|
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. Employers should be able to deny because its their company, you don't have to work there.
You are so dumb I am astonished you even managed to log into a forum to post this.
User was warned for this post
|
This is ridiculous. Few on the political right in the USA cares if you use birthcontrol or not. The issue concerns if others should be made to pay for your choice of lifestyle.
It also telling that you respond with outrage and self-righteous indignity over Rush impyling that the student is a slut but you do not mention the much more severe and frequent insults thrown from the left side of the isle. You asked me not to resort to namecalling, but you're making that awfully difficult.
|
On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote:
The issue is do you force a woman who does not want contraception to pay for it anyway.
If insurers must provide contraception "for free" then they will simply include the cost of contraception in the price.
It would be like the government forcing McDonalds to provide a toy with each meal. They would obviously raise the price to that of the "Happy Meal" and for those wanting a toy there would be no change, but for those not wanting the toy paying more for a toy they do not want is a waste.
A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception.
I can respect that argument, but what I wonder is if most women are in fact using some sort of birth control and it has essential health benefits, then isnt it worth the very small if not inconsequential increase in price?
|
On March 03 2012 05:27 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:24 Yergidy wrote:On March 03 2012 05:18 Logo wrote:On March 03 2012 05:16 Yergidy wrote:
You can already get free birth control from the government and it is not expensive anyway. Forcing religious entities to do something that is against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional. What happened to women wanting to take care of themselves? If you want birth control either find an insurance policy that covers it, buy it yourself, or (hey here's a novel idea) DON'T HAVE SEX! It is as simple as that, I don't even know why we are even having a debate on something as stupid as this. What constitutional amendment is being broken? "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. They're not restricting the exercise of any religion. The members of religious entities are free to not take birth control. That's like saying a law against ritual human sacrifice is unconstitutional. Not all actions are speech.
The first amendment is not "the freedom of speech the end". Please don't over simplify it like that. Hell, the religion part and the freedom of speech part are two entirely different rights granted by the first amendment.
|
On March 03 2012 05:28 Dark Templar wrote:
This is ridiculous. Few on the political right in the USA cares if you use birthcontrol or not. The issue regards if others should be made to pay for your choice of lifestyle.
It also telling that you respond with outrage and self-righteous indignity over Rush impyling that the student is a slut but you do not mention much more severe insults thrown from the left side of the isle. You asked me not to resort to namecalling, but you're making that awfully difficult.
Id would like you to clarify that with some evidence? I didnt call Rush Limbaugh a name, nor would I. I disagree with how he handled the situation and if someone on the left is resorting to name calling I would disagree with that as well. That is not how progress gets made
|
On March 03 2012 05:29 aminoashley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote:
The issue is do you force a woman who does not want contraception to pay for it anyway.
If insurers must provide contraception "for free" then they will simply include the cost of contraception in the price.
It would be like the government forcing McDonalds to provide a toy with each meal. They would obviously raise the price to that of the "Happy Meal" and for those wanting a toy there would be no change, but for those not wanting the toy paying more for a toy they do not want is a waste.
A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception. I can respect that argument, but what I wonder is if most women are in fact using some sort of birth control and it has essential health benefits, then isnt it worth the very small if not inconsequential increase in price?
Just want to mention that from an insurance perspective, the provision of contraception is usually beneficial. The cost of provision of contraception is generally much lower than the additional insurance claims made that can be prevented contraception.
|
On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote:
The issue is do you force a woman who does not want contraception to pay for it anyway.
If insurers must provide contraception "for free" then they will simply include the cost of contraception in the price.
It would be like the government forcing McDonalds to provide a toy with each meal. They would obviously raise the price to that of the "Happy Meal" and for those wanting a toy there would be no change, but for those not wanting the toy paying more for a toy they do not want is a waste.
A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception.
But that's a silly excuse. By your argument insurance should not cover any problems that I'm not worried about having. I exercise a lot and eat right so you're saying I should be mad that my insurance covers triple-bypass heart surgery? Do you understand how insurance works?
|
I think Catholics get hit the hardest in terms of being forced to financially support something that violates their moral beliefs. I don't wish to attempt to defend this belief but I respect their right to adhere to it.
The thing I most dislike is the move to mandate insurance coverage of a relatively inexpensive product. Many contraceptives are inexpensive and widely available... I don't see how requiring insurance companies will do anything but hurt competition and eventually drive up total cost. You don't see dental insurance covering your everyday toothpaste...
|
On March 03 2012 05:29 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:27 Logo wrote:On March 03 2012 05:24 Yergidy wrote:On March 03 2012 05:18 Logo wrote:On March 03 2012 05:16 Yergidy wrote:
You can already get free birth control from the government and it is not expensive anyway. Forcing religious entities to do something that is against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional. What happened to women wanting to take care of themselves? If you want birth control either find an insurance policy that covers it, buy it yourself, or (hey here's a novel idea) DON'T HAVE SEX! It is as simple as that, I don't even know why we are even having a debate on something as stupid as this. What constitutional amendment is being broken? "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. They're not restricting the exercise of any religion. The members of religious entities are free to not take birth control. That's like saying a law against ritual human sacrifice is unconstitutional. Not all actions are speech. The first amendment is not "the freedom of speech the end". Please don't over simplify it like that. Hell, the religion part and the freedom of speech part are two entirely different rights granted by the first amendment.
I wasn't? I'm saying that it is more complicated than freedom of speech the end. Likewise exercising a religion is not just 'all religions can do anything they want'.
If you buy that it's legal to mandate companies to provide health insurance, then I don't see how you can say it's illegal to dictate the specifics.
|
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. Employers should be able to deny because its their company, you don't have to work there.
That is like saying employers shouldn't have to hire black people or women if they don't want to, because it is their company.
There are things called laws, and companies are subject to them, because there is this other thing called government. If you don't like the laws, try to get them changed or gtfo or stfu. That's how it goes.
|
On March 03 2012 05:23 Chiharu Harukaze wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:18 Fealthas wrote: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. Birth control isn't just about sex. For instance, one of the main treatments for Ovarian Cysts is hormonal contraception. I'm surprised this is even something worth discussing. You can't just deny medicine to people just because it's against some religious belief. People are free to believe whatever they want, but they have no right to force it upon others.
Yes i'm sure the vast majority sold birth control in the US is just for that.. If it's being used as treatment for a disease that is totally different from someone using it recreationally and if it is as main as you say it is health insurance companies would probably cover it anyway.
|
There are even people that want to ban contraception and abortion.
A nice one/two at chaining women down again.
Fucking ridiculous that we are still discussing this. Even discussing this is a step backwards.
|
On March 03 2012 05:31 OhNeverMind wrote:
I think Catholics get hit the hardest in terms of being forced to financially support something that violates their moral beliefs. I don't wish to attempt to defend this belief but I respect their right to adhere to it.
The thing I most dislike is the move to mandate insurance coverage of a relatively inexpensive product. Many contraceptives are inexpensive and widely available... I don't see how requiring insurance companies will do anything but hurt competition and eventually drive up total cost. You don't see dental insurance covering your everyday toothpaste...
It really depends on the type of birth control that you are talking about. Condoms are inexpensive yes, but without insurance it would not really be possible for someone on a low income or even just a moderate income to buy oral hormonal contraception.
|
|
|
I have seen this news in recent headlines. I believe it is wrong for government to allow religion or "morals" to allow whether or not a company can provide a certain type of healthcare. Perhaps if changed it so it only effects religious institutions then people would have a choice of working or attending these institutions or secular ones. The separation of church and state was meant not only to keep the government out of religion but also to keep religion out of the government.
|
The OP sucks. It doesn't even mention the issue. Nobody is forcing anybody to take or not take birth control, the whole argument is about whether or not people who don't want contraception should have to pay for it anyway. If the employer offers a plan that includes contraception and one that does not, the one without will be cheaper. However, if the employer must offer only the plan with contraception, those who don't use it will essentially be throwing away money.
It's like if a health plan mandated that an employer must provide glasses to all employees. Those with fine eyes are getting kind of screwed, as they get no use out of what they are forced to pay for.
Honestly, the OP is taking shots at the Right and the religious as if they were trying to deny women birth control, when that's not at all what's going on here.
|
On March 03 2012 05:29 aminoashley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote:
The issue is do you force a woman who does not want contraception to pay for it anyway.
If insurers must provide contraception "for free" then they will simply include the cost of contraception in the price.
It would be like the government forcing McDonalds to provide a toy with each meal. They would obviously raise the price to that of the "Happy Meal" and for those wanting a toy there would be no change, but for those not wanting the toy paying more for a toy they do not want is a waste.
A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception. I can respect that argument, but what I wonder is if most women are in fact using some sort of birth control and it has essential health benefits, then isnt it worth the very small if not inconsequential increase in price?
With women currently paying for birth control pills the cost is $15-$50 month.
Once women cannot choose to be economical, insurance companies will need to charge enough make a profit even after many women choose the move convenient and expensive options.
This means the total cost could exceed $50/month which is not inconsequential.
The bill in question would not have affected most women, so they would have been forced to pay for expensive contraception whether they wanted it or not. It would have only affected religious institutions where the religion was morally against birth control.
I personally think being morally against birth control is silly at best and potentially dangerous, but I am not going to force someone to pay for that which they do not want.
|
You could substitute the word birth control with "cancer medication" or "insulin" in the above video and make the same argument. Should the government be telling your employer to pay for your heart medication if you are overweight? If you want to discuss the legitimacy of government run health care that is a different story. Im talking about the cherry picking of female contraception and that alone.
|
On March 03 2012 05:30 aminoashley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:28 Dark Templar wrote:
This is ridiculous. Few on the political right in the USA cares if you use birthcontrol or not. The issue regards if others should be made to pay for your choice of lifestyle.
It also telling that you respond with outrage and self-righteous indignity over Rush impyling that the student is a slut but you do not mention much more severe insults thrown from the left side of the isle. You asked me not to resort to namecalling, but you're making that awfully difficult. Id would like you to clarify that with some evidence? I didnt call Rush Limbaugh a name, nor would I. I disagree with how he handled the situation and if someone on the left is resorting to name calling I would disagree with that as well. That is not how progress gets made
You made the assertion, don't you think the burden of proof should rest on you? Show me that the Republican party is at war against the pill.
|
if you guys stop giving them attention they'll stop talking about this shit
stop talking about contraception who gives a fuck
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
