View Poll Results: Should we pay for Sandra Fluke's birth control?

Voters
78. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    28 35.90%
  • No

    50 64.10%
Page 28 of 82 FirstFirst ... 1826272829303878 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 811

Thread: Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

  1. #271
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    I showed you a timeline. The claim was that the taxpayers were going to be on the hook for all these children which were going to pop forth if all women don't get their birth control for free. The timeline tracks pretty well with the history of government assistance.
    So you WERE talking about in the past. Your timeline did not show that there were more unwanted children now than in the past. No one said all women would get pregnant without this kind of program. It just allows easier access and may help prevent some unwanted pregnancies, which in the long run saves money when some woman may get pregnant, have to quit her job and go on public assistance.

  2. #272
    Educator Schutzengel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Last Seen
    04-20-13 @ 11:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    719

    Re: Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Then prove it isn't true. Lets see you back up your smarmy, petty, little insults with some credible evidence and a link for a change. Come on, surprise us, Harshaw.
    Moot, you know it isn't possible to prove a negative... In logical debate it is your responsibility to prove YOUR assertions.
    History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid. - Ike

    Tea is better for you than Kool-Aid.

  3. #273
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,516

    Re: Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Then prove it isn't true. Lets see you back up your smarmy, petty, little insults with some credible evidence and a link for a change. Come on, surprise us, Harshaw.
    And another bit of great silliness. It's not up to me to prove your asinine claims aren't true. It's up to you to prove that they are. And what you said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    It's odd, Liberals look at those children and say they didn't ask to be born or live like that, that mother should be on birth control....and Conservatives look at them and see more prisoners to fill the private prison industry's wallets at taxpayer expense.
    Was indeed a "smarmy, petty, little insult," so you tell me why I should have taken it seriously?
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  4. #274
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

    Health insurance purchased by middle and higher income level women is also used to cover those women's children, perhaps teenage daughters who may not have access to BC otherwise and who might end up pregnant and receiving public assistance.

  5. #275
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

    The only argument I see against this is that it is a relatively cheap drug.

  6. #276
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

    Look, things are better now than ever on the birth control scene. Women don't have to risk their future health to take birth control today and the price, quality and variety is astounding. More people are using effective birth control than ever before and more are educated in it's use and efficacy. And there isn't a store that won't sell them to teens (unlike my day).

    If the individual cannot afford either birth control or a birth - then they should abstain from vaginal intercourse with fertile males - period. Just as if you have a car but cannot afford insurance or an accident, you should not drive it. It sucks, but that's life. You don't always get to do what you really, really want to do exactly when you want to do it. The Devil Made Me Do it is not an excuse.

    Where birth control has gotten better, personal responsibility has not.

    Perhaps the government is trying to avoid Idiocracy from being a predictive movie.

  7. #277
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Health insurance purchased by middle and higher income level women is also used to cover those women's children, perhaps teenage daughters who may not have access to BC otherwise and who might end up pregnant and receiving public assistance.
    Here is where a lot of the confusion on the subject comes into play. When mandatory coverages are included in law the price goes up for everyone, some things should be covered when they are equal risk factors such as heart disease, cancer, etc. and then there are others that are gender specific such as birth control.

    No one is saying that insurers should be barred from offering birth control but rather it is bad mandate. Insurers who do offer birth control have already weighted their risk tables to cover the cost, but when I have to have BC coverage as a male it screws the whole thing up. For instance I have zero possibility of becomming pregnant, none, and have no interest in taking BC and since I am not married there is no dependent who would qualify, but under Obamacare I must now insure myself, you, and everyone else to provide birth control, it is of no benefit to me. As well Viagra, non-medical breast reductions, and cosmetic surgery should not be covered.

    Check the different price ratings in mandate heavy states versus mandate light states and you will see sometimes a thousand or more dollars a year difference in premium, and lower deductibles. It can be astronomical.

    EDIT - Lower ded. should be higher deductibles. Sorry, kind of makes a difference.
    Last edited by LaMidRighter; 09-04-12 at 08:12 PM.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  8. #278
    Hard As A Rock
    Strucky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Minnesota
    Last Seen
    10-19-17 @ 08:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    2,074

    Re: Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    NOBODY'S PAYING FOR ****ING SANDRA ****ING FLUKES ****ING CONTRACEPTION...

    HOLY JESUS.

    There's nothing wrong with mandating Medical Insurance Companies to pay for contraception the same way they would pay for any other basic drugs that are nessecary for people to have, some of these HMO's cover Viagra for gods sake, so why not contraceptive pills?

    Doing such a thing, expanding access to contraceptives is a massive net benefit to the economy as it reduces unwanted pregnancies, reduces the need for abortions which is a net positive for the medical insurance companies obviously abortion procedures cost more than a measly pill.

    This whole idea that everyone pays for Sandra Flukes Contraceptives is such a fallacy it's unbelievable.
    mandating the insurance company to pay for it will result in the insurance company raising prices and/or making sure you pay for other things to make up for the lost revenue....So yeah we will end up paying for her sexual habits
    "The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without."

    ~Dwight D. Eisenhower

  9. #279
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,619

    Re: Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

    Henrin-
    That is the otherside of the 'conservative' dodge. The Gawd n Mutha 'conservatives' would see the advantage to keeping women in good health to spawn good children.

    Now to be precise, the ONLY business being forced to provide BC, Breast Exams, PAP smears are the insurance companies.

    To be fair, many women already have BC coverage as they live in states that require some sort of BC coverage, so the 'why should businesses be required' has already been asked and answered for roughly 50% of the US Women.

    Depending on the method of birth control and with no negotiated discounts for it the cost for a month of BC is 30 bucks. If there is a 50% on it then it costs the company two hours wages at minimum wage rates.

    Two hours a month for a much happier and productive female worker. My wife had bad cramps, irregular cycles, tough mood swings. Birth control REALLY helped with cramps, time and duration of period and a bit on mood swings.

    Two hours a month to have women shedding the period problems of the past and not having that OOPS-OH moment that pulls them out of the workforce,(with maternity leave), just after you get them trained.

    Seems a very low cost benefit.

  10. #280
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Here is where a lot of the confusion on the subject comes into play. When mandatory coverages are included in law the price goes up for everyone, some things should be covered when they are equal risk factors such as heart disease, cancer, etc. and then there are others that are gender specific such as birth control.

    No one is saying that insurers should be barred from offering birth control but rather it is bad mandate. Insurers who do offer birth control have already weighted their risk tables to cover the cost, but when I have to have BC coverage as a male it screws the whole thing up. For instance I have zero possibility of becomming pregnant, none, and have no interest in taking BC and since I am not married there is no dependent who would qualify, but under Obamacare I must now insure myself, you, and everyone else to provide birth control, it is of no benefit to me. As well Viagra, non-medical breast reductions, and cosmetic surgery should not be covered.

    Check the different price ratings in mandate heavy states versus mandate light states and you will see sometimes a thousand or more dollars a year difference in premium, and lower deductibles. It can be astronomical.
    Birth control is really not gender specific though if you really think about it. Men also have to pay for unwanted pregnancies and children. IMO, in this day and age, birth control for all women of fertile age is a necessity, unless we expect them to be abstinent.

Page 28 of 82 FirstFirst ... 1826272829303878 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •