• 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 .
Harshaw said:
You're making a whole lot of assumptions, and none of them speak well of the "she" in question, whoever that is. You describe an idiot.
Click to expand...

Seriously, what are the odds that a degreed woman who's completing a law degree (or has finished already) and has national name-recognition as well as the support of well-heeled progressives is going to have multiple children and be on public assistance?
 
ChrisL said:
Yeah, in an ideal world everyone would be responsible for their actions, but in the REAL world it's a lot different.
Click to expand...

Only because certain people choose to insulate others from their poor choices when there's no particular need to.

This is just about making access to BC easier anyway.
Click to expand...

No, it's about considerably more than that. No one -- that is, no one -- is trying to deny access or even restrict it.
 
nota bene said:
Seriously, what are the odds that a degreed woman who's completing a law degree (or has finished already) and has national name-recognition as well as the support of well-heeled progressives is going to have multiple children and be on public assistance?
Click to expand...

Probably not likely, but there are plenty of women who are in that situation.
 
nota bene said:
Seriously, what are the odds that a degreed woman who's completing a law degree (or has finished already) and has national name-recognition as well as the support of well-heeled progressives is going to have multiple children and be on public assistance?
Click to expand...

Or forget Fluke; apparently some of these folks think all, or at least the majority, of women of child-bearing age are poor and destitute, not to mention brainless and driven primarily by hormones. That's quite a picture.
 
Harshaw said:
Only because certain people choose to insulate others from their poor choices when there's no particular need to.
Click to expand...

Unwanted pregnancies have ALWAYS been a problem. It's not going to just go away because you think people should be more responsible.

No, it's about considerably more than that. No one -- that is, no one -- is trying to deny access or even restrict it.
Click to expand...

No, it's about having it be covered by insurance companies.
 
Middleground said:
Yes, I get that. What I don't get is why people have a problem with it?
Click to expand...

Because it's doesn't flow with the purpose of insurance.
Frankly, the supposed benefit of reducing abortions and unwanted pregnancies isn't likely to happen because poor females usually can't afford insurance in the first place.
Plus they already have the option of getting free bc from state health departments.

This legislation was designed to pander to women.
 
Harshaw said:
Or forget Fluke; apparently some of these folks think all, or at least the majority, of women of child-bearing age are poor and destitute, not to mention brainless and driven primarily by hormones. That's quite a picture.
Click to expand...

Where do you come up with this stuff? No one said that at all. Is that your argument?
 
Harshaw said:
You're making a whole lot of assumptions, and none of them speak well of the "she" in question, whoever that is. You describe an idiot.
Click to expand...

The reality is there are a lot of idiots out there in the real world.....




It's odd, Liberals look at those children and say they didn't ask to be born or live like that, that mother should be on birth control....and Conservatives look at them and see more prisoners to fill the private prison industry's wallets at taxpayer expense.
 
Middleground said:
I have sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo been through this already here at DP, and it was like I was talking to a huge brick wall. I cannot stress this enough:

Birth control helps regulate monthly periods and reduces it's many, many, many side effects.

Birth control helps regulate monthly periods and reduces it's many, many, many side effects.

Birth control helps regulate monthly periods and reduces it's many, many, many side effects.

Birth control helps regulate monthly periods and reduces it's many, many, many side effects.

Birth control helps regulate monthly periods and reduces it's many, many, many side effects.

Birth control helps regulate monthly periods and reduces it's many, many, many side effects.

Birth control helps regulate monthly periods and reduces it's many, many, many side effects.

Hey everyone at DP, did you know that birth control helps regulate monthly periods and reduces it's many, many, many side effects? Anyone who'll deny this to a woman is a big fat ignoramus.
Click to expand...

Good, then she woiuld have a medical reason to have it perscribed thereputically, and there are far fewer insurance companies that deny coverage when it is signed off as medically nesscessary by a MD...
 
Besides, if it's offered through insurance companies, it's neither mandatory nor free. Most people still have to pay their insurance premiums, etc.
 
ChrisL said:
Unwanted pregnancies have ALWAYS been a problem. It's not going to just go away because you think people should be more responsible.
Click to expand...

They were far less of a problem when people carried the consequences of their own choices.

No, it's about having it be covered by insurance companies.
Click to expand...

No, it's about forcing coverage by insurance companies.
 
Moot said:
It's odd, Liberals look at those children and say they didn't ask to be born or live like that and Conservatives look at them and see more prisoners to fill the private prison industry's wallets.
Click to expand...

:roll: That's just complete asininity. Or, synonymously, a Moot post.
 
Moot said:
Who are you to decide what is "unnecessary coverage"? I hear conservatives bitch and moan all the time about the gubbamint interfering with doctors and telling them they know better what their patients need, but the fact is, it's conservatives like you doing it, not the gubbamint.


A lot of people are getting diabetes from their lifestyle choices and that's what's really raising the cost of health care and insurance, not birth control pills. Now I certainly don't think I should have to pay for someone elses poor lifestyle choices, especially if they're a loud mouth lazy conservative, but far be it for me to tell the insurance companies who or what they can or can't cover. The same should apply to you.
Click to expand...

I believe this should be a decision between the insurer and the insured... period. The government should stay out of all of it.
 
ChrisL said:
Besides, if it's offered through insurance companies, it's neither mandatory nor free. Most people still have to pay their insurance premiums, etc.
Click to expand...

It's subsidized.
The law also made gender based risk grouping illegal.
So younger women, who tend to consume more medical care dollars, get a discount, while younger males, have to pay more.
 
Moot said:
The reality is there are a lot of idiots out there in the real world.....




It's odd, Liberals look at those children and say they didn't ask to be born or live like that, that mother should be on birth control....and Conservatives look at them and see more prisoners to fill the private prison industry's wallets at taxpayer expense.
Click to expand...


That's a disgusting, dumb, and indefensible generalization.
 
Harshaw said:
They were far less of a problem when people carried the consequences of their own choices.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting and helpful to see stats on that.

No, it's about forcing coverage by insurance companies.
Click to expand...

Individuals are not forced to purchase it though.
 
ChrisL said:
Where do you come up with this stuff? No one said that at all. Is that your argument?
Click to expand...

It is certainly strongly implied by people such as yourself, seeing as the argument is that all women should be getting BC for free, and if they don't, then there will be so many babies being taken care of by taxpayers.

But why don't you give me a percentage of women whom you think fit the description.
 
I hope that silly bitch never breeds. That said no one owes birth control to anyone, it's an optional "medication".
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's subsidized.
The law also made gender based risk grouping illegal.
So younger women, who tend to consume more medical care dollars, get a discount, while younger males, have to pay more.
Click to expand...

Yes but that is because women tend to have more complicated reproductive issues more often than men.
 
Moot said:
The reality is there are a lot of idiots out there in the real world.....




It's odd, Liberals look at those children and say they didn't ask to be born or live like that, that mother should be on birth control....and Conservatives look at them and see more prisoners to fill the private prison industry's wallets at taxpayer expense.
Click to expand...


Honestly Moot,

this kinda thing comes from an entitlement mentality.. I have all of these kids and someone else should pay for them... I feel sorry for the kids, and I think CPS should step in and removethem from what is obviously an abusive enviroment...

*the following is a jab made in jest and should be taken only as such...

Any guess what political party mom is?
 
Harshaw said:
It is certainly strongly implied by people such as yourself, seeing as the argument is that all women should be getting BC for free, and if they don't, then there will be so many babies being taken care of by taxpayers.

But why don't you give me a percentage of women whom you think fit the description.
Click to expand...

That would be impossible.
 
ChrisL said:
It would be interesting and helpful to see stats on that.
Click to expand...

p70-126_pdf_hist_living_arangements_children.png



Individuals are not forced to purchase it though.
Click to expand...

So what?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Actually women are just more likely to go to the doctor, for anything.
Click to expand...

No, women have more complicated reproductive systems with greater chance for things to go wrong, not to mention pregnancies and births. That is just anatomy.
 
ChrisL said:
That would be impossible.
Click to expand...

Why?

Of course, if so, then you have no basis on which to describe the situation as problematic, requiring the need of such government mandates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom