Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sex is a choice, ovarian cancer isn't. BC pill use has been proven to help prevent that type of cancer.

It's a sweeping generalization but since I worked as a social worker for a number of years; it would be cheaper to pay for BC than to have more mouths in the system. It's always irked me that the far right is so comfortable with "social insurance" but adamant about not helping people stay off of the system. Especially since we all know which is cheaper for tax payers, those of us in the middle class that actually pay taxes rather than glean all of our income from tax sheltered sources.

biccat wrote:But when your complaint is that you can't afford X, you don't use the most expensive option, well, unless you're trying to deceive people.

You must really hate advertising then.

Also, Rush is a troll. We're currently feeding him.

What's so frustrating about all this bs is the fact that, if they actually bothered to stick to the main point rather than going off on the moral crusades they adore so fiercely, biccat's people would actually be able to end this argument pretty easily.

It's not about religious freedom for the overwhelming supermajority of Christians in this country.

It's not about the fact that the social right wants to force everyone to live by their interpretation of Biblical morals.

It's about whether or not Obamacare is unconstitutional. Period. If it's unconstitutional, any argument stemming from it - including this one - is rendered moot.

Unfortunately for Republicans, the moonbat wing of their party just can't keep their hands off social issues, and it's why Obama's going to win reelection without much effort. Well, that, and the fact that the Republicans have quite curiously chosen to run the usual sort of big government conservatives they've been putting up for president since Eisenhower.

Using multiple layers of birth control exponentially reduces the risk of pregnancy FWIW.

Melissia wrote:Using multiple layers of birth control exponentially reduces the risk of pregnancy FWIW.

Of course it does. Unfortunately, there are some antediluvians amongst us who believe that reducing the risk of pregnancy violates the imaginary laws of an imaginary being, and thus are the soul of evil. One of them is running for president.

All of Rush's wives do not have kids because they use birthcontrol
+
Women who use birthcontrol are sluts and prostitutes
=
Rush marries prostitutes

A vicious personal attack on a student because she can not afford something that should be a RIGHT is low and filthy.

biccat wrote:
She said that a woman at Georgetown would spend $3000 for birth control while attending law school.

No she didn't.

Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.

Direct quote from this source. Chosen because its making essentially the same argument you are, without unnecessary misrepresentation of Fluke's statement in order to call her a liar.

biccat wrote:
Manufactured outrage is awesome.

Indeed.

Moreover, as Polonius noted, there are significant variables to consider regarding latex allergies, and even specific needs in terms of individual birth control pills (its not one size fits all).

dogma wrote:Moreover, as Polonius noted, there are significant variables to consider regarding latex allergies, and even specific needs in terms of individual birth control pills (its not one size fits all).

How DARE you suggest that us womenfolk aren't all the same!

Johnny-Crass wrote:
A vicious personal attack on a student because she can not afford something that should be a RIGHT is low and filthy.

That is the problem. It is not a right.
Why should I be forced to go against my beliefs (an ACTUAL right) so that someone else doesn't have to fund their own optional medical choices?
If I don't pay for your birth-control, does that make it impossible for you to get it? No. You just have to pay for it yourself.
What a shocking idea! Pay for something you want!

Bottom line, is it essential for your health? No. Humans live just fine without it. It may limit you on how you decide to live your life. But you will not die without it.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Why should I be forced to go against my beliefs (an ACTUAL right) so that someone else doesn't have to fund their own optional medical choices?

It's my beliefs that funding anyone else's medical operations of any kind is morally wrong.

We should abolish medicare and medicaid and go to a purely capitalist medical system, which also includes getting rid of all governemtn funding for research and getting rid of the drug portion of the FDA. If you want to know how a drug works, do your own damned research!

Melissia wrote:It's my beliefs that funding anyone else's medical operations of any kind is morally wrong.

We should abolish medicare and medicaid and go to a purely capitalist medical system, which also includes getting rid of all governemtn funding for research and getting rid of the drug portion of the FDA. If you want to know how a drug works, do your own damned research!

Obnoxious. That is how you come across, FYI.
You disagree with me so you jump to an obviously stupid statement in an attempt to discredit me. How mature.

We are talking about forcing religious based organization to fund something they disagree with. You can reply with all the "derp" you want, but it wont change what we are talking about.

No one forces students to attend catholic universities. No one is forced to work for a Catholic Institution. No one is forced to accept anything Catholics. It is all choice. Further, nothing is done to prevent them from obtaining private insurance.

But people want to FORCE Catholics to go against their teachings. There is only one side dealing in compulsion here.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Why should I be forced to go against my beliefs (an ACTUAL right) so that someone else doesn't have to fund their own optional medical choices?

You have the right to believe whatever you want (mostly because no one can really make you believe anything else), but you have no right to act on your beliefs. If you did, then the concept of law is effectively irrelevant.

To be hyperbolic:

"I believe all people named Steve deserve to die."

*kills Steve*

"Well, we can't punish you, because you have the right to act upon your beliefs."

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Bottom line, is it essential for your health? No. Humans live just fine without it. It may limit you on how you decide to live your life. But you will not die without it.

That's not a strong argument because there are very few things that are necessary for human life. You won't die without roads, plumbing, or national defense either. Or (to keep this strictly medical) in most cases, prescription antibiotics.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
That is the problem. It is not a right.
Why should I be forced to go against my beliefs (an ACTUAL right) so that someone else doesn't have to fund their own optional medical choices?
If I don't pay for your birth-control, does that make it impossible for you to get it? No. You just have to pay for it yourself.
What a shocking idea! Pay for something you want!

Bottom line, is it essential for your health? No. Humans live just fine without it. It may limit you on how you decide to live your life. But you will not die without it.

Nonsensical argument; we pay for things we don't believe in everyday. You are currently paying for uninsured people to have children through medicaid and are then paying to feed them through welfare. Depending on the state, you probably also pay for these people's children to attend daycare.

The religious angle of the argument was taken off of the table when Obama backed off. There are plenty of people that don't believe in war but we all pay the military industry to go out and kill people all over the world and for our soldiers to die protecting a group of people that doesn't want us there.

I also believe you have mistaken your actual right. You have the right to choose what you believe in, you do not have the right to force others to observe it; that's actually completely the opposite of what the constitution states.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Johnny-Crass wrote:
A vicious personal attack on a student because she can not afford something that should be a RIGHT is low and filthy.

That is the problem. It is not a right.
Why should I be forced to go against my beliefs (an ACTUAL right) so that someone else doesn't have to fund their own optional medical choices?
If I don't pay for your birth-control, does that make it impossible for you to get it? No. You just have to pay for it yourself.
What a shocking idea! Pay for something you want!

Bottom line, is it essential for your health? No. Humans live just fine without it. It may limit you on how you decide to live your life. But you will not die without it.

You're right. It's not a right for my oldest daughter to take it to keep from bleeding to death. Literally.
She had to have 2 emergency blood transfusions due to her body not having the hormones to tell her when
to stop bleeding. Being 14 at the time, she was affraid to tell us about the bleeding and scared as hell. But I'm
sure she's not got the right to live, right.

I'm sure bicat would tell her to be more responsible.

alarmingrick wrote:

You're right. It's not a right for my oldest daughter to take it to keep from bleeding to death. Literally.
She had to have 2 emergency blood transfusions due to her body not having the hormones to tell her when
to stop bleeding. Being 14 at the time, she was affraid to tell us about the bleeding and scared as hell. But I'm
sure she's not got the right to live, right.

I'm sure bicat would tell her to be more responsible.

I am sorry your daughter has that problem. Again, I am not saying she has no right to medicine. So using an obviously sympathetic story to insinuate that I am uncaring is BS.
She has every right to go get it. I would encourage her to do so. I have nothing against her getting it, actually.

But why make someone else pay for it? And not just any someone else... but someone who opposes the very idea of it?
Your daughter has a medical need. I wont stand in your way, but why should I foot the bill? I don't know you. You are not chipping in for my wife's care.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

agnosto wrote:

I also believe you have mistaken your actual right. You have the right to choose what you believe in, you do not have the right to force others to observe it; that's actually completely the opposite of what the constitution states.

So you believe Catholics should provide birth control. But "you do not have the right to force others to observe it." Right?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I am not saying she has no right to medicine.

That she would have no right to medicine is EXACTLY what you said.

Melissia wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I am not saying she has no right to medicine.

That she would have no right to medicine is EXACTLY what you said.

No, it actually isn't.

I disagree with Gen. Lee Losing here, but you're just making things up.

Protip: Google what "optional" means.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
But why make someone else pay for it? And not just any someone else... but someone who opposes the very idea of it?

I'm not sure of the specific theological reasons for the Catholic opposition to birth control, but as far as I know its based on the assumption that birth control enables recreational sex. If someone is taking birth control for a specific medical reason, and not engaging in recreational sex, then it would seem there is no issue.

Perhaps forcing insurance companies to cover birth control proscribed for medically necessary reasons would be an acceptable compromise. I mean, while there may be ways to treat hormonal deficiencies without using birth control, I doubt they would anywhere near as cheap as birth control. Even if the average is 3000 USD over 3 years, that is amazingly cost efficient as daily medication (assuming the relatively standard 28 pill pack) goes.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Your daughter has a medical need. I wont stand in your way, but why should I foot the bill? I don't know you. You are not chipping in for my wife's care.

If you both have the same insurance company, then yes he is.

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:Do you want to share how or why she lied?

I know you enjoy argument over debate, but I'd actually be interested to see why you think she lied.

She said that a woman at Georgetown would spend $3000 for birth control while attending law school.

Annual checkup (assuming she doesn't go to a free clinic) - $100.
Monthly prescription - $10-20.

For 3 years, that's just over $1000 for birth control.

If she's in a 4-year program, less than $1500.

Allow me to point out that your "monthly prescription" rate is with insurance. The pubs want it so that ANY insurer can opt out for moral or religious reasons. If you don't think most/all insurers will jump at the chance to NOT pay for something, you're extremely deluded.

agnosto wrote:It's more a case of the Dems want it so they're against it....goes with the whole "Party of 'NO'" thing.

Either you don't know about the Catholic objection to contraceptives or you have no idea of the concept of religious freedom.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

biccat wrote:But when your complaint is that you can't afford X, you don't use the most expensive option, well, unless you're trying to deceive people.

You must really hate advertising then.

Actually, I do when they advertise before Congress. They're called lobbyists, and I think they're a problem, or more specifically, a symptom of a problem.

Seaward wrote:biccat's people would actually be able to end this argument pretty easily.

What the hell do you mean "my people"? People who oppose a tyrannical government? Yeah, good idea, lets fething roll over and let President Obama make all of our decisions for us.

You may like tyranny, I don't.

Seaward wrote:the moonbat wing of their party just can't keep their hands off social issues

Did you just call me a "moonbat"?

I think you mean the moonbat wing of the left-wing party in this country. Do you know how long women survived without Catholic organizations providing coverage for contraceptives?

Are women who work for Catholic organizations more likely to get ovarian cancer, or have abortions, or be poor because they have to have children? Hell, do women who work for these companies have any measurable difference in standard of living? No, they don't.

It's not the Republicans who are pushing this issue, it's the Democrats. I find their rampant disregard for individual and religious liberty offensive. Obama apparently has aspirations towards petty tyranny, and there are plenty of useful idiots in this country who either don't care or actually want him (and his proposals) to be immune from the democratic process and constitutional restrictions.

Melissia wrote:We should abolish medicare and medicaid and go to a purely capitalist medical system, which also includes getting rid of all governemtn funding for research and getting rid of the drug portion of the FDA. If you want to know how a drug works, do your own damned research!

One of your most intelligent posts long time Mel.

I would not want to live in a country with such a mind-blowingly stupidly designed medical system, Biccat.

I hope you realize I was being sarcastic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:I think you mean the moonbat wing of the left-wing party in this country. Do you know how long women survived without Catholic organizations providing coverage for contraceptives?

Don't you know how long men have survived without any internet? You should get rid of your internet connection now.

Your argument is rather silly.

biccat wrote:Obama apparently has aspirations towards petty tyranny, and there are plenty of useful idiots in this country who either don't care or actually want him (and his proposals) to be immune from the democratic process and constitutional restrictions.

That's impressively hyperbolic, even for you.

streamdragon wrote:Allow me to point out that your "monthly prescription" rate is with insurance.

No it's not. My wife paid $20/month when her insurance company wouldn't cover birth control pills, and that was before Target and WalMart started offering them at discounts.

Apparently you can now get them for $9/month at Target.

Melissia wrote:I would not want to live in a country with such a mind-blowingly stupidly designed medical system, Biccat.

I hope you realize I was being sarcastic.

So you do want to live in a country with a "mind-blowingly stupidly designed medical system."

This says it well:

Melissia wrote:Your argument is rather silly.

biccat wrote:
Either you don't know about the Catholic objection to contraceptives or you have no idea of the concept of religious freedom.

They're free to believe whatever they want, and just like anyone else that's about where it ends.

biccat wrote:
No it's not. My wife paid $20/month when her insurance company wouldn't cover birth control pills, and that was before Target and WalMart started offering them at discounts.

Apparently you can now get them for $9/month at Target.

Must be a locality thing then. I know my sister complained about much higher rates when she was between jobs.

streamdragon wrote:

biccat wrote:
No it's not. My wife paid $20/month when her insurance company wouldn't cover birth control pills, and that was before Target and WalMart started offering them at discounts.

Apparently you can now get them for $9/month at Target.

Must be a locality thing then. I know my sister complained about much higher rates when she was between jobs.

It varies a lot according to state law governing who can buy birth control, and under what circumstances.

In either case, the lesson we can take from this thread is that tyranny is equivalent to being forced to pay for a health plan that covers birth control.

When will this grievous oppression end!

biccat wrote:
Either you don't know about the Catholic objection to contraceptives or you have no idea of the concept of religious freedom.

I am well aware of the Catholic objection to contraceptives, I am also sufficiently abreast of current events to know that their objections were noted and addressed in as fair a manner as possible with even a good number of that group stepping forward to commend Obama for opening the whole thing to dialog. Maybe you just haven't grasped the whole separation between Church and state thing.... You can believe what you want but it doesn't necessarily have any bearing on the creation and/or enforcement of law. I suppose if I create a religion that doesn't believe in jail then I won't be jailed. I know that certain groups believe they are the alpha and omega of the world and should be catered to but you'd be surprised the growing population of those that don't hold the same values. Next you'll be telling me that they should shut down NASA because the Pope still believes the world is flat and the sun isn't the center of the solar system.

agnosto wrote:Maybe you just haven't grasped the whole separation between Church and state thing.... You can believe what you want but it doesn't necessarily have any bearing on the creation and/or enforcement of law.

Short of specifically forcing Catholics to pay for birth control, anyway.

biccat wrote:So you do want to live in a country with a "mind-blowingly stupidly designed medical system."

If you're going to intentionaly misconstrue what I said-- after I specifically clarified my intention even-- I'm just going to put you on ignore so that I don't break the first rule of dakka. You wouldn't be worthy of that rule.

Part of what made Rush's comment so dumb is that it more or less confirmed to my mind that conservatives didn't suddenly wake up six weeks ago and decide they cared deeply about religious freedom.

They just don't like the idea of women having sex as they choose. The reason the term was so insulting, and the reason the outrage isn't manufactured, is that it ties into the idea that a large chunk of the country finds the idea of women having sex freely distasteful, and want to do everything possible to make them feel bad about doing so.