• 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!

Poll: Most say employers should be allowed not to cover contraception

My family owns a business. If they provided health insurance to their employees, they'd have no chance of making a profit.

My uncle runs his own photography studio. He is in the same boat, he wants to expand to his own printing to though and then he could.
 
My family owns a business. If they provided health insurance to their employees, they'd have no chance of making a profit.

The entire employer-based health insurance system is outdated, obsolete, economically idiotic and inefficient, and frankly I think is an abomination.
 
Obama disagrees.


and that means what to me? nothing lol

not to mention how do you come to that conclusion? all i know is that he wants all women to have access to cheap/free BC whether that is provided by the employer OR the insurance company. DO you know something factually different? "Seems" he couldnt care less either he just wants it available no matter where it comes from :shrug:

BUT I could be wrong, can show me other wise where he factually disagrees with the fragment qoute of mine you posted? :D
 
Should it be required? No. But, I think it is incredibly short-sighted... economically... to not provide it.
 
and that means what to me? nothing lol

not to mention how do you come to that conclusion? all i know is that he wants all women to have access to cheap/free BC whether that is provided by the employer OR the insurance company. DO you know something factually different? "Seems" he couldnt care less either he just wants it available no matter where it comes from :shrug:

BUT I could be wrong, can show me other wise where he factually disagrees with the fragment qoute of mine you posted? :D
Obama is trying to require all health insurance policies to cover BC. Am I wrong?
 
It's not about anyone believing or not believing in birth control; it's about the idea that anyone should have the right to be provided with it at someone else's expense--especially if that someone else who is to be forced to bear that expense is someone who has a moral objection to it.

So what if someone has a "moral objection" to providing cancer treatments? Or any basic health care at all? Or how about health care to blacks? Can people opt out of that too?
 
Employers shouldn't be health care providers at all; we need universal coverage.

They're not health care providers, they're paying a portion of an employees insurance, covered through a medical care provider. They're also not vehicle insurance providers, they simply buy insurance through an appropriate carrier. Or didn't you know that?
 
So what if someone has a "moral objection" to providing cancer treatments? Or any basic health care at all? Or how about health care to blacks? Can people opt out of that too?
Forcing someone to choose between their morals, and providing health insurance to their employees, isn't necessarily wrong, but there should be a reason.
 
Obama is trying to require all health insurance policies to cover BC. Am I wrong?

no and yes you are
its not that cut a dry. what he wants is women to have access to cheap/free BC whether that is provided by the employer OR the insurance company.

So I again ask you for proof of what you claimed? Your claim may be true but I have seen nothing to suggest so.

You told me obama disagrees with the partial quote of mine you posted, Im asked you why that matters and how you know that?

Let me know when you have an answer.
 
Forcing someone to choose between their morals, and providing health insurance to their employees, isn't necessarily wrong, but there should be a reason.

You don't get to go forcing your personal moral convictions on other people, period. I'm sure the guy who doesn't want to pay for health care for non-whites or women or pygmies has a "reason", we just don't take that reason seriously, any more than we should take the religious reason seriously. Don't like birth control? Don't take it. What the people who work for you do is none of your damn business. You can no more tell them not to take birth control off the clock than you can tell them not to use Twitter. No insurance plan specifically funds birth control or abortion services as a separate optional coverage. Here's your bill. Pay it. You don't get to pick and choose what the money goes to, any more than you can opt out of cancer treatment or burn injuries.

This whole thing is idiotic.
 
Forcing someone to choose between their morals, and providing health insurance to their employees, isn't necessarily wrong, but there should be a reason.

this again?
they arent forced at all, there is no force in reality, they don't have to run a public business if they dont want to. BUT if they do they have to play by the same rules has EVERYONE, no special treatment, the reason would be discrimination and rights infringements.
 
You don't get to go forcing your personal moral convictions on other people, period. I'm sure the guy who doesn't want to pay for health care for non-whites or women or pygmies has a "reason", we just don't take that reason seriously, any more than we should take the religious reason seriously. Don't like birth control? Don't take it. What the people who work for you do is none of your damn business. You can no more tell them not to take birth control off the clock than you can tell them not to use Twitter. No insurance plan specifically funds birth control or abortion services as a separate optional coverage. Here's your bill. Pay it. You don't get to pick and choose what the money goes to, any more than you can opt out of cancer treatment or burn injuries.

This whole thing is idiotic.


I can assure you this type of reality based common sense will be ignored
 
What the people who work for you do is none of your damn business. You can no more tell them not to take birth control off the clock than you can tell them not to use Twitter.
That isn't what this is about. Your comments might be relevant in a different thread.
 
They X-Rayed my wrist, I doubt a malignant tumor in my gut would have shown on that one. Do you want me to have a malignant tumor in my gut?

Don't take it personally, dude. I'm making a point.

You're a tough guy, right? Crack your wrist up, get it wrapped, and suffer through the healing process with no pain killers and no whining. You can do that without health insurance and you're a-okay. Cool.

But what if its something more serious? Something that requires ongoing care for an extended time. Then there are high costs, maybe bankruptcy. That wouldn't be so easy.

And you are very cavalier about the health of others, believing the hearsay from your nurse friend. But some people care about the health of their family, and have issues checked out when they arise. Preventative health care is very important, you know.

I don't know why you don't have health coverage, but the wrist thing should worry you a little. You need to get health care unless its it's just not possible.
 
no and yes you are
its not that cut a dry. what he wants is women to have access to cheap/free BC whether that is provided by the employer OR the insurance company.

So I again ask you for proof of what you claimed? Your claim may be true but I have seen nothing to suggest so.

You told me obama disagrees with the partial quote of mine you posted, Im asked you why that matters and how you know that?

Let me know when you have an answer.
Reread my post. It was about health insurance policies and made no mention of employers.
 
That isn't what this is about. Your comments might be relevant in a different thread.


please explain why they are not relevant, they are very relevant because its the common sense logic that get him to the conclusion that business have not right to decided your personal health care based on anything that is discriminatory. They can do it on finances or partnership or availability but they arent allowed to interject their morals and religious beliefs in it. Like he siad its none of their business>
 
this again?
they arent forced at all, there is no force in reality, they don't have to run a public business if they dont want to. BUT if they do they have to play by the same rules has EVERYONE, no special treatment, the reason would be discrimination and rights infringements.
I didn't say they were forced to do something; I said they were forced to CHOOSE.
 
Reread my post. It was about health insurance policies and made no mention of employers.

NO, YOU reread what you quoted me as saying, quite dodging and back up your statements LMAO

why can you never simply be honest and back up your statements.
 
I didn't say they were forced to do something; I said they were forced to CHOOSE.

yep you sure did but thats not all you said.
You said exactly "choose between their morals, and providing health insurance to their employees" this isnt true!

the choice is to get involved in public business or not get involved in public business hence the rest of my post which you conveniently ignore that supports and explains what Im saying. WOW

oh-hum LMAO can you ever reply in content and reality? EVERY? lol
 
NO, YOU reread what you quoted me as saying, quite dodging and back up your statements LMAO

why can you never simply be honest and back up your statements.
Actually, you're right. I did confuse employers with insurance policies. I apologize. Why do you assume that it wasn't an honest mistake?
 
Actually, you're right. I did confuse employers with insurance policies. I apologize. Why do you assume that it wasn't an honest mistake?

thank you and I accept you apology, thats very mature and adult like of you! :clap:

Why do I assume it wasn't an honest mistake? that's easy, your post history and the many other "mistakes" you have made and never claimed to have. :shrug:

Everyone starts with a clean slate, then I can only judge you by what you show me and you have shown plenty of dishonesty.
 
yep you sure did but thats not all you said.
You said exactly "choose between their morals, and providing health insurance to their employees" this isnt true!

the choice is to get involved in public business or not get involved in public business hence the rest of my post which you conveniently ignore that supports and explains what Im saying. WOW

oh-hum LMAO can you ever reply in content and reality? EVERY? lol
Some employers provide health insurance to their employees. A portion of them provide a policy that doesn't cover BC. This mandate prohibits that. Some employers are morally opposed to paying for BC. If they also want to provide health insurance to their employees, they can't do both, so they're forced to choose. Those are the facts. If I'm wrong, prove it.

IMHO, employers shouldn't be forced to make this choice without a good reason. I haven't seen a reason that satisfies me. Those are opinions, so I can't prove that they're right, but you can't prove that they're wrong.
 
Why do I assume it wasn't an honest mistake? that's easy, your post history and the many other "mistakes" you have made and never claimed to have. :shrug:

Everyone starts with a clean slate, then I can only judge you by what you show me and you have shown plenty of dishonesty.
false accusations, a weak form of debating
 
false accusations, a weak form of debating


I agree doesnt change your post history though :shrug: LOL
 
Back
Top Bottom