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: 7
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   

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.

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.

deny ignorance

jw




posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   

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".



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   

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!


I am not talking about her per say, I have not even brought up her name actually.
Neither is wanting a Vasectomy.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   

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".


Attack the person, Conservative rule #1 - #2 and #3



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Couple that with the fact that the majority of the adherents are oblivious to the fact that the progressive movement's desire to ensure the free and unfettered access to birth control and abortion was borne out of eugenics and had nothing to do with individual rights.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Oral contraceptives do prevent more than just pregnancy. It is prescribed for Endometriosis and a few other reasons. Check out this link from WebMD: www.webmd.com...

Amazing what you can find using google. But, again, this isn't about birth control or women's health. It's about shifting focus from the many other issues facing this country and the voters.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


You think that was an attack? It was simply an observation of a mindset of entitlement.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


No it brings into question priorities. Our golden example is going to a university that is quite expensive. She then complains she cannot afford to pay for her birth control, which if she got knocked up would derail her studies. So option 1. lay off the sex or 2 demand it be provided for her. That is a problem since me and mine couldn't go to such a university without being given the grants and so on to underwrite it. If she is in my boat and getting it paid for, I THINK SHE HAS GOTTEN ENOUGH HANDOUTS!



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   

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.


Thank god one conservative agrees with this definition. One of your cohorts was arguing this
with me.



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.


Insurance plans cover smokers, drunkards and fat asses, are you gonna apply them to your
series of lifestyle grouping?



Until progressives and socialists bastardized it.


OK




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.
No, that is how you are interpreting it, big difference



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.


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.



Nowhere else in the insurance scheme does a "non-disease" warrant coverage.


Yes, all the time... Are you kidding here or what? Many insurance policies provide gym memberships
acupuncture, chiropractic care and a long list of preventative treatments, come on...



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.


And Obama created an opt out so that Christians, Catholics and theocrats can chill out
and relax.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   

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.


How is that enough evidence to determine a mindset of entitlement?
Most motivated people will find a way to go to school if they are driven,
would you rather she be useless on entitlements, or making the bucks and
staying independent?



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   


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.
reply to post by mastahunta
 

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.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by hangedman13
reply to post by mastahunta
 




No it brings into question priorities.


sorry to say this, but I think you'll find that sex is very high on every college students priority
list.


Our golden example is going to a university that is quite expensive. She then complains she cannot afford to pay for her birth control, which if she got knocked up would derail her studies. So option 1. lay off the sex or 2 demand it be provided for her. That is a problem since me and mine couldn't go to such a university without being given the grants and so on to underwrite it. If she is in my boat and getting it paid for, I THINK SHE HAS GOTTEN ENOUGH HANDOUTS!

OK, well you can go track her down and tell her, or you can email her and tell her.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   

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.


The health and life style effects the entire risk assessment for everyone in that grouping
therefore effecting price and premiums for the entire group. You are not thinking about
what insurance is beyond the employer point of purchase,



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


Good point you are right I didn't account for that. However in reference to your statement about college students, they are at the age where they get to learn about consequences. Want to have sex, that's fine, but why is it a issue that everyone has to pay for? Especially since starting soon they are not going to need any insurance but mommy & daddies. My point is that it seems patronizingly paternal to have it required for insurance companies to cover it for what amounts to people getting their jollies and not for health reasons. Getting pregnant is a risk of having sex. We get people denied payment for things insurance does not cover and now contraceptives are covered? That seems pretty damn backwards to me.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


Heres an article you may find interesting. I thought it touched on a lot of really important points that are usually forgotten in the public discourse. Its not about money, its about freedom!!! (and, also, probably money... lol)




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



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 

finally, a point that deserves attention.

And Obama created an opt out so that Christians, Catholics and theocrats can chill out
and relax.
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?



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by mastahunta
 

finally, a point that deserves attention.

And Obama created an opt out so that Christians, Catholics and theocrats can chill out
and relax.
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?


Insurance has been offering contraceptive options for decades...
You tell me?



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by mastahunta
 

finally, a point that deserves attention.

And Obama created an opt out so that Christians, Catholics and theocrats can chill out
and relax.
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?


Insurance has been offering contraceptive options for decades...
You tell me?

actually, what i will tell you is that i am an endometriosis sufferer for more than 2 decades now and i cannot afford the medication that could help me.

when i was younger, i did get contraceptives from Planned Parenthood as they were not as readily available as they are today. and, today, PP isn't so into the endocrine troubles endo presents so they refer me to a specialist, and without insurance, that's useless to me.

now, completely ignoring the religious aspect of this argument, i'm concerned about the availability and coverage of MEDICINE, period.

however, since we are discussing medicine, not sex or sexual acts when utilizing said medication, where's my coverage? and are you willing to pay for it?
(keep in mind, i cannot afford insurance as i am unemployed)

and what i would recommend to everyone ... what is definitely worth the time investment to learn is Natural remedies. many of my current medicines come from the garden.

ppl really need to stop comparing condoms with the pill ... they are two very different applications serving many different issues concerning EACH user. while they are both preventatives, they are not equal in the world of medicine.

almost forgot ... i've not been without insurance forever but when i did have it, the condition was labeled "pre-existing" hence, no coverage ... so again, what good is insurance?
edit on 3-3-2012 by Honor93 because: add text



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by mastahunta
 

finally, a point that deserves attention.

And Obama created an opt out so that Christians, Catholics and theocrats can chill out
and relax.
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?


It took some time for me to find this written as rule, I was able to find the statement by Obama on youtube, and a release on whitehouse.gov but felt I needed to locate it writing in regarding rule making to consider the information of a more solid nature.

EBSA Final Rules Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [2/15/2012]


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.


It appears in writing that in his statement on February 10, issued in writing on whitehouse.gov and on youtube in a live address form the same day are supported by this current ruling.



FACT SHEET: Women’s Preventive Services and Religious Institutions


• 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.


The insurance companies will be required to provide the coverage free of charge.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


98% of sexually active women use birth control. 58% of those use for reasons OTHER THAN preventing pregnancy. Birth control is a normal part of a womans healthcare. People like you need to start understandong this.

If it werent for birth control, which i am choose not to take for my own personal reasons, i dont know what my life would be like. I broke down and took it for three months because i was having some serious problems that were disrupting my life. If things like pain pills, acne meds, and hormone therapies are covered, birth control should be too.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join