Wednesday, March 7, 2012

When is Birth Control NOT Birth Control? Exposing Barack Obama's Latest Scam in Health Care

Liberals are desperately trying to cling to their lie of a Republican "war on women." That lie is vanishing like the mist before their eyes. Their last gasp is to try to confuse people about the supposed need to take "birth control" for "a medical purpose."

"Birth control" medication used for a medically necessary purpose is not birth control. Such use is covered by health insurance -- even health insurance from Catholic and other religious institutions. Catholic religious doctrine approves of the use of such medication for treating a genuine medical problem, just not with interfering with God's will concerning child-bearing.

The now notorious testimony of Sandra Fluke, Georgetown University Law School Student and head of "Law Students for Reproductive Justice" at Georgetown, claimed that students cannot afford their own birth control because "as you know" it costs "OVER $3,000" for a student to get birth control during the three years of a law school education.

The $3,000 cost is the central lynchpin of the argument, because if it is impossible to get birth control for less than $3,000, within an affordable budget, then students need help paying to continue to have sex instead of studying. On the other hand, if birth control is affordable and easily available, then most Americans will expect men and women alike to pay for their own sex, thank you very much. And all the more Americans would expect a woman's male friend(s) to help with the cost before asking health insurance or the taxpayer to pay for a woman to have sex.

But that liberal lie is unraveling fast. The Weekly Standard did what I thought about doing (but didn't have time):

The Weekly Standard called a Target pharmacy near to Georgetown and found that birth control pills, without insurance, can cost only $9 per month. Note that the question is how little can you pay, not how much you can pay. The question is do students NEED to have help paying for their own sex lives? If students could pay as little as $500 over 3 years, instead of $3,000, this dramatically changes the case for a supposed "need" to have other people pay for your private sex life.

In her Congressional testimony, Sandra Fluke confessed (Emphasis added):

“A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown’s insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy.

So while spinning her sob story, Sandra Fluke let the cat out of the bag.

Medication used for a non-birth control purpose is not birth control.

For example, Minoxidyl is a medication that was developed to control blood pressure. However, it was discovered that if you spread Minoxidyl on your head, it might grow hair for men with thinning hair (probably won't, but it works just often enough to keep hope alive).

When controlling blood pressure, Minoxidyl is medically necessary, prescribed for a medically necessary purpose. Therefore, it is covered by health insurance. However, when used on the scalp, externally, it is sold under the brand name Rogaine and it is NOT covered by health insurance. Used to control blood pressure, Minoxidyl is medically necessary. When used for male vanity, for mere appearance, Rogaine (Minoxidyl) is not covered by health insurance.

Similarly, aspirin is one of nature's wonder drugs. It can minimize blood clots, and can minimize the risk of heart attacks. It can reduce a fever. And it can reduce your headache. That's only three of its many uses. When used to deter blood clots and heart attacks, it is clearly a drug prescribed for a medical condition, and is covered by health insurance. When used to treat the occasional headache, it would probably not be covered by most health insurance.

In the same way, the medication that produces a birth control effect also has other effects, as well.

So when the same medication is being used to treat a medical condition it is NOT birth control, it is not coded for health insurance purposes as birth control, it is paid and covered by ALL health insurance, even at Catholic institutions, and it is approved of by the Catholic Church.

Even Sandra Fluke admits that Georgetown University's health insurance policy will cover birth control medication when needed for a non-birth control reason.

But Sandra Fluke admits this "inconvenient truth" (for liberals) under her breath and then proceeds to try to explain it away and obscure it. Meanwhile, others taken in by the scam, repeat the bald and naked falsehood that women with a medical need or medical condition would not be able to get the medication covered by health insurance. That is pure unadulterated hogwash and balderdash.

Aware that her argument has a giant hole in it, Sandra Fluke tries to navigate an oil tanker through a shallow creek:

“Unfortunately, under many religious institutions and insurance plans, it wouldn’t be. There would be no exception for other medical needs."

That just isn't true. The same Catholic bishops leading the charge against Obama's war on religion have clarified that Catholic religious doctrine APPROVES OF medication to cure disease or alleviate suffering, even when it is the exact same medication that can also be used for a contraceptive purpose. There is no religious objection to particular drugs. The religious perspective (for those denominations that object to birth control) is focused on using the medication for a contraceptive purpose. (I don't have any personal objection to birth control. My outrage is directed at liars trying to take away people's freedoms.)

But then Sandra Fluke illustrates what you can expect from a highly-paid Georgetown lawyer -- to twist reality into a pretzel of falsehood. Fluke testified:

“In 65% of the cases at our school, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed prescription and whether they were lying about their symptoms."

HUH? Hell, no.

If you don't have any documentation from a doctor, maybe.

LET'S TRANSLATE THE ABOVE: If you are LYING and claiming to have a medical need, without any medical records, without any medical diagnosis from a doctor, then yeah, people are going to scratch their heads and wonder "What are you talking about?"

But if a woman has been diagnosed with a medical condition, all she needs to do is pull out her medical diagnosis from a doctor and say "HERE" and point to the doctor's diagnosis.

I don't just mean that I think Sandra Fluke is lying. I mean that Fluke's statement contains within itself the seeds of its own falsehood.


Let's listen in (hypothetically):

Insurance Claims Adjuster: "Could you explain why you are claiming a medical condition or medical need for this medication?"


Insurance Claims Adjuster: "Oh. No. Thank you very much. That's all we need."


What kind of "interrogation" is Sandra Fluke talking about? Clearly, she is referring to students who are LYING or perhaps SELF-DIAGNOSING a medical condition.

Let's listen in again (hypothetically):

Insurance Claims Adjuster: "Could you explain why you are claiming a medical condition or medical need for this medication?"

Georgetown Female Student: "I have ovarian cancer."

Insurance Claims Adjuster: "Why do you think that?"

Georgetown Female Student: "I got on the internet and diagnosed myself."

Insurance Claims Adjuster: "Have you seen a doctor about your ovarian cancer?"

Georgetown Female Student: "No"

Insurance Claims Adjuster: "Do you have any documentation of your medical condition?"

Georgetown Female Student: "No"

Insurance Claims Adjuster: "I'm sorry. But we need some kind of documentation that you have been diagnosed with this medical condition. And I strongly urge you to see a doctor immediately. If you really do have ovarian cancer, you cannot treat yourself as your own doctor."

No comments:

Post a Comment

We value an open exchange of ideas, even from those who disagree. However, please remember that even minor children can come across websites on the internet. Please use respectful language suitable for auidences of all ages.