Supreme Court Grants Nuns Compromise on Obamacare Birth Control Benefit

By Greg Stohr | January 27, 2014
Nuns

  • January 27, 2014 at 9:32 am
    Jess Sayne says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 17
    Thumb down 14

    What I rarely hear mentioned in these articles is that birth control pills are often prescribed for health conditions, such as painful and/or irregular periods, heavy bleeding, etc. So women with these conditions will have to pay out-of-pocket, but have coverage for all other prescriptions ? I feel this is gender discrimination, as it only affects women, and is making them pay more to treat a health condition.

    • January 27, 2014 at 1:24 pm
      jet says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 21
      Thumb down 13

      Come on Jess. Ok, yes, “birth control” drugs can & are used to treat other conditions, but the overwhelming majority of contraceptive scripts are for birth control. Also, many if not most insurers can & do make exceptions when a drug is medically necessary for a specific condition/treatment. I,for one, am sick & tired of a few big mouths forcing their beliefs & opinions down my throat. Birth control drugs are in violation of Catholic & other religions beliefs. Let women who want birth control opt for that drug coverage when they purcharse health insurance & don’t force it on those whose don’t believe in it.

  • January 27, 2014 at 10:50 am
    FreeThinker says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 13
    Thumb down 9

    You’re stretching, Jess. The use of birth control for this purpose is much less common than you suggest, and other drugs can be prescribed to handle these conditions. A woman with any of the conditions you mention would have other alternatives that would be covered under the plan.

    • January 27, 2014 at 1:33 pm
      FFA says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 15
      Thumb down 7

      Jess, when they are used for reasons other then birth control, they are billed under a different code for the condition they are being prescribed for. When they are being prescribed to treat a condition, that is for medical purposes, they are not included in the Birth Control debate.

      County Health Department distribute Free Birth Control for both genders. That blows your gender discrimination debate out the window. Pill, shots & condemns are all available for free (at tax payer cost). At least in IL. Cant comment on your neck of the woods.

      • January 27, 2014 at 3:02 pm
        Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 11
        Thumb down 6

        FFA, Sandra Fluke wants you to pay for her birth control. She said it was her right for taxpayers to foot the bill.

        • January 27, 2014 at 3:22 pm
          FFA says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 8
          Thumb down 5

          Maybe Sandra Fluke should reimburse me for my personal expense that I paid for all them years.

          Making nuns pay for birth control… What a joke… My guess, most nuns dont even know what a penis looks like.

          On an unrelated note, temp predicted to get down to 20 below in Chicago tonight. I am considered outer lying area, so it will be colder. Our sherrif came out and stated roads west of town should be avoided.

          • January 28, 2014 at 9:43 am
            KY jw says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 2

            Actually, just as an aside and not relevant at all to the debate, some women become nuns after they have been married and widowed. I’ve only read a couple examples, so no it is not at all important, and yes once they become nuns they will forgo intimate relations. (I found another way to say s#x)

          • January 28, 2014 at 1:10 pm
            FFA says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 4

            jw, never knew that. I know there were nuns that left to get married and such, but not married to nuns.

            Anyways, I dont think anyone is arguing that nuns must pay. I am sure oBama will force them to. Need to cover the cost to the young ens… Why should the young ones shoulder the full cost of what they use?

            I have no problem paying the rate I should be paying…

          • January 29, 2014 at 4:04 pm
            Agent says:
            Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 19

            Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

          • January 30, 2014 at 8:41 am
            KY jw says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 7
            Thumb down 0

            Agent, did you read FFA’s post about Nuns knowing what a penis looks like? If you had, you would realize that my reply is only relevant to his initial comment. Also, if you read my ENTIRE post, you will see I also mentioned that nuns don’t have sex regardless of how or when they became nuns. So, take your totally out of line comment and shove it.

          • January 30, 2014 at 8:43 am
            KY jw says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 0

            Furthermore, Agent, I started my post with: “Actually, just as an aside and not relevant at all to the debate”

            You obviously didn’t read what I wrote and cherry picked just that part of the post that bothered you. I do not understand how you can function with such dismal reading skills.

        • January 29, 2014 at 3:41 pm
          Don't Call Me Shirley says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 5
          Thumb down 4

          Likewise, Sandra Fluke has to pay for your sports channels. It’s known as the “sports tax”. I guess it’s your right to have other taxpayers foot the bill. We also pay for your teams’ stadiums, arenas, etc. Meanwhile, the NFL claims to be non-profit (I’m not making this up), so no taxes. They do, however, benefit quite handsomely from tax dollars.

          • January 29, 2014 at 4:02 pm
            Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 4

            Nobody pays for my sports channels but me on my monthly Dish bill. By the way, NJ will be taxing the winning players proceeds heavily for the winning team and the losing team. They should have played the game in Texas and the players would have come out better.

          • January 30, 2014 at 5:31 pm
            Don't Call Me Shirley says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            The sports channels are part of the package, so everyone has to pay for them whether they want them or not. Those who do not want them are subsidizing you.

          • January 31, 2014 at 3:54 pm
            Trust me I am not a liberal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 2

            Shirley–have you always been a man hater?

          • January 31, 2014 at 4:13 pm
            Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            So Shirley, you made an analogy on sports channels that is eerily similar to Obamacare. Everybody has to pay because it is part of the package whether they want them or not. Those who don’t want them have to subsidize the rest. Hmm! Everyone sticks their hand out to be subsidized except the average taxpayer who foots the bill.

          • January 31, 2014 at 4:30 pm
            Libby says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            So, Trust Me, have you always been a bitter biddy?

          • January 31, 2014 at 5:14 pm
            Don't Call Me Shirley says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            @Trust me: No I don’t hate myself.

            Agent, the analogy is exactly my point. Those who complain about provisions in Obamacare don’t seem to realize that they are also being subsidized in other ways. Which is more important – healthcare or football? And the sports channels cost each person (including those who don’t want it) a lot more than the pennies that each of us are putting towards birth control. So the sports channel issue is much more egregious.

            It’s interesting also, that many of the “conservative” politicians that claim to want to slash budgets are giving huge taxpayer handouts to NFL team owners (billionaires). We have to cut spending on human services, but we can afford to give multi-million-dollar handouts to billionaires. Even with tax revenues from the fans and affected businesses, we still end up losing money. Meanwhile, the NFL billionaires and multi-millionaires are laughing all the way to the bank, adding more stolen millions to the millions they inherited in the first place.

  • January 27, 2014 at 2:20 pm
    jules820 says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 14
    Thumb down 13

    No. 1: Jess is not exaggerating. The majority of birth control pill prescriptions are written for women with endometriosis, problems with ovarian cysts, and menstrual problems.

    No. 2: Contraception is “in violation of Catholic and other beliefs”, to quote jet, above. Yeah, well, so is having sex for any reason other than procreation — but you don’t see anyone trying to exempt boner pills from coverage.

    In fact, since boner pills came out there has been a glaring disparity between the way they are treated by insurance companies and Medicaid, and the way birth control pills are/were. Viagra and its ilk were considered medically necessary; birth control pills weren’t. Talk about a double-standard. And a fiscally stupid one, too. It’s a lot cheaper to pay for birth control pills than it is to pay for a pregnancy and delivery, and then another person added to the parents’ plan to boot.

    • January 27, 2014 at 5:30 pm
      FFA says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 5

      Jules, how do boner pills tie into Nuns getting a pass on Birth Control? Remembering the nuns from my 1-8th grades. need more then a boner pill to get things going with them.

      • January 28, 2014 at 4:21 pm
        Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 7
        Thumb down 4

        FFA, I wonder how many documented cases there are for nuns getting pregnant. This is a freedom issue. How can the government compel a religious organization to furnish birth control if they don’t want it. This is the whole problem with Obamacare, the mandates. Had a choice been given from the start, most people would have not checked the boxes to take the mandated coverage. Instead, the one size fits all coverage has been forced on us with no choice at all except how big your deductible is or what your out of pocket is.

    • January 29, 2014 at 2:09 pm
      Insgal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 1

      Jules820 not all plans cover Viagra. We have what they call a “cadillac Plan” through the Teamsters and my husband pays for his own Viagra/Cealis.

      • January 30, 2014 at 4:04 pm
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 2

        I should have worded that better:

        If the aborted kid had not been aborted, then a potentially aborted kid would have no disparity in comparison to a child delivered to term.

        A kid is a kid is a kid. There is no magic that makes them more likely to be a deficit to the government in a significant way if they aren’t aborted. That is just mathematical nonsense.

      • January 31, 2014 at 4:08 pm
        Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 1

        So Insgal, how is the Cadillac Plan been affected since Obamacare was passed? I understand Jimmy Jr was quite upset with the costs going way up. Did they get a waiver from rising costs to the members?

    • January 30, 2014 at 4:02 pm
      bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 3

      Jules820:

      Barring all other arguments:

      No. It does not cost a lot more to the government for a kid to be born. An aborted kid or a kid delivered to term wouldn’t have any different percentage ratios of likelihood to be negative cash flow as opposed to a source of positive cash flow for the government.

      Please abstain from saying such heartless and ignorant comments.

      • January 31, 2014 at 12:58 pm
        Libby says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 4
        Thumb down 1

        Bob – you should probably abstain from making any comment on this blog. Jules820 was talking about financially cheaper from an insurance carrier’s standpoint. It costs the insurance company less to pay for birth control than it does for a pregnancy, delivery, and future healthcare coverage for the child. Get it?

  • January 28, 2014 at 2:01 pm
    Phoenix says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 4

    When prescribed to prevent pregnancy, I do not even consider birth control a medication. If it is to correct an illness or malady, it is. But when used strictly to allow women or men to voluntarily have intimate relations* without having to bear the natural responsibilities which often result, it is not. At least “Boner pills” correct a malady.

    • January 28, 2014 at 3:39 pm
      Lucy says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 0

      The wife of the man taking the boner pills might disagree with the correcting of this malady.

    • January 28, 2014 at 4:09 pm
      Libby says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 7
      Thumb down 4

      “At least “Boner pills” correct a malady.”

      You call not being able to get it up a malady? Are you kidding? It’s another form of birth control! LOL!!

      • January 30, 2014 at 8:45 am
        KY jw says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 0

        Natural birth control!

      • January 30, 2014 at 12:54 pm
        ralph says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 1

        heck, why don’t we all say “boner pills”? BONER PILLS, BONER PILLS, BONER PILLS, BONER PILLS, BONER PILLS!

  • January 31, 2014 at 3:05 pm
    Dee says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 2

    What irks me is why the same people who oppose insurance paying for contraception believe it’s OK to pimp our our prescription drug premiums to doctors and pharmacies for drugs like Viagra that are used to enhance and promote sexual satisfaction to their users?

    • January 31, 2014 at 5:24 pm
      Don't Call Me Shirley says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      Not only that, but think about the premiums that are being used to pay for pharmaceuticals that have caused people to fly into a rage and kill their own families. Then there are those that have a high propensity for abuse and addiction, as well as those that sometimes cause people to fall asleep at the wheel. Then there are those that cause people to sleepwalk and sometimes drive with no recollection of it later.

      But that’s ok, as long as we don’t provide for birth control because that might be immoral.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features