Birth control coverage mandate not justifiable

Our society is already plagued with enough worthless individuals… anything to keep those worthless individuals from procreating is well worth the cost in the long run.

At some point someone always entertains borderline Nazi eugenics ideas like that. Well, guess what, I agree. There are an enormous number of 18/19/20 year olds having children they don’t want simply because they enjoy having sex and ejaculating without using condoms. It is reprehensible that so many children destined for poverty and misery because young adult parents are so childish. I would fully support drinking water sterilization too, and having people prove they are responsible enough to birth children to get the antidote.

We should also make sure that when health insurance is required that Christian Scientists and Amish have thier own plans that cover next to nothing. We must cater to all wacky belief systems when there are government mandates.

Yes Matt, the 50% of the country that disagrees with you must simply be wacky and wrong since they disagree with forcing people to do things against their moral beliefs when there are plenty of other options out there. Citing the most extreme examples to try and paint half the population – great logic there.

Unless you’re actually only talking about those two groups, which from your last sentence its clear you’re not, then perhaps the 50% of the country that disagrees with you should simply force you to abide by their beliefs? How do you feel about that?

Exactly.

How many fascists are reading this? You’ll know if you’re a fascist if you’re of the belief that a vote of 51% entitles a group to pass any legislation it pleases over the protest of 49%. We’re a constitutional republic with written limitations on government and expressly nearly limitless rights of the people in order to avoid this madness of the crowd we experience in our legislative bodies.

How many powers can two words “general welfare” actually grant a government? How many hundreds of billions of dollars in executive federal departments were unconstitutionally created using literally TWO WORDS! We are fascists.

First, there should be no objection to that proposal. It doesn’t force everybody to take birth control, it merely requires insurers to make it available under their coverage

This is far less “intrusive” than requiring insurers to cover pre-existing conditions. There is such an irrational fear of anything “government” these days, it is really astonishing.

Jacob, don’t talk about things you don’t understand. First, we’re talking about the State Constitution here, not the federal.

Second, you’re referring to the language in the preamble, which has no legal effect. The preamble only recites the purpose for establishing the constitution, but does not contain any grants of or limitations on power.

Constitutional jurisprudence is FAR more complex than two words from the preamble, and Congress derives most of its legislative authority from 1) the commerce clause; and 2) its power of taxation.

If you want to place those kind of restrictions on the federal government, you need to 1, get an amendment (or multiple) ratified, or figure out a way to pack the supreme court with ultra-libertarian activists who will overturn over 150 years of jurisprudence.

So please, don’t spout off about the constitution, you have NO idea what you’re talking about

Birth Control is, in fact, necessary for human survival. The planet is already overpopulated – we’re consuming resources at an unsustainable rate, and cannot support this many people at our current standard of living.

And yet population keeps increasing exponentially, due chiefly to the lack of access people have to birth control. So, yes, birth control is very important to human survival.

The Americas and Europe have very reasonable population levels. Latin America will improve greatly over the next few years. The planet as a whole is fine.

Parts of Africa and Asia, India, and China in particular, have INSANE population density levels in areas. If you can’t get those populations to intelligently plan families, then all is for nought.

How about the people that work for companies in Michigan that don’t cover birth control because of the CEO’s personal beliefs. How about HIM forcing his Catholic beliefs on all employees that certainly do not share his perspective. Religion should play no part in what is covered by health care. Essentially, how is having an option to include birth control insulting to a group? It does not state anywhere one must use it, that is a personal choice. But by denying the availablity, you are taking many other peoples personal choice from them. How can you possibly fault people for wanting to plan for a family? The “if you don’t want to get pregnant, don’t have sex” option obviously fails miserably. Look at Sarah Palin’s daughter…abstinence worked so well for that. You can’t stop people, at least let them be responsible enough to avoid an unplanned pregnancy.

If you don’t like birth control, don’t use the option in your insurance. Just because the option is available to someone is not forcing them to use it. I believe all health care plans should include birth control, particularly when they DO cover viagra. In no way is viagra ever a medical necessity, but it’s covered. The same should apply to birth control.

“If you don’t like birth control, don’t use the option in your insurance. Just because the option is available to someone is not forcing them to use it.”

Fantastic. My anti-reflux medicine isn’t covered by my insurance, nor is the immuno-therapy for my cancer regime. How about you start picking up the tab on those for me, okay? Thanks! Don’t worry about the fact that you can’t use them, just look the other way and help me pay for it, okay?

Do you see how ludicrous your statement is? Why should I pay higher health care premiums so that you can have convenient sex? That makes no sense to me.

“I believe all health care plans should include birth control, particularly when they DO cover viagra. In no way is viagra ever a medical necessity, but it’s covered. The same should apply to birth control.”

Sigh. Do the rational world a favor. Go to the AMA website or Web MD and look up erectile disfunction. It’s a recognized cardiovascular and psychological disorder. Now go look up FERTILITY. What’s that, you say? Not there? That’s because fertility is not a disease.

Viagara is covered because it treats a diagnosable medical condition. Birth control is not because it treats no medical condition, except is limited cases – in which case I have no problem with it being covered by insurance companies that want to.

Let me also ask you this: should condoms be covered as well? No one seems to be clamoring for that. Why is that?

I don’t want to pay for someone else. Health insurance, not lifestyle insurance.

You already are. Drinkers, smokers, motorcyclists, you name it. Try again.

If anything, this state needs less mandates, not more! It would be nice to be able to buy a cafeteria style plan and not have to buy substance abuse coverage or, in this case, birth control, when it clearly isn’t necessary.

Dear Zeke,

I’m sure that most people who think birth control should be covered on insurance plans would also agree that your cancer medication and acid/anti-reflux medication should be covered as well. While I cannot speak for most people I for one, think that it’s ridiculous that those medications aren’t covered for you and yeah, under a universal health care system I would be helping you pay for those, and I’d be glad to do it.

Also, I’d like to point out, that while fertility isn’t a disease, problems related to unwanted pregnancies plague this country and others. You do allude to the fact that birth control is prescribed for other things (and those things include acne and premenstrual dimorphic disorder which is also a psychological disorder), but why are those less serious that a man who can’t get it up?

“You do allude to the fact that birth control is prescribed for other things (and those things include acne and premenstrual dimorphic disorder which is also a psychological disorder), but why are those less serious that a man who canât get it up?”

They aren’t any less serious. Go back and read what I said. Progesterone or estrogen prescribed to treat endometriosis is not birth control, and should definitely be covered. But again, even that should be at the discretion of the health insurance plan – NOT THE GOVERNMENT. As Bob notes above, if consumers were allowed to shop nationally for health care, and find a plan with exactly what they want (paying more for some options, naturally), there would be no need for government to meddle in health care at all.

As for the prescription coverage for my medicine, I could indeed obtain a plan that covers those medicines. Granted, it would cost me a lot more even factoring in my current costs of $200/month for those two medicines. Thaankfully, that choice is up to ME, not the United States government.

I also have this crazy idea that doctors, nurses, and biotech companies that create the equipment and medicines that save and extend lives should be well-compensated for their work. But that’s a completely different topic…

Also, I have a quick question for supporters of this bill. Would you favor a version that instead required insurance companies to offer a rider (which you would have to pay for) instead of making it required for everyone? You’d still save money, but the insurance company could offset the costs for coverage to only those who want it.