CBS Spins New ObamaCare Birth Control Mandate as 'Good News'
On Monday's Early Show, CBS slanted towards supporters of a new Obama administration mandate which requires private insurance companies to cover contraception as part of women's "preventative services." Anchor Chris Wragge labeled the development "good news," while correspondent Michelle Miller failed to include sound bites from opponents during her report on the new regulation.
After using his "good news" phrase, Wragge trumpeted the "historic new women's health guidelines" during his introduction for Miller's report, which aired at the bottom of the 7 am Eastern hour. The correspondent herself picked up where the anchor left off when she stated that new mandate was "welcome news to the women we spoke to." She then played two sound bites from women on the street who gave supposed horror stories about the cost of birth control.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN 1: Sometimes, $20 a month can definitely be hard to scrape together.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN 2: It is very, very expensive, and I think that that's one of the problems, especially for younger women, who really can't afford it.
Miller did later acknowledge that "birth control has been controversial in the United States from the moment Margaret Sanger opened up the country's first family planning clinic in 1916, and was promptly sent to prison for it." She also read a statement from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which criticized the new regulation. But instead of playing a clip from an opponent, she turned to another supporter of contraception.
MILLER: But women's rights advocates say free access to birth control can significantly reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies.
ELLEN CHESLER, SR. FELLOW, THE ROOSEVELT INSTITUTE: The number of children we have determines how many we need to educate, how many we can employ. The social and economic outcomes of contraception are critical.
Once the CBS correspondent's report concluded, Wragge gave a softball interview of White House deputy senior advisor Stephanie Cutter, who defended the new policy. At one point, he anchor did mention in passing how "there are groups that don't agree with contraception being advocated by the government," but then asked, "What do you say to those who believe that abstinence is still the best preventative measure?"
Less than a week earlier, on the July 26 edition of The Early Show, Miller leaned towards proponents of taxing junk food by playing three sound bites from them and none from opponents.
The full transcript of Michelle Miller's report and Chris Wragge's interview of Stephanie Cutter on Monday's Early Show:
CHRIS WRAGGE: First, some good news here: the government announces historic new women's health guidelines today. The Department of Health and Human Services is requiring insurance companies to cover women's preventative services, including birth control, for the first time ever.
Here's CBS News correspondent Michelle Miller.
MICHELLE MILLER (voice-over): For the tens of millions of American women who use contraception, birth control will now essentially be free, because of new government guidelines requiring insurance companies to not only cover the cost, but to eliminate co-pays and deductibles. That was welcome news to the women we spoke to.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN 1: Sometimes, $20 a month can definitely be hard to scrape together.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN 2: It is very, very expensive, and I think that that's one of the problems, especially for younger women, who really can't afford it.
MILLER: Birth control has been controversial in the United States from the moment Margaret Sanger opened up the country's first family planning clinic in 1916, and was promptly sent to prison for it. While many have hailed contraception as the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancy, others argue that abstinence education is the way to go. In a statement, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops oppose the new guidelines, saying, 'Pregnancy is not a disease, and fertility is not a pathological condition to be suppressed by any means technically possible.'
But women's rights advocates say free access to birth control can significantly reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies.
ELLEN CHESLER, SR. FELLOW, THE ROOSEVELT INSTITUTE: The number of children we have determines how many we need to educate, how many we can employ. The social and economic outcomes of contraception are critical.
MILLER: The new rules would affect insurance plans beginning August 2012. Michelle Miller, CBS News, New York.
WRAGGE (on-camera): And joining us now from the White House is Stephanie Cutter, a deputy senior advisor to President Obama. Ms. Cutter, good morning.
STEPHANIE CUTTER, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY SENIOR ADVISOR: Good morning.
WRAGGE: It's a major announcement. What are the preventative services that are included on this list?
CUTTER: Well, today is an important step forward for women's health. As a result of the Affordable Care Act, the new health reform law, insurance companies have to provide preventative care with no out-of-pocket costs. Well, there was never any guidelines for women's health, to make sure that they stay healthy throughout the course of their lives. Today, that's no longer the case. We do have a set of recommended preventative services for women. There are things covered like treatment for gestational diabetes, to keep mothers and their children healthy; well woman visits, to treat women for the things that are unique about their health needs. And, of course, contraception, which was part of your piece just a second ago. There are- go ahead.
WRAGGE: I'm sorry, but I just want to- back to contraception. I want to talk about that. You know, there are groups that don't agree with contraception being advocated by the government. Why do you believe that- what do you say to those who believe that abstinence is still the best preventative measure?
CUTTER: Well, this isn't about abstinence, and this is not about preventing unwanted pregnancies. This is about women's health. There are known benefits- based on the science, based on the experts, based on the independent studies of the Institute of Medicine- that keep women healthy, if you lower the cost of contraceptive services. These are FDA-approved contraceptive services. It helps with keeping women healthy. It helps with lowering the rates of low birth weight, lowering premature births, and helping women with chronic conditions have children in a healthy way.
WRAGGE: Yeah. Why did the administration find it crucial to have a list like this with women's health care needs at this point?
CUTTER: Well, according to the law, we were charged with developing a set of recommended preventative services. A year ago, the Department of Health and Human Services directed the independent Institute of Medicine, to help us develop those recommended services, and today- they go into effect. One year from today, insurance companies- private insurance companies- have to provide the services with no out-of-pocket costs. Many of the benefits that we're announcing today are already part of large private health care plans- employer plans, and they're part of federal health care benefits. Members of Congress have these benefits. Now, they're going to be available to all women.
WRAGGE: All right. Stephanie Cutter, thank you very much for taking the time this morning. We appreciate it.
CUTTER: Thank you.
- Matthew Balan's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Matthew
Submitted by SLUGGO on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 4:55pm.
What is the counter argument? Certainly you could see this coming after the defunding of Planned Parenthood. Are conservatives arguing that they'd prefer to make the co-pay each month?
Here's the problem. You don't want abortions, but you seemingly don't support contraception either. Exactly what rules are we meant to live by?
Sluggo
Missing the obvious
Submitted by Khyris on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 4:58pm.
So you really don't understand the difference between privately purchased and government subsidized contraception?
That's not the issue
Submitted by SLUGGO on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 5:06pm.
The issue is the government forcing insurance companies to cover birth control, with a big fat loophole for religious organizations who oppose contraception. In other words, those who feel the act of sex is merely their duty in populating the homeland.
Sluggo
Loophole
Submitted by Matthew Balan on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 5:05pm.
This is the 1st I've heard of a so-called "loophole." Source?
I skipped the Huffington Post link
Submitted by SLUGGO on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 5:23pm.
In order to find a more neutral story.
Sluggo
Which is better?
Submitted by Russian55 on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 6:31pm.
Would you rather the government spend $20/month for birth control or several hundred dollars for supporting a child on welfare?
---
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will end up plowing for those who kept their swords in the first place!
What I would RATHER...
Submitted by WhoIsJohnGalt on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 6:59pm.
...is that we start making people responsible for THEMSELVES, and quit capitulating to every such false choice..."either you pay for my birth control, or I'll have babies that you'll have to pay for!"
If you can't see that unprotected sexual intercourse can change your future dramatically, well then, maybe you need to live with the outcome, rather than look to me to pay for your poor choices.
I'm TIRED of paying for idiots to ruin their lives one way or another. This kind of bull*** is far from a social safety net. This is paying for people to live slovenly without consequences.
???
Submitted by Matthew Balan on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 5:06pm.
There are other ways to avoid pregnancy. But then again, leftists keep on trying to deny the truth that sexual intercourse is a reproductive act.
And birth control pills offer more than just contraception
Submitted by SLUGGO on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 5:14pm.
There are a number of health benefits the pill has to offer. And who ever denied that sex isn't a reproductive act? It's also quite enjoyable and thankfully the United States has no law forcing self flagellation upon those of us who aren't interested in making babies.
Sluggo
What benefit do males get from taking the pill?
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 5:18pm.
Please do enlighten me. After almost four decades of practice, I am interested in knowing what use a man would have for taking oral contraceptives or using female contraception on himself?
Did this article mention males?
Submitted by SLUGGO on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 5:27pm.
What exactly is your point?
Sluggo
You said the pill offers benefits.
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 5:30pm.
I was merely inquiring who it benefits? You hardly told us who exactly it benefits.
The pill also has some very serious side-effects, such as increased problems with blood clotting and interference with oral antibiotics.
Everyone benefits
Submitted by SLUGGO on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 5:51pm.
First let's take the obvious: fewer unwanted pregnancies. Society benefits.
Other benefits:
The pill can reduce menstrual cramps and make periods lighter. This not only alleviates the woman's physical discomfort, but the emotional state of her male counterpart.
Additionally the pill can protect against acne, bone thinning, uterine and ovarian infections and cancers, iron deficiency, cysts...shall I continue?
The argument that medication has side effects is a non-issue. Most medications have side effects. And in this case, no one is forcing anyone to take contraceptives. The government is saying insurance companies must cover contrraception.
Sluggo
The government is not
Submitted by ant on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 5:57pm.
The government is not 'saying', the government is enforcing.
Sluggo
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 6:09pm.
But if the insurance companies are forced to provide this for "free" then the cost will be shifted onto me. Why do I have to subsidize their sex life? There are other methods of birth control after all. This isn't a life saving drug, it's a drug of choice because of a behavior of choice.
Insurance is free now?
Submitted by SLUGGO on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 7:14pm.
Says who? And we're not talking 1 drug but a variety of contraceptives.
Sluggo
Under Oblundercare, everyone
Submitted by ant on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 7:27pm.
Under Oblundercare, everyone would, in effect, be subsidizing benefits they themselves will never use. What about the poor gay couple who's insurance premium will include the cost of birth-control? You're a homophobe, but I guess you have no problem with paying in for other's sex-change operation (also a covered mandate from the bill we need to pass so we can see what it is) so I'll let this one pass.
Source, please
Submitted by SLUGGO on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 7:40pm.
On the sex change thingy.
Sluggo
How many would you like? Will
Submitted by ant on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 8:08pm.
How many would you like? Will the DailyKos work for ya? Besides the fact that it is worded in the Bill, it wouldn't matter if it weren't, libtards unravel logic to the extent that things mean whatever they want. You really think it won't in Obamaland? You tell me, was the ATF created to sell guns to Mexican drug cartels? Was ACORN created to house the traffickers of under-age, illegal alien prostitutes? or Planned Parenthood to provide abortions and look the other way when it comes to sex-slave minors (with STD's no less)? (BTW, it was actually created to get rid of the "nigga problem" and other undesirables). Was NASA created to provide Muslim self-esteem? ICE created to not protect the borders and not deport illegal aliens? You rely on the fact that leftards live by rules. They really have just one. You may figure it out eventually
The slug only thinks "his"
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 8:10pm.
The slug only thinks "his" reading is valid.
That's the problem.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Just one
Submitted by SLUGGO on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 8:17pm.
The verbiage from the bill.
Sluggo
Nah, I won't do it. Bauer and
Submitted by ant on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 8:35pm.
Nah, I won't do it. Bauer and Radical1979 have already embarrassed you enough tonight.
In other words
Submitted by SLUGGO on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 2:49pm.
You made it up.
Sluggo
No point in sourcing for sluggs
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 8:18pm.
It was done below and he denied it.
Sluggo
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 8:10pm.
Here's the problem, you can't read. I said the SERVICE, meaning contraception, has been mandated as free to consumers by the government. Meaning the insurance companies are going to make up the cost by charging everyone for them.
And the other contraceptives also cost money.
I would type slower
Submitted by SLUGGO on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 8:19pm.
But I'm afraid that wouldn't help. Insurance is not free. The services insurance companies provide are not free. You pay for insurance, they keep all of your money until they decide what they'd like to pay for.
Sluggo
Oooo, the old "type slower"
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 8:22pm.
Oooo, the old "type slower" gag. That was old before the bastard National Socialized Medicine was born
Being attacked by you is like being savaged by a dead sheep.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
As opposed to...
Submitted by Rukus on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 10:52pm.
These guys!
I have no idea what your point is.
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 8:26pm.
Here is the thing. When insurance companies are required to provide additional services their costs go up. They are not, by law, allowed to recoup their costs on the individuals using the particular service. So, they recoup their money by raising EVERYONE's premium.
And no, they don't decide what they'd like to pay for. You sign a contract agreeing to how much you will pay and the services they will pay for.
How old are you, 10? Because you have no idea of how the business world works.
Have you ever had insurance?
Submitted by SLUGGO on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 2:52pm.
I suspect not. Clearly you've never waited months, or even years for your insurance company to approve a surgery.
Yes, in the real world insurance companies reject claims all the time.
Sluggo
Sluggo
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 2:54pm.
What does that have to do with the debate about birth control?
It specifically addresses your claim
Submitted by SLUGGO on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 3:13pm.
And no, they don't decide what they'd like to pay for.
When in reality...
Sluggo
Source it.
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 4:17pm.
Otherwise it goes with all Obama's lies about insurance companies. In the garbage.
do you know what an insurance claim is?
Submitted by SLUGGO on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 4:20pm.
and if so, are you aware that an insurance claim may be denied? If we can reach agreement on this simple concept I might consider responding to your next post. Otherwise.............
Sluggo
It sure does happen in the
Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 4:23pm.
It sure does happen in the real world. Check out Britains NHS and you'll see it happening quite a bit. You know about NHS, Sluggo, it's the same system trying to be imposed in the U.S.
You don't get it. I bet you
Submitted by ant on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 8:31pm.
You don't get it. I bet you believe taxing the sh*t out of companies won't be passed on to the consumer either. Assuming, of course, it doesn't shut them down or send them overseas.
If Obama mandated that McDonalds must provide Big Macs to a certain demographic, do you believe YOU would not end up paying for it through higher prices? Or do you just assume Grimace would bear the cost?
Unless it's birth control
Submitted by ckc1227 on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 12:45am.
"You pay for insurance, they keep all of your money until they decide what they'd like to pay for."
Unless it's birth control, in which case they have no say at all now.
You must not practice medicine, Sluggo.
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 6:13pm.
The number one rule in medicine is to do no harm. The side-effects of a medication are very much at issue. Those side-effects determine whether the cure is worse than the disease and also greatly contribute to the patient's willingness to comply with the therapy and the physician's willingness to prescribe it. Saying the side-effects are a "non-issue" means you don't understand how they are important as the intended therapeutic affect. Oral contraceptives, by far the most popular method of contraception, carry significant side-effects that you seem to ignore. Older higher-dose estrogen-containing oral contraceptives carry a considerably higher risk of clotting disorders, placing some patients at higher risk for deep venous thromboses. Try reading any reputable online medical reference on oral contraceptives and you will see the potential adverse effects listed quite prominently. ALL oral contraceptives carry black-box warnings to one extent or another. These are very much an issue.
All medications have side-effects, but it is up to the physician and pharmacist to balance those risks with any therapeutic benefits that may be conferred.
Other contraceptive methods (e.g. sponge, barrier, etc.) also carry significant side-effects and cannot be ignored in that benefit to risk calculation.
And this has what to do with the insurance companies?
Submitted by SLUGGO on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 7:16pm.
A patient still requires a prescription for birth control. Has that changed? Do you want to debate that issue? Or do you want to focus on why you personally believe birth control pills are unsafe and should be yanked from the market?
Sluggo
Really,
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 7:32pm.
"A patient still requires a prescription for birth control". Are you absolutely, positively sure about that? Have you read every page of the Obamacare bill, so you can state that authoritatively?
Yes
Submitted by SLUGGO on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 7:37pm.
I have read every page. Including the pages cobraman noted below with his own miscomprehended translations.
Sluggo
Liar. I just gave you page
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 7:46pm.
Liar.
I just gave page and lines from the Bill.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
No
Submitted by SLUGGO on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 7:52pm.
You gave page numbers and your translation of the text. None of your information is correct, for if it was, you'd have posted the actual wordage.
On 2nd thought, it wasn't you. Jack Bower. My mistake.
Sluggo
My reading is correct. You
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 8:07pm.
My reading is correct.
You just don't understand the actual meaning of the words, because you are an ideologue.
Even after I have enlightened you. That's the problem with a closed liberal mind, it just doesn't get nuance -- or the fact that people don't buy their brand of excrement.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
I see nothing that "Cobraman
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 7:50pm.
noted below", so I'll assume that you're just enhancing your argument, and you didn't really read the bill, more likely you got your talking point from politifact.
Projection, Sluggo? Or perhaps deflection?
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 8:54pm.
Where did I mention that I am against contraception?
I point out that medications have side-effects which limit patients and physicians in their willingness to take or prescribe them. Mandating coverage for contraception is essentially putting another layer of financial responsibility on an already overtaxed system. Even if a physician writes a prescription for contraception, it does not mean automatically a patient will use it appropriately.
Mandating coverage means litigation from those who will not benefit. It also means that everyone pays for what benefits only a few.
Pregnancy and contraception are personal choices and are not, by definition, medically necessary. I no more advocate for coverage for either. It is up to the plan sponsor to decide what they will cover and how in the absence of medical necessity unless benefits are required by law. Unfortunately for the latter, the law is often subjected to litigation.
You really seem to lose any semblance of logic as you post further and further into a topic.
I don't know Doc
Submitted by Rukus on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 10:58pm.
What do you call someone who will not respond to anything, anything at all that is given to them in factual terms? No matter what or how factual said facts are offered? Stupid maybe? I'll go with moonbat myself.
None of your arguments address the story
Submitted by SLUGGO on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 3:03pm.
Here's the story. The government is forcing insurance companies to cover birth control (something most insurance companies already cover), with a loophole for religious organizations who are against contraception.
So far you've argued about taxation, litigation, medicinal side effects, and your personal opinions. Making the insurance companies cover contraception means doctors may explore all contraceptive options, not only the cheapest forms that insurance wishes to cover. What is costlier, doctor? $20 a month for the pill, or an IUD that lasts 5 years+?
As a doctor you must be aware that insurance covers many things that only benefit a few. Women lose out bigtime on testicular cancer treatments. Should the insurance companies stop covering that?
Sluggo
That's Laughable
Submitted by sentry_99 on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 3:23pm.
Women lose out bigtime on testicular cancer treatments huh? Wow, you are getting more desperate and ridiculous as this thread goes on.
Your ignorance is showing again
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 3:36pm.
Cancer treatments are a matter of life and death, not choice. Birth control pills, when prescribed for medical reasons are covered by most insurance companies. If they aren't, you can shop for another plan. Birth control is a choice. By your logic should insurance companies be required to pay for botox for wrinkles? Breast enhancements? Plastic surgery for someone not disfugured?
The government should not be the deciding entity of these cases.
Question
Submitted by SLUGGO on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 3:45pm.
Botox, Boob jobs, Plastic Surgery: Which of these fall under the category of preventive medicine?
Sluggo
Definition of insurance:
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 4:29pm.
.
financial protection against loss or harm: an arrangement by which a company gives customers financial protection against loss or harm such as theft or illness in return for payment premium
We have twisted the meaning of insurance so that now we expect insurance to pay for EVERYTHING, instead of just major claims.
Posting definitions now?
Submitted by SLUGGO on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 4:38pm.
First off I'd like to thank you very much. I had no idea what insurance actually meant until you posted the dictionary definition.
Financial protection against loss or harm. Preventive medicine doesn't qualify?
Sluggo
Glad to be of help
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 4:43pm.
Does your auto insurance cover oil changes? Does you homeowners pay for a security system?
And more to the point, why is the government mandated what a private business does?
By that logic
Submitted by SLUGGO on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 4:49pm.
What's the point of the FDA? The government is telling private industry which guidelines they must follow in the production of food.
Sluggo
Sluggo
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 5:03pm.
But they are not telling them what to charge.
Rad---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 5:18pm.
Sluggo is intellectually, morally, psychically, and congenitally unable to use logic.
Liberal, dontcha know?
Sounds sooooo much like ADK Zippers.
MD
So it seems.
Submitted by drsamherman on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 5:39pm.
I guess it is time we put out the "Please Don't Feed the Trolls" sign for Sluggo, I mean Trollo.
Did you forget to take your morning doses?
Submitted by drsamherman on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 3:54pm.
Contraception is something nearly every insurance plan already covers, but with appropriate co-pays and deductibles like most other areas of medicine. It is not medically necessary, and covers a voluntary physical activity.
Per medical ethics, physicians can only recommend therapies (like contraception methods) for their patients if the therapy is appropriate based on their clinical condition. I would not recommend a high-dose estrogen combination oral contraceptive to a woman with breast cancer, nor would I recommend Norplant (a five-year option) for a woman with plans to conceive within the next twelve months. Any physician has to discuss the relative risks vs. benefits of any therapy with the patient and then abide by the patient's choice. So many times patients choose simply not to comply with a therapy. All of what YOU termed benefits to contraception are contingent upon the patient being willing to tolerate any side-effects and to use the contraception method properly. The other thing is that patients place no therapeutic value on anything free to them, as demonstrated time and time again by patient behavioral and compliance studies.
When did I ever mention taxation? All I have said is that this decision will result in litigation because there are both male and female contraception methods available and mandating free, first-dollar coverage for female contraception methods only will probably end up being challenged sooner or later in court. I also pointed out the practical aspects of patient behavior (intolerance of side-effects and/or willingness to comply with therapy) that render a policy like this unworkable in the long run.
You are comparing an involuntary medical condition (testicular cancer) to contraception? You would make a very poor physician with that kind of relativism. Contraception and conception are voluntary for the most part. Cancer, diabetes in every form and most forms of heart diseases are not voluntary. The point is that covering anything that is elective (contraception) makes all of us pay for a purely lifestyle choice. That's why insurance carriers don't cover cosmetic procedures and have proper limits on other elective procedures like assisted reproduction technology and non-essential medications.
Keep wandering off into the liberal la-la-land of no personal responsibility for any action.
In short
Submitted by SLUGGO on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 4:02pm.
You disagree with the IOM that contraception is preventive medicine and therefor insurance companies should not be obligated to cover such medications.
What kind of medicine did you say you practice?
Sluggo
Dr. Sam---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 4:07pm.
at least SLUGGO's relativism makes him a liberal par excellence.
Very nice rebuttal you laid on the argumentative fool.
Exceptional, actually.
MD
Thanks, MD.
Submitted by drsamherman on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 5:19pm.
Appreciate that.
The only thing that contraception prevents is conception, and only abstinence is 100% reliable. All contraception methods have failure rates, but why bother using long words with a troll like Sluggo.
You won't respond to me now?
Submitted by SLUGGO on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 5:27pm.
There it is. You're an abstinence only kind o' doctor. Had I known otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time.
Sluggo
There is no such thing as an "unwanted pregnancy."
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 6:33pm.
At least, not until there are no longer waiting lists at adoption agencies.
See, there's no such thing as an "unwanted child," so the term "unwanted pregnancy" is a misnomer.
Unplanned? All too often. But unwanted? Not yet.
And isn't it interesting how the dictatorship is getting more and more comfortable telling private businesses what they must do?
--Mike
Yeah your right Mike Bratton
Submitted by SLUGGO on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 7:20pm.
I hear orphanages have emptied out across America.
Sluggo
Don't dodge, or don't play.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 8:03pm.
I understand that you'd like to label some developing children as "unwanted," just as developing children are labeled "tissue."
Makes it easier to discard them. Well, that one was unwanted, anyway...
--Mike
Here's the liberal (Sluggo) argument to almost every issue...
Submitted by WhoIsJohnGalt on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 7:01pm.
"I want more free stuff. You pay for it because *make up some stupid reason, like "society benefits"*!!!"
Great. Then while we're at
Submitted by Soldat44 on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 8:29pm.
Great. Then while we're at it, let's give homosexual males condoms and Preparation H. Because I don't want to pay for their declining healthcare when they contract AIDS and anal issues. Therefore, 'society benefits'.
Also maybe some lube. Nothing worse than a bunch of cranky old queens walking around complaining of rectum problems. Therefore, 'society benefits'.
Don't be surprised if that becomes a lawsuit.
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 8:56pm.
I have seen far more absurd medically-related litigation arising from medical insurance coverage mandates.
Easy solution
Submitted by Khyris on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 4:57pm.
Know what's easier to get together than $20 a month? Your legs!
Abstinence is free, and
Submitted by robert108 on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 5:14pm.
Abstinence is free, and nobody gets killed.
and . . .
Submitted by Free Stinker on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 5:27pm.
. . . it works everytime it's tried.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
But
Submitted by Russian55 on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 6:35pm.
When you consider how many "unplanned" pregnancies there are, leaving it up to abstinence is not the smart choice.
I don't want my 18 year old daughter to go out having sex. I also don't want her to get pregnant if she makes a bad call.
---
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will end up plowing for those who kept their swords in the first place!
They YOU pay for her birth control,
Submitted by WhoIsJohnGalt on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 7:02pm.
don't extort it from me!
From a purely medical viewpoint:
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 5:15pm.
There will be litigation over this decision, particularly because it focuses on healthcare issues of a single gender in a biological activity that requires two-to-tango. The other litigation will arise from infertile individuals seeking coverage parity for their condition.
When the PDE-5 inhibitor drugs for erectile dysfunction (Viagra, Cialis, Levitra, etc.) were introduced to the market back in the late 90s, there was litigation over the decision to cover these drugs for similar reasons, e.g. the medications were targeted at only one gender.
There have been too many studies that have shown American consumers place zero value in anything free. If there is not even a small co-payment, deductible or other financial commitment related to any type of health care behavior (e.g. from an physician office visit to a prescription being filled), patients usually will not be compliant. No compliance to birth control equals birth.
For what it's worth, the physicians who participate on these panels are notoriously left-leaning and the only ones who ever have time to put together these types of recommendations.
Last time I checked, paying
Submitted by rollinghills on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 5:18pm.
Last time I checked, paying $20 a month NOT to have kids is way cheaper than raising kids.
They should be happy to only foot $20/month.
If you can't afford to scrape together $20/mo...
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 5:20pm.
...then you can't afford to be boinking.
This is just another government mandate that is going to drive up the cost of health insurance for everybody.
But, that's what the Comrade Chairman wants.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
I disagree
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 6:09pm.
It will lower the overall cost by covering the preventive aspect of having an unwanted child and possible complications which could arise from a difficult pregnancy. For example, Diabetes is a preventable disease. The cost of cutting off a limb far exceeds the cost of managing the disease in the beginning. Insurance companies in order to cut costs and make more money will choose prevention.
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
Ernst
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 6:28pm.
Insurance companies aren't choosing anything. The government is FORCING them to do something.
Where's the push back or objection?
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 12:15pm.
Any Insurance Company Exec opposing it?
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
Is that how we're supposed to evaluate laws?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 2:00pm.
By who objects to them?
I object to the government interfering in private business's once again.
Yeah, what company would object to increased costs?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 2:16pm.
The industry probably wanted to do this all along, they just didn't have the nerve.
Ask for generic pills. They usually only cost $5/month on most
Submitted by Lipton on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 5:28pm.
plans. Doctors will prescribe the latest and "greatest", but generics can do the same thing, and the cost to the consumer is much less. This would be taking charge of one's healthcare choices, something too many women feel like they shouldn't have to do, because care free sex is also a right (something I actually read on a blog on this topic).
Hey, SLUGGO, food and water
Submitted by ant on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 5:31pm.
Hey, SLUGGO, food and water are necessary for survival, sex is not. Why should taxpayers be on the hook for the sexual pleasure of others? You want to start sending me/make someone else send me money for beer, pizza, movie rentals, concerts? I do enjoy all of those.
"The number of children we have determines how many we need to educate, how many we need to employ, blah,blah,blah.." You think this goes the same for illegal immigration? Nah, only the American population is the perpetual problem for libs. I live in a big city, you know who's not too concerned about over-population or the ability to afford many children? Illegal immigrants and muslims.
I have no problem with it.
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 6:06pm.
BTW-
"...mandate which requires PRIVATE insurance companies to cover contraception as part of women's "preventative services."
Where is the taxpayer involved? Maybe I missed it. This is a mandate telling PRIVATE insurance companies to cover the costs of preventive services for women who choose to take a proactive approach in their overall health and well being. If I'm not mistaken the Insurance companies receive monies from premiums paid by the policyholders. A vasectomy- an elective surgical procedure- is just about free for the most part. Insurance companies have no problem covering most of the costs. I honestly believe the Insurance companies have no problem covering the costs of the Pill as opposed to covering a C-section to deliver a preemie and the weeks or months it will be in a NICU.
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
1st Amendment
Submitted by Matthew Balan on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 6:10pm.
The problem is that it tramples on the religious liberties of those who don't want their money going towards services that they believe are immoral.
Immoral?
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 11:30am.
It's not about morality. It's about the bottom line and the shareholders. Period.
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
Ernst
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 1:56pm.
If it was about the bottom line and the shareholders, the insurance companies would have done it already.
It's about the government telling business's how to do business. They have proven to be abject failures at anything to do with money and should stay out of it.
So, if my insurance company
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 7:19pm.
is forced to provide free contraceptive prescriptions to XXX,XXX females, do you think my premium, and co-pay might go up, to cover what the government is forcing said insurance company to provide for free?
So, I'm "involved" and I'm a taxpayer. And, apparently, you have NO problem letting the Obama Regime tell a private company what they have to cover, or not cover?
And, please, drop the "cover the costs of preventive services for women who choose to take a proactive approach in their overall health and well being". Neither the government or the insurance companies should be in the business of subsidizing someone's sexual lifestyle.
That's just funny.
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 11:29am.
"...Neither the government or the insurance companies should be in the business of subsidizing someone's sexual lifestyle."
I guess Viagra should be taken off the list now. Vasectomies, also?
I'm laughing at your comment and how ridiculous it is.
Your premium will go up if there are more pregnancies.
Ask your Insurance Company if they oppose it. With the amount of lobbying Insurance Companies do, where's the push back?
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
Your premium will go up if there are more pregnancies.
Submitted by Karma on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 1:33pm.
Are you telling me that my premiums will go down because of this mandate? Now I can buy that falcon I've been wanting to purchase.
Ernst
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 1:58pm.
Do you have ANY concept of how private insurance works? If you aren't paying for maternity coverage one month (or more) prior to getting pregnant, you aren't covered for the pregnancy. So no, unplanned pregnancies don't increase the premiums of private insurance plans.
I'm laughing at you now.
If we provid free birth control
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 6:12pm.
we should outlaw abortion.
We should do it anyway, but this is another argument.
How about close your damn
Submitted by Rowane on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 6:42pm.
How about close your damn legs and quit being a bunch of sluts? It always works.
This was in answer to "what are we expected to do? "
You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything. (Aaron Tippin)
That's not nice
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 8:33pm.
How about keeping your fly zipped, instead?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Zeees breedge
Submitted by gfrrman on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 2:15am.
must ALWAYS be penetrated with a trojan horse(redundant)!!!! ;~>
g
Here are some other goodies
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 7:22pm.
Here are some other goodies in Obamacare
** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. Residents, even if they are in the US illegally.
** Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.
** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN).
** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax.
(How could anybody in their right mind come up with that? But then Pelosi is hardly in her right mind.)
** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.
** Page 272. Section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age.
** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.
** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. (Death counseling.)
** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Here's the catch
Submitted by SLUGGO on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 7:34pm.
Do you think anyone will buy into this BS?
Sluggo
Nobody's buying the anal
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 7:49pm.
Nobody's buying the anal excrement spewing from your gob, that's for sure.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
since i've got the right person now
Submitted by SLUGGO on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 7:54pm.
I'd like to commend you on your translations. Why didn't you use the accurate text?
Sluggo
Why don't you?
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 8:07pm.
Why don't you?
Come on. Refute it, and not by your "opinion." Give us the text genius as you are so confident.
Your "reaction" is neither here nor there as it's only supported by your "interpretation."
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
I'll take a shot
Submitted by SLUGGO on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 8:15pm.
Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. Residents, even if they are in the US illegally.
SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to
personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.
(b) IMPLEMENTATION.—To implement the requirement set forth in subsection (a), the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, promulgate such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to insure that all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act are provided (whether directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements) without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.
Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.
1173A. STANDARDIZE ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS.
‘‘(a) STANDARDS FOR FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall adopt and regularly update standards consistent with the goals described in paragraph (2).
‘‘(2) GOALS FOR FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS.—The goals for standards under paragraph (1) are that such standards shall—
‘‘(A) be unique with no conflicting or redundant standards;
‘‘(B) be authoritative, permitting no additions or constraints for electronic transactions, including companion guides;
‘‘(C) be comprehensive, efficient and robust, requiring minimal augmentation by paper transactions or clarification by further communications;
‘‘(D) enable the real-time (or near real- time) determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility, which may include utilization of a ma- chine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card;
‘‘(E) enable, where feasible, near real-time adjudication of claims;
‘‘(F) provide for timely acknowledgment, response, and status reporting applicable to any electronic transaction deemed appropriate by the Secretary;
‘‘(G) describe all data elements (such as reason and remark codes) in unambiguous terms, not permit optional fields, require that data elements be either required or conditioned upon set values in other fields, and prohibit additional conditions; and
‘‘(H) harmonize all common data elements
across administrative and clinical transaction standards.
Sluggo
Thanks for proving my
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 8:37pm.
Thanks for proving the paraphrasing I posted was correct, slug.
Try reading it now instead of just pasting it.
You really are a bit dim. I sort of feel sorry for you now. But not much. I see a DEATH PANEL in your future.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Here's an idea
Submitted by SLUGGO on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 3:11pm.
Why don't you point out the text from the sections you noted that specifically relate to your claims?
Where in section 152 (Discrimination in Health Care) does it address non-US residents or illegal aliens? Which text makes you believe your claim?
Kindly explain.
Where in section 1173A (Standardize Electronic Administrative Transactions) does it mention the government's access to your bank account? Which text makes you believe your claim?
Kindly explain.
Sluggo
ROTFLMAO
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 8:30pm.
Way to prove Jack's argument. I wouldn't know who to give the point to since Jack was right, and Sluggs proved it!
Durr...
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 10:18pm.
Documented status is not related to the "provision of high quality health care or related services" and it can be easily considered a "personal characteristic" so it says that unless it is expressly prohibited elsewhere in the bill, no personal classifications can be used to deny the provision of service.
English is hard, to paraphrase Barbie.
well...
Submitted by michiganruth on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 9:30pm.
I dunno...if someone doesn't have $20 a month for birth control, I'd just as soon they didn't have a baby. not only does it just continue the cycle of children born into poverty, but choosing not to "afford" birth control implies a lack of responsibility. neither sounds like a good beginning for a family.
And if someone is this irresponsible
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 9:37pm.
what makes you think they'll bother to take a pill every day?
Hard truth is
Submitted by gfrrman on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 2:03am.
even a "whore"(and I use the term looooosely) can generate $20/mo....
just sayin'....
g