• 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 .
Good.
I can guarantee you that your life will not be afflicted in any shape or form. ;)
Not really. Mandating that every policy contain contraceptive coverage means that every policy will contain that coverage and every policy will reflect the cost of that coverage. While that might be great for those who use contraceptives, but those who don't use them will be forced to carry a policy that does. Carrying such unwanted and unnecessary coverage only increase the cost of health insurance.
 
How many poor people do you know, that can afford insurance, but not contraceptives?
The reasoning that this benefits poor people, just doesn't flow.

How many poor people have cell phones, yet want us to pay for rubbers and pills? ;)
 
As far as I know (though you can never be certain with the clowns in DC), no one is trying to ban the pill. But there are a group of uninformed knee-jerking ignoramuses who think that birth control should not be covered by insurance. Completely retarded and insane to anyone who has the ability to think, IMO.

I don't think that people are saying that birth control shouldn't be offered, it's that it shouldn't be mandated as part of a policy. I have no problems with an insurance company offering birth control coverage, I just don't think the govt should be in the business of telling them they have to.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Some action has already been taken and there will be more to come if needed. I'd suggest the various attempts to troll, flame, or derail through posts dedicated to slapping each other's back on how much you dislike a poster end or else action will be coming your way. Get on the topic and discuss THE TOPIC, not each other
 
NOBODY'S PAYING FOR ****ING SANDRA ****ING FLUKES ****ING CONTRACEPTION...

Now, wait a second:

There's nothing wrong with mandating Medical Insurance Companies to pay for contraception

You may be in favor of it, but you do contradict yourself.
 
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.

No one, that I am aware of, wishes to deny women their birth control. The issue is whether or not it is the responsibility of the taxpayer, to pay for birth control for all women. I personally think it is the responsibility of the woman to pay for her own.
 
Not really. Mandating that every policy contain contraceptive coverage means that every policy will contain that coverage and every policy will reflect the cost of that coverage. While that might be great for those who use contraceptives, but those who don't use them will be forced to carry a policy that does. Carrying such unwanted and unnecessary coverage only increase the cost of health insurance.

Did you miss this part?:

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

Sorry, I only copied it 10 times. I thought that would make a strong point, but alas, I was wrong.

Hey, did you know that birth control helps regulate monthly periods and reduces it's many, many, many side effects? It's true...
 
I don't think that people are saying that birth control shouldn't be offered, it's that it shouldn't be mandated as part of a policy. I have no problems with an insurance company offering birth control coverage, I just don't think the govt should be in the business of telling them they have to.

It's a lot more than just birth control.
 
Did you miss this part?:

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

Sorry, I only copied it 10 times. I thought that would make a strong point, but alas, I was wrong.

Hey, did you know that birth control helps regulate monthly periods and reduces it's many, many, many side effects? It's true...

Yes, when I was 16, I was put on birth control because my cycles would last for like 10 days, and I had horrible pain. Once I was on the pill, they lasted only for about 4 or 5 days and were less painful (still painful though).
 
No one, that I am aware of, wishes to deny women their birth control. The issue is whether or not it is the responsibility of the taxpayer, to pay for birth control for all women. I personally think it is the responsibility of the woman to pay for her own.

Because of it's health benefits, I am surprised you feel this way.
 
Because of it's health benefits, I am surprised you feel this way.

To me, health care is a personal responsibility, not one of the state. It doesn't matter which bodily system it concerns- reproductive, cardiac, respiratory, etc. Reproductive function doesn't hold any special place in the spectrum of health issues.
 
Yes, when I was 16, I was put on birth control because my cycles would last for like 10 days, and I had horrible pain. Once I was on the pill, they lasted only for about 4 or 5 days and were less painful (still painful though).

One of the most depressing days for me was when my doc cut me off after 35. I now freaking despise menstruating and the lead up to it. On the pill, it was a breeeze.
 
Last edited:
To me, health care is a personal responsibility, not one of the state. It doesn't matter which bodily system it concerns- reproductive, cardiac, respiratory, etc. Reproductive function doesn't hold any special place in the spectrum of health issues.

Fair enough. You are a true Libertarian.
 
Didnt answer the question because I dont know how "we" pay for it or what that even means


but Im all for BC being covered on health insurance. Why not?

"Could" cut down on abortions, foster care, welfare/child aid and medical costs for having a child

sounds good to me :shrug:
 
Last edited:
No one, that I am aware of, wishes to deny women their birth control. The issue is whether or not it is the responsibility of the taxpayer, to pay for birth control for all women. I personally think it is the responsibility of the woman to pay for her own.

This is, of course, an eminently reasonable position to take.
 
Did you miss this part?:

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

Sorry, I only copied it 10 times. I thought that would make a strong point, but alas, I was wrong.

Hey, did you know that birth control helps regulate monthly periods and reduces it's many, many, many side effects? It's true...
Rewriting the same thing over and over doesn't make it either profound or relevant. There are many things that could be considered "good" in their own right, but that does not mean that the state should mandate that all people be compelled to achieve that particular good.

Your post assumes that the state has the authority to impose a collective good at the expense of promoting the individual good. That is the principle of tyranny not of a free society.
 
Bad poll. We are not paying for anything. An insurance company is. They have to pay for all sorts of medical and voluntary things because people pay them to do so. Contraception is no different.
 
Rewriting the same thing over and over doesn't make it either profound or relevant. There are many things that could be considered "good" in their own right, but that does not mean that the state should mandate that all people be compelled to achieve that particular good.

I wish it didn't have to come to that. But unfortunately, some here cannot think outside of the box and it's much easier to pull a Rush and think that all those women who want to go on the pill are nothing but a bunch of sluts. :roll:

ur post assumes that the state has the authority to impose a collective good at the expense of promoting the individual good. That is the principle of tyranny not of a free society.

So basically, like Lizzie, you have issue with being forced to "share the expense" of any drug, period. ('scuse the play on words)
If that is the case, then you certainly are Libetarian.
 
Bad poll. We are not paying for anything. An insurance company is. They have to pay for all sorts of medical and voluntary things because people pay them to do so. Contraception is no different.

If it's in the policy, then so be it. Requiring it to be in the policy isn't because people pay them, it's because the government forces them.
 
No, but it sure looks like you are, schutz.


I did and they said their identity was just as inalieanble as their body which was created by God.


Moot... I was announcing to you that I was playfully trolling I did not mean for you to actually take what I was saying in that instance seriously... I think you would be surprized by how much we actually agree.... So far I think we only disagree on abortion, and only to a certain extent.
 
In theory/principle, no, contraception should not be made no-cost.

But on the list of all the other health care expenditures that are made to be no-cost to the consumer, contraception would be the last one I'd strike. Hell for known drug addicts in their teens, 20s, 30s and 40s, it should be mandatory. And so on and so forth with thoughts like that. I'm all about reproductive freedom and individual liberty in theory/principle, but pragmatism defeats theory on this issue, in that I believe the more ****-ups are prevented from reproducing, the better. We don't need all the world's ****-ups to proliferate a new generation of ****-ups, at least not until we stop entitling them to all their basic needs.
 
… You take actions and they have results. Deal with life. Is life really so cruel you people really can't deal with the results of your actions? There is certain amount of weakness in that which is also not on me. If you need parents than don't leave home. …

Of course, by the time one reaches Ms. Fluke's age, one ought not be in need of parents. Thirty years of age ought to be considered to be very solidly into adulthood—old enough to take responsibility for one's own needs and wants, and even old enough to appropriately be a parent oneself.
 
If it's in the policy, then so be it. Requiring it to be in the policy isn't because people pay them, it's because the government forces them.

The government forces them to pay for lots of things. So what? This is health insurance, it's a health product.
 
Back
Top Bottom