Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (8854)	3/16/2001 12:32:31 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 82486

Am I missing something here about the lack of logic? You expect logic? You expect gender fairness? Patricia, really. Congress gets itself tangled up sometimes between it's role as employer and its role as Federal policy maker. The history of contraception coverage for Federal employees has been on and off. This 1999 compromise may be what provoked the initiative reported in the Post. <<September 29, 1999 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release September 29, 1999 Today, I signed H.R. 2490, "Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, FY 2000", a bill that contains several important improvements in family planning and child care. This bipartisan bill will give people who work for the federal government access to more affordable child care and flexibility in family planning. It will require health plans participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) that provide prescription drug coverage to provide prescription contraceptive coverage as well, while providing an exception for plans that object to this requirement on religious grounds. The bill also gives government agencies new flexibility that will allow them to make child care more affordable for lower-income Federal employees. While this bill is not perfect, it does show that we can make progress when we work in a bipartisan fashion. >> opm.gov Or perhaps what they have in mind is restricting access to emergency contraception. It's hard to tell at this point. Karen

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (8854)	3/16/2001 3:26:51 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Isn't it reasonable that contraception would help deter abortion? Especially when these women are working with guys that can get prescription coverage for erection enhancing drugs!! Am I missing something here about the lack of logic? Not that I am against contraception but there is some amount of logic in creating a distinction between coverage of contraception and viagra. Impotence is considered to be a medical condition, a disorder, and viagra is in some cases the treatment for this disorder. Fertility on the other hand is not a disorder. Of course this whole idea depends on the debateable assumption that health care insurance should only cover treatements for diseases and disorders. Note: I am not advocating that health insurance should not cover contraception. Just examining a possible motivation of some people who do advocate this policy. Tim

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (8854)	3/16/2001 9:09:33 PM
From: E	Respond to of 82486

<<. What does surprise me is the clause that concerns the elimination of health insurance coverage for contraception for federal employees. What in heck is that all about? Didn't this same Congress pass health insurance coverage for Viagra? This is an outrage!>> It seems to me that logic would say that insofar as Viagra and contraception are both about recreational sex, both should be covered or both should be uncovered. Of course if the Congressguys want Viagra only as part of a treatment-regimen for male infertility (they need it to conceive a child), then they should limit the coverage of Viagra to that purpose! If they want it for fun, then contraception should be covered, too. Which is worse, not being able to have sex because you can't get an erection, or because you can't have it without risking an unwanted pregnancy? (In either case, you could, of course, if you can afford it, pay for the treatment yourself.)