|
On March 03 2012 06:29 FryBender wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 06:23 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2012 06:18 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 06:09 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2012 05:31 FryBender wrote: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?
Except that heart surgery, broken bones, etc. are high cost, low likelihood things. That is the point of insurance, not providing everything necessary to a particular need.
|
On March 03 2012 06:20 aminoashley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 06:17 Dark Templar wrote:On March 03 2012 06:07 aminoashley wrote:On March 03 2012 05:58 Dark Templar wrote:On March 03 2012 05:44 aminoashley wrote:On March 03 2012 05:40 Dark Templar wrote:On March 03 2012 05:30 aminoashley wrote: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. But here you go: http://mediamatters.org/research/201202290020 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. This seems relevant, haven't botherd reading it though. http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/03/02/sandra-fluke-was-a-deliberate-provocation-and-rush-fell-for-it/ 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?
I'll take your word for it, but the scale of the effects are irrelvant to my argument. Which is, it is a poor - not to mention immoral - idea to expand the grasp of government for Obama-care in general and for contraceptives in particular (which is a minor if not trivial part of it anyway).
|
On March 03 2012 06:30 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 06:26 Yergidy wrote: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? 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.
I am not insulting you at all.. If anything I am insulting your government teacher for their poor teaching job on how US government works. If you hate the constitution so much why don't you move to a country that fits your idea if how a government is supposed to work and stop trying to fundamentally change the US? That would seem to be the easier choice.
Like it or not that is how the government was founded and unless they have another constitutional convention that is how it's going to stay. I am just explaining facts.
|
On March 03 2012 06:17 Dark Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 06:07 aminoashley wrote:On March 03 2012 05:58 Dark Templar wrote:On March 03 2012 05:44 aminoashley wrote:On March 03 2012 05:40 Dark Templar wrote:On March 03 2012 05:30 aminoashley wrote: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. But here you go: http://mediamatters.org/research/201202290020 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. This seems relevant, haven't botherd reading it though. http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/03/02/sandra-fluke-was-a-deliberate-provocation-and-rush-fell-for-it/ 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.
That's not true. The Catholic church is well known for trying to get things they find immoral or against their faith made illegal. They also put quite a bit of money into lobbying for e.g. abortion to become illegal.
The problem with all these shenanigans over covering contraception lately is purely political and nothing else. There's already been a solution proposed where employers who have an objection to contraception don't have to provide it and instead the insurance company would.
As an employer, you don't get to say that another company (in this case an insurer) can't provide something. It's not your place. It's entirely between an employee and THAT company. That many republicans want to adopt the position that such an alternative is unacceptable and there's no room for compromise is just a load of shit and exactly the reason that Congress has such an abysmal approval rating. There's basically zero chance I'll vote for any of the republican candidates because of things like this (notably the 'no room for compromise' shit they've been spouting for months/years as it goes beyond just this issue).
|
I just want to say that anyone arguing that providing contraceptives will somehow raise insurance rates is wrong. And if simple logic isn't enough for you (it's much cheaper to provide ~$500-$1000/year contraception then the average >$20,000 hospitals charge for deliveries, not to mention prenatal doctor visits and prenatal care as well as pediatric services that the insurance has to provide after the baby is born). Here's a source that clearly explains it. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060112.html Someone already posted it here but it seems people are still using the same argument of "I don't want my insurance rates to go up just so some hussy can have a good time on my hard earned dollar."
|
On March 03 2012 06:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:
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.
Edited the OP with the video clip of Rush Limbaugh if you'd like to hear it.
|
On March 03 2012 06:28 OsoVega wrote:
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.
That's not what insurance is about at all. Insurance is about risk pooling. What the expected payoff or risk ratios values are, is irrelevant.
|
On March 03 2012 06:34 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 06:29 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 06:23 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2012 06:18 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 06:09 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2012 05:31 FryBender wrote: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? Except that heart surgery, broken bones, etc. are high cost, low likelihood things. That is the point of insurance, not providing everything necessary to a particular need.
It's silly when you look at the word, isn't it?
Using simple means of control to insure you don't get pregnant seems like a rather necessary thing for any health insurer to provide. Employees don't get to choose their health-care, since the employers usually do that. And it's silly, especially in today's economy, that we would expect women to not take a job but look elsewhere, because her employer or health-insurance provider thinks birth control is just some personal luxury item.
|
Hey Ashley, are you going to respond to my response to your...?
I'm Erik, by the way.
|
The US o' A is* such an assbackwards country at times, especially the whole system of employment-tied healthcare, which ties employees to their jobs (can't quit/change jobs as easily for fear of loss of health insurance, which benefits the employer) and the health insurance companies that provide the services (which benefits the health insurance companies).
This really should not even be an issue in a modern society.
* seems to me
|
On March 03 2012 06:34 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 06:29 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 06:23 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2012 06:18 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 06:09 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2012 05:31 FryBender wrote: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? Except that heart surgery, broken bones, etc. are high cost, low likelihood things. That is the point of insurance, not providing everything necessary to a particular need.
Heart surgery and broken bones are low likelyhood things? I've had three broken bones in my entire life. I've had 0 pregnancies. I'm going to go out on a limb (no pun intended honest) and say that I'm in the majority as far as that goes. But besides that are you saying that health insurance should only cover catastrophic events and preventative healthcare like doctor visits for regular check-ups as well as medicine for people who have high blood pressure but not real heart disease should not be covered either? Again all these things are "choices."
|
agreed with the sane people on this forum. bc shouldn't be a debate, remain legal and stay like it is today.
|
On March 03 2012 06:36 Dark Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 06:20 aminoashley wrote:On March 03 2012 06:17 Dark Templar wrote:On March 03 2012 06:07 aminoashley wrote:On March 03 2012 05:58 Dark Templar wrote:On March 03 2012 05:44 aminoashley wrote:On March 03 2012 05:40 Dark Templar wrote:On March 03 2012 05:30 aminoashley wrote: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. But here you go: http://mediamatters.org/research/201202290020 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. This seems relevant, haven't botherd reading it though. http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/03/02/sandra-fluke-was-a-deliberate-provocation-and-rush-fell-for-it/ 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? I'll take your word for it, but the scale of the effects are irrelvant to my argument. Which is, it is a poor - not to mention imoral - idea to expand the grasp of government for Obama-care in general and for contraceptives in particular (which is minor if not trivial part of it anyway).
Hello Eric ^^ I wouldnt say that expanding the grasp of government is in and of itself immoral, and I honestly dont know enough about the health care debate to say anything of worth that has facts to back it up. I think that in a country this large maybe perhaps individual states should be the ones to decide their health care programs, though I live in MA and already have a similar version of what is being applied nationally. The United States is the only country in the industrial world with the health care coverage problems that we have, and I think that a move to bring a basic right to humans is not that absurd.
|
On March 03 2012 06:37 aminoashley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 06:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:
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. Edited the OP with the video clip of Rush Limbaugh if you'd like to hear it.
lol, right at the end he said: "i take it back."
and his point was actually a lot deeper than just calling her a slut and a prostitute. it's hilarious that people are coming down on him for it (which is acceptable), while completely hiding the context in which he said it and acting like he just called her the name.
before you go crazy and tell me that the context doesn't matter, it does. he was making a broader point about her statement than just "she's a slut!"
|
On March 03 2012 06:42 darthfoley wrote:
agreed with the sane people on this forum. bc shouldn't be a debate, remain legal and stay like it is today.
Brofist* to all the bros in the thread.
|
I can't even listen to Rush most times, he's too religious for my blood.
But I gotta say, he's right on here. If you can't afford the contraception, don't have sex. I can accept the argument that idiots will fuck anyway, and the burden to society is greater if an unwanted child is born, so we should fund contraception...
But then why don't we just shoot these idiots once they prove themselves to be idiots? Society would be better off, save it money.
|
On March 03 2012 06:44 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 06:37 aminoashley wrote:On March 03 2012 06:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:
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. Edited the OP with the video clip of Rush Limbaugh if you'd like to hear it. lol, right at the end he said: "i take it back." and his point was actually a lot deeper than just calling her a slut and a prostitute. it's hilarious that people are coming down on him for it (which is acceptable), while completely hiding the context in which he said it and acting like he just called her the name. before you go crazy and tell me that the context doesn't matter, it does. he was making a broader point about her statement than just "she's a slut!"
He pretty much just called her a name though...? Or instead rather, he called ALL females who want affordable medication costs sluts, even worse I suppose
|
On March 03 2012 06:45 Dark Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 06:42 darthfoley wrote:
agreed with the sane people on this forum. bc shouldn't be a debate, remain legal and stay like it is today. Brofist* to all the bros in the thread.
So did we agree all along? Im not asking for things to change, just for my employer not to take access away from me.
|
On March 03 2012 06:45 Dark Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 06:42 darthfoley wrote:
agreed with the sane people on this forum. bc shouldn't be a debate, remain legal and stay like it is today. Brofist* to all the bros in the thread.
Agreed. Using protection is safer anyway.
|
On March 03 2012 06:29 FryBender wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 06:23 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2012 06:18 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 06:09 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2012 05:31 FryBender wrote: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?
You realize the point of a sport is for fun right? At no point are you actually supposed to get hurt.
Sex is meant, physically meant, to produce babies. Contraception isn't some random thing that happens when you have sex, it's the direct result of it. Sex, and the risks that come with it, is in no way, shape, or form, the same as playing basketball.
The only difference between now and a hundred years ago, is society has changed what we BELIEVE sex to be. We believe it to be an activity for fun/pleasure. That doesn't change that the reason for sex, is for procreation.
I'm really not sure if you're stupid, or you judgement is just really clouded. Having sex with always be a choice, and contraception will always exist as a result, not some random side effect, of having sex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
