Abortion-rights activists have much to march about

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

Conceiving the Possibilities

Abortion-rights activists have much to march about as Bush casts his lot with extermists on birth control.

Carole Joffe Friday, April 20, 2001

THOUSANDS of abortion-rights supporters will gather again Sunday in Washington for a rally and a "March for Women's Lives." A familiar ritual of the 1980s and early '90s, such events were not necessary during the Clinton- Gore years when the pro-choice movement had reliable allies in the White House.

Now, of course, abortion-rights activists have plenty to march about. President Bush has appointed the most anti-abortion attorney general in history, John Ashcroft. RU-486, the "French abortion pill" that received FDA approval only last fall, is threatened with difficult restrictions.

Most worrisome of all, Bush will undoubtedly have the opportunity to nominate one or more Supreme Court justices, and one of these may be the vote that overturns Roe vs. Wade. The numbers that gather in protest may be even greater, and passions higher, if Americans realize that this administration opposes not just abortion rights, but a much broader set of reproductive services.

The president stunned many last week by presenting a budget that included ending contraceptive coverage in the health plans of federal employees. This move will affect even more women than the thousands of federal workers involved because private insurance companies often take their lead from what is covered under the federal health insurance plan.

In an ironic twist, it was this president's father, George H. W. Bush, who in 1967, as a congressman from Texas, was a key sponsor of legislation establishing the first federal program to make family planning services more widely available in the United States.

These two quite different political acts tell us more about how the Republican Party's ideological character has changed over 30 years than they do about any genuine differences between father and son.

By the 1980s, much of the Republican Party was in thrall to a group of religious extremists whose crusade against birth control is nearly as fervent as its opposition to abortion. As president, the senior Bush dutifully did everything possible to impede access to contraception and abortion, including attacks on the family planning program he sponsored.

His son's actions since his first day in office have shown more than an hostility to abortion. Bush has embraced the extremists' broad assault on reproductive freedom. He started his presidency with an executive order reinstating the so-called "global gag rule" -- a policy which forbids the federal government from giving family planning money to countries or organizations that spend their own funds for abortion services or counseling.

This misguided policy of withholding family planning aid will only increase unwanted pregnancies -- and add to the tragic number of 75,000 women who die each year in the developing world from illegal abortions.

Bush's moves against both foreign and domestic family planning programs will further cement his credentials with his "social conservative" right-wing base. For years, this group has viewed contraception as "supportive of the abortion mentality," rather than the way most of us see it -- as preventing unwanted pregnancies, and hence abortions.

In casting his lot with the extremists on birth control, Bush is buying a package that includes the requirement that government support for sex education should go exclusively to "abstinence only" programs.

Programs geared toward pregnancy prevention or AIDS prevention are not allowed to mention any form of birth control, including condoms, or they lose their federal funding. Bush's budget adds millions of dollars to such "abstinence only" programs.

Bush's right-wing allies have also done everything possible to deny American women information about and access to Emergency Contraception ("the morning-after pill"). This drug's ability to prevent pregnancy up to 72 hours after unprotected intercourse has long been known by researchers, but to date only 1 percent of American women have used it.

If used properly, this pill could prevent as many as half the approximately 3 million unplanned pregnancies that now occur annually in this country. It would thus reduce abortion rates.

Even though health experts insist that Emergency Contraception cannot disrupt an established pregnancy, the pill is viewed as an "abortafacient" by the right. We can expect administration officials to attempt to block efforts by women's health advocates to expand access to the pill.

But in opposing contraception, as well as abortion, Bush may have overplayed his hand. While the public is divided on abortion, no such ambivalence exists about birth control. Many Americans viewed it as a scandal when health insurance plans that did not cover contraception began to cover Viagra after its U.S. debut in 1998. The rapid approval by Congress of Viagra coverage under the federal health care plan, had -- thanks to the efforts of a group of determined congresswomen -- the unintended effect of spurring embarrassed legislators to vote for birth control coverage as well.

When mainstream Americans, including many Republicans, encounter the full sexual agenda of the right, they find such positions unacceptable -- not to mention absurd, given the stated goal of reducing the number of abortions.

Diane DeGette, a pro-choice congresswoman from Denver, speaking of Bush's move against contraceptive coverage, said, "If the suburban women who live near my district knew this, they would march on Washington." Well, women -- and men -- are planning to march on Washington for abortion rights. Their banners should also demand the right to birth control coverage for all Americans who need it, as well as sensible sex education and access to Emergency Contraception. And President Bush will be sent a message he would be foolish to ignore.

Carole Joffe is a professor of sociology at the University of California at Davis.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), April 21, 2001

Answers

I have real problems with this. I'm near-fanatical about abortion rights, and consider the anti-abortion people dangerous lunatics out to deprive others of their rights and shove their own morality down our throats. The prospect of Roe v. Wade being overturned is truly frightening.

On the other hand, what Joffe here is mostly complaining about is that the Bush administration has decided NOT TO FUND programs that actively support her (Joffe's) preferences. As far as I'm concerned, the government has no business funding *anybody's* morality with specific propaganda or support programs. The decision to use contraceptives is a personal choice. If you want them, buy them. Don't make ME buy them for you. The decision to have an abortion is also a personal choice. If you want one, pay for it yourself.

Similarly, sex education should provide the facts, but not lather this with anyone's morality, from any direction. Fine to teach what condoms do and how to use them. Not fine to fund programs telling everyone that sex is bad, not fine to tax me to pay for someone else's condoms to hand them out in schools or anywhere else.

I don't believe government should be Big Brother, spending MY tax money to support anyone's morality, on EITHER side of the reproduction debate. The government's role is to protect our right to do as we choose, not to tax us to PAY people to make any particular choice.

So I have no problems with most of these policies, not because I don't like sex or abortion -- to me, the right to engage in either is fundamental and the government's job is to preserve these rights. I have no problem because I don't think taking sides in this debate is the government's job, and certainly taxing me to subsidize either side is plain wrong. Fer pete's sake, let's get government OUT of the reproduction management business. Altogether. That's personal.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 21, 2001.


Fine, Flint, but unwanted pregnancies are screwing up the world, your world and my world.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), April 21, 2001.

Peter:

I know this. But why should I pay for the contraception I use, and ALSO pay for the contraception YOU use (if you are a government employee)? Why can't you pay for your own? Or are you volunteering to pay for mine?

Big Brother should NOT be subsidizing anyone's private life. I simply don't want to pay for this kind of social engineering. How are we ever to reduce the size or intrusiveness of government if we want government to provide its employees for free what private sector employees must pay for?

It sounds to me like you have abandoned all hope of people acting responsibly, and accepted that the government should make "responsible" (i.e. moral) decisions for them. I think that is very sad.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 21, 2001.


Flint, get your head out of your ass! You are missing the point. Bush has decided to fuck over the right to choose. When he is done, your choice Flint! your choice of a legal right to an abortion will not be an option. Do you see now Flint? Its not that you personally are for abortion per se, but the fact that your against someone taking away our freedom of choice. The crap you wrote makes the assumption that all government is going to suddenly start acting like Libertarians but to tell you guy -- it's not gonna happen. Unless you join the good side and help us fight to impeach that thief in the Whitehouse. Do it for America Flint! We need you on our side.

-- Pinky (Fuck the@repugs.com), April 21, 2001.

Pinky you worthless pile of human waste, in order to fuck a repug you need to grow a dick pussy boy. All these years of taking it up your fat ass have given you a sour outlook on life. You and your liberal friends are just harmless scum, not to be taken seriously. Hopefully, you traitorous cocksuckers will self-destruct and help clean up the air for the rest of us.

Have a nice day!

-- Stinky (pinky@isa.twinkie), April 22, 2001.



Stinky, if you are a typical Repug, that is reason enough to fight to get them out of government and our lives. Hopefully your kind is a dying breed.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), April 22, 2001.

This move will affect even more women than the thousands of federal workers involved because private insurance companies often take their lead from what is covered under the federal health insurance plan.

Debra,

You definately got my attention with this one.

Here is a LIST of 14 birth control methods available.

Six of the most reliable choices (but looked down on from this administration because they may prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg) are now covered under most insurance plans. Then there's sterilization, I'm not sure where this would fall into the scheme of things.

What does that leave?

CONTINUOUS ABSTINENCE... ... you will not have any sex play with a partner. This will keep sperm from joining egg...Yup, that would work!

THE CONDOM... ... you will cover penis with a sheath before intercourse to keep sperm from joining egg...Oops...nope...gotta teach CONTINUOUS ABSTINENCE!

THE DIAPHRAGM OR CERVICAL CAP... ... your clinician will fit you with a shallow latex cup (diaphragm) or a thimble-shaped latex cap (cervical cap). Clinician also will show you how to coat diaphragm or cap with spermicide and put it in your vagina to keep sperm from joining egg...umm...doesn't promote CONTINUOUS ABSTINENCE!

THE FEMALE CONDOM OR SPERMICIDE... ... you will follow package instructions and insert female condom deep in your vagina to keep sperm from joining egg...nope, that doesn't cut it either, remember CONTINOUS ABSTINENCE!

PERIODIC ABSTINENCE OR FAMs (FERTILITY AWARENESS METHODS)... ... a professional will teach you how to chart your menstrual cycle and to detect certain physical signs to help you predict fertility or "unsafe" days. Abstain from intercourse (periodic abstinence) or use condoms, diaphragms, cervical caps, or spermicide (FAMs) during nine or more "unsafe" days...formaly known as the Rhythm Method...Didn't work very well for many Cathloics I know..LOL!...and now used mostly by infertal coulpes trying to conceive...might promote some ABSTINENCE though.

So that leaves us with CONTINOUS ABSTINENCE as the best form birth control...there ya have it, have a nice day, everyone!

-- Peg (
pegmcleod@mediaone.net), April 22, 2001.


Boy, do I hate it when that happens!

-- Peg (pegmcleod@mediaone.net), April 22, 2001.

Peg you have got your head up your ass! Its not about birth control and its not about abortion! Its about losing your choice to choose. You can abstain all you want but the fact is that once your finished abstaining your choices are going to be severely limited. You fucking repugs really suck to try and take everyones freedom of choice away. You need to quit hanging out with repugs Peg. (and get your head out of your butt)

-- Pinky (Fuck the@repugs.com), April 22, 2001.

Have a nice day? Oh Peg, how, with no sex?

um, no pic of vibrator is necessary, but thanks :-)

LMAO

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 22, 2001.



LOL Pinky. I think you have 'pegged' Peg wrong. She is on our side. Now be nice and apologize. :)

Peg,

What is really amazing is that it took nearly 40 years for birth control to be covered by insurance. That only happened because of the fight that was put up when Viagra went on the market in 1998 and was immediately covered.

I don't see how this administration can end contraceptive coverage without ending the coverage for Viagra. I stand firmly in support of coverage for both as I believe there are very positive health benefits received from our sexual lives. I do see this coverage as 'preventive care'. The benefits received help to prevent the more serious and more expensive problems.

Flint,

Can you separate female sexuality from reproductive sexuality? Can you see that female sexuality contains reproductive sexuality but reproductive sexulity does NOT contain female sexuality? In other words, reproductive sexuality is the contained while female sexuality is the container.

To me, this fight for contraceptive coverage has to take place in the realm of female sexuality not reproductive sexuality. As there are for men, so there are for women health benefits associated with our sexual lives. Please don't reduce this to you subsidizing my reproduction, entertainment or morality.

Insurance is no longer just about 'unexpected medical emergencies'. It is now very much about preventive care so that we don't encounter those unexpected and EXPENSIVE emergencies.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), April 22, 2001.


Debra:

Sorry, but that's just not the case. There are many things we need, for health as well as well being generally, which entail normal, standard monthly payments. Insurance is NOT intended to make these standard monthly payments, not for contraceptives nor cars nor rent nor electricity nor credit card payments. Normal monthly payments are wnat our paychecks are for. Just because you might consider a normal payment to be wise or prudent or useful or preventive does NOT mean that *therefore* someone else ought to pay for it!

Please try to think this through. You are trying to redefine the meaning of "insurance" so suit your own preferences. Using this "reasoning", I could ask you to pay my car payments. After all, if I were *forced* to walk, I might be run over! This is a preventive health care issue! So therefore YOU must pay MY car payment. See how easy that is, when you start with your desires and redefine things to fit?

But by your own argument, you OWE me those car payments! Pay UP, dammit!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 22, 2001.


The pill fits into your standard, monthly payment arguement just fine but how do you feel about insurance coverage for NORPLANT®...payment due once every 5 years?

Another twist ... what do you think ... maybe contraception, pregnancy and birth should be handled through social insurance instead of health insurance? Did they ever decide how to classify pregnancy and child birth? As an illness? A disability? Of course if they classify it as natural and normal then health insurance may not have to cover it! LOL

Who is redefining the meaning of "insurance" to suit their own preferences?

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), April 22, 2001.


Debra:

I think the basic problem you are having here is that "insurance" has been progressively distorted to include a variety of inappropriate subsidies. No, I don't think insurnace should cover NORPLANT. I don't think it should cover pregnancy and childbirth. Just because I might want to pay for my car in one lump sum does not change the fact that my purchase of a car is not unanticipated or unexpected, nor beyond my control!

But lots of "insurance" policies cover The Pill and Viagra and NORPLANT and the like. What's really going on is *either* that such people are paying an extra $30 a month for their insurance policy, $20 of which goes for The Pill and the other $10 for "overhead and administration" (i.e. the insurance company's profit), which is a lousy deal for the "insured", *or* that those who do not use The Pill are involuntarily subsidizing those who are.

The changing defintion of what insurance is for is not my problem. I see it as for emergencies, and you see it as a way to get those who don't want something to subsidize those who do want it. And indeed, it's not at all unusual for people to take advantage of what their insurance policy covers even if they don't need it.

In the private sector, people are sensitive to this. On the whole, private employees don't want to see coverage for someone else's voluntary lifestyle choices because it increases their insurance premiums. But in the public sector, hey, throw in the kitchen sink, it's "free" (the taxpayers pay it, and not the employees).

This is really an issue of power, not sexuality.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 22, 2001.


There is a marvelous house in my area that I would dearly love to own. Can’t really afford it right now but am working hard to make that dream come true.

We have two wonderful children and would like to have more. Can’t really afford to support more kids but maybe in the future it will be possible.

These concepts seem to be outside of the liberal scope of critical thinking. I would never ask anyone else to give me THEIR hard-earned money so I could have these items. Why then should I be expected to give MY hard- earned money so THEY can have more children or live in a better neighborhood?

Doesn’t make any sense does it?

-- Earn (your@own.way), April 22, 2001.



I hereby volunteer to pay for any and all birth control Flint and his partners require. A box of rubber gloves ought not to be too expensive, right?

-- Trojan Man (yes.we.have@no.bananas.com), April 23, 2001.

Earn-

If you are insured, and your house burns down, you may very well be able to afford that house in your neighborhood with the combination of home owner's insurance and a mortgage. Should we assume that you wouldn't buy that new house because you would be taking someone else's hard-earned money for it, especially if your bank is at all affiliated with Fannie Mae?

Were you or your spouse insured when your first two children were born? If so, should we assume that you didn't use your insurance for pre-natal care or birth related expenses? After all, that was someone else's money, wasn't it?

-- Alice in Wonder Bra (alice@wonder.bra), April 23, 2001.


Alice hit the nail on the head. However, all of this is moot. The EEOC decided last year that the exlusion of contraception coverage amounts to discrimination. I have no idea why W would put this in his budget, unless maybe he wants a big court battle.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 23, 2001.

Debra, "Insurance is no longer just about 'unexpected medical emergencies'. It is now very much about preventive care so that we don't encounter those unexpected and EXPENSIVE emergencies. " I think this is exactly Flint's point. The pill doesn't fall into medical coverage, emergency or preventive. (Sorry Flint I don't mean to put words in your "mouth"). If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, there are a number of ways to reduce the possibility, none of them are for medical reasons. So, insurance need not cover any of these methods. But what to do about unwanted pregnancies? Sounds like a societal problem, not an insurance medical problem.

Alice, "If you are insured, and your house burns down, you may very well be able to afford that house in your neighborhood with the combination of home owner's insurance and a mortgage." What? After your house burns down, you're able to afford a more expensive house? Only in your dreams, Alice.

On the topic of viagra. I find it outrageous that insurance will cover this. Doctors are handing it out like candy, not just for medical reasons. Just what we need in the world, more horny men.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 23, 2001.


Let me clarify my post, "...none of them are for medical reasons. So, insurance need not cover any of these methods." Insurance should cover those that require medical (surgical) procedures, vascetomies and others. I believe they do.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 23, 2001.

Maybe you've never lost a house that you've had insured, Maria, but if you've insured it sufficiently you can get a better house than your other one.

What's this bullshit about contraception not being medical coverage? It's preventative medical coverage honey. It prevents you from getting pregnant. And I don't know about you but anything having to do with my reproductive system is medical in nature.

-- Alice in Wonder Bra (alice@wonder.bra), April 23, 2001.


Alice,

Does that include the wonder bra?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), April 23, 2001.

Oh, yeah I want to pay for other people's birth control methods and of course, Viagra....NOT! Finally, somebody standing up for the rights of unborn babies. You don't want kids...don't have sex or at the very least use birth control. You people that support abortion , should have been aborted.Most of the idiot women that have them use it as their primary birth control method, and I and everyone else that pays for their insurance foots the bill for people that can't control themselves or plan? Yet, you're the first ones to start screaming if "YOUR RIGHTS" are infringed upon. I hope Roe V Wade is overturned, even just for the pleasure of you feminazi's screaming your fool heads off.

Yeah, I voted for Bush and am proud to know finally their is someone with balls, that will defy the assholes in the world.

-- Marg (okay@cutaway.com), April 23, 2001.


Alice, "It's preventative medical coverage honey. It prevents you from getting pregnant." As if getting pregnant is some kind of disease or medical disorder.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 23, 2001.

marg:

I think you misunderstand. The purpose of government is to *protect and preserve* our right to choose, NOT to pay for our choices. The government's job is to make sure no religious nutballs deprive us of any abortions we choose to pay for, NOT to tax other people to pay for them.

I have no problem with a private "abortion pool" anyone can chip in to, that can be used to pay for abortions for any contributor whose birth control fails. Just so long as nobody is obliged to chip in who doesn't want to, and only contributors are eligible to collect payments.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 23, 2001.


Flint: I think you misunderstand. The purpose of government is to *protect and preserve*

I don't misunderstand Flint, I think the government SHOULD PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE UNBORN

-- Marg (okay@cutaway.com), April 23, 2001.


marg:

Yes, it was clear what you believe. And your right to believe anything you want should also be protected. But when you decide to impose your beliefs on others, then you go too far. The government has no business forcing childbirth on you. That is your private decision.

Fortunately, I'm sure there are governments congenial to your beliefs. Iran would be an excellent choice for you. And fortunately, you are neither forced to go there, nor to stay here. Aren't individual decisions great? Let's preserve them!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 23, 2001.


Nobody is forced into childbirth. 1.Pay for your own contraceptives/viagra et al. 2. If you don't want children than use no.1, please, or keep your legs closed! 3.Abortion IS NOT A FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL for those of you who are too lazy to use them for whatever reasons (it dulls the pleasure, it ruins spontanaity, it leaves a wet spot, I can't afford them...) 4.Abortion is not a "freedom or right" IT'S MURDER>

-- Marg (okay@cutaway.com), April 24, 2001.

Marg -

My God, get a grip!

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), April 24, 2001.


Insurance began as a simple concept: a group of homeowners got together and pooled their money against the chance that one or two of their homes might burn in a given year. They shared the risk and the cost.

This was then expanded to cover most common forms of loss: wind damage, lightning, water damage, and so on. But the basic principle was the same: a group of people pooled their money to help share the risk and cost for a few.

This question actually arose early on and is a classic in training classes for new agents: should an insurance company pay for preventive maintenance? For example, suppose you have an old tree that could blow down in a storm and damage your roof. In that case, the insurance company would have to pay (much more!) anyway, so why won't it pay to remove the tree beforehand?

Because the price of insurance is predicated on the fact that the average homeowner is (or at least should be!) responsible. He or she should show pride of ownership (that's one of the key things that an agent looks for when insuring a house: is the yard well-kept? Is there trash and debris lying around, or is the garage neat and clean?).

In plain English, a good agent is supposed to check for such a tree when underwriting the policy. If he/she sees it, they will say, "we can insure your home, but you need to do something about that tree."

If the insurance company DOES get involved in preventive maintenance, the price goes up. There ain't no free lunch.

The same principle applies to health insurance: a group of people pool their money against the possibility that a few of them might become very sick and need expensive treatment. But here, there IS the idea that it should pay for "preventive maintenance" (regular checkups, chronic prescriptions, etc.).

But this is also why health insurance is one of the most expensive types. Again: there ain't no free lunch.

If health insurance were true "insurance," it wouldn't pay for anything other than a direct loss (you got sick and required treatment). So, there's part of your problem: the original idea behind "insurance" has been distorted out of recognition by Americans who expect that health insurance should pay for routine care.

(What most Americans never seem to realize is that they're PAYING for that routine care, anyway, in the form of much higher premiums.)

(What they ALSO never seem to realize is that this approach is what has led to the horrible abuses of the HMOs, which are naturally going to try to cut the cost of providing that care in any way possible.)

(Again: there ain't no free lunch.)

Flint is on the money here (pun intended[g]). That pro-choice people would even SEE this as a pro/anti-abortion thing, rather than a question of what government (and insurance companies) should pay for, is evidence of just how far we've strayed from the original idea of a "pool of people" helping one another against a catastrophic loss.

If you wish to have an abortion, feel free to do so. But it is WRONG for you to expect me to pay for it. It's just that simple.

Whether you require me to pay for it by using part of my taxes, or part of my insurance premium, is irrelevant. In either case, you are asking me to pay for your reproductive choices.

It's WRONG.

-- An Insurance Agent (agent@insurance.net), April 24, 2001.


If taxes or your company are paying for pregnancy or for fertility treatments, "agent," then you already ARE paying for someone else's reproductive choices. And isn't that, as you said, "wrong?"

Or are you only opposed to paying for reproductive choices when women don't want to have children?

You can't have it both ways. Either pay for both, or pay for neither. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite. And I don't believe you are an insurance agent. Shall we dance?

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), April 24, 2001.


'That pro-choice people would even SEE this as a pro/anti-abortion thing, rather than a question of what government (and insurance companies) should pay for,..."

First, were talking about insurance covering contraception not abortion.

Second, who is SEEING WHAT here? Care to explain why Viagra is not being singled out? Blood pressure meds? Check ups?

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), April 24, 2001.


Insurance agent, no one is asking you to pay for abortions. In fact, contraception use is pretty much the best way to limit the amount of abortions that happened. Moreover, agreeing to pay for every other type of preventative care, but not contraception, is tantamount to insuring every room on a house but the porch. "We'll insure your home, and we'll charge the same amount of money for the value of your home as we would any other home of its value, but we won't cover your porch. If you decide to enclose your porch, then we'll pay for it, but until then, anything involving the porch is strictly not covered,"

What a silly way of doing business.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 24, 2001.


Tarzan:

I can't understand why you don't address the issue here. As the insurance agent was explaining, the more coverage you want, the more you pay. If you have an extra porch, your premium goes up. The guy insuring the big mansion up on the hill pays much more than you do for home insurance. Why do you consider that OK, but then turn around and say it's NOT OK that someone who wants extra health coverage should pay more?

As "agent" was trying to tell you, there is no free lunch. If you want the policy to pay for expenses you are *guaranteed* to incur, then OK, they'll do that but it costs much more. You're no longer talking about a risk pool, because there is no risk involved in a sure thing. You're simply adding layers of paperwork, and paying more to get someone else to handle what you should be handling yourself. A bad bargain for you, but insurance companies will gladly pocket the profit.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 24, 2001.


Already Done Happened,

If taxes or your company are paying for pregnancy or for fertility treatments, "agent," then you already ARE paying for someone else's reproductive choices ...

No, because pregnancy is a specific medical condition. Infertility is a specific illness. Health insurance SHOULD pay for the treatment of illness -- but nothing more.

The argument could be made that insurance pays for regular checkups in order to reduce its costs later on (because catching a disease in its early stages is always better than waiting until it's advanced). But even that opens a slippery slope that results in JUST what we're talking about here: we expect health insurance to basically provide us with "free" health care.

(Which, once again, is anything BUT "free," but I learned years ago that I was wasting my breath trying to make Joe Public see that.)

-- An Insurance Agent (agent@insurance.net), April 25, 2001.


Debra,

I don't think health insurance should pay for Viagra.

-- An Insurance Agent (agent@insurance.net), April 25, 2001.


Debra,

Viagra is being used as a specific treatment for a specific disease (impotence). You're deliberately comparing apples and oranges because you just want insurance to pay for abortion and are willing to twist logic to any length to get that.

-- An Insurance Agent (agent@insurance.net), April 25, 2001.


Insurance Agent --

Is it not the case that preventive care and prophylaxis REDUCE the incidence of serious disease, thereby lowering health care costs and improving general public health? And is this not borne out by numerous studies?

If preventive care costs less in the long run and reduces the need for more costly major medical intervention, then I'm all for it. More healthy people and reduced health-care costs? Sounds like a win- win all around.

I said "If taxes or your company are paying for pregnancy or for fertility treatments, "agent," then you already ARE paying for someone else's reproductive choices ..."

And that's a fact. You SPECIFICALLY objected to paying for someone's reproductive choices when birth control was involved. However, you don't object to the FAR MORE COSTLY ROUTE of paying for pregnancy- related costs when a woman becomes gravid. Your argument refutes itself.

"The argument could be made that insurance pays for regular checkups in order to reduce its costs later on (because catching a disease in its early stages is always better than waiting until it's advanced)."

That argument has been made. You object to paying for certain treatments, regardless of their cost, yet you don't bat an eyelash at alternatives that cost several times more. You simply can't have it both ways, Agent. Either you're against huge costs, or cost is not a factor in your argument at all.

"Viagra is being used as a specific treatment for a specific disease (impotence). You're deliberately comparing apples and oranges because you just want insurance to pay for abortion and are willing to twist logic to any length to get that."

I should observe that your claims and arguments to this point do not support your claim of being an insurance agent. Further, you invoke the unsupportable claim that Debra is 'twisting logic,' and you seem so dead-set against anything smacking of birth control or abortion that I have to ask straight out -- are you, in fact, pro-life? And aren't your personal views clouding your (allegedly professional) judgment? Sauce for the goose, Agent.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), April 25, 2001.


Wow, you are hard of reading, Flint. I have no issue with paying more for more coverage. However, simply refusing to cover something regardless of premiums paid is ridiculous.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 25, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ