• 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

I agree with a lot of what you said, but I think it's wrong to say that Obama has had nothing to do with the recovery. Without the stimulus, and the auto bailouts, and the extended payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits, the recession would have at minimum dragged on longer and may have turned into an outright depression. If he had gone the other way and cut spending to reduce the deficit, it almost certainly would have sent the economy into depression.

You're right to blame the Clinton WH and 90s Congress for the destruction of Glass-Steagal, but Clinton had virtually no opportunity to review the effect of the repeal and respond to it. Bush and the Republican Congress that followed had six years to respond and they didn't lift a finger. In fact they only fueled the fire by instituting large tax cuts. And to be fair, no one on the Democratic side was beating the drum to bring back the regulations, either.

If Clinton didn't have the opportunity to review the effect, then he should have grown a pair and vetoed the legislation. It is still his fault, no matter what excuses are offered in his defense. After all, excuses are just that - excuses.
 
just how expensive is birth control? is it a big issue, really?
 
just how expensive is birth control? is it a big issue, really?

Depends on what kind of BC. We'll say the average BC pill per year plus the required exam and pap smear @ $1,000 a year. Some people will argue BC is cheaper, sometimes it depending on where you can get it and what type you have to take. Not all women respond the same to all the pills, so they need this one or that one, the most expensive I have seen is about $75 a month.

That is a totally rough estimate and based on what I looked up the other day for a different thread.

I think that the ideal BC is the copper IUD. Costs about 200 and you can keep it for 10 years, you never have to think about it, you can have it removed at any time and become pregnant if you like. The drawback: a little painful when it is placed and removed, some side effects the first 6 months, nothing real bad. It is also something like 98% effective. Admittedly it is not for everybody. There is still a stigma around them because of the the Dakkon shield, a specific brand that had some problems in the 1970's. Today IUD's are very safe. Other women may not like the idea of an implant.

Other BC varies in cost and effectiveness, the other item to think about is maintenance, what do you have to do to make it effective? With the IUD you do nothing, with pills you have to remember to takes them, with other forms you have to use them right and others (like norplant and nuvaring) also do not require much thought.

I don't really know what to think other than BC is legal, medical drugs / devices. The necessity is debatable for a variety of reasons. I would think insurance companies would want to provide it because it is cheaper than provided pre and post natal care and delivery. I also don't buy the religious freedom argument, it has some validity, but if the precedent is set then employers will argue that they do not have to provide coverage for diabetes care because it is preventable in some cases, or HIV medications because the employer falsely believes that HIV infection is due to lifestyle choices only. The list could go on and on.
 
how about a vasectomy? offer a free ipod or something for those who get them...
IIRC, India did that about 45 years ago, gave out transistor radios as an incentive. apparently it didn't work...
 
how about a vasectomy? offer a free ipod or something for those who get them...
IIRC, India did that about 45 years ago, gave out transistor radios as an incentive. apparently it didn't work...

That is kind of funny.

A vasectomy assumes that the woman will be with this one man and this one man only. Also-- some men are not willing as they think it affects their "manhood" or they are weary of surgery.
 
If Clinton didn't have the opportunity to review the effect, then he should have grown a pair and vetoed the legislation. It is still his fault, no matter what excuses are offered in his defense. After all, excuses are just that - excuses.


Like I said, Clinton deserves plenty of credit for his mistake. But why are you making excuses for the Bush administration? By way of analogy, if you go to Dr. Clinton and he prescribes the wrong medication, and then you switch to Dr. Bush ... and he leaves you on that medication for six years while it slowly kills you ... why are you giving Dr. Bush a pass? I'm quite sure they're both guilty of malpractice.
 
Like I said, Clinton deserves plenty of credit for his mistake. But why are you making excuses for the Bush administration? By way of analogy, if you go to Dr. Clinton and he prescribes the wrong medication, and then you switch to Dr. Bush ... and he leaves you on that medication for six years while it slowly kills you ... why are you giving Dr. Bush a pass? I'm quite sure they're both guilty of malpractice.

Bush only stepped into the shoes that Clinton provided. Clinton began it.
 
Bush only stepped into the shoes that Clinton provided. Clinton began it.

True, he stepped into Clinton's shoes and walked right into the Great Recession ... seven years later.

And folks give Obama a hard time about blaming Bush! :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom