Woolleybugger
Mayor
The debates about insurance covering contraception is not about the cost of contraception. Everyone understands the relationship between the cost of prevention and the cost of pregnancy. Birth control pills cost about 100 dollars a month. The co-pays are anywhere between 20 and 50 dollars a month. My two daughters have a co-pay of 45 dollars a month for their prescriptions. No one is making the claim that it is cheaper to allow pregnancies to occur than it is to provide contraceptives.
No, the argument is that a certain portion of the nation considers sex to be solely about procreation within a marraige. Some even argue that all sex within a marraige should be subject to the whims of fertilzation and would forbid even married women from having access through insurance to contraceptives. This is an issue of religion and the puritanical leanings of the ultra-right wing forcing their views about behavior upon the rest of us.
What else could they decide to ban? What if other groups decided to ban certain types of medical treatments based upon a different set of codes? Here is an impartial list of behavior related illnesses or conditions that could potentially be used as an excuse to deny coverage:
Smoking related diseases
Obesity related diseases
Alcohol addiction
Liver conditions resulting from proscribed behavior
Kidney malfunctions
Punctured colons
Sexually transmitted diseases
High cholorestoral
Strokes induced by poor health habits or undue stress
Diseases resulting from poverty caused by someone's judgement that poverty was self-induced
Injuries from drunk driving, bad driving, illegal manoevers
Injuries from negligence,stupidity or crimes
I am sure the rest of you could come up with hundreds more examples of health conditions brought upon an individual which someone could claim was the direct result of "free will" and the bad choices made by an individual acting upon free will.
The contraception debate is not about costs. It is about enforcing a code of behavior one set of individuals with power can enforce upon the general population that causes someone to use the insurance industry to mitigate. This is the beginning of theocracy.
No, the argument is that a certain portion of the nation considers sex to be solely about procreation within a marraige. Some even argue that all sex within a marraige should be subject to the whims of fertilzation and would forbid even married women from having access through insurance to contraceptives. This is an issue of religion and the puritanical leanings of the ultra-right wing forcing their views about behavior upon the rest of us.
What else could they decide to ban? What if other groups decided to ban certain types of medical treatments based upon a different set of codes? Here is an impartial list of behavior related illnesses or conditions that could potentially be used as an excuse to deny coverage:
Smoking related diseases
Obesity related diseases
Alcohol addiction
Liver conditions resulting from proscribed behavior
Kidney malfunctions
Punctured colons
Sexually transmitted diseases
High cholorestoral
Strokes induced by poor health habits or undue stress
Diseases resulting from poverty caused by someone's judgement that poverty was self-induced
Injuries from drunk driving, bad driving, illegal manoevers
Injuries from negligence,stupidity or crimes
I am sure the rest of you could come up with hundreds more examples of health conditions brought upon an individual which someone could claim was the direct result of "free will" and the bad choices made by an individual acting upon free will.
The contraception debate is not about costs. It is about enforcing a code of behavior one set of individuals with power can enforce upon the general population that causes someone to use the insurance industry to mitigate. This is the beginning of theocracy.
