• 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 .
Tell that to the Supreme Court.



I didn't miss it the first time around. I haven't addressed it because it's irrelevant.
Irrelevant? The entire premise of the 'war on women' is that thems rights is being denied. But thats simply not the case. So NOW we are at..."Yeah...but if they WERE...that would suck!" But...they ARENT.

Medically indicated contraceptives are not being denied. I know women that are on oral contraceptives because of skin conditions. I know when that are on contraceptives because their doctor recommends it and they arent engaging in sex. Medical needs contraceptives dont appear to be at risk. Therefore the entire Fluke argument is...whats the word you used...'irrelevant'. Oh...theres another word...a 'lie'. Its nothing but a liberal talking point.

Tell it to the administration that backed off.
 
Irrelevant? The entire premise of the 'war on women' is that thems rights is being denied. But thats simply not the case. So NOW we are at..."Yeah...but if they WERE...that would suck!" But...they ARENT.

Medically indicated contraceptives are not being denied. I know women that are on oral contraceptives because of skin conditions. I know when that are on contraceptives because their doctor recommends it and they arent engaging in sex. Medical needs contraceptives dont appear to be at risk. Therefore the entire Fluke argument is...whats the word you used...'irrelevant'. Oh...theres another word...a 'lie'. Its nothing but a liberal talking point.

Tell it to the administration that backed off.

Have you already forgotton how I got into this conversation? What we - you and I - were initially talking about? It wasn't the war on women, it wasn't Sandra Fluke, it was the validity of a contraception mandate, and specifically as applied to the Catholic Church. So yes, everything you're brining up in this post is, indeed, irrelevant.
 
Irrelevant? The entire premise of the 'war on women' is that thems rights is being denied. But thats simply not the case. So NOW we are at..."Yeah...but if they WERE...that would suck!" But...they ARENT.

Medically indicated contraceptives are not being denied. I know women that are on oral contraceptives because of skin conditions. I know when that are on contraceptives because their doctor recommends it and they arent engaging in sex. Medical needs contraceptives dont appear to be at risk. Therefore the entire Fluke argument is...whats the word you used...'irrelevant'. Oh...theres another word...a 'lie'. Its nothing but a liberal talking point.

Tell it to the administration that backed off.
But of course the argument is about to be recycled right back to the beginning as if the facts haven't shown the original premise flawed. The circular logic to get back to mandated BC subsidation by force of law is going to try to swing it back to being a proper law, and disagreement being an attack on women.
 
Have you already forgotton how I got into this conversation? What we - you and I - were initially talking about? It wasn't the war on women, it wasn't Sandra Fluke, it was the validity of a contraception mandate, and specifically as applied to the Catholic Church. So yes, everything you're brining up in this post is, indeed, irrelevant.
Funny...the OP is about Ms Fluke...and her contraception is covered...even at a catholic school. So...we DO have that covered...right? At least we can throw out that whole idiotic 'war on women' thing. ANd obviously we can throw out a large part of YOUR argument as well since...again...WOMAN at a Catholic school is ALREADY covered by THEIR insurance. Now we are left to the question of whether or not the government has the right to force a church to accept and adopt a position that runs contrary to their moral and stated beliefs. Nice that you think it is so cut and dried. But then...you only 'believe' that because your position supports YOUR position. Funny how when it comes to reality it is never that cut and dried. Personally...I disagree with the catholic church's position on contraceptives. My position and belief is irrelevant to their free practice of religion.
 
It's obviously not a no brainer because you haven't countered the aggregate argument, just said "it's cheaper". Recurring costs without medical benefit are not what insurance is about, insurance isn't about funding a lifestyle which is what BC typically is used for. You cannot with a straight face state that millions of women using a recurring expense montly is going to save money, that is completely impossible.

You forgot what birth control pills are used for I guess. They are used to prevent pregnancy a covered expense. Pregnancy costs $1000's more than the pill.
The fact is you don't care if it is cheaper to cover contraception, it is against your religious beliefs and you wish to impose them on others. You are in the wrong country.
 
Last edited:
Funny...the OP is about Ms Fluke...and her contraception is covered...even at a catholic school. So...we DO have that covered...right? At least we can throw out that whole idiotic 'war on women' thing.

When have we ever had a conversation about either Ms Fluke or the war on women?

ANd obviously we can throw out a large part of YOUR argument as well since...again...WOMAN at a Catholic school is ALREADY covered by THEIR insurance.

What part of my argument do you feel is addressed by that fact?

Now we are left to the question of whether or not the government has the right to force a church to accept and adopt a position that runs contrary to their moral and stated beliefs. Nice that you think it is so cut and dried. But then...you only 'believe' that because your position supports YOUR position.

A penetrating analysis if ever there was one. Unfortunately you're mistaken. I believe what I believe about the government's rights in this situation because I've studied the first amendment extensively and I know what I'm talking about.

Funny how when it comes to reality it is never that cut and dried.

In this case it is, according to relevant first amendment precedent. Broadly speaking, religious practices may be curtailed or contravened by a "neutral law of general applicability," which this certainly is.

Personally...I disagree with the catholic church's position on contraceptives. My position and belief is irrelevant to their free practice of religion.

Yes. Yes they are.
 
You GET that that makes the point....women are being prescribed and receiving medically indicated oral contraceptives. So........

So... what? The women who aren't being prescribed and receiving medically indicated oral contraceptives don't matter anymore? I'm not sure what you think you've established here.
 
Ahh, so "the media center" is a substitute for risk management models now. :roll:

Go ahead and run with that strawman if it makes you happy. If you'd like to address the arguments I've actually made, feel free to do so. I anticipate being bored at work tomorrow, so I'll need a distraction.
 
So... what? The women who aren't being prescribed and receiving medically indicated oral contraceptives don't matter anymore? I'm not sure what you think you've established here.

Well for one, if it isnt medically indicated, then insurance companies shouldnt be forced by mandate to pay for it ... it should be elective coverage.
 
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.

There are definitely services which 100% of people are covered for, yet only a small percentage of people utilize. Chemotherapy, for example.
 
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.

Because of many inconsistencies in coverage for medically necessary uses. Ignoring physician recommendations, for example. That **** happens quite a bit, for many issues not just medically necessary BC. ****, the insurance company did not want to cover many of my father's treatments when he was in a coma because they decided, without once laying eyes upon him, that he'd never recover from his coma (despite the fact that his doctors were saying that he was close to coming out of it, which they were correct about, BTW).

It the industry's unethical behavior which leads to these kinds of mandates.
 
The medical costs that people incur for their biological conditions are expensive, that does not prove anything wrong.
My arguments are not disingenuous.

It still does not disprove that insurance claims, where the resulting loss is from the intent and actions of the insured party, should be covered.

Adjectives describe the noun they are connected with, not nouns which appear later on in the sentence. "Uncertain" is an adjective. Pregnancy is a biological condition, not a loss. When you figure out why I am saying that, you'll realize immediately why your arguments have been disingenuous.


(hint: Your argument relies on you applying the adjective "uncertain" to the wrong noun in the sentence)
 
That is not how insurance works.
You purchase additional coverage, at an additional cost, to cover additional things you want.

There are a multitude of services for which 100% of insured people are covered, but only a small percentage of people utilize. In fact, the vast majority of services which are covered fit that description.

The only way insurance companies could be profitable is because what I am saying is not only true, but it is the ****ing business model upon which the industry is built.

Seriously. It's the ****ing business model.
 
I believe that the most important word here is "we". The answer depends so much on who "we" are (Gods that sounds like a Bill Clinton answer). If we (the people on DP) are discussing a private insurance company that pays out it's benefits via the premiums and capitol gains, then my answer is that it is up to the company and you can support or disapprove of the decision by whether or not you are contributing money to that insurance. There are plenty of other insurances to choose from.

Now if by "we" the OP is referring to the tax payers that changes the answer(s) and then depends on exactly what is it we're being asked to cover. IF we are straight out talking contraceptive only then my answer is no. Likewise I don't think we should be covering for drugs to treat ED either. However, I do recognize that these drugs can treat other things besides ED or preventing pregnancy. If the doctor can show that the drug is being used for such purposes then yes, I am fine with that.
 
It's not the public that will be paying for birth control pills, it's the insurance companys [sic].

No, it is those who pay for these policies who will be paying for the birth control pills. It is those who pay—whether through premiums or taxes. In other words, the public.
 
Last edited:
You have no clue here. It is not cheaper in aggregate numbers, it isn't cheaper when demand for the "freebies" goes up, and either way it's not my responsibility to pay for it, which is what happens in mandated coverage. This isn't religious, it's numbers.

Basic mathematics, it seems, has become a partisan, far-right principle, rejected by those on the left.
 
So... what? The women who aren't being prescribed and receiving medically indicated oral contraceptives don't matter anymore? I'm not sure what you think you've established here.
No. So women that dont have medically prescribed oral contraceptive needs should pay for it themselves. As should men. Insurance is not for "gosh I wanna ****". Homosexuals should pay for their own contraception. Heterosexuals should pay for their own contraception. Men should pay for their own condoms. Women were not medically indicated should pay for whatever form of contraception they choose.
 
No, it is those who pay for these policies who will be paying for the birth control pills. It is those who pay—whether through premiums or taxes. In other words, the public.
I'm sure that whatever you pay for your policy and deductables wouldn't begin to cover your healthcare costs if you had to pay out of pocket. So whose footing the bill for the rest of your healthcare? Unless you're on Medicare it isn't the public, it's the insurance companies.
 
You forgot what birth control pills are used for I guess. They are used to prevent pregnancy a covered expense.
Incorrect. Some policies automatically cover pregnacy, others have a maternity rider.
Pregnancy costs $1000's more than the pill.
Nope, not in the aggregate. 1 pregnancy, couple thousand, years of birth control dependent upon price AND frequency can be just as much as a single pregnancy. In fact wasn't the major bitch that the pills are expensive and should be covered?

The fact is you don't care if it is cheaper to cover contraception, it is against your religious beliefs and you wish to impose them on others. You are in the wrong country.
Incorrect, my argument has rarely centered around religion. It IS about the costs, which are going to add to my premium.
 
Because of many inconsistencies in coverage for medically necessary uses. Ignoring physician recommendations, for example. That **** happens quite a bit, for many issues not just medically necessary BC. ****, the insurance company did not want to cover many of my father's treatments when he was in a coma because they decided, without once laying eyes upon him, that he'd never recover from his coma (despite the fact that his doctors were saying that he was close to coming out of it, which they were correct about, BTW).

It the industry's unethical behavior which leads to these kinds of mandates.
I've never denied that there are some companies that engage in unethical practices, but your father getting denied coverage is not equal to an elective treatment being mandated for this argument. I can just as easily state that the rate of denials went up with the amount of mandates, when the risk pool has more to cover the providers will find ways to cut costs.
 
Go ahead and run with that strawman if it makes you happy. If you'd like to address the arguments I've actually made, feel free to do so. I anticipate being bored at work tomorrow, so I'll need a distraction.
It's not a strawman, you are using a media group article to argue with a former professional in the field. I couldn't care less what their opinions are.
 
Incorrect. Some policies automatically cover pregnacy, others have a maternity rider. Nope, not in the aggregate. 1 pregnancy, couple thousand, years of birth control dependent upon price AND frequency can be just as much as a single pregnancy. In fact wasn't the major bitch that the pills are expensive and should be covered?

Incorrect, my argument has rarely centered around religion. It IS about the costs, which are going to add to my premium.

I'm tired of arguing with someone who is clueless to the real costs of anything. Read what EXPERTS are saying abou the costs of adding BC to policies. Since I have now proven that it saves money, you need to change your opinion and demand that BC be included in all policies to save you money. Since it was always ONLY about the money you are now without any reason to object.


The truth is that both insurers and employers who self-insure save money in the long run by covering contraception. So much money is saved that it makes financial sense to waive co-pays and deductibles. A 2000 study by the National Business Group on Health estimates that not providing contraceptive coverage in employee health plans winds up costing employers 15% to 17% more than providing such coverage.

Contraception is expensive only if you think of birth control in terms of the individual woman’s upfront costs, rather than looking long-term at the “net cost” to the insurer and factor in all the dollars saved when customers don’t become pregnant. Think of it this way: If my married daughter lays out a $15 co-pay for birth control pills, she doesn’t save a dime. True, she protects herself against the emotional cost of an unwanted pregnancy, along with the hefty costs of raising a child. But in terms of the costs to give birth to the child, she is not much better off, because if she does become pregnant, her insurer, like many, would pay the bills above and beyond the co-pay.
Read more: Why Free Birth Control Will Not Hike the Cost of Your Insurance | Moneyland | TIME.com
 
I'm tired of arguing with someone who is clueless to the real costs of anything. Read what EXPERTS are saying abou the costs of adding BC to policies.


Read more: Why Free Birth Control Will Not Hike the Cost of Your Insurance | Moneyland | TIME.com
I know more than you think, and am not a fan of industry outsiders condescending to me. Pregnancy is a limited expense if covered considering a woman can get pregnant a maximum of once a year, yearly pregnancy is going to be rare. Birth control according to Ms. Fluke was around 3K a year, the average full term delivery is around 7,600, using Fluke's math if a woman has two kids in five years that's around 15,200 but if she has NO kids due to birth control in the same period of time it's 15K. So by that model without childbirth the savings are a whopping 200 dollars to the insurance company, BUT here is the problem you don't understand, and neither does Time magazine, the risk class for multiple consumers using the 3K/yr birth control are weighting the drug coverage UP which means increased premiums within the prescription pool.

Thanks for playing.
 
Back
Top Bottom