|
It is perfectly reasonable to hold the opinion that condoms and pills do not warrant subsidization.
|
On March 03 2012 11:04 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 10:51 Moonster wrote: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.
This is about as well as anyone has summed it up. Cost has nothing to with it and morality has everything to do with it. The government is saying that Catholic morality should not be imposed on those who do not practice their religion. Catholic church says it does. Simple as that
|
Doesn't this open the floodgates to employers/institutions be able to deny employees all kinds of coverage, on moral grounds?
How slippery does this slope get?
|
On March 03 2012 11:10 Defacer wrote:
Doesn't this open the floodgates to employers/institutions be able to deny employees all kinds of coverage, on moral grounds?
How slippery does this slope get?
Of course, I don't see how you could defend forcing Christina Scientists to provide any kind of insurance if you say that it's ok for Catholics to pick and choose what they believe is important. But more then that this whole slippery slope argument of freedom of religion will eventually lead to a father being allowed to stone his daughter because she was a harlot.
|
religion is gay.
herp derp
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On March 03 2012 06:38 Chiharu Harukaze wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 06:28 OsoVega wrote:
Except that birth control is a low and chosen cost. Insurance is about low likelihood, high cost things. It makes zero sense to include birth control with insurance at all. That's not what insurance is about at all. Insurance is about risk pooling. What the expected payoff or risk ratios values are, is irrelevant.
I should also point out that men do stupid stunts in their teens. Men play sports that cause broken wrists, broken arms, and broken legs. Why should women pay for the sports related injuries incurred by men when they're not as likely to incur them?
|
If this was religion based/catholic I am sure they would impose the parties involved would have to be marry to one another. But I can bet you this is not stated in the bill at all. The thing with morality it is if it is not absolute truth then anyone can define it themselves you cant argue this because people will define things differently ie. when life has come to be, freedom of the women, killing a child. you can argue anything as long as you define your terms to your liking.
|
On March 03 2012 11:04 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 10:51 Moonster wrote: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.
But why should the employer pay, anyway?
If a woman uses contraceptives just so that she can have fun with her boyfriend or whatever, it seems fair for me to get free video games, so that I have fun.
|
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.
Next time you break an arm or become sick, don't go and see a doctor, because it is obviously just due to you not being careful enough or having high enough hygenic standards and thuss you should suffer the consequences...
You could at least attempt to bring up some of the somewhat valid arguments against abortion if you really wanted to open that can of worms....
|
Ugh, so disgusting that Rush Limbaugh is allowed to say these things and get payed for it for it.
Frankly, this is just another reason for me not to care about politics. What this says about political discourse is that it's exactly what we all know it is: absurd, useless, polarized bullshit. It's wholly unreasonable to argue about what Limbaugh says because it's meaningless, inflammatory dribble with no purpose but to piss people off and promote a political agenda.
|
On March 03 2012 11:10 Defacer wrote:
Doesn't this open the floodgates to employers/institutions be able to deny employees all kinds of coverage, on moral grounds?
How slippery does this slope get?
not really. you cant just make up moral grounds, you need to have some support for them. birth control has been a rule of the church for years, its not a new invention.
|
On March 03 2012 11:30 RageBot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 11:04 Whitewing wrote:On March 03 2012 10:51 Moonster wrote: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. But why should the employer pay, anyway? If a woman uses contraceptives just so that she can have fun with her boyfriend or whatever, it seems fair for me to get free video games, so that I have fun.
Alright, this entire thread is so stupid.
Most women in the US take contraceptives of some kind. Of those women, very, very few are doing it "for recreation." Most women take contraceptives for legitimate medical reasons unrelated to becoming pregnant. For example, a girl I knew (a very conservative christian at that) took birth control, not because she was looking for "a good time," but because her physical reaction to her monthly period was so painful (vomiting, hemorrhaging, severe migraines, etc) that she needed pills to balance the extreme hormone swings. There are many women who react to this monthly occurrence in a very wide number of physical ways.
Also, notice a couple other things about this so-called US debate/issue:
1) most of those "debating" are men
2) many men are clearly demonstrating a clear misunderstanding/complete ignorance of female reproductive health...
3) but also a completely retarded, non-factual fantasy of female sexuality (demonstrated by such idiotic phrases such as "keep it in the pants" just wanting "to have fun with her boyfriend or whatever")
i.e. a very clear case of misogyny at a cultural level in a male-dominated society, a society which also suffers from a bunch of right-winged religious extremists who would be perfectly happy seeing women in the US wear burkas and have their genitals mutilated. None of this ultimately has anything to do with insurance companies or whether or not a company should be forced to cover a particular medical issue. This is entirely about idiotic misogyny.
edit: spelling
|
On March 03 2012 12:03 BreakfastTea wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 11:30 RageBot wrote:On March 03 2012 11:04 Whitewing wrote:On March 03 2012 10:51 Moonster wrote: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. But why should the employer pay, anyway? If a woman uses contraceptives just so that she can have fun with her boyfriend or whatever, it seems fair for me to get free video games, so that I have fun. Alright, this entire thread is so stupid. Most women in the US take contraceptives of some kind. Of those women, very, very few are doing it "for recreation." Most women take contraceptives for legitimate medical reasons unrelated to becoming pregnant. For example, a girl I knew (a very conservative christian at that) took birth control, not because she was looking for "a good time," but because her physical reaction to her monthly period was so painful (vomiting, hemorrhaging, severe migraines, etc) that she needed pills to balance the extreme hormone swings. There are many women who react to this monthly occurrence in a very wide number of physical ways. Also, notice a couple other things about this so-called US debate/issue: 1) most of those "debating" are men 2) many men are clearly demonstrating a clear misunderstanding/complete ignorance of female reproductive health... 3) but also a completely retarded, non-factual fantasy of female sexuality (demonstrated by such idiotic phrases such as "keep it in the pants" just wanting "to have fun with her boyfriend or whatever") i.e. a very clear case of misogyny at a cultural level in a male-dominated society, a society which also suffers from a bunch or right-winged religious extremists who would be perfectly happy seeing women in the US where burkas and have their genitals mutilated. None of this ultimately has anything to do with insurance companies or whether or not a company should be forced to cover a particular medical issue. This is entirely about idiotic misogyny.
I'm tempted to agree with you. You'll never see a (sane) woman argue that the pill should be made harder to access. It's unimaginable that men would argue this, either, without some absurd and likely religious ulterior motive for it.
|
On March 03 2012 11:06 0neder wrote:
It is perfectly reasonable to hold the opinion that condoms and pills do not warrant subsidization.
You can make an argument for that view, yes. Particularly with Limbaugh, though, there was no argument, just idiocy.
|
Rush Limbaugh.... This man is a joke. I am suprised that Republicans tolerate him as a mouthpiece for their politics. I mean, his viewers/listeners/supporters can't be Democrats.
|
On March 03 2012 12:06 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 11:06 0neder wrote:
It is perfectly reasonable to hold the opinion that condoms and pills do not warrant subsidization. You can make an argument for that view, yes. Particularly with Limbaugh, though, there was no argument, just idiocy.
This is true, as well. Limbaugh didn't say "It's absurd that anyone pay for someone's contraception but themselves," which would be a valid libertarian opinion. He said "she's a slut." It's different.
|
On March 03 2012 12:03 BreakfastTea wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 11:30 RageBot wrote:On March 03 2012 11:04 Whitewing wrote:On March 03 2012 10:51 Moonster wrote: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. But why should the employer pay, anyway? If a woman uses contraceptives just so that she can have fun with her boyfriend or whatever, it seems fair for me to get free video games, so that I have fun. Alright, this entire thread is so stupid. Most women in the US take contraceptives of some kind. Of those women, very, very few are doing it "for recreation." Most women take contraceptives for legitimate medical reasons unrelated to becoming pregnant. For example, a girl I knew (a very conservative christian at that) took birth control, not because she was looking for "a good time," but because her physical reaction to her monthly period was so painful (vomiting, hemorrhaging, severe migraines, etc) that she needed pills to balance the extreme hormone swings. There are many women who react to this monthly occurrence in a very wide number of physical ways. Also, notice a couple other things about this so-called US debate/issue: 1) most of those "debating" are men 2) many men are clearly demonstrating a clear misunderstanding/complete ignorance of female reproductive health... 3) but also a completely retarded, non-factual fantasy of female sexuality (demonstrated by such idiotic phrases such as "keep it in the pants" just wanting "to have fun with her boyfriend or whatever") i.e. a very clear case of misogyny at a cultural level in a male-dominated society, a society which also suffers from a bunch of right-winged religious extremists who would be perfectly happy seeing women in the US wear burkas and have their genitals mutilated. None of this ultimately has anything to do with insurance companies or whether or not a company should be forced to cover a particular medical issue. This is entirely about idiotic misogyny. edit: spelling
Quite a few people explicitly mentioned that the pill should be covered for medical reasons, myself included.
|
On March 03 2012 12:03 BreakfastTea wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 11:30 RageBot wrote:On March 03 2012 11:04 Whitewing wrote:On March 03 2012 10:51 Moonster wrote: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. But why should the employer pay, anyway? If a woman uses contraceptives just so that she can have fun with her boyfriend or whatever, it seems fair for me to get free video games, so that I have fun. Alright, this entire thread is so stupid. Most women in the US take contraceptives of some kind. Of those women, very, very few are doing it "for recreation." Most women take contraceptives for legitimate medical reasons unrelated to becoming pregnant. For example, a girl I knew (a very conservative christian at that) took birth control, not because she was looking for "a good time," but because her physical reaction to her monthly period was so painful (vomiting, hemorrhaging, severe migraines, etc) that she needed pills to balance the extreme hormone swings. There are many women who react to this monthly occurrence in a very wide number of physical ways. Also, notice a couple other things about this so-called US debate/issue: 1) most of those "debating" are men 2) many men are clearly demonstrating a clear misunderstanding/complete ignorance of female reproductive health... 3) but also a completely retarded, non-factual fantasy of female sexuality (demonstrated by such idiotic phrases such as "keep it in the pants" just wanting "to have fun with her boyfriend or whatever") i.e. a very clear case of misogyny at a cultural level in a male-dominated society, a society which also suffers from a bunch of right-winged religious extremists who would be perfectly happy seeing women in the US wear burkas and have their genitals mutilated. None of this ultimately has anything to do with insurance companies or whether or not a company should be forced to cover a particular medical issue. This is entirely about idiotic misogyny. edit: spelling
its simple enough. just allow birth control where necessary for medical need, but exclude it where not medically necessary. the doctor decides what is medically necessary.
edit: just read your "i.e.," such ad hominem is neither true nor necessary.
|
for gods sakes subsidize it, you don't even need to argue and moralize and etc. there is one very economical and hard to argue reason:
less babies is obviously a good idea at this point, especially unintended babies, so just subsidize it!
|
On March 03 2012 12:17 -fj. wrote:
for gods sakes subsidize it, you don't even need to argue and moralize and etc. there is one very economical and hard to argue reason:
less babies is obviously a good idea at this point, especially unintended babies, so just subsidize it!
Subsidize my video games, internet, and alcohol, that's preventing babies too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
