A win for women

[bigbadberry3]

And maybe those of you that are dating them:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162- ... rts-today/

[telcoman]

It's about time

Romney doesn't even know what the Lily Ledbetter act does.

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/epa_ledbetter.cfm

Telcoman

[stebo0728]

This is bull hockey. Although the bill covers more than just contraception, like checkups, counseling, screenings. Those all sound great, but this in not a proper extension of governmental oversight. Effectively this bill has stated that women now have a RIGHT to these services and products. Where does that line of reasoning stop? Why dont people have a right to other medications? Even life saving medications aren't treated this way. Is that next? Realistically, correctly, a woman has 3 choices. Buy the aforementioned, get health insurance that CHOOSES to cover it, or go without. The same applies to any other good or service, why is this special?

Also, equally silly, so religious institutions dont have to "pay for" or "suggest" these goods and services, but the insurance has to provide it free of charge? Are people really that stupid? Ok so your employer doesn't have to pay the premiums for this medication, but your insurance has to provide it free or charge? Thats so redonculous a position. So base premiums will rise, because the insurance agency isn't in the charity business, they're gonna get their ROI on these products. The costs for these "free good" will be built back into the premiums, which will rise, and even though the employer isnt paying for a line item in their policy for the goods, they are no doubt paying for them anyway in the base premium amounts.

[bigbadberry3]

Women have the option of joining in they don't have to so I don't see it as government over reach. I think it wil help more than people think in terms of preventing unwanted preganancies and all of the pull that unwanted pregnancies put on public services.

[stebo0728]

Thats not a good excuse. The government has declared a right to these goods and services. That is the over reach. It doesnt matter that they made it optional. Our right to practice free speech is optional as well. If women, or some subgroup of women, were being denied access, and no I dont mean because of cost, I mean flat denied, and the government stepped in and said "Hey, you cant deny access". That would be acceptable. The fact is, women are not denied access. You can't call a monetary hurdle a denial of access. Any good or service is an exension of some combination of the providers time, intellectual property, physical labor, or physical property. You simply can't claim a right to that, its completely unethical. You can paint it with a pretty sign that talks about prevented pregnancy, and how that helps society, but thats a distraction. The fact remains, we've declared a right to these products, and thats not right.

[stebo0728]

And ill push a bit more here. Part of the problem plaguing us today, is that we've made a habit out of furthering unethical actions, under the guise of "helping society". Just because a positive benefit may occur from a given action does not clear its unethical nature. If we were to seize all wealth above some % of the poverty level, say 115%, and put that into the coffers, that would have a tremendous positive effect on the debt and deficit, but it wouldn't be ethical, and it would a plethora of unseen future consequences. When did this nation embrace the ethically depraved? You just wait, there will be negative consequences to this policy, there will be future battles based on this precedent, and we will end up ruining healthcare altogether, or Lord knows what other industries. This was a dangerous precedent that was set.

[bigbadberry3]

Also, equally silly, so religious institutions dont have to "pay for" or "suggest" these goods and services, but the insurance has to provide it free of charge?

I also think that is dumb. Religious institutions should pay for healthcare including birth control.

I think monetary hurdles can exist. I am not saying I am entitled to a Ferrari in anyway, but healthcare should be one thing where there is no monetary obstacle to overcome in order to live.

[stebo0728]

But here's one thing everyone misses. What would happen if the care you seek didn't exist? It hasn't always existed. Alot of our bad health is choice related, of course not all, but alot is. But regardless, you only get the life God gave you for free, anything else is a service provided by someone else. Am I against making it as cheap as possible? Of course not, but Im certainly not in favor of having a system where entrepenuers or innovators aren't rewarded for doing so. There are ways to get costs down, and thats what we need to be tackling, not just throwing insurance at it.

You said you dont think you have a right to a Ferrari. Well, seriously, whats the difference? Imagine a world where we had ZERO healthcare, no one yet has figured out how our body works or how to fix it. You have an ailment that is certain to kill you in the near future. You are approached by a man who says he has a product that will cure you. Its a legitimate cure here, not snake oil. This man has debt racked up from borrowing to buy ingridients, and tools to develop the cure. Do you have a right to demand that cure, at no charge? Well extrapolate that out to today. Our healthcare is merely a grand sum of millions of interactions like this. People have put blood sweat and tears into their careers, into their research. Can we claim a right to the fruits of their labor? Never mind the emotional distraction of human life, if it were anything ANYTHING else, would this silly line of reasoning even have a chance? People live, people die, we have technology that helps, but its not free, nothing is free. Should we strive to make it as affordable as possible? Sure, we strive to make everything as affordable as possible. Some things are easier than others. Healthcare happens to have alot of really high demands, demands in an industry where supply continues to dwindle as the economy dwindles. Asserting notions of "rights of claim" like this certainly dont help.

[bigbadberry3]

You said you dont think you have a right to a Ferrari. Well, seriously, whats the difference? Imagine a world where we had ZERO healthcare, no one yet has figured out how our body works or how to fix it. You have an ailment that is certain to kill you in the near future. You are approached by a man who says he has a product that will cure you. Its a legitimate cure here, not snake oil. This man has debt racked up from borrowing to buy ingridients, and tools to develop the cure. Do you have a right to demand that cure, at no charge? Well extrapolate that out to today. Our healthcare is merely a grand sum of millions of interactions like this. People have put blood sweat and tears into their careers, into their research. Can we claim a right to the fruits of their labor? Never mind the emotional distraction of human life, if it were anything ANYTHING else, would this silly line of reasoning even have a chance? People live, people die, we have technology that helps, but its not free, nothing is free. Should we strive to make it as affordable as possible? Sure, we strive to make everything as affordable as possible. Some things are easier than others. Healthcare happens to have alot of really high demands, demands in an industry where supply continues to dwindle as the economy dwindles. Asserting notions of "rights of claim" like this certainly dont help.

My Ferrari isn't needed to live but I will address the rest of your post.

I understand the R&D cost.That is the business aspect of medicine. Should the medicine be free? No, but should an average person have the opporunity to be able to purchase a LIFE SAVING DRUG within reasonable cost? You betcha.

Medicine is supposed to be about helping not profiteering. Look at the oath doctors take. It isn't an oath to making as much bank as possible, it's about helping those who need it.