Instead of fixing something that doesnt work, it either breaks something that works or prevents something that works, from working.
I have never received an intelligent rebuttal or even a coherent reply from a leftist on this matter.
As a strong conservative, I am going to give you a coherent reply. Most birth control has been traditionally treated as a medical care issue for nearly a century. Politicians, the medical care industry, and the general populace has gone along with this for longer than I have been alive, which approaches 7 decades. There is really no such thing as Health Insurance -- no one but God can guarantee your health. A policy may say "Health Insurance" on the top of the page, and politicians, medical professionals, the media and the general public may call it that, but if you think about this for a while you will see that it does not insure that you will be healthy any more than "Life Insurance" insures that you will live.
It is Medical Care Insurance which guarantees to pay for medical treatment. Just as Life Insurance pays your beneficiary when you die. There are many types of medical treatment which are not necessary to continue living, but which produce results that are desired by the patient. Would you deny cosmetic surgery to those born with disfiguring birth defects? How about those with traumatic injury?
As I age, I find I need the modern antacid drugs. I have never heard of anyone dying of heartburn, but are you going to argue that these drugs should not be covered by medical insurance?
* * * * * *
Be careful what you ask for. One of the potential responses to the medical care coverage issue, is to make birth control over-the-counter. This would remove it from the policies, which only cover prescription medication, but, it would be even more widely available. I am not certain this is a bad idea, although you might find it less appealing.
The matter of whether “health insurance” will absolutely fix you up in the same way that “car insurance” will absolutely fix your car up, or get you a new one, is far beyond the scope of how it applies to birth control. It would be a good chat over curly fries and beer at happy hour though, and I will keep it in mind.
Yes the matter of birth control is a medical matter but I say that it is not a medical *insurance* matter. If pregnancy is to be considered a disease, it is by any measure the most preventable “disease” mankind has ever “suffered”. Only forcible rape comes to mind as an exception.
But re “Would you deny cosmetic surgery to those born with disfiguring birth defects? How about those with traumatic injury?”, no and no. My earlier definition could not be simpler, and has no implication whatsoever that there is a distinction to be made for life-threatening injuries or diseases vs those that are not. A traumatic injury is the very reason for health insurance or medical insurance or whatever we would agree to call it. And the “cosmetic surgery” of your example is well within my quick definition of “fixing something that doesn’t work” and can easily be defined and defended as something very different from a Hollywood nose job.
If I may expand on that point just a little, I see no slippery slope or hazy line here if we extend it to medical treatment in general. We can all agree that a broken leg in a car accident is the kind of thing health insurance is for, and at the same time agree that some kind of surgery or new science fiction genetic procedure to make our middle-aged legs as quick and as strong as our early-20’s legs were is not.
Your antacid question is another easy call for me: that’s fixing something that doesn’t work. Now as to whether an insurance company should pay for Tums, for for the latest, best prescription, for surgery, I say that’s for them to decide to include in a policy they offer — not for the government to mandate — and for you to buy or not buy that policy.