• 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 .
It's a biological condition, so it's covered by insurance.

Just because something is biological doesn't mean it should be covered.
Look, I know that my position will never be adopted wide spread, I'm just a bit bitter how things are legislated, when it comes to insurance and coverage.

To me, it defies the purpose of insurance.
 
Just because something is biological doesn't mean it should be covered.

Why not?



To me, it defies the purpose of insurance.

Not according to the definition you yourself provided. The problem has been the way you've applied "uncertain" to the biological condition instead of the loss (which is inaccurate because the definition you'v provided applies said adjective to the loss, not the biological condition).

Even if pregnancy is done by choice, the losses financial costs associated with it remain very uncertain. It fits the definition you provided perfectly.
 

Because not every biological condition is immense in cost.
Going to have a mole removed is not thousands of dollars.

It's pretty affordable.




Not according to the definition you yourself provided. The problem has been the way you've applied "uncertain" to the biological condition instead of the loss (which is inaccurate because the definition you'v provided applies said adjective to the loss, not the biological condition).

Even if pregnancy is done by choice, the losses financial costs associated with it remain very uncertain. It fits the definition you provided perfectly.

Insurance is to cover the costs of unforeseen incidences.
Taking action and wanting to get pregnant, precludes the unforeseen.
You now know, that if you deliver this fetus, the hospital will charge for it.
It's known during the entire pregnancy.

Complications from pregnancy are unforeseen and would make sense to cover.

The costs of a standard pregnancy, with no complications can be calculated.
You can actually get a quote on the costs.
 
Because not every biological condition is immense in cost.
Going to have a mole removed is not thousands of dollars.

It's pretty affordable.






Insurance is to cover the costs of unforeseen incidences.
Taking action and wanting to get pregnant, precludes the unforeseen.
You now know, that if you deliver this fetus, the hospital will charge for it.
It's known during the entire pregnancy.

Complications from pregnancy are unforeseen and would make sense to cover.

The costs of a standard pregnancy, with no complications can be calculated.
You can actually get a quote on the costs.
Dental care is expensive but last I checked we dont expect insurance companies to pay for toothbrush, paste, floss, mouthwash, etc. General cleanliness is important...so we COULD I suppose expect insurance companies to pay for soap and other personal cleaning supplies. Food...well...heck proper nutrition is CRITICAL...so...we can safwely assume that insurance companies should be providing free food and vitamins.

Contraceptives are a personal use item. God bless em and like all other personal use items, their use should be recommended, advertised, even advocated. Oral birth control for women is prescribed for legitimate medical concerns and where it is it should be covered. Just for the sake of birth control is not a legitimate medical need and should not be covered by insurance, any more so than any piece of personal protective equipment such as helmets, glasses and gloves for motorcycle riders.
 
Because not every biological condition is immense in cost.
Going to have a mole removed is not thousands of dollars.

It's pretty affordable.

Well that logic certainly doesn't describe pregnancy.






Insurance is to cover the costs of unforeseen incidences.

Why are you changing your definition? Was there something wrong with the one you used earlier? I mean, aside from the fact that if you stick with that definition, you can't make the argument you are making.

Before you wondered why I said your arguments were dishonest. The fact that you cannot stick with one definition in order to make them is why.
 
Well that logic certainly doesn't describe pregnancy.

Yes but in this incidence the act of getting pregnant was willful.


Why are you changing your definition? Was there something wrong with the one you used earlier? I mean, aside from the fact that if you stick with that definition, you can't make the argument you are making.

Before you wondered why I said your arguments were dishonest. The fact that you cannot stick with one definition in order to make them is why.

I'm not changing the definition.
That is exactly what I meant this entire time.
I'm not being dishonest.

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

Insurance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think you're trying to play games.
Although I may have problems expressing my position clearly and succinctly, I thought you very well understood it.
 
Dump Obamacare completely and let her pay for her contraceptives out of her pretaxed Health Savings Account.
 
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.

I cant believe that a FULL 35% of the people on this forum actually WANT to pay for it.:screwy I wonder if they will pay for my Ferrari?:)
 
A simple question.

I would be glad to pay for Sandra Fluke's birth control, but only if I have sex with her. Il shell out for the pill so that I don’t have to wear a condom (I like to get freaky).
 
I would be glad to pay for Sandra Fluke's birth control, but only if I have sex with her. Il shell out for the pill so that I don’t have to wear a condom (I like to get freaky).

Of course that brings up the other problem. Oral contraception for the sake of contraception may prevent pregnancy but not STDs.
 
Of course that brings up the other problem. Oral contraception for the sake of contraception may prevent pregnancy but not STDs.
Don’t worry I’ll try not to pass on to many. Everybody likes a little more cheese on their taco.
 
I cant believe that a FULL 35% of the people on this forum actually WANT to pay for it.:screwy I wonder if they will pay for my Ferrari?:)
Here's your Ferrari.....

FerrariREX_450x300.jpg


Sure hope you have insurance because I didn't see anyone on this forum say they wanted to pay for your careless driving or hospitalization....or Sandra Flukes birth control pills, least of all the person you were responding to. How could you miss what he said in capital letters? Do you want other people to pay for your eyeglasses too?
 
Here's your Ferrari.....

FerrariREX_450x300.jpg


Sure hope you have insurance because I didn't see anyone on this forum say they wanted to pay for your careless driving or hospitalization....or Sandra Flukes birth control pills, least of all the person you were responding to. How could you miss what he said in capital letters? Do you want other people to pay for your eyeglasses too?

What a waste of a perfectly good ferrari. Poor thing. Destroyed by an idiot. I bet I have driven more miles backward than you have forward, literaly. You give me a Ferrari and its like giving a exeperianced concert violenest a Stratavarius, we both can make our respective instruments sing for angels. As for the Ferrari or eyeglasses for that matter if somene WANTS to give them to me, who am I to deny them. Apparently 35% of the people who took the poll want to give Sandra Fluke contraceptives, I figered they might be amiable to giving me a Ferrari. I could do much much more with a Ferrari than Sandra could ever do with condom. Besides it never hurts to ask. You never no someone just might give me a shiny Ferrari. Prefferably red, but really pretty much any color will do nicely.:)
 
What a waste of a perfectly good ferrari. Poor thing. Destroyed by an idiot. I bet I have driven more miles backward than you have forward, literaly. You give me a Ferrari and its like giving a exeperianced concert violenest a Stratavarius, we both can make our respective instruments sing for angels. As for the Ferrari or eyeglasses for that matter if somene WANTS to give them to me, who am I to deny them. Apparently 35% of the people who took the poll want to give Sandra Fluke contraceptives, I figered they might be amiable to giving me a Ferrari. I could do much much more with a Ferrari than Sandra could ever do with condom. Besides it never hurts to ask. You never no someone just might give me a shiny Ferrari. Prefferably red, but really pretty much any color will do nicely.:)


I'm with you, if someone wants to buy me a new Ferrari with no strings attached then who am I to refuse? woo hoo. But the point was and I admit it wasn't very clear, was that after you wrap your "red" Ferrari around a telephone pole that it's not "other people" who will pay for your hospitalization and meds, it's the insurance company and from the posts I've read that's what most of the 35% were clearly saying about birth control pills.


As a side, when I was looking for a photo, I couldn't help but notice there seems to be a lot more wrecked 'red' Ferraris than other colors.......a lot more.....

wrecked ferrari - Google Search

So what is it about red Ferraris that makes people want to drive themselves into a pole or under a bus? Is it because they have good insurance? Or do they expect other people to pay for their parapalegic hospital care and meds for the rest of their lives...assuming they survived, of course?
 
Last edited:
your reply.... literally.... made..... no..... sense.

It makes sense if you think about it. So lets recap....the bishops were lobbying the government to change the laws to adhere to their theology and ban birth control pills. You tried to blow it off with some contortion about forcing others to buy birth control....
.....there aren't any female Catholic bishops. Naturally a panel of them would be all male....<snip>

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.

But the fact is, birth control really wasn't an issue at all until the bishops began their crusade to change the laws. So I asked you, "where does it say in the first amendment that congress shall make laws respecting a religious establishment?"

Your reply was to feign ignorance. So now that you've had time to come to your senses, how about answering my question?
 
All I'm saying is it's an additional liability and demand will go up. It's elective. I haven't commented on the level of the policy coverage, but now a bare bones policy must cover BC as well as a Cadillac group policy. The cadillac policy will show a lower risk but the lowest coverage options will not absorb it, then there is the middle, but no matter what the aggregate risk increase will add up.
I don't think you give the insurance companies enough credit for doing a cost risk analysis. I seriously doubt they will go broke covering birth control pills if that's what you're trying to imply.

Tucker, why focus on this? What I've been saying is that there is no alternative, by default people will have to spend their money on coverage they may or may not agree with.
Because Tucker is right, once you write a check that money is no longer in your account, which means it's no longer yours because you bought an insurance product that will pay out when you get sick or make a claim.

But, before the mandate you didn't have to give it to a company which provided electives, now you do. There is no getting around that.
Before the mandate a lot of people didn't have any insurance and when they got sick they became a burden on society who had to pay for their medical bills. Hospitals were going broke because of the uninsured so they started passing that burdensome cost onto Medicare and also the insurance companies, who then in turn raised the cost of insurance for policy holders. The mandate forces the uninsured to buy the insurance so they can stop being a burden on everyone else. So really, it's only a mandate for those who could afford to buy insurance but didn't.

Btw, a lot of Republicans embraced the notion of an insurance mandate.....before Obama did....
PolitiFact | Facebook post says Republicans embraced individual mandate in 1993


No, I am saying that the risk pool and everything covered is the liability under contract of the insurance company, buying a policy with that coverage means you are funding it. Period, end of story.
But you're only funding coverage for yourself and family if you have one.
 
I cant believe that a FULL 35% of the people on this forum actually WANT to pay for it.:screwy I wonder if they will pay for my Ferrari?:)

Maybe they will also agree with paying for a beach vacation for me? Because that is good for my mental health and it might prevent more expensive stress related medical problems in the future. Maybe insurance should cover the suntan lotion for that beach vacation too, because that will help prevent skin cancer.
 
I don't think you give the insurance companies enough credit for doing a cost risk analysis. I seriously doubt they will go broke covering birth control pills if that's what you're trying to imply.

Because Tucker is right, once you write a check that money is no longer in your account, which means it's no longer yours because you bought an insurance product that will pay out when you get sick or make a claim.

Before the mandate a lot of people didn't have any insurance and when they got sick they became a burden on society who had to pay for their medical bills. Hospitals were going broke because of the uninsured so they started passing that burdensome cost onto Medicare and also the insurance companies, who then in turn raised the cost of insurance for policy holders. The mandate forces the uninsured to buy the insurance so they can stop being a burden on everyone else. So really, it's only a mandate for those who could afford to buy insurance but didn't.

Btw, a lot of Republicans embraced the notion of an insurance mandate.....before Obama did....
PolitiFact | Facebook post says Republicans embraced individual mandate in 1993


But you're only funding coverage for yourself and family if you have one.
I was in the industry. You don't know what you are talking about, and politifact is not an acceptable counter.
 
I was in the industry. You don't know what you are talking about, and politifact is not an acceptable counter.

Actually its a great counter and blows the other position right out of the water into oblivion with hard and simple reality.
 
Actually its a great counter and blows the other position right out of the water into oblivion with hard and simple reality.
Yeah, okay.:roll: Politifact starts with a bias and goes from that initial point. They are unusable in a debate because of that.
 
Yeah, okay.:roll: Politifact starts with a bias and goes from that initial point. They are unusable in a debate because of that.

Judge their facts that they report rather than if you approve of what ever political stance you feel they make have.

If a hard core fascist, nazi, communist or the worst pedophile on the planet states that two plus two is four - it is still a fact regardless of who it comes from.

To dismiss a source simply because you do not like what you perceive its politics to be without considering the information itself is a fallacy in thinking and a huge gaffe in actual debating tactics.

this will help educate you about the source you are attacking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politifact

I found it interesting that they are ripped by both ends of the political continuum at various times and on various stories.
 
Judge their facts that they report rather than if you approve of what ever political stance you feel they make have.

If a hard core fascist, nazi, communist or the worst pedophile on the planet states that two plus two is four - it is still a fact regardless of who it comes from.

To dismiss a source simply because you do not like what you perceive its politics to be without considering the information itself is a fallacy in thinking and a huge gaffe in actual debating tactics.
They don't have facts,they have biases it is a political organization, not a research or industry board. I'm done with you here, you like Moot are not an expert in this subject and not being honest.
 
Back
Top Bottom