Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

obvious Child · Sep 4, 2012

Henrin said:
Elizabeth of Russia which did in fact rule during their time and did in fact put in place a system for education. I never said it was universal either, just government run. So go on with you bad self there.

Still wrong.

Public Education in Russia from Peter I to the Present

Again, rich kids.

Though after a little back check I had my time line on England wrong. Queen Victoria was not until 1837. My bad there.

You do realize you haven't actually provided an example of what you claimed. Rich kid education is hardly what you claimed. And frankly no nation in the 18th century provided healthcare in mass. Unless you were Monarchy or military, you didn't get squat in healthcare from the state. Even Nobles had to pay their own.

So??

Aka, you want the same system as Cpwill. Can't pay = You Die.

Moot · Sep 4, 2012

obvious Child said:
His constant dancing around insurance suggests to me he has no concept of what it actually is. He refuses to agree to my post. he refuses to explain what it is. Constant, deliberate avoidance suggests to me he doesn't get it at all. And he knows he doesn't understand.

Perhaps he's suffering from the "empty chair syndrome".

obvious Child · Sep 4, 2012

Moot said:
Perhaps he's suffering from the "empty chair syndrome".

I'm actually just needling him into either admitting it or running away. Either of which I can use against him. Kids gloves coming off you know?

It's a pretty mundane trap by my standards. Not like a twisted quad choice "brick in the face" at all corners trap.

But most people are so internally inconsistent that it's not hard to pin them in a philosophical quandary. And this election is making the real partisans real tangled.

Henrin · Sep 4, 2012

Moot said:
It might not be a right, but it's the law that people must buy health insurance and insurance companies can no longer discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions.

No, it can still be a positive right. Just not innate is all.

I obviously don't like enacting of positive rights as I find them to a violation of liberty, but its been done so many times now. I will still fight against it obviously and I will never see it as a right, but that is not something you care about though.

Inalienable: unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor: "inalienable human rights".

There is still things that quality under inalienable, sorry.

A woman's reproductive organs are inalienable and self evident and the constitution protects inalienable rights...such as the inalienable right to reproduce or not reproduce.

You are confusing much here. That only would only mean no one can act on her and she can not use her organs to kill another.

Remember the right to your body is a negative right like all other innate rights.

Women are born with reproductive organs which qualifies them as having a pre-existing condition that private insurance companies can no longer discriminate against.

No, we don't have an innate right to not be discriminated against and ownership by its very definition allows this by giving control access to the property owner.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Yes, I know what it says. Now please take what I say to heart. I'm only trying to be helpful. You are mistaken. Its ok to be wrong, so don't worry. I was wrong on the Britain health care thing and I'm not mad about it. Its cool.

Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness = birth control

Having people provide for your birth control is a violation of their liberty.

so any private insurance company that is a part of the insurance exchange will have to offer birth control coverage or get the crap sued out them. You don't have to buy or use the coverage but it must be offered to those who want it.

I'm sorry but that is forcing action on others for your rights to exist. Its simply does not work that way.

obvious Child · Sep 4, 2012

Henrin said:
Having people provide for your birth control is a violation of their liberty

I'm sorry but that is forcing action on others for your rights to exist. Its simply does not work that way..

So is having people pay for your brain surgery. And your Chemo. And your Viagra. And your broken bone settings.

Or are we selectively applying standards?

Internally inconsistent logic eh?

Disputatious71 · Sep 4, 2012

Moot said:
It might not be a right, but it's the law that people must buy health insurance and insurance companies can no longer discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions.

Inalienable: unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor: "inalienable human rights".

A woman's reproductive organs are inalienable and self evident and the constitution protects inalienable rights...such as the inalienable right to reproduce or not reproduce. . Women are born with reproductive organs which qualifies them as having a pre-existing condition that private insurance companies can no longer discriminate against.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness = birth control

so any private insurance company that is a part of the insurance exchange will have to offer birth control coverage or get the crap sued out them. You don't have to buy or use the coverage but it must be offered to those who want it.

Are a woman's reproductive organs really inalienable?
They cannot work as intended without assistance from an outside source, which means they cannot reproduce inalienably... and then their is the whole matter of hysterectomy's, again hardly inalienable ! I can see this being a whole other thread, but just to be clear here while I do believe that responsible adults will take care of their own birth control it is the irresponsible and careless that are the burden upon any health care system thta will not change no matter who pays for what which should be the focus of any reform.

Henrin · Sep 4, 2012

obvious Child said:
Still wrong.

Public Education in Russia from Peter I to the Present

Again, rich kids.

Really Peter? So it was earlier than I thought? Ok, cool. My history on this needs some revise. Its cool though.

Aka, you want the same system as Cpwill. Can't pay = You Die.

More hyperbole, really?

Henrin · Sep 4, 2012

obvious Child said:
So is having people pay for your brain surgery. And your Chemo. And your Viagra. And your broken bone settings.

Or are we selectively applying standards?

Internally inconsistent logic eh?

I didn't even mention that stuff. Why would it be different?

Henrin · Sep 4, 2012

ChunkySalsa said:
That's a statement vague to the point of worthlessness. Is the government helping to pay for children to be born, go to school, be looked after health and human services, and various other programs the wrong you're speaking about? Or is the attitude of "**** you, I want to maximize the negative consequences of performing actions I disapprove of, even if I have to cut off my nose to spite my face" the wrong you're speaking about?

I'm not doing anything here, so this is not on me. You take actions and they have results. Deal with life. Is life really so cruel you people really can't deal with the results of your actions? There is certain amount of weakness in that which is also not on me. If you need parents than don't leave home. Seems pretty simple, lol.

My nose on the other hand will be fine. I can deal with life and I have proven that over and over again.

molten_dragon · Sep 4, 2012

Yes, we should. I'm in favor of single-payer health care.

Jetboogieman · Sep 4, 2012

molten_dragon said:
Yes, we should. I'm in favor of single-payer health care.

Funnily enough though, Birth Control Pills are not covered in Canada or Britain.

Far as I know anyway, they're not very expensive here though, then again we're not paying massive premiums like you do, we're paying for it in taxes which are far less then your premiums anyway... and that's what's important about this entire thing is that not every woman in America is going to get delivered birth control to their house at tax payers expense... they will get it upon request of their HMO if they sign up and pay their premiums...

Not exactly free is it :lol:

But we'll let the Conservatives in this thread continue to ignore that.

Henrin · Sep 4, 2012

obvious Child said:
Libertarians think those people should just confirm because they want them to. That's pretty stupid considering human nature.

Actually no. I expect people to be poor, rich, and in between. I expect people will do stupid things and I expect people will do start things. I expect people to be people.

One last thing, I don't care if you want to play the drama card or if you want to act like we are out to kill people. None of the crap you said about me is true except being wrong on my account of two places in Europe at the time.

Moot · Sep 4, 2012

Henrin said:
No, it can still be a positive right. Just not innate is all. I obviously don't like enacting of positive rights as I find them to a violation of liberty, but its been done so many times now. I will still fight against it obviously and I will never see it as a right, but that is not something you care about though.

Natural rights are viewed as negative rights. Women's sex is a natural right, they are born with it and that is why it is inalienable.

There is still things that quality under inalienable, sorry.

That was uncomprehensible, sorry.

You are confusing much here. That only would only mean no one can act on her and she can not use her organs to kill another. Remember the right to your body is a negative right like all other innate rights.

Read the definition again and show me where it says anything about killing or using sex organs to kill. :roll:

Inalienable: unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor: "inalienable human rights".

No, we don't have a right to not be discriminated against and ownership by its very definition allows this by giving control access to the property owner.

Actually, there is a whole body of legislative law that protects against various forms of discrimination.

Yes, I know what it says. Now please take what I say to heart. I'm only trying to be helpful. You are mistaken. Its ok to be wrong, so don't worry. I was wrong on the Britain health care thing and I'm not mad about it. Its cool.

No, I think it is definitely you that's mistaken.

Having people provide for your birth control is a violation of their liberty. cool:

Are you talking to the empty chair again? Because you don't seem to have read or understood a thing that I or anyone else has said on this thread about insurance. Do you not understand how group insurance works, is that it?

I'm sorry but that is forcing action on others for your rights to exist. Its simply does not work that way.

Well thats nice since no one is forcing you to buy birthcontrol coverage. On the same token, you don't have the right to force others from not buying it if they want or need it.

I get the strong impression that you haven't a clue what an "insurance exchange" is or how "group insurance" works or about "spreading risk" or anything. And if you dont understand that then you sure as hell don't understand what the Affordable Healthcare Act is or does or what we're even talking about.

Henrin · Sep 4, 2012

The notion of self interest seems to be sacrificed for ideological purity.

Ok, one last thing. Government is not supposed to be interested in your self interest, but only if you are not having your rights violated by other people. I'm sorry you need a baby sitter in your life and maybe you should have never left home if that is the case or hell the damn crib that you crapped your pants in and that isn't my problem. Again, I'm sorry, its not my problem. If you need help I give 9%(on average) of my salary to charities of my choosing and maybe one day I will pick whatever you think I should. Its cool, completely cool if you can't move forward in life. Completely cool, but seriously its not my problem. Stop putting everything on the backs of your fellow citizens. People need to grow up and look our their window and see that life is not fair.

I don't think you realize that it is a good thing to put self interest behind? I will always put others before myself and maybe you should too. Instead of preaching to me about how you need my money for these people to get whatever you think they should have, help them get it. I'm frankly tired of not seeing liberals out here helping people get healthcare and coming here and them all being around in a circle talking about universal healthcare. Get your ****ing ass out here helping them!

You want to say I don't care? **** you. I care more than you ever could.

Schutzengel · Sep 4, 2012

Redress said:
Do you know how health insurance works? That might be a good place to start before asking the wrong question.

OK ... should we force insurance companies to pay for contraception?

In a pure business model every insurance company SHOULD cover contraception if they cover L&D just from a cost/benefit point of view...

But some insurance companies and some that are self-insured (Like the catholic church) have what they believe to be reasons not to... and in the case of the later they are religous reasons and covered exclusively by the first amendment

cpwill · Sep 4, 2012

Jetboogieman said:
Who's liberty is threatened by women having birth control?

no ones' until you force them to provide it to her.

And then we have the whole religious liberty thing.

As if priests are going to be forced to hand out bread, wine and birth control during mass.

nope, but when you force someone to purchase and provide something that is in direct contradiction to their most deeply held religious convictions (such as the sanctity of life), you are indeed seeking to force them to violate their faith.

We're talking about HMO's here champ.

Oh my bad, I thought that the threat title marked it as being about the controversy in which sandra fluke starred, wherein Obamacare forced Catholic providers and employers to violate the tenets of their faith. Please, carry on

.

Schutzengel · Sep 4, 2012

Moot said:
Natural rights are viewed as negative rights. Women's sex is a natural right, they are born with it and that is why it is inalienable.

That was uncomprehensible, sorry.

Read the definition again and show me where it says anything about killing or using sex organs to kill. :roll:

Inalienable: unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor: "inalienable human rights".

Actually, there is a whole body of legislative law that protects against various forms of discrimination.

No, I think it is definitely you that's mistaken.

Are you talking to the empty chair again? Because you don't seem to have read or understood a thing that I or anyone else has said on this thread about insurance. Do you not understand how group insurance works, is that it?

Well thats nice since no one is forcing you to buy birthcontrol coverage. On the same token, you don't have the right to force others from not buying it if they want or need it.

I get the strong impression that you haven't a clue what an "insurance exchange" is or how "group insurance" works or about "spreading risk" or anything. And if you dont understand that then you sure as hell don't understand what the Affordable Healthcare Act is or does or what we're even talking about.

*trolling the Moot
inalienable - impossible to be taken away ... sex is inalienable? tell that to the LGBT community

Jetboogieman · Sep 4, 2012

cpwill said:
nope, but when you force someone to purchase and provide something that is in direct contradiction to their most deeply held religious convictions (such as the sanctity of life), you are indeed seeking to force them to violate their faith.

I suppose.

ChuckBerry · Sep 4, 2012

obvious Child said:
Authoritative Social Conservatism. That and anti-slut.

And what is Authoritative Social Conservatism? I'll accept the anti-slut qualifier, but I would say pro-prudence, in the original and positive meaning of the word, which is to make good choices based on known consequences.

cpwill · Sep 4, 2012

Jetboogieman said:
I suppose.

Feel free to mock them. It's a country with the freedom to do so, after all. It is also a country where we recognize their right to have the beliefs you mock, and those two rights are entertwined.

Henrin · Sep 4, 2012

Moot said:
Natural rights are viewed as negative rights. Women's sex is a natural right, they are born with it and that is why it is inalienable.

Her sex? You mean her ability to have sex? Well sure, but she can't force people to make that possible? That is violation of their rights. If its just gender in general. That is just gender. That is just stupid to think changes anything. You still can't force people to act to maintain your health. I should not have to explain to you what the word "life" mean in that context here to someone that supposedly knows this subject. If you bring this up again though, I will have no choice but to do it.

That was uncomprehensible, sorry.

You are attaching whatever you feel like as an inalienable right and then getting mad at me because I reject it nicely. You are acting like I don't know what I'm talking about but everything you are saying is build on self interest and using other people.

Read the definition again and show me where it says anything about killing or using sex organs to kill. :roll:

You can't use your body to violate the body of another. Simple yes? Read the ideas behind it again. My conclusion is correct.

Inalienable: unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor: "inalienable human rights".

Thank you. Now do you understand how what I said above falls under that?

Actually, there is a whole body of legislative law that protects against various forms of discrimination.

I know, but they are positive rights and a violation of property rights

rof

No, I think it is definitely you that's mistaken.

You can think whatever you want. That is your right.

Are you talking to the empty chair again? Because you don't seem to have read or understood a thing that I or anyone else has said on this thread about insurance. Do you not understand how group insurance works, is that it?

Is that the defense to using other people to provide you what you want and then call it an inalienable right? Ignorance is OK here, you know.

Well thats nice since no one is forcing you to buy birthcontrol coverage. On the same token, you don't have the right to force others from not buying it if they want or need it.

I never said they were. Lets try to be honest, ok? You are forcing property owners to provide you a service you want. Ownership is the right and ability to control something. In order to get your birth control pills you must make them do what you want. Birth control pills is not an innate right, but a human creation. You can not do that.

Moot · Sep 4, 2012

Disputatious71 said:
Are a woman's reproductive organs really inalienable?
They cannot work as intended without assistance from an outside source, which means they cannot reproduce inalienably... and then their is the whole matter of hysterectomy's, again hardly inalienable ! I can see this being a whole other thread, but just to be clear here while I do believe that responsible adults will take care of their own birth control it is the irresponsible and careless that are the burden upon any health care system thta will not change no matter who pays for what which should be the focus of any reform.

Gender is inalienable because you do not get to chose your sex when you are born. It is by definition a pre-existing condition. Hysterectomys do not change a woman's sex anymore than a vasectomy changes a mans.

Soon there will be a birth control pill for men and I think health insurance should cover that as well. Seeing if men would take it would make for an interesting thread, too.
.

ChrisL · Sep 4, 2012

I don't know Sandra Fluke, but I'd rather pay for her birth control than pay for her unwanted children or her abortion.

ChunkySalsa · Sep 4, 2012

Henrin said:
I'm not doing anything here, so this is not on me. You take actions and they have results. Deal with life. Is life really so cruel you people really can't deal with the results of your actions? There is certain amount of weakness in that which is also not on me. If you need parents than don't leave home. Seems pretty simple, lol.

My nose on the other hand will be fine. I can deal with life and I have proven that over and over again.

Action: don't pay for contraception
Result: more babies are born and increase the tax burden

Henrin said:
you people really can't deal with the results of your actions

cpwill · Sep 4, 2012

ChrisL said:
I don't know Sandra Fluke, but I'd rather pay for her birth control than pay for her unwanted children or her abortion.

Agreed, but that does not mean that we have the right to force others to chip in against their will.

Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

Should we pay for Sandra Fluke's birth control?

Yes

No

More options

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

Moot

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

Henrin

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

Disputatious71

Henrin

Henrin

Henrin

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon

Henrin

Moot

Henrin

Schutzengel

Well-known member

cpwill

Schutzengel

Well-known member

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon

ChuckBerry

cpwill

Henrin

Moot

ChrisL

ChunkySalsa

Active member

cpwill