posted
I think I fit Xap's definition of premarital sex, even though I've been married for nearly eight years and have two kids. Getting pregnant would endanger Cor's life. Funny how she still chooses to take her chances, along with appropriate precautions, rather than abstain.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Update: The Yasmin costs approximately $30/month according to their market prices. I'll only have to pay $22/month. Or if I go through their mail in prescription plan (which I was doing before) you get 3 months for the price of two months. So it will cost $44 every three months. So it will cost $176/year. Really not that bad. only $16 more than before.
I'm sure I'll pay more for other stuff but at least now I have a better idea of budgeting for the flexible savings account.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus, you can't be having premarital sex if you are married.
That doesn't mean it's okay to have sex when you married in all circumstances, even if you aren't willing to bring up a baby. The difference between married and unmarried, though, is (1)married folk are more capable of dealing with accidental pregnancy, (2)a stable relationship avoids many of the personal problems created by sex, and (3)sex among the married doesn't harm society in general as much as premarital sex does - it doesn't seem to create the same social attitudes towards sex as a casual act.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That doesn't mean it's okay to have sex when you married in all circumstances, even if you aren't willing to bring up a baby.
This is why you should stay away from these topic, Tres.
Who are you to be telling ANYONE what is OK and what isn't? You aren't judge and jury here, you aren't even on the panel of experts...
There are many reasons that people take birth control, and not all of them have to do with pregnancy, or even the possibility of it. JenniK and I take it (well, she does) but that doesn't mean that we would not welcome a child, just that we aren't ready for it right now.
I understand that having sex is a choice but it is a choice that affects peoples health and wellbeing, so they are the only people who can decide what is right for them in any particular situation.
What about all the women who HAVE to take it, for non-pregnancy reasons? the inflated cost applies to them as well.
Or should we ask WHY they need it before quoting a price? Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
An American actuary knows how many people will die in a given month, a Scicillian actuary can tell you who's going to kill them?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For completeness sake, I will say that the California law requiring Catholic Charities to cover birth control in its plan is odious beyond belief.
You go to work for Catholic Charities, you should have the understanding that birth control won't be covered. I suspect they will end prescription coverage at some point in response to this.
posted
Yes, I think there should be religious exemptions for non-profit organizations.
I'm not sure about for profit organizations though. I know Belle would probably be uncomfortable providing her employees with insurance that covered abortion, because she personally believes it is wrong, but I'm not sure how that all meshes together.
If you are a Catholic that believes birth control is wrong, yet you employ non-Catholics and your company is secular and for-profit, and you need to provide a prescription plan, it becomes a much more complex issue.
posted
Yes, it's definitely more complex. I'm still in favor of leaving such things to the conscience of the employer, but I don't think it's as urgent a Constitutional issue as in the case of religious-affiliated organizations.
Our health insurance plan paid for birth control; I don't really have a problem with leaving such a decision to individual conscience. But, I'd hate to force other business owners to decide as I did.
In other words, I might vote against such a requirement, but wouldn't sue on civil rights grounds if such a requirement passed (nor support someone who did sue).
I think the problem is that many large corporations don't have much of what could pass for a conscience. I think the small businesses probably do, since they are more likely to be individually owned, maybe they could put a size cap on too, like they do for other things?
Like for profit businesses greater than 50 people and less than 50 people kind of deal...
quote:Who are you to be telling ANYONE what is OK and what isn't? You aren't judge and jury here, you aren't even on the panel of experts...
And who are YOU to be judging your employer or their medical plan? For that matter, who are you to be judging my capacity to judge here?
I'm a thinking person with reasons, you're a thinking person with reasons - that's who we are. And that qualifies us for the particular job of making judgements about critical (and noncritical) issues.
Don't try to toss aside my argument without offering any counter-justification of your own.
quote:What about all the women who HAVE to take it, for non-pregnancy reasons? the inflated cost applies to them as well.
Or should we ask WHY they need it before quoting a price?
Well, yes. Asking for documentation is not unreasonable, is it? Documention is a pretty common requirement for medical issues... You wouldn't expect a plan to pay for "medical marijuana" if they couldn't provide documentation that they need it for actual medical concerns, rather than for their own personal desires, would you?
But still, there's nothing wrong with just excluding it in the first place. They are the ones offering the service - if you or your employer don't like it you can always go get a better health plan. Just like property insurers don't have to provide flood insurance to people who need it, health plans don't have to cover everything. If they feel there's a good reason to exclude something, even if that reason only applies to a majority of cases, they certainly should be able to do it.
Keep in mind that including birth control implies that everyone who is in on the plan will have to pay for the people using birth control - even those who are morally opposed to it in most situations.
posted
I might vote for a bill requiring birth control coverage be included in prescription coverage with a size restriction, but I'd prefer basing it on number of shareholders rather than number of employees. Lots of closely held corporations have 50 employees, and I think the "burden on conscience" is based on the shareholder's amount of control, not the number of employees.
Keep in mind that an estimated 10% of all women have PCOS and need to be on birth control. It is a very important and effective part of the treatment for this disorder.
Denying PCOS women access to birth control will not save any money. The health problems resulting from the inability to manage the disorder will cost more than the birth control would.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe the problem is that "birth control" is the common term. I mean we all use it because everyone knows what is referring to. But when the PCOS reason for it is primarily "hormone therapy" the drug is still classified as "birth control" I mean menopausal women have "hormone therapy" at times too, slightly different drugs but with the same goals in mind: Stabilizing the hormonal system for the overall good of the body.
And as I said before if it was *just* birth control, I certainly would not be on this particular drug. My choice would be something that I don't have to remember to take every day.
posted
Insurance company restrictions on medication by use are VERY common. I could get Prilosec for gastric reflux but not for an ulcer. I know you can only get a Z-Pack on some plans for certain infections, even if it works on other infections. It seems workable for PCOS as well.
I'm not in favor of restricting access. I'm in favor of preserving as much room for freedom of conscience as possible. I doubt most fully-informed people acting on their conscience would block access to a drug for non-BC reasons.
Dagonee Remember, my company covered birth control. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle gets around any moral problems with health insurance coverages by not having any full time employees. We don't offer any insurance to anyone, because everybody that works for us is part-time.
Of course, all of our employees are firefighters - they have coverage through the fire department, so we aren't not offering it to get out of doing so - but because there is no need.
If we ever hire full time folks, they'll know up front that we don't offer health insurance - I don't ever see us getting so big that it becomes a necessity, we kind of like having a small business.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
The company with the outrageous insurance had only 20 people working. Five of them were middle age to retirement. One of them suffered from physical health problems due to his smoking and alcholism. And one of them was a young worker's wife who'd had some devestating health problems due to a pregnancy that also involved her child being in the NICU for several weeks.
I'm not angry at any of the people for it. We just found we were able to get better insurance by putting ourselves in a larger, healthier pool of subscribers. The young employee and his wife were probably extremely grateful that they could get coverage that inexpensively.
This actually demonstrates the advantage of national health care for everyone.
My mom has very poor health, and my parents are self employed. They found that it was simply cheaper for them not to have insurance and use the $800 a month to pay for her prescriptions and their occassional doctor's visits, and hope nothing bad happens.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
kwea![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
@ rivka and Dagonee![[Smile]](smile.gif)
