Originally Posted by The Rani

Agreed.
The David Axelrod quote itself was revealing, referring to contraception as "preventive" care.
Since when is pregnancy an illness?

It's not an illness, but it certainly is a medical condition that needs to be managed, and can result in bona fide illness, such as preeclampsia.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Yes and no. It is true that fertility treatments don't always work, but they frequently do. Some states require insurance to cover fertility treatments, but they typically cap the number of cycles and restrict it to people who are likely to have success. According to data from RESOLVE back when I was dealing with infertility (the early 1990s), the impact on insurance premiums was trivial. This info here is dated, but useful. Of key interest is the stat that when insurance pays for IVF, the number of embryos transfered goes down, reducing multiple births. That alone probably offsets the cost of the IVF.

I would rather have my tax dollars paid to subsidize someone's IVF that results in a baby than Avastin treatments that might add 2 months life to a cancer patient. Of course, I have a grudge against Avastin; it shortened by brother's life by 6-12 months.

Thank you, Jenny, for the link.

Fascinating:

Of key interest is the stat that when insurance pays for IVF, the number of embryos transfered goes down, reducing multiple births. That alone probably offsets the cost of the IVF.

And it's probably easier on the parents as well. A case where, of all things, oversight by the insurance company might result in better outcomes all around.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Yes and no. It is true that fertility treatments don't always work, but they frequently do. Some states require insurance to cover fertility treatments, but they typically cap the number of cycles and restrict it to people who are likely to have success. According to data from RESOLVE back when I was dealing with infertility (the early 1990s), the impact on insurance premiums was trivial. This info here is dated, but useful. Of key interest is the stat that when insurance pays for IVF, the number of embryos transfered goes down, reducing multiple births. That alone probably offsets the cost of the IVF.

I would rather have my tax dollars paid to subsidize someone's IVF that results in a baby than Avastin treatments that might add 2 months life to a cancer patient. Of course, I have a grudge against Avastin; it shortened by brother's life by 6-12 months.

I had anticipated some of Amy's arguments and they have some appeal. I can imagine approving of insurance coverage for fertility treatments if there were reasonable guidelines for who could use them and above all, if it could be shown that there was a good probability of success. And the idea of limiting how many you get sounds good too. I have a lot of doubts, though, about the drugs that not only increase fertility but increase the chances of multiple births.

I totally agree about cancer drugs, and as I've said, I was appalled to learn that the drug Ted Kennedy took for his brain tumor was approved when it was shown to prolong life for about 6 months. And it's the standard drug.
The biggest reason I'm appalled was that any incentive to develop something better was thereby eliminated. Boy, you've got to love for-profit health care.

Originally Posted by playwrite

First, why do you think anyone is going to loss their job over this? Seems to be pretty far fetched, but I'm open to an explanaiton. You really believe that Georgetown Univeristy or Ascension Hospitals are is going to shutter its doors over this? Do you want to put some money on that bet?


As for the individual mandate, I've grown too tired to explain to people too dumb to know a good deal when offered. They've been bent over and abused by their finaical overlords for so long, there's really no way to help them.

I think Exile '67 believes they will keep their jobs but lose their employer-paid for health insurance.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Preventive care for pregnancy-related illnesses would include things like diet, exercise, blood-pressure screening, vitamins.

Contraception is something else entirely. Calling it "preventive care" reveals an underlying mindset.

Contraception prevents pregnancy and pregnancy leads to medical expenses (both for the pregnancy and the childbirth, but also for the child that results). Contraception does not directly prevent disease, but it does prevent pregnancy and thus reduces medical expenses down the road. I don't see the problem...

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

The size of Canada is about equal to the US and the population of Canada is about equal to New York.

Canada does have cheap power (much hydro capacity per person in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritime Provinces). But note well that most of Canada as territory is of little economic value -- the ecological desert of the North Woods and the arctic zone. There's just nothing to extract through agriculture.

Southern Ontario is hard to distinguish from Michigan, northern Ohio, or western New York. But all in all its medical costs are lower than those of the American profits-first system.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Preventive care for pregnancy-related illnesses would include things like diet, exercise, blood-pressure screening, vitamins.
Contraception is something else entirely. Calling it "preventive care" reveals an underlying mindset.

Sex is a reality. Contraception prevents pregnancies and costs related to childbirth and child care. Contraception is a winning deal for insurance companies.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Contraception prevents pregnancy and pregnancy leads to medical expenses (both for the pregnancy and the childbirth, but also for the child that results). Contraception does not directly prevent disease, but it does prevent pregnancy and thus reduces medical expenses down the road. I don't see the problem...

Right now America has a "sick care" system that is called "healthcare." But somehow calling contraception "preventive care" is problematic? Hmmm... Like Saul Alinsky's teachings, maybe people should change the names because for a person who does not want to have a baby, pregnancy is a dis-ease. So again the false dichotomies... meaning no, there isn't a problem.

Cheers.

Revised in view of

(1) a poll showing President Obama leading by the margin of error in Virginia, and (2) Rick Santorum doing well enough yesterday in caucuses or primaries in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri to resuscitate his chance to win the GOP nomination for President.

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/ind...887#msg3188887

President Obama would win against all three if nothing really changed in nine months even if he lost all states that I deem toss-ups:


Obama 290 Toss-up 110 Romney 138

Obama 357 toss-ups 58 Gingrich 123

Obama 342 toss-ups 51 Santorum 161

Originally Posted by The Rani

Do you want to know what I think, or do you want to tell me what I think?
I'd like to clarify that before continuing this discussion.

Oh, I thought we were doing fact-based world.

Okay, let's do magic pony land.

It's just that if we're doing magic pony land, are there not more interesting topics? Like how do I get my pony to poop out gold nuggets?

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Right now America has a "sick care" system that is called "healthcare." But somehow calling contraception "preventive care" is problematic? Hmmm... Like Saul Alinsky's teachings, maybe people should change the names because for a person who does not want to have a baby, pregnancy is a dis-ease. So again the false dichotomies... meaning no, there isn't a problem.

Cheers.

Summer:

I've mentioned this before on the forum, but as a young woman, I was diagnosed with oligomenorrhea. My doctor put me on the Pill to regulate my periods. It was a relief. And I suspect that becoming regular made it easier for me to conceive when I was ready to do so.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Maybe this guy knows:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH7yn...eature=related

Now why can't we have a presidential debate for all the lessor known candidates. I'd like to see this guy in a debate with the "My rents too damn high" guy. That could be very entertaining and I'm surprised one of cable networks hasn't thought of it. Perhaps the comedy channel could sponsor it. And this guy should definitely wear his wizard hat.

And what a great platform it would be for Stephen Corbert and Roseanne to get their message out.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I'm curious too. It's going to take some major wonking and bringing womens' groups together with their "great satan" (just trying to be funny here).

I'm thinking some 3rd party coverage paid for out of the profits made by the insurance companies servicing the exempt institutions - taking Mike's non-transference of sin through a it's-only-business channel.

Might require legislation. I'm licking my chops over that prospect and the box that puts the House GOP Leadership and GOP candidates in as their T-baggers' heads explode.

Well, crap, Ezra Klein, who is a lot more connected that I ever will or want to be, has it going a different direction. I think its a bad gamble though.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...hryQ_blog.html

Why White House sees political opportunity in the contraception battle

...Catholic leaders are blasting the health reform requirement that insurance plans to cover contraceptives. Commentator Mark Shields joined other liberals in blasting the provision, saying it could have “cataclysmic” fallout for President Obama come November.

Numerous pundits have predicted that the requirement —and its narrow exemption for churches — will be a political liability for Obama. But where Shields sees “cataclysmic” fallout, the White House sees something quite different: a chance to widen the reproductive health debate beyond abortion to issues like contraceptives, winning over key demographics of independent voters in the process.

And that could explain why the White House, alongside the Obama campaign, has engaged eagerly on the issues. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was in USA Today earlier this week, praising the new provision. The Obama campaign meanwhile hasn’t been shy either, drawing up an infographic praising the new regulation. While there are some signs of a potential compromise for religious groups, the White House has made it pretty clear it plans to stand firm behind the current regulation.

But while Catholic leadership has blasted the new regulation, polls show that a majority of Catholics are actually more supportive of the provision than the rest of the country. A poll out Tuesday from the Public Religion Research Institute finds 52 percent of Catholic voters agreed with the statement, “employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost.” That’s pretty much in line with overall support for the provision, which hovers at 55 percent - likely because Catholics use contraceptives at rates similar to the rest of Americans.

A majority of Catholics - 52 percent - also agree with the Obama administration’s decision to not exempt religious hospitals and universities from the provision. “Outside the political punditry, most Catholics agree with the administration on the issue,” says one Obama campaign official, explaining the view that this could be a political win.

And a lot of this likely isn’t about Catholic voters at all.

Rather, it may well be about the demographics that are most supportive of this particular health reform provision: young voters and women. In the PRRI poll, both groups register support above 60 percent for the provision.

Those two demographics are important here for a key reason: they were crucial to Obama’s victory in 2008. Third Way crunched the numbers earlier this month and found that the “Obama Independents” — the swing group that proved crucial to his 2008 victory — are, as Ryan Lizza put it, “disproportionately young, female and secular.”

“In 2012, Independents are likely to comprise the highest proportion of the electorate since 1976, and winning them will be crucial to victory,” write Third Way’s Michelle Diggles and Lanae Erickson. “If President Obama woos the vast majority [of his independent voters] back, he can be reelected.”


In 2012, Independents are likely to comprise the highest proportion of the electorate since 1976, and winning them will be crucial to victory,” write Third Way’s Michelle Diggles and Lanae Erickson. “If President Obama woos the vast majority [of his independent voters] back, he can be reelected.”

These voters have tended to be difficult for abortion rights supporters to engage on reproductive health issues like abortion. Research from NARAL Pro-Choice America, which I wrote about last weekend, found a significant “intensity gap” there, with abortion rights supporters much less likely to see it as a crucial voting issue than their anti-abortion counterparts.

But when the conversation moves away from abortion to contraceptives - as it has this week - the intensity gap flips: A much larger segment of voters are willing to penalize a legislator who votes to defund family planning. That became apparent in polling that Democratic firm Lake Research Partners did earlier this year, which found that 40 percent of voters would be less likely to support a member of Congress who votes to defund family-planning programs. Just 22 percent would be more likely to support such a lawmaker.

That particular poll isn’t a perfect analogy for the current debate about the contraception mandate. But it speaks to something I’ve heard a lot in recent interviews with abortion right supporters: When the reproductive health debate moves away from abortion, it becomes easier to message and connect with voters. Unlike abortion rights, an issue that tends to split voters, most polls on contraceptives and birth control tend to find Americans solidly in support. That Lake Research poll I mentioned earlier found that 84 percent of Americans view family planning, including contraceptives, as basic health care.

Young voters and women were key demographics for Obama in 2008. By hitting hard on a policy they strongly support, and moving the conversation away from abortion politics, the campaign may have found a new way to reach them.

I think this comes down to the 75% Catholics that oppose the Church's view on contraceptives. It's like in a family: it is okay to chastise someone in your family, but you might not tolerate an outsider doing so. A lot of those 75% just don't like the govt pushing around their Church; but as they think about it, they may view the govt as an ally on getting their Church (at least in the US) to change its position to better align with their own.

I don't know. I still rather see Team Obama come up with a way that is okay with all the key players... and puts the GOP in a bind.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Maybe this guy knows:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH7yn...eature=related

Oh crap, I didn't know they had the cameras rolling when I did that!

I'm busted!

Originally Posted by The Rani

Hooray for not taking politics too seriously.

Oh, I second that! But who can really take even "serious" politicians all that seriously these days. The whole thing is a sideshow to begin with.

Gadzooks, I just listen in on one of Ron Paul's speeches.

Everything boils down to our "unconstitutionally being taken off the gold standard in 1971" - without that, we would not be fighting wars in far off places, we would not have Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid problems, and we would have a more lean-and-mean smaller govt.

What's interesting is he doesn't explain how that one thing of going back to the gold standard would do all of that. And no one seems interested enough to ask the question.

Here's the answer -

Going back to the gold standard would cause an economic contraction that would make the Great Depression look like a walk in the park. Imagine pulling a few trillion dollars out of our economy.

The answer is we wouldn't have any military to defend ourselves, let alone conduct wars overseas. There would be no shortfalls for entitlement programs because there simply wouldn't be any such programs. All these things go away because we would simply not be able to afford them. We'd be too busy paying off real debt in real assets to our Chinese overlords.

This guy is a total moronic dinosaur. Honestly, I am thoroughly amazed at how many stupid people there are that allow this clown to even get up on the stage. The wizard guy has more sense.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Maybe this guy knows:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH7yn...eature=related

Makes more sense than most that I've heard lately. One question though, what was that thing on his head? The answer could be a deciding factor in how I vote.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Gadzooks, I just listen in on one of Ron Paul's speeches.

Everything boils down to our "unconstitutionally being taken off the gold standard in 1971" - without that, we would not be fighting wars in far off places, we would not have Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid problems, and we would have a more lean-and-mean smaller govt.

What's interesting is he doesn't explain how that one thing of going back to the gold standard would do all of that. And no one seems interested enough to ask the question.

Here's the answer -

Going back to the gold standard would cause an economic contraction that would make the Great Depression look like a walk in the park. Imagine pulling a few trillion dollars out of our economy.

The answer is we wouldn't have any military to defend ourselves, let alone conduct wars overseas. There would be no shortfalls for entitlement programs because there simply wouldn't be any such programs. All these things go away because we would simply not be able to afford them. We'd be too busy paying off real debt in real assets to our Chinese overlords.

This guy is a total moronic dinosaur. Honestly, I am thoroughly amazed at how many stupid people there are that allow this clown to even get up on the stage. The wizard guy has more sense.

Attempts to denigrate aside...you always make "more" sense. Thank you for the clarity you bring. Some would truly be lost without you.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by ASB65

But just to the devil's advocate here, do you know that most health insurance excludes fertility treatments? Which is way more costly than the average person can pay for out of pocket. It's a hell of a lot more expensive than birth control. But you don't see anyone screaming about that. (Except for the people who can't have a baby and need this.) I personally think health insurance companies should cover both contraception and fertility treatments. If you start getting into laws and dictating what health insurance companies should or should not cover, I think you should be fair all the way around. People who are outraged about the insurance companies not providing assistance to prevent pregnancy, should also be as outraged about the insurance not providing coverage to assist pregnancy. If people truly care about women's reproductive issues, they should be supportive of women who want to have babies as they are women"s rights to prevent pregnancy. That's all I'm saying.

But I also agree, contraception really is a non-issue in the whole political scheme of things. I doubt many people are going to cast their vote solely whether or not a woman can use contraception. Abortion is hot issue, contraception...not so much.

H-m-m-m. By that standard, we should pay for tummy-tucks and boob-jobs, too ... but I digress.

I'm sorry for couples with real fertility issues, but a procedure that costs, on average, $25,000 per successful pregnancy falls well outside the bounds of reason, if applied on a grand scale. Add to that the very high potential for birth defects or genetic disorders, all too common with fertility treatments - especaily in vitro fertilization. Can we afford 1,000,000 in vitro babies every year? Parents who can't bear the cost and the emotional baggage shouldn't be offerred a free pass. That may seem cruel, but I've seen the results - great for most and not good at all for many.

There is no implied right to have children, nor is being childless a life-threatening condition. We cannot make life perfect ... only better. I'm not sure a world full of in vitro babies is really better. I say this as the grandfather of fortunately healthy in vitro triplets.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. By that standard, we should pay for tummy-tucks and boob-jobs, too ... but I digress.

I'm sorry for couples with real fertility issues, but a procedure that costs, on average, $25,000 per successful pregnancy falls well outside the bounds of reason, if applied on a grand scale. Add to that the very high potential for birth defects or genetic disorders, all too common with fertility treatments - especaily in vitro fertilization. Can we afford 1,000,000 in vitro babies every year? Parents who can't bear the cost and the emotional baggage shouldn't be offerred a free pass. That may seem cruel, but I've seen the results - great for most and not good at all for many.

There is no implied right to have children, nor is being childless a life-threatening condition. We cannot make life perfect ... only better. I'm not sure a world full of in vitro babies is really better. I say this as the grandfather of fortunately healthy in vitro triplets.

You may have shot yourself in the foot with your last sentence. When people pay out-of-pocket for these procedures and can only afford to do it once or twice, they will want to maximize their chances of getting pregnant, so the doctors implant multiple embryos. If they have insurance paying for it, there will be less pressure to have this one time "work" so fewer embryos will be implanted; hence future high-order multiple pregnancies. That ends up reducing costs.

We'll never have 1 million IVF babies a year. Most people can do it the old-fashioned way, or by using less invasive fertility treatments. We already have 50,000 IVF births a year; I would imagine it would at most double, and fewer will be expensive triplets.

We treat other diseases that aren't life threatening but make life miserable, such as migraine headaches.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. By that standard, we should pay for tummy-tucks and boob-jobs, too ... but I digress.

I realize that you were kidding but I actually know a person who got her daughter both of those procedures because she felt suicidal. This person swears that she saved her daughter's life by increasing her self-esteem through fake boobs.

Awww, another life saving procedure.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Canada does have cheap power (much hydro capacity per person in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritime Provinces). But note well that most of Canada as territory is of little economic value -- the ecological desert of the North Woods and the arctic zone. There's just nothing to extract through agriculture.

Southern Ontario is hard to distinguish from Michigan, northern Ohio, or western New York. But all in all its medical costs are lower than those of the American profits-first system.

Are you kidding me, Canada is RICH in natural resources like oil, lumber, natural gas, minerals, fish, wildlife, ect. BTW, I'm not totally opposed to socialized medicine. The problem is that it's not economically feasible or viable or overall viewed as needed at this time. We can barely afford medicare. The issue with you and others like you is that you are unable to see or think in terms of the BIG PICTURE. Personally speaking, I prefer profit based over government because I believe that you get what you pay for. I also believe in individual control and freedom. I'm a very capable person and I don't mind taking on the responsibility of finding and providing affordable healthcare for me and my family. All I need to do that is have a true free market system in place. I will find it (it being quality affordable health insurance) or it will find me. BTW, the chances are more likely that it will find me than me finding it. I didn't find my credit cards. The credit card companies found me so to speak.

In my opinion, the social and economic parting between left-right, progressive-conservative, the haves- want what you haves without the work and expense, the earners-the social entitled, the self proclaimed intellectuals and the so-called idiots who manage and are able to make intelligent decissions on their own or whatever terms apply is just a matter of time. I can already see the split with the millies between those who have earned and those who think/feel or have been taught that they're simply entitled is just a matter of time.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

You may have shot yourself in the foot with your last sentence. When people pay out-of-pocket for these procedures and can only afford to do it once or twice, they will want to maximize their chances of getting pregnant, so the doctors implant multiple embryos. If they have insurance paying for it, there will be less pressure to have this one time "work" so fewer embryos will be implanted; hence future high-order multiple pregnancies. That ends up reducing costs.

Not really. Many of the providers offer unlimited attempts for a fixed fee, at least until they exhaust the embryos, but the desire to get pregnant tends to push second attempts toward more embryos being implanted anyway. Third attempts are typically the last, because panic sets in, so all the remaining embryos are used. But even with single births, the number of birth defects and disorders is higher than normal. If you think about it, there is a reason why the couple needs help. It might be better to only allow A and B embryos to be implanted, but maybe not.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette ...

We'll never have 1 million IVF babies a year. Most people can do it the old-fashioned way, or by using less invasive fertility treatments. We already have 50,000 IVF births a year; I would imagine it would at most double, and fewer will be expensive triplets.

We'll have a lot more, until the fad wears off. Today, the couples that go through the process have to give it a lot of thought, unless they are wealthy of course. I know that, of the roughly 40 in vitro shildren I've met, 5 or 6 were born with severe problems, many others with less serious ones. There are two cases of severe Autism, one of cerebral palsy and another with spina bifida. The others I'm not sure what their difficulties are. I short, this is a process with risks that most people are not equipped financially or emotinally to manage.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette ...

We treat other diseases that aren't life threatening but make life miserable, such as migraine headaches.

H-m-m-m. I'll leave that alone.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Gadzooks, I just listen in on one of Ron Paul's speeches.

Everything boils down to our "unconstitutionally being taken off the gold standard in 1971" - without that, we would not be fighting wars in far off places, we would not have Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid problems, and we would have a more lean-and-mean smaller govt.

What's interesting is he doesn't explain how that one thing of going back to the gold standard would do all of that. And no one seems interested enough to ask the question.

Here's the answer -

Going back to the gold standard would cause an economic contraction that would make the Great Depression look like a walk in the park. Imagine pulling a few trillion dollars out of our economy.

The answer is we wouldn't have any military to defend ourselves, let alone conduct wars overseas. There would be no shortfalls for entitlement programs because there simply wouldn't be any such programs. All these things go away because we would simply not be able to afford them. We'd be too busy paying off real debt in real assets to our Chinese overlords.

This guy is a total moronic dinosaur. Honestly, I am thoroughly amazed at how many stupid people there are that allow this clown to even get up on the stage. The wizard guy has more sense.

Aren't you one of those who are always advocating pulling a few trillion out of the economy to pay for what you want to add or would like to see more of as far as government services? BTW, under the gold standard, we wouldn't have to pay off the Chinese overlords with your real assets or loss of government services. I mentioned your real assets because the world knows that we will defend and inflict to high of a price in treasure and human life to aquire ours.

Originally Posted by playwrite

First, why do you think anyone is going to loss their job over this? Seems to be pretty far fetched, but I'm open to an explanaiton. You really believe that Georgetown Univeristy or Ascension Hospitals are is going to shutter its doors over this? Do you want to put some money on that bet?


As for the individual mandate, I've grown too tired to explain to people too dumb to know a good deal when offered. They've been bent over and abused by their finaical overlords for so long, there's really no way to help them.

I growing tired of lofty intellectuals like yourself telling me that a $50.00 contribution towards a company provided plan costs more or will be better than the $200.00 they will be dishing out for the individual policey that will eventually replace their current plan. But, don't worry it's just the working class who is going to screwed at first. The majority of small business will drop Health insurance. But like all things set into motion, progression will eventually take hold and remove all existing plans that are currently provided including union and public sector employees. You're going to have a hard sell when reality takes hold.