• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Angry lawmakers challenge lineup at hearing: 'Where are the women?'

buck said:
He's also arguing that providing free birth control will be cheaper for the insurance companies due to less unwanted pregnancies. Unfortunately recent surveys have indicatd this isn't true. Obama has taken to just making things up to support his weak argument.

Insurers see costs in Obama birth control rule - Yahoo! News
Click to expand...


Thanks buck....I don't know about you, but I am absolutely SHOCKED! that a liberal progressive is lying about something that they say....


j-mac
 
buck said:
He's also arguing that providing free birth control will be cheaper for the insurance companies due to less unwanted pregnancies. Unfortunately recent surveys have indicatd this isn't true. Obama has taken to just making things up to support his weak argument.

Insurers see costs in Obama birth control rule - Yahoo! News
Click to expand...
THE WHITE HOUSE -- Office of the Press Secretary -- February 10, 2012​

[...] Covering contraception saves money for insurance companies by keeping women healthy and preventing spending on other health services. For example, there was no increase in premiums when contraception was added to the Federal Employees Health Benefit System and required of non-religious employers in Hawaii. One study found that covering contraception lowered premiums by 10 percent or more.

http://www.c-span.org/uploadedfiles/Content/Documents/wh021012.pdf
Click to expand...

02/10/2012 [...] The National Business Group of Health, a nonprofit that represents large employer interests on health policy issues, estimates that employers can save between $9,000 to $14,000 over a five-year period by covering contraception. It also found that not providing coverage could cost an employer 15 percent to 17 percent more a year.

The Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit that studies reproductive health issues, found that when it comes to Medicaid, every dollar spent on publicly funded contraception saves $3.74 in expenditures on pregnancy-related care for unintended births as well as one year of medical care for the infants.

Honolulu Civil Beat - FACT CHECK
Click to expand...

Welcome aboard the fail train
train2.gif
 
Earlier in one of the many threads on very similar subject in here I made a comment about the Guttmacher study which nearly every demo politican is parotting like drones, saying that "98% of Catholic women are using contraception"... This is laughable especially when you take into account how they arrive at their numbers....It is summerized nicely here...

The study in question comes from the Guttmacher Institute. Here’s how they get the result:

1) They didn’t count anyone that wasn’t a Catholic woman between the ages of 15-44. Obviously, that eliminates everyone that might be too old or too young to be having sex. But, it also eliminates tens of millions of people who are not too old to be having sex.

2) They didn’t count anyone who was pregnant. Obviously, the vast majority of these people were not using contraception.

3) They didn’t count anyone who just gave birth. Obviously, the vast majority of these people were not using contraception.

4) They didn’t count anyone who hadn’t had sex in the last three months. No, this doesn’t just eliminate ugly people. It eliminates every non-married person who is listening to the Catholic church enough to not have sex outside of marriage. In other words, the most likely group to be listening to the Catholic church about contraception.

5) They didn’t count anyone who was trying to get pregnant, or was indifferent to becoming pregnant. In other words, they eliminated the single most likely group to avoid contraception.

6) They didn’t count anyone who was having sex, trying to avoid pregnancy, but also not using a specific contraception method. I guess this would be the good ol’ “pull-n-pray”—which, incidentally–isn’t as religious as it sounds.

7) Two out of every five women in the survey were so incredibly Catholic that they either attended church services “less than once a month” or “never.” Never?



To summarize:

The study asked a bunch of Catholic women who are both 1) regularly having sex and 2) trying not to get pregnant, whether they’re using contraception. How did you not get 100% on that question? I mean—what are your other options in that situation? Specifically searching out people who are medically sterile? Buying the Cialis mailing list and trying to find guys with ED? Punching dudes in the groin before you hook up?

No, 98% of Catholics do not use contraception – Glenn Beck
Click to expand...

Hope this will put an end to this disingenious argument being put forth by liberals...


j-mac
 
Karl said:
Welcome aboard the fail train
train2.gif
Click to expand...

So your contention is that Obama was just wrong and not actually lying? I guess it's possible he didn't know about the study I quoted when he made his claims. Has he continued making the claim since this study came out, would then be the question... Because, based on the study of the insurance companies (the ones that actually have to pay and would know) there is no cost savings.
 
Karl said:
02/10/2012 [...] The National Business Group of Health, a nonprofit that represents large employer interests on health policy issues, estimates that employers can save between $9,000 to $14,000 over a five-year period by covering contraception. It also found that not providing coverage could cost an employer 15 percent to 17 percent more a year.
Click to expand...

BTW, you do realize that this study isn't talking about health insurance premiums, right?
 
j-mac said:
Are contraceptions available now for medical uses? BTW, what are the medical uses of the pill outside of regulating some women's periods?

j-mac
Click to expand...

Endometriosis
Polycystic Ovary Syndrome
Amenorrhea from low weight, stress, excessive exercise, or damage to the ovaries from radiation or chemotherapy
Irregular menstrual periods
menstrual cramps
acne
PMS
 
You know what? Before I had a baby even I didn't understand how much birth control means to women. I knew it was important, appreciated that I had it... but I had no idea. And I realize there are anti-feminist mothers out there who are against birth control but at least they have some way to relate to what a pregnancy does to a woman's life. Men, especially men who pretend to know what's best for us, do NOT.

The fact that no women were on this panel of witnesses is ridiculous.
 
j-mac said:
Are contraceptions available now for medical uses? BTW, what are the medical uses of the pill outside of regulating some women's periods?

j-mac
Click to expand...

Virtually all reproductive disorders aside from infertility are now treated with birth control. It's the first line for most gynecological disorders. I'm not saying I agree with this, I'm just letting you know that the pill has major uses.
 
Temporal said:
Virtually all reproductive disorders aside from infertility are now treated with birth control. It's the first line for most gynecological disorders. I'm not saying I agree with this, I'm just letting you know that the pill has major uses.
Click to expand...


Ok, but like I asked, are these pills not available on the market now? And for those women whom may not have the cost, it would seem that in many cases it is already covered, or extremely low cost. Like Birmingham NY, PP for example gives out the day after pill 'free of charge' as "Emergency contraception"....So you tell me what access is restricted now without forcing the Church to provide this?


j-mac
 
tessaesque said:
Would they have complained if the male witnesses had advocated for women's rights? Is this just manufactured outrage over an issue that was already pretty damn stupid to start with?
Click to expand...

Not really. Women actually should be involved.

Here's something I think some will enjoy:

On Monday night, the trend continued with a "Daily Show" segment mocking Rep. Darrell Issa's male-dominated congressional hearing on the controversial subject.

Stewart pointed out the unfortunate optics of the hearing, which featured one entirely male panel of conservative clergy members, and not a single pro-birth-control female. "While no ladies actually ever spoke on behalf of ladies, some of these fellas were wearing gowns, so that's something," he said.

The "hyperbolic" panelists did little to quell Stewart's concerns: Republican Rep. Tim Walberg invoked Stalin, while Dr. C. Ben Mitchell of Union University claimed that the mandate was equivalent to "nothing less than the rape of the soul."

On a bit of a tangent, Stewart also questioned the Catholic Church's support of health insurance plans that cover Viagra: "How is it that women can't get their pill and men can get their pill?" In footage from a 2000 interview, a spokesperson for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops explained that “Viagra actually answers a medical problem. ... Contraception is a choice that somebody will make, but it doesn't answer a particular healthcare need.”

Stewart was not convinced by the distinction. "So the Catholic Church says a[n erection] is a need, but not getting pregnant is more of a want?"

Late Night: Jon Stewart mocks congressional birth control hearings - latimes.com
 
j-mac said:
Ok, but like I asked, are these pills not available on the market now? And for those women whom may not have the cost, it would seem that in many cases it is already covered, or extremely low cost. Like Birmingham NY, PP for example gives out the day after pill 'free of charge' as "Emergency contraception"....So you tell me what access is restricted now without forcing the Church to provide this?


j-mac
Click to expand...

The pills that are used for medical purposes are treated like any other medical prescription. If you are covered buy insurance you probably have a co-pay, if not you are stuck with the bill..... unless you are covered by certain religious organizations who state that using birth control prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. In this case it is a sin and the organization does not pay for BC. According to some strict Catholics it is a sin if the semen and sex are not intended for procreation and the BC stops that from happening.
 
OMG! Jon Stewart is not happy with the make up of a panel, and their "optics".... Heaven forbid.

Lord knows that Stewart has the religious bona fides to tell the Catholic Church what they should accept.

Look, The demo's had the chance to have who they wanted on that panel, and at the last minute their person to appear failed to post....


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
OMG! Jon Stewart is not happy with the make up of a panel, and their "optics".... Heaven forbid.

Lord knows that Stewart has the religious bona fides to tell the Catholic Church what they should accept.

Look, The demo's had the chance to have who they wanted on that panel, and at the last minute their person to appear failed to post....


j-mac
Click to expand...

I answered your questions about the medical uses of Birth Control as you asked. What do you think about it?
 
taxigirl said:
The pills that are used for medical purposes are treated like any other medical prescription. If you are covered buy insurance you probably have a co-pay, if not you are stuck with the bill.....
Click to expand...

Yep. That is true, it is also true for blood pressure meds, Cardiac meds, psyc meds, and every other medication....

unless you are covered by certain religious organizations who state that using birth control prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. In this case it is a sin and the organization does not pay for BC. According to some strict Catholics it is a sin if the semen and sex are not intended for procreation and the BC stops that from happening.
Click to expand...

And you don't agree with their doctrine, so it is clear here that by God, you are going to force them to do it anyway....Like I said, this isn't about BC.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
OMG! Jon Stewart is not happy with the make up of a panel, and their "optics".... Heaven forbid.

Lord knows that Stewart has the religious bona fides to tell the Catholic Church what they should accept.

Look, The demo's had the chance to have who they wanted on that panel, and at the last minute their person to appear failed to post....


j-mac
Click to expand...

Do realize j that the church is telling non-Catholics, not working at a church, what their insurance company can and can't be provide for them. You fail to see the contradiction in your position. You're not alone.
 
taxigirl said:
I answered your questions about the medical uses of Birth Control as you asked. What do you think about it?
Click to expand...


Yes, and thank you for the list...Let's take a look at what you listed...

Endometriosis
Polycystic Ovary Syndrome
Amenorrhea from low weight, stress, excessive exercise, or damage to the ovaries from radiation or chemotherapy
Irregular menstrual periods
menstrual cramps
acne
PMS
Click to expand...


Ok, After looking up some of the less common reasons you listed here, in every case the pill is not the first line treatment of ANY of these, nor is ANY of these life threatening to the point of requiring the pill to be mandated for free.

j-mac
 
Boo Radley said:
Do realize j that the church is telling non-Catholics, not working at a church, what their insurance company can and can't be provide for them. You fail to see the contradiction in your position. You're not alone.
Click to expand...


Not true. The Church is only concerned in what they are being forced to provide against their conscience.

j-mac
 
kenvin said:
Can muslims honor kill thier daughters? Can Rastafarians give their kids drugs?
Click to expand...

Of course not because it violated the basic right to life of the daughters. However, Catholics and their institutions not paying for birth control denies no one any basic rights. Nice strawman, though. But straw IS highly flammable.
 
kenvin said:
Well Perhaps the government should stop reinbursing Catholic hospitals for indigent care, remove them from Federal insurance coverage of all levels. We wouldn't want them to get too entangled and violate their rights.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is such a good idea. NOT! All this would do is deny people who need life-saving coverage.
 
j-mac said:
Not true. The Church is only concerned in what they are being forced to provide against their conscience.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Not true. As a church, for church people, they don't have to. But they stepped outside of church, built other institutions, empluyed others, became a business, and those places are not exempt. The church does not have to provide clergy with this. but once they step outside the church, they become not a bigger church, but a business.

Also, they should worry more about why they can't trust Catholics not use contraceptions. Really, if they aren't going to sue them, why worry about it?
 
kenvin said:
Well forcing tax payers to fund a religion that treats women less than equally is also not good. I think defund and unentangle government from Catholic hospitals and doctors. No insurance or indigent reimbursment. The government should only fund secular medical facilities.
Click to expand...

You are not funding the religion, they are being compensated for services rendered. Catholic hospitals perform a public service and is a benefit to society. It would be far more efficient for the governemnt to reimburse Catholic hospitals than to build them from scratch. So, you can continue your rhetoric, but putting it into practice would have a serious NEGATIVE consequence on society.
 
Boo Radley said:
Do realize j that the church is telling non-Catholics, not working at a church, what their insurance company can and can't be provide for them. You fail to see the contradiction in your position. You're not alone.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the government will be telling religious people that they MUST pay for something that is abhorrant to their beliefs.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not true. As a church, for church people, they don't have to. But they stepped outside of church, built other institutions, empluyed others, became a business, and those places are not exempt. The church does not have to provide clergy with this. but once they step outside the church, they become not a bigger church, but a business.

Also, they should worry more about why they can't trust Catholics not use contraceptions. Really, if they aren't going to sue them, why worry about it?
Click to expand...

Aren't they typically not-for-profits?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom