• 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 .
Anyway, The fact check article shows that there is no clear evidence that this will be cost effective for anything.

And that there is no evidence the other way.
 
Why on EARTH wouldn't we want to try new things to help out a bad situation? I just don't understand the logic there.

Trying new things that have some amount of support for actually working, ok.
Doing stuff because we make casual logically fallacies assuming it will work, no.
 
Trying new things that have some amount of support for actually working, ok.
Doing stuff because we make casual logically fallacies assuming it will work, no.

How would anyone know if it would work or not if they don't try it first?
 
And that there is no evidence the other way.

I know.
I'm just trying to cut through all the crap, with people saying it will "save money, prevent more unwanted pregnancies."

Considering the specific situations most insured people are in, they are more likely to already use birth control and to afford it.
Kinda takes some of the wind out of the sails.

Now if you were to say that, we'd go door to door, handing out all the free birth control in the world, to low income people who may not be able to afford it.
I'd say that would likely help reduce unwanted pregnancies.
 
Trying new things that have some amount of support for actually working, ok.
Doing stuff because we make casual logically fallacies assuming it will work, no.

There is no definitive conclusion that BC would, in fact, save insurance companies money; therefore, no evidence exists?

You're one of those "my default position must be proven wrong 100% before I will respect another opinion" guys?
 
There is no definitive conclusion that BC would, in fact, save insurance companies money; therefore, no evidence exists?

You're one of those "my default position must be proven wrong 100% before I will respect another opinion" guys?

No, my position is, stop making laws, mandates, requirements with unproven information.
 
I'm sorry you fail to understand the point being made.
It's not a lie, it is completely and totally immaterial to the discussion.

Just because you want to ignore the facts which make the comparison dishonest doesn't mean that the facts are irrelevant, it just means you wish to ignore them.

Burning your own house down, may not actually be illegal.

Arson is illegal.

I'm sure there is a permitting process for it.

There isn't.

A legal demolition, you can call it.

No, you can't.


Setting your house on fire, on purpose, is a purposeful action

It's an illegal action.

choosing to get pregnant, is another purposeful action.

False. The conditions that may lead to pregnancy are a purposeful action. one cannot will themselves into a pregnant state though.

You have chosen to do these things, they are done by you electing to do so.

Apples are a fruit. Oranges are a fruit. Ergo they are the same thing.

/impersonation of your dishonest comparisons.

I'm sorry you can't see this.

I'm not the person pretending that an apple is an orange here, harry.

I'm not talking about fraud

you're talking about insurance not covering something. choosing to ignore the fraud aspect is choosing to ignore reality. you can choose to ignore reality, but doing so is extremely dishonest.

I'm talking about purposefully destroying an insured piece of property,

More insanely dishonest gibberish. Pregnancy =/= destroying property.

then with all the facts in the open, attempting to make a claim on your policy.

Absolutely false. You are trying to compare a criminal act associated with insurance fraud to a biological imperative related to the survival of the species that has nothing to do with insurance fraud and pretend, beyond all common sense, logic, and reason, that the two acts are comparable.

They will summarily deny it, because insurance does not exist to cover purposeful losses.

Pregnancy is not a purposeful loss. Using more dishonesty to defend dishonesty is not a real argument.

It's not disingenuous,

False.

you just don't seem to understand the purpose of insurance.

Says the guy who is trying to say homeowners insurance has the same purpose as medical insurance.

On the "who receives the money" issue, it is the insured.

False. Medical insurance gives the money to the person or organization that provided medical services to the insured.

With pregnancy, you don't have to pay the full cost.

Which is the purpose of medical insurance: to defray the costs of both catastrophic AND regular medical needs. Are you going to say that regular doctor visits are elective, since peopel can CHOOSE to not receive medical check-ups?

You save money by this action.


saving money =/= receiving money.

Regardless, you are benefiting from it.

As does the cancer patient. Should we dishonestly compare that to arson now?





Elective is you exercising a choice, in this situation, a choice to incur a loss.

I meant a real definition, not one you made up.

You seriously mean to tell me that people don't choose to get pregnant.

Not everyone chooses to become pregnant.

You have the nerve to say I'm lying. :lol:

If you are being dishonest, I'm going to point it out. It doesn't take much nerve to point out the obvious.

Whining?


I'm pointing out the erroneous belief that people who can afford medical insurance, can not afford birth control.
The logic behind that position is dumb.

It's bad logic to make it an "afford one or the other scenario" when the real situation being discussed is about affording BOTH things. Some people cannot afford health insurance AND birth control. Someone shouldn't have to chose between having birth control or insurance.



Do people purposefully choose to get cancer?


Using your flawed logic, yes, absolutely.

People don't choose to get pregnant. They choose to engage in behaviors that are known to lead to pregnancy. You've decided that this is identical in nature to choosing to get pregnant. People also choose to engage in behaviors that are known to lead to cancer. Thus, using your same parameters for logic, we must say that they chose to get cancer.

If we choose to apply our logic inconsistently because it doesn't suit our desired conclusions, we are making dishonest arguments.

My contention is that you are not using consistent logic, and that you are formulating your premises for the sole purpose of reaching the conclusion you desire. My evidence for this is your repeated chocies to use dishonest language to describe pregnancy, and your attempts to ignore critical differences in your comparisons,.





There is no desperation to be honest

Excellent. when are you planning on doing that?

this isn't even hard to debate with you (which is odd, because 99% of the time, you skills make it challenging).

It certainly will seem easier if you willfully ignore all of the flaws in your position, that's true.

It's incredibly apparent that you don't know what insurance is meant to do.

I'm not the one who is comparing a criminal act associated with insurance fraud to a preventable medical condition and pretending they are comparable acts as far as insurance goes. Just sayin'.

If you were looking for an honest comparison between something covered by homeowners insurance and medical insurance covering pregnancy, you would have chosen to talk about a burglary that occurred when the homeowner left the door to their house open. But it does not appear that you are interested in honest comparisons.

In the event of the pregnancy, the pregnant person will incur a financial loss, by paying for medical services to deliver and care for the mother or child.

Absolutely false in every way.

Simply being pregnant does not incur a financial loss upon the person who is pregnant. This is absolutely proven by the fact that you had to add the section I put in bold in order to make the claim. You cannot make the claim without adding that addendum to the comment.

The existence of pregnancy predates the existence of medical services. Medical services are not a side-effect of pregnancy. They are not an absolute requirement of pregnancy. Women all over the world give birth without receiving any medical services at all.

Pregnancy is not a medical procedure (and this is the most fatal flaw in your argument, because you are making your argument as though it is a procedure). It is a biological condition. Is it a preventable biological condition? Absolutely. So are many forms of cancer, so is obesity, so is heart disease, so is type 2 diabetes... quite frankly, there are thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of other biological conditions that are preventable.

Medical services are required for this biological condition to ensure the health and welfare of the person who is in said biological condition, but they are not a byproduct of the condition itself.

The person may have willfully put themselves in said biological condition, but the same thing can be said about obesity and the associated medical services that stem from that biological condition. And pregnancy is a biological condition that most women will be in at some point in their lives. It is a fully expected biological condition associated with being female. There is also a proven biological imperative for women to put themselves into this biological condition, further proving that it is an expected biological condition.

There is absolutely no loss incurred by entering this condition. This is where you comparison to arson becomes tremendously dishonest because losing a piece of property is a requisite byproduct of destroying said piece of property. The loss is a direct result of the action. The action cannot exist without being followed by the loss. The same is not true of pregnancy. The biological state does exist without any loss being incurred. Loss is not a requisite byproduct of the actions leading to said condition.

But this loss, is on purpose, because the woman has chosen to become pregnant.

Is lung cancer "elective" when someone lives in a city that has high polution? If not then pregnancy is not an "elective". You have to use consistent logic if you wish to make an honest argument.
 
No, my position is, stop making laws, mandates, requirements with unproven information.

But you see the logic and reason in preventative maintenance and you support the idea:

You try it in smaller doses, not nationally.
Test cases, trial runs, those kind of things.

If the disagreement is forcing companies to do so, then we agree. I'm not arguing that companies should be forced to do it, I'm arguing that it is good profit-policy.



With you apparently agreeing that it may be good policy (via being willing to test it), and with us agreeing that forcing insurance companies to do so is not the method, I think you and I have concluded here.
 
You try it in smaller doses, not nationally.
Test cases, trial runs, those kind of things.

That's what should be done then. It is totally worth the effort to try it out though. And another thing, we also need to start making it so that doctors cannot refuse a patient a sterilization procedure if that's is what he or she wishes. There is another thing we should be looking into to prevent unwanted pregnancy and abortion too. I wonder if sterilization procedures are covered?
 
Just because you want to ignore the facts which make the comparison dishonest doesn't mean that the facts are irrelevant, it just means you wish to ignore them.

You've yet to present a fact that it is material.

Arson is illegal.



There isn't.



No, you can't.



It's an illegal action.

Yes you can obtain demolition permits to destroy your house.
Sorry, but you can.

A quick "google" can prove this.

False. The conditions that may lead to pregnancy are a purposeful action. one cannot will themselves into a pregnant state though.

And one can not will their home to catch fire.
One must take purposeful actions to cause both.

Apples are a fruit. Oranges are a fruit. Ergo they are the same thing.

/impersonation of your dishonest comparisons.



I'm not the person pretending that an apple is an orange here, harry.

I can understand that you would see it that way when you don't understand.


you're talking about insurance not covering something. choosing to ignore the fraud aspect is choosing to ignore reality. you can choose to ignore reality, but doing so is extremely dishonest.

The situation need not involve fraud.
The only leg you had to stand on, was "it's illegal, it's illegal."

I've removed the illegality of it and we can measure whether insurance covers non illegal, purposeful losses.

In every other case, insurance does not cover purposeful "losses", except for pregnancy.


More insanely dishonest gibberish. Pregnancy =/= destroying property.

I never said they were equivalent, don't put words in my mouth.


Absolutely false. You are trying to compare a criminal act associated with insurance fraud to a biological imperative related to the survival of the species that has nothing to do with insurance fraud and pretend, beyond all common sense, logic, and reason, that the two acts are comparable.

Incorrect.
I'm not talking about trying to defraud an insurance company.

I'm talking about trying to make claims on losses that you've done on purpose.
Not by hiding material facts or lying, but by being completely open about it.

The insurance company will tell you to screw off if you tried to make the claim.


Pregnancy is not a purposeful loss. Using more dishonesty to defend dishonesty is not a real argument.

The cost of a pregnancy is a loss.
That's what people insure against, only the cost is done on purpose.
I'm sorry your failure to understand, automatically qualifies every response I make as "dishonest."


Fragment sentences, do not garner greater support for your argument.

Says the guy who is trying to say homeowners insurance has the same purpose as medical insurance.

Insurance, serves the same purpose, regardless of it's specialty.
Insurance is......

Wiki said:
Insurance is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss.


False. Medical insurance gives the money to the person or organization that provided medical services to the insured.

The money is in the form of a benefit.
It matters not that they do or do not receive direct cash.

What matters is that they get a benefit.

Which is the purpose of medical insurance: to defray the costs of both catastrophic AND regular medical needs. Are you going to say that regular doctor visits are elective, since peopel can CHOOSE to not receive medical check-ups?

Then it is not insurance.

To the latter, absolutely.
Because regular doctor visits are not, "contingent, uncertain losses."


saving money =/= receiving money.

Right, but insurance is supposed to save you money, in the event of a major loss.


As does the cancer patient. Should we dishonestly compare that to arson now?

I never had a problem with people benefiting from insurance.
That's why it exists.

My beef is with coverage.

I meant a real definition, not one you made up.

Do I need to get you a thesaurus, to show that choice and elect are synonyms?

Not everyone chooses to become pregnant.

But you said, "And pregnancy isn't an elective condition, it's a preventable one"
Pregnancy is an elective condition for those who want and can get pregnant.


If you are being dishonest, I'm going to point it out. It doesn't take much nerve to point out the obvious.

I'd have to be dishonest first.
Not, you not knowing what the crap you're talking about.


It's bad logic to make it an "afford one or the other scenario" when the real situation being discussed is about affording BOTH things. Some people cannot afford health insurance AND birth control. Someone shouldn't have to chose between having birth control or insurance.

It's bad logic to assume that covering 100% of people, so that a much smaller % of people can get birth control, is just not a good policy.

Using your flawed logic, yes, absolutely.

People don't choose to get pregnant. They choose to engage in behaviors that are known to lead to pregnancy. You've decided that this is identical in nature to choosing to get pregnant. People also choose to engage in behaviors that are known to lead to cancer. Thus, using your same parameters for logic, we must say that they chose to get cancer.

If we choose to apply our logic inconsistently because it doesn't suit our desired conclusions, we are making dishonest arguments.

My contention is that you are not using consistent logic, and that you are formulating your premises for the sole purpose of reaching the conclusion you desire. My evidence for this is your repeated chocies to use dishonest language to describe pregnancy, and your attempts to ignore critical differences in your comparisons,.

The actions and intentions of individuals, make their choices a reality.
Yes ****ing leads to pregnancy, like spraying a house with gasoline and lighting it, leads to it burning.
Both people did purposeful things, to increase the odds of something happening and not by a minor amount.

Excellent. when are you planning on doing that?

I have been.
You're fundamental misunderstanding of the subject, is not my fault.


It certainly will seem easier if you willfully ignore all of the flaws in your position, that's true.

These flaws being, you not knowing what you're talking about?


I'm not the one who is comparing a criminal act associated with insurance fraud to a preventable medical condition and pretending they are comparable acts as far as insurance goes. Just sayin'.

If you were looking for an honest comparison between something covered by homeowners insurance and medical insurance covering pregnancy, you would have chosen to talk about a burglary that occurred when the homeowner left the door to their house open. But it does not appear that you are interested in honest comparisons.

I'm not talking about accidents, which are insurable.
I'm talking about purposeful actions, where intent is absolutely clear.

The burglary comparison is an accident.
It's not an apt comparison.

Absolutely false in every way.

For this to be true, it actually has to be false in every way.
Not false in places where people don't seek medical treatment for pregnancy.

Simply being pregnant does not incur a financial loss upon the person who is pregnant. This is absolutely proven by the fact that you had to add the section I put in bold in order to make the claim. You cannot make the claim without adding that addendum to the comment.

Of course I have to make that addendum because people are seeking medical coverage, through insurance for it.
Else we wouldn't be discussing this at all.

The existence of pregnancy predates the existence of medical services. Medical services are not a side-effect of pregnancy. They are not an absolute requirement of pregnancy. Women all over the world give birth without receiving any medical services at all.

So does the existence of a house, predate the insurance industry.
I did not state medical services are a side effect of pregnancy.

It's that people seek medical services for pregnancy, which comes at a cost, which they try to pay for through insurance.
But insurance is meant to be a hedge against uncertain loss.

Getting pregnant on purpose is not an "uncertain loss."
Making the argument that it should be included in, insurance, stupid.

A fundamental concept of insurance, that you just continuously fail to grasp.

Pregnancy is not a medical procedure (and this is the most fatal flaw in your argument, because you are making your argument as though it is a procedure). It is a biological condition. Is it a preventable biological condition? Absolutely. So are many forms of cancer, so is obesity, so is heart disease, so is type 2 diabetes... quite frankly, there are thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of other biological conditions that are preventable.

Medical services are required for this biological condition to ensure the health and welfare of the person who is in said biological condition, but they are not a byproduct of the condition itself.

And medical insurance exists to cover contingent, uncertain losses resulting from expensive biological conditions.
However, getting pregnant, on purpose, does not fall into "contingent uncertain loss."


The person may have willfully put themselves in said biological condition, but the same thing can be said about obesity and the associated medical services that stem from that biological condition. And pregnancy is a biological condition that most women will be in at some point in their lives. It is a fully expected biological condition associated with being female. There is also a proven biological imperative for women to put themselves into this biological condition, further proving that it is an expected biological condition.

There is absolutely no loss incurred by entering this condition. This is where you comparison to arson becomes tremendously dishonest because losing a piece of property is a requisite byproduct of destroying said piece of property. The loss is a direct result of the action. The action cannot exist without being followed by the loss. The same is not true of pregnancy. The biological state does exist without any loss being incurred. Loss is not a requisite byproduct of the actions leading to said condition.

Your statements are absolutist and false.
There is financial loss, incurred for having a pregnancy, because people seek medical services for this.
Whether or not they need to, is immaterial, the fact is they do.

Is lung cancer "elective" when someone lives in a city that has high polution? If not then pregnancy is not an "elective". You have to use consistent logic if you wish to make an honest argument.

How much is the increased risk, 1%, 2%, 5%, 100%?
 
But you see the logic and reason in preventative maintenance and you support the idea:

When prevention is cost effective, you bet.


If the disagreement is forcing companies to do so, then we agree. I'm not arguing that companies should be forced to do it, I'm arguing that it is good profit-policy.



With you apparently agreeing that it may be good policy (via being willing to test it), and with us agreeing that forcing insurance companies to do so is not the method, I think you and I have concluded here.

I agree it could be a good policy, however I worry about how it will effect the whole market of bc pills.
The reason it is largely affordable now, is because consumers and producers exist together, which out much shielding of cost.

When we add a third party payer, these dynamics change.
 
Half the population have need of BC prescriptions so that all the population can control their family numbers. It needs to be part of the insurance package offered to half the population.
 
And medical insurance exists to cover contingent, uncertain losses resulting from expensive biological conditions.

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).
 
So it's wise to cover 100% of people for "free at point of service" birth control, so that a much smaller group of people are able to get access to birth control?

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.
 
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.


Yes yes yes....and its cheaper to pay for the ones that would apply for contraception that it is to pay for an abortion or to raise their kid for 18 yrs
 
I'd like to know just how much you think it would increase your insurance premium to have birth control pills covered.
It doesn't matter what I think it will increase the premium. There are two things at play here, the aggregate number of claims wil increase my premium and I have to pay for something that I not possibly benefit from.
 
Hmmm, I just thought of something else too. Don't MOST (if not all - I don't really know) insurance policies cover circumcisions?
Not that I know of, I've never seen it on a policy.
I don't mind paying a little bit more in my insurance premium to cover the costs of a circumcision because I know this is preventative medicine, even though I will never ever need to have a circumcision (hopefully - LOL). Why wouldn't you (and the others here who are DEAD SET against it) feel the same about birth control for women?
Circumcisions are elective.
 
Of course. That's how insurance works. Everyone receives the same coverage, but they only pay for those who utilize that service.
You seem to be confusing "how insurance works" with "how an individual insurance plan works."
 
Circumcisions actually are elective, but they are classified as elective preventative care, which is different from an elective procedure in general.
I've never seen them covered on a policy, at least not specifically and I sold. There may be a state mandate, there may be companies that cover it but I've never seen it, and regardless it is a one time expense if covered, BC and Viagra are not.
 
Back
Top Bottom