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 54 of 82 FirstFirst ... 444525354555664 ... LastLast
Results 531 to 540 of 811

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

  1. #531
    Guru
    JohnWOlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Last Seen
    01-17-17 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,594

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

    Although we are not actually paying for birth control, I say the government should pay for it if a person is on medical card. It is already relatively cheap and as a taxpayer it is the less of two evils so to speak. Have 1/billionth of a penny of my money used to pay for a woman's birth control, or pay for her to have section 8, etc
    "We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy." -Reagan

  2. #532
    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 Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Just like insurers not covering suicide under life insurance policies, pregnancy is an elective condition.
    Slight correction H, suicide falls under a incontestibility period, usually two years. Suicides are typically covered under a life policy after the initial period of incontestibility but not before that ends. Other than that, there are policies that do not or only partially cover maternity, usually though a rider could be purchased to that end. That said pregnancy itself is only truly avoidable through abstinence but that obviously isn't practical so it's not necessarily "elective" but rather a different risk class all on it's own. Birth control is absolutely elective however.


    Complications from pregnancy is not an elective condition.

    Insuring against pregnancy, no.
    Insuring against complications from pregnancy, sure.

    Mandating pregnancy coverage, especially for people who won't or can't have children is insanely stupid.
    All the rest absolutely true.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  3. #533
    Sage
    Disputatious71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    16,716
    Blog Entries
    3

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    It really has nothing to do with your argument. I switched to saying gender because it didn't change my arguement, it sounded better and was shorter to write than reproductive organs. Sorry if it confused you.
    I agree one of us was confused.
    The question is more important than the answer!

  4. #534
    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
    Slight correction H, suicide falls under a incontestibility period, usually two years. Suicides are typically covered under a life policy after the initial period of incontestibility but not before that ends. Other than that, there are policies that do not or only partially cover maternity, usually though a rider could be purchased to that end. That said pregnancy itself is only truly avoidable through abstinence but that obviously isn't practical so it's not necessarily "elective" but rather a different risk class all on it's own. Birth control is absolutely elective however.


    All the rest absolutely true.
    I'd like to know just how much you think it would increase your insurance premium to have birth control pills covered.

  5. #535
    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
    Slight correction H, suicide falls under a incontestibility period, usually two years. Suicides are typically covered under a life policy after the initial period of incontestibility but not before that ends. Other than that, there are policies that do not or only partially cover maternity, usually though a rider could be purchased to that end. That said pregnancy itself is only truly avoidable through abstinence but that obviously isn't practical so it's not necessarily "elective" but rather a different risk class all on it's own. Birth control is absolutely elective however.


    All the rest absolutely true.
    Hmmm, I just thought of something else too. Don't MOST (if not all - I don't really know) insurance policies cover circumcisions? I don't mind paying a little bit more in my insurance premium to cover the costs of a circumcision because I know this is preventative medicine, even though I will never ever need to have a circumcision (hopefully - LOL). Why wouldn't you (and the others here who are DEAD SET against it) feel the same about birth control for women?

  6. #536
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Keep telling yourself that lie and maybe it'll become true someday.
    I'm sorry you fail to understand the point being made.
    It's not a lie, it is completely and totally immaterial to the discussion.

    Burning your own house down, may not actually be illegal.
    I'm sure there is a permitting process for it.
    A legal demolition, you can call it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    And if your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.

    Setting your house on fire on purpose isn't an "elective" condition. It's a crime. It's a crime for a reason. That reason is the same one that prevents it from being covered under home insurance.

    If you accidentally set your house on fire, however, it will be covered by your home owners insurance. Accident = not insurance fraud.
    Setting your house on fire, on purpose, is a purposeful action, choosing to get pregnant, is another purposeful action.
    You have chosen to do these things, they are done by you electing to do so.
    I'm sorry you can't see this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    That'd be insurance fraud. People don't get pregnant in order to get money from their health insurance company.

    You're forgetting another big detail in your disingenuous comparison: who receives the money. Nobody commits health insurance fraud by virtue of getting pregnant. Arson, however, is one of the most common ways people attempt to commit home insurance fraud. Suicide is a way that people commit life insurance fraud.
    I'm not talking about fraud, I'm talking about purposefully destroying an insured piece of property, then with all the facts in the open, attempting to make a claim on your policy.
    They will summarily deny it, because insurance does not exist to cover purposeful losses.

    It's not disingenuous, you just don't seem to understand the purpose of insurance.

    On the "who receives the money" issue, it is the insured.
    With pregnancy, you don't have to pay the full cost.
    You save money by this action.

    Regardless, you are benefiting from it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Find one definition of "elective" that puts arson or suicide in the realm of "elective events". And pregnancy isn't an elective condition, it's a preventable one. Big difference. Especially when you're whinging about having insurance cover that which makes said condition preventable.
    Elective is you exercising a choice, in this situation, a choice to incur a loss.
    You seriously mean to tell me that people don't choose to get pregnant.

    You have the nerve to say I'm lying.

    Whining?
    I'm pointing out the erroneous belief that people who can afford medical insurance, can not afford birth control.
    The logic behind that position is dumb.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    And so are certain forms of cancer. Are they elective events now too?
    Do people purposefully choose to get cancer?


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Only when you are desperately attempting to pretend that a totally dishonest comparison is valid. It's entirely relevant if one values honest comparisons, though.
    There is no desperation to be honest, this isn't even hard to debate with you (which is odd, because 99% of the time, you skills make it challenging).
    It's incredibly apparent that you don't know what insurance is meant to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    False. There is no loss to an individual incurred by pregnancy. Using fallacious language doesn't make your argument any less dishonest.
    In the event of the pregnancy, the pregnant person will incur a financial loss, by paying for medical services to deliver and care for the mother or child.
    But this loss, is on purpose, because the woman has chosen to become pregnant.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  7. #537
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    False. There is no loss to an individual incurred by pregnancy. Using fallacious language doesn't make your argument any less dishonest.
    Ohh and to add, if there is no loss incurred by pregnancy, how and why would you insure against it?
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  8. #538
    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?

    People who don't have VERY easy access to BC are going to go out and have sex without it, or just use condoms which are not NEARLY as effective at preventing pregnancy as a doubling up method (BC pill plus a condom). If we could get people to double up on their BC methods, we would have less unwanted pregnancies and less abortions. I think it is totally worth it to cover BC under an insurance policy because it is completely naive to believe that people will EVER abstain from sex. Preventing unwanted pregnancies would save us money in the long run.

  9. #539
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,313

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Preventing unwanted pregnancies would save us money in the long run.
    I look at it from the insurance company's perspective. I'm pretty sure that insurance to cover the baby under the family's policy does not cost as much as the baby will cost the insurance company, on average. Insurance companies are probably better off with more customers using BC instead of having (especially unexpected) babies.

    Perhaps that's not how the mechanics of the insurance (nor car) industry works, but it seems to me that 'preventative maintenance' is generally a positive net income. Should people do their own preventative maintenance for their own good? Sure. But if I were an insurance company, I'd consider promoting customers to do it for the company's financial benefit.

  10. #540
    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 ecofarm View Post
    I look at it from the insurance company's perspective. I'm pretty sure that insurance to cover the baby under the family's policy does not cost as much as the baby will cost the insurance company, on average. Insurance companies are probably better off with more customers using BC instead of having (especially unexpected) babies.

    Perhaps that's not how the mechanics of the insurance (nor car) industry works, but it seems to me that 'preventative maintenance' is generally a positive net income. Should people do their own preventative maintenance for their own good? Sure. But if I were an insurance company, I'd consider promoting customers to do it for the company's financial benefit.
    That's a very good point.

Page 54 of 82 FirstFirst ... 444525354555664 ... 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
  •