• 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!

Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

Should we pay for Sandra Fluke's birth control?

  • Total voters
    64
  • Poll closed .
Bob Blaylock said:
I don't think that anyone has so far said nor implied that anyone's liberty is threatened by someone else having birth control.

What is a threat to liberty is forcing one person to pay for something for someone else.

If Ms. Fluke wants birth control, she can pay for it out of her own pocket. There's no rational reason why she should be taken the least bit seriously in demanding that someone else be forced to buy it for her.
Click to expand...

So you're for shutting down the entire insurance industry then? After all, your drugs, including Viagra are paid for partly by someone else. Let's see just how internally tangled you are.
 
Henrin said:
Having your health maintained is not an inalienable right. Stop saying it is.
Click to expand...

Okay. Let's shut down insurance coverage for all non-life savings drugs.

Only drugs that save your life at a critical moment can be covered.

Nothing for sexual health. Nothing for cholesterol. Nothing for aches and pains. Unless the drug is required to save your life at that very second, it cannot be covered. Happy?

Let's keep going. All non-life savings operations cannot be covered under insurance. Broken foot? Not life threatening. Therefore not covered.
Broken Rib? Sorry.
Amputated arm where the bleeding has stopped? Sorry.

After all, that's just maintaining your life.

Don't you hate it when people take your stupid comments, turn them around on you and make you look like a bumbling idiot?

What I don't get about you people is you'd rather be forced to pay more overall to cover the negative outcomes of your choices then voluntarily accept a system where you cover some costs of others and pay less over all while not affecting your personal life.

Not only do you get a worse outcome, but you're worse off financially, It's like you people are completely unable to do a CvB analysis.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Let's take it step by step. The OP question is "Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?". This is one of two things, either a complete misunderstanding of the issue or a straw man. No one suggests that "we" should pay for her contraception except for some one advocating for single payer type systems(which is an entirely separate issue and has nothing to do with Fluke).
Click to expand...

I know all of that. You might of noticed I avoided defending anyone that did make that mistake. :)

I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, saying that he did not construct a dishonest poll question, but instead just does not understand the issue. His response to me suggested that we roll back time to the 18th century. You are talking about something entirely different that has exactly jack and **** to do with the question asked and my response. Nothing I said had anything whatsoever to do with "leaders" or the constitution.
Click to expand...

Actually it kind of does at least to me. You guys are always using this threat that we will never undo what you have put in place as if you are unmovable and that you actually have a sound place to place your feet, but you really don't. You are lucky you have Supreme court cases to your defense because honestly everything is against you from all directions and it doesn't take barely any understanding of the papers and the founders to understand they never wanted any of this stuff and yes government provided health care, education, assistance programs, etc all existed during their time and they spoke against it all. The fact is just because you think we won't repeal the 20th and 21th century means nothing at all. You can think whatever you want and threaten us with whatever you want, but you are still wrong. In the end we don't even need to repeal what you have put in place because if you know anything of democracy you will know the results of it. You are also in the wrong country and have no business enacting this kind of nonsense or anything else you support on these matters. Sorry, if you think I was out of line, but your so called 21 century sure has a hell of a lot in common with centuries ago. Advancement is kind of weird I guess?
 
obvious Child said:
Okay. Let's shut down insurance coverage for all non-life savings drugs.

Only drugs that save your life at a critical moment can be covered.

Nothing for sexual health. Nothing for cholesterol. Nothing for aches and pains. Unless the drug is required to save your life at that very second, it cannot be covered. Happy?

Let's keep going. All non-life savings operations cannot be covered under insurance. Broken foot? Not life threatening. Therefore not covered.
Broken Rib? Sorry.
Amputated arm where the bleeding has stopped? Sorry.

After all, that's just maintaining your life.
Click to expand...

Is that supposed to scare me? Health care is not an inalienable right. Facts are facts. Deal with it.
 
Henrin said:
Actually it kind of does at least to me. You guys are always using this threat that we will never undo what you have put in place as if you are unmovable and that you actually have a sound place to place your feet, but you really don't. You are lucky you have Supreme court cases to your defense because honestly everything is against you from all directions and it doesn't take barely any understanding of the papers and the founders to understand they never wanted any of this stuff and yes government provided health care, education, assistance programs, etc all existed during their time and they spoke against it all. The fact is just because you think we won't repeal the 20th and 21th century means nothing at all. You can think whatever you want and threaten us with whatever you want, but you are still wrong. In the end we don't even need to repeal what you have put in place because if you know anything of democracy you will know the results of it. You are also in the wrong country and have no business enacting this kind of nonsense or anything else you support on these matters. Sorry, if you think I was out of line, but your so called 21 century sure has a hell of a lot in common with centuries ago. Advancement is kind of weird I guess?
Click to expand...

See the bolded words? I stopped reading right there. I am not "you guys". Care to respond to me and what I say, fine. I take no responsibility for others, nor are they responsible for me. I give you the same credit. Just because you are a Libertarian does not mean that you are responsible for all the insane **** that Libertarians come up with.
 
Redress said:
Oddly, since we do not live in a society where people are refused medical treatment, we are going to pay for it one way or another if people can't afford it. That kinda ruins the right wing rhetoric on the topic.
Click to expand...

You mean a government policy that we are against? lol
 
Henrin said:
and the founders to understand they never wanted any of this stuff and yes government provided health care, education, assistance programs, etc all existed during their time and they spoke against it all.
Click to expand...

Really? The founders' had a time where government provided health care, education, assistance etc? Care to cite a country where that actually happened or are you just making **** up?

but your so called 21 century sure has a hell of a lot in common with centuries ago. Advancement is kind of weird I guess?
Click to expand...

Can you name such commonalities or are you just making **** up?
 
Redress said:
See the bolded words? I stopped reading right there. I am not "you guys". Care to respond to me and what I say, fine. I take no responsibility for others, nor are they responsible for me. I give you the same credit. Just because you are a Libertarian does not mean that you are responsible for all the insane **** that Libertarians come up with.
Click to expand...

So you don't support social programs on the federal level and the state level? I don't support them at all and neither does any other libertarian.
 
Henrin said:
You mean a government policy that we are against? lol
Click to expand...

Once again your reply does not follow from what I said...or at least I don't think so, though I admit I have no clue what you are saying since I have not talked about a "government policy". Here is a neat idea...how about responding to what I write?
 
Henrin said:
Is that supposed to scare me? Health care is not an inalienable right. Facts are facts. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

How about you answer my questions rather than dance around pretending you actually believe such nonsense?

Let's see you be honest for a change.

Admit that we should end all insurance for the named items.

Seems you want the same system Cpwill does too. If you can't pay, you die.
 
Henrin said:
So you don't support social programs on the federal level and the state level?
Click to expand...

And once again with the non sequitor.

I don't support them at all and neither does any other libertarian.
Click to expand...

I did not know you spoke for all Libertarians. When did you take over the party?
 
obvious Child said:
Really? The founders' had a time where government provided health care, education, assistance etc? Care to cite a country where that actually happened or are you just making **** up?
Click to expand...

Russia had an education system. It was ****, but yeah..
Britain had healthcare.

and there is after all quotes on the matter.
 
Redress said:
Once again your reply does not follow from what I said...or at least I don't think so, though I admit I have no clue what you are saying since I have not talked about a "government policy". Here is a neat idea...how about responding to what I write?
Click to expand...

That would be quite hard for him to do.

You know, actually responding to what people actually write rather than just making up in his head what they say and never responding to what was actually written.

****'s hard to do you know for some people. COMPREHENDING what was written and actually responding in a relevant way? You ask too much Redress.
 
obvious Child said:
How about you answer my questions rather than dance around pretending you actually believe such nonsense?

Let's see you be honest for a change.

Admit that we should end all insurance for the named items.
Click to expand...

I believe everything I say.

Seems you want the same system Cpwill does too. If you can't pay, you die.
Click to expand...

Because help only is government provided. Dishonestly is your strong suit, not mine.
 
Henrin said:
Russia had an education system. It was ****, but yeah..
Britain had healthcare.

and there is after all quotes on the matter.
Click to expand...

Russia did not have a universal education system. It was mostly rich families sending their kids to private schools. Furthermore in the 18th century, it was still very much serfs. Who got nothing in terms of education.

You are so full of **** on England.

public health : National developments in the 18th and 19th centuries -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
18th Century American Medicine

Thanks for proving your ideology is not based on facts, but things you wish to be true but clearly are not.

Because help only is government provided. Dishonestly is your strong suit, not mine.
Click to expand...

FYI: charity medical care takes care of a tiny portion of the population, the part that cannot pay under any circumstance.

Says the one caught making **** up.

You are such a liar.

I believe everything I say.
Click to expand...

Then why are you completely unable to answer my question? If you actually believed what you said, you should have no problem agreeing with that post. You clearly are avoiding that. Why is that? Because you don't actually believe it?

Be honest. For once in your time here.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Do you or not?
Click to expand...

Insurance is most commonly a business. That is what we are talking about didn'tcha know.

Party? This has nothing to do with the party.
Click to expand...

Would you prefer ideology? In that case, when did you take over and become the decider for what is libertarian and what isn't?
 
Henrin said:
Some of us don't play the game of doing another wrong to cover up for a past wrong.
Click to expand...

That's a statement vague to the point of worthlessness. Is the government helping to pay for children to be born, go to school, be looked after health and human services, and various other programs the wrong you're speaking about? Or is the attitude of "**** you, I want to maximize the negative consequences of performing actions I disapprove of, even if I have to cut off my nose to spite my face" the wrong you're speaking about?

Very pennywise to think that saving a few hundred on contraception is worth paying a hundred thousand in schools, prisons and social services.
 
Redress said:
Insurance is most commonly a business. That is what we are talking about didn'tcha know.
Click to expand...

His constant dancing around insurance suggests to me he has no concept of what it actually is. He refuses to agree to my post. he refuses to explain what it is. Constant, deliberate avoidance suggests to me he doesn't get it at all. And he knows he doesn't understand.

Would you prefer ideology? In that case, when did you take over and become the decider for what is libertarian and what isn't?
Click to expand...

How is it promoting freedom when we have to pay more to cover the negative aspects of their policies? If they don't want to cover it, find new insurance that doesn't cover women. Imagine that. Market choice. It must really bug them when their own ideology is turned against them.
 
ChunkySalsa said:
That's a statement vague to the point of worthlessness. Is the government helping to pay for children to be born, go to school, be looked after health and human services, and various other programs the wrong you're speaking about? Or is the attitude of "**** you, I want to maximize the negative consequences of performing actions I disapprove of, even if I have to cut off my nose to spite my face" the wrong you're speaking about?

Very pennywise to think that saving a few hundred on contraception is worth paying a hundred thousand in schools, prisons and social services.
Click to expand...

This is what I never understood about hardcore libertarians. They choose ideas that in the long run and even short run are bad for their own personal outcomes. The only way that Henrin's policies don't result in a worse outcome for him is if we move to a medical system which lets people die in the streets for inability to pay. Otherwise, all of the costs will eventually come back to us so we may as well reduce them as much as we can. Some of the policies that hardcore libertarians could only be loved by psychopaths. The notion of self interest seems to be sacrificed for ideological purity. They'd rather be poorer, in less health and in overall worse condition then accept a system where everyone is better off.

Having insurance cover birth control saves me premiums and money. Society is better off with fewer welfare kids, fewer abortions and more productive families. Kids are better off with parents who want and can care for them. Libertarians are in some ways worse then Social Conservatives and Big Government Liberals. They have this notion of what people should be rather than what people are and expect them to act that way. Social Cons and Liberals try to get people to conform via various programs. Libertarians think those people should just confirm because they want them to. That's pretty stupid considering human nature.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
To all liberals(or in this case undisclosed people): Stop using the term "inalienable rights" and attaching it to services of our creation. It's not funny and to people that know what inalienable rights are it makes us face palm. Stop it.

Having your health maintained is not an inalienable right. Stop saying it is.
Click to expand...
It might not be a right, but it's the law that people must buy health insurance and insurance companies can no longer discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions.

Inalienable: unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor: "inalienable human rights".

A woman's reproductive organs are inalienable and self evident and the constitution protects inalienable rights...such as the inalienable right to reproduce or not reproduce. . Women are born with reproductive organs which qualifies them as having a pre-existing condition that private insurance companies can no longer discriminate against.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness = birth control


so any private insurance company that is a part of the government insurance exchange will have to offer birth control coverage or get the crap sued out them by the ACLU. You don't have to buy or use the coverage but it must be offered to those who want it.
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
Russia did not have a universal education system. It was mostly rich families sending their kids to private schools.

You are so full of **** on England.

public health : National developments in the 18th and 19th centuries -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
18th Century American Medicine
Click to expand...

Elizabeth of Russia which did in fact rule during their time and did in fact put in place a system for education. I never said it was universal either, just government run. So go on with you bad self there.

Though after a little back check I had my time line on England wrong. Queen Victoria was not until 1837. My bad there. :D


FYI: charity medical care takes care of a tiny portion of the population, the part that cannot pay under any circumstance.
Click to expand...

So??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom