The Contraception Coverage Debate in the U.S. - Page 22

On March 04 2012 13:14 Leporello wrote:
Proper birth control has been the HUGEST asset to third world countries. Population control, control of STDs. We actually have the luxury of arguing whether birth control is actual medicine in this country (although I still find it retarded to say it isn't), but in third world countries such as many in Africa this discussion would not be taking place because despite whatever the Bible or the Constitution may say, birth control is a huge asset for society at large. Its benefits literally immeasurable.

On March 04 2012 13:57 pyrogenetix wrote:
Lol I'm just glad I don't live in the US with all kinds of bullshit happening.

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.

User was warned for this post

On March 04 2012 13:38 Hapahauli wrote:


Do you honestly believe that the morning-after pill can solve third world poverty? I understand that this is a thread on contraception, but this is just silly. Contraception policies help, but they can't measure up to sound economic and legal reform.

On March 04 2012 16:13 ampson wrote:
This thread is just freaking silly. The crappy OP does not even touch upon what the actual debate is about and the TL.net group of militants who believe they know better than everyone come in to shit all over the right... again. Some people in the last few pages have actually explained rather well, but the majority is bandwagoners who come in to say "OMG religious pplz are assholes"

Here's the freaking issue. Obamacare includes a mandate that all (non-catholic) employers provide contraception in their healthcare plan. Some people don't want this because they believe they should have the option of a non-contraception providing plan (which would obviously be slightly cheaper). The majority of the debate (And all of the meaningful debate) is economical. Those who make it into something not economical clearly have an agenda.

And here's my take on the issue: The blunt bill is kind of useless. The arguments brought up against Obama's contraception plan are that gov. subsidized contraception would get much more expensive and drive up the insurance costs so much that it would inconvenience people. They propose an alternate plan, where the employee gets the option not to buy into the contraception plan. However, this is not an effective solution, because:

1: The administrative cost to each company for offering these multiple plans would be greater than the cost of the contraception in the first place, so no money would be saved.
2: Though contraception would now be included in the plans, demand would not go up. The women who use it now would continue to use it, the women who don't will continue not to. And basic economics tells us that if demand does not increase, neither does price.

So, yes, I think that the republicans are wrong. But no, it's not because they are evil, stupid, god-loving men who don't want anyone to have sex ever (as so many of you would like to think) It's because their economics are flawed.

On March 04 2012 18:02 aminoashley wrote:


Thats because the "crappy OP" wasnt trying to debate health care. Maybe you can go make or seek out a thread that is doing that. The OP was written about the mere fact that in the year 2012 we are having a bunch of men decide when or how a woman should have access to birth control. I never specified republicans or religious people or called them evil in any way in the OP, in fact I was speaking out against this type of language in politics in general. And you havent said anything that anybody else hasnt said so I dont understand what point you are trying to make.


And its silly to think that this is purely an economic debate, you live in a world where economic decisions actually impact the lives of people.

On March 04 2012 18:37 ampson wrote:


OP gives the blunt bill+Limbaugh being an idiot as a premise and then asks what this means about health care and political discourse. It clearly means nothing. However, the thread is titled "The Contraception Coverage Debate in the U.S." So I talked about the debate. The only part of the "debate" that the OP addresses is the little part about the Blunt Bill not passing. So yes, for the title of the thread, it's a crappy OP. The thread would be fine if it was entitled "Blunt Bill fails, Rush Limbaugh makes offensive comments." And, if that were the title, you could actually get across your message "speaking out against this type of language in politics in general." Although, then it would still be wrong, as Rush Limbaugh is not a politician (he is a political commentator AT BEST. Sensationalist talk-show host is more like it).

Another point that you make about "the mere fact that in the year 2012 we are having a bunch of men decide when or how a woman should have access to birth control" is what I think is some sort of argument for libertarianism, which could be valid (though a different argument altogether) Otherwise I'd have to assume that you think we should have women in government deciding this. But I'm sure that you know that these men are discussing this because they were elected to office, not because they are men. So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're pro-libertarian. However, you yourself say that that discussing libertarianism vs. what we have now is not the purpose of this thread, so I don't know why you bring it up in the first place.

Yes.

The empowerment of women can fix 3rd world poverty. Contraception is a large part of that.

On March 04 2012 16:13 ampson wrote:
This thread is just freaking silly. The crappy OP does not even touch upon what the actual debate is about and the TL.net group of militants who believe they know better than everyone come in to shit all over the right... again. Some people in the last few pages have actually explained rather well, but the majority is bandwagoners who come in to say "OMG religious pplz are assholes"

Here's the freaking issue. Obamacare includes a mandate that all (non-catholic) employers provide contraception in their healthcare plan. Some people don't want this because they believe they should have the option of a non-contraception providing plan (which would obviously be slightly cheaper). The majority of the debate (And all of the meaningful debate) is economical. Those who make it into something not economical clearly have an agenda.

And here's my take on the issue: The blunt bill is kind of useless. The arguments brought up against Obama's contraception plan are that gov. subsidized contraception would get much more expensive and drive up the insurance costs so much that it would inconvenience people. They propose an alternate plan, where the employee gets the option not to buy into the contraception plan. However, this is not an effective solution, because:

1: The administrative cost to each company for offering these multiple plans would be greater than the cost of the contraception in the first place, so no money would be saved.
2: Though contraception would now be included in the plans, demand would not go up. The women who use it now would continue to use it, the women who don't will continue not to. And basic economics tells us that if demand does not increase, neither does price.

So, yes, I think that the republicans are wrong. But no, it's not because they are evil, stupid, god-loving men who don't want anyone to have sex ever (as so many of you would like to think) It's because their economics are flawed.