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.
Originally posted by mastahunta
They Prevent, and preventative medicine is administered all the time. Man can get their tubes
tied which is not a treatment, insurance typically covers that too.
Originally posted by hangedman13
That woman who spoke goes to a school that charges how much in tuition? And she has the gall to speak for all woman needing birth control? That school charges more in tuition than most people make in a year! Priorities seem a bit skewed!
Originally posted by hangedman13
reply to post by mastahunta
What do contraceptives prevent? Pregnancy is not a medical problem! You really think that it's such a great idea to mandate their coverage? The whole thing had been a crock of you know what. That woman who spoke goes to a school that charges how much in tuition? And she has the gall to speak for all woman needing birth control? That school charges more in tuition than most people make in a year! Priorities seem a bit skewed!
Originally posted by WTFover
Originally posted by hangedman13
That woman who spoke goes to a school that charges how much in tuition? And she has the gall to speak for all woman needing birth control? That school charges more in tuition than most people make in a year! Priorities seem a bit skewed!
Yeah, but she admitted she's not paying for that either. She's on "public interest scholarships".
Originally posted by jdub297
Originally posted by mastahunta
They Prevent, and preventative medicine is administered all the time. Man can get their tubes
tied which is not a treatment, insurance typically covers that too.
This is precisely the problem with the progressive stance on this issue.
Insurance was created to shift the burden of the cost of accidents and diseases from one to many.
It was never intended to be a means of financing lifestyle choices, or shifting the costs of those choices away from the few who benefit the most.
Until progressives and socialists bastardized it.
No, that is how you are interpreting it, big difference
You have elected to treat pregnancy as a disease, when it is in fact a natural and normal function of the female of any species.
Progressives understand that pregnancy must be looked upon as a disease, rather than an inconvenience or intrusion upon lifestyle, to justify their positiions that others should pay, that others should bear responsibility, and that the majority who would never need anti-pregnancy medications and treatments should be forced to pay for the "choice" of those who do.
Nowhere else in the insurance scheme does a "non-disease" warrant coverage.
An employer that offers healthcare benefits does so in accord with its own values and economics. Government is forbidden from interfering with those decisions to the extent they are guided by religious belief.
Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by mastahunta
You think that was an attack? It was simply an observation of a mindset of entitlement.
reply to post by mastahunta
Do conservatives understand that their are many lifestyle choices that are essentially covered by insurance? Old people who die more often that young people are making young people pay for their old asses dying. Do you really want to apply this line of logic to everything? Or are you doing it because it suits your beliefs in the situation? I should not be forced to pay for a fat ass who eats nasty found and smokes cigarettes, yet I do, if you want to get all technical about it.
Originally posted by hangedman13
reply to post by mastahunta
No it brings into question priorities.
Originally posted by hangedman13
As of the current time you get insurance if you work somewhere and you opt for coverage or you are on some one else's coverage. The big O-care is not in effect as of yet, so you are operating on a false premise. I work my company and I pay for the insurance with everybody else paying into the plan. SO it is the lot of us in the plan paying no one else. Not insured people at the moment is a totally different ball of wax.
Birth Control Isn’t Really About “Women’s Health.” It’s About…
Birth control isn’t about my health unless by health you mean, my capacity to get it on, to have a happy, joyous sex life that involves an actual male partner. The point of birth control is to have sex that’s recreational and non-procreative. It’s to permit women to exercise their desires without the sword of Damocles of unwanted pregnancy hanging gloomily over their heads.
This proposition is radical only by default, because mainstream liberal voices in Congress, especially, have euphemized women’s desires out of the current birth control and abortion disputes.
BigThink - Birth Control
while this may be true (although i'm not really sure), when you couple that with the fact that muslims, amish & scientologists are already exempt from many of the potential mandates (based on religious reasons), WHO is gonna pay for this?
And Obama created an opt out so that Christians, Catholics and theocrats can chill out
and relax.
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by mastahunta
finally, a point that deserves attention.
while this may be true (although i'm not really sure), when you couple that with the fact that muslims, amish & scientologists are already exempt from many of the potential mandates (based on religious reasons), WHO is gonna pay for this?
And Obama created an opt out so that Christians, Catholics and theocrats can chill out
and relax.
Originally posted by mastahunta
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by mastahunta
finally, a point that deserves attention.
while this may be true (although i'm not really sure), when you couple that with the fact that muslims, amish & scientologists are already exempt from many of the potential mandates (based on religious reasons), WHO is gonna pay for this?
And Obama created an opt out so that Christians, Catholics and theocrats can chill out
and relax.
Insurance has been offering contraceptive options for decades...
You tell me?
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by mastahunta
finally, a point that deserves attention.
while this may be true (although i'm not really sure), when you couple that with the fact that muslims, amish & scientologists are already exempt from many of the potential mandates (based on religious reasons), WHO is gonna pay for this?
And Obama created an opt out so that Christians, Catholics and theocrats can chill out
and relax.
Specifically, the Departments plan to initiate a rulemaking to require issuers to offer insurance without contraception coverage to such an employer (or plan sponsor) and simultaneously to offer contraceptive coverage directly to the employer's plan participants (and their beneficiaries) who desire it, with no cost-sharing. Under this approach, the Departments will also require that, in this circumstance, there be no charge for the contraceptive coverage.
• The President will also announce that his Administration will propose and finalize a new regulation during this transition year to address the religious objections of the non-exempted non-profit religious organizations. The new regulation will require insurance companies to cover contraception if the religious organization chooses not to. Under the policy:
o Religious organizations will not be required to subsidize the cost of contraception.
o Contraception coverage will be offered to women by their employers’ insurance companies directly, with no role for religious employers who oppose contraception.
o Insurance companies will be required to provide contraception coverage to these women free of charge.