• 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 .
Cephus said:
I'm not going to agree because religion deserves no special treatment.
Click to expand...

Yes, I said you weren't going to agree, because I know you have absolutely not one whit of respect for religious freedom; not sure why you feel the need to tell me something I already stated I know. :roll:
 
randel said:
if that were the case, you would think that insurance companies would be able to negotiate with pharmaceutical manufacturers, logical, yes? the negotiate with hospitals, why not drug makers?
Click to expand...

No, that's not how it works. The drug makers incur alot of expense on R&D, and come up with ever-new drugs, based on public demand, and the public wants all the new drugs, because he/she doesn't have to pay for them. Oftentimes, these new drugs serve the same purpose as the old drugs, which are inexpensive, but people are suckers for a TV ad, and are always looking for the newest and most effective drug to cure what ails them.

If people had to pay for their own drugs, they would shop around and price compare, and get the best value for their money. They don't have to do that, and the insurance company has no personal vested interest in containing costs, as long as they keep getting their monthly premium. That is the primary problem. Those who use health care do not have to be conscious of how much health care costs. If they did, they would try to keep costs down by buying affordable drugs and taking care of their own health.
 
lizzie said:
No, that's not how it works. The drug makers incur alot of expense on R&D, and come up with ever-new drugs, based on public demand, and the public wants all the new drugs, because he/she doesn't have to pay for them. Oftentimes, these new drugs serve the same purpose as the old drugs, which are inexpensive, but people are suckers for a TV ad, and are always looking for the newest and most effective drug to cure what ails them.

If people had to pay for their own drugs, they would shop around and price compare, and get the best value for their money. They don't have to do that, and the insurance company has no personal vested interest in containing costs, as long as they keep getting their monthly premium. That is the primary problem. Those who use health care do not have to be conscious of how much health care costs. If they did, they would try to keep costs down by buying affordable drugs and taking care of their own health.
Click to expand...
i'll agree to the extent that there are people out there who are suckers for a slick tv ad, but i fail to see why they wouldnt negotiate and try to get a better price...
 
randel said:
i'll agree to the extent that there are people out there who are suckers for a slick tv ad, but i fail to see why they wouldnt negotiate and try to get a better price...
Click to expand...

Because they don't need to get a better price. The person whose money is at stake is left out of the equation.
 
lizzie said:
You're thinking too short term. Market forces work when people have to be cognitive of their costs. The reason so many people can't afford health care is because congressional mandates in the 70's took the consumer out of the equation, and handed the ball to insurance companies and pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Click to expand...
Half right. We are in a period of insurer shrinkage right now and have been since the seventies due to the congressional mandates, but even more than that, there has been an overreach in medicine since the early 1900s but no larger period since 1970-present. We went from iirc 216 major providers to less than 120 between 1977 to 2004, and from what I understand that number shrank again since.....but that was my last data on the industry state of the market.
 
Harshaw said:
Yes, I said you weren't going to agree, because I know you have absolutely not one whit of respect for religious freedom; not sure why you feel the need to tell me something I already stated I know. :roll:
Click to expand...

Religious freedom does not include the right to discriminate. Try again.
 
Jetboogieman said:
NOBODY'S PAYING FOR ****ING SANDRA ****ING FLUKES ****ING CONTRACEPTION...

HOLY JESUS.

There's nothing wrong with mandating Medical Insurance Companies to pay for contraception the same way they would pay for any other basic drugs that are nessecary for people to have, some of these HMO's cover Viagra for gods sake, so why not contraceptive pills?

Doing such a thing, expanding access to contraceptives is a massive net benefit to the economy as it reduces unwanted pregnancies, reduces the need for abortions which is a net positive for the medical insurance companies obviously abortion procedures cost more than a measly pill.

This whole idea that everyone pays for Sandra Flukes Contraceptives is such a fallacy it's unbelievable.
Click to expand...

If Sandra Fluke isn't getting service she requires from her insurance company, then she needs to find another company that will serve her better.
 
cpwill said:
By failing to buy you an automobile, have I banned you from owning one?
Click to expand...

No, of course not, but health insurance is a part of most people's compensation package, it's a component of their pay. It's not a gift that is given to them. Further, most employees pay some portion of their insurance costs through their checks. So not only is the employer providing sub-standard compensation, they are essentially saying to the employee "here, you can have this insurance that may not satisfy your needs, you have to pay for it, but I'm going to keep you from getting things you might want because I have a stick up my ass".
 
Cephus said:
No, of course not, but health insurance is a part of most people's compensation package, it's a component of their pay. It's not a gift that is given to them. Further, most employees pay some portion of their insurance costs through their checks. So not only is the employer providing sub-standard compensation, they are essentially saying to the employee "here, you can have this insurance that may not satisfy your needs, you have to pay for it, but I'm going to keep you from getting things you might want because I have a stick up my ass".
Click to expand...

:shrug: The employee took the job knowing what the compensation package was.
 
Cephus said:
Religious freedom does not include the right to discriminate. Try again.
Click to expand...

Another silly strawman. There's no discrimination. If that's all you've got, then you tacitly admit you've got nothing.

But again, I doubt very much you'd concede religious freedom "includes" much of anything at all. For example, if a town banned all meetings on Sunday mornings for "traffic purposes," I'm sure you'd say it's a law of general applicability and religion should get no special exception. After all, the Kiwanis Club can't meet, either.
 
Harshaw said:
But again, I doubt very much you'd concede religious freedom "includes" much of anything at all. For example, if a town banned all meetings on Sunday mornings for "traffic purposes," I'm sure you'd say it's a law of general applicability and religion should get no special exception. After all, the Kiwanis Club can't meet, either.
Click to expand...

It includes your individual right to believe whatever the hell ridiculous nonsense you want, so long as you don't push it on anyone else. That is the sum total of religious freedom.
 
Cephus said:
It includes your individual right to believe whatever the hell ridiculous nonsense you want, so long as you don't push it on anyone else. That is the sum total of religious freedom.
Click to expand...

Someone needs to explain "free exercise thereof" to you, I guess. In any case, that's not a denial, so I suspect I'm right.
 
Harshaw said:
Someone needs to explain "free exercise thereof" to you, I guess. In any case, that's not a denial, so I suspect I'm right.
Click to expand...

Free exercise, so long as it doesn't affect others. You can't point to your religion and then discriminate against blacks or women or gays. It doesn't mean you get to push your beliefs on others or harm others. Free exercise doesn't mean you get to go out and be an asshole.
 
Cephus said:
Free exercise, so long as it doesn't affect others.
Click to expand...

:lamo It doesn't "affect" anyone, any more than my refusal to pay your mortgage affects your living situation.

You can try to dress it up any way you like, but that's a fact, and it will remain true no matter what you say, rabidly anti-religious filter or no.
 
Harshaw said:
:lamo It doesn't "affect" anyone, any more than my refusal to pay your mortgage affects your living situation.

You can try to dress it up any way you like, but that's a fact, and it will remain true no matter what you say, rabidly anti-religious filter or no.
Click to expand...

You have no obligation to pay my mortgage, don't be ridiculous. In fact, if, for some reason, the employer decided to pay someone's mortgage as a part of their compensation package, the employer would not be able to do so only under the condition that they get to control what the employee does in their own house.

The employer, however, has chosen to pay for insurance as part of employee compensation. Therefore, they pay for the insurance as it's legally mandated. If they don't like it, they can just opt not to pay for insurance at all, maybe just give the employees what it would have cost them and let employees decide what insurance packages they want to purchase on their own.
Being delusional doesn't give you the right to control other people's lives. Maybe the reason many people are rabidly anti-religious is because of cases like this, where the religious are being blatantly fricking idiots.
 
Cephus said:
You have no obligation to pay my mortgage, don't be ridiculous. In fact, if, for some reason, the employer decided to pay someone's mortgage as a part of their compensation package, the employer would not be able to do so only under the condition that they get to control what the employee does in their own house.

The employer, however, has chosen to pay for insurance as part of employee compensation. Therefore, they pay for the insurance as it's legally mandated. If they don't like it, they can just opt not to pay for insurance at all, maybe just give the employees what it would have cost them and let employees decide what insurance packages they want to purchase on their own.
Being delusional doesn't give you the right to control other people's lives. Maybe the reason many people are rabidly anti-religious is because of cases like this, where the religious are being blatantly fricking idiots.
Click to expand...

The employer has no obligation to provide anything specific as compensation; the employee decides if the compensation is worth it.

The only way the employer "discriminates" or "forces" anyone to do anything is by firing an employee for obtaining birth control on their own. No one does this. Your "argument" is just plain stupid and runs counter to anything resembling "rationality," which you claim to hold dear.

So no, you're wrong, and you will remain wrong every single additional time you make this pseudo-argument. As you say, "deal with it." If you choose to make the "argument again," refer to this post. It will save us both time.
 
Middleground said:
What quantifies as "maintenance meds?"
Click to expand...

They are medications that someone needs to be on to maintain health due to a condition. Blood pressure medications, cholesterol medications, blood sugar medications and others would be considered maintenance medications. Essentially, they are things that someone needs to take to stay in good health.
 
digsbe said:
They are medications that someone needs to be on to maintain health due to a condition. Blood pressure medications, cholesterol medications, blood sugar medications and others would be considered maintenance medications. Essentially, they are things that someone needs to take to stay in good health.
Click to expand...

So why doesn't BC qualify as such? You do know it's much more than a pill to prevent pregnancy.
 
Middleground said:
So why doesn't BC qualify as such? You do know it's much more than a pill to prevent pregnancy.
Click to expand...

I do, in the vast majority of cases it is used to prevent pregnancy but it can also be used to regulate menses or treat acne (which isn't used often at all). Birth control for contraceptive purposes is not needed for health, it's an elective medication that doesn't serve a therapeutic purpose just like Viagra or eye lash lengtheners.
 
digsbe said:
I do, in the vast majority of cases it is used to prevent pregnancy but it can also be used to regulate menses or treat acne (which isn't used often at all). Birth control for contraceptive purposes is not needed for health, it's an elective medication that doesn't serve a therapeutic purpose just like Viagra or eye lash lengtheners.
Click to expand...

So how do you distinguish between the both?

Honestly, I don't believe that the "vast majority" take it because of BC. But even so, say 1/4 of women take it to regulate their periods, why should they have to pay?
 
Henrin said:
I don't buy that for a second.
Click to expand...
Really and who taught you about sex? Or was it trial and error for you?


Yes, the people doing all the stupid **** like you mentioned represents the movement as a whole. Right..
Click to expand...
Yes it does represent the whole movement, because those in the movement don't denounce the racists and racism in their midst, instead they either pretend it doesn't exist or deny it, like your doing.



WTF? I didn't even mention that.
Click to expand...
Thats probably because you didn't know what you were talking about.
 
digsbe said:
I do, in the vast majority of cases it is used to prevent pregnancy but it can also be used to regulate menses or treat acne (which isn't used often at all). Birth control for contraceptive purposes is not needed for health, it's an elective medication that doesn't serve a therapeutic purpose just like Viagra or eye lash lengtheners.
Click to expand...

Why do women take birth control pills?

In the United States in 2004, approximately 12 million women were actively using oral contraception, or the birth control pill. Over 44 million American woman had used it at some point in their lives. Overall, it has been one of the leading forms of contraception for American women, coming just ahead of female sterilization and condoms.[1]

Most women rely on the birth control pill or other forms of contraception to prevent pregnancy until they reach a point in their lives where they can offer their child or children better financial security and a stable, loving home life. Taken consistently, oral contraceptives are among the most reliable methods of pregnancy prevention, together with other methods of hormonal contraception such as Depo Provera shots or Implanon subcutaneous implants.

Many women, however, take the birth control pill for reasons unrelated or only peripherally related to birth control. For them, the use of hormonal birth control is a medical issue, saving them from painful if not potentially life-threatening health problems
Click to expand...


Why do women take birth control pills?
 
Disputatious71 said:
Do you really know the meaning of inalienable ? Before you said it was reproductive organs and when I disputed that statement now you say it is gender. Iit must be hard to defend shifting positions I admire the way you try though.
Click to expand...
It really has nothing to do with your argument. I switched to saying gender because it didn't change my arguement, it sounded better and was shorter to write than reproductive organs. Sorry if it confused you.
 
Middleground said:
But even so, say 1/4 of women take it to regulate their periods, why should they have to pay?
Click to expand...

How can they not pay?

One way or another, it costs money. If you're getting it through insurance, then that insurance policy has to charge you a premium which reflects what it costs the insurance to cover it. This will almost certainly be more than what it would cost you to simply pay for it yourself directly. If you're getting it through a government-based medical program, then you're paying higher taxes, in an amount that reflects the cost of government covering it. Again, this is almost certainly more than it would cost you to buy it directly.

I think your problem is that you live in a society that has a government-based health care system that has you so far removed from the actual cost of anything that you have no clue what your health-based services and products actually cost. This prevents removes, from the actual provider, any incentive to keep costs reasonable. You have no clue how a free market works, or how prices are controlled by basic supply & demand thereunder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom