• 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 .
They don't have facts,they have biases it is a political organization, not a research or industry board. I'm done with you here, you like Moot are not an expert in this subject and not being honest.

So perhaps instead of pontificating with vague allegations you can actually be specific and show us proof of this supposed claim?
 
They don't have facts,they have biases it is a political organization, not a research or industry board. I'm done with you here, you like Moot are not an expert in this subject and not being honest.

Please present your proof that it is a political organization. I submitted the wikipedia entry on it and it describes much the opposite.
 
"where does it say in the first amendment that congress shall make laws respecting a religious establishment?" [/B]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Catholics consider contraception as bad as abortion. To force them to pay for contraception is preventing them from practicing their religious beliefs. Thus un constitutional.
 
I was in the industry. You don't know what you are talking about, and politifact is not an acceptable counter.
Actually, Politifact has a lot more credibility than you do. If you were in the industry then it's obvious why you aren't anymore because you have amptly proven that you are clueless how insurance really works.
 
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Catholics consider contraception as bad as abortion. To force them to pay for contraception is preventing them from practicing their religious beliefs. Thus un constitutional.
But their religious establishment was exempt from paying for contraception and yet the bishops continued to lobby congress to ban it for non-religious establishments. Thus if congress passes a law that bans or exempts non religious establishments on religious grounds then congress is in violation of the constitution.
 
They don't have facts,they have biases it is a political organization, not a research or industry board. I'm done with you here, you like Moot are not an expert in this subject and not being honest.

You're the being dishonest. Like Haymarket said, you have nothing to back up your arguments except fallacies and hyperboli. So go ahead and scurry away but the fact still remains that Republicans embraced the mandate long before Obamacare did. Ooopsie, their hypocricy is showing and so is yours.


Just so you know, the reason Republicans originally embraced the mandate was because they didn't like people not taking personal responsibility to pay for their own healthcare and expecting the taxpayers (other people's money) to pick up the bill for their medical costs. So what has changed? Oh yeah thats right, there's a Black man in the whitehouse.
 
But their religious establishment was exempt from paying for contraception and yet the bishops continued to lobby congress to ban it for non-religious establishments. Thus if congress passes a law that bans or exempts non religious establishments on religious grounds then congress is in violation of the constitution.

“Obamacare considers contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortion as "preventative services" under its definition of "health care". The underlying presumption is that pregnancy is a disease. When people pay into the Obamcare scheme, whether as taxpayers or through their insurance, their dollars will be used to finance these procedures, some of which must be provided for free to all women. The people have no choice - the individual mandate means everyone pays”

Under the affordable care act free contraception must be provided in all insurance plans. If Catholics refuse to buy an insurance plan as to not violate their religion they will be taxed extra. This tax will go to paying for things like contraception and abortions. If Catholics buy insurance it violates their religion, if Catholics don’t buy insurance it violates their religion. The affordable care act creates a situation that prohibits the free exercise of the Catholic religion; thus it is unconstitutional.
 
Obamacare considers contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortion as "preventative services" under its definition of "health care". The underlying presumption is that pregnancy is a disease. When people pay into the Obamcare scheme, whether as taxpayers or through their insurance, their dollars will be used to finance these procedures, some of which must be provided for free to all women. The people have no choice - the individual mandate means everyone pays”
Really, and where did you get your information because that's not what I read? Instead, I read that there was an executive order that made the Hyde amendment apply to Obamacare which means no federal funding for abortions. Maybe you should back up your claim that Obamacare considers pregnancy a "disease" with a link or some credible evidence. Otherwise, I have no reason to take your hyperboli seriously.

Here's mine....

Hyde Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both sides of abortion issue quick to dismiss order - USATODAY.com

Under the affordable care act free contraception must be provided in all insurance plans. If Catholics refuse to buy an insurance plan as to not violate their religion they will be taxed extra. This tax will go to paying for things like contraception and abortions. If Catholics buy insurance it violates their religion, if Catholics don’t buy insurance it violates their religion. The affordable care act creates a situation that prohibits the free exercise of the Catholic religion; thus it is unconstitutional.
All religious establishments, including the Catholic church are exempt from having insurance coverage for birth control pills. So where are you getting your information, comedy4all? From comic books? lol
 
Sandra Fluke is what, 30 years old?

If she can't afford her own contraception, she needs to find another hobby that's less expensive.
 
Sandra Fluke is what, 30 years old?

If she can't afford her own contraception, she needs to find another hobby that's less expensive.
She was speaking for other women who can't afford it. Thats her job.
 
She was speaking for other women who can't afford it. Thats her job.

Being that I am new here, I shouldn't have been snarky.

I understand what she was doing.

I don't have a problem with insurance paying for contraception. There are many medical reasons for prescribing 'The Pill' other than contraception.

I don't have a problem with public service organizations (even if they are owned by a religious group like the Catholic Church) being required to comply with the law preventing discrimination toward protected classes, which the basis of sex is a protected class. I do have problem with the government infringing on First Amendment Rights of religious groups that are not providing a public service.

As for me paying for it? No.
 
Being that I am new here, I shouldn't have been snarky.

I understand what she was doing.

I don't have a problem with insurance paying for contraception. There are many medical reasons for prescribing 'The Pill' other than contraception.

I don't have a problem with public service organizations (even if they are owned by a religious group like the Catholic Church) being required to comply with the law preventing discrimination toward protected classes, which the basis of sex is a protected class. I do have problem with the government infringing on First Amendment Rights of religious groups that are not providing a public service.

As for me paying for it? No.
I appreciate your honesty and.....:wcm


It's a myth that you would have to pay for it. The money you pay for insurance only covers you and/or your family. If you get sick or need medicine then the insurance helps pay for it so you don't go broke. Women who want or need birth control have to buy their own insurance, unless they are below the poverty line and can't afford it.
 
I'm with you, if someone wants to buy me a new Ferrari with no strings attached then who am I to refuse? woo hoo. But the point was and I admit it wasn't very clear, was that after you wrap your "red" Ferrari around a telephone pole that it's not "other people" who will pay for your hospitalization and meds, it's the insurance company and from the posts I've read that's what most of the 35% were clearly saying about birth control pills.


As a side, when I was looking for a photo, I couldn't help but notice there seems to be a lot more wrecked 'red' Ferraris than other colors.......a lot more.....

wrecked ferrari - Google Search

So what is it about red Ferraris that makes people want to drive themselves into a pole or under a bus? Is it because they have good insurance? Or do they expect other people to pay for their parapalegic hospital care and meds for the rest of their lives...assuming they survived, of course?

The people who buy Ferrari's dont ask about how much they cost and dont need insurance. They can afford to buy the power company or the bus company if they dont already, they own one or both.

Red is the color of passion and Ferrari is NOTHING if not passion mechanised and personified.

As far the TRAVISTY of wrapping em around telephone poles and trees and the like, well it just shows that some rich people didnt get that way by being exceptionaly intelligent.;)
 
Why should we pay for a $125 million per year insurance CEO? And Billions more to the other CEO's?
 
Why should we pay for a $125 million per year insurance CEO? And Billions more to the other CEO's?
Are you a stockholder? If not it's not your call, or concern.
 
Are you a stockholder? If not it's not your call, or concern.

WOW - so if its MY money being spent then I have no say in what it does, but if its YOUR money being spend then
you control all........LMAO What a hyocrite!

See my money will be spent on NO CEO's, No yachts, NO jets, no profits at all in a universal healthcare system......like the rest of the western world.
 
WOW - so if its MY money being spent then I have no say in what it does, but if its YOUR money being spend then
you control all........LMAO What a hyocrite!

See my money will be spent on NO CEO's, No yachts, NO jets, no profits at all in a universal healthcare system......like the rest of the western world.
Yes or no. Do you own stock in the company? If not then it is none of your business.
 
Yes or no. Do you own stock in the company? If not then it is none of your business.

Do you have a right to tell ANYONE what kind of HC they can get?

NOPE.

Oh, and after Jan 1, 2014 you better watch your profits.........

They will be going to my HC after that! LMAO!@
 
Why should we pay for a $125 million per year insurance CEO? And Billions more to the other CEO's?

You can choose to 'pay' elsewhere. No one is forcing anyone to pay anyone anything. Up until PPACA that is.
 
After reading some of the comments over the last several days, I've come to the conclusion that I just don't know what the right thing to do would be. :confused: I want to make access to birth control easier, but I don't want insurance premiums to go through the roof because we're covering this, that and everything else; although I still don't see covering BC under HC insurance plans to be the HUGE problem that some seem to make it out to be.
 
Do you have a right to tell ANYONE what kind of HC they can get?

NOPE.

Oh, and after Jan 1, 2014 you better watch your profits.........

They will be going to my HC after that! LMAO!@
Ah, I see. You complain about other's pay, don't have an interest in doing so, won't answer the question, and then throw a red herring. I knew this was going into the direction of snide remarks, thanks for conceding.
 
After reading some of the comments over the last several days, I've come to the conclusion that I just don't know what the right thing to do would be. :confused: I want to make access to birth control easier, but I don't want insurance premiums to go through the roof because we're covering this, that and everything else; although I still don't see covering BC under HC insurance plans to be the HUGE problem that some seem to make it out to be.
Chris, thank you for keeping an open mind on this. It's not a huge problem to start, though there are a few problems. Catholics 1st amendment rights are violated, no matter what the church has to fund either abortion or BC as someone pointed out(here I believe?).

The next problem is that when a lot of mandates don't match actual health problems the costs over time pile up, the compilation is what is what skews the risk pool, then there is what I've been referring to as the aggregate. The aggregate is something I intentionally glossed over because I wanted to see how many people would dismiss it to keep the argument going. The aggregate is the sum total of all expenditures, so the same company that has to spend money on emergency surgery now has to pay for every treatment of BC which could be 30/mo. or it could be 150/mo. or it could be an annual for thousands, but it now HAS to be paid for, along with other issues that are medically necessary. Once these costs start to pile up they have to either be made up with higher premiums, or cuts in coverage or creative denials(legitimate) elsewhere. It is actually a bigger problem than most think.
 
The intelligent person asks:

Should we pay for Sandra Fluke's contraception or should we pay for her child's medical care, food, schooling.

And an abortion is cheaper than 1 month of welfare for a mother and her unwanted child.

Shouldn't we be promoting abortions in poorer areas?
 
You can choose to 'pay' elsewhere. No one is forcing anyone to pay anyone anything. Up until PPACA that is.

But I cant pay elsewhere, the monopoly still stands with the ACA. They also collude and rig prices legally. So the 2 choices any person has in a state is meaningless.
 
Chris, thank you for keeping an open mind on this. It's not a huge problem to start, though there are a few problems. Catholics 1st amendment rights are violated, no matter what the church has to fund either abortion or BC as someone pointed out(here I believe?).

.

The catholics have no right to tell others what to do about HC.
They can yap all they want. Thats a right.
The jew working at a hospital they own has the right to be a jew AND to get full HC that they want.



Denying others HC is the right of no one. Louis the 16th had the right you think you have, and we know what happened to him.
 
Back
Top Bottom