The Birth Control Controversy

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by narwahl

My employer has no say on how I use or maintain my body.


What on earth are you talking about?




posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charmed707
reply to post by daskakik
 


Are you kidding me? The government needs to keep their hands out of people's pockets.

Yeah, that's going to happen.


It is completely immoral for people to be forced to pay for other people. People are individuals who should stand on their own two feet and pay for whatever they want themselves.

How does this change the idea behind insurance? It doesn't.


Insurance is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss. Insurance is defined as the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another, in exchange for payment.


It has nothing to do with individuals and everything to do with someone, insurer, managing a group of peoples money and covering the costs/losses that they may have.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by mastahunta
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.


Jesus Christ on a pony


No one has said "employees" can't use birth control. They just have to pay for it themselves. Religious organizations cannot and should not be forced by the state to fund it. I'm finished here, since you continue to ignore that simple, but defining fact.


yet you ignore that if they pay them, they are funding it anyway....
Also jehovas witnesses can opt out of paying for blood transfusions, and christian scientists and scientologists can opt out just about everything.
edit on 3-3-2012 by narwahl because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


No one should be forced to pay for insurance. Period.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Close...you as an employee have no right to force your self-insured employer to provide what it is religiously against. And furthermore, you cannot have the government step in and force them to provide it to you.


We are wasting our time with this argument. They know we're correct, which is why they always deflect the argument to accusations of employees being denied the thing, which the employee just does not want to pay for.

I wonder if they would support someone in advocating for the government to force their employer to provide medical insurance coverage for, say, a witch doctor or faith healer? After all, people have the right to the services of a faith healer, so if the employer provided insurance doesn't cover it, they are being denied that right.
edit on 3-3-2012 by WTFover because: spelling, dammit



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by narwahl
yet you ignore that if they pay them, they are funding it anyway....
Also jehovas witnesses can opt out of paying for blood transfusions, and christian scientists and scientologists can opt out just about everything.


You're right. I do ignore it, because that is a completely ridiculous argument. Once they receive a paycheck for work performed, they are free to spend it as they wish.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Charmed707
 

That is not really the issue though. The issue is birth control being covered by insurance even if the insurance isn't forced upon the person.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by narwahl
yet you ignore that if they pay them, they are funding it anyway....
Also jehovas witnesses can opt out of paying for blood transfusions, and christian scientists and scientologists can opt out just about everything.


You're right. I do ignore it, because that is a completely ridiculous argument. Once they receive a paycheck for work performed, they are free to spend it as they wish.


But isn't offering insurance just another form of payment?



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by narwahl
 


Seriously?

Please read this post above. Particularly the last paragraph.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by narwahl
 


Seriously?

Please read this post above. Particularly the last paragraph.

Are you seriously comparing witch doctors and faith healers to birth control?

What does this have to do with insurance being part of the payment package for work done?
edit on 3-3-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by narwahl
 


Seriously?

Please read this post above. Particularly the last paragraph.


Seriously.
If my employer pays for any level of health insurance, I do not have to pay it.
So I do not have to spend a part of my paycheck on it.
More $ in my pocket.
If my employer doesn't I will have to spend part of my paycheck on insurance.
Less $ in my pocket.

I will ignore your insinuation that birth control is in any way shape of form equal to witch doctors.
Just like you ignore christian scientists



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


Of course birth control is an issue. Being forced to pay for insurance is bad enough without including non-necessities. This foolishness needs to stop.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charmed707
reply to post by daskakik
 


Of course birth control is an issue. Being forced to pay for insurance is bad enough without including non-necessities. This foolishness needs to stop.


Yet, people who pay for insurance have to pay for other people to have children
Which can cost nearly $10,000 or $250,000 in the care of premature babies.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


How can you compare paying for babies in medical need to paying for choices of adults?



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charmed707
reply to post by daskakik
 


Of course birth control is an issue. Being forced to pay for insurance is bad enough without including non-necessities. This foolishness needs to stop.

You just can't seem to grasp that the OP isn't about individuals being forced to pay insurance or not. That is another topic.

It's about the insurance company being forced not to offer it, by the employer, when both the employee and the insurer would actually be for it. Who is, in fact, forcing their views upon others?

To counter that, the government steps in and forces everyone to offer it. Did the government just step up to bat for the individual?

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



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charmed707


When taxpayers are paying for the sex lives of others, it's not a 'personal' matter. It's funny how those who demand others stay out of their bedrooms throw a tantrum when it's suggested that they pay for their own birth control. Along with freedom comes responsibility.


The insurance companies are being mandated to offer coverage in cases where the it is against the institutions conscience to provide the benefit, not the tax payers.

Now if you want to get into tax payers paying for the sex lives of others...and few people seems to have any issues with this, medicare which is funded by tax payers is required to proved coverage for viagra.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by narwahl
I will ignore your insinuation that birth control is in any way shape of form equal to witch doctors.


Who cares what you think about witch doctors? It's my right to use a witch doctor, if I want to. I want it, so my employer should have to pay for the insurance company to provide that coverage.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
Are you seriously comparing witch doctors and faith healers to birth control?

What does this have to do with insurance being part of the payment package for work done?


I really can't believe I have to spell this out.


Okay....

No. I'm just not going to do it.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
I have no problem with birth control. I just don't want to pay for it. I am very against any action taken against a human life including a fetus regardless of how far along it is though. It's called murder at that point.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by narwahl
I will ignore your insinuation that birth control is in any way shape of form equal to witch doctors.


Who cares what you think about witch doctors? It's my right to use a witch doctor, if I want to. I want it, so my employer should have to pay for the insurance company to provide that coverage.

If everyone else is getting witch doctor coverage, than yes you should also be getting witch doctor coverage.

There is nothing to spell out. You work and insurance may or may not be part of the payment package for said work. If it is, then it is as much a part of your earnings as your paycheck.

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





top topics
 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join