Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"Pregnancy is not an illness".... nor is a broken leg. You're not thinking this stuff through very far, John."Obviously you or your female relatives have never had breast cancer, because I have a feeling you'd find that much more important than birth control.""You're comparing free birth control to treating actual illnesses. "You're comparing free birth control to treating actual illnesses. Think you might want to look at your own logic there bud. It doesn't get much more fallacious than that. I have a feeling I'm going to get more of the same in your next response. If so, I wouldn't even bother.
In terms of overall importance and risk, that's right, I am doing exactly that. Again, number one most important health and economic issue over a woman's lifetime: reproduction and control over it. Number one. Numero Uno.
Obviously you or your female relatives have never had breast cancer, because I have a feeling you'd find that much more important than birth control.
That's not how policy works, or an insurance risk pool. To illustrate: a terminal disease is worse than chickenpox, but we don't vaccinate against ALL terminal diseases. Overall, over a population of women, or you can look at it as a probability for each, the number one issue is reproductive health.
Pregnancy is not an illness. Control over it is a phenomenal privilege.
So, let's see here, just to sum it up
1. Many if not most women would still have it covered even without the mandate. No change there.
2. Those remaining would pay, but not at some outrageous, un-affordable cost. Or they could just go with condoms if they're too poor to pay for cheap birth control. Or just stay celibate until they get their shit together. It's crazy how many choices are actually out there for women, right? You'd think frequent unprotected sex was mandatory for them, the way you talk about it.
3. Despite all these caveats, this is still more important to you than treating terminal illnesses, somehow.
Okay, welp, don't know what more there is to say about that. I think I'll stick to my original POV, being; I don't care about women's sex lives and control thereof, because they certainly, ABSOLUTELY, do not care about mine, or men's in general. You get what you give in this world.
"Most women" is not enough.
I didn't suggest that we shouldn't insure treatment of terminal illness..... way off the mark, there...
Because women represent half the population. Just as insurance pays for health issues specific to males. Again, this is the number one health issue for a woman, overall. #1. Numero Uno.
I don't think there is anything tabled by the GOP to pay for your medicine, is there? lay off the commie nonsense. Medicare doesn't pay for this?"As far as Democrats are concerned, if I can't afford my medication, die."You are being too simple, that's your problem. Control of one's own reproductive health is the number one most important health and economic issue to a woman. I disagree that it is reasonable to expect woman either not to have sex, or pay out-of-pocket for contraception. It's an absurd standard based in fantasyland, not reality. The issue of individual health supersedes it, and it's not even close . It is ridiculous idea that pointing at people and saying "Do better!" is effective at all; it actually causes MORE problems, when done in lieu of an actual, smart solution.
Also, insurance companies prefer to cover it, simply for economic reasons.
yes, you are being too simple.
I'm not a woman, so I don't really care. Why should I? They certainly don't care about men's health. Just take a look at the disparity between R&D on breast and prostate cancer. Men die 5 years younger on average, last I checked. Is anyone really concerned about that? No. They aren't.
So forgive me if I'm not overly concerned if Sally doesn't get to fuck as much as she wants with no consequences, fo' FREE.
Nothing would really change, except women would pay a little bit more. Most women still wouldn't have to pay anything because it would still be covered under their employer's plan.
Exactly. I have medical conditions that require life sustaining medications. They cost me around $200.00 a month. So why didn't the commies insist that be in our coverage instead of broads that want to Fk around? Because people like me don't represent a lot of votes.
As far as Democrats are concerned, if I can't afford my medication, die. But if we remove BC coverage, now we have a fight. Because as far as a commie is concerned, force employers to provide for their constituents instead of those of us on life sustaining medications.
It's all about politics with the left.
Whoah whoah whoah, I want to hear a bit more about this. trust me, I plan no defense of Democrats. I want to hear why your drug is not covered, as relates to legislation.
So where in Commie Care is it stated that insurance plans must cover life sustaining medications? After all, it's stated they must include birth control. Thats the reason for the OP.
In my case, I'm an insulin dependent diabetic. I have heart failure. If I don't take one of the many medications I need to survive, I die, and that's just fine by the commies.
"Do you really believe that our founders created a federal government to force industry to provide benefits? "yes, it should be mandated by the government. yes, all insurance should cover it.Yes, it is necessary. It's called "realistic policy" and gives absolutely no weight whatsoever to what you think people should or should not do, nor any weight to anyone's religious nuttery. And that is good and correct, and you are on the wrong side of history.No, it isn't.
People are not forced to reproduce, or not reproduce. That's called a choice.
People are forced to take medicines for their illnesses, or else they suffer needlessly from those illnesses.
Women are strong and independent. I'm sure they could afford to pay for their own "reproduction control" by now.
Bottom line is, sex is a choice, not a necessity. Like any other fun thing you do of your own free will, you should pay for it from your own pocket.
Insurance and employer can work out whether they want to cover it or not. It should not be mandated by the government.
You basically just want your hobbies paid for and to have this mandated by the government. Guess what I love to do? Drink. Maybe the government should start forcing insurance companies to pay for my booze.
Do you really believe that our founders created a federal government to force industry to provide benefits? WTF did you learn your history from? Better still, if that's the role of the federal government, point to the constitutional part that says it's the role of the federal government.
I don't care, in this case. I don't think they had any concept of the scientific reality we enjoy today, and which has greatly benefited our standard of life. In this case, no, I do not care what they thought, chiefly because they never gave this particular issue any thought whatsoever and had never conceived of it.
You are pigeon-holing and characterizing this issue to your preference for the convenience of your argument. And that's fine, there's no rules of logic or ethics broken to do so, and it's a fair thing to do. But you have to remember that you have done so, so that, when someone like me says he "doesn't care", you don't really get to accuse me of being unconstitutional. Sorry. I know that was probably the big payoff for you.
There's no such thing as absolute liberty, the government has to regulate all kinds of things in your life for the good of everyone, that's the government's job.Having government help with health care is losing liberty?It's Un-American for Americans to have health coverage overseen by the Feds?that isn't a question relevant only to birth control.
and the fact is they DO provide prescription coverage... and it is relevant because most of us have employer based insurance.
Prescription coverage is a rider, not part of all plans. It's no different than cosmetic surgery or dental.
IF you do have prescription coverage, it will cover birth control pills as it does Viagra. However this idiotic law goes beyond birth control pills. That's kind of the point.
The main point here is that the federal government should not be dictating what kind of coverage an employer carries for it's employees. That's as un-American as it gets; especially since this was nothing more than vote buying in the first place.
Overseen and force are way two different things. Whenever you have the two words "force" and "government" in the same paragraph, look out, because you are about to lose some liberty.
Yep. Ask any employer that paid the fine for not providing insurance, or those who did provide insurance and had to meet government standards. That's right, businesses lost liberty.
No right is absolute in the US, just ask Muslims who want sharia law.Which is why the government needs to step in and slap these religious nutters.
Please explain exactly how you expect the government to step in and slap down people of faith.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
So you just admitted that it does have something to do with health. Thanks for clearing that up.You realize the birth control is a tiny fractional part of a company's health bill, don't you? And you realize also that it shows your unhinged Christian mindset, don't you? Well, probably not.
Don't care. Fucking has nothing to do with health (unless you have a STD).
Er, I'm an athiest....
i care that women are killing babies as a consequence of sexual fun. really sad.
i care that women are killing babies as a consequence of sexual fun. really sad.
If you guys cared about 'babies' being killed, you support family leave, universal health care and comprehensive sex education.
Or we'd support enabling two parents to raise their children.
Or we'd support enabling two parents to raise their children.
Okay, that's awesome. Given your party has been driving down middle class wages for four decades now, and supporting a massive shift of the wealth to the rich, I'm sure you'll get right on that.
I declare by proclamation that people have the right to buy birth control products!If you oppose abortion, then make birth control a right.
So you just admitted that it does have something to do with health. Thanks for clearing that up.You realize the birth control is a tiny fractional part of a company's health bill, don't you? And you realize also that it shows your unhinged Christian mindset, don't you? Well, probably not.
Don't care. Fucking has nothing to do with health (unless you have a STD).
Er, I'm an athiest....
Or we'd support enabling two parents to raise their children.
Okay, that's awesome. Given your party has been driving down middle class wages for four decades now, and supporting a massive shift of the wealth to the rich, I'm sure you'll get right on that.
So you just admitted that it does have something to do with health. Thanks for clearing that up.You realize the birth control is a tiny fractional part of a company's health bill, don't you? And you realize also that it shows your unhinged Christian mindset, don't you? Well, probably not.
Don't care. Fucking has nothing to do with health (unless you have a STD).
Er, I'm an athiest....
There's no such thing as absolute liberty, the government has to regulate all kinds of things in your life for the good of everyone, that's the government's job.Having government help with health care is losing liberty?It's Un-American for Americans to have health coverage overseen by the Feds?Prescription coverage is a rider, not part of all plans. It's no different than cosmetic surgery or dental.
IF you do have prescription coverage, it will cover birth control pills as it does Viagra. However this idiotic law goes beyond birth control pills. That's kind of the point.
The main point here is that the federal government should not be dictating what kind of coverage an employer carries for it's employees. That's as un-American as it gets; especially since this was nothing more than vote buying in the first place.
Overseen and force are way two different things. Whenever you have the two words "force" and "government" in the same paragraph, look out, because you are about to lose some liberty.
Yep. Ask any employer that paid the fine for not providing insurance, or those who did provide insurance and had to meet government standards. That's right, businesses lost liberty.
I thought it was unions that chased jobs out of the country that did that.
I thought it was unions that chased jobs out of the country that did that.
Well, that's because you are retarded.
Then again, you blame the black guy for your boss cancelling your health insurance.
Investment in automation had nothing to do with unions.Or we'd support enabling two parents to raise their children.
Okay, that's awesome. Given your party has been driving down middle class wages for four decades now, and supporting a massive shift of the wealth to the rich, I'm sure you'll get right on that.
They have? How did they do that?
I thought it was unions that chased jobs out of the country that did that. Or demands so high companies invested in automation. Or the virtual open border policies of the Democrat party. I guess not. I guess it was all the GOP's fault somehow.
