zeitgeist57 Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 If the gov't will allow free birth control pills through private-sector healthcare coverage, what about free condoms? What about free "Morning After" pills? I'm with Mallard. Even NPR this morning said this is purely an effort to energize voting bases during an election year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallard Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 And yes, you have the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY when you are having sex, but the pill is prescribed for a variety of reasons, besides preventing pregnancy. There are also studies that show a reduced risk of ovarian cancer due to being on the pill. This is only saying that the individual be OFFERED THE OPTION of a plan that includes this coverage, not that every plan is required to have it. The individual still has the personal responsibility of CHOOSING this plan and PAYING FOR this plan. That's still PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. The state isn't handing out free pills to everyone. Hell, the state isn't buying anyone pills. So you also say that health care is an individual's personal responsibility, which I agree. However, a hospital will not just allow somone to die because they do not have health coverage, then we end up footing the bill. To drive a car you must have insurence, even if you just carry the lowest level available. Should you not be mandated to have some level of health insurence in order to use a hospital? (playing devil's advocate here) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinHawk1647545499 Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 i have no problem with the issue of the state giving out free birth control, even if i have to pay for it in taxes as the net cost will be lower. I do have a problem in the state saying that some organization must give it out, if they do not want to as it is an infringement on religion or beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJ Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 If there is net savings, then yes. If it is a net loss, then no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirks5oh Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 I still think that people need to be licensed to reproduce. as sad as it is to say this, i totally agree. this would be difficult to enforce, but imagine a system where in order to receive ANY type of government assistance, you're required every 3 months to get the depo-provera shot. its incredibly effective form of birth control, that is not dependent on patient compliance--which is the biggest issue with giving out free birth control--idiots will forget to take it. if you're receiving help from the government, you have ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS bringing another human being into the world, at that time. sure, if you get off assistance, and improve your situation, you're more than welcome to reproduce. just a thought Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 i have no problem with the issue of the state giving out free birth control, even if i have to pay for it in taxes as the net cost will be lower. I do have a problem in the state saying that some organization must give it out, if they do not want to as it is an infringement on religion or beliefs. So what if someone decides their religion is against unwed mothers having babies and their insurance shouldn't have to cover it, or even treatment of disease it finds questionable? Maybe cancer is gods punishment for their sins. That sounds extreme, but religion allows for extreme stupidity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinHawk1647545499 Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 So what if someone decides their religion is against unwed mothers having babies and their insurance shouldn't have to cover it, or even treatment of disease it finds questionable? Maybe cancer is gods punishment for their sins. That sounds extreme, but religion allows for extreme stupidity. try to reconstruct your sentence to make a valid point, because what you said makes no sense nor has any validity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Beast Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 try to reconstruct your sentence to make a valid point, because what you said makes no sense nor has any validity. made sense to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJ Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 So what if someone decides their religion is against unwed mothers having babies and their insurance shouldn't have to cover it, or even treatment of disease it finds questionable? Maybe cancer is gods punishment for their sins. That sounds extreme, but religion allows for extreme stupidity. If religious institutions want to decide that BC won't be provided in their offered insurance plans, I have no problem with that. I would have a problem if they tried to make it a law that insurance can't cover certain things in general. That has not happened, so I am not sure why this was even brought up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erica Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 I personally think its dumb, why the hell should I pay for crackheads and prostitutes to get free bc? I don't think it should be anyone else responsibility to take care of my bc, its my choice and no one else...well maybe Sean's lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Beast Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 Im thinking worthless welfare moms. The less babies they have to feed the more money the guberment saves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJ Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 I personally think its dumb, why the hell should I pay for crackheads and prostitutes to get free bc? I don't think it should be anyone else responsibility to take care of my bc, its my choice and no one else...well maybe Sean's lol You would rather pay for their crack and booze with welfare checks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 try to reconstruct your sentence to make a valid point, because what you said makes no sense nor has any validity. See above. Please be more specific so I can actually try to formulate a rebuttal. If religious institutions want to decide that BC won't be provided in their offered insurance plans, I have no problem with that. I would have a problem if they tried to make it a law that insurance can't cover certain things in general. That has not happened, so I am not sure why this was even brought up? We are not strictly speaking of religious institutions, we are speaking of any employer who decides to impose his morality on his employees. Now I've yet to state my personal position, just asked absolutely valid questions, as they pertain to the possible abuse of opening such a Pandoras box. If you allow institutions, religious in funding or otherwise, to dictate what coverage they provide (negotiated with their provider or providers) via ala carte selection of coverages, based solely on the employers superstitious beliefs, the doors are open for just about any discrimination you can imagine, as religion is completely intangible. Should we have such freedom? Well yes, but that conversation would be way longer than a BC thread. Also while I would rather pay for a pill than a pregnancy/abortion/welfare check, I would rather the system not set up a Pavlovian response to popping out babies in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brrcats Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 A bunch of guys talking about birth control. (Picks up briefcase and walks to the door mumbling something about CR being better) This used to be an everyday thing for me. Hell we used to flip around those BC vaginal rings at each other during meetings sometimes. Yeah, thats how the real world works. :lolguy: It can also be used to make the monthly visit from Aunt FLO easier on them.... and rather than being a monthly visit it can be a quarterly visit if the woman would like Or can be a never again visit, just skip the sugar pill week. you dont actually ovulate on the pill, the "period" is just a shedding of the uterin layer, not an actual egg being released. Could you sue the birth control manufacturer? That would be the logical place to start. Nope, the process and products (at least hormonal pharmaceutical wise) are excessively tested for assay, disso, etc. Its been proven to work as directed, whether it be name brand or generic. I'm sure you could sue, but you'd lose, theres too many human variables involved My view on the whole subject is no, it should not be required for a health insurer to provide free BC. Many BC options are already extremely affordable. That whole $4 generic prescription thing at krogers, that works for birth control as well. Not all types, but definitely on some monthly forms of hormonal pharma. Although I do feel that if you cant support yourself you have no place in bringing a child, that you cant care for, into this world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJ Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 See above. Please be more specific so I can actually try to formulate a rebuttal. We are not strictly speaking of religious institutions, we are speaking of any employer who decides to impose his morality on his employees. Now I've yet to state my personal position, just asked absolutely valid questions, as they pertain to the possible abuse of opening such a Pandoras box. If you allow institutions, religious in funding or otherwise, to dictate what coverage they provide (negotiated with their provider or providers) via ala carte selection of coverages, based solely on the employers superstitious beliefs, the doors are open for just about any discrimination you can imagine, as religion is completely intangible. Should we have such freedom? Well yes, but that conversation would be way longer than a BC thread. I see no discrimination. I see a a private company making decisions based on their own personal views. If a person doesn't like it, they don't have to get a job there. Insurance companies should be required to provide all coverages if they are going to be in the insurance business. Employers should have no responsibility to provide coverages they do not want to. Also while I would rather pay for a pill than a pregnancy/abortion/welfare check, I would rather the system not set up a Pavlovian response to popping out babies in the first place. The current welfare state will take generations to cut to the levels that many fiscal conservatives would find acceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 I see no discrimination. I see a a private company making decisions based on their own personal views. If a person doesn't like it, they don't have to get a job there. Insurance companies should be required to provide all coverages if they are going to be in the insurance business. Employers should have no responsibility to provide coverages they do not want to. The current welfare state will take generations to cut to the levels that many fiscal conservatives would find acceptable. In theory we agree, I simply prefer it be a matter of privatized freedom, not religion specifically since that would be implied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forrest Gump 9 Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 NO!!! How am I going to find out the fastest swimmer if every female is on the pill? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
87GT Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 Remember this for the next kegger you go to, your mouth can't get pregnant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Beast Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 All men should have a reversible vasectomy done at puberty. This way we dont fuck up our own lives when our crazy ex girlfriends poke holes in the rubbers during a night of drunken sex. But dont get me wrong... trick love da kids Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinHawk1647545499 Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 pull and pray has worked for me for 14 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Beast Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 pull and pray has worked for me for 14 years. Shit, forgot to pray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 Shit, forgot to pray Not required. I've survived a good while on the pull and wander away technique. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Beast Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 Shit, forgot to wander away Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 Shit, forgot to wander away That's why you have kids, failure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Beast Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 That's why you have kids, failure. Quoted for factual truth. Kids if you have learned anything from this thread.. learn to wander Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.