It’s impossible to give Sen. Cory Gardner the benefit of the doubt, and now he’s making it almost as hard to give him a second chance.
Last week, the newbie Colorado senator announced he was going to make good on campaign promises to be a force for women’s health issues, and he introduced a drive-through birth control pill bill in the Senate.
This is where I’d like to lay on the “told you so,” but I’ll wait.
Maybe you’ve forgotten last fall’s bruising battle for the Senate seat between then-Congressman Cory Gardner and then-incumbent Sen. Mark Udall. It was nasty. Udall was branded “Senator Uterus” by GOP foes after he hammered away at Gardner’s record of extreme views on abortion and birth control. The issue was such a deal breaker for even conservative Colorado voters that it prompted the upstart congressman from the Eastern Plains to change his position on controversial state and federal personhood bills. Before last fall, when it became clear that backing ferociously unpopular personhood measures would cost him the election, Gardner had talked about taking ballot petitions for the failed state measures to his church to gather signatures. When he ran for the state legislature and the U.S. House, he talked about how much he supported personhood bills that would declare fertilized human eggs “people,” endow them with rights and open a Pandora’s box of woe for women, courts, doctors and legislatures. Gardner was adamant that the rights of a zygote or a fetus must trump the rights of the woman whose uterus hosted the fertilized cells.
Gardner had an epiphany about how his stance on personhood was darkening his political future, and he sort of promised he wouldn’t vote for such a thing if he won a seat in the Senate.
But lots of Coloradans soured on Gardner even further when he lauded court decisions endowing corporations with the rights of people. Sour became caustic when Gardner cheered court rulings empowering corporations owned by religious zealots who think birth control is a sin. He supported a world where employers who morally object to employees using sinful birth control should be able to keep company insurance from allowing for it. So he had to counter all the ill-will he collected from supporting the birth-control-hated-by-religous-zealots-who-sign-paychecks-is-sin-thing. He and Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) sponsored the Allowing Greater Access to Safe and Effective Contraception Act last week.
What an act this is. Fortunately, the U.S. Senate has nothing to do with what the FDA does and doesn’t approve for treatment, dispensing or consideration. All this act would do is “encourage” the FDA to make birth control pills available without a prescription.
On the surface, that sounds like a good idea, and in some ways it is. But let’s say you’re 18, fresh out of high school and ready for college and sex. Being responsible and practical, you go to the store to get “the pill.” Here’s the reality: There are dozens and dozens of types and brands of birth control pills. Estrogen, progesterone or both? If you’re not careful, it can be a life-and-death decision, especially if you’re overweight, take a conflicting medication or have a history of cancer or heart disease. Of course at that age, you may not know that until you take the wrong pill and suffer the consequences. Beyond the chemical, there’s dosage, and there are also pills that blend hormones at different times of the month. So should you chose monophasic? Diphasic? Multiphasic? How about drospirenone as an agent, despite the increased risks? Or limit some of the side effects with Norethindrone, even though the chances of getting pregnant on this pill are higher.
The chances are not only pretty good, they’re very good that you’d want the advice of a health-care professional as to which pill to choose over a recommendation from a TV commercial or the dude behind the counter at the pharmacy, next to the soda pop aisle.
But here’s the real deal-breaker for this scam. By making the pill OTC, the government would no longer require health insurance companies to cover the cost of the drug. So that $10 to $200 a year copay for the pill? Gone — now you pay about $600 or more for the pill. Maybe you can pick a cheap one and see how that works for you. Good luck.
If Gardner had included language that still made insurance companies pay for what they’re paying for now, and if the bill would keep your boss from choosing your birth control, the measure might have arguable merit. But as it stands? Well, I told you so.
Gee Dave, If you know all this as a male, then why do you think that 18 year old girl who is so ready to step into dangerous practices, and who probably know more about a digital keyboard than you do, not check her computer, or talk to her peer female friends about which pills they use? I suspect youngsters at 8 or 9, know more than I did at 25 back in the 1950s. You certainly do short them on knowledge, or education, don’t you? Or did you just want to take cheap shots at Cory Gardner? Yeah, probably so. Why aren’t you writing about the black on black killings? Liberal cities have vast expansion of that, and you had better hurry. Hanity had 4 blacks on tonight who hit on that subject, especially the President who is so silent on that aspect, while he cannot quit talking about 5 or 6 cases of White Police, shooting blacks. Get with it, the world is passing you up, and you are stuck on small time stuff here.
Yea, WebMD is awesome. Gives you all the info you need. And my best friend recommended my current heart meds too!
There are valid MEDICAL reasons for this being available by Rx only. And Dave is right, Mr. Gardner lied for votes.
Why are so many folks hung up on their sexual side? I grant that is a powerful drag in our youth, but there comes a time, when you notice older animals and birds are not that involved. ; But on the human side, we have the old goats marrying young women, men wanting to mate with men, women with women, and then just today article of transgender and the problems they have. Somehow life was much simpler, slower, more relaxing, and yet more preferred after WWII, when everyone seemed to know who and what they were. Married 63 years, wife 80, me 85 sex is not very high on my radar screen these days. And I beg to differ with you on Corey Gardner. Like any young married person with small children, first inclination was to support personhood. But also with 3 children, all adults, having lived more, and satisfied with my life and family years, I saw the pitfalls and never did vote for it. Period. ——————-Also subject of abortion needs discussion. Years ago, after retiring from USAF, I sat in Delmar Senior Center with an elderly couple who are now deceased. Their church was rejecting abortion when Republicans added that to their plank. Henry and Wilma brought up abortion while we waited for Rep. Dan Schaffer to arrive to speak. After a few minutes of them, I said ” John, You don’t look pregnant to me, and Mary (not their real first names) doesn’t either, and I know I am not, so why are we having this discussion? We were all quiet for short period, and picked up different conversation , until Representative arrived and joined us at our table. Steve Ruddick (Aurora) also joined us, and few years later he became a Judge in Aurora Court system. Even those days were better for families in Colorado, before drugs, alcohol, smuggling of people, guns, money for drug cartels, and now Pot and edible Pot candies that are killing people, who think they can fly after 4 – 5 pieces and jump off balconies or shoot their wives. Are these subject much more important to discuss than stuff that families should handle privately.
No doubt at your age much of what you are observing around you is not on your radar due mainly to your own bias. “Life was simpler and relaxing” when you were young? Sorry! I think you’re pipe dreaming over a past that’s long gone and ain’t never gonna return. Thank God in my opinion.
With all due respect. I am 74 and in my opinion you are living in the dream world from the past. It’s gone Frank. Now is now and a new generation is rising to replace seniors like you and I.
Life was simpler then you say. I agree it was “slower” so slow in fact racism, homophobia and denial of women’s rights ruled the day.
Gays who have been long marginalized are now able to marry and live happily and yes raise families just like you and I. Yet you worry about “men wanting to mate with men”. So what! That’s none of your business nor anyone else’s in my opinion.
Gays fought long and hard to be accepted in todays world as opposed to ignorance and hate They faced from the “good old days” you seem to long for.
I have two young daughters and they are fierce feminists and supporters of women’s rights. I’m deeply proud of them both.
If people want to use marijuana that’s their business. I’ll bet you’ve tipped a few beers in your life. I have and enjoyed the experience on a few occasions. Why shouldn’t marijuana users be able to enjoy the same privilege.
You’re statements about people jumping off balconies and committing suicide while high on marijuana and pot candy killing people is amusing in my opinion. I’ll wager more people die from acute alcohol poisoning or driving under the influence than die eating edible pot.
Oh well. It’s a new world out there and it’s too bad you can’t relax like in the good old days when things were slower. Suit yourself.
You may feel that is the world moving on, but it has happened before in other countries, and times. And tests in Europe, England is now finding the damage done to young brains in teens. Measurable results, and when researchers gave pot to rats, those showed increase of activity to get more pot. Their young ones then showed more demand for heroin and morphine. And if you think back to the 40s and 50s, the fathers who used alcohol, had families who made excuses for them. Then when many died of diseases in 40s and 50s, as I saw too, their young who had been teetotalers, became alcoholics. I never had alcohol until about 20-21, then in service did drink some, never to excess. Only went beyond beverage stage twice in my life, at military party where my drink (whiskey mix) got dumped, and replaced. First Xmas at first squadron Xmas party, and my bunk was across street in ground level of 2 story barracks. 2nd time, commander had me go to club to get couple bottles, when running out. Thought I hid my drink, but commander put pure alcohol in glass. Apologized profusely, but I learned never set drink down, or ever come back to one if I had left it. Used more whiskey, wine, and beer for cooking in crockpots than I ever drank. Until draft (enlistment) I thought I had been called to be minister in my church, and lived clean life then, and afterwards. Religious, but I did not force my beliefs on anyone, believing each will find as much or little religion, as they need. And I did visit different religions to learn of them, even to being only white face in black church, with a friend from Little Rock, who left for Aviation Cadets from Nellis about year after we met. Mother dead, father raising 9 siblings on janitor pay, Harold sent his entire AF pay home, and then did small jobs in organization to raise funds for movie tickets and BX purchases. Think we got about $80.00 cash each month, at pay call in 1951-52 as Corporals then.
Had a son who skipped school, used pot at 13 in Hawaii. I knew it, but could not do anything about it. It effected his social adaptions, and he definitely had discussions with his son, now 19. So I have been there, and for a time he lived with 4 others, all working, and they supported each other. Wife and I told him we would not support that habit, If hungry come home and we would feed him. Would not loan him money, or give him money. We loved him, but would not change our lifestyle to accept his. Same goes for same-sex stuff. Not my style or my wife, and we will not compromise. Lucky all 3 of ours are married with children. I don’t ask others, but when on active duty, if anyone disclosed that, I would help them fill out papers to leave. I could not serve in todays military, and I do not recommend it. Have a grandson – Captain in Marines- makes his life difficult -but as pilot is isolated from close living, and I expect him to serve requirements, and leave with reserve commission. His choice.
This may come as surprise to you, but I don’t force that opinion on anyone. Even posting here, you don’t have to read it, if it bothers you. As for gays and lesbians, stories are not coming out of the children raised in those households, and it is not all sweetness and light. Time will tell, but that has to be uncomfortable for small children, and especially in the teens. In my 26 years, I maintained officers and enlisted records, with high proportion needing security clearances. And those forms get extremely difficult for adopted personnel, and future ones will be much more difficult. Also wives took husbands last names after marriage, but the hyphenated names now make security clearances that much more difficult to trace, get reports, which delays, and actually kept some from getting clearance. Has to be more difficult now, when clearance is contracted out, and computers are used for cross-checking with less face to face questioning of witnesses. Just read a young woman’s article last week, of being raised by transgendered male to female. And she had suspicion her underwear had been tampered with. So I will not join you in being resolved to accept the changes. Not in my lifestyle. I will stick to what I know and am comfortable with, THANK YOU MUCH. HAVE A GOOD SUMMER.
My goodness Frank. You’re a beacon of perfection. Afraid I can’t say the same for myself. Even tried pot a few times and have definitely partied in my life.
It’s nice you don’t try to force your homophobia on anyone. In this day and age that’s not cool Frank.
I intend to have a good summer thank you. May even listen to some Rolling Stones, smoke some pot and have a bottle of Jack. Ever listen to Jimmy Hendrix while stoned Frank? It’s a trip and not the kind you take to Kansas.
Don’t let the turkeys get you down. Best of luck.
Well, Professor Plum you old poofster. Out bothering the nice people again and proselytizing the gay agenda? Does your imaginary mate know how you spend your days? Leave the nice people alone Professor. Your grandiosity is the same as any other hater troll, just skewed more toward narcissism. Back to your Squatty Potty and your muscle magazines.
You come by your name honestly. You probably have a problem standing yourself for that matter.
Frank lives in the past and you apparently do too. The two of you make good imaginary partners spending your days proselytizing homophobic hate and bigotry.
Back into your narcissistic hole with Frank.
Why Professor, I’m shattered! Seems like everybody is homophobic but you. That skews toward paranoia, a known link. I’ll bust you from time to time. The content is always the same, style never varies. Psychopathic behavior is uncomplicated to everyone other than the psychopath. Now off you go, and be nice.
Come now. No need to froth. We’re suitably impressed by your dazzling syntax psychopathic as it is.
Frank, let me apologize for Professor Plum, ‘ryecatcher’ the fireside troll. He ambushes nice people then tries to sound smart. Margret Sanger founder of Planned Parenthood says; On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
“…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.” Works for me. Put birth control in bad $6 red wine and it’ll wend its way into the progressive ecosystem.
Poor Frank. He needs a knight in shining armor to apologize for his homophobia and narrow minded senility while justifying his/her own creepy bigotry using Margret Sanger as a prop.
Pathetic.
Yes, PP (may I call you “PP”?) you are in fact pathetic. Selling some insipid PG Wodehouse knockoff tripe using a created identity is canned hater troll pathology. The ‘Franks’ of this world still have the right to an opinion, even, especially if it conflicts with yours..
From Margaret Sanger to PG Wodehouse. The Oracle of Ooze leaky pontificating simply amazes. What a blowhard.
The “Franks” of this world are senile old white guys so typical of narrow minded repubs who vote for jerks like Rick Perry and Ted Cruz. Pathetic!
Interesting how words like ‘blow’ and ‘leaky’ percolate up through your rants. Your bit is that you have a grandiose disregard for the PP generalized “Franks” who vote for so and so, and all of course think the exact same way. All homophobic too right? Which part do you hate most: white, old, male, your-labeled homophobic? You are none of those of course. Sure. PP is way too savvy for that. I suspect that you’re a Clintonite, but you could ricochet anywhere, maybe even Sanders since you have that east coast poser tweak. Right. Bernie’s your man. Second time in the world you used the word ‘pathetic’ Have it your way. Name change to factor in the addition: PPP. Stay indoors in case some climate change happens by.
I ricochet? That’s quaint coming from a second rate pretender who goes from Frank to Margeret Sanger to PG Wodehouse and back again.
In so far as “generalized Franks” go, it’s not too difficult to generalize when there’s not much there to generalize about other than Frank’s simplistic generalizations from the “good old days” of corn and confusion.
But then we have you riding to the rescue on your grandiose high horse festooned in your syrupy syntax. You no doubt suspect much about others but not much about yourself. That much is obvious.
Professor Plum here.
S..s.sssyrupy syntax. Things just seem to roll off your tonque PPP. From lots of practice no doubt. So you troll Frank-like guys because they are so simple and predictable. That about right? Why seek them out other than for a little sissy sadism from behind a little pic? You made a reference to “corn”. Would that be as in “corn hole”? That’s where the sadism keeps dragging you back to PPP. You said yourself that you hated him for his homophobia. Poor PPP. got himself all stuck. Who would get on a computer for the express purpose of hunting for “Franks” just for the purpose of stoking their own sense of grandiosity/inferiority? Somebody with a strong psychopathic streak is who. You.
Hilarious! “Cornhole”? You’re obviously familiar.
Speaking of “sissy sadism from behind the pic”, you picked the right character for yours. You obviously are an envious wanna be.
“Simple and predictable”. Why yes. You are that. Frank at least knows corn. That’s a tad better than you, hector.
holecatcher. my response is on hold awaiting response. I hope it makes it. Have you shared your feelings with Frank?
Have you?
holecatcher. I refuse to be the go between that explains your feelings for Frank to him, and other Christians that you have trolled. You need to own that as part of your rehabilitation. And attacking Alfred W Neuman is just displacing your fear of falling to the bottom of the food chain. William James discusses this at length.
My we are grandstanding. William James. I’m sure William James discusses many things mostly out of your league I might add.
Since you refuse to be the go between why are you still whining about Frank?
Is Frank unable to fend for himself? How Christian of you to come to his rescue, rufus.
a55catcher. Always a pleasure. As far as your keen sense of observation re William James, he is in fact over my head in many areas, and yours. Thats why he’s him and you’re you. Dr carson triggered a similar reaction in you. I guess that I confused you, its the archetypal ‘Frank’ that I see as your preferred stalking object. As far as defending him, maybe he can defend himself, but its more my detestation of acerbic posers like yourself than the defense of any individual. Since Frank had gotten blindsided by you, the cun9y little coward, it was a heads-up to him. So this incident is solved: Professor Plum in a Public Toilet with a Christian, again, so off I go to more interesting things. I’ll sample the situation from time to time. Expect to reap what you sow, and then some.
“Yea, WebMD is awesome. Gives you all the info you need. And my best friend recommended my current heart meds too!”–Yeah, because it’s not like “that guy behind the counter,” as Perry so ineloquently puts it, had to go through 4 years of school to get a PharmD and understand the side-effects of the drugs being dispensed.
But if it’s OTC, you don’t talk to the pharmacist. Or most people don’t.
WebMD is a great resource, but certainly should not replace a discussion with your doctor. Wouldn’t you agree?
“But if it’s OTC, you don’t talk to the pharmacist. Or most people don’t.”– Perry brought it up. Take it up with him.
“WebMD is a great resource, but certainly should not replace a discussion with your doctor. Wouldn’t you agree?”– Since your “WebMD” point is a red herring, it can be safely ignored.
Nice deflection.
Apparently projection is also on your menu this evening.
And by the way, Plan B is considered “over the counter” but you still purchase it directly from the pharmacist.
https://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/plan-b-over-the-counter
You can tell this bill is a winner because Perry can’t come up with a single coherent argument against it that isn’t riddled with appeals to authority, well-poisoning, question-begging, and that old standby, the genetic fallacy–designed to convince no one and reinforce the confirmation biases of like-minded bobbleheads.
As recently as two years ago, leftists were all for expanding access to birth control and often argued vociferously for making it OTC. Now that those icky Republicans actually introduced a bill to do the very thing they previously agitated for, it’s “WHOA LET’S NOT BE SO HASTY HERE!!” Principals over principles, save for the one that consistently agitates for Government Bureaucracy Uber Alles.
Hey Dave … that’s some bad stuff you’ve been smoking.
Talk about ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ You can’t win with liberals, no matter what you do, you’re wrong. Drive thru birth control not enough for the folks at the Sentinel, sour grapes of the highest order, Gardner is a Republican, your partisan ways are showing again, no, make that ‘still’.
Yes, Gardner is a Republican. But he made statements and promises – lied – to get elected. Now he IS showing true colors.
Again, there are VALID medical reasons for BC pills requiring a prescription.
Harry Reid said on the floor of the Senate, speaking as the Majority Leader, ‘Romney hasn’t paid taxes in 10 years’ This was picked up by ALL the liberal ‘news’ outlets, ‘Romney a tax cheat’ This BEFORE the last presidential election, during the run-up. Of course it was proven to be a bold faced LIE, and when Reid was asked about the statement, did he ask forgiveness? Admit he was wrong to say that? Apologize? No, none of those, what he said was, ‘Romney didn’t get elected did he’? He’s a smug, lying bastard. Gardner is against abortion, he said that, now that he’s come around to wanting to allow women to get BC at every corner store, you on the left don’t like that either. I’ve stopped talking to folks I know as liberals or Democrats for that very reason, you have none.
What are you talking about?
There are VALID MEDICAL REASONS for requiring a medical prescription for birth control pills. VALID MEDICAL REASONS. BC should NOT be available at the corner store for those VALID MEDICAL REASONS. Do you get that?
You are the one who brought political affiliations into this. I have little use for either of the political cartels operating in the US today.
I’m talking about LIARS! You called Gardner a liar, I proved that even much bigger liars exist in the Democrat party. You’ve shouted at me twice now, about VALID MEDICAL REASONS. are these much the same as the VALID MEDICAL REASONS for Medical Marijuana? Gardner is trying to give you what you clamored for, and now he didn’t do it the way that suits you, would you rather have doctor and nurse come to everyone’s home, costly, no?
I now understand where you’re coming from. People can lie all they want, so long as there are bigger liars. Got it.
BTW, I cannot take birth control pills due to other existing medical conditions. Luckily, my Doctor explained that to me years ago and offered alternatives.
And yes, I do believe there are valid medical reasons for marijuana also.
So, we agree that we look at things differently, no?
I’m fairly certain, that after a few comments, that you believe there is a ‘war on women’ also, I, of course, do not, it’s ludicrous. ‘valid medical reasons’ You seem to like that terminology, here’s what I find most interesting about ‘medical’ and ‘recreational’ marijuana. To get it passed, the backers, those with skin in the game rolled out ‘old people in wheelchairs’ and ‘sick little kids’, who would surely die without dope, but, after the smoke cleared, no pun intended, what we now have are young, nearly clueless, entitled ‘rightists’, who are not sick nor old, just wanting to get high. So yes, we look at issues differently, my pov is fact based, yours emotionally charged.
What does marijuana have to do with anything in this discussion? If your point of view is fact-based, god help us. You’re hilarious!
Uh, I think you’re shouting, too.
“There are VALID MEDICAL REASONS for requiring a medical prescription for birth control pills”– The left, just two years ago:
“Oral contraceptives are the most popular form of birth control, but the outdated practice
of requiring women to visit the doctor to obtain a prescription leads
some women to take their pills less regularly and compromise the
method’s effectiveness.”
https://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/01/02/1386371/unlike-the-us-most-countries-offer-birth-control-pills-over-the-counter/
I disagreed with “the left” then (as I do with many, many issues), just as I disagree with it now. My opinions aren’t formed by what the political cartels in this country think.
thanks for playing!
“I disagreed with “the left” then (as I do with many, many issues), just
as I disagree with it now.”– LOL, sure you did. Even ACOG was calling for OTC birth control as late as last year until it was pushed by a Republican.
“My opinions aren’t formed by what the political cartels in this country think.”–Which is all your argument is, an opinion without evidence. Unless you can show how OTC birth control has contributed to massive healthcare problems for women in the countries that offer it, you haven’t really proved that a prescription for it is absolutely necessary without appeals to authority.
My opinion is based on my experience, as well as discussions with health providers. I’ve actually done some research on this, and used to support it. Yours appears to be based on, well, I can’t tell.
” I’ve actually done some research on this, and used to support it.”– Then cite your sources. If you can show how OTC birth control has contributed to massive healthcare problems for women in the countries that offer it, then your argument that birth control should never be given without a prescription will have some merit. As it is, you’re just arguing from anecdote and blowing smoke.
“LOL, sure you did.”
I see your true colors coming through.
I see you still haven’t provided evidence for your argument.
LOL! So you trash Gardner as supposedly not supporting birth control. When he does, you trash his bill to support birth control.
If Birth control was capped at $5.00 that would be fine but the real cost of even the pill would be too expensive for most. That was the point. He is using a cheap trick. A expense he knows most can’t afford.
Next time have single payer insurance and none of these would be a problem.
“If Birth control was capped at $5.00 that would be fine but the real cost of even the pill would be too expensive for most”–Question begging, with a healthy dose of “Not taking is giving and not giving is taking” to boot.
I am not sure of what you meant. Gardner’s proposal is a smoke & mirrors where he can claim one thing( pro birth control) while in practice he knows the cost will be too high for most.
“Gardner’s proposal is a smoke & mirrors where he can claim one
thing( pro birth control) while in practice he knows the cost will be
too high for most.”– More question-begging.
Question-begging?
Yep. Come back with a substantive argument.
That has already been done. It seems that perhaps one does not understand spin doctors.
“That has already been done.”– Incorrect. You’ve provided plenty of speculation where the conclusion is assumed and but no actual evidence to support the argument.
” It seems that perhaps one does not understand spin doctors.”–Not at all. You and Perry demonstrated the function quite aptly.
Depending on insurance Birth control pill run $5-$40 a month
over the counter $20-$50 per month But there are many drugs that interfere with Birth control pill including some over the counter medications
The formulation are very different.
https://health.costhelper.com/birth-control-pills.html
https://www.walmart.com/cp/4-Prescriptions/1078664
https://www.goodrx.com/birth-control?gclid=CO-S7dPU58UCFRUaaQodsl0ASw
Now really effective birth control costs much more.
https://www.onemedical.com/blog/live-well/birth-control-guide/
“Depending on insurance Birth control pill run $5-$40 a month
over the counter $20-$50 per month.” So in other words, a variation of $10-15 a month. That’s hardly a massive cost increase. And that’s actually not “over the counter”–that’s the cost “without insurance,” where a prescription is required to access the medication. Eliminate the prescription requirement barrier and allow competition–unlike Plan B, which didn’t go down in price after it became OTC because the FDA allows one company to possess a market monopoly on it–and it’s far more likely that the prices will drop.
“But there are many drugs that interfere with Birth control pill including some over the counter medication”–Which has nothing to do with the cost of birth control.
“Now really effective birth control costs much more.”– Which doesn’t demonstrate how making it exclusively over the counter will actually result in higher costs, which none of your links actually address. It lists the real costs under the current sales model, which is limited to the effect of third-party payer models on costs.
Do you actually have any sources that predict what the costs will be once they are converted to over the counter? Because these links aren’t cutting it.
The massive come with really effective birth control. The the price jumps.
It seem that your argument is pure dollars. unlike cars the competition is much more complex. Human bio-systems are a range of variance that cannot be predicted without expert analysis.
Over the counter with the current birth control is not warranted. Price alone is insufficient as the resulting problem will be much more expensive.
They system needs to be fool proof with plenty of back-up. The male birth control is showing promise. Clinical trials should be starting soon.
https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/UnintendedPregnancy/PDF/Contraceptive_methods_508.pdf
https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-Unintended-Pregnancy-US.html
“The massive come with really effective birth control. The the price jumps.”– Which is hardly relevant when there are already plenty of pills on the market being used other than the “really effective birth control” you’re now saying is crucial.
“Over the counter with the current birth control is not warranted. Price
alone is insufficient as the resulting problems will be much more
expensive— From ACOG, who was ALSO supporting OTC birth control until THOSE ICKY REPUKES introduced the bill to legalize a policy they supported:
“Safety concerns about OCs frequently focus on the increased risk of
venous thromboembolism. However, it is important to understand that the
rate of venous thromboembolism for OC users is extremely low
(3–10.22/10,000 women-years) (13, 14)
and to put this risk in context by recognizing the much greater risk of
venous thromboembolism during pregnancy (5–20/10,000 women-years) or in
the postpartum period (40–65/10,000 women-years) (14). Overall, the
consensus is that OC use is safe (15–17).”
So, price hasn’t been revealed to be an issue (leading to a desperation gambit that “really effective birth control” is the only valid type to be used), and an association of OB-GYNs that supported this (before a politician they didn’t like tried to make the policy legal) said that the safety issues are no more prevalent than in pregnancy and statistically minimal. And as I pointed out to Carole below, unless you can show where making birth control OTC has led to massive related healthcare problems for the women in those countries, that argument is also overblown.
Modern pills are effective only if the patient takes then exactly as directed. And has taken no contraindicated medication or foods. But not every pill is interchangeable either with no side effects. The goal is no unwanted pregnancies. The pill’s success rate is sub optimal. The cost of sub optimal is very high when all other costs are applied.
The goal finally is 100% prevention. That will come as the medical community learns more and new technologies replace old ones.
The birth control needs to be stupid proof.
As far as cost all birth control should be subsidized @ $1.00 national co pay.
” We find that taxpayers spend about $12 billion annually
on publicly financed medical care for women who experience unintended pregnancies and on
infants who were conceived unintentionally.”*
That’s just the beginning ”
$245,340 to Raise a Child Born in 2013″
https://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2014/08/0179.xml
* https://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2011/07/unintended-pregnancy-thomas-monea
“Modern pills are effective only if the patient takes then exactly as directed”– A pharmacist is just as capable of doing this as a doctor. Do you have evidence that the women in countries where birth control is OTC have experienced massive health problems as a result?
“As far as cost all birth control should be subsidized @ $1.00 national co pay.”– Considering that it’s not that expensive right now, this is just a GIMMEDAT demand and doesn’t prove in any way that making it OTC will be an onerous financial burden as you claimed.
” We find that taxpayers spend about $12 billion annually
on publicly financed medical care for women who experience unintended pregnancies and on infants who were conceived unintentionally.”*– So what you’re saying is that the myriad of birth control devices already available aren’t effective enough to prevent all unintended pregnancies. Which isn’t germane to the discussion at hand about the safety of OTC birth control nor the cost impact.
” So what you’re saying is that the myriad of birth control devices
already available aren’t effective enough to prevent all unintended
pregnancies”
Incorrect conclusion. These women are not using any or using improperly.
Safety is in proper prescription which a pharmacy is not able to do. Not every formula will function with each individual with out side effects.
Another issue who can buy them.will there be an age restriction? A prescription does not have that problem.
The effective birth control devices need to be expertly administered and applied.
12 billion is not a small sum. It is enough to pay down the national debt. And help the crumbling infrastructure.
Not everybody has a lot of disposable income. It is better to save billions(actually when all costs are added in) trillions of taxpayer dollars.
Day and week after pills are much more expensive.
I have experience in this field so I can see it in a different viewpoint.
However, it seem that what you are objecting to is that Birth control pills are not over the counter. However, in the future with new technologies that may be viable. Right now in 2015 it is not.
My position is that:
1. Over the counter is not going to do as the politicians say it will. End unwanted or unaffordable pregnancies.
2. A prescription from a physician with proper testing and follow up is a lot more effective
3. The US has terrible sex and social education. Compared to Denmark and the Netherlands
4. What is the goal here? Is it to end unwanted,unfunded pregnancies? Or is it to play politics?
5. Unexpected health issues that did not revel themselves in clinical trials*
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129258505
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/290196.php
“Another issue who can buy them.will there be an age restriction? A prescription does not have that problem.”– If they can be bought over the counter it’s a safe bet that only those who need them will buy them anyway. Not many 11-year olds are going to have to buy birth control.
“Safety is in proper prescription which a pharmacy is not able to do.”–Do you have evidence that the countries with OTC birth control have experienced major health problems as a result? If not, your claim here is inaccurate.
“12 billion is not a small sum. It is enough to pay down the national debt.”– The national debt is $18 trillion
“Day and week after pills are much more expensive.”– That’s because there’s a market monopoly enforced by the same government you say should keep monthly birth control from being over the counter.
“1. Over the counter is not going to do as the politicians say it will.
2. A prescription from a physician with proper testing and follow up is a lot more effective– ACOG disagrees with you (until the Republicans wanted to make it a reality).
https://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Gynecologic-Practice/Over-the-Counter-Access-to-Oral-Contraceptives
“3. The US has terrible sex and social education. Compared to Denmark and the Netherlands”–Red herring.
“4. What is the goal here? Is it to end unwanted,unfunded pregnancies? Or is it to play politics?”–Genetic fallacy. Like Perry, you refuse to acknowledge what it will actually accomplish, which is increase access to birth control, because of who proposed it. That’s intellectual laziness at best.
“5. Unexpected health issues that did not revel themselves in clinical trials*”– It’s a bit rich to argue that a prescription is necessary while citing a link where women had health issues from a drug that was prescribed by their physician. Perhaps you need to think through your evidence ind its implications a bit more before you use it.
1.&2. The acog recognizes the possibility of problems with over the counter access,cost etc that was not ignored. Access being a big one any while there may not be many 11 year olds they will be a lot of 14 year olds.
3. only to you.
4. Over the counter that costs more is a problem when the person can’t afford it. Yes it is double talk. Insurance at this time does not cover over the counter nor does the US have a national copay for over the counter. Yes, money is important.
5. With a physician to monitor different formulations can be given that would not have unwanted side effects.
“1.&2. The acog recognizes the possibility of problems with over the counter access,cost etc that was not ignored.”– Which is irrelevant as long as the FDA doesn’t implement a market monopoly.
“3. only to you.”–Actually, it’s a textbook example.
“4. Over the counter that costs more is a problem when the person can’t afford it. Yes it is double talk.”–Since you haven’t exactly demonstrated that prices will skyrocket more than $10-15 a month (and that’s assuming current prescription-only production rates, not the economies of scale that over the counter can provide), the argument that affordability will be out of reach is question-begging.
“5.5. With a physician to monitor different formulations can be given that would not have unwanted side effects.”–Since you haven’t shown how OTC birth control has led to increased health risks in countries where it is legal, since ACOG has pointed out that the health risks are actually less than in pregnancy and post-partum periods, and since a pharmacist is qualified to point out side effects of the various drugs, this is merely an appeal to authority and simple scare-mongering.
Yes a market monopoly and severe sanction and punishment for fraudulent drugs. Yes we need to keep an eye on that as the TPP has yet been released. IMO $1.00 copy or cost per month is plenty. The saving will pay for them selves as would the day after and week after pills (although women over 170 lbs will need something else)
Prescriptions to begin and a lot of education maybe. But politicians lie. Politicians would be able to change the system. Keeping it out of the hands of politicians would be a great challenge.
No, I will never agree to any over the counter until the cost is guaranteed to stay very low for 100 years. And enshrined as a right that the states cannot touch.
$10 is a lot when you have no money. But the system is designed to exploit.
“Yes a market monopoly and severe sanction and punishment for fraudulent drugs”– Interesting. You demand cheap birth control yet promote the very thing that keeps it from being cheap.
You haven’t shown how OTC birth control has led to increased health risks in the countries that offer it. That none of the lefties have touched that particular question with a ten-foot pole is hardly surprising. ACOG argued as recently as last year that the health risks are negligible, and even ThinkProgress, for the same reason, called the practice of getting a prescription “outdated” before THOSE ICKY REPUKES UGH started pushing the same policy.
You haven’t provided evidence on how OTC birth control is going to result in massively higher costs, demand lower costs “for 100 years” (LOL–why not 1000?) and in the next breath argue for the very thing that results in higher costs.
Since your arguments have basically devolved into irrational blather without a
hint of empirical evidence to support them (“$10 is a lot of money”
being the most laughable; that’s less than a family meal at McDonalds,
which even poor people seem to have plenty of money to purchase), and your demands
are the intellectual equivalent of a child stamping their feet, they
can be summarily dismissed.
You have never been poor or it was so long ago you have forgotten. So you have no idea what it means to have $10 til pay day.
The only conclusion it that the real purpose is to command circumstances which force women into unwanted pregnancies,. If however, over the counter was subsidized along with all other birth control so anyone could obtain then then you might then have a point.
It does mot have to be “Massive higher costs” to put birth control out of easy reach.. Now if you are talking guaranteed income and set subsidized low low priced that stores would use as a loss leader that idea would have promise. Along with no restrictions on buying birth control.
We who have not faith in politicians ideas or promises or politicians know it starts out one way and comes out another.
More emotionalism, vague blathering, irrational lashing out, and childish demands that have no grounding in the real world, with no empirical support.
You can’t prove that making birth control OTC will lead to massive health problems. You failed.
You can’t prove that making birth control OTC will lead to costs that will put it out of reach of people who are currently using it. You failed.
You can’t even reconcile the blatant special pleading of leftists and even medical associations who pushed this for years and and then suddenly changed their tune when a Republican threatened to make it a reality.
Your argument is GIMMEDAT, distilled, and thus is pointless.
Since when do prices go down?
Since when do politicians not intervene in everything.
When will those prices be guaranteed for the next 100 years?
Your arguments in wee i can’t see it yet all the economic indicators point to rise in prices and interference from states. Sorry, you never researched prices of the last 50 years.
Side effects and not a problem to your estimation. You want to wait until the costs explode and people can’t afford birth control and then what will be done but talk because that is the end game. Politically, we will get the blather about family and bundle of joy and how welfare is ruining the country.
Unless there are iron clad guarantees it is nothing but hot air sounding good to the naive.
More rhetorical hot air from you without a hint of hard evidence to support it. Once again you’re all emotion and no facts because you know the latter isn’t on your side.
Politics and lies. Facts are on my side you do not want to believe it. You favorite politician can’t lie and lead you on. You can’t admit to election year ploy.
And my point you can’t answer since you and I know what will happen.
What is needed is free birth control for everyone and free on demand abortions.
Uh, oh, looks like those bastions of right-wing reactionism, California and Oregon, are about to do the thing you and Perry say shouldn’t be done–WarOnWomenz on the left coast!
https://khn.org/news/california-oregon-to-allow-hormonal-contraceptives-without-a-doctors-prescription/
That seems to be a problem for you, reading your posts and where you simply copy others. In 1960, after wife and I had 3 children, she almost died during 7 weeks in hospital, we were told no more children since she probably would not survive. she was refused hysterectomy by non-medical supervisors, over our doctors and our requests. In Military, my father in law drove me across city to doctors office and for $75.00 I had vasectomy. That took care of our problems, except for fear of senior years for wife. At 77, cancer was found in her uterous, and she needed surgery for hysterectomy, which was billed at $40,000, Medicare paying $10,000. I contacted TRICARE and record corrected, with Tricare then paying $11,000. All paid. My Tricare based on 26 years service, where we were promised healthcare for spouse and me. Not free, since we had to pay Social Security which is inflated now too. But you could consider surgical birth control. and avoid problems later in life.
The goal is effective birth control. Surgical is effective. However, both need it done. One can never assume what the future will hold and being prepared is far better than not. The argument was with over the counter birth control pills which were Gardner’s way of seeming to be woman friendly but actually not in proactive since the new pill are tricky. And there would be no guarantee that sexually active women would be able to obtain them free of state interference. I don’t trust politicians.
You really like to quote posts that are already there. Cute.
And you, like Perry, obviously don’t have an argument to stand on.
My argument is that you quote everybody’s posts. Except mine just now. That’s my argument. The evidence is there. Oh, and it’s interesting — reading through your comments — that you are content to attack other views that are stated without offering up any of your own. Really cute!!
“Oh, and it’s interesting — reading through your comments — that you
are content to attack other views that are stated without offering up
any of your own. Really cute!!”– You need to work on your reading comprehension, considering you have no counter to anything I’ve written so far.
“You need to work on your reading comprehension” – I have read all eighteen of your posts (you really have time on your hands!). They’re written at about a fifth-grade comprehension level. And most of your views are about other people’s views. You finally offer up a few further down from this, and they’re all pretty laughable. Hey, I’ve got better things to do. Happy ranting.
“And most of your views are about other people’s views”
::writes multiple posts about other people’s views::
“You finally offer up a few further down from this, and they’re all pretty laughable.”–Translation: “I have no actual counter so I’m going to argue like a kindergartner.”
“Hey, I’ve got better things to do”–Apparently not, since you’ve responded to my posts.
You’re right. Your style is so amusing, I couldn’t resist. OK, take your nineteenth shot and have the last word.
“You’re right. Your style is so amusing, I couldn’t resist. OK, take your nineteenth shot and have the last word.”– What’s particularly amusing is that you have no argument that OTC birth control shouldn’t be allowed. No wonder you fixated like an autist on my quoting of lines.
In other words, you see all statements as being lies or close to lies, simply to get votes. Why do you vote then, if you don’t trust any of them. Means you don’t have much trust in yourself, when you do that. Most people see stuff in others, based on what they see or know of self. That is not reassuring.
IMO the politician of today is compromised by the way we fund political campaigns. The big donors and corporations want something for their contributions. Usually that is not going to go well for the average voter. Tricks with language are just one trick in a bag of tricks.
Not voting means giving up. One cannot have change when one gives up. Campaign fund change is possible if enough people recognize it’s importance.
Have a problem with ‘big donors and corporations’ wanting something. Is that not true of the $5.00 donor also? Most everyone wants something when they contact politicians, or anyone else that you give money too. Last year 2014, I fell into donating more than I intended, though I did not bankrupt myself, or take away from family. But I am not going to fall into that this year. I intend to write, make my opinions known, especially to complete Aurora VAMC which is about 60% completed, but terribly underfunded, due to all the folks with agenda who forced their wants onto those who lobbied to fill need. I will not fund anyone until March or April of next year, when we will find who is still standing. Going to wait to see how many you and others will drive out of the campaign, then decide among those still there, dirty, smeared, and family analyzed to the smallest child, dog, or cat. God knows, politics has always been dirty, but with internet the trashing starts even before one decides to run or not. And I don’t do caucus, polls, or even questions on the street.
Yes all of us want something. The difference is whose voice gets heard.
I question where any of this is productive. No one at this time can predict who will still be standing next spring before Primary Election. Many have not even decided, or done paperwork to campaign. So what is productive about discussing birth control, costs, and whether candidate is supporting, or opposing anything at this time? As I told phone caller yesterday who ignored my phone message of robo calls, unknown or not recognized numbers, and still came through with asking questions on a poll: “I am not taking political phone calls from anyone until March or April 2016”. PERIOD.
I don’t think any of us have changed any minds. We will all still do what we will do, or not do. So why argue about it. Exchanging info, or opinions should lead to others thinking “gee, I did not think of it that way”. Then research, read, or find info and perhaps change mind, or not change. Just to argue is not productive. And Birth Control is only important to those still playing the game, as the little lady in NY said about the catholic priest. “He no play the game, he no set the rules”.