Post Reply
Page 1 of 10  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Sandra Fluke's Testimony...and the Bureacrats who Second-Guess Our Doctors
2 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2012 - 10:07AM #1
Jasr
Posts: 10,258
Here is another slice of irony for those who, in contrast with Rush Limbaugh and Darrell Issa, actually paid attention to Sandra Fluke's sworn testimony (which you can find here if you are interested.)

Ms. Fluke describes several incidents where students and employees with real medical conditions (not a need for family planning) for which hormonal birth control was indicated...were either denied the therapy outright by Georgetown's insurance policy, or forced to answer humiliating questions designed to question their motives for seeking birth control pills...even with a doctor's order.

For years we have been hearing the dire predictions of the anti-reform political lobby...which claims that with health care reform medical decisions will be placed in the hands of "government bureaucrats." The most extreme form of this claim was the "death panels" lie propagated by Besty McCaughey and parroted by Sarah Palin.

Here we see a perfect illustration of what progressives affirm has been rampant at least since health maintenance organizations were embraced in the 1970s: needed care being denied by "health insurance bureaucrats."

Investigate that, Darrell Issa.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2012 - 10:16AM #2
Bodean
Posts: 8,707

Mar 5, 2012 -- 10:07AM, Jasr wrote:

Here is another slice of irony for those who, in contrast with Rush Limbaugh and Darrell Issa, actually paid attention to Sandra Fluke's sworn testimony (which you can find here if you are interested.)

Ms. Fluke describes several incidents where students and employees with real medical conditions (not a need for family planning) for which hormonal birth control was indicated...were either denied the therapy outright by Georgetown's insurance policy, or forced to answer humiliating questions designed to question their motives for seeking birth control pills...even with a doctor's order.

For years we have been hearing the dire predictions of the anti-reform political lobby...which claims that with health care reform medical decisions will be placed in the hands of "government bureaucrats." The most extreme form of this claim was the "death panels" lie propagated by Besty McCaughey and parroted by Sarah Palin.

Here we see a perfect illustration of what progressives affirm has been rampant at least since health maintenance organizations were embraced in the 1970s: needed care being denied by "health insurance bureaucrats."

Investigate that, Darrell Issa.




Jasr .. it's as I've noted earlier.


IF.. the administration pursued B.C. coverage specifically for "medical conditions", I would venture to say that you would not be hearing a PEEP about this issue.


1) The percentage of B.C. pills used for such is very low.


2) Most ALL people would be in agreement.  I'd say, even the Catholic Church would have no argument, as their position is in regards to contraceptions, not medical conditions.  I'm not aware of any opposition on the part of the church for use of Estrogen/progestin tx in post menopausal women, so the opposition is not in the use of estrogen, but for purpose.


But .. I still say this issue reeks of discrimination.  Heart disease is the #1 killer of women, yet we don't hear a cry for FREE heart medicines.  We don't hear a cry for FREE antidepressants, a much more serious condition than pregnancy.  We don't hear crys for FREE Osteoporosis drugs, again, a predominantly women's health issue.


Why FREE B.C. pills.


I mean .. ok, "coverage" for B.C. pills for medical conditions ... but why free?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2012 - 10:34AM #3
Unworthyone
Posts: 1,950

Jasr, you are correct.  When the neocons started raising the 'death panels' bogeyman, progessives wisely and accurately pointed out that the true 'death panels' were already run by insurance companies, who are deciding, based on profits, who will receive what care.


And for the benefit of those with short memories, the charge of 'death panels' was a complete fabrication based on one clause in the HCR bill  which had a provision that doctors who consulted with their elderly patients regarding end-of-life issues (ie living wills, medical powers of attorney, DNR orders, designated caregivers etc.) would be paid a fee for that consultation.  This was to encourage people to have those conversations; to consider all the options, and to let someone know what their wishes were.  It was not, in the words of one republican senator, a "plot to kill grandma."


So, intelligent people will go and read Ms. Fluke's testimony.  They will see that Rush's comments regarding Ms. Flukes' sexual behavior were false, slanderous, malicious, and despicable.  The rest will believe whatever vomit spews from the mouth of Limbaugh and lick it up like it was manna from heaven.

I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.  Thomas Jefferson

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein

You can get anything you want out of life if you will just help enough other people get what they want. Zig Ziglar

Here's the difference between a capitalist society and a communist society:  Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's the other way around.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2012 - 10:41AM #4
Jasr
Posts: 10,258

Mar 5, 2012 -- 10:16AM, Bodean wrote:


Jasr .. it's as I've noted earlier.


IF.. the administration pursued B.C. coverage specifically for "medical conditions", I would venture to say that you would not be hearing a PEEP about this issue.




You may be right. On the other hand, according to this testimony Georgetown's insurance policy did cover hormonal birth control for medical conditions, and several women were humiliated or denied or both...when they sought out this care. If the administration had specified birth control for medical conditions only, even if the Bishops did not complain about it...is there any indication that thousands of female employees of Catholic institutions would not have been treated the same way by private carriers (which is the topic of this thread).


Mar 5, 2012 -- 10:16AM, Bodean wrote:


1) The percentage of B.C. pills used for such is very low.




That is probably true...though I suspect it is not as low as you think it is. I wonder if there is any medical literature on this topic?


Mar 5, 2012 -- 10:16AM, Bodean wrote:


2) Most ALL people would be in agreement.  I'd say, even the Catholic Church would have no argument, as their position is in regards to contraceptions, not medical conditions.  I'm not aware of any opposition on the part of the church for use of Estrogen/progestin tx in post menopausal women, so the opposition is not in the use of estrogen, but for purpose.




I believe you are correct.


Mar 5, 2012 -- 10:16AM, Bodean wrote:


But .. I still say this issue reeks of discrimination.  Heart disease is the #1 killer of women, yet we don't hear a cry for FREE heart medicines.  We don't hear a cry for FREE antidepressants, a much more serious condition than pregnancy.  We don't hear crys for FREE Osteoporosis drugs, again, a predominantly women's health issue.




Actually I am not sure such preventive regimens are not covered under the regulations. They constitute preventive care, after all. If they are not...maybe they should be.


Mar 5, 2012 -- 10:16AM, Bodean wrote:


Why FREE B.C. pills.


I mean .. ok, "coverage" for B.C. pills for medical conditions ... but why free?





Because...and only because...family planning is considered by most public health bodies to be component of primary/preventive care, so we are back to the old question on which you and I agree to disagree.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2012 - 10:49AM #5
Girlchristian
Posts: 10,718

Mar 5, 2012 -- 10:41AM, Jasr wrote:


Mar 5, 2012 -- 10:16AM, Bodean wrote:


Jasr .. it's as I've noted earlier.


IF.. the administration pursued B.C. coverage specifically for "medical conditions", I would venture to say that you would not be hearing a PEEP about this issue.




You may be right. On the other hand, according to this testimony Georgetown's insurance policy did cover hormonal birth control for medical conditions, and several women were humiliated or denied or both...when they sought out this care. If the administration had specified birth control for medical conditions only, even if the Bishops did not complain about it...is there any indication that thousands of female employees of Catholic institutions would not have been treated the same way by private carriers (which is the topic of this thread).


Mar 5, 2012 -- 10:16AM, Bodean wrote:


1) The percentage of B.C. pills used for such is very low.




That is probably true...though I suspect it is not as low as you think it is. I wonder if there is any medical literature on this topic?


According to PP (which I know some will see as a biased source and it is), 58% of women use BC for a medical condition, www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/position.... Now, this number does include the women that use BC to regulate their period (not really a medical condition, it's about convenience), to ease pain, and to treat acne (which there are other alternatives for).


Mar 5, 2012 -- 10:16AM, Bodean wrote:


2) Most ALL people would be in agreement.  I'd say, even the Catholic Church would have no argument, as their position is in regards to contraceptions, not medical conditions.  I'm not aware of any opposition on the part of the church for use of Estrogen/progestin tx in post menopausal women, so the opposition is not in the use of estrogen, but for purpose.




I believe you are correct.


Mar 5, 2012 -- 10:16AM, Bodean wrote:


But .. I still say this issue reeks of discrimination.  Heart disease is the #1 killer of women, yet we don't hear a cry for FREE heart medicines.  We don't hear a cry for FREE antidepressants, a much more serious condition than pregnancy.  We don't hear crys for FREE Osteoporosis drugs, again, a predominantly women's health issue.




Actually I am not sure such preventive regimens are not covered under the regulations. They constitute preventive care, after all. If they are not...maybe they should be.


Here is a list of the preventative services covered by the ACA, www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2010/....


The items Bo listed are covered, but only the screenings for them, not the actual medicine. Contraception, immunizations, and folic acid supplements are the only 'meds' covered under preventative care.


Mar 5, 2012 -- 10:16AM, Bodean wrote:


Why FREE B.C. pills.


I mean .. ok, "coverage" for B.C. pills for medical conditions ... but why free?





Because...and only because...family planning is considered by most public health bodies to be component of primary/preventive care, so we are back to the old question on which you and I agree to disagree.





"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2012 - 10:54AM #6
Unworthyone
Posts: 1,950

Mar 5, 2012 -- 10:16AM, Bodean wrote:


IF.. the administration pursued B.C. coverage specifically for "medical conditions", I would venture to say that you would not be hearing a PEEP about this issue.


1) The percentage of B.C. pills used for such is very low.


2) Most ALL people would be in agreement.  I'd say, even the Catholic Church would have no argument, as their position is in regards to contraceptions, not medical conditions.  I'm not aware of any opposition on the part of the church for use of Estrogen/progestin tx in post menopausal women, so the opposition is not in the use of estrogen, but for purpose.


But .. I still say this issue reeks of discrimination.  Heart disease is the #1 killer of women, yet we don't hear a cry for FREE heart medicines.  We don't hear a cry for FREE antidepressants, a much more serious condition than pregnancy.  We don't hear crys for FREE Osteoporosis drugs, again, a predominantly women's health issue.


Why FREE B.C. pills.


I mean .. ok, "coverage" for B.C. pills for medical conditions ... but why free?




First of all, what is your basis for stating the use of BC pills for treating medical conditions "is very low"?  When the pill first became widely available back in the early sixties, the running joke was about how many Catholic women ran to their doctors claiming "unbearable menstrual pain" to obtain a prescription.  The fact is, because of medical privacy laws (HIPAA) only the prescriber and patient are supposed to know 'why' a particular medication was prescribed.  Even the pharmacist is not privy to this information unless the patient chooses to disclose it.  And the pharmacist is then bound by those same privacy laws to keep that information confidential.


So what if only a few million women benefit medically from hormonal therapy, right? If some guy in a pointy hat says 'no' the answer is 'no', right?


'Free' is a poor choice of words.  There is nothing 'free' about any healthcare insurance.  The employee pays for their coverage, either directly, as I do, or indirectly by taking a lower wage or salary in return for the employer providing the coverage.  "at no additional out-of-pocket expense to the employee" would have been better verbiage, IMO.


And the reason that we don't hear about those other items you mentioned is because nobody it trying to reduce women's access to those meds and treatments.

I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.  Thomas Jefferson

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein

You can get anything you want out of life if you will just help enough other people get what they want. Zig Ziglar

Here's the difference between a capitalist society and a communist society:  Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's the other way around.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2012 - 11:03AM #7
Jasr
Posts: 10,258

Mar 5, 2012 -- 10:54AM, Unworthyone wrote:


The fact is, because of medical privacy laws (HIPAA) only the prescriber and patient are supposed to know 'why' a particular medication was prescribed. 




The prescriber, the patient, and the private insurance carrier.


That is the truck-sized hole in the HIPAA law that nobody wants to talk about.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2012 - 11:11AM #8
Jasr
Posts: 10,258

Mar 5, 2012 -- 10:49AM, Girlchristian wrote:


I wonder if there is any medical literature on this topic?


According to PP (which I know some will see as a biased source and it is), 58% of women use BC for a medical condition, www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/position.... Now, this number does include the women that use BC to regulate their period (not really a medical condition, it's about convenience), to ease pain, and to treat acne (which there are other alternatives for).




I agree that this reported statistic does not really constitute medical research, but not because PP is "biased." If they are reporting on their own clientele the numbers are probably correct, but their clientele are not a representative sample, and as you have observed, the medical conditions they report on are not all the grave threats to health that were reported in the Georgetown testimony.


That is what I would like to see some real research on.


And it is perfectly doable...blinded studies do not violate HIPAA.



Mar 5, 2012 -- 10:49AM, Girlchristian wrote:

.Here is a list of the preventative services covered by the ACA, www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2010/....


The items Bo listed are covered, but only the screenings for them, not the actual medicine. Contraception, immunizations, and folic acid supplements are the only 'meds' covered under preventative care.





Ah...very interesting...thank you!


Well the definition of what is preventive is not at all universal, as we can see.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2012 - 11:25AM #9
Bodean
Posts: 8,707

Mar 5, 2012 -- 10:41AM, Jasr wrote:


You may be right. On the other hand, according to this testimony Georgetown's insurance policy did cover hormonal birth control for medical conditions, and several women were humiliated or denied or both...when they sought out this care.



Then it sounds more like a legal issue against the insurance company.  Based on what you just said, the Catholic Church had no part of it.  In fact, their insurance policy "did" cover hormonal B.C. for medical conditions.  Thus .. the cry of the Catholic Church denying these women tx appears false.


Mar 5, 2012 -- 10:41AM, Jasr wrote:


I mean .. ok, "coverage" for B.C. pills for medical conditions ... but why free?



Because...and only because...family planning is considered by most public health bodies to be component of primary/preventive care, so we are back to the old question on which you and I agree to disagree.





But your answer does not address .. "free".


Even if we agree that preventive care is healthcare .. why "free". 


- A membership at a health club would be more beneficial to healthcare cost and women's health than B.C., pills, ... so should that membership be free??  


- How bout diet plans, like Weightwatchers or Nutrisystems, proven to lead to weightloss and tx obesity, thus reducing type II diabetes and heart disease, as well as preventing numerous joint disorders ... should those be free as well??


- Chantix ... highests success rate in smoking cessation, thus decreasing lung cancer, COPD, and heart disease .... should it be free??


I mean ... the position is that "preventive care" should be free .... and that B.C. is considered preventive care.  YET ... all these other preventive care measures, which are much more impactful than B.C. pills are not free ..... why should B.C. pills be free?


 


Post Edit ... if you make B.C. "free of charge", what case do you have to argue against other measures being free?  As GC noted ... real preventive medicine is not included.  Why Not!!  Why is the preventive treatment of the #1 Killer of Women in America [heart disease] excluded from what is presumed preventive heatlh.?


It goes back to my original assertion.  This is all POLTICS .. and has nothing to do with women's health.  It is a political ploy to a) make the GOP look bad, .. and b) buy off a block of voters.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2012 - 11:45AM #10
Jasr
Posts: 10,258

Mar 5, 2012 -- 11:25AM, Bodean wrote:


Mar 5, 2012 -- 10:41AM, Jasr wrote:


You may be right. On the other hand, according to this testimony Georgetown's insurance policy did cover hormonal birth control for medical conditions, and several women were humiliated or denied or both...when they sought out this care.



Then it sounds more like a legal issue against the insurance company.  Based on what you just said, the Catholic Church had no part of it.  In fact, their insurance policy "did" cover hormonal B.C. for medical conditions.  Thus .. the cry of the Catholic Church denying these women tx appears false.




No...the testimony was that the insurance company was applying the coverage rules that had been set by the employer, and that they were doing so in an overzealous fashion, despite the presence of a doctor's order. And the topic of this thread is interference by insurance companies...in medical decisions made by medical providers...not so much the church's role.


Mar 5, 2012 -- 11:25AM, Bodean wrote:


Because...and only because...family planning is considered by most public health bodies to be component of primary/preventive care, so we are back to the old question on which you and I agree to disagree.


But your answer does not address .. "free".


Even if we agree that preventive care is healthcare .. why "free". 




Because preventive care is good policy; it improves populational health, it improves quality of life, and it saves money in the long run.


Mar 5, 2012 -- 11:25AM, Bodean wrote:


- A membership at a health club would be more beneficial to healthcare cost and women's health than B.C., pills, ... so should that membership be free??  




Under my health plan, I can download a form. Every time I visit my health club I get it initialed by the personal trainer who works the CV room, and at the end of three months if I have visited at least 3 times a week I can apply for reimbursement of some of my health club fees. This is not a new idea!


But no...it is not "free."


Mar 5, 2012 -- 11:25AM, Bodean wrote:


- How bout diet plans, like Weightwatchers or Nutrisystems, proven to lead to weightloss and tx obesity, thus reducing type II diabetes and heart disease, as well as preventing numerous joint disorders ... should those be free as well??




We get a discount on my wife's Weight Watchers membership, provided we apply on line through the Anthem web site. But no...it's not free.


Mar 5, 2012 -- 11:25AM, Bodean wrote:


- Chantix ... highests success rate in smoking cessation, thus decreasing lung cancer, COPD, and heart disease .... should it be free??




Maybe! Or at least patients should be rewarded for a good outcome, no matter what cessation therapy they use. Some health plans do this too.


Mar 5, 2012 -- 11:25AM, Bodean wrote:


I mean ... the position is that "preventive care" should be free .... and that B.C. is considered preventive care.  YET ... all these other preventive care measures, which are much more impactful than B.C. pills are not free ..... why should B.C. pills be free?




I think you know my answer, just as I know you will not be convinced!  Smile


Mar 5, 2012 -- 11:25AM, Bodean wrote:


Post Edit ... if you make B.C. "free of charge", what case do you have to argue against other measures being free?  As GC noted ... real preventive medicine is not included.  Why Not!!  Why is the preventive treatment of the #1 Killer of Women in America [heart disease] excluded from what is presumed preventive heatlh.?




Good question!


Mar 5, 2012 -- 11:25AM, Bodean wrote:


It goes back to my original assertion.  This is all POLTICS .. and has nothing to do with women's health.  It is a political ploy to a) make the GOP look bad, .. and b) buy off a block of voters.





Well if it's a ploy to make the GOP look bad it's not working very well. Obama is the one who backed down.


Of course the GOP could overplay this, but that would be their funeral.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 10  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook