EPTThe Contraception Coverage Debate in the U.S. - Page 18
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
aminoashley
105 Posts
| ||
|
Synche
United States1345 Posts
On March 04 2012 00:22 Silvertine wrote: No, it's asking for the insurance company to provide it. There are enough barriers between students and the universities they wish to attend. To create another would be entirely needless. What are you talking about? Prepare yourself to not get ovarian cysts? If it were that simple this wouldn't be an issue in the first place. Contraception can cost a significant amount of money and many wouldn't be able to afford it. 1) This distinction is meaningless, the University needs to pay for the insurance. And the barrier is not needless at all, it's only needless to those who believe as you do. The best Universities in the country are secular, and why do you wish to attend a University that doesn't believe what you obviously do believe? I find it hard to imagine someone loving Catholic education but hating so much of the culture. 2) I think it was obvious what I was referring to, you insist on being purposefully obtuse. I understand your point that not all contraception is used as birth control. That leaves you with 1 and 3. I would also like to state that this is being used as a shield to avoid the subject of promiscuity. 25% of all women use OCP as a contraceptive. Clinical use of OCP is literally nothing in comparison. (based on 5 minutes of google research) 3)If they can't afford it they've screwed up all 3. That sort of fits a 3 strikes and you're out rule, doesn't it? | ||
|
Silvertine
United States509 Posts
On March 04 2012 00:45 SimDawg wrote: I find it hard to imagine someone loving Catholic education but hating so much of the culture. Someone 'hates the culture' because they use birth control? Georgetown is a prestigious university, there are an endless amount of purely secular reasons to want to attend it. Expecting someone not to attend it because they disagree with a single Catholic belief is absurd. I think it was obvious what I was referring to, you insist on being purposefully obtuse. Of course I knew what you were referring to. I was pointing out how it's nonsense. And please explain how someone should 'prepare themselves' to not get pregnant without birth control. I would also like to state that this is being used as a shield to avoid the subject of promiscuity. Ah... your true colors. If they can't afford it they've screwed up all 3. That sort of fits a 3 strikes and you're out rule, doesn't it? No idea what that is supposed to mean. My point is very simple and clear: if these women could afford contraception then this wouldn't be an issue to begin with. Thus saying "Why don't they just pay for it themselves?" is utterly ridiculous. | ||
|
Bigtony
United States1606 Posts
On March 04 2012 00:09 aminoashley wrote: So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me. 1. Terrible analogy not even remotely correlating to what we're talking about 2. Let's allow your analogy for a second - that wouldn't be constitutional. It's perfectly reasonable for a company to say "we simply do not provide XYZ service because we don't believe in it for ABC reasons." Consumers have a choice in which companies they choose. Companies shouldn't be obligated to offer a service they don't want to. | ||
|
aminoashley
105 Posts
On March 04 2012 01:06 Bigtony wrote: 1. Terrible analogy not even remotely correlating to what we're talking about 2. Let's allow your analogy for a second - that wouldn't be constitutional. It's perfectly reasonable for a company to say "we simply do not provide XYZ service because we don't believe in it for ABC reasons." Consumers have a choice in which companies they choose. Companies shouldn't be obligated to offer a service they don't want to It isnt unreasonable because the bill was so broadly phrased that it could allow companies to eliminate anything they didnt want to cover on moral grounds. Although I disagree with religious institutions not providing services on moral grounds I can at least see some attempt at a reasonable argument there, but not just any company or any university deciding what is moral And also by your logic you could say we dont want to provide insulin for diabetics because we dont believe in it. What medical training does an employer have that gives them any right to decide that for another person. "Belief" isnt science or medicine | ||
|
Bigtony
United States1606 Posts
| ||
|
Silvertine
United States509 Posts
On March 04 2012 01:23 Bigtony wrote: Then don't choose that insurance company! If you make shitty decisions, people will stop using your company and find someone who will do what you want. I don't know why you're so passionate about an issue you clearly haven't looked in to. The employer would make the decision, not the insurance company. And yes, as the person you're arguing with implied it would be utter chaos. An employer could claim that they have a moral objection to covering virtually anything. | ||
|
EternaLLegacy
United States410 Posts
On March 03 2012 14:37 shinosai wrote: The problem is that there are certain public goods that the free market may not provide, but would be beneficial overall if they were provided. Roads, healthcare, research&development, etc. The reason why these items may not be provided by the free market is because they are not necessarily profitable to an individual (even though they may be profitable to society as a whole). So, for example, it may almost never be economical for health insurance agencies to provide care to certain individuals or for certain problems. So we enter a situation in which the market forces may not create competition leading to optimal health insurance plans, but perhaps leads to suboptimal, but highly profitable health insurance plans. Now perhaps you may say that health insurance providers should never be forced to provide any care that is not profitable. You may even say such a thing is morally wrong. Fair point, but now we have a less healthy population which has much larger ramifications than any individual. If profit and the gain of wealth for individuals is the only purpose of the economy and free market, then I concede that you are correct. However, I do not believe that is the case. That's not even an argument. "The market cannot provide these services because the market cannot provide these services." Everything is profitable to individuals. If there is demand, there is a potential for profit. It used to be we had a free market in healthcare, and it worked just fine (1940s and 1950s). Many private roads were built in the 1700/1800s. If government was needed for R&D explain all the innovations that occurred in the 1800s without any government assistance. Your argument is the typical statist nonsense that is propagated through public school textbooks. It's time for you to think above a kindergarten level. | ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
On March 04 2012 02:11 EternaLLegacy wrote: That's not even an argument. "The market cannot provide these services because the market cannot provide these services." Everything is profitable to individuals. If there is demand, there is a potential for profit. It used to be we had a free market in healthcare, and it worked just fine (1940s and 1950s). Many private roads were built in the 1700/1800s. If government was needed for R&D explain all the innovations that occurred in the 1800s without any government assistance. Your argument is the typical statist nonsense that is propagated through public school textbooks. It's time for you to think above a kindergarten level. You are exaggerating about the effectiveness of the "free market healthcare" in the 1940s and 1950s. There were a great deal of people that did not have access to this free market health care that "worked just fine". And private roads are not public, but perhaps you would enjoy it if every road you drove on was tolled so that some private individual could profit. My study of economics, by the way, comes from reading people such as Heilbroner, Adam Smith, Ricardo, Marx, Levine, Keynes, etc. I'm not sure if kindergarten textbooks come with excerpts from these people, but if they do, I apologize for thinking at a kindergarten level... Oh, my bad, you were just using an ad hominem attack because you felt extremely defensive. Probably because you propagate a position that you are not entirely certain about. People often get angry and resort to such tactics when their core beliefs are attacked, and they are not as certain as they'd like to be about them. The argument is not "the market cannot provide these services because the market cannot provide these services." This is a misrepresentation. The argument is, "the market MAY not provide these services because they may not be profitable." And the truth is, history tells is that this is the case. The reason government often gets involved in such things as public goods is precisely because the market failed to provide them. Gaining the highest profits often necessarily means not being provided to everyone. If one is interested in profit, they will raise their prices in such a way that they can make the most possible money. This could mean that they sell to every person on the market, but more likely it means that some people will be excluded as they are below what the median is willing to pay. If public goods are not being provided to everyone, but there is a reasonable belief that public goods being provided to everyone will have certain benefits, then it would be beneficial for the government to step in. | ||
|
Bigtony
United States1606 Posts
On March 04 2012 01:42 Silvertine wrote: I don't know why you're so passionate about an issue you clearly haven't looked in to. The employer would make the decision, not the insurance company. And yes, as the person you're arguing with implied it would be utter chaos. An employer could claim that they have a moral objection to covering virtually anything. Argument stands. Work somewhere else if you don't like the compensation on offer. | ||
|
Dryzt
Canada118 Posts
this close to the election it just makes the election about abortion and religion AGAIN instead about actual things that matter and affect people in the US. | ||
|
aminoashley
105 Posts
On March 04 2012 02:45 Bigtony wrote: Argument stands. Work somewhere else if you don't like the compensation on offer. Most people dont live in a world where they can just get any job they want with whatever benefits they want. It takes most people months to be able to find a job and its unreasonable to assume that they should then be forced to not take the job because it doesnt cover their health care needs. | ||
|
aminoashley
105 Posts
On March 04 2012 02:47 Dryzt wrote: the thing that really bothers me about this kind of bill is that it getting all kinds of media attention and play when actual important bills like NDAA get next to no coverage or outrage. How many times does the abortion argument have to be rehashed only to end the in with the same result again? Its like a circus act and has far less consequences than something as potentionally brutal as the NDAA... this close to the election it just makes the election about abortion and religion AGAIN instead about actual things that matter and affect people in the US. This actually would affect the economy and other important aspects of peoples lives. Imagine if there was no way to prevent unwanted pregnancies? Although I agree that this is being brought up as a mere social issue to divide people, it actually has real life consequences that matters to nearly every female in the country | ||
|
Silvertine
United States509 Posts
On March 04 2012 02:45 Bigtony wrote: Argument stands. Work somewhere else if you don't like the compensation on offer. Any employer could deny any form of coverage, so yes, that applies to "somewhere else". | ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
On March 04 2012 02:45 Bigtony wrote: Argument stands. Work somewhere else if you don't like the compensation on offer. i cant believe this actually needs explaining. if companies cant easily argue they dont have to provide any cover at all, because it goes against their moral convictions, people in low paid jobs will not be able to get any health coverage at all, why is this so hard to understand? how can there be people who live in america who are so stone hearted that just because they can afford health care outside of their job, that no one else should be given some help. you're only rich because someone else is poor, why do you feel the need to be such an ass about helping people? | ||
|
Dryzt
Canada118 Posts
On March 04 2012 02:49 aminoashley wrote: This actually would affect the economy and other important aspects of peoples lives. Imagine if there was no way to prevent unwanted pregnancies? Although I agree that this is being brought up as a mere social issue to divide people, it actually has real life consequences that matters to nearly every female in the country part of the point i was trying to make i guess is that we have heard this song and dance before, its like clockwork, right before an election the media and political parties whip people up on social issues like abortion, religious rights etc. but after all is said and done abortion hasn't been outlawed women still have the right to choose etc. And really this mainly only effects women of early child bearing years where as other legistation effects every single american. Whenever poeple go to the polls in the fall they wont be thinking about smaller government, cutting the deficite, ending the FED, takling the fact the US is turning into a police state. no they are thinking about "i cant let candidate X in because of their stance on abortion"... | ||
|
Silvertine
United States509 Posts
| ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
This is a very important issue; imagine the chaos if any employer could decide that they don't want to cover something because of a 'moral objection'. That could easily lead to millions of people being denied health care. But that isn't the issue; the issue is whether religious institutions should be forced by the government to subsidize making recreational behavior consequence-free against their moral convictions. | ||
|
Nottoo
38 Posts
On March 03 2012 05:24 Yergidy wrote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Basically they are trying to force religious entities the right to exercise freely by imposing it's idea of what is wrong and right on them. You do realise most religions advocate death for apostasy? (leaving the religion). The government stops them from doing that. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, government is prohibiting the free exercise of their religion by stopping them killing apostates. Fortunately we're in a civilised society which has better morals than bronze age shepherd morality, and contraception should be as freely available as murdering apostates is not. | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
On March 03 2012 09:40 Chargelot wrote: I don't understand what makes people think that posts like this are okay. I just can't comprehend it. Actually, in France, women do get paid less than men because of risk of pregnancy. (around 20% less with same qualification, same job) It's just a fact. And I'm all for gender equality :> | ||
| ||
