Birth control or the oral contraceptive is not without its complications:
Does ObamaCare cover this? Something tells me no and if not why not but if it did how is this saving $$$$$$? A little feminist conundrum if you will, enjoy.
Only an outsider, but find it ironic that with payoffs ... keeping the good distaff bunch in order, and whistleblowers right up there at headquarters the hierarchy worries to intrude into folks birth control methods....
This post is Saty-made but she's away but I've alot to say. Now back in the day many social conservatives who weren't fans of artificial birth control let's be honest often highlighted what they saw as the health risks associated with such but they're social conservatives so we all know where they're coming from. NOW with so many law firms getting involved in this area it gives credence, credibility to those who've been saying all along there are some health ramifications to pill use so all my question is folks if women are now gonna get the free pills through ObamaCare will ObamaCare then cover any health side issues that may pop up? Seems only fair, just sayin':)
The other moral of the story is that Pie-in-the-Sky stuff really doesn't exist in the real world but then again liberals don't inhabit the real world. To hear them tell it once women can get those free birth control pills from wherever they want then we're well on the road to Nirvana BUT that's assuming those pills are perfectly safe and never have any side effects. So like an Alfred Hitchcock or Twilight Zone the plot thickens and twists, giving out those free pills in some cases MAY cause those health issues listed in the attorneys' ads and to my knowledge this potential part of ObamaCare nobody's covered but that's why you have me.
B I just read that yesterday in the paper about Dolan and the Milwaukee diocese paying off those pervy priests and while I agree with the Church's position on Obama's birth control mandate, it's so logical in terms of religious liberty but imo this other stuff weakens and undercuts Dolan's moral voice on these and other matters. I ain't gonna defend him and the other thing, I had this thought the other day is Dolan in criticizing Obama over the birth control mandate acts like most Catholics are following Church teaching on the matter and they're equally mad over it as he is. There's some type of disconnect going on here ole buddy.
I am tired and this is nonsense so let me just say this.
EVERYONE has ALWAYS known that there are serious risks associated with being on the pill, it's nothing new, it's not like some comet out of the sky that someone's been hiding. Every woman who's been on the pill knows it, every commercial for every oral contraceptive states it, every print ad states it, it's plastered all over the place that it increases your risk for strokes especially if you're over 35 and/or smoke.
I have mentioned before this thing called the risk/benefit ratio and basically that's a woman saying: is a 99% success rate for contraception worth a 0.01% risk of stroke? and deciding it's worth it. Women have been making these decisions for years. Except now conservative men are trying to make decisions for them.
So there are no big conspiracies, no new news, none of that here. Sorry.
Sat I'm not saying it won't be covered but the irony of it all is just too much. Let's say a woman wasn't thinking about going on the pill but because of the mandate there's free pills to be had now and then she comes down with these complications and no it doesn't have to be a stroke or the Fred Sanford heart attack, just read the link again to the attorneys' ad. Well in my book that's an Irony in the best Hitchcockian sense and another layer of irony is you're not saving money if you have to cover some kind of thrombosis crap. Um the 4-hr. priapism thing, often wondered how a doctor's supposed to handle this as I'm sure he or she didn't go to medical school to learn how to deal with 4-hour erections. There's an old old saying be careful what you wish for.
Another Irony, rumor has it the Pill makes you bloated thus decreasing your sexual desireability which is why you took the pill to begin with. This is really a rich topic just sayin':)
Most women don't take the pill to 'increase their sexual desirability'. Most women are taking it because they want to reduce their cramps, regulate their period, deal with endometriosis, combat hormonal acne, oh and by the way, prevent pregnancy.
And a four hour erection is a medical emergency and yeah, they treat it with injections. I can't remember of what, I want to say some kind of vasodilators, but I could have that backwards and it might be vasoconstrictors. Either way it's a serious problem. Mechanically based, but really serious.
And no one decides to go on the pill just because it's covered. You decide because you think it's the best way for you to go. I know plenty of women who opt instead for things like depo shots because they know they aren't good at taking pills every day. Lots of women go for the tubal ligation, especially if they're planning a c-section for their delivery and they don't want more kids. Women go for IUDs (I cannot imagine why anyone would want that, but for some folks it works) or things like Norplant. There are a variety of avenues you can take and the one you choose depends not only on cost and things like risk/benefit ratio but also on you personally. It doesn't do you any good to get your pills covered if you can't remember to take them every day, because if you don't, they won't work.
And so if you get a complication from a drug, how do you prove it's from the drug? How do you prove that the stroke wasn't because your cholesterol is 300 or that you were 85 pounds overweight to begin with? This goes for lots of drugs, because lots of drugs have serious side effects that can happen to some people. There's a lot of bullshit out there about 'bad drugs' and yeah, there are some 'bad drugs' but a lot of this, the onus comes down to information and considering the risk/benefit ratio. One of the medications I take has a black box warning for Stevens Johnson Syndrome. This is a big deal because I actually had SJS from another drug in the past. So we talked about it at great length and decided that we would try it, but go really slow and watch like a hawk for problems. It took months to get me to the dose I needed to be at. I've been taking it for five years now and no problems. So that's one way to approach it. Also, there's monitoring. Lots of drugs are therapeutic only in specific levels and need to be watched. Lithium is a major for this and we see lithium toxicity at work all the time, usually because someone's gotten sick and dehydrated. In no way is this the fault of the lithium.. it just needs to be watched. Anyway the point is that consumers need to know what the risks and benefits are of any/every medication they might be considering, and make their decision in conjunction with their doctor.
All I'm pointing out is this birth control mandate of Obama's which sounds so great to liberals has a few wrinkles and yes I do think free pills everywhere might affect some women into at least considering this avenue. Also if these complications from the pill are so rare and negligible statistically speaking I don't think all these law firms would've gotten involved in the first place unless there's an ore of gold somewhere. Remember we're not talking about social conservatives but LAW FIRMS, we're not talking political agenda but an opportunity to make a boatload of money so if there's only barely even a 1% chance of some of these complications happening why even bother?
There are law firms claiming bad drugs everywhere. Shall I give you a list beginning with Avandia?
The bottom line is, every drug you take carries a risk of something. And you make a decision on what's best for you in conjunction with your doctor.
And once you get through court costs and all that happy horseshit there's not a lot of money left. Have you ever been part of a class action settlement, where you get a check for .93?
And let me just throw this out, if people are so against contraception being covered, are they willing to give twelve weeks' 100% paid maternity leave, 100% coverage for prenatal, delivery and postnatal care (including coverage for complications like toxemia, rhogam, prematurity and birth injuries) and 100% coverage for baby visits for the first three years?
And, while I'm asking, do they also support social service programs for women and children, food stamp programs for women and children, head start programs, and so on? Do they support letting a mother collect unemployment or other benefits for 12 weeks after having a baby (if her job does not do such a thing)? Do they support tax breaks for daycare expenses? Are they willing to make concessions and support programs for low-income women and single mothers?
Because if they don't, then they're ever so much bullshit propaganda.
There's no law saying an insurance co. can't cover contraception just as there should be no law stating they must cover contraception so that's fer starters. I'm sympathetic to what you're saying about new moms and work since I read in the papers every now and then employers making their lives so hard in some cases even pressuring them to have an abortion and I'm all in favor of taking this type of harassment and discrimination against women and addressing it legally. By the same token as to your other points we already have alot of safety nets out there, it's so an entrenched part of our political and social infrastructure that it would be a rare conservative indeed who would openly advocate their complete overthrow.
Harder to get contraception? I was reading that legally the Church has a very good chance of winning Her case. The Obama side would have to prove in court that women would find it harder to find contraception if church-affiliated insurance cos. weren't required to pay for it. Now bear in mind there's alot of insurance cos. that do business with companies none of which are religious in nature so what some legal scholars are saying is the Onus is on the Obama Administration to prove that their birth control mandate re religious institutions is not only necessary but there's no other way. I'm no legal buff but that's quite a hurdle!
What about this religious exemption thing re contraception?
I worked a double yesterday (I have been back a week today and already the 2013 overtime drive has begun) and I'm a little tired, so I'm just putting out the question and leaving it there.
Beth, seriously, you're delusional. The GOP has spent more time on laws attacking women than anything else. Are you okay with making 23 percent less than you would if you were a man? Are you okay with there being laws that make it okay for employers to pay you less just cause you're female? This is just one example. Hundreds of bills have been sponsored by the GOP targeting women . You're okay with men mandating decisions for you? I thought you were all about being able to make your own decisions.
There is a law that says women must make 23% less than men? Where? Methinks you are the delusional one here, but wow, I didn't realize how far gone you were!
Saty what motivates these GOPers is more anti-governmentism than being anti-women. The laws you'd like to see addressing such things as wage discrimination would go up against what should be the free workings of a free market in the GOP's opinion. Not anti-women just anti-gov't.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 or the RFRA which had its inspiration from the freedom of certain Native Americans to use peyote in their sacred rites, well some are saying the RFRA can now be used by the Church to overturn Obama's birth control mandate. One of the original co-sponsors was Teddy Kennedy but anyway the law was somehow deemed unconstitutional as applied to the States and it only apparently applies to the federal government which is what we have here. Getting this all from wiki but the aim is to prevent laws that overly burden someone's free exercise of religion - "Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability", geez sounds like the birth control mandate. The exception is if the burden is necessary for the furtherance of a compelling government interest and then even then the rule must be the least restrictive way to further that gov't interest. Yep:)
The GOP has had no problem supporting these laws in the past. All of a sudden they're dead set against them. Have they been wrong all these years?
And Beth, are you deliberately obtuse or can you just not help it? Does it matter to you that women make less money to do the same job that a man does?
You are deliberately not citing any laws that say men must make more than women, probably because there is no such law! So, your whole GOP hates women falls apart, roflmao.
Beth. There is no law that says men must make more than women . However, in reality, in the real factual world, the reality is that women make 77 cents for every dollar a man is paid to do the same job. That's why the Ledbetter law was passed in the first place. So are you okay with the GOP making it easier for employers to continue this wage discrimination? Jeez Beth, for real.
Sat you make it sound like since I'm a white male I'm living high on the hog throwing hambones over my shoulder with two wenches by my side. I get paid quite modestly for the work I put it thank you, in fact I think I'm rather underpaid to be honest. You know what's funny the woman meatwrapper at work gets paid way more than many of us male co-workers so there's your theory.
Only an outsider, but find it
ReplyDeleteironic that with payoffs ...
keeping the good distaff
bunch in order, and whistleblowers right up there at headquarters the hierarchy worries to intrude into
folks birth control methods....
Abortions does "legally" also have complications, but nobody ever talks about those, either.
ReplyDeleteThere is one birth control that is 100% safe and 100% effective, but oh no, we can't talk about that, too.
This post is Saty-made but she's away but I've alot to say. Now back in the day many social conservatives who weren't fans of artificial birth control let's be honest often highlighted what they saw as the health risks associated with such but they're social conservatives so we all know where they're coming from. NOW with so many law firms getting involved in this area it gives credence, credibility to those who've been saying all along there are some health ramifications to pill use so all my question is folks if women are now gonna get the free pills through ObamaCare will ObamaCare then cover any health side issues that may pop up? Seems only fair, just sayin':)
ReplyDeleteThe other moral of the story is that Pie-in-the-Sky stuff really doesn't exist in the real world but then again liberals don't inhabit the real world. To hear them tell it once women can get those free birth control pills from wherever they want then we're well on the road to Nirvana BUT that's assuming those pills are perfectly safe and never have any side effects. So like an Alfred Hitchcock or Twilight Zone the plot thickens and twists, giving out those free pills in some cases MAY cause those health issues listed in the attorneys' ads and to my knowledge this potential part of ObamaCare nobody's covered but that's why you have me.
ReplyDeleteB I just read that yesterday in the paper about Dolan and the Milwaukee diocese paying off those pervy priests and while I agree with the Church's position on Obama's birth control mandate, it's so logical in terms of religious liberty but imo this other stuff weakens and undercuts Dolan's moral voice on these and other matters. I ain't gonna defend him and the other thing, I had this thought the other day is Dolan in criticizing Obama over the birth control mandate acts like most Catholics are following Church teaching on the matter and they're equally mad over it as he is. There's some type of disconnect going on here ole buddy.
ReplyDeleteI am tired and this is nonsense so let me just say this.
ReplyDeleteEVERYONE has ALWAYS known that there are serious risks associated with being on the pill, it's nothing new, it's not like some comet out of the sky that someone's been hiding. Every woman who's been on the pill knows it, every commercial for every oral contraceptive states it, every print ad states it, it's plastered all over the place that it increases your risk for strokes especially if you're over 35 and/or smoke.
I have mentioned before this thing called the risk/benefit ratio and basically that's a woman saying: is a 99% success rate for contraception worth a 0.01% risk of stroke? and deciding it's worth it. Women have been making these decisions for years. Except now conservative men are trying to make decisions for them.
So there are no big conspiracies, no new news, none of that here. Sorry.
And as far as 'if you have a complication will Obamacare cover it'...
ReplyDeleteYes it will. Just like insurance companies cover them now.
If you get an acute case of priapism from Viagra, will it be covered?
Yes it will. Just like insurance companies cover it now.
PLEASE stop making this more than what it is.
Sat I'm not saying it won't be covered but the irony of it all is just too much. Let's say a woman wasn't thinking about going on the pill but because of the mandate there's free pills to be had now and then she comes down with these complications and no it doesn't have to be a stroke or the Fred Sanford heart attack, just read the link again to the attorneys' ad. Well in my book that's an Irony in the best Hitchcockian sense and another layer of irony is you're not saving money if you have to cover some kind of thrombosis crap. Um the 4-hr. priapism thing, often wondered how a doctor's supposed to handle this as I'm sure he or she didn't go to medical school to learn how to deal with 4-hour erections. There's an old old saying be careful what you wish for.
ReplyDeleteAnother Irony, rumor has it the Pill makes you bloated thus decreasing your sexual desireability which is why you took the pill to begin with. This is really a rich topic just sayin':)
ReplyDeleteMost women don't take the pill to 'increase their sexual desirability'. Most women are taking it because they want to reduce their cramps, regulate their period, deal with endometriosis, combat hormonal acne, oh and by the way, prevent pregnancy.
ReplyDeleteAnd a four hour erection is a medical emergency and yeah, they treat it with injections. I can't remember of what, I want to say some kind of vasodilators, but I could have that backwards and it might be vasoconstrictors. Either way it's a serious problem. Mechanically based, but really serious.
And no one decides to go on the pill just because it's covered. You decide because you think it's the best way for you to go. I know plenty of women who opt instead for things like depo shots because they know they aren't good at taking pills every day. Lots of women go for the tubal ligation, especially if they're planning a c-section for their delivery and they don't want more kids. Women go for IUDs (I cannot imagine why anyone would want that, but for some folks it works) or things like Norplant. There are a variety of avenues you can take and the one you choose depends not only on cost and things like risk/benefit ratio but also on you personally. It doesn't do you any good to get your pills covered if you can't remember to take them every day, because if you don't, they won't work.
And so if you get a complication from a drug, how do you prove it's from the drug? How do you prove that the stroke wasn't because your cholesterol is 300 or that you were 85 pounds overweight to begin with? This goes for lots of drugs, because lots of drugs have serious side effects that can happen to some people. There's a lot of bullshit out there about 'bad drugs' and yeah, there are some 'bad drugs' but a lot of this, the onus comes down to information and considering the risk/benefit ratio. One of the medications I take has a black box warning for Stevens Johnson Syndrome. This is a big deal because I actually had SJS from another drug in the past. So we talked about it at great length and decided that we would try it, but go really slow and watch like a hawk for problems. It took months to get me to the dose I needed to be at. I've been taking it for five years now and no problems. So that's one way to approach it. Also, there's monitoring. Lots of drugs are therapeutic only in specific levels and need to be watched. Lithium is a major for this and we see lithium toxicity at work all the time, usually because someone's gotten sick and dehydrated. In no way is this the fault of the lithium.. it just needs to be watched. Anyway the point is that consumers need to know what the risks and benefits are of any/every medication they might be considering, and make their decision in conjunction with their doctor.
All I'm pointing out is this birth control mandate of Obama's which sounds so great to liberals has a few wrinkles and yes I do think free pills everywhere might affect some women into at least considering this avenue. Also if these complications from the pill are so rare and negligible statistically speaking I don't think all these law firms would've gotten involved in the first place unless there's an ore of gold somewhere. Remember we're not talking about social conservatives but LAW FIRMS, we're not talking political agenda but an opportunity to make a boatload of money so if there's only barely even a 1% chance of some of these complications happening why even bother?
ReplyDeleteThere are law firms claiming bad drugs everywhere. Shall I give you a list beginning with Avandia?
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line is, every drug you take carries a risk of something. And you make a decision on what's best for you in conjunction with your doctor.
And once you get through court costs and all that happy horseshit there's not a lot of money left. Have you ever been part of a class action settlement, where you get a check for .93?
And let me just throw this out, if people are so against contraception being covered, are they willing to give twelve weeks' 100% paid maternity leave, 100% coverage for prenatal, delivery and postnatal care (including coverage for complications like toxemia, rhogam, prematurity and birth injuries) and 100% coverage for baby visits for the first three years?
ReplyDeleteJust curious.
And, while I'm asking, do they also support social service programs for women and children, food stamp programs for women and children, head start programs, and so on? Do they support letting a mother collect unemployment or other benefits for 12 weeks after having a baby (if her job does not do such a thing)? Do they support tax breaks for daycare expenses? Are they willing to make concessions and support programs for low-income women and single mothers?
ReplyDeleteBecause if they don't, then they're ever so much bullshit propaganda.
There's no law saying an insurance co. can't cover contraception just as there should be no law stating they must cover contraception so that's fer starters. I'm sympathetic to what you're saying about new moms and work since I read in the papers every now and then employers making their lives so hard in some cases even pressuring them to have an abortion and I'm all in favor of taking this type of harassment and discrimination against women and addressing it legally. By the same token as to your other points we already have alot of safety nets out there, it's so an entrenched part of our political and social infrastructure that it would be a rare conservative indeed who would openly advocate their complete overthrow.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you haven't been noticing that those safety nets are under concerted attack.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time the GOP is trying to make it harder to get contraception and illegal to get an abortion they're making it harder to be a mother.
Right.
Not a war on women, though.
Harder to get contraception? I was reading that legally the Church has a very good chance of winning Her case. The Obama side would have to prove in court that women would find it harder to find contraception if church-affiliated insurance cos. weren't required to pay for it. Now bear in mind there's alot of insurance cos. that do business with companies none of which are religious in nature so what some legal scholars are saying is the Onus is on the Obama Administration to prove that their birth control mandate re religious institutions is not only necessary but there's no other way. I'm no legal buff but that's quite a hurdle!
ReplyDeleteWhat about this religious exemption thing re contraception?
ReplyDeleteI worked a double yesterday (I have been back a week today and already the 2013 overtime drive has begun) and I'm a little tired, so I'm just putting out the question and leaving it there.
There is no war on women, that is a propaganda tool that only ill-informed people buy into.
ReplyDeleteBeth, seriously, you're delusional. The GOP has spent more time on laws attacking women than anything else. Are you okay with making 23 percent less than you would if you were a man? Are you okay with there being laws that make it okay for employers to pay you less just cause you're female? This is just one example. Hundreds of bills have been sponsored by the GOP targeting women . You're okay with men mandating decisions for you? I thought you were all about being able to make your own decisions.
ReplyDeleteThere is a law that says women must make 23% less than men? Where? Methinks you are the delusional one here, but wow, I didn't realize how far gone you were!
ReplyDeleteSaty what motivates these GOPers is more anti-governmentism than being anti-women. The laws you'd like to see addressing such things as wage discrimination would go up against what should be the free workings of a free market in the GOP's opinion. Not anti-women just anti-gov't.
ReplyDeleteThe Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 or the RFRA which had its inspiration from the freedom of certain Native Americans to use peyote in their sacred rites, well some are saying the RFRA can now be used by the Church to overturn Obama's birth control mandate. One of the original co-sponsors was Teddy Kennedy but anyway the law was somehow deemed unconstitutional as applied to the States and it only apparently applies to the federal government which is what we have here. Getting this all from wiki but the aim is to prevent laws that overly burden someone's free exercise of religion - "Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability", geez sounds like the birth control mandate. The exception is if the burden is necessary for the furtherance of a compelling government interest and then even then the rule must be the least restrictive way to further that gov't interest. Yep:)
ReplyDeleteThe GOP has had no problem supporting these laws in the past. All of a sudden they're dead set against them. Have they been wrong all these years?
ReplyDeleteAnd Beth, are you deliberately obtuse or can you just not help it? Does it matter to you that women make less money to do the same job that a man does?
You are deliberately not citing any laws that say men must make more than women, probably because there is no such law! So, your whole GOP hates women falls apart, roflmao.
ReplyDeleteBeth. There is no law that says men must make more than women . However, in reality, in the real factual world, the reality is that women make 77 cents for every dollar a man is paid to do the same job. That's why the Ledbetter law was passed in the first place. So are you okay with the GOP making it easier for employers to continue this wage discrimination? Jeez Beth, for real.
ReplyDeleteSat you make it sound like since I'm a white male I'm living high on the hog throwing hambones over my shoulder with two wenches by my side. I get paid quite modestly for the work I put it thank you, in fact I think I'm rather underpaid to be honest. You know what's funny the woman meatwrapper at work gets paid way more than many of us male co-workers so there's your theory.
ReplyDelete77 cents for every buckaroo, maybe we can bump her up to my current 11.97.
ReplyDeleteIt's none of Congress' business to tell businesses what to pay their employees, end of story!
ReplyDelete