http://news.yahoo.com/federal-health-department-approves-free-birth-control-women-143218278.html
QuoteU.S. health insurance companies must offer women free birth control and other preventive health care services under Obama administration rules released on Monday, a historic decision supported by family planning groups and opposed by conservative groups.
The rules from the Health and Human Services Department are part of the nation's healthcare overhaul and largely follow recommendations from an advisory group released last month.
The U.S. Institute of Medicine (IOM) report, commissioned by the Obama administration, recommended that all U.S.-approved birth control methods -- including the "morning-after pill," taken shortly after intercourse to stop a pregnancy -- be added to the list of preventive health services.
The recommendation faced opposition from conservative and religious groups that balked at using taxpayer money to cover birth control, especially the "morning-after pill."
The guidelines go into effect on Monday, requiring insurers to provide free coverage of preventive care services for women in all new plans beginning in August 2012.
"These historic guidelines are based on science and existing literature and will help ensure women get the preventive health benefits they need," HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement.
The HHS added an amendment allowing religious institutions to choose whether to cover contraception services in their insurance. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had urged the HHS to exclude birth control as a service.
The adoption of the recommendations is a win for organizations such as the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Planned Parenthood.
"Eliminating cost sharing for these crucial preventive services will make needed care more accessible and will improve the health of millions of women," said Iowa Democratic Senator Tom Harkin, who had urged HHS to accept the report's guidelines.
The health department's guidelines followed the IOM's recommendations to require free screening for gestational diabetes, testing for human papillomavirus in women over 30, counseling for HIV and sexually transmitted infections, lactation counseling, screening for domestic violence and yearly wellness visits.
Research suggests that the public supports adding birth control to the list of services.
A Thomson Reuters/NPR survey in May found 76.6 percent of respondents believe private insurance plans, without government assistance, should cover some or all costs associated with birth control pills.
Now here's something the Teabaggers are really going to go to the mattresses against.
Pardon the pun.
40 years later, in America,...
Abstinence is indeed free. Win-win.
Condoms and the pill are relatively cheap. Babies are expensive. Especially when you factor in the cost of black babies.
Fine by me if an insurance company chooses to cover whore pills, but if you're going to try to mandate that they do, grow some balls & put through specific legislation.
Yes, I know Obamacare empowered HHS to do this, but that's just another strike against Obamacare.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 01, 2011, 11:56:19 AM
Now here's something the Teabaggers are really going to go to the mattresses against.
Pardon the pun.
Just wait & see what the Bachmann administration does about this LOL
Did you really just say whore pills? :mellow:
Quote from: derspiess on August 01, 2011, 12:36:34 PM
Fine by me if an insurance company chooses to cover whore pills
:bleeding:
Seriously dude what the fuck is wrong with you?
In any case while that might be a good policy that strikes me as something that should be mandated by law instead of just mandated through executive order...since, you know, money in involved.
Unless it was mandated by the health care bill which, well, did they not then legislate it with the appropriate amount of testicles?
Quote from: Valmy on August 01, 2011, 12:42:53 PM
In any case while that might be a good policy that strikes me as something that should be mandated by law instead of just mandated through executive order...since, you know, money in involved.
Unless it was mandated by the health care bill which, well, did they not then legislate it with the appropriate amount of testicles?
See, this is what Congress does these days. They legislate ambiguously, and then they're able to rage against the president during their reelection campaigns.
Quote from: Valmy on August 01, 2011, 12:42:53 PM
:bleeding:
Seriously dude what the fuck is wrong with you?
I just like the reaction I get from using that term ;)
Quote from: NeilSee, this is what Congress does these days. They legislate ambiguously, and then they're able to rage against the president during their reelection campaigns.
Except that this legislation was passed by a Democrat-controlled congress and it caused several members of congress to get voted out :D
It will actually save the government a great amount of money to subsidize birth control among the lower classes. A fiscal conservative should not be opposed to this.
Quote from: derspiess on August 01, 2011, 12:55:18 PM
Except that this legislation was passed by a Democrat-controlled congress and it caused several members of congress to get voted out :D
Meh. That always happens when a party does something no matter how ambigous. Hence the inceasing wimpiness of Congress and the dangerous turn over of power to the executive.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on August 01, 2011, 01:02:34 PM
It will actually save the government a great amount of money to subsidize birth control among the lower classes. A fiscal conservative should not be opposed to this.
Indeed. But I would rather controversial cultural issues like this be handled on a local level.
Quote from: derspiess on August 01, 2011, 12:55:18 PM
I just like the reaction I get from using that term ;)
Careful. That road leads to Slargosian side.
Quote from: Valmy on August 01, 2011, 01:04:56 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 01, 2011, 12:55:18 PM
I just like the reaction I get from using that term ;)
Careful. That road leads to Slargosian side.
Meh. That would have happened by now.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on August 01, 2011, 01:02:34 PM
It will actually save the government a great amount of money to subsidize birth control among the lower classes. A fiscal conservative should not be opposed to this.
That assumes the lower classes would make use of it. Most of them can already do so for free or almost free from semi-private organizations like Planned Parenthood.
Quote from: derspiess on August 01, 2011, 01:10:53 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 01, 2011, 01:04:56 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 01, 2011, 12:55:18 PM
I just like the reaction I get from using that term ;)
Careful. That road leads to Slargosian side.
Meh. That would have happened by now.
Is there some an established half-life for when forum members becomes a raving lunatic? :hmm:
Quote from: Ideologue on August 01, 2011, 01:27:54 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 01, 2011, 01:10:53 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 01, 2011, 01:04:56 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 01, 2011, 12:55:18 PM
I just like the reaction I get from using that term ;)
Careful. That road leads to Slargosian side.
Meh. That would have happened by now.
Is there some an established half-life for when forum members becomes a raving lunatic? :hmm:
Dunno. I'm just saying it would've happened by now in my case.
I think free birth control is a great idea, but it feels wrong to have medical insurance cover something where medically speaking there isn't a problem (and the risk you are preventing is that things work as they should). Probably the easiest way to distribute free birth control though.
We should legislate mandatory facials instead.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 01, 2011, 02:09:57 PM
We should legislate mandatory facials instead.
:rolleyes: Yes they are a lot cheaper.
Incidentally, supporting free birth control is probably me at my most altruistic. :P
Quote from: Ancient Demon on August 01, 2011, 01:02:34 PM
It will actually save the government a great amount of money to subsidize birth control among the lower classes.
Except, as I understand it, the government isn't subsidizing it--the government is requiring the insurance companies to subsidize it. Though the article is rather ambiguous on that point. This:
QuoteThe guidelines go into effect on Monday, requiring insurers to provide free coverage of preventive care services for women in all new plans beginning in August 2012.
seems to be saying that it's the insurance companies that would be doing the subsidizing, but this:
QuoteThe recommendation faced opposition from conservative and religious groups that balked at using taxpayer money to cover birth control
would seem to imply it's the government.
Quote from: alfred russell
I think free birth control is a great idea, but it feels wrong to have medical insurance cover something where medically speaking there isn't a problem (and the risk you are preventing is that things work as they should).
On a certain level, I don't think that insurance should be required to cover anything that's elective, such as pregnancy, non-reconstrutive plastic surgery, etc.
Pregnancy isn't always elective.
Quote from: dps on August 01, 2011, 02:53:53 PM
On a certain level, I don't think that insurance should be required to cover anything that's elective, such as pregnancy, non-reconstrutive plastic surgery, etc.
I agree, it's absurd to have insurance cover anything that's elective, the model simply won't work like that. The purpose of insurance is to cover against chance events. That's also why it's absurd to have a healthcare system based entirely on insurance.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 01, 2011, 01:27:54 PM
Is there some an established half-life for when forum members becomes a raving lunatic? :hmm:
I would suggest trolling the forum is a sign of boredom rather than lunacy.
Kind of refreshing to see one that was actually successful, we've generally become so blase.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on August 01, 2011, 01:02:34 PM
It will actually save the government a great amount of money to subsidize birth control among the lower classes. A fiscal conservative should not be opposed to this.
The problem with this is that the lower classes aren't all that interested in birth control.
More chilluns gits me more TANF, yo! :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on August 01, 2011, 05:55:18 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on August 01, 2011, 01:02:34 PM
It will actually save the government a great amount of money to subsidize birth control among the lower classes. A fiscal conservative should not be opposed to this.
The problem with this is that the lower classes aren't all that interested in birth control. More chilluns gits me more TANF, yo! :cool:
Either that or they just don't give a shit either way.
Quote from: derspiess on August 01, 2011, 01:37:35 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 01, 2011, 01:27:54 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 01, 2011, 01:10:53 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 01, 2011, 01:04:56 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 01, 2011, 12:55:18 PM
I just like the reaction I get from using that term ;)
Careful. That road leads to Slargosian side.
Meh. That would have happened by now.
Is there some an established half-life for when forum members becomes a raving lunatic? :hmm:
Dunno. I'm just saying it would've happened by now in my case.
It did, mr Tea Party.
Why not subsidize mass sterilization of the poor? It wouldn't be elective, so it could be covered by insurance. :)
No free condoms? Only worried about preventing pregnancy, not STIs? Maybe in another 40 years.
Quote from: Brazen on August 02, 2011, 04:41:37 AM
No free condoms? Only worried about preventing pregnancy, not STIs? Maybe in another 40 years.
Free condoms acknowledges the existence of an erect penis. Just can't have the government sponsor that sort of imagery.
Quote from: Martinus on August 02, 2011, 04:11:17 AM
Why not subsidize mass sterilization of the poor? It wouldn't be elective, so it could be covered by insurance. :)
:hmm:
What we need is to finally find our Stargate, then shovel all the brown pipple into an other M class planet and maximize the population here at a billion tops.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 02, 2011, 12:37:46 AM
It did, mr Tea Party.
Don't make me post the crying Frenchman pic again :contract:
Quote from: Martinus on August 02, 2011, 04:11:17 AM
Why not subsidize mass sterilization of the poor? It wouldn't be elective, so it could be covered by insurance. :)
it's been done in the past, in the 50s and 60s, iirc.
Quote from: viper37 on August 02, 2011, 09:21:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 02, 2011, 04:11:17 AM
Why not subsidize mass sterilization of the poor? It wouldn't be elective, so it could be covered by insurance. :)
it's been done in the past, in the 50s and 60s, iirc.
Marti is so retro.
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2011, 09:45:07 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 02, 2011, 09:21:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 02, 2011, 04:11:17 AM
Why not subsidize mass sterilization of the poor? It wouldn't be elective, so it could be covered by insurance. :)
it's been done in the past, in the 50s and 60s, iirc.
Marti is so retro.
Is that a polite way of calling him a polack?
Quote from: derspiess on August 02, 2011, 10:29:50 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2011, 09:45:07 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 02, 2011, 09:21:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 02, 2011, 04:11:17 AM
Why not subsidize mass sterilization of the poor? It wouldn't be elective, so it could be covered by insurance. :)
it's been done in the past, in the 50s and 60s, iirc.
Marti is so retro.
Is that a polite way of calling him a polack?
I was thinking of calling him a conservative for his suggestion of going back to the golden age of the '50s.
Quote from: Martinus on August 01, 2011, 02:29:20 PM
Incidentally, supporting free birth control is probably me at my most altruistic. :P
Are you sure you don't support free birth control to fustrate the catholic chuch and because you don't like being around lots of small children? :P
Quote from: derspiess on August 02, 2011, 08:57:32 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 02, 2011, 12:37:46 AM
It did, mr Tea Party.
Don't make me post the crying Frenchman pic again :contract:
Go ahead dude. I know it makes you all giddy.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 02, 2011, 12:15:20 PM
Go ahead dude. I know it makes you all giddy.
Nah, I'm in a good mood plus I still love the French :hug:
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2011, 10:33:48 AM
I was thinking of calling him a conservative for his suggestion of going back to the golden age of the '50s.
Ah. I'm guessing he'd prefer to be called a polack, then :D
Quote from: Martinus on August 02, 2011, 04:11:17 AM
Why not subsidize mass sterilization of the poor? It wouldn't be elective, so it could be covered by insurance. :)
:lol:
Quote from: Zoupa on August 02, 2011, 12:15:20 PM
Go ahead dude. I know it makes you all giddy.
If he does, will you then post the promised pic of you shittting on some DVDs?