Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The OP took offense in the other thread about this issue, so ran over here and started this thread as some sort of rebuttal.
Why, I am sure I dont know.
all BS buy all the birth controll you want. just pay for it yourself aint my problem. Why should someone else pay for it for you? I cant have anymore children and dont need this free ha ha service but have to pay for it anyway? maybe I should bill my auto ins co for my next oil change too. freaking stupid.
I call it freedom. Employers shouldn't be forced by law to subsidize practices they believe to be immoral.
If employees want it, let 'em pay for it on their own.
Amen, why fund Planned (kill the babies) Parenthood through the taxpayer dollars. Instead let Planned Parenthood offer insurance themselves to offer their services. If they can't make a profit killing babies that way, then tough. If they want to offer control substances as a private company, then go for it. No taxpayer money though.
This election should be about our debt, Obama taking away our liberty, and who will reverse the course we are on. These social issues can wait for another election.
all BS buy all the birth controll you want. just pay for it yourself aint my problem. Why should someone else pay for it for you? I cant have anymore children and dont need this free ha ha service but have to pay for it anyway? maybe I should bill my auto ins co for my next oil change too. freaking stupid.
No coverage to birth control means less people using it
Less people using birth control means more unwanted pregnancies.
More unwanted pregnancies means a boom in unwanted children and a skyrocketing birthrate, leading to more births and higher insurance premiums to accommodate.
More children means more doctors visits for these kids, which leads to higher premiums.
If the person cannot afford birth control otherwise, they likely are poor or have low income, that will have a huge burden on the taxpayer who now has a massive influx on people on welfare, a strain on the education system and more that leads to massive tax hikes.
A simple option to have birth control will save a monumental strain on the taxpayer and the country.
No coverage to birth control means less people using it
Less people using birth control means more unwanted pregnancies.
More unwanted pregnancies means a boom in unwanted children and a skyrocketing birthrate, leading to more births and higher insurance premiums to accommodate.
More children means more doctors visits for these kids, which leads to higher premiums.
If the person cannot afford birth control otherwise, they likely are poor or have low income, that will have a huge burden on the taxpayer who now has a massive influx on people on welfare, a strain on the education system and more that leads to massive tax hikes.
A simple option to have birth control will save a monumental strain on the taxpayer and the country.
Why not just limit the number of children births insurance companies will pay for. That will be cost effective too.
"In the wake of a controversy over a requirement that religious institutions provide contraceptive coverage, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) now supports a bill that gives any employer the right to exclude any type health service that they find objectionable."
"In the wake of a controversy over a requirement that religious institutions provide contraceptive coverage, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) now supports a bill that gives any employer the right to exclude any type health service that they find objectionable."
Interesting statement to say the least.
They really have the right to exclude any coverage. It is like determining what pay they want to give their workers.
Why not just limit the number of children births insurance companies will pay for. That will be cost effective too.
They would be covered anyhow as you can still give birth without insurance, which again would lead to huge insurance premium hikes. Plus those kids that would be being born, likely wouldn't be if there was birth control available.
The whole argument is just the right wingers picking a side, and their minions automatically agreeing with it as that's what the brainwashed minions are "suppose" to do, instead of actually thinking for themselves
Unless you are some kind of religious fanatic that thinks people like the Duggers with 20 kids are the biggest blessing on earth, this whole issue is a joke.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
