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 sure do hope so. Years ago people had lots of kids because there was no birth control and there was no Govt, which ment there was no money almost like now...
But the difference was since there was no money in the first place having kids was for free literally.
It just takes a govt to wreck a good time, and even back then the beer was for free...
Good beer, fast broads, no govt, and look what we have done?!
I disagree. I think that controlling the growth of our population is something that benefits us all and making birth control more available does that. However, I will add that the main reason most insurances include it free or at a low cost is because it's cost effective for them...meaning it costs insurance companies more for you to get pregnant and give birth than it costs them to cover birth control.
I don't think that control of population benefits us all. For one thing that should be a personal choice, not one passed down from totalitarians. Second, these generations after abortion was made legal are much smaller than the previous ones and that means not enough of us to pay for the ponzi scheme government entitlements. If it's bad here, it's even worse in countries like Greece or Germany.
It should be up to insurance companies to decide what they offer in their plans and it's up to consumers to seek out what they want in their plans. In all of my insurance, I have picked and chosen what coverage works for me. Everyone should do the same.
Personally I don't understand the militancy of some of these women who can't cough up for $5 to $10 a month for birth control. For one thing if it really bothers them, don't have sex at all.
Ultimately, there is nothing "free", either from lord government or insurance companies. It has to be paid by someone, there is no free lunch.
This is where the Republican party really loses me. I mean on stuff like this.
The only reason they have a problem with it, is this evangelical voting block. I mean really, they talk a mean game, but its really trying to make a fire with those bible-belt states.
Look - we know that birth control is cost effective. It is a minimum monthly cost and stops significant money from being spent on birth, delivery, and upkeep, lost wages, lost taxes, etc. To me its a money thing. It will save us money by making sure this is available and free/cheap to everyone.
Who benefits? health insurance companies and the employer. They don't have to pay for the car. Employee benefits to. Especially with lower income workers who may not pay for the stuff themselves.
So if its a win for health insurance, a win for the employers, and a win for the customer? who the F' cares
I think the jury is out on the rest/most of preventive care. its hard to see the cost savings there. . .but this one, its pretty in our face.
As far as Religions not wanting to do it? update your f'n religon and get with the times or stop doing business.
No, the reason us Republicans have a problem with it, is because we believe in individual freedom and responsibility and if it's an activity you want to engage in, get off your lazy butt and go down to any store and buy all the birth control you want. It's not expensive, nor hard to find.
As a part of individual freedom is choice and once government can mandate that you are forced to offer a product and the private citizen is forced to buy it, you have removed any semblance of individual freedom and choice. The government can then mandate private transactions between individuals and control behavior.
It's interesting leftists always talk about "CHOICE", yet they seek to take choice away, such as up above:
"update your f'n religon and get with the times or stop doing business"
It's an example of the totalitarian bigots out there who proclaim the great god of choice, yet it's an F you if you don't agree with their "Choice".
You don't seem to get it. That's what this thread is all about, insurance paying for BC w/o a co-pay as it does for all preventive care under the ACA. This is not a tax issue, no matter how much some people have tried to turn it into one.
All mandates that cost money are a tax issue no matter how much people try to deny it.
No, the reason us Republicans have a problem with it, is because we believe in individual freedom and responsibility and if it's an activity you want to engage in, get off your lazy butt and go down to any store and buy all the birth control you want. It's not expensive, nor hard to find.
As a part of individual freedom is choice and once government can mandate that you are forced to offer a product and the private citizen is forced to buy it, you have removed any semblance of individual freedom and choice. The government can then mandate private transactions between individuals and control behavior.
It's interesting leftists always talk about "CHOICE", yet they seek to take choice away, such as up above:
"update your f'n religon and get with the times or stop doing business"
It's an example of the totalitarian bigots out there who proclaim the great god of choice, yet it's an F you if you don't agree with their "Choice".
Just curious, but where do you draw the line. If you're against covering birth control under the guise of "personal responsibility", then why not extend that to cancer treatment (like for lung cancer) or obesity treatment?
I just had to go on birth control for the sole reason of controlling breakthrough bleeding. Nothing to do with sex whatsoever.
I was originally put on BCP for irregular periods. I was off them for a couple of years in my mid twenties. I developed crippling ovarian pain and scarring acne. Went back on BCP and those symptoms disappeared. Sure I could pay for it full price, but the brand that is prescribed and works best for me is 60.00 a month full price for the generic version, (I personally have no problem with my 15.00 copay).
Not every woman is on the Pill because they want to randomly have sex with countless men, which is what Fundies want to think. But even if the Pill is used solely for recreational sex, it isn't really anyone else's business. I don't want some religious nut job to take over as decision maker at my insurer and decide BCP will no longer be covered. New laws will prevent this sort of thing from happening.
The "I don't want to have my tax dollars pay for BCP!" is a ridiculous argument, BTW, seeing as how every tax payer doesn't want their tax dollars going toward something that they do. I certainly could make my own list. However, it's called Life Living in the United States of America and folks can choose to live off the grid or defect and move to some other country if they wish.
Just curious, but where do you draw the line. If you're against covering birth control under the guise of "personal responsibility", then why not extend that to cancer treatment (like for lung cancer) or obesity treatment?
Please, explain the criteria.
Exactly! And what about treatment for diseases beyond one's control? Even then, one could make the "personal responsibility" argument, a term the RWs have made a mockery of.
No, because its cheaper to self insure when one can afford it. I have saved thousands not buying petty insurance when I can afford to insure myself with savings. Didn't you figure that personal finance detail out?
I don't have to "figure that personal finance detail out," since I have a good job where they cover 100% of my insurance if I work 80 hours in a pay period. Thus far, I've never had to contribute more than $50 in a paycheck. But yes, I self-insured when I didn't have a job where it was covered - so you can get off that high horse now.
As for the rest of your post, there is no point in responding to a bunch of condescending personal attacks... you don't even know me well enough to make such comments, so I'm writing that off as a rant that is more about you than me.
P.S. If that warranty question was regarding my car, I have a 7yo car with NO warranty and the minimum insurance required by California... and one of my friends is a certified mechanic, who does auto repairs in exchange for crashing on my couch occasionally. Your point?
I'd love to be self insured but I couldn't have covered the $200k medical bills that rolled in over the last 15 years due to a couple accidents and a disease which required multiple surgeries and therapies. Up until then however I could have been very self righteous and told you all how much money you were wasting on insurance since I PERSONALLY never had much use for it.
I've figured out personal finances and, not having and extra million in the bank, concluded insurance is necessary for my health, my car, my house and for awhile, my life.
I just had to go on birth control for the sole reason of controlling breakthrough bleeding. Nothing to do with sex whatsoever.
Another reason why men shouldn't be making decisions on these things
THIS is why it should be provided (not through public tax, through employment benefits. That is how the proposed plan works -- I don't know where the right got that idea...maybe the guy who called that poor women a ****. Birth Control is used for many medical functions outside sex, screw Abortion Pill, even Birth Control is a misleading conflation of what the drugs can be used to benefit.
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.
