Study measures impact of removing Planned Parenthood from Texas women's health program

a reply to: SlapMonkey

It's not, but just because you don't prefer the other contraceptives that are available over-the-counter doesn't mean that I should pay for your preference--you aren't paying for mine, nor are you paying for my vasectomy that I'm getting next month.

You must have some crappy insurance!

5 sexual health services insurance will cover… for men

4. Vasectomies
Non-permanent male birth control options are still limited to condoms, the Vatican-approved rhythm method and the Biblically-condemned pull-out method. But for those men absolutely convinced their child-bearing days should come to an end before their intercourse-having days, a $500-$1,000 vasectomy is usually covered by their insurance. (Notably, most insurance plans do not cover a $6,000-$15,000 vasectomy reversal.)

Why are you getting a vasectomy? Are condoms not good enough for you and your wife?

a reply to: windword
probably because he knows that in the end, they are more cost effective than the condoms..
same could be said about the iud compared to birth control, or those two compared to condoms...
from the tax payer's view, it's cheaper to give women the iud than it is to constently hand out condoms.

a reply to: dawnstar

Read it that way all that you want to, but that's not how that chart is supposed to be read.

The two aren't meant to be probabilities of getting pregnant, it's the average percentages of people who had an unplanned pregnancy while on different contraception only--they are rates of efficacy, not probabilities of pregnancy. I'm 37 years old (well, will be in two weeks), and I have always used condoms and never had an unplanned pregnancy while using them, so if you use my experiences, the condom is 100% effective.

On the other hand, my wife was on the pill at one point, and she had a miscarriage while on it, so that it an unplanned pregnancy. Yet, if you look at the stats I put up, it should have been the other way around.

My point being is that you can't use the percentage of unplanned pregnancies as a rate of probability of getting pregnant--that's not the same thing.

But what you can say is that, on average, both methods are relatively identical in their abilities to inhibit unwanted pregnancy. That's the reality that you can extract from comparing the two methods.

originally posted by: windword
You must have some crappy insurance!

Actually, I have very good insurance, but I still have to pay a percentage of the surgery, as it is an elective surgery. I wouldn't have had to a few years ago, but since a certain bill was passed and has gone into effect, I now pay more out-of-pocket for everything, to include my co-pays. But that's a conversation for another day.

And the cost of the surgery is a little over $1,200, so your ignorant (in the most non-derogatory use of the word...you didn't the cost) comment about my coverage being crappy was uncalled for and really makes you look stupid.

Why are you getting a vasectomy? Are condoms not good enough for you and your wife?

Sure, they've been good enough for the 16 years that we've needed them, but we don't like paying for them all of the time when I can shell out a few hundred bucks (the cost to use of condoms for maybe a year...haven't done the math exactly) for the surgery and have it (hopefully) last a lifetime. My wife does not do well on the hormone-based contraceptives.

But, of course, that answer assumes that it's any of your business.

Why do you care so much about the activities of my penis and what it does or doesn't wear?

ETA: Yep, dawnstar seems to get math

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: windword
probably because he knows that in the end, they are more cost effective than the condoms..

originally posted by: dawnstar

I'm sorry you are poor, but you write a lot after I said I give up... You seem responsible, but I do not think your example is the norm for many.

so, I am asking you....
why should they have to fork out the money for their birth control?? if they are insured, then their insurance should be covering 100% of the cost, if they are poor, their medicaid should be covering it, if they don't fit either of those categories, then title x should be at least taking much of the bite out of it.

I agree with you that insurance should pay for it, not sure your point.. I do not agree with Hobby Lobby, but then I would not work there either. Title X should pay for it too...

through the decades our taxes have been used to not only pay for the healthcare of the poor, disabled, and retired, but also to build this great healthcare system, from research into diseases, to drug and vaccine development, to building hospitals and helping purchasetheir equipment, to training healthcare professionals. no one in this country should have to lay in a bed for a week wondering just how the heck they were gonna convince a doctor to set their ankle, buy their insulin, or even get their birth control perscription filled! the idea that we should be treating birth control as something other than healthcare is garbage, just like the idea of helping certain groups of people get their medical care while saying tough crap to others is!

Why didn't you just go to the emergency room for your ankle, that is basically free health care. Do you have Obamacare now, or work for a company that provides healthcare?

I hate Obamacare, it costs me 5X now what I once paid, I wished they just focused on people like you with Title whatever to fill in your needs, but we need to deal with what we got.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Sure, they've been good enough for the 16 years that we've needed them, but we don't like paying for them all of the time

Lets do the math 5 times a day X 365 X 16 years X 80c per condom. That is $23,300 in condoms... I agree get the vasectomy to save 23,300 for the next 16 years.



BTW this is humor...

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Actually, I have very good insurance, but I still have to pay a percentage of the surgery, as it is an elective surgery. I wouldn't have had to a few years ago, but since a certain bill was passed and has gone into effect, I now pay more out-of-pocket for everything, to include my co-pays. But that's a conversation for another day.

And the cost of the surgery is a little over $1,200, so your ignorant (in the most non-derogatory use of the word...you didn't the cost) comment about my coverage being crappy was uncalled for and really makes you look stupid.

No, not stupid. You weren't complete truthful. You said that WE are not paying for your vasectomy, suggesting that your insurance won't cover the procedure. However, your insurance DOES cover the procedure, but requires a co-pay. So, in reality, we ARE paying for your vasectomy, as insurance premiums are pooled to pay for everyone's coverage needs, elective or not.

Why do you care so much about the activities of my penis and what it does or doesn't wear?

You seem to think that over the counter methods are enough, anything else shouldn't be "publicly" financed or covered by basic insurance.

You are, basically. advocating for the repeal of Title X, Public Health Service Act, when in fact you should be advocating for its expansion to include vasectomies.

a reply to: Xtrozero

the er slapped a splint on it and referred me to the surgeon, who demanded the high down payments... heck I actually had to ask the er for some pain killers before I left, they never even offered me any of those.

a reply to: Xtrozero

No. The question is "Why defund Planned Parenthood?"


That is your question..lol

Why isn't it your question? After a Texas Grand Jury cleared Planned Parenthood of any wrong doing, so there is no question of their ethicacy, why are you okay with Texas legislators wanting to defund them? Upset an effective working system?

Instead of railing against the injustice, you're suggesting that disagreeable folks just move somewhere else.

This thread has strayed a bit from the premise of the OP. If your objective is to decrease unwanted pregnancy without the need for abortion, this study suggests that defunding Planned Parenthood achieves the opposite. Any policy decision should be made pragmatically, not dogmatically. When morality is invoked as a basis for policy, you get the policies of Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter.

originally posted by: windword

Why isn't it your question? After a Texas Grand Jury cleared Planned Parenthood of any wrong doing, so there is no question of their ethicacy, why are you okay with Texas legislators wanting to defund them? Upset an effective working system?

Instead of railing against the injustice, you're suggesting that disagreeable folks just move somewhere else.

I don't live there... OK, ALL THE POOR PEOPLE IN TEXAS VOTE IN REPS THAT ARE NOT RELIGIOUS EXTREMEST! feel better?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

For example. I have had hypertension since I was in my late 30's. I could not take the available birth control pill at the time. I was married, but while we trying find birth control that I could take, bingo preg with number 3. Women's health is complicated.

To be the DA, this means there is a need which needs to be met, not that PP needs to be funded. Could Texas fund a different program for less and get the results they want?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

BTW this is humor...

I caught that

originally posted by: windword

No, not stupid. You weren't complete truthful. You said that WE are not paying for your vasectomy, suggesting that your insurance won't cover the procedure. However, your insurance DOES cover the procedure, but requires a co-pay. So, in reality, we ARE paying for your vasectomy, as insurance premiums are pooled to pay for everyone's coverage needs, elective or not.

Actually, if we really want to get nitpicky, I don't even come close--EVER--to getting back per year via medical payouts from my insurance company an equivalent amount to what I pay in. So, while in theory you are correct, my insurance company makes a very nice profit off of me per year, so the $1,000-ish payout that they will do on this surgery will still not even get them close to equaling what I pay them every year.

So, there is still a surplus of my money in the pool at the end of the year, so I'm still paying for this procedure, even though insurance is covering most of it--it's still my money paying for it.

That's the reality of the situation.

You seem to think that over the counter methods are enough, anything else shouldn't be "publicly" financed or covered by basic insurance.

You are, basically. advocating for the repeal of Title X, Public Health Service Act, when in fact you should be advocating for its expansion to include vasectomies.

First, you don't need to tell me what I should be advocating, because I have no problem paying for my own medical procedures--I don't need nor want the general public to cover them for me. The only reasons that I have such a good insurance plan is because of two things: The ACA and having a toddler and a teenage boy. Other than those relatively high-risk ages being a part of my family, I'd prefer to save my own money, pay cash for doctor visits, and supplement that with a relatively cheap high-deductible plan. But the ACA tells me that I can't really do that anymore.

And yes, OTC contraceptives are enough--they're just not the preferred method by all. That's fine--just don't tell me that I have to pay for it when no one but me pays for mine.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: SlapMonkey

For example. I have had hypertension since I was in my late 30's. I could not take the available birth control pill at the time. I was married, but while we trying find birth control that I could take, bingo preg with number 3. Women's health is complicated.

Yep, it is...my wife is a massive testament to that, but anecdotal evidence (that I have to take at face value because I can't prove or disprove it) is not scientific evidence that disproves the efficacy rates that I have pointed out numerous times. Nor does it change my mind that I, nor society in general, needs to pay for someone's birth control.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Nor does it change my mind that I, nor society in general, needs to pay for someone's birth control.

So you do not believe in lowering social costs efficiently? You'd rather unwanted children be born, get poorly educated, and then wind up in prison where your tax dollars provide free room and board?

so, who's paying for the free condoms that some are saying are all over the place? Could it be Title X?? Didn't we just accept the idea that it more cost effective in the long run to just get an IUD, or even give them the pill than to keep passing out the condoms, which ARE most reliable. Fewer than 1 out of every 100 women using an IUD will get pregnant. Around 3 out of 100 users of the depoprovera shot will become pregnant. Around 8 out of every 100 using the pill or patch will get pregnant. And, around 18 out of every 100 will get pregnant using male condoms...

So, if we were to put these on the same grading system that most schools use...
Absintence would get a !00.
The IUD's would get a 99.
The shot would get a 97.
The pill and the patch would get a 92.....

and the male condom would get a 82!

Ya know, there are parents out there that would ground their kids got an 82 on their math test.

And yes, OTC contraceptives are enough--they're just not the preferred method by all. That's fine--just don't tell me that I have to pay for it when no one but me pays for mine.

And that is exactly how I felt when I got those medical bills for that broken ankle that was twice our yearly income.... Don't tell me that I have to pay for the neighbor's kid runny nose, or the other's neighbor's counseling sessions when we are stuck with this kind of bill that we get to deal with alone! We weren't poor by the way, if we were, we would have had that bill paid! Like I said, my husband was a journeymen machinist making over $10/hour. We got tired of living in NY, after the experience with the broken ankle, I couldn't stand it anymore. Always justifying their tax increases by pointing to the cost of medicaid, wanting more and more money. Heck, even now when family members ask me if I will ever be up for a visit I tell them no. I don't want another drop of my money going to that state! It took me about three years before I could work again, and even then I often walked with a limp and occasionally fell. And when I started seeing those medical bills (even after insurance) exceeding the income I was earning, well, I decided it was time to just quit, live with the problem, accept that there are things I just can't do. My kids were adults and my husband could support the two of us and quite frankly those last years were less stressful and happier than all those years before. He's passed on now and I finally pushed social security hard enough that I am getting SSI. still uninsured and living with my shortcomings. and wondering if I will be able to keep the roof over my head for another month, looking to see what I can sell next, because that 700 dollar ssi payment isn't gonna make the grade!

So, believe me, I can relate to what you said, I probably feel much more strongly about it than you do.... but I have to ask....why birth control, why aren't you reacting to anything other thing that is giving away to the poor...of whom many of them have little medicaid cards that they can use to go visit any doctor that takes medicaid to get at least a prescription for the pill. Those poor that have those medicaid cards don't need those clinics that charge according to a sliding scale to adjust their fees according to income as badly on families that aren't poor, but rather are falling in the cracks. who, I don't care what the say, will always be with us. Since, well, if we don't have them, then they won't have a needy group of people to point to next time their buddies in the insurance racket want another round of big bonuses and big pay raises and want them to expand the benefits even further, to include more people to bring into their racket!

We weren't poor, we were the sacrificial lambs!!!

a reply to: DJW001

Remove the "social services" and you will experience personal responsibility.

Amazing that people want others to fund their sex lives. And if they don't, then they must fund their life with child.

can we skip to alabama for a little bit, as we see here, the impact of just pulling part of the funding from planned parenthood seems to increase the burden on gov't assistance programs....

at the moment we have a whole mess of states trying to cut funding to planned parenthood, investigating planned parenthood, all over a bunch of videos that one judge in san francisco has came out and said the group were fraudulent in the ways of obtaining the videos and the videos show noting illegal being done.
so, well, what was the cost in alabama as they tried to pull their whopping $4,351.37 check from planned parenthood??

Cost for the lawyers that represented the state--- $50,000
The cost of planned parenthood's lawyers, that
they now get to pay because they settled the
lawsuit --- $51,000

over a $100,000 dollars in just legal fees washed down the drain in one of the poorest states in the nation!! and all along the planned parenthood clinics were telling them that they weren't involved in any fetal tissue programs!!!

www.timesdaily.com...

so, hip, hip hurray for conservative policies!!! they sure do conserve our finances quite well... so well in fact, I have to ask...
do the lawyers in the country need a bailout and they neglected to tell us pions about it?