CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
So..., to sum up. Women want to work for religious organizations and force them to provide health coverage for contraceptives. This means that the cost will be passed on to everyone else.
Women wanted, and have, control over their lives and their bodies. If they get pregnant, they can have an abortion. If they can't afford contraceptives, they can force the guy to buy them or settle for "alternative sex." If their employer doesn't offer a health care plan that covers contraceptives, they can find employment with an employer that does offer a health care plan that does cover contraceptives. Finally, a woman can abstain from having sex. A woman has many options, but the option the woman in the video wants is to use the Democrat party in order to force religious employers to provide health care coverage for something those employers find offensive.
If a woman's health insurance doesn't cover contraception and they can't afford it otherwise, what makes you think they can suddenly afford an abortion? Since all the idiot Republicans are trying to ban those as well, what do you propose everyone to do?
I detect some pent-up tension brewing within your rather fallacious argument.
If a woman's health insurance doesn't cover contraception and they can't afford it otherwise, what makes you think they can suddenly afford an abortion?
What makes you think it is any of my business?
Since all the idiot Republicans are trying to ban those as well, what do you propose everyone to do?
I get it now! Everybody is an idiot who disagrees with you (and that "you" is a general "you", not just you, but your fellow Democratic airheads).
Ha ha, you just did what you accused the commenter of doing. I.e. Calling the people who disagree with you stupid.
I take it that this is what you are talking about:
I get it now! Everybody is an idiot who disagrees with you (and that "you" is a general "you", not just you, but your fellow Democratic airheads).
I didn't really mean it as an insult to people who disagree with me as much as I did mean it as an insult to those who insult pettily, people who, I find, tend to be of the Democratic persuasion.
But, just to even things out:
Republican airheads annoy the hell out of me, too!
I'm on birth control already you fucking moron. I know, this is a foreign concept to you, but, did you ever consider there are other people on this earth?
What about the men who want to go "whoring around"?
It only applies to one sex in your mind, doesn't it?
In case you weren't aware, a male version of The Pill is in development. I would support any man wanting insurance to cover it for them as well. Would those men be guilty of wanting to go "whoring around"?
Yep. I don't want to pay for male contraceptives either. If they want to go whoring around, they can pay for it with their own money. Is that too difficult for your little brain to understand?
I'm an equal opportunity bitch. Women fought hard for their rights and I loath to have some cunt ruin it by stating that women can't stand on their own two feet. You can't have it both ways honey.
If you think that utilizing health insurance coverage is a failure to stand "on your own two feet," then the answer for you is very simple -- don't buy health insurance.
So is that really what you believe -- that you are failing to stand on your own two feet every time your insurance pays for a percentage of your pap smear, your mammogram, your antibiotics, your annual physical, your blood culture, your emergency medical procedure, etc.? Because "you can't have it both ways, honey."
It is these religious organization's rights to not pay for a woman's contraceptives. While I do not see the problem in paying for it, it is part of their religious rights. Why can't they just make the guy bring a condom or two? Also, a little side question... How little are they making that they can't afford birth control pills?
I agree. We are a horny bunch. When we are not arguing amongst ourselves, we are screwing each other. ;)
BTW, that number was quoted by the progressive chick in the video. Typically, our progressives are the horniest of all. Which is why they want free contraceptives and abortions, just in case. An example of a horny progressive would be Bill Clinton. ;)
Leaving aside the clearly biased way in which the debate-creator has framed the question . . .
......................................
SUMMARY ('cause this post is long)
Yes, contraception coverage should be required because:
1. It's cheaper for everybody in the long run;
2. Most insurers already provide it -- they're just doing a lousy job and need to be doing it better;
3. Health care authorities identify it as an important health care need;
4. The issue of "religious liberty" is a red herring; and
5. Unplanned pregnancy is a social problem of concern to everyone, in which both sexes are involved, and thus it is sensible that everyone should contribute to carrying the costs.
......................................
Point one: requiring contraception coverage saves us all money. That's right, SAVES. It saves us all money because it costs a heck of a lot less to provide contraception coverage than it does to absorb the costs of all the various coverages and benefits involved in unplanned pregnancies. (Whether or not one agrees that one's insurance premiums or tax monies should go towards providing for such various unplanned-pregnancy-related coverages and benefits is not the topic of this debate. For this topic, it is relevant only that as a factual matter, they do. If you want to debate prenatal care coverage or welfare availability or some other topic, kindly create another debate for it.)
The accepted estimated averages for per-woman cost of contraception range between $360 and $600 a year (not $3000, as somebody else has suggested; while Sandra Fluke suggested an average of $3000 incurred in contraceptive costs during the course of law school, that's a three-to-four-year program, and hers would still be a high estimate compared to the most commonly-advanced numbers). Most analysis I've seen predicts that mandating comprehensive contraception coverage might impact individual premiums by up to $16. That is a negligible amount when compared with the absorbing the cost increase for prenatal care, pediatric care, social welfare benefits, etc. etc. that could be predictably expected to result from unplanned pregnancy (whether yours or someone else's).
"Each year, publicly funded family planning in the United States allows women to avoid 1.94 million unintended pregnancies. Without these services, levels of unintended pregnancy and abortion in the United States each year would be about two-thirds higher among women overall and among teens, and almost twice as high among poor women . . . Absent publicly supported services, the U.S. abortion rate— currently one-third below its peak in 1980— would be higher than it has ever been . . . [Additionally,] More than nine in 10 women receiving publicly funded family planning services would be eligible for Medicaid-funded prenatal, delivery and postpartum care services if they became pregnant. As a result, every dollar invested in helping women avoid pregnancies they do not want to have saves $4.02 in federal and state Medicaid expenditures." (Guttmacher Policy Review vol. 12 no. 1 (Winter 2009), accessible at: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/12/1/ gpr120119.html (emphasis added)).
Moreover, unintended pregnancy -- particularly unintended teen pregnancy -- significantly impacts women's participation in the labor market. In other words, women who become unintentionally pregnant -- especially at a young age -- are less likely to pursue further education, less likely to work in lucrative careers, less likely to work steadily or at all, and more likely to collect government benefits. Requiring insurers to provide contraceptive coverage makes sense for the same reasons that requiring parents to provide their children with education makes sense -- it's an investment in the nation's future earning potential. It makes us a wealthier and more productive country down the line. It ultimately means more Americans at work, and more Americans at work doing things that create additional jobs. We gain real benefits by insisting on contraception coverage, and we incur real costs if we don't. Putting government money towards the objective of providing access to contraception also makes sense, for the exact same reasons.
Additionally, the whole notion of "I'm not paying for somebody else's health care costs" is silly, because you do that every time you buy health insurance or go to see any medical provider. Your insurance premiums are basically what it costs you to buy into a "pool" that hedges each purchaser against the costs of an expensive illness or injury on the principle that not many members of the "pool" will actually have an expensive illness or injury. In other words, it spreads out the costs of paying for the people who do have expensive illness or injury (plus the insurance company's profit margin) among the group of purchasers as a whole. It is totally irrelevant to your premium amount that you personally don't end up getting ill or injured during the coverage period -- in fact that's the whole point of "insurance," at least from the insurance company's perspective. Some other people who have the same insurer did get ill or injured during the time period that was used in calculating your base premiums, and the insurer paid for it, and those costs got passed on to you. So, if you really want to pay for your health care costs and only your health care costs, don't buy insurance at all -- stick your money in a bank account and pay for all personal health needs out-of-pocket as they come up. Even then, you're still going to be paying medical bills designed to absorb the provider's costs not only from your own care, but also for the care of everybody who stiffs the provider on the bill (which is a standard factor in how medical providers decide how much to charge for services, and which also would presumably happen a lot less if the non-paying patients had insurance that covered the services).
The upshot is that any time you pay money to any health provider or insurer, part of that money is going to the anticipated costs of providing for other people's care. The only real question left is how to best minimize that expense and maximize the benefit from it, and an obvious answer is: use it on stuff that will prevent me from having to pay even more money for other people's needs in the future. Contraception falls into that category.
Whatever your personal moral opinions on sexual expression may be, the plain fact is that a whole lot of people who don't want to be parents in nine months are going to screw nonetheless. That's going to have consequences. Absent affordable, available, safe, and user-friendly birth control, those consequences will include things like a big increase in the use of abortion services, prenatal services, and pediatric services, all of which will ultimately have an impact on your insurance premiums and/or your tax burden. Notably, unplanned pregnancies are also more likely to result in poor infant and maternal health (for all kinds of reasons including inadequate access to or use of prenatal care, poor self-care, and the health impact of too many pregnancies or pregnancy at too young an age), which means more and higher long-term costs incurred in providing additional health care. Those increased costs to the insurer would also be passed on to purchasers via some level of increase in everybody's premiums, and ditto for distributing the increase in Medicare/Medicaid costs among taxpayers.
Also, absent birth control coverage, the consequences of other-people-screwing-whether-you-approve-of-it-or-not will further include things that state and federal governments agree are social needs, like childhood nutrition and education. We taxpayers essentially pay for that stuff too. Since women who become unintentionally pregnant are more likely to be low wage-earners, this means fewer of us paying more for that stuff.
It therefore makes sense for insurance to cover contraception for the same reason it makes sense for insurance to cover routine checkups and procedures -- it's cheaper than paying for the future consequences of you not getting those things. Likewise, it makes sense for government to mandate contraceptive coverage for much the same reason -- because it cuts their costs in the long run. It also makes sense for us as individuals to support requiring such coverage, again for the same reason -- it ends up costing us all a lot less than the alternative.
.....................
Second point: contraceptive coverage is increasingly the norm in this country already. Just over half the states require it. Most private insurers in any state provide at least some coverage because (a) it's what people want, and (b) most insurance plans are standardized as much as possible-- it's simpler for the insurer if they can use pretty much the same contract whether the purchaser is in Georgia or Wisconsin or California. Providing contraceptive coverage has been the going trend among insurers in the U.S. for a couple of decades now. It's really not as though it's some radical change that's being contemplated. Check your own policy or those of your female relatives -- you're probably already paying for contraception coverage.
What you are probably not getting in exchange for your money is adequate coverage, because your plan may or may not cover the type of birth control that, for reasons of health or availability or choice, you or your covered female family member would prefer to use. Here, promoting more comprehensive coverage provides a particular benefit to women whose coverage is through an employer (whether their own or a family member's) on an essentially "take-it-or-leave-it" deal. The economic reality for many such individuals is that they cannot afford additional or independent health care coverage; they get what the boss-man gives them. The real change that's being contemplated by the legislation is that it would require insurers to cover all FDA-approved contraception. So instead of the current situation where nearly everybody is already paying for inadequate contraceptive coverage, pretty much everybody would be paying for substantially better contraceptive coverage. Again here, it's in everybody's best economic interest to do this both because it prevents the future tax and insurance burdens of unplanned pregnancies, and because it frees up the disposable income of other contraceptive-users so they can plug that cash back into useful vectors of the economy (e.g., by spending it on stuff other than contraceptives manufactured in offshore facilities by multinational conglomerates who can charge whatever they darn well please because the lack of a government health-care mandate minimizes the pressure on them to do otherwise).
.....................
Third point: insofar as the argument that "recreational sex is not a health need" is concerned, then why in the hell am I "paying" for your Viagra? Because that is covered by almost all insurance plans.
More centrally, medical authorities do identify contraception as a "health care need." The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Statement on Contraceptive Equity observes that "[c]ontraception is medically necessary to a woman for more than 30 years of her life. To ignore the health benefits of contraception is to say that the alternative of 12 to 15 pregnancies during a woman's lifetime is medically acceptable." (Accessible at: http://www.acog.org/About_ACOG/ACOG_Departments/State_Legislative_Activities/Contraceptive_Equity_Legislation ). Contraception is also one of the eight recommendations for women's preventive health care services made to Congress by the Institute of Medicine, or IOM (part of the National Academy of Sciences) -- that's one big reason it went into the Affordable Care Act in the first place. (See National Conference of State Legislatures, "Insurance Coverage for Contraception Laws," accessible at: http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/insurance-coverage-for-contraception-state-laws.aspx ). So the medical authorities that we entrust to tell us (among other things) what is and is not a "health care need" have weighed in and said yeah, this is one.
Moreover, as someone else has pointed out, the same drugs that are used as contraceptives are also used to treat other health needs, some of which can be quite serious (polycystic ovaries, uterine fibroids and some other types of tumors, and various menstrual disorders including uterine hemorrhaging, just to name a few). One statistic I've seen estimates that 1.5 million American women use "contraceptive" medications exclusively as treatment for a serious health condition, and all women need coverage that provides for effective health treatment in these circumstances.
(As an aside to the issue of "health needs," there really is a glaring inconsistency in that erectile dysfunction drugs are covered whereas contraceptives are not necessarily covered. I would very much like someone to explain in a rational manner how it is that getting an erection is a "health care need," whereas using an erection is not. I honestly can't think of any health care need that would be served by getting an erection you can't use.)
.....................
Next, in addition to all the good economic and health care arguments in favor of mandating coverage, the notion that an insurance requirement infringes on religious liberty is just pure bollocks. "Religious liberty" does not grant an unlimited freedom to act or refrain from action. For example, Catholic hospitals can't refuse to hire non-Catholics, they can't require their patients or employees to attend mass, and they can't refuse to treat drag queens. They aren't churches, and most if not all of them get public money. That means government gets a fair amount of say in what they can and can't do.
As one writer for the AMA Journal of Ethics points out, not only is there a legally important distinction between an organization with a religious affiliation (like a Catholic or Jewish hospital) and one with a religious mission (like a church or synagogue), there is also no clear reason that the religious beliefs of an insurer or employer should trump those of the insured or the employee. (See A. Sonfield, " The Religious Exemption to Mandated Insurance Coverage of Contraception," Virtual Mentor - The American Medical Association Journal of Ethics vol. 14 no. 2 (Feb. 2012), accessible online at: http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2012/02/pfor1-1202.html ).
It also makes sense to be very cautious about allowing health care providers to refuse to provide treatment on purely "moral" grounds. The job of a health care provider is not to enforce a particular individual moral stance; it's to provide appropriate health care to each of the patients in accordance with accepted medical guidelines. If we really want to talk about a provider's "choice," we should also talk about his or her choice to assume responsibility for providing the best possible patient care. If the provider can't do that, for whatever "moral" reason, maybe he or she ought to find some other line of work.
.....................
Finally, the notion that contraception is exclusively "about women" or is a "woman's concern" is just ridiculous on its face. Women do not impregnate themselves. Access to contraception is not just a "woman's concern," it is everybody's concern. So yes, once again, it does make perfect sense that everybody should contribute to paying for it.
OK... I really tried to read all of it but..., it just made me realize that I really don't care about the cost or any of it. All I care about is keeping the government out of my life.
If there are already non-religious private insurance providing it, then there's no reason to require religious institutions to provide it. separation of church and state. I am sickened by the slow, but continuous, erosion of the constitution and our civil liberties.
I think your response misses the argument. This has nothing to do with civil liberties or the separation of church and state. Health care providers aren't churches.
As noted in my main argument, this is more like an employment situation or a service-providing situation. Restaurants can't refuse to hire or serve blacks, Catholic hospitals can't make employees or patients go to mass, etc. These are businesses, not religious institutions, so all the normal rules of anti-discrimination law apply. In the case of health care providers like hospitals, most of 'em also get government money, which gives government even greater freedom to tell them what they can and cannot do.
Moreover, the constitutional protections on religious freedom are designed to protect individual liberties to believe or not believe -- they don't necessarily provide organizations with a right to act (or not to act). Protection of religious freedom really doesn't have anything to do with either health care or insurance coverage.
Well first of all, yes it is, because government has established all sorts of interests in how businesses conduct their affairs -- including anti-discrimination law, health and safety law, securities and anti-trust law, RICO and anti-conspiracy law, tax law, wage law, foreign worker employment law, patent and copyright law, child labor law, environmental law, and heaven alone knows what else. Congress also has an express constitutional (and extremely far-reaching) authority to regulate commerce among the states under Art. 1 Sec. 8 Cl. 3 (conventionally called the Commerce Clause). So yeah, in a lot of ways it actually is government's job to tell people how to run their businesses; that's the law.
Second, whether government should "interfere" in business at all is not really the topic. The topic is the contraception coverage requirement. So your "point" is a bit far-reaching given the scope of this topic; in fact, it seems less like an argument for or against contraception coverage, and more like a wholly different debate topic.
Just because the government does something does NOT mean that it was empowered to do such a thing by the constitution. The constitution describes exactly what the federal government is empowered to do. For example, the power to protect our borders is allocated to the federal government, not the state government, ans yet the federal government is not doing its job with regards to illegal immigration and states are hindered from protecting their own borders. Just because the federal government is not doing something does not mean that it is not empowered to do so. By the constitution Conversely, just because it is doing something doesn't mean that it is empowered to do so by the constitution.
Second, I know the topic. It's MY debate. The issue of dictating to a company is just a small part of the bigger problem of the federal government over stepping its bounds. We are in the mess we are in because the federal government has been doing this for decades. Slowly eroding our liberties. One little issue at a time. I don't want the federal government to win on this issue.
You may see government as a good thing. I see the government as THE problem.
Ya vo, and I know the Constitution. Please do Google the Commerce Clause, and/or go to Google Scholar and read some Supreme Court opinions concerning Congress' power to regulate commerce. It is most assuredly empowered to regulate commerce among the states by the Constitution, and Supreme Court decisions will affirm that yes, this is a very far-reaching power. In fact, whether the Commerce Clause provides proper authority for the Affordable Care Act has been a major theme of the court cases addressing the Act's legality. There's no doubt at all, however, that the Commerce Clause is in fact part of the Constitution. Again, it's at Art. 1 Sec. 8 Cl. 3.
You will also find plenty of decisional law that says Congress can set nearly any conditions it pleases on the receipt of federal funding. In other words, if you want government money, government gets a whole lot of freedom to tell you what you can and can't do. Most health care providers get government money (most commonly by accepting Medicare and Medicaid, but often via other funding avenues as well). This power to set conditions on the receipt of federal funds falls under the Taxing and Spending Clause, which is in the Constitution at Art. 1 Sec. 8 Cl. 1.
And it's really not "YOUR" debate per se -- this is a public forum. You are the debate creator, though, so I'm sort of surprised at your inability to stick to the topic you posted. This is not a debate about whether the federal government can or should regulate business, it's not a debate about whether government is a good or bad thing, and it's not a list of examples of issues where you think the government is overstepping its bounds. The debate topic you posted is about the contraception coverage requirement. You are of course totally welcome to make new debate topics for these other issues, but what you posted, and what I responded to, is the issue of contraception coverage.
It is most assuredly empowered to regulate commerce among the states
YES!!! But a religious organization that is solely based in one state does NOT fall under that clause.
1) Health care providers and insurers are not "religious organizations"; and
2) A business does not have to operate in multiple states to affect commerce "among the states" in such a way that Congress can successfully invoke the Commerce Clause to regulate it. As an example, Congress has successfully invoked the Commerce Clause as its authority for prohibiting people from growing dope in their homes for 100% personal use -- because that affects local dope prices, which affects state dope prices, which affects interstate dope prices, which affects commerce among the states. (Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).) The Commerce Clause is that far-reaching.
You will also find plenty of decisional law that says Congress can set nearly any conditions it pleases on the receipt of federal funding.
YES!!! Which is why those religious organizations should get off federal funding.
1) Health care providers and insurers are not "religious organizations"; and
2) That's not the topic of debate in this forum, but by all means feel free to create another debate concerning the question of whether health care providers should refuse to take Medicare and Medicaid. (I can tell you right now that most health care providers would answer "good God no; we'd go belly-up if we didn't take it.")
And it's really not "YOUR" debate per se
Oh really? ;) Would you like to put that to the test? How about I delete it? That ought to prove who's debate it is ;)
That actually wouldn't prove anything -- except, perhaps, that your position is too weak to withstand debate. ;)
OK..., so what's your goal? I'm still not convinced. You haven't changed my mind. I think that government should stay out of private business. I should be allowed to grow my own pot for my own personal use. I hope Obama loses the next election and that they revoke Obama Care.
As far as my position being weak.... The majority of the people on this debate agree with me that the government should NOT get in the business of telling insurance companies how to run their business. The only purpose of me deleting this debate would be to prove to you that I own it and I have the power to do with it as I wish.
BTW, Catholic hospitals are faith-based institutions.
1. My primary "goal" in posting on this thread has been to participate in debate about the TOPIC, which is the contraception coverage requirement. My secondary goal has been to provide some discussion of how Constitutional law applies to the issue of contraception coverage requirements whenever you respond to one of my posts with an incorrect assertion on that subject. I didn't really expect to change your mind, especially given that you led off by noting that you hadn't actually bothered to read my argument and that you didn't really give a crap about the arguments for and against contraception coverage anyway.
...
2. As for the whole rest of your first paragraph, that's all ducky for you, but none of those things are the debate topic that you posted here. If you'd like to debate any or all of those issues, you are entirely welcome to create new debate threads for each of them (and frankly I'd be interested to see if you even know what "Obamacare" does), but those things aren't the topic of this debate. The topic (and you should know it; you posted it) is the contraception coverage requirement.
...
3. Your second paragraph is a rather remarkable combination of the straw man fallacy, the appeal to popularity, and plain old brute force. The topic isn't whether government should "get in the business of telling insurance companies how to run their business." The topic is the much more narrow issue of whether insurance companies should be required to provide contraception coverage, and even more specifically whether they should be required to provide it to individuals insured under a plan offered by a school or hospital that is affiliated with a religion.
Also, claiming that your friends agree with you (on a straw man position) has nothing at all to do with whether or not your arguments are logically sound or rhetorically persuasive.
As for the bit about "I have the power" . . . c'mon, seriously? What are you, She-Ra? I thought this was a site for debate. Please show me that you're better and more intelligent than that. Besides, the ability to delete a debate that you posted from this site does not mean that you "own" it or that you have any particular power. It merely means that the site administrators have set up the site so that whoever creates a given debate page can also delete it. You have the exact same amount of "power" as any other site user. Also, the site TOS says that all posted user content is under a Creative Commons license that entitles them (and anyone else) to use and/or reproduce user content for any lawful purpose. So no, you actually don't "own" this thread.
...
4. "Faith-based institution" is neither legally nor factually the same as "church." Hospitals aren't churches. Schools aren't churches. Soup kitchens aren't churches. Thrift stores aren't churches. Churches are churches. That's really not hard to understand. As my original post explains, there is a difference between an organization with a religious affiliation and one with a religious mission. Organizations with a religious mission, like churches and synagogues, are exempt from a number of provisions of the Affordable Care Act, including those that deal with contraception. Organizations with a religious affiliation, like Catholic or Jewish hospitals, are not exempt. This is because they aren't "churches," they're businesses. Their primary mission isn't to spread a religion or celebrate religious rituals; their primary mission is to provide patient care. You don't get special treatment under the law for being affiliated with a church, or agreeing with a church, or being a member of a church, or going to church, or having the same name as a church. You get special treatment for being a church.
If providing contraceptives helps insurers lower costs, why would the government need to tell the insurance company to provide it?
I'm sick and tired of the nanny state. Our society has strayed so far that no one takes responsibility for their own actions. It's someone else's fault. People feel entitled to other people's money. They think the world owes them. We have taken Darwinism out of society and placed the imbeciles on the same level as everyone else and they have multiplied instead of naturally dying off. It has made rush hour traffic a nightmare.
If we are going to require the insurance companies to do anything, we should require them to sterilize those people. ;)
BTW, I think that it is only us two participating on this thread but..., by all means..., provide more lengthy discussion ;)
If providing contraceptives helps insurers lower costs, why would the government need to tell the insurance company to provide it?
First, because some businesses do dumb stuff. Surely you must realize that.
Next, because insurers don't all bear those costs equally. If the consequence of not providing contraceptives is a covered medical cost, the insurer is gonna eat it. If it's something else, somebody else is gonna eat it -- most likely either another insurer or the taxpayers.
Third, because government has an interest in correcting the problem now. While the overall trend among insurance companies has been towards providing contraceptive coverage, and while "market forces" might eventually act on all insurers to induce them to provide more comprehensive contraceptive coverage, the economic and social costs of waiting for the market to self-correct are enormous. If the house is on fire, you don't wait for water to go on sale.
...
We have taken Darwinism out of society
"Darwinism" has never had a proper place in social science theory. To the extent that "Social Darwinism" has been used as a label for different social philosophies, some of its most common applications have included the ideologies of the 19th and 20th century fascists, that of the eugenics movement, and the ethos of racial and cultural imperialism.
Really, man, if you don't know what something is, please review the Wikipedia entry on it before you post about it. You will find the Wikipedia entry on "Social Darwinism" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
...
People feel entitled to other people's money. They think the world owes them.
First and foremost, I'd like you to explain how that statement relates at all to the topic of contraception coverage.
Next, since you object so strenuously to "entitlements," I would like you to itemize each and every instance in which you or your family have availed yourself of an "entitlement" to "other people's money" and I would like you to justify each occurrence.
Please begin by justifying each and every occurrence in which you or your family has used a government program to avail yourselves of "other people's money." This would include the purchase of any food or other good containing any subsidized agricultural products (corn, soy, wheat, rice, meat); the use of any subsidized commercial or industrial product (gas and oil); the use of any government-underwritten service (student loans, home loans, subsidized housing, student housing); the use of any government-funded service (roads, public schools and state universities, libraries, police and fire, post office, public transportation, trash pick-up); any commerce you have transacted with any business or other entity that has received government funds or special legal treatment in order to sustain itself in the market (non-exhaustive list includes any purchase of automobiles or automobile components, any use of airlines or railroads, and any transaction with any of the following: Citigroup/Citicorp, Bank of America, Merrill-Lynch, Chase-Manhattan/Bear-Sterns, AIG/Farmer's Insurance/21st Century Insurance, and any home or business utility provider such as electric, gas, and water/sewage); the receipt of any government benefit (social security, Medicare/Medicaid, unemployment, food stamps, VA benefits); and any and all claims you have ever made to a tax credit that is part of an entitlement program (earned income tax credit, child tax credit, education tax credit).
Next, I would like you to justify each and every occurrence in which you or your family has used a private company such as an insurer to in order to take "other people's money" for yourself. Please justify the use of monies collected from other people's premiums to provide pay-outs on each of your claims, and also justify the risk you created of a raise to other people's premiums by filing insurance claims. This would include any and all instances in which you have made use of health insurance, car insurance, homeowner's or renter's insurance, fire insurance, and any other insurance or risk-management pool in which you have participated.
Now, I would like you to present your strategy for providing for the needs of yourself and your family absent any such entitlements to other people's money. Please identify, by specific percentage amount or dollar range, the estimated cost increase that you would incur in each of the following categories were it not for your use of "other people's money," and explain how you will pay for these increases: food, gasoline, housing, utility services, transportation/travel, education, health care. Be sure to also explain how your family will pay for the health care and retirement living needs of aging parents or grandparents.
I'm not being facetious. I really want you to do this stuff -- even if you don't post it in full. I want you to explain exactly how your personal budget is impacted by "entitlements" and exactly how it would change if those "entitlements" were gone, and how that change is an improvement.
In other words, I'd like you to make argument and back it up. Because frankly, if you can't do that, you're just talking out of your keister.
...
Look, no offense here, but so far you haven't given me any indication that you have any idea at all what you're talking about. You've just spouted a bunch of buzzwords that you heard on TV, and I don't think you even know what most of them mean. This is supposed to be a debate forum. Why don't you try making an argument -- like one with major premises and supporting evidence leading to a conclusion? Better yet, why not try making an argument for or against the issue you presented in this forum -- the contraception coverage requirement?
Yeah, let's not provide birth control so you can all really complain when women are on welfare because they couldn't afford the child you forced them to have. Sex is a natural human function. Get over it.
There is no excuse for not having federal healthcare, none. And the idea that an employer can arbitrarily decide what medications it wants to provide is ludicrous. You're saying that if you wind up with a heart problem or cancer, the company you work for should suddenly be allowed to refuse to pay for your medication? Are you insane?
Saying that a woman doesn't have to work a job that doesn't provide certain medications is not going to fix the problem. We're in a tough market. I know it's hard for the far right to see the ground from atop their high horses, but saying "get another job" is not going to magically make jobs available.
What about women who are on birth control for different reasons? I was on it before I ever even had sex because I had painful cramps, chronic heavy bleeding and ovarian cysts. I couldn't go to school for two days every month. Are you saying that I should be denied medical care because someone else thinks they have the right to make choices for my life? Absurd.
If we had federal healthcare, EVERYONE would be paying and EVERYONE would be covered. I'm sorry you're the only person in your life you're capable of thinking about. Must be lonely.
If the federal government wants to pay for it, fine. The federal government has no business telling private insurance companies how to run their business. Especially if they have religious ties.
I'm surprised anyone wanted to put their dick inside your rotted out pussy.
You remind me why I never bothered to go to a "top tier University". A life in the library has taught me more than you'll ever learn, simply because you are too self-important and egoistical to debate/think with an open'd mind.
I count four profanities in three lines of "argument". Each line contains insults; one is sexist, one is an accusation of misogyny based entirely on the accusee's non-liberal/non-brainwashed opinations, and another is a sexual slur. You fail to mention or even allude to the topic being discussed, preferring to curse your opponent rather than rebut.
If we had federal healthcare, EVERYONE would be paying and EVERYONE would be covered.
EVERYONE shouldn't be forced to buy something against their wishes.
I'm sorry you're the only person in your life you're capable of thinking about. Must be lonely.
Now that's a pretty low blow, even for a partisan. There was a time when "top tier Universities" had levels of expectations for their students, such so that they wouldn't go about ridiculing and pettily insulting individuals over halfassed arguments.
Oh..., OK. So is that where we draw the line? If it costs more than $200 then it should be covered otherwise, it should not?
I once asked a woman if she would have sex with me for a million dollars. Her eyes lit up and she said, "Sure!" So I said, "How about $20?" and she said, "What kind of a girl do you think I am?" and I said, "We already established that. We haggling over price now."
So that's how I feel I'm doing with you. Haggling over price. ;)
I don't think that at this point in my life $5 is a terrible co-pay. Federal healthcare would be much, much better. But $200 is obscene. Please attempt to use some kind of critical thinking skills. You're at risk of making yourself look like an incompetent ass again if you don't.
If you spent half as much time trying to educate yourself and get a high paying job as you do sleeping around, you wouldn't be in a situation where you would need someone else to pay for your contraceptives.
I'm at a top tier University majoring in economics and I'm going to Harvard for my JD/MBA. Don't try to make this a pissing contest, you will lose. I don't come from a wealthy family. But when I do have money, I will still be supporting the rights of everyone who doesn't.
If you have money and you want poor women to have free contraceptives, then use your fucking money and buy it for them. Leave my money alone. That's one thing that you are not entitled to. You liberal bitch. Oh..., BTW..., ;)
Do you realize that federal healthcare would cost you less than going through a private company? That and the government would not be able to drop you, or refuse to pay for care?
I'm legitimately curious, why wouldn't you want that?
Once the government gets involved, it's next to impossible to get them to stop.
Once the government gets involved, they want to have more and more of a say into my life.
The government IS THE US, THE PEOPLE. Nothing is free. If the government is paying for it, it means higher taxes for everyone. Higher taxes means I may not be able to get a new iPad every time they release a new version. And I rather use my money on my selfish pleasure than spend it on your ass.
I am legitimately curious as to why it is you feel entitled to tell people how to live their life? When you get married, you can nag and tell your husband how to live his life. I'm not your husband. Don't try that shit on me.
I wouldn't want that because it isn't the government's responsibility (or privilege) to provide me with a product, especially at the expense of others. Whether or not I am directly saving money or not is irrelevant; what matters is that, otherwise, the government's power and authoritative/totalitarian reign shall go on unchecked as we are appeased and assuaged by their brief generosity.
Looks like the profs at your "top tier University" aren't teaching you anything about property rights - such as that one hasn't the right to other peoples' misgot property.
Oh shit, we have a bad ass over here people. She either thinks she can piss joe off or that she can piss further. You have to watch out for those Harvard top tier JD/MBA types. I guess majoring in economics didn't prepare her for debating on CD.. She joined two days ago and she thinks she can waltz in here and take on our top tier CD types.. She should probably change her name from jackal to jack ass.
Yeah, let's not provide birth control so you can all really complain when women are on welfare because they couldn't afford the child you forced them to have.
No, they shouldn't be on welfare either. Theft involved there, too.
Sex is a natural human function. Get over it.
Precisely. The government shouldn't be involved.
There is no excuse for not having federal healthcare, none.
How about patient survival? There are more MRI machines in Pittsburgh than in all of Canada, and waiting lines to see a doctor in Great Britain are astronomically long. America, though more expensive, has the best medical care in the world - something which many Americans seem to think they can maintain even in a decapitalized environment.
And the idea that an employer can arbitrarily decide what medications it wants to provide is ludicrous.
If they are providing it, then why can't they "arbitrarily decide"?
You're saying that if you wind up with a heart problem or cancer, the company you work for should suddenly be allowed to refuse to pay for your medication?
Yes, unless there is a contract in which the company has agreed to pay for such medications.
Are you insane?
Probably, but so are all great genii.
We're in a tough market.
And placing restrictions/requirements on employers is only going to make it tougher.
I know it's hard for the far right to see the ground from atop their high horses, but saying "get another job" is not going to magically make jobs available.
I redirect you to my previous response.
What about women who are on birth control for different reasons?
The reasoning is irrelevant.
I was on it before I ever even had sex because I had painful cramps, chronic heavy bleeding and ovarian cysts. I couldn't go to school for two days every month.
I could say that I am sorry for you - and the human inside of me truly is sorry at any human suffering - but that does not give you the right to stolen goods.
Are you saying that I should be denied medical care because someone else thinks they have the right to make choices for my life? Absurd.
No, I'm saying that other people don't have the right to make choices for your life. You are twisting the entire idea; if somebody is forced by government to give you something, then the government is now taking over your life.
I tend to agree with some of your arguments to a certain extent. However, taxation should pay for people who can't afford it. Taxation pays for the military, roads, public transport, the fire services etc. Why not for medical care? Take 25% of the military budget and the whole thing is covered. No need to get employers to pay.
Paying with tax dollars is just as heinous as forcing employers to pay; either is a violation of the individual's right to be secure in their property.
For the record, I am also opposed to publicly funded roads, transport, fire services, and nearly everything in which the military is involved.
"Yeah, let's not provide birth control so you can all really complain when women are on welfare because they couldn't afford the child you forced them to have."
You are a complete fucktard, I have never forced anyone to have any child. Actually, as a guy I have to recognize that I have ZERO reproductive rights. Only reproductive responsibilities. The woman is the one that can choose to carry to term, give up for adoption (without knowledge or consent of the father) or abort.
Your statement is also insulting to any woman with half a brain and any sense of personal agency.
BCP's can be had for less than $60/year. Sure some are more expensive but if you are going to insist I have to pay for your choice you sure as hell don't get to pick what I am paying for.
If that amount is out of your league you should have bigger priorities than getting laid.
Eh, fuck it. We already share the load for our roads, our protection, and our schools. Why not give the ladies something to keep them from getting pregnant and flooding the world with unwanted children? Well. There's abortion, but everyone hates that too.
And tooth paste. Don't forget tooth paste. Maybe insurance companies should be forced to cover food, water and tooth paste ;)
A year's supply of food is more than $3000 and food is more vital than contraceptives. Some people cannot afford food. Food ought to be covered by insurance companies.. ;)