It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Insanity! Federal Govt. To Force Insurance Companies To Cover Birth Control, Making It "Free" For

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link of the reason's we don't have "universal" health care...aka Socialized Medicine, is because the american people know it will end up substandard, will have too few services and doctors to go around many on Socialized Medicine end up coming here because they can't get the services they need or they can't get them in a timely Manner, and because SOMEONE has to pay for it.

Now that Obamacare is on the books...I hope not for long...I just got a notice that my health insurance company is going to raise my rates 35% costing me more than $700/year extra. With each new mandate, I am sure my rates will raise even more. I am self employed and pay my own insurance. I don't run to the doctor for every sneeze and snifflle...but I am sure paying for those who do.

I am not just going to put the blame on Obamacare for I know that even if we do get it overturned, I am sure my insurance company is not going to dial back my rate increase

posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 01:03 PM

Originally posted by Undertough
Just humor me. Lay out the cost of birth control vs the cost of unwanted and uncared for children.
You know, just for fun.

1) Why don't you provide that info?
2) It's not that easy, birth control via insurance companies in this fashion..... where do you get that info from?

Once again, Insurance Companies always win!
Time to wake up

posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 01:10 PM

The estimates of the cost to taxpayers of providing medical services to women who experience unintended pregnancies and to the infants who are born as a result of such pregnancies range between $9.6 and $12.6 billion per year, and average $11.3 billion. The estimates of the public savings that would result if these unintended pregnancies were prevented range from $4.7 billion to $6.2 billion per year, and average $5.6 billion.


Also, I know it may be difficult for some of our society who seem to thrive off hate for our fellow man, but it's not just 'sluts' and 'prostitutes' having sex (believe it or not). With the economy and job market the way it is, I imagine there's a great deal of married folks who would like to avoid 'accidents'.

posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Undertough

Originally posted by Common Good
reply to post by TheOneElectric

Thats because you are not thinking logically.


The future is now, and the last thing that we need at THIS MOMENT, is to spend money on a bunch of slutty whore bags.

And theres A LOT of those out there.

Not to mention its more than likely illegal to force someone to pay for someone elses sluttyness.

Just humor me. Lay out the cost of birth control vs the cost of unwanted and uncared for children.
You know, just for fun.

If you want to "Lay out the cost of birth control vs the cost of unwanted and uncared for children" my guest.
...Im not your research rat.

Why do you guys always think government is going to come in and make things better ?

They havent done such a good job thus far, in anything.

They cant even manage the postal service correctly.

Its not of my belief that other people should have to pay for other peoples activities.
Why do I want my tax dollars going to a bunch of people who dont know how to be responsible?

Eff that. Make them buy their own Protection.

If the mother is unfit, take the child away. Dont kill it. Im sure theres lots of people out there who would love to have a child but cant produce one on their own.

Theres too many stupid people out there breeding, and GOVT is the LAST place I would go to find a solution.

Just remember, its not the governments money, its OUR money.

But we can just print that out right? No big deal?

posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 01:13 PM

TextMorality aside for a sec man, wake the hell up, there is no such thing as "Free", someone or everyone will be paying for this to subsidize promiscuity.

Not everyone who uses birth control is promiscuous. It is possible to be in a stable relationship and use birth control. I have been in a relationship for almost 22 years with the same person AND I have used birth control for all those years. How is having free birth control bad? So maybe a few more unwanted babies are not born to teen mothers who will either let their crack head boyfriends abuse them or throw them into a dumpster. I don't believe in having children out of wedlock but it is a fact that it happens so at least this might help address the result of poor morals and save some unwanted children from ever being conceived.
edit on 1-8-2011 by Alena Michelle because: fixing quotes

posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 01:14 PM
This is a lure to get more people on entitlement programs.
Hate to be blunt, but there it is.

posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 01:17 PM
reply to post by beezzer

"All free. Er. . . um. . . . I guess the new definition of "free" is when someone takes your money and buys stuff for other people."

i call that the instant gratification crowd

"i want it all, i want it now and i dont care how"

posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 01:19 PM

Originally posted by Alena Michelle
How is having free birth control bad?

What's bad is your usage of the word "free"

It's one to want something without you paying the complete price for it but it's another to later claim it to be free
That's just a slap on people's face who will be unwillingly paying for this.

posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 01:20 PM
Well, think of it this way, society will pay for it one way or the other.

If lack of access to birth control results in an unwanted pregnancy, the child may likely end up a statistic one way or the other

- an aborted child
- a child with a disability who had no proper prenatal care
- a child in the foster care system due to neglectful parents
- or an adult in the criminal justice system due to lack of proper child rearing or supervision.

Pick one. It seems to me that paying for birth control is cheaper and more humane. The U.S can't have it both ways. If we want to have a civilized society with basic health and safety, it costs money. If we don't want to spend the money, then we can't complain about the results or get involved in people's personal decisions. It cracks me up how some can be both against abortion and against birth control. One prevents the other.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

And another thing, what the hell man.... how does the Federal Govt. have jurisdiction in FORCING companies to do anything like this?


Then let the same companies forgo tax breaks and subsidies and bailouts.
edit on 1/8/2011 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 01:27 PM

Originally posted by neo96
unwanted babies has a simply answer

keep your pants zipped up

then it wont cost anything.

Yeah coz that advice has worked well over the course of human history hasn't it. People arn't about to stop having sex.

posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 01:29 PM

I posted this about an hour ago, and got no love :-( Did I just put it in the wrong category? I had posted it in medical issues and conspiracies.

posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 01:37 PM
If this costs taxpayers money than it negates freedom of religion. For those that believe it infringes on their religous beliefs, it is an issue. For those that don't, it will be a benefit. It doesn't matter though because if a persons belief is against birth control, they will be effectively having their freedoms encroached upon. The coin does have two sides but to be constitutionally correct only one side can be played.

posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 01:38 PM
Please add any comments to the existing thread found here...

Thread closed.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in