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 63 of 82 FirstFirst ... 1353616263646573 ... LastLast
Results 621 to 630 of 811

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

  1. #621
    Guru
    Aderleth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-08-16 @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,294

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

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Actually they DONT.
    Tell that to the Supreme Court.

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    But...are you STILL missing the part where Ms Fluke ADMITTED she was not denied coverage and DID in fact receive medically indicated birth control?
    I didn't miss it the first time around. I haven't addressed it because it's irrelevant.

  2. #622
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,866

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Aderleth View Post
    1) It's not completely impossible, although the existing data is admittedly murky. There have been a number of studies done, and they've concluded, generally, that the increase in preventative costs may or may not be offset by the decrease in materinity expenses (it depends, apparently, on the specific plan). I italicized maternity costs, because so far as I can tell no one has taken the further step of looking into cost savings related to having unwanted chiildren running around. I'm sure any given insurer would rather pay for the costs to prevent pregnancy rather than pay for the resultant child until he/she turns 18. The extra $18-20/patient is a pretty good deal compared to paying for a ****-ton of new dependents.

    2) You're ignoring the other arguments that I've made that have nothing to do with cost (e.g. reducing abortion rates, providing medical care for various women's heallth issues).

    3) Birth control isn't "typically" used for any one thing. More than half of all women (58% according to the Guttmacher institute) who use birth control use it at least partially for non-pregnancy issues. That number rises to a staggering 90% for teenage girls (who, in general, use it mostly if not exclusively for non-pregnancy related reasons).

    Conclusion: The argument that this is about supporting a lifestyle choice is specious at best.
    I'd like to see that Guttmacher link please.

  3. #623
    Guru
    Aderleth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-08-16 @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,294

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

    Quote Originally Posted by nota bene View Post
    I'd like to see that Guttmacher link please.
    Here you go:

    Many American Women Use Birth Control Pills for Noncontraceptive Reasons

    This is my favorite line: "Additionally, it found that some 762,000 women who have never had sex use the pill, and they do so almost exclusively (99%) for noncontraceptive reasons."

  4. #624
    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
    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).
    The medical costs that people incur for their biological conditions are expensive, that does not prove anything wrong.
    My arguments are not disingenuous.

    It still does not disprove that insurance claims, where the resulting loss is from the intent and actions of the insured party, should be covered.
    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. #625
    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
    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.
    That is not how insurance works.
    You purchase additional coverage, at an additional cost, to cover additional things you want.

    If that "is how insurance works" then the coverage would have already existed and everyone would have already purchased it.
    Clearly that wasn't the case or they wouldn't have had a need for a mandate.
    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. #626
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,600

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Aderleth View Post
    Tell that to the Supreme Court.



    I didn't miss it the first time around. I haven't addressed it because it's irrelevant.
    Irrelevant? The entire premise of the 'war on women' is that thems rights is being denied. But thats simply not the case. So NOW we are at..."Yeah...but if they WERE...that would suck!" But...they ARENT.

    Medically indicated contraceptives are not being denied. I know women that are on oral contraceptives because of skin conditions. I know when that are on contraceptives because their doctor recommends it and they arent engaging in sex. Medical needs contraceptives dont appear to be at risk. Therefore the entire Fluke argument is...whats the word you used...'irrelevant'. Oh...theres another word...a 'lie'. Its nothing but a liberal talking point.

    Tell it to the administration that backed off.

  7. #627
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,600

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Aderleth View Post
    Here you go:

    Many American Women Use Birth Control Pills for Noncontraceptive Reasons

    This is my favorite line: "Additionally, it found that some 762,000 women who have never had sex use the pill, and they do so almost exclusively (99%) for noncontraceptive reasons."
    You GET that that makes the point....women are being prescribed and receiving medically indicated oral contraceptives. So........

  8. #628
    Guru
    Aderleth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-08-16 @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,294

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

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Irrelevant? The entire premise of the 'war on women' is that thems rights is being denied. But thats simply not the case. So NOW we are at..."Yeah...but if they WERE...that would suck!" But...they ARENT.

    Medically indicated contraceptives are not being denied. I know women that are on oral contraceptives because of skin conditions. I know when that are on contraceptives because their doctor recommends it and they arent engaging in sex. Medical needs contraceptives dont appear to be at risk. Therefore the entire Fluke argument is...whats the word you used...'irrelevant'. Oh...theres another word...a 'lie'. Its nothing but a liberal talking point.

    Tell it to the administration that backed off.
    Have you already forgotton how I got into this conversation? What we - you and I - were initially talking about? It wasn't the war on women, it wasn't Sandra Fluke, it was the validity of a contraception mandate, and specifically as applied to the Catholic Church. So yes, everything you're brining up in this post is, indeed, irrelevant.

  9. #629
    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 Aderleth View Post
    Here you go:

    Many American Women Use Birth Control Pills for Noncontraceptive Reasons

    This is my favorite line: "Additionally, it found that some 762,000 women who have never had sex use the pill, and they do so almost exclusively (99%) for noncontraceptive reasons."
    Ahh, so "the media center" is a substitute for risk management models now.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  10. #630
    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 VanceMack View Post
    Irrelevant? The entire premise of the 'war on women' is that thems rights is being denied. But thats simply not the case. So NOW we are at..."Yeah...but if they WERE...that would suck!" But...they ARENT.

    Medically indicated contraceptives are not being denied. I know women that are on oral contraceptives because of skin conditions. I know when that are on contraceptives because their doctor recommends it and they arent engaging in sex. Medical needs contraceptives dont appear to be at risk. Therefore the entire Fluke argument is...whats the word you used...'irrelevant'. Oh...theres another word...a 'lie'. Its nothing but a liberal talking point.

    Tell it to the administration that backed off.
    But of course the argument is about to be recycled right back to the beginning as if the facts haven't shown the original premise flawed. The circular logic to get back to mandated BC subsidation by force of law is going to try to swing it back to being a proper law, and disagreement being an attack on women.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

Page 63 of 82 FirstFirst ... 1353616263646573 ... 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
  •