• 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 .
Henrin-
You asked why should businesses be forced to pay for birth control.

I answered.

Fact, we 'force' businesses to do many things like industrial safety, pay into workers comp, routine safety training, and clean air on the shop floor. that costs.

But it also saves millions when the work force isn't turning over due to on the job injuries that are prevented these days. When workers don't lose everything because a worker, dad as mom stays home in the 'conservative' utopia, gets injured and there is no workers comp to pay the bills until Dad is back on his feet.

Just seems an odd place to draw a line in the sand. No insurance coverage for women's BC when at least 50% of women get it due to state mandates.
 
radcen said:
Short answer: We are steadily moving toward government being our protector and provider, in general. Health care is just a natural and obvious extension of that.



My memory tells me that BC coverage has been an issue long prior to Viagra... just that Viagra intensified the issue.
Click to expand...

Then find the evidence to back up your memory. Because I can find a lot of articles that say birth control was not mandated coverage until after the government first "mandated" Viagra coverage back in 1998.....



Constitutional Issues Raised by States Exclusion of Fertility Drugs From Medicaid Coverage in Light of Mandated Viagra coverage...
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...SzJeAH&sig=AHIEtbRLwmhrM8Jwny2fQtyNt0eixod6mg


"...In the months following FDA approval of Viagra, many pri vate insurance companies 4 and state Medicaid programs 5 chose not to cover the drug. However, on July 2, 1998, officials at the HCFA, the federal agency vested with the authority to administer the Medicaid program and to interpret Medicaid regulations, [6] announced that coverage of the drug would be mandated for state Medicaid programs, viewing Viagra as "medically necessary" to treat male impotence, [7] and emphasizing that in doing so, the agency was "only interpreting" the Medicaid law.[8] On that day, state governors cried foul and a legal showdown between the HCFA and state Medicaid programs began.[9]....
https://litigation-essentials.lexis...Rev.+611&key=b9387aaba9e1802b1e336c2078a825bd

"The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission rules that prescription contraception must be covered by health insurance offered by employers.".....
A brief history of the birth control pill - The pill timeline | Need to Know | PBS


Insurance Coverage for Contraception State Laws
 
Harshaw said:
For reasons you won't agree with.
Click to expand...

If it's for religious reasons, then you're more than welcome not to use it, you cannot demand other people not have access.

In case you haven't noticed, we have a secular government.
 
notquiteright said:
Henrin-
You asked why should businesses be forced to pay for birth control.

I answered.

Fact, we 'force' businesses to do many things like industrial safety, pay into workers comp, routine safety training, and clean air on the shop floor. that costs.

But it also saves millions when the work force isn't turning over due to on the job injuries that are prevented these days. When workers don't lose everything because a worker, dad as mom stays home in the 'conservative' utopia, gets injured and there is no workers comp to pay the bills until Dad is back on his feet.

Just seems an odd place to draw a line in the sand. No insurance coverage for women's BC when at least 50% of women get it due to state mandates.
Click to expand...

You clearly have no idea where my line in the sand is. You need to spend some time reading up on minarchism. I simply do not support these kind of ideas.
 
Schutzengel said:
and I dont disagree with you, it was a not so serious question with the only thing either of us can do is GUESS... there is no way to know for sure, for either of us since she didnt declare her political ideology ...
Click to expand...
If truth be known I doubt she has a political ideology. But it does appear she has a religious one.
 
Moot said:
...and some see contraception and birth control as a way out of poverty for themselves and their families.....
Click to expand...

There is just so much weakness in that its unbelievable. Really? Come on people? Really? :doh
 
Henrin said:
He never talks to me. :cool:
Click to expand...

Oh, he doesn't talk to me either, which makes it all the easier to ignore anything stupid he says.
 
Moot said:
Then find the evidence to back up your memory. Because I can find a lot of articles that say birth control was not mandated coverage until after the government first "mandated" Viagra coverage back in 1998.....
Click to expand...
Take a Valium. I said "an issue"... as in discussion/complaints. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Dude... you're like... spazzing out.

Why do you always have to write such long, drawn out, boring and repetitive rebuttals that don't get to the point anyway.

As pointed out, she'll get the pills from her HMO as long as she signs up and pays her premiums.

the government is not going to send you a bill for her pills conservrepubMA
Click to expand...
:lamo

LMFAO... Did you seriously say "Dude... You're like... spazzing out", in regards to a DP post? I know you got this whole pretend to be the big lebowski persona on here, but, I hate to break it to you, the big lebowski was a fictional character... In reality that kind of useless stoner attitude ends up causing problems not solving them...

It's also a hilarious bit of commentary, from the same person who had some lame tirade with "****ING" spacing out the words of the simpleton response he thought was all encompasing... but fell flat in that regards...

Oddly enough, I was actually debating an issue on a site called Debate Politics... forgive me, dearly... :roll:

I addressed the point on numerous occasions... You're failing to, by this insistence that she's going to get them by paying her HMO premiums...

She wasn't arguing to pay for them under her HMO, she was demanding that Georgetown be forced to do away with their religious objection to giving out birth control pills, and they should be forced to provide birth control pills to its students, without co-pay by the school's insurance plan... The reason, because it can be tough for those poor Georgetown Law students to afford...

:2bigcry:

To quote Rush Limbaugh;

"I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?"


BTW... it's rather childish to be making accusations that I'm a conservrepubMA just because you're so used to having your posts slapped around by them with regularity... but, this issue isn't something most centrists think the government should be involved in doing, and constitutes a complete waste of money, and a distractiong from the real issues, like fixing the economy and solving the fiscal crisis with the federal government... this is an issue that only appeals to the far left of the spectrum...
 
ChrisL said:
I don't think having insurance cover birth control is really comparable to that.
Click to expand...

It's the same mindset. In this case people think that if they are getting something it should be exactly what they want and nothing else. Life simply does not work that way. The entitled mindset is like rabies.
 
IndepCentristMA said:
:lamo

LMFAO... Did you seriously say "Dude... You're like... spazzing out", in regards to a DP post? I know you got this whole pretend to be the big lebowski persona on here, but, I hate to break it to you, the big lebowski was a fictional character... In reality that kind of useless stoner attitude ends up causing problems not solving them...

It's also a hilarious bit of commentary, from the same person who had some lame tirade with "****ING" spacing out the words of the simpleton response he thought was all encompasing... but fell flat in that regards...

Oddly enough, I was actually debating an issue on a site called Debate Politics... forgive me, dearly... :roll:

I addressed the point on numerous occasions... You're failing to, by this insistence that she's going to get them by paying her HMO premiums...

She wasn't arguing to pay for them under her HMO, she was demanding that Georgetown be forced to do away with their religious objection to giving out birth control pills, and they should be forced to provide birth control pills to its students, without co-pay by the school's insurance plan... The reason, because it can be tough for those poor Georgetown Law students to afford...

:2bigcry:

To quote Rush Limbaugh;

"I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?"


BTW... it's rather childish to be making accusations that I'm a conservrepubMA just because you're so used to having your posts slapped around by them with regularity... but, this issue isn't something most centrists think the government should be involved in doing, and constitutes a complete waste of money, and a distractiong from the real issues, like fixing the economy and solving the fiscal crisis with the federal government... this is an issue that only appeals to the far left of the spectrum...
Click to expand...

Wow... I'm not reading all that.

I'd much prefer to watch the grass grow.

Look.

You and I have never agreed on anything we've ever talked about, I'm not going to convince you of anything, so I'll let my point stand and you can write as many boring, stodgy, uninteresting paragraphs you like.

But here's an important rule you might want to learn.

"brevity is the soul of wit".

And instead rambling on like an incoherent mess, find a point and stick to it rather than flying all over the galaxy like the Starship Enterprise.

I look forward to not reading your next pointless rant ConservRepubMA.
 
IndepCentristMA said:
To quote Rush Limbaugh;

"I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?"
Click to expand...
What was Rush saying during the Clinton/Lewinsky controversy?
 
Henrin said:
There is just so much weakness in that its unbelievable. Really? Come on people? Really? :doh
Click to expand...
Come on yourself. Is your opinion so weak that you can't defend it with credible evidence, substance or even a bit of logic? This is a debate forum, not your personal sand box where you can just poo and cover it up with insults and think no one will notice the horrible stench.
 
My how the times have changed...

A brief history of the birth control pill - The pill timeline | Need to Know | PBS
1967 The controversy over the pill takes on a new dimension when African-American activists charge that Planned Parenthood, by providing the pill in poor, minority neighborhoods, is committing genocide.

Oddly enough... that was the original intention of the birth control movement... keep down the poverty stricken from reproducing, to socially engineer a more mannered society...

That was the eugenics concept that Margret Sanger argued for...


Now, for some reason, everyone's okay with that...
 
Moot said:
Come on yourself. Is your opinion so weak that you can't defend it with credible evidence, substance or even a bit of logic? This is a debate forum, not your personal sand box where you just poo and cover it up with insults and think no one will notice the horrible stench.
Click to expand...

You're ****ing joking right?

This is what you said:

you said:
...and some see contraception and birth control as a way out of poverty for themselves and their families.....
Click to expand...

How is that not weakness? Explain to me please what else that could possibly be.
 
radcen said:
Take a Valium. I said "an issue"... as in discussion/complaints. Nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's kinda hard to argue against the facts, isn't it?
 
Cephus said:
If it's for religious reasons, then you're more than welcome not to use it, you cannot demand other people not have access.
Click to expand...

No one demands that other people not have access. They simply demand that they not be forced to pay for it.

You know this. Is there any point to continuing here?
 
Harshaw said:
No one demands that other people not have access. They simply demand that they not be forced to pay for it.

You know this. Is there any point to continuing here?
Click to expand...

You're not forced to pay for it. Your taxes are collective. You don't get to pick and choose what your taxes go toward, any more than someone can pick not to have their taxes fund the military. You pay, it all goes into a big pile, the government spends it collectively.

You ought to know that.
 
radcen said:
What was Rush saying during the Clinton/Lewinsky controversy?
Click to expand...

No, but I certainly was... along with the numerous MLB steroid hearings, etc.

I will say, though, that at least with the Clinton Impeachment hearings... there were several legitimate issues that were brought up... that weren't about his enjoyment of cigars... and he was rightly censured for them...

1) perjury, lying to the grand jury...
2) abuse of power, by getting her positions she was not qualified for...
3) sexual harrassment, demoting her position based off of expected sexual contact...

Again, if he was doing this in his own private property, that's one thing... He was doing this on government property, on government time... and using political powers to get her positions in the DoD that she was not qualified to be working... then once this came to a head (pun intended), he then demoted her position and moved her work location away from DC, to hide what had been going on... That IS completely wrong... and we ALL know what the definition of "is" is...
 
Cephus said:
You're not forced to pay for it. Your taxes are collective. You don't get to pick and choose what your taxes go toward, any more than someone can pick not to have their taxes fund the military. You pay, it all goes into a big pile, the government spends it collectively.

You ought to know that.
Click to expand...

It was about the mandate to employers.

But even so, even if it were about tax money, no one is demanding others not have access. Again, you know this. Or you should know this.
 
Harshaw said:
It was about the mandate to employers.

But even so, even if it were about tax money, no one is demanding others not have access. Again, you know this. Or you should know this.
Click to expand...

Employers pay a set amount, they don't get to pick and choose what they fund either. You don't get to decide you're going to pay for this kind of health care and not that kind of health care, you just pay for health care.

Come on, you can't not understand that.
 
Cephus said:
Employers pay a set amount, they don't get to pick and choose what they fund either. You don't get to decide you're going to pay for this kind of health care and not that kind of health care, you just pay for health care.

Come on, you can't not understand that.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Employers choose policies with the coverage they wish to provide, and exclude coverage they don't wish to provide.

If they couldn't do that, there wouldn't be an issue, and there wouldn't need to be such a mandate.
 
Henrin said:
You're ****ing joking right?

This is what you said:



How is that not weakness? Explain to me please what else that could possibly be.
Click to expand...
The poor having more kids than they can cloth, feed or support perpetuates a cycle of poverty that crosses generations. It's just that simple. But when low income and poor women have access to birth control that cycle is broken because then she can afford go to school and get a better paying job and plan her family according to what she can afford. It gives low income families a better chance of rising up into the middle class and they can afford to give their kids more opportunities than what they had.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom