|
On March 03 2012 05:28 mastergriggy wrote:
I don't get why Republicans are so against birth control...less children in poorer areas = less welfare needed = less government intervention needed. But this wouldn't be the first time Republicans have done something this ridiculous.
Edit: As someone else earlier pointed out, birth control really isn't all about sex. One of the girls I used to date had periods that would black her out. BC really helped her with that.
More Children = More Soldiers
|
On March 04 2012 22:50 brokor wrote:
sure if they need it for medical reasons like cysts etc they can make their case and get their funding. but getting the pill to avoid getting preggors is a privilege not a right. it is like having a guy with a deformed(but totally healthy) face come in and ask for money for his cometic surgery. it is needed sure, is it necessary? nope.
You know in England where we arguably have a better system (shit is free or subsadised) if you have a seriously deformed face, you can get cosmetic surgery for free if you can prove that it negatively affects your life. obviously if your just butt ugly you dont get it, but if your face got burned in a horrible chemical attack, then it is free.
Birth control in England is free for students and U25's, other wise its a prescription charge (6pound). Why o Why can't americans realise that putting a price on health is a seriously bad idea
|
On March 04 2012 22:50 brokor wrote:
I am not a state official neither an employer. but from my part contraception doesn;t fit the box "necessary medical help". personally i find contraception a luxury item, and it shouldn't be mandatory for employers to pay for it.
i use condoms but never have i been sponsored these condoms. i buy them from the pharmacy for a steep price. i wouldn;t really have it any other way.
then again there are free condoms everywhere in clinics/hospitals so people who cannto afford them have access to them.
these women want contraception provided for them by the employer/government?
sure if they need it for medical reasons like cysts etc they can make their case and get their funding. but getting the pill to avoid getting preggors is a privilege not a right. it is like having a guy with a deformed(but totally healthy) face come in and ask for money for his cometic surgery. it is needed sure, is it necessary? nope.
Condoms do cost a lot of money when I buy them from the local CVS. I'm pretty happy when my university (or health center, or pretty much anywhere else) gives them out for free.
It would be pretty cool if women had that same luxury- especially since their birth control helps them medically far more than condoms help us- wouldn't it? 
|
Why do shock artists like this guy who say nothing but outlandishly controversial things that even they don't believe have such a massive audience in the US?
|
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
I'm day dreaming right now. How the. We should cut one of your finger, for everytime you wasted some precious, will of god, sperm of yours masturbating to your class mate at night then.
Nah but how is this even a question, how can someone still think there is a difference between men and women? Yeah they're unlucky, they're the ones having the possibility to get knocked up, so if you want to punish abortion, you should punish men who have sex without the intent of founding a family, I mean how fucking obviously wrong is that. I'm open minded, I'm up for debate and ideas, but fuck no not on this, this is such... Ah fuck it I dont even have to explain, there is no opinion on that matter just normal healthy minded people and idiots, sorry to say but thats it
|
On March 05 2012 00:30 Seraphone wrote:
Why do shock artists like this guy who say nothing but outlandishly controversial things that even they don't believe have such a massive audience in the US?
Because deep down, people like to be offended. It gives them the opportunity to be self-righteous.
|
On March 04 2012 02:33 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 02:11 EternaLLegacy wrote:On March 03 2012 14:37 shinosai wrote:I don't understand why people can't view healthcare like any other necessary but market-provided service, like shoes. Everyone needs shoes, but we have a free market in those! 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. My study of economics, by the way, comes from reading people such as Heilbroner, Adam Smith, Ricardo, Marx, Levine, Keynes, etc.
Perhaps then you should read Friedman (Milton and David), Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Walter Block, Bob Murphy, Tom DiLorenzo, and Joe Salerno. The fact that you even lump Smith with Marx makes me laugh. Marx is to economics as coloring books are to great literature.
|
Last night I came in a sock. It was essentially genocide! Millions of potential human beings, killed in seconds.
All jokes aside, Christianity and all related religions need to end and they need to take their fucked up 12th century sense of morality with them.
|
On March 05 2012 05:25 Revelatus wrote:
Last night I came in a sock. It was essentially genocide! Millions of potential human beings, killed in seconds.
All jokes aside, Christianity and all related religions need to end and they need to take their fucked up 12th century sense of morality with them.
And what happens when religons end, while pepole stay the same?
|
On March 05 2012 06:04 RageBot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 05:25 Revelatus wrote:
Last night I came in a sock. It was essentially genocide! Millions of potential human beings, killed in seconds.
All jokes aside, Christianity and all related religions need to end and they need to take their fucked up 12th century sense of morality with them. And what happens when religons end, while pepole stay the same?
By definition impossible.
|
On March 05 2012 06:09 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 06:04 RageBot wrote:On March 05 2012 05:25 Revelatus wrote:
Last night I came in a sock. It was essentially genocide! Millions of potential human beings, killed in seconds.
All jokes aside, Christianity and all related religions need to end and they need to take their fucked up 12th century sense of morality with them. And what happens when religons end, while pepole stay the same? By definition impossible.
So... is religon a physical aspect of most humans? If so, how will it disappear?
And if it isn't, why shouldn't pepole stay relatively the same? And by that I mean behavior wise, they will have the same intelligence, same ignorance, same xenophobia, but this time it would be diracted by different rules.
|
So stupid. Contraception isn't even a real issue.
|
On March 04 2012 07:44 Zerksys wrote:
There are a lot of people who are saying things that are not true about birth control and this act that are not true. Let me dispell them now.
1. Birth control is cheap
While you are right in saying that the actual pill itself is relatively inexpensive, a quick google search will tell you that birth control is not over the counter. This means that it requires a doctor's prescription in order for you to purchase it. If this bill were to have passed, women would have to find an alternative way to pay for the doctor's prescription other than their health insurance. This is where the money comes from - the prescription, not the pill.
2. The public (taxpayers) would be paying too much for this.
Have you ever taken a look at the associated costs of providing women with contraceptives vs. providing women with prenatal care and delivery? As a taxpayer in this public health system, I'd be looking far more to provide women with contraceptives because every time a woman gets pregnant, the costs of delivering a baby far outweigh the amount that the public sector would have to pay to get her on birth control. The delivery room itself costs over 10000 dollars and that's with vaginal birth with no C section or epidurals. The average birth these days costs around 15000 without insurance these days. 15000 dollars is enough to provide 2 women birth control for the entire length of the professional career (30 years give or take).
3. The public is paying for women to have sex
This really bugs me because it's obvious that good ol' Mr. Rush does not understand anything about the way oral contraceptives work. They are not JUST for sex. It is not a pill that you take in order to be able to have free sex with anyone that you want - for this we already have condoms which are cheaper than birth control. Birth control serves a lot of good functions other than preventing a woman from accidentally having kids. Birth control promotes healthy hormone levels in women who are otherwise hormonally impaired (producing too much or too little). It also helps a woman to regulate her period, and in addition makes the pain during menstruation much more bearable. So no we're not simply paying for women to have sex. We are paying for women's overall reproductive health, so that they don't come in with massive ovarian cysts which we then have to pay for to have removed. Also notice how the government doesn't subsidize condoms - just saying.
Best post in the whole thread, and it gets ignored because people prefer to argue over issues rather than solve them.
Contraceptive is expensive? yes .. because your insurance companies make it expensive, just like most american healthcare products. If your health system wasn't run for profit, then this wouldn't even be an issue.
There are many reasons for woman to take contraception, even if they are not sexually active. Zerksys there ^^ writes it better than I could, but I suggest everyone saying "it's just so woman can screw around" how about go ask your wives or girlfriends, sisters, mums any female.. and actually get a real answer.
The american health system is rotten to core, and every time someone tries to be change something about it, for better or worse, it causes a huge issue.
Edit to say, the pills are cheap, so why can't getting the prescription off the doctor for something that everyone should be allowed access to be cheaper.
|
On March 05 2012 07:07 Gingerninja wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 07:44 Zerksys wrote:
There are a lot of people who are saying things that are not true about birth control and this act that are not true. Let me dispell them now.
1. Birth control is cheap
While you are right in saying that the actual pill itself is relatively inexpensive, a quick google search will tell you that birth control is not over the counter. This means that it requires a doctor's prescription in order for you to purchase it. If this bill were to have passed, women would have to find an alternative way to pay for the doctor's prescription other than their health insurance. This is where the money comes from - the prescription, not the pill.
2. The public (taxpayers) would be paying too much for this.
Have you ever taken a look at the associated costs of providing women with contraceptives vs. providing women with prenatal care and delivery? As a taxpayer in this public health system, I'd be looking far more to provide women with contraceptives because every time a woman gets pregnant, the costs of delivering a baby far outweigh the amount that the public sector would have to pay to get her on birth control. The delivery room itself costs over 10000 dollars and that's with vaginal birth with no C section or epidurals. The average birth these days costs around 15000 without insurance these days. 15000 dollars is enough to provide 2 women birth control for the entire length of the professional career (30 years give or take).
3. The public is paying for women to have sex
This really bugs me because it's obvious that good ol' Mr. Rush does not understand anything about the way oral contraceptives work. They are not JUST for sex. It is not a pill that you take in order to be able to have free sex with anyone that you want - for this we already have condoms which are cheaper than birth control. Birth control serves a lot of good functions other than preventing a woman from accidentally having kids. Birth control promotes healthy hormone levels in women who are otherwise hormonally impaired (producing too much or too little). It also helps a woman to regulate her period, and in addition makes the pain during menstruation much more bearable. So no we're not simply paying for women to have sex. We are paying for women's overall reproductive health, so that they don't come in with massive ovarian cysts which we then have to pay for to have removed. Also notice how the government doesn't subsidize condoms - just saying.
Best post in the whole thread, and it gets ignored because people prefer to argue over issues rather than solve them. Contraceptive is expensive? yes .. because your insurance companies make it expensive, just like most american healthcare products. If your health system wasn't run for profit, then this wouldn't even be an issue. There are many reasons for woman to take contraception, even if they are not sexually active. Zerksys there ^^ writes it better than I could, but I suggest everyone saying "it's just so woman can screw around" how about go ask your wives or girlfriends, sisters, mums any female.. and actually get a real answer. The american health system is rotten to core, and every time someone tries to be change something about it, for better or worse, it causes a huge issue. Edit to say, the pills are cheap, so why can't getting the prescription off the doctor for something that everyone should be allowed access to be cheaper.
Lots of things aren't cheap. Why should we make them free? Most healthcare plans have a deductible on nearly every prescription, what makes birth control so special that it (over basically every other prescription) deserves this special mandate that there should be no copays?
|
Why is this even a big deal? There are much bigger issues than contraception.
|
On March 05 2012 14:13 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 07:07 Gingerninja wrote:On March 04 2012 07:44 Zerksys wrote:
There are a lot of people who are saying things that are not true about birth control and this act that are not true. Let me dispell them now.
1. Birth control is cheap
While you are right in saying that the actual pill itself is relatively inexpensive, a quick google search will tell you that birth control is not over the counter. This means that it requires a doctor's prescription in order for you to purchase it. If this bill were to have passed, women would have to find an alternative way to pay for the doctor's prescription other than their health insurance. This is where the money comes from - the prescription, not the pill.
2. The public (taxpayers) would be paying too much for this.
Have you ever taken a look at the associated costs of providing women with contraceptives vs. providing women with prenatal care and delivery? As a taxpayer in this public health system, I'd be looking far more to provide women with contraceptives because every time a woman gets pregnant, the costs of delivering a baby far outweigh the amount that the public sector would have to pay to get her on birth control. The delivery room itself costs over 10000 dollars and that's with vaginal birth with no C section or epidurals. The average birth these days costs around 15000 without insurance these days. 15000 dollars is enough to provide 2 women birth control for the entire length of the professional career (30 years give or take).
3. The public is paying for women to have sex
This really bugs me because it's obvious that good ol' Mr. Rush does not understand anything about the way oral contraceptives work. They are not JUST for sex. It is not a pill that you take in order to be able to have free sex with anyone that you want - for this we already have condoms which are cheaper than birth control. Birth control serves a lot of good functions other than preventing a woman from accidentally having kids. Birth control promotes healthy hormone levels in women who are otherwise hormonally impaired (producing too much or too little). It also helps a woman to regulate her period, and in addition makes the pain during menstruation much more bearable. So no we're not simply paying for women to have sex. We are paying for women's overall reproductive health, so that they don't come in with massive ovarian cysts which we then have to pay for to have removed. Also notice how the government doesn't subsidize condoms - just saying.
Best post in the whole thread, and it gets ignored because people prefer to argue over issues rather than solve them. Contraceptive is expensive? yes .. because your insurance companies make it expensive, just like most american healthcare products. If your health system wasn't run for profit, then this wouldn't even be an issue. There are many reasons for woman to take contraception, even if they are not sexually active. Zerksys there ^^ writes it better than I could, but I suggest everyone saying "it's just so woman can screw around" how about go ask your wives or girlfriends, sisters, mums any female.. and actually get a real answer. The american health system is rotten to core, and every time someone tries to be change something about it, for better or worse, it causes a huge issue. Edit to say, the pills are cheap, so why can't getting the prescription off the doctor for something that everyone should be allowed access to be cheaper. Lots of things aren't cheap. Why should we make them free? Most healthcare plans have a deductible on nearly every prescription, what makes birth control so special that it (over basically every other prescription) deserves this special mandate that there should be no copays?
Ok for the last time, the insurance companies would LOVE to offer the birth control for free. The opposition to this are a bunch of priests and near death males in the republican party. This is not a case of the insurance companies even being pissed off, this is purely motivated by religous "morality".
|
On March 05 2012 04:39 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 00:30 Seraphone wrote:
Why do shock artists like this guy who say nothing but outlandishly controversial things that even they don't believe have such a massive audience in the US? Because deep down, people like to be offended. It gives them the opportunity to be self-righteous.
This is my favorite post in this whole thread. Thank you very much for stating the obvious.
|
On March 04 2012 10:36 kevinthemighty wrote:
Wait...you do realize that the Constitution defines the LIMITS of the federal government, right? So basically, if the federal government is participating in something that isn't WRITTEN in the Constitution then it is in violation of it.
Listen sweetheart, it's a very simple challenge, one which that user you're defending was completely unable to answer: explain how it is unconstitutional. If you can't then there's no argument. The reason that I believe it's constitutional is because it has been introduced and upheld by people who actually have an understanding of law.
On March 05 2012 14:16 Sniperdadx wrote:
Why is this even a big deal? There are much bigger issues than contraception.
Congratulations on being the hundredth person to come in this thread and say that. If you actually read it, or anything, you would understand. The Blunt-Rubio amendment would have allowed any employer to deny health coverage for any reason, and it only very narrowly failed. Do we need to explain to you why that's kind of a big deal?
|
On March 05 2012 15:03 Silvertine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 10:36 kevinthemighty wrote:
Wait...you do realize that the Constitution defines the LIMITS of the federal government, right? So basically, if the federal government is participating in something that isn't WRITTEN in the Constitution then it is in violation of it. Listen sweetheart, it's a very simple challenge, one which that user you're defending was completely unable to answer: explain how it is unconstitutional. If you can't then there's no argument. The reason that I believe it's constitutional is because it has been introduced and upheld by people who actually have an understanding of law.
+ Show Spoiler +
Is that enough?
I doubt it. Because there's other provisions which grant the government the authority to do damn near ANYTHING according to a liberally prescribed definition of terms. The constitution is fundamentally flawed, it's terms are too vague, and so it restricts nearly nothing. But you can't blame people for trying to maintain a system of dual federalism instead of embracing pure statism.
In any case, none of the health care mandates are constitutional until they are ruled constitutional by the supreme court, and from what I understand they are going to cover the case in the near future. It will certainly be a very interesting thing to follow, although I don't hold out much hope for common sense.
|
On March 05 2012 14:13 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 07:07 Gingerninja wrote:On March 04 2012 07:44 Zerksys wrote:
There are a lot of people who are saying things that are not true about birth control and this act that are not true. Let me dispell them now.
1. Birth control is cheap
While you are right in saying that the actual pill itself is relatively inexpensive, a quick google search will tell you that birth control is not over the counter. This means that it requires a doctor's prescription in order for you to purchase it. If this bill were to have passed, women would have to find an alternative way to pay for the doctor's prescription other than their health insurance. This is where the money comes from - the prescription, not the pill.
2. The public (taxpayers) would be paying too much for this.
Have you ever taken a look at the associated costs of providing women with contraceptives vs. providing women with prenatal care and delivery? As a taxpayer in this public health system, I'd be looking far more to provide women with contraceptives because every time a woman gets pregnant, the costs of delivering a baby far outweigh the amount that the public sector would have to pay to get her on birth control. The delivery room itself costs over 10000 dollars and that's with vaginal birth with no C section or epidurals. The average birth these days costs around 15000 without insurance these days. 15000 dollars is enough to provide 2 women birth control for the entire length of the professional career (30 years give or take).
3. The public is paying for women to have sex
This really bugs me because it's obvious that good ol' Mr. Rush does not understand anything about the way oral contraceptives work. They are not JUST for sex. It is not a pill that you take in order to be able to have free sex with anyone that you want - for this we already have condoms which are cheaper than birth control. Birth control serves a lot of good functions other than preventing a woman from accidentally having kids. Birth control promotes healthy hormone levels in women who are otherwise hormonally impaired (producing too much or too little). It also helps a woman to regulate her period, and in addition makes the pain during menstruation much more bearable. So no we're not simply paying for women to have sex. We are paying for women's overall reproductive health, so that they don't come in with massive ovarian cysts which we then have to pay for to have removed. Also notice how the government doesn't subsidize condoms - just saying.
Best post in the whole thread, and it gets ignored because people prefer to argue over issues rather than solve them. Contraceptive is expensive? yes .. because your insurance companies make it expensive, just like most american healthcare products. If your health system wasn't run for profit, then this wouldn't even be an issue. There are many reasons for woman to take contraception, even if they are not sexually active. Zerksys there ^^ writes it better than I could, but I suggest everyone saying "it's just so woman can screw around" how about go ask your wives or girlfriends, sisters, mums any female.. and actually get a real answer. The american health system is rotten to core, and every time someone tries to be change something about it, for better or worse, it causes a huge issue. Edit to say, the pills are cheap, so why can't getting the prescription off the doctor for something that everyone should be allowed access to be cheaper. Lots of things aren't cheap. Why should we make them free? Most healthcare plans have a deductible on nearly every prescription, what makes birth control so special that it (over basically every other prescription) deserves this special mandate that there should be no copays?
What other medication does half the population take monthly? Why should you make them free?... because. Why does everyone have to be so selfish. Half the population benefit (health wise) for something that has negligible cost.
Hire some new nurses (jobs.. helps economy) let them dish out the pills... saves money on doctors, woman can have contraception.. problem solved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vfR6x.jpg)
