From Here
Edited By GORDON on 1150925840
Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death
-
DoctorChaos
- Posts: 1579
- Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 7:58 pm
Birth control pills actually have some medical benefit (in addition to preventing unwanted pregnancies) and is cheaper than abortion, but in some cases aren't covered by the insurance companies. I don't understand why the insurance companies will cover Viagra and the like. Why is it so important for old men to have a hard-on?Why not? They cover orlistat, Viagra, birth control pills and lots of other non-medically necessary crap.The way health insurance companies are, I'm surprised non-medically-necessary c-sections are covered at all.
Wadda mean? Other people can read this?!
As to the medical benefits of birth control pills... to the best of my knowledge, it allows for lighter menstrual cramps. OK, that prolly accounts for what... 1% of all takers?
As for abortions, why should they be covered? If it's voluntary, with no health threat to the mother, why should it be considered insurable?
As for abortions, why should they be covered? If it's voluntary, with no health threat to the mother, why should it be considered insurable?
It's not me, it's someone else.
-
DoctorChaos
- Posts: 1579
- Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 7:58 pm
Quick google search yeilded...
I'm not saying abortions should covered just that they are infinitely more expensive than birth control pills and safer.
The pills offer numerous benefits in addition to their contraceptive effect:
* Menstrual periods are more regular, lighter, shorter and less painful.
* You can choose exactly when to have your period, or when not to have it.
* PMS is often less.
* They increase the chance you'll be able to get pregnant in the future, due to items below marked with an asterisk (*).
* Blood loss is reduced, so the chance of iron deficiency anemia is much less.
* The risk of cancer of the uterus is reduced by 80%.
* *The risk of cancer of the ovary is reduced by 50%. The risk of benign tumors of the ovary is reduced by 90%.
* *They reduce the chance of serious pelvic infections
* *They reduce the probability of developing endometriosis.
* *The chance of ectopic pregnancy (which can require major surgery) is reduced.
I'm not saying abortions should covered just that they are infinitely more expensive than birth control pills and safer.
Wadda mean? Other people can read this?!
-
thibodeaux
- Posts: 8056
- Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 7:32 pm
It's hella cheaper than HAVING the baby, that's for sure.As to the medical benefits of birth control pills... to the best of my knowledge, it allows for lighter menstrual cramps. OK, that prolly accounts for what... 1% of all takers?
As for abortions, why should they be covered? If it's voluntary, with no health threat to the mother, why should it be considered insurable?
-
DoctorChaos
- Posts: 1579
- Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 7:58 pm
-
Mommy Dearest
- Posts: 1393
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 12:59 pm
The wife had a c-section, though she wanted a natural birth. The baby was breached. The doctor wouldn't do a breached delivery.
From what I hear, if there are any complications, a c-section is the safest option.
Also, I think the doctors are as much to blame as the women. A c-section earns more money, is quicker (cuts hours and hours off labor and delivery), easier (you don't have to calm a screaming woman), and leaves the doctor in full control. The doctor can also schedule the delivery for a convenient date. So I think a lot of doctors *prefer* c-sections.
The doctors here won't do c-sections by request, but my wife and three of her friends had babies within a year of each other and all 4 had c-sections.
Labor would be slow, the baby's heart rate would drop, and they'd recommend cutting rather than taking a chance. Better to be safe than sued.
Now that my wife had a c-section, there's a risk of her scar rupturing if she gives birth naturally, so if <s>TheCatt</s> I knocked her up again she can choose a c-section.
All that being said, c-sections rock! It's a piece of cake, and I got to hold the kid and show her off to the relatives while the wife was alone in revovery. With c-sections, the daddy is the hero because he has the baby.
From what I hear, if there are any complications, a c-section is the safest option.
Also, I think the doctors are as much to blame as the women. A c-section earns more money, is quicker (cuts hours and hours off labor and delivery), easier (you don't have to calm a screaming woman), and leaves the doctor in full control. The doctor can also schedule the delivery for a convenient date. So I think a lot of doctors *prefer* c-sections.
The doctors here won't do c-sections by request, but my wife and three of her friends had babies within a year of each other and all 4 had c-sections.
Labor would be slow, the baby's heart rate would drop, and they'd recommend cutting rather than taking a chance. Better to be safe than sued.
Now that my wife had a c-section, there's a risk of her scar rupturing if she gives birth naturally, so if <s>TheCatt</s> I knocked her up again she can choose a c-section.
All that being said, c-sections rock! It's a piece of cake, and I got to hold the kid and show her off to the relatives while the wife was alone in revovery. With c-sections, the daddy is the hero because he has the baby.
Between the union extortion and federally mandated health insurance, it's no wonder american automakers can't compete.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060417.RGM17/TPStory/Business
Been spendin most our lives livin in a workers' paradise.
Edited By GORDON on 1145310334
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060417.RGM17/TPStory/Business
Been spendin most our lives livin in a workers' paradise.
Edited By GORDON on 1145310334
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
-
DoctorChaos
- Posts: 1579
- Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 7:58 pm