• 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 .
notquiteright said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

There is no proof of your claim though.
Fact check even says that the results of such legislation are murky.

And considering the more relevant context behind this, it's unlikely that this mandate will reduce unwanted pregnancies to any real degree because, this "free" bc, mostly effects middle and upper income women, who can already afford it and are not reproducing at societal replacement level.

FactCheck.org : Cloudy Contraception Costs
 
radcen said:
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.
Click to expand...
Most of the people who said it's just about money never worked in the industry. Health insurance is one of the smallest margin industries, they show high dollar earnings but profit margins are low, only 6% versus +8% to consider a business economically viable. I don't think BC is the money saver everyone thinks it is, breast exams are cheaper than cancer and a once a year maximum occurance, much like other cancer screenings yet cancer is incredibly expensive to pay out. 18 years, now 26, of a child's care is not going to be expensive as they don't suffer a lot of critical illnesses but rather the yearly physical, sniffles, colds, etc. and more often than not will cost less on the year than premiums taken in..........but birth control mandates on the other hand mean a monthly claim.
 
LaMidRighter said:
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.
Click to expand...

I wonder if HER lawyer could do the same? So this sounds like the woman actually is MORE responsible for the unwanted pregnancy. I think that whether or not THEY (the couple) have contact again is irrelevant, but if she has the child and tries to deny visitation to it, that should not be allowed if he is supporting it, but now I'm getting off topic.

All states should all allow mandatory DNA testing when it comes to support of children, IMO.
 
ChrisL said:
So you WERE talking about in the past.
Click to expand...

Of course I was. What implies I said I wasn't?

Your timeline did not show that there were more unwanted children now than in the past.
Click to expand...

Again, it was about it being a problem.

As for pregnancies:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/health/13mothers.html

No one said all women would get pregnant without this kind of program.
Click to expand...

Then why the need to cover all women?

It just allows easier access
Click to expand...

"Easier access" = making someone else pay for it. That's not a "just." That's an onus.

and may help prevent some unwanted pregnancies
Click to expand...

How many? A few? A dozen? Millions? If you're doing a cost/benefit analysis of the government forcing insurers to do this, then you need to specify.

which in the long run saves money when some woman may get pregnant, have to quit her job and go on public assistance.
Click to expand...

1) You can't know that until you specify, and

2) Saving money doesn't necessarily justify anything.
 
Last edited:
ChrisL said:
I think both should share equal responsibility when it comes to preventing pregnancy and child-rearing.
Click to expand...

Why, when it is the woman who can get pregnant, and who has the power to get an abortion, without consent and agreement of the father? This is wholly unfair to men.
 
Moot said:
I dunno Harshaw, why should anyone take you seriously? You add nothing to the discussion.
Click to expand...

:shrug: No one forced you to address me. Yet, you did anyway.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Most of the people who said it's just about money never worked in the industry. Health insurance is one of the smallest margin industries, they show high dollar earnings but profit margins are low, only 6% versus +8% to consider a business economically viable. I don't think BC is the money saver everyone thinks it is, breast exams are cheaper than cancer and a once a year maximum occurance, much like other cancer screenings yet cancer is incredibly expensive to pay out. 18 years, now 26, of a child's care is not going to be expensive as they don't suffer a lot of critical illnesses but rather the yearly physical, sniffles, colds, etc. and more often than not will cost less on the year than premiums taken in..........but birth control mandates on the other hand mean a monthly claim.
Click to expand...
Oh, I don't doubt you, but I have heard the money thing mentioned often. And while I believe there is some truth to it... can't do anything at a loss if you close shop, after all... I don't believe that companies are that heartless.
 
ChrisL said:
I wonder if HER lawyer could do the same?
Click to expand...
Well sure, the lawyer can paint the guy as jerk and would have a great case, the perception of how many partners she may have had in the timeframe is the issue. And if there is no right to compulsory testing the guy will walk away without a scratch. I've seen that happen to a couple of friends personally.
So this sounds like the woman actually is MORE responsible for the unwanted pregnancy. I think that whether or not THEY (the couple) have contact again is irrelevant, but if she has the child and tries to deny visitation to it, that should not be allowed if he is supporting it, but now I'm getting off topic.
Click to expand...
It takes two to tango. The problem comes from the unwanted portion of it, many times women do bear the brunt of that, it's not fair but it works out that way many times.

All states should all allow mandatory DNA testing when it comes to support of children, IMO.
Click to expand...
I agree, but they have to see it that way in their legislatures, vote for it, and pass it.
 
Harshaw said:
Of course I was. What implies I said I wasn't?



Again, it was about it being a problem.

As for pregnancies:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/health/13mothers.html



When why the need to cover all women.
Click to expand...

I will say that back in the old days, men were forced to marry women who they impregnated a lot of times. Other times there were adoptions or back alley abortions that were much easier to hide. I don't think people are any more stupid or irresponsible than they have always been, and I certainly don't think that applies to all women, only a small portion of men and women. And, there are so many other factors at play here that it could not be proven that "people are more irresponsible now" is the cause of a rise in unwanted pregnancies. Some women DO choose to remain single.

"Easier access" = making someone else pay for it. That's not a "just." That's an onus.
Click to expand...

Maybe there could be things like income restriction guidelines. Some people are JUST above the poverty line (which is EXTREMELY low compared to costs of living IMO), and yes an extra $50 to $250 a month for BC could hurt them financially.


How many? A few? A dozen? Millions? If you're doing a cost/benefit analysis of the government forcing insurers to do this, then you need to specify.
Click to expand...

LOL! We'll thankfully I'm not because I'm pretty weak in math skills.
Click to expand...
 
lizzie said:
Why, when it is the woman who can get pregnant, and who has the power to get an abortion, without consent and agreement of the father? This is wholly unfair to men.
Click to expand...

Well, that is why he should take an interest in preventing a pregnancy too.
 
radcen said:
Oh, I don't doubt you, but I have heard the money thing mentioned often. And while I believe there is some truth to it... can't do anything at a loss if you close shop, after all... I don't believe that companies are that heartless.
Click to expand...
It's not a loss yet, though I don't know how companies will be able to stay compliant and competitive after that turd passed and was upheld. The problem is that there isn't a lot of room margin wise, which could end up in a bad result if things hold up.
 
LaMidRighter said:
It's not a loss yet, though I don't know how companies will be able to stay compliant and competitive after that turd passed and was upheld. The problem is that there isn't a lot of room margin wise, which could end up in a bad result if things hold up.
Click to expand...

I admit that I don't really know too much about how insurance companies work like you do. Why will be so expensive if everyone is chipping in a just a little bit?
 
ChrisL said:
I admit that I don't really know too much about how insurance companies work like you do. Why will be so expensive if everyone is chipping in a just a little bit?
Click to expand...

It's likely that it will cost more to pay through a third party payer, than if people had just purchased it themselves, out of pocket.
Administration and processing costs add to it.
 
lizzie said:
I was referring to the posters here.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are plenty of far-right nutballs here who would want to deny women contraception as well.
 
cpwill said:
There has been a movement to cease sending taxpayer dollars to PP for some time now as well, you may have noticed it pops up here occasionally :). But that is a government purchase (with our money, agreeably), not something I directly engage in.

But this isn't about taxes going to PP, it's about whether or not we can force Catholics to purchase something that is against their religious beliefs.

It's the difference between saying "you oppose the war in Iraq, but you're still going to pay your taxes", and "you oppose the war in Iraq, so we're going to make you help shoot these Iraqi kids." The one is materially different from the other.

And yes, before you go hyperbolic on me, that is how Catholic doctrine see's it. Killing children is killing children to them, be they in the womb or out of it.
Click to expand...

It's only within the last few years that some rumblings about Planned Parenthood have made it to the B side of news. And no, it's not something that Catholics or yourself directly engage in. Tax payer money is pooled together then distributed accordingly to a zillion pieces of pie. One of those pieces is Planned Parenthood.

Now I'm a bit puzzled as to why the same does not apply to government-funded insurance. People pay a premium, and the funds go into a pool and it's distributed according to need, no? So, basically, what is the difference between both? Catholics will not be forced to use birth control, so I fail to see why it's even an issue.
 
Cephus said:
I'm sure there are plenty of far-right nutballs here who would want to deny women contraception as well.
Click to expand...

I'll put it this way: I have yet to see anyone on this forum imply, or say, that they don't support the right to contraceptive use.
 
Harshaw said:
Philosophically, or practically?

If practically, then, well, you're wrong, because the taxpayers foot the bill for quite a bit of it.

If philosophically, this flies in the face of your "so what" from earlier.
Click to expand...

The taxpayers should never have to pay for health care for anyone, Obamacare notwithstanding. However, if we're going to be forced to, then people ought to get the full package.

Like cosmetic surgery for pure vanity?
Click to expand...

If we're going to allow people to get Viagra for pure vanity, why not?

It's a complete non-sequitur. The two are not alike. One is elective. The other is life-saving.
Click to expand...

Lots of things that appear in regular insurance packages are elective. Are you suggesting we pare down Obamacare to only things that are specifically life-saving? I might agree with that.
 
cpwill said:
Well that is bluntly not accurate. They want both men and women to choose not to take it.
Click to expand...

And who was suing Obama to keep from having to fund it again? :roll:
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
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.
Click to expand...

Harry, we've been through this before. Birth control is more than birth control. I know you know that, so why are you not taking that into consideration????
 
Cephus said:
If we're going to allow people to get Viagra for pure vanity, why not?
Click to expand...

There's no mandate to cover Viagra.


Lots of things that appear in regular insurance packages are elective. Are you suggesting we pare down Obamacare to only things that are specifically life-saving? I might agree with that.
Click to expand...

I'm suggesting it's entirely between the insurance company and whoever buys the policy.
 
Harshaw said:
I'm suggesting it's entirely between the insurance company and whoever buys the policy.
Click to expand...

And that's fine because it doesn't involve the taxpayers. Once you start making it a tax issue though, the government *IS* the one who buys the policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom