|
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. |
So if a deal is a net positive, it can still be better to have no deal? Please explain why.
|
On April 10 2016 06:51 Mohdoo wrote:
So if a deal is a net positive, it can still be better to have no deal? Please explain why.
Welcome to the Bernie-Or-Bust logic.
|
On April 10 2016 06:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2016 06:21 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On April 10 2016 04:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2016 04:23 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On April 10 2016 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2016 04:10 kwizach wrote:On April 10 2016 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2016 23:59 kwizach wrote:On April 09 2016 15:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2016 14:36 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
No, see my reply to you. The people in charge of the negotiations made the deal that they could make in their pursuit of getting more access to Panama's financial system. You have absolutely nothing of substance whatsoever to back up an assertion that the U.S. could have gotten more out of its leverage in this specific case. You simply have nothing to show to support that idea.
In any case, Sanders' statement that the Panama FTA made the situation worse was apparently clearly wrong -- the FTA itself did not contain anything that worsened the situation, and it was in reality used to further crack down on those tax avoidance practices. I'm saying I don't buy that it was best possible deal for tax shelter reforms the US could have gotten on the premises laid out. I know that's what you're saying, and like I've told you repeatedly, you have nothing of substance to support that position. Just like Republicans have nothing of substance to argue that the U.S. could have gotten much more out of the Iran deal. Well first it's not like the Iran deal in that there was no pressure to make the deal whatsoever. If we walked away from it for them not taking terms on reducing their appeal as a tax haven they don't end up armed with nuclear weapons. Secondly I've told you that at best it's a wash, because as you haven't refuted, we don't have evidence (beyond a reduction in one particular type of shell corp) that the deal had any impact on the overall volume or ease with which people were able to stash their money. What we do know is that money is still being stashed there, that the exception allowed a loophole, and just one leak from one company exposed so much. Finally if the argument is this is the best the US could get, what evidence do we have that we asked for more but due to the need to make a deal we had to accept less? So no I don't take on faith that the deal was a good deal, particularly when the indication is that the activity it was intended to reduce seems to be humming along just fine up until the papers came out, but Panama had reduced the pressure it was getting from countries like the US to change their rules. So it looks like a great deal for Panama (corporate interests at least) but I see little/nothing to indicate why the US couldn't have demanded more and walked away if they refused. This entire posts boils down to this: you have nothing of substance to support the idea that the U.S. could easily have gotten a much better deal with regards to access to the financial system of Panama. You're now asking for evidence that they couldn't, when you're the one making the claim that they could. Sorry, but the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, and you have nothing. In any case, Sanders claimed that the FTA deal would worsen the situation with regards to those tax avoidance practices in Panama. It clearly appears that this was false. Sanders was wrong. He did not bring any new information to the table (everyone knew that tax avoidance practices were an issue), did not "predict" anything that wasn't already known, and made false claims with regards to the FTA. The net result of the trade agreement was in fact the opposite, namely that the U.S. managed to make another agreement with Panama on the financial system specifically, an agreement which, while not absolutely perfect (as virtually no international agreement ever is), still was an step forward in the fight against tax avoidance. If your objective is to fight against tax avoidance, in this case you should be thanking Obama and Clinton, and disapproving of Sanders' vote. I object to the assertion we had to take the deal. I'm saying there was nothing stopping us from getting more or walking. I'm gonna use this in the future. Not verifiable so pointless, but it sounds good. Just to be clear this doesn't work with something like the Iran deal because the differences in consequences to having a deal or not are much more dire. I'm curious what sort of deal you think is reasonable that we could have accomplished. Statements like we could have gotten a better deal are just blind idealism. I've said it a variety of ways but I reject the assertion that basically any deal was better than no deal.
No-one is arguing that "any deal was better than no deal".
Kwizach argued that the Obama FTA deal was better than no deal because it plugged the "bearer shares" loophole among other things.
I previously argued that Panama's trade contribution is not insignificant (around 10 billion of exports a year), and the US gained around 3 billion of exports after the FTA. Those gains are great and a good reason to sign an FTA.
To make your case that the FTA ought not to have been signed, you need to argue why signing the deal is bad to such an extent that it outweighs tax haven loophole and financial transparency deal that the US got, and in monetary terms, you'd need to be able to quantify gains from not signing the deal that surpass at least 3 billion in exports, although you'd want more than that because not signing the FTA might have hurt exports in the LR and there's still the matter of a billion dollars of FDI a year into the US.
P.S. As you're still digging this topic. You still haven't apologized for making misleading statements about Panama.
|
United States44439 Posts
On April 10 2016 06:51 Mohdoo wrote:
So if a deal is a net positive, it can still be better to have no deal? Please explain why.
Not to agree with GH (I don't in this instance) but if the leverage lost is greater than the benefit gained then even though there was a benefit the opportunity cost would be a greater benefit and therefore no deal is better.
Example: I have pizza that I just paid $5 for. A starving man offers me $10 for my pizza. He values pizza at "holy shit I'm about to die if I don't get pizza", I value it at $5. This would seem like both sides benefit. However I know the starving man has $50 in his pocket so even though accepting the deal is good for both of us I have still failed Ayn Rand by allowing him to purchase it at less than what he would have been willing to pay to not die. Sorry Ayn.
The correct decision in this case would be to refuse the deal, even at $50, let him die, take the $50 from his body, also take his boots and then eat the pizza. Then I would go on strike. It might appear that this is heartless but by taking this approach I encourage self reliance in everyone else and am ultimately doing the starving man a favour.
|
I like that argument a lot, Kwark. Especially "Sorry Ayn".
***
On other news, despite Sanders winning WY 55.7% (results on AP), delegates are split evenly 7-7
(Incidentally, 56.3% needed for 8-6.)
Sanders failed to gain ground on Clinton in WY. 538 target to catch up with Clinton was a 11-3 split in favour of Sanders.
|
On April 10 2016 04:15 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2016 00:53 Paljas wrote:On April 09 2016 23:32 Acrofales wrote:A rather honest endorsement of Hillary, which is kinda why I would vote for her if I were a US citizen: http://www.atlredline.com/i-m-with-her-i-guess-1769742021
What’s more, I like Bernie Sanders. I like irascible New York Jewish liberals, and I would be one if one could choose such a thing. He’s the only candidate running for President this cycle that I would want to have a beer with.
But, I won’t be voting for him in the New York Democratic Primary. Bernie Sanders has failed according to the terms he established for himself. His stated plan for enacting the lofty goals and principles he talks about on the campaign trail is that he will usher in a “political revolution” that will sweep away the entrenched opposition of Republican officials and established Democrats.
...
Hillary Clinton is not a secret Republican. She’s not a witch. She’s not going to jail. She’s a hawkish left-of-center policy wonk. She believes in incremental change and compromise. She’d rather pass a crappy law that has some positive outcomes than watch a great law die in committee. She believes in government, she thinks it does work and can work.
That’s not particularly inspiring. Bernie is sitting there telling us that if we clap really hard, Tinkerbell will live. Hillary is like, “That bitch is dead, I shot her. It’s time to grow up.”
One of the reasons our politics is broken right now is that we have completely lost the ability to compromise. We have let the perfect become the enemy of the good. And I think it’s telling that the frontrunners in both parties are the ones who seem most likely to make a deal (with the devil, no doubt), while the challengers are the “true believers” who want the center of the country to submit because they know what’s best. A majority of Americans are telling us that obstinance is not a political virtue. The ideologues are losing on both sides of the aisle. Liberals need to accept that just as much as conservatives.
Hillary Clinton is not why we progressives can’t have nice things. The entrenched views of conservatives, racists, homophobes, xenophobes, climate deniers, zealots from all religions, and the gun lobby are why we can’t have nice things. Hillary Clinton is the only candidate with a reasonable plan for dealing with those forces.
And that uninspiring, incremental, realist “plan” is why I’ll be voting for her. I guess. Until something practically better comes along.
The liberal dissimulation of being free of ideology and pretending to be the reasonable compromise is very easy to hate. To confront radical left ideas (which Sanders doesn't even represent) with right wing and conservative ideas to then conclude that the "good" lies somewhere in the middle of it, is a rather old and tiresome strategy. Naturally, the reasons are which prevent us from having good things are supposed to be the right wing zealots, which can all be fixed within the existing system. The question what the better system might be doesn't even get asked anymore. Fairly certain that that is not what the article says, nor is it what I think, so stop projecting.
The (now) bolded paragraph does say it, just with different word and less direct.
I also didn't mean to respond/criticize to you, but only the article.
|
On April 10 2016 09:23 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2016 04:15 Acrofales wrote:On April 10 2016 00:53 Paljas wrote:On April 09 2016 23:32 Acrofales wrote:A rather honest endorsement of Hillary, which is kinda why I would vote for her if I were a US citizen: http://www.atlredline.com/i-m-with-her-i-guess-1769742021
What’s more, I like Bernie Sanders. I like irascible New York Jewish liberals, and I would be one if one could choose such a thing. He’s the only candidate running for President this cycle that I would want to have a beer with.
But, I won’t be voting for him in the New York Democratic Primary. Bernie Sanders has failed according to the terms he established for himself. His stated plan for enacting the lofty goals and principles he talks about on the campaign trail is that he will usher in a “political revolution” that will sweep away the entrenched opposition of Republican officials and established Democrats.
...
Hillary Clinton is not a secret Republican. She’s not a witch. She’s not going to jail. She’s a hawkish left-of-center policy wonk. She believes in incremental change and compromise. She’d rather pass a crappy law that has some positive outcomes than watch a great law die in committee. She believes in government, she thinks it does work and can work.
That’s not particularly inspiring. Bernie is sitting there telling us that if we clap really hard, Tinkerbell will live. Hillary is like, “That bitch is dead, I shot her. It’s time to grow up.”
One of the reasons our politics is broken right now is that we have completely lost the ability to compromise. We have let the perfect become the enemy of the good. And I think it’s telling that the frontrunners in both parties are the ones who seem most likely to make a deal (with the devil, no doubt), while the challengers are the “true believers” who want the center of the country to submit because they know what’s best. A majority of Americans are telling us that obstinance is not a political virtue. The ideologues are losing on both sides of the aisle. Liberals need to accept that just as much as conservatives.
Hillary Clinton is not why we progressives can’t have nice things. The entrenched views of conservatives, racists, homophobes, xenophobes, climate deniers, zealots from all religions, and the gun lobby are why we can’t have nice things. Hillary Clinton is the only candidate with a reasonable plan for dealing with those forces.
And that uninspiring, incremental, realist “plan” is why I’ll be voting for her. I guess. Until something practically better comes along.
The liberal dissimulation of being free of ideology and pretending to be the reasonable compromise is very easy to hate. To confront radical left ideas (which Sanders doesn't even represent) with right wing and conservative ideas to then conclude that the "good" lies somewhere in the middle of it, is a rather old and tiresome strategy. Naturally, the reasons are which prevent us from having good things are supposed to be the right wing zealots, which can all be fixed within the existing system. The question what the better system might be doesn't even get asked anymore. Fairly certain that that is not what the article says, nor is it what I think, so stop projecting. The (now) bolded paragraph does say it, just with different word and less direct. I also didn't mean to respond/criticize to you, but only the article.
It actually does not say at all what you wrote. To argue that compromise is a necessary path to achieve greater results than the status quo is not akin to saying that the compromise solution is the best solution to the problem or the ideological stance of those willing to comprise.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
leave all this positional talk and just look at the policies, the left has nothing working. what do you want to do instead?
|
Replicate what Germany did with the EU and create a dollar zone where things are slanted in our direction but the poorer nations at least get to act like they're on equal terms with us?
|
In the way only he can, former President Bill Clinton has walked back his confrontation with Black Lives Matter protesters earlier this week.
"I did something yesterday in Philadelphia that I almost want to apologize for," he said, before attempting to turn the whole thing into a lesson about the need for civility in politics.
The spectacle of the former president shaking his finger during a tense back and forth with BLM demonstrators was a bad look for him, and a distraction for Hillary Clinton's campaign. But at least on one level, his defense of his 1994 Violent Crime Control Act was true; it did have some support — or tacit approval — among black leaders and citizens.
Clinton described the harsh sentencing provisions — especially the ones connected with crack cocaine that disproportionately hurt African-Americans — as an unpleasant but necessary compromise with tough-on-crime Republicans. "I talked to a lot of African-American groups," Clinton said. "They thought black lives matter. They said, 'Take this bill, because our kids are being shot in the street by gangs.' "
This response struck me as incomplete and self-serving, but also true. The young people shouting at Clinton today grew up in the shadow of problems they — and many researchers — trace to the 1994 crime bill: the stop-and-frisk approach to law and order, frequent incidents of excessive police force, and long prison sentences for non-violent drug offenses that condemned the incarcerated to poverty and second-class citizenship when they finally got out.
That's their generation's experience. As a child of the 1980s, my experience was as a young witness to the drug crisis that led to that law. I rarely felt personally threatened in those days, but the city I was born in, Washington, D.C., was never the same.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
More than three months before any ballots have been cast at the Republican convention, Roger Stone, Donald Trump’s on-again, off-again consigliere, has delivered the campaign equivalent of a severed horse head to delegates who might consider denying Trump the nomination. Trump’s supporters will find you in your sleep, he merrily informed them this week. He did not mean it metaphorically.
“We will disclose the hotels and the room numbers of those delegates who are directly involved in the steal,” Stone said Monday, on Freedomain Radio. “If you’re from Pennsylvania, we’ll tell you who the culprits are. We urge you to visit their hotel and find them. You have a right to discuss this, if you voted in the Pennsylvania primary, for example, and your votes are being disallowed,” Stone said.
Over the years, I’ve covered elections in Iraq, Iran, and Burma. Stone’s taunt is every bit as threatening as anything I heard in those places, which have far less experience than America with democracy. Such is the moment we currently inhabit.
By now, we know most of the chapters in Trump’s political playbook: the epithets for “low-energy” Jeb and Lyin’ Ted and Little Marco, and the bombshell provocations—about, say, a nuclear strike in Europe—as a way to draw attention away from unfavorable news and missteps. And, throughout, of course, the mockery of women. But as we approach the growing prospect of a contested convention, in which delegates can make game-time choices about whom they will support, it’s becoming clearer that Trump may seek to shape the outcome by using his most unwieldy weapon of all: the latent power of usually peaceful people.
It’s easy to mock Trump for his thin-skinned fixation on the size of his audiences, but that misses a deeper point: you can’t have a riot without a mob. Even before he was a candidate, Trump displayed a rare gift for cultivating the dark power of a crowd. In his role as the primary advocate of the “birther” fiction, he proved himself to be a maestro of the mob mentality, capable of conducting his fans through crescendos of rage and self-pity and suspicion. Speaking to the Times editorial board, in January, he said, “You know, if it gets a little boring, if I see people starting to sort of, maybe, thinking about leaving, I can sort of tell the audience, I just say, ‘We will build the wall!,’ and they go nuts.”
Source
|
Hmm, someone's personal contact information was listed. Isn't that called doxing?
Edit: and then Trump's actual campaign one-ups the threat level.
|
That URL lol
Women in California of any age can now obtain birth control without a doctor's prescription from any pharmacy in the state. Under the new rules finally in effect, any woman merely has to fill out a questionnaire at the pharmacy to get access to a variety of contraceptive measures, according to KABC.
Though the new rules were technically passed by the state legislature in 2013, the law was tied up in regulatory discussions until Friday.
Under the law, any woman can get self-administered hormonal birth control. This translates to birth control pills, patches, and injections, as well as vaginal rings. The rules do not apply to birth control methods that would require a doctor—like implants or IUDs.
Per the L.A. Times, when someone visits the pharmacy to get birth control, a pharmacist will first take her blood pressure, and ask for a questionnaire to ensure hormonal birth control is safe for her.
Source
|
how does this affect insurance? Are OTC meds covered in the US?
|
Depends on the plan, but largely the answer is no, OTC's are covered out of pocket.
|
From a quick read read, it's still a prescription. It's just prescribed by the pharmacist or through a pharmacy's standing order with a physician (could be either, news stories won't tell me, usually it's the latter to ensure companies pay). All insurance coverage requirements still apply.
The fact that news media are calling it OTC is actually super reductive of the roles pharmacists are playing in the monitoring of the med and decision-making process.
|
United States13132 Posts
On April 10 2016 06:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2016 06:21 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On April 10 2016 04:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2016 04:23 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On April 10 2016 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2016 04:10 kwizach wrote:On April 10 2016 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2016 23:59 kwizach wrote:On April 09 2016 15:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2016 14:36 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
No, see my reply to you. The people in charge of the negotiations made the deal that they could make in their pursuit of getting more access to Panama's financial system. You have absolutely nothing of substance whatsoever to back up an assertion that the U.S. could have gotten more out of its leverage in this specific case. You simply have nothing to show to support that idea.
In any case, Sanders' statement that the Panama FTA made the situation worse was apparently clearly wrong -- the FTA itself did not contain anything that worsened the situation, and it was in reality used to further crack down on those tax avoidance practices. I'm saying I don't buy that it was best possible deal for tax shelter reforms the US could have gotten on the premises laid out. I know that's what you're saying, and like I've told you repeatedly, you have nothing of substance to support that position. Just like Republicans have nothing of substance to argue that the U.S. could have gotten much more out of the Iran deal. Well first it's not like the Iran deal in that there was no pressure to make the deal whatsoever. If we walked away from it for them not taking terms on reducing their appeal as a tax haven they don't end up armed with nuclear weapons. Secondly I've told you that at best it's a wash, because as you haven't refuted, we don't have evidence (beyond a reduction in one particular type of shell corp) that the deal had any impact on the overall volume or ease with which people were able to stash their money. What we do know is that money is still being stashed there, that the exception allowed a loophole, and just one leak from one company exposed so much. Finally if the argument is this is the best the US could get, what evidence do we have that we asked for more but due to the need to make a deal we had to accept less? So no I don't take on faith that the deal was a good deal, particularly when the indication is that the activity it was intended to reduce seems to be humming along just fine up until the papers came out, but Panama had reduced the pressure it was getting from countries like the US to change their rules. So it looks like a great deal for Panama (corporate interests at least) but I see little/nothing to indicate why the US couldn't have demanded more and walked away if they refused. This entire posts boils down to this: you have nothing of substance to support the idea that the U.S. could easily have gotten a much better deal with regards to access to the financial system of Panama. You're now asking for evidence that they couldn't, when you're the one making the claim that they could. Sorry, but the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, and you have nothing. In any case, Sanders claimed that the FTA deal would worsen the situation with regards to those tax avoidance practices in Panama. It clearly appears that this was false. Sanders was wrong. He did not bring any new information to the table (everyone knew that tax avoidance practices were an issue), did not "predict" anything that wasn't already known, and made false claims with regards to the FTA. The net result of the trade agreement was in fact the opposite, namely that the U.S. managed to make another agreement with Panama on the financial system specifically, an agreement which, while not absolutely perfect (as virtually no international agreement ever is), still was an step forward in the fight against tax avoidance. If your objective is to fight against tax avoidance, in this case you should be thanking Obama and Clinton, and disapproving of Sanders' vote. I object to the assertion we had to take the deal. I'm saying there was nothing stopping us from getting more or walking. I'm gonna use this in the future. Not verifiable so pointless, but it sounds good. Just to be clear this doesn't work with something like the Iran deal because the differences in consequences to having a deal or not are much more dire. I'm curious what sort of deal you think is reasonable that we could have accomplished. Statements like we could have gotten a better deal are just blind idealism. I've said it a variety of ways but I reject the assertion that basically any deal was better than no deal.
So you're stumping for Ted Cruz now? My way or no way!
|
On April 10 2016 14:14 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2016 06:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2016 06:21 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On April 10 2016 04:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2016 04:23 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On April 10 2016 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2016 04:10 kwizach wrote:On April 10 2016 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2016 23:59 kwizach wrote:On April 09 2016 15:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I'm saying I don't buy that it was best possible deal for tax shelter reforms the US could have gotten on the premises laid out. I know that's what you're saying, and like I've told you repeatedly, you have nothing of substance to support that position. Just like Republicans have nothing of substance to argue that the U.S. could have gotten much more out of the Iran deal. Well first it's not like the Iran deal in that there was no pressure to make the deal whatsoever. If we walked away from it for them not taking terms on reducing their appeal as a tax haven they don't end up armed with nuclear weapons. Secondly I've told you that at best it's a wash, because as you haven't refuted, we don't have evidence (beyond a reduction in one particular type of shell corp) that the deal had any impact on the overall volume or ease with which people were able to stash their money. What we do know is that money is still being stashed there, that the exception allowed a loophole, and just one leak from one company exposed so much. Finally if the argument is this is the best the US could get, what evidence do we have that we asked for more but due to the need to make a deal we had to accept less? So no I don't take on faith that the deal was a good deal, particularly when the indication is that the activity it was intended to reduce seems to be humming along just fine up until the papers came out, but Panama had reduced the pressure it was getting from countries like the US to change their rules. So it looks like a great deal for Panama (corporate interests at least) but I see little/nothing to indicate why the US couldn't have demanded more and walked away if they refused. This entire posts boils down to this: you have nothing of substance to support the idea that the U.S. could easily have gotten a much better deal with regards to access to the financial system of Panama. You're now asking for evidence that they couldn't, when you're the one making the claim that they could. Sorry, but the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, and you have nothing. In any case, Sanders claimed that the FTA deal would worsen the situation with regards to those tax avoidance practices in Panama. It clearly appears that this was false. Sanders was wrong. He did not bring any new information to the table (everyone knew that tax avoidance practices were an issue), did not "predict" anything that wasn't already known, and made false claims with regards to the FTA. The net result of the trade agreement was in fact the opposite, namely that the U.S. managed to make another agreement with Panama on the financial system specifically, an agreement which, while not absolutely perfect (as virtually no international agreement ever is), still was an step forward in the fight against tax avoidance. If your objective is to fight against tax avoidance, in this case you should be thanking Obama and Clinton, and disapproving of Sanders' vote. I object to the assertion we had to take the deal. I'm saying there was nothing stopping us from getting more or walking. I'm gonna use this in the future. Not verifiable so pointless, but it sounds good. Just to be clear this doesn't work with something like the Iran deal because the differences in consequences to having a deal or not are much more dire. I'm curious what sort of deal you think is reasonable that we could have accomplished. Statements like we could have gotten a better deal are just blind idealism. I've said it a variety of ways but I reject the assertion that basically any deal was better than no deal. So you're stumping for Ted Cruz now? My way or no way!
lol no, but since people insist on not recognizing the argument I'm making I'm done talking about it.
Something I think is less controversial, Bernie has had some of the best ads this campaign season.
|
On April 10 2016 11:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:That URL lol Show nested quote +Women in California of any age can now obtain birth control without a doctor's prescription from any pharmacy in the state. Under the new rules finally in effect, any woman merely has to fill out a questionnaire at the pharmacy to get access to a variety of contraceptive measures, according to KABC.
Though the new rules were technically passed by the state legislature in 2013, the law was tied up in regulatory discussions until Friday.
Under the law, any woman can get self-administered hormonal birth control. This translates to birth control pills, patches, and injections, as well as vaginal rings. The rules do not apply to birth control methods that would require a doctor—like implants or IUDs.
Per the L.A. Times, when someone visits the pharmacy to get birth control, a pharmacist will first take her blood pressure, and ask for a questionnaire to ensure hormonal birth control is safe for her. Source
Considering how easy it is to get a prescription and that there are companies like Nurx which provide you with a prescription + home delivery of birth control it's really not a huge change, though it is nice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
