Why the push to control womens productive freedoms?

[Ausm]

I buy insurance for my car in case I have an accident. Why should health insurance be different? I don't expect car insurance to cover the cost of gas, tires, and oil changes, but my health insurance now has to cover preventative maintenance 100%. You don't have to convince me that Republicans are idiots - we are in full agreement on that issue. They happen to get it right every once in a while, even if for the wrong reasons.

You have a problem with preventive care in your health coverage? LOLWUT??

 

[CycloWizard]

You have a problem with preventive care in your health coverage? LOLWUT??

Yes. Do you have it as part of your auto insurance policy?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

You have a problem with preventive care in your health coverage? LOLWUT??

I have a problem with insurance mandating coverage of preventative care.

It should be single-payer.

I thin the single-payer should be the government.. but hey, whatever.

Do you have it as part of your auto insurance policy?

I have preventative care in the form of passing an annual inspection as part of a government-mandate for my car.

Now since the burden of an annual checkup for people may be expensive (and a bit Orwellian) we should make it something the government gives out for free and encourages people to utilize.

 

[Ausm]

Yes. Do you have it as part of your auto insurance policy?

I was told there is absolutely no correlation between auto and Health insurance on this forum at least.

 

[TerryMathews]

My issue wrt the birth control is that its unbalanced and assigns too much value to the wrong thing.

My wife now gets birth control for free. By law. Only the birth control. My heart pill still costs whatever it costs.

Hers keeps her infertile. Mine keeps me alive. Its in no way fair.

 

[dank69]

Yes. Do you have it as part of your auto insurance policy?

What kind of preventative care can help prevent auto accidents in a statistically significant way? Don't say stupid shit like 'changing brake pads' because out of all the accidents that happen, faulty brake pads as a primary cause is statistically insignificant.

As for preventative care being covered by health insurance, the insurers prefer to provide it because it saves them money. Every smart person knows this.

 

[jhbball]

Because there's no better way to get women to ignore all of Obama's economy screw-ups than to convince them that his opposition is waging a "war against women."

Shouldn't you be giving terrible relationship advice in the L&R forum? Go away.

 

[Jhhnn]

You're taking an absolutist position in direct opposition to logic. Your argument is that a law exists requiring insurance, therefore we must have laws mandating insurance. Your argument is a nonsense. Insurance should be about pooling risk, not about subsidizing one group at the expense of another. Your blessed government has forced it to become the latter. My statement is that the way it is now is rubbish, so why are we going to keep it that way? Your argument is that we must keep it that way because that's the way it is.

Entirely circular. Of course insurance is about pooled risk, and one of those risks is unwanted pregnancy. That applies to single men and women, and to married couples as well.

Of course we must have laws mandating insurance as a consequence of human nature, ie weaseldom, and as a consequence of the laws of chance.

No man is an island, other than in Libertopian fantasy. Even in primitive societies people depend on each other, and that only increases with the complexity of society. Not all of us will bear their responsibilities voluntarily, and not all of us necessarily can at any given moment, so we have laws demanding responsible behavior.

This is middle school civics, btw...

 

[zinfamous]

Republicans are now losing the philosophical argument on the economy for the upcoming election, so they have to push and create as many attack points as they can.

This one is just, well, suicide.

But it's entertaining.

 

[zinfamous]

The fundamental problem here is that there is no right to force me to pay for your healthcare. That's a demand, not a right. Demands inherently conflict with rights. Either I have a right to my money or I don't. The minute someone else can claim my money for themselves is the minute I lost my right to property. Should my health insurance be compelled to cover weekly massages and a gym membership so I won't be fat and stressed? This nation lost sight of the concepts of rights, responsibilities, and demands many years ago and has been circling the drain ever since.

All "rights" are human-imposed.

don't delude yourself.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

All "rights" are human-imposed.

don't delude yourself.

God gave man rights that he gave us in the constitution. The bill of rights is like the commandments

That's why there's 10 of both. God did it.

now STFU.

 

[zinfamous]

God gave man rights that he gave us in the constitution. The bill of rights is like the commandments

That's why there's 10 of both. God did it.

now STFU.

except for free will, I guess.

When Lucifer exercised his free will, God got real angry.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

No, it's not just you. It has clearly been in the news much more than usually.



IMO, yes it's in the news because it's election year.

But I don't believe it was brought up by the right to cater to RR.

IMO, the first big clue here is the Obama admin mandating Catholic churches provide BC in spite of reassuring church officials for approx 2 years that they would not. IMO, that was a politically calculated move to elevate and bring social issues to the fore. This has the great benefit of pushing economic news, high unemployment and bad housing market, and deficit/debt problems right off the stage.

The Repubs, again IMO, wanted to keep the spotlight on the economy and spending. Obama and the Dems have out maneuvered them here. But I think the Repubs stupidly played into this. The 1st amendment issue (Freedom of Religion) could not go unaddressed, but the Repubs allowed themselves to be drawn into the much larger argument of BC subsidized by HI etc.

The only Repub candidate who was running on social issues was Santorum. Clearly Romney wasn't, and aside from the 1st amendment issue I think the last thing Gingrich wanted was this sort of shift in the debate given his marital history. Gingrich is obviously more of a policy wonk (or thinks he is) and so this sort debate plays away from his strengths.

So, this is most definitely not about the RR, who aren't going to vote for Obama anyway. This whole debate is for consumption by the independent and moderate voters who will decide this election. It's also largely targeted at women, who helped greatly in electing Obama in '08 but who have moving away from him likely because of the economy.

Cliffs: Yes it's election year politics. But not about the RR.

Fern

Clearly this to those paying attention...

 

[Rainsford]

And 'female reproductive issues' only come out when dems need to whip up their feminist base. This issues isn't about women's reproductive health at all.

If that's the case, Republicans are being awfully accommodating by repeatedly jumping into the debate with both feet. If it was just Democrats bringing up fake issues to "whip up their feminist base" there's no way the issue would be as big as it is.

And your analogy was poor. The proper analogy would be to force subsidies for lift tickets for skiers or drop zone fees for skydivers. No one is saying, 'Oh honey, you got yourself all knocked up! Guess you have to pay everything out of pocket to cover prenatal care and delivery or go have your ilicit spawn in the street.'

My analogy was better than the one you just came up with We're talking about objecting to specific medical care when similar care is covered. "Lift tickets" have nothing to do with it.

As others have said, I can't stop what people do with their bodies wrt sex, nor do I care to - it's their business not mine. But don't ask me to pay for precautionary measures under the guise of 'women's health'. Besides, condoms are cheaper and in many places you can get them for free.

Condoms don't cover all the same things as birth control, and doubling up when it comes to not having unplanned babies is a good idea.

What you said is EXACTLY why this is an issue. For whatever reason, you have some specific objection to covering birth control, a health issue many women don't think needs air quotes. The fact that your objection is phrased with the condescending and insulting suggestion that people are asking you to "pay for it" makes it even worse (in addition to making it sound like you don't know how health insurance works).

 

[Rainsford]

I buy insurance for my car in case I have an accident. Why should health insurance be different? I don't expect car insurance to cover the cost of gas, tires, and oil changes, but my health insurance now has to cover preventative maintenance 100%. You don't have to convince me that Republicans are idiots - we are in full agreement on that issue. They happen to get it right every once in a while, even if for the wrong reasons.

You could be right about the idea that health insurance could work more like car insurance, but the fact is that health insurance doesn't work that way. My health insurance, like most people's, covers many preventative type things. Carving out a specific exception for birth control makes the issue more about birth control and less about health insurance not covering preventative stuff.

 

[zinfamous]

Clearly this to those paying attention...

uh, except that with Fern's last comment, polls show that women are growing even closer to Obama because of the economy.

so, not sure what you guys are paying attention to.

 

[zinfamous]

can we get back to the real issue with the birth control and health care?

IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT CONTRACEPTION.

Seriously: what is the point of discussing this with people that refuse to address the medical issues, which are, fundamentally, the only concerns of this issue?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

can we get back to the real issue with the birth control and health care?

No. Everyone rational is already on one side and everyone else is mindlessly repeating meaningless ramble.

except for free will, I guess.

When Lucifer exercised his free will, God got real angry.

God didn't give lucifer the 10 amendments like He did the only GOD GIVEN NATION ON EARTH, the US of A.

 

[Atreus21]

Or, if you'd rather tell the truth and be accurate, it'd be more like if a mosque funded a university or hospital and ruled that women on the premises had to cover their hair and face and the government said you can't make them do that.

No. What I said is more accurate.

Oh you just got served.

 

[CycloWizard]

I was told there is absolutely no correlation between auto and Health insurance on this forum at least.

Well, since you believe whatever you're told, I'll tell you that you're obviously incapable of thinking for yourself. Why don't you step outside?

 

[CycloWizard]

All "rights" are human-imposed.

don't delude yourself.

Whether they are or aren't, some of them are rights in a legal sense while others are not.

 

[CycloWizard]

You could be right about the idea that health insurance could work more like car insurance, but the fact is that health insurance doesn't work that way. My health insurance, like most people's, covers many preventative type things. Carving out a specific exception for birth control makes the issue more about birth control and less about health insurance not covering preventative stuff.

Agreed. I don't really care about the way things are now since the way things are now is completely nonsensical. I care about the way things should be. If an insurer wants to include preventative medicine in their plan then they should include it. If they don't want to include it, they shouldn't. People could then choose whatever plan they want depending on their price point. Specific exceptions are loopholes which inherently contradict the logic of the rest of the bill. Otherwise, they wouldn't be exceptions - they would simply be part of the rest of the bill.

 

[Ausm]

Well, since you believe whatever you're told, I'll tell you that you're obviously incapable of thinking for yourself. Why don't you step outside?

LOL Wut? Where did I say I believed it?

 

[Munky]

Shouldn't you be giving terrible relationship advice in the L&R forum? Go away.

Nah, it's too much fun poking holes in your delusional liberal propaganda fantasies.

 

[zinfamous]

Whether they are or aren't, some of them are rights in a legal sense while others are not.

so, simply being legal makes them more moral/accepted/proper?

Is it ever "allowable" to define "new" rights in a legal sense, or is there some arbitrary cut-off of what can and can't be a right--possibly defined by an 18th century interpretation of the world, or should we never be allowed to live in the present?

Is it fair that we are now forced to wring "rights" through a decades-long shitstorm of legislative prattle simply to have them defined on a document, when the moral conviction is so clearly there, yet political waters are the only dissenting force?