AFROPUNK

... the other Black experience

The Health Care debate. Weigh in. Should Contraceptive services be covered and why?

I'd like to hear what people on AP think about the issue of covering contraceptives under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act rule that required church-affiliated universities, hospitals and nonprofits to include birth control without co-pays or premiums in their insurance plans. What's your position and why? Do you understand the debate? Do you think men have a right to take part in this decision?

Views: 1499

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

-  I don't think BC should be free, having an affordable co-pay is alright.

-  I do think that all women should have access to affordable BC.  Right now, I feel that most women have access to some kind of affordable hormonal birth control and if you're in a city or know where your free clinics are you can get a bunch of free (yet crappy, but effective) condoms.

-  Workers can opt-out of health care coverage and buy their own health insurance--the role of the gov't should be to provide a very basic/safety-net-like public option... an affordable and effective alternative to health insurance programs.  OR encourage some kind of health insurance exchange.

-  Men have a place in the debate, but church/temple/whatever leaders shouldn't be able to swamp the issue with myopic bullshit--especially when the majority of these ppl aren't aware of the OTHER and varied benefits to the Birth Control Pill.  Women should have a choice period. Religious-affiliated institutions should have a choice to NOT pay for it... 

Birth control should be free or very low-cost. Anyway that it is accessible to all women how need it. I purchase my own insurance and I'm married with two kids already. Even though I go to PP for my pills, it's still an expensive endeavor when you don't have a lot of money... which we don't right now. What would be less expensive or less traumatic? Paying for my BC or paying for my child that I can't afford to care for? Hmm. And health insurance is expensive. Very expensive if you want good insurance.

Men can be in the debate, but more women need to be in this debate as well, and I don't think religious institutions should be in the debate at all... whether they are for it or against it.

Birth control should be free or low cost. People that have moral oppositions can choose not to partake, but they should not be able to dictate the access of other coworkers.

Maybe it's a strange analogy, but here goes...I don't like alcohol, but I'm not in favor or prohibition or outlawing AA for those that need it.

I have heard the side that opposes the provision state that their issue is not what people do but who pays for it. The question I have is do people understand where the funding for the provision comes from? Does it matter to you? Why should birth control cost any less than it does? Why shouldn't men use condom's and why shouldn't women demand that men use condoms. Neither method is 100% effective. Would any of you be willing to pay higher taxes to pay for the provision. I would.

Male potency drugs are covered but birth control is not. Granted the men can get only so many pills per month, still you would think birth control would be covered before boner pills. But we all know why they are, because the lawmakers need them and hate women who control their lives.

I think birth control should be covered. I look at it this way, It would limit the amount of abortions and unplanned or unwanted pregnancies that impact society in a myriad of ways. If it will make it less of a money issue for women to facilitate their decision of when they do or don't want children then they should have that extra advantage on that front. Though I personally think it's stupid, I think churches should be able to uphold the tenents of their faith and opt out the contraception clasue. i may not exactly agree with their antiquated reasoning but I think they have the right to freedom of religion and the government shouldn't really force things upon them that are at odds with their beliefs. I guess what I'm not clear on is if the women who are members of these faiths and universties and hopitals and what have you decide that they personally want contraception(which I'm sure is a great percentage as many catholics and what not apparently "disobey" their faith by using contraception) what options do they have to be afforded the same rights as all the other women who are NOT part of some faith-based coverage to get access to to free or affordable birth control?

 

And no, men shouldn't really be making these decisions BUT religious leaders who happen to be men shouldn't necessarily be forced into something by the government that may be at odds with their faith either. I agree with their right to uphold their religious freedom but if that alone decides the fate of what a woman in their faith does with her own body then I think that's a problem.

I hear you PolarVibez but men pay taxes too. Men's money will go to pay for the program the same way childless people like me pay for public schools. Why shouldn't there be some sort of men exclusive benefit like free viagra? The issue is who pays for it and how much. People need to accept that taxes will be much higher if we go to a health care system that provides these kinds of benefits to all women. Likewise as it stands the bill would force employers to pick up the additional cost. If they have to pay shouldn't they have a say?

Good point. We will all pay for it. I guess the angle that I'm coming from personally is what I mentioned earlier as far as the benefits. I mean, we pay for alot of the social servicies and foster care programs and other things that are direct or indirect  results of unwanted pregnancies too. So I see the cost balancing out in the long run. I mean if we are all paying for this program that coveres both men and women who are we as men to decide what is essential coverage for a woman's health?  Under this program wouldn't we be covered for prostate exams or medicines specifc to a man's health? Why should women taxpayers have to pay for those things then? We can go on a gender by gender basis and decide what's essential enough to be paid for by everyone or we can just suck it up and live with the fact that priorities aren't the same for both sexes and something sensitive like what goes on in women's womb should probably be left up to a woman.    

...uh hold up.  This ain't the irrational-dreads-and-weaves thread?  I clicked the wrong page...

Ha, for real y'all all bring up great well-founded points.  I feel real ig'nant about this specific Act but I've heard of the debate on funding.  Women should have low to free contraceptive options.  I don't know what limits or freedoms religious-based medical centers should have.  Not sure how much overriding vote men should have but maybe some say about it.  Birth control for women should be covered the same as male potentcy pills.  

Y'all got this covered. 

This is what a lot of people take issue with. Firstly why should everybody else have to pay for these kids. Why do the parents not take responsibility. If I don't pay my car insurance and I have a wreck I have to pay for that crash out of pocket. From my perspective as a man I know for a fact that if I get a woman pregnant everybody Including the mother will be expecting me  to pay for that kid. Not even the most liberated woman will say that it is not my exclusivefinancial responsibility for that child.  The question is why shouldn't the people who are doing the fucking do the paying? It is also way cheaper for these women to buy condoms. Why are they not buying them and using them? I think that is a valid question especially if we say we want the government out of our bedrooms.

Secondly, let's say we get the benefit of having less unwanted pregnancies that I think I shouldn't be on the hook for anyway do you think that the government is going to give back that money they are already getting for those kids? I would say no. They'll keep that money and find something else to waste it on like another war or giving senators trips to Indonesia to do research on prostitutes.

PolarVibez said:

Good point. We will all pay for it. I guess the angle that I'm coming from personally is what I mentioned earlier as far as the benefits. I mean, we pay for alot of the social servicies and foster care programs and other things that are direct or indirect  results of unwanted pregnancies too.

PolarVibez said:

So I see the cost balancing out in the long run. I mean if we are all paying for this program that coveres both men and women who are we as men to decide what is essential coverage for a woman's health?  Under this program wouldn't we be covered for prostate exams or medicines specifc to a man's health? Why should women taxpayers have to pay for those things then? We can go on a gender by gender basis and decide what's essential enough to be paid for by everyone or we can just suck it up and live with the fact that priorities aren't the same for both sexes and something sensitive like what goes on in women's womb should probably be left up to a woman.


Prostate exams are general healthcare. No one is advocating not paying for women's general health care like pap smears or mammograms or other preventative care. Contraception is not preventative care unless you consider pregnancy a disease. The issue on the other side is who is going to pay. I don't have a problem with having a healthcare system like European countries but I want everybody to pay. I don't want to subsidize someone else's decisions good or bad. I don't want to pay for services that come down to choices. If the person want's the service they should pay the cost. If people want the government out of their bedrooms then they can't ask the government to come pay for what they do in their bedrooms. If people want to be treated like adults they have to make adult decisions. If a woman is adult enough to make the decision to have sex she should be adult enough to
A. Go out and buy herself what ever method of contraception she can afford
B. Be ask the guy she's fucking to help pay for the contraception
C. Work more hours so she can afford to pay for the contraception she wants

I agree that what goes on in woman's womb is her choice. I just should not have to pay for her choices. If you're smart enough to choose you should choose something you can afford.

What in the world just happened to this thread?

.

We pay for public schools for the benefit of the greater society -- having an uneducated, not having a basic/standard minimum education system is a detriment to the future of the community and nation in general.  In terms of mere GDP/economics--the current issue of Harvard Business Review (just happened to skim it as I was waiting for a train)--our measures of wealth and youth education are correlated! Basically, dumber youth retards the growth of the economy. So it is in your self-interest, childless single man to financially support the educating of youth in your community.  The problem at the moment is that the education system in this nation is slow to change and is basically broken till you get to college or a tradeschool.

.

Similarly, having women who can not properly plan for their families (married or not) is ALSO a drag on the economy specifically if you're not purely agriculturally based.

.

If women are firmly a part of the economy and bringing resources in to support the family and greater community (which has always been the case for black and immigrant communities)--then unplanned pregnancies or illnesses due to poorly managed reproductive health (extreme PMS, fibroids, ovarian cysts, PCOS, and so on) are detrimental to the families of these women and again slow down growth of or vibrancy of the community and therefore the greater economy/economies (as you move up and away from the microcosm of their fams/communities).

.

Just like the most effective economic and social recoveries start with women and families in "3rd world countries" the same is true for western societies.

.

And LOL @ the simplistic and condescending ABC list made in the post immediately above mine... more paternalism from Kifaru.  :shrugs:

.

The cheapest and by far most effective Birth Control Method is used in China for their family planning regulations (it boils down to 1 child per family if you're poor):  Non hormonal IUDs.  Is this an option for women in the United States? NO.

.

In terms of drafting effective policy it's best to focus on the big picture versus bickering over what respective groups would get over another group.  The point of these policies is to make vibrant and functional communities... for everyone... not to discriminate men or hoodwink men out of their money.

.

Finally, REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE involves much more than Birth Control Pills.  And the various medical uses and reasons to prescribe Birth Control Pills are varied and not limited to preventing pregnancy but can be key to restoring balance to a woman's hormones/cycle.  There should be very basic coverage -- and in a lot of States there ARE basic reproductive health plans that are state subsidized and sponsored for poor and young women.

What's your point? None of what you have stated has anything to do with the contraceptive care part of the highway bill or how and why it should be funded. You have made no argument for why it should be funded or not by who ever you think should fund it or not. What does me (I assume your reference to childless single man was to me)paying for public education have to do the contraceptive care portion of the highway bill? I have a say in the education and i can run for a seat on the school board. Children are members of society who have no agency. Women having sex do have agency and can choose what to do. So the two are not the same. What is your position? Should every one pay for every one else's contraception and why? Why should women not pay for their own if they are of sound mind? Can women make a choice to have sex and use other methods of contraception she can personally afford? Who should be responsible for her getting the contraception?  Why shouldn't the two adults involved in the sexual act pay for their own contraception?

The issue is not whether contraception is good or bad. The issue is who should pay for it. Women are perfectly capable of plannig their families. To say that they are not is sexist and denies that women have agency in thier sexuality. Women are perfectly capable of making choices about their sexual lives. They and their sexual partners should be the ones that deal with the consequences of their choices.

LesYpersound said:

What in the world just happened to this thread?

We pay for public schools for the benefit of the greater society -- having an uneducated, not having a basic/standard minimum education system is a detriment to the future of the community and nation in general.  In terms of mere GDP/economics--the current issue of Harvard Business Review (just happened to skim it as I was waiting for a train)--our measures of wealth and youth education are correlated! Basically, dumber youth retards the growth of the economy. So it is in your self-interest, childless single man to financially support the educating of youth in your community.  The problem at the moment is that the education system in this nation is slow to change and is basically broken till you get to college or a tradeschool.

Similarly, having women who can not properly plan for their families (married or not) is ALSO a drag on the economy specifically if you're not purely agriculturally based.

If women are firmly a part of the economy and bringing resources in to support the family (which has always been the case for black communities)--then unplanned pregnancies or illnesses due to poorly managed reproductive health (extreme PMS, fibroids, ovarian cysts, PCOS, and so on) are detrimental to the families of these women and again slow down growth of or vibrancy of the economy.

Just like the most effective economic and social recoveries start with women and families in "3rd world countries" the same is true for western societies.

The cheapest and by far most effective Birth Control Method is used in China for their family planning regulations (it boils down to 1 child per family if you're poor):  Non hormonal IUDs.  Is this an option for women in the United States? NO.

In terms of drafting effective policy it's best to focus on the big picture versus bickering over what respective groups would get over another group.  The point of these policies is to make vibrant and functional communities... for everyone.  Not to discriminate men or hoodwink men out of their money.

Reply to Discussion

RSS


Photos

Loading…
  • Add Photos
  • View All

© 2014   Created by Matthew.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service


HOME
| MY PAGE | MESSAGE BOARD | BANDS | APX | BLOGS | MEDIA | FESTIVAL | ABOUT | MOVIES | STORE | CONTACT
©2013 AFROPUNK | BRANDED BY 7ONE8