|
On March 03 2012 10:52 aminoashley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 10:48 Buubble wrote: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 Show nested quote +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
I guess you were thinking about hormonal contraception but you can literally walk in to planned parenthood and walk out with a fistful of condoms. That is free birth control.
|
On March 04 2012 02:54 Silvertine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 02:45 Bigtony wrote:On March 04 2012 01:42 Silvertine wrote: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. 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".
So don't work their either? Your whole argument is predicated on some notion that all employers are going to behave irrationally in such a way that would be harmful to not only themselves but also to the insurance companies they contract with and the medical industry as a whole.
|
On March 04 2012 03:28 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 02:54 Silvertine wrote:On March 04 2012 02:45 Bigtony wrote:On March 04 2012 01:42 Silvertine wrote: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. 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". So don't work their either? Your whole argument is predicated on some notion that all employers are going to behave irrationally in such a way that would be harmful to not only themselves but also to the insurance companies they contract with and the medical industry as a whole.
It's not some wild notion, it would be in the self-interest of the employer. Employers can start listing things they find morally questionable, and by not including them in their health care plans they will save money. If you think employers won't cut corners at their employee's expense, you are mistaken.
|
On March 04 2012 02:56 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 02:45 Bigtony wrote:On March 04 2012 01:42 Silvertine wrote: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. 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?
This has nothing to do with helping people or not helping people. Employers shouldn't be forced to provide compensation they don't want to, as long as they are working within the limits of the constitution. if they offer shitty compensation, then they won't get good employees or they won't get them for very long.
|
On March 04 2012 03:34 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 02:56 turdburgler wrote:On March 04 2012 02:45 Bigtony wrote:On March 04 2012 01:42 Silvertine wrote: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. 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? This has nothing to do with helping people or not helping people. Employers shouldn't be forced to provide compensation they don't want to, as long as they are working within the limits of the constitution. if they offer shitty compensation, then they won't get good employees or they won't get them for very long.
It has everything to do with helping people. Like I said in the post above, if employers are given a green light to cut health coverage, they will, because they will make more money.
I'm happy for you that in your career you have the freedom to leave a job if the health benefits aren't to your liking. It's not an option for many people, especially those who actually need all the health-care assistance they can get.
|
On March 04 2012 03:34 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 02:56 turdburgler wrote:On March 04 2012 02:45 Bigtony wrote:On March 04 2012 01:42 Silvertine wrote: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. 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? This has nothing to do with helping people or not helping people. Employers shouldn't be forced to provide compensation they don't want to, as long as they are working within the limits of the constitution. if they offer shitty compensation, then they won't get good employees or they won't get them for very long.
Wrong. People are always desperate for jobs, there is never 100% employment. If you let standards slip and "let the market decide" wages drop and benefits get worse. Employers have to be regulated or they'll screw with their employees as much as possible.
You seem to be incredibly naive.
|
On March 04 2012 03:34 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 02:56 turdburgler wrote:On March 04 2012 02:45 Bigtony wrote:On March 04 2012 01:42 Silvertine wrote: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. 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? This has nothing to do with helping people or not helping people. Employers shouldn't be forced to provide compensation they don't want to, as long as they are working within the limits of the constitution. if they offer shitty compensation, then they won't get good employees or they won't get them for very long.
But if the chick gets pregnant, then they have to pay for her to go on maternity leave and hire someone else...isn't it cheaper in the long run if they pay for the birth control, its only a few dollars surely.
|
On March 04 2012 03:28 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 02:54 Silvertine wrote:On March 04 2012 02:45 Bigtony wrote:On March 04 2012 01:42 Silvertine wrote: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. 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". So don't work their either?
Again, any employer would be able to deny coverage. That means that an unlimited amount of employers could deny the coverage that you need. People don't have an endless amount of positions open to them. There are many Americans that don't even have one.
Your whole argument is predicated on some notion that all employers are going to behave irrationally in such a way that would be harmful to not only themselves but also to the insurance companies they contract with and the medical industry as a whole.
It wouldn't be irrational at all. It would save them the cost of having to pay for it.
This is extraordinarily simple to understand. I don't know what your problem is with getting this.
|
On March 04 2012 03:34 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 02:56 turdburgler wrote:On March 04 2012 02:45 Bigtony wrote:On March 04 2012 01:42 Silvertine wrote: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. 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? This has nothing to do with helping people or not helping people. Employers shouldn't be forced to provide compensation they don't want to, as long as they are working within the limits of the constitution. if they offer shitty compensation, then they won't get good employees or they won't get them for very long.
In a time with 10% of the people in your country without jobs you really dare to say something like that? Interesting ...
|
On March 04 2012 03:41 Silvertine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 03:28 Bigtony wrote:On March 04 2012 02:54 Silvertine wrote:On March 04 2012 02:45 Bigtony wrote:On March 04 2012 01:42 Silvertine wrote: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. 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". So don't work their either? Again, any employer would be able to deny coverage. That means that an unlimited amount of employers could deny the coverage that you need. People don't have an endless amount of positions open to them. There are many Americans that don't even have one. Show nested quote +Your whole argument is predicated on some notion that all employers are going to behave irrationally in such a way that would be harmful to not only themselves but also to the insurance companies they contract with and the medical industry as a whole. It wouldn't be irrational at all. It would save them the cost of having to pay for it. This is extraordinarily simple to understand. I don't know what your problem is with getting this.
I don't see why you just ignore what I say and repeat the same non-argument over and over. Let's break it down one more time.
1. The government doesn't have the right to tell businesses what their insurance has to provide, or even that they have to provide insurance. Period.
2. If your employed doesn't offer a level of compensation that you like, then don't work there. Period.
3. Employers won't do this because people will not want to work for them. We know that this system works because there are already pay differences between different companies within the same fields. If it made sense for companies to just start axing perks and salaries "to save money," THEY WOULD ALREADY BE DOING SO, but we know that isn't true and that the free market doesn't work that way.
|
On March 04 2012 03:39 Nottoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 03:34 Bigtony wrote:On March 04 2012 02:56 turdburgler wrote:On March 04 2012 02:45 Bigtony wrote:On March 04 2012 01:42 Silvertine wrote: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. 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? This has nothing to do with helping people or not helping people. Employers shouldn't be forced to provide compensation they don't want to, as long as they are working within the limits of the constitution. if they offer shitty compensation, then they won't get good employees or they won't get them for very long. Wrong. People are always desperate for jobs, there is never 100% employment. If you let standards slip and "let the market decide" wages drop and benefits get worse. Employers have to be regulated or they'll screw with their employees as much as possible. You seem to be incredibly naive.
But when you do stuff like this where you legally require an employer to provide certain things to employees that they wouldn't otherwise, you just make it less appealing to hire that employee. It's the same as if you made the minimum wage a hundred dollars an hour (since otherwise businesses could just drop their wages as much as they wanted and since people can't just find another job now they can't buy food), you just push jobs away (outsourcing) or remove them entirely (layoffs). Burdens like this always get pushed onto employees/the general public at least in part.
It sounds good to just say "yeah we don't want employers being able to deny certain benefits to their employees" but it's never like the impact on the market ends right there. You can't give people more benefits for being employees without placing more burden on employers, which means less people end up getting hired in general.
|
I'm 100 % pro-choice. A women's body, and what she wants to do with it is entirely up to she and she alone.
Other than that, I dont really follow the debate, but religious views shouldnt have anything do with women's choices to keep or abort a fetus.
|
On March 04 2012 03:51 Bigtony wrote:
I don't see why you just ignore what I say and repeat the same non-argument over and over. Let's break it down one more time.
Oh dear.
The government doesn't have the right to tell businesses what their insurance has to provide, or even that they have to provide insurance. Period.
Why not?
If your employed doesn't offer a level of compensation that you like, then don't work there. Period.
You see, you're forcing me to repeat myself because you keep making the same mistake over and over again. Funny how my previous posts contradict your posts that come after, huh?
Again, any employer would be able to deny coverage. That means that an unlimited amount of employers could deny the coverage that you need. People don't have an endless amount of positions open to them. There are many Americans that don't even have one.
Employers won't do this because people will not want to work for them.
What choice would they have if every single employer had the option of doing it?
We know that this system works because there are already pay differences between different companies within the same fields. If it made sense for companies to just start axing perks and salaries "to save money," THEY WOULD ALREADY BE DOING SO, but we know that isn't true and that the free market doesn't work that way.
Sweetheart, they can't do it now because it would be against the law. That's what this entire issue is about, the Blunt-Rubio legislation which would allow employers to deny coverage on the basis of a 'moral objection'.
|
The law is silly on many, many differant levels. What does it define as religously objectionable benefits? And what would prevent an employer from defining basic procedures as religiously objectionable benefits?
I kind of like the idea actually - that a business has the right to have politically beliefs and can govern their business with those beliefs. A religious business could never be forced to pay for an abortion. A enviromentally conscious company will never be forced to use to an enviromentally unfriendly chemical. But isn't that how it is right now? I really, really don't understand the circumstances in which a business would be forced to pay for contraceptives for one of it's workers. I know that they cannot fire a pregant worker, and there are statutes in place to protect disabled/elderly workers from being discriminated. So perhaps I am confused about the law (Actually I know that I am confused), but is there a statute in place that a company has to pay for contraceptives?
|
Real question even more important than the fax religion debate:
Why should Birth Control be free (with no co-pays) over other forms of drugs when it is already cheaper than most of them?
|
On March 04 2012 04:13 cLutZ wrote:
Why should Birth Control be free (with no co-pays) over other forms of drugs when it is already cheaper than most of them?
What are you talking about?
|
On March 04 2012 03:57 Silvertine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 03:51 Bigtony wrote:
I don't see why you just ignore what I say and repeat the same non-argument over and over. Let's break it down one more time. Oh dear. Show nested quote +The government doesn't have the right to tell businesses what their insurance has to provide, or even that they have to provide insurance. Period. Why not? Show nested quote +If your employed doesn't offer a level of compensation that you like, then don't work there. Period. What choice would they have if every single employer had the option of doing it? Show nested quote +We know that this system works because there are already pay differences between different companies within the same fields. If it made sense for companies to just start axing perks and salaries "to save money," THEY WOULD ALREADY BE DOING SO, but we know that isn't true and that the free market doesn't work that way. Sweetheart, they can't do it now because it would be against the law. That's what this entire issue is about, the Blunt-Rubio legislation which would allow employers to deny coverage on the basis of a 'moral objection'.
I guess we just have a fundamental difference in our interpretation of the constitution if you think it's ok for the government to tell businesses what kind of compensation they need to offer.
You completely ignored point 3. Is there a difference between working at starbucks and dunkin donuts? Yes, there is. Why do you think that is? Because starbucks offers better compensation, so they attract better employees. Apply this to every industry.
You see, you're forcing me to repeat myself because you keep making the same mistake over and over again. Funny how my previous posts contradict your posts that come after, huh?
Again, any employer would be able to deny coverage. That means that an unlimited amount of employers could deny the coverage that you need. People don't have an endless amount of positions open to them. There are many Americans that don't even have one.
That doesn't contradict what I said and isn't relevant to my argument at all. You have the freedom to starve or make your own business if you don't like the compensation on offer. That's if such a scenario occured, which I don't think it would.
|
Other than that, I dont really follow the debate, but religious views shouldnt have anything do with women's choices to keep or abort a fetus.
That isn't the issue, the issue is compelling religious institutions to subsidize making recreational sex consequence-free. And compelling them to pay for medicine that causes an event they find morally abhorrent.
Should insurance plans be compelled to pay for pornography for men? If you masturbate watching Big Butts Invasion 47 instead of having sex, you're also preventing unwanted pregnancies!
|
On March 04 2012 04:19 Bigtony wrote:
I guess we just have a fundamental difference in our interpretation of the constitution if you think it's ok for the government to tell businesses what kind of compensation they need to offer.
How is it unconstitutional? I would be shocked if you can give any semblance of an explanation.
You completely ignored point 3.
No, I responded to it directly:
Sweetheart, they can't do it now because it would be against the law. That's what this entire issue is about, the Blunt-Rubio legislation which would allow employers to deny coverage on the basis of a 'moral objection'.
Do you understand what that means? You're arguing that if it was advantageous businesses would already be doing it. I'm telling you they can't because it would be illegal. That's what legislation is, it's in order to change the law so that they could do it.
You have the freedom to starve or make your own business if you don't like the compensation on offer.
So if you can't find an employer that will give you health coverage you can either create a business(because I guess starting a business costs less money than food) or starve to death. Brilliant stuff, keep it comin'.
|
On March 04 2012 04:24 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Other than that, I dont really follow the debate, but religious views shouldnt have anything do with women's choices to keep or abort a fetus. That isn't the issue, the issue is compelling religious institutions to subsidize making recreational sex consequence-free. And compelling them to pay for medicine that causes an event they find morally abhorrent. Should insurance plans be compelled to pay for pornography for men? If you masturbate watching Big Butts Invasion 47 instead of having sex, you're also preventing unwanted pregnancies!
No thats not what this is about actually, read the link in the OP about what the Blunt Bill was proposing. The Obama Health Care issue regarding religious institutions having to provide contraception was resolved- they dont have to. Its about all employers being able to remove individual things they cover based on their own personal beliefs.
And as for making recreational sex "consequence-free" I think we have gone over this point over and over again and there are more uses for birth control other than preventing pregnancy, and even if that was the only use, what is wrong with that?
This seems relevant also:
http://www.carbonated.tv/news/stephen-colbert-talks-about-the-dangers-of-government-funded-birth-control-video
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
