archer wrote: You too? What part of preventive medicine don't you understand?
There were two issues in my post...preventive medicine to lower the cost of healthcare and low cost birth control to limit abortions and unwanted pregnancies. I guess you all need a road map.
Yes I do. I doubt that when that idiom was coined preventing pregnancies was inclusive in what the originator intended. Excuse me for not keeping up with the times. I hear that they are revising Tom Sawyer also.
I say ... let's make insurance companies cover contraceptives for ALL EMPLOYERS....provided we BAN ABORTION for ALL BABIES. Why do we need abortion if we are giving away free birth control pills and condoms?
archer wrote: There were two issues in my post...preventive medicine to lower the cost of healthcare and low cost birth control to limit abortions and unwanted pregnancies. I guess you all need a road map.
Fine - let's address the latter one, since it happens to be the one at least theoretically being discussed in this thread. Low cost birth control.
To use, or not to use, birth control is an elective choice which one makes for themselves along with the elective choice they have made regarding their sexual behavior. As Twin mentioned earlier, the most effective form of birth control out there is actually free - not Obama free - but actually costs zero dollars, is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy, has zero risks of STIs and doesn't increase the likelihood of cancers or other expensive to treat medical conditions in the future for anyone. Birth control doesn't get any less expensive than this.
FWIW, I have no objection to having contraception treated the same as prescriptive medications are in regards to being covered by medical insurance. I do not, however, see it as being a preventative medicine. Contraception is an elective choice one makes for themselves. It is not, in the vast majority of instances, necessary for the health of the woman, nor is her health the primary reason for which it is prescribed. Its usage, especially long term, increases her chances of contracting a myriad of harmful medical conditions. And so, while it may indeed prevent a pregnancy, it also has the potential of creating a medical condition which is significantly more expensive to treat than either the contraception or a pregnancy would be. It might save money short term to provide it "free", but it is possible that, ultimately, it will prove more expensive in the long run.
Why should an elective prescription be provided for "free" and necessary prescriptions require out of pocket expense? Why should a visit to a doctor for the treatment of a medical condition necessitate an out of pocket expense, but not a routine annual visit whose purpose is to check one's current level of health? Don't all of them incur a cost to both the provider and the insurer that the individual should at minimum pay a minimal share of? After all, it is not only the insurer whose costs are reduced when routine care is obtained, the insured also sees a cost savings when this is done if your theory is correct, so isn't it also in their best interest to invest a small amount on a routine basis to prevent more expensive conditions from developing in the absence of that smaller investment?
archer wrote: Your reading comprehension sucks GOP...I didnt say birth control or sex or a fetus were diseases. Perhaps paragraphs that have more than one idea in them are beyond your abilities. My apologies...I will try and simplify my posts for you... maybe a 3rd grade level.
Trying to have a discussion with you is an exercise in futility...you either can't understand complex ideas or you purposely misunderstand a post so you can post whatever you want with no regard to its relevance.
Then you tell me what medical condition are you preventing by health insurance companies giving "free" (it's never free) contraception?
Heads up Twin - you are about to be informed that pregnancy is a medical condition that can be prevented through the use of contraception. Human life in the womb is nothing more, or less, than a medical condition for the purposes of advancing a culture of death ideology.
PrintSmith wrote: Heads up Twin - you are about to be informed that pregnancy is a medical condition that can be prevented through the use of contraception. Human life in the womb is nothing more, or less, than a medical condition for the purposes of advancing a culture of death ideology.
Really? No... getting pregnant is a normal bodily function. Just like sh*tting is a normal bodily function caused by eating, pregnancy is simply the normal outcome that sometimes happens when you put something else in you.
PrintSmith wrote: Heads up Twin - you are about to be informed that pregnancy is a medical condition that can be prevented through the use of contraception. Human life in the womb is nothing more, or less, than a medical condition for the purposes of advancing a culture of death ideology.
Really? No... getting pregnant is a normal bodily function. Just like sh*tting is a normal bodily function caused by eating, pregnancy is simply the normal outcome that sometimes happens when you put something else in you.
Only those who have never been pregnant would liken it to "taking a sh*t". Yes it is normal, but it is also considered a medical condition......for which women pay big bucks to specialists in obstetrics to keep them and their baby healthy during it, and to make the delivery as safe as possible. Do you do that when you take a sh*t? Well.....maybe you do GOP, anyone who whines as much as you do probably calls the doctor when it's time to sh*t.