The issue for me is that I can get condoms anywhere, women need a prescription to get most of their contraceptives. Which means they need to go through an extremely expensive medical system. The problem is our dependency on health insurance provided by an employer.
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.
I never used the word "war" or other melodramatic phrases like that. I never said Republicans either. I mentioned one man- Rush Limbaugh- who was making offensive comments about an individual who was in the debate. I am questioning political discourse in general, not just right wing. And you have yet to give any evidence of whatever it is that you are trying to say.
Haha. Exagerrated for emphasis. What I am saying - again - is that the Republican party by and large have little interest in birthcontrol, but for who is paying for it - and the reach and power of the federal government.
I believe that crude and unsavory remarks have a place in a well-functioning democracy.
I can understand the sentiment of not wanting the federal government to dictate health insurance. I respect libertarian views, though I do not always agree.I disagree with the deliberate cherry-picking of one aspect of the health care bill that takes access to a medical service away from one group. Where does religious liberty begin and personal liberty end?
And as for the "unsavory remarks" I really disagree that they have a place in politics. They are often misleading and really dont serve to accomplish much.
Oh, liberatians vehemently oppose the entirety of the monstrosity that is Obama-care. The Cathollic church have made no attempt to encroach on your personal liberty, they are merely refusing to pay for this part of it.
True, such comments are nearly invariably unproductive, but if they don't appear once in a while that means free speach is restricted.
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.
I never used the word "war" or other melodramatic phrases like that. I never said Republicans either. I mentioned one man- Rush Limbaugh- who was making offensive comments about an individual who was in the debate. I am questioning political discourse in general, not just right wing. And you have yet to give any evidence of whatever it is that you are trying to say.
Haha. Exagerrated for emphasis. What I am saying - again - is that the Republican party by and large have little interest in birthcontrol, but for who is paying for it - and the reach and power of the federal government.
I believe that crude and unsavory remarks have a place in a well-functioning democracy.
I can understand the sentiment of not wanting the federal government to dictate health insurance. I respect libertarian views, though I do not always agree.I disagree with the deliberate cherry-picking of one aspect of the health care bill that takes access to a medical service away from one group. Where does religious liberty begin and personal liberty end?
And as for the "unsavory remarks" I really disagree that they have a place in politics. They are often misleading and really dont serve to accomplish much.
The right for me to move my fist must be limited by the proximity of your chin.
That said, when contraception is a part of the constitutional rights, that is, the rights which are above all other rights, it will gain more power over religious rights. But the constitutional right of religion will always trump* the generic right to use contraception. As will any constitutional right beat any law-borne right.
edit for nonsensical word.
Except that nobody here is arguing to do anything like ban contraception. Everyone has a right to use contraception. The issue is that no one has the right to have contraception given to them for free, just as nobody has the obligation to provide anyone else with contraception unless decided by voluntarily signed contract.
This is the second time I'm posting this but people really need to watch it as it covers most of the bases of this issue. It also makes it clear that you don't need to be religious or against contraception to be against Obama forcing employers to offer plans including contraception. The main issue is not, whether Catholics should be forced to provide contraception. The real issue that needs to be talked about is if the government has the right to force anyone to provide 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?
Look up the term "Insurable Risk."
Basically insurance is to insure against bad luck in a risk you take. It is not to simply pay for a decision you make. I can buy insurance to cover the cost of fixing my roof if it is damaged by a falling tree. I cannot buy insurance to cover the cost of adding on a new bedroom. Adding on the new bedroom was my choice. Using contraception is a choice.
Eating fatty foods is a choice as well. Again by your logic health insurance should not pay for any kind of heart procedures for anyone who does not regularly excercises and eats healthy. Or maybe they shouldn't cover skin cancer becasue you took a risk and went to the beach at some point in your life. Or maybe they shouldn't cover my broken bone when I choose to play basketball and hurt myself because of my clumsiness. All these are "preventable" diseases and yet I think you'd have a hard time arguing that these things shouldn't be covered. Face it the only difference with contraception is that religion thinks it's immoral and tries to force their views on others who do not follow their religion.
On March 03 2012 06:13 acie wrote: This is a great bill, now it will cost employers more money to hire women to give them free contraception so now men have the advantage in being hired.
I know you're being facetious, but I'll return in kind.
Men benefit from broader access to birth control too by the way. It's not like this *only* benefits women. Wouldn't you like to know that your wife/girlfriend has quality access to affordable birth control?
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.
I never used the word "war" or other melodramatic phrases like that. I never said Republicans either. I mentioned one man- Rush Limbaugh- who was making offensive comments about an individual who was in the debate. I am questioning political discourse in general, not just right wing. And you have yet to give any evidence of whatever it is that you are trying to say.
Haha. Exagerrated for emphasis. What I am saying - again - is that the Republican party by and large have little interest in birthcontrol, but for who is paying for it - and the reach and power of the federal government.
I believe that crude and unsavory remarks have a place in a well-functioning democracy.
I can understand the sentiment of not wanting the federal government to dictate health insurance. I respect libertarian views, though I do not always agree.I disagree with the deliberate cherry-picking of one aspect of the health care bill that takes access to a medical service away from one group. Where does religious liberty begin and personal liberty end?
And as for the "unsavory remarks" I really disagree that they have a place in politics. They are often misleading and really dont serve to accomplish much.
Oh, liberatians vehemently oppose the entirety of the monstrosity that is Obama-care. The Cathollic church have made no attempt to encroach on your personal liberty, they are merely refusing to pay for this part of it.
True, such comments are nearly invariably unproductive, but if they don't appear once in a while that means free speach is restricted.
This isnt just talking about churches funding birth control its "religious institutions" as a whole, which include a lot of colleges/universities/hospitals. That is a lot of potential employers
Also, the argument being made by some individuals is that you can just choose not to be employed by one of these institutions, or choose not to get your education from one of these places. But should a female be forced to make employment or schooling decisions based on the potential access to medication?
On March 03 2012 06:13 acie wrote: This is a great bill, now it will cost employers more money to hire women to give them free contraception so now men have the advantage in being hired.
What? I am sure that is never going to come up and if it does that is clearly a terrible company. Also there are bigger issues in employment equality than this.
I am a 23 year old man and I think I know what is best for me right now. Everyone will make mistakes but such is life.
Therefore I believe that a woman will know what is right for her.
If only I could find the comic that was a picture of a man picketing outside the whitehouse saying "Keep your hands off of my health care!" and then in the next slide it shows a woman walking into an abortion clinic and the same man is there again saying "And put them on hers!"
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?
Look up the term "Insurable Risk."
Basically insurance is to insure against bad luck in a risk you take. It is not to simply pay for a decision you make. I can buy insurance to cover the cost of fixing my roof if it is damaged by a falling tree. I cannot buy insurance to cover the cost of adding on a new bedroom. Adding on the new bedroom was my choice. Using contraception is a choice.
Eating fatty foods is a choice as well. Again by your logic health insurance should not pay for any kind of heart procedures for anyone who does not regularly excercises and eats healthy. Or maybe they shouldn't cover skin cancer becasue you took a risk and went to the beach at some point in your life. Or maybe they shouldn't cover my broken bone when I choose to play basketball and hurt myself because of my clumsiness. All these are "preventable" diseases and yet I think you'd have a hard time arguing that these things shouldn't be covered. Face it the only difference with contraception is that religion thinks it's immoral and tries to force their views on others who do not follow their religion.
Eating fatty foods may increase your risk and thus increase your insurance premium. Playing sports may increase your risk of broken bones. Neither is actually choosing to break a nose or get heart disease. If you intentionally hurt yourself, insurance may actually not pay.
Buying contraception is a choice. You either choose to buy it or you choose to not buy it.
I was thinking that birth control was TOO affordable, I'm glad the government has decided to subsidize the industry to drive prices up. A since this bill only covers employed women, unemployed women will have no chance at being able to afford birth control, now we get to spread our seed to all the homeless bitches bros!
On March 03 2012 06:13 acie wrote: This is a great bill, now it will cost employers more money to hire women to give them free contraception so now men have the advantage in being hired.
What? I am sure that is never going to come up and if it does that is clearly a terrible company. Also there are bigger issues in employment equality than this.
I am a 23 year old man and I think I know what is best for me right now. Everyone will make mistakes but such is life.
Therefore I believe that a woman will know what is right for her.
Therefore, employer offered insurance should be forced to include 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?
Look up the term "Insurable Risk."
Basically insurance is to insure against bad luck in a risk you take. It is not to simply pay for a decision you make. I can buy insurance to cover the cost of fixing my roof if it is damaged by a falling tree. I cannot buy insurance to cover the cost of adding on a new bedroom. Adding on the new bedroom was my choice. Using contraception is a choice.
Eating fatty foods is a choice as well. Again by your logic health insurance should not pay for any kind of heart procedures for anyone who does not regularly excercises and eats healthy. Or maybe they shouldn't cover skin cancer becasue you took a risk and went to the beach at some point in your life. Or maybe they shouldn't cover my broken bone when I choose to play basketball and hurt myself because of my clumsiness. All these are "preventable" diseases and yet I think you'd have a hard time arguing that these things shouldn't be covered. Face it the only difference with contraception is that religion thinks it's immoral and tries to force their views on others who do not follow their religion.
No, the insurance wouldn't pay for your food or sunscreen. You could avoid crashes by being a perfect driver, but insurance still pays for crashes.
Health "insurance" has been turned into part insurance part subscription for regular services by adding things like contraception to it; that much is undeniable. Whether you think that is good or not is another deal.
I'd vote to have the pill covered if I got Viagra and condoms out of the deal. Safe sex is important for men's health!
On March 03 2012 06:12 Leporello wrote: It's sadly condemning that the right-wing not only seeks to make this an issue, but argues it from a constitutional perspective. Any form of providing for the public welfare can probably be argued about on a constitutional basis, but its missing the point.
The only point in arguing over any form of public welfare is whether or not it is good for society and worth the investment. That's being practical. And speaking practically, giving woman control over their reproduction is an extremely good idea.
But can it be that simple? Nope. Because of the Evangelicals and other Leave it to Beaver enthusiasts, we need to make it an issue, and argue over it's constitutionality. Republicans need to drop this tiresome act.
The government's job, in the end, is to help foster the best society it can, with the best possible quality of life. And if government intervention, welfare, and/or contraception can provide its people with a better quality of life for a decent price, then you need to just stuff your religion and constitutional-excuses.
The constitution is the single most important governing document for the United States. All governing law should revolve around it, even though lately it has been lets try and get this in even if it violates the constitution and the burden falls on the people to complain enough to get it reversed. The constitution is there to protect YOU and tell government how far their powers go. The time we stop caring about if something is constitutional or not is the time when we stop being a free country. If you don't know exactly how important the constitution is in this country I think you need to go back and re-take high school government because your teacher apparently sucked.
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.
I never used the word "war" or other melodramatic phrases like that. I never said Republicans either. I mentioned one man- Rush Limbaugh- who was making offensive comments about an individual who was in the debate. I am questioning political discourse in general, not just right wing. And you have yet to give any evidence of whatever it is that you are trying to say.
Haha. Exagerrated for emphasis. What I am saying - again - is that the Republican party by and large have little interest in birthcontrol, but for who is paying for it - and the reach and power of the federal government.
I believe that crude and unsavory remarks have a place in a well-functioning democracy.
I can understand the sentiment of not wanting the federal government to dictate health insurance. I respect libertarian views, though I do not always agree.I disagree with the deliberate cherry-picking of one aspect of the health care bill that takes access to a medical service away from one group. Where does religious liberty begin and personal liberty end?
And as for the "unsavory remarks" I really disagree that they have a place in politics. They are often misleading and really dont serve to accomplish much.
Oh, liberatians vehemently oppose the entirety of the monstrosity that is Obama-care. The Cathollic church have made no attempt to encroach on your personal liberty, they are merely refusing to pay for this part of it.
True, such comments are nearly invariably unproductive, but if they don't appear once in a while that means free speach is restricted.
This isnt just talking about churches funding birth control its "religious institutions" as a whole, which include a lot of colleges/universities/hospitals. That is a lot of potential employers
Also, the argument being made by some individuals is that you can just choose not to be employed by one of these institutions, or choose not to get your education from one of these places. But should a female be forced to make employment or schooling decisions based on the potential access to medication?
Except that birth control is a low and chosen cost. Insurance is about low likelihood, high cost things. It makes zero sense to include birth control with insurance at all.
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?
Look up the term "Insurable Risk."
Basically insurance is to insure against bad luck in a risk you take. It is not to simply pay for a decision you make. I can buy insurance to cover the cost of fixing my roof if it is damaged by a falling tree. I cannot buy insurance to cover the cost of adding on a new bedroom. Adding on the new bedroom was my choice. Using contraception is a choice.
Eating fatty foods is a choice as well. Again by your logic health insurance should not pay for any kind of heart procedures for anyone who does not regularly excercises and eats healthy. Or maybe they shouldn't cover skin cancer becasue you took a risk and went to the beach at some point in your life. Or maybe they shouldn't cover my broken bone when I choose to play basketball and hurt myself because of my clumsiness. All these are "preventable" diseases and yet I think you'd have a hard time arguing that these things shouldn't be covered. Face it the only difference with contraception is that religion thinks it's immoral and tries to force their views on others who do not follow their religion.
Eating fatty foods may increase your risk and thus increase your insurance premium. Playing sports may increase your risk of broken bones. Neither is actually choosing to break a nose or get heart disease. If you intentionally hurt yourself, insurance may actually not pay.
Buying contraception is a choice. You either choose to buy it or you choose to not buy it.
Allright just so we don't get lost in this argument, I'm saying that contraceptives is a healthcare need, akin to heart surgery or setting a broken bone. In my analogy having sex is like playing basketball. You're saying contraception is a choice just like setting a bone after a broken foot is a choice?
On March 03 2012 06:12 Leporello wrote: It's sadly condemning that the right-wing not only seeks to make this an issue, but argues it from a constitutional perspective. Any form of providing for the public welfare can probably be argued about on a constitutional basis, but its missing the point.
The only point in arguing over any form of public welfare is whether or not it is good for society and worth the investment. That's being practical. And speaking practically, giving woman control over their reproduction is an extremely good idea.
But can it be that simple? Nope. Because of the Evangelicals and other Leave it to Beaver enthusiasts, we need to make it an issue, and argue over it's constitutionality. Republicans need to drop this tiresome act.
The government's job, in the end, is to help foster the best society it can, with the best possible quality of life. And if government intervention, welfare, and/or contraception can provide its people with a better quality of life for a decent price, then you need to just stuff your religion and constitutional-excuses.
The constitution is the single most important governing document for the United States. All governing law should revolve around it, even though lately it has been lets try and get this in even if it violates the constitution and the burden falls on the people to complain enough to get it reversed. The constitution is there to protect YOU and tell government how far their powers go. The time we stop caring about if something is constitutional or not is the time when we stop being a free country. If you don't know exactly how important the constitution is in this country I think you need to go back and re-take high school government because your teacher apparently sucked.
You have the constitution in one hand, and you're looking at what in our country in unconstitutional.
And THIS is what you come up with? Mandating insurance-coverage for birth control? No. I think you know that's BS. This issue didn't come up because of its audacious unconstitutionality. It came up because sex and religion.
The constitution isn't to be revered. The Second Amendment, for example, sucks. It doesn't define firearms or militias. By the Second Amendment's possible interpretations, I should be able to buy a nuclear warhead.
And maybe you should go take some classes on critical thinking, and maybe one on discourse so you can learn to close your arguments without resorting to insults like this one. We've reinterpreted the constitution many times throughout our history, often for the better. And if our government wants to do something that bends against your interpretation of the constitution, but would be of benefit to our country, then guess whose side I'm on? Pragmatism>>>Ideology.
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.
I never used the word "war" or other melodramatic phrases like that. I never said Republicans either. I mentioned one man- Rush Limbaugh- who was making offensive comments about an individual who was in the debate. I am questioning political discourse in general, not just right wing. And you have yet to give any evidence of whatever it is that you are trying to say.
Haha. Exagerrated for emphasis. What I am saying - again - is that the Republican party by and large have little interest in birthcontrol, but for who is paying for it - and the reach and power of the federal government.
I believe that crude and unsavory remarks have a place in a well-functioning democracy.
I can understand the sentiment of not wanting the federal government to dictate health insurance. I respect libertarian views, though I do not always agree.I disagree with the deliberate cherry-picking of one aspect of the health care bill that takes access to a medical service away from one group. Where does religious liberty begin and personal liberty end?
And as for the "unsavory remarks" I really disagree that they have a place in politics. They are often misleading and really dont serve to accomplish much.
Oh, liberatians vehemently oppose the entirety of the monstrosity that is Obama-care. The Cathollic church have made no attempt to encroach on your personal liberty, they are merely refusing to pay for this part of it.
True, such comments are nearly invariably unproductive, but if they don't appear once in a while that means free speach is restricted.
This isnt just talking about churches funding birth control its "religious institutions" as a whole, which include a lot of colleges/universities/hospitals. That is a lot of potential employers
Also, the argument being made by some individuals is that you can just choose not to be employed by one of these institutions, or choose not to get your education from one of these places. But should a female be forced to make employment or schooling decisions based on the potential access to medication?
Except that birth control is a low and chosen cost. Insurance is about low likelihood, high cost things. It makes zero sense to include birth control with insurance at all.
How does that make any sense at all? I personally need to take birth control for medical reasons beyond just preventing pregnancy, and I would be completely unable to afford it if it wasnt covered, and would probably be in trouble and would need expensive surgery that would cause the insurance companies more.
without a direct quote from rush i won't pass judgement on what he said or didn't say. if he straight up called her a slut, than ok, that's wrong. however, this woman is clearly being untruthful about a debate that, as far as i know, she has no place being in (and don't start with this "she's a woman!" stuff either). is she a doctor? is she an insurance provider? is she a religious leader? does she have any expertise whatsoever on the subject? or does she have a sensationalist story that tries to play on our emotions instead of addressing the actual issue in a rational manner? my bet goes with it being the latter.
and the fact that i am reading a comment right now basically saying:
"why do republicans want to ban birth control?"
is proof that both sides of the aisle are creating strawmen here and using sensationalism to get their point across. no prominent republican has ever suggested banning birth control, or limiting women's access to it, or preventing women from getting it or preventing people from selling it. don't be ridiculous.
EPT
