• 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
You failed to understand my argument. My point was that they fall within that [sarcasm]blighted[/sarcasm] 47% because they have children. Devoid of that handicap, a significant fraction ("hundreds of thousands" out of "millions") would be capable of bettering themselves and obtaining jobs where they do pay income taxes. I should also mention that many would not be claiming the children tax credit, which would bump quite a few of them above the arbitrary threshold of your loathing.

You are ignoring the facts in this matter. The speed of light is c, the sun rises in the east, and people have sex. These are objective observations of reality that we must take into account when formulating our policies. No matter how much you wish it was otherwise or how loudly you harangue their folly, photons will not travel any faster than c and people will not stop having sex.

Your ultimate goal is to moderate what you perceive to be unwarranted expenditures. Will you fruitlessly persist with hysterics and impotently fume at this stalemate when liberals thwart your attempts to amputate these people from the budget? Wouldn't it be a more effective expenditure of your energies to acknowledge how little headway you will make in that direction and instead act to quell these unmitigated indiscretions? Stop reveling so much in your loathing and disdain for these people and instead do something that can undoubtedly do something to diminish the foundation of that hatred.

The sun sets and people get drunk, then drive into a tree. Should I be held responsible for their medical bill? Or their bail? It's the same concept here: take responsibility. It is not my responsibility to make people make the right decisions and I'm certainly not going to spend my time looking out for them. This nanny state ideology, the entitlement ideology is what breeds (no pun intended) people that feel I owe them something for their circumstances. You don't like it? DO something about it. Most people don't.

I don't see what the speed of light and observational truths come into play here. I'm aware that people will have sex no matter what, but those people should either be aware of the consequences, or take responsibility for them should they fail to be aware of them. It is not my fault and therefor not my responsibility to help prevent it or pay for the care afterwards.

"Amputate" them from the budget is EXACTLY what needs to happen. If they're cut off they'll shape up and make a difference, if not they'll be homeless and will have no one to blame but themselves.
 
I agree with that. In the mean time, don't we have to deal with reality?

The reality is that people expect free stuff from the government because we've been giving more and more of it away at the expense of our own citizens. The reality is that these people need a swift kick in the ass to get them back in gear, not more free stuff to show them they can keep doing nothing and live that way on someone else's dime.
 
No I'm not. The stupidity of calling contraceptive use "bad behavior" is totally separate from the issue of whether or not we should provide it to impoverished women. I was simply pointing out that it is, indeed, stupidity.

We should provide it to impoverished women because it's economically and socially prudent to do so, and because poor people are entitled to a certain standard of quality of life too, which is why we have medical care for the poor to begin with.

The stupidity of you thinking I said using contraceptives was "bad behavior" proves you didn't read everything that was said. The bad behavior is having sex irresponsibly.
 
A classmate of mine mentioned an interesting point. Most of these poor people who would require aid in the purchase of contraceptives either smoke or drink, or both. I don't want to hear that they can't afford birth control. It is irresponsible to expect aid from the rest of society when one purchases the unnecessary.
 
What are you talking about? The poor do not pay for the rich's insurance premiums (if they even care to get insurance). If anything, it's the rich that make insurance available to anyone at all.

Its like this.

the poor "pay" with their lives because they are NOT ALLOWED to get HC. 26,000 deaths each year.

The rich "free ride" becasue they close off and get ALL the HC that there is.......................

The hypocricy of the rich knows no end......

" it's the rich that make insurance available to anyone at all."

The n show us all the REAL AFFORDABLE insurance at your average retailer..........LMAO
 
Its like this.

the poor "pay" with their lives because they are NOT ALLOWED to get HC. 26,000 deaths each year.

The rich "free ride" becasue they close off and get ALL the HC that there is.......................

The hypocricy of the rich knows no end......

" it's the rich that make insurance available to anyone at all."

The n show us all the REAL AFFORDABLE insurance at your average retailer..........LMAO

Are you insane? Everyone is allowed to get insurance. If you can't afford it that's your own problem. As for pre-existing conditions, I don't really agree with the ability to reject people on this premise, but you're basically telling a business to take everyone, even if it's not a smart business decision.

Free ride? Really? Healthcare is not a basket of bagels that the rich simply hog all to themselves.

If you have a JOB, and you're working enough for the employer to care about your health, you can get health insurance. But wait! Your beloved Obamacare puts even more undue stress on the businesses that provide the healthcare, meaning they drop employees, cut hours, and cut coverage just to afford it. Putting undue stress on business in the middle of a recession, on the edge of a depression, is not a smart idea.

Oh yeah, I get dental and eyecare for about 40 bucks a month. I don't pay for primary health care because Obamacare made it so I could stay on my mom's policy. But that doesn't mean that I couldn't find affordable health care.
 
The Public Costs of Births Resulting from Unintended Pregnancies: National and State-Level Estimates - Sonfield - 2011 - Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health - Wiley Online Library

I cannot access the the report Guttmacher is quoting.

So, some thoughtful guesses? Welfare, WIC, food stamps. Many women who have unintended pregnancies cannot pay for their prenatal care, if they get it. Cannot pay for the delivery, so they apply for Medicaid and what they won't pay, the hospital writes off and passes along to the rest of us. I just mentioned Medicaid, another tax payer provided program. Then going forward, if there is no insurance, when the child is sick, that's another hit on Medicaid or a hospital write off. These are just a few off the top of my head. I would really like to read that paper though.

The Public Costs of Births Resulting from Unintended Pregnancies: National and State-Level Estimates - Sonfield - 2011 - Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health - Wiley Online Library

WIC, Welfare, Food Stamps, Medacaid... lol all these thing need to be dismantled or privatized. So going back to should public dollars be used for contraception, no it is the womens reponsibility not everyone elses
 
WIC, Welfare, Food Stamps, Medacaid... lol all these thing need to be dismantled or privatized. So going back to should public dollars be used for contraception, no it is the womens reponsibility not everyone elses

Okay, dismantled, maybe, but PRIVATIZED? Maybe someday someone will explain to me what is good about these privatization hypes. That upon elimination of the services we also ENTITLE a certain group of investors to the market segment and capitalization? Total nonsense I'm afraid. I guess some people just love losing money.
 
I say no. Being able to get these things at the expense of others not only enables bad behavior, but reinforces the entitlement ideology. Men and women should take responsibility for their decisions, not get a free ride to be irresponsible.

It depends. IF we are forced to pay for the children that come about when they get knocked up I say yes. IN an ideal world we would not have to pay for other peoples' children but as Viktyr correctly notes, its much cheaper/

its why I support abortion rights too
 
The sun sets and people get drunk, then drive into a tree. Should I be held responsible for their medical bill? Or their bail? It's the same concept here: take responsibility. It is not my responsibility to make people make the right decisions and I'm certainly not going to spend my time looking out for them. This nanny state ideology, the entitlement ideology is what breeds (no pun intended) people that feel I owe them something for their circumstances. You don't like it? DO something about it. Most people don't.

I don't see what the speed of light and observational truths come into play here. I'm aware that people will have sex no matter what, but those people should either be aware of the consequences, or take responsibility for them should they fail to be aware of them. It is not my fault and therefor not my responsibility to help prevent it or pay for the care afterwards.

"Amputate" them from the budget is EXACTLY what needs to happen. If they're cut off they'll shape up and make a difference, if not they'll be homeless and will have no one to blame but themselves.

If uninsured drunken drivers crash, destroy public infrastructure and die in the process, should your tax dollars go towards repairs? Or would you prefer not to repair the damages and content yourself by complaining that the dead drunk should have been more responsible? You might be able to get by on smug moralism, but the rest of society would prefer to have those power lines repaired.

I totally agree that people should be more aware of the consequences of unprotected sex. The point is that they AREN'T taking responsibility and grumbling about it isn't going to change that. It doesn't matter if it isn't your fault, you're still going to have to pay for educating those kids and/or hiring more police to stop them from breaking into your house and building more prisons to throw them into afterwards.

Go ahead and lobby to cut them from the budget. I'm sure they'll all just go "Oh, I'm homeless. Must be all my fault. I'll just find someplace far away from Krystov to rot to death. Wouldn't want to riot in the streets and actively attempt to tear down the society that kicked me to the curb. Sure is a good thing people like radical terrorists don't attempt to recruit angry marginalized youths."
 
I agree with everything but this. We should be doing everything we can to encourage people who are married and financially stable to have more children, and the reversals are far far more expensive than the initial procedures. Paying for reversals not only encourages people to get the procedure done in the first place, but it allows people to reverse it when the time is right.

Why do we want people to have more children? Overpopulation is a problem now.
 
WHAT????????

We do not need more people in this world.

Rather than pay for reversal of a surgical procedure, those people could adopt.

I agree, and let's make adopting easier and much less expensive.
 
Why do we want people to have more children? Overpopulation is a problem now.

Except for the fact that it isn't. Overcrowding is a problem, and resource shortages are a problem... and neither of those has to do with a shortage of space or resources. It's because our infrastructure and systems of distribution are inefficient. The Earth can support a population several times what it is currently... and current projections show that it will never exceed 10 billion people.
 
Are you insane? Everyone is allowed to get insurance. If you can't afford it that's your own problem. As for pre-existing conditions, I don't really agree with the ability to reject people on this premise, but you're basically telling a business to take everyone, even if it's not a smart business decision.

Free ride? Really? Healthcare is not a basket of bagels that the rich simply hog all to themselves.

If you have a JOB, and you're working enough for the employer to care about your health, you can get health insurance. But wait! Your beloved Obamacare puts even more undue stress on the businesses that provide the healthcare, meaning they drop employees, cut hours, and cut coverage just to afford it. Putting undue stress on business in the middle of a recession, on the edge of a depression, is not a smart idea.

Oh yeah, I get dental and eyecare for about 40 bucks a month. I don't pay for primary health care because Obamacare made it so I could stay on my mom's policy. But that doesn't mean that I couldn't find affordable health care.

Majority of USA cant "afford" it so looks like you lose.

And OBAMACARE will make HC affordable to ALL.

I will pay about $20 month for FULL REAL HC Coverage! And so will millions of low wage workers in USA, since that is the only jobs left.

OPPS, what was that about JOBS and having real HC? You are ignorant idiot if you think having a job means having HC.

And even if the workers are dumped, they WILL STILL GET HC at a lower cost! LMAO!
Employer paid is max 9.5% of pay. EXCHANGE HC will be a max of 4-8% of pay!

So again, the lies and fear mongering FAIL!

(those less than $10k in no medicaid states will have to move to medicaid states to get 100% paid Fed coverge no thanks to SCOTUS.
So agian, your lies fail)
 
Majority of USA cant "afford" it so looks like you lose.

And OBAMACARE will make HC affordable to ALL.

I will pay about $20 month for FULL REAL HC Coverage! And so will millions of low wage workers in USA, since that is the only jobs left.

OPPS, what was that about JOBS and having real HC? You are ignorant idiot if you think having a job means having HC.

And even if the workers are dumped, they WILL STILL GET HC at a lower cost! LMAO!
Employer paid is max 9.5% of pay. EXCHANGE HC will be a max of 4-8% of pay!

So again, the lies and fear mongering FAIL!

(those less than $10k in no medicaid states will have to move to medicaid states to get 100% paid Fed coverge no thanks to SCOTUS.
So agian, your lies fail)

First of all, most companies offer some form of healthcare. If you're an extremely small business it's understandable not to. Second of all, if you go work for a company full time, if they have benefits, you're probably eligible for them. Third, if healthcare is a concern of yours, don't you think it would be smart to look for a job that offers healthcare benefits? If you choose one that doesn't over one that does, it's your own fault and you have nothing behind complaints about healthcare. Finally, Obamacare makes healthcare available to all on my money. It also causes small businesses to lower hours for their employees to make up for the new expenses in healthcare coverage. This is due to the 40 hour full time qualification being lowered to 30 hours a week. The company that owns restaurants like Olive garden and Longhorn Steakhouse is a perfect example. They're projecting possible shift reductions BECAUSE of Obamacare.

You're ignorant to believe that most of the country can't afford healthcare. If you work part time for a medium size or large business, you most likely have access to health care coverage. But even if you're not, that doesn't make it right to take it out of my pocket.
 
First of all, most companies offer some form of healthcare. If you're an extremely small business it's understandable not to. Second of all, if you go work for a company full time, if they have benefits, you're probably eligible for them. Third, if healthcare is a concern of yours, don't you think it would be smart to look for a job that offers healthcare benefits? If you choose one that doesn't over one that does, it's your own fault and you have nothing behind complaints about healthcare. Finally, Obamacare makes healthcare available to all on my money. It also causes small businesses to lower hours for their employees to make up for the new expenses in healthcare coverage. This is due to the 40 hour full time qualification being lowered to 30 hours a week. The company that owns restaurants like Olive garden and Longhorn Steakhouse is a perfect example. They're projecting possible shift reductions BECAUSE of Obamacare.

You're ignorant to believe that most of the country can't afford healthcare. If you work part time for a medium size or large business, you most likely have access to health care coverage. But even if you're not, that doesn't make it right to take it out of my pocket.

Your ignorant because you have not read the bill and just respout the latest GOP and CEO lies.

1: reducing hours makes NO DIFFERENCE to getting HC under Obamacare. ALL workers will stil l get it. If you earn over $10k year, you wil l get it. * And at the same price (%) of pay. if you earn less, the SAME HC costs LESS.
This is a way to get the ignorant workers to fear and hate obama care for the election.

2: America has no credible jobs to offer. So I and millions have no "choice". More lies of the rich. Fake HC is not HC, my plan covers $100 of an ER visit for 50% of my pay........

3: "my money" ??? If your earn over $250,000, then screw you. You can afford a TINY .9% tax. And the tan tax on that trophy wife of yours.......LMAO

* if you earn less than $10k you will have to move to a Dem run Medicaid state to get obamacare.
 
I've found that 90% (or more) of opposition to federally mandated birth control inclusion in insurance policies is religiously based. In their convoluted stone age thinking, they believe it somehow violates God's plan for humanity.

That is what should be discussed. Everything else is flotsam, jetsam, diversion and straw man arguments.
 
Your ignorant because you have not read the bill and just respout the latest GOP and CEO lies.

1: reducing hours makes NO DIFFERENCE to getting HC under Obamacare. ALL workers will stil l get it. If you earn over $10k year, you wil l get it. * And at the same price (%) of pay. if you earn less, the SAME HC costs LESS.
This is a way to get the ignorant workers to fear and hate obama care for the election.

2: America has no credible jobs to offer. So I and millions have no "choice". More lies of the rich. Fake HC is not HC, my plan covers $100 of an ER visit for 50% of my pay........

3: "my money" ??? If your earn over $250,000, then screw you. You can afford a TINY .9% tax. And the tan tax on that trophy wife of yours.......LMAO

* if you earn less than $10k you will have to move to a Dem run Medicaid state to get obamacare.

In case you hadn't noticed, but I'm a student. I don't make anything right now from work. Yet I still have to pay capital gains taxes. Considering I don't have a job that's much needed money.

What do you mean you have no "choice"? You can choose which healthcare provider you want if your company doesn't provide one, or the one you want. Whether or not you can afford it is not my problem.

Where does the government get their money? The people. How are social programs like Obamacare funded? Through taxpayer dollars. Don't tell me it won't cost me anything when I'm going to be paying what the poor people can't.

America has no credible jobs!? You really are an idiot if you believe that. We have a BOOMING information technology industry. Companies are paying out the ass for programmers, systems analysts, project managers, network/database administrators. It's not my fault, nor my responsibility to pay for people who choose to be art majors who can't find a job when they get out of college. That's their own damn fault. What about the healthcare industry? That is a completely reliable field to work in, despite the negative affects of Obamacare.

Are you aware that 10k a year is 5.20 an hour at full time? You can work part time and still make 10k a year. If you're not making 10k a year, you're not trying.

"my money" ??? If your earn over $250,000, then screw you. You can afford a TINY .9% tax. And the tan tax on that trophy wife of yours.......LMAO

No, screw you for thinking that I'm not entitled to the money I earn. Screw you for believing you deserve a piece of what I earn because you make less than I do, or you chose the wrong career path. That is not my problem, and should not be my responsibility to pay for it.
 
I will agree that the American taxpayer shouldn't pay for an individual woman's birth control, but then again, the American taxpayer shouldn't pay for anyone's *ANYTHING*!
 
I will probably be branded hard hearted, but I think people should take responsibility for what they choose to do.

Those who can't afford to buy their own contraceptives should not be having sex.
Those who can't afford to provide adequate housing, food, shelter, clothing, education, etc. for their children should not have them.
Those who cannot or will not provide adequate housing, food, shelter, clothing, education etc. for their children should have their children taken away from them.

Make these American values again and the cultural norm, and the problem on all fronts is solved.
 
I will probably be branded hard hearted, but I think people should take responsibility for what they choose to do.

Those who can't afford to buy their own contraceptives should not be having sex.
Those who can't afford to provide adequate housing, food, shelter, clothing, education, etc. for their children should not have them.
Those who cannot or will not provide adequate housing, food, shelter, clothing, education etc. for their children should have their children taken away from them.

Make these American values again and the cultural norm, and the problem on all fronts is solved.

Agree with you on all counts. Unfortunately we've set in this ideology of entitlement and now everyone who can't provide for themselves (willingly or not) feel that the people who can owe them something. I'm not working so those people can ride on my back (or the country's back) without getting something in return; things they're not providing right now.

If you are unwilling to support yourself, why should I be willing to?
 
I will probably be branded hard hearted, but I think people should take responsibility for what they choose to do.

Those who can't afford to buy their own contraceptives should not be having sex.
Those who can't afford to provide adequate housing, food, shelter, clothing, education, etc. for their children should not have them.
Those who cannot or will not provide adequate housing, food, shelter, clothing, education etc. for their children should have their children taken away from them.

Make these American values again and the cultural norm, and the problem on all fronts is solved.

You know, except for all the blueballs and orphans.
 
I say no. Being able to get these things at the expense of others not only enables bad behavior, but reinforces the entitlement ideology. Men and women should take responsibility for their decisions, not get a free ride to be irresponsible.
Yes, and the tax-payer should have to pay for my tithing as well. Both are voluntary actions and protected behaviors, so if we're going to have an entitlement sociaty then let's just do it.
 
You know, except for all the blueballs and orphans.

There are all kinds of ways to take care of the first without engaging in risky sex.

And I am guessing that if women can't look forward to a government check in reward for having a baby, they won't want and won't be having a lot of babies they can't support. It won't cost us nearly as much to rear the few kids that the parents don't want and won't support in a good private or public orphanage where the kids will be housed, fed, clothed, educated, and loved. Such kids don't wind up running in gangs, aren't subject to being beat up or killed as a routine part of life, and they are very unlikely to land in prison or grow up expecting or needing welfare.
 
There are all kinds of ways to take care of the first without engaging in risky sex.

Ya, well you go to hell for that too. If you're going to do the time, might as well do the better crime.

And I am guessing that if women can't look forward to a government check in reward for having a baby, they won't want and won't be having a lot of babies they can't support.

Uhh, I think that's an argument for a different thread. This ones about giving those women contraceptives so the gubmint avoids writing that check.

It won't cost us nearly as much to rear the few kids that the parents don't want and won't support in a good private or public orphanage where the kids will be housed, fed, clothed, educated, and loved. Such kids don't wind up running in gangs, aren't subject to being beat up or killed as a routine part of life, and they are very unlikely to land in prison or grow up expecting or needing welfare.

I was going to write a response to this comment but I kept spitting up on my chin.
 
Back
Top Bottom