|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 01 2014 08:16 Nyxisto wrote:
I love how most healthcare insurances on the other hand cover Viagra without a question. Gotta love the bigotry.
Another example of the free market at work. Viagra (as far as I know) is not a minimum essential coverage under law, so it isn't the feds saying you must cover Viagra or we'll penalize-tax you. You're even conflating the two issues, since if it's true that "most healthcare insurances ... cover," it's almost certain that's with a low copay, whereas by law before this decision, all contraception must have exactly zero cost sharing requirements (42 U. S. C. §300gg–13(a)(4)).
On July 01 2014 06:50 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 05:58 KwarK wrote:
The fact that this needed resolution is also a failure of common sense. What you spend the money your employer gives you on is not any of their business, as long as you do your job they don't give a fuck. Why they couldn't just go "Okay, we won't buy the good healthcare for you because we think it's a sin, instead as part of our pay packet we'll give you a voucher for healthcare and you can choose to sin yourself, just as you do when you spend your salary on whores and false idols". Because religious people in the US are unwilling to give others the freedom they rightfully have. All to often it is "you cant have this because of possible religious conflict" and not enough "choose yourself". Freedom of religion only works 1 way in the US. In free societies, we generally take a vote before forcing taxpayers to subsidize the health care costs of others, just like if you thought every person in America deserved a pony (and evil religious nuts wanted to deny you that freedom!) The choice is still there, pay for it. I've also argued several times in this thread for employer-provided insurance coverage to be simply a set amount of money to be spent on your own personal insurance policies ... as large or small as you want it. The more supposed victims claim their freedoms are being violated, the more I see everything, and nothing at all, is a freedom or a right in their minds.
|
On July 01 2014 09:54 TheTenthDoc wrote:
It's more tradition and grandfathering than religious and cultural ignorance. People at the FDA don't necessarily think aspirin is less dangerous than birth control-they just are forced to suffer it as an OTC due to judicial and legislative actions that exist for fairly good reasons.
That's the same thing in different words. It's not just medicine. A few other examples are drugs, as said before, with alcohol being tolerated although it's one of the most dangerous and costly drugs to society, it's nudity and violence and "bad words", with violence being totally okay while just showing a nipple or saying fuck will probably get you an adult rating. It's important to tolerate people's religious beliefs, but people who don't believe in anything don't deserve any respect or are ridiculed, and the list goes on and on.
In free societies, we generally take a vote before forcing taxpayers to subsidize the health care costs of others
If you'd base the argumentation on the fact that birth control is not medically necessary, I'd kind of understand it (although I'd disagree for practical reasons), but denying your employees birth control because of your personal religious beliefs certainly has little to do with freedom.
|
On July 01 2014 10:04 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 09:54 TheTenthDoc wrote:
It's more tradition and grandfathering than religious and cultural ignorance. People at the FDA don't necessarily think aspirin is less dangerous than birth control-they just are forced to suffer it as an OTC due to judicial and legislative actions that exist for fairly good reasons.
That's the same thing in different words. It's not just medicine. A few other examples are drugs, as said before, with alcohol being tolerated although it's one of the most dangerous and costly drugs to society, it's nudity and violence and "bad words", with violence being totally okay while just showing a nipple or saying fuck will probably get you an adult rating. It's important to tolerate people's religious beliefs, but people who don't believe in anything don't deserve any respect or are ridiculed, and the list goes on and on.
And that opinion is exactly why we have a first amendment. So people like you get to ridicule them (or, to be more relevant, the Americans in this thread get to ridicule). Along with that, the religious get to keep their beliefs, and within limits, act/refuse-to-act based on them.
Anyway, excellent decision today. Like it or not, the judges decided to rule based on the law, and not on their own opinions (well, 5 of them at least. And surely some of them morally approved as well).
Don't like it? Change the law.
EDIT: Which is really what it was about- the Congressional law.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
stuff like "forcing others to pay for ur healthcare" is such a back to square one move. why not go back to square 0 and ask "forcing others to acknowledge exclusive sovereign property" and be at the actual beginning.
then at least blind obstinance can actually produce a genuine starting point
|
On July 01 2014 06:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 05:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 01 2014 05:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2014 05:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 01 2014 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2014 03:15 RCMDVA wrote:
A bigger question is still why birth control isn't available OTC. Just guessing this has something to do with it. + Show Spoiler +1. Sex is 'sinful' unless it's to procreate with your spouse. God tells you everything you need to know about sex and he doesn't say anything about birth control pills. Birth Control just promotes riskier 'sinful sex'. 2. "The comparison isn't taking the pill or not taking the pill," Moore said. "It's taking the pill or not taking the pill and risking becoming pregnant."
Approximately 50% of all pregnancies are unplanned, a rate that hasn't changed much in the past 20 years, according to the Guttmacher Institute We could reduce those unplanned pregnancies (potential abortions) by making it more available. When nicotine patches and gum went on sale over the counter, attempts to quit smoking using those products nearly doubled, statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show. SourceWhen faced with those two arguments for OTC BC enough people pick the first one to keep it from being OTC. (It's not the only opposition but it's enough to put it over the top in the localities where this is an issue [which prevent change on a national level]) This is despite the fact that they have no science to back their claims up and you can get plan B (one of the methods in contention and considered 'abortion-causing' by many [regardless of facts]) OTC So just by having that available and not the pill we are actually pushing more women towards 'abortive' measures and away from preventatives. The total lack of comprehension/shame of ignorance is too grandly gross to really encapsulate, but that's in a context where it's mere existence is hard for many to even imagine. The decision is up to the FDA. If you want to know why it isn't available OTC, you need to find out their reasons for not allowing it. The reason is... there isn't one... If you think there is (you seem to assume there is) go ahead and find it. Whatever you find I guarantee wont make any sense (in relation to other OTC's). The real reasons are what I said...? Not sure why you would go and work backwards to what the default politician answer would be? Post facts, not speculations. So far the speculation is that 'the FDA has a reason' you can't seem to find because otherwise you would of posted it to prove I was wrong instead of just accusing me of speculating (pretty funny imo). I've mentioned only some of the reasons (which are easily demonstrated and have been for you before) but you can't even figure out the reason you assumed they had? But please scramble to find the reason to try to save face for a bit before giving up and saying that you don't want/have/BS to (or just disappear for a while as you've done before). Post substance, or don't post at all. The one-liners ripped from political playbooks are tired. I thought we've already been over this?
The FDA is the agency in charge of regulating drugs and they have a process in place for moving drugs from Rx to OTC (Rx to OTC switch). If that's not the first and main place you look for your answer, you're doing it wrong.
From the FDA: The OTC drug review, which began in 1972, is an ongoing assessment of the safety and effectiveness of all nonprescription drugs. In the first phase of the OTC drug review, panels of nongovernment experts review active ingredients in marketed OTC drug products to determine whether they can be classified as safe and effective. The panels also review prescription ingredients to determine whether some are appropriate for OTC marketing. About 40 former prescription-only drug ingredients have been switched by this process.
The second common path to OTC approval is under the new drug application process. Under this process, manufacturers submit data to the FDA showing the drug is appropriate for self-administration. Data are submitted in a new drug application or a supplement to an already approved drug application. Often the submission includes studies showing that the product's labeling can be read, understood, and followed by the consumer without the guidance of a health care provider. The FDA reviews the new data, along with any information known about the drug from its prescription use. Under the new drug application process, some drugs are approved initially as OTC drugs, but most are first approved for prescription use and later switched to OTC.
In almost every case for the first drug switched in a drug category, the agency has sought the recommendation of a joint advisory committee made up of members of the agency's Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee and another advisory committee with expertise in the type of drug being considered. For example, because Rogaine is for conditions of the hair and scalp, representatives of the Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee participated.
So there are two ways a drug can go from Rx to OTC - The OTC drug review and via a manufacturer's request path. The OTC drug review is rarely used - only 40 drugs have gone through that process since 1972.
The second path requires drug companies to do extra testing to demonstrate that going OTC is safe, largely with regards to packaging and the ability of consumers to self-diagnose. That takes time and depends on drug companies willingness to bother.
From browsing this paper, there are a couple health concerns to overcome:
1) Self screening - there are high risk groups (ex. smokers over 35) who may be better served by the drugs remaining Rx only.
2) Improper use - novice users may not take the pills properly without consultation first.
There are also a few peripheral concerns:
Consumers may balk because of side effects if doctors are not there to assure them. Loss of Rx status may result in fewer doctor's visits. Loss of revenue to Planned Parenthood and similar organizations. Misconceptions over STD protection. Impact on Medicaid coverage for the poor.
|
On July 01 2014 10:04 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +In free societies, we generally take a vote before forcing taxpayers to subsidize the health care costs of others If you'd base the argumentation on the fact that birth control is not medically necessary, I'd kind of understand it (although I'd disagree for practical reasons), but denying your employees birth control because of your personal religious beliefs certainly has little to do with freedom.
It has about as much to do with freedom as an employer deciding how much pay you get, what hours you work, what your working conditions are like, and what to do with the surplus value you create. The decision is just another example of how, in our economic system, the capitalist employer class makes many of the decisions for their employees, and if the employees don't like it, they can go elsewhere. Property trumps freedom almost every time.
|
On July 01 2014 09:38 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 09:33 Jormundr wrote:On July 01 2014 08:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2014 08:20 RvB wrote:
Contraception is cheap and accessible here but it'd guess in the US as well. I don't see the need for it to be covered by heath insurance. You have to see a doctor to get conventional birth control pills then get them to write a prescription, then get it filled at a pharmacy, while the pharmacist is in. Why? No one seems to have an idea except the one I posited. As for having it covered sometimes I wish it was mandated, so I'd much rather pay the front end of trying to prevent unwanted children from being born than pay the much larger sum taking care of them once they are practically abandoned by parents who never wanted them. Of course I would like to see lots of other options but every day some kid is born to parents who regret having them and always will. I would vastly prefer that we increased the likelihood of them using birth control because it was inexpensive, convenient, and pleasurable, than increase the amount of unwanted children society has to take care of because we think telling them "no!" is enough. It's because there are health risks. Because we don't have universal birth control education. And what about pain medication? Thousands of people die every year from OTC pain meds. Aspirin is horrible for treating pain, still countless of people are allowed to buy it OTC. It's like with alcohol and pot. It's not about rational arguments, it's about religious and cultural ignorance.
One cited difference is that pain medication is labeled for acute use while birth control is for chronic use, with the FDA being more wary of allowing chronic medicine OTC.
|
On July 01 2014 10:36 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 10:04 Nyxisto wrote:In free societies, we generally take a vote before forcing taxpayers to subsidize the health care costs of others If you'd base the argumentation on the fact that birth control is not medically necessary, I'd kind of understand it (although I'd disagree for practical reasons), but denying your employees birth control because of your personal religious beliefs certainly has little to do with freedom. It has about as much to do with freedom as an employer deciding how much pay you get, what hours you work, what your working conditions are like, and what to do with the surplus value you create. The decision is just another example of how, in our economic system, the capitalist employer class makes many of the decisions for their employees, and if the employees don't like it, they can go elsewhere. Property trumps freedom almost every time.
Employers have limited power in dictating prices, be they prices for the labor they buy or the goods and services they sell.
In other words, your Marxist BS continues to be BS.
|
Aspirin is used chronically for reducing heart attack risk.
|
On July 01 2014 10:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 10:36 IgnE wrote:On July 01 2014 10:04 Nyxisto wrote:In free societies, we generally take a vote before forcing taxpayers to subsidize the health care costs of others If you'd base the argumentation on the fact that birth control is not medically necessary, I'd kind of understand it (although I'd disagree for practical reasons), but denying your employees birth control because of your personal religious beliefs certainly has little to do with freedom. It has about as much to do with freedom as an employer deciding how much pay you get, what hours you work, what your working conditions are like, and what to do with the surplus value you create. The decision is just another example of how, in our economic system, the capitalist employer class makes many of the decisions for their employees, and if the employees don't like it, they can go elsewhere. Property trumps freedom almost every time. Employers have limited power in dictating prices, be they prices for the labor they buy or the goods and services they sell. In other words, your Marxist BS continues to be BS.
Individual employers, maybe. Employers as a whole? No.
In other words, your market BS continues to be BS.
|
On July 01 2014 10:40 IgnE wrote:
Aspirin is used chronically for reducing heart attack risk.
Is it labeled for that use?
|
On July 01 2014 10:42 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 10:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 01 2014 10:36 IgnE wrote:On July 01 2014 10:04 Nyxisto wrote:In free societies, we generally take a vote before forcing taxpayers to subsidize the health care costs of others If you'd base the argumentation on the fact that birth control is not medically necessary, I'd kind of understand it (although I'd disagree for practical reasons), but denying your employees birth control because of your personal religious beliefs certainly has little to do with freedom. It has about as much to do with freedom as an employer deciding how much pay you get, what hours you work, what your working conditions are like, and what to do with the surplus value you create. The decision is just another example of how, in our economic system, the capitalist employer class makes many of the decisions for their employees, and if the employees don't like it, they can go elsewhere. Property trumps freedom almost every time. Employers have limited power in dictating prices, be they prices for the labor they buy or the goods and services they sell. In other words, your Marxist BS continues to be BS. Individual employers, maybe. Employers as a whole? No. In other words, your market BS continues to be BS.
No, employers as a whole have limited say. You don't know what you're talking about.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On July 01 2014 10:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 10:36 IgnE wrote:On July 01 2014 10:04 Nyxisto wrote:In free societies, we generally take a vote before forcing taxpayers to subsidize the health care costs of others If you'd base the argumentation on the fact that birth control is not medically necessary, I'd kind of understand it (although I'd disagree for practical reasons), but denying your employees birth control because of your personal religious beliefs certainly has little to do with freedom. It has about as much to do with freedom as an employer deciding how much pay you get, what hours you work, what your working conditions are like, and what to do with the surplus value you create. The decision is just another example of how, in our economic system, the capitalist employer class makes many of the decisions for their employees, and if the employees don't like it, they can go elsewhere. Property trumps freedom almost every time. Employers have limited power in dictating prices, be they prices for the labor they buy or the goods and services they sell. In other words, your Marxist BS continues to be BS.
this is not even marxist, just a simple fact about the actuality of employer power. let's not kid ourselves.
and the issue was never about price mechanism.
|
On July 01 2014 10:46 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 10:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 01 2014 10:36 IgnE wrote:On July 01 2014 10:04 Nyxisto wrote:In free societies, we generally take a vote before forcing taxpayers to subsidize the health care costs of others If you'd base the argumentation on the fact that birth control is not medically necessary, I'd kind of understand it (although I'd disagree for practical reasons), but denying your employees birth control because of your personal religious beliefs certainly has little to do with freedom. It has about as much to do with freedom as an employer deciding how much pay you get, what hours you work, what your working conditions are like, and what to do with the surplus value you create. The decision is just another example of how, in our economic system, the capitalist employer class makes many of the decisions for their employees, and if the employees don't like it, they can go elsewhere. Property trumps freedom almost every time. Employers have limited power in dictating prices, be they prices for the labor they buy or the goods and services they sell. In other words, your Marxist BS continues to be BS. this is not even marxist, just a simple fact about the actuality of employer power. let's not kid ourselves. and the issue was never about price mechanism.
"the capitalist employer class"
uh-huh
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On July 01 2014 10:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 10:46 oneofthem wrote:On July 01 2014 10:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 01 2014 10:36 IgnE wrote:On July 01 2014 10:04 Nyxisto wrote:In free societies, we generally take a vote before forcing taxpayers to subsidize the health care costs of others If you'd base the argumentation on the fact that birth control is not medically necessary, I'd kind of understand it (although I'd disagree for practical reasons), but denying your employees birth control because of your personal religious beliefs certainly has little to do with freedom. It has about as much to do with freedom as an employer deciding how much pay you get, what hours you work, what your working conditions are like, and what to do with the surplus value you create. The decision is just another example of how, in our economic system, the capitalist employer class makes many of the decisions for their employees, and if the employees don't like it, they can go elsewhere. Property trumps freedom almost every time. Employers have limited power in dictating prices, be they prices for the labor they buy or the goods and services they sell. In other words, your Marxist BS continues to be BS. this is not even marxist, just a simple fact about the actuality of employer power. let's not kid ourselves. and the issue was never about price mechanism. "the capitalist employer class" uh-huh
a lot of non marxist people would be able to describe the basic fact of employers having a lot of actual decisionmaking power in the lives of the employees, or shaping of constraints.
and jonny, just because i describe a color in english does not mean the color is an english color. it can be described in other languages. what makes it a marxist thing is whether it is only expressible within a marxist framework, some unique marxist concept.
marxist says "the glorious sun shines upon the proletariat" in the morning. does not make observation that the sun is bright this morning a marxist thing. it does mean the proletariat is a marxist thing, but that is also pretty irrelevant to the fact observed, when the condition of sunshine in the morning was the subject of conversation.
|
On July 01 2014 10:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 10:42 IgnE wrote:On July 01 2014 10:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 01 2014 10:36 IgnE wrote:On July 01 2014 10:04 Nyxisto wrote:In free societies, we generally take a vote before forcing taxpayers to subsidize the health care costs of others If you'd base the argumentation on the fact that birth control is not medically necessary, I'd kind of understand it (although I'd disagree for practical reasons), but denying your employees birth control because of your personal religious beliefs certainly has little to do with freedom. It has about as much to do with freedom as an employer deciding how much pay you get, what hours you work, what your working conditions are like, and what to do with the surplus value you create. The decision is just another example of how, in our economic system, the capitalist employer class makes many of the decisions for their employees, and if the employees don't like it, they can go elsewhere. Property trumps freedom almost every time. Employers have limited power in dictating prices, be they prices for the labor they buy or the goods and services they sell. In other words, your Marxist BS continues to be BS. Individual employers, maybe. Employers as a whole? No. In other words, your market BS continues to be BS. No, employers as a whole have limited say. You don't know what you're talking about.
Flesh out what your point is so that I can determine if it's one of your usual insipid truisms or if you are trying to argue something more incisive that requires rebuttal.
|
On July 01 2014 10:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 09:38 Nyxisto wrote:On July 01 2014 09:33 Jormundr wrote:On July 01 2014 08:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2014 08:20 RvB wrote:
Contraception is cheap and accessible here but it'd guess in the US as well. I don't see the need for it to be covered by heath insurance. You have to see a doctor to get conventional birth control pills then get them to write a prescription, then get it filled at a pharmacy, while the pharmacist is in. Why? No one seems to have an idea except the one I posited. As for having it covered sometimes I wish it was mandated, so I'd much rather pay the front end of trying to prevent unwanted children from being born than pay the much larger sum taking care of them once they are practically abandoned by parents who never wanted them. Of course I would like to see lots of other options but every day some kid is born to parents who regret having them and always will. I would vastly prefer that we increased the likelihood of them using birth control because it was inexpensive, convenient, and pleasurable, than increase the amount of unwanted children society has to take care of because we think telling them "no!" is enough. It's because there are health risks. Because we don't have universal birth control education. And what about pain medication? Thousands of people die every year from OTC pain meds. Aspirin is horrible for treating pain, still countless of people are allowed to buy it OTC. It's like with alcohol and pot. It's not about rational arguments, it's about religious and cultural ignorance. One cited difference is that pain medication is labeled for acute use while birth control is for chronic use, with the FDA being more wary of allowing chronic medicine OTC.
It doesn't matter if it's for chronic or acute use, what matters is that otc painkillers kill thousands of people per year (you're free too look up how many people OD on otc painmeds and damage their liver alone) and thus are way more dangerous than birth control medication.
Painkillers have become prescription free because stopping pain is totally cool, while helping women controlling what happens to their own body is totally not. That would empower women to maketheir own decisions which your average conservative Christian obviously hates like the pest.
|
Without even thinking about it some "chronic" meds that were formerly prescription only that are available OTC are Rogaine, nexium, prilosec, and other chronic heartburn meds. All of which are much newer than the pill. As far as taking pills without consultation, I've never been to a store where the pharmacist wasn't more than willing to take questions about something. They have that service for a reason.
|
On July 01 2014 11:57 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Without even thinking about it some "chronic" meds that were formerly prescription only that are available OTC are Rogaine, nexium, prilosec, and other chronic heartburn meds. All of which are much newer than the pill. As far as taking pills without consultation, I've never been to a store where the pharmacist wasn't more than willing to take questions about something. They have that service for a reason.
Just a side note, Nexium and prilosec are only supposed to be used chronically with a doctor's prescription, even though the ads HEAVILY suggest otherwise. Only 14 days at a time of the OTC; if you ever need more than that you should see a doctor for a scrip and appropriate medical evaluation of your GERD.
It saves you a ton of money to get them prescription, too, since insurers can generally avoid paying for OTC meds.
Rogaine is an exception, though I haven't heard much about it.
(also, most doctors will write scrips for when patients are taking chronic aspirin therapy for heart prophylaxis, if only for tracking and this above insurance reason. It's falling out of favor as people really understand what an awful drug aspirin is though)
|
Also the drugs themselves make chronic use all but a foregone conclusion, because they upregulate stomach proton pumps in response to the medication, so that if a person uses prilosec or nexium for any sustained period of time and then tries to go off of it, the chronic heartburn will end up being far more intense, prompting him or her to go back on immediately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iAgfT7J.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nUkdMyB.png)
