• 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 .
You seem to be confusing "how insurance works" with "how an individual insurance plan works."

No, insurance works like that. It's not like people get money back if they don't utilize certain services. They are covered for those services though.
 
I've never seen them covered on a policy, at least not specifically and I sold. There may be a state mandate, there may be companies that cover it but I've never seen it, and regardless it is a one time expense if covered, BC and Viagra are not.

I'm not sure if they are covered or not. I was talking about the designation specifically. There's a difference medically between elective preventative care and elective care. Technically, a yearly doctor visit is elective preventative care.
 
I'm not sure if they are covered or not. I was talking about the designation specifically. There's a difference medically between elective preventative care and elective care. Technically, a yearly doctor visit is elective preventative care.
Correct, but what besides pregnancy does BC in general prevent. Some people claim they lessen the effects of PMS, okay, but so do hormone treatments, and *if* a physician signs off on an order for preventative BC as a medical necessity properly it would be covered(many people don't know that). The problem is that the less than 25% of women who have major issues that complicate periods and benefit from a BC medicinal use are going to be underrepresented by the larger percentage that uses it for non-medical purposes, it IS offensive then to pay for a lifestyle choice.
 
Combination pills can prevent a variety of disorders and problems from bone thinning to acne to anemia.

Everyone can afford it, but how many people take multivitamins?

A multimega pill. Mandated by The Man. I smell money.
 
Why are half the population denied routine healthcare because of their gender? Are they second class citizens?
 
No, insurance works like that. It's not like people get money back if they don't utilize certain services. They are covered for those services though.
Why would you assume that "they're covered for those services?" Insurance plans can differ substantially in the types of things they will cover and to what extent. Thus, it's not true that "Everyone receives the same coverage," the way insurance works, you get different levels of coverage depending on how much you're willing to pay for your particular insurance plan.
 
Combination pills can prevent a variety of disorders and problems from bone thinning to acne to anemia.
Yes, but as I have stated that was already allowable with a simple physician's waiver before the mandate. Why now is it mandated for elective? IOW the medically necessary was already covered, now it doesn't matter and we all have to pay for some lifestyle choices.
 
Why are half the population denied routine healthcare because of their gender? Are they second class citizens?

No one is being denied anything. I believe the whole issue is how it is paid for. Should some things be left to individuals to pay for themselves directly? Or does an insurance company pay the bill for everything?
 
No one is being denied anything. I believe the whole issue is how it is paid for. Should some things be left to individuals to pay for themselves directly? Or does an insurance company pay the bill for everything?

If men ovulated, it would be covered.
 
Why are half the population denied routine healthcare because of their gender? Are they second class citizens?
Who exactly is being denied health care because of their gender? Surely you dont mean over this pretend issue???
 
If men ovulated, it would be covered.

What? Is there something wrong with a college age male buying his own condoms or a college age female buying her own birth control pills?
 
You take a peculiarly narrow view of the indications and uses of such medications.
 
How is it a pretend issue?
It was an invented problem created as a political platform. Fluke herself is an exposed political operative, it's a bull**** issue.
 
It was an invented problem created as a political platform. Fluke herself is an exposed political operative, it's a bull**** issue.

Obviously it's politically driven, but that doesn't mean the underlying concern isn't valid. Why do you think it isn't?
 
How is it a pretend issue?
Because it is. Even Ms Fluke admitted SHE was covered through her religious schools insurance policy for medical indicated birth control. Her whole reason de force was some fabricated 'friend' that was allegedly denied contraceptives...and not by the school, or even by an insurance company, but by a drug store. Go watch her 'testimony' and in it she ADMITS that she as a student at the catholic school is actually covered. So where is the issue? Insurance companies are not en masse denying people legitimate medical needs birth control. The ONLY reason this came up in the first place was the current administration attempted to force the Catholic Church to change their policy.
 
The ONLY reason this came up in the first place was the current administration attempted to force the Catholic Church to change their policy.

And why isn't that a legitimate concern?
 
And why isn't that a legitimate concern?
Are you serious? 1-not everyone is Catholic. 2-the government doesnt have a right to dictate to churches on their position, 3-As Ms Fluke herself admitted as a student at a catholic education institution she was NOT DENIED coverage. 4-Every citizen has the right to obtain private insurance and cover whatever the heck they want.
 
Yes, but as I have stated that was already allowable with a simple physician's waiver before the mandate. Why now is it mandated for elective? IOW the medically necessary was already covered, now it doesn't matter and we all have to pay for some lifestyle choices.

How many times do you need to hear this before it sinks in? It is cheaper for ins cos. to provide free birth control than to pay for the results of not including it.
This has nothing to do with money, it is purely about religous predjudice about contraception. The church wants us to pay more to legislate their religous convictions.
That is unacceptable according to our Constitution PERIOD.
 
Are you serious? 1-not everyone is Catholic. 2-the government doesnt have a right to dictate to churches on their position, 3-As Ms Fluke herself admitted as a student at a catholic education institution she was NOT DENIED coverage. 4-Every citizen has the right to obtain private insurance and cover whatever the heck they want.

The government certainly has the right to enforce uniform standards for how health insurance operates to the extent that their are legitimate public health concerns in place. That's certainly the case here. There are any number of contexts in which genuine issues of public policty trump religious dogma. This is one such issue. The CHA would exempt not just actual churches, but Catholic run hospitals from the birth control mandate. This creates very real health concerns for any woman who relies on such services.
 
Last edited:
There is a variation of this conversation that seems to be going nowhere in some circles, here is a made up example:

Person X: Women are being denied birth control!

Person Y: No they are not, it is just about who is paying for it, and tax payers or an insurance company shouldn’t be forced to pay for a woman’s birth control pills or a man’s condoms. Individuals should pay for it themselves; it does not cost a lot.

Person Y: You are denying women birth control that way!

Person X: No, men and women can easily get birth control. It is a matter of who is paying for it. Insurance can’t cover every little thing; otherwise insurance premiums would cost a fortune. And as far as tax payers paying for it (through the government)--that is an unneeded entitlement for the government to be providing, especially since individuals can easily pay it themselves 99% of the time.

Person Y: Insurance companies or the government should pay for birth control!

Person X: Why?

Person Y: Because women need access to birth control!

And around and around it goes.
 
There is no definitive conclusion that BC would, in fact, save insurance companies money; therefore, no evidence exists?

You're one of those "my default position must be proven wrong 100% before I will respect another opinion" guys?

I would have to say that passing a law requiring an entire industry to adopt a particular practice certainly calls for there being some fairly solid evidence that this practice will have the desired effect.

If there is reason to think that a given practice “might” have a desired effect, it is much better to leave it to those in that industry to choose on a more individual basis whether to implement it or not. If some insurance companies choose to cover birth control, then others can later choose to do so or not based on the results of those that initially chose to do so.

If no insurance companies make that choice, then I would have to take it as pretty solid evidence that the experts within those companies—who are certainly more qualified than anyone in government to make such a determination—have determined that that choice is unlikely to produce a desired result.
 
Obviously it's politically driven, but that doesn't mean the underlying concern isn't valid. Why do you think it isn't?

We've only seen it used as a political issue. This doesn't prove that there is not a valid underlying concern, that calls for some government policy to address, but the burden certainly should belong on those who wish to claim that there is such a need calling for such a policy, to prove it.
 
Back
Top Bottom