|
On March 03 2012 08:36 acie wrote:
This is why women get paid less then men
User was temp banned for this post.
I don't understand what makes people think that posts like this are okay. I just can't comprehend it.
|
On March 03 2012 08:49 Quelex wrote:
Just touching on a few points in this:
- Abortion is a legal procedure in the US and it should be in my opinion. If a woman is raped or cannot carry the child due to it causing her to die when she gives birth she should be able to choose to do what she wishes with her own body. The government and religious organizations should not be able to dictate that. There are of course many situations where pregnancy is just caused by carelessness, but that is just one of the unfortunate side effects of protecting the other situations. In the end, do we really want to leave it up to the government to investigate and badger women on why they want to get a medical procedure?
In that case "abortion" should be qualified. Pregnancy due to irresponsibility should not qualify for abortion. The law should stipulate exceptions to this, such as what you say, rape or physical incapacity to carry pregnancy and give birth. Even physical capacity is complex,so I say limit it to the medically tested (I don't know how, but I guess doctors and experts do) capacity of the body to undergo the procedure of carrying another body for 9 months and delivering it, and not psychological (simply because she think she is not ready) or she has other plans yet, in which case she and her partner should have made sure she does not get pregnant (read: contraception).
|
On March 03 2012 09:40 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 08:36 acie wrote:
This is why women get paid less then men
User was temp banned for this post. I don't understand what makes people think that posts like this are okay. I just can't comprehend it.
I think they know they aren't ok :/
|
On March 03 2012 09:41 Abort Retry Fail wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 08:49 Quelex wrote:
Just touching on a few points in this:
- Abortion is a legal procedure in the US and it should be in my opinion. If a woman is raped or cannot carry the child due to it causing her to die when she gives birth she should be able to choose to do what she wishes with her own body. The government and religious organizations should not be able to dictate that. There are of course many situations where pregnancy is just caused by carelessness, but that is just one of the unfortunate side effects of protecting the other situations. In the end, do we really want to leave it up to the government to investigate and badger women on why they want to get a medical procedure? In that case "abortion" should be qualified. Pregnancy due to irresponsibility should not qualify for abortion. The law should stipulate exceptions to this, such as what you say, rape or physical incapacity to carry pregnancy and give birth. Even physical capacity is complex,so I say limit it to the medically tested (I don't know how, but I guess doctors and experts do) capacity of the body to undergo the procedure of carrying another body for 9 months and delivering it, and not psychological (simply because she think she is not ready) or she has other plans yet, in which case she and her partner should have made sure she does not get pregnant (read: contraception).
LOL at your name...the whole premise of Roe V Wade was the right to privacy, and I think demanding to know the details of how a woman got pregnant violates that right. In any event, we arent talking about abortions
|
On March 03 2012 08:15 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 07:47 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 07:32 OsoVega wrote:On March 03 2012 07:11 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 07:02 OsoVega wrote:On March 03 2012 07:00 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 06:48 killa_robot wrote:On March 03 2012 06:29 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 06:23 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2012 06:18 FryBender wrote:
[quote]
Eating fatty foods is a choice as well. Again by your logic health insurance should not pay for any kind of heart procedures for anyone who does not regularly excercises and eats healthy. Or maybe they shouldn't cover skin cancer becasue you took a risk and went to the beach at some point in your life. Or maybe they shouldn't cover my broken bone when I choose to play basketball and hurt myself because of my clumsiness. All these are "preventable" diseases and yet I think you'd have a hard time arguing that these things shouldn't be covered. Face it the only difference with contraception is that religion thinks it's immoral and tries to force their views on others who do not follow their religion.
Eating fatty foods may increase your risk and thus increase your insurance premium. Playing sports may increase your risk of broken bones. Neither is actually choosing to break a nose or get heart disease. If you intentionally hurt yourself, insurance may actually not pay. Buying contraception is a choice. You either choose to buy it or you choose to not buy it. Allright just so we don't get lost in this argument, I'm saying that contraceptives is a healthcare need, akin to heart surgery or setting a broken bone. In my analogy having sex is like playing basketball. You're saying contraception is a choice just like setting a bone after a broken foot is a choice? You realize the point of a sport is for fun right? At no point are you actually supposed to get hurt. Sex is meant, physically meant, to produce babies. Contraception isn't some random thing that happens when you have sex, it's the direct result of it. Sex, and the risks that come with it, is in no way, shape, or form, the same as playing basketball. The only difference between now and a hundred years ago, is society has changed what we BELIEVE sex to be. We believe it to be an activity for fun/pleasure. That doesn't change that the reason for sex, is for procreation. I'm really not sure if you're stupid, or you judgement is just really clouded. Having sex with always be a choice, and contraception will always exist as a result, not some random side effect, of having sex. Actually sex is a fundamental human need. That is why it is on the basic rung of Maslow's pyramid. So no it's not as easy to say "Hey all you sluts. Stop having sex." I'm guessing that you're pretty young and really do believe that a person can just deny basic human urges like a sex drive. You may even think that a homosexual can just tell him or herself that they can be attracted to a different gender and presto-chango they're "fixed." Unfortunately that's not how human physiology and psychology works. While we certainly have control over our basic urges it is not by any means total control. Have you ever seen what truly hungry people are willing to do for food? Well the sex drive is actually not that different as the food drive in our brains. So before you call someone stupid please educate yourself on what you're actually talking about I agree that sex is completely fundamental to human happiness but it's not the government's role to provide people with happiness. You have a right to the pursuit of happiness, not happiness. Also, masturbation is enough to be sexually self-sufficient. And the government shouldn't pay for contraception. But insurances should. I believe that contraception is a basic healthcare provision. Most doctors agree which is why they prescribe it for their patients. There is a reason why women go to doctors to buy the pill or get an IUD instead of sex shops. Doctors are expensive and health insurance in the US exists to defray those expenses. Therefore it makes perfect sense that health insurances should cover contraception. Actually most insurers agree since it's much cheaper to pay for contraception then it is for unwanted pregnancies. The argument simply came out because the catholic church does not want contraception to be available on any of their plans, even if the plans are for people who are not catholic. This is a purely social debate and I think it's ridiculous that the politicians in the US government who are supposed to represent everyone and not show favor to religions are pandering to catholic priests. It's politics at it's worst, ideology above reason. But insurance companies won't. They can't make profit off of including contraception in their insurance policies unless they are basically selling the contraception directly to the people by including it in their premiums. If it was cheaper for insurers to pay for contraception, why aren't they doing it now? If some are, why do we have to force the rest to? I guess the government knows how to make a company more profitable than the company itself. Also, this is completely an aside but, I find it odd that you would present ideology and reason like there is some dichotomy between the two. There is religious ideology, conservative ideology, liberal ideology, etc. Being an ideology does not mean you are not based on logic. I don't believe that you are correct in that insurance companies won't make any money off of it. Not everyone needs birth-control therefore the costs are spread out just like insurance is meant to work. A 25 year old female pays into the insurance fund so that she can get birth control and ob-gyn visits. A 60 year old male pays into the insurance fund so that he can get prostate cancer treatments. Different people pay into the insurance funds in order to get different treatment. I'm not sure why you think insurance companies need to sell contraceptives in order to make a profit. There are plenty of insurance policies that cover contraceptives and as far as I know they're doing just fine. As far as idealogy vs reason I don't want to derail the thread, but all I was saying was that I doubt most republicans really care that much about providing contraception. But it is on the social conservative idealogy list and so it doesn't matter what does and does not make sense they have to be against it. It's because contraception is fundamentally different from things like prostate cancer treatments. Contraception is something that any woman can choose to consume. Hell, even if they don't want it, they can just take it and sell it to a friend who doesn't have it depending on the kind and how it is administered. Prostate cancer treatments, on the other hand, are not something that you go into an insurance policy, with the intention to take out, but something that you might take out if by chance you develop prostate cancer. A man pays into the policy, with chances being that he will lose money in the long run (otherwise, the company could never make money), in exchange for insurance against chance occurrences (breaking a bone, developing cancer). If you do end up taking out more than you put in, the money to pay for that comes from the premiums of people who didn't get all that sick and paid more to the insurance company than they received. When you got into it at the beggining, there was a chance that you would pay for other people's bills and a chance that other people would pay for your bills. If you want want contraception, you go into a plan with every intention of taking it out, so no matter what, someone is going to pay for your consumption. That person might just be you or it might be other people with the insurance company but either way it doesn't make sense to allow someone who is definitely going to be taking more than they put in into a policy. It's not like the case of wanting insurance against a chance illness or disease where you might pay for other people or other people might pay for you. If the insurance company foots the bill to you, it's irrelevant and you might as well have just paid for it directly from a pharmacy. If it's other people who want employer offered insurance that foot your bill, it is wrong that they are being forced to pay for your happiness and it's really not any different than the government (tax payers) footing your bill. It will be a while before I respond to any more posts.
But if your only argument against contraception is on a cost basis then I can guarantee you insurances want to provide women with contraceptives. It is much much much cheaper to provide contraceptives then it is to provide obstetric services. that is why insurance companies are staying out of this whole debate. They have 0 problems with providing contraceptives to women. It's the catholic church that doesn't want to do it because it violates their dogma.
|
On March 03 2012 09:59 FryBender wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 08:15 OsoVega wrote:On March 03 2012 07:47 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 07:32 OsoVega wrote:On March 03 2012 07:11 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 07:02 OsoVega wrote:On March 03 2012 07:00 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 06:48 killa_robot wrote:On March 03 2012 06:29 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 06:23 meadbert wrote:
[quote]
Eating fatty foods may increase your risk and thus increase your insurance premium.
Playing sports may increase your risk of broken bones.
Neither is actually choosing to break a nose or get heart disease.
If you intentionally hurt yourself, insurance may actually not pay.
Buying contraception is a choice. You either choose to buy it or you choose to not buy it.
Allright just so we don't get lost in this argument, I'm saying that contraceptives is a healthcare need, akin to heart surgery or setting a broken bone. In my analogy having sex is like playing basketball. You're saying contraception is a choice just like setting a bone after a broken foot is a choice? You realize the point of a sport is for fun right? At no point are you actually supposed to get hurt. Sex is meant, physically meant, to produce babies. Contraception isn't some random thing that happens when you have sex, it's the direct result of it. Sex, and the risks that come with it, is in no way, shape, or form, the same as playing basketball. The only difference between now and a hundred years ago, is society has changed what we BELIEVE sex to be. We believe it to be an activity for fun/pleasure. That doesn't change that the reason for sex, is for procreation. I'm really not sure if you're stupid, or you judgement is just really clouded. Having sex with always be a choice, and contraception will always exist as a result, not some random side effect, of having sex. Actually sex is a fundamental human need. That is why it is on the basic rung of Maslow's pyramid. So no it's not as easy to say "Hey all you sluts. Stop having sex." I'm guessing that you're pretty young and really do believe that a person can just deny basic human urges like a sex drive. You may even think that a homosexual can just tell him or herself that they can be attracted to a different gender and presto-chango they're "fixed." Unfortunately that's not how human physiology and psychology works. While we certainly have control over our basic urges it is not by any means total control. Have you ever seen what truly hungry people are willing to do for food? Well the sex drive is actually not that different as the food drive in our brains. So before you call someone stupid please educate yourself on what you're actually talking about I agree that sex is completely fundamental to human happiness but it's not the government's role to provide people with happiness. You have a right to the pursuit of happiness, not happiness. Also, masturbation is enough to be sexually self-sufficient. And the government shouldn't pay for contraception. But insurances should. I believe that contraception is a basic healthcare provision. Most doctors agree which is why they prescribe it for their patients. There is a reason why women go to doctors to buy the pill or get an IUD instead of sex shops. Doctors are expensive and health insurance in the US exists to defray those expenses. Therefore it makes perfect sense that health insurances should cover contraception. Actually most insurers agree since it's much cheaper to pay for contraception then it is for unwanted pregnancies. The argument simply came out because the catholic church does not want contraception to be available on any of their plans, even if the plans are for people who are not catholic. This is a purely social debate and I think it's ridiculous that the politicians in the US government who are supposed to represent everyone and not show favor to religions are pandering to catholic priests. It's politics at it's worst, ideology above reason. But insurance companies won't. They can't make profit off of including contraception in their insurance policies unless they are basically selling the contraception directly to the people by including it in their premiums. If it was cheaper for insurers to pay for contraception, why aren't they doing it now? If some are, why do we have to force the rest to? I guess the government knows how to make a company more profitable than the company itself. Also, this is completely an aside but, I find it odd that you would present ideology and reason like there is some dichotomy between the two. There is religious ideology, conservative ideology, liberal ideology, etc. Being an ideology does not mean you are not based on logic. I don't believe that you are correct in that insurance companies won't make any money off of it. Not everyone needs birth-control therefore the costs are spread out just like insurance is meant to work. A 25 year old female pays into the insurance fund so that she can get birth control and ob-gyn visits. A 60 year old male pays into the insurance fund so that he can get prostate cancer treatments. Different people pay into the insurance funds in order to get different treatment. I'm not sure why you think insurance companies need to sell contraceptives in order to make a profit. There are plenty of insurance policies that cover contraceptives and as far as I know they're doing just fine. As far as idealogy vs reason I don't want to derail the thread, but all I was saying was that I doubt most republicans really care that much about providing contraception. But it is on the social conservative idealogy list and so it doesn't matter what does and does not make sense they have to be against it. It's because contraception is fundamentally different from things like prostate cancer treatments. Contraception is something that any woman can choose to consume. Hell, even if they don't want it, they can just take it and sell it to a friend who doesn't have it depending on the kind and how it is administered. Prostate cancer treatments, on the other hand, are not something that you go into an insurance policy, with the intention to take out, but something that you might take out if by chance you develop prostate cancer. A man pays into the policy, with chances being that he will lose money in the long run (otherwise, the company could never make money), in exchange for insurance against chance occurrences (breaking a bone, developing cancer). If you do end up taking out more than you put in, the money to pay for that comes from the premiums of people who didn't get all that sick and paid more to the insurance company than they received. When you got into it at the beggining, there was a chance that you would pay for other people's bills and a chance that other people would pay for your bills. If you want want contraception, you go into a plan with every intention of taking it out, so no matter what, someone is going to pay for your consumption. That person might just be you or it might be other people with the insurance company but either way it doesn't make sense to allow someone who is definitely going to be taking more than they put in into a policy. It's not like the case of wanting insurance against a chance illness or disease where you might pay for other people or other people might pay for you. If the insurance company foots the bill to you, it's irrelevant and you might as well have just paid for it directly from a pharmacy. If it's other people who want employer offered insurance that foot your bill, it is wrong that they are being forced to pay for your happiness and it's really not any different than the government (tax payers) footing your bill. It will be a while before I respond to any more posts. But if your only argument against contraception is on a cost basis then I can guarantee you insurances want to provide women with contraceptives. It is much much much cheaper to provide contraceptives then it is to provide obstetric services. that is why insurance companies are staying out of this whole debate. They have 0 problems with providing contraceptives to women. It's the catholic church that doesn't want to do it because it violates their dogma.
Why didn't insurance companies already provide them? If they would save money, they wouldn't need the government to tell them to do it, right?
|
On March 03 2012 09:59 FryBender wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 08:15 OsoVega wrote:On March 03 2012 07:47 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 07:32 OsoVega wrote:On March 03 2012 07:11 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 07:02 OsoVega wrote:On March 03 2012 07:00 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 06:48 killa_robot wrote:On March 03 2012 06:29 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 06:23 meadbert wrote:
[quote]
Eating fatty foods may increase your risk and thus increase your insurance premium.
Playing sports may increase your risk of broken bones.
Neither is actually choosing to break a nose or get heart disease.
If you intentionally hurt yourself, insurance may actually not pay.
Buying contraception is a choice. You either choose to buy it or you choose to not buy it.
Allright just so we don't get lost in this argument, I'm saying that contraceptives is a healthcare need, akin to heart surgery or setting a broken bone. In my analogy having sex is like playing basketball. You're saying contraception is a choice just like setting a bone after a broken foot is a choice? You realize the point of a sport is for fun right? At no point are you actually supposed to get hurt. Sex is meant, physically meant, to produce babies. Contraception isn't some random thing that happens when you have sex, it's the direct result of it. Sex, and the risks that come with it, is in no way, shape, or form, the same as playing basketball. The only difference between now and a hundred years ago, is society has changed what we BELIEVE sex to be. We believe it to be an activity for fun/pleasure. That doesn't change that the reason for sex, is for procreation. I'm really not sure if you're stupid, or you judgement is just really clouded. Having sex with always be a choice, and contraception will always exist as a result, not some random side effect, of having sex. Actually sex is a fundamental human need. That is why it is on the basic rung of Maslow's pyramid. So no it's not as easy to say "Hey all you sluts. Stop having sex." I'm guessing that you're pretty young and really do believe that a person can just deny basic human urges like a sex drive. You may even think that a homosexual can just tell him or herself that they can be attracted to a different gender and presto-chango they're "fixed." Unfortunately that's not how human physiology and psychology works. While we certainly have control over our basic urges it is not by any means total control. Have you ever seen what truly hungry people are willing to do for food? Well the sex drive is actually not that different as the food drive in our brains. So before you call someone stupid please educate yourself on what you're actually talking about I agree that sex is completely fundamental to human happiness but it's not the government's role to provide people with happiness. You have a right to the pursuit of happiness, not happiness. Also, masturbation is enough to be sexually self-sufficient. And the government shouldn't pay for contraception. But insurances should. I believe that contraception is a basic healthcare provision. Most doctors agree which is why they prescribe it for their patients. There is a reason why women go to doctors to buy the pill or get an IUD instead of sex shops. Doctors are expensive and health insurance in the US exists to defray those expenses. Therefore it makes perfect sense that health insurances should cover contraception. Actually most insurers agree since it's much cheaper to pay for contraception then it is for unwanted pregnancies. The argument simply came out because the catholic church does not want contraception to be available on any of their plans, even if the plans are for people who are not catholic. This is a purely social debate and I think it's ridiculous that the politicians in the US government who are supposed to represent everyone and not show favor to religions are pandering to catholic priests. It's politics at it's worst, ideology above reason. But insurance companies won't. They can't make profit off of including contraception in their insurance policies unless they are basically selling the contraception directly to the people by including it in their premiums. If it was cheaper for insurers to pay for contraception, why aren't they doing it now? If some are, why do we have to force the rest to? I guess the government knows how to make a company more profitable than the company itself. Also, this is completely an aside but, I find it odd that you would present ideology and reason like there is some dichotomy between the two. There is religious ideology, conservative ideology, liberal ideology, etc. Being an ideology does not mean you are not based on logic. I don't believe that you are correct in that insurance companies won't make any money off of it. Not everyone needs birth-control therefore the costs are spread out just like insurance is meant to work. A 25 year old female pays into the insurance fund so that she can get birth control and ob-gyn visits. A 60 year old male pays into the insurance fund so that he can get prostate cancer treatments. Different people pay into the insurance funds in order to get different treatment. I'm not sure why you think insurance companies need to sell contraceptives in order to make a profit. There are plenty of insurance policies that cover contraceptives and as far as I know they're doing just fine. As far as idealogy vs reason I don't want to derail the thread, but all I was saying was that I doubt most republicans really care that much about providing contraception. But it is on the social conservative idealogy list and so it doesn't matter what does and does not make sense they have to be against it. It's because contraception is fundamentally different from things like prostate cancer treatments. Contraception is something that any woman can choose to consume. Hell, even if they don't want it, they can just take it and sell it to a friend who doesn't have it depending on the kind and how it is administered. Prostate cancer treatments, on the other hand, are not something that you go into an insurance policy, with the intention to take out, but something that you might take out if by chance you develop prostate cancer. A man pays into the policy, with chances being that he will lose money in the long run (otherwise, the company could never make money), in exchange for insurance against chance occurrences (breaking a bone, developing cancer). If you do end up taking out more than you put in, the money to pay for that comes from the premiums of people who didn't get all that sick and paid more to the insurance company than they received. When you got into it at the beggining, there was a chance that you would pay for other people's bills and a chance that other people would pay for your bills. If you want want contraception, you go into a plan with every intention of taking it out, so no matter what, someone is going to pay for your consumption. That person might just be you or it might be other people with the insurance company but either way it doesn't make sense to allow someone who is definitely going to be taking more than they put in into a policy. It's not like the case of wanting insurance against a chance illness or disease where you might pay for other people or other people might pay for you. If the insurance company foots the bill to you, it's irrelevant and you might as well have just paid for it directly from a pharmacy. If it's other people who want employer offered insurance that foot your bill, it is wrong that they are being forced to pay for your happiness and it's really not any different than the government (tax payers) footing your bill. It will be a while before I respond to any more posts. But if your only argument against contraception is on a cost basis then I can guarantee you insurances want to provide women with contraceptives. It is much much much cheaper to provide contraceptives then it is to provide obstetric services. that is why insurance companies are staying out of this whole debate. They have 0 problems with providing contraceptives to women. It's the catholic church that doesn't want to do it because it violates their dogma.
Then why aren't they doing it already? If they are, why do we need to force them on top of their own choices? I guess the government knows how to turn profits for companies than the companies themselves.
|
On March 03 2012 09:02 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 08:17 OsoVega wrote:On March 03 2012 08:05 Euronyme wrote:
Hmph. I thought this whole thing with resentment towards birth control was a catholic thing. I don't have resentment towards birth control. I have resentment towards government meddling into things it has no business in and the violation of individual rights. So you're an anarchist?
No. I believe that there are things in which the government has every business participating in and that it is possible for government to exist without violating individual rights. I don't want the government to violate individual rights or meddle in places it has no business therefore I am an anarchist, is a huge and unreasonable leap.
|
not from the USA so not completely aware of the ongoing discussion, we only get to hear the extremely dumb shit like that Rush video. From the little I heard/read about this discussion i get the feeling that the "problem" is being hijacked to rant about abortion, birth control and freedom of religion. while i believe the discussion started because the catholic church gets something like 2 billion a year from the government and refuses to follow made agreements about health-care plans.
It's a fact that for some ailments a oral hormonal therapy is a good cure. What i got from it, is that the discussion is not about the pill as a birth control but as a medicine.
|
well, before i say anything i'll state that I'm an atheist.
It bothers me that the government is pushing religious institutions into going against there morals/faith by making them pay for peoples contraception/abortion..ect
Although i do not agree with religion, I believe there is liberty at stake in this debate. Woman should have every right to choose, but with the foot on the other shoe... shouldn't religion as well? It's not as if there are only religious hospitals ;d
but outside of that one tidbit i'm in support of the contraception/abortion
|
On March 03 2012 10:09 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 09:59 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 08:15 OsoVega wrote:On March 03 2012 07:47 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 07:32 OsoVega wrote:On March 03 2012 07:11 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 07:02 OsoVega wrote:On March 03 2012 07:00 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 06:48 killa_robot wrote:On March 03 2012 06:29 FryBender wrote:
[quote]
Allright just so we don't get lost in this argument, I'm saying that contraceptives is a healthcare need, akin to heart surgery or setting a broken bone. In my analogy having sex is like playing basketball. You're saying contraception is a choice just like setting a bone after a broken foot is a choice? You realize the point of a sport is for fun right? At no point are you actually supposed to get hurt. Sex is meant, physically meant, to produce babies. Contraception isn't some random thing that happens when you have sex, it's the direct result of it. Sex, and the risks that come with it, is in no way, shape, or form, the same as playing basketball. The only difference between now and a hundred years ago, is society has changed what we BELIEVE sex to be. We believe it to be an activity for fun/pleasure. That doesn't change that the reason for sex, is for procreation. I'm really not sure if you're stupid, or you judgement is just really clouded. Having sex with always be a choice, and contraception will always exist as a result, not some random side effect, of having sex. Actually sex is a fundamental human need. That is why it is on the basic rung of Maslow's pyramid. So no it's not as easy to say "Hey all you sluts. Stop having sex." I'm guessing that you're pretty young and really do believe that a person can just deny basic human urges like a sex drive. You may even think that a homosexual can just tell him or herself that they can be attracted to a different gender and presto-chango they're "fixed." Unfortunately that's not how human physiology and psychology works. While we certainly have control over our basic urges it is not by any means total control. Have you ever seen what truly hungry people are willing to do for food? Well the sex drive is actually not that different as the food drive in our brains. So before you call someone stupid please educate yourself on what you're actually talking about I agree that sex is completely fundamental to human happiness but it's not the government's role to provide people with happiness. You have a right to the pursuit of happiness, not happiness. Also, masturbation is enough to be sexually self-sufficient. And the government shouldn't pay for contraception. But insurances should. I believe that contraception is a basic healthcare provision. Most doctors agree which is why they prescribe it for their patients. There is a reason why women go to doctors to buy the pill or get an IUD instead of sex shops. Doctors are expensive and health insurance in the US exists to defray those expenses. Therefore it makes perfect sense that health insurances should cover contraception. Actually most insurers agree since it's much cheaper to pay for contraception then it is for unwanted pregnancies. The argument simply came out because the catholic church does not want contraception to be available on any of their plans, even if the plans are for people who are not catholic. This is a purely social debate and I think it's ridiculous that the politicians in the US government who are supposed to represent everyone and not show favor to religions are pandering to catholic priests. It's politics at it's worst, ideology above reason. But insurance companies won't. They can't make profit off of including contraception in their insurance policies unless they are basically selling the contraception directly to the people by including it in their premiums. If it was cheaper for insurers to pay for contraception, why aren't they doing it now? If some are, why do we have to force the rest to? I guess the government knows how to make a company more profitable than the company itself. Also, this is completely an aside but, I find it odd that you would present ideology and reason like there is some dichotomy between the two. There is religious ideology, conservative ideology, liberal ideology, etc. Being an ideology does not mean you are not based on logic. I don't believe that you are correct in that insurance companies won't make any money off of it. Not everyone needs birth-control therefore the costs are spread out just like insurance is meant to work. A 25 year old female pays into the insurance fund so that she can get birth control and ob-gyn visits. A 60 year old male pays into the insurance fund so that he can get prostate cancer treatments. Different people pay into the insurance funds in order to get different treatment. I'm not sure why you think insurance companies need to sell contraceptives in order to make a profit. There are plenty of insurance policies that cover contraceptives and as far as I know they're doing just fine. As far as idealogy vs reason I don't want to derail the thread, but all I was saying was that I doubt most republicans really care that much about providing contraception. But it is on the social conservative idealogy list and so it doesn't matter what does and does not make sense they have to be against it. It's because contraception is fundamentally different from things like prostate cancer treatments. Contraception is something that any woman can choose to consume. Hell, even if they don't want it, they can just take it and sell it to a friend who doesn't have it depending on the kind and how it is administered. Prostate cancer treatments, on the other hand, are not something that you go into an insurance policy, with the intention to take out, but something that you might take out if by chance you develop prostate cancer. A man pays into the policy, with chances being that he will lose money in the long run (otherwise, the company could never make money), in exchange for insurance against chance occurrences (breaking a bone, developing cancer). If you do end up taking out more than you put in, the money to pay for that comes from the premiums of people who didn't get all that sick and paid more to the insurance company than they received. When you got into it at the beggining, there was a chance that you would pay for other people's bills and a chance that other people would pay for your bills. If you want want contraception, you go into a plan with every intention of taking it out, so no matter what, someone is going to pay for your consumption. That person might just be you or it might be other people with the insurance company but either way it doesn't make sense to allow someone who is definitely going to be taking more than they put in into a policy. It's not like the case of wanting insurance against a chance illness or disease where you might pay for other people or other people might pay for you. If the insurance company foots the bill to you, it's irrelevant and you might as well have just paid for it directly from a pharmacy. If it's other people who want employer offered insurance that foot your bill, it is wrong that they are being forced to pay for your happiness and it's really not any different than the government (tax payers) footing your bill. It will be a while before I respond to any more posts. But if your only argument against contraception is on a cost basis then I can guarantee you insurances want to provide women with contraceptives. It is much much much cheaper to provide contraceptives then it is to provide obstetric services. that is why insurance companies are staying out of this whole debate. They have 0 problems with providing contraceptives to women. It's the catholic church that doesn't want to do it because it violates their dogma. Then why aren't they doing it already? If they are, why do we need to force them on top of their own choices? I guess the government knows how to turn profits for companies than the companies themselves.
They are doing it already. Most insurances provide contraceptive services. However before things like catholic hospitals did not. Obama passed a law that rquired everyone to do so no matter if it was against their religion. The catholics got mad and so Obama pushed it back onto the insurance companies. The insurance companies are not complaining but the Archbishops of the Unioted states are. That's where the arguments are at
|
The real mystery is why the same people that are against abortion also seem to be against contraception.
|
On March 03 2012 10:31 FryBender wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 10:09 OsoVega wrote:On March 03 2012 09:59 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 08:15 OsoVega wrote:On March 03 2012 07:47 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 07:32 OsoVega wrote:On March 03 2012 07:11 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 07:02 OsoVega wrote:On March 03 2012 07:00 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 06:48 killa_robot wrote:
[quote]
You realize the point of a sport is for fun right? At no point are you actually supposed to get hurt.
Sex is meant, physically meant, to produce babies. Contraception isn't some random thing that happens when you have sex, it's the direct result of it. Sex, and the risks that come with it, is in no way, shape, or form, the same as playing basketball.
The only difference between now and a hundred years ago, is society has changed what we BELIEVE sex to be. We believe it to be an activity for fun/pleasure. That doesn't change that the reason for sex, is for procreation.
I'm really not sure if you're stupid, or you judgement is just really clouded. Having sex with always be a choice, and contraception will always exist as a result, not some random side effect, of having sex. Actually sex is a fundamental human need. That is why it is on the basic rung of Maslow's pyramid. So no it's not as easy to say "Hey all you sluts. Stop having sex." I'm guessing that you're pretty young and really do believe that a person can just deny basic human urges like a sex drive. You may even think that a homosexual can just tell him or herself that they can be attracted to a different gender and presto-chango they're "fixed." Unfortunately that's not how human physiology and psychology works. While we certainly have control over our basic urges it is not by any means total control. Have you ever seen what truly hungry people are willing to do for food? Well the sex drive is actually not that different as the food drive in our brains. So before you call someone stupid please educate yourself on what you're actually talking about I agree that sex is completely fundamental to human happiness but it's not the government's role to provide people with happiness. You have a right to the pursuit of happiness, not happiness. Also, masturbation is enough to be sexually self-sufficient. And the government shouldn't pay for contraception. But insurances should. I believe that contraception is a basic healthcare provision. Most doctors agree which is why they prescribe it for their patients. There is a reason why women go to doctors to buy the pill or get an IUD instead of sex shops. Doctors are expensive and health insurance in the US exists to defray those expenses. Therefore it makes perfect sense that health insurances should cover contraception. Actually most insurers agree since it's much cheaper to pay for contraception then it is for unwanted pregnancies. The argument simply came out because the catholic church does not want contraception to be available on any of their plans, even if the plans are for people who are not catholic. This is a purely social debate and I think it's ridiculous that the politicians in the US government who are supposed to represent everyone and not show favor to religions are pandering to catholic priests. It's politics at it's worst, ideology above reason. But insurance companies won't. They can't make profit off of including contraception in their insurance policies unless they are basically selling the contraception directly to the people by including it in their premiums. If it was cheaper for insurers to pay for contraception, why aren't they doing it now? If some are, why do we have to force the rest to? I guess the government knows how to make a company more profitable than the company itself. Also, this is completely an aside but, I find it odd that you would present ideology and reason like there is some dichotomy between the two. There is religious ideology, conservative ideology, liberal ideology, etc. Being an ideology does not mean you are not based on logic. I don't believe that you are correct in that insurance companies won't make any money off of it. Not everyone needs birth-control therefore the costs are spread out just like insurance is meant to work. A 25 year old female pays into the insurance fund so that she can get birth control and ob-gyn visits. A 60 year old male pays into the insurance fund so that he can get prostate cancer treatments. Different people pay into the insurance funds in order to get different treatment. I'm not sure why you think insurance companies need to sell contraceptives in order to make a profit. There are plenty of insurance policies that cover contraceptives and as far as I know they're doing just fine. As far as idealogy vs reason I don't want to derail the thread, but all I was saying was that I doubt most republicans really care that much about providing contraception. But it is on the social conservative idealogy list and so it doesn't matter what does and does not make sense they have to be against it. It's because contraception is fundamentally different from things like prostate cancer treatments. Contraception is something that any woman can choose to consume. Hell, even if they don't want it, they can just take it and sell it to a friend who doesn't have it depending on the kind and how it is administered. Prostate cancer treatments, on the other hand, are not something that you go into an insurance policy, with the intention to take out, but something that you might take out if by chance you develop prostate cancer. A man pays into the policy, with chances being that he will lose money in the long run (otherwise, the company could never make money), in exchange for insurance against chance occurrences (breaking a bone, developing cancer). If you do end up taking out more than you put in, the money to pay for that comes from the premiums of people who didn't get all that sick and paid more to the insurance company than they received. When you got into it at the beggining, there was a chance that you would pay for other people's bills and a chance that other people would pay for your bills. If you want want contraception, you go into a plan with every intention of taking it out, so no matter what, someone is going to pay for your consumption. That person might just be you or it might be other people with the insurance company but either way it doesn't make sense to allow someone who is definitely going to be taking more than they put in into a policy. It's not like the case of wanting insurance against a chance illness or disease where you might pay for other people or other people might pay for you. If the insurance company foots the bill to you, it's irrelevant and you might as well have just paid for it directly from a pharmacy. If it's other people who want employer offered insurance that foot your bill, it is wrong that they are being forced to pay for your happiness and it's really not any different than the government (tax payers) footing your bill. It will be a while before I respond to any more posts. But if your only argument against contraception is on a cost basis then I can guarantee you insurances want to provide women with contraceptives. It is much much much cheaper to provide contraceptives then it is to provide obstetric services. that is why insurance companies are staying out of this whole debate. They have 0 problems with providing contraceptives to women. It's the catholic church that doesn't want to do it because it violates their dogma. Then why aren't they doing it already? If they are, why do we need to force them on top of their own choices? I guess the government knows how to turn profits for companies than the companies themselves. They are doing it already. Most insurances provide contraceptive services. However before things like catholic hospitals did not. Obama passed a law that rquired everyone to do so no matter if it was against their religion. The catholics got mad and so Obama pushed it back onto the insurance companies. The insurance companies are not complaining but the Archbishops of the Unioted states are. That's where the arguments are at
This is true, but what the Blunt Bill proposed was that any employer, religiously affiliated or not, could decide to eliminate coverage of birth control or any other medical treatment on religious or moral grounds.That is what I think upset people more than just religious institutions not providing contraception coverage.
|
On March 03 2012 10:21 henkel wrote:
not from the USA so not completely aware of the ongoing discussion, we only get to hear the extremely dumb shit like that Rush video. From the little I heard/read about this discussion i get the feeling that the "problem" is being hijacked to rant about abortion, birth control and freedom of religion. while i believe the discussion started because the catholic church gets something like 2 billion a year from the government and refuses to follow made agreements about health-care plans.
It's a fact that for some ailments a oral hormonal therapy is a good cure. What i got from it, is that the discussion is not about the pill as a birth control but as a medicine.
The problem MOST people have, is that it's impossible to tell if a woman is taking it for a medical ailment or simply as a contraceptive. And Roe v. Wade makes it pretty hard to argue that it's ok to ask.
Now here is where the problem arises, MANY women take the pill, for whatever reason. Lets say that 50% of the cost is covered by (private) health insurance, and this health insurance currently has 100 non-pill users and 100 pill users. Female 1 now pays 25/month instead of 50/month... but where does the other 25 come from? Certainly not from the profit margin of the insurance company. That's right, the money now comes from the non pill users.
Now when I sign up for health insurance, I'm gambling against the insuring company. I pay them a certain amount of money that they deem will be what someone of my risk would have to pay for them to stay afloat financially. If I get sick, they have to cover those costs as described in the policy. That money comes from other people taking the same gamble. They basically spent more than they would have to cover their health costs while I spent less. With the pill, however, this "gamble" does not exist. A woman can decide she wants to take the pill and the insurance company cannot legally state they will only cover it if it is used for a purpose other than birth control. This foots that bill to the insurance company which in turn gets divided up among the other customers. Everyone's premium goes up while only a specific select few profit from it. No risk, no gamble, just a guaranteed price reduction. Many people such as myself who do not use such drugs find this unfair, thus we oppose it.
As a note, I am 100% for insurance covering the pill if it's for a medical purpose. Ideally it should be sold full price without a prescription and covered by insurance only with a prescription (or some sort of similar system where some sort of differentiation exists).
|
On March 03 2012 05:18 Fealthas wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:16 Aeres wrote:On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote:
I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on.
I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations. Oh, come on... that's a wildly sensationalist post and you know it. If you want to discuss the morality of abortion, try not to paint every woman as a slut and a murderer. Women are not forced to have sex. I do not see why people don't have to live with consequences anymore.
Women are not forced to have sex. Except when they are.
In other news, men don't get pregnant. If they did, there would be no debate about abortion -- it would be legal, everywhere.
Dumbass.
|
United States7483 Posts
On March 03 2012 10:40 Moonster wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 10:21 henkel wrote:
not from the USA so not completely aware of the ongoing discussion, we only get to hear the extremely dumb shit like that Rush video. From the little I heard/read about this discussion i get the feeling that the "problem" is being hijacked to rant about abortion, birth control and freedom of religion. while i believe the discussion started because the catholic church gets something like 2 billion a year from the government and refuses to follow made agreements about health-care plans.
It's a fact that for some ailments a oral hormonal therapy is a good cure. What i got from it, is that the discussion is not about the pill as a birth control but as a medicine. The problem MOST people have, is that it's impossible to tell if a woman is taking it for a medical ailment or simply as a contraceptive. And Roe v. Wade makes it pretty hard to argue that it's ok to ask. Now here is where the problem arises, MANY women take the pill, for whatever reason. Lets say that 50% of the cost is covered by (private) health insurance, and this health insurance currently has 100 non-pill users and 100 pill users. Female 1 now pays 25/month instead of 50/month... but where does the other 25 come from? Certainly not from the profit margin of the insurance company. That's right, the money now comes from the non pill users. Now when I sign up for health insurance, I'm gambling against the insuring company. I pay them a certain amount of money that they deem will be what someone of my risk would have to pay for them to stay afloat financially. If I get sick, they have to cover those costs as described in the policy. That money comes from other people taking the same gamble. They basically spent more than they would have to cover their health costs while I spent less. With the pill, however, this "gamble" does not exist. A woman can decide she wants to take the pill and the insurance company cannot legally state they will only cover it if it is used for a purpose other than birth control. This foots that bill to the insurance company which in turn gets divided up among the other customers. Everyone's premium goes up while only a specific select few profit from it. No risk, no gamble, just a guaranteed price reduction. Many people such as myself who do not use such drugs find this unfair, thus we oppose it. As a note, I am 100% for insurance covering the pill if it's for a medical purpose. Ideally it should be sold full price without a prescription and covered by insurance only with a prescription (or some sort of similar system where some sort of differentiation exists).
Is it relevant which one they are using it for? What difference does it make? Fact is, that it's just a sexist position in the first place: none of these people seem to have a problem with providing viagra.
|
On March 03 2012 10:23 VPCursed wrote:
well, before i say anything i'll state that I'm an atheist.
It bothers me that the government is pushing religious institutions into going against there morals/faith by making them pay for peoples contraception/abortion..ect
Although i do not agree with religion, I believe there is liberty at stake in this debate. Woman should have every right to choose, but with the foot on the other shoe... shouldn't religion as well? It's not as if there are only religious hospitals ;d
but outside of that one tidbit i'm in support of the contraception/abortion
I agree with this. I don't see why businesses should have to subsidize contraceptives when there is access to free BC basically everywhere in the US (read: planned parenthood) and in countries with government-funded health care, what is the argument for having the taxpayer subsidize the recreational sex of others... just weird.
|
On March 03 2012 10:47 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 10:40 Moonster wrote:On March 03 2012 10:21 henkel wrote:
not from the USA so not completely aware of the ongoing discussion, we only get to hear the extremely dumb shit like that Rush video. From the little I heard/read about this discussion i get the feeling that the "problem" is being hijacked to rant about abortion, birth control and freedom of religion. while i believe the discussion started because the catholic church gets something like 2 billion a year from the government and refuses to follow made agreements about health-care plans.
It's a fact that for some ailments a oral hormonal therapy is a good cure. What i got from it, is that the discussion is not about the pill as a birth control but as a medicine. The problem MOST people have, is that it's impossible to tell if a woman is taking it for a medical ailment or simply as a contraceptive. And Roe v. Wade makes it pretty hard to argue that it's ok to ask. Now here is where the problem arises, MANY women take the pill, for whatever reason. Lets say that 50% of the cost is covered by (private) health insurance, and this health insurance currently has 100 non-pill users and 100 pill users. Female 1 now pays 25/month instead of 50/month... but where does the other 25 come from? Certainly not from the profit margin of the insurance company. That's right, the money now comes from the non pill users. Now when I sign up for health insurance, I'm gambling against the insuring company. I pay them a certain amount of money that they deem will be what someone of my risk would have to pay for them to stay afloat financially. If I get sick, they have to cover those costs as described in the policy. That money comes from other people taking the same gamble. They basically spent more than they would have to cover their health costs while I spent less. With the pill, however, this "gamble" does not exist. A woman can decide she wants to take the pill and the insurance company cannot legally state they will only cover it if it is used for a purpose other than birth control. This foots that bill to the insurance company which in turn gets divided up among the other customers. Everyone's premium goes up while only a specific select few profit from it. No risk, no gamble, just a guaranteed price reduction. Many people such as myself who do not use such drugs find this unfair, thus we oppose it. As a note, I am 100% for insurance covering the pill if it's for a medical purpose. Ideally it should be sold full price without a prescription and covered by insurance only with a prescription (or some sort of similar system where some sort of differentiation exists). Is it relevant which one they are using it for? What difference does it make? Fact is, that it's just a sexist position in the first place: none of these people seem to have a problem with providing viagra.
It is very relevant. One purpose is medical and another is recreational. I don't feel like being footed the bill for someone's lifestyle choices. It's not sexist at all. If the drug being discussed was male oriented, I'd be equally against it.
|
On March 03 2012 10:48 Buubble wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 10:23 VPCursed wrote:
well, before i say anything i'll state that I'm an atheist.
It bothers me that the government is pushing religious institutions into going against there morals/faith by making them pay for peoples contraception/abortion..ect
Although i do not agree with religion, I believe there is liberty at stake in this debate. Woman should have every right to choose, but with the foot on the other shoe... shouldn't religion as well? It's not as if there are only religious hospitals ;d
but outside of that one tidbit i'm in support of the contraception/abortion I agree with this. I don't see why businesses should have to subsidize contraceptives when there is access to free BC basically everywhere in the US (read: planned parenthood) and in countries with government-funded health care, what is the argument for having the taxpayer subsidize the recreational sex of others... just weird.
From Planned Parenthoods website on how to get access to birth control
First, you’ll need to get a prescription. Visit a Planned Parenthood health center, a clinic, or a private health care provider for a prescription. Your health care provider will discuss your medical history with you, check your blood pressure, and give you any other medical exam that you may need. If you need an exam, it may cost about $35–$250.
Birth control pills may be purchased with a prescription at a drugstore or clinic. They cost about $15–$50 a month.
Planned Parenthood works to make health care accessible and affordable. Some health centers are able to charge according to income. Most accept health insurance. If you qualify, Medicaid or other state programs may lower your health care costs.
Call your local Planned Parenthood health center to get specific information on costs.
There is not access to "free" birth control, it still costs the person
|
United States7483 Posts
On March 03 2012 10:51 Moonster wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 10:47 Whitewing wrote:On March 03 2012 10:40 Moonster wrote:On March 03 2012 10:21 henkel wrote:
not from the USA so not completely aware of the ongoing discussion, we only get to hear the extremely dumb shit like that Rush video. From the little I heard/read about this discussion i get the feeling that the "problem" is being hijacked to rant about abortion, birth control and freedom of religion. while i believe the discussion started because the catholic church gets something like 2 billion a year from the government and refuses to follow made agreements about health-care plans.
It's a fact that for some ailments a oral hormonal therapy is a good cure. What i got from it, is that the discussion is not about the pill as a birth control but as a medicine. The problem MOST people have, is that it's impossible to tell if a woman is taking it for a medical ailment or simply as a contraceptive. And Roe v. Wade makes it pretty hard to argue that it's ok to ask. Now here is where the problem arises, MANY women take the pill, for whatever reason. Lets say that 50% of the cost is covered by (private) health insurance, and this health insurance currently has 100 non-pill users and 100 pill users. Female 1 now pays 25/month instead of 50/month... but where does the other 25 come from? Certainly not from the profit margin of the insurance company. That's right, the money now comes from the non pill users. Now when I sign up for health insurance, I'm gambling against the insuring company. I pay them a certain amount of money that they deem will be what someone of my risk would have to pay for them to stay afloat financially. If I get sick, they have to cover those costs as described in the policy. That money comes from other people taking the same gamble. They basically spent more than they would have to cover their health costs while I spent less. With the pill, however, this "gamble" does not exist. A woman can decide she wants to take the pill and the insurance company cannot legally state they will only cover it if it is used for a purpose other than birth control. This foots that bill to the insurance company which in turn gets divided up among the other customers. Everyone's premium goes up while only a specific select few profit from it. No risk, no gamble, just a guaranteed price reduction. Many people such as myself who do not use such drugs find this unfair, thus we oppose it. As a note, I am 100% for insurance covering the pill if it's for a medical purpose. Ideally it should be sold full price without a prescription and covered by insurance only with a prescription (or some sort of similar system where some sort of differentiation exists). Is it relevant which one they are using it for? What difference does it make? Fact is, that it's just a sexist position in the first place: none of these people seem to have a problem with providing viagra. It is very relevant. One purpose is medical and another is recreational. I don't feel like being footed the bill for someone's lifestyle choices. It's not sexist at all. If the drug being discussed was male oriented, I'd be equally against it.
That's not relevant either. It doesn't matter whether you think it's recreational or not. The entire purpose of the bill is to allow employers who are morally against sex for non-procreational purposes to refuse to provide insurance that covers contraceptives. The relevant question is: should that be allowed? The answer I have is that their position is hypocritical in the first place, so no.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
