• 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 .
Her insurance companies should.
 
Dion said:
What Jetboogieman said! Fact.
Click to expand...

Fact: her insurance company was already paying for her contraceptives. It has never been in question. Her doctor prescribed them, she recieved them and her insurance paid for them. See why this is all bs?
 
VanceMack said:
Fact: her insurance company was already paying for her contraceptives. It has never been in question. Her doctor prescribed them, she recieved them and her insurance paid for them. See why this is all bs?
Click to expand...


The BS was the thread. Read jetboogiemans post.

The issue was not really about Sandra and we all know this about her insurance.

The current issue being discussed was .. if an insurance company covers Rx for a client do they have a right to decide not to cover BC ...some companies excluded this even if they paid for viagra, cosmetic Rx etc and it was about the legislation on BC.

Complex topic and I do not much time at the moment and am signing off. The Sandra OP was kind of a deflection form what could have been a very good discussion supporting either position on BC coverage.
 
Dion said:
The BS was the thread. Read jetboogiemans post.

The issue was not really about Sandra and we all know this about her insurance.

The current issue being discussed was .. if an insurance company covers Rx for a client do they have a right to decide not to cover BC ...some companies excluded this even if they paid for viagra, cosmetic Rx etc and it was about the legislation on BC.

Complex topic and I do not much time at the moment and am signing off. The Sandra OP was kind of a deflection form what could have been a very good discussion supporting either position on BC coverage.
Click to expand...
I dont know of too many insurance companies that deny medically indicated birth control and that was NEVER the issue where Ms Fluke was concerned. The Fluke fluke was a made up bull**** argument meant to cloud the fact that the Obama administration was attempting to force the Catholic church to accept their order to provide birth control. Everything else is...bull****.
 
VanceMack said:
I dont know of too many insurance companies that deny medically indicated birth control and that was NEVER the issue where Ms Fluke was concerned. The Fluke fluke was a made up bull**** argument meant to cloud the fact that the Obama administration was attempting to force the Catholic church to accept their order to provide birth control. Everything else is...bull****.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was the all male panel of Catholic bishops testifying at a congressional hearing on birth control and Republican chairman, Darrel Issa refused to allow Sandra Fluke to speak on behalf of women at that hearing. That is the first we heard of Sandra Fluke...and she was a legitimate witness......but it wasn't the first we heard of the Catholic bishops lobbying to ban birth control. So obviously this was an issue long before we ever heard of Sandra Fluke. But hey, heaven forbid women should have a say about their own bodies and healthcare and the laws that are being passed that effect their inherent rights and their very lives.
 
Moot said:
Yes, it was the all male panel of Catholic bishops testifying at a congressional hearing on birth control and Republican chairman, Darrel Issa refused to allow Sandra Fluke to speak on behalf of women at that hearing. That is the first we heard of Sandra Fluke...and she was a legitimate witness......but it wasn't the first we heard of the Catholic bishops lobbying to ban birth control. So obviously this was an issue long before we ever heard of Sandra Fluke. But hey, heaven forbid women should have a say about their own bodies and healthcare and the laws that are being passed that effect their inherent rights and their very lives.
Click to expand...

.....there aren't any female Catholic bishops. Naturally a panel of them would be all male. Women were represented on the next panel, which unfortunately began to speak after some of the Democrat congresscritteresses sprinted away from their job to get in front of a television camera and shriek about how women weren't being represented.


this isn't an issue of womens' health. No one is trying to take away birth control, or argue that women should be banned restricted or in any way limited from getting it. What is at issue is whether or not they have the right to force others to purchase it for them even in direct contravention of those others religious faith.
 
cpwill said:
.....there aren't any female Catholic bishops. Naturally a panel of them would be all male.
Click to expand...
But there are female nuns so no, it didn't "naturally" have to be all male.

Women were represented on the next panel, which unfortunately began to speak after some of the Democrat congresscritteresses sprinted away from their job to get in front of a television camera and shriek about how women weren't being represented.
Click to expand...
And still my point remains, this issue on birth control wasn't concocted nor did it begin with Sandra Fluke.
 
Moot said:
But there are female nuns so no, it didn't "naturally" have to be all male.
Click to expand...

The panel was of Bishops, as they are the ones authorized to speak on doctrine and lead the Church. Had the panel been of Catholics or even Catholic laity, then you would be correct.

Good night. This is like complaining that a panel of the Joint Chiefs of Staff failed to represent union members.

And still my point remains, this issue on birth control wasn't concocted nor did it begin with Sandra Fluke.
Click to expand...

And I would agree. Sandra Fluke is just the face of the particularly obnoxious claim that feminist activism has the right to trump the First Amendment.
 
cpwill said:
The panel was of Bishops, as they are the ones authorized to speak on doctrine and lead the Church. Had the panel been of Catholics or even Catholic laity, then you would be correct.

Good night. This is like complaining that a panel of the Joint Chiefs of Staff failed to represent union members.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but we don't live in a theocracy and it was sexist to have an all male panel of bishops passing judgement on women's right to have control over their own bodies in the capitol of our country. They might as well have been spitting on the Constitution.



And I would agree. Sandra Fluke is just the face of the particularly obnoxious claim that feminist activism has the right to trump the First Amendment.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The bishops were much, much more obnoxious to make birth control an issue considering they've been protecting pedophiles for decades, if not centuries. Where do they get their moral authority to deny women birth control that aren't even of their faith, when they have ruined thousands of their own practioners lives and families with their hypocritical, mysogenistic, pro-pedophilia dogma? Could it possibly be the bishops are making a stink about birth control to take the focus off their own dirty deeds? Absolutely.
 
Moot said:
Sorry, but we don't live in a theocracy and it was sexist to have an all male panel of bishops passing judgement on women's right to have control over their own bodies in the capitol of our country. They might as well have been spitting on the Constitution.
Click to expand...

:lol: to think I used to consider you a reasoned, thoughtful, and intelligent spokesman for your side. " It's spitting on the Constitution to listen to members of the Clergy on political questions." :) I wonder what the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr would have made of that.


I disagree. The bishops were much, much more obnoxious to make birth control an issue considering they've been protecting pedophiles for decades, if not centuries.
Click to expand...

:lamo


Hey look!

strawman.jpg


A Strawman!!!


Where do they get their moral authority to deny women birth control
Click to expand...

:) where in America are they seeking to deny women birth control?
 
cpwill said:
:lol: to think I used to consider you a reasoned, thoughtful, and intelligent spokesman for your side. " It's spitting on the Constitution to listen to members of the Clergy on political questions." :) I wonder what the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr would have made of that.

:lamo


Hey look!

[???]

A Strawman!!!

:) where in America are they seeking to deny women birth control?
Click to expand...


Come now, cpwill did you forget your first amendment strawman? Where does it say that congress shall make laws respecting a religious establishment that discriminates against women?


Hey, look cpwill, it's your strawman....

strawman.jpg
 
Moot said:
Come now, cpwill did you forget your first amendment strawman? Where does it say that congress shall make laws respecting a religious establishment that discriminates against women?
Click to expand...

do you even know what it is you're talking about?
 
Moot said:
Yes, it was the all male panel of Catholic bishops testifying at a congressional hearing on birth control and Republican chairman, Darrel Issa refused to allow Sandra Fluke to speak on behalf of women at that hearing. That is the first we heard of Sandra Fluke...and she was a legitimate witness......but it wasn't the first we heard of the Catholic bishops lobbying to ban birth control. So obviously this was an issue long before we ever heard of Sandra Fluke. But hey, heaven forbid women should have a say about their own bodies and healthcare and the laws that are being passed that effect their inherent rights and their very lives.
Click to expand...
They refused to let her speak because she was in no way shape or form an 'expert' and provided only a fictional anecdotal citation. Here we are, a year later, and idiots STILL didnt bother viewing her testimony or at least reading a manuscript where she stated clearly that SHE...at a catholic school was actually covered. Legitimate? In no way could she be considered a 'legitimate' anything by anyone. At least, not by anyone that wasnt already a blind myopic hack.
 
Fletch said:
... not things you can pay for with change you find between the coushions of the couch.
Click to expand...

If, as you say, people can pay for it with change that you find between the cushions of your couch, it will not raise people's rates in any significant way.

Therein lies the problem with the counter-arguments. People are simultaneously saying that the cost of BC is so low that it shouldn't necessitate being covered by insurance AND that covering it by insurance will significantly raise premiums. which is unfair.

Both statements cannot possibly be true at the same time.
 
Tucker Case said:
If, as you say, people can pay for it with change that you find between the cushions of your couch, it will not raise people's rates in any significant way.

Therein lies the problem with the counter-arguments. People are simultaneously saying that the cost of BC is so low that it shouldn't necessitate being covered by insurance AND that covering it by insurance will significantly raise premiums. which is unfair.

Both statements cannot possibly be true at the same time.
Click to expand...

The difference of course being the medically Needed oral contraceptives (that are usually NOT prescribed for 'birth control' needs but for hormone issues, skin issues, potential cyst concerns, etc) and a basic condom which is all that is needed for "birth control".
 
VanceMack said:
The difference of course being the medically Needed oral contraceptives (that are usually NOT prescribed for 'birth control' needs but for hormone issues, skin issues, potential cyst concerns, etc) and a basic condom which is all that is needed for "birth control".
Click to expand...

The medically needed oral contraceptives tend to be more expensive, but then again they are medically needed and should absolutely be covered by insurance.
 
Deuce said:
The medically needed oral contraceptives tend to be more expensive, but then again they are medically needed and should absolutely be covered by insurance.
Click to expand...

And they are. Fluke stated that. It's a non issue.
 
Deuce said:
The medically needed oral contraceptives tend to be more expensive, but then again they are medically needed and should absolutely be covered by insurance.
Click to expand...
I think this is the overall point. From my days in the insurance field I knew of a lot of ways to go around a denial without cheating the company or client, and if a physician determined a BC regimen was medically necessary companies with drug plans did tend to okay the coverage, it is true as well that those do tend to be more costly but from a numbers standpoint the medically necessary stuff was "rare", it was something like 1/6th of women with conditions such as endometriosis, severe hormonal imbalances during the period stage, etc.

At those numbers the aggregate numbers were not unsustainable, under the new mandate it's a probability that the numbers will catch up.
 
Moot said:
Sorry, but we don't live in a theocracy and it was sexist to have an all male panel of bishops passing judgement on women's right to have control over their own bodies in the capitol of our country.
Click to expand...

This argument never had anything to do with women having “control over their own bodies”. It is all about women having a claim on other people's money.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
This argument never had anything to do with women having “control over their own bodies”. It is all about women having a claim on other people's money.
Click to expand...
Well, perhaps if those "other people" kept their noses out of women's vaginas then women wouldn't have to lay claim to those peoples money to help pay for kids they couldn't afford. Or did you mean not giving women equal pay for equal work or perhaps you meant lowering the minimum wage so they can't feed their kids?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom