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 56 of 82 FirstFirst ... 646545556575866 ... LastLast
Results 551 to 560 of 811

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

  1. #551
    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 Harry Guerrilla View Post
    But the evidence just doesn't exist to demonstrably support this position.
    You're just hoping it does.

    Crafting legislation on "I hope it works" is dumb.

    For reference see this,


    [/FONT][/COLOR]
    FactCheck.org : Cloudy Contraception Costs
    Why on EARTH wouldn't we want to try new things to help out a bad situation? I just don't understand the logic there.

  2. #552
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,428

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Anyway, The fact check article shows that there is no clear evidence that this will be cost effective for anything.
    And that there is no evidence the other way.

  3. #553
    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 ChrisL View Post
    Why on EARTH wouldn't we want to try new things to help out a bad situation? I just don't understand the logic there.
    Trying new things that have some amount of support for actually working, ok.
    Doing stuff because we make casual logically fallacies assuming it will work, no.
    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

  4. #554
    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 Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Trying new things that have some amount of support for actually working, ok.
    Doing stuff because we make casual logically fallacies assuming it will work, no.
    How would anyone know if it would work or not if they don't try it first?

  5. #555
    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 ecofarm View Post
    And that there is no evidence the other way.
    I know.
    I'm just trying to cut through all the crap, with people saying it will "save money, prevent more unwanted pregnancies."

    Considering the specific situations most insured people are in, they are more likely to already use birth control and to afford it.
    Kinda takes some of the wind out of the sails.

    Now if you were to say that, we'd go door to door, handing out all the free birth control in the world, to low income people who may not be able to afford it.
    I'd say that would likely help reduce unwanted pregnancies.
    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

  6. #556
    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 ChrisL View Post
    How would anyone know if it would work or not if they don't try it first?
    You try it in smaller doses, not nationally.
    Test cases, trial runs, those kind of things.
    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. #557
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,428

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Trying new things that have some amount of support for actually working, ok.
    Doing stuff because we make casual logically fallacies assuming it will work, no.
    There is no definitive conclusion that BC would, in fact, save insurance companies money; therefore, no evidence exists?

    You're one of those "my default position must be proven wrong 100% before I will respect another opinion" guys?

  8. #558
    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 ecofarm View Post
    There is no definitive conclusion that BC would, in fact, save insurance companies money; therefore, no evidence exists?

    You're one of those "my default position must be proven wrong 100% before I will respect another opinion" guys?
    No, my position is, stop making laws, mandates, requirements with unproven information.
    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

  9. #559
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    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.
    Just because you want to ignore the facts which make the comparison dishonest doesn't mean that the facts are irrelevant, it just means you wish to ignore them.

    Burning your own house down, may not actually be illegal.
    Arson is illegal.

    I'm sure there is a permitting process for it.
    There isn't.

    A legal demolition, you can call it.
    No, you can't.


    Setting your house on fire, on purpose, is a purposeful action
    It's an illegal action.

    choosing to get pregnant, is another purposeful action.
    False. The conditions that may lead to pregnancy are a purposeful action. one cannot will themselves into a pregnant state though.

    You have chosen to do these things, they are done by you electing to do so.
    Apples are a fruit. Oranges are a fruit. Ergo they are the same thing.

    /impersonation of your dishonest comparisons.

    I'm sorry you can't see this.
    I'm not the person pretending that an apple is an orange here, harry.

    I'm not talking about fraud
    you're talking about insurance not covering something. choosing to ignore the fraud aspect is choosing to ignore reality. you can choose to ignore reality, but doing so is extremely dishonest.

    I'm talking about purposefully destroying an insured piece of property,
    More insanely dishonest gibberish. Pregnancy =/= destroying property.

    then with all the facts in the open, attempting to make a claim on your policy.
    Absolutely false. You are trying to compare a criminal act associated with insurance fraud to a biological imperative related to the survival of the species that has nothing to do with insurance fraud and pretend, beyond all common sense, logic, and reason, that the two acts are comparable.

    They will summarily deny it, because insurance does not exist to cover purposeful losses.
    Pregnancy is not a purposeful loss. Using more dishonesty to defend dishonesty is not a real argument.

    It's not disingenuous,
    False.

    you just don't seem to understand the purpose of insurance.
    Says the guy who is trying to say homeowners insurance has the same purpose as medical insurance.

    On the "who receives the money" issue, it is the insured.
    False. Medical insurance gives the money to the person or organization that provided medical services to the insured.

    With pregnancy, you don't have to pay the full cost.
    Which is the purpose of medical insurance: to defray the costs of both catastrophic AND regular medical needs. Are you going to say that regular doctor visits are elective, since peopel can CHOOSE to not receive medical check-ups?

    You save money by this action.

    saving money =/= receiving money.

    Regardless, you are benefiting from it.
    As does the cancer patient. Should we dishonestly compare that to arson now?





    Elective is you exercising a choice, in this situation, a choice to incur a loss.
    I meant a real definition, not one you made up.

    You seriously mean to tell me that people don't choose to get pregnant.
    Not everyone chooses to become pregnant.

    You have the nerve to say I'm lying.
    If you are being dishonest, I'm going to point it out. It doesn't take much nerve to point out the obvious.

    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.
    It's bad logic to make it an "afford one or the other scenario" when the real situation being discussed is about affording BOTH things. Some people cannot afford health insurance AND birth control. Someone shouldn't have to chose between having birth control or insurance.



    Do people purposefully choose to get cancer?

    Using your flawed logic, yes, absolutely.

    People don't choose to get pregnant. They choose to engage in behaviors that are known to lead to pregnancy. You've decided that this is identical in nature to choosing to get pregnant. People also choose to engage in behaviors that are known to lead to cancer. Thus, using your same parameters for logic, we must say that they chose to get cancer.

    If we choose to apply our logic inconsistently because it doesn't suit our desired conclusions, we are making dishonest arguments.

    My contention is that you are not using consistent logic, and that you are formulating your premises for the sole purpose of reaching the conclusion you desire. My evidence for this is your repeated chocies to use dishonest language to describe pregnancy, and your attempts to ignore critical differences in your comparisons,.





    There is no desperation to be honest
    Excellent. when are you planning on doing that?

    this isn't even hard to debate with you (which is odd, because 99% of the time, you skills make it challenging).
    It certainly will seem easier if you willfully ignore all of the flaws in your position, that's true.

    It's incredibly apparent that you don't know what insurance is meant to do.
    I'm not the one who is comparing a criminal act associated with insurance fraud to a preventable medical condition and pretending they are comparable acts as far as insurance goes. Just sayin'.

    If you were looking for an honest comparison between something covered by homeowners insurance and medical insurance covering pregnancy, you would have chosen to talk about a burglary that occurred when the homeowner left the door to their house open. But it does not appear that you are interested in honest comparisons.

    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.
    Absolutely false in every way.

    Simply being pregnant does not incur a financial loss upon the person who is pregnant. This is absolutely proven by the fact that you had to add the section I put in bold in order to make the claim. You cannot make the claim without adding that addendum to the comment.

    The existence of pregnancy predates the existence of medical services. Medical services are not a side-effect of pregnancy. They are not an absolute requirement of pregnancy. Women all over the world give birth without receiving any medical services at all.

    Pregnancy is not a medical procedure (and this is the most fatal flaw in your argument, because you are making your argument as though it is a procedure). It is a biological condition. Is it a preventable biological condition? Absolutely. So are many forms of cancer, so is obesity, so is heart disease, so is type 2 diabetes... quite frankly, there are thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of other biological conditions that are preventable.

    Medical services are required for this biological condition to ensure the health and welfare of the person who is in said biological condition, but they are not a byproduct of the condition itself.

    The person may have willfully put themselves in said biological condition, but the same thing can be said about obesity and the associated medical services that stem from that biological condition. And pregnancy is a biological condition that most women will be in at some point in their lives. It is a fully expected biological condition associated with being female. There is also a proven biological imperative for women to put themselves into this biological condition, further proving that it is an expected biological condition.

    There is absolutely no loss incurred by entering this condition. This is where you comparison to arson becomes tremendously dishonest because losing a piece of property is a requisite byproduct of destroying said piece of property. The loss is a direct result of the action. The action cannot exist without being followed by the loss. The same is not true of pregnancy. The biological state does exist without any loss being incurred. Loss is not a requisite byproduct of the actions leading to said condition.

    But this loss, is on purpose, because the woman has chosen to become pregnant.
    Is lung cancer "elective" when someone lives in a city that has high polution? If not then pregnancy is not an "elective". You have to use consistent logic if you wish to make an honest argument.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  10. #560
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Ohh and to add, if there is no loss incurred by pregnancy, how and why would you insure against it?
    Nobody insures against pregnancy. I thought you claimed you understood how insurance works?
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

Page 56 of 82 FirstFirst ... 646545556575866 ... 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
  •