Notices
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 256
Like Tree90Likes

Thread: A.H.A. forces immoral conditions

  1. #1 A.H.A. forces immoral conditions 
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Affordable Health Care act has been top of the news as of late. The most recent storm from the news includes the U.S. Supreme court to hear on the contraceptive challenges, undertaking two appeals court cases resulting in two different conclusions.

    Justices will hear contraception challenge to Obamacare
    Supreme Court to take up Obamacare contraception case - CNN.com
    Supreme Court to hear challenge over ObamaCare contraception mandate | Fox News

    My question is, why should for-profit businesses be forced to undertake a position of moral uncertainty when the owners are clearly unwilling?
    So to point out, this is not some owner trying to get away from taxes, minimum wage, or deal in some illegal and fraudulent finances...so it has nothing to do with those things. If you see it otherwise, please explain how it might first.

    a perspective against:

    1. to clarify moral uncertainty. Contraceptives/Abortion are things that have no clear answer. opinions differ wildly amongst Americans and the world abroad. Even for those who support these things, do not share the exact same thoughts on how they should be governed. Since these things are in themselves uncertain, they are things of "moral uncertainty."

    2. there has been a biased contradiction from supports, some of whom have been the same to demonstrate against or show a disliking towards the idea that businesses are their own financial entity (popular term used is person despite how incorrect it is). Who mock this perception but hail it, with ignorance, when it comes to something they like or support. Example: Obama. He mocked his opponent during the presidential race for the very same idea, but him and his supporters have indicated the very same reasoning for the support of the mandates.

    So I must explain, that some companies (not all) are financially separate from their owners/employers/employees as they are separate in terms of legal liability. The "liability" refers to legal responsibility any owners have when it comes to a law suit - in which the company suffers financially, but the owner(s) may not (depending on the situation).

    And so it should be stated...

    Although some companies are their own financial entity, it can not make decisions on its own. Instead, these decisions are made by very human owners. In no business class (taken) has it ever been explained, nor could it logically be explained opposite of that very fact. That the owners, and in some cases employees, make the decisions. this makes for-profit or non-profit an intricate human hub. As many humans do, these owners operate their company according to their own morals. There can never be any separation. their company is their life as much as it is their livelihood.

    In order to operate in any industry an owner must bid full attention. this includes his entire self - often putting family and social (friends and such) responsibilities aside, but never personal responsibilities whether religious or societal. If, however, that owner must take a part of his/her own character apart and separate from him/her self, it creates a two faced individual struggling to be two different persons (one he/she must put on an act for). It is well known that when pressure and obstacles dealing with highly moral grounds adds tremendous stress. Possibly making it unbearable to work.

    8 Ways Stress Is More Dangerous Than You Think

    The above paragraph is to outline a line in the sand, drawn out by the mandates. If an owner does not comply then the company will suffer fees/fines just for following his/her own personal beliefs (following the 1st Amendment). For some, the financial separation of entity and owner helps keep a company alive longer than most small businesses, but the "do or die" enforcement is still very red. While sole proprietors and partnerships will be forced to pay out of pocket (the owner's own personal bank accounts). Again creating a "do or die" mentality in which owners...humans with families and other responsibilities must decide moral integrity vs. spiritual heart break*.

    Small Business Trends | SBA.gov
    "23 million small businesses"

    [*note: "spiritual heart break" refers to the overwhelming importance of spiritual clarity as defined in "Connect Core Concepts in Health" in which is moral standards. If broken or w/o standards a person is spiritually poor and their well being is threatened, as a person's well being is compiled of several attributes including mental, physical, social, and spiritual]
    By now, hopefully we agree that the mandates affect persons/owners directly and not financial entities. Owners who have been keeping alive family tradition for decades or abiding dreams for the first few years. To force these people, these humans, to act "do or die" with their own company, their own livelihood, is absurd as it is dangerous to the economy.

    For this very reason, no owner should be forced into a do or die situation with their company by the govt. Forced into a corner to punish integrity.

    It should also be pointed out that since the passing of federal and state laws to protect pregnancy rights of women, owners are not included in a family's own personal decisions on pregnancy. Do these mandates not force owner's to be placed right back into the worker's house hold. Is this not contradictory?


    Last edited by chero; December 1st, 2013 at 02:21 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    Another ridiculous challenge.

    In this case position based on the supposition that a company can have a religion--an another interesting idea since given more recent rulings of corporations rights to free speech. Considering the Supreme has already struck down individuals claims for contraception based on religious ground--it will be pretty far fetched if they hold the corporations have this right.


    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,276
    Healthcare should never be a for-profit organization.

    It's one of the few things I feel very strongly about.
    Ascended and jocular like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    Healthcare should never be a for-profit organization.

    It's one of the few things I feel very strongly about.
    If not for profit our medicines would probably still be 1960s. No thanks.
    babe likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Another ridiculous challenge.

    In this case position based on the supposition that a company can have a religion--an another interesting idea since given more recent rulings of corporations rights to free speech. Considering the Supreme has already struck down individuals claims for contraception based on religious ground--it will be pretty far fetched if they hold the corporations have this right.
    the position is that a person - the owner (not business) - has a religion and acts according to his/her morals (regardless to what those morals are based on) in every day life. This includes education, raising kids, and - in this case - operating a business. Having a job is no different and should not be considered any different then walking down the street.

    point in case. when crossing cultural communication, a business person must reach outside their own culture, not beliefs. Religious owners have already done all of this, w/o confining their own religious beliefs.

    the mandates forces owners to provide the health care, not just the business.

    non-profits and other organizations no longer need to provide contraception w/in their provided health care, nor pay for it.

    what individual claims have been struck down? I don't remember the supreme court hearing on any individual claims.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    Healthcare should never be a for-profit organization.

    It's one of the few things I feel very strongly about.
    How do you think "contraception" or any surgery or medicine is provided or created? even in a health care system like Canada's there is a for-profit company making, providing all things necessary for it to happen. someone makes money. If you do not like for-profit organizations dipping their beak in medicine, then do not support a national health care system. think about it. the govt goes to the lowest bidder (who rise prices later) and normally stays with them. that creates a monopoly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    the govt goes to the lowest bidder (who rise prices later) and normally stays with them. that creates a monopoly.
    Not in Australia. The price is negotiated with the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme people. If the supplier wants more, they have to renegotiate the contract and then they may find themselves competing with someone who can offer a lower price. The US "free trade" negotiators have tried to undercut this system to favour their pharmaceutical industry but, so far, we've held out against any significant changes.
    babe likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    the position is that a person - the owner (not business) - has a religion and acts according to his/her morals (regardless to what those morals are based on) in every day life. This includes education, raising kids, and - in this case - operating a business.

    Having a job is no different and should not be considered any different then walking down the street.
    And one of those protections is Hobby Lobby, nor any other corporation can practice religious discrimination against them--this is quite likely to be some of the questions also brought forth by the Supreme Court during the hearings as well.

    point in case. when crossing cultural communication, a business person must reach outside their own culture, not beliefs. Religious owners have already done all of this, w/o confining their own religious beliefs.
    This is pretty far fetched and amounts to an argument that: Customers won't come to be store, because the corporation is forced to offer the same coverage as every other businesses and there's a chance one of our employees, who by the way can't use their religion as a test of employment, probably won't use the service anyhow"

    non-profits and other organizations no longer need to provide contraception w/in their provided health care, nor pay for it.
    Not true. They can not be made to provide the service directly BUT are still compelled to share in the health insurance coverage that DOES offer contraceptive services.

    what individual claims have been struck down? I don't remember the supreme court hearing on any individual claims.
    In large part this will boil down to whether the new law substantially burdens anyones free exercise of their (presumable the corporations's) religion. It is hard to see any solid argument that it does.

    --it's not an individual, it is a corporation--not entitled to religious protection especially as a for-profit company.

    --the corporation cannot restrict the religiosity of it's employees, especially as it pertains to their private lives

    --no customers will even know whether or not an employee uses any of the contraceptive services offered by what ever health insurance plan the corporation uses--in fact there is robust and significant health care privacy laws in place--not even the employer will know.


    babe likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    I really want to weigh in on this (my wife works for a catholic hospital and we've been mired in this whole birth control issue), but I'm just going to keep reading for a bit to see where it goes. I'm so sick of the same talking points on this issue. I just want to be able to use ALL of the insurance plan to which we subscribe.
    jocular and babe like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    the govt goes to the lowest bidder (who rise prices later) and normally stays with them. that creates a monopoly.
    Not in Australia. The price is negotiated with the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme people. If the supplier wants more, they have to renegotiate the contract and then they may find themselves competing with someone who can offer a lower price. The US "free trade" negotiators have tried to undercut this system to favour their pharmaceutical industry but, so far, we've held out against any significant changes.
    thanks for the added information.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    abortion is murder
    but all women have this right
    and thus it should be
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    And one of those protections is Hobby Lobby, nor any other corporation can practice religious discrimination against them--this is quite likely to be some of the questions also brought forth by the Supreme Court during the hearings as well.
    Can you clarify this?

    point in case. when crossing cultural communication, a business person must reach outside their own culture, not beliefs. Religious owners have already done all of this, w/o confining their own religious beliefs.
    This is pretty far fetched and amounts to an argument that: Customers won't come to be store, because the corporation is forced to offer the same coverage as every other businesses and there's a chance one of our employees, who by the way can't use their religion as a test of employment, probably won't use the service anyhow"
    when doing business cultures clash. When communicating with a different culture than your own, it is correct practice for a employer/employee to conduct themselves according to that culture or somewhere in the middle as to not express disrespect and to be able to communicate clearly with a potential customer (or investor). Miscommunication can lead to and has lead to the disruption of trade/transaction.

    This is an example of how sometimes what a person is used to culturally may be put on hold or temporarily not practiced for company needs. Culture is not the same thing as morals, however. When communicating across culture lines, putting your morals on hold is not required. My point behind this is to show that in normal business adventures - our morals are not over looked. Only in illegal activities or fraudulent activities is a person confronted morally, ethical dilemma. Now the govt. is introducing an ethical dilemma when there has been a history of laws being made to diminish ethical dilemma's and help both employees/employers act morally.

    These things showcase that normal businesses do not restrict or refine a person's moral guidance. It is not about how customers will react, but the backward message and ideal behind forcing a businessperson to choice between work or faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Not true. They can not be made to provide the service directly BUT are still compelled to share in the health insurance coverage that DOES offer contraceptive services.
    Insurers who provide coverage for religious nonprofits, or companies that administer the benefits, will provide contraceptive coverage without cost to the organization or its workers should the group object on religious grounds, the government said yesterday.
    Critics Want More Exemptions From U.S. Birth-Control Rule - Bloomberg

    Religious employers are exempt from providing contraceptive coverage if the employer has religious objections.
    Proposed Rule Addresses Contraceptive Mandate for Non-profit Religious Organizations | Cigna

    Did I miss something? does the above articles explain that coverage is not payed for? That the coverage is not mandatory? there is no indirect coverage currently present as that would still mean it is covered.

    In large part this will boil down to whether the new law substantially burdens anyones free exercise of their (presumable the corporations's) religion. It is hard to see any solid argument that it does.

    --it's not an individual, it is a corporation--not entitled to religious protection especially as a for-profit company.

    --the corporation cannot restrict the religiosity of it's employees, especially as it pertains to their private lives

    --no customers will even know whether or not an employee uses any of the contraceptive services offered by what ever health insurance plan the corporation uses--in fact there is robust and significant health care privacy laws in place--not even the employer will know.

    This did not answer my question of what individual claims have been struck down. "Individual claims" referring to a law suit. I have not seen a law suit brought up by individuals or a group of individuals as most can not afford a law suit.
    were you using "individual claims" differently?




    A Woman's Health Care Decisions Should Be in Her Own Hands, Not Her Boss's | The White House
    ABOVE:
    Once more (as with federal laws protecting women, in preventing employers from both influencing decisions and financing decisions) the white house gives the impression that boss's should stay from the confines of a worker's procreation. Yet, A boss must pay to cover practices to prevent procreation, by means that which are ethically/morally uncertain? How is that fair? How is that affordable?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    abortion is murder
    but all women have this right
    and thus it should be
    We are not getting into that right now. just whether or not I or you or anyone else should pay for something morally uncertain.
    During slavery era, states who deemed it immoral to have slavery had the ability to chose not to. Should we not have the same ability? to either have state or personal decision on supporting what we want to support?

    edit:
    perhaps I misread your post. If you are stating that because people have the ability to do something, it should be made available to them...no. besides, if what you want is not provided then get it some other way. that option should have been available. a compromise should have been written up instead of a one sided take it or leave scenario.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    I really want to weigh in on this (my wife works for a catholic hospital and we've been mired in this whole birth control issue), but I'm just going to keep reading for a bit to see where it goes. I'm so sick of the same talking points on this issue. I just want to be able to use ALL of the insurance plan to which we subscribe.
    with whom do you subscribe from?

    what talking points are you sick of? maybe some things can be summarized from both sides and just move on to different points?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    I really want to weigh in on this (my wife works for a catholic hospital and we've been mired in this whole birth control issue), but I'm just going to keep reading for a bit to see where it goes. I'm so sick of the same talking points on this issue. I just want to be able to use ALL of the insurance plan to which we subscribe.
    Clue me here. Are Catholic Hospitals considered non-profit organizations? Or, rather, a business run by the Church under it's non-profit status? joc
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    We are not getting into that right now. just whether or not I or you or anyone else should pay for something morally uncertain.
    The morality issue, to me, is whether it is morally acceptable forb Government to force all citizens (itself excluded, of course!) to purchase a product, ANY product. jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,276
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    Healthcare should never be a for-profit organization.

    It's one of the few things I feel very strongly about.
    If not for profit our medicines would probably still be 1960s. No thanks.
    Oh I disagree.

    I'm sure I've heard that countries that have a free healthcare system are usually better than those countries without one. I think we can all agree that the USA isn't really a world leader when it comes to the quality of their healthcare.

    I think that companies who care more about providing a profit for their shareholders than they do about providing a service, especially when that service is of vital importance to general health and wellbeing, only leads to bad things such as cutting corners and general unfriendly practices.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,591
    How is providing a basic medical service immoral?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    Can you clarify this?


    Someone of any religion, or no religion at all may work for Hobby Lobby (or any other company) and they cannot discriminate against them on the basis of their religion. They can apply no religious test.

    It's not even clear more of their employees are of the same religion as the owners....this alone would cause it to fail the test to be exempt..EVEN IF it were a non-profit....which is isn't.

    when doing business cultures clash.

    That is a mockery for Hobby Lobby. I've bought stuff from them before and their web site doesn't' even refer to religion. It's a sham for them to pretend otherwise.

    This would fail another test...Even if they were a non-profit...they do not nor advertise, or do business with people primarily of their own religion.
    Hobby Lobby - Hobby Lobby

    These things showcase that normal businesses do not restrict or refine a person's moral guidance.

    What moral guidance? The owners would not and cannot even know whether one of their employees used the service. Are they in fear of their own imaginations....are we supposed to base law and rights on things we imagine might be happening? Things that are complete legal? I hope not.


    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    How is providing a basic medical service immoral?
    You have your morals, other people are different. That's the point. The statist solution always forces people to conform.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    I really want to weigh in on this (my wife works for a catholic hospital and we've been mired in this whole birth control issue), but I'm just going to keep reading for a bit to see where it goes. I'm so sick of the same talking points on this issue. I just want to be able to use ALL of the insurance plan to which we subscribe.
    Clue me here. Are Catholic Hospitals considered non-profit organizations? Or, rather, a business run by the Church under it's non-profit status? joc
    Non-profit

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-and...b_3567095.html
    Last edited by chero; December 2nd, 2013 at 11:57 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    How is providing a basic medical service immoral?
    How is it basic? Are these things just another check-up? Not everyone partakes, and even if every woman or man did would not create a "basic" service. medicines are complex and induced abortion may lead to increase miscarriage risks in women.
    Induced abortion and risk of subsequent miscarriage
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Someone of any religion, or no religion at all may work for Hobby Lobby (or any other company) and they cannot discriminate against them on the basis of their religion. They can apply no religious test.
    Oh!
    It's not even clear more of their employees are of the same religion as the owners....this alone would cause it to fail the test to be exempt..EVEN IF it were a non-profit....which is isn't.
    What would this have to do with whether or not the owners belief themselves to being unable to comply with paying for and providing something they feel is unsafe and immoral? would we not want this integrity in our culture? think of all the recalls and drug law suits that have occurred simply because no body sought to do whats right or simply question what was being sold. well I guess that goes into another topic, but whether or not Hobby Lobby or any business practices affirmative action does not imply as it should not a company's inability to act according to its owner(s) vision/desire.

    Hobby Lobby is a huge franchise, but is not held by stockholders such as larger corporations. there is no contradiction in ownership either.

    when doing business cultures clash.
    That is a mockery for Hobby Lobby. I've bought stuff from them before and their web site doesn't' even refer to religion. It's a sham for them to pretend otherwise.
    Does it need to? No web site or group needs to commercialize religion in order to have the owners follow it. if anything, not expressing Christianity or any religion expresses truth to my comment. Hobby Lobby has been competing and participating in the private sector by crossing cultural barriers, part of that would be impression.

    no where do they nor any Christian groups says, members or everything members do have to have a cross on it. its only a person's behavior that is encouraged to be "Christian". Otherwise, posting your religion or non religion on top your own company is up to you.

    This would fail another test...Even if they were a non-profit...they do not nor advertise, or do business with people primarily of their own religion.
    Hobby Lobby - Hobby Lobby
    you don't have to in business and you don't have to in religion. different religions are known to doing business together, that is example of communication across cultural barriers.

    http://ec.europa.eu/languages/docume...borders_en.pdf

    What moral guidance? The owners would not and cannot even know whether one of their employees used the service. Are they in fear of their own imaginations....are we supposed to base law and rights on things we imagine might be happening? Things that are complete legal? I hope not.
    Its not about what another person does, its about what you do compared to your own morals. its what I do according to my own morals. that's how morals work. it is a guide/rules according to religion, science, experience, etc. to be used by our own selves both during times of question or not (kind of like war and peace).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,591
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    How is providing a basic medical service immoral?
    How is it basic? Are these things just another check-up? Not everyone partakes, and even if every woman or man did would not create a "basic" service. medicines are complex and induced abortion may lead to increase miscarriage risks in women.
    Induced abortion and risk of subsequent miscarriage
    Contraception IS considered basic health care. It is a multipurpose medicine that is taken for the regulation and treatment of a number of body factors.
    Flick Montana and babe like this.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,591
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    How is providing a basic medical service immoral?
    You have your morals, other people are different. That's the point. The statist solution always forces people to conform.
    in what circumstances is general birthcontrol/contraception not a basic medical service?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    How is providing a basic medical service immoral?
    How is it basic? Are these things just another check-up? Not everyone partakes, and even if every woman or man did would not create a "basic" service. medicines are complex and induced abortion may lead to increase miscarriage risks in women.
    Induced abortion and risk of subsequent miscarriage
    Contraception IS considered basic health care. It is a multipurpose medicine that is taken for the regulation and treatment of a number of body factors.
    First Lady: Cost-Free Contraception Is
    Access to Contraception is Basic Health Care. Don't Let Religious Organizations Limit Access

    congradulations, you have done the same thing as most contraception supporters: restated your own claim. it is only "basic" to supporters so I must ask again.

    why are these things basic?

    There are a lot of medicines and procedures that have more than one purpose, but are not "basic." being multipurpose does not appear to be a characteristic unique to something that which is basic and does not clarify a procedure or drug as basic.

    I think it would be important to acknowledge that these things are only being refereed to as basic now. it is being compared to cancer-preventive care now (or in the past few years or so). how does something all of a sudden become "basic"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    How is providing a basic medical service immoral?
    You have your morals, other people are different. That's the point. The statist solution always forces people to conform.
    in what circumstances is general birthcontrol/contraception not a basic medical service?
    In the circumstance that someone has a moral objection to paying for it. Also there is no reason whatsoever to have it paid for by insurance rather than the user paying for it directly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Also there is no reason whatsoever to have it paid for by insurance rather than the user paying for it directly.
    There is if it is part of the health care plan I signed up for, but my employer refuses to allow me to access that part of the plan.

    If not covered by insurance, birth control (pills) could be prohibitively expensive for some.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Also there is no reason whatsoever to have it paid for by insurance rather than the user paying for it directly.
    There is if it is part of the health care plan I signed up for, but my employer refuses to allow me to access that part of the plan.
    What?

    If not covered by insurance, birth control (pills) could be prohibitively expensive for some.
    You'll never convince me that birth control is an appropriate subject for insurance coverage. You already know if you're planning to use birth control. Insurance is for unforeseen events.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Then insurance shouldn't cover intentional child birth?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Then insurance shouldn't cover intentional child birth?
    That's a different situation. You may plan for child birth, but it's not a certainty, and you never know what complications may arise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Then insurance shouldn't cover intentional child birth?
    That's a different situation. You may plan for child birth, but it's not a certainty, and you never know what complications may arise.
    A woman who is not in a relationship and does not take birth control does not plan to be in a relationship and taking birth control. It is just a product of the circumstances.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Also there is no reason whatsoever to have it paid for by insurance rather than the user paying for it directly.
    There is if it is part of the health care plan I signed up for, but my employer refuses to allow me to access that part of the plan.
    How do you sign up for a health care plan that is not accessible by an employer? Employers offer insurance to employees and have had total say on who that insurance company is and what coverage that employer will also pay into. this has always been totally optional. you could opt out of the insurance coverage, get more pay and get your own coverage with whom ever you want. that is my experience with this at least. the new prohibition changes a lot though.

    so is this situation hypothetical as it could happen?


    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    A woman who is not in a relationship and does not take birth control does not plan to be in a relationship and taking birth control. It is just a product of the circumstances.
    what part of that is a product of circumstance?


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    That's a different situation. You may plan for child birth, but it's not a certainty, and you never know what complications may arise.
    Must there be a plan invovled in order to have health insurance cover an incident or occurance?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Every time my wife goes to CVS to get her birth control pills, they try to put it on our insurance (which covers birth control), but the hospital won't pay for it.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Then insurance shouldn't cover intentional child birth?
    That's a different situation. You may plan for child birth, but it's not a certainty, and you never know what complications may arise.
    A woman who is not in a relationship and does not take birth control does not plan to be in a relationship and taking birth control. It is just a product of the circumstances.
    You're not telling me a woman is capable of going without sex and not requiring birth control pills are you? I thought it was a basic health service.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chero
    Must there be a plan invovled in order to have health insurance cover an incident or occurance?
    No, you can buy health insurance that covers expected recurring expenses if you want. It's just a silly thing to do, and there's no reason for the government to mandate it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Then insurance shouldn't cover intentional child birth?
    That's a different situation. You may plan for child birth, but it's not a certainty, and you never know what complications may arise.
    A woman who is not in a relationship and does not take birth control does not plan to be in a relationship and taking birth control. It is just a product of the circumstances.
    You're not telling me a woman is capable of going without sex and not requiring birth control pills are you? I thought it was a basic health service.
    A woman is also capable of avoiding contact with other human beings entirely so as to reduce the risk of pathogen transfer. How far do we want to take this ridiculous notion that birth control is not a part of overall well-being simply because it conflicts with the archaic morals of a minority?

    Not only are birth control pills effective against combating unwanted pregnancy, but some also reduce acne problems or limit periods to one every three months. They aren't just little blue baby-killers.
    babe likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    You'll never convince me that birth control is an appropriate subject for insurance coverage. You already know if you're planning to use birth control. Insurance is for unforeseen events.
    So you're a couple who've had all the children you ever want and one or more of those children happens to be a girl. Who in the fullness of time reaches puberty. And then needs "birth control" pills when she's 13 or 14 years old because of painful periods or some hormonal process being out of whack. And your ordinary everyday health cover doesn't accommodate that? That's just silly. Or an adult woman is diagnosed with any one of a dozen conditions that are best treated with "birth control" pills. That's not covered? Equally silly.

    And for the purposes of running an insurance company profitably, having routine coverage for something not at all expensive in order to reduce the risk of something that could be very expensive makes economic sense. Pregnancy and birth and adding another person to a family covered by a policy is much more expensive than providing a few years of routine prescriptions to prevent (unexpected) pregnancies.

    Insurance is for unforeseen events.
    I find that a bit of an odd way to put it. Insurance is entirely about spreading the costs and the risks of statistically foreseeable but individually unpredictable events across time and across the whole group of people likely to suffer the events in question.

    Cars do crash or get stolen or vandalised. Houses do get damaged by storms or flooded or burned or vandalised or burglarised. Crops are lost through frost, drought, flood and other weather events. People do get sick and have accidents. All these things are entirely "predictable" from the point of view of the insurance agency - that's what actuaries are for, to calculate those risks and those costs and the premiums result from those actuarial calculations. From the point of view of the individual policy holder, they're not so predictable. But a manageable, regular payment by lots and lots of people is a much better proposition than everyone trying to save the money needed to replace their houses, cars and other property at a moment's notice. And the same goes for healthcare.
    babe likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Then insurance shouldn't cover intentional child birth?
    That's a different situation. You may plan for child birth, but it's not a certainty, and you never know what complications may arise.
    A woman who is not in a relationship and does not take birth control does not plan to be in a relationship and taking birth control. It is just a product of the circumstances.
    You're not telling me a woman is capable of going without sex and not requiring birth control pills are you? I thought it was a basic health service.
    A woman is also capable of avoiding contact with other human beings entirely so as to reduce the risk of pathogen transfer. How far do we want to take this ridiculous notion that birth control is not a part of overall well-being simply because it conflicts with the archaic morals of a minority?
    You are confirming my suspicion that you lack respect for some people's moral beliefs.
    Not only are birth control pills effective against combating unwanted pregnancy, but some also reduce acne problems or limit periods to one every three months. They aren't just little blue baby-killers.
    If they are being used for some other purpose, then they aren't birth control pills. I don't think even archaically moral people would object to that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    And for the purposes of running an insurance company profitably, having routine coverage for something not at all expensive in order to reduce the risk of something that could be very expensive makes economic sense. Pregnancy and birth and adding another person to a family covered by a policy is much more expensive than providing a few years of routine prescriptions to prevent (unexpected) pregnancies.
    The expense isn't the issue. It's the moral objections.
    Insurance is for unforeseen events.
    I find that a bit of an odd way to put it. Insurance is entirely about spreading the costs and the risks of statistically foreseeable but individually unpredictable events across time and across the whole group of people likely to suffer the events in question.
    What's unpredictable about using birth control?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,276
    I wonder if needing Viagra/Cialis is considered a basic health care thing and is covered by insurance?
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,380
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    I wonder if needing Viagra/Cialis is considered a basic health care thing and is covered by insurance?
    Hey why not, it's a medical treatment to help combat a medical condition. But honestly this whole debate is just ridiculous, how the heck does anyone know what medical treatments they will need in the future? Surely it would be better to simply have insurance that covers whatever is needed. Is it just me or is that one rather an obvious solution.
    babe likes this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    If they are being used for some other purpose, then they aren't birth control pills. I don't think even archaically moral people would object to that.
    2 points here.

    1. Morals.

    Where's the moral issue? Most people who want contraception are married people - after all, most sexual activity in the world happens between people who are married.

    What's wrong with married people having a sex life which produces children only when they want them? For most people, it's about timing the beginning of their families and the spacing of the children within that family. They won't consider sterilisation until they're sure they want no further children.

    2. Not birth control pills?

    That's a distinction not worth making. When a doctor writes a prescription, do you really think that s/he should be telling the pharmacist and the insurance company and/or the employer and/or the government that this particular prescription is for a purpose other than contraception - when, regardless of the reason for the prescription, the medication will inevitably function as a contraceptive?

    Does this mean that married women could never get a subsidised prescription for this medication to treat a hormonal problem unless they were willing to tell the world that their husbands were sterilised or infertile or impotent? What about women whose lives are at risk in (another) pregnancy? Yes it's a contraceptive but I need it because pregnancy will probably kill me but my husband and I want an otherwise normal life anyway. Once you introduce the idea that sex, pregnancy and contraception are somehow separatable from general health, all these issues will arise for some people at some time.

    And if people don't want the state or any other busybodies intruding into their private, intimate lives, the last thing they'd want is for the state or an insurance company or an employer to be asking questions about their sex lives. It doesn't get more intimate, more intrusive, than that.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Adelady said it better than I can. Nicely put.
    babe likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    If they are being used for some other purpose, then they aren't birth control pills. I don't think even archaically moral people would object to that.
    2 points here.

    1. Morals.

    Where's the moral issue? Most people who want contraception are married people - after all, most sexual activity in the world happens between people who are married.

    What's wrong with married people having a sex life which produces children only when they want them? For most people, it's about timing the beginning of their families and the spacing of the children within that family. They won't consider sterilisation until they're sure they want no further children.
    None of my business. If someone says they have a moral objection, I'll take them at their word.
    2. Not birth control pills?

    That's a distinction not worth making. When a doctor writes a prescription, do you really think that s/he should be telling the pharmacist and the insurance company and/or the employer and/or the government that this particular prescription is for a purpose other than contraception - when, regardless of the reason for the prescription, the medication will inevitably function as a contraceptive?

    Does this mean that married women could never get a subsidised prescription for this medication to treat a hormonal problem unless they were willing to tell the world that their husbands were sterilised or infertile or impotent? What about women whose lives are at risk in (another) pregnancy? Yes it's a contraceptive but I need it because pregnancy will probably kill me but my husband and I want an otherwise normal life anyway. Once you introduce the idea that sex, pregnancy and contraception are somehow separatable from general health, all these issues will arise for some people at some time.

    And if people don't want the state or any other busybodies intruding into their private, intimate lives, the last thing they'd want is for the state or an insurance company or an employer to be asking questions about their sex lives. It doesn't get more intimate, more intrusive, than that.
    If the doctor wants to write a fraudulent prescription to cover medication for a condition that is not covered by the insurance, that's on him and the patient.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Every time my wife goes to CVS to get her birth control pills, they try to put it on our insurance (which covers birth control), but the hospital won't pay for it.
    I'm sorry, but I guess I just don't understand. is not the hospital paying part of your coverage, not all of it? in which you may select what to pay? Not select what the company pays, but what you yourself pay for. if you are willing to pay an insurance company for the coverage, you would still have it regardless.


    conflicts with the archaic morals of a minority?
    Yea! WHO CARES ABOUT THE MINORITY! oh I don't know. the JEWS!
    simply because it appears a "majority" of people - which right now is still "simple" - does not create some legitimate reason to spit on the minority.

    The whole purpose of the American govt. (as it was created) is so that the majority does not rule over the minority.

    that's just my concerns.

    oh and appeal to popularity, logical fallacy.

    hope this does not seem as though I am being too harsh or rude or anything. majority over minority things really do get under my skin.
    Last edited by chero; December 3rd, 2013 at 01:46 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Where's the moral issue?
    everywhere.
    here are some points -in brief- against these things.

    BBC - Ethics - Contraception: Moral case against contraception

    a more prominent issue would be that some have an issue in paying for another person's activities in which they may or may not agree with.

    interesting website.
    Should birth control be covered by health insurance? | Debate.org

    3 reasons against
    3 Reasons Why Birth Control Should Not Be Free - PolicyMic


    Most people who want contraception are married people - after all, most sexual activity in the world happens between people who are married.
    Could you share what info you refer to? The so called culture of the world does not seem to support the claim.


    Married couples at a record low - Washington Post
    we mustn't forget those w/in a marriage who are infertile or the woman is unable to bear children.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    I wonder if needing Viagra/Cialis is considered a basic health care thing and is covered by insurance?
    Hey why not, it's a medical treatment to help combat a medical condition. But honestly this whole debate is just ridiculous, how the heck does anyone know what medical treatments they will need in the future? Surely it would be better to simply have insurance that covers whatever is needed. Is it just me or is that one rather an obvious solution.
    Is contraception a treatment? how can it be described as such?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    needs "birth control" pills when she's 13 or 14 years old because of painful periods or some hormonal process being out of whack. And your ordinary everyday health cover doesn't accommodate that?

    6 Natural Ways to Reduce Period Pain | One Medical Group
    Menstruation: Irregular Periods
    Menstruation Facts: Twelve Things You May Not Know About Your Period
    Irregular Period? It Could Be More Than Just Stress : NPR
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    If the doctor wants to write a fraudulent prescription to cover medication for a condition that is not covered by the insurance, that's on him and the patient.
    I'm beginning to suspect I know more about the way the US system works, or fails to work, than many Americans. The prescription written by the doctor isn't fraudulent. S/he knows the patient's medical history and the best medication to treat whatever condition she happens to be suffering. That medication happens to be a contraceptive hormone pill.

    But we all know - or I thought we did - about the way US insurance companies and many employers get between patients, doctors and hospitals and prescribed health care. Do you really think that hospital administrators who have no qualms about telling terminal cancer patients to take up their beds and walk home because the insurance company won't pay for any more medication/ surgery/ care will have any reluctance to tell patients that they'll not be reimbursed (or not even supplied) their medically prescribed care? How tactfully do you think such people would broach the subject of a patient's health or (presumed) sex life? I have no confidence at all in these people.

    Fraud.

    How does anyone discover it? By asking questions.

    Who asks? And who has to answer?
    Do you really want your sister/ friend/ wife/ daughter/ workmate being quizzed at the shop counter by a pharmacy assistant about the justification for their prescription?
    Do you want an insurance clerk or a public servant ringing to ask her questions about her marriage or sex life or fertility status before they'll pay the claim?
    Do you want a hospital or clinic manager telling her that she's unlikely to be reimbursed because the insurance company/ government agency/ latest court decisions have changed the boundaries on what does and doesn't count as a non-contraceptive use of birth control pills? Not a nurse or a doctor or a medical / pharmaceutical review committee, but a clerk who's got a script to follow and an intention to deny as many claims as possible. **


    Contraception.

    And how does this affect contraceptives that need a qualified person, if not a doctor, to administer? Depo-Provera, implants and intra-uterine devices . They're definitely at least a nursing / clinic / paramedic expense if not always a general practitioner or ob-gyn consult. These items are much more obviously - and more frequently - related to contraception and nothing else but they require more involvement by qualified personnel.
    And then we get to vasectomies and tubal ligations (and hysterectomies for that matter).
    Should these procedures be covered? They're surgery, quite invasive surgery in the case of women.
    How do they differ from birth control prescriptions? Their only intent is to prevent pregnancy even if preventing pregnancy is an important medical objective for its own reasons. See Marfan syndrome for starters. Pregnancy in Marfan syndrome: maternal a... [Cardiol Rev. 2009 Nov-Dec] - PubMed - NCBI

    And if you or anyone else is so concerned that medical / surgical expenses are being used in relation to sexual activity, what do you/ they intend to do about men consulting urologists about their various concerns about their sexual activities or a vasectomy or other contraceptive options? Anything?

    **
    (I suppose I should point out here that one of the reasons I've been so horrified by some of the stories I've heard about such incidents is that I've worked with people like this. Claims investigators, customs inspectors, tax investigators, social security fraud investigators and medicare claims reviewers - most of them were good people doing a necessary and often difficult, sometimes dangerous, job. And some of them were little tin hitlers revelling in the opportunity to prove that every single case that crossed their desk should reveal a dishonest, evil, underhanded criminal. The idea of an honest mistake was entirely foreign to this sub-group. As was the idea that the case selection process could be flawed in presenting them with people who weren't worth their highly qualified time to pursue, and missing high value cases that might result in prosecutions as well as increased collections/ lowered outlays.)
    Flick Montana likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    needs "birth control" pills when she's 13 or 14 years old because of painful periods or some hormonal process being out of whack. And your ordinary everyday health cover doesn't accommodate that?

    6 Natural Ways to Reduce Period Pain | One Medical Group
    Menstruation: Irregular Periods
    Menstruation Facts: Twelve Things You May Not Know About Your Period
    Irregular Period? It Could Be More Than Just Stress : NPR
    One of your links is borked.

    Citing the Huffington Post on health matters is a bit of a stretch. Though I did like this one ...

    5. The average period releases less than a cup of blood. Complain about heavy flow all you want, but the fact is that most women lose between a few tablespoons and a cup each month. This is not to say that Tampax 'super plus' are not sometimes necessary.
    Most women have little to no problems with menstruation. Fancy that! Ordinary women have ordinary lives. So no need to worry about the blood soaked sheets or the stains on your office chair, eh. (Or, worst of all, a couple of square feet of your friend's new couch. That was an evening for everyone to forget.)

    Tampax super plus are "sometimes necessary". Phooey. Super tampons plus a couple of pads stacked on each other and visiting the loo every hour or two to change one or more of these items are the way of the world for a few women a lot of the time and more women less often. Even then it's common for girls and women to ask schoolfriends or workmates to check that there are no stains showing on their clothes.

    Nobody cares about "the average period" when they're having an hour or two's haemorrhage. Nobody cares that "a heating pad" can help with cramps, that's been known for millennia - but using such an item while picking up a toddler or hanging out the washing or working as a waitress or as an engineer is another matter entirely. It's only useful if you can sit or lie still until the cramps subside.

    What matters in this area is that some women and girls benefit greatly from hormone regulation. They're not the majority and most girls with such problems settle down after a while - but for the minority that don't, a hormone medication is a great boon. Maybe for a few months, maybe for years, maybe until further investigations reveal an underlying problem. Avoiding pain, fatigue and anaemia (from non-average blood loss) in the meantime while maintaining regular attendance at school or punctuality and diligence at work is an extremely valuable benefit that can be provided by a simple prescription.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    needs "birth control" pills when she's 13 or 14 years old because of painful periods or some hormonal process being out of whack. And your ordinary everyday health cover doesn't accommodate that?

    6 Natural Ways to Reduce Period Pain | One Medical Group
    Menstruation: Irregular Periods
    Menstruation Facts: Twelve Things You May Not Know About Your Period
    Irregular Period? It Could Be More Than Just Stress : NPR
    Also acne and a few other things.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    I wonder if needing Viagra/Cialis is considered a basic health care thing and is covered by insurance?
    Most health insurance does cover viagra, which I think is a little bit ridiculous. Many plans also cover chiropractors, which is just pseudoscience. You can buy insurance for whatever you want. It's a free country, or else used to be at one time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    If the doctor wants to write a fraudulent prescription to cover medication for a condition that is not covered by the insurance, that's on him and the patient.
    I'm beginning to suspect I know more about the way the US system works, or fails to work, than many Americans. The prescription written by the doctor isn't fraudulent. S/he knows the patient's medical history and the best medication to treat whatever condition she happens to be suffering. That medication happens to be a contraceptive hormone pill.

    But we all know - or I thought we did - about the way US insurance companies and many employers get between patients, doctors and hospitals and prescribed health care. Do you really think that hospital administrators who have no qualms about telling terminal cancer patients to take up their beds and walk home because the insurance company won't pay for any more medication/ surgery/ care will have any reluctance to tell patients that they'll not be reimbursed (or not even supplied) their medically prescribed care? How tactfully do you think such people would broach the subject of a patient's health or (presumed) sex life? I have no confidence at all in these people.
    I honestly don't understand your point. The fraud would come in if the doctor presribed the pill for some hormonal imbalance condition when it was really intended for birth control.
    If a person does not have health insurance and pays the doctor or pharmacy directly, then it is just between the patient and their doctor or pharmacist. If they want to charge it to insurance, the insurance company is going to want to know what it is for, and whether the situation is covered by their health insurance policy. I don't really understand how you see the birth control pill as a special case.

    You say you have no confidence in the insurance companies. Well, I have even less confidence in the government. See what a hash they made out of Obamacare and the Obamacare web site. That is an identity thief's dream, which does not even meet minimum standards for protection of your medical information.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,591
    Harold you quite clearly also do NOT understand the complexity of women's medicine, but are fully willing to make medical judgement as to what is needed.
    babe likes this.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Harold you quite clearly also do NOT understand the complexity of women's medicine, but are fully willing to make medical judgement as to what is needed.
    I will readily admit not understanding the complexity of women's medicine or any other medicine. So what?

    Where do you think I made a medical judgement? All I am saying is that if the insurance policy does not cover birth control, a doctor should not prescribe birth control pills and bill it to the insurance company. He could prescribe it for some other recognized use. If he prescibes the birth control pill for a condition that the patient does not have, so that the patient could use it for birth control, that would be fraudulent.
    chero likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    One of your links is borked.
    dang.


    Nobody cares about "the average period" ...
    I wish that were true, but the whole premise behind "regulating hormones" is comparing to averages. that's how the all medications are made and even perscribed. actually all things are made according to an average. statistics, statistics.

    this is particularly dangerous when women have incredibly different hormone patterns. most on the pill are forcing their own normal body fluctuation to become irregular. that's where all the headaches and pains come in, do they not?
    What matters in this area is that some women and girls benefit greatly from hormone regulation.
    Some is an unknown number that may be too small for anything to be considered basic. there's so many misconceptions and lies going around, who can tell which way is up? Even planned parenthood urges teens and women alike to know their menstrual cycle, as it is helpful to a healthy living, but on the pill - how can anyone know what is their own unique patterns?

    a hormone medication is a great boon.
    there are more ways to address hormone problems, why should one be covered while others may not? Furthermore, if a natural balanced diet among other practices can help do the exact same thing, I'd rather pay for a healthy meal for another person, not their quickest best way to have some fun time w/o lowered or no responsibility or thought.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    You say you have no confidence in the insurance companies. Well, I have even less confidence in the government.
    If you read what I wrote earlier, you'll see that as far as I'm concerned a bureaucrat employed by a company and a bureaucrat employed by a government agency have little or nothing to choose between them. Unpleasant jobs and investigative jobs tend to encourage certain kinds of behaviours regardless of the status of the employer. And regardless of the nature of a job or of any particular employee, I'd be horrified at the idea of a shop assistant in a pharmacy or a clerk in an insurance office or a manager in a hospital / clinic intervening or interfering in anyone's medical care - and for the nastier among them, to take the opportunity to shame or humiliate people about their health details or possible sex life. The saving grace about public servants involved in these processes is that they generally deal with doctors or their staff or hospital staff rather than individual patients. That alone would be an improvement.

    And you seem not to get it about how people go about distinguishing allowable items from proscribed items when the same description, invoice, details are involved in the questioned amount. Let's talk about the entertainment/ meal/ drink expenses that a person might claim from an employer as reimbursement or as a tax/ VAT/ other official expense. A dinner for 10 people is on the list. It would be an allowable/ payable item if it's directly related to the person's business or employment.
    Who were the guests?
    What are their business relationships with the claimant?
    Was it anyone's birthday on or near that date?
    Was it anyone's wedding anniversary on or near that date?
    Was there a wedding/ an engagement/ a christening/ a graduation/ a funeral/ any family or personal event being conducted or commemorated on or near that date?

    And there are at least a dozen other personal and fairly intrusive questions I can think of that might legitimately be asked to determine once and for all that this is in no way a personal rather than a business matter. And. this. is. just. money. This is the kind of thing that business clerks, accountants and public servants can do quite routinely for ordinary financial matters. I wouldn't like to have to answer those questions (and I never much liked asking them).

    Now think about how the same kind of questioning, the same kind of pin-down-every-tiniest-detail approach, would be applied to determining whether a "dual purpose" prescription is or isn't for contraceptive purposes or for non-contraceptive medical purposes. Especially when we're talking about questioning patients rather than doctors.

    How many people really understand all the medical terminology a doctor might have used to describe their medical condition?
    Some people have trouble understanding any unfamiliar words, let alone pronouncing medical terms correctly and describing what they mean and how a hormone preparation relates to them and what its mechanism of action in resolving the symptoms might be.
    How many people fully understand which symptoms a doctor did or didn't take into account in determining that a particular condition is evident? How many people would become flustered and embarrassed when they realise that they're being questioned about their (possibly non-existent) sex life?
    How many people become flustered and infuriated when they realise that their honesty is being challenged?

    The whole idea of distinguishing one use of a particular prescription from another for insurance purposes is highly fraught. It should be left to doctors to determine that a certain prescription is appropriate for a patient's treatment. Allowing a non-medically qualified clerk, whether privately or publicly employed, to intervene, interfere in or veto a doctor's medical decisions is something that the US has tolerated for far too long and it's about time it stopped. We have similar problems here with insurance company non-medically qualified staff being intrusive about accident or worker's compensation insurance for medical matters, but they normally get a tame doctor to do the dirty work rather than an unqualified person with a rulebook. Everybody hates them - and most of them aren't public servants.

    I simply find it amazing that anyone thinks there's anything remarkable or noteworthy about prescriptions for birth control pills (which happen to have other medical uses) or IUDs or Depo Provera injections or other long-term contraceptive implants. And why they overlook equivalent sexual function medical issues for men. Urologists and general practitioners talk to lots of men frequently about sexual function and problems and I don't see too many people getting up in arms about insurance covering the cost of those consultations, procedures and prescriptions.

    Sex is just a normal part of normal human life and there are medical issues associated with that just as there are for other normal human activities. Why people get so conflusticated about it is a neverending mystery to me.
    Ascended and babe like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I'd rather pay for a healthy meal for another person, not their quickest best way to have some fun time w/o lowered or no responsibility or thought.
    What have you got against married people? They're the ones who have more sex than anyone else.

    most on the pill are forcing their own normal body fluctuation to become irregular. that's where all the headaches and pains come in, do they not?
    Are you a gynaecologist? There are all sorts of things that can make menstruation problematic for some women some of the time, and for a few unfortunates, all of the time.

    Headaches. Pains. You mean cramps and feeling very unwell. The fatigue and related symptoms of anaemia for women with heavy blood flows. Or what?
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Also acne and a few other things.
    Ha! acne happens, it comes and goes. get over it.

    What is Acne? What Causes Acne? How to Get Rid of Acne - Medical News Today
    Acne: Causes - MayoClinic.com

    Acne largely occurs after an increase of hormones, even on "the pill" that increase of hormones is still present. over time it goes away, but sometimes people have to deal with it for life, and that's okay.

    Most importantly though,
    Nobody is completely sure what causes acne.


    why are you dead set on giving an unknown cause an unknown treatment?

    p.s. I known plenty of girls on "the pill' and still get bad acne. obviously it does not work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Some is an unknown number that may be too small for anything to be considered basic. there's so many misconceptions and lies going around, who can tell which way is up? Even planned parenthood urges teens and women alike to know their menstrual cycle, as it is helpful to a healthy living, but on the pill - how can anyone know what is their own unique patterns?
    Oh, my giddy aunt. This is turning into a women's consciousness raising session from 1975.

    Most women know a reasonable amount about their menstrual cycle if they come from a family or go to a school that encourages sensible discussion about such matters. If they missed out of that in their teens, they can learn later. There are lots of opportunities every year for this.
    Flick Montana and babe like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    p.s. I known plenty of girls on "the pill' and still get bad acne. obviously it does not work for all cases, plenty of cases need other treatments.

    FIFY
    Flick Montana and babe like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,990
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    How is providing a basic medical service immoral?
    You have your morals, other people are different. That's the point. The statist solution always forces people to conform.
    I would say the JOB forces people to conform. Medicine requires things of doctors. It requires them to not reveal personal medical data to others - even if they feel that a man who has HIV is evil and that must be announced to the world. It requires them to treat black patients - even if they feel that blacks are inferior and undeserving of medical care. It requires them to treat women - even if they feel that that treatment (birth control, HPV vaccine etc) goes against their morals. It sometimes requires them to treat people they consider criminals - even if they think they do not deserve treatment.

    Some people may not be able to live with the requirements that a job in medicine imposes upon them. The best solution there - choose a different job. Veterinarians face fewer moral dilemmas, and such people might be happier in such a job. Blaming "the state" or "the system" for their moral dilemmas is somewhat self-serving; they are causing their own moral problems.
    Lynx_Fox likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Also acne and a few other things.
    Ha! acne happens, it comes and goes. get over it.

    What is Acne? What Causes Acne? How to Get Rid of Acne - Medical News Today
    Acne: Causes - MayoClinic.com

    Acne largely occurs after an increase of hormones, even on "the pill" that increase of hormones is still present. over time it goes away, but sometimes people have to deal with it for life, and that's okay.

    Most importantly though,
    Nobody is completely sure what causes acne.


    why are you dead set on giving an unknown cause an unknown treatment?

    p.s. I known plenty of girls on "the pill' and still get bad acne. obviously it does not work.
    This is just ignorance. If you had severe acne as a high school student and you felt the impact it has upon your life, you would certainly not be so quick to dismiss it.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    How is providing a basic medical service immoral?
    You have your morals, other people are different. That's the point. The statist solution always forces people to conform.
    I would say the JOB forces people to conform. Medicine requires things of doctors. It requires them to not reveal personal medical data to others - even if they feel that a man who has HIV is evil and that must be announced to the world. It requires them to treat black patients - even if they feel that blacks are inferior and undeserving of medical care. It requires them to treat women - even if they feel that that treatment (birth control, HPV vaccine etc) goes against their morals. It sometimes requires them to treat people they consider criminals - even if they think they do not deserve treatment.

    Some people may not be able to live with the requirements that a job in medicine imposes upon them. The best solution there - choose a different job. Veterinarians face fewer moral dilemmas, and such people might be happier in such a job. Blaming "the state" or "the system" for their moral dilemmas is somewhat self-serving; they are causing their own moral problems.
    So if a doctor doesn't like being made to do morally objectionable things, he can just GTFO and find another profession. But if a person who works in a Catholic hostpital doesn't like the health insurance, they do not have the same option of looking for another job?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    If you had severe acne as a high school student and you felt the impact it has upon your life, you would certainly not be so quick to dismiss it.
    Are you assuming I did not?

    A person's insecurity is not solved by drugs. I'd much rather help a child overcome their fears rather cause unknown symptoms for trying to accomplish what the body can do naturally, and what very well may be their own body developing naturally. what a bad example to make.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Interesting point by billvon.
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    I would say the JOB forces people to conform. Medicine requires things of doctors. It requires them to not reveal personal medical data to others - even if they feel that a man who has HIV is evil and that must be announced to the world. It requires them to treat black patients - even if they feel that blacks are inferior and undeserving of medical care. It requires them to treat women - even if they feel that that treatment (birth control, HPV vaccine etc) goes against their morals. It sometimes requires them to treat people they consider criminals - even if they think they do not deserve treatment.
    many shows, movies depict this hardship. I know some nurses who had to help, despite their dislike towards, an emergency room patient who caused an accident all while having to put on hold the treatment of this guy's victim simply because he was in "better shape" and had a higher likelihood of surviving.

    except the morality behind contraception is that they are not viewed as "treatments" by everyone. despite having a code of conduct to treat or "practice" on individuals they may not like, there is no law nor code of conduct to force a doctor or nurse to try any measure they themselves do not want to use. you can not force a doctor to use any means he or she does not want to. this happens even amongst cancer patients looking for new experimental measures to "cure" cancer. on this basis alone, it would be immoral to force any doctor into acting w/o his or her morals.

    oh, and it should be pointed out that working on a patient (correctly of coarse) is moral. it is the opposite (to deny aid) that which is immoral.

    Some people may not be able to live with the requirements that a job in medicine imposes upon them. The best solution there - choose a different job. Veterinarians face fewer moral dilemmas, and such people might be happier in such a job. Blaming "the state" or "the system" for their moral dilemmas is somewhat self-serving; they are causing their own moral problems.
    the moral delimmas as a Vet are the same, just different variables.

    to say a person who holds their own morals dear and forcing them to "do or die" is the problem. do you or I have the absolute right to tell any person to act in a way that they view immoral or loose their job ? If neither you or I have that right, then govt. does not either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,990
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    many shows, movies depict this hardship. I know some nurses who had to help, despite their dislike towards, an emergency room patient who caused an accident all while having to put on hold the treatment of this guy's victim simply because he was in "better shape" and had a higher likelihood of surviving.
    In a real life example, my wife's ER had to treat a gangbanger with a stab wound who had a swastika tattooed on his forehead. He got the same care as anyone else, even though one of the ER attendings was Jewish. Should he have been refused treatment, and left to bleed out?

    except the morality behind contraception is that they are not viewed as "treatments" by everyone. despite having a code of conduct to treat or "practice" on individuals they may not like, there is no law nor code of conduct to force a doctor or nurse to try any measure they themselves do not want to use.
    Uh, yes, there very much is! A male doctor would not ever consider a hysterectomy himself but might well perform that procedure on a woman. Indeed, if he refused to perform such a procedure because he disliked women he would, at the very least, get hauled up in front of a state licensing board.

    you can not force a doctor to use any means he or she does not want to. this happens even amongst cancer patients looking for new experimental measures to "cure" cancer. on this basis alone, it would be immoral to force any doctor into acting w/o his or her morals.
    That is literally true. In most places they would also lose their jobs and be replaced by a more effective doctor. Thus a good compromise is that no doctor or health care professional should be forced to perform a procedure they are opposed to; nor should they keep their jobs. That way everyone's feelings are taken into consideration.

    oh, and it should be pointed out that working on a patient (correctly of coarse) is moral. it is the opposite (to deny aid) that which is immoral.
    Agreed.

    the moral delimmas as a Vet are the same, just different variables.
    Well, the problems are greatly reduced. Few vets have to deal with animals that request birth control.

    to say a person who holds their own morals dear and forcing them to "do or die" is the problem.
    Agreed. No one should be forced to perform a procedure they don't want to do. They should instead be fired and replaced with a more effective person.

    do you or I have the absolute right to tell any person to act in a way that they view immoral or loose their job ?
    Absolutely! If a county clerk thinks that it is immoral for blacks to marry whites, and refuses to issue marriage licenses to them, then they don't have to do it - but they also don't get to keep the job they refuse to do.

    This shouldn't come as a shock. If a teenager has a moral objection to flipping burgers, he will lose his job at the local McDonald's. Not because flipping burgers is a moral issue, but because he's not doing his job. If a pilot has a moral objection to coming to work sober, he loses his job as well. Again, not because religions that use wine in their ceremonies are immoral, but because he can't do his job drunk.

    If neither you or I have that right, then govt. does not either.
    We have that right AND the government has that right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    If you had severe acne as a high school student and you felt the impact it has upon your life, you would certainly not be so quick to dismiss it.
    Are you assuming I did not?

    A person's insecurity is not solved by drugs. I'd much rather help a child overcome their fears rather cause unknown symptoms for trying to accomplish what the body can do naturally, and what very well may be their own body developing naturally. what a bad example to make.
    So if a kid has bad acne, we should tell them to buck up rather than give them medicine which could fix the problem even though severe acne can lead to lifelong scarring (physical and emotional)? Sorry, I find that notion absurd.

    Why bother treating any skin conditions? Why bother treating any non-life-threatening conditions? Give me a break...
    Ascended and babe like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    ...accidently posted twice. will refill this w/ something else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    So if a doctor doesn't like being made to do morally objectionable things, he can just GTFO and find another profession. But if a person who works in a Catholic hostpital doesn't like the health insurance, they do not have the same option of looking for another job?
    Would they not have an option of looking for a different insurance company/coverage not directly associated w/ their job? My dad opt out of his coverage years ago - when I was just a younger. Now, why can't we steady along this here idea and stop being so dang moppy?
    Last edited by chero; December 3rd, 2013 at 04:20 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    So if a kid has bad acne, we should tell them to buck up rather than give them medicine which could fix the problem even though severe acne can lead to lifelong scarring (physical and emotional)? Sorry, I find that notion absurd.
    you find it absurd because you assume what is meant by supporting the child mentally. that does not include telling them to buck up, and walking away. nor does it include giving them drugs and walking away. because those issues of insecurity continue even after you clear the acne. for the rest of their life, they will need to deal with it.

    "beating your insecurities is as much of an internal struggle as it is a battle of self-improvement"
    Overcome insecurities - AskMen

    7 Strategies For Dealing With Insecurity | Lifescript.com

    I found some other sites, but these did just fine ... no reason to add more of the same info.
    All web sites went over what insecurity is and how to go about it. No where does it say, change who you are or take a pill.

    acne and scars
    Acne Scars - What Causes Acne Scars
    Fast Facts About Acne

    there are still other ways to prevent scaring both before and after it appears. if there are other means of dealing with an issue then there is no need for birth control. if anything that is last result, though you and others speak of it as a first choice.

    Why bother treating any skin conditions? Why bother treating any non-life-threatening conditions? Give me a break...
    of a Kit-Kat bar?
    I never said anything about not treating or helping someone deal with acne. quite the opposite actually. nice try.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    I find it absurd because you're suggesting we don't use modern medicine and rather rely on treating the mental effects of the disorder.
    babe likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,990
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    you find it absurd because you assume what is meant by supporting the child mentally. that does not include telling them to buck up, and walking away. nor does it include giving them drugs and walking away. because those issues of insecurity continue even after you clear the acne. for the rest of their life, they will need to deal with it.
    That's pretty silly. No one is suggesting you cure the acne and ignore any psychological problem. You treat both.
    Last edited by billvon; December 3rd, 2013 at 05:22 PM.
    Flick Montana and babe like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    In a real life example, my wife's ER had to treat a gangbanger with a stab wound who had a swastika tattooed on his forehead. He got the same care as anyone else, even though one of the ER (peeps) was Jewish. Should he have been refused treatment, and left to bleed out?
    And that's the reality of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by chero
    except the morality behind contraception is that they are not viewed as "treatments" by everyone. despite having a code of conduct to treat or "practice" on individuals they may not like, there is no law nor code of conduct to force a doctor or nurse to try any measure they themselves do not want to use.
    Uh, yes, there very much is! A male doctor would not ever consider a hysterectomy himself but might well perform that procedure on a woman. Indeed, if he refused to perform such a procedure because he disliked women he would, at the very least, get hauled up in front of a state licensing board.
    Its not about whether or not any doctor likes any body. the only way a hysterectomy is going to be performed is if a doctor or a group of doctors thinks its necessary. If any one of those doctors does not think that hysterectomy is necessary, then that doctor can refuse to do the procedure. do you disagree?

    are you aware of the condition of doing unneccesarry procuedures is in themselves immoral and a form of malpractice?

    I'm not talking about a simple refusal just because or some sort of dislike. I'm describing a situation in which a doctor does not agree with performing a procedure based on his or her knowledge. if a doctor desires not to perform some task because he/she views it unnecessary, then that doctor is conducting themselves according to their own set of morals.


    That is literally true. In most places they would also lose their jobs and be replaced by a more effective doctor. Thus a good compromise is that no doctor or health care professional should be forced to perform a procedure they are opposed to; nor should they keep their jobs. That way everyone's feelings are taken into consideration.
    what is meant by, "...nor should they keep their jobs?" the doctor should not keep their jobs because they oppose a procedure?

    Quote Originally Posted by chero
    to say a person who holds their own morals dear and forcing them to "do or die" is the problem.
    Agreed. No one should be forced to perform a procedure they don't want to do. They should instead be fired and replaced with a more effective person.
    why should excellent doctors loose their jobs at saving lives just because they have a different view point? where is the logic and morality in that?

    do you or I have the absolute right to tell any person to act in a way that they view immoral or loose their job?
    Absolutely! If a county clerk thinks that it is immoral for blacks to marry whites, and refuses to issue marriage licenses to them, then they don't have to do it - but they also don't get to keep the job they refuse to do.
    The doctors or nurses are not refusing to do their job, as contraception is not their job. there are many medicines and ways to go about being a doctor or a nurse. A doctor prescribes a medicine or anything to a patient because that doctor, based on his/her experience and knowledge deems it necessary. If a doctor does not deem it to be necessary, then they should not be forced to act in which they deem unnecessary.

    why force a doctor to prescribe cough medicine when he tells you, you don't need it? the idea of doing so is crazy. If a doctor can refuse to provide cough medicine, then birth control is no different.



    This shouldn't come as a shock. If a teenager has a moral objection to flipping burgers, he will lose his job at the local McDonald's.
    scenario does not apply. a person may dislike flipping burgers, but there is no struggle of morality present. the teen would not have applied either, so how did he get the job?

    If a pilot has a moral objection to coming to work sober, he loses his job as well. Again, not because religions that use wine in their ceremonies are immoral, but because he can't do his job drunk.
    doctors are still doing their jobs. scenario does not apply.


    We have that right AND the government has that right.
    Laws Enforced by EEOC

    it is illegal to fire anyone for their religion. the doctors who deny or choose not to use or give birth control pills or any other thing they deem immoral or impractical are still doing their jobs.

    how or why must contraception (in general) be apart of any doctor's job description? the real kicker is that they aren't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    I find it absurd because you're suggesting we don't use modern medicine and rather rely on treating the mental effects of the disorder.
    No rather. you are assuming once more.

    there are no mental effects, it only brings out what the kids already think of themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    No one is suggesting you cure the acne and ignore any psychological problem. You treat both.
    I know no one is suggesting to cure acne. to cure means to stop from happening, but here is no stopping it. even on the "pill" any girl can get acne, and does, and has. pores get clogged, those w/ good hygiene practices have reduced risks while those who don't, have higher risks.

    Suggesting a pill can be taken and the problem goes away, is ignoring the real cause to psychological problems within insecurity.
    suggested in the given post about how, if only I had severe acne while in high school...bla bla bla.


    these things have been going on for thousands of years. no one needs the "pill" in order to deal with acne. it is not a cure. I need not pay for someone else to get it either. no owner should either.
    Last edited by chero; December 3rd, 2013 at 05:44 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,990
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    Its not about whether or not any doctor likes any body. the only way a hysterectomy is going to be performed is if a doctor or a group of doctors thinks its necessary.
    Or at least not contraindicated. Mastectomies and hysterectomies are performed for prophylaxis nowadays. Should doctors who do that be disbarred?

    If any one of those doctors does not think that hysterectomy is necessary, then that doctor can refuse to do the procedure. do you disagree?
    No, I agree. They can also be fired for refusing to do so when their objection is moral rather than medical.

    are you aware of the condition of doing unneccesarry procuedures is in themselves immoral and a form of malpractice?
    Plastic surgery is immoral and a form of malpractice? Scar revision? Hair implantation?

    I'm describing a situation in which a doctor does not agree with performing a procedure based on his or her knowledge. if a doctor desires not to perform some task because he/she views it unnecessary, then that doctor is conducting themselves according to their own set of morals.
    See above.


    what is meant by, "...nor should they keep their jobs?" the doctor should not keep their jobs because they oppose a procedure?
    If they oppose a procedure for moral rather than medical reasons, in an attempt to force the patient to live the way the doctor prefers - then yes, they should lose their jobs.

    If, of course, they oppose the procedure because they feel that MEDICALLY it is too risky, then that is a very different story, and is generally quite defensible.

    why should excellent doctors loose their jobs at saving lives just because they have a different view point? where is the logic and morality in that?
    Same reason an excellent life-saving pilot should lose his job just because he likes to drink while flying. He may be an excellent pilot - but drinking is not compatible with flying. Likewise, if a doctor uses his power as a medical provider to force others to live the way he wants them to by withholding medical care, that's not an attitude compatible with medicine.

    In clear cases (i.e. "I'm not prescribing Bidil to anyone because blacks don't deserve to live") it's easy to take action - he's fired and replaced. In less clear cases, medical licensing boards get involved.

    The doctors or nurses are not refusing to do their job, as contraception is not their job.
    If you made contraception available over the counter - I would agree. Do that and the problem goes away. Until then, it is a doctor's job to prescribe oral contraceptives by law.

    why force a doctor to prescribe cough medicine when he tells you, you don't need it? the idea of doing so is crazy. If a doctor can refuse to provide cough medicine, then birth control is no different.
    If a woman is having sex and wants to avoid pregnancy, then she needs contraception. Refusing this based on MEDICAL conditions is no problem. Refusing it based on MORAL issues - because the doctor wants the woman to live with the consequences of having sex - then that's a big problem.

    It would be akin to a doctor saying "I'm not prescribing cough syrup because you're an idiot for catching a cold. You might need it but you're not getting it from me. Maybe next time you'll be more careful." THAT he could be fired for.

    scenario does not apply. a person may dislike flipping burgers, but there is no struggle of morality present. the teen would not have applied either, so how did he get the job?
    DING DING DING! You have hit the nail on the head! If the McDonald's worker doesn't want to flip burgers he shouldn't have taken the job. If a doctor does not want to prescribe appropriate medication, he shouldn't have become a doctor who might have to do that.

    doctors are still doing their jobs. scenario does not apply.
    And drunk pilots are still doing their jobs; scenario still applies. You might think that they should not be allowed to drink before flying. But to paraphase your question above: "do you or I have the absolute right to tell any person to act in a certain way or loose their job ?" Answer: yes.

    how or why must contraception (in general) be apart of any doctor's job description? the real kicker is that they aren't.
    ?? It's not! Orthopedic surgeons (or veterinarians, or research doctors) don't have to prescribe contraceptives. If they have that moral objection that's a much better job for them.
    chero likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I know no one is suggesting to cure acne. to cure means to stop from happening, but here is no stopping it. even on the "pill" any girl can get acne, and does, and has. pores get clogged, those w/ good hygiene practices have reduced risks while those who don't, have higher risks.
    Do you know anything about acne?

    The one thing you shouldn't tell an acne sufferer is that the condition is related to poor hygiene. It isn't.

    And ....... too frequent, too rough, skin cleansing will make the acne and any related scarring worse.

    Acne Myths
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,990
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    I know no one is suggesting to cure acne. to cure means to stop from happening, but here is no stopping it.
    Agreed. No medical process is perfect. Antibiotics will not always stop a bacterial infection - but a doctor who refused to prescribe them when needed "because there's no stopping some infections" would be out of a job quite quickly.

    even on the "pill" any girl can get acne, and does, and has. pores get clogged, those w/ good hygiene practices have reduced risks while those who don't, have higher risks.
    I don't think you understand acne.

    Suggesting a pill can be taken and the problem goes away, is ignoring the real cause to psychological problems within insecurity.
    Right. And suggesting that secure people don't get acne is pretty silly. Curing acne will often help a teen with their insecurity problems, although it, in and of itself, is not generally sufficient.

    these things have been going on for thousands of years. no one needs the "pill" in order to deal with acne. it is not a cure.
    You do not understand acne, then. A doctor might be a good source of info. On the net, Medline is pretty useful. From that website:

    "Some brands of oral contraceptives are also used to treat acne in certain patients. Oral contraceptives treat acne by decreasing the amounts of certain natural substances that can cause acne."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I'd rather pay for a healthy meal for another person, not their quickest best way to have some fun time w/o lowered or no responsibility or thought.
    What have you got against married people? They're the ones who have more sex than anyone else.

    most on the pill are forcing their own normal body fluctuation to become irregular. that's where all the headaches and pains come in, do they not?
    Are you a gynaecologist? There are all sorts of things that can make menstruation problematic for some women some of the time, and for a few unfortunates, all of the time.

    Headaches. Pains. You mean cramps and feeling very unwell. The fatigue and related symptoms of anaemia for women with heavy blood flows. Or what?
    YOu forgot nausea, passing out....unable to function...since those were my problems....and I had endrometriosis to boot....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    Billvon I am not to post all of which you posted but you are RIGHT ON THE MONEY!! BIG TIME!!!


    APPLAUSE!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    Birth control is to prevent a woman from getting pregnant which is a physical and medical condition. It should absolutely be covered as should Viagra/Cialis.

    And no one can possibly change my mind on this.

    It is not a MORAL ISSUE!! It is a health issue, both physically and mentally.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Or at least not contraindicated. Mastectomies and hysterectomies are performed for prophylaxis nowadays. Should doctors who do that be disbarred?
    That occurs because the doctor views it as necessary. Usually due to lumps found or history of cancer in the family and recent increase risks. My mom had a hysterectomy because of those exact reasons, which occurred after child bearing age. the risk of cancer is not a contraceptive means.

    However, we should look at the possibility of what if a doctor does push a hysterectomy for a patient simply because that doctor thinks it is just safer, w/o any evidence of issues arriving. a doctor is a figure of authority. It is difficult to deny a person of medicine such a claim. If a doctor was to abuse their position of authority simply to get their way, then that doctor is acting outside their moral duty.
    Quote Originally Posted by Babe
    It is not a MORAL ISSUE!!
    It absolutely is a moral issue. we want our doctors to be honest with us. We want them to act according to a moral guidance. a doctor unwilling to prescribe some medicines is going to be better than one who pushes medicines onto his/her patients all day long. Morality is involved w/ everything we humans do and every job we take up. Medicine is none the differ.

    Quote Originally Posted by billvon
    Same reason an excellent life-saving pilot should lose his job just because he likes to drink while flying.
    A doctor should loose his/her own job because denying contraception when it is not needed is just like a pilot flying drunk? putting people's lives at risk vs denying a drug for medical reasons is not the same thing.

    Simply because contraceptives can be suggested or prescribed does not mean they have to. Your responses have all given the impression that a doctor must prescribe/suggest contraceptives no matter what. despite medical evidence that that there are other better ways to get to the same result or a better result. Even some contraception supporters desire medical oversight due to the many risks involved in taking oral contraceptives.

    Could you give a job description in which it phrases "must accept and prescribe contraceptives?" I sure have not. I used google, bing, and yahoo search engines to view job descriptions. nothing.

    if a doctor uses his power as a medical provider to force others to live the way he wants them to by withholding medical care, that's not an attitude compatible with medicine
    So its okay to force a doctor to live the way they do not want to live? that is completely backwards and a contradiction to your statement. Also, I did not state that doctors are forcing people to live a way they do not. I stated doctors should be allowed to make medical decisions opposite of what a patient wants (like if a patient wants unnecessary surgery - the doctor may decline) and morality plays a role.
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon
    If you made contraception available over the counter - I would agree. Do that and the problem goes away. Until then, it is a doctor's job to prescribe oral contraceptives by law.
    Where is this law? Do cite it, please.
    Last I check, obamacare was about health insurance and finances. it didn't change how a doctor makes medical decisions, but if it does - that is an added reason not to accept it.

    [QUOTE-billvon]If a woman is having sex and wants to avoid pregnancy, then she needs contraception. Refusing this based on MEDICAL conditions is no problem. [/QUOTE]that's what I've been saying this whole bloody time! and that in itself is a question of morals. too many push "the pill" just like many other drugs onto patients. However, the concept of "need" is arguable. there are several ways to avoiding pregnancy, and all less expensive and safer means should be sought. Perhaps that's just an aspect of personal preference, I consider it smart.


    If a doctor does not want to prescribe appropriate medication, he shouldn't have become a doctor who might have to do that.
    The circumstance of appropriate is up to the doctor.
    contraceptives is not appropriate all the time.

    There is another side. There are medical/scientific reasons to decline much of what obamacare supports. There are financial reasons as well.
    Following is a short list:
    Top hospitals, doctors rebelling against ObamaCare? | Fox News Video
    Abortion and the general practitioner | Doctors Against Abortion
    Doctors Against Abortion
    Abortion Doctors Tell Their Stories
    Survey finds doctors rebelling against Obamacare, famous hospitals declining to join | WashingtonExaminer.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,591
    Who's morals are you wanting them to act with Chero?
    babe likes this.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,990
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    That occurs because the doctor views it as necessary.
    Absolutely incorrect. It occurs because the PATIENT thinks it is necessary. Recently a friend of mine decided to have a bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. It was an agonizing decision for her, and her doctor was against it; he felt the odds of her both contracting and then being unable to fight breast cancer were low. She disagreed - both her mother and grandmother had died of breast cancer, and for her, the risk wasn't worth it. So she had the procedure anyway. For HER it was the right decision - and it was her body, so she got to make it.

    However, we should look at the possibility of what if a doctor does push a hysterectomy for a patient simply because that doctor thinks it is just safer, w/o any evidence of issues arriving. a doctor is a figure of authority. It is difficult to deny a person of medicine such a claim. If a doctor was to abuse their position of authority simply to get their way, then that doctor is acting outside their moral duty.
    Exactly. If a doctor overrides a patient's wishes based on his social preferences, or his feelings on how a patient should assess risk, then that is abuse of authority. That's true whether or not the patient wants a mastectomy or birth control.

    Simply because contraceptives can be suggested or prescribed does not mean they have to. Your responses have all given the impression that a doctor must prescribe/suggest contraceptives no matter what.
    Of course not. If there is a clear medical reason why contraceptives would be dangerous, then he is doing his job by not prescribing them. However, if he denies them because he feels women shouldn't use oral contraceptives, that is an abuse of his authority.

    Quote Originally Posted by billvon
    If you made contraception available over the counter - I would agree. Do that and the problem goes away. Until then, it is a doctor's job to prescribe oral contraceptives by law.
    Where is this law? Do cite it, please.
    ?? Which law? The law that requires a doctor's prescription before pharmacies are allowed to sell oral contraceptives? It varies from state to state, so you'd have to tell me the state you are in to answer that.

    that's what I've been saying this whole bloody time! and that in itself is a question of morals. too many push "the pill" just like many other drugs onto patients. However, the concept of "need" is arguable. there are several ways to avoiding pregnancy, and all less expensive and safer means should be sought. Perhaps that's just an aspect of personal preference, I consider it smart.
    Agreed. If a doctor suggests other methods, no problems. If she then says "I understand the risks and alternatives, but I still want it" - and he says "no, you'll just go out and have sex too much like all women on birth control do" - THEN he should lose his job.

    Let me ask you a question. Let's say a doctor refuses to prescribe BiDil to blacks with heart disease. When pressed he says "It is better for society as a whole to let evolution take its course. And besides, if they don't want heart disease, they can just avoid the fried chicken; they eat it all the time." Should he keep his job?
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Birth control is to prevent a woman from getting pregnant which is a physical and medical condition. It should absolutely be covered as should Viagra/Cialis.

    And no one can possibly change my mind on this.

    It is not a MORAL ISSUE!! It is a health issue, both physically and mentally.
    I think you probably mean that you do not have a moral issue with it, so therefore nobody else should either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Insurance companies want to provide birth control because it saves them money. Doctors want to prescribe birth control if it is right for the patient 99% of sexually active women use some kind of birth control, so clearly the patients want it as well.

    So...whose morals are we violating anyways?
    babe likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Insurance companies want to provide birth control because it saves them money. Doctors want to prescribe birth control if it is right for the patient 99% of sexually active women use some kind of birth control, so clearly the patients want it as well.

    So...whose morals are we violating anyways?
    Well obviously SOME religious groups, even they they will by law never know if anyone is actually using the service they object to.

    Once the courts get a hold of this, it will probably be viewed in under the lens of United States v. Lee, which is just one of several cases where individuals claimed they didn't have to subscribe to the tax law because of some moral objection to where the money would be spent; they lost those cases.
    babe likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Insurance companies want to provide birth control because it saves them money. Doctors want to prescribe birth control if it is right for the patient 99% of sexually active women use some kind of birth control, so clearly the patients want it as well.

    So...whose morals are we violating anyways?
    The people who are forced to supply birth control pills when it goes against their own moral beliefs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,990
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The people who are forced to supply birth control pills when it goes against their own moral beliefs.
    No worries there. No one should be forced to do something against their morals. If those people are doctors, they should be fired so that they no longer have to face such a moral dilemma, having to choose doing their job over heeding their moral imperatives. (And the same goes for a doctor who will not prescribe viagra to a man because he doesn't think old people should be having sex, or won't prescribe BiDil to a black man because he doesn't like blacks.)
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The people who are forced to supply birth control pills when it goes against their own moral beliefs.
    No worries there. No one should be forced to do something against their morals. If those people are doctors, they should be fired so that they no longer have to face such a moral dilemma, having to choose doing their job over heeding their moral imperatives. (And the same goes for a doctor who will not prescribe viagra to a man because he doesn't think old people should be having sex, or won't prescribe BiDil to a black man because he doesn't like blacks.)
    You are twisting like a pretzel in order to try to play the race card, when race has nothing to do with this. That's poisoning the well. Try sticking to the subject which is the government mandates on health insurance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,990
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You are twisting like a pretzel in order to try to play the race card, when race has nothing to do with this.
    Sorry you cannot see the parallel. Let's try again:

    A doctor who does not want to prescribe contraceptives for women due to his moral beliefs should be fired.
    A doctor who does not want to prescribe infertility/impotence meds for men due to his moral beliefs should be fired.
    A doctor who does not want to prescribe heart medicine for blacks due to his moral beliefs should be fired.

    Note that there is a common theme in all those examples, and it is not race.

    Let me know if that's clearer. If not I will try to make it simpler.
    Ascended and babe like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You are twisting like a pretzel in order to try to play the race card, when race has nothing to do with this.
    Sorry you cannot see the parallel. Let's try again:

    A doctor who does not want to prescribe contraceptives for women due to his moral beliefs should be fired.
    A doctor who does not want to prescribe infertility/impotence meds for men due to his moral beliefs should be fired.
    A doctor who does not want to prescribe heart medicine for blacks due to his moral beliefs should be fired.

    Note that there is a common theme in all those examples, and it is not race.

    Let me know if that's clearer. If not I will try to make it simpler.
    The doctor who refuses to serve blacks is in violation of a specific civil rights law, so there is no comparison at all. What if the doctors are self employed?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,990
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The doctor who refuses to serve blacks is in violation of a specific civil rights law, so there is no comparison at all.
    Sorry you cannot see the parallel. Let me try again with some more qualifiers:

    A doctor who does not want to prescribe contraceptives for women due to his moral beliefs should be fired - whether or not this is against the law, because he is putting his own morality ahead of his patient's.
    A doctor who does not want to prescribe infertility/impotence meds for men due to his moral beliefs should be fired - whether or not this is against the law, because he is putting his own morality ahead of his patient's.
    A doctor who does not want to prescribe heart medicine for blacks due to his moral beliefs should be fired - whether or not this is against the law, because he is putting his own morality ahead of his patient's.

    What if the doctors are self employed?
    Then their state licensing board makes the call.
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Who's morals are you wanting them to act with Chero?
    Morals that fit their profession according to their profession for betterment of humanity in which covers all aspects of life, but held personally. I view this law hinders that obligation instead of promote it. This conversation supports that view.

    Quote Originally Posted by billvon
    It occurs because the PATIENT thinks it is necessary
    the doctor is there to diagnose the issue and give advice as to what should be done and what could be done. the patient may have final say on what does happen, but that decision is based on what info the doc. gives. hence the need for second opinions and maybe even a 5th. Based on practical information. your example suggests impractical coincidences in which the doctor ignored family history. That is how it appears. still I am not the doctor and can not speak on his behalf.

    There have been plenty of incidences of patients seeking international medical groups because u.s. doctors are unable to provide services to patients due to ether legal or moral restrictions.

    Quote Originally Posted by billvon
    If a doctor overrides a patient's wishes based on his social preferences, or his feelings on how a patient should assess risk, then that is abuse of authority. That's true whether or not the patient wants a mastectomy or birth control.
    That is also true when social preferences are based on popularity and political governance. Which is why it is important to keep a doctor's ability to maintain personal identity rather control it through law to provide a populous conclusion via regulation. this is not simply a matter of safety.

    If there is a clear medical reason why contraceptives would be dangerous, then he is doing his job by not prescribing them. However, if he denies them because he feels women shouldn't use oral contraceptives, that is an abuse of his authority.
    This is a contradiction. if a doctor has a clear medical reason why contraceptives or any medical procedure/substance is too dangerous or inaccurate for patient needs, then of coarse that doctor would feel that patient shouldn't use that medical procedure/substance. In which if a doctor wishes to deny any medicine as she/he feels a patient should not use any medical procedure/substance, the reasons of it may be clear and purely medical.

    This has been the issue in this discussion all along.

    The law that requires a doctor's prescription before pharmacies are allowed to sell oral contraceptives?
    I misunderstood your statement. My question is where is it law or within a job description in which a doctor (who is given legal authority) must give a prescription.
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon
    If she then says "I understand the risks and alternatives, but I still want it" - and he says "no, you'll just go out and have sex too much like all women on birth control do" - THEN he should lose his job.
    great. discrimination is not what I have been talking about. by what you have stated earlier, there should be no problem for any doctor to still have a "no" response.

    Quote Originally Posted by billvon
    Let me ask you a question. Let's say a doctor refuses to prescribe BiDil to blacks with heart disease. When pressed he says "It is better for society as a whole to let evolution take its course. And besides, if they don't want heart disease, they can just avoid the fried chicken; they eat it all the time." Should he keep his job?
    I do not think I know enough about BiDil to present an adequate statement for such substance. a doctor basing her/his decision on inadequate information and racist intentions should not practice. this doctor may need to be released from their practice.

    however, I do not know enough about how a doctor may loose their license to suggest what may happen if a doctor is found guilty of such deeds. Although a doctor may be disbarred, I do know these actions are investigated. this is to prevent biased resolution such as you have given.

    otherwise, anyone can refuse service for many reasons, so long as it does not violate discrimination laws.

    I want to also ask. what standards do doctors operate? I don't remember the name, some oath? that is a moral. if a doctor decides that oath is credible for his or her actions. should that doctor be fired?
    Last edited by chero; December 6th, 2013 at 07:56 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The doctor who refuses to serve blacks is in violation of a specific civil rights law, so there is no comparison at all.
    Sorry you cannot see the parallel. Let me try again with some more qualifiers:

    A doctor who does not want to prescribe contraceptives for women due to his moral beliefs should be fired - whether or not this is against the law, because he is putting his own morality ahead of his patient's.
    A doctor who does not want to prescribe infertility/impotence meds for men due to his moral beliefs should be fired - whether or not this is against the law, because he is putting his own morality ahead of his patient's.
    A doctor who does not want to prescribe heart medicine for blacks due to his moral beliefs should be fired - whether or not this is against the law, because he is putting his own morality ahead of his patient's.

    What if the doctors are self employed?
    Then their state licensing board makes the call.
    what if a doctor's morals include putting his patients first and therefore makes the decision?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Insurance companies want to provide birth control because it saves them money. Doctors want to prescribe birth control if it is right for the patient 99% of sexually active women use some kind of birth control, so clearly the patients want it as well.

    So...whose morals are we violating anyways?
    The people who are forced to supply birth control pills when it goes against their own moral beliefs.
    They're providing a policy, then stepping into the examination room to interfere with something which should be between doctor and patient. They have no business there. Perhaps they shouldn't provide insurance to their employees.

    If we're going to argue our way down the tree of responsibility, it is against my morals to kill others, yet my tax money funds American wars. How do I get to stop that? I go through legislation. Therefore, if legislation determines that these people need to provide a service which violates their morals, they should either get out of the business or find another way to deal with the issue. Legally, they've got nothing.
    babe likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    what if a doctor's morals include putting his patients first and therefore makes the decision?
    If a doctor finds that her own views make it difficult or impossible to provide services that her patients want or need, then she should find another way to be a doctor. Like moving out of general practice/ ob-gyn/ paediatrics/ gerontology/ psychiatry where reproductive and sexual health and sexual behaviour matters are common and get qualifications in rheumatology or orthopaedics or some other specialty where these issues rarely need consideration (or she should move out of patient contact entirely or move out of medicine entirely).
    babe likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Insurance companies want to provide birth control because it saves them money. Doctors want to prescribe birth control if it is right for the patient 99% of sexually active women use some kind of birth control, so clearly the patients want it as well.

    So...whose morals are we violating anyways?
    The people who are forced to supply birth control pills when it goes against their own moral beliefs.
    They're providing a policy, then stepping into the examination room to interfere with something which should be between doctor and patient. They have no business there. Perhaps they shouldn't provide insurance to their employees.
    Insurance companies always provide policies and "step into the examination room" to dictate what sort of thing they pay for.
    If we're going to argue our way down the tree of responsibility, it is against my morals to kill others, yet my tax money funds American wars. How do I get to stop that? I go through legislation. Therefore, if legislation determines that these people need to provide a service which violates their morals, they should either get out of the business or find another way to deal with the issue. Legally, they've got nothing.
    Providing for the common defense is one of those powers the US Constitution gives to the federal government. There is really no other way it can work and it does result in your tax dollars sometimes going to something you do not support. Health insurance isn't like that. Health insurance is one area of life where the government can keep the hell out of people's private business.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    Insurance companies always provide policies and "step into the examination room" to dictate what sort of thing they pay for.


    That truism pretty much sums up the problem with our past health care--where the hallowed words of Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness collide with an entirely profit minded industry that resulted in as much as a 5 year difference in life expectancy, based on social-economic status, and 14 years if you add in gender, had become the leading cause of economic ruin bankruptcy, and many secondary negative effects such as disparity of child development and education in the most advanced nation on Earth--an appalling disgrace and anathema for everything America should represent.

    I do agree it should be explicitly included in the US Constitution.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Birth control is to prevent a woman from getting pregnant which is a physical and medical condition. It should absolutely be covered as should Viagra/Cialis.

    And no one can possibly change my mind on this.

    It is not a MORAL ISSUE!! It is a health issue, both physically and mentally.
    I think you probably mean that you do not have a moral issue with it, so therefore nobody else should either.
    I can't make that call for anyone else. I am pro choice and all for birth control pills being covered.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Insurance companies always provide policies and "step into the examination room" to dictate what sort of thing they pay for.


    That truism pretty much sums up the problem with our past health care--where the hallowed words of Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness collide with an entirely profit minded industry that resulted in as much as a 5 year difference in life expectancy, based on social-economic status, and 14 years if you add in gender, had become the leading cause of economic ruin bankruptcy, and many secondary negative effects such as disparity of child development and education in the most advanced nation on Earth--an appalling disgrace and anathema for everything America should represent.

    I do agree it should be explicitly included in the US Constitution.
    Don't you think someone will still "step into the examination room" if the responsibility for health insurance goes over from private companies to the government?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. It's immoral to have pre-marital sex!
    By verzen in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 194
    Last Post: January 19th, 2014, 09:20 AM
  2. Can a nihilistic/immoral attitude make you a better liar?
    By Raziell in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: January 23rd, 2013, 03:19 AM
  3. Replies: 9
    Last Post: April 30th, 2012, 09:20 PM
  4. Is Lying Immoral (Sinful, Illegal)?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 28th, 2009, 05:52 AM
  5. Why the Christian faith is so IMMORAL.
    By charles brough in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: June 26th, 2007, 04:47 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •