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.
I specifically said At No Cost To The Woman, to avoid the inevitable response that Someone has to pay.
Condoms, IUD's, sterilization, every form of bc, should be free to any woman who wants them. I know that will raise premiums and 'cost' everyone in a plan.
Hardly. It's an issue of government controlling business. That's what gets most conservatives. BC is completely available and women are free to buy it and use it, no one cares about that.
Yep, true - but also, when it does come to religion, an issue of government controlling religious freedom. Any private organization operated on a non-profit basis by a church should receive the same religious freedom that the church itself receives. And the government funding thing is also bogus - a religious affiliated organization which otherwise qualifies for public funding should not have that funding withheld over contraception, as government should be requiring people to violate their freedom of religion in order to gain equal treatment under the law.
Now that being said, the shenanigans of Hobby Lobby trying to claim the same religious freedom that churches have is absurd. The issue of government controlling business part is still there just as a general principle, but the religious aspect that Hobby Lobby tries to bring into it is inapplicable . It's a for-profit corporation regardless of the personal beliefs of the owners.
Reality doesn't bear it out? Your version of reality is skewed.
Insurance companies WANT women to use contraceptives, because it's cheaper for them bottom line.
It is not insurance companies that are fighting against contraceptive coverage.
I specifically said that insurance companies are for the law. Read what I said again.
Quote:
The people fighting contraceptive coverage are people whose religious beliefs forbid them to use contraceptives. They are saying that their religious beliefs forbid them from doing anything to make it easier for others to use contraceptives. And that providing insurance coverage that covers contraceptives does that.
No, not only them. Also people who don't believe government has any business doing what it is doing, entirely separate from religious convictions or the specifics of contraception itself. I would be one of those people. The federal government should not be mandating what is and is not covered in insurance policies and should not be setting prices for what is covered. That is not a power of government enumerated in the constitution and the 10th amendment states that the federal government is forbidden from exercising any powers not specifically granted to it.
Quote:
They are saying that their freedom of religion isn't just a personal freedom, they can impose on the freedom of others if it is within their power.
No they are not. These people are not trying to forbid insurance companies from providing birth control with no copay. They are trying to forbid government from mandating insurance companies to provide birth control with no copay. The two are entirely different.
You people against covering birth control are ridiculous. You hate that idea but boy you sure love the fact that birth control exists, don't you? Thank god for birth control, now you can have all the sex you want & leave all the responsibility on the women. Who cares how much it is, I'm not the one paying for it, I'm just the one benefitting from it, right?
I love my 300Z so therefore I have to support the government mandating that everyone receive a free car?
I get that you're trying to bash conservatives as hypocrites. But your reasoning for doing so doesn't make sense.
The "Duh!!!!" here is trying to equate the effects of pregnancy with a desire to not want to get pregnant and an unwillingness to bear the costs of that desire yourself. The effects of pregnancy are already covered, and not in dispute. The dispute revolves around the desire to not become pregnant itself being treated as a medical condition.
If I get a severe sunburn, then medical costs to treat that burn will be covered. However, me buying suntan lotion is not covered. "I want to lie around in the sun" is not a medical condition.
That's what's going on here. "I don't want to get pregnant" is a choice. It is not itself a condition. When you have the condition, then any medical issues surrounding that condition will be covered. But when the condition itself is not a malady, then it doesn't make sense that you get free birth control for it paid for by the premiums by other citizens so that you can choose to engage in the activity which produces that condition. You can't say since being overweight can lead to health problems, I expect other people to buy me a lifetime membership in weight watchers. If you aren't paying for their suntan lotion, then they shouldn't have to pay for your birth control.
Your argument, then, is that preventative care should not be provided. So all vaccines shouldn't be covered. After all, "I don't want measles" is just as much a choice as "I don't want to get pregnant." The condition of, "I don't want measles" itself is not a malady.
Suntan lotion, by the way, isn't prescription medicine. Birth control medications are.
The company isn't asking the insurance company to not pay for birth control. They are asking the insurance company to not cover certain medications. Period. Doesn't matter what the prescription is for, if it is a medication on the list the company doesn't want to cover, then it's not covered.
Your post that I responded to asked why insurance should not cover birth control if the pill can also be used to treat other conditions. I simply said then the medication wouldn't be birth control. It's about what people are arguing on this forum, not what companies are asking insurance companies to do. The answer would be then the insurance company needs to cover another treatment for those conditions. But that wasn't the point to begin with. You didn't ask why insurance shouldn't cover "medication X", you asked why insurance shouldn't provide free birth control. And my answer is that the pill isn't the issue that we are protesting, it is the use the pill is being put to that is the issue.
Mandating that birth control come with no copay is unrelated to insurance companies not wanting to pay claims. This isn't about insurance companies not wanting to cover birth control, this is about saying they have to cover it without a copay.
No, since insurance companies aren't the ones complaining, this is not about saying that insurance companies have to cover contraceptives, with or without a copay. This is about companies, which are things and don't have any religious beliefs, selectively choosing which prescriptions they want their insurance company to cover and which prescriptions they don't want their insurance company to cover. The companies aren't choosing what medical conditions they will cover, they aren't qualified to do that, nor do they have the authority to violate a person's privacy regarding their medical conditions. They are trying to say what medicines they will cover, and they aren't qualified to do that either.
No, that's just shaming tactics. It's the old "support Obama or you're a racist" argument.
It's their choice, and they should bear the costs of making that choice since they are the ones making it. There's no fault, and no punishment. Buying your own birth control so you can have sex is not being punished. Having someone else buy your birth control so you can have sex is punishing them.
Funny, you're the only person who decided to make a remark about "racism".
I'm not the one who claimed that pregnancy was the fault of the woman, kiddo. You want to argue that there is no fault, take it up with the poster who said it was the woman's fault.
Whether or not a man is involved in the sexual intercourse is irrelevant. It is still the woman's choice to engage in that intercourse. And even if you do fraudulently include the man as somehow responsible for what the woman does, it still doesn't change the essential situation. You are then just asking others pay to pay for what they do instead of what she does. It's still making other people responsible for subsidizing their behavior.
I take it that it's not the man's choice, eh?
Once again, women can engage in all the sexual behavior they want, without needing contraceptives. It's when she engages in sexual behavior WITH A MAN that the need for contraceptives arises, in large part because the MAN doesn't want a pregnancy to happen.
Isn't that true?
If so, strike your "fraudulently include the man as somehow responsible" remark.
It takes SPERM for a woman to become pregnant, kiddo.
Location: where people are either too stupid to leave or too stuck to move
3,982 posts, read 6,688,919 times
Reputation: 3689
They don't want you to get birth control but then complain if you get pregnant, they won't let you get your own abortion but then whine with the baby is born. And birth control isn't for just sex, it helps with people who have horrible periods, ovarian cyst, and other complications unlike the covered Viagra and gives you wood only
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.
