Mar 1, 2012 -- 5:10PM, mainecaptain wrote:

Mar 1, 2012 -- 4:52PM, TemplarS wrote:

I am not myself convinced that insurance companies should be forced to pay 100% for contraceptives....

Oh I give up. I can not believe anyone would question such a thing. It is anti women no matter how one wants to play word games and cognitive dissonance.

Is not covering viagra at 100% anti-male? Is not covering insulin at 100% anti-diabetic? Most insurance companies don't cover ANY medicine at 100%. You're demanding special consideration for women.

It is more then just "birth control" It is the desire to deny women basic medical care and medicine. Morality means that insurance companies pay for this.

Unfriggin believable that this is being discussed. What is it with people these day that see this is something that should be debated. Who are you, that you feel it is alright to deny women health care? Because yes birth control medication is part of women's overall health care. People take birth control medication for many things not involving birth and pregnancy control.

And I know it is a forgotten knowledge, but pregnancy is dangerous, people die, yes still die in childbirth and pregnancy. Preventing it is medically, necessary for some women.

Hasn't Rush been married two or three times? Rush has NO children. How do you suppose that happened? Or does he only marry sterile women?

Contraception, abortion, pap’s smears, Sonograms, breast exams are health issues.  Health issue should not be political footballs.    Copay should be part of standard health care.  Copay keeps the user involved and aware.

If a woman does not want to use contraception on religious grounds, her insurance company does not have to pay for the non-use.   Religious institutions employing workers provide (usually)  group coverage through a third part insurance company, the religious institution does not carry its own.   All groups covered, not just the religious persons covered,   are considered in the insurance company setting it premiums based on risk.  Non contraceptive coverage carries a higher risk medically than those covered.

Mar 1, 2012 -- 7:07PM, REteach wrote:

The (hypocritical) Republicans throw Christianity in everyone's face, but while Jesus said nothing about gay marriage, he did give a specific command to care for the sick.

+1

(And I'm personally so very tired of Republicans, Christianity, and politics right now.) 

Mar 1, 2012 -- 6:20PM, Girlchristian wrote:

They don't cover them at 100% of the cost with the patient not having any co-pay so why should birth control be covered at 100%?

Some plans cover drugs without a co-pay. Those are the plans the rich usually have. They could care less about the "unwashed masses" and their medical problems.