• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Separation of church and state on birth control

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,900
388
126
Complete logical failure.

You cannot dite your stated position: that insurance companies are 'happy' to hand out "free" birth control.
It stands to reason, doesn't it? Why do auto insurance companies happily pay for chipped windshield repair? Because it's cheaper in the long run to repair chips than to replace a windshield.

Do you disagree that it makes financial sense for the insurance companies to provide contraceptives on that basis?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
No insurance company is happy to pay any claim. Only an idiot thinks insurance companies happy give out money. Willingly and happily are two very different things.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
17,553
1,763
126
Why don't they make it mandatory for the Insurance Companies to pay for condoms? 1They would kill two birds with one stone. It prevents disease and prevents pregnancy.

Birth control pills just prevent pregnancy and does nothing for disease. The morning after pill just aborts or prevents pregnancy.

I disagree with this not on religious grounds but that the government should not be allowed to make us as a free people to provide or pay for things.
 

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
8,899
1,167
126
This really is a ridiculous issue. I don't see it as church and state issue but simply as government micromanaging the relationship between employers and employees for no good reason. Is there really a crisis in the country of employed women not being able to afford birth control? How about insurance companies have to give away cholesterol lowering drugs because heart attacks are bad?

As usual Obama was intellectually dishonest in pretending that employers don't ultimately pay for this. I say that he was intellectually dishonest because he can't possibly be dumb enough to believe what he said.
Actually there is a crisis....!
Do you believe any 14 year old child can afford the pill on their own?
What do they do? eBay their Barbie doll collection?

Don’t you wonder why mom or an older relative takes little Nancy to get her pills?
Do you believe all the little Nancy's of America simply practice abstinence?
Really? Really? Really.....? Really?

And... would you rather pay for little Nancy's pills, or for little Nancy's welfare check, food stamps, rent AND healthcare all while little Nancy raises baby Nancy up in poverty?

YOU tell me...
Do the math... then you tell me.

OMG...............!
Can people no longer logically think a simple thought through?
Has Fox news actually succeeded at retarding America's to that degree?

John Boehner may gripe about birth control now, but believe Johnny B would gripe much louder when those welfare checks and food stamps and medical payments start going out to little Nancy, and to baby Nancy.


Obama understood. He made the right decision.
How in the hell is a president to lead such a dumb ass country and dumb ass electret???
You tell me...? YOU tell me...?
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
17,553
1,763
126
Actually there is a crisis....!
Do you believe any 14 year old child can afford the pill on their own?
What do they do? eBay their Barbie doll collection?

Don’t you wonder why mom or an older relative takes little Nancy to get her pills?
Do you believe all the little Nancy's of America simply practice abstinence?
Really? Really? Really.....? Really?

And... would you rather pay for little Nancy's pills, or for little Nancy's welfare check, food stamps, rent AND healthcare all while little Nancy raises baby Nancy up in poverty?

?
Why don't Little Nancy's parents pay for her pills. A 14 year old girl shouldn't be on birth control or screwing anyway. WTH can't you see. I don't want to pay for little Nancy's shitty habits or her shitty parents problems.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,661
4,483
126
No insurance company is happy to pay any claim. Only an idiot thinks insurance companies happy give out money. Willingly and happily are two very different things.
They are happy to pay for birth control. Even aside from saving money from pregnancy, it's a predictable expense with little risk. Insurers love those. They simply pass the cost along after adding a profit margin for themselves. Easy money.

If there is a real argument against this it's why have insurance for something that is a known expense, not a risk. All you are doing is adding profit margin for insurers in a situation where they aren't really insuring any risk, they are just being middlemen.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,146
13,088
136
Well, the White House sidestepped the whole Religious Freedom! rant rather neatly, changed the rule so that insurers will have to provide coverage free of charge to women who work for religious organizations.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/10/us-usa-contraceptives-factsheet-idUSTRE81919J20120210

Pretty much leaves the ravers twisting in the wind... they're not paying for it, so they can't object, and they have no legal standing to sue...

Rghties will have to go beat the brush for another so-called "Issue".
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
103,568
18,119
136
Why don't they make it mandatory for the Insurance Companies to pay for condoms? 1They would kill two birds with one stone. It prevents disease and prevents pregnancy.

Birth control pills just prevent pregnancy and does nothing for disease. The morning after pill just aborts or prevents pregnancy.

I disagree with this not on religious grounds but that the government should not be allowed to make us as a free people to provide or pay for things.
condoms do not prevent pregnancy. rather, they are not 100%. I think they are what, 90%

that's pretty damn good, sure, b/c pregnancy really is a hard fucking thing to, uh, "obtain," but it's nothing like the pill, and they are certainly a better disease barrier than the pill.

But--condoms are very much freely available on the government dole in many, many venues. PPH, public schools, youth clubs and such. But I agree that they should be sitting out in a giant punch bowl in every damn clinic in every town.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
They are happy to pay for birth control. Even aside from saving money from pregnancy, it's a predictable expense with little risk. Insurers love those. They simply pass the cost along after adding a profit margin for themselves. Easy money.

If there is a real argument against this it's why have insurance for something that is a known expense, not a risk. All you are doing is adding profit margin for insurers in a situation where they aren't really insuring any risk, they are just being middlemen.
They are happy to never pay anything ever. Anything less than that is acceptance.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Well, the White House sidestepped the whole Religious Freedom! rant rather neatly, changed the rule so that insurers will have to provide coverage free of charge to women who work for religious organizations.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/10/us-usa-contraceptives-factsheet-idUSTRE81919J20120210

Pretty much leaves the ravers twisting in the wind... they're not paying for it, so they can't object, and they have no legal standing to sue...

Rghties will have to go beat the brush for another so-called "Issue".
IOW, I was right. Obama caved because he feared the loss of their votes in the upcoming election.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,661
4,483
126
They are happy to never pay anything ever. Anything less than that is acceptance.
Wrong. If they never paid anything ever, no one would buy insurance and they would make no money. So to say they would be happy in that scenario is pure ignorance.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,146
13,088
136
IOW, I was right. Obama caved because he feared the loss of their votes in the upcoming election.
Heh. He feared the loss of votes from Catholic Bishops & Rabid "pro-life" Fundies?

He got what he wanted by changing the definition of who pays. The reality of what happens at the consumer end changed not at all. He also denied opponents a point of contention, turned down the heat on their kettle o' irrational rage.

They need issues rather desperately, and he made that one disappear. Nifty.
 

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,955
0
76
Actually there is a crisis....!
Do you believe any 14 year old child can afford the pill on their own?
What do they do? eBay their Barbie doll collection?

Don’t you wonder why mom or an older relative takes little Nancy to get her pills?
Do you believe all the little Nancy's of America simply practice abstinence?
Really? Really? Really.....? Really?

And... would you rather pay for little Nancy's pills, or for little Nancy's welfare check, food stamps, rent AND healthcare all while little Nancy raises baby Nancy up in poverty?

YOU tell me...
Do the math... then you tell me.

OMG...............!
Can people no longer logically think a simple thought through?
Has Fox news actually succeeded at retarding America's to that degree?

John Boehner may gripe about birth control now, but believe Johnny B would gripe much louder when those welfare checks and food stamps and medical payments start going out to little Nancy, and to baby Nancy.


Obama understood. He made the right decision.
How in the hell is a president to lead such a dumb ass country and dumb ass electret???
You tell me...? YOU tell me...?
Little Nancy's mom is probably going to be involved either way and she can pay for the pills. Or are you claiming the purpose of this policy is to enable Nancy to get the pills without her mom knowing which is entirely different can of worms? Your entire argument is based upon the assumption that people with health insurance are getting pregnant because they can't afford birth control. Rather than personal attacks how about you provide some evidence that this is a real issue?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Wrong. If they never paid anything ever, no one would buy insurance and they would make no money. So to say they would be happy in that scenario is pure ignorance.
That is why they are happy Obama wants to force people to buy insurance. :)
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Heh. He feared the loss of votes from Catholic Bishops & Rabid "pro-life" Fundies?

He got what he wanted by changing the definition of who pays. The reality of what happens at the consumer end changed not at all. He also denied opponents a point of contention, turned down the heat on their kettle o' irrational rage.

They need issues rather desperately, and he made that one disappear. Nifty.
He wanted what he first put out there, else he would have put out something else. Do you often tell people things you do not want in order to get them mad at you so you can change what you are saying? That is sily.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,990
84
91
Why don't they make it mandatory for the Insurance Companies to pay for condoms?
Condoms are available over the counter. If you had to make a doctor's appointment to get an Rx for them, and then hope that your insurance policy covers them so that they won't break the bank, then yeah, I'd agree. If BC pills were as available as condoms, this entire issue would be moot.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,990
84
91
Heh. He feared the loss of votes from Catholic Bishops & Rabid "pro-life" Fundies?

He got what he wanted by changing the definition of who pays. The reality of what happens at the consumer end changed not at all. He also denied opponents a point of contention, turned down the heat on their kettle o' irrational rage.

They need issues rather desperately, and he made that one disappear. Nifty.
I think that this is a good thing. Obama made an end-run around the church to ensure that this policy goal was implemented without religious objection. Women will still get the care they need regardless of their employer. My (female) friends working for the local diocese will benefit greatly.

On another note, those that still oppose this on moral grounds are likely those who want the entire case law since Griswold v. Connecticut to be thrown out. That simply will not fly with the public anymore.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,146
13,088
136
He wanted what he first put out there, else he would have put out something else. Do you often tell people things you do not want in order to get them mad at you so you can change what you are saying? That is sily.
The objective was to provide contraception services as a required part of the new healthcare law. When there was some objection to the wording of how that was to be accomplished, the Obama Admin just found another way to get there. Tactics were changed in light of circumstances in order to meet strategic goals.

It follows game theory or the theory of War entirely- the strategic goals are more important than tactics.

The rest is just another attempt to deny legitimacy to Obama, and to flip-flop from evil oppressor to milquetoast without taking a breath.
 

gevorg

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2004
5,075
1
0
Oh, please. Schiff sets up the "Free!" strawman, and then knocks it down. It's not free, it's 100% covered by the premiums. That's still true under the new wording, which Obama used to mollify the Catholic hierarchy.
Did you even listen to it? :rolleyes:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY