More from the war on birth control!

[BuckNaked]

So in your world, slaves on a plantation is a good business model.

Use hyperbole much?

Here are the operative words, I'll post them again since you somehow managed to quote them but obviously didn't read them:

It bugs me that states take it upon themselves to decide companies should be forced to provide any benefits other than pay for the work that is done by the employee

How exactly does that equate to slave labor on the plantation?

 

[jodifla]

How exactly does that equate to slave labor on the plantation?

How does it not? You're basically saying that companies can do whatever they want, whenever they want. The companies are basically the new plantation masters.

But anyone who can defend the business practices of Wal-Mart is beyond redemption, anyway. The state went after them because so many of their employees were costing the state a fortune, because the company didn't offer employees health care benefits, or pay them enough to get their own. Lots of states are eyeing Wal-Mart now for the same reasons.

 

[BuckNaked]

But anyone who can defend the business practices of Wal-Mart is beyond redemption, anyway.

Ah, I see. Belieiving in capitalism and the notion that employers shouldn't be forced to pay more for a resource than it is worth in the free market makes one "beyond redemption".

How does it not? You're basically saying that companies can do whatever they want, whenever they want. The companies are basically the new plantation masters.

Please tell me how much slaves were paid by their masters for the work they did. That's where your comparison falls apart. I have no problem with mandated minimum wages and safety standards, but after that, no, I don't think that states should be able to mandate what benefits are offered. I take it that you are of the opinion that states should mandate benefits such as paid vacations, paid sick leave, health coverage, etc? If that's the case, why not just let the states take over running the businesses?

The state went after them because so many of their employees were costing the state a fortune, because the company didn't offer employees health care benefits, or pay them enough to get their own.

Please get your facts straight if you are going to try to argue a point. Wal-Mart did offer healthcare to many of it's Maryland employees, just not as much as the state thought they should.

And unless I missed it, no one is forcing anyone to work at Wal-Mart. If employees don't like the pay and benefits, they should quit and go work somewhere else.

As I said before, I would love to see Wal-Mart pull out of Maryland altogether and let the state figure out how to pay for the 17,000 residents that would lose their jobs as a result.

 

[LisaNJ25]

Hmm but lots of companies cover Viagara?? Go figure.

I wanted to get an IUD after #3 was born. My insurance did not cover it. It was approx $500 and stayed in for 10 years.

They would cover a vesectomy and or tubal ligation.

Well things happened and I was pregnat with #4 before I saved up the money for the IUD. So instead of my insurance paying $500 for an iud, they paid $30,000 for the birth of my son and a few thousand for a vasectomy for hubby.

 

[andromedaslove]

If they don't want to cover birth control, then they should at least cover the abortion I'd have if I got pregnant. (Oh wait...the Right doesn't think I should have THAT right either!)

Actually, most insurance companies do cover abortions. I know my Mom's insurance did when I was a teenager. That's what we found out when calling to find out of they covered BCP. They will cover an abortion or a birth, but not BCP. Doesn't make sense if you ask me.

 

[Planogirl]

How strange if they cover abortion and not BC! I don't see how that fits the model that some of the Conservatives appear to be praising on this thread.

As for Wal-Mart, it's a bit naive to assume that Wal-Mart isn't causing damage and I usually defend Wal-Mart because I also believe in free enterprise. The practice of purposely losing money by underselling their competitors bothers me a lot but I suppose that they have the right to do so. The public (and I include myself) is really to blame for the success of Wal-Mart.

 

[BuckNaked]

As for Wal-Mart, it's a bit naive to assume that Wal-Mart isn't causing damage and I usually defend Wal-Mart because I also believe in free enterprise. The practice of purposely losing money by underselling their competitors bothers me a lot but I suppose that they have the right to do so. The public (and I include myself) is really to blame for the success of Wal-Mart.

I agree that Wal-Mart is causing damage to their competitors, but I don't believe they are causing damage to the econonmy nor to their employees.

 

[andromedaslove]

I honestly don't think that insurance not covering BCP has anything to do with the conservatives or the government. For the insurance companies it truly is about the money.

I however, do believe that the conservatives, and the current government are definately encroaching on women's rights. God help all women if they succeed in overturning Roe v. Wade, or even succeed in banning the D&X procedure, because it as another poster said takes us down a slippery slope.

 

[BuckNaked]

I honestly don't think that insurance not covering BCP has anything to do with the conservatives or the government. For the insurance companies it truly is about the money.

I agreee.

I however, do believe that the conservatives, and the current government are definately encroaching on women's rights.

OK, how so?

God help all women if they succeed in overturning Roe v. Wade, or even succeed in banning the D&X procedure, because it as another poster said takes us down a slippery slope.

As much as I want to see it stand, the world will not end if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

As far as the D&X procedure, the last I heard, the AMA was still saying that it was never medically necessary in order to save the life of a woman, so when it comes to comes to partially extracting a viable baby and then killing it, I do have a problem with that.

 

[andromedaslove]

Believe me, I don't like the idea of it anymore than you do. However, Here is my problem with it. When a woman walks into an abortion clinic where people are protesting, she is confronted with these pictures of what is basically a D&X. A D&X is actually done in less than 1% of all terminations in this country, but people would have you believe that it is so much more. If they are able to ban this type of termination, my fear is that it will lead to other types of terminations, including the type I had.

Let me tell you my story, and why this worries me as much as it does. In July of 2003 during a routine 20 week ultrasound I found out that my son had Anencephaly. For those of you that don't know Anencephaly is a Open Neural Tube Defect similar to Spina Bifida, however the hole isn't in the spine it is on the head, which causes the babies brain not to form. This condition is "incompatible with life". I was given two options a) continue with the pregnancy which would be harder than normal, and even worse for me due to the fact that I was borderline preeclampsic with my first or b) terminate. After much thought I decided to terminate the pregnancy. By this time I was waaaay past the time for a legal abortion, and had to go through 12 hours of the most painful labor I have ever experienced. Granted, I at least got to see and hold my son after he was born and tell him how much I loved him. I got the peace of knowing that he was no longer in any pain from the basic electric type shock that was being caused by amniotic fluid touching his spinal nerves. There are women who are not given the option to induce labor early and have to go through a D&C or a D&E.

My question and concern is where it will stop after the D&X, how far are they gonna push, and I see it being all too easy to keep going and hurting ALOT of women's rights in the process.

 

[nwdisgal]

To a certain extent, you're right. If a company chooses to not provide any prescription coverage...fine, no birth control. If a company doesn't want to provide preventative or nonessential medicine...fine, as long as Viagra and all other preventatives are excluded (however, BC is often used out of medical necessesity...as in my case). However when a company does provide prescription coverage, and they provide viagra, preventative, and other nonessential medications and they still refuse to cover birth control, then they are doing so for moral/religious reasons and since they are forcing their views/religious beliefs on others they shouldn't receive government money in any way.

Trust me, my BC is not free, or even cheap. We run our own business, and pay our own premiums, copays and deductibles. To keep expenses low we only have a 50% prescription plan. I save very little money on it. However, I'm fine with it because our insurance covers birth control to the same extent that it covers comparable drugs.

I think another, really the main issue, is that restricting reproductive rights is a slippery slope. Arrest teenagers who take part in heavy petting and request birth control? Sure, why not? I mean, we don't want teenagers "doing it" anyway do we? The problem with that reasoning is that where do we stop when it comes to the limits? If we don't want our sixteen year old girls on birth control, do we really want our 18 year olds to be sexually active? For that matter, with out of wedlock babies on the rise, wouldn't it be better if we prevented all unwed women from engaging in premarital sex and having access to BC? The errosion of womens rights happens gradually, and before you know it we're all effected.

Yes it is, a slow spiraling effect.... I had enough frank discussions with my mother and grandmother who were from generations where women didn't have rights except to serve their husband and keep their mouth shut, to have a significant appreciation for my rights. We enjoy the rights we have today because generations of women before us suffered, sacrificed and advocated on our behalf. I often feel like this concept is completely lost on my contemporaries - especially the younger ones who don't even show up to the polls to vote.

 

[MrsKreamer]

This thread has gone from Utah saying that private insurance companies do not have to cover BCP to we will all end up like our greatgrandmothers, as slaves to men I think it is more harmful for our government to tell a PRIVATE COMPANY what they HAVE to cover on their insurance. The BCP is still available and either very cheap or free all over. If a woman cannot afford the $40 a month(heck I know women who spend 3 and 4x that on a pair of shoes) then they can either a) ***** and moan on how all of our reproductive rights are being taken away, b) get pregnant and complain that this was forced on her by the right wing administration, or c) get her butt to the nearest health unit or PP for FREE BCP, wow what a concept. The government actually gives out BCP for free! I thought they were taking away my rights!

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Yes it is, a slow spiraling effect.... I had enough frank discussions with my mother and grandmother who were from generations where women didn't have rights except to serve their husband and keep their mouth shut, to have a significant appreciation for my rights. We enjoy the rights we have today because generations of women before us suffered, sacrificed and advocated on our behalf. I often feel like this concept is completely lost on my contemporaries - especially the younger ones who don't even show up to the polls to vote.

The younger ones have no reason to believe the sky is falling because some insurance companies do not pay for birth control, or that some states may want restrictions on minors.

 

[Planogirl]

I agree that Wal-Mart is causing damage to their competitors, but I don't believe they are causing damage to the econonmy nor to their employees.

I believe that the Wal-Marts of the world COULD cause a spiraling downward of wages and benefits over time. I have no concrete proof of this of course; it's just an interesting economist's theory that I read. However, this is OT big time and I'll shut up now.

Back to health coverage, is it really better for the taxpayer to provide medical services for lower wage persons than the companies they work for? I have no firm belief either way in this debate so I can't answer that question.

 

[nwdisgal]

This thread has gone from Utah saying that private insurance companies do not have to cover BCP to we will all end up like our greatgrandmothers, as slaves to men I think it is more harmful for our government to tell a PRIVATE COMPANY what they HAVE to cover on their insurance. The BCP is still available and either very cheap or free all over. If a woman cannot afford the $40 a month(heck I know women who spend 3 and 4x that on a pair of shoes) then they can either a) ***** and moan on how all of our reproductive rights are being taken away, b) get pregnant and complain that this was forced on her by the right wing administration, or c) get her butt to the nearest health unit or PP for FREE BCP, wow what a concept. The government actually gives out BCP for free! I thought they were taking away my rights!

I knew it wouldn't take long for someone to come out and bash me on this. The point I was trying to make irregardless of who's buying what birth control and how they are doing it, and with what insurance is that it hasn't been so long since women didn't even have these rights. Quite frankly, I'm not worried about myself and when I was, I knew how to pay for my own birth control pills. I knew what Planned Parenthood was too. Scary thought, since I am seemingly so out of it, being caught in the prehistoric times and all

 

[MrsKreamer]

I knew it wouldn't take long for someone to come out and bash me on this. The point I was trying to make irregardless of who's buying what birth control and how they are doing it, and with what insurance is that it hasn't been so long since women didn't even have these rights. Quite frankly, I'm not worried about myself and when I was, I knew how to pay for my own birth control pills. I knew what Planned Parenthood was too. Scary thought, since I am seemingly so out of it, being caught in the prehistoric times and all

I was not bashing you. I simply acknowledging the rampet paranoia on this thread. If the govt still provides BCP for FREE and some ins companies do cover it, why do people insist on suggesting, b/c a few don't we are going to lose all of our rights? I just think that is silly.

 

[nwdisgal]

I was not bashing you. I simply acknowledging the rampet paranoia on this thread. If the govt still provides BCP for FREE and some ins companies do cover it, why do people insist on suggesting, b/c a few don't we are going to lose all of our rights? I just think that is silly.

I had the feeling that the poster was worried about the underlying implications of what was going on.... i.e. trends pointing towards women losing birth control rights, as she cited an article about what was happening in Kansas. At least that is the take I had on what she said.

 

[MrsKreamer]

The Utah bill being voted down had nothing to do with denying birth control to women. It just means that PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANYS don't have to cover it. Some still do. Heck even if they don't BCP are only $40 a month and isn't the only means of birth control. Condoms are mighty cheap, and you can even get those free too! I understand about women who use BCP for medical reasons, I had to. Most of the time insurance will cover this. I still think it is a darker road that leads to the govt telling a private company what it will and will not cover on insurance. Especially when birth control for the most part is easy to obtain and relativly inexpensive.

 

[jgmklmhem]

Let us look at it another way...since slippery slope arguments are all the rage in this thread. So first govt can force private companies to cover bc pills. What is next govt forcing women to take them or forcing abortions or regulating how many kids you can have because they don't want so many people living here. These statements sound just as ridiculous as those thinking we are going to slip down the other side. A hill usually has two sides. If you feel govt should have control over private companies then don't ***** and moan so much when they try to take over private citizen decisions. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Should the govt ban safe birth control....nope not its place to make such decisions for my family. Should the govt force private enterprises to cover birth control....nope not its place to make such decisions for a company. I always find it funny how people want govt to be in sooo much control over companies but balk at them even thinking about taking control from an individual.

 

[MrsKreamer]

Let us look at it another way...since slippery slope arguments are all the rage in this thread. So first govt can force private companies to cover bc pills. What is next govt forcing women to take them or forcing abortions or regulating how many kids you can have because they don't want so many people living here. These statements sound just as ridiculous as those thinking we are going to slip down the other side. A hill usually has two sides. If you feel govt should have control over private companies then don't ***** and moan so much when they try to take over private citizen decisions. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Should the govt ban safe birth control....nope not its place to make such decisions for my family. Should the govt force private enterprises to cover birth control....nope not its place to make such decisions for a company. I always find it funny how people want govt to be in sooo much control over companies but balk at them even thinking about taking control from an individual.

very, very good points!