Honest question: Why is it so important for liberals.......

no it's not... its a troll... an honest quesiton wouldn't have presumed anyone wants to impact your "freedoms".

Doesn't mandated birth control coverage remove the previously enjoyed freedom to purchase coverage that does not include birth control?

Even though you are an ignorant troll, I'll answer you.

No.

The other side of this troll's question is,

How many of you pay for benefits you do not want or need?

For example, a single woman paying for Viagra ...

Please, rw's -- Just THINK for yourself.

Does the federal government mandate that you purchase Viagra coverage?

I am really curious how it is that you think that a mandate for all citizens does not abridge the freedom the citizenry enjoyed prior to the mandate. Because prior to obammy's declaration from on high, millions of people had the freedom to purchase insurance that did not cover birth control. Perhaps that was a freedom that was of no value to you, so you don't really care about removing that freedom from those that valued it.
 
Doesn't mandated birth control coverage remove the previously enjoyed freedom to purchase coverage that does not include birth control?

Even though you are an ignorant troll, I'll answer you.

No.

The other side of this troll's question is,

How many of you pay for benefits you do not want or need?

For example, a single woman paying for Viagra ...

Please, rw's -- Just THINK for yourself.
or a vasectomy, or prostate cancer coverage....why should a group policy have the women pay for either one of those in their premiums?

There has to be some give and take for every one in the group policy.

That's not the question. The question involves the mandate. The question is why you believe that the liberty interest in not purchasing birth control coverage should be eliminated with the swipe of a pen.
 
It's cheaper: birth control is cheaper than pregnancy.

Why are you in favor of unplanned pregnancy?

I am not. And yes, birth control is cheaper than pregnancy. Is that why you think all Americans must be forced to purchase birth control coverage, or pay a tax? Seems like a pretty tenuous reason to strip a freedom.

WHAT???

Where did you hear this crap?

For the very few rw's who actually pay for their own health insurance ... do YOU buy coverage you don't need?

Yes. I have coverage for (women's) birth control.
 
To remove the freedom of Americans to purchase insurance that does not cover birth control? I mean, that what this whole issue with Sandra fluk is all about isn't it? It's not about access- contraceptives are readily available. And they are inexpensive. And they are, for women only, covered by most insurance policies. So why do they insist that all insurance policies must cover womens( not men's) contraception? How is our country better served by removing the freedom to buy a policy that does not cover contraception?

This is an honest question, so in this entire thread, where I am asking for input from lefties, i will refrain from properly referring to you as OWS parasites.

If it's not a bona fide religious institution (meaning tax free, not tuition supported), they shouldn't be able to force their religious dogma on people who don't share that idea.

Yeah.............she could go to another school, but she applied and was accepted there. Maybe her personal reasons for going to that school was to get an education, not have religion shoved down her throat.
 
To remove the freedom of Americans to purchase insurance that does not cover birth control? I mean, that what this whole issue with Sandra fluk is all about isn't it? It's not about access- contraceptives are readily available. And they are inexpensive. And they are, for women only, covered by most insurance policies. So why do they insist that all insurance policies must cover womens( not men's) contraception? How is our country better served by removing the freedom to buy a policy that does not cover contraception?

This is an honest question, so in this entire thread, where I am asking for input from lefties, i will refrain from properly referring to you as OWS parasites.

If it's not a bona fide religious institution (meaning tax free, not tuition supported), they shouldn't be able to force their religious dogma on people who don't share that idea.

Yeah.............she could go to another school, but she applied and was accepted there. Maybe her personal reasons for going to that school was to get an education, not have religion shoved down her throat.

Perhaps if she did not want to " have religion shoved down her throat" she should have attended a non religious school.

Why should a business owner have to contribute one dime towards birth control (for women)? Why should He not have the ability to pick an insurance policy that sits right with his conscience?

And why should I, as a man that has no need for such coverage, be forced to buy it? Why should I not have the right to choose a policy that does not cover it?
 
I would like to know how "cheap" they think contraceptives are...the pricing I see is pretty high for some of them and I pay wholesale. Not as high as 8 years or so of paying for foodstamps/WIC but still not exactly inexpensive; especially having to purchase 12 of them.
 
she isn't paying the premium for the group health insurance policy with the school??? She's paying for it Del....she doesn't get it for free so that means the bc pills or other reproductive services are not FOR FREE as others are parroting and screaming about above....

iirc, her original whine was that the school ins didn't provide bc.

she doesn't have to buy it from the school. she's free to buy ins that covers what she wants covered elsewhere and she can still attend school there. there is no requirement to buy health ins from ther school- you just have to have insurance.
The women already have to pay thousands in tuition, plus books, and are also mandated to have health insurance coverage at a level high enough for the school to accept/allow her to attend, and an individual policy would be thousands of dollars more a year than the group policy offered. IF it were up to the students paying for the group plan, guaranteed the majority of men and women would be happy to have reproductive services coverd. Why are you against their freedom? :D

If they weren't paying for this health care coverage and got it completely for free, then fine let the school dictate the coverage....but the students are paying for it.... that's why I take the side of the students and not the school.
 
Doesn't mandated birth control coverage remove the previously enjoyed freedom to purchase coverage that does not include birth control?

Even though you are an ignorant troll, I'll answer you.

No.

The other side of this troll's question is,

How many of you pay for benefits you do not want or need?

For example, a single woman paying for Viagra ...

Please, rw's -- Just THINK for yourself.

Does the federal government mandate that you purchase Viagra coverage?

I am really curious how it is that you think that a mandate for all citizens does not abridge the freedom the citizenry enjoyed prior to the mandate. Because prior to obammy's declaration from on high, millions of people had the freedom to purchase insurance that did not cover birth control. Perhaps that was a freedom that was of no value to you, so you don't really care about removing that freedom from those that valued it.

No the don't. Because Insurance Companies aren't shady fucks to men. They're shady fucks to women. I guess the Feds just had to do the chivalrous thing and get the insurance companies to quit treating women like second class citizens.

Why do you hate all women?
 
To remove the freedom of Americans to purchase insurance that does not cover birth control? I mean, that what this whole issue with Sandra fluk is all about isn't it? It's not about access- contraceptives are readily available. And they are inexpensive. And they are, for women only, covered by most insurance policies. So why do they insist that all insurance policies must cover womens( not men's) contraception? How is our country better served by removing the freedom to buy a policy that does not cover contraception?

This is an honest question, so in this entire thread, where I am asking for input from lefties, i will refrain from properly referring to you as OWS parasites.

If it's not a bona fide religious institution (meaning tax free, not tuition supported), they shouldn't be able to force their religious dogma on people who don't share that idea.

Yeah.............she could go to another school, but she applied and was accepted there. Maybe her personal reasons for going to that school was to get an education, not have religion shoved down her throat.

Perhaps if she did not want to " have religion shoved down her throat" she should have attended a non religious school.

Why should a business owner have to contribute one dime towards birth control (for women)? Why should He not have the ability to pick an insurance policy that sits right with his conscience?

And why should I, as a man that has no need for such coverage, be forced to buy it? Why should I not have the right to choose a policy that does not cover it?

You're not being forced to buy it. You're not even being forced to buy health insurance. You can just pay a nifty little fine if being a freeloader and/or misogynist suits you better.
 
Even though you are an ignorant troll, I'll answer you.

No.

The other side of this troll's question is,

How many of you pay for benefits you do not want or need?

For example, a single woman paying for Viagra ...

Please, rw's -- Just THINK for yourself.

Does the federal government mandate that you purchase Viagra coverage?

I am really curious how it is that you think that a mandate for all citizens does not abridge the freedom the citizenry enjoyed prior to the mandate. Because prior to obammy's declaration from on high, millions of people had the freedom to purchase insurance that did not cover birth control. Perhaps that was a freedom that was of no value to you, so you don't really care about removing that freedom from those that valued it.

No the don't. Because Insurance Companies aren't shady fucks to men. They're shady fucks to women. I guess the Feds just had to do the chivalrous thing and get the insurance companies to quit treating women like second class citizens.

Why do you hate all women?

Because of the promise I made in starting this thread, I am unable to answer you adequately.
 
she isn't paying the premium for the group health insurance policy with the school??? She's paying for it Del....she doesn't get it for free so that means the bc pills or other reproductive services are not FOR FREE as others are parroting and screaming about above....

iirc, her original whine was that the school ins didn't provide bc.

she doesn't have to buy it from the school. she's free to buy ins that covers what she wants covered elsewhere and she can still attend school there. there is no requirement to buy health ins from ther school- you just have to have insurance.
The women already have to pay thousands in tuition, plus books, and are also mandated to have health insurance coverage at a level high enough for the school to accept/allow her to attend, and an individual policy would be thousands of dollars more a year than the group policy offered. IF it were up to the students paying for the group plan, guaranteed the majority of men and women would be happy to have reproductive services coverd. Why are you against their freedom? :D

If they weren't paying for this health care coverage and got it completely for free, then fine let the school dictate the coverage....but the students are paying for it.... that's why I take the side of the students and not the school.

all schools require health insurance coverage as far as i know.

offering a plan isn't dictating coverage. :thup:
 
If it's not a bona fide religious institution (meaning tax free, not tuition supported), they shouldn't be able to force their religious dogma on people who don't share that idea.

Yeah.............she could go to another school, but she applied and was accepted there. Maybe her personal reasons for going to that school was to get an education, not have religion shoved down her throat.

Perhaps if she did not want to " have religion shoved down her throat" she should have attended a non religious school.

Why should a business owner have to contribute one dime towards birth control (for women)? Why should He not have the ability to pick an insurance policy that sits right with his conscience?

And why should I, as a man that has no need for such coverage, be forced to buy it? Why should I not have the right to choose a policy that does not cover it?

You're not being forced to buy it. You're not even being forced to buy health insurance. You can just pay a nifty little fine if being a freeloader and/or misogynist suits you better.

I am being forced to buy it, if I want to have insurance at all. And that is the liberty interest being erased by the tolerant left.
 
To remove the freedom of Americans to purchase insurance that does not cover birth control? I mean, that what this whole issue with Sandra fluk is all about isn't it? It's not about access- contraceptives are readily available. And they are inexpensive. And they are, for women only, covered by most insurance policies. So why do they insist that all insurance policies must cover womens( not men's) contraception? How is our country better served by removing the freedom to buy a policy that does not cover contraception?

This is an honest question, so in this entire thread, where I am asking for input from lefties, i will refrain from properly referring to you as OWS parasites.

What really is it any business of yours?

That's pretty honest.

Women should have the choice of whether they want these sort of services or not.

It's up to the indivdual. Not a religion.
 
To remove the freedom of Americans to purchase insurance that does not cover birth control? I mean, that what this whole issue with Sandra fluk is all about isn't it? It's not about access- contraceptives are readily available. And they are inexpensive. And they are, for women only, covered by most insurance policies. So why do they insist that all insurance policies must cover womens( not men's) contraception? How is our country better served by removing the freedom to buy a policy that does not cover contraception?

This is an honest question, so in this entire thread, where I am asking for input from lefties, i will refrain from properly referring to you as OWS parasites.

What really is it any business of yours?

That's pretty honest.

Women should have the choice of whether they want these sort of services or not.

It's up to the indivdual. Not a religion.
What business is it of mine? I am the one paying for my policy! I am a citizen that previously had the right not to purchase birth control coverage. I agree that women should have the right to these services. That is not even at issue. No one is banning contraceptives, or even arguing that policies must not include such coverage. But millions of citizens quietly exercised a freedom that is all but erased. Clearly, that freedom means nothing to you, but to many others it is extremely important. Women will have the choice whether they want these services no matter what. Why do you want to remove my ability to make that decision? That is what makes it my business.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top