| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/14/2012 09:46:26 AM · #126 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Melethia:
Question, is the free birth control meant for every woman in the US or just those with a verifiable financial need? |
Everyone... and this one of those rare instances where "free" doesn't mean you pay for it elsewhere since it saves the insurance companies money. |
It saves everybody money...kids are expensive in so many ways. |
|
|
|
02/14/2012 10:35:01 AM · #127 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by Nullix:
The bishops are concerned with fornication, but ED drugs don't kill another person while the birth control pill does. |
You seem to be missing some basic anatomy/physiology knowledge here. How is not releasing one egg a month killing, but spilling millions of sperm into a condom, sock, toilet, floor what have you, not killing? Don't spill the seed man... right?
Answer: neither are killing. That's just dumb. |
Birth Control Pills
Originally posted by from WebMD:
Hormonal contraceptives can also prevent pregnancy by making the lining of the womb inhospitable for implantation. |
ie. Chemical abortion. That's the problem with birth control. Of course, if you believe abortion isn't killing, then you can't understand. The Catholic Church believes abortion is killing a person and we shouldn't have to pay to kill others. |
|
|
|
02/14/2012 10:44:17 AM · #128 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I've never quite understood the whole ED drug thing other than a massive money-maker (which I guess is the point). |
The porn industry is a big consumer of Viagra.
That John Stewart segment last night was at once hilarious and right on. It's an interesting sensation being annoyed and amused at the same time, laughing while being agitated at purposeful misdirection and demagoguery.
Incidentally, the world outside the US is once again looking on in fascinated bewilderment while issues from half a century ago or more make the rounds in the right's latest attempt to set the agenda. This really is a "WTF" moment for non-Americans. Surely it can't go on like this for much longer. |
|
|
|
02/14/2012 10:54:19 AM · #129 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Incidentally, the world outside the US is once again looking on in fascinated bewilderment. |
Probably mainly wondering why an employer is providing insurance in the first place... |
|
|
|
02/14/2012 11:13:07 AM · #130 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Incidentally, the world outside the US is once again looking on in fascinated bewilderment. |
Probably mainly wondering why an employer is providing insurance in the first place... |
I don't know what kind of insurance is provided there, but employer-provided group benefits insurance is common here, to cover those things not covered by the government, like glasses, dental, and prescriptions. It's either partially paid by the employee or given free as a perk by the company (certainly not mandated).
Birth control isn't covered here as far as I know, nor any prescription drugs (though they're cheaper and partially subsidised in Canada). My comment was about being surprised that contraception is being made into some kind of moral issue for some reason.
Message edited by author 2012-02-14 11:14:12. |
|
|
|
02/14/2012 12:17:00 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Birth control isn't covered here as far as I know, nor any prescription drugs (though they're cheaper and partially subsidised in Canada). My comment was about being surprised that contraception is being made into some kind of moral issue for some reason. |
No, I know what you meant, but I figured the US is in the oddly unique position where employers provide the health insurance. Surely we can't view the US as the bastion of Catholic sway (and that's the reason for the kerfuffle). What about South America? Southern Europe? If the church was required to provide insurance there I'm sure we'd have the same argument, don't you think?
When you said birth control isn't covered in Canada, do you mean by the government or do you mean by the employer group benefits?
Message edited by author 2012-02-14 12:17:24. |
|
|
|
02/14/2012 01:11:36 PM · #132 |
I found the answer which is that Canada's single-payer system does not cover birth control. Doesn't this mean Canada is very anti womens-rights? (my tongue is firmy planted in my cheek here, but if the accusatory shoe fits...)
And to think our neighbors to the north have been part of the problem all along! |
|
|
|
02/14/2012 01:44:36 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I found the answer which is that Canada's single-payer system does not cover birth control. Doesn't this mean Canada is very anti womens-rights? (my tongue is firmy planted in my cheek here, but if the accusatory shoe fits...)
And to think our neighbors to the north have been part of the problem all along! |
Since they don't cover any prescriptions, I don't think so. They haven't singled women out. They also don't cover ED drugs. |
|
|
|
02/14/2012 01:53:47 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I found the answer which is that Canada's single-payer system does not cover birth control. Doesn't this mean Canada is very anti womens-rights? (my tongue is firmy planted in my cheek here, but if the accusatory shoe fits...)
And to think our neighbors to the north have been part of the problem all along! |
Since they don't cover any prescriptions, I don't think so. They haven't singled women out. They also don't cover ED drugs. |
Oh, that does make a difference. How about something like an IUD? Will they cover that? (wait, a good lawyer always knows the answer to the question. No, it doesn't cover the IUD itself but it does cover the procedure.)
I won't belabor the issue (though in rant fashion I could hone in on that IUD thing). I can be relieved that my homeland isn't quite as backward as I feared! ;)
Here's another interesting question. Since you talked about women being "singled out", what about men in this country? We have a mandate to provide birth control to women, but isn't that discriminatory against men? Shouldn't condoms be covered? Vasectomies? Now I can get my tongue-in-cheek furor up about the country being anti-men's rights! And the Catholic church, as far as I know, isn't providing birth control to ANYBODY. Women are not being singled out.
Message edited by author 2012-02-14 14:01:38. |
|
|
|
02/14/2012 02:01:39 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I found the answer which is that Canada's single-payer system does not cover birth control. Doesn't this mean Canada is very anti womens-rights? (my tongue is firmy planted in my cheek here, but if the accusatory shoe fits...)
And to think our neighbors to the north have been part of the problem all along! |
Since they don't cover any prescriptions, I don't think so. They haven't singled women out. They also don't cover ED drugs. |
Oh, that does make a difference. How about something like an IUD? Will they cover that? (wait, a good lawyer always knows the answer to the question. No, it doesn't cover the IUD itself but it does cover the procedure.)
I won't belabor the issue (though in rant fashion I could hone in on that IUD thing). I can be relieved that my homeland isn't quite as backward as I feared! ;)
Here's another interesting question. Since you talked about women being "singled out", what about men in this country? We have a mandate to provide birth control to women, but isn't that discriminatory against men? Shouldn't condoms be covered? Vasectomies? Now I can get my tongue-in-cheek furor up about the country being anti-men's rights! |
ED drugs are covered by most insurance companies. You want coverage to do & don't at the same time? ROFL! I've never seen a prescription for condoms. Vasectomies are a whole 'nother ball game though. They should absolutely be covered. |
|
|
|
02/14/2012 02:10:19 PM · #136 |
|
|
|
02/14/2012 02:11:36 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I found the answer which is that Canada's single-payer system does not cover birth control. Doesn't this mean Canada is very anti womens-rights? (my tongue is firmy planted in my cheek here, but if the accusatory shoe fits...)
And to think our neighbors to the north have been part of the problem all along! |
Well, the government doesn't cover any prescription drugs at all. I believe it subsidizes them, the effect being that they're cheaper here for that and other reasons. It should be more like the UK though, where no matter what the drug is, you pay ten pounds (or something) and you're good. Here, you have to be privately insured by your employer or in some other way. The prescription drugs are then free. |
|
|
|
02/14/2012 03:55:17 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
ED drugs are covered by most insurance companies. You want coverage to do & don't at the same time? ROFL! I've never seen a prescription for condoms. Vasectomies are a whole 'nother ball game though. They should absolutely be covered. |
I guess I view ED and birth control as apples and oranges. One could theoretically use Viagra without running afoul of any Catholic moral precepts. But I'll tell you what, they are always working on a female viagra and when that comes out and if the church doesn't cover it (but does the male version), I'll be right there in the picket line with ya. K? |
|
|
|
02/14/2012 04:01:17 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I found the answer which is that Canada's single-payer system does not cover birth control. Doesn't this mean Canada is very anti womens-rights? (my tongue is firmy planted in my cheek here, but if the accusatory shoe fits...)
And to think our neighbors to the north have been part of the problem all along! |
Well, the government doesn't cover any prescription drugs at all. I believe it subsidizes them, the effect being that they're cheaper here for that and other reasons. It should be more like the UK though, where no matter what the drug is, you pay ten pounds (or something) and you're good. Here, you have to be privately insured by your employer or in some other way. The prescription drugs are then free. |
So, does a Catholic hospital in Canada provide the supplemental insurance that covers birth control? If not, how is the situation between Canada and US different in your eyes? (assuming you weren't including Canada as the object of "fascinated bewilderment"). I'm guessing the Catholic church around the world has the same party line about contraception. |
|
|
|
02/14/2012 04:02:56 PM · #140 |
I'm almost afraid to ask but what would female Viagra DO?
Does the church not see things like artificial insemination as tinkering with the will of God? Just curious. |
|
|
|
02/14/2012 04:26:21 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I found the answer which is that Canada's single-payer system does not cover birth control. Doesn't this mean Canada is very anti womens-rights? (my tongue is firmy planted in my cheek here, but if the accusatory shoe fits...)
And to think our neighbors to the north have been part of the problem all along! |
Well, the government doesn't cover any prescription drugs at all. I believe it subsidizes them, the effect being that they're cheaper here for that and other reasons. It should be more like the UK though, where no matter what the drug is, you pay ten pounds (or something) and you're good. Here, you have to be privately insured by your employer or in some other way. The prescription drugs are then free. |
So, does a Catholic hospital in Canada provide the supplemental insurance that covers birth control? If not, how is the situation between Canada and US different in your eyes? (assuming you weren't including Canada as the object of "fascinated bewilderment"). I'm guessing the Catholic church around the world has the same party line about contraception. |
I would imagine it does. The insurance Policy for drugs covers all drugs for most group benefits I would think. Subscribers providing insurance for employees can't decide to not cover some drugs, I wouldn't think. The insurance companies decide on coverage, and as far as I can tell, if one's insurance covers drugs, it's all drugs. I have never heard of this being an issue, ever. |
|
|
|
02/14/2012 04:54:58 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I found the answer which is that Canada's single-payer system does not cover birth control. Doesn't this mean Canada is very anti womens-rights? (my tongue is firmy planted in my cheek here, but if the accusatory shoe fits...)
And to think our neighbors to the north have been part of the problem all along! |
Well, the government doesn't cover any prescription drugs at all. I believe it subsidizes them, the effect being that they're cheaper here for that and other reasons. It should be more like the UK though, where no matter what the drug is, you pay ten pounds (or something) and you're good. Here, you have to be privately insured by your employer or in some other way. The prescription drugs are then free. |
So, does a Catholic hospital in Canada provide the supplemental insurance that covers birth control? If not, how is the situation between Canada and US different in your eyes? (assuming you weren't including Canada as the object of "fascinated bewilderment"). I'm guessing the Catholic church around the world has the same party line about contraception. |
I would imagine it does. The insurance Policy for drugs covers all drugs for most group benefits I would think. Subscribers providing insurance for employees can't decide to not cover some drugs, I wouldn't think. The insurance companies decide on coverage, and as far as I can tell, if one's insurance covers drugs, it's all drugs. I have never heard of this being an issue, ever. |
Maybe true, but remember that in many instances the Catholic church is big enough they are their own insurance company so they make the calls. It would be interesting if the issue is the same in Canada but nobody has made bones about it because nobody has tried to force the church to do something it doesn't want to do.
EDIT: You'd think you can find anything with Google these days, but I can't find the answer to this question. There is too much noise about the US debate that you can't find what's happening specifically in Canada.
Message edited by author 2012-02-14 17:15:01. |
|
|
|
02/14/2012 04:56:05 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I'm almost afraid to ask but what would female Viagra DO?
Does the church not see things like artificial insemination as tinkering with the will of God? Just curious. |
I'm pretty sure they do, but it may be on different grounds (like what do you do with the extra embryos left over). You could ask Nullix about it. |
|
|
|
02/14/2012 05:17:48 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It would be interesting if the issue is the same in Canada but nobody has made bones about it because nobody has tried to force the church to do something it doesn't want to do. |
Perhaps the Catholic Church in Canada is more restrained (or at least subtle) in attempting to use religious doctrine to shape secular law ... |
|
|
|
02/14/2012 05:34:34 PM · #145 |
I can't speak for anyone else in this country, but I can assure you that my drug plans have covered all of the prescriptions that anyone in my family was given by a doctor.
My spouse was found to have collapsed fallopian tubes which resulted our having to resort to in-vitro fertilization and my drug plan covered all costs, including items such as perganal and clomid.
Perhaps the privacy laws here differ somewhat from the USA,and information relating to patients, their doctors and what is prescribed is not information that is shared.
Oh, regarding eggs, in my wife's case only four eggs were collected and implanted.
Just my 2 cents.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/14/2012 05:41:06 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It would be interesting if the issue is the same in Canada but nobody has made bones about it because nobody has tried to force the church to do something it doesn't want to do. |
Perhaps the Catholic Church in Canada is more restrained (or at least subtle) in attempting to use religious doctrine to shape secular law ... |
Another possibility for sure. :) |
|
|
|
02/14/2012 06:09:06 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Maybe true, but remember that in many instances the Catholic church is big enough they are their own insurance company so they make the calls. |
I'm not sure there are any instances where the Catholic church acts as an insurance company. There are insurance companies that market their services to Catholics and self-identify as "serving Catholics", but the church itself isn't in the business of anything. |
|
|
|
02/14/2012 06:33:37 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Maybe true, but remember that in many instances the Catholic church is big enough they are their own insurance company so they make the calls. |
I'm not sure there are any instances where the Catholic church acts as an insurance company. There are insurance companies that market their services to Catholics and self-identify as "serving Catholics", but the church itself isn't in the business of anything. |
I'm not quite sure I get you because the church is in plenty of businesses. Hopsitals. Education. Charities.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about: Catholic Mutual Note it says: "Catholic Mutual Group is a unique, nonprofit, self insurance fund of the Catholic Church." (this example was the first I found and doesn't look to be medical per se)
I found a medical example: Catholic Healthcare West Self-Insurance Trust
Message edited by author 2012-02-14 18:38:39. |
|
|
|
02/14/2012 06:58:18 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by Nullix:
The bishops are concerned with fornication, but ED drugs don't kill another person while the birth control pill does. |
You seem to be missing some basic anatomy/physiology knowledge here. How is not releasing one egg a month killing, but spilling millions of sperm into a condom, sock, toilet, floor what have you, not killing? Don't spill the seed man... right?
Answer: neither are killing. That's just dumb. |
Birth Control Pills
Originally posted by from WebMD:
Hormonal contraceptives can also prevent pregnancy by making the lining of the womb inhospitable for implantation. |
ie. Chemical abortion. That's the problem with birth control. Of course, if you believe abortion isn't killing, then you can't understand. The Catholic Church believes abortion is killing a person and we shouldn't have to pay to kill others. |
A just fertilized egg is in no way, shape, or form a 'life' or 'person'. It is still only a potential person. It's still in the same stage as an unfertilized egg or sperm. Both of which are potential life if they come together and make it through certain other stages. Implanting on the wall of the uterus being one of those stages. Until it does that, it isn't even a twinkle in a parent's eye. You can be no more outraged about an egg failing to be implanted than you can about some guy masturbating into a kleenex.
It's absurd how ridiculous some people are about what constitutes 'life' and 'abortion'. Absolutely absurd. |
|
|
|
02/14/2012 07:30:11 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
A just fertilized egg is in no way, shape, or form a 'life' or 'person'. It is still only a potential person. It's still in the same stage as an unfertilized egg or sperm. Both of which are potential life if they come together and make it through certain other stages. Implanting on the wall of the uterus being one of those stages. Until it does that, it isn't even a twinkle in a parent's eye. You can be no more outraged about an egg failing to be implanted than you can about some guy masturbating into a kleenex.
It's absurd how ridiculous some people are about what constitutes 'life' and 'abortion'. Absolutely absurd. |
Ed, I have a few problems with your statement.
First, "life" tends to be a scientific term and the truth is absolutely opposite what you indicate. There is no way a fertilized egg is not "life" in a scientific sense. "Person" can be a legal, ethical, or philosophical term. While I wholeheartedly agree it would be a term up for debate, your indication that it isn't a "person" is either a purely legal application (in this country it is clearly NOT a person) or you are just giving your opinion philosophically (in which case someone can disagree and say they feel it IS a person).
The problem with your stagewise qualifications (ie. the need for implantation before it moves to a different designation) is why would one favor one stage over another? How about a heart beat to grant this? How about viability outside the womb to grant this? How about birth? How about two years of age?
So, to me, the abortion debate is clearly off on the wrong track if one is arguing what constitutes a "human life". It is, in fact, also off on the wrong track if one is arguing it from a woman's rights issue. The whole crux of the abortion debate is when a human life is granted "personhood" (and thus the human rights that go along). Before an embryo/fetus is a person, a woman would have nearly every right to control her body. After an embryo/fetus is a person that right MIGHT (I can't make this work any more unmissable can I?) be limited because of the rights of the embryo.
So I have always thought the bumper stickers should more properly be "Pro-personhood" and "anti-personhood"...
Message edited by author 2012-02-14 19:32:58. |
|
