I used to take that. Hopefully it will be generic soon, too. Argh...earliest expected date is 2023! Try Lybrel. You take it everyday with no break at all. It now has a generic.

I have insurance with no copay so I'm doing all right now. Thanks for the info, though

Throw in free abortions and I won't call this a fascist/corporatist bill anymore (even though it still is)

--As an addendum, I think you're smart enough to know that there is nothing free DrPhil. I mean, maybe you aren't. Just call it as is: Women should get birth control paid for by money stolen from other people, panel says.

Too bad your mother wasn't on effective birth control.

Excellent response!

Embarassing. If you have anything of substance to rebut my statement, go ahead. But you don't, so you resort to silly attacks.

It's embarrassing to all of us that you think the counterpoint is somehow difficult to find.

However, I'll bite - it's simple math: the cost of contraception is likely much, MUCH less of a burden on the average taxpayer than the costs of unwanted children to individuals who cannot (or do not want to) support them.

Sunk costs are still sunk - there is no shame in sinking them more efficiently.

You are the dumbass who thinks the word "free" in this context means that people think unicorns come from the Heavens to shit preventive health services on the masses.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9MrCLXq5ub...-corn_hell.png

/my only contribution

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...fuJWrCLbyaHUGA

The angry taxpayers are cleaning up the unicorn shit, also known as preventive health services, that only an idiot would consider stolen.

LOL! Every penny paid for in preventative health services is very wells spent. Otherwise we can go back to the days when syphillis was rampant like in Henry the VIII's time. Sounds great!

Send it Elephant Walk's way first.

If you're under the conception that the taxpayer should pay for the unwanted children, then yes, you can believe that.

No, I'm operating under the reality that taxpayers already do.

In that scenario (which is, well, reality), any step forward is a good one. You have to disabuse yourself of the notion that only fundamental change is good change, or you'll be a sad panda forever.

"Should" is a stupid word.

I'm confused on how preventative health services wouldn't exist, without public money.

Currently, gobs and gobs of private money goes into preventative care. And it works, better than the governments inefficient system. Why not enhance the private sector over the public, so that citizens are able to choose what to do and not do with their money?

The fact that you think that you have the right to tell anyone what to do with their money is absolutely disgusting. If you believe in limiting that personal freedom, you probably also want to ban gay marriage...at least if you didn't want to be hypocritical.

Because we're not operating in a hypothetical market - we're operating in an actual, defined system, one in which insurance companies have very little incentive to push preventative services (due to consumer, government and market pressures), and one in which their slavish devotion to quarterly earnings trumps the long-term cost benefit of pushing preventative measures anyway.