Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

Moot · Sep 4, 2012

Harshaw said:
1) This speaks to nothing I said in what you quoted.

2) Your link is about Medicaid, not a mandate on employers.

3) It's a state issue and entirely unlike Obamacare.

4) It's about female fertility drugs, not "birth control."

It not only speaks to what you said, it proves you wrong.

The state mandates came in response to and after the 1998 Viagra mandate. Scroll down to show all the dates of the state mandates and find they are all after the 1998 Viagra mandate...

Insurance Coverage for Contraception State Laws

Birth control pills are classified with fertility drugs because they control the menstral cycle to help doctors time the effectiveness of the fertility drugs and prevent cysts from forming before and after.....

"Birth control pills are commonly used by fertility specialists to help schedule and coordinate treatment cycles. For example, at IVF1, our in-vitro fertilization (IVF) patients are grouped together. A group will start treatment every two weeks. If a woman has her period begin more than a few days before a start date, she will be placed on birth control pills for up to two weeks. This prevents eggs from developing and allows us to start her treatment at any time.

Birth control pills can also be used to prevent problems with other medications. For example, Lupron® is a medication used to suppress the pituitary gland and therefore prevent ovulation while using medication to prepare the uterus or stimulate the development of multiple eggs. One side effect of Lupron® is the potential for ovarian cysts to develop when it is started. Using birth control pills before and during the early use of Lupron® will prevent cysts from forming."......read

Q&A: Can birth control pills be used in fertility treatment? | BabyZone

AGENT J · Sep 4, 2012

Objective-J said:
Didnt answer the question because I dont know how "we" pay for it or what that even means

but Im all for BC being covered on health insurance. Why not?

"Could" cut down on abortions, foster care, welfare/child aid and medical costs for having a child

sounds good to me :shrug:

oh yeah and it also helps many women improve some of thier health issues.

is there any solid reasons why it shouldn't be covered as opposed to other things already covered?

Moot · Sep 4, 2012

Henrin said:
Some would notice that blacks are not held down from pulling themselves up to the top and they are smart enough to not have more kids than they can afford. When you make dumb choices you pay of them and the person in your example made some really dumb choices. She then went and failed completely on moving up.

There's plenty of evidence that shows that low income and poor blacks aren't getting the education they need to make informed choices.

Honestly the pro-life movement is racist? Do you have any idea of the history of the two movements? The pro-choice movement was started as an ant-woman movement and certain parts of its history have been very anti-minority. If you don't know the history of PP it might be in your interest to look into that.

Yes, the pro-life movement is racist to the core. Anyone with eyes can see they mainly target black neighborhoods with their propaganda, death threats and bombing of clinics.

Here's how the black women's pro-choice movement really started and they don't look very anti-minority to me.....

National Black Women's Health Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Harshaw · Sep 4, 2012

Moot said:
It not only speaks to what you said, it proves you wrong.

No, it does not speak to anything I said.

I said this:

Harshaw said:
OK, then you have no idea what you're talking about. Employers provided coverage which didn't include contraceptives; that's a fact, thus your premise is negated.

The mandate required them to provide that coverage.

You show me the exact words in that to which you linked which "proves" any of this "wrong."

The state mandates came in response to and after the 1998 Viagra mandate. Scroll down to show all the dates of the state mandates and find they are all after the 1998 Viagra mandate...

Insurance Coverage for Contraception State Laws

So what? If you think this has anything to do with what I said, you either didn't understand what I said, or you don't understand your link.

Birth control pills are classified with fertility drugs because they control the menstral cycle to help doctors time the effectiveness of the fertility drugs and prevent cysts from forming before and after.....

The law review case note to which you linked does not concern birth control, and in fact mentions "birth control" exactly once, in passing, and "contraceptives" a couple of times in footnotes when discussing OTHER things. Did you read it? I suspect you did not. I suspect you Googled and just posted the first thing you found which kinda sorta maybe said something like what you wanted to say. (Did you even know it WAS a law review case note?)

And all that aside, it has absolutely NOT ONE WHIT, not the merest iota, to do with what I posted. Zip. Zero. Nada. Nothing in this post nor your previous post. Nothing.

Henrin · Sep 4, 2012

Moot said:
There's plenty of evidence that shows that low income and poor blacks aren't getting the education they need to make informed choices.

I don't buy that for a second.

Yes, the pro-life movement is racist to the core. Anyone with eyes can see they mainly target black neighborhoods with their propaganda, death threats and bombing of clinics.

Yes, the people doing all the stupid **** like you mentioned represents the movement as a whole. Right..

Here's how the black women's pro-choice movement really started and they don't look very anti-minority to me.....

National Black Women's Health Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WTF? I didn't even mention that.

nota bene · Sep 4, 2012

Moot said:
Some would argue it's the fault of the socio economic conditions that were forced on her....especially in the South where whites control the legislation that makes access to birth control almost impossible. The pro-life agenda seems to be founded on keeping poor black women bare foot, pregnant and uneducated to help perpetuate the cycle of poverty for her and her offspring so they can't compete with whites for the better paying jobs.

If you can't produce facts, at least check your playbook's date. It's 2012. Identify one state, just one, in which white legislators and/or voters have made access to birth control almost impossible for black women.

Then show me what any pro-life group has ever said that supports your filthy claim that the pro-life movement has an agenda that intends to keep black women barefoot, pregnant, and ignorant.

IndepCentristMA · Sep 5, 2012

radcen said:
Don't disagree. It still irritates me when people say Clinton was prosecuted "for having sex". Simply not true. He was prosecuted for perjury. The topic behind said perjury was/is irrelevant.

Still... I'm not willing to go look it up because I don't care *that* much, but I'd bet that Rush said the sex talk in front on Congress then was not only justified, but necessary.

Oh I bet he did, he had it hard for Clinton... and that story ran on for years, that I bet he took multiple stances on it...

In the end, they all came out looking like the frauds they were... Newt, Rush, Clinton, Ken Starr, and the worst of em all Linda Tripp... what a sad period of ineffective government... (back at a time when they could've been working to better education, on a shared platform, and prevent the 9/11 tragedy...)

Cephus · Sep 5, 2012

Henrin said:
Wow, you have no idea who I am if you think I would support that.

The government has no place mandating these matters.

I don't care if you'd support it, it's still what would happen, just as it happened in this case.

Cephus · Sep 5, 2012

Harshaw said:
A stupid non-response to my pointing out that you're factually wrong -- but thanks for admitting it, at least.

Thank you also for wasting time; I pointed out several posts ago you weren't going to agree, given your obsession against religion and complete lack of any respect for religious freedom, so it was pointless even to try.

I'm not going to agree because religion deserves no special treatment. We have a secular government, this is a government program, thus any religious objection is immediately deemed irrelevant. Someone's religious views on contraceptives is as irrelevant as someone whose religious views makes them wish their insurance company didn't cover blacks or women or people outside of their religion. It might seem like a nice dream to the religious zealots, but most of us live in the real world.

Sorry you don't.

Henrin · Sep 5, 2012

Cephus said:
I don't care if you'd support it, it's still what would happen, just as it happened in this case.

Ok, but here is thing. People will always push businesses or just people in general to give them what they want or need. It means nothing to the debate at all. They have no right to push this crap on other people and I don't care nor does it matter if its insurance company, a religious institution, or your grandma. They can not tell them what to do so they get a benefit. We have rights and you appear to think its fine if we just violate them if it works out for the rest of us. Its not and never will be.

Your argument was ****. There is no amount of difference at all between anything you can list that you think is fine to push on insurance companies so peoples health is covered. It's all ****.

Cephus · Sep 5, 2012

Henrin said:
Ok, but here is thing. People will always push businesses or just people in general to give them what they want or need. It means nothing to the debate at all. They have no right to push this crap on other people and I don't care nor does it matter if its insurance company, a religious institution, or your grandma. They can not tell them what to do so they get a benefit. We have rights and you appear to think its fine if we just violate them if it works out for the rest of us. Its not and never will be.

Your argument was ****. There is no amount of difference at all between anything you can list that you think is fine to push on insurance companies so peoples health is covered. It's all ****.

You're arguing that we shouldn't, which in general, I might agree with. The fact though is that we *CAN* do it if society, through it's official arm, the government, wants to. You can argue all day and all night that they shouldn't do it, doesn't mean that they can't and certainly not that they won't.

Henrin · Sep 5, 2012

Cephus said:
You're arguing that we shouldn't, which in general, I might agree with. The fact though is that we *CAN* do it if society, through it's official arm, the government, wants to. You can argue all day and all night that they shouldn't do it, doesn't mean that they can't and certainly not that they won't.

The government has no authority to do it, but sure they will do it. I can't imagine powers listed will stop them now.I was really unaware a good argument was "the government can do whatever it feels like because it can" but people sure do enjoy it.

Cephus · Sep 5, 2012

Henrin said:
The government has no authority to do it, but sure they will do it. I can't imagine powers listed will stop them now.I was really unaware a good argument was "the government can do whatever it feels like because it can" but people sure do enjoy it.

Apparently they do have the authority, the people who elected them gave it to them. You don't seriously think the Constitution has any real power today, do you?

Black Dog · Sep 5, 2012

Cephus said:
Apparently they do have the authority, the people who elected them gave it to them. You don't seriously think the Constitution has any real power today, do you?

It is such a sad state of affairs with both party's doing an end run around the Constitution.

Cephus · Sep 5, 2012

Blackdog said:
It is such a sad state of affairs with both party's doing an end run around the Constitution.

Entirely agreed, but the reality is that's what they do and the American people not only allow it, they encourage it.

Welcome to modern-day America.

cpwill · Sep 5, 2012

Cephus said:
And who was suing Obama to keep from having to fund it again?

By failing to buy you an automobile, have I banned you from owning one?

Luna Tick · Sep 5, 2012

Loaded question.

Cardinal · Sep 5, 2012

Meathead said:
What's wrong with the word fornicate? I also used the word boink, I could use the word coitus also but I suspect the classic word would get deleted. I am not clear on what your point is and I suspect you have but a fleeting idea yourself.

:lol: Is that how you ask your wife/girlfriend to have sex? "Hey, honey, I rented Amelie, made some dinner...wanna fornicate afterwards?"

Why the focus on birth control anyway? Why not the thousand other things that people are covered under?

Middleground · Sep 5, 2012

digsbe said:
Mandating covered birth control is one of the most absurd and illogical stances I've ever seen. We don't mandate the coverage of other maintenance meds, in fact some name brand ones may not be covered at all. Contraception is an individual responsibility, and as such it's up to the individual to pay (or not pay) for it, contraception shouldn't receive some special treatment or mandated coverage.

What quantifies as "maintenance meds?"

Disputatious71 · Sep 5, 2012

Moot said:
It might not be a right, but it's the law that people must buy health insurance and insurance companies can no longer discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions.

Inalienable: unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor: "inalienable human rights".

A woman's reproductive organs are inalienable and self evident and the constitution protects inalienable rights...such as the inalienable right to reproduce or not reproduce. . Women are born with reproductive organs which qualifies them as having a pre-existing condition that private insurance companies can no longer discriminate against.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness = birth control

so any private insurance company that is a part of the government insurance exchange will have to offer birth control coverage or get the crap sued out them by the ACLU. You don't have to buy or use the coverage but it must be offered to those who want it.

Moot said:
Gender is inalienable because you do not get to chose your sex when you are born. It is by definition a pre-existing condition. Hysterectomys do not change a woman's sex anymore than a vasectomy changes a mans.

Soon there will be a birth control pill for men and I think health insurance should cover that as well. Seeing if men would take it would make for an interesting thread, too.
.

Do you really know the meaning of inalienable ? Before you said it was reproductive organs and when I disputed that statement now you say it is gender. Iit must be hard to defend shifting positions I admire the way you try though.

VanceMack · Sep 5, 2012

Objective-J said:
oh yeah and it also helps many women improve some of thier health issues.

is there any solid reasons why it shouldn't be covered as opposed to other things already covered?

Some might make the argument that if the insurance companies (or government) are going to be 'mandated' to provide non-medically indicated birth control, then why not also soap, mouthwash, toothbrushes, dental floss, Q-tips, hydrogen peroxide, alcohol, facial scrubs or any other toiletry? Or for that matter...food is pretty 'medically indicated' as a need...why not force coverage of basic food? Also water...shelter....those should be mandated to be covered. And can we go naked? No...of course not...so clothes and shoes. And lets not forget coats in the winter. And since cell phones are so much a part of everyones lives...a basic cellphone with service as well...just the bare essentials.

Birth Control that has been medically prescribed is not even in question and never has been. Ms Fluke made an activist appeal regarding 'birth control' to demonstrate a 'war on women' after the government tried to force the Catholic Church to accept contraceptives. It is still ignored that the whole time the argument was being waged, she herself was COVERED by the Catholic school she was attending for medically prescribed birth control. In essence...she said...hey...this isnt a problem, but pretend it was...now...look how evil those bad republicans are for denying me contraceptives...if they actually did deny me contraceptives. Why it is (or rather would be) a war on women!!

Harry Guerrilla · Sep 5, 2012

ChrisL said:
Yes, poor women according to the poverty thresholds set.

2012 Poverty Guidelines for the
48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia
Persons in
family/household Poverty guideline
1 $11,170
2 15,130
3 19,090
4 23,050
5 27,010
6 30,970
7 34,930
8 38,890
For families/households with more than 8 persons,
add $3,960 for each additional person.

So a family of four that makes 24,000 a year is not considered to be in poverty and not entitled to assistance.

State health departments tend to price based on income, making $24k a year for a family of four can net you a serious discount.

Harry Guerrilla · Sep 5, 2012

Middleground said:
So what? What about other insurance covered medications? Do you think they shouldn't be covered because they are affordable? Or, are you a true Libertarian like Lizzie and this everyone should cover their own drug costs, period?

I don't think this way because I'm a libertarian, I think this way because it's the freaking way insurance is supposed to work.
Maintenance meds like birth control, should not be covered.

It defies the whole purpose of insuring someone.
You can't insure against something that is going to happen, every single month.

notquiteright · Sep 5, 2012

Harry-
So no insurance for asthma, diabetes, allergies, migraines, cholesterol, high blood pressure...

Seems an arbitrary line you draw, is it safe to bet your beloved doesn't use birth control?

Jerry · Sep 5, 2012

ChrisL said:
I think everyone agrees that you should pay for your own children, but that is unrealistic because they just don't. We are still going to have teen pregnancies. I think (not sure though) that pregnant teens and teen mothers probably make up a HUGE percentage of those on public assistance. I don't know what else anyone would suggest. Charity is a nice thought, but there just aren't enough people giving to help everybody.

Ms. Fluke is not a teen. She's a grown woman who can pay her own bills.

Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

Should we pay for Sandra Fluke's birth control?

Yes

No

More options

Moot

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Moot

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Henrin

nota bene

IndepCentristMA

Well-known member

Cephus

Cephus

Henrin

Cephus

Henrin

Cephus

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound

Cephus

cpwill

Luna Tick

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides

Middleground

2-Lipped Beaver!

Disputatious71

VanceMack

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

Harry Guerrilla

Harry Guerrilla

notquiteright

Jerry

Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

Should we pay for Sandra Fluke's birth control?

Yes

No

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Well-known member

King Of The Dog Pound

Respected On All Sides

2-Lipped Beaver!

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency