|
On March 03 2012 07:14 ilikeredheads wrote:
USA every moving closer towards Theocracy......
This whole birth control debate is to distract the public from the REAL issues this country is facing, like you know....the economy?
Except this is a central issue in gender equality and class issues both having profound effect on the economy.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
It's a little sad that it took an issue that was resolved before I was born to get liberals engaged again, but at least we've finally set a line on how far back in the past we refuse to let this country get taken. Incredible that Rush Limbaugh doesn't care enough to even read what Ms. Fluke was saying (hint: it wasn't about having too much sex) and doesn't even understand how female contraception works (one a day, no matter your sexual activity). What an idiot.
|
On March 03 2012 07:00 FryBender wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 06:48 killa_robot wrote: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? 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. Actually sex is a fundamental human need. That is why it is on the basic rung of Maslow's pyramid. So no it's not as easy to say "Hey all you sluts. Stop having sex." I'm guessing that you're pretty young and really do believe that a person can just deny basic human urges like a sex drive. You may even think that a homosexual can just tell him or herself that they can be attracted to a different gender and presto-chango they're "fixed." Unfortunately that's not how human physiology and psychology works. While we certainly have control over our basic urges it is not by any means total control. Have you ever seen what truly hungry people are willing to do for food? Well the sex drive is actually not that different as the food drive in our brains. So before you call someone stupid please educate yourself on what you're actually talking about
Oh boy...you completely interpreted what I said wrong. That's almost impressive.
So, my entire post was about how having sex and pregnancy, is nothing like playing a sport and breaking a bone. People have deluded themselves into thinking conception isn't just the natural result of sex, and now view it as some random/undesired side effect.
Sex is a choice. You can satisfy your sexual needs in other ways, like others in the thread have pointed out. You won't ever see someone willing to kill another person, because they're really horny. It's not the same as being hungry. Sex is far more complex than that.
I never said to stop having sex. I never said a person could change their sexual orientation. I never even stated my opinion on the matter of the original topic. I don't see why you're jumping to such random conclusions.
I called him stupid because he was comparing having sex and producing a baby, to playing a sport and breaking a bone. Please improve your reading comprehension abilities before posting.
|
On March 03 2012 07:04 aminoashley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 06:59 OsoVega wrote:On March 03 2012 06:51 aminoashley wrote:On March 03 2012 06:49 Dark Templar wrote:
... Sure, things shouldn't change, Obama-care shouldn't be implemented and you should pay for you own pills.
See earlier post. I do pay for it- just not full price which could be about 80-200$ a month, which would be unreasonable to me if I had no insurance. I simply could not afford that and I dont think I am speaking alone in that matter How much does your insurance cost? Does it only provide you birth control because you have a unique medical condition which would result in more than just pregnancy? If not, the cost of the birth control is built into the cost of your insurance. Think about it. How can an insurance company profit off of offering you birth control when birth control, unlike things like broken bones, cancer, etc. will happen. The only way they can profit/break even is by including all of the cost of the birth control that you consume into your premium. This is not the same case for chance things (such as developing a condition in which not having birth control will cause health issues) which might not happen in which they would profit off of the premium while never paying out. Have you watched this video? + Show Spoiler + I pay 15$/month and yes the reason I was originally prescribed was for a medical reason. How do they lose money if I am paying for insurance and paying money for the medication that I will likely be on for a good majority of my life. Seems like they would make money off of that. And I watched the first few minutes of it- seems to be more against the so called "Obama Care" in general, a position that I can respect but disagree with.
They are losing money on you because you are only paying $15 for $80-$200 worth of medication, plus the chance of something else going wrong. This is fine because this is the game that insurance companies play, and when you signed up, there was a chance that they would have made a profit off of you. However, if every single woman who wanted contraception could get it from their insurance provider, the only way for the company to profit would be to raise premiums so that the cost of the contraception is already included.
|
On March 03 2012 07:21 tree.hugger wrote:
It's a little sad that it took an issue that was resolved before I was born to get liberals engaged again, but at least we've finally set a line on how far back in the past we refuse to let this country get taken. Incredible that Rush Limbaugh doesn't care enough to even read what Ms. Fluke was saying (hint: it wasn't about having too much sex) and doesn't even understand how female contraception works (one a day, no matter your sexual activity). What an idiot.
You do realize that requiring employer provided insurance to include contraception is new?
|
Incredible when people don't even realize they are getting trolled. He says it with a smirk on his face and they still think he's 100% serious. He tries to anger liberals, and they all comply. Amazing to me.
|
On March 03 2012 07:11 FryBender wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 07:02 OsoVega wrote:On March 03 2012 07:00 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 06:48 killa_robot wrote: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? 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. Actually sex is a fundamental human need. That is why it is on the basic rung of Maslow's pyramid. So no it's not as easy to say "Hey all you sluts. Stop having sex." I'm guessing that you're pretty young and really do believe that a person can just deny basic human urges like a sex drive. You may even think that a homosexual can just tell him or herself that they can be attracted to a different gender and presto-chango they're "fixed." Unfortunately that's not how human physiology and psychology works. While we certainly have control over our basic urges it is not by any means total control. Have you ever seen what truly hungry people are willing to do for food? Well the sex drive is actually not that different as the food drive in our brains. So before you call someone stupid please educate yourself on what you're actually talking about I agree that sex is completely fundamental to human happiness but it's not the government's role to provide people with happiness. You have a right to the pursuit of happiness, not happiness. Also, masturbation is enough to be sexually self-sufficient. And the government shouldn't pay for contraception. But insurances should. I believe that contraception is a basic healthcare provision. Most doctors agree which is why they prescribe it for their patients. There is a reason why women go to doctors to buy the pill or get an IUD instead of sex shops. Doctors are expensive and health insurance in the US exists to defray those expenses. Therefore it makes perfect sense that health insurances should cover contraception. Actually most insurers agree since it's much cheaper to pay for contraception then it is for unwanted pregnancies. The argument simply came out because the catholic church does not want contraception to be available on any of their plans, even if the plans are for people who are not catholic. This is a purely social debate and I think it's ridiculous that the politicians in the US government who are supposed to represent everyone and not show favor to religions are pandering to catholic priests. It's politics at it's worst, ideology above reason.
But insurance companies won't. They can't make profit off of including contraception in their insurance policies unless they are basically selling the contraception directly to the people by including it in their premiums. If it was cheaper for insurers to pay for contraception, why aren't they doing it now? If some are, why do we have to force the rest to? I guess the government knows how to make a company more profitable than the company itself.
Also, this is completely an aside but, I find it odd that you would present ideology and reason like there is some dichotomy between the two. There is religious ideology, conservative ideology, liberal ideology, etc. Being an ideology does not mean you are not based on logic.
|
On March 03 2012 07:12 Yergidy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 07:02 Leporello wrote:On March 03 2012 06:36 Yergidy wrote:On March 03 2012 06:30 Leporello wrote: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. Am I wrong, or did the Blunt Bill fail? Oh, yes it did. So I'm fine. I''m not the one saying the law currently is unconstitutional. That'd be the Republicans. But the government just voted, and it disagrees. So now it's constitutional. Because that's what our politicians voted it to be. It's that simple. Just like in countless other cases, the constitution is only as good as our interpretation, which is exactly how it was meant to be. That's why I don't have to move. Our government isn't written in stone. Maybe you're the one who needs classes, or needs to move, or needs to do whatever other generic belittling statement you come up with next. Honestly man, you just keep showing your ignorance on this issue. It is not up to the politicians to judge constitutionality, politicians just make laws, they can make laws that are unconstitutional, although morally they shouldn't. It is up to the JUDICIAL system to judge the constitutionality not congress... Just because some congressmen vote on something and it passes doesn't mean it is automatically constitutional. If there is an unconstitutional law it is filed and tried in court where the government is supposed to defend it and whoever is making the claim is stating why it is unconstitutional. It goes up the judicial ladder as each side opposes the ruling until it reaches the supreme court which has the ultimate ruling on the constitutionality of a law. In no way shape or form does the legislative branch or the executive branch have any say on the constitutionality of an issue.
The Supreme Court may decide, of its own volition, to rule on a law Congress has made. Some laws are simply never ruled upon. So are they unconstitutional?
But since you say it isn't the job of Congress to decide what is constitutional, well, isn't that exactly what the Blunt Bill was doing? It's proponents are arguing for the Bill on a constitutional basis.
So it seems we agree that this whole issue should never have been brought up, and since the Supreme Court has never declared the government mandating health-insurance to provide birth-control to be an unconstitutional act, it therefore isn't.
So, as I said in the beginning, arguing about the constitutionality of every bill that provides public welfare is stupid and is missing the point of practical government. But apparently you disagree, only now you seem to be arguing the point I was originally making.
So, thanks, I guess.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On March 03 2012 07:25 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 07:21 tree.hugger wrote:
It's a little sad that it took an issue that was resolved before I was born to get liberals engaged again, but at least we've finally set a line on how far back in the past we refuse to let this country get taken. Incredible that Rush Limbaugh doesn't care enough to even read what Ms. Fluke was saying (hint: it wasn't about having too much sex) and doesn't even understand how female contraception works (one a day, no matter your sexual activity). What an idiot. You do realize that requiring employer provided insurance to include contraception is new?
Not in many US states.
|
On March 03 2012 07:32 Leporello wrote:
arguing about the constitutionality of every bill that provides public welfare is stupid and is missing the point of practical government.
Not debating every expansion in government powers is stupid, and misses the point of a constitutionally restricted government.
The purpose of a constitution is to prevent the government from doing certain things, with good reason, whether you think those things would be "practical" or not.
|
On March 03 2012 07:23 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 07:00 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 06:48 killa_robot wrote: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? 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. Actually sex is a fundamental human need. That is why it is on the basic rung of Maslow's pyramid. So no it's not as easy to say "Hey all you sluts. Stop having sex." I'm guessing that you're pretty young and really do believe that a person can just deny basic human urges like a sex drive. You may even think that a homosexual can just tell him or herself that they can be attracted to a different gender and presto-chango they're "fixed." Unfortunately that's not how human physiology and psychology works. While we certainly have control over our basic urges it is not by any means total control. Have you ever seen what truly hungry people are willing to do for food? Well the sex drive is actually not that different as the food drive in our brains. So before you call someone stupid please educate yourself on what you're actually talking about Oh boy...you completely interpreted what I said wrong. That's almost impressive. So, my entire post was about how having sex and pregnancy, is nothing like playing a sport and breaking a bone. People have deluded themselves into thinking conception isn't just the natural result of sex, and now view it as some random/undesired side effect. Sex is a choice. You can satisfy your sexual needs in other ways, like others in the thread have pointed out. You won't ever see someone willing to kill another person, because they're really horny. It's not the same as being hungry. Sex is far more complex than that. I never said to stop having sex. I never said a person could change their sexual orientation. I never even stated my opinion on the matter of the original topic. I don't see why you're jumping to such random conclusions. I called him stupid because he was comparing having sex and producing a baby, to playing a sport and breaking a bone. Please improve your reading comprehension abilities before posting.
This post is so full of win....
So first of all the first post you responded to and the second one were both done by me so your use of pronouns (he said, you said) were just off so I'm not sure who needs to learn reading comprehension.
Next... You won't ever see someone willing to kill another person, because they're really horny. Are you serious???? Have you never heard of this thing called rapists? Now granted they either have an abnormal sex drive or an abnormal impulse control but a rapist is a perfect example of just how strong a human sex drive can be. My jumping to random conclusions comes from your ignorant statement of (and I quote) Having sex with always be a choice [sic], While we certainly do choose when and who with we have sex it is a fundamental human need so people will always not just choose to have sex but need to have sex. That whole post was simply a response to that.
Finally if you read the full conversation and how I got to compare basketball and broken bones to sex and contraception was that an argument was brought forth that insurance should only cover unforeseen risks and since having sex is something that you know you're going to do you should pay for it yourself. I argued that eating a cheesburger increases your chances of a heart attack by so much that the same argument can be brought up as to why insurers shouldn't have to cover heart surgery for obese people. Another example was made by me that by playing a sport meant that you were putting yourself at greater risk of injuring yourself and therefore again insurers shouldn't have to cover any injuries since it was again not an unforeseen risk. This was when you chimed in and decided to take an example our of context and show everyone just how smart you were with your wonderful "sex is a choice" post. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding
|
On March 03 2012 07:37 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 07:32 Leporello wrote:
arguing about the constitutionality of every bill that provides public welfare is stupid and is missing the point of practical government.
Not debating every expansion in government powers is stupid, and misses the point of a constitutionally restricted government. The purpose of a constitution is to prevent the government from doing certain things, with good reason, whether you think those things would be "practical" or not.
The constitution prevented black people and women from voting.
Sometimes, common sense trumps all.
|
On March 03 2012 07:32 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 07:12 Yergidy wrote:On March 03 2012 07:02 Leporello wrote:On March 03 2012 06:36 Yergidy wrote:On March 03 2012 06:30 Leporello wrote: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. Am I wrong, or did the Blunt Bill fail? Oh, yes it did. So I'm fine. I''m not the one saying the law currently is unconstitutional. That'd be the Republicans. But the government just voted, and it disagrees. So now it's constitutional. Because that's what our politicians voted it to be. It's that simple. Just like in countless other cases, the constitution is only as good as our interpretation, which is exactly how it was meant to be. That's why I don't have to move. Our government isn't written in stone. Maybe you're the one who needs classes, or needs to move, or needs to do whatever other generic belittling statement you come up with next. Honestly man, you just keep showing your ignorance on this issue. It is not up to the politicians to judge constitutionality, politicians just make laws, they can make laws that are unconstitutional, although morally they shouldn't. It is up to the JUDICIAL system to judge the constitutionality not congress... Just because some congressmen vote on something and it passes doesn't mean it is automatically constitutional. If there is an unconstitutional law it is filed and tried in court where the government is supposed to defend it and whoever is making the claim is stating why it is unconstitutional. It goes up the judicial ladder as each side opposes the ruling until it reaches the supreme court which has the ultimate ruling on the constitutionality of a law. In no way shape or form does the legislative branch or the executive branch have any say on the constitutionality of an issue. The Supreme Court may decide, of its own volition, to rule on a law Congress has made. Some laws are simply never ruled upon. So are they unconstitutional? But since you say it isn't the job of Congress to decide what is constitutional, well, isn't that exactly what the Blunt Bill was doing? It's proponents are arguing for the Bill on a constitutional basis. So it seems we agree that this whole issue should never have been brought up, and since the Supreme Court has never declared the government mandating health-insurance to provide birth-control to be an unconstitutional act, it therefore isn't. So, as I said in the beginning, arguing about the constitutionality of every bill that provides public welfare is stupid and is missing the point of practical government. But apparently you disagree, only now you seem to be arguing the point I was originally making. So, thanks, I guess.
Do you believe in objective truth? If a supreme court judge (appointed by a democratically elected President) declares it constitutional to confiscate all the privately held gold in the United States, would that make it constitutional? What if they declared it constitutional to ban all firearms or to establish Christianity as the official religion of the United States.
|
On March 03 2012 07:32 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 07:12 Yergidy wrote:On March 03 2012 07:02 Leporello wrote:On March 03 2012 06:36 Yergidy wrote:On March 03 2012 06:30 Leporello wrote: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. Am I wrong, or did the Blunt Bill fail? Oh, yes it did. So I'm fine. I''m not the one saying the law currently is unconstitutional. That'd be the Republicans. But the government just voted, and it disagrees. So now it's constitutional. Because that's what our politicians voted it to be. It's that simple. Just like in countless other cases, the constitution is only as good as our interpretation, which is exactly how it was meant to be. That's why I don't have to move. Our government isn't written in stone. Maybe you're the one who needs classes, or needs to move, or needs to do whatever other generic belittling statement you come up with next. Honestly man, you just keep showing your ignorance on this issue. It is not up to the politicians to judge constitutionality, politicians just make laws, they can make laws that are unconstitutional, although morally they shouldn't. It is up to the JUDICIAL system to judge the constitutionality not congress... Just because some congressmen vote on something and it passes doesn't mean it is automatically constitutional. If there is an unconstitutional law it is filed and tried in court where the government is supposed to defend it and whoever is making the claim is stating why it is unconstitutional. It goes up the judicial ladder as each side opposes the ruling until it reaches the supreme court which has the ultimate ruling on the constitutionality of a law. In no way shape or form does the legislative branch or the executive branch have any say on the constitutionality of an issue. The Supreme Court may decide, of its own volition, to rule on a law Congress has made. Some laws are simply never ruled upon. So are they unconstitutional? But since you say it isn't the job of Congress to decide what is constitutional, well, isn't that exactly what the Blunt Bill was doing? It's proponents are arguing for the Bill on a constitutional basis. So it seems we agree that this whole issue should never have been brought up, and since the Supreme Court has never declared the government mandating health-insurance to provide birth-control to be an unconstitutional act, it therefore isn't. So, as I said in the beginning, arguing about the constitutionality of every bill that provides public welfare is stupid and is missing the point of practical government. But apparently you disagree, only now you seem to be arguing the point I was originally making. So, thanks, I guess.
A law may be unconstitutional even before the judicial system agrees it is.. It's like saying someone isn't pregnant before they go to the doctor and prove they are pregnant... If no one points out laws are unconstitutional then they will never be heard by the supreme court in the first place and unconstitutional laws will be forced onto the people. The Blunt Amendment was trying to fix the constitutionality of the bill before it was heard by the judicial system.
It's a matter of morals, someone who willingly tries to pass an unconstitutional law to see if it will go through has no right to be a legislator. Just throw a ton of BS laws and see what sticks is what is ruining this country. It is wasting time and it is taking away peoples rights given to them by the constitution when they actually to make it through.
|
On March 03 2012 07:32 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 07:11 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 07:02 OsoVega wrote:On March 03 2012 07:00 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 06:48 killa_robot wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Actually sex is a fundamental human need. That is why it is on the basic rung of Maslow's pyramid. So no it's not as easy to say "Hey all you sluts. Stop having sex." I'm guessing that you're pretty young and really do believe that a person can just deny basic human urges like a sex drive. You may even think that a homosexual can just tell him or herself that they can be attracted to a different gender and presto-chango they're "fixed." Unfortunately that's not how human physiology and psychology works. While we certainly have control over our basic urges it is not by any means total control. Have you ever seen what truly hungry people are willing to do for food? Well the sex drive is actually not that different as the food drive in our brains. So before you call someone stupid please educate yourself on what you're actually talking about I agree that sex is completely fundamental to human happiness but it's not the government's role to provide people with happiness. You have a right to the pursuit of happiness, not happiness. Also, masturbation is enough to be sexually self-sufficient. And the government shouldn't pay for contraception. But insurances should. I believe that contraception is a basic healthcare provision. Most doctors agree which is why they prescribe it for their patients. There is a reason why women go to doctors to buy the pill or get an IUD instead of sex shops. Doctors are expensive and health insurance in the US exists to defray those expenses. Therefore it makes perfect sense that health insurances should cover contraception. Actually most insurers agree since it's much cheaper to pay for contraception then it is for unwanted pregnancies. The argument simply came out because the catholic church does not want contraception to be available on any of their plans, even if the plans are for people who are not catholic. This is a purely social debate and I think it's ridiculous that the politicians in the US government who are supposed to represent everyone and not show favor to religions are pandering to catholic priests. It's politics at it's worst, ideology above reason. But insurance companies won't. They can't make profit off of including contraception in their insurance policies unless they are basically selling the contraception directly to the people by including it in their premiums. If it was cheaper for insurers to pay for contraception, why aren't they doing it now? If some are, why do we have to force the rest to? I guess the government knows how to make a company more profitable than the company itself. Also, this is completely an aside but, I find it odd that you would present ideology and reason like there is some dichotomy between the two. There is religious ideology, conservative ideology, liberal ideology, etc. Being an ideology does not mean you are not based on logic.
I don't believe that you are correct in that insurance companies won't make any money off of it. Not everyone needs birth-control therefore the costs are spread out just like insurance is meant to work. A 25 year old female pays into the insurance fund so that she can get birth control and ob-gyn visits. A 60 year old male pays into the insurance fund so that he can get prostate cancer treatments. Different people pay into the insurance funds in order to get different treatment. I'm not sure why you think insurance companies need to sell contraceptives in order to make a profit. There are plenty of insurance policies that cover contraceptives and as far as I know they're doing just fine.
As far as idealogy vs reason I don't want to derail the thread, but all I was saying was that I doubt most republicans really care that much about providing contraception. But it is on the social conservative idealogy list and so it doesn't matter what does and does not make sense they have to be against it.
|
There is something I'm not clear on, does it require employers to offer a plan that includes birth control, or does it require them to include birth control in the insurance policy no matter what?
|
What started out as just a distraction to get Rick Santorum to talk about social issues and not talk about the economy has turned into this.. I'm saddened this was even brought up in the media during the debates. Most people couldn't care less about this, or other social issues like gay marriage or abortion. People care about getting a job and living their life without the government up their ass, I see it as nothing more than to distract from the bad job Obama is doing (even though his job really isn't to manage the economy) at creating an environment to grow the economy and get people working again.
|
Hmph. I thought this whole thing with resentment towards birth control was a catholic thing.
|
On March 03 2012 07:47 FryBender wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 07:32 OsoVega wrote:On March 03 2012 07:11 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 07:02 OsoVega wrote:On March 03 2012 07:00 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 06:48 killa_robot wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Actually sex is a fundamental human need. That is why it is on the basic rung of Maslow's pyramid. So no it's not as easy to say "Hey all you sluts. Stop having sex." I'm guessing that you're pretty young and really do believe that a person can just deny basic human urges like a sex drive. You may even think that a homosexual can just tell him or herself that they can be attracted to a different gender and presto-chango they're "fixed." Unfortunately that's not how human physiology and psychology works. While we certainly have control over our basic urges it is not by any means total control. Have you ever seen what truly hungry people are willing to do for food? Well the sex drive is actually not that different as the food drive in our brains. So before you call someone stupid please educate yourself on what you're actually talking about I agree that sex is completely fundamental to human happiness but it's not the government's role to provide people with happiness. You have a right to the pursuit of happiness, not happiness. Also, masturbation is enough to be sexually self-sufficient. And the government shouldn't pay for contraception. But insurances should. I believe that contraception is a basic healthcare provision. Most doctors agree which is why they prescribe it for their patients. There is a reason why women go to doctors to buy the pill or get an IUD instead of sex shops. Doctors are expensive and health insurance in the US exists to defray those expenses. Therefore it makes perfect sense that health insurances should cover contraception. Actually most insurers agree since it's much cheaper to pay for contraception then it is for unwanted pregnancies. The argument simply came out because the catholic church does not want contraception to be available on any of their plans, even if the plans are for people who are not catholic. This is a purely social debate and I think it's ridiculous that the politicians in the US government who are supposed to represent everyone and not show favor to religions are pandering to catholic priests. It's politics at it's worst, ideology above reason. But insurance companies won't. They can't make profit off of including contraception in their insurance policies unless they are basically selling the contraception directly to the people by including it in their premiums. If it was cheaper for insurers to pay for contraception, why aren't they doing it now? If some are, why do we have to force the rest to? I guess the government knows how to make a company more profitable than the company itself. Also, this is completely an aside but, I find it odd that you would present ideology and reason like there is some dichotomy between the two. There is religious ideology, conservative ideology, liberal ideology, etc. Being an ideology does not mean you are not based on logic. I don't believe that you are correct in that insurance companies won't make any money off of it. Not everyone needs birth-control therefore the costs are spread out just like insurance is meant to work. A 25 year old female pays into the insurance fund so that she can get birth control and ob-gyn visits. A 60 year old male pays into the insurance fund so that he can get prostate cancer treatments. Different people pay into the insurance funds in order to get different treatment. I'm not sure why you think insurance companies need to sell contraceptives in order to make a profit. There are plenty of insurance policies that cover contraceptives and as far as I know they're doing just fine. As far as idealogy vs reason I don't want to derail the thread, but all I was saying was that I doubt most republicans really care that much about providing contraception. But it is on the social conservative idealogy list and so it doesn't matter what does and does not make sense they have to be against it.
It's because contraception is fundamentally different from things like prostate cancer treatments. Contraception is something that any woman can choose to consume. Hell, even if they don't want it, they can just take it and sell it to a friend who doesn't have it depending on the kind and how it is administered.
Prostate cancer treatments, on the other hand, are not something that you go into an insurance policy, with the intention to take out, but something that you might take out if by chance you develop prostate cancer. A man pays into the policy, with chances being that he will lose money in the long run (otherwise, the company could never make money), in exchange for insurance against chance occurrences (breaking a bone, developing cancer). If you do end up taking out more than you put in, the money to pay for that comes from the premiums of people who didn't get all that sick and paid more to the insurance company than they received. When you got into it at the beggining, there was a chance that you would pay for other people's bills and a chance that other people would pay for your bills.
If you want want contraception, you go into a plan with every intention of taking it out, so no matter what, someone is going to pay for your consumption. That person might just be you or it might be other people with the insurance company but either way it doesn't make sense to allow someone who is definitely going to be taking more than they put in into a policy. It's not like the case of wanting insurance against a chance illness or disease where you might pay for other people or other people might pay for you. If the insurance company foots the bill to you, it's irrelevant and you might as well have just paid for it directly from a pharmacy. If it's other people who want employer offered insurance that foot your bill, it is wrong that they are being forced to pay for your happiness and it's really not any different than the government (tax payers) footing your bill.
It will be a while before I respond to any more posts.
|
On March 03 2012 08:05 Euronyme wrote:
Hmph. I thought this whole thing with resentment towards birth control was a catholic thing.
I don't have resentment towards birth control. I have resentment towards government meddling into things it has no business in and the violation of individual rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
