But the post you referenced, he is talking about Viagara, I thought.
Covered ...... Not Covered
Discussion in 'News & Current Events' started by Crabtownboy, Jul 1, 2014.
Page 2 of 2
-
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
-
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Well, I haven't seen those posts where TND said the pill was covered. Have you? -
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
Thanx for the 'splainin', and no, I haven't.
And this renders the O/P kinda untrue, don't it ? -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
You can say you do not support abortion but the evidence just mounts up to show otherwise. -
-
When I saw the title, I was thinking a Covered Dish church dinner - oh well, now back to the OP
-
Funny, ain't it? When the SC upheld the ACA, CTB told us to get over it; it was law. Now that the shoe's on the other foot, he wants to show how unfair things are.
-
Crabby - tell me it aint so -
You didnt really say that did you? -
evenifigoalone Well-Known Member
Friend of mine on another site said her Chrohn's medication costs $168,000 a year. If anything is to be funded, stuff like that should be top priority. Birth control isn't that expensive.
Honestly, I prefer to pay for meds out of pocket if I can. My meds, my health, my responsibility. There are some cases where the meds are too expensive to get without help, however. But birth control isn't one of them. (BTW, not implying that I use birth control. I don't.)
I will concede that birth control has some legitimate medical uses, and in those cases I might support them being funded. But just to prevent the possibility of a baby? That's the individual's responsibility, not the state's.
We only have so much tax payer's money, let's prioritize a little better. People with life threatening conditions or conditions that severely affect their health and lifestyle come first.
Page 2 of 2