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.

 

The Birth Control Controversy

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

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by blackcube
A catholic church University is an employer (business).
The teachers are their employees and so it include insurance policy in the employment pack. University offer insurance to students too.

The gov. say the Insurance companies MUST pay for contraception pills.

Do you think these universities/colleges/schools can opt out from any employment contracts under the law because their god says so? Of course not.

I m pretty sure these universities aren't free, private universities. People pay money to them to study there. Stop using religion talk here... ITS BUSINESS.

RESUME:
Gov says: Insurance companies need pay for contraception pills for their clients...
Insurance companies don't want because it means... they will lose money. Use a bunch religions arguments as excuse.
End of story.
edit on 4/3/12 by blackcube because: (no reason given)



They should be able to since Obama has allowed waivers for all his Union friends and other religious affiliations(The Amish and Scientologists).




posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
If the Catholic church doesn't want others to impose their beliefs on them, they shouldn't impose their religion on others.

Actually, it's not the Catholics who are imposing their beliefs on others. It's the 'others' trying to impose their beliefs onto the Catholics. It's the 'others' who are not giving them their First Amendment rights. The Catholic church has a right to believe what it wishes and to have their church outreaches (church hospitals, church schools) to reflect those beliefs and to maintain a Catholic identity.

The only people trying to do any 'controling' are those that want to control the Catholic church.


BC is not abortifacients, it does not cause an abortion.

That is incorrect. The IUD and the Pill both act as abortifcients in many cases.
Google up birth control pill and abortifacient .. same with IUD ...



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by blackcube
A catholic church University is an employer (business)..

What part of Catholic CHURCH hospital or Catholic CHURCH school don't you get?
It's as much a part of the Catholic Church as the worship building that has stained glass.
If they can't run their church outreaches while maintaining their Catholic standards/identity,
then they will close.

Then you can go explain to the poor people in the city why their hospital has closed and
why they can't get the care they need. Ditto explaining to the school kids that their school
was closed because some one wanted free birth control pills and that they didn't want the
Catholic church to have it's First Amendment rights.

Good luck with that.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by iamconcerned
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Awesome post. I love how he has no response about the Catholic hospital closing. If I was a Catholic hospital, DONATING MY TIME AND MONEY FOR FREE, and I had to deal with ungrateful dbags trying to fourth reich me, I would absolutely shut down. People like the O.P. don't deserve all the millions of hours those nuns put in caring for sick people for FREE. They should pay the going rate, who gives a crap if they are poor. No money, no bed! Charity is for religious Fascists!


It is quite unfortunate that this admin is so set and bound for socialism that the shutdown of all private institutions and subsequent replacement with State institutions is part of the goal.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
In my mind this is not a religious issue. Where on earth do people get off thinking they are owed free birth control? Birth control is a choice- you either use it or you don't. Responsible people chose to use it to avoid the consequences of having sex. Irresponsible people do not. Ms. Fluke wants me to pay for her birth control. Ms. Fluke should be using condoms or all that other stuff you can pick up at Wal-mart, if she doesn't have insurance to cover her birth control. That crap about her buddy feeling "powerless" when she found out her insurance company didn't provide birth control coverage is bunk! This whole thing is garbage and just shows how pathetic things are getting. I want, I need, I deserve, well I say BS!!!! Those reports that this has set back women is crap also. You don't need a prescription for a condom, she wants pills, implants and all those other things that are obviously out of her current budget. Ms Fluke and Co. should be ashamed, in my mind this is catering to a bunch of spoiled brats.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Hillarie
 


it's kind of like the friend I had who had his job outsourced. he lost his insurance, lost his job, and well he was a diabetic, and was wondering just where in the world he was gonna come up with the money for his insulin..he finally said heck with it, I just won't take it, knowing danged well what the repercussions of such and act would be!
well sandra is kind of like this man, she knows there's a pretty good chance that if she doesn't take the pills, she's gonna have serious problems!!
for people to sit there and say ah, it's just 10 or 20, or whatever dollars, why can't they pay for it themselves, I mean look at the stupid things they are using the money for....
you don't know me, you don't know my friend, you don't know sandra!!! you don't know their situation, weather or not they are spendthrifts or if they are eating every other day because of the lack of funds!!! so, what do you think, think they should give up another meal or two, to buy their medicine??
seems to me, my friend was smart, sandra is smart...they knew the possible results of not taking the medicine...maybe we should entertain the idea that they would have bought the stuff if they had a way to pay for it??

and well, why should one have to sacrifice any more for their healthcare, than you would for you blood pressure medicine, or acne medicine, or whatever. all healthcare should pay for birth control, if not as a free preventive care than it should be treated as any other prescription drug or medical procedure that is covered!

to me, it's stupid to tie insurance to employment like it is in this country.. not everyone is gonna have a job and thus enjoy having the major part of that premium paid by a boss! I was a stay at home mom for many years and no one will ever convince me that such a system that ties insurance in with employment and then the employers just decides to not help out when it comes to covering the rest of the employee's family is putting those stay at home mom's in a major disadvantage when it comes to obtaining any healthcare!

I can think of a few reasons why the employer should be replaced as the major avenue to obtain health insurance! and guess what, it would solve the poor religious employers problem of being forced to provide a health insurance policies that gives coverage for medical care they don't believe in !!!

get rid of the health insurance and the gov't programs and hey, no one will ever have to worry about providing that nasty healthcare that they don't believe in. no more arguing, no more bickering!! my care is between me and my doctor..your care is between you and your doctor... and it will just be crap when you can't come up with the money to pay the doctor or if you can't charge as much for your services because no one can pay that much!!



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by AuntB
 


um....I imagine that chemotherapy would be out of your budget also...
this is why we have insurance!!!
why should women's reproductive care be left out, exactly???
by what I understood from reading through the posts was that the lady was speaking about a friend, who was using the pill, not because she didn't want to becomes pregnant, but rather, to prevent a serious health problem from developing!!! she wasn't insured for it, obviously the sacrifice that she would have had to endure to obtain it was big enough to feel that the risks involve was worth taken! and well....come to find out, the the risk became a reality!

so, do we taxpayers, does you employer, does your fellow insurance pool members pay for your coverage for the flu shot?? what about your blood pressure medicine??



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
it's amazing to me that this is a conversation in 2012. insurance companies have been covering birth control for YEARS and no one had a problem with it until now. it's just a political ploy and it won't work. almost every woman of child bearing years gets on the pill and it's a MONTHLY expense that can't just be stopped and started whenever. women take the pill even if they are having ZERO sex. it's not like condoms (which we are taught are not 100% and taking the pill along with condoms is the best choice). most women want it covered under insurance whether they are catholic or atheist. it's a silly argument but keep it up because it will keep the GOP out of office.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by AuntB
 


um....I imagine that chemotherapy would be out of your budget also...
this is why we have insurance!!!
why should women's reproductive care be left out, exactly???
by what I understood from reading through the posts was that the lady was speaking about a friend, who was using the pill, not because she didn't want to becomes pregnant, but rather, to prevent a serious health problem from developing!!! she wasn't insured for it, obviously the sacrifice that she would have had to endure to obtain it was big enough to feel that the risks involve was worth taken! and well....come to find out, the the risk became a reality!

so, do we taxpayers, does you employer, does your fellow insurance pool members pay for your coverage for the flu shot?? what about your blood pressure medicine??


ummmm, strawman arguments don't get far around here, try again.
there is no such "catastrophic" only policies available, i've looked and am still waiting.
yes, some comprehensive coverage does cover chemotherapy as well as other treatments ... BUT ... why can't i or anyone else get the insurance we choose/want, rather be forced to pay for coverage everyone ELSE uses?
taxes already do that.

now, if you have insurance to cover chemotherapy and that's why YOU have insurance, that's YOUR decision.
i would like coverage for chemo but WITHOUT all the extras necessary in the current policies offered, a true free-market would make such coverage available.

don't take a flu shot so NO
don't have a BP issue so NO
not diabetic either so NO
and actually, the friend could have sought an OON (out of network) provider and still obtained her needed meds, and could have subsequently appealed her insurers decision ... that is how it's supposed to work.
Not, get a policy at reduced rates then complain about what isn't covered.
let's not forget, the employee/student could have refused company coverage and obtained her own



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 

Chemo and birth control pills are two different animals. My insurance company doesn't pay for 1/2 of the medication that we are prescribed. Birth control pills can cost up to $50. We pay $300 per month for one medication. Should I whine complain and say I deserve? I have watched all my health care cost rise year after year. I work so I will pay. I don't get free! I know a lady that lives in Mexico cause her meds cost $100 per month rather then $600 per month in the US. The system is broken, the drug companies are out of control and the the way to fix it is not to provide free.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar
reply to post by Muttley2012
 


No, but let's say you work for a Catholic Private School that self-insures. You don't have to be Catholic to work there. Can you demand that they provide you with birth control when it counters their religious beliefs?


Considering birth control isn't /just/ used for pregnancy prevention, I think you should. There are women, like myself and my best friend, that use birth control for health issues. I think, when it comes to religious institutions that insure, if you're getting BC for sex, you should pay for it yourself. If you're getting it for health reasons, they should cover.
It wouldn't be very good of them to prevent a woman from getting health help when it comes to birth control just because someone may use it for sex.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by iamconcerned
reply to post by mastahunta
 

'Who paid for my bubble?

is this like an inquisition thats starting in America? I paid for that toilet seat you sat on when
you were at the park.'

Sorry you misunderstood. I'm willing to bet money you don't earn your rent. You know like, with a like, job. Perhaps that is a bit clearer for you. Half of these entitlement threads are people in college or people living at their parents. I need the beer money, please someone bet me.


I don't earn my rent huh?


Just because I have different opinion then you?




posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Look at the bigger picture, this is not about birth control, it is about CONTROL over the American people. And redistribution of wealth. Make the poor man poorer and they will be ineffectual. Doesn't matter what sex you are, what race you are, or what religion you are or what have you. Look at all the other things being brought up and passed if you can't see it than you need to be smelling the coffee.

Do you really want the government to tell you what to eat, drink, do on your property on public lands, and everything else they want to do to you? What benefits do we really get? CONTROL is all I see coming out of DC. I sure don't want it and I sure do not consent to it.

The government breeds irresponsibility. If you want to be irresponsible well that is your business but don't expect others to have to pay for you.

(Disclaimer: The use of "man" in this statement is a generality of the human race)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by mastahunta
The 1st amendment is not a tool for religious Fascists to use as a dictating implement.

The 1st amendment is there to protect religious liberties from people like you who want to impose your own morals on others. Kinda funny, considering that is exactly what people like you complain that the other side does.

This thread =

edit on 3/4/2012 by FlyersFan because: typo


Obumbo the Muslim Illegal Immigrant created an Opt out measure. They don't have to pay for
it, the entire insurance pool pays for it. And I'll have you know, the church already pays for
all kinds of procedures because they participate in insurance. Their money is not segregated
and keep track of when claims are paid, that is simple the bottom line truth due to the massive
nature of pooling.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by AuntB
 

think you are talking about two different animals also...

every insurance company will deny coverage for some medicines...usually though, there is an alternative that is just as suitable that they will cover. in other words, some forms, probably the newest versions would not be covered, but then the will provide the generic for a few bucks...
here, we are talking about no coverage of birth control, period!!! and it's not a decision that the insurance company is making but the empoyer....
based on religious views that quite frankly, is kind of biased against women to begin with...

to say the system is broke, well, ya, no kidding!!! to think that we each should be able to pick and chose just what we wish to be covered for, and our rates be adjusted accordingly, well, wouldn't this kind of kill the insurance companies? I mean, just who is gonna buy insurance for juvenile diabetes, unless they have the disease?? the insurance companies can only make money if they can pool all the risks together and well, you accept that the money you pitched into the pot is gonna be used for my health problems, whatever they are, and in return, the money I add to the pool will be used for yours.
the only thing that I find more abhorrant than a mandate that we have to have insurance would be a mandate for the insurance and then we start alienating people out if it deciding we aren't gonna cover this and that and the other thing!! then you are asking people to pay for your care, and then turning around and saying no, you aren't taking care of their care. and quite frankly, it just might be possible that they may need that care you are refusing them much more than you need the services you are collecting on!!!

and, in a country where many of the "poor" are getting a nice little plastic card that gives them near free healthcare, well, sorry, but yes, we, the taxpayer have the right to affordable healthcare, without going hungry for it, without having to do without those petty, little extras that hey, those poor are enjoying also!! otherwise we are just slaves serving the super rich and their pets!!!

I agree, when



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by hangedman13
reply to post by mastahunta
 


I also know you can go and get a prescription for erectile disfunction pills, why should someone have to pay for your hard on? As it is, the company she works for does not have to pay for it if they disagree on religious grounds, so what now?


That is because erectile disfunction is a pre-existing condition, where the pill and other contraceptives do not treat one. Hence why insurance companies as a rule don't cover contraceptives, they don't treat anything usually. However the pill is sometimes used to treat hormone issues where it actually is used as a treatment!
edit on 3-3-2012 by hangedman13 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-3-2012 by hangedman13 because: oops


As someone else stated before in this thread, birth control DOES treat pre-existing conditions. It also prevents multiple things OTHER than pregnancy.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Believer101
 


No one is preventing women from getting contraceptive health care. If it is that important, Ms Fluke can work elsewhere. The young woman she seems to be representing can also obtain contraceptives easily. If she can afford to go to Georgetown Ivy league school, she can afford to get contraceptives. Like someone else said, she can give up the Starbucks and drink Folgers. See, that's the great thing about free enterprise. There is always competition out there. These people are just using this as a springboard for a liberal agenda.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   

edit on 4-3-2012 by Jadedfate because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by WTFover


JD and Coke are not healthcare products.



Umm..neither is Birth Control, except when you have some kind of health issue that the hormones can help with, and then I do believe it is already covered. Saying something to keep you from getting knocked up so you can do whatever you want sexually is a health care product is absurd. Then Condoms are a health care product too. Which they're not.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by Muttley2012

Originally posted by WTFover
But, the fact is, no matter how many "reasons" you dream up, that pesky little First Amendment just keeps getting in your way.

That is the heart of the issue and all the Sandra Flukes in the world won't change it.



What does the first amendment have to do with birth control?


Its another typical right wing way to instill their Fascist ideas on America,
just like Citizens Untied. Constitution is toilet paper to be used like toilet
paper I guess.


I've enjoyed reading these awkward rantings from mastahunta that make no sense whatsoever. I understand your liberal viewpoints, and that's great, you are involved in politics, more people should be. But is it me or are there more and more threads on ats popping up with these stupid liberal and right wing rants? As I said in another thread, you should debate FACTS and not attack the other party with accusations, leave that up to the politicians. This is one of the reasons why the US is in the crapper right now, citizens attacking other citizens with malice. When you say "It's another typical right wing way to install their Fascist ideas on America," you are just using hatred to try to get your viewpoint across.

I do hope that you are aware that our country is a Republic, mastahunta. Now that is a FACT. It is true that some republicans may have fascist ideas just the same as some democrats may have communist ideas. Which one is better you ask? The system we have in place is better because the citizens hold the power in a Republic. And no, the power elite do NOT hold all the cards by just putting someone in as President, because we have the power to vote at a local level which makes more of a difference than voting for the President. More of which people need to do but for some reason usually just forget to.

And back to my point, if I were to say "Obama is using his communist viewpoints to get Obamacare and is ruining our country by spending trillions of dollars we don't have because he is just pushing his communist ideas on us," how does that sound? It sounds stupid just like you sound. So please get over yourself and move on.

And please people, lighten up and enrich us all with your talent and not your hatred.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join