The new rules under the Affordable Care Act would include emergency contraception, a newly approved nonprescription birth control pill, spermicides and condoms.
Democrats: for safe sex
Republicans: for creating a world where nobody dares do it
I feel like Biden should just say fuck it, and try to pass as much as he can like there’s no tommorrow. Because for him, there pretty much isn’t.
Agreed, except remember this - he’s not really a lame duck, he’s on the same team as Harris so what he does now can splash on her.
So, still yes, except use caution if there’s a risk it might hurt Harris’s campaign.
The problem is that the things he can do without congressional support can be easily overturned by the next President — and the Republicans have a majority in the House of Representatives.
Better to try and give a possible future Democratic majority an easy shoe-in precedent for writing the law, or give a future Republican majority extra busywork and lawsuits and court time to do, than to never do anything at all.
For sure. I just don’t expect it to be durable unless we elect Harris.
I’d think birth control would be cheaper for insurers than covering unplanned pregnancies anyway.
Well, I imagine that this is one reason why GOP leadership was against the ACA and tried to repeal it.
You don’t need to worry about covering either one if nothing is covered, after all. /s
It depends, babies born to single mothers are automatically enrolled in Medicaid, so states cover the child. Eventually that child gets put onto an hmo medicaid plan, which is massively profitable for the company running that hmo.
Or… Forget about insurers and just make them free for everyone
Hmm, maybe there are particular challenges to free medications? Even Quebec’s most left-wing mainstream party, Québec Solidaire, doesn’t quite go as far as free drugs for all, afaik.
Not that the idea doesn’t sound lovely.
Tons of countries offer free contraceptives and some (including France) offers free condoms (to those aged 18 to 25 in France). Free pill and IUD are coming to Canada as well (announced in March).
For real? Amazing. I need to follow the local news more, sheesh.
Wait, spermicide? The last time I heard of that was in sexual education, where they said not to use that shit because of its really low reliability.
Feels weird that the US government would target that product in particular.
I’d imagine the spermicide exists to ensure the lubricant on the condom doesnt act as a transport for sperm, not as a primary method of efficacy.
Looking at it as a mechanical problem: Sometimes in condom usage, I’ve noticed that a little air that gets sucked into the condom, and then works its way out again. So clearly theres some limited fluid exchange possible at the base of the shaft, which may then end up as sperm in places its not intended to be as the use of the condom continues.
It’s not a bad thing to have as a backup for a condom; the main issue is that some of the spermicides increase HIV transmission risk, so you typically don’t see condoms with spermicide in the lube anymore.
Oh, I meant spermicide creams in place of condoms.
I didn’t know about the spermicide condoms at all.
I always thought it was spermicide on the inside, lube on the outside.
Maybe I’m confused. In any case, I don’t think i can buy them locally anymore.
Just man up and nationalize all major forms of insurance you fucker.
He’s never been in favor of it. The only reason he has a leg to stand on in the health care debate is that Obama took a stand and forced him to as part of being VP. Before that Biden was running as the guy who wanted to lower the age of medicare eligibility, and that was the full extent of his health care aspirations. This is when insurance was denying women coverage when they got pregnant, and health care was simply out of reach for the poor so you could die of very treatable medical needs, as if this was a country without resources to do any better.
He toed the line during Obamas terms, and now he’s back to having very limited aspirations-- to nibble around the edge of problems and call it incremental change, but never aspire to take on any bigger changes directly. call it whatever it is, it amounts to the same outcomes: is it how a candidate fleeces the health care companies for donations?, or is it indifference?, or cowardice? In the end its the outcomes that matter with these things, not what a politician says. Words are just air.
Biden says coronavirus’ impact on health system hasn’t changed his mind on single-payer https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/30/biden-says-coronavirus-hasnt-changed-his-mind-on-single-payer.html
87% of Democrats Support ‘Medicare for All,’ Though Joe Biden Doesn’t https://www.newsweek.com/87-democrats-support-medicare-all-though-joe-biden-doesnt-1522833
It’s not about “man up” — it’s about having the votes in Congress to do it. We didn’t have that in 2009, when we last tried, and I’d be surprised if we have them now
Obama pushing Obamacare is a big part of how we won back the house in 2018. Policies that directly help the American people are somehow very popular with the dem and independent voters, go figure.
“Reaching across the aisle” and getting watered down bullshit outcomes is not popular.
I mean I wasn’t particularly serious it’s more about the DNC even having anything close to that as policy which would be nice but they won’t.
New York Times - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for New York Times:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
