Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   GOP Senators to women: "No, you can't have contraception. Not yours"   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 29
    More: Obvious, GOP, Senate, Greg Shaheen, NARAL, Mitch McConnell, United States elections, 2010, contraceptives, Office for National Statistics  
•       •       •

2832 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Jul 2014 at 10:29 AM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-07-17 10:37:09 AM  
4 votes:
Republicans called the bill a political stunt aimed at helping vulnerable Democratic incumbents in the elections.

How dare the Democrats propose bills that a majority of the electorate would favor!  Will they stop at nothing with their "stunts"?
2014-07-17 10:14:45 AM  
4 votes:

Sumo Surfer: GOP Senators to women: "No, you can't have contraception. Not yours"

Except they can have contraception, despite the lies Democrats are hoping voters will buy.


...but hey..as long as your Viagra is covered we are ok! Small penises I guess need special care. AK-47's with extra long barrels will be covered soon.
2014-07-17 11:07:02 AM  
3 votes:

dwrash: Typical response from a hack... I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

The big thing that this country needs is a sit down and for a vote on what the total tax burden should be on every american and corporation and set a percentage cap on it and then make government operate under that hard cap. This entire idea of raising taxes and requiring people to purchase things is a pyramid scheme is bound to collapse when people just don't have any more money to give.

But politicians know that such a discussion, although wise, is political suicide.

The bottom line is that we are all stupid.


Free, openly available birth control is the wisest fiscal option that could be considered for the public.  The billions saved in lost wages, lost education time, welfare, social security, social services, medicaid, unpaid hospital bills, medical complications, etc would change the way our society functions, and create greater freedom for a large portion of our populace.

And those that need this most are the working poor, low income, and those on some form of assistance already.  Restricting it in any way puts a LARGER tax burden on the populace.  This a cost of literally pennies per person per year, and would save billions in hard-dollar services and massive amounts of soft-dollar savings over the next 50 years.

This is a measure that could measurably and demonstrably change millions of lives, making them more productive, and lowering the tax burden on the populace for services.  It's the most sound fiscal decision that could be implemented.

Outdated social expectations are the only reason it's not already law.
2014-07-17 10:43:44 AM  
3 votes:

JoieD'Zen: F*ck them all. Politicians Businesses have no business in women's healthcare and reproductive choices. The men should STFU unless their own wife is involved.


Let's not forget what this is about - your boss preventing your doctor from making sound medical decisions, because of the boss' beliefs.

Politicians tried to make this clear in the ACA (the mandate), and tried to play fair by exempting religious nonprofits. I think it's safe to say that next time, they won't carve anything out for them.

// give them an inch, they take a 7' cross
// and then they borrow your hammer and NEVER return it...
2014-07-17 11:04:38 AM  
2 votes:

dwrash: So would a woman prefer to pay a 30 copay for a doctors visit and then a 10-20 copay for her birth control pills or just go to CVS and pay $25-$30 for a months supply.  I think the answer is obvious.  Over the counter is cheaper for everyone involved.


Can you math?

$30 + ($15-25) x 13 = $225-355

($25-30) x 13 = $325-390

If that's the choice you're laying out, I know which one I'd pick.  But that's irrelevant because not everyone can have those fancy pants plans with copays rather than deductibles anyways.

But all that aside, the most effective AND cheapest long term birth control is exactly the type Hobby Lobby didn't want to cover: implants and IUDs.  You can go to your doctor once and get a device that lasts years.  Problem is the upfront costs are intimidating.  Everyone can think of something they'd rather spend $1000 on now; you don't do quite the same calculation automatically with $30 a month.

The nice thing about no cost birth control is that those short term versus long term cost calculations are removed from the equation and more women choose the cheaper, more effective options.

\Yes, 4 weeks goes into 52 weeks 13 times, not 12, despite what many practitioners seem to think as they keep writing for 12 packs when they know your insurance won't let you come back for 52 weeks.
2014-07-17 11:00:39 AM  
2 votes:

Doc Daneeka: Wouldn't failing to provide contraceptive coverage actually raise premiums for everybody else?

You'd have to think that it's cheaper for an insurance company to pay for contraception than it is to pay for prenatal care / labor / delivery / hospital stay / maternity / newborn care.


It blows my mind that a group of people that support and value the ideal of "preemption" for their wars, don't understand that paying for a pill preempts all that other 'cost' you outlay in your post.
2014-07-17 10:39:53 AM  
2 votes:

WI241TH: The vote was 56-43 to move ahead on the measure, short of the 60 votes necessary to proceed.

Yeah, that makes sense


The way the media has just accepted the filibuster as standard politics is revolting. Not that long ago using it to block popular legislation would have resulted in taking a hit in the polls, now it's business as usual. And it's largely due to the media not calling them on it for fear of looking biased.
2014-07-17 10:33:25 AM  
2 votes:

Sumo Surfer: GOP Senators to women: "No, you can't have contraception. Not yours"

Except they can have contraception, despite the lies Democrats are hoping voters will buy.


Unless they can only afford the contraception if it's covered by their health care plan and their employer refuses to cover it because Jesus.
2014-07-17 02:08:16 PM  
1 votes:

Khellendros: They don't realize WE PAY FOR IT ANYWAY. I'm all for paying a few cents now to save hundreds of thousands in subsidized services and lost wages/productivity later. But I guess that's too difficult for some people.


Republicans don't give a rolling rat sh*t about that... in those tiny little hamster cages they call "minds" it's all about control, not babies or money. Women who choose to control their own lives and their own bodies tweaks the living sh*t out of them, and these women deserve to SUFFER because they DIDN'T follow THE RULES.
Have unmarried sex? SUFFER!
Have unmarried protected sex? SUFFER!!
Have unmarried protected sex because you choose to have a child at that time in your life? SUFFER!!!!
Have unmarried unprotected sex and choose not to have a child at that time in your life? SUFFER!
Be a woman who makes her own decisions without input from a man? SUFFER X INFINITY!THERE AREN'T ENOUGH EXCLAMATION POINTS!

It's all about the punishment and suffering.
2014-07-17 01:30:51 PM  
1 votes:
How on earth can a business claim they're paying for ANY part of employer provided insurance? It's part of the employee's pay. It doesn't matter if the employee pays for part of it from their normal pay and the employer 'pays' for the rest. The 'rest' of it is part of the overall pay. So my response to "not yours" is the same. That money is "not yours, it's mine, and I'll spend it on what the government says I can. Oh, and fark you for thinking it's yours, and fark you again for imposing your religion on me, and fark you for coming in-between me and my doctor.
2014-07-17 01:05:34 PM  
1 votes:
The vote was 56-43 to move ahead on the measure, short of the 60 votes necessary to proceed.


This is the single biggest reason I will never vote for a Republican at the federal level again. They've made it into a tyranny of the minority.
2014-07-17 11:34:52 AM  
1 votes:
I wished I could actually care about whiny women. As such, no.
2014-07-17 11:29:05 AM  
1 votes:

someonelse: way south: Now you want them to pay for things they see as optional because you think women should get more free stuff, since they are women.

Name the free stuff.


People who don't understand how compensation packages work believe it is free.
2014-07-17 11:16:36 AM  
1 votes:

dwrash: and to be honest, (1) an IUD is cost ineffective in the long run and (2) due to all the problems with them are getting more and more expensive as time goes on due to law suits. (3) It also doesn't protect from other diseases that are costly to cure/maintain.


1. An IUD (ParaGard is the one I'm most familiar with, and IIRC the most common) costs about $600-800, and is good for 12 years. Using $800 over 12 years, that's $5.56 per month on mostly idiot-proof BC that is between 97.8% and 99.9% effective (compared with The Pill, which as used is only about 80-some% effective). How much does a month's worth of The Pill cost?

2. I think you're using older information. In the 60s and 70s, there were some health concerns and a few lawsuits, but the "rebirth" (sorry) of the IUD as a common BC option has had fewer of those problems. Specifically for women who can't take hormonal BC for health reasons, an IUD like ParaGard might be her only option, and docs are prescribing them MORE often these days, not less

3. No other BC option besides condoms do that, and the fact that pregnancy and disease are two different things to protect against may inform your argument. Why shouldn't a married woman be able to have condom-free sex with her husband (both of them disease-free) and be largely secure in the knowledge she won't get pregnant? (Why do you hate freedom?)
2014-07-17 11:06:19 AM  
1 votes:

dwrash: So would a woman prefer to pay a 30 copay for a doctors visit and then a 10-20 copay for her birth control pills or just go to CVS and pay $25-$30 for a months supply. I think the answer is obvious. Over the counter is cheaper for everyone involved.


dwrash: Hey.. I do like to troll sometimes... there are so many stupid people here that will bite at anything.

2014-07-17 11:04:36 AM  
1 votes:

Drakuun: Doc Daneeka: Wouldn't failing to provide contraceptive coverage actually raise premiums for everybody else?

You'd have to think that it's cheaper for an insurance company to pay for contraception than it is to pay for prenatal care / labor / delivery / hospital stay / maternity / newborn care.

It blows my mind that a group of people that support and value the ideal of "preemption" for their wars, don't understand that paying for a pill preempts all that other 'cost' you outlay in your post.


Not to mention abortion.  Contraception prevents pregnancy, preventing pregnancy prevents abortions, the GOP doesn't like abortions.  They should be all over this shiat, but they're not, because it's really just about punishing sluts for being slutty.
2014-07-17 11:00:19 AM  
1 votes:

chimp_ninja: Republicans called the bill a political stunt aimed at helping vulnerable Democratic incumbents in the elections.

How dare the Democrats propose bills that a majority of the electorate would favor!  Will they stop at nothing with their "stunts"?


See also: raising the minimum wage and expanding background checks for gun purchases.
2014-07-17 10:56:55 AM  
1 votes:

dwrash: Karac: dwrash: Such BS from the left... NOTHING is free.. NOTHING.

Birth control should be available over the counter without prescription.. and the Republicans had that in their latest bill, and it was defeated.

FYI, More and more drugs are being available over the counter and not covered under insurance anymore...

Like the mantra of 'free' preventative care.. free is a load of crap, you still have to pay co-pays out the wazoo.

So would a woman prefer to pay a 30 copay for a doctors visit and then a 10-20 copay for her birth control pills or just go to CVS and pay $25-$30 for a months supply.  I think the answer is obvious.  Over the counter is cheaper for everyone involved.

What's the over-the-counter cost of an IUD?

Different issue which is not at stake here... and to be honest, an IUD is cost ineffective in the long run and due to all the problems with them are getting more and more expensive as time goes on due to law suits.  It also doesn't protect from other diseases that are costly to cure/maintain.

If we were serious about disease and birth control in this country, condoms would be pretty much the only thing the CDC should allow.


How is the contraception that Hobby Lobby specifically objected to a different issue which is not at stake in a conversation about the contraception that Hobby Lobby objected to?
2014-07-17 10:56:08 AM  
1 votes:

dwrash: Such BS from the left... NOTHING is free.. NOTHING.

Birth control should be available over the counter without prescription.. and the Republicans had that in their latest bill, and it was defeated.

FYI, More and more drugs are being available over the counter and not covered under insurance anymore...

Like the mantra of 'free' preventative care.. free is a load of crap, you still have to pay co-pays out the wazoo.

So would a woman prefer to pay a 30 copay for a doctors visit and then a 10-20 copay for her birth control pills or just go to CVS and pay $25-$30 for a months supply.  I think the answer is obvious.  Over the counter is cheaper for everyone involved.


Please link me to the bill that republicans proposed making birth control available over the counter that was defeated, I would like to read it.
2014-07-17 10:53:23 AM  
1 votes:

dwrash: Birth control should be available over the counter without prescription


really?  so women, who have no idea what their needs are medically, should just randomly pick some form of birth control pill that will do God knows what to their physical and mental health?  Birth control pills are not one size fits all.

Karac: What's the over-the-counter cost of an IUD?


yeah, just sit up on the counter and the pharmacist will put it in for you. or you can get a hand mirror and do it yourself.
2014-07-17 10:52:21 AM  
1 votes:

dwrash: NOTHING is free


Except 20 types of birth control medications, as mandated by ACA. No co-pays, co-insurance, or other cost sharing agreements may be employed with birth control. It is literally free to the patient.
2014-07-17 10:52:20 AM  
1 votes:
Wouldn't failing to provide contraceptive coverage actually raise premiums for everybody else?

You'd have to think that it's cheaper for an insurance company to pay for contraception than it is to pay for prenatal care / labor / delivery / hospital stay / maternity / newborn care.
2014-07-17 10:47:31 AM  
1 votes:

dwrash: Such BS from the left... NOTHING is free.. NOTHING.

Birth control should be available over the counter without prescription.. and the Republicans had that in their latest bill, and it was defeated.

FYI, More and more drugs are being available over the counter and not covered under insurance anymore...

Like the mantra of 'free' preventative care.. free is a load of crap, you still have to pay co-pays out the wazoo.

So would a woman prefer to pay a 30 copay for a doctors visit and then a 10-20 copay for her birth control pills or just go to CVS and pay $25-$30 for a months supply.  I think the answer is obvious.  Over the counter is cheaper for everyone involved.


What's the over-the-counter cost of an IUD?
2014-07-17 10:44:49 AM  
1 votes:
Such BS from the left... NOTHING is free.. NOTHING.

Birth control should be available over the counter without prescription.. and the Republicans had that in their latest bill, and it was defeated.

FYI, More and more drugs are being available over the counter and not covered under insurance anymore...

Like the mantra of 'free' preventative care.. free is a load of crap, you still have to pay co-pays out the wazoo.

So would a woman prefer to pay a 30 copay for a doctors visit and then a 10-20 copay for her birth control pills or just go to CVS and pay $25-$30 for a months supply.  I think the answer is obvious.  Over the counter is cheaper for everyone involved.
2014-07-17 10:44:09 AM  
1 votes:

Xythero: Is "scoring political points" with constituents by actually listening to them and doing what they ask a stunt now?


You know who complains about their opponent running up the score? Losers. Losers complain when their opponent runs up the score.
2014-07-17 08:23:10 AM  
1 votes:
GOP Senators to women: "No, you can't have contraception. Not yours"

Except they can have contraception, despite the lies Democrats are hoping voters will buy.
2014-07-17 07:28:39 AM  
1 votes:
Republicans called the bill a political stunt aimed at helping vulnerable Democratic incumbents in the elections.

Possibly, but you dumbshiats still played right into it, because you just can't help yourselves.
2014-07-17 06:33:10 AM  
1 votes:

JoieD'Zen: F*ck them all. Politicians have no business in women's healthcare and reproductive choices. The men should STFU unless their own wife is involved.


Even then they should STFU (in public, I don't care what they say in private. none of my business).
2014-07-17 06:27:10 AM  
1 votes:
Nope, no war on women here.  No Sirree.
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report