• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

Should we pay for Sandra Fluke's birth control?


  • Total voters
    64
  • Poll closed .
Look, things are better now than ever on the birth control scene. Women don't have to risk their future health to take birth control today and the price, quality and variety is astounding. More people are using effective birth control than ever before and more are educated in it's use and efficacy. And there isn't a store that won't sell them to teens (unlike my day).

If the individual cannot afford either birth control or a birth - then they should abstain from vaginal intercourse with fertile males - period. Just as if you have a car but cannot afford insurance or an accident, you should not drive it. It sucks, but that's life. You don't always get to do what you really, really want to do exactly when you want to do it. The Devil Made Me Do it is not an excuse.

Where birth control has gotten better, personal responsibility has not.

Perhaps the government is trying to avoid Idiocracy from being a predictive movie. :mrgreen:
 
Health insurance purchased by middle and higher income level women is also used to cover those women's children, perhaps teenage daughters who may not have access to BC otherwise and who might end up pregnant and receiving public assistance.
Here is where a lot of the confusion on the subject comes into play. When mandatory coverages are included in law the price goes up for everyone, some things should be covered when they are equal risk factors such as heart disease, cancer, etc. and then there are others that are gender specific such as birth control.

No one is saying that insurers should be barred from offering birth control but rather it is bad mandate. Insurers who do offer birth control have already weighted their risk tables to cover the cost, but when I have to have BC coverage as a male it screws the whole thing up. For instance I have zero possibility of becomming pregnant, none, and have no interest in taking BC and since I am not married there is no dependent who would qualify, but under Obamacare I must now insure myself, you, and everyone else to provide birth control, it is of no benefit to me. As well Viagra, non-medical breast reductions, and cosmetic surgery should not be covered.

Check the different price ratings in mandate heavy states versus mandate light states and you will see sometimes a thousand or more dollars a year difference in premium, and lower deductibles. It can be astronomical.

EDIT - Lower ded. should be higher deductibles. Sorry, kind of makes a difference.
 
Last edited:
NOBODY'S PAYING FOR ****ING SANDRA ****ING FLUKES ****ING CONTRACEPTION...

HOLY JESUS.

There's nothing wrong with mandating Medical Insurance Companies to pay for contraception the same way they would pay for any other basic drugs that are nessecary for people to have, some of these HMO's cover Viagra for gods sake, so why not contraceptive pills?

Doing such a thing, expanding access to contraceptives is a massive net benefit to the economy as it reduces unwanted pregnancies, reduces the need for abortions which is a net positive for the medical insurance companies obviously abortion procedures cost more than a measly pill.

This whole idea that everyone pays for Sandra Flukes Contraceptives is such a fallacy it's unbelievable.

mandating the insurance company to pay for it will result in the insurance company raising prices and/or making sure you pay for other things to make up for the lost revenue....So yeah we will end up paying for her sexual habits :)
 
Henrin-
That is the otherside of the 'conservative' dodge. The Gawd n Mutha 'conservatives' would see the advantage to keeping women in good health to spawn good children.

Now to be precise, the ONLY business being forced to provide BC, Breast Exams, PAP smears are the insurance companies.

To be fair, many women already have BC coverage as they live in states that require some sort of BC coverage, so the 'why should businesses be required' has already been asked and answered for roughly 50% of the US Women.

Depending on the method of birth control and with no negotiated discounts for it the cost for a month of BC is 30 bucks. If there is a 50% on it then it costs the company two hours wages at minimum wage rates.

Two hours a month for a much happier and productive female worker. My wife had bad cramps, irregular cycles, tough mood swings. Birth control REALLY helped with cramps, time and duration of period and a bit on mood swings.

Two hours a month to have women shedding the period problems of the past and not having that OOPS-OH moment that pulls them out of the workforce,(with maternity leave), just after you get them trained.

Seems a very low cost benefit.
 
Here is where a lot of the confusion on the subject comes into play. When mandatory coverages are included in law the price goes up for everyone, some things should be covered when they are equal risk factors such as heart disease, cancer, etc. and then there are others that are gender specific such as birth control.

No one is saying that insurers should be barred from offering birth control but rather it is bad mandate. Insurers who do offer birth control have already weighted their risk tables to cover the cost, but when I have to have BC coverage as a male it screws the whole thing up. For instance I have zero possibility of becomming pregnant, none, and have no interest in taking BC and since I am not married there is no dependent who would qualify, but under Obamacare I must now insure myself, you, and everyone else to provide birth control, it is of no benefit to me. As well Viagra, non-medical breast reductions, and cosmetic surgery should not be covered.

Check the different price ratings in mandate heavy states versus mandate light states and you will see sometimes a thousand or more dollars a year difference in premium, and lower deductibles. It can be astronomical.

Birth control is really not gender specific though if you really think about it. Men also have to pay for unwanted pregnancies and children. IMO, in this day and age, birth control for all women of fertile age is a necessity, unless we expect them to be abstinent.
 
Birth control is really not gender specific though if you really think about it. Men also have to pay for unwanted pregnancies and children. IMO, in this day and age, birth control for all women of fertile age is a necessity, unless we expect them to be abstinent.

Well, yes, it really is pretty specific. No matter how you slice it and dice it, birth control should be primarily the woman's responsibility, for it is she who can get pregnant, and it is she who can choose to abort, and the man (father or potential father) is pretty much legally barred from having decision-making power.
 
I don't like the government mandating business to provide certain services. If people feel it is that important they should lobby their insurance to provide this service and if they wont, then find a company that will.
If the government did mandate providers cover birth control then what is next? Should we force them to cover plastic surgery for ugly people, liposuction for fat people?

Would you also be upset if the insurance company increased your premium by exactly the same ammount your birth control will cost? It would make sense, after all this isnt a random cost to the company, it will be immediate and contiuous.
 
Stupid me! :doh Men also play quite a large role in creating those unwanted pregnancies too. The women are not impregnating themselves after all. :)
 
Henrin-
That is the otherside of the 'conservative' dodge. The Gawd n Mutha 'conservatives' would see the advantage to keeping women in good health to spawn good children.

Now to be precise, the ONLY business being forced to provide BC, Breast Exams, PAP smears are the insurance companies.

To be fair, many women already have BC coverage as they live in states that require some sort of BC coverage, so the 'why should businesses be required' has already been asked and answered for roughly 50% of the US Women.

Depending on the method of birth control and with no negotiated discounts for it the cost for a month of BC is 30 bucks. If there is a 50% on it then it costs the company two hours wages at minimum wage rates.

Two hours a month for a much happier and productive female worker. My wife had bad cramps, irregular cycles, tough mood swings. Birth control REALLY helped with cramps, time and duration of period and a bit on mood swings.

Two hours a month to have women shedding the period problems of the past and not having that OOPS-OH moment that pulls them out of the workforce,(with maternity leave), just after you get them trained.

Seems a very low cost benefit.

How many people do you know, that can afford insurance, but can't afford birth control.
This consistently erroneous leap of logic is pervasive.
 
Well, yes, it really is pretty specific. No matter how you slice it and dice it, birth control should be primarily the woman's responsibility, for it is she who can get pregnant, and it is she who can choose to abort, and the man (father or potential father) is pretty much legally barred from having decision-making power.

This is true, but he should take an interest in birth control because he is also responsible for the child, at the very least financially.
 
Because it's doesn't flow with the purpose of insurance.
Frankly, the supposed benefit of reducing abortions and unwanted pregnancies isn't likely to happen because poor females usually can't afford insurance in the first place.
Plus they already have the option of getting free bc from state health departments.

This legislation was designed to pander to women.
Back when I was diagnosed with diabetes 10 years ago my insurance company (Kaiser Permanente) gave supplies such as test strips for free (they're not cheap). They waived their normal co-pay. They said that prevention was cheaper than dealing with the adverse effects of no prevention.

That lasted about 6 months. It either didn't work out as hoped, or the co-pay money outweighed any noble aspects.
 
Henrin-
That is the otherside of the 'conservative' dodge. The Gawd n Mutha 'conservatives' would see the advantage to keeping women in good health to spawn good children.
How exactly does birth control keep women in good health. And yes someone has used the "hormonal control" argument, so that becomes a medical necessity, but wouldn't an endocrinologist prescribing a hormone regimen be better than paying for birth control which may or may not help?

Now to be precise, the ONLY business being forced to provide BC, Breast Exams, PAP smears are the insurance companies.
And to be even more precise, now thanks to John Roberts being a complete ****ing idiot people are still forced to buy the product or pay a penalty. Those who choose to purchase must pay a monthly premium, and now the formerly optional wellness benfit that 99.5% of the companies already provided minus BC have to weight for the increase in BC claims on policy. Who pays the premium? The woman recieving the mandated BC, the man recieving absolutely no benefit from the mandate, or everyone who has a policy? The answer is C it was rhetorical, so basically men, women who are no longer in their child bearing years, churches, and employers all have to pay for a one statistical catagories specific optional treatment. I don't even want to hear a counterargument of whether or not someone pays for one person's heart attack or cancer because those are generalized and non-specific risk catagories so insuring one person is insuring everyone, not a "catagory".


To be fair, many women already have BC coverage as they live in states that require some sort of BC coverage, so the 'why should businesses be required' has already been asked and answered for roughly 50% of the US Women.
And those are probably high premium areas.

Depending on the method of birth control and with no negotiated discounts for it the cost for a month of BC is 30 bucks. If there is a 50% on it then it costs the company two hours wages at minimum wage rates.
At least you can admit it cost the company something. Now, what is the multiplier effect on that? IOW, the claim payouts are going to increase on the birth control so they have to be made up for, where do you think that's going to increase?

Two hours a month for a much happier and productive female worker. My wife had bad cramps, irregular cycles, tough mood swings. Birth control REALLY helped with cramps, time and duration of period and a bit on mood swings.
BC is not a cure all in that department.
 
This is true, but he should take an interest in birth control because he is also responsible for the child, at the very least financially.

Things sure have changed, and no buts about it, I'm not the most attractive man, but all my sexual partners have required ME to provide the birth control before proceeding.
 
This is true, but he should take an interest in birth control because he is also responsible for the child, at the very least financially.

He is only financially responsible if she has the baby. Agreed, any man should make an effort not to impregnate a woman who does not want to be pregnant, but she is the one whose body will be altered, and she should bear the primary responsibility. To do otherwise, is foolish and/or stupid, if not negligent of her own health and well-being. I get a little tired of hearing about how women want all the rights and privileges, but they want men to share in the blame if the unexpected happens.
 
Back when I was diagnosed with diabetes 10 years ago my insurance company (Kaiser Permanente) gave supplies such as test strips for free (they're not cheap). They waived their normal co-pay. They said that prevention was cheaper than dealing with the adverse effects of no prevention.

That lasted about 6 months. It either didn't work out as hoped, or the co-pay money outweighed any noble aspects.

They may have found out, that it just wasn't true.
That the cost of the strips outweigh the preventative savings.

Maybe because their insured, weren't more likely to use them, whether or not they were free.
 
Birth control is really not gender specific though if you really think about it. Men also have to pay for unwanted pregnancies and children.
Yes, it's called child support. And if the BC fails that is still going to be an unwanted pregnancy.
IMO, in this day and age, birth control for all women of fertile age is a necessity, unless we expect them to be abstinent.
I was in the insurance industry, whether you consider it a necessity or not doesn't relate to the risk model. Here's the deal, you won't die and your health won't suffer without it, the point of insurance is to cover that which would either kill you or mess up your health without treatment.
 
Honestly Moot,

this kinda thing comes from an entitlement mentality.. I have all of these kids and someone else should pay for them... I feel sorry for the kids, and I think CPS should step in and removethem from what is obviously an abusive enviroment...

*the following is a jab made in jest and should be taken only as such...

Any guess what political party mom is?
She said the kids were "a gift from God" which highly suggests there has been some religious influence in her choices. Pro-life religious influence. She might be demanding entitlements, but she comes from a conservative back ground. The father of ten of her children was apparently supporting all of them...until he got thrown in prison....because of Florida's harsh mandatory sentencing laws. She said, thats when her troubles began.
 
He is only financially responsible if she has the baby. Agreed, any man should make an effort not to impregnate a woman who does not want to be pregnant, but she is the one whose body will be altered, and she should bear the primary responsibility. To do otherwise, is foolish and/or stupid, if not negligent of her own health and well-being. I get a little tired of hearing about how women want all the rights and privileges, but they want men to share in the blame if the unexpected happens.

I think both should share equal responsibility when it comes to preventing pregnancy and child-rearing.
 
I think both should share equal responsibility when it comes to preventing pregnancy and child-rearing.
Well sure. This assumes a perfect world though, there are plenty of ladies who don't use BC until they are in a relationship, and plenty of women who go out hunting every weekend in bars and will go home with a strange guy that night. In the latter case it's kind of hard to discuss shared responsibility for BC treatments, in a couple scenario you do have a good point.
 
And another bit of great silliness. It's not up to me to prove your asinine claims aren't true. It's up to you to prove that they are. And what you said:



Was indeed a "smarmy, petty, little insult," so you tell me why I should have taken it seriously?
I dunno Harshaw, why should anyone take you seriously? You add nothing to the discussion.
 
Missed is the fact that insurance companies already WERE paying for her contraceptives. This is/was a non issue about a made up fictional 'friend'. She admitted she was already covered, even by the insurance company that the school contracted with.
 
Well sure. This assumes a perfect world though, there are plenty of ladies who don't use BC until they are in a relationship, and plenty of women who go out hunting every weekend in bars and will go home with a strange guy that night. In the latter case it's kind of hard to discuss shared responsibility for BC treatments, in a couple scenario you do have a good point.

Okay, but the strange man is also going home with a strange woman in your scenario. What makes him any less responsible if she becomes pregnant?
 
Okay, but the strange man is also going home with a strange woman in your scenario. What makes him any less responsible if she becomes pregnant?
Ahhh, the important question. Yes, he is as responsible, but what guarantee do we have that the two will ever have contact again, or that the guy won't be a grade A dirtbag and shirk responsibility. Some states don't allow for forced DNA testing and if she went home with him for one night his attorney would go very hostile and attack her entire sexual history. Not saying it's right mind you but reality.
 
I was in the insurance industry, whether you consider it a necessity or not doesn't relate to the risk model. Here's the deal, you won't die and your health won't suffer without it, the point of insurance is to cover that which would either kill you or mess up your health without treatment.
I've heard other people say that the point of insurance companies is to make money, and if providing BC is cheaper than paying for birth and 18 years of health care, then BC wins.

Cynical, I know.
 
Harry-
How many do you know who can afford over the counter allergy meds but get prescription meds because they are covered by insurance?
How many get eye exams paid for?

This isn't about finding a way for the woman to pay for this herself, that question has been answered for approx 50% of the women in this country. No more than snot meds or eye exams. poor deflection. Easy coverage to offer.

LaRider-
I reckon you didn't work much with insurance policies as I point out above, many quality of life issues are addressed by insurance. How do you define that very professional statement you made- "or mess up your health without treatment." ? Lots of grey area in that health insurance professional formula...

Nor do you understand what 'the pill' is. It is hormone therapy and can be prescribed by doctors for heavy cramps, bet you are clueless what that feels like, irregular periods and mood swings. If the female is checked out for 'the pill' use and it brings with it the benefit of reduced cramping, regulation of the period and some help with mood swings whats not to like?

Considering it helps a female worker plan her career and family it would seem a win for everyone, all for 2 hours of wages a month for both femalw worker and the boss if no discount can be arranged.
 
Back
Top Bottom