• 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!

Poll: Most say employers should be allowed not to cover contraception

Employers shouldn't be health care providers at all; we need universal coverage.
 
Employers shouldn't be health care providers at all; we need universal coverage.


They aren't health care providers, they pay a portion (not all in majority cases) of health care coverage as a benefit, an enticement for prospective employee's to want to work for them. It is not mandatory for them to provide this benefit. What is mandatory is workmans compensation benefits.
 
Last edited:
They aren't health care providers, they pay a portion (not all in majority cases) of health care coverage as a benefit, an enticement for prospective employee's to want to work for them. It is not mandatory for them to provide this benefit. What is mandatory is workmans compensation benefits.

if we had universal coverage now and someone argued that we should drop it in favor of employer-specific health insurance that would be lost at every job change, that person would be laughed out of the room.
 
if we had universal coverage now and someone argued that we should drop it in favor of employer-specific health insurance that would be lost at every job change, that person would be laughed out of the room.


Biggest question of the day, can this country afford universal health care? Where exactly is the money going to come from? Are we planning on printing another trillion to pay for it?

I do not disagree with universal health care, what I do not think is that we can as a country actually afford it! The countries which are able to provide it are in much better financial situation than we.
 
Biggest question of the day, can this country afford universal health care? Where exactly is the money going to come from? Are we planning on printing another trillion to pay for it?

I do not disagree with universal health care, what I do not think is that we can as a country actually afford it! The countries which are able to provide it are in much better financial situation than we.

Are there any big piles of money out there not currently being put to productive use?
 
your understanding is incorrect. the Catholic Church stands by its opposition to anything that closes the sexual act to fruitfulness, including birth control.

---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?3cudtj

How does that work in the real world? Say that a catholic couples get married then the woman is 20 years old, then you have around 20 years of fruitfulness. So with no contraception the couple can easily ends up with 5/10 childrens. Also what if the woman needs the contraception for medical reason?
 
How does that work in the real world? Say that a catholic couples get married then the woman is 20 years old, then you have around 20 years of fruitfulness. So with no contraception the couple can easily ends up with 5/10 childrens. Also what if the woman needs the contraception for medical reason?


I need gas too, should my car insurance cover that? Don't I have a right to gas?


j-mac
 
I need gas too, should my car insurance cover that? Don't I have a right to gas?


j-mac

HAHA! thats funny, can you imagine the car insurance rates for car insurance that included gas?
 
To say that either party wants to fix the economy is to believe in a false premise.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
 
They could stop runaway spending and quit printing money to pay our debts for one.

They could get rid of corporate tax exemptions and reduce government contracts for two.
 
To say that either party wants to fix the economy is to believe in a false premise.

No, both parties want to fix the economy.

They want to fix it for their individual campaign contributors.
 
No, both parties want to fix the economy.

They want to fix it for their individual campaign contributors.


Actually that is correct, and right now we have one in office fixing it for his contributors, Big Unions.


j-mac
 
The issue that is a non issue with the people. To quote the Clinton campaign from the 1990's...."It's the economy stupids".

Folks are concerned with how they will feed their kids, Folks are concerned with Over 8% unemployment for the longest sustained time in the history of this country since the great depression, folks are concerned with 19% underemployment, folks are concerned with 4+ trillion dollars in new debt in less than 3 years, folks are concerned with home foreclosures continuing unabated by any Obama plan, folks are concerned with gasoline heading toward $5 a gallon driving up prices of all consumer goods and food prices hitting the stratosphere and folks are concerned with GDP growth below 2% which means we're losing ground. What they aren't concerned with is whether employers should be allowed not to cover contraception. We just want to pay our bills and feed our kids. Yet the Democrats are yeowing about contraception? How outta touch is that?

At my company I am advocating heavily for cancelling coverage for most heart disease because it is predominately caused by the disgusting eating habits of those afflicted, and I am morally opposed to coverage for people with this self-imposed health issue.
 
Not my problem. The employee should have to choose between birth control, or pregnancy coverage. Can't have both.

Because the argument, up til now, has been that birth control will save money in the long run. Why should we have to pay for birth control AND pregnancy?

This is the real world, bro, you can't have you cake and eat it too.

I thought your ideas were the best to pick up on.

Regarding birth control, contraception, and actual pre-natal and post-natal care. The problem is not the inherent costs, or what insurance SHOULD be. Insurance companies should be able to rate all of the above, cost it out, establish insurance plans, and then sell them. In a normal capitalist world (without liberal parasite idiots), the competititive market will manage all. If one wants medical insurance coverage to have babies, then fine, Pay for it.

The problem is government telling an organization, such as the Catholic Church, and insurance companies, that "you will provide this, and you will spread around the cost". **** that. And **** the dumbass liberals who think that such as me has to pay for their coverage. I don't care if they use contraceptives. Or get abortions. Or have babies. What I will not do is pay for your choices. And **** Obama if he thinks that I, and tens of millions of Americans who think like me, are gonna pay for that.

My cold fingers ain't dead yet.

Libs. Screw all you want. With or without a rubber, or the pill. Cons do the same. We have to get back where others don't bail you out of your stupidity is all.
 
HAHA! thats funny, can you imagine the car insurance rates for car insurance that included gas?

If libs have their way, you will know that number. Someone is already picking up the tab for the $10K tax credit to buy Volts (unborn Conservative kids is my estimate). So essentially it is already upon us. Libs sure as **** ain't paying it.
 
At my company I am advocating heavily for cancelling coverage for most heart disease because it is predominately caused by the disgusting eating habits of those afflicted, and I am morally opposed to coverage for people with this self-imposed health issue.

Good for you, I'm sure your real popular in the lunch room.
 
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...not-cover-contraception-4.html#post1060289220


My point is where would it stop, like the poster said, we can be morally opposed to just about anything in health care. Health care should be just that, health care for all people who are covered under it. There should be some things considered elective and as such not covered under health care, acupuncture and things of this nature, or elective surgeries like plastic surgery or preexisting conditions.

The problem here is when you are talking about taking out birth control then health care costs will rise because women have a tendency to get pregnant. Before all this birth control pill business women were constantly getting pregnant and health care HAS to cover that because that is directly related to health and is necessary during pregnancy. After the advent of birth control with insurance companies staring to cover the cost it had a direct impact on insurance companies, for the better, why? because women weren't getting pregnant so darn often! It is why I do not see this as an issue, insurance companies should be happy to provide it, because it is they who will pay if they don't.
 
Last edited:
I couldnt care less if an employer picks insurance that covers BC or not but what does matter is if that employer makes that decision solely based on religion. Then its a problem and thats not allowed.

You could replace BC with anything :shrug:
 
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...not-cover-contraception-4.html#post1060289220


My point is where would it stop, like the poster said, we can be morally opposed to just about anything in health care. Health care should be just that, health care for all people who are covered under it. There should be some things considered elective and as such not covered under health care, acupuncture and things of this nature, or elective surgeries like plastic surgery or preexisting conditions.

The problem here is when you are talking about taking out birth control then health care costs will rise because women have a tendency to get pregnant. Before all this birth control pill business women were constantly getting pregnant and health care HAS to cover that because that is directly related to health and is necessary during pregnancy. After the advent of birth control with insurance companies staring to cover the cost it had a direct impact on insurance companies, for the better, why? because women weren't getting pregnant so darn often! It is why I do not see this as an issue, insurance companies should be happy to provide it, because it is they who will pay if they don't.

Slick. Are you aware we survived fine for millenia without health insurance ? I am not advocating a return to no health insurance, but your post is just plain stupid. The problem we have is liberal politicians trying to shift accountability from their reckless supporters to the rest of us. Its all about accountability, and not all the other BS you froth. Return accountability to each and every person, and cut this BS of pretending its an offer to those of us who have to spread what we have to those who think they are owed, where we pick what is the least expensive way in which we will be fleeced. Depending on gender, its your dick, or your snatch. Own the outcome. Tough love, but it works.
 
Actually that is correct, and right now we have one in office fixing it for his contributors, Big Unions.

But the only people the GOP are putting up to possibly replace him will fix it for their contributors, Big Business.
 
Slick. Are you aware we survived fine for millenia without health insurance ? I am not advocating a return to no health insurance, but your post is just plain stupid. The problem we have is liberal politicians trying to shift accountability from their reckless supporters to the rest of us. Its all about accountability, and not all the other BS you froth. Return accountability to each and every person, and cut this BS of pretending its an offer to those of us who have to spread what we have to those who think they are owed, where we pick what is the least expensive way in which we will be fleeced. Depending on gender, its your dick, or your snatch. Own the outcome. Tough love, but it works.

Hi Deuce!

Last August, I fell and broke my wrist. The pain was excruciating. Not having any health insurance, I went to a local Imaging Center and paid $150 for an X-Ray and reading. Turns out I fractured my radius and tore some muscles and tendons. The X-Ray guy told me that there was nothing to be done but R.I.C.E and immobilization. I went to WalGreens and bought a wrist brace and wore it till things healed. I found out there was nothing to do but wait and heal. I didn't need a doctor to cup my cheek and tell me it would be OK, or give me some fancy over priced pills. Folks today need to man up and stop being such Oprahfied sissies. A lady friend of mine is a nurse, she tells me some parents rush into the clinic every time junior sneezes. If Obama Care stands, it'll end up costing us all hundreds of billions of dollars each and every year. Oy Vie!
 
Slick. Are you aware we survived fine for millenia without health insurance ? I am not advocating a return to no health insurance, but your post is just plain stupid. The problem we have is liberal politicians trying to shift accountability from their reckless supporters to the rest of us. Its all about accountability, and not all the other BS you froth. Return accountability to each and every person, and cut this BS of pretending its an offer to those of us who have to spread what we have to those who think they are owed, where we pick what is the least expensive way in which we will be fleeced. Depending on gender, its your dick, or your snatch. Own the outcome. Tough love, but it works.

Yes I am quite aware that we survived millenia without health insurance.

MY POINT: is that it is elective for an employer to even provide insurance (with them paying partial costs) therefore, if they ELECT to provide it as a perk to their employee's then it should be HEALTH insurance. BC SAVES insurance companies MONEY therefore SAVES the employers as well, on more than one front for the employer, less out of work time for their female employee's etc.

An employer does not have to elect for this. An employee can work somewhere who does, or pay for it out of pocket.

There are multitude of plans out their for people who wish to pay for insurance, some plans are hospitalization only and goes up from there... some employers only offer the cheaper insurance such as hospitalization only for their junior/less skilled employee's.

BUT it is ridiculous to say BC is not a benefit to both the employer and the employee, this has nothing to do with liberals, its sheer common sense! And more ridiculous to blame any religion!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom