It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Rolls Back Obama’s Birth Control Coverage Rule

page: 11
22
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: windword
and yet, we are the ones that are emotional and devoid of logic???




posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar


Many larger group employer plans contained the same benefits that ObamaCare mandated for all health insurance plans.

When ObamaCare was being designed, large employer group plans were the benchmark that ObamaCare was designed to mimic.

The problem is that those large group health insurance plans were very expensive to the employer. That's why ObamaCare "subsidies" (ATPC) were put in place.. to help lower and middle income people pay the premiums.

Since the Subsidy-APTC support levels were designed by Congressmen who didn't have a grasp on reality, any single person who earned over $35,000, or couple who earned over $55,000, didn't get any help with paying premiums that doubled the moment rich-benefit ObamaCare health insurance was mandated for everyone in America, on January 1, 2013.

Obama admin started panicking in 2015. I put that info in a more appropriate existing thread today.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: fiverx313
i'm subsidizing viagra and not getting use out of it myself. as well as a multitude of other things. and i'm fine with that.


Funny you mentioned that. When I read the headline on CNN, my first thought was "yet viagra is still totally covered..."



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 09:17 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: windword
that's two states, although I couldn't off hand say what the other state was...



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar


Oh! Massachusetts too!

Massachus etts Sues Trump Over Contraception Rules Rollback

And the ACLU also filed suit.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 10:05 PM
link   
You know what really ticks you guys off the most?

Those nuns, Little Sisters of the Poor, won't have to include birth control in their plan anymore. No more sticking it to the nuns.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


They never did have to. The Little Sisters complained about the red tape involved, and argued that filing the paperwork, informing the government that their employees were entitled to Title X relief, was too burdensome on their religious freedom. Give me a break!



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 03:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth


Your lifestyle argument makes no sense. Like 99% of adults are having sex. That's not a lifestyle, it's a bodily function.

Go somewhere else with your ridiculous logic. Contraception is covered, unless some religious nut decides it's immoral for his employees and their families.

Let the lawsuits continue to come. ACLU Sues Trump Administration Over Birth Control Policy



So you argument is that because people have sex we have to pay for them not to get pregnant?... and you call my logic ridiculous


People absolutely choose their lifestyle relating to sex. Not everyone does it the same way, or as often. We choose the number of partners...

It's a sound and logical move to remove a lifestyle subsidy from an insurance plan.

Lawsuits from liberal extremist nuts won't change the fact that the decision is a good one - and a logical one.
edit on 7/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 03:23 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

It's short sighted, far from logical.

The short term saving is outweighed greatly by expenses that will be incurred due to unplanned pregnancies and birth.



edit on 7/10/17 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 03:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: UKTruth

It's short sighted, far from logical.

The short term saving is outweighed greatly by expenses that will be incurred due to unplanned pregnancies and birth.




So will you pool together to help pay for the tyres on my car and the cost of having winter tyres fitted each year too..? If I have fresh tyres every year, and winter tyres in winter, I am less likely to have an unplanned accident... much cheaper in the long run. I do A LOT of miles. I really don't want to pay for them myself. It would be much better if I paid 10% of the cost and people who didn't do as many miles, or don't own a car, clubbed together for the other 90%.

To start with though - I'll send the costs over via PM and we can kick off by going 50/50 until we get more people in. To really keep my costs down, I'll need people who don't drive, or only do a couple of thousand miles a year. If you know any, can you get them in the pool. Just tell them it's cheaper in the long run. I am sure they will see the logic

edit on 7/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 03:44 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Dumb analogy.

Don't believe me?

Read about the introduction of free birth control in poor African nations.

But hey, if you support an increase in welfare babies, then this is the way to do it!



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 03:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: UKTruth

Dumb analogy.

Don't believe me?

Read about the introduction of free birth control in poor African nations.

But hey, if you support an increase in welfare babies, then this is the way to do it!


It's exactly the same.
I choose to do more miles. Others should pay my expenses so as to avoid the risk of me having an accident. You know, to make it cheaper in the long run.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 03:54 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Birth control reduces abortion rates too.

But you don't want to hear about that do you?

Not allowed to have free birth control, not allowed an abortion, so all those teenage girls and the poor will just have to keep the baby and become a generational burden on society.

Cool move man!



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 03:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Will probably increase the number of abortions now.

Way to go Trump.



Who cares, they're free too.

When they start paying for them you'll see some personal responsibility and safe preventative sex being practiced.

Don't forget the 20 week rule.




posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 04:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: UKTruth

Birth control reduces abortion rates too.

But you don't want to hear about that do you?

Not allowed to have free birth control, not allowed an abortion, so all those teenage girls and the poor will just have to keep the baby and become a generational burden on society.

Cool move man!


Your argument was that birth control should be part of insurance because it is cheaper in the long run.
I just gave you an example of why that logic is flawed.
Here's another - we should all pay for heroin addicts needles. Less chance of them catching a disease and cheaper in the long run as we'll be paying for less HIV drugs...oh wait
Lunacy.

Abortion is a different argument - and one that has been discussed. I have no issue with abortion before the foetus can feel pain, so if there are more I don't see that as a problem, as long as the person getting the abortion is paying for it.

edit on 7/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 04:16 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

And I told you, your example is dumb.

And wrong.

Have a read of this article..

www.npr.org...

The crux:


"So you're saying by not having babies born, we're going to save money in healthcare?" asked an incredulous Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.), of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at a House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee hearing last week. Exactly, Sebelius replied, explaining what studies like the one from Brookings have shown for years. "Providing contraception as a critical preventive health benefit for women and for their children reduces health care funds," she said.







edit on 7/10/17 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 04:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: UKTruth

And I told you, your example is dumb.

And wrong.

Have a read of this article..

www.npr.org...





Your link just addresses your argument that it is cheaper in the long run.
So is my example - and you've failed to explain why it is not.

If non-drivers and low mileage drivers share the cost for good maintenance on cars driven by those who do a lot of miles, it will be cheaper in the long run as more cars will be maintained correctly and there will be fewer accidents.

If celibate people, older people who can no longer have children, people trying for a child share the cost of birth control with those not wanting children, it will be cheaper in the long run as more people who don't want children will be protected and there will be less unwanted pregnancies.

Same argument.

edit on 7/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 04:46 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Well using your argument then, there's no need to pay for schools, firefighters, police etc.

Just pay as you need it, right?

Another article for you..

www.sltrib.com...


States that expanded access to birth control have seen pregnancy and abortion rates decline. Colorado saved nearly $70 million in state and federal money and cut teen abortion rates in half in five years by providing 36,000 low-income women long-acting birth control, according to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.




edit on 7/10/17 by Chadwickus because: Better source



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 04:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: UKTruth

Well using your argument then, there's no need to pay for schools, firefighters, police etc.

Just pay as you need it, right?

Another article for you..


One of the best, most efficient and most humane things a state can do to not just ease, but prevent, poverty and dependence is to put up a relative pittance of taxpayer money to help women in a particular income bracket acquire long-lasting forms of contraception.

The practice is such a no-brainer that 43 states already do it. One of the seven that does not is — wait for it — Utah.
Utah state Rep. Ray Ward — a Republican from Bountiful and a physician to boot — says he will push for the Utah Legislature to get with the program when its regular session begins in January. He deserves to succeed.


www.sltrib.com...

Another republican btw.


No, my argument is that a principal of 'making it cheaper in the long run' is not a good argument for what should or should not be included in health insurance. If such a principle is used then it stands to reason that everything that can be made cheaper by pooling the resources of the entire nation should be included.

The fact that is not the case eliminates that reasoning.

The reason we pay for schools, firefighters and policemen is not to make things cheaper either.
edit on 7/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join