July 3, 201412 yr A little Googling reveals the source of this quote is comically dubious. But, I did learn that Valerie Jarrett is the Heinrich Himmler of the Obama administration according to teaparty.org. So, there's my fact of the day. Himmler? Stupid article. She has been characterized as 'Obama's brain'. Her and Rove would make an interesting couple. If they mated they probably would spawn a devil child. Well sourced. And she would have at least 2 judges ready. It would be like Barnhart not having a short list for his coaches. They are ,no doubt, big government friendly judges. Given the recent ruling on recess appointments they probably want to get them in before January.
July 3, 201412 yr Thanks for the info. I have never had a policy that didn't cover ED, but only twice had a policy that covered BC. On the secondary issue being discussed, how do you feel about hormonal birth being OTC? I would lean toward the products remaining by prescription only. Medications are eligible for OTC status if they are deemed safe and effective for general use. There have been many items that have gone over the counter in the last 20 years that used to be RX only. There are some drugs that have both OTC and RX status based on the indication for use (meclizine - OTC as Bonine for motion sickness and RX as Antivert for Vertigo). If oral contraceptives went OTC, they would also retain RX status for the many other conditions that they treat which must be diagnosed by a licensed practitioner. I lean toward the products remaining RX only for a couple of reasons. First, regular visits to a GYN doctor is a good thing. Many women make their initial visit and subsequent visits to the GYN doctor to get the prescription for the pill. Next, there are many different types of oral contraceptives. Monophasic, biphasic, and triphasic. Estrogen/progestin combinations. Progesterone only. Continuous therapy versus cyclic therapy. Not to mention the various levels of hormones contained in the different products. This isn't like choosing an allergy med or a pain reliever; an uninformed choice can come with many negative side effects.
July 3, 201412 yr I would lean toward the products remaining by prescription only. Medications are eligible for OTC status if they are deemed safe and effective for general use. There have been many items that have gone over the counter in the last 20 years that used to be RX only. There are some drugs that have both OTC and RX status based on the indication for use (meclizine - OTC as Bonine for motion sickness and RX as Antivert for Vertigo). If oral contraceptives went OTC, they would also retain RX status for the many other conditions that they treat which must be diagnosed by a licensed practitioner. I lean toward the products remaining RX only for a couple of reasons. First, regular visits to a GYN doctor is a good thing. Many women make their initial visit and subsequent visits to the GYN doctor to get the prescription for the pill. Next, there are many different types of oral contraceptives. Monophasic, biphasic, and triphasic. Estrogen/progestin combinations. Progesterone only. Continuous therapy versus cyclic therapy. Not to mention the various levels of hormones contained in the different products. This isn't like choosing an allergy med or a pain reliever; an uninformed choice can come with many negative side effects. Thank you. I agree 100% with all your reasons too keep them Rx only. Those are exactly mine.
July 3, 201412 yr The blue state-red state divide is obvious in the list I posted. States with high poverty rates (like Kentucky) are absent from those mentioned in the second paragraph requiring insurers that cover prescription drugs also provide coverage for any FDA-approved contraceptive. So, the free market appears to be at work here. In other words, one could argue that the SEC Conference Bible Belt states are paying a price for not forcing employers into anything. No, it's not. You are speaking about two totally different types of businesses. Hobby Lobby has NOTHING to do with insurance or insurance law, other than being a member of a group and covering employees. They do not sell insurance. They do not negotiate rates with hospitals and doctors. The laws that you are referring to cover only insurance companies. It has nothing to do with Hobby Lobby. Insurance companies should cover contraceptives that require prescription.
July 3, 201412 yr Himmler? Stupid article. She has been characterized as 'Obama's brain'. Her and Rove would make an interesting couple. If they mated they probably would spawn a devil child. Well sourced. And she would have at least 2 judges ready. It would be like Barnhart not having a short list for his coaches. They are ,no doubt, big government friendly judges. Given the recent ruling on recess appointments they probably want to get them in before January. This is the original article the "quote" appeared in. This is the author's description of the source: "This update was forwarded to me by Wall Street Insider who indicated they received it this morning via a direct source associated with Barack Obama’s campaign headquarters in Chicago." So, an anonymous source told another anonymous source what they claim they overheard from another person quoting Jarrett. That's unreliable if I'm being kind, and more likely just outright dishonest. https://web.archive.org/web/20121103223704/http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/11/01/valerie-jarret-after-we-win-this-election-its-our-turn-payback-time-wsi
July 3, 201412 yr No, it's not. You are speaking about two totally different types of businesses. Hobby Lobby has NOTHING to do with insurance or insurance law, other than being a member of a group and covering employees. They do not sell insurance. They do not negotiate rates with hospitals and doctors. The laws that you are referring to cover only insurance companies. It has nothing to do with Hobby Lobby. Insurance companies should cover contraceptives that require prescription. States that make it easier for working women to secure a full range of health care, unfettered by religious zealots, have benefitted economically. As you rightly point out, this is what the free market does.
July 3, 201412 yr States that make it easier for working women to secure a full range of health care, unfettered by religious zealots, have benefitted economically. Are you reading the posts you are quoting? You are bringing up topics that have nothing to do with Hobby Lobby. You are talking about laws for insurance companies only .
July 3, 201412 yr Are you reading the posts you are quoting? You are bringing up topics that have nothing to do with Hobby Lobby. You are talking about laws for insurance companies only . It's all interrelated. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/pdf/cb14-123_povertystatic_graphic.pdf
July 3, 201412 yr It's all interrelated. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/pdf/cb14-123_povertystatic_graphic.pdf But it isn't. You are speaking on two seperate issues.
July 3, 201412 yr I'm looking at this issue in broader terms. Once the high court starts chipping away at legalities, then other legalities also become at risk. And the same logic that chips away at the mortar of legality A also can be used to chip away at the mortar of legality B. In this case, Hobby Lobby gets a religious exemption. Perhaps a few years down the road a city like Newtown, Conn., wins a moral exemption to ban all firearms within its city limits. This has already been done in case you've forgotten or wasn't aware. Out of curiosity, did you rail against those cities for their ban on those citizen's constitutional rights?
July 3, 201412 yr It's all interrelated. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/pdf/cb14-123_povertystatic_graphic.pdf I am not trying to speak for you, but for you to say that it is interrelated, we have to believe that you think that lobbyists from large companies in these states have successfully influenced state legislative members to not pass these laws?
July 3, 201412 yr States that make it easier for working women to secure a full range of health care, unfettered by religious zealots, have benefitted economically. As you rightly point out, this is what the free market does. Let's say all of this is true. This still has nothing to do with the Hobby Lobby decision.
July 3, 201412 yr Ahh, teaparty.org - the most reliable, unbiased, and fact-based political website out there. :lol2: If only the American public would take it upon itself to become educated to their rights, the tendencies of their legislatures, and how to read through rhetoric. Tea Party and many liberal groups would fade away as people stop listening to the trumped up propoganda.
July 3, 201412 yr But it isn't. You are speaking on two seperate issues. It's all interconnected. Let me put it to you this way. If you were a young lady who just graduated from Northwestern or Notre Dame or Centre College and wanted to make your way in the world, wouldn't you be tempted to relocate to a place where employers offered full health-care benefits to women ... to a place where a pharmacist wouldn't refuse to fill a Rx because of personal religious beliefs ... to a place where one could get elected to office without having to be a member of Religion X ... to a state that wasn't trying every six months to put another obstacle in the way of said woman and her doctor? Where would you head ... Seattle ... Portland ... maybe Boston? Or would you head to a high-poverty state? States like Kentucky have been slow to discover that if they want to attract business, they better change in some areas. And it's really a shame because, in many ways, the commonwealth has much to offer.
July 3, 201412 yr I am not trying to speak for you, but for you to say that it is interrelated, we have to believe that you think that lobbyists from large companies in these states have successfully influenced state legislative members to not pass these laws? Religion, preservation of culture, conservatism, anti-abortion fervor ... they all overlap. Lobbyists don't matter. Edited July 3, 201412 yr by Twotoplace
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.