• 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 the country pay for women's contraceptives?

Should the country (taxes) pay for women's contraception?

  • Yes

    Votes: 41 41.8%
  • No

    Votes: 57 58.2%

  • Total voters
    98
Really, subsidized contraception is the most basic and benign form of eugenics. It should be a no-brainer for anyone who gives a damn about the genetic stock of the nation.
 
I see two major differences between these two scenarios (taxes funding wars, which not everyone agrees with, and taxes funding birth control, which not everyone wants to pay for.).
- The constitution specifically outlines the power of the government. Everything not covered in the constitution is by definition out of the scope of government. To levy war is definitely included, to provide birth control is not.
- It's also simply not viable to opt out of taxes for defense, because not only does every single American benefit from it (defense, i'm not talking about afghanistan and iraq), but the costs are also astronomically higher.

I'm all for all women being able to get the birth control that they need or want, I just see a whole lot of compromises that could be made to get that done instead of taxing every single American for it.

The Constitution allows lots and lots and lots of wiggle room for what we can tax for. It never puts any particular limitation on that. The government can tax us for anything. And if you think that we should only pay for the things explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, written 250 years ago, then stop driving on the roads. That's ridiculous.

Yeah, well, I don't think it's viable to opt out women's health care. What's your point?

Ok, forget war. I could give you a laundry list of things I'd rather not pay for. Why should I pay for them? Why not opt out or in and wind up with 100 million different tax schemes?

I think if we're going to act like a bunch of different nations, then we should just be a bunch of different nations and stop calling ourselves the United States.
 
Absolutely not.
 
The Constitution allows lots and lots and lots of wiggle room for what we can tax for. It never puts any particular limitation on that. The government can tax us for anything. And if you think that we should only pay for the things explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, written 250 years ago, then stop driving on the roads. That's ridiculous.

Yeah, well, I don't think it's viable to opt out women's health care. What's your point?

Ok, forget war. I could give you a laundry list of things I'd rather not pay for. Why should I pay for them? Why not opt out or in and wind up with 100 million different tax schemes?

I think if we're going to act like a bunch of different nations, then we should just be a bunch of different nations and stop calling ourselves the United States.
I think that's kind of a loaded statement. It's not women's health care in general being opted out, it's one specific thing, and no one who wants it would be denied it.

The difference is how controversial things like this and Obama care are. Americans are a very diverse people, where one set of conditions is not right for everyone.

Let me give an example. I live in Germany, where there's state health care, and private health care. One has a choice to opt out of the state health care and go private, however, don't expect to be able to come back. I, for one, am staying with the state health care, because it covers almost everything, and I know that I'll be medically taken care of for the rest of my life. My wife and daughters will have access to contraceptives through the insurance.

However, the important thing about this is that no one who is against state health care is paying for me.

We both realize there are a lot of things that aren't viable to be opt-in/opt-out, but there simply are a lot of things that are. We as Americans don't have to agree on every issue. There are some issues where both sides can walk away happy. I'm willing to bet if given the choice that most americans WOULD opt-in for contraceptives.
 
I think that's kind of a loaded statement. It's not women's health care in general being opted out, it's one specific thing, and no one who wants it would be denied it.

The difference is how controversial things like this and Obama care are. Americans are a very diverse people, where one set of conditions is not right for everyone.

Let me give an example. I live in Germany, where there's state health care, and private health care. One has a choice to opt out of the state health care and go private, however, don't expect to be able to come back. I, for one, am staying with the state health care, because it covers almost everything, and I know that I'll be medically taken care of for the rest of my life. However, no one who is against state health care is paying for me.

We both realize there are a lot of things that aren't viable to be opt-in/opt-out, but there simply are a lot of things that are. We as Americans don't have to agree on every issue. There are some issues where both sides can walk away happy. I'm willing to bet if given the choice that most americans WOULD opt-in for contraceptives.

I think controlling serious diseases like PCOS is pretty important to women's health care. I think allowing women means to space their children or prevent a life-threatening pregnancy is pretty important to women's health care.

I think if we're going to attempt something like that it has to be a lot broader, a la Germany. Not just, "I will pay for this med, but not this one." In or out. And also, it only works if we get a well-functioning federal system going, which we don't have, and which I doubt Obamacare will fully provide.

Our health care is a mess. An unholy, bloated, wasteful, over-priced mess. Right now, that's what makes this unworkable. It is so bloated, due to run-away insurance companies and endless litigation, that it takes all of us just to keep it on life support. I've been all over the world, and American health care is the worst of the worst. When we figure out how to make our medical costs and system somewhere within the realm of sanity, then we can talk about opting in and opting out. Right now, we need to fix it.
 
No.

Your reproductive health is your responsibility. Our approach is woefully broken when we assume that the best solution is to just give **** to people who can't be responsible on their own.

I can understand a discount program funded via low-income welfare initiatives, but for women like me who work full time, have health insurance, and can easily afford the $15-30 a month for birth control there's absolutely no reason it should be "free". If I were diabetic my insulin damn sure wouldn't be free, and that's a medication I would need to stay alive. Birth control is not imperative to my survival, so why should I get it at no cost simply because somebody somewhere seems to think they only way women can POSSIBLY be responsible about their reproductive health is if all the tools to do so are just handed over to them at not cost?

Why is reproductive health an individual responsibility - but nothing else is?

Surgeries, dental care, neuropsych, psych meds, physical and psych therapy, even some types of cessation care, pain relief, antibacterial efforts, hospital stays and emergency room visits (even the stupid ones from someone being a total idiot like when my husband was 17 and he fell off the cab of a moving truck), broken bones . . .etc.

But having a child or not having a child - the most extreme life altering path that could ever be taken because it's creating a new life that's entirely dependent on the parents for countless years . . . that is nothing but a personal 'problem'

And why just reproductive care being an individual responsibility - we cover all things related to pregnancy itself. Even DNC if the mother miscarries. Prenatal vitamins, pap smears, sonograms, urine testing, glucose screening, diabetes treatments, nutritional supplements, therapy for those who have odd cravings, Lamaze is even covered by some insurance companies.

You're dumbing it down to being like diapers and formula (which some are covered if it's of a special-nature)
 
Last edited:
I think if we're going to attempt something like that it has to be a load broader, a la Germany. Not just, "I will pay for this med, but not this one." In or out. And also, it only works if we get a well-functioning federal system going, which we don't have, and which I doubt Obamacare will fully provide.

Our health care is a mess. An unholy, bloated, wasteful, over-priced mess. Right now, that's what makes this unworkable. It is so bloated, due to run-away insurance companies and endless litigation, that it takes all of us just to keep it on life support. I've been all over the world, and American health care is the worst of the worst. When we figure out how to make our medical costs and system somewhere within the realm of sanity, then we can talk about opting in and opting out. Right now, we need to fix it.
I agree 110% with all of that.
 
Why is reproductive health an individual responsibility - but nothing else is?

Surgeries, dental care, neuropsych, psych meds, physical and psych therapy, even some types of cessation care, pain relief, antibacterial efforts, hospital stays and emergency room visits (even the stupid ones from someone being a total idiot like when my husband was 17 and he fell off the cab of a moving truck), broken bones . . .etc.

But having a child or not having a child - the most extreme life altering path that could ever be taken because it's creating a new life that's entirely dependent on the parents for countless years . . . that is nothing but a personal 'problem'

You're trying to make me defend an argument I didn't make. This thread is not about the rest of the health care system; it is about birth control.
 
Your own methods of birth control are up to the individual's responsibility. I find it extremely unethical by the state to provide free birth control (which prevents pregnancy and is not necessary for life or managing a disease, and I'm talking about birth control for the purpose of pregnancy, not treating hormone issues so there is no excuse to use that strawman). It's just wrong to pay for someone's birth control and believe that it should be "free" while someone else has to pay for expensive heart medications or something else that they actually need to live a healthy life. Your sex life is yours alone, your contraception and sexual behavior is your own responsibility, not mine. Look a cancer patient in the eye and tell them that "my birth control should be free and you should have to pay for your chemo and follow up medications." It's completely unethical from a medical perspective.
 
Why is reproductive health an individual responsibility - but nothing else is?

Surgeries, dental care, neuropsych, psych meds, physical and psych therapy, even some types of cessation care, pain relief, antibacterial efforts, hospital stays and emergency room visits (even the stupid ones from someone being a total idiot like when my husband was 17 and he fell off the cab of a moving truck), broken bones . . .etc.

But having a child or not having a child - the most extreme life altering path that could ever be taken because it's creating a new life that's entirely dependent on the parents for countless years . . . that is nothing but a personal 'problem'

And why just reproductive care being an individual responsibility - we cover all things related to pregnancy itself. Even DNC if the mother miscarries. Prenatal vitamins, pap smears, sonograms, urine testing, glucose screening, diabetes treatments, nutritional supplements, therapy for those who have odd cravings, Lamaze is even covered by some insurance companies.

You're dumbing it down to being like diapers and formula (which some are covered if it's of a special-nature)

This is one of the things that makes Minnesota worth the unbearable weather and equally frigid people. If you qualify, not only does state medical assist with pre-natal care and all that stuff, but also your birth control, your abortion, or your tubal. No insurance when something happens? It works 3 months retroactively from the registration date.

It just appalls me how much of the country acts like women who don't want to reproduce at this particular moment are some sort of morally bankrupt force of society and need to be shut out of the system until they come to their senses.
 
Your own methods of birth control are up to the individual's responsibility. I find it extremely unethical by the state to provide free birth control (which prevents pregnancy and is not necessary for life or managing a disease, and I'm talking about birth control for the purpose of pregnancy, not treating hormone issues so there is no excuse to use that strawman). It's just wrong to pay for someone's birth control and believe that it should be "free" while someone else has to pay for expensive heart medications or something else that they actually need to live a healthy life. Your sex life is yours alone, your contraception and sexual behavior is your own responsibility, not mine. Look a cancer patient in the eye and tell them that "my birth control should be free and you should have to pay for your chemo and follow up medications." It's completely unethical from a medical perspective.

The only application of 'tax funded' and 'free to the user' is if someone is on state 'welfare' (or what have you) - if someone is employed and has private insurance then they are paying for their own regardless of how much their copay is because they can afford it and are able to support their selves. That should be the goal. So, when on welfare, then it should go along with already provided care because then the state is just responsible for your pregnancy and everything else if it's not provided. We're not just talking about singles and hot to trotts - we're talking about support for married couples who might have been laid off of work and need support for a while and so forth. Not everyone is some dipsy blondie who needs to keep her legs closed and go back to school. For a lot of people welfare is temporary - a temporary support means while they're between jobs, etc.

Not having birth control to countless people just means they'll be quicker to have another kid. And so instead of covering birth control you'd be covering their unplanned pregnancy and that child's care for the next 18 years. That just creates the situation we need to avoid; having a child while unemployed or in college.

I think covering birth control is ideal.

**** as hell is cheaper than prenatal care and child support. . . and will enable said individual to do things like get a good job and get the **** off the system. Having more kids, however, ensures you need to stay on the system.
 
It just appalls me how much of the country acts like women who don't want to reproduce at this particular moment are some sort of morally bankrupt force of society and need to be shut out of the system until they come to their senses.

That's not it at all. Not everyone wants to be a parent. Some just don't want to be parents NOW. All we are suggesting is that it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to undertake the necessary preventative measures to ensure that you don't become a parent, not OUR RESPONSIBILITY to do so for you. If you can't, won't, or don't do so, then you need to deal with the consequences of that decision as well.
 
Should medical treatment for the following conditions be covered?

-Ovarian cysts
-Acne
-Endometriosis
-Irregular menstrual cycles
-Anemia

FYI: The best and in some cases the only treatment for these ailments are birth control pills. It doesn't even mean the patient is sexually active. Sexually abstainate Roman Catholic nuns might be prescribed birth control pills to treat these conditions. I'm aware of one teenage young lady who had insurance through her mom's job at a Catholic hospital that refused to cover birth control pills. She absolutely did not need birth control pills for pregnancy prevention but she did need them for cystic ovaries. The condition got so bad she eventually needed surgery.

Aspirin not only treats headaches, it also is used as a heart health therapy at Drs. direction. Benadryl not only treat hay fever, its also used as an emergency bee hive attack antidote and as sleeping pills. Many medications have numerous possible uses. IMHO its unfortunate to get hung up on the terminology of "birth control pills".
 
Last edited:
I can't believe I just liked one of tigger's posts... And what's even weirder, he liked one of mine...
 
That's not it at all. Not everyone wants to be a parent. Some just don't want to be parents NOW. All we are suggesting is that it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to undertake the necessary preventative measures to ensure that you don't become a parent, not OUR RESPONSIBILITY to do so for you. If you can't, won't, or don't do so, then you need to deal with the consequences of that decision as well.

But people have no problem paying for prenatal care. Or all variety of other medical needs that result from personal choices. They only have a problem if a woman is trying not to get pregnant. If she decides to get pregnant, well, then, that's all hunky-dorey.
 
But people have no problem paying for prenatal care. Or all variety of other medical needs that result from personal choices. They only have a problem if a woman is trying not to get pregnant. If she decides to get pregnant, well, then, that's all hunky-dorey.

Yes - what's wrong with everyone who has this problem?

The pregnancy should be avoided if the couple or she is unable to support a child . . . duh.
 
Yes - what's wrong with everyone who has this problem?

The pregnancy should be avoided if the couple or she is unable to support a child . . . duh.

There is still a large contingency of American society that views sexually active women who don't wish to reproduce as whores who are trying to shirk their responsibilities. We still have this implicit, deeply rooted Puritanical sexism about it, despite the fact that almost everyone woman in America uses birth control at some point. When it's us or women we know, it's different. When it's some theoretical woman, they're just sluts looking for other people to pay for their "bad behavior."
 
But people have no problem paying for prenatal care. Or all variety of other medical needs that result from personal choices. They only have a problem if a woman is trying not to get pregnant. If she decides to get pregnant, well, then, that's all hunky-dorey.

No. A lot of us have an issue with the Government paying for ANY private healthcare that is not directly related to the care of US Military Personnel and their immediate families.
 
But people have no problem paying for prenatal care. Or all variety of other medical needs that result from personal choices. They only have a problem if a woman is trying not to get pregnant. If she decides to get pregnant, well, then, that's all hunky-dorey.

I think you're the third person to bring up this point, but it completely contradicts what most people have said in this very thread when they've decided to branch out beyond the OP topic.

I would also point out, because I know you've brought it up in other posts (as have others):

For me...I have no problem with birth control being included in the discounted services/free services category for poverty-stricken women. I have a serious problem with any form of medical treatment being offered "for free" to those who are not poverty-stricken. Every single post I see in support of "free" birth control (including your own) has been based on the idea that it's cheaper to cover their BC than it is to cover their pregnancy/resulting child. Yes, for poverty stricken women that is true. For 80%+ of the population, it isn't, because 80%+ of the population pay for their own ****.
 
I think you're the third person to bring up this point, but it completely contradicts what most people have said in this very thread when they've decided to branch out beyond the OP topic.

I would also point out, because I know you've brought it up in other posts (as have others):

For me...I have no problem with birth control being included in the discounted services/free services category for poverty-stricken women. I have a serious problem with any form of medical treatment being offered "for free" to those who are not poverty-stricken. Every single post I see in support of "free" birth control (including your own) has been based on the idea that it's cheaper to cover their BC than it is to cover their pregnancy/resulting child. Yes, for poverty stricken women that is true. For 80%+ of the population, it isn't, because 80%+ of the population pay for their own ****.

Well, yeah. But I don't think anyone proposed to make birth control a program of its own, separate from the qualifications of the rest of need-based medical coverage. My OP said that women who quality for medical assistance should get it, or if we were to move to a single-payer system it should be included.
 
I say yes.

It will save us money in the long run. Less single mothers on welfare, less demand for other public services, etc.

There just needs to be cost control so the government isn't overpaying for the birth control.

Well ****, let's just fast forward it then. May as well collect semen/eggs from each person once they're to the age they can produce such...store them...and then have them do a mandatory vesectamy / Tubal ligation.

That would save us even MORE money in the long run and even LESS single mothers on Welfare and even LESS demand for other public services because it would no longer be relying on people to make the choice to use birth control (which, even with it free in a multitude of places today, many still choose not to do).

After all, enhanced government control into the private sector and public lives is okay in the name of less single mothers on welfare...so why stop with an ineffective measure like free birth control?
 
But people have no problem paying for prenatal care. Or all variety of other medical needs that result from personal choices. They only have a problem if a woman is trying not to get pregnant. If she decides to get pregnant, well, then, that's all hunky-dorey.

I have no issue with an insurance company choosing to provide coverage for birth control.

I also have no issue with an insurance company choosing not to have converage for pregnancy.

I also have no issue with an insurance company covering cosmetic type effects....or disqualifying you from coverage regarding lung cancer if you're a smoker...or other such things.

Of course, the reality is that if it's a big enough deal that it's a none starter with many of the insurance companies customers then they'll likely include coverage for it. As such, pregnancy coverage is likely not to go away. As such, most insurance providers are going to cover things like the pill.

It's not whether or not insurance CAN have a certain type of coverage...it's about whether or not this singular, SPECIFIC, type of coverage should be something the federal government has the power to mandate private entities provide.
 
It sure as hell is from a social perspective. Unwanted pregnancy is a social disease that creates cycles of poverty, unhappiness, sickness, and social burden, and it should most definitely be prevented and treated. It ruins lives and burdens the system.

Babies do not create cycles of poverty. Babies are born in to cultures that encourage dependence and lack a work ethic. Babies are the result, not the cause of, poverty.

What makes condoms justifiable and other birth control not?

As birth control paid for by government or insurance companies, nothing.
 
It's a condition - and if you've ever been pregnant in less than ideal circumstances you're treated like you've committed a horrible crime. . . so perhaps it's a crime against humanity.
I agree, every human deserves dignity and pregnant women and their unborn children ought to be cared for and protected. If people wanted to spend public money on guarateeing safe housing and prenatal care for women in crisis, I would whole heartedly support it.
 
Back
Top Bottom