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 57 of 82 FirstFirst ... 747555657585967 ... LastLast
Results 561 to 570 of 811

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

  1. #561
    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 Harry Guerrilla View Post
    No, my position is, stop making laws, mandates, requirements with unproven information.
    But you see the logic and reason in preventative maintenance and you support the idea:

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    You try it in smaller doses, not nationally.
    Test cases, trial runs, those kind of things.
    If the disagreement is forcing companies to do so, then we agree. I'm not arguing that companies should be forced to do it, I'm arguing that it is good profit-policy.



    With you apparently agreeing that it may be good policy (via being willing to test it), and with us agreeing that forcing insurance companies to do so is not the method, I think you and I have concluded here.

  2. #562
    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
    You try it in smaller doses, not nationally.
    Test cases, trial runs, those kind of things.
    That's what should be done then. It is totally worth the effort to try it out though. And another thing, we also need to start making it so that doctors cannot refuse a patient a sterilization procedure if that's is what he or she wishes. There is another thing we should be looking into to prevent unwanted pregnancy and abortion too. I wonder if sterilization procedures are covered?

  3. #563
    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
    Tell me how many people, who can afford insurance, can not afford birth control.
    It's not either or. It's about affording both. Paying for BC on TOP of paying for health insurance.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  4. #564
    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
    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.
    You've yet to present a fact that it is material.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Arson is illegal.



    There isn't.



    No, you can't.



    It's an illegal action.
    Yes you can obtain demolition permits to destroy your house.
    Sorry, but you can.

    A quick "google" can prove this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    False. The conditions that may lead to pregnancy are a purposeful action. one cannot will themselves into a pregnant state though.
    And one can not will their home to catch fire.
    One must take purposeful actions to cause both.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Apples are a fruit. Oranges are a fruit. Ergo they are the same thing.

    /impersonation of your dishonest comparisons.



    I'm not the person pretending that an apple is an orange here, harry.
    I can understand that you would see it that way when you don't understand.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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.
    The situation need not involve fraud.
    The only leg you had to stand on, was "it's illegal, it's illegal."

    I've removed the illegality of it and we can measure whether insurance covers non illegal, purposeful losses.

    In every other case, insurance does not cover purposeful "losses", except for pregnancy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    More insanely dishonest gibberish. Pregnancy =/= destroying property.
    I never said they were equivalent, don't put words in my mouth.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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.
    Incorrect.
    I'm not talking about trying to defraud an insurance company.

    I'm talking about trying to make claims on losses that you've done on purpose.
    Not by hiding material facts or lying, but by being completely open about it.

    The insurance company will tell you to screw off if you tried to make the claim.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Pregnancy is not a purposeful loss. Using more dishonesty to defend dishonesty is not a real argument.
    The cost of a pregnancy is a loss.
    That's what people insure against, only the cost is done on purpose.
    I'm sorry your failure to understand, automatically qualifies every response I make as "dishonest."

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    False.
    Fragment sentences, do not garner greater support for your argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Says the guy who is trying to say homeowners insurance has the same purpose as medical insurance.
    Insurance, serves the same purpose, regardless of it's specialty.
    Insurance is......

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiki
    Insurance is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    False. Medical insurance gives the money to the person or organization that provided medical services to the insured.
    The money is in the form of a benefit.
    It matters not that they do or do not receive direct cash.

    What matters is that they get a benefit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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?
    Then it is not insurance.

    To the latter, absolutely.
    Because regular doctor visits are not, "contingent, uncertain losses."


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    saving money =/= receiving money.
    Right, but insurance is supposed to save you money, in the event of a major loss.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    As does the cancer patient. Should we dishonestly compare that to arson now?
    I never had a problem with people benefiting from insurance.
    That's why it exists.

    My beef is with coverage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I meant a real definition, not one you made up.
    Do I need to get you a thesaurus, to show that choice and elect are synonyms?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Not everyone chooses to become pregnant.
    But you said, "And pregnancy isn't an elective condition, it's a preventable one"
    Pregnancy is an elective condition for those who want and can get pregnant.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    If you are being dishonest, I'm going to point it out. It doesn't take much nerve to point out the obvious.
    I'd have to be dishonest first.
    Not, you not knowing what the crap you're talking about.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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.
    It's bad logic to assume that covering 100% of people, so that a much smaller % of people can get birth control, is just not a good policy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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,.
    The actions and intentions of individuals, make their choices a reality.
    Yes ****ing leads to pregnancy, like spraying a house with gasoline and lighting it, leads to it burning.
    Both people did purposeful things, to increase the odds of something happening and not by a minor amount.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Excellent. when are you planning on doing that?
    I have been.
    You're fundamental misunderstanding of the subject, is not my fault.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    It certainly will seem easier if you willfully ignore all of the flaws in your position, that's true.
    These flaws being, you not knowing what you're talking about?


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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.
    I'm not talking about accidents, which are insurable.
    I'm talking about purposeful actions, where intent is absolutely clear.

    The burglary comparison is an accident.
    It's not an apt comparison.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Absolutely false in every way.
    For this to be true, it actually has to be false in every way.
    Not false in places where people don't seek medical treatment for pregnancy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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.
    Of course I have to make that addendum because people are seeking medical coverage, through insurance for it.
    Else we wouldn't be discussing this at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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.
    So does the existence of a house, predate the insurance industry.
    I did not state medical services are a side effect of pregnancy.

    It's that people seek medical services for pregnancy, which comes at a cost, which they try to pay for through insurance.
    But insurance is meant to be a hedge against uncertain loss.

    Getting pregnant on purpose is not an "uncertain loss."
    Making the argument that it should be included in, insurance, stupid.

    A fundamental concept of insurance, that you just continuously fail to grasp.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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.
    And medical insurance exists to cover contingent, uncertain losses resulting from expensive biological conditions.
    However, getting pregnant, on purpose, does not fall into "contingent uncertain loss."


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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.
    Your statements are absolutist and false.
    There is financial loss, incurred for having a pregnancy, because people seek medical services for this.
    Whether or not they need to, is immaterial, the fact is they do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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.
    How much is the increased risk, 1%, 2%, 5%, 100%?
    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

  5. #565
    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
    But you see the logic and reason in preventative maintenance and you support the idea:
    When prevention is cost effective, you bet.


    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    If the disagreement is forcing companies to do so, then we agree. I'm not arguing that companies should be forced to do it, I'm arguing that it is good profit-policy.



    With you apparently agreeing that it may be good policy (via being willing to test it), and with us agreeing that forcing insurance companies to do so is not the method, I think you and I have concluded here.
    I agree it could be a good policy, however I worry about how it will effect the whole market of bc pills.
    The reason it is largely affordable now, is because consumers and producers exist together, which out much shielding of cost.

    When we add a third party payer, these dynamics change.
    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. #566
    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
    It's not either or. It's about affording both. Paying for BC on TOP of paying for health insurance.
    So it's wise to cover 100% of people for "free at point of service" birth control, so that a much smaller group of people are able to get access to birth control?
    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. #567
    Wrinkly member
    Manc Skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Southern England
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    23,148

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

    Half the population have need of BC prescriptions so that all the population can control their family numbers. It needs to be part of the insurance package offered to half the population.
    Don't work out, work in.

    Never eat anything that's served in a bucket.

  8. #568
    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
    And medical insurance exists to cover contingent, uncertain losses resulting from expensive biological conditions.
    Close. Remove "expensive" and you are spot on. Biological conditions do not have monetary values.

    And when you understand why that statement proves your position wrong, you'll be able to realize exactly where you have been disingenuous in your arguments.


    (hint: adjectives describe the noun they are connected with, not nouns which appear later on in the sentence. "Uncertain" is an adjective.)

    Pregnancy (noun) is a biological condition, not a loss (noun).
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #569
    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
    So it's wise to cover 100% of people for "free at point of service" birth control, so that a much smaller group of people are able to get access to birth control?
    Of course. That's how insurance works. Everyone receives the same coverage, but they only pay for those who utilize that service. Just like how they cover 100% of people for services related to cancer so that a much smaller group of people have access to cancer treatments.

    Insurance only pays for what is utilized, not what is covered.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  10. #570
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Of course. That's how insurance works. Everyone receives the same coverage, but they only pay for those who utilize that service. Just like how they cover 100% of people for services related to cancer so that a much smaller group of people have access to cancer treatments.

    Insurance only pays for what is utilized, not what is covered.

    Yes yes yes....and its cheaper to pay for the ones that would apply for contraception that it is to pay for an abortion or to raise their kid for 18 yrs

Page 57 of 82 FirstFirst ... 747555657585967 ... 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
  •