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 35 of 82 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 811

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

  1. #341
    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
    Pro-life, southern, religious influence highly suggests that she has conservative values, yes. Or did you just assume that all religious conservatives were white?


    Conservatives have an "entitlement mentality" too. They take more than they put in and then bitch about the government. It's like they don't have a conscience, it's all just me, me, me, take, take, take, and blame, blame, blame.

    Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us...n-it.html?_r=1
    I made no such assumptions that prolife conservatives are only white... abortion is a big deal to many african americans since it hits them 3X harder than thier representation in the population...

    Some consider abortion black genocide...

    BlackGenocide.org | L.E.A.R.N. Northeast
    History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid. - Ike

    Tea is better for you than Kool-Aid.

  2. #342
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

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

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    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.
    I'm not dodging anything. You have legitimate points to why it should be offered by insurance companies, but just not on why it should be forced to be covered. Sorry. I don't agree the reason that its helpful or that its cheaper, or that its provides better access is good enough to force it on someone that is unwilling to provide the service. It doesn't mean anything to me when thinking about this question. It just doesn't work. It works emotionally on some level sure and why wouldn't it, but we are here to protect the rights of people, not to force people to provide other people with things. It's just backwards to me.

  3. #343
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:54 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,472

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    The whole "every insurance company has to cover contraception" is just a prelude to Obamacare.
    Actually, it was a direct result of insurance companies covering viagra back in 1998.

    First, the insurance companies covered Viagra and then women cried foul and discrimination because they weren't covering birth control pills. So rather than stop covering Viagra, the insurance companies covered birth control as well. Now many states mandate birth control coverage so that way they can keep their Viagra coverage without the public asking too many questions.


    Before current birth-control fight, Republicans backed mandates - Los Angeles Times

  4. #344
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:22 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,424

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    I'm not sure how we got to the government buying insurance.
    Short answer: We are steadily moving toward government being our protector and provider, in general. Health care is just a natural and obvious extension of that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Actually, it was a direct result of insurance companies covering viagra back in 1998.

    First, the insurance companies covered Viagra and then women cried foul and discrimination because they weren't covering birth control pills. So rather than stop covering Viagra, the insurance companies covered birth control as well. Now many states mandate birth control coverage so that way they can keep their Viagra coverage without the public asking too many questions.

    Before current birth-control fight, Republicans backed mandates - Los Angeles Times
    My memory tells me that BC coverage has been an issue long prior to Viagra... just that Viagra intensified the issue.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  5. #345
    Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Last Seen
    03-14-13 @ 04:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,110

    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.
    Nobody? She gets it free... completely free... and no one pays for it?

    Brave New World here we come!!!


    Back here in reality, those things require a significant amount of effort to create, get approved, produce, market, sell off, etc.... In that process there's a host of people whose time needs to be compensated, energy which gets expended, property which is used, capital which is fronted, etc.

    Question... who is going to compensate for them... because she isn't...

    You say requiring health insurance companies to pay... Do you believe it's the insurance companies that end up paying for them? The health insurance companies get their capital from the policy holders (paying customers). When they have some paying customers and have to provide free services to those who aren't paying customers, they don't just start throwing away profit margins, they raise the premiums on all of the policy holders collectively... and thus, the paying customers pay more, to cover the costs of those who aren't paying. Additionally, the health insurance companies say, hey, we are doing this at your government issued mandate, to cover health insurance for someone who is not paying into our plan, so we shouldn't have to pay for this, you must subsidize it... Then the tax payers end up paying for it...

    The fact that you think this isn't the case is quite ridiculous...

    I agree with you, it's ridiculous that they'd cover Viagra as well... They shouldn't... It should only be for essential medications... not optional medications... Those should be treated the same way as elective surgery... You chose to have it, you pay for it...

    You rightly said the key term of "basic drugs that are nessecary for people to have"...

    People aren't required to have Birth Control pills... theyre optional medications, which are paid for out of pocket, just as any over the counter drug...

    There is absolutely no disease for which Birth Control pills is a proven antidote... There are vague correlations with the reduction of cysts based off of birth control pills, but there's no proof that this was the sole cause of the reduction... Besides, the number of people that this happens for is so minute, it's not worth increasing coverage for all, and the cost of that coverage... especially given that the cost of the pills themselves is low enough where most people can afford them...

    This is not about necessity, it's about adding perks and free coverages onto plans which already have skyrocketing costs that are crippling the entire industry...

    That's more towards the point... this is yet another situation where people are looking for the government to provide something that 1) people lived for centuries without, and had no problem with it, and 2) that they could easily work to provide for themselves without taking money from other taxpayers...

    We are spending way too much already... and people have given up the belief that they should have to earn/provide for what they use in life, and that they should have to budget their money wisely to cover for any expenses they personally incur...


    Also, this notion that the lack of birth control pills increases the amount of abortions is ridiculous as well... First off, we shouldn't be covering abortions, unless it becomes necessary to protect the health of the mother (and even still pre-term birth seems the more logical option)... This, is also comprises an elective surgery... Secondly, if they go out and become actively involved sexually, if they hadn't been using birth control and get pregnant this is on them, it's their own actions which caused this to take place, no one should be covering that for them... it's a form of negligence, and most insurance companies do not pay for negligent behaviors... There's also other forms of birth control which aren't birth control pills. There's still the only true 100% effective method, abstinence, which comes free of cost. Then there are condoms (which so many people offer up free these days, no doubt on tax payer money, and that shouldn't happen, but they're much cheaper than pills), IUDs & diaphragms (which are cheaper, by requiring a 1-time payment and custom fitting, but not a long-term), etc. so this isn't even the most cost-efficient form of birth control.


    Still the large issue here is the general sense of entitlement... of expecting that there's some exception to your case that the government should cover for...

    This has driven us further from self-reliance, and the idea that we need to be able to provide for something before we can do it... That's never going to happen if we continually reward people for lack of effort of self-reliance...


    In Sandra Fluke's case... all the poor girl did was get into some elite private college (Georgetown)... She shouldn't have to pay for anything, then... Since she's so burdened by getting a major advantage on everyone else in the workplace... Pffff what are we thinking... of course all those people who couldn't afford to go to private colleges, and commute to local state schools while working to pay their bills should have to pay taxes in order to support her birth control pills...

    Then again... since Sandra Fluke is a student, she's likely just on her daddy's plan, and he's paying for it... which in that case... why isn't it his responsibility to kick down to cover her birth control pills?

    Oh that's right, it's because she's the one who wants them, would benefit from using them... SO SHE'S THE ONE WHO SHOULD BE COVERING THE COST OF THEM!!!

  6. #346
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

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

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    You mean Tigger hasn't responded yet?
    I think he has me on his ignore list, so I don't expect he'll be responding.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  7. #347
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:54 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,472

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Schutzengel View Post
    I made no such assumptions that prolife conservatives are only white... abortion is a big deal to many african americans since it hits them 3X harder than thier representation in the population...

    Some consider abortion black genocide...

    BlackGenocide.org | L.E.A.R.N. Northeast
    ...and some see contraception and birth control as a way out of poverty for themselves and their families.....


    "....Since Norplant was introduced two years ago, thousands of poor women have flocked to health clinics, hospitals, private doctors and Planned Parenthood affiliates around the country to get the contraceptive implant, which is covered by Medicaid in all 50 states and in the District of Columbia....<snip>

    The surge of interest in Norplant among poor women was a surprise. Its maker, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, had a backlog of thousands of unfilled orders from October 1991 to April 1992. Some clinics reported waiting lists of several hundred, although most have since caught up. Fivefold Increase in Use. According to Wyeth-Ayerst, a division of American Home Products, about 500,000 women now use the implant, up from about 100,000 a year ago.

    Julia R. Scott, the director of public policy and education for the National Black Women's Health Project in Atlanta, said the growing interest in Norplant among the poor "speaks to the desperation of these women."

    "They want to be able to control their fertility," Ms. Scott said. "But low-income women, and women of color, have always been viewed as less capable of doing this.".....read...."

    Birth-Control Implant Gains Among Poor Under Medicaid - New York Times



    Like I said before, those children in the video didn't ask to be born or to live and suffer in poverty. That was someone else's decision.

  8. #348
    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?

    theyre optional medications, which are paid for out of pocket, just as any over the counter drug...
    Birth control pills are only available by prescription. They are not over-the-counter drugs.

  9. #349
    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
    ...and some see contraception and birth control as a way out of poverty for themselves and their families.....


    "....Since Norplant was introduced two years ago, thousands of poor women have flocked to health clinics, hospitals, private doctors and Planned Parenthood affiliates around the country to get the contraceptive implant, which is covered by Medicaid in all 50 states and in the District of Columbia....<snip>

    The surge of interest in Norplant among poor women was a surprise. Its maker, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, had a backlog of thousands of unfilled orders from October 1991 to April 1992. Some clinics reported waiting lists of several hundred, although most have since caught up. Fivefold Increase in Use. According to Wyeth-Ayerst, a division of American Home Products, about 500,000 women now use the implant, up from about 100,000 a year ago.

    Julia R. Scott, the director of public policy and education for the National Black Women's Health Project in Atlanta, said the growing interest in Norplant among the poor "speaks to the desperation of these women."

    "They want to be able to control their fertility," Ms. Scott said. "But low-income women, and women of color, have always been viewed as less capable of doing this.".....read...."

    Birth-Control Implant Gains Among Poor Under Medicaid - New York Times



    Like I said before, those children in the video didn't ask to be born or to live and suffer in poverty. That was someone else's decision.
    and I dont disagree with you, it was a not so serious question with the only thing either of us can do is GUESS... there is no way to know for sure, for either of us since she didnt declare her political ideology ...
    History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid. - Ike

    Tea is better for you than Kool-Aid.

  10. #350
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,322
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by IndepCentristMA View Post
    Nobody? She gets it free... completely free... and no one pays for it?

    Brave New World here we come!!!


    Back here in reality, those things require a significant amount of effort to create, get approved, produce, market, sell off, etc.... In that process there's a host of people whose time needs to be compensated, energy which gets expended, property which is used, capital which is fronted, etc.

    Question... who is going to compensate for them... because she isn't...

    You say requiring health insurance companies to pay... Do you believe it's the insurance companies that end up paying for them? The health insurance companies get their capital from the policy holders (paying customers). When they have some paying customers and have to provide free services to those who aren't paying customers, they don't just start throwing away profit margins, they raise the premiums on all of the policy holders collectively... and thus, the paying customers pay more, to cover the costs of those who aren't paying. Additionally, the health insurance companies say, hey, we are doing this at your government issued mandate, to cover health insurance for someone who is not paying into our plan, so we shouldn't have to pay for this, you must subsidize it... Then the tax payers end up paying for it...

    The fact that you think this isn't the case is quite ridiculous...

    I agree with you, it's ridiculous that they'd cover Viagra as well... They shouldn't... It should only be for essential medications... not optional medications... Those should be treated the same way as elective surgery... You chose to have it, you pay for it...

    You rightly said the key term of "basic drugs that are nessecary for people to have"...

    People aren't required to have Birth Control pills... theyre optional medications, which are paid for out of pocket, just as any over the counter drug...

    There is absolutely no disease for which Birth Control pills is a proven antidote... There are vague correlations with the reduction of cysts based off of birth control pills, but there's no proof that this was the sole cause of the reduction... Besides, the number of people that this happens for is so minute, it's not worth increasing coverage for all, and the cost of that coverage... especially given that the cost of the pills themselves is low enough where most people can afford them...

    This is not about necessity, it's about adding perks and free coverages onto plans which already have skyrocketing costs that are crippling the entire industry...

    That's more towards the point... this is yet another situation where people are looking for the government to provide something that 1) people lived for centuries without, and had no problem with it, and 2) that they could easily work to provide for themselves without taking money from other taxpayers...

    We are spending way too much already... and people have given up the belief that they should have to earn/provide for what they use in life, and that they should have to budget their money wisely to cover for any expenses they personally incur...


    Also, this notion that the lack of birth control pills increases the amount of abortions is ridiculous as well... First off, we shouldn't be covering abortions, unless it becomes necessary to protect the health of the mother (and even still pre-term birth seems the more logical option)... This, is also comprises an elective surgery... Secondly, if they go out and become actively involved sexually, if they hadn't been using birth control and get pregnant this is on them, it's their own actions which caused this to take place, no one should be covering that for them... it's a form of negligence, and most insurance companies do not pay for negligent behaviors... There's also other forms of birth control which aren't birth control pills. There's still the only true 100% effective method, abstinence, which comes free of cost. Then there are condoms (which so many people offer up free these days, no doubt on tax payer money, and that shouldn't happen, but they're much cheaper than pills), IUDs & diaphragms (which are cheaper, by requiring a 1-time payment and custom fitting, but not a long-term), etc. so this isn't even the most cost-efficient form of birth control.


    Still the large issue here is the general sense of entitlement... of expecting that there's some exception to your case that the government should cover for...

    This has driven us further from self-reliance, and the idea that we need to be able to provide for something before we can do it... That's never going to happen if we continually reward people for lack of effort of self-reliance...


    In Sandra Fluke's case... all the poor girl did was get into some elite private college (Georgetown)... She shouldn't have to pay for anything, then... Since she's so burdened by getting a major advantage on everyone else in the workplace... Pffff what are we thinking... of course all those people who couldn't afford to go to private colleges, and commute to local state schools while working to pay their bills should have to pay taxes in order to support her birth control pills...

    Then again... since Sandra Fluke is a student, she's likely just on her daddy's plan, and he's paying for it... which in that case... why isn't it his responsibility to kick down to cover her birth control pills?

    Oh that's right, it's because she's the one who wants them, would benefit from using them... SO SHE'S THE ONE WHO SHOULD BE COVERING THE COST OF THEM!!!
    Dude... you're like... spazzing out.

    Why do you always have to write such long, drawn out, boring and repetitive rebuttals that don't get to the point anyway.

    As pointed out, she'll get the pills from her HMO as long as she signs up and pays her premiums.

    the government is not going to send you a bill for her pills conservrepubMA

Page 35 of 82 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... 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
  •