• 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:
p70-126_pdf_hist_living_arangements_children.png





So what?
Click to expand...

Okay, so single parent households have increased and double parent households have decreased. That is not the question. The question is how many more unwanted pregnancies are there today than in the past.
 
Harshaw said:
:roll: That's just complete asininity. Or, synonymously, a Moot post.
Click to expand...
Thats nice. Now why don't you try responding to my posts like an intelligent man, instead of a bug? :roll:
 
ChrisL said:
Okay, so single parent households have increased and double parent households have decreased. That is not the question. The question is how many more unwanted pregnancies are there today than in the past.
Click to expand...

No, the question was about them being a problem. Especially one requiring burdening the taxpayers over.
 
Moot said:
Thats nice. Now why don't you try responding to my posts like an intelligent man, instead of a bug?
Click to expand...

Make an intelligent post, and I might. This nonsense about "corporate prisons" isn't it.
 
What is wrong with birth control being made a mandatory coverage? You don't have to purchase it if you don't want to. I don't think this would be "victimizing" the insurance companies in any way either. And if the amount of unwanted pregnancies is more now than ever in the past, then what would anyone suggest be done about that? Do you think you can fix it?
 
Harshaw said:
No, the question was about them being a problem. Especially one requiring burdening the taxpayers over.
Click to expand...

You're wrong. You claimed that there were more unwanted pregnancies now than in the past. I asked to see some statistics.
 
ChrisL said:
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.
Click to expand...

Even leaving out reproductive issues, women simply visit the doctor more than men.
That doesn't mean that we should reduce risk pricing on that though.

Teenage - young men are more dangerous behind the wheel, thus they pay more insurance.
It's only fair.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Even leaving out reproductive issues, women simply visit the doctor more than men.
That doesn't mean that we should reduce risk pricing on that though.

Teenage - young men are more dangerous behind the wheel, thus they pay more insurance.
It's only fair.
Click to expand...

Being risky behind the wheel of an automobile can be controlled. Getting sick cannot.

Edit: Before anyone jumps all over me, I'm referring specifically to reproductive illnesses here.
 
ChrisL said:
What is wrong with birth control being made a mandatory coverage? You don't have to purchase it if you don't want to. I don't think this would be "victimizing" the insurance companies in any way either. And if the amount of unwanted pregnancies is more now than ever in the past, then what would anyone suggest be done about that? Do you think you can fix it?
Click to expand...

Subsidizing birth control for middle and upper income women, who are already far more likely to be on birth control and can afford it, will not reduce the rates of unwanted pregnancies of poor women.

It's a leap of logic, to assume it would.
Women eat up the women's health issue, thus it was an attempt to pander to women.
Birth control is, affordable, is already widely available, does not cripple the finances of middle and upper income women.

There was no logical reason to mandate, it be free at point of service.
 
ChrisL said:
Being risky behind the wheel of an automobile can be controlled. Getting sick cannot.

Edit: Before anyone jumps all over me, I'm referring specifically to reproductive illnesses here.
Click to expand...

The behavior of boys can not always be controlled, otherwise boys wouldn't be paying higher premiums.
 
nota bene said:
That's a disgusting, dumb, and indefensible generalization.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's kind of ironic the poor woman with her fifteen kids lives in Tampa, famous for it's strip joints and....the RNC convention. LOL She could be the poster girl for conservative values.
 
Harshaw said:
OK, I guess you think anyone who doesn't get free birth control is doomed to having an unwanted child and being forced to live on government assistance. Because everyone does stupid things, I guess, and no one can think and plan for themselves without the government looking out for them. Or, you know, prioritize their incomes from the jobs they must have if this even applies in the first place.

I, myself, don't think of people in general as such drooling morons. But to hear some of you say it, most, if not all, women are.
Click to expand...


What about drugs needed because of smoking and/or weight related causes. Think government programs should stop insuring them?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Subsidizing birth control for middle and upper income women, who are already far more likely to be on birth control and can afford it, will not reduce the rates of unwanted pregnancies of poor women.

It's a leap of logic, to assume it would.
Women eat up the women's health issue, thus it was an attempt to pander to women.
Birth control is, affordable, is already widely available, does not cripple the finances of middle and upper income women.

There was no logical reason to mandate, it be free at point of service.
Click to expand...

Middle and upper class women are not the only ones who have health insurance coverage and pay to have that coverage.
 
Middleground said:
What about drugs needed because of smoking and/or weight related causes. Think government programs should stop insuring them?
Click to expand...

Who's talking about "government programs"? This is about private employers and the insurance they provide for their employees.
 
ChrisL said:
Okay, when was that? Some time in the past, right?
Click to expand...

I showed you a timeline. The claim was that the taxpayers were going to be on the hook for all these children which were going to pop forth if all women don't get their birth control for free. The timeline tracks pretty well with the history of government assistance.
 
ChrisL said:
Middle and upper class women are not the only ones who have health insurance coverage and pay to have that coverage.
Click to expand...

More often then not, it is them.
Again I ask, how many women do we know, that can afford insurance, but cannot afford birth control?

It doesn't flow, at any level.
 
Middleground said:
What about drugs needed because of smoking and/or weight related causes. Think government programs should stop insuring them?
Click to expand...
It depends. Are they part of a physician prescribed regimen for health purposes or are they optional? The whole point of health insurance is to insure health risks, not to pay for all health services.
 
Harshaw said:
Make an intelligent post, and I might. This nonsense about "corporate prisons" isn't it.
Click to expand...
Then prove it isn't true. Lets see you back up your smarmy, petty, little insults with some credible evidence and a link for a change. Come on, surprise us, Harshaw.
 
Harshaw said:
I showed you a timeline. The claim was that the taxpayers were going to be on the hook for all these children which were going to pop forth if all women don't get their birth control for free. The timeline tracks pretty well with the history of government assistance.
Click to expand...

So you WERE talking about in the past. Your timeline did not show that there were more unwanted children now than in the past. No one said all women would get pregnant without this kind of program. It just allows easier access and may help prevent some unwanted pregnancies, which in the long run saves money when some woman may get pregnant, have to quit her job and go on public assistance.
 
Moot said:
Then prove it isn't true. Lets see you back up your smarmy, petty, little insults with some credible evidence and a link for a change. Come on, surprise us, Harshaw.
Click to expand...

Moot, you know it isn't possible to prove a negative... In logical debate it is your responsibility to prove YOUR assertions.
 
Moot said:
Then prove it isn't true. Lets see you back up your smarmy, petty, little insults with some credible evidence and a link for a change. Come on, surprise us, Harshaw.
Click to expand...

And another bit of great silliness. It's not up to me to prove your asinine claims aren't true. It's up to you to prove that they are. And what you said:

Moot said:
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...

Was indeed a "smarmy, petty, little insult," so you tell me why I should have taken it seriously?
 
Health insurance purchased by middle and higher income level women is also used to cover those women's children, perhaps teenage daughters who may not have access to BC otherwise and who might end up pregnant and receiving public assistance.
 
The only argument I see against this is that it is a relatively cheap drug.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom