With all the challenges this nation faces ie staggering debt, stifling unemployment, stagnant housing markets, and the increasing chasm between the ultra-wealthy and everyone else, the U.S. Senate is acting like it's the 1950s.
Fluke's testimony came on the heels of the Senate defeated Blunt Amendment that was tacked onto a transportation bill of all things! The amendment would have allowed employers to deny medical coverage to their employees if they [the employer] have religious or moral objections to a medical procedure the employee might want or need. In effect, Senator Blunt of Missouri is using women and their rights as a tactic to try to undermine Obama and his national health care plan. I do not agree with Obama, nor do I agree with all pieces and parts of the Healthcare Reform Act, but it gets me very riled to see a woman's right to govern her own medical care, body, and reproductive system once again being used as a tool by a body consisting of [almost] 100% males.
As far as the statement about 'other things' can be used to control cystic acne, heavy bleeding, etc., that is true in some cases. But guess what? Those other modalities carry a staggering cost in comparison to birth control/hormones and many of them are horrid on the organs and can have longterm affects. Would you want YOUR wife, partner, daughter, or mother put at such great risk?
The amendment had NO business being put forth to begin with, but what really galls me is the sheer hypocrisy of it all. Insurers cover sex-aid medications for men and I'm not hearing any 'moral objections' from hypothetical employers. So it's acceptable for men through medical insurance to get aid in sex, but not for women to control when or even if they get pregnant? It seems as if the conservatives have not bothered to consider the consequences of no birth control. We cannot feed a great percentage of adults and they now want to add more babies to the 'mix'?! Why am I NOT hearing a corresponding cry for affordable child care?
It is odd how you present the Blunt Amendment as: "The amendment would have allowed employers to deny medical coverage to their employees if they [the employer] have religious or moral objections to a medical procedure the employee might want or need" when it simply would allow employers to opt out of the coverage requirement for things they had moral objection to. I agree that women are being used as a tool, and it is by the Democratic Party.
As an analogy to "right to choose" I would like to put forth this question to you. If I forage through your larger for my food, can I then accuse you of infringing upon my "right to choose" what food I want to eat simply because you don't stack your larder with what I like?
I ask you why these 'other things' are more costly in their single specific form then they are when tacked onto a product that has nothing to do with them? Wouldn't it be best served to have a product that is designed for its purpose to be cheaper and better at that than a product that isn't designed for that purpose? This seems like some sort of scam to me.
Insurers should be allowed to cover what ever they want to, and I echo what sigmapi1501 said in that regard. I think it is ridiculous for insurance to cover sex-aid medication as well. Most people should never need insurance. Those that purchase it, 99% of the time, should expect to pay out and never use it. It is an emergency luxury item that should cost more in total than it pays out in total and if it is anything else but that then it is unstable and a sham. I said this before and will repeat it, most peoples opinions regarding health insurance is the same as if I felt like my auto insurance should cover the cost of fuel. Such thoughts of insurance make it no longer insurance and entirely wealth redistribution.
In response to your "consequence of no more birth control" I ask you, should we give free crack and heroin and other drugs to those that use them? Just think of the consequences for all the crimes they commit because we don't. Why don't we hire underage Asian prostitutes for all the Pedophiles out there too while we are at it. I tell you now that you cannot hold me responsible for another persons crime and it is pathetic and ridiculous to even suggest that.
I am opposed to the entire Unconstitutional health care act/bill/crime. I will not participate and will not be forced to either. Anyone that tries to force me to do this and attempts to take away my freedom is likely to wind up with a severe case of dead. I imagine that might sound like crazy talk to some, but it isn't. It isn't angry talk either. It is the cold honest truth. Nobody is going to make me into a slave and anyone that has ever felt their freedom in jeopardy will understand exactly what I mean. There are far worse things in life than not having all the rubbers you can use for 'free'.
This reply may be a little late, timewise, but this is the first chance I've had to really sit and write it - weekends are not free time for me.
As an analogy to "right to choose" I would like to put forth this question to you. If I forage through your larger for my food, can I then accuse you of infringing upon my "right to choose" what food I want to eat simply because you don't stack your larder with what I like?
I didn't mention "right to choose" and your analogy of the 'larder foraging' isn't really applicable to this, but I see where you're taking it.
I ask you why these 'other things' are more costly in their single specific form then they are when tacked onto a product that has nothing to do with them? Wouldn't it be best served to have a product that is designed for its purpose to be cheaper and better at that than a product that isn't designed for that purpose? This seems like some sort of scam to me.
I don't think you want, or would even understand it, if I were to go through the cost to cost comparison of very expensive procedures and treatments vs taking a [much lower costwise] BC pill for primary and secondary dysmenorrhea and/or endometriosis, polycystic ovarian syndrome, cystic acne....could go on, but won't. The point is, I know what I am talking about, but you want to throw out opinions on a subject you know very little about and that was blatantly clear when you wrote: "Wouldn't it be best served to have a product that is designed for its purpose to be cheaper and better at that than a product that isn't designed for that purpose?" There is NO way, at this time, to make a 'product' that will treat all these things. That is why BC pills, like 100's of other medications, fall under off-label uses and you can't argue that the pills are NOT more cost effective for these uses than repetitive surgeries, having to deal with other problems that will occur if the conditions are left untreated (unable to bear children, 'setting the body up' as a willing and prime environment for cervical, breast, kidney, bladder cancer, many more problems), the dangers of drugs such as Accutane and others (for acne), and all the hospital, office visits that would be needed in most cases for years. So, which one is 'cheaper'?
Insurers should be allowed to cover what ever they want to, and I echo what sigmapi1501 said in that regard. I think it is ridiculous for insurance to cover sex-aid medication as well. Most people should never need insurance. Those that purchase it, 99% of the time, should expect to pay out and never use it. It is an emergency luxury item that should cost more in total than it pays out in total and if it is anything else but that then it is unstable and a sham. I said this before and will repeat it, most peoples opinions regarding health insurance is the same as if I felt like my auto insurance should cover the cost of fuel. Such thoughts of insurance make it no longer insurance and entirely wealth redistribution.
Insurers DO cover what they want. Employers, however, should NOT have the 'power' to dictate or pick and choose which women they like or
feel are living by the same religious and moral guidelines the employer is. And why should I, any woman, have to beg for and justify the need for BC methods that are not necessarily being used ONLY to prevent pregnancy? I think it's only fair that a male employee should have to sit in the Human Resource office and explain all the details of why they are unable to 'perform' in bed and describe just how that makes THEM feel. The company will want to know this so they can contact their health insurance carrier for the employee. Wow, insurance falls under the category of "luxury item"? I am not even bothering with that one.
In response to your "consequence of no more birth control" I ask you, should we give free crack and heroin and other drugs to those that use them? Just think of the consequences for all the crimes they commit because we don't. Why don't we hire underage Asian prostitutes for all the Pedophiles out there too while we are at it. I tell you now that you cannot hold me responsible for another persons crime and it is pathetic and ridiculous to even suggest that.
Now you're being petulant. The comparison above re free crack and heroin and the crimes that will be commited vs what I was extrapolating ie more unwanted children, a bigger burden on taxpayers than we already have, and my asking why free childcare for parents that have too many kids and can't afford daycare isn't mentioned. That IS a very relevant observation, suggestion. "I tell you now that you cannot hold me responsible for another persons crime and it is pathetic and ridiculous to even suggest that." Please show me exactly where I suggested that - without going back to the ridiculous handing out of illegal drugs.
I highly doubt you have read the entire Healthcare Reform Bill and ongoing revisions like I have. Scratch that. I know you haven't, it's glaringly apparent in your 'opinions'. I am NOT backing the da*n thing and don't know any colleagues who are either. We have been collectively thrown under the bus for decades as a result of Medicaid and Medicare. Something in this country's healthcare and insurance options has to change. There is far too much disparity between the honest users of it and the dishonest abusers of it! I can't keep track anymore of the amount of time I waste calling, faxing, and pleading with insurance review boards and especially when the person responsible for determining whether a drug should be allowed or used in an off label manner has zero experience in medicine, they are glorified bean counters.
The 'wonderful new health reform' Obama pushed through is just going to add more burden on the backs of all it touches and especially those who practice medicine - it doesn't contain any hoops we have not already jumped through, but it makes the hoops a whole lot smaller. As a result of the astounding cost for longterm oncological treatment, many [most actually] families are financially wiped out and have drained all available assets they possibly can. I have many patients who are under Medicare/Medicaid as far as their health insurance. Most doctors who treat patients with Medicare/Medicaid accept assignment, which means they agree to accept the government approved amount as payment in full. What this equates to (giving an example here) is my being paid $11,000.00 for treatment that costs $55,000.00. Surely you can see the disparity here, yes? I will not argue that charges are sometimes excessive, but I have NO control over what the medications, equipment, diagnostics, support staff (anesthesiologist, nurses, etc.) 'cost'; they need to be reimbursed/paid also and much of that comes out of 'my pocket' in the sense that I receive even less than the 20% allowable payment. There are times when the amount of hours I put into each case/patient ends up being very close to a 'wash' for me. Wonder if that's why so many of us go ape crazy when we receive the latest rundown on medicare and medicaid over billing and fraud. It gives the health care field a bad name and there are certainly enough people bit**ing about what 'we' charge to begin with!
If you can go through life never needing insurance and have enough assets to cover your health needs if an unexpected emergency presents, that's great for you. Families with children really cannot risk that. They never know if one day they'll be told their beautiful 3 year old or their 17 year old 'jock' has just been diagnosed with a life threatening disease that will equate to 100's of thousands in cost to keep them [hopefully] alive.
Community Forum
Topic: Sandra Fluke Testimony (Read 6802 times)
May 02, 2010, 07:39:25 am
