New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Is Birth Control Mandate a Womens' Rights Issue or a Religious Liberty Issue?

Is Birth Control Mandate a Women's Rights Issue or a Religious Liberty Issue?

  • Women's Rights Issue

    Votes: 23 44.2%
  • Religious Liberty Issue

    Votes: 8 15.4%
  • Both

    Votes: 11 21.2%
  • Neither

    Votes: 10 19.2%

  • Total voters
    52

degsme

Council Member
And as far as I'm concerned, contraception can only be called 'health care' if pregnancy is called a disease.
Well since the CDC data shows that carrying a pregnancy to term has
  • Six fold the rate of maternal death than an abortion
  • high rates of physical trauma
  • high rates of emotional trauma (wether you abort or carry to term)
How does it not meet the test of "disease"?
 

Bruce

Council Member
So because men run around willing to screw anything that moves th woman has no responsibility? Twisted spin bruce.
It's a woman's choice of who she prefer's in and out of bed and whether or not to have children. While the ultimate responsibility remains with the female I myself would accept some responsibility but then I've not run into the problem that I know of. Maybe if the insurance company provides the cure, men will become luckier souls. LOL. The morning after fix is a lot better than the 9 week fix.
 

Bruce

Council Member
Not only that but what about that little blue pill that insurance companies have been paying for men and yet they would not cover birth control for women. You can certainly tell who is running insurance companies...men!
That's a good "Gotcha" Sandy! Some men don't have the gut's to get a pretty much painless vasectomy but they want their wive's and girl friends to gulp down chemicals to prevent pregnancy. the pill is quite dangerous for a lot of women. Had my 2 kids and visited the doc for 30 min and it was all good. No more problems.
Those that don't want contraceptives included can opt out and buy rubbers.
 

Bruce

Council Member
I vote for people who want something pay for it.

I vote for people not giving government the power to force people who don't want something having to pay for it for others.

And in this case it's particularly offensive, because the Democrats, through Obamacare, have given the the President the unilateral power to make any and all health care decisions regarding health care and health insurance.

This will come to no good end, I can assure you.
Well Sgt, since you're evidently a government employee it's probably safe to say that all of your medical need's and want's are taken care of at the expense of the taxpayer. As far as family,the kids and wife are probably well cared for also. Dental and medical at no charge and if by chance you have a little indiscretion and run acroos a strain of std's, those are taken care of at no charge. Amazing how the have's continuously bombard the less fortuanate with excuses not to help them. The government should'nt pay for servicemen or women that get lung cancer from cigarettes but they sure as hell keep selling them at the base or aboard ship. At least when i was doing duty the shipstore had an endless supply of smokes that they charged for and everyone came to the base to get carton's for cheap. A lot of guy's started smoking in the service so you have to wonder?
 

888888

Council Member
And this is the main reason that Obamacare will be in the SC this summer. The government forcing a person to purchase or provide something is an afront to individual liberty.
I find no problem with what you have to say Ridge, and just as soon as they make it legal for any person who needs medical treatment and can't provide medical coverage proof, or pay in advance, as a-OK to not treat, then yes we can get rid of the mandate.

We will just tell any one picked up to be taken to the charitable hospitals, who cannot provide what is needed, to be treated at profit hospitals.

I'm just as tired of paying for people who should have insurance that can afford it but think they won't get sick as I am for those who can't afford it and get sick. many people are living large while the rest of us provide them with a safety net, new cars big houses, nice trips and vacations, kids in good schools but no health insurance. All fine till they need a big operation or some sickness or emergency, then it's off to the emergency wards.
 
Well Sgt, since you're evidently a government employee it's probably safe to say that all of your medical need's and want's are taken care of at the expense of the taxpayer.
After retiring from the military, I never used my VA medical benefits, except for treatment of wounds received in combat. I always paid for private medical insurance for myself and my employees, through a group plan that the small metal fabricating and welding shop I owned purchased.

I also, in addition, paid half of my employee's payroll taxes to pay for THEIR future medical care and retirement benefits.

And I paid the top income tax rate for over 20 Years in addition to business taxes.

So, I've paid far more for government that I'll ever receive FROM government.

But I'll make you a deal; enlist, go to Afghanistan, take a coupe of 7.62mm rounds in your chest and shoulder, and I'll happily pay for your medical care.

Do we have a deal?
 
and what about a business owned by someone who doesn't believe in medical care at all? There are those who think that there is no acceptable treatment for disease or injury other than prayer. How about those who think STDs are God's punishment for the sinners? Should you be able to refuse to help pay for insurance that includes treatment for some ailments or injuries? AIDS? Should Catholics be excused from paying taxes meant for Medicaid if it includes birth control?

Nobody is being forced to use birth control.....
My wife works for a company that does not provide insurance, not because the compnay's owners don't believe in it but because they can't afford it. So we purchase health insurance for her.
 

Wulk

Mayor
There's a birth control pill for men - you put in your show and it makes you limp! Sorry abt that :)
 
Your answer isn't relevant to the thread and isn't an answer to my post.
Oh, but it is. You see it does not matter if an employer does not believe in providing health care insurance, does not believe in coverage of certain parts of policy coverage or can not afford to cover its employees, it all come down in the end that the employee and not the company is responsible for their medical health needs and should plan for it, anything else is just folly.
 

degsme

Council Member
, it all come down in the end that the employee and not the company is responsible for their medical health needs and should plan for it, anything else is just folly.
The research on this says you are wrong. When left up to just employees, anticipatory healthcare costs are underfunded and healthcare resources underutilized. This results in a less healthy, less happy, less productive and shorter lived population.

Now if that's your idea of "maximizing liberty" - knock yourself out. But few would agree with you when you say that a shorter, meaner, less pleasant life is the desirable goal and "all else is folly"

FACTS MATTER
got any?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
My wife was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis in 2003. She had worked for the same company for 20 years. I had worked there for 9. Our insurance was with Aetna. In 2005 I switched jobs. My wife was in the hospital in the ICU. The hospital called to say I needed to write them a check for $20k.....because my new insurance company was denying coverage because of a pre-existing condition.....the new company was Aetna.

In the absence of either intervention from my new employer or the new rules in the Affordable Care Act....just how would you suggest I plan for her needs? Nobody would have insured her at that point. I'd have been bankrupt in a matter of months.

You guys and your rhetoric sound good until you get down to the details.
 

MaryAnne

Governor
I thought that a "rubber" was a contraceptive!!!
Dog gone if I do not think you are right, Wulk. Kind of shows the hypocrisy of men.

Reminds me of an old Doctor I once had, who was giving me a lecture on how to prevent cancer. He was smoking a cigarette at the time and I looked at him and the cigarette. His comment, "Do as I say,not as I do." He is long dead too.

I am beginning to think your avatar fits very we with what we have to read in posts! :eek:)
 
The research on this says you are wrong. When left up to just employees, anticipatory healthcare costs are underfunded and healthcare resources underutilized. This results in a less healthy, less happy, less productive and shorter lived population.

Now if that's your idea of "maximizing liberty" - knock yourself out. But few would agree with you when you say that a shorter, meaner, less pleasant life is the desirable goal and "all else is folly"

FACTS MATTER
got any?
So, if an employer does not provide healtcare or a certain aspect of healthcare and the employee wants a specific item, the employee has no obligation to provide it for themself? I disagree. Ones primary responsiblity is to ones self and their family, and therefore they should be providing for their own health if the employer does not. If ones attitude is if the employer does not provide it for me, I will not provide it for myself, than the results of the employees inaction is on that employee and not the employer.
 

degsme

Council Member
So, if an employer does not provide healtcare or a certain aspect of healthcare and the employee wants a specific item, the employee has no obligation to provide it for themself? I disagree. Ones primary responsiblity is to ones self and their family, and therefore they should be providing for their own health if the employer does not
Um you are mixing two different sets of ideas here

1) what you should immediatly do in response to circumstances you find problematic
2) whether or not you - as a member of society - have a right to associate with others of like mind, petition your government to pass laws that are both Constitutional and which regulate your society in a direction you and the majority desire.

Well the LATTER is what we are discussing. The Former is just a distraction in this discussion. Please stay on topic
 

degsme

Council Member
After retiring from the military, I never used my VA medical benefits, except for treatment of wounds received in combat. I always paid for private medical insurance for myself and my employees, through a group plan that the small metal fabricating and welding shop I owned purchased.
Your choice. Bottom line though is that because you had VA Benefits as a safetynet, you were able to do things that others without such a safetynet could not.

I also, in addition, paid half of my employee's payroll taxes to pay for THEIR future medical care and retirement benefits.
So does every other business. Its part of what we as a society require of a business as part of its FAIR share of leveraging the benefits of our society

And I paid the top income tax rate for over 20 Years in addition to business taxes.
So? Top income tax rate is the lowest in 50 years. It is unsustainably low. And in no small part our current decade and a half of slow growth is a result of Reagan's belief that "government is the problem" and his failure to invest in basic research that is the engine of the economy.

So, I've paid far more for government that I'll ever receive FROM government.
Ahh THAT part you don't yet know. Get hit by a horrific accident and you could run up a multi-million dollar bill overnight. BTW many of us have, and many of us have paid far more than you have.

But I'll make you a deal; enlist, go to Afghanistan, take a coupe of 7.62mm rounds in your chest and shoulder, and I'll happily pay for your medical care.
Why? Why do I have to be a mercenary to gain the benefits of my society.?
 
Top