The Trump administration appears poised to continue its attacks on women and healthcare access, as a draft rule shows the Affordable Care Act's requirement that employee insurance cover contraception would be significantly rolled back.
Constrict access to birth control through lack of insurance coverage and by cutting funds to lower cost Planned Parenthood health services...it's back to consumer power. Who controls household spending? Women do. There is your power.
All the more reason why Health Care and the Insurance Industry have no business being intertwined.
Melania, Ivanka, and the wives of the two male DJT spawn must be oh so very proud of him right now. Is there no end to his and his flying monkeys' treachery and outright cruelty? Seems not as every day brings more horror from the diabolical despot.
1) Ivanka and Mrs. Trump have nothing to do with Mr. Trumps actions. Why does everyone feel entitled to pick on them relentlessly, just because they are a part of the same family? Its unfair and silly.
2) There's a pretty big difference between 'restricting access' to contraceptives, and removing a clause which guarantees that its free and paid for by insurance. And why should it be mandated that insurance companies must pay for contraception? Sex is not an involuntary illness that 'just happens'. Obviously sex is a very important part of most people's lives. But sex is a choice. Sex is not a vital need to survive. If a person cannot afford condoms or over-the counter birth control pills, then its simple...Don't have intercourse until you can afford it. Why should medical insurance; something designed for dishing out the big cash in cases of life's big emergencies, or for other needed treatments necessary to one's physical well-being; why should they ever be required to pay for your choice to have sex? What, as if people have no personal control when it comes to whoopie? Its ridiculous.
Lastly, why is this necessarily a 'war on women' decision? Maybe its just more of a logical and moral question leading to this policy; the exact one I already brought up. Lets focus on protecting the insurance liability funding base for things people actually "need" and have no control over. Makes sense to me. Does that mean that I hate women simply by questioning this whole thing, based on the logic that nobody should be forced to fund sexual choices with Rx insurance money where it can be better used for real medical problems? If that means I hate women, then we certainly have a very different perspective on hate.
One of THE biggest benefits to a Universal Single Payer system of health care, would be that such convoluted arguments regarding reproductive health for women by dinosaurs like you would be completely moot.
While we are on the subject of personal responsibility, and taking your right wing perspective on your precious dollar, or the precious dollar of Insurance Companies (oy vey!!!), I would like to know why you think your precious premium dollar should go to treat "involuntary illness" born of poor decisions and actions taken by people who eat way too much meat or drink way too much alcohol, or smoke way too many cigarettes?
I want to do a moral analysis on your personal behavior so I can complain to the Big Insurers about where my precious premium dollar is going.
I'd also like to know, if you are a male, if you have kept your penis safely zipped up in your trousers unless of course you are engaged ONLY in an act of procreation with Biblical protocols in check.
Your denial of humanity is fucking ridiculous in short.
Ivanka and Mrs. Trump? Well they are surely leveraging their personal gain in accordance with the Presidency of Trump, so they are absolutely fair game for criticism. Especially when they propagandize on what a wonderful man Trump is, in his relations with women!
The Population Bomb -- sometimes it's unfortunate that humans aren't connected with reality.
WOW! Thank you, PC for shooting holes through Mustangirving's inhumane and patently judgmental rant. Well done!
According to these philistines, women are good for one thing only, and that is sex.
Otherwise, they dislike them profoundly.
It's a miracle they can even put up with them long enough (10 minutes tops for Republicans) to have sex.
1) I believe Melania should get a pass from the press (though the Reichwing media and Faux Noise had no problem attacking Michelle) but Ivanka is part of the daddy's inner circle. When she became part of policy she also became fair game for criticism.
2) So you agree that this decision is based on someone's life style choice not on sound reasoning. By limiting access to birth control you are increasing the rate of abortions and placing huge financial burdens on to women but your answer to unwanted pregnancy is "they should keep their knees together." You do realize that one of the largest groups of birth control users are married women right? Pharmaceutical birth control is also prescribed for medical conditions so will these occasions be granted special dispensation as it is not related to nasty bunny humping? I saw no mention in this draft proposal for eliminating vasectomy coverage or Viagra. These are also sexual in nature so shouldn't they be eliminated according to your thinking? Oh, that's right, these are used by manly men so it's okay to pay for them through insurance.
3) I'll agree this is a moral choice in so far as someone is choosing to force their morality on to others. It is far, far, far from being the logical choice however. Birth control saves the insurance companies millions of dollars each year so I doubt even they will be on board with this one. I saw nothing in the article that said anything about "hating" women but this action by the Tangerine Turd sure shows a hell-uv-a lot of disrespect. The USA is not a theocracy or at least not yet anyway.
A war is a dispute where thousand of people die so this decision will definitely be an assault in the War on Women and this administration continues to be the aggressor. Women will die, abortions will increase and children will be born into poverty all so an orange, immoral. fake xtian, idiot can pander to fundamentalist.
Trumpcare could eliminate maternity, and newborn care, but they want to stop covering the cost of contraception.
Young women will get screwed regardless.
Repeal the prescription laws for all non-narcotic drugs. This would include contraceptives. At one time Americans did have the freedom to purchase medications without a doctor's prescription. Of course the AMA didn't like this state of affairs and finally got FDR to pass prescription laws. I wonder if the Republicans, who have always hated FDR, wouldn't be willing to repeal this mistake.
As a fellow Mustang I'm rather embarrassed by your comment. The first one, regarding Mrs Trump, is probably valid as she has no advisory role in policy, but Ivanka is actively participating in policy and promoting her father's policies. She actually attended a conference on women in an official capacity. One is fair game, the other not. It is not logical to lump them together.
If insurance is solely for non-contributing illness and accidents, perhaps there is some validity in this claim but the premise is faulty insofar as there is no moral requirement that applies to insurance companies who are in business of maximizing profits which some might say is immoral or amoral. It's immoral that these companies are able to pick and choose those who will receive their benefits and who will not. If morality did apply, and I am excluding the very idea of medical insurance when other and better collective protection exists, i.e., single payer, then the real moral atrocity is to allow insurance companies to discriminate against 'pre-existing' illnesses and to make premiums exorbitant for large segments of the public when the original theory was to spread the cost of any one in need through the premiums paid by all, including the healthy. It would also seem to be immoral for insurance companies to pay more to fight paying claims than in actual payments.
As for lifestyle choices, others have addressed the selective nature of your umbrage.
Your final point ignores that male reproductive needs are not restricted. Condoms are sold over the counter without prescription. Birth control pills could be as well. One doesn't need to 'hate' women to disregard their needs or to see their needs solely in terms of male concerns and patriarchal religiosity, but maybe it helps.
Go Mustangs! (Rangers too)
Yes, I really do wonder what these woman must be thinking..... are they embarrassed?.. or are they part of the whole shebang of thinking, "let's create impossible circumstances for the middle class and poor... so that all in all they drop dead.... from disease, starvation, conflict etc.... then we with the money at the top, won't have to share this dying world, with them.....WE can survive.... (that's what they think)..... I am pretty damn sure... that these horrible people ... DO KNOW what is coming down the pike with climate change ..... and ALL THIS NONSESNSE they are perpetrating on US.... is just laying the ground work/structure for a mass take over and power grab so that they make sure we die off and leave the earth for them. I believe, that's their plan.... BUT JUST ONE THING... they forgot about .... 400 nuke plants... for a while, they will use us as slaves to try to keep them from going down... but, that will only stave off the inevitable..
NO.... SEX IS NOT ALWAYS A CHOICE... you must live a very sheltered life.... many women are in relationships with men who DO NOT respect boundaries... they EXPECT TO GET WHAT THEY WANT..... so you say, why doesn't the woman leave that man.... well, EVENTUALLY, she may.... but .. until she gathers that strength... AND IS ABLE TO FIND A WAY TO SUPPORT HER CHILDREN SHE MAY ALREADY HAVE.... she has to make sure she doesn't have any more.... YOU ARE CLUELESS as to how many relationships actually work.... many relationships are NOT THAT EVOLVED .... I see it every day.... AND many many men.... won't wear a condom ....LIFE IS MESSY.... until you figure it out... the psychological in's and out's of relationships are real and lend to CHAOS... hate to burst your bubble... but WHY would we want to put people in the situation of having children they are not ready for or can not afford... PLEASE stop and think ...
Thank you ... well stated.
Hit the nail on the head with that one!! Koodos to you....
The services/benefits are mandated as they are beneficial to society. In a similar manner, as vision exams include a test for glaucoma, general physicals include testing for diabetes and dental visits look for signs of other DX.
I've seen no objection to prostate exams but do see a lot of complaints regarding services that are women-centric.
I currently live in Texas. The Texas legislature just this past session (ended yesterday) exempted (read prohibited) kids in foster care from vaccinations and other medical services that were on the hit list for various religious groups. I doubt I need to mention the cruel games played with medical service for women.
It goes without saying that ED presctiptions and Viagra and Cialis are covered by insurance. After all those are only MEN's issues and we certainly can't descriminate against men, now can we! It all has to subjugation of women. Birth control pills, for example, are given for many other health reasons other than contraception.
Medical contraceptives ("the pill") actually do require a doctor's supervision, as do many other non-narcotic drugs. They can have very serious side effects. I had what was essentially morning sickness when I started on the pill and had to switch to a different mix of hormones; I could not have figured that out myself. And that was mild.
Also, the no-copay provision of the ACA includes contraceptives such as IUDs and injectable long-term contraceptives, which must be administered by physicians.
Medicine in the old days was much simpler, and much less effective.