• 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!

Abortion Down Thanks to ACA

jimbo said:
Then that should be up to the contractual agreement between the insurance company and its customers. As it stands now the government dictates what that contract must contain. There is no reason why government should get in the middle of contracts between two individuals.

You're statement would be correct if the government was not in the business of subsidizing insurance payments. It is. And the taxpayers foot the bill.
Click to expand...

The reason is because birth control saves the US government welfare costs and making the woman's insurance cover it encourages
insured women to use perscription birth control which has a lower typical use failure rate than male condoms.


I posted this in post #33 of this thread:

The typical use failure rate of sexually active fertil heterosexual couples is 18 percent. Which means that out of 100 couples 18 women will become pregnant within a year.

From the CDC:

Male condom—Worn by the man, a male condom keeps sperm from getting into a woman's body. Latex condoms, the most common type, help prevent pregnancy, and HIV and other STDs, as do the newer synthetic condoms. ... Typical use failure rate: 18%.Feb 9, 2017

With the ACA women are able choose a more reliable perscription type of birth control.

BTW:

The government does not subsidize my insurance nor the insurance of vast majority of taxpayers.
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
The reason is because birth control saves the US government welfare costs and making the woman's insurance cover it encourages
insured women to use perscription birth control which has a lower typical use failure rate than male condoms

The typical use failure rate of sexually active fertil heterosexual couples is 18 percent. Which means that out of 100 couples 18 women will become pregnant within a year.
Click to expand...

So the solution is to make all men even gay men pay for woman's birth control. Yes, I find that solution unacceptable.
 
Henrin said:
Ummm...people pay for insurance, you know.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know.

My husband is self employed . We have been paying for 100 percent of our healthcare insurance and our healthcare costs for over 40 years.
 
Henrin said:
So the solution is to make all men even gay men pay for woman's birth control. Yes, I find that solution unacceptable.
Click to expand...

You ( the general you ) are not paying for the birth control but you do pay for foster care children through your taxes at tune of ( according to 2006 stats)
$40,000 a year per child.
 
minnie616 said:
You ( the general you ) are not paying for the birth control but you do pay for foster care children through your taxes at tune of ( according to 2006 stats)
$40,000 a year per child.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do. If birth control is part of all plans then men are paying for it. How do you think insurance works? The idea is that getting men to pay for it too lowers cost because people that will never use the service are paying for it.

I also just so happen to pay for birth control for women by having my tax money go to PP.
 
Henrin said:
Yes, I do. If birth control is part of all plans then men are paying for it. How do you think insurance works? The idea is that getting men to pay for it too lowers cost because people that will never use the service are paying for it.

I also just so happen to pay for birth control for women by having my tax money go to PP.
Click to expand...

I know how insurance works but as explained earlier the birth control is less of a cost than the cost of pregnancy and childbirth so I guess all you men are covering that. While we women
cover prostrate cancer costs etc.
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
I know how insurance works but as explained earlier the birth control is less of a cost than the cost of pregnancy and childbirth so I guess all you men are covering that. While we women cover prostrate cancer costs , etc.
Click to expand...

The counter example of men is a fail since I never supported that either. The government forcing people to buy insurance and then the government forcing things into the insurance contract like certain coverage options makes things much worse than insurance just deciding on it's own what it will cover and people deciding if they will buy it.
 
minnie616 said:
The reason is because birth control saves the US government welfare costs and making the woman's insurance cover it encourages
insured women to use perscription birth control which has a lower typical use failure rate than male condoms.


I posted this in post #33 of this thread:

The typical use failure rate of sexually active fertil heterosexual couples is 18 percent. Which means that out of 100 couples 18 women will become pregnant within a year.

From the CDC:

Male condom—Worn by the man, a male condom keeps sperm from getting into a woman's body. Latex condoms, the most common type, help prevent pregnancy, and HIV and other STDs, as do the newer synthetic condoms. ... Typical use failure rate: 18%.Feb 9, 2017

With the ACA women are able choose a more reliable perscription type of birth control.

BTW:

The government does not subsidize my insurance nor the insurance of vast majority of taxpayers.
Click to expand...

True, but you and I are not the problem.

The taxpayers subsidize the insurance of those tending to create the problem.
 
jimbo said:
True, but you and I are not the problem.

The taxpayers subsidize the insurance of those tending to create the problem.
Click to expand...

And hopefully the access to reliable birth control will help stop the problem.
 
fmw said:
Please note that a right can only exist when someone can do something without cost anyone else anything. Abortion is not a right. It is a legalized privilege. If you agree that a fetus is human then it is illogical to consider killing it as anything other than homicide. Perhaps we agree after all.
Click to expand...

In my country, we have the right to "security of the person". Banning abortion would violate that right.
 
minnie616 said:
And hopefully the access to reliable birth control will help stop the problem.
Click to expand...

It won't. Irresponsible women are not going to become responsible enough to take a pill a day, and irresponsible men are not going to bother to suit up just because that's the responsible thing to do or that somebody else is paying for it.

And that presumes the results are not wanted, which is not always the case.

To me, this is exactly like the anti gun argument that if we got rid of the peoples right to own guns legally people who possess guns illegally will suddenly stop possessing guns illegally. Except in reverse.
 
jimbo said:
It won't. Irresponsible women are not going to become responsible enough to take a pill a day, and irresponsible men are not going to bother to suit up just because that's the responsible thing to do or that somebody else is paying for it.

And that presumes the results are not wanted, which is not always the case.

To me, this is exactly like the anti gun argument that if we got rid of the peoples right to own guns legally people who possess guns illegally will suddenly stop possessing guns illegally. Except in reverse.
Click to expand...

Long term birth control does not have be taken every day but before the ACA the upfront cost for long term birth control was $800 to $1000.
 
minnie616 said:
Long term birth control does not have be taken every day but before the ACA the upfront cost for long term birth control was $800 to $1000.
Click to expand...

Long term birth control still costs $1K upfront That's not the issue.

Years ago I had a vasectomy. Paid for it out of pocket. My pocket.
 
jimbo said:
It won't. Irresponsible women are not going to become responsible enough to take a pill a day, and irresponsible men are not going to bother to suit up just because that's the responsible thing to do or that somebody else is paying for it.

And that presumes the results are not wanted, which is not always the case.

To me, this is exactly like the anti gun argument that if we got rid of the peoples right to own guns legally people who possess guns illegally will suddenly stop possessing guns illegally. Except in reverse.
Click to expand...

There are birth control methods that don't require taking a pill every day, such as implants, IUDs etc. Colorado's experience with LARC says that women *will* use it:


In 2007, the abortion rate for 15-19 year olds in
Colorado was 11.4 abortions per 1,000 women
(Figure 10). During the Colorado Family Planning
Initiative it dropped nearly by half, from 10.3 in
2009 to 5.4 in 2014.



The unintended pregnancy rate dropped 40 percent
during the Colorado Family Planning Initiative, from
35 per 1,000 teens in 2009 to 21 in 2014


https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/PSD_TitleX3_CFPI-Report.pdf - beginning on page 39
 
jimbo said:
Long term birth control still costs $1K upfront That's not the issue.

Years ago I had a vasectomy. Paid for it out of pocket. My pocket.
Click to expand...

Congrats , years ago after our 4 th child was born ( we had decided we would like to have 4 children and they were planned for and very much wanted ) my husband had a vasectomy and paid for out of pocket.

We were fortunate that we were able to pay for vasectomy.

Many people today do not even have $200 in the bank for an emergency ...they are living paycheck to paycheck.

These are the people who should be using reliable low failure rate birth control to prevent having unwanted pregnancies.

Long term birth control is expensive and it reversible so when the woman is ready to have a family she can.
 
Henrin said:
That's a bit hard when the government is forcing me to pay for them. When I'm paying the bills I'm involved.
Click to expand...

lol...so the government involves you in their decisions around where the roads go, what the police mandates are, what time the mail is delivered, what operations are undertaken in war, what the teachers have in their curriculum...you must be a busy guy!
 
OlNate said:
lol...so the government involves you in their decisions around where the roads go, what the police mandates are, what time the mail is delivered, what operations are undertaken in war, what the teachers have in their curriculum...you must be a busy guy!
Click to expand...

Taxpayers have a say into things they are paying for. If you don't like that condition then don't get the government involved in matters.
 
Henrin said:
Taxpayers have a say into things they are paying for. If you don't like that condition then don't get the government involved in matters.
Click to expand...

Really. Please demonstrate the last time you were consulted on road repair schedules or bombing targets.
 
Scrabaholic said:
In my country, we have the right to "security of the person". Banning abortion would violate that right.
Click to expand...


It isn't a right. It is a legalized privilege. Rights don't require anybody to give anything up for you to exercise them.
 
fmw said:
It isn't a right. It is a legalized privilege. Rights don't require anybody to give anything up for you to exercise them.
Click to expand...

Security of the person most certainly IS a right in my country.
 
fmw said:
It doesn't meet the requirements to be a right. It is a privilege.
Click to expand...

The way their supreme court "interprets it," it literally cannot be a right.
 
fmw said:
It doesn't meet the requirements to be a right. It is a privilege.
Click to expand...

1. that is your opinion about the US, even though the supreme court has named it a right and thus legally it is a right (no matter how many times pro-lifers stomp their feet in an anger tantrum)

2. she was talking about Canada and there it is seen as a right.
 
fmw said:
It doesn't meet the requirements to be a right. It is a privilege.
Click to expand...

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982
 
Scrabaholic said:
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982
Click to expand...

Those things can be rights because nobody has to give anything up for you to exercise them. It is abortion that cannot be a right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom