction of Rogaine? through with a miracle potion that you rubbed onto your noggin to help the hairs sprout? Well, did they? Ah, uhm, yes they did that also. And, whattaya know, those nice insurance guys also included the costs of that hair gunk in your coverage. No they did not. Rogaine was not paid for by medical insurance when it was available by prescription, and it is not paid for now that it is available over the counter. Likewise with Propecia, a pill that is used to treat baldness. It is not covered by medical insurance in its anti-baldness dosage. "Please turn off your spam filters and pop-up blockers prior to your ordination." - ULC   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   74.  Re: Great! Free condoms!   by MAYORBOB       at Thu 6 Mar 10:16am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 71     Talking on dual tracks here. "Rush? Tell me, how many decades elapsed between the introduction of the Pill and the introduction of Rogaine? What is the linkage between the time the birth control pill came on the market and when rogaine was made available? The point is that it didn't take medical science long, once it was determined that a). receding hairline was a problem for men, and b). there were some promising scientific approaches to promote hair growth. "Rogaine was not paid for by medical insurance when it was available by prescription, and it is not paid for now that it is available over the counter. Likewise with Propecia, a pill that is used to treat baldness. It is not covered by medical insurance in its anti-baldness dosage." Then you have a very limited viewpoint on what medical insurance policies would cover. First of all, virtually all of the biggies covered prescription coverage for Viagra (I know you didn't mention it, but it's still worthwhile to note that a medicine of use almost solely to men is standardly coverable by insurance policies). Rogaine prescriptions were covered by the insurance I had with Aetna back about ten years ago. I don't know about Propecia, so I defer to your statement. But, you know any number of surgical approaches to hair replacement (hair plugs and the like) have been covered by any number of insurance carriers. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   80.  Re: Great! Free condoms!   by bokeh       at Thu 6 Mar 10:35am score of 1.5 helpful   in reply to comment 20     Wasn't it Andrea Dworkin who said that if men were the ones who got pregnant, abortion would not only be available everywhere, all the time, but Free, too. Actually, the quote is "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament" and is sometimes attributed to Gloria Steinem, but it comes from Florynce Kennedy. If there is a Universal Mind, must it be sane? --Charles Fort   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   87.  Re: Great! Free condoms!   by SVDave       at Thu 6 Mar 11:25am score of 1   in reply to comment 74     What is the linkage between the time the birth control pill came on the market and when rogaine was made available? The point is that it didn't take medical science long, once it was determined that a). receding hairline was a problem for men, What, do you think scientists figured out in 1985 that men find baldness undesirable? I think it's been known for centuries that receding hairlines are a problem for men. Doesn't sound like a "rush" to me. and b). there were some promising scientific approaches to promote hair growth. So the same could be said of the Pill, and just about any other drug on the market. The meta-point of this thread, and your post, is that women are being treated worse than men when receiving medical care. You paint a picture of scientists rushing to get male-specific drugs on the market, while ignoring female-specific issues. My point is that, given the history of male-specific vs. female-specific drugs, I would conclude exactly the opposite. Then you have a very limited viewpoint on what medical insurance policies would cover. First of all, virtually all of the biggies covered prescription coverage for Viagra (I know you didn't mention it, but it's still worthwhile to note that a medicine of use almost solely to men is standardly coverable by insurance policies). I didn't mention Viagra because you didn't mention it in your post, but now that you have, I'll state my opinion: male erectile disfunction is a medical disorder, female fertility is not. To say that they are the same issue because they both involve sex is disingenuous. It is like arguing that if medical insurance covers orthopedic braces for feet, they should pay for shoes for everyone else. After all, shoes can be expensive and not wearing them can lead to medical problems (tetanus, parasitic infection, etc.). Now, I'd be opposed to an insurance company paying for Viagra for men but not women (as I understand that Viagra can be beneficial for women in some situations), or some other drug that would have a similar beneficial effect for women. If a male Pill became available, I would want it to be treated the same as the female Pill. Rogaine prescriptions were covered by the insurance I had with Aetna back about ten years ago. I find that surprising, but I'll take your word for it. I've never had, nor heard of (before now), medical insurance covering either Rogaine or Propecia, as both drugs treat a "cosmetic" condition. "Please turn off your spam filters and pop-up blockers prior to your ordination." - ULC   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   96.  Re: Great! Free condoms!   by bigeyes       at Thu 6 Mar 1:19pm score of 1   in reply to comment 87     I'll state my opinion: male erectile disfunction is a medical disorder, female fertility is not. No, but infertility is, and it usually is not covered for men or women. Now, I know not every man on the planet is looking to escape from the responsibility of taking care of his children, should he have any, but I'd venture if men were lining up in droves complaining that they couldn't father children, somebody at one of the insurance companies would go y'know, maybe we should start covering this. It's very odd to me they'll cover maternity, delivery, any children you have, but they won't cover infertility treatments or contraception, for the most part.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   42.  Re: Great! Free condoms!   by eduardo       at Wed 5 Mar 11:03pm score of 1   in reply to comment 2     If you're having sex with a condom, why even bother? J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   51.  Re: Great! Free condoms!   by Nameless Cynic       at Thu 6 Mar 2:29am score of 1   in reply to comment 42     Damn, eduardo. Maybe to save your friggin' life? Maybe to save you from an STD? Remember, there's three big ones out there. AIDS, herpes and genital warts. Two will make you ugly, one will make you dead. (Didn't you learn this in school? Didn't one of your parents tell you? Ain't college doing you any good at all?!? Oh, yeah. And to not breed, since you got no parental interests at this time. Let's not forget that one. Welcome to the 21st Century. Remember to buckle up. Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   116.  Re: Great! Free condoms!   by Tessera       at Thu 6 Mar 8:21pm score of 1   in reply to comment 42     If you're having sex with a condom, why even bother? Because for some of us, sex with a woman's not an option. So hey, it's not the greatest, but sex with a condom's better than no sex at all. And it never has a headache.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Birds and Bees   by glorfinde1       at Wed 5 Mar 5:50pm score of 3 brilliant     For men, contraception is not a medical necessity. No man will get pregnant through sex, ever. The same is not true for women, however. since pregnancy constitutes a variety of significant health risks and bodily changes that the woman may or may not want to undergo, it seems logical that companies should cover, as a medical necessity, contraception for women. Or they could pay for abortions, whichever they find less distasteful. This is one of those cases where gender equity requires paying particular attention to biological differences, rather than adhering to a one-size-fits-both-sexes policy. Face it, it's not like you can just expect women to not have sex their whole lives. Do you experience feelings of dread in your attic or basement?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Huh?   by sulli       at Wed 5 Mar 5:54pm score of 1   in reply to comment 3     And sex isn't risky for men? Condoms are just as medically useful for men and women both, pregnancy notwithstanding, as (say) birth control pills are for women. This is of course because they prevent sexually transmitted diseases. Face it, it's not like you can just expect women to not have sex their whole lives. Do you expect men to not have sex their whole lives then? Tout abus sera puni   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   7.  You Make an Important Point.   by glorfinde1       at Wed 5 Mar 6:08pm score of 2.5 clever   in reply to comment 4     And I think men likewise have an argument for having condoms covered by insurance. But the story revolves around women asking for coverage, not men, and their primary concern (as far as I can see) is the health risk associated with pregnancy. I'd be perfectly happy with the insurance company covering condoms for women (that way both sexes are happy.) Do you expect men to not have sex their whole lives then? Not at all. I just expect them not to get pregnant their whole lives. Do you experience feelings of dread in your attic or basement?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   8.  Re: Huh?   by indiaink       at Wed 5 Mar 6:09pm score of 3 astute   in reply to comment 4     That's an interesting point but I think one difference is that condoms are not a prescriptive medicine. Asking for health insurance to pay for condoms would be like asking insurance companies to pay for over-the-counter aspirin or cough syrup. "Warning: Please exercise caution- mask and chest plate are not protective; cape does not enable wearer to fly."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   13.  Re: Huh?   by bigeyes       at Wed 5 Mar 6:19pm score of 1.5 succinct   in reply to comment 4     Only if they refuse to wear a condom. ;) Actually, I would expect a man to not have sex ever again about as much as I would expect a man to die in childbirth, or any of the other examples I mentioned earlier.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   37.  Re: You Make an Important Point.   by sulli       at Wed 5 Mar 8:55pm score of 1   in reply to comment 7     But the story revolves around women asking for coverage, not men Right. And (hmm.. let me check..) I'm not a woman. So I am appropriately enough, in my view, asking for equal treatment. I still don't see why this is so offensive. When the male birth control pill is FINALLY available, of course, the parallel will be more exact. Nonetheless I don't think there is any justifiable reason for treating the sexes differently here, unless one sex were to pay a higher premium [1], which I can't imagine that you and bigeyes would endorse. [1] we do, for auto insurance. perhaps we should sue. Tout abus sera puni   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   41.  Re: You Make an Important Point.   by glorfinde1       at Wed 5 Mar 10:57pm score of 1   in reply to comment 37     I don't see why this is difficult for you to get, but let me try one more time. Women get pregnant. Men don't. This health concern for which women identify birth control as a medical necessity is inherently different from the one you are specifying for men (which could more properly be said to apply for both sexes.) Because you can't get pregnant, being a man, there's fundamentally no way you could be treated equally on this issue; it'd be similar to women asking for coverage for treatment of testicular cancer... haven't got 'em, can't be treated. And if the higher premium weren't severely out of line with the benefit, why would I mind paying it for a different set of coverage? Do you experience feelings of dread in your attic or basement?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   44.  Re: You Make an Important Point.   by andy p       at Wed 5 Mar 11:16pm score of 1   in reply to comment 41     But a man can get his partner pregnant. Seeing as how a lot of medical plans cover family members, this applies. Barrels are just crates with delusions of grandeur   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   47.  Re: Huh?   by mrmoog       at Wed 5 Mar 11:41pm score of 1   in reply to comment 13     ... I would expect a man to not have sex ever again about as much as I would expect a man to die in childbirth... Surely you've come across men who will obviously never have sex. However, I do agree with the sentiment of your statement, although it might be better phrased as, "I would expect a man to not want to have sex ever again..."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   57.  Re: You Make an Important Point.   by glorfinde1       at Thu 6 Mar 6:38am score of 1   in reply to comment 44     Every company insurance plan that I was ever belonged to always charged extra for including family members, I fail to see how this would be any different. If those partners are covered under the current plan, why shouldn't they be covered for prescription contraceptives? Do you experience feelings of dread in your attic or basement?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   59.  Re: You Make an Important Point.   by bigeyes       at Thu 6 Mar 7:50am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 37     You pay higher premiums for auto insurance because men are more likely to get in an accident. Men also are more likely to tailgate, react violently ala road rage, take chances that cause accidents....IIRC, the insurance companies back all this up with the stats everyone here is so fond of. Women drivers have their own bad habits, like being over-cautious, and those morons who put makeup on while driving, but apparently enough men drive badly to make the insurance companies see a benefit in charging them more. If you're unlucky enough to be in several car crashes that are clearly not your fault, your insurance also goes up, because statistically, you are more likely to get in an accident. If you live in a high-crime area, your homeowners or renters policy would be higher, too. More? See MAYORBOB's comment. Talk about apples and oranges....   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   68.  Re: You Make an Important Point.   by sulli       at Thu 6 Mar 9:32am score of 1   in reply to comment 59     So do you favor higher health insurance premiums for women of child-bearing age? Women are, after all, both 100% more likely to require birth contol pills (since male pills don't exist yet), and also 100% more likely to get pregnant. Or is it discrimination when women are charged more, yet statistically appropriate when men are? Just asking for equal treatment, that's all. Sorry that's so offensive. Tout abus sera puni   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   73.  Statistically Speaking   by iarnuocon       at Thu 6 Mar 10:12am score of 2.5 informative   in reply to comment 68     Women are currently charged the same for insurance, yet because most insurance policies don't cover a variety conditions or treatments specific to women, women pay 68% more out of pocket expenses than men for the "same" coverage. It seems that women are already being "charged" higher premiums in that they pay the same as men, but get less benefit. That's what I call discrimination, not to mention statistically inappropriate. Or do you think the sexes are equably treated when "quality of life" issues for men are covered (such as with Viagra), but medically necessary treatments for women such as oral contraceptives for the treatment of ovarian cysts is NOT covered because it coincidentally also "treats" a woman's "quality of life" issue (risk of pregnancy)? Currently 20 states have passed inclusive prescriptive contraception legislation; 13 more states have bills pending. It's about time the federal government got on board and addressed this issue. It's cost-effective, necessary, and the failure to address it is discriminatory. Men get more than equal treatment, and your failure to see it despite women's testimony, industry studies, and three-color pie charts is probably what they find offensive. I honestly believe the paraphrase of an old feminist slogan: "If men could get pregnant, birth control would be a sacrament." That would be especially true if men's birth control coincidentally treated half a dozen other conditions that disproportionately affected them alone. Or is that too difficult to understand? insanus omnis furere credit ceteros... ecce signum   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   83.  Challenge your thinking!   by bigdumbjerk       at Thu 6 Mar 11:08am score of 1   in reply to comment 7     Why are condoms only the preserve of male customers? Shouldn't both parties bear some responsibility for contraception? I for one feel that it is my duty to share the costs and burden of any contraception that is needed. (if that means my buying condoms, or subsidising the cost of the pill, well that's only right.)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   84.  Re: Statistically Speaking   by sulli       at Thu 6 Mar 11:11am score of 1   in reply to comment 73     Or is that too difficult to understand? I understand your point very clearly, thanks. (But you can feel free to score "Men Don't Get It" points if that works for you.) I think the discussion comes down to whether insurance should (a) cover all reasonable costs of each user group with equal profit margins, with different prices charged each user group (auto insurance case, okay to bigeyes at least); (b) deliver identical benefits to each user group at the same price, with some cross-subsidization but many desirable benefits left out (status quo with health insurance minus the obvious exception of Viagra, which is hardly relevant for young people anyway); or (c) cover all reasonable costs of each user group at the same price, with a lot of cross-subsidization (seemingly what many people are asking for here). Put another way: on a pure cash basis, it's cheaper to be a young man than a young woman. Young men have much lower health care requirements (the trend reverses as men get older and ultimately die sooner). Fair or not, it's true. In an environment in which health insurance is voluntary, how much do we want young men to subsidize young women (and older women to subsidize older men)? If the number is too high, men will simply opt out, which isn't in anyone's interest. Of course the real answer might be to make health insurance mandatory (or go to some more radical solution like single-payer). But there is a line that has to be drawn here, and it's a difficult one to draw. On the subject at hand, employer-paid health care plans, it does make sense to include contraception - for both sexes. Tout abus sera puni   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   97.  Re: Huh?   by bigeyes       at Thu 6 Mar 1:25pm score of 1   in reply to comment 47     Surely you've come across men who will obviously never have sex. No, I didn't come across, hence the not having sex thing! ;) However, I do agree with the sentiment of your statement, although it might be better phrased as, "I would expect a man to not want to have sex ever again..." yup, ya got me there.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   119.  Re: You Make an Important Point.   by vancegod       at Thu 6 Mar 9:03pm score of 1   in reply to comment 37     Hurah! In my opinion asking for special treatment on the job flies in the face of the feminist movement in this country. Auto insurance is a perfect analogy here. Take that analogy out of the private sector and into the work place. A delivery company I worked for was charged less money to insure their fleet of vehicles while they had an entirely female delivery staff. Guess what the ensuing "unwritten" hiring policy became after this discovery... "Love is fleeting, power is eternal"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   120.  Re: You Make an Important Point.   by vancegod       at Thu 6 Mar 9:08pm score of 1   in reply to comment 59     Why do you think men exhibit the behaviors you describe in your comment? Do you think that there is a national conspiracy to teach men to behave this way. (Currently single female families are the majority in this country, so be careful) Or do you think men are biologically predisposed to behave in some of the ways you described? If you think biology plays a role, doesn't it follow that men are being discriminated against because of thier biologic differences.? "Love is fleeting, power is eternal"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   133.  Re: You Make an Important Point.   by stevetherobot       at Fri 7 Mar 6:55am score of 1   in reply to comment 37     But auto insurance premiums are based on numbers. Statistically men have more accidents than women. If you could prove that, statistically, women get pregnant than men, then What's that? Oh. Never mind then. Carry on.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   9.  Re: Birds and Bees   by frightenedmonkey       at Wed 5 Mar 6:10pm score of 1   in reply to comment 3     Ah, but providing birth control would be preventative medicine. It doesn't matter how much they save in the long run, they'd be saving money now!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   18.  Re: Birds and Bees   by 0tim0       at Wed 5 Mar 6:49pm score of 1   in reply to comment 3     For men, contraception is not a medical necessity. No man will get pregnant through sex, ever. I agree. That's why it is silly to call this 'sex discrimination'. Discrimination implies treating one group differently than you treat another. Since this is a non-issue for men, how can women be treated different? --t "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument." -William E. Gladstone   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  Re: Birds and Bees   by indiaink       at Wed 5 Mar 7:12pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 18     The court decision in the Bartell case that is linked to in the write up states, "(b) in determining whether an employment policy treats the sexes equally, the court must look at the comprehensiveness of the coverage provided to each sex. It was the dissenters' interpretation of Title VII which ultimately prevailed in Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 95-948, at 2 (1978) ("Justice Brennan . . . pointed out that since the plan included comprehensive coverage for males and failed to provide comprehensive coverage for females, the majority erred in finding that the exclusion of pregnancy disability coverage was a nondiscriminatory policy." It is discriminatory because there are different medical needs for men and women. It is not a matter of being treated differently but rather meeting the needs of each group to the same degree. It is discriminatory to provide good coverage for one sex and inadequate coverage for the other sex based on different medical needs. "Warning: Please exercise caution- mask and chest plate are not protective; cape does not enable wearer to fly."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  Re: Birds and Bees   by 0tim0       at Wed 5 Mar 7:30pm score of 1   in reply to comment 21     It is discriminatory because there are different medical needs for men and women. It is not a matter of being treated differently but rather meeting the needs of each group to the same degree. It is discriminatory to provide good coverage for one sex and inadequate coverage for the other sex based on different medical needs. Any way you slice it, it's completely arbitrary. The idea of "good" coverage is a matter of opinion. If they found a man insured by that company who felt he had "bad" coverage would that be a good enough reason to not pay for the pill? If they are forced to pay for the pill, should they then be forced to pay for condoms or a vasectomy? If they cover the pill, wouldn't it be discriminitory against men not to cover condoms? I'll say it again, men and women are different. You can't compare apples and oranges. It sounds more to me like the court knew what descision it wanted and then found a way to justify it. --t "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument." -William E. Gladstone   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   38.  Re: Birds and Bees   by indiaink       at Wed 5 Mar 9:32pm score of 1   in reply to comment 22     Ok, I shouldn't have used the word good but I think it is still possible to determine if policies are equally comprehesive in their coverage of the different needs of the sexes. Issues related to contraceptive pills are important to women's health for a variety of reasons that have been discussed throughout this discussion. For contraceptives to not be covered a large area of women's health issues are left uncovered. The court decision further stated, Although the plan covers almost all drugs and devices used by men, the exclusion of prescription contraceptives creates a gaping hole in the coverage offered to female employees, leaving a fundamental and immediate healthcare need uncovered. I would think that vasectomies would be covered in the same policies that cover Tubal Ligation for women. While I think there are convincing arguments about coverage of condoms, I think that issues related to contracptives are a much more integral part of women's health needs than condoms are for men. And that coverage of condoms is a separate question with it's own set of issues. "Warning: Please exercise caution- mask and chest plate are not protective; cape does not enable wearer to fly."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   60.  Re: Birds and Bees   by bigeyes       at Thu 6 Mar 8:02am score of 2 brilliant   in reply to comment 22     As MAYORBOB pointed out, they already cover baldness cures and limp dicks. Last I checked, unless I have a mastectomy, I can't get a boob job covered. And some women had to sue an insurance company to get that, originally! The bottom line is, these companies are run by men, and they tend to take care of men's health issues because they know how really important things like, say, baldness affect a man. It's not to hard to think maybe they figure a man's sex life and self image are important, but to hell with us women. Up until recently, they weren't forced to cover pap smears, but I wonder, does anyone have stats on how long they've covered prostate cancer screening. Do we need to hark back to that old heart attack study that only studied men, though women also had a high rate of death from heart failure? Does anyone see a pattern here? The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and since there are more men running insurance companies, more men in the legislature, more men a position to buy a lobbyist, it shouldn't be a huge surprise that it goes this way.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   110.  Re: Birds and Bees   by WhoAreWe       at Thu 6 Mar 5:25pm score of 1   in reply to comment 60     Baldness cures and limp dicks aren't men's health issues (ED is one but not in the context of this discussion. Because we're talking about old men here.) The bottom line is, these companies are run by men, and they tend to take care of men's health issues because they know how really important things like, say, baldness affect a man. There's no "conspiracy" to raise men at the cost of women. It probably means that the old men want to help themselves and therefore put these policies in place and everything else is a side effect. I know it's not much of a consolation, but I don't think it's much of a consolation either when the WHO says that women are "biologically superior" and therefore more studies should cover them. More to the point: I don't think the male pill, if created, would be covered at all, because it doesn't affect the bigwigs much. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and since there are more men running insurance companies, more men in the legislature, more men a position to buy a lobbyist, it shouldn't be a huge surprise that it goes this way. Men die earlier, and there seems to be no Office of Men's Health in the US though there are plenty of Offices of Women's Health. How do you explain this? Colorblind? Why would I ever want to be willfully blind?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   113.  Re: Birds and Bees   by bigeyes       at Thu 6 Mar 6:20pm score of 1   in reply to comment 110     There's no "conspiracy" to raise men at the cost of women. It probably means that the old men want to help themselves and therefore put these policies in place and everything else is a side effect. Uh, yeah, I think I said that, if not in this post, then in another one here. I agree 100% Men die earlier, and there seems to be no Office of Men's Health in the US though there are plenty of Offices of Women's Health. How do you explain this? 1) for the longest time, studies done on health issues centered around men. There was no need to establish a separate entity dealing with men's health since the already established entities were focused on men to begin with. Groups who focused on women's health were formed to address this, not to exclude men. 2) I've said it a million times. Men run the world because women cannot get along together long enough to vote for change. Men control the vote, men control politics, men control big business. It isn't a massive male conspiracy in most cases, it's just that they look out for their interests. Women are too busy seeing all other women as competition, dishing about how slutty the 22 year old receptionist is, hating the exercise freak who is still thin at 40, and just generally fucking up. There are certain men who make it quite clear they don't want women to make any progress, but for the most part, this is just a bunch of guys who think of themselves first, and a bunch of girls who think of their petty differences before they think about what really matters.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   124.  Re: Birds and Bees   by WhoAreWe       at Thu 6 Mar 9:49pm score of 1   in reply to comment 113     1) for the longest time, studies done on health issues centered around men. There was no need to establish a separate entity dealing with men's health since the already established entities were focused on men to begin with. Groups who focused on women's health were formed to address this, not to exclude men. This article which does not seem to be biased indicates that there seems to be no bias against women in clinical trials, except in the area of heart disease. Meanwhile there's a bias against men in most cancer trials. So if the studies did center around men (and the article also says that the treatment generally works well for both genders in most cases) why are men underrepresented in cancer trials, even after accounting for gender-specific cancers (prostate and breast cancer in particular)? And if this is true, do you see a need for an Office for Men's Health? Colorblind? Why would I ever want to be willfully blind?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   127.  Re: Birds and Bees   by bigeyes       at Thu 6 Mar 10:27pm score of 1   in reply to comment 124     We've gone round and round about studies and statistics before. For every study that says there is a bias, there's another that says there isn't. Seems to me like cancer is an equal opportunity killer, so if that is accurate, it needs to be fixed. "Disease is the great equalizer. While the path to disease may be different for men and women, the treatment usually works equally well for both. That does not mean that gender is irrelevant, but that the disease state and history are usually more important. The emphasis should be placed on doing better trials and on better reporting of trials and not on who is being studied," Dr. Meinert adds. It seems to me we all need to be more vigilant about insisting they pay attention to their own studies! I can see your point, maybe they do need an office for men's health! Something else interesting comes to mind...I know quite a few men who are reluctant to go to the doctor for illness, injury, even checkups. Isn't it possible they are not getting the volunteers they need for research because of reluctance to go to the doctor? Also, who determines where and how money is distributed for medical studies? Isn't it special interest groups and pharmaceutical companies? And don't they usually have some hypothesis they are trying to prove, rather than a let's take this group of people with this set of characteristics and see what happens kind of thing? Who is monitoring the people who do the studies?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   131.  Re: Birds and Bees   by sulli       at Thu 6 Mar 11:34pm score of 1   in reply to comment 110     Men die earlier, and there seems to be no Office of Men's Health in the US though there are plenty of Offices of Women's Health. How do you explain this? Pure politics. There has been plenty of organizing around women's health issues, notably breast cancer. With the exception of prostate cancer, this hasn't happened on the other side, and not nearly to the same level - probably because more men survive it, and maybe because there's nobody out there looking to build a political career on it (e.g. in Long Island). Another reason may be that proportionately men are less likely to die from male disease than "generic" diseases like heart disease and lung cancer - I don't have the data but would guess that this is so. I personally don't think much of political organizing as a way to make public health decisions. But perhaps we need to make an exception here, much in the way that women's health and AIDS advocates did some years ago. Tout abus sera puni   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   46.  Re: Birds and Bees   by mrmoog       at Wed 5 Mar 11:28pm score of 2 funny   in reply to comment 3     Face it, it's not like you can just expect women to not have sex their whole lives. Well, your insurance company would really appreciate it if you could at least wait until after menapause before you get it on.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   118.  Re: Birds and Bees   by vancegod       at Thu 6 Mar 8:56pm score of 1   in reply to comment 3     You want a job that requires consistently lifting 150lbs. above your waist; but can't perform the job due to physical constraints...Then we're all the same and you're being discriminated against. Want to get free birth control from your boss and you can't; then your being discriminated against because your special biological differences are not being taken into account. Am I missing something here? "Love is fleeting, power is eternal"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   134.  Nice Hyperbole.   by glorfinde1       at Fri 7 Mar 7:13am score of 1   in reply to comment 118     You want a job that requires consistently lifting 150lbs. above your waist; but can't perform the job due to physical constraints...Then we're all the same and you're being discriminated against. Would you care to back this up with, say, an example from real life? Because I find it very hard to believe that there are a significant number of such jobs out there, or that women are crying "foul" because evil men aren't allowing them to have one. It's probable that the majority of men can't perform a job requiring "consistently lifting 150lbs. above your waist." Nor would very many people want such a job. I suspect that the point of whatever story you originally gleaned this example from (if in fact there was such a story) was that a woman who WAS capable of lifting the 150lbs. was denied the job because she was a woman (rather than because she was incapable), but that this "subtlety" was lost on you. But since you offer nothing to support the claim, we'll never know. Want to get free birth control from your boss and you can't; then your being discriminated against because your special biological differences are not being taken into account. "Special biological differences"? Bit of sarcasm there, eh? That certainly helps your argument. Am I missing something here? Off the top, I'd say reason, logic, and several dozen well-written, explicit posts within this thread that explain why covering a woman's oral contraceptives is inherently different from providing you with a free box of jimmy hats. But maybe it's a misperception on my part. I hope you'll show me where I'm wrong. Do you experience feelings of dread in your attic or basement?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

15.  Backwards   by 0tim0       at Wed 5 Mar 6:45pm score of 1.5 irrelevant     This is what really bothers me about the healthcare system in this country. The whole idea of insurance is to reduce financial risk. You pay in a small amount per month into a 'pool' so that if something bad happens (cancer in the case of health insurance; a fire in the case of home insurance; a crash in the case of car insurance, and so on) money comes out of that pool to cover your unexpected costs. Having health insurance pay for day-to-day health-related items is just a waste. It would be like if your car insurance paid for oil changes. Why pay one company money plus overhead something you could just pay yourself? Especially if you had to fill out a bunch of paperwork and go to a particular Jiffy Lube. Health insurance should be for unexpected costs not expected ones. --t "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument." -William E. Gladstone   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

39.  Re: Backwards   by OSULugan       at Wed 5 Mar 9:55pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 15     Having health insurance pay for day-to-day health-related items is just a waste. I guess you've never had a day-to-day health-related item which is necessary to keep you alive? Like, say, how a diabetic needs insulin? Health insurance provides the means to prevent emergency situations (oops, I fell down and broke my leg), to conditions that develop unexpectedly (oh shit, my blood sugar is through the roof and I'm constantly vomitting and dehydrating myself due to it). Part of the reason for day-to-day coverage is outstanding from a situation such as diabetes is to help prevent such a situation from arising. It's financially sound to pay for a person to see a doctor when they initially get sick, then 2 months down the line when their lungs are filled with fluid from the pneumonia that they've been suffering from. Same concept with dental insurance. Of course, since I'm a diabetic myself, I probably have a bit slanted of a viewpoint. But it's much cheaper for me to maintain health insurance and get prescription and doctor visit benefits than to pay those expenses out of pocket. I just eat up the extra money that all of the healthy people out there are spending for the same coverage that isn't fully utilized. Finally, comparing this to auto insurance is disingenuous, because your auto insurance doesn't kick in when you've driven 15,000 miles without an oil change, and your engine locks up and overheats. I'm sure if auto insurance did do said service, they would also be quite happy to kick in the $20 to get your oil changed every 3,000-5,000 miles. And God says, "No, that's not right." Yeah. Well. Whatever. You can't teach God anything.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   72.  Re: Backwards   by dze27       at Thu 6 Mar 10:07am score of 1   in reply to comment 39     I'm going to jump in here since I agree with the original poster... I guess you've never had a day-to-day health-related item which is necessary to keep you alive? Like, say, how a diabetic needs insulin? Very thankfully, no, but I can't see how this has anything to do with "insurance". It's no surprise to you when you need insulin each day. It may well be the right thing to have a national health care system, but that is a separate argument completely. Maybe I'm getting all semantic here, but it seems to me that insurance is meant to cover events in the future that might happen, not that will happen. Risk is pooled among people taking out policies. Your situation is more like subsidized health care. I actually have a similar, if much less serious, situation with my Blue Cross insurance. I have contact lenses. I pay BC an amount every year, but I'm allowed to claim around $150 out of the $200 or so it costs me for the contacts. This just seems like a really backwards way of doing things, since I know I'm going to need these every eighteen months or so. "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   93.  Re: Backwards   by OSULugan       at Thu 6 Mar 1:10pm score of 1   in reply to comment 72     Very thankfully, no, but I can't see how this has anything to do with "insurance". It's no surprise to you when you need insulin each day. It surprised the shit out of me when I was 14 and learned that I would have to take insulin every day for the rest of my life. Before then, my diabetes was just an event that might happen in the future. Similarily, it shouldn't be a given that you need new contact lenses every 18 months (unless you use disposable lenses, but then, maybe those shouldn't be covered?). I guess the company which provided my parents' health insurance got off lucky by not being required to foot the expense of insuring this catastrophic health event that occurred at that point in time, and rather my company's insurance plan has to now carry that burden. Personally, I might have preferred getting the several hundred thousand dollars in future health bills that would be projected for the rest of my life when I was 14, in lieu of receiving them piecemeal as I age. So, in that respect, I might agree that the health insurance industry is backwards. And God says, "No, that's not right." Yeah. Well. Whatever. You can't teach God anything.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   66.  Re: Backwards   by ksu93       at Thu 6 Mar 8:52am score of 1   in reply to comment 15     Why pay one company money plus overhead something you could just pay yourself? Because individual patients without insurance are charged a LOT more money for the exact same services and drugs that are provided at a much smaller price to people who do have insurance. The reason is that the insurance companies are able to bargain with health care providers and thus get a lower price for their customers. "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." -Ambrose Bierce   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

17.  This is Shit.   by Goldmund       at Wed 5 Mar 6:48pm score of 3.5 scholarly     As many of you may or may not know, birth control is not just used for the express prevention of pregnancy, rather, it is also used as a regulatory mechanism for women with irregular periods. Can you imagine, boys, having to deal with a period that comes twice or three times in a month because your body can't regulate itself? The hormones in birth control pills help stabilize and regulate women's bodies so they don't have to deal with multiple instances of PMS and mensturation-related pain every month. Not only that, but I would make the assertion that society is better off as a whole by giving more women access to cheap and/or free birth control. Why? Less unwanted pregnancies means less women out of the workplace, less lost productivity, less unwanted children running about being abused and less abortions (a consequence of unwanted pregnancies). I would also argue that the yearly pap smear and other tests that come with reissuing birth control are a good thing as well by giving women who might not otherwise choose to go (for various social, economic or cultural reasons) a method of early detection. Now, some of you (sulli, I'm looking in your direction) made the suggestion that condoms should be provided for me, tit-for-tat you say. Well, I have two responses for that: 1) Condoms are cheap. Around $25 will buy you 100 condoms online, more can be purchased even cheaper. Maybe a little more in smaller quantities, but you get the idea. How many condoms do you think the average guy goes through in a year? 100? 200? 300? So, that's a max of $75. Women, how much does a year of birth control cost? $150-300 from Planned Parenthood or on many College Campuses, and I know of women who pay up to $35 a month for their birth control (thanks, sue). So, there exists a $150-$420 range for yearly birth control costs. That's about 6-15 boxes of condoms, any guys around here go through 1000 condoms in a year? Didn't think so. 2) Condoms are an over-the-counter remedy that are quite ineffective when compared to the pill. Condoms failure rates, when used properly mind you, are somewhere in the neighborhood of 1-2% (for breakage, slippage and leakage). Those rates double or triple when you figure that there's probably a large proportion of people using them wrong. Equating a stop-gap measure to one of the most effective means of preventing pregnancy is not only disingenious, but laughable. At least, it was until I realized you were serious. When they finally release that male birth control pill, I'll be the first to sign up to take it. I want to be damn sure I don't get my girlfriend pregnant before we're ready. And you know what? I'll be damned if I'm going to pay full price for a prescription drug and would like to force HMOs to cover it in there plans. Assisting more people in preventing pregnancy is in the best interest of this country at large. What do we gain by unwanted pregnancy? High abortion rates, foster children, child abuse, broken homes, the list goes on and on. I'm not suggesting that including birth control in health care plans will magically fix all these problems, but I would suggest that it may help alleviate them, just a little bit. Birth control is a fact of life for nearly 50 million women in this country. What exactly is it that makes it different from the other medications that insurance pays for? Why not make it easier for women to take control of their own bodies? Hasn't the last 40 years taught us anything? All you women out there who have to deal with contraception, I'd like to hear from you how difficult and expensive it can be. Post anonymously, if you wish, but I'm genuinely interested to hear some other reasons. Back me up, tear me apart, go at it.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

26.  Re: This is Shit.   by Leamur67       at Wed 5 Mar 7:43pm score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 17     300 condoms in a year... Goldmund, honey, you wanna move to Maryland? ]smart-ass/fantasy mode OFF[ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Tell the truth. (Then run.)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   27.  Re: This is Shit.   by bigeyes       at Wed 5 Mar 7:50pm score of 2.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 17     You're right about the expense, and there are many reasons women take birth control pills that have nothing to do with birth control. When I was a teenager, they practically threw the damn things at you for cramps, irregular periods, painful periods...I have known women who were in such severe pain from endometriosis and other female problems that they were on prescription painkillers and missed work/school during their periods. In some cases they make migraine headaches worse, in my case, I took them for a while even after being told I was sterile just so I could know which days of the month I would get my headaches! (It's all about hormone fluctuations) Diaphragms? I'd bet it's a lot easier and quicker to learn how to put on a condom than it is to learn how to use one of those things! It's been so long I don't recall price-wise, but you have to buy that stupid jelly, and as I recall that was pretty pricey, too. Love it or hate it, the pill is still about the best option we have, and it has been useful for many health problems that can cause women to miss work, not just pregnancy prevention. What I find most ironic about the whole thing is, men make more money, but nearly every thing women do costs us more. Haircuts, birth control, dry cleaning, clothes, shoes, anybody out there wanna do the price breakdown on pads or tampons? Employers bitch because we miss work to take care of our kids, they bitch about paying the lousy prescription cost to help prevent pregnancy (or other health problems) Legislators imply that underprivileged women should keep their legs crossed, and then government money to help the children gets cut to the bone...No, Goldmund, I'd say the last 40 years have taught us Jack-shit. As I've said before, people are great at pointing fingers, and saying how easy everyone else has it, but when it comes to actually solving a problem, we stink. I'd like to see some of our federal funds go to providing immunizations for children and birth control for teenagers and adults. In the long run, I'd bet the improvements we'd see would be well worth it. Anybody know where to look to see exactly how our federal tax dollars are spent? Is there a breakdown somewhere? Gee, and maybe some more lawsuits that shouldn't be necessary wouldn't have to clog up the courts.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   63.  Re: This is Shit.   by mandigirl       at Thu 6 Mar 8:32am score of 1   in reply to comment 27     Yeah, I'm feeling it. I've been on the pill for about 2 years now - not for birth control (at least not initially). When I started my period in 6th grade, I had been having random bleeding. Sometimes it would take between 7-9 months, sometimes it would only be a week between periods. They made me wait about 6 years to make sure that it wasn't just my body trying to get in rhythm, then they put me on the pill. Let me tell you, when you haven't had your period in 9 months and all of a sudden it comes back, it HURTS! It was sooooo hard to just move and breathe sometimes, and no OTC drug or hot water bottle made it better. Since it wouldn't happen every month, it would surprise me at the most awkward times. Sometimes, like when I was on vacation in Switzerland, I was caught unprepared! It's much better now that I'm on the pill. I always know about when it's coming, and it usually doesn't hurt at all - but when it does hurt, it's NOTHING compared to before. My pills are about $35, but I can get them slightly cheaper at the Health Center on my college campus. I'm still under my dad's insurance, but neither my mom nor I am covered. Yeah, my mom's on the pill too. I don't remember what exactly her reason is, but it's definitely not birth control - my daddy had a vasectomy after having been surprised by both my brother's and my births.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   117.  Re: This is Shit.   by vancegod       at Thu 6 Mar 8:48pm score of 1   in reply to comment 63     I think that you must be mistaken. The feminist left would have me ( a male) believe that the equality afforded you as a woman is based on the "same-ness" of our sexes. My period doesn't bother me at all. In fact I don't have them. But were all the same, right? "Love is fleeting, power is eternal"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   142.  Re: This is Shit.   by Goldmund       at Fri 7 Mar 12:44pm score of 1   in reply to comment 117     Your period doesn't bother you at all? Oh, right that's because you probably have no woman to share it with you. Wonder how that fits in with your patriarchal misogynism? They must just be terrified of your incredible machismo.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   143.  Re: This is Shit.   by hedgehog       at Fri 7 Mar 1:25pm score of 1   in reply to comment 117     No...but you CAN get breast cancer. You might want to try to get your information someplace other than World Net Daily. Feminism is based on the stance that men and women are equal because they are both HUMAN BEINGS...and each sex should be afforded equality under the law and society.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   28.  Re: This is Shit.   by Leamur67       at Wed 5 Mar 7:50pm score of 1   in reply to comment 17     Seriously, though, what struck me about this was sue's noting that only 5% of Union Pacific's employees are women. I don't care what kind of work it is, if they can't get more than 5% women into their pool of workers, they're gonna be toast in a sex-discrimination suit. Also, I can't back this up, but I thought I read somewhere that the failure rate for condoms overall (including people who aren't using them properly, I mean) was more like %20. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Tell the truth. (Then run.)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   34.  Re: This is Shit.   by Nephthys       at Wed 5 Mar 8:28pm score of 2 informative   in reply to comment 28     I thought I read somewhere that the failure rate for condoms overall (including people who aren't using them properly, I mean) was more like %20. Effectiveness rates Male Condom Only 88% Oral Contraceptives 97% (Combined Pill almost 100%; Progesterone Only Pill about 97%) Cake or Death? Cake, please.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   89.  Joy.   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Thu 6 Mar 12:22pm score of 1   in reply to comment 34     Effectiveness rates Male Condom Only 88% Oral Contraceptives 97% (Combined Pill ALMOST 100%; Progesterone Only Pill about 97%) I'm a little tired of hearing that particular statistic, ahem. Whee! stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   98.  Re: Joy.   by bigeyes       at Thu 6 Mar 1:50pm score of 1   in reply to comment 89     Here's a novel idea. If you don't want to hear stats and stories about birth control, don't read a thread that has the word "Contraception" in the headline.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   106.  Re: This is Shit.   by nicky       at Thu 6 Mar 4:06pm score of 1.5 helpful   in reply to comment 34     To start with, a list of contraception that starts with "Abstinence: 100%" makes me want break things. anyway, it says: Male Condom & Spermicide 85 to 98% and I suspect its actually better than this, due to the idiot factor dragging the average down there aint no future...in england's dreaming   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   40.  Up to?   by CoFenchurch       at Wed 5 Mar 10:05pm score of 1   in reply to comment 17     I know of women who pay up to $35 a month for their birth control Up to? I had to shop around to get the price for my birth control DOWN to $35.07! (I use birth control patches, BTW, because realistically, I know I'm too absent minded to remember that pill everyday. The patches are designed to be around the same price as birth control pills.) This involves going to the CostCo pharmacy, which is more difficult to get to, has sucky hours, and surly workers who like to pretend your prescription isn't filled yet if it's close to closing time. (Amazing how, when I started to make a loud fuss about it, the prescription was instantly produced, already labeled and stapled into a bag.) If I went to the most convenient pharmacy at the grocery store nearest our house, I'd pay $47. That's $10 more a month, and $120 more a year. Our insurance company won't cover it, even though the only reason I'm taking it is that I have to wait about a year to get pregnant, or it will mess up the $35,000 gastric bypass surgery the insurance just paid for. (Because I'd have to deliberately work against it in order to get adequate nutrition for the fetus.) You'd think they would want to protect their investment in the huge chunk of money they just sunk into me, but insurers are nothing if not penny-wise and pound-foolish.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   55.  Re: Up to?   by CaptainLiberal       at Thu 6 Mar 6:33am score of 1   in reply to comment 40     This is somewhat off-topic, but those patches make me curious. If you have a problem remembering to take the pill, don't you also have a problem remembering to put the patch on every week? Is it once a week? Does the patch ever fall off? Luckily, my wife and I are past the point of deeply caring about the issue (thank you Doctor Snip-Snip), but I see the commercials and I always want to ask the above questions. Forgive my curiosity. Every dream turns into something on a T-shirt -- Shriekback   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   76.  Re: Up to?   by CoFenchurch       at Thu 6 Mar 10:23am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 55     Well, somehow it's easier for me to remember to change the patch once a week. I've only got to remember it three times a month, plus I have a trigger in the day of the week (i.e. I notice it's Thursday, which reminds me it's time to change it.) When you have to take a pill every day, you don't have that trigger. Plus, there is less of a margin of error. If you're doing something 3 times a month, you're less likely to mess it up than if you're doing it 21 times a month. Also, you remember it's there because you can see it and feel it-- not the case with a pill. Mine have never fallen off, although one did get a big wrinkle in it and was sort of lifting off the skin. The only real problems I've had are that the glue apparently mildly irritates my skin, and I have a red spot for about a week after I take the patch off (you don't put it on the same spot every time). That, and the glue on the edges tends to pick up lint, so it looks a bit icky at the end of the week. But overall, I'm pretty pleased with it. Since I am planning on having another child fairly soon, I didn't want to do an IUD, as they can sometimes cause permanent sterility.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   95.  Re: Up to?   by CaptainLiberal       at Thu 6 Mar 1:10pm score of 1   in reply to comment 76     Thanks for the info. Every time I see the commercial, I wonder the same things, and I've never met anyone that used them. Personally, I do better remembering daily meds than weekly, because there's less time to forget. But that's just me. Every dream turns into something on a T-shirt -- Shriekback   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   105.  Permanent sterility and IUDs   by cyclopatra       at Thu 6 Mar 4:02pm score of 1   in reply to comment 76     FWIW, I have an IUD, and I think it's the best decision I ever made. The "permanent sterility" issues are more or less over - they centered around the "Dalkon Shield" IUDs in the 70s, which were improperly made, and for decades after that it became all-but-impossible to convince a GYN to insert an IUD on anyone under 35 or anyone who hadn't had a couple of kids already. However, since the Dalkon Shields are off the market, the only real danger posed by IUDs involves STDs. If you have an IUD, you have to be extra-careful that you don't get an STD, because the consequences can be much worse (apparently that string acts just like a wick for bacteria) and can, if untreated lead to sterility. Since from the sound of it, you're probably in a long-term, monogamous relationship, the odds of you contracting an STD are probably low. On the other hand, since they last for 5 years or more (with mine, I'm as safe from pregnancy as if I'd had my tubes tied until 2012), they're priced accordingly (I believe mine was $560, although the insurance picked up $500 of that), so I wouldn't reccommend them to anyone planning to remove it in a year or two. Also, those mothers HURT when they put them in - I was cramping up badly enough to make walking a problem for the first 3 days. There are pros and cons to the IUD - I have to be extra-careful about condoms, I have to check that damn string every time I have a period, and my periods are heavier, with nastier cramps, than they were when I was on the pill. On the other hand, my periods only last 2-3 days vs the 6-9 I had before, the cramps aren't any worse than they were before I went on the pill, I don't have to worry about birth control for 12 years (which makes my out-of pocket expense $5/year) and if I decide at some point that I want to have children, I could theoretically get pregnant the same day I had the IUD taken out - whereas coming off hormonal contraception takes (on average) 9-18 months to return to full fertility. Cyclopatra We can't all, and some of us don't. --Eeyore   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

23.  Think of it from a corporate perspective   by Bocephus       at Wed 5 Mar 7:31pm score of 2 clever     It is very much in the fiduciary interest of every corporation in the world that its employees not get pregnant. Maternity leave's expensive, retraining's a bitch, skills are lost, personal relationships are strained...it's just not good business practice to let your employees get pregnant. So really, employers should be giving incentives to female employees who are on a birth control scheme. insert Fight Club quote here to demonstrate Freethinking and Nonconformity   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

25.  5% of the employees are women   by Nephthys       at Wed 5 Mar 7:39pm score of 1     ...adds that very few of its 48,000 employees, about 5 percent of whom are women, have asked for contraceptive coverage Less than 2400 requests maybe? I'm a little surprised by the ratio of men to women. I guess Rosie the Riveter is not "workin' on the railroad". Cake or Death? Cake, please.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

32.  Re: 5% of the employees are women   by bigeyes       at Wed 5 Mar 8:26pm score of 2.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 25     My mother is just about to retire from the railroad. Like many employers, it is not the most woman friendly place in the world. The last time they hired new people, they were expected to work a swing shift, sometimes doubling back from an off time of 130am to an on time of 6am. No missing work, no excuses, while on the several month probation period. I know few parents who could pull this off, it's too hard to find sitters who can rotate their schedule at the drop of a hat. Consequently, I would imagine they have hired a lot of non-custodial parents, non-parents, and married people whose spouses have more understanding employers. When my mom went to work for the railroad, she gave my father a lesson in sexual harassment when he downplayed her complaints about the penthouse posters their coworkers had on their locker doors. She didn't feel that he understood her feelings on the matter, so we went to a used bookstore and bought a bunch of old playgirls. The next day, when my dad went to open their shared locker, it was plastered with naked men. Strangely enough, that same day, all the posters were moved to the insides of the locker doors, and all the locker doors remained closed from then on. 8) No, it doesn't surprise me at all to hear those numbers, Sue.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   123.  Re: 5% of the employees are women   by vancegod       at Thu 6 Mar 9:27pm score of 1   in reply to comment 32     So let me just make sure I have this straight 'Bigeyes'. You would like to have equal pay, but do less work. You would like independence, but employ the largest police force in the history of the race. You want to work where no one likes you, and want to collect punitive damages. My guess is that if a guy is dumb enough to date you, he'd better DAMN well pick up the check...Right? "Love is fleeting, power is eternal"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   125.  Re: 5% of the employees are women   by bigeyes       at Thu 6 Mar 10:00pm score of 1   in reply to comment 123     So let me just make sure I have this straight 'Bigeyes'. You would like to have equal pay, but do less work. You would like independence, but employ the largest police force in the history of the race. You want to work where no one likes you, and want to collect punitive damages. My guess is that if a guy is dumb enough to date you, he'd better DAMN well pick up the check...Right? Obviously, you know nothing about me, assclown. Where did I say anything about doing less work? For those of you who already know the drill, please skip ahead. ;) I put my someone else through school by working 3 jobs at a time, that's 1 full time and 2 part time. During this time I cooked, cleaned, packed lunches, made meals, went on 3 dog walks a day, exercised on my lunch hour, and just generally busted my ass. After that, I often worked jobs that required 12 hour shifts. Again, I always made sure the pets were cared for and everyone in my house was fed, clothed, and clean. I do not want to work where nobody likes me, I'm self employed. ;) If I was all about money, I would be milking my son's father for child support, believe me, it would have been a nice chunk of change. Your comments about lawsuits and the police force make no sense whatsoever. And yes, if a man asks me out, he picks up the check. If I ask him out I pick up the check. Next time you randomly attack someone because they're female, do your homework. You've got the wrong girl.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   138.  Re: 5% of the employees are women   by vancegod       at Fri 7 Mar 10:33am score of 1   in reply to comment 125     I have worked in Bars quite a bit in my life. Two fundamental aspects of the job are (1) changing beer kegs and barrels. (2) Providing security in the establishment. The Bars I have worked in routinely require a male to do both of these things FOR the female bartenders I have worked with. They have also routinely paid these women the the same wage I earn. Same pay for less work. "Love is fleeting, power is eternal"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   144.  Re: 5% of the employees are women   by hedgehog       at Fri 7 Mar 1:30pm score of 1   in reply to comment 138     Or it could be that you were a BARBACK, the very definition of such a gig being "monkey who empties trash, brings in trays of clean glassware, and hauls half barrels around."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   146.  Re: 5% of the employees are women   by bigeyes       at Fri 7 Mar 1:47pm score of 1   in reply to comment 138     I have worked in Bars quite a bit in my life. Two fundamental aspects of the job are (1) changing beer kegs and barrels. (2) Providing security in the establishment. Okay, now that I've finished laughing, I have a news flash for you, gad coven, You were a barback/bouncer. Bartending is all about tips. Hourly wage is shit, always was shit. The one place I worked where I had to change kegs, we had this amazing new invention...maybe you've heard of it...the dolly. See, you wanna be a bartender, you gotta learn how to mix drinks using liquor, then you go to work in a real bar. Keg beer....guffaw!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   147.  Man 'R' Sagas   by sulli       at Fri 7 Mar 1:55pm score of 1   in reply to comment 146     Totally off topic: HA! Pretty damn funny, yes gibe. Tout abus sera puni   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

29.  What is "Medically Necessary"?   by Tinuvel       at Wed 5 Mar 8:00pm score of 2.5 astute     Is contraception mediacally necessary? Maybe not, but if we are following that logic Viagra should not be covered by insurance and neither should allergy, acne, or anti-depression medication. In fact, let's say that "necessary" includes only those drugs which are needed to keep you alive, not the ones that make life livable; guess we'll all be giving up a lot of perscriptions that enhance our health. There is a lot to be said for considering contraception as "medically necessary," like it's ability to lessen the pain of a woman's period, decrease her chances of ovarian cancer, and protect her from potentially fatal pregnancies. But I can't think of one reason why Viagra might be considered "mediacally necessary" unless we consider the right to control our sexuality as essential to our health and happiness. Take that, limp dick.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

86.  Re: What is "Medically Necessary"?   by Silverback       at Thu 6 Mar 11:24am score of 1   in reply to comment 29     My own opinion would be that insurance would cover those things when the body did not work optimally (in a natural sense). If you can't get it up, that's probably not optimal. Pay for the viagra. If you are sex machine and participate in wild parties and want to be able to go for 6 hours straight, don't pay for it. A woman who wants to have regular periods and needing to take birth control to get that, sure give her the meds. If a woman wants to have recreational sex (not to produce a child) then she can buy her own. If you have dandruff (unless it is exceptionally severe) or baldness don't be so vain and move on. (I deal with it all the time). Medical insurance should not be there to act as a way to further our vanity or to make up for personal lifestyle choices. It should be there to treat conditions which adversely impact a person's quality of life that they are unable to control. Thanks for the discussion.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   100.  Re: What is "Medically Necessary"?   by bigeyes       at Thu 6 Mar 2:21pm score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 86     You forgot one thing. I'm sure what you meant to say was If you can't get it up, that's probably not optimal for fathering children.If a man wants to have recreational sex (not to produce a child) then he can buy his own Viagra. That's what you meant, right? Because what you said was essentially, if a guy can't get it up, insurance should pay for viagra, unless they can prove he's a whore-dog. However, if a woman wants her birth control pills covered, she'd better be able to prove she's not a slut. Now, unless you get your insurance from a Catholic organization, I can't see where a person should have to prove the object of having sex is to make babies, whether they are male or female. This opens up a whole new can of worms. Is sex necessary? If so, then any sex related aids/contraception ought to be covered, right? Now I have another question. If a woman has trouble reaching orgasm, is that a medical problem? It would stand to reason that a man having problems with erections is both a medical and quality of life issue, so, a woman not being able to reach an orgasm would be the same, I think. Just a little more food for thought.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   101.  Re: What is "Medically Necessary"?   by Nephthys       at Thu 6 Mar 2:25pm score of 1   in reply to comment 86     hm. Interesting in theory, but... Who is going to set the benchmarks and what will be the checks and balances to insure that the patient really does meet the standards? For every person who would like to be able to have sex once a week there is one who thinks that anything less than once a day is not appropriate and healthy. For every person who doesn't visit his dermatologist until the dandruff looks like a blizzard there is the person who calls in sick if they see a flake. As for regular periods vs recreational sex used in your argument. There are very few women who have their periods like clockwork. Can they all claim period regulation? Medical insurance should not be there to act as a way to further our vanity or to make up for personal lifestyle choices. It should be there to treat conditions which adversely impact a person's quality of life that they are unable to control. Quality of life and vanity are in the eye of the beholder. Contraception has everything to do with the first, and nothing to do with the latter. Cake or Death? Cake, please.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   121.  Re: What is "Medically Necessary"?   by vancegod       at Thu 6 Mar 9:15pm score of 1   in reply to comment 100     Can you provide any evidence supporting your assertion that "viagra" is catagorically provided to all men by all health insurance provicers? "Love is fleeting, power is eternal"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   130.  Re: What is "Medically Necessary"?   by bigeyes       at Thu 6 Mar 10:57pm score of 1   in reply to comment 121     Can you provide any evidence supporting your assertion that "viagra" is catagorically provided to all men by all health insurance provicers? I said no such thing. There are insurance companies currently covering viagra and hair transplants, as MAYORBOB mentioned, too, which makes it only fair for them to cover birth control pills. What don't you understand about that? Use google yourself, junior. You embarass yourself with these adolescent attacks. And wipe that foam off your screen.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   155.  Re: What is "Medically Necessary"?   by Silverback       at Fri 7 Mar 8:46pm score of 1   in reply to comment 100     That's what you meant, right? Because what you said was essentially, if a guy can't get it up, insurance should pay for viagra, unless they can prove he's a whore-dog. However, if a woman wants her birth control pills covered, she'd better be able to prove she's not a slut. Either you can't read or maybe I wasn't as clear as I wanted to be. My own opinion would be that insurance would cover those things when the body did not work optimally... Seems clear to me but I'm biased. If your body is not working normally (easily proven by a doctor who would write a prescription /examples being "limp dicks" and women with hormonal problems), pay for it to work. If you use it for recreation and have no medical problems whatsoever pay for it yourself. If you got a "limp dick" AND want to participate in sex parties for 6 hours well you get lucky 'cause your stuff is broke. Thanks for the discussion.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

35.  It's not just gender equity   by dasc       at Wed 5 Mar 8:47pm score of 2 compelling     My wife and I use the pill. Well she takes it but I reap untold intangible benefits from it. We're BOTH paying for it out of our household budget because OUR insurance does not cover it. I really wish it did. That's $415 dollars a year we could put to better use. Well OK minus $60 for the copay. That's still a couple cases of wine and some porn we could be buying to keep us in the mood. Yet if my willy stops tingling I can get a month on Viagra for $10. Now she's reaping untold benefits. You pooped in the refrigerator and you ate a whole wheel of cheese How'd you do that I'm not even mad Thats amazing   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

48.  Re: It's not just gender equity   by mrmoog       at Wed 5 Mar 11:49pm score of 1.5 intriguing   in reply to comment 35     ... if my willy stops tingling... ... you'll save yourself $415 a year. Of course, you'll have a whole host of other problems. It just suddenly occurred to me how expensive sex is.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   58.  Re: It's not just gender equity   by CaptainLiberal       at Thu 6 Mar 6:45am score of 1   in reply to comment 48     It's downright cheap if you're in a monogamous relationship and you have a vasectomy. Every dream turns into something on a T-shirt -- Shriekback   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   94.  Re: It's not just gender equity   by dasc       at Thu 6 Mar 1:10pm score of 1   in reply to comment 58     have a vasectomy That's fine for you but I haven't had kids yet. I'll pass on that. Oh yeah. Wouldn't it be the same price if your relationship wasn't monogamous? On a cost per event basis I know I was getting way more when I was single then after I got married. So the price of lovin' actually goes up after marriage. Cost per event... Not what you're thinking. You pooped in the refrigerator and you ate a whole wheel of cheese How'd you do that I'm not even mad Thats amazing   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   111.  Re: It's not just gender equity   by WhoAreWe       at Thu 6 Mar 5:36pm score of 1   in reply to comment 94     That's fine for you but I haven't had kids yet. I'll pass on that. Just freeze your sperm. Anyways, sometimes though even when you get a vasectomy you might still have child support issues, because legal fatherhood is not tied to biological fatherhood. Colorblind? Why would I ever want to be willfully blind?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

67.  Big benefits...   by curve06       at Thu 6 Mar 9:26am score of 1     This is one thing I don't understand about insurance companies (the ones that don't cover contraceptives). I used to work in the quality department for Kaiser Permanente, and their philosophy was that it is a hell of a lot cheaper to pay for people's contraceptives, than it is to pay for pre- and post- natal care (not to mention the costs of adding another human being to a plan). One would think that the financial benefits alone would be enough for insurance companies to jump on board with this policy. If you can do a half-assed job of anything, you're a one-eyed man in a kingdom of the blind. - Kurt Vonnegut   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

70.  Lacking the Letter of the Law   by ms_sue_collins       at Thu 6 Mar 9:46am score of 1     The legal hurdle that PP faces here is in the wording of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act itself, or rather in the lack thereof. The Act was an amendment to Title VII meant to clarify that discrimination because of "pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions" is discrimination on the basis of sex. Congress felt the clarification was necessary after the Supreme Court ruled in the Gilbert case that excluding coverage of pregnancy-related disabilities did not constitute sex discrimination under the law. So the Appeals Court in the Bartell Case, which was settled this week to PP's satisfaction, decided for the plaintiffs based on a broad interpretation of the intent both of Title VII and of the congressional interpretation that resulted in the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Although the Bartell case involved an exclusion for prescription contraceptives rather than an exclusion for pregnancy-related disability costs, the court ruled that the legal principles established by Gilbert and its legislative reversal govern the outcome of this case.: Male and female employees have different, sex-based disability and healthcare needs, and the law is no longer blind to the fact that only women can get pregnant, bear children, or use prescription contraception. The special or increased healthcare needs associated with a woman's unique sex-based characteristics must be met to the same extent, and on the same terms, as other healthcare needs. Even if one were to assume that Bartell's prescription plan was not the result of intentional discrimination, the exclusion of women-only benefits from a generally comprehensive prescription plan is sex discrimination under Title VII. Both Bartell and Union Pacific are self-insured companies and are excluded from any state legislation that may mandate coverage. So until the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act is passed on the federal level, courts are left to interpret the meaning of Title VII, specifically the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. It's a dog's life   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

78.  Curious Definition of Equal   by iarnuocon       at Thu 6 Mar 10:26am score of 2.5 compelling     There are quite a few posters who have taken the position that if women get contraceptives through insurance, then surely free condoms must follow. After all, women and men are currently getting the same "fair" treatment. If they get a boost, we get a boost, right? Allow me to repeat some things I posted elsewhere in the thread. Currently women pay the same as men for health insurance. And yet women (whom some studies show making only 75% of men's wages for the same jobs) pay 68% more in out of pocket expenses for health care (a large portion of that for prescriptive contraceptives, as insurance doesn't cover such even when medically necessary to treat conditions other than possible pregnancies-- such as ovarian cysts or irregular periods). Women are already being "charged" higher premiums in that they pay the same as men, but get less benefit. Can we consider the sexes equably treated when "quality of life" issues for men are covered (such as with Viagra), but medically necessary treatments for women such as oral contraceptives are NOT covered because they coincidentally also "treat" a woman's "quality of life" issue (risk of pregnancy)? The debate hinges not only around whether women suffer greater health risks because of pregnancy and so are in greater need of having that risk medically addressed, but on whether a denial of coverage for a medicine that is "medically unnecessary" for treating a woman's "quality of life issue" (however discriminatory that position may be) should be a blanket denial when it also treats other conditions. At the very least, the federal government should address that issue. insanus omnis furere credit ceteros... ecce signum   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

122.  Re: Curious Definition of Equal   by vancegod       at Thu 6 Mar 9:20pm score of 0.5 obnoxious   in reply to comment 78     I wonder what the "health risks" have been for your average, everyday infantry soldier throughout history? When are you %$#@&*& women going to realize discrimination against you is all in your minds? "Love is fleeting, power is eternal"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   128.  Re: Curious Definition of Equal   by bigeyes       at Thu 6 Mar 10:46pm score of 1   in reply to comment 122     Oh, gee,I dunno....maybe when lunatics like you stop calling us you %$#@&*& women when we ask for equal treatment, or shudder, disagree with your line of reasoning. Heh, btw, your nick is an anagram for caved nog and gad coven. I find that incredibly amusing. gibe yes   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   136.  Oh, come off it.   by iarnuocon       at Fri 7 Mar 7:50am score of 1   in reply to comment 122     Just because some woman broke your heart or outcompeted you for some job doesn't license you to be a dick. Get over it, and leave the vitriol behind. BTW: I'm not a woman your average, everyday infantry soldier gets his comprehensive insurance coverage for free, through our tax dollars (including taxes contributed by [shudder] women.) and, Women will realize discrimination is all in their minds when there is no more discrimination against women. Obviously. I'm assuming by the "soldier" remark that you are trying to draw some tortuous analogy that women owe men "extras" because "men go out their and, at risk of their own lives, defend you from foreign enemies intent on rape and pillage." Maybe I'm reading into your comment, though. But if that was the direction you were headed, feel free to stop right now. It shows a curiously victorian state of mind regarding society and women (i.e. you were born a hundred years too late, at least.) While you're contemplating the poor, downtrodden infantryman, take time to wonder what have been the "health risks" for your average, everyday mother throughout history. Plenty of women have died in childbirth. No doubt some of them in the sorry ancestry that led up to you. Get off your metaphorical high horse. If you want to engage in debate, that's fine. But so far what I've heard from you on this thread mostly constitutes whining. If you have a point, make it (and feel free at any time to back it up with fact.) insanus omnis furere credit ceteros... ecce signum   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   161.  Re: Curious Definition of Equal   by eduardo       at Sat 8 Mar 10:53am score of 1   in reply to comment 78     Women save a ton of money on drinks, dinners and movies. J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

90.  OTC Birth control?   by pinosho       at Thu 6 Mar 12:37pm score of 1     This causes me to think about the recent OTC status given to Allegra (I think) that the insurance companies pushed for. I wonder if birth control pills are next? Since most insurance companies don't provide any coverage for OTC drugs at all, this would pass the entire cost of the pill onto the consumers. Sounds like that would "solve" the insurance industry's problems with this issue entirely. The benefits to women are, of course, up to personal opinion. I wonder if this is something that women want?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

103.  Re: OTC Birth control?   by bigeyes       at Thu 6 Mar 2:54pm score of 1   in reply to comment 90     Since most insurance companies don't provide any coverage for OTC drugs at all, this would pass the entire cost of the pill onto the consumers. Sounds like that would "solve" the insurance industry's problems with this issue entirely. The benefits to women are, of course, up to personal opinion. I wonder if this is something that women want? So, if they're not playing fair, don't bitch or they'll really stick it to you? Again, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Bitch loud, bitch often, make sure you bitch to the people who make the decisions.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   112.  Re: OTC Birth control?   by WhoAreWe       at Thu 6 Mar 5:39pm score of 1   in reply to comment 103     Bitch loud, bitch often, make sure you bitch to the people who make the decisions. Unfortunately that's true because they can't really hear your concerns if you don't voice them. You really expect them to proactively scan the list of new drugs every year and say "good for society: check"? Colorblind? Why would I ever want to be willfully blind?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

108.  Yes, it's a medical necessity   by evilhenchdyke       at Thu 6 Mar 4:48pm score of 1.5 brilliant     Ask the woman who has eleven children because her church doesn't believe in birth control. Ask the woman with severe endometriosis, who has anemia because she bleeds twenty-six days a month. Better still, ask the woman who has three children whom she beats into silence, because she was dumped by their father and gets no child support. Ask the woman who is under 20, with three kids under six, and no husband, job or money. Ask any woman who has ever given up a child to adoption because she couldn't raise that child. Ask the woman who became impregnated during sexual assault. Ask the woman who has six children, and thinks that's enough, but her husband, who travels a lot for his job, wants six more. This is an issue only a bean counter would worry about, and a dumb bean counter at that: one who can't see the big picture. It's cheaper by far to pay for birth control pills for a decade or longer, than it is to pay for prenatal care, baby medical care, labor & delivery, and so on, until the unwanted child either dies or grows up. This doesn't even touch on the social ramifications of overpopulation. Say, overcrowding leading to violence?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

129.  Overcrowding leads to violence: True   by lisaben2001       at Thu 6 Mar 10:51pm score of 1   in reply to comment 108     Overcrowding leads to violence: True. But it's already too late to stop that, isn't it?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   159.  Re: Yes, it's a medical necessity   by eduardo       at Sat 8 Mar 10:49am score of 1   in reply to comment 108     Ask the woman who has eleven children because her church doesn't believe in birth control. I have to wonder the church's stance on keeping her legs closed. J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   170.  Re: Yes, it's a medical necessity   by greta       at Mon 10 Mar 11:52am score of 1   in reply to comment 159     I have to wonder the church's stance on keeping her legs closed. I believe the Church's position has historically been that a woman must submit to her husband. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, I'm a dumbass   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

140.  The issue   by kbrownecon       at Fri 7 Mar 11:58am score of 1     First, let's set aside those situations when the pill is used for something other than birth control, so we can focus on the issue of the actual lawsuit, where female employees want to force Union Pacific's medical insurance to cover the costs of their birth control pills. First, assuming that Union Pacific doesn't cover condoms for men, it doesn't appear that they're engaging on blatant discrimination. Ah, the Bigeyes chorus says, but for women, birth control is a unique medical necessity, because women are the ones who get pregnant, and pregnancy is a great big hassle for women. But that doesn't fully address the question: Since you can only get pregnant through sex, then birth control pills are not necessary for preventing pregnancy, but they are necessary for preventing pregnancy after vaginal intercourse. In other words, birth control pills (like condoms) allow people to have vaginal sex while greatly reducing the risk of pregnancy. Now it becomes a little fuzzier as to whether any sort of birth control is a true medical necessity. You won't die without birth control pills, you just won't get laid in the classic vaginal way, which sucks, but getting laid in that classic vaginal way isn't medically necessary (and isn't even necessary for a woman to achieve orgasm). In addition, since vaginal sex is so fun and pregnancy is so tough on women, it seems like there's plenty of incentive for women to get the pill without having insurance foot the bill. Let me ask this question: out of the 2400 women at this company, how many are not buying the pill now, and how many of these women would start getting the pill if it were covered? If only a few women would go from not getting the pill to getting the pill, then Union Pacific might be better off covering only a few pregnancies rather than having to cover a couple thousand birth control prescriptions. The purpose of insurance isn't to cover everything that everyone wants, it's to cover unexpected medical expenses. Insurance companies may cover routine things, but only if these routine things fit the BOTH of the following criteria: A) they greatly lower the risk of future big medical expenses AND B) absent coverage, people wouldn't pay for these routine things themselves Birth control pills may fit criterion A, but it's possible that, for reasons listed earlier, they don't fit criterion B. Women buy birth control pills even when they aren't covered by insurance; hence there's no point in insuring it. As a result, I conclude that Union Pacific is not discriminating against women, and this suit is groundless.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

145.  Re: The issue   by hedgehog       at Fri 7 Mar 1:43pm score of 1   in reply to comment 140     What everyone seems to be forgetting is that you can walk into any family planning clinic, university health center or community AIDS clinic and get condoms either for free or at a substantial discount. Every Planned Parenthood clinic I've ever been to has a huge basket of free condoms sitting out on the front desk, and the people behind the counter practically beg you to take them. So, aside from maybe having some sort of phobia about entering any of these places, it isn't impossible to obtain free, ahem, coverage if you're a guy. It's just not terribly convenient.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   151.  Re: The issue   by jennyroo       at Fri 7 Mar 5:21pm score of 1   in reply to comment 140     First, let's set aside those situations when the pill is used for something other than birth control, so we can focus on the issue of the actual lawsuit, where female employees want to force Union Pacific's medical insurance to cover the costs of their birth control pills. Why would you want to set aside the situations where the pill is used for reasons other than pregnancy prevention? The pill is commonly used for many other health reasons: endrometritis, period regulation, and also reduces the risks of cancer (as has been mentioned many times up thread). I dont see where these women are specifically asking for the pill only to prevent pregnancy, which is, BTW, a medical condition. First, assuming that Union Pacific doesn't cover condoms for men, it doesn't appear that they're engaging on blatant discrimination. First, condoms are not equivalent to birth control pills. As far as who covers the cost of condoms, from my own experience and that of my friends (both male and female) men are not and never will be the exclusive purchasers of condoms. And speaking of cost, the price of a year's worth of condoms are substansively less than a year's worth of birth control pills, as has been mentioned upthread several times. Conflating condoms with the pill is disingenous, though if true it would make your argument sound less ridiculous. ...Now it becomes a little fuzzier as to whether any sort of birth control is a true medical necessity. You won't die without birth control pills... Did you read the whole thread before posting? There are most definitely women out there who would die if they could not regulate their hormones using the pill. And let's talk about quality of life. I dont mean unprotected vaginal intercourse, I mean crazy whacked out periods. My roommate, without the pill, would have an 18 day cycle. This means that she would start her period every 18 days. When she isnt on the pill, she has extremely heavy, extremely painful, 9 day periods. Yes, that's right, 9 days bleeding, 9 days off. 9 days bleeding, 9 days off... you get the picture. you just won't get laid in the classic vaginal way, which sucks, but getting laid in that classic vaginal way isn't medically necessary (and isn't even necessary for a woman to achieve orgasm). So screw the pill, she should just take it in the ass and shut up about it? And what does a woman's orgasam have to do with anything? In addition, since vaginal sex is so fun and pregnancy is so tough on women, it seems like there's plenty of incentive for women to get the pill without having insurance foot the bill. So let me get this straight, insurance companies shouldnt have to pay for anything that the insured would buy for themselves if they didnt get coverage? My dad would have foot the bill for his 2 month cancer treatment (chemo 3 times a week, radiation 5 days a week for 2 mos.) if his wife's insurance didnt cover it because it is kinda necessary to not have a radical growth growing on your voicebox and strangling you, so should his insurance company just said, well you'd buy it anyway so buy it yourself or choke on it? Women buy birth control pills even when they aren't covered by insurance; hence there's no point in insuring it. People buy cancer treatment even when they arent covered by insurance; hence there's no point in insuring it. The purpose of insurance isn't to cover everything that everyone wants, it's to cover unexpected medical expenses. Insurance companies may cover routine things, but only if these routine things fit the BOTH of the following criteria: A) they greatly lower the risk of future big medical expenses AND B) absent coverage, people wouldn't pay for these routine things themselves Says who?! You? Good thing you arent in charge. As a result, I conclude that Union Pacific is not discriminating against women, and this suit is groundless. Again, glad you arent making the decisions, but keep on plugging away here at Plastic. I enjoy the laugh. Neeples. Big pink ones.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   152.  The joke's on you   by kbrownecon       at Fri 7 Mar 7:38pm score of 0.5 obnoxious   in reply to comment 151     And you get an "F" in reading comprhension. First, if there are cases where the pill is actually medically necessary, then there is an argument for covering it, but that isn't the motivating factor behind the suit, since the suit specifically wants Union pacific to cover the pill for contraception purposes. I read the thread, but the cases that people cited were not germane to the issue because the LAWSUIT IS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE PILL FOR CONTRACEPTION. It's called critical thinking, Roo. "So screw the pill, she should just take it in the ass and shut up about it? And what does a woman's orgasam have to do with anything?" I was thinking more about oral sex. Perhaps you haven't heard of it. From the tone of your post, I think perhaps you are due for some. "So let me get this straight, insurance companies shouldnt have to pay for anything that the insured would buy for themselves if they didnt get coverage? " Apparently you did indeed fail to get it straight. I was referring to preventitive care, not care after the disease has been realized. The insurance company pays for treatment of disease, but fertility is not a disease. Birth control pills are preventitive, and therefore it makes sense for an insurer to cover it ONLY if people wouldn't buy it absent coverage. In the case of your father's cancer, since a disease has been realized, then insurance should cover it, because cancer is an ex-ante low probability event that one insures against. That's what insurance is for, to cover treatment of disease, not to cover everyday expenses that people incur in their daily lives. Really, do try reading more carefully. You might manage to say something worth reading if you try hard enough. "Again, glad you arent making the decisions, but keep on plugging away here at Plastic. I enjoy the laugh." The laugh is on you, my dancing little Roo. You take cheap shots based on your own sloppy reading. Keep dancing for me, and maybe I'll throw you some change, little monkey.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   163.  Re: The joke's on you   by felixthecat       at Sat 8 Mar 11:46am score of 1   in reply to comment 152     comprhension. And you flunked typing 101, eh? I was thinking more about oral sex. Perhaps you haven't heard of it. From the tone of your post, I think perhaps you are due for some. Wow, I never would have figured you for a pussy eater KCB. meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   168.  Re: The joke's on you   by jennyroo       at Sat 8 Mar 10:50pm score of 1   in reply to comment 152     First, if there are cases where the pill is actually medically necessary, then there is an argument for covering it, but that isn't the motivating factor behind the suit, since the suit specifically wants Union pacific to cover the pill for contraception purposes. I read the thread, but the cases that people cited were not germane to the issue because the LAWSUIT IS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE PILL FOR CONTRACEPTION. It's called critical thinking, Roo. As always, such a pleasure discussing with you, Con. I read that the women were pushing for perscription contraceptives. By definition, these drugs are simply hormone regulators which, while preventing pregnancy, do a myriad of other things beneficial to women's heath (i.e. preventing anemia in those prone to excessive bleeding and reducing cancer risk). One cannot separate the pregnancy related effects of contraceptives from misc. health related when actually consuming them, so to do so in your argument is specious. I was thinking more about oral sex. Perhaps you haven't heard of it. From the tone of your post, I think perhaps you are due for some. Just celebrated my one year anniversary w/ my bf, last week (March 1st). I both give and receive plenty of oral, thanks. Next I suppose you'll blame my "tone" on my period? Apparently you did indeed fail to get it straight. I was referring to preventitive care, not care after the disease has been realized. You kidding me? Ok, fine. Diabetics would pay for their daily (preventative) insulin shots if insurance didn't cover it, but I dont see anyone reasoning that diabetics should cover their own drugs. The insurance company pays for treatment of disease, but fertility is not a disease. I can list a whole host of things insurance companies pay for that arent "diseases"; birth, vaccinations, annual checkups, dental cleaning, etc. And you know, I am so sick of hearing "pregnancy is not a disease". Who said that? I sure the hell didn't. Pregnancy is a major medical condition, one that requires a lot of maintence and poses a large health risk to the women involved. Birth control pills are preventitive, and therefore it makes sense for an insurer to cover it ONLY if people wouldn't buy it absent coverage. You keep saying this, but I don't get your reasoning. Where in the description of "medical insurance" does it say that coverage is only provided if you wont run out and pay for it yourself?! In the case of your father's cancer, since a disease has been realized, then insurance should cover it, because cancer is an ex-ante low probability event that one insures against. Many insurance companies disagree. Medical coverage is often contingent upon a health examination and questionnaire. Denied for coverage multiple times, my day was a 3-pack a dayer for 30 years. His cancer was as unexpected as the distasteful odor on his breath. That's what insurance is for, to cover treatment of disease, not to cover everyday expenses that people incur in their daily lives. Insurance is there to cover many things, and preventative drugs are one of them. From one of the linked articles: The ruling is specific to the two cases presented to the commission and stops short of policy guidance that would apply to all employers. These particular health plans must cover contraceptives, the ruling said, because they already cover a wide range of preventive services, including vaccinations, drugs to control blood pressure, weight loss medication and preventive dental care. They also cover surgical sterilizations. Oh lookie there, who's having trouble with their reading comprehension now, Con? Really, do try reading more carefully. You might manage to say something worth reading if you try hard enough. The laugh is on you, my dancing little Roo. You take cheap shots based on your own sloppy reading. Keep dancing for me, and maybe I'll throw you some change, little monkey. Talk about your cheap shots. Dancing Roo? Throw me some change, little monkey? Pot. Kettle. Black. And for future reference, my animal of preference is a little green froggy; monkeys have the tendency to throw their own feces (kinda like you Connie?). Neeples. Big pink ones.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   158.  Re: The issue (Part 1)   by ms_sue_collins       at Sat 8 Mar 10:48am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 140     First, assuming that Union Pacific doesn't cover condoms for men, it doesn't appear that they're engaging on blatant discrimination. As has been pointed out ad nauseam, this is apples and oranges. Condoms are an OTC item, right next to toothpaste in my market. Birth control pills must be prescribed by a doctor. Nobody is suggesting, at least I'm not, that insurance cover OTC items, including birth control. If a healthcare plan provides for a range of products, it should not discriminate against a class of people, as the court concluded in the Bartell case: Title VII does not require employers to offer any particular type or category of benefit. However, when an employer decides to offer a prescription plan covering everything except a few specifically excluded drugs and devices, it has a legal obligation to make sure that the resulting plan does not discriminate based on sex-based characteristics and that it provides equally comprehensive coverage for both sexes. You also say: The purpose of insurance isn't to cover everything that everyone wants, it's to cover unexpected medical expenses. Insurance companies may cover routine things, but only if these routine things fit the BOTH of the following criteria: A) they greatly lower the risk of future big medical expenses AND B) absent coverage, people wouldn't pay for these routine things themselves So I gather from this statement and what you said in a later post, that somehow insurance companies must become mind readers, figuring out just which preventive care people are willing to pay for and which they are not. Currently, my husband's preventive cholesterol and high blood pressure medication is covered by insurance. If it were not, would he have forked out the money himself? Who knows? Nobody ever asked him that question. It's ludicrous, circular logic to say that since "Women buy birth control pills even when they aren't covered by insurance; hence there's no point in insuring it." It's a dog's life   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   160.  Re: The issue (Part 2)   by ms_sue_collins       at Sat 8 Mar 10:53am score of 1   in reply to comment 140     You won't die without birth control pills, you just won't get laid in the classic vaginal way, which sucks, but getting laid in that classic vaginal way isn't medically necessary (and isn't even necessary for a woman to achieve orgasm. I fear that you are actually seriously implying that this whole issue could be easily resolved by just engaging in oral (as you mentioned in another post) sex rather than vaginal sex. Birth control pills aren't a necessity because vaginal sex isn't a necessity? Right? So we just convince human beings not to have intercourse. I'm sure that will be a successful campaign. But in the meantime, while people still foolishly refuse to listen to your advice, it is far more beneficial to sociey to insure the cost of prevention. From you response to jennyroo: You take cheap shots based on your own sloppy reading. So what would you call your remarks to her? I was thinking more about oral sex. Perhaps you haven't heard of it. From the tone of your post, I think perhaps you are due for some....Keep dancing for me, and maybe I'll throw you some change, little monkey. After reading all your posts on this thread, I'm left with the distinct feeling that you have an agenda that goes beyond any particular insurance debate. It's a dog's life   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   162.  Re: The issue (Part 2)   by eduardo       at Sat 8 Mar 11:17am score of 1   in reply to comment 160     Birth control pills aren't a necessity because vaginal sex isn't a necessity? Right? So we just convince human beings not to have intercourse. I'm sure that will be a successful campaign. But in the meantime, while people still foolishly refuse to listen to your advice, it is far more beneficial to sociey to insure the cost of prevention. Sue, we're not talking about 3rd world peasants here. You have insurance if you have a (good) job, and that implies 1) some sort of intelligence and 2) some responsibility for yourself. Having your insurance cover birth control does not make you more educated about sex. You still go to your gynecologist and she'll tell you "you might want to get on the pill" - the only question is whether you pay out of your own pocket or you get is "free." If you happen to be one of those people for whom birth control isn't covered, you should be well aware of your options, which are to either stop fucking, insist on condoms, take it in the ass, or pay cash for the pills. I am not saying that I am against coverage for birth control, merely that your attitude that people aren't capable of governing their own sexual behaviour is annoying. You could have been arguing for forced hysterectomies with that "it is far more beneficial to sociey to insure the cost of prevention" line. J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   164.  Re: The issue (Part 2)   by ms_sue_collins       at Sat 8 Mar 1:39pm score of 1   in reply to comment 162     the only question is whether you pay out of your own pocket or you get is "free." For all the reasons enumerated in all the relevant posts, including quotes from the key court cases, prescription birth control pills should be covered by any already extensive health insurance policy. You could have been arguing for forced hysterectomies with that "it is far more beneficial to sociey to insure the cost of prevention" line. I do believe that a discussion of what is beneficial, particularly cost-effective, to society can be conducted reasonably and logically. The rest of your post is irrelevant and needlessly crass. It's a dog's life   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   167.  OK, I'll bite...   by glorfinde1       at Sat 8 Mar 4:52pm score of 1.5 scholarly   in reply to comment 140     Insurance companies may cover routine things, but only if these routine things fit the BOTH of the following criteria: A) they greatly lower the risk of future big medical expenses AND B) absent coverage, people wouldn't pay for these routine things themselves Where did you get this particular tidbit? Having friends who work in the insurance industry, I can safely assure you that the overriding reason for covering or not covering something is A, not B. Some routine things covered by insurance that fit criteria A, but not criteria B: prescription allergy medication prescription cough syrup prednisone (especially for treatment of poison ivy, for example) preventive dental care eye exams prescription lenses I'm sure you can come up with other examples on your own... psych meds, viagra, HBP meds, and so forth All of these things greatly lower the risk of future big medical expenses. All are things that people without insurance are more than willing to pay for (because they recognize the lowered risk, or because they want to avoid pain and discomfort.) Insurance companies cover these because they are part of routine programs for assuring good health, because by providing these things they minimize employee downtime (an effect that employers are generally willing to compensate insurance companies for preventing by covering higher premiums), and because by engaging in preventative medicine they save themselves money down the road. Would covering prescription contraceptives greatly lower medical costs to the insurance company down the road? Absolutely. Numerous studies exist to show this. Do such prescriptive contraceptives fall in line with other quality of life or quality of health prescriptions currently covered by insurance? Sure. Do they help achieve insurance companies' core goal of preventing unexpected medical expenses? Yes. So why aren't they covered? Because people such as yourself fail to see a substantive difference between the pregnancy issues addressed by condoms and those addressed by prescription contraceptives. Because both are contraceptive devices, therefore they are equal in your eyes. Which is patent poppycock. Which takes us back to your earlier point: you can only get pregnant through sex. Truth is, men cannot get pregnant through sex, they can only make a woman pregnant through sex. Therefore, pregnancy is not a health issue for men, but one of finances and civil responsibility. For women, however, sex and pregnancy have direct health risks and consequences. But, you say, you won't die without birth control pills, you just won't get laid. Getting laid is not a "true" medical necessity (as opposed to a false one?), therefore, women can avoid getting laid, and therefore avoid running any health risks, without any assistance from insurance companies. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who recognize that comment for the asinine assertion that it is (sadly, you and George Bush not in that group). The disparity of treatment between Viagra and the pill point out the problem. Nearly half of the men using Viagra are reimbursed by their insurance companies. Fully 73% nationwide using other forms of treatment for impotence are likewise reimbursed. Where a normal sex life for men is concerned (free of any personal worries or risks of pregnancy thanks to nature's design), insurance companies both private and governmental have spoken: "Poke away." So it appears that you're in the minority in claiming that normal (or should I say "classic"?) sexual relations are not a component of good health. Republican State Representative and Medicaid Oversight Committee leader Ron Johnson, when opposing his state's move to revoke blanket Medicaid coverage of Viagra stated: "The sex drive being what it is in some people, it may very well have a lot to do with the mental well-being of a person." Duane Park, Utah's Medicaid drug utilization reviewer, says that Viagra should be funded to help men "approach normality." That view agrees with quite a few psychologists and medical doctors, only they speak of sex for both men AND women, and not just for Viagra-takers alone. Every public dollar spent on contraceptive services prevents $4 in public expenditures on unplanned or unwanted pregnancies. America's unplanned pregnancy rate hovers around 60%, nearly double that of other industrialized nations. The cost of birth control pills for a month is $30, for a single dose of Viagra $10. Over the course of her reproductive cycle, the average woman faces potential pregnancy 8-15 times. But hey, if a woman wants to have "classic" sex, she just has to accept the risk of pregnancy. It's not the insurance companies fault, right? It's nature's. And if a 60 year old man's cock hangs at half mast, now that (on the other hand) of necessity needs to be addressed... right? So we can see that "medical necessity" is a broad term, as is health; and that in addressing the health needs of men and women, dif read the entire comment...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

165.  In conclusion   by Nephthys       at Sat 8 Mar 2:04pm score of 1     Let's look at this from a perspective that, hopefully, everyone agrees with. Sex is a good thing; men and women benefit from healthy lifestyles. Health is a good thing; everyone benefits when the people they are with are healthy. Periods and PMS suck, even at the best of times. Unplanned pregnancy is a heartwrenching trauma. To the gentlemen who have been screaming throughout this thread: think about this - if your female partner were less prone to nasty mood swings, could have sex on a regular basis without crazy periods, would be a nicer person when she was having her period because she was not in pain, and was not worried about unplanned pregnancy, your life would be easier, wouldn't it? This isn't just about us. Our male partners benefit when we are healthy and protected. In simplelest terms, you get more sex, and the women you love are healthier and happier. I don't think any of you are against that. Cake or Death? Cake, please.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]