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.
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.
Likewise, "I want to get pregnant" is a choice. Why should others (esp men who don't get to choose whether to become pregnant) have to pay for another's woman choice in becoming pregnant (as in insurance covering all the medical costs involved with pregnancy).
That local McDonald's--what church does it go to? The nearby Kohl's/Dillard's/Macy's/Old Navy---what church do these businesses go to? A business is a thing. It doesn't have a religion. It's not against birth control. It's a thing. No religion, no preferences. The owners of these businesses aren't being asked to pay for BC. They are being asked to provide insurance for their employees, insurance that already includes BC. And they are asking to customize that insurance for religious reasons, which the business doesn't have, because the business is a thing and doesn't have a religion.
I agree with what you say up until non profit organizations operated by churches. I disagree with them being declared separate from the church. If they are non profit and are run by a church, then the same religious freedoms which apply to churches should apply to them in my opinion.
If a church decides to serve the community by forming a charity to help people, I think it's only needlessly punishing them to say "okay now your freedom of religion no longer applies"
Now f the church decides to run an actual business to make money, that's a whole different thing - then again okay you lose any special rights as a church. You're free to donate the profits back to the church if you want, but the business itself is a business like any other.
And if church members decide to serve the community by forming a charity - then okay, that's nice of them but as individuals they need to follow the same rules as everyone else. But if it is the church itself doing it, I don't think it should lose its religious freedom protections.
Quote:
And everytime someone advocates abstinence, then the implication is that the real desire here is control of others.
I think there is a difference between advocating abstinence and declaring that people need to be responsible for the choices they make. Banning birth control? No. But saying buy your own birth control? Yes. That's not advocating abstinence, it's just saying if you choose to engage in an activity then it's up to you to pay for the costs involved in supporting that activity. If you want to play baseball, then buy your own mitt and baseball bat. If you want to have sex, then buy your own birth control. It's not my responsibility to provide you with a baseball bat so you can play baseball and it isn't my job to provide you with birth control so you can have sex. I'm not forbidding or punishing you for doing it, nor am I telling you not to do it, I'm just saying if you do it then you need to pay the costs of doing it out of your pocket and not out of mine.
Using the existence of an abstinence option as a reason for saying those who choose not to be abstinent should pay for that choice themselves doesn't mean you're advocating that option or trying to control which option they choose. If you can buy a Toyota or a BMW, I'm not required to pay for you to get the BMW just because you like it better. I'm not trying to stop you from getting a BMW I'm just not accepting responsibility for getting you one.
And none of that is saying BC shouldn't be covered by insurance, it's just saying that there should be no federal mandate that all insurance plans must provide BC with no co-pay.
And of course for those social conservative types who actually do advocate for abstinence, none of this applies. I'm against their attempts to push their morality on people. I want to let people do what they want but pay for the choices they make. I'm a conservative but not a social conservative -- If you want to actually limit peoples' choices, then don't count on my support.
Likewise, "I want to get pregnant" is a choice. Why should others (esp men who don't get to choose whether to become pregnant) have to pay for another's woman choice in becoming pregnant (as in insurance covering all the medical costs involved with pregnancy).
Or for in vitro?
Why do I have to pay for someone's heart attack?
Or prostate cancer?
I almost hate to bring it up but has anyone looked into how much is being spent keeping alive the preemies and babies born with conditions that would have never survived 10-20-30 years ago? Sometimes livelong care is required, mostly footed by the insurance companies. It's off this topic but since we already mentioned other conditions it's in the ball park. It's all part of the big picture but nobody ever seems to point to the costs of things like that, I guess because we can't yell "harlot" or whatever. We fight to the death to save a dime while dollars flow like water ever where else. That's a strange human trait.
Likewise, "I want to get pregnant" is a choice. Why should others (esp men who don't get to choose whether to become pregnant) have to pay for another's woman choice in becoming pregnant (as in insurance covering all the medical costs involved with pregnancy).
They don't have to pay for "I want to get pregnant". There is no requirement to pay for fertility services.
But once you are pregnant, then you have a legitimate medical condition. Unless you signed an insurance policy that specifically said it did not cover pregnancy, then your health insurance should cover that condition.
The insurance doesn't have to cover your desire to get pregnant or not get pregnant. It does, however, have to cover your pregnancy itself.
They don't have to pay for "I want to get pregnant". There is no requirement to pay for fertility services.
But once you are pregnant, then you have a legitimate medical condition. Unless you signed an insurance policy that specifically said it did not cover pregnancy, then your health insurance should cover that condition.
The insurance doesn't have to cover your desire to get pregnant or not get pregnant. It does, however, have to cover your pregnancy itself.
There is a requirement for prenatal care, birth, complications, etc. And pregnancy is a choice too so why is it different? Especially when the costs are astronomical compared to NOT getting pregnant.
If a $1 copay would shut people up I'd support that entierly, but somehow I don't think it would work. I've said that before.
I think it's considered "preventative" as in "preventing a more expensive alternative".
If insurance now requires a co-pay it should be left as is. Not a special 1.00, most copays are at least 10-20.00. No mandate that there CANNOT be a copay or deductible. No federal mandate on this.
If companies want to cover it 100%, let them decide.
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.
