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: 15
11
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta

The organization is not an individual. Each person in that organization is free to use
or not use what ever they would like in their personal lives. But for some reason
organizations think they can pick and chose which morality employees have to
adopt. I am with the side of personal freedom.


You are on the side of government coercion. Individual freedom appears to mean nothing at all to you. If you get your way, governmental coercion will eventually eliminate your individual freedom. It has to start somewhere, and it appears that you prefer it start with your "enemies", and you appear to fail to realize (or perhaps don't care) that it will eventually work it's way down to YOU.




posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by mastahunta

The organization is not an individual. Each person in that organization is free to use
or not use what ever they would like in their personal lives. But for some reason
organizations think they can pick and chose which morality employees have to
adopt. I am with the side of personal freedom.


You are on the side of government coercion. Individual freedom appears to mean nothing at all to you. If you get your way, governmental coercion will eventually eliminate your individual freedom. It has to start somewhere, and it appears that you prefer it start with your "enemies", and you appear to fail to realize (or perhaps don't care) that it will eventually work it's way down to YOU.


I do not think it has be a manifestation of evil. Seniors have lived and died, while
having benefited greatly from Social Security or Medicare. These programs did not,
and do not have an official method of aversion associated with them.

Saying that I am against individual freedom is a very large stretch.Of the Trillions of combinations
one can come up with, I struggle to think of many things I support that infringe choice. In fact
because the catholic church has done so much controlling I suppose I was quick on wanting to
give them a taste back. I am going to wait and see how this pans out.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Many employers and insurance companies do see the wisdom in offering "well-care visits, breast and prostrate exams, etc. as part of a person's health coverage. It makes sense and in the long run is cost effective if it prevents catastrophic medical problems by catching them earlier. Birth control does reguire some monitering of a women's health by a doctor, and I think that's why is not just simply a "routine maintenace"
edit on 5-3-2012 by MountainLaurel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by MountainLaurel


Many employers and insurance companies do see the wisdom in offering "well-care visits, breast and prostrate exams, etc. as part of a person's health coverage. It makes sense and in the long run is cost effective if it prevents catastrophic medical problems by catching them earlier. Birth control does reguire some monitering of a women's health by a doctor, and I think that's why is not just simply a "routine maintenace"
edit on 5-3-2012 by MountainLaurel because: (no reason given)


I agree but on the other hand I think healthcare coverage prices should differ between males,females,homosexuals and heterosexual. You know, like smoker and non smoker healthcare is all about risk assessment to make a profit, right? Otherwise why are they in business. LOL does anyone see the real problem here, it sure isn't health



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


most insurance coverages cover "routine maintenaince?"!!!

mine will cover anything from the common cold or flu to tumors and cancer!!
and well, if it's against the constitution for them to mandate that the insurance religious based companies provide insurance that include coverage for birth control, well, wouldn't th at same constitutional protection carry over to the people???
so, one would assume that if this battle is won, the next battle would be for people to start complaining that the insurance policy that my company is offering is in conflict with the constitution because is covers birth control and is forcing you to pay for my birth control...
which like I pointed out before, is totally false since I am old enough that I don't need the danged birth control!

add to that the other bills that run through congress....wanting to intrude into a women's body with cameras, declaring a few cells within one's body as equally protected by the constitution as the body that carries them...
well, sorry, but having lots of babies in one's lifetime is dangerous to the women!!! eliminating medical care that treats real medical problems in women is dangerous to women!

and, religion or not, the constitution does not allow you to threaten the well being of any one person, let alone the female half of the population!

medicare, medicaid, insurance is by nature people pooling money together, for use by any member who happens to need medical care!!! like it or not.....birth control is part of that medical care for women and used by more than just those who don't want to get pregnant!! I've known people past menopause taking estrogen for other problems!
personally, I think the mandate itself is unconstitutional....but that is not the argument here....
here, we are just picking and choosing just what that mandated insurance should include.
what you and me want to spend our money on!! well, it's simple what we are spending our money on, we are spending on a crappy insurance plan that is gonna balk at paying any amount of money for any care, which won't pay a dime until you rack up an annoying amount of money in medical bills!!
that is what we are mandated to buy!!
what that insurance covers is another story and obviously we don't have much say in what is included within it or it wouldn't be so crappy to begin with!!!

but your religious rights do not trump any women's right to a healthy life!! so get that one out of your head right now!








edit on 5-3-2012 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by nenothtu
 


most insurance coverages cover "routine maintenaince?"!!!

mine will cover anything from the common cold or flu to tumors and cancer!!
and well, if it's against the constitution for them to mandate that the insurance religious based companies provide insurance that include coverage for birth control, well, wouldn't th at same constitutional protection carry over to the people???
so, one would assume that if this battle is won, the next battle would be for people to start complaining that the insurance policy that my company is offering is in conflict with the constitution because is covers birth control and is forcing you to pay for my birth control...
which like I pointed out before, is totally false since I am old enough that I don't need the danged birth control!

add to that the other bills that run through congress....wanting to intrude into a women's body with cameras, declaring a few cells within one's body as equally protected by the constitution as the body that carries them...
well, sorry, but having lots of babies in one's lifetime is dangerous to the women!!! eliminating medical care that treats real medical problems in women is dangerous to women!

and, religion or not, the constitution does not allow you to threaten the well being of any one person, let alone the female half of the population!

medicare, medicaid, insurance is by nature people pooling money together, for use by any member who happens to need medical care!!! like it or not.....birth control is part of that medical care for women and used by more than just those who don't want to get pregnant!! I've known people past menopause taking estrogen for other problems!
personally, I think the mandate itself is unconstitutional....but that is not the argument here....
here, we are just picking and choosing just what that mandated insurance should include.
what you and me want to spend our money on!! well, it's simple what we are spending our money on, we are spending on a crappy insurance plan that is gonna balk at paying any amount of money for any care, which won't pay a dime until you rack up an annoying amount of money in medical bills!!
that is what we are mandated to buy!!
what that insurance covers is another story and obviously we don't have much say in what is included within it or it wouldn't be so crappy to begin with!!!

but your religious rights do not trump any women's right to a healthy life!! so get that one out of your head right now!





Your right but you have the right at present not to purchase health insurance



edit on 5-3-2012 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Believer101
So, you know a majority of women in this country and their use of birth control then, eh?

I'm a woman and I definitely agree with Flyers Fan's statement.

I'm a woman and agree with my statement too!


Originally posted by mastahunta
See if they can reach a compromise,

Stop right there. That word 'compromise' .... that's just spin by the far left to cover the fact that they stepped in dog poop with this. There can be no 'compromise' ... either you follow the Constitution or you don't. It's just that simple.

'Compromise' ...



Originally posted by MountainLaurel
It seems to me once a religious group becomes an employer they should be bound to the laws already in place to not "discriminate" based on age, religion, race, sex, etc. , so I would say they no longer can impose religious beliefs in the context of "employer"

It seems to me that you don't get the fact that these are Catholic CHURCH hospitals and schools and that no one is 'imposing religious beliefs' on employees .. employees who, of their own free will, chose to work for the Catholic church knowing full well what the Church believes.

Instead .. it's people who don't understand the Constitution that are imposing THEIR beliefs onto the Catholic church.


Originally posted by mastahunta
In fact because the catholic church has done so much controlling I suppose I was quick on wanting to
give them a taste back. .

1 - You finally admit your agenda is unconstitutional and just an emotional rant on your part.
2 - The Catholic church has rules for it's members. Members are free to leave if they dont' like them.
Others are free not to worship with the Catholics or take part in their outreaches (hospitals, schools).
So where is it that the Catholic church is 'so much controlling' in your life? Good luck answering that.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
1 - You finally admit your agenda is unconstitutional and just an emotional rant on your part.
2 - The Catholic church has rules for it's members. Members are free to leave if they dont' like them.
Others are free not to worship with the Catholics or take part in their outreaches (hospitals, schools).
So where is it that the Catholic church is 'so much controlling' in your life? Good luck answering that.

I see the constitution being brought out to defend the church at the cost of the individual's rights. While I believe that the individuals of the church are protected by the Bill of Rights I don't think it should extend to the church as an organization.

The church has rules for it's members but not all of those that are employed by it are part of the church and therefore not subject to their rules. That is why the church should offer whatever every other employee is mandated to offer and the individual should have the final word. Isn't that more consistent with conservative ideology or is having an organization decide for an individual now OK with conservatives?



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
that's just spin by the far left to cover the fact that they stepped in dog poop with this. There can be no 'compromise' ... either you follow the Constitution or you don't. It's just that simple.

'Compromise' ...





Oh wait, its far left to use birth control
?

You are probably right, trying to compromise with the Right Wing is like try to Compromise
with psychotics.

And the right regularly tries to defy the constitution with their stances on abortion,
homosexuality and corporate personhood so don't give me the holier than thou routine, sista

look over here ---------------------------->
hahahaha
edit on 5-3-2012 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-3-2012 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


But birth control has other uses. It is a hormone, it is used just as much to fix problems as it is used for birth control.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by MountainLaurel

We pay for people's "vices" all the time, obesity, drinking, smoking, etc. are all factored into insurance rates wether you do them or not, and most don't consider sex a "vice" but a normal and important part of a healthy persons life. This is just silliness and lacks commen sense.


I don't pay for other people's vices, and I'm mildly curious as to why you do. If you just want to, that's fine by me, but I don't. I have my own vices to shoulder the bill for. No one else is paying for mine, nor would I expect them to.

Anything becomes a vice when taken to excess - and doing more than you can pay for on your own qualifies.





actually you do.

The health care cost of your company is an average of the health of everyone that also is employed there, numbers, age, chronic conditions, etc. men, women, obesity,are ALL factored in before the health insurance company gives your company a quote for services.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Bullcookies
 


Your right but you have the right at present not to purchase health insurance
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the key words there are "at present"....

so, anyone know when the date is that we all are supposed to have insurance or the tax collector will come and take our milk money away???

for those of you who are saying that hey, if the people don't like it, they can find another job....hey, in case you haven't noticed, the job market is rather dry at the moment....and well, in some remote areas, that is the only source of medical care (thus the only source for jobs for anyone specializing in the medical profession) in the area!! guess you would prefer that they just drop their underwater houses onto the bank and move to where they can find a job that isn't connected to a religion?? and well, I've already posted an article awhile ago on this thread about how these religious hospitals are merging with others all over the place, so, well...the opportunities are being limited by the day probably!!!
or ya, they can just get their own insurance!!! ya....never mind that it would cost me an extra hundred dollars if not more a month for that insurance if I was to go and get it without the power of a group behind me...na.....oh, ya, I'll run right out today and get it!!! and then when the electric company, or the bank, or whoever wants their payment I will just tell them that I am sorry, I used the money to get myself insurance, since the policy I have won't consider my needs as a women because of their "religion"!!!
ya, that should go over good!!!

the health care is just one big arse ponzi scheme anyways!!! we all have to pitch in anyways, weather we can afford to take care of our own health or not, and soon, people who are never gonna be able to meet the yearly deductable to have anything returned to them are gonna have to be paying for it, taking money that hey, might have at least bought them some over the counter drugs for their ailments, and well, it's a ponzi scheme that will fall to pieces if there isn't enough suckers wasting their money who will never be able to take advantage of the system because it's just too danged expensive for their budgets!! well, guess what, unless you are in support of true affordable healthcare for EVERY TAXPAYER, EVERY PERSON WHO IS PAYING AN INSURANCE PREMIUM well, it is you who is wanting those people that you desire to leave out of the loop to pay your medical bills!!!






edit on 5-3-2012 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by WTFover
 


But birth control has other uses. It is a hormone, it is used just as much to fix problems as it is used for birth control.


No, "birth control" is just what the name implies. Even though I've already addressed this in previous posts, I'll say it again. If it is being used for other purposes, then it is not "birth control". That is a very important distinction that is plainly obvious.

If the medication used as "birth control", most often estrogen/progestin, is prescribed as medically necessary for actual health complications, then I fully support that use being covered by the employer provided insurance. And, though I'm not saying they haven't, I have not heard any mention of the Catholic church refusing to provide coverage for that purpose. They just do not want to pay for "birth control" / contraceptives.

But, the issue here is whether the government can force an employer, who on religious grounds does not want to fund "birth control" / contraceptives, to do so.

Disclaimer: Of course, I emphatically oppose the government being involved in health care and, specifically, mandating any employer or individual to buy anything they do not want to, including insurance.

But, the issue and discussion here is that the government cannot, in keeping with the Constitution, infringe upon the religious freedoms of religious organizations, who also happen to be employers.
edit on 5-3-2012 by WTFover because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by mastahunta
In fact because the catholic church has done so much controlling I suppose I was quick on wanting to
give them a taste back. .

1 - You finally admit your agenda is unconstitutional and just an emotional rant on your part.


I just wanted to bring attention to this, again. That is exactly why I wish I hadn't wasted my time in this thread. mastahunta's arguments, like most liberals, is based solely in emotion.

Adios



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta

I do not think it has be a manifestation of evil. Seniors have lived and died, while
having benefited greatly from Social Security or Medicare. These programs did not,
and do not have an official method of aversion associated with them.


I'm not sure what you mean here by "an official method of aversion". If you mean avoidance, that all depends on how strongly one feels about it. Personally, I don't think that forced Social Security is any more moral than forced insurance purchase. With both auto insurance and Social Security, I can refuse to participate simply by not participating - there is no law that says I have to own a car, or work for financial profit. The only way to avoid buying insurance, under the new laws, is to stop breathing. You are being taxed, in effect, for merely living.

My own choice is to not stop breathing, and defy the "health care" laws by refusing to purchase any insurance. That's just me - other people will have to find their own solutions, or cave in to tyranny,



Saying that I am against individual freedom is a very large stretch.


You misunderstood me - I didn't say that you are "against" individual freedom, just that it appears you are not overly concerned with it. They are not the same thing - one is active, the other passive.



Of the Trillions of combinations one can come up with, I struggle to think of many things I support that infringe choice. In fact because the catholic church has done so much controlling I suppose I was quick on wanting to
give them a taste back. I am going to wait and see how this pans out.


I don't concern myself with the Catholic Church -they have never held any sway over me. I've never given them any control over me, so they have never controlled me. I actually have nothing to do with them at all, for good or for ill. I can understand how other people have had different experience of that, and so experience a desire for a backlash.

I gave you a star. You seem to be one who is willing to re-evaluate if that should become necessary in your estimation.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by MountainLaurel


Many employers and insurance companies do see the wisdom in offering "well-care visits, breast and prostrate exams, etc. as part of a person's health coverage. It makes sense and in the long run is cost effective if it prevents catastrophic medical problems by catching them earlier. Birth control does reguire some monitering of a women's health by a doctor, and I think that's why is not just simply a "routine maintenace"
edit on 5-3-2012 by MountainLaurel because: (no reason given)


Any maintenance requires monitoring - otherwise, you don't know what to maintain or how to maintain it. There are occasions when birth control pills are used to regulate hormonal imbalances, which would be a "medical necessity" rather than "routine maintenance" or "recreational activity". In those cases of "hormonal therapy" as opposed to "birth control", I could see insurance coverage.

Birth control, not so much. That's like requiring insurance to foot the bill for helmets and pads for bike riders or football players. They prevent unwanted medical things from happening pursuant to recreational activity too.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Believer101
Care to provide proof of this statement that "most women use birth control not to get pregnant"?

You didn't just say that ... did you?



Ahahaha, that cracked me up.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by nenothtu
 


most insurance coverages cover "routine maintenaince?"!!!

mine will cover anything from the common cold or flu to tumors and cancer!!


I wouldn't know the current state of it. I stopped playing insurance lotto years ago, and started taking care of my own health.



and well, if it's against the constitution for them to mandate that the insurance religious based companies provide insurance that include coverage for birth control, well, wouldn't th at same constitutional protection carry over to the people???


Yes.



so, one would assume that if this battle is won, the next battle would be for people to start complaining that the insurance policy that my company is offering is in conflict with the constitution because is covers birth control and is forcing you to pay for my birth control...


No. It's not forcing me to pay for anything at all. I don't have to buy into it. That is between employer and employee - and the employee can always opt for another plan, or, as I do, none.



which like I pointed out before, is totally false since I am old enough that I don't need the danged birth control!


I don't need birth control, either, and I'm damn sure not going to pay for it if I don't need it.



add to that the other bills that run through congress....wanting to intrude into a women's body with cameras,


This is the second time I've heard that, but I'm not familiar with the concept. Why in the devil would they do that, and why in the devil would anyone allow it?



declaring a few cells within one's body as equally protected by the constitution as the body that carries them...


That's just common sense. Why would a part not be subject to the same protections as the whole?



well, sorry, but having lots of babies in one's lifetime is dangerous to the women!!! eliminating medical care that treats real medical problems in women is dangerous to women!


Simple solution - don't have babies then. My dad told me a long time ago what causes that affliction. No one is "eliminating medical care" we are saying "pay for your own recreation".



and, religion or not, the constitution does not allow you to threaten the well being of any one person, let alone the female half of the population!


No one is being threatened. if they have no self control, that isn't my problem - I neither have a need to "threaten" them nor do I have a need to protect them from themselves. When my ex was on birth control, I paid for it. Simple. I paid for my own recreational activities, and didn't require someone else to pay my way. it was my understanding that she never felt "threated" by me taking care of my own responsibilities.



medicare, medicaid, insurance is by nature people pooling money together, for use by any member who happens to need medical care!!!


Exactly. if you don't like the plan the group offers, find another or handle it yourself.



like it or not.....birth control is part of that medical care for women and used by more than just those who don't want to get pregnant!! I've known people past menopause taking estrogen for other problems!


I'm well aware of that. My first wife had hormonal issues as a teen, and was on "birth control" pills as "hormonal therapy". The same for my daughter. My second wife was on estrogen therapy during menopause. In her case, she died from it, but doctors are only fallible humans too, eh? The therapy didn't do her much good, but it did do a great deal of harm. I realize, though, that she was the exception rather than the rule. The other two skated through life just fine - on my dime, not the insurance company,



personally, I think the mandate itself is unconstitutional....but that is not the argument here....
here, we are just picking and choosing just what that mandated insurance should include.


Mandated insurance should include nothing - it shouldn't even exist.



what you and me want to spend our money on!!


I spend my money on what I want to spend it on already. I don't need mandatory insurance to force me to spend it on what I DON'T want to spend it on.



well, it's simple what we are spending our money on, we are spending on a crappy insurance plan that is gonna balk at paying any amount of money for any care, which won't pay a dime until you rack up an annoying amount of money in medical bills!!


You do, not me. I don't play the insurance lotto, nor am I going to just because Uncle Sugar says I have to.



what that insurance covers is another story and obviously we don't have much say in what is included within it or it wouldn't be so crappy to begin with!!!


Your say in it, in a free world, would extend to the right NOT to participate if you didn't like the plan.



but your religious rights do not trump any women's right to a healthy life!! so get that one out of your head right now!


Nor have I said they do. By the same token, her right to a healthy life doesn't extend to picking my pocket to pay for her own recreation. If she or her partner don't want to pay their own way, that is not my problem. If I'm not the one taggin' it, I'm not going to be the one paying for someone else to.








edit on 2012/3/5 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Any maintenance requires monitoring - otherwise, you don't know what to maintain or how to maintain it. There are occasions when birth control pills are used to regulate hormonal imbalances, which would be a "medical necessity" rather than "routine maintenance" or "recreational activity". In those cases of "hormonal therapy" as opposed to "birth control", I could see insurance coverage.

Birth control, not so much. That's like requiring insurance to foot the bill for helmets and pads for bike riders or football players. They prevent unwanted medical things from happening pursuant to recreational activity too.



Not sure if it was said in the last 15 pages but this is all about routine medical maintenance for a "behavior". There are a lot of behaviors out there so should we also include them too, also there is a lot of preventative medical care that is not covered...should that also be put into it.

A friend of mine is 350 pounds and he getting his stomach reduced and needs to go to Mexico to do it since his insurance will not cover it, but they will ok treatment of all the illnesses that go along with overweight.
How about teeth, very little is covered there and I think a set of teeth is more important to get than birth control pills.

I also have a behavior and it is call 16 year old scotch and nice cigars... reduces my stress... I'll agree with the pill if you all agree with my behavior being covered too.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

I see the constitution being brought out to defend the church at the cost of the individual's rights. While I believe that the individuals of the church are protected by the Bill of Rights I don't think it should extend to the church as an organization.


But then there's that pesky First Amendment that guarantees religious freedom... which can often be found being exercised by a ... church! The Constitution is not being "extended" to cover the church, that coverage is BUILT IN to it.

The individual's rights are not being abrogated - they have other recourse to exercise them that violating the rights of another in favor of theirs. Their rights do not extend to forcing someone else to pay for their recreational activities.



The church has rules for it's members but not all of those that are employed by it are part of the church and therefore not subject to their rules. That is why the church should offer whatever every other employee is mandated to offer and the individual should have the final word. Isn't that more consistent with conservative ideology or is having an organization decide for an individual now OK with conservatives?


No, conservative ideology insists that the individual pay his own way. No organization is "deciding for" individuals in this case, they are only saying what they will not pay for - the individual is still free to get it by another route.

I want a pony. Which one of you should I force to pay for it?




top topics



 
11
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join