• 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!

Atty: Hobby Lobby Won't Offer Morning-After Pill

Redress said:
Allowing people to make their own choices is the epitome of unethical. They might choose in ways we do not like!
Click to expand...

You realize that argument works for those of us against forcing BC coverage don't you?
 
danarhea said:
I have 2 statements to make here:

1) Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom to impose your religious views on others. Your freedom of religion stops where my own freedom of religion begins.
Click to expand...

I tend to support pretty broad access to birth control and health care reform, but I fail to see how they would be infringing on an employees freedom.
 
Cephus said:
Except that's not how it works. The employer pays a flat fee per month per employee. They are not paying any more to pay for contraceptives than they would be not to. It is then up to the employee whether or not they want to take advantage of the contraceptive coverage or not. What's really happening here is that the employer wants to tell the employee what they can and cannot do in their off-hours, in a bedroom which is none of the employer's damn business.

That's the reality.
Click to expand...

Not providing birth control, as part of an employee compensation package, does nothing more to restrict a person's rights than negotiating a set wage.
 
Henrin said:
You provide your labor and as a result you get paid for such labor.

Where does healthcare come into the equation there? Did I miss a step? Why are they obligated to cover any of that stuff?
Click to expand...

Health insurance is part of a compensation package. While I hate Obamacare as much as the next rational person, if we're going to have it, and it seems like we're going to get it shoved down our throat, it should provide for the needs of *EVERYONE*.
 
Henrin said:
You provide your labor and as a result you get paid for such labor.

Where does healthcare come into the equation there? Did I miss a step? Why are they obligated to cover any of that stuff?
Click to expand...

I beleive that it is rooted in maximum wage deals imposed by the gov't and the addition of non-cash employer benefits to give incentive for employees to not switch jobs.

Health insurance in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://bls.gov/mlr/1994/03/art1full.pdf
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Rubbish. The law requires that the corporation pay for birth-control coverage. Whether birth control is used or not is not the issue. The corporation is mandated to pay for the coverage. That is what is being objected to.
Click to expand...

The cost for the coverage is the same with or without the inclusion of birth control. So that can't be the objection. It is a business imposing their religion on their employees. I belirve that is not allowed here. Now if we were a theocratic Moslem State it would be quite different. Maybe that's what you were thinking?
 
iguanaman said:
The cost for the coverage is the same with or without the inclusion of birth control. So that can't be the objection. It is a business imposing their religion on their employees. I belirve that is not allowed here. Now if we were a theocratic Moslem State it would be quite different. Maybe that's what you were thinking?
Click to expand...
An employer has the right to impose many of his own personal standards and beliefs upon his employees. He may have standards of speech and dress and behavior that each employee must follow. THAT is his right. Religion or religious standards are no different. What you and many others are doing is taking a Constitutional protection that the state may not violate and applying it to your fellow citizens. If you are on my property and in my polace of business you are subject to my rules. That some of those rules may have a religious origin does not make them invalid.
 
iguanaman said:
The cost for the coverage is the same with or without the inclusion of birth control. So that can't be the objection. It is a business imposing their religion on their employees. I belirve that is not allowed here. Now if we were a theocratic Moslem State it would be quite different. Maybe that's what you were thinking?
Click to expand...

Do you just make this stuff up ? Again, the issue is not whether or not women want to choose contraception. Its whether or not it is included in the policy paid for by the employer. To then pretend that it is somehow a "freebie" in coverage is naive. Every cost is factored in. Every provider has thresholds that trigger higher premiums.

As to your other uninformed nonsense, do we not now have tax dollars spent so that Muslims can wash their feet at public facilities where you and I are happy enough to have urinals to piss in ? So spare me your naivete on such.

In no uncertain terms, your posts have been stupid on this topic.
 
Your Star said:
First off, saying "just find another job" in this economy is an easy thing to say, not an easy thing to do.

Secondly, it is ridiculous to claim that it is medically unethical.
Click to expand...

Just because jobs are scarce does not mean the government or the employees should restrict the owners right to run their business how they want.

What is ridiculous is mandating the coverage of birth control while other medications for illnesses like COPD, heart disease, and others are not forcibly required to be covered. It's medically unethical to place birth control at such a high tier by law when other things are not mandated that are necessary for a healthy life to treat potentially deadly diseases
 
digsbe said:
Just because jobs are scarce does not mean the government or the employees should restrict the owners right to run their business how they want.

What is ridiculous is mandating the coverage of birth control while other medications for illnesses like COPD, heart disease, and others are not forcibly required to be covered. It's medically unethical to place birth control at such a high tier by law when other things are not mandated that are necessary for a healthy life to treat potentially deadly diseases
Click to expand...

That is not medically unethical. Though I do think that all of that should be covered, and this whole debate just illustrates that it is ridiculous to have health insurance tied to employment. Which is why I wanted a single payer system.
 
Your Star said:
That is not medically unethical. Though I do think that all of that should be covered, and this whole debate just illustrates that it is ridiculous to have health insurance tied to employment. Which is why I wanted a single payer system.
Click to expand...

How is it not medically unethical? How is it not unethical to put the desire for contraception above the need for life-saving medication? What we have to work with is under the current system, and under the current system the government is not imposing single payer but is saying that birth control must be covered by law while necessary drugs do not.
 
Your Star said:
First off, saying "just find another job" in this economy is an easy thing to say, not an easy thing to do.

Secondly, it is ridiculous to claim that it is medically unethical.
Click to expand...

I don't give a darn what the state of the economy is. If you have a problem with what an employer offers, go find somebody else to make your butt happy. I'll perhaps reconsider when Hobby Lobby owns most of the US market.
 
Your Star said:
That is not medically unethical. Though I do think that all of that should be covered, and this whole debate just illustrates that it is ridiculous to have health insurance tied to employment. Which is why I wanted a single payer system.
Click to expand...

I am sympathetic to your view here. However, the inclusion of such as contraception and birth control in Obamacare mandates is the stuff of pure politics. And the stupidity of the American public in expecting an ever expanding nanny-state, magically paid for by aliens it would seem.

Health coverage should mirror such as auto insurance. Where all basic maintenance is on the owner. Insurance is for the "accidents", and even then, with a range of deductables.

I believe myself a realist. I could accept a single-payer system that covered all if modeled similarly to auto insurance. Such as a catastrophic-coverage "single payer", morphed with Medicaid for the indigent. Minimal coverage, where longer lines would be expected if one relied only on single-payer for care. Beyond that, folks could then purchase better-care insurance out of pocket. Voluntarily. Via employer if offered, or otherwise.

The problem is that liberals want health care as a right. They want full-coverage single-payer. As evidenced by this contraception mandate.

Like you and I ought to be able to get the oil changed in our car tomorrow and bill it to Allstate. :roll:
 
digsbe said:
How is it not medically unethical? How is it not unethical to put the desire for contraception above the need for life-saving medication? What we have to work with is under the current system, and under the current system the government is not imposing single payer but is saying that birth control must be covered by law while necessary drugs do not.
Click to expand...

Just because the government has realized that reducing the number of unwanted children is a good thing and wanted to enact policy to enable that doesn't make it medically unethical.
 
Your Star said:
Just because the government has realized that reducing the number of unwanted children is a good thing and wanted to enact policy to enable that doesn't make it medically unethical.
Click to expand...

That's not what I'm arguing and you never addressed my point. What I am arguing is that it is medically unethical to place the desire for birth control above the need for live saving/necessary medications and to mandate the coverage of one and not the other, the act of doing this is what is unethical not the desire to reduce unwanted pregnancy.
 
Your Star said:
Just because the government has realized that reducing the number of unwanted children is a good thing and wanted to enact policy to enable that doesn't make it medically unethical.
Click to expand...

To add that to the PPACA "free" services list over life saving medicine is a bit odd as far as priorities go. Some things you just can't explain.
 
Your Star said:
Just because the government has realized that reducing the number of unwanted children is a good thing and wanted to enact policy to enable that doesn't make it medically unethical.
Click to expand...

Yet, with the increase of birth control, we have a concurrent increase in the number of children born to unwed mothers (more than twice what it was 30 years ago, by percent of all childbirths), and raised in households with no father present. Which becomes the foundation for the highest concurrence of producing felons, and households being on the government teat.

Perhaps the government, or its liberal wing anyway, has realized a different dynamic.

I believe that your dots do not connect.
 
digsbe said:
Just because jobs are scarce does not mean the government or the employees should restrict the owners right to run their business how they want.

What is ridiculous is mandating the coverage of birth control while other medications for illnesses like COPD, heart disease, and others are not forcibly required to be covered. It's medically unethical to place birth control at such a high tier by law when other things are not mandated that are necessary for a healthy life to treat potentially deadly diseases
Click to expand...

Just because you think other things are also important doesn't make birth control mandates unethical.
 
digsbe said:
That's not what I'm arguing and you never addressed my point. What I am arguing is that it is medically unethical to place the desire for birth control above the need for live saving/necessary medications and to mandate the coverage of one and not the other, the act of doing this is what is unethical not the desire to reduce unwanted pregnancy.
Click to expand...

I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying I think your wrong.
 
Deuce said:
Just because you think other things are also important doesn't make birth control mandates unethical.
Click to expand...

From a medical perspective, mandating the coverage of birth control while not mandating a requirement to cover life saving/necessary medications is an unethical practice and unethical priority.

Your Star said:
I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying I think your wrong.
Click to expand...

Why am I wrong in my thinking? Why, from a medical perspective, is it not unethical to place the desire for birth control above the need for life saving/necessary medications and mandate its coverage while life saving medications are not mandated to be covered? Why is it not unethical for the government to say a business must provide plans that cover birth control while not forcing them to cover necessary medications?
 
Last edited:
Eighty Deuce said:
Yet, with the increase of birth control, we have a concurrent increase in the number of children born to unwed mothers (more than twice what it was 30 years ago, by percent of all childbirths), and raised in households with no father present. Which becomes the foundation for the highest concurrence of producing felons, and households being on the government teat.

Perhaps the government, or its liberal wing anyway, has realized a different dynamic.

I believe that your dots do not connect.
Click to expand...

Have you checked the stats for pregnancy out of wedlock for people who actually use birth control vs. people who don't?

As far as I understand it, the highest rates of unwed/teen pregnancy are found in areas with that "abstinence-only" education thing going on.
 
Deuce said:
Have you checked the stats for pregnancy out of wedlock for people who actually use birth control vs. people who don't?
Click to expand...

Post them if you believe they relevent ! The fact remains that we have declined markedly in achieving the results suggested by the poster ! I strongly suggest that any suggestion that birth control is a right, such that it should be mandated by Obamacare, and that it somehow improves the household, is far more than the one-dimensional excuse offered by the poster that I rebutted.

Put simply, the factual results say otherwise !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom