• 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 .
Moot said:
The poor having more kids than they can cloth, feed or support perpetuates a cycle of poverty that crosses generations. It's just that simple. But when low income and poor women have access to birth control that cycle is broken because then she can afford go to school and get a better paying job and plan her family according to what she can afford. It gives low income families a better chance of rising up into the middle class and they can afford to give their kids more opportunities than what they had.
Click to expand...

So basically its not weakness that she is having more kids than she can afford to cloth and feed and her dumb ass choices are keeping her poor. Right.

You know what? It is weakness, it is stupid and they have no one to blame but themselves. No one owes them **** to cover up their stupid..
 
Harshaw said:
What are you talking about? Employers choose policies with the coverage they wish to provide, and exclude coverage they don't wish to provide.

If they couldn't do that, there wouldn't be an issue, and there wouldn't need to be such a mandate.
Click to expand...

Let me know when you come up with a policy that specifically excludes cancer treatment.
 
Cephus said:
Let me know when you come up with a policy that specifically excludes cancer treatment.
Click to expand...

Silly strawman. To hear you tell it, every policy covers Rogaine, too.

If you're not going to be serious, there's no point in going on.
 
Harshaw said:
Silly strawman. To hear you tell it, every policy covers Rogaine, too.

If you're not going to be serious, there's no point in going on.
Click to expand...

I am being serious. I'm pointing out that you don't have a choice. You are not specifically funding contraception, it's not an option. You argue that you're not trying to stop people from using contraception, yet you're trying to get out of allowing it on a general policy.
 
Cephus said:
Let me know when you come up with a policy that specifically excludes cancer treatment.
Click to expand...

Because its somehow an excuse for government action if an insurance policy is not covering cancer treatment. :roll:
 
Cephus said:
I am being serious. I'm pointing out that you don't have a choice. You are not specifically funding contraception, it's not an option.
Click to expand...

OK, then you have no idea what you're talking about. Employers provided coverage which didn't include contraceptives; that's a fact, thus your premise is negated.

The mandate required them to provide that coverage.


You argue that you're not trying to stop people from using contraception, yet you're trying to get out of allowing it on a general policy.
Click to expand...

The one has nothing to do with the other. I don't stop you from eating by not paying for your food. And it's not about what I'm trying do.

OK, I take it back. Maybe you don't understand this after all.
 
Henrin said:
So basically its not weakness that she is having more kids than she can afford to cloth and feed and her dumb ass choices are keeping her poor. Right. You know what? It is weakness, it is stupid and they have no one to blame but themselves. No one owes them **** to cover up their stupid..
Click to expand...
There you go again, blame, blame, blame. If your argument wasn't so damn weak then maybe you could defend it with something of substance and credible evidence. But I've never seen you really do that.
 
Moot said:
There you go again, blame, blame, blame. If your argument wasn't so damn weak then maybe you could defend it with something of substance and credible evidence. But I've never seen you really do that.
Click to expand...

It IS her fault. It is a weakness and it is a lame ass excuse.

Who else opened her legs and then failed to move out of poverty? I don't think it was me and I don't think it was you. Who was it? Oh right, her.

And credible evidence that this is weakness, really? :roll:
 
Middleground said:
Yes, I get that. What I don't get is why people have a problem with it?
Click to expand...

Let us suppose that instead of birth control, Ms. Fluke would like breast implants. Unlike birth control, getting these implants might very well cost more than she can easily afford to pay for out of her own pocket.

Would it be fair for her to demand that others pay for her breast implants?

Can you see why I might have a problem with being compelled to bear part of that cost?

What if she wants a fancier car than she can easily afford? Or a better computer? Or any other luxury?

Why should anyone other than herself be forced to buy her the things that she wants?
 
IndepCentristMA said:
No, but I certainly was... along with the numerous MLB steroid hearings, etc.

I will say, though, that at least with the Clinton Impeachment hearings... there were several legitimate issues that were brought up... that weren't about his enjoyment of cigars... and he was rightly censured for them...

1) perjury, lying to the grand jury...
2) abuse of power, by getting her positions she was not qualified for...
3) sexual harrassment, demoting her position based off of expected sexual contact...

Again, if he was doing this in his own private property, that's one thing... He was doing this on government property, on government time... and using political powers to get her positions in the DoD that she was not qualified to be working... then once this came to a head (pun intended), he then demoted her position and moved her work location away from DC, to hide what had been going on... That IS completely wrong... and we ALL know what the definition of "is" is...
Click to expand...
Don't disagree. It still irritates me when people say Clinton was prosecuted "for having sex". Simply not true. He was prosecuted for perjury. The topic behind said perjury was/is irrelevant.

Still... I'm not willing to go look it up because I don't care *that* much, but I'd bet that Rush said the sex talk in front on Congress then was not only justified, but necessary.
 
Mandating covered birth control is one of the most absurd and illogical stances I've ever seen. We don't mandate the coverage of other maintenance meds, in fact some name brand ones may not be covered at all. Contraception is an individual responsibility, and as such it's up to the individual to pay (or not pay) for it, contraception shouldn't receive some special treatment or mandated coverage.
 
Harshaw said:
OK, then you have no idea what you're talking about. Employers provided coverage which didn't include contraceptives; that's a fact, thus your premise is negated.

The mandate required them to provide that coverage.
Click to expand...

There was a mandate for birth control coverage in 2000 ....but it was only after and in response to the 1998 mandate for Viagra.



Constitutional Issues Raised by States Exclusion of Fertility Drugs From Medicaid Coverage in Light of Mandated Viagra coverage...

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...SzJeAH&sig=AHIEtbRLwmhrM8Jwny2fQtyNt0eixod6mg



The 2000 birth control mandate is exactly nine years before Obamacare and a lot of Republicans voted for it.
 
Henrin said:
Because its somehow an excuse for government action if an insurance policy is not covering cancer treatment. :roll:
Click to expand...

I'm sure if you did have insurance companies specifically excluding cancer treatment, you'd see the government stepping in to insist that they did cover it.
 
Harshaw said:
OK, then you have no idea what you're talking about. Employers provided coverage which didn't include contraceptives; that's a fact, thus your premise is negated.

The mandate required them to provide that coverage.
Click to expand...

And now they can't. Get over yourself. This is just religious stupidity at it's finest.
 
Cephus said:
I'm sure if you did have insurance companies specifically excluding cancer treatment, you'd see the government stepping in to insist that they did cover it.
Click to expand...

Wow, you have no idea who I am if you think I would support that.

The government has no place mandating these matters.
 
radcen said:
I see you're one of those people socially incapable of having an adult conversation. Duly noted. Carry on.
Click to expand...
Then you must be looking in a mirror.
 
Cephus said:
And now they can't. Get over yourself. This is just religious stupidity at it's finest.
Click to expand...

How many people mentioned religious reasons in this thread for being against this? Just wondering.
 
Moot said:
There was a mandate for birth control coverage in 2000 ....but it was only after and in response to the 1998 mandate for Viagra.



Constitutional Issues Raised by States Exclusion of Fertility Drugs From Medicaid Coverage in Light of Mandated Viagra coverage...

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...SzJeAH&sig=AHIEtbRLwmhrM8Jwny2fQtyNt0eixod6mg



The 2000 birth control mandate is exactly nine years before Obamacare and a lot of Republicans voted for it.
Click to expand...

1) This speaks to nothing I said in what you quoted.

2) Your link is about Medicaid, not a mandate on employers.

3) It's a state issue and entirely unlike Obamacare.

4) It's about female fertility drugs, not "birth control."
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Let us suppose that instead of birth control, Ms. Fluke would like breast implants. Unlike birth control, getting these implants might very well cost more than she can easily afford to pay for out of her own pocket.

Would it be fair for her to demand that others pay for her breast implants?

Can you see why I might have a problem with being compelled to bear part of that cost?

What if she wants a fancier car than she can easily afford? Or a better computer? Or any other luxury?

Why should anyone other than herself be forced to buy her the things that she wants?
Click to expand...

Your comparisons are laughable and don't make one iota of sense. You cannot compare breast implants (which are solely cosmetic) to birth control (which is ofter prescribed to help a woman dealt with her monthly flow). you do know that, right?

Now tell me, Bob, following your logic, do you think it's fair that others pay (through pooled insurance, of course) for medications needed for someone who has wrecked his/her health with cigarettes? Do you smoke, Bob?
 
Cephus said:
And now they can't. Get over yourself. This is just religious stupidity at it's finest.
Click to expand...

A stupid non-response to my pointing out that you're factually wrong -- but thanks for admitting it, at least.

Thank you also for wasting time; I pointed out several posts ago you weren't going to agree, given your obsession against religion and complete lack of any respect for religious freedom, so it was pointless even to try.
 
Health insurance should pay for the big stuff, not birth control. Same as auto insurance. Auto insurance should not pay for oil changes and car washes.

If people are worried about the poor having birth control, I am sure if they can afford cigarettes and beer they can afford birth control.
 
Henrin said:
It IS her fault. It is a weakness and it is a lame ass excuse.

Who else opened her legs and then failed to move out of poverty? I don't think it was me and I don't think it was you. Who was it? Oh right, her.

And credible evidence that this is weakness, really? :roll:
Click to expand...
Some would argue it's the fault of the socio economic conditions that were forced on her....especially in the South where whites control the legislation that makes access to birth control almost impossible. The pro-life agenda seems to be founded on keeping poor black women bare foot, pregnant and uneducated to help perpetuate the cycle of poverty for her and her offspring so they can't compete with whites for the better paying jobs.
 
Moot said:
Some would argue it's the fault of the socio economic conditions that were forced on her....especially in the South where whites control the legislation that makes access to birth control almost impossible.
Click to expand...

Some would notice that blacks are not held down from pulling themselves up to the top and they are smart enough to not have more kids than they can afford. When you make dumb choices you pay of them and the person in your example made some really dumb choices. She then went and failed completely on moving up.

The pro-life agenda seems to be founded on keeping poor black women bare foot, pregnant and uneducated to help perpetuate the cycle of poverty for her and her offspring so they can't compete with whites for the better paying jobs.
Click to expand...

Honestly the pro-life movement is racist? Do you have any idea of the history of the two movements? The pro-choice movement was started as an ant-woman movement and certain parts of its history have been very anti-minority. If you don't know the history of PP it might be in your interest to look into that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom