birth control, a lie?

[jknowgood]

The unborn baby has no choice. Just like your teenager does not make the decisions in your home the same with a fetus in the mothers "home".

I couldn't choose to kill my son, even though at times I felt like it. Anyway if I made a decision and my son brought up a good counter point, I would change my mind, so in a way he helped make decisions.

A fetus cannot talk. How could it offer a counter point?

I was talking about my teenage son.

 

[Asclepias]

I couldn't choose to kill my son, even though at times I felt like it. Anyway if I made a decision and my son brought up a good counter point, I would change my mind, so in a way he helped make decisions.

A fetus cannot talk. How could it offer a counter point?

I was talking about my teenage son.

I know. I'm asking how is a fetus supposed to offer a counterpoint on the subject of its abortion? It seemed that was the parallel you were drawing.

 

[Noomi]

Another poster on this forum says, a woman taking responsibility and paying for her own birth control. Is a lie. Is it just me, or is he an idiot for saying that?

If an employer is happy to pay for Viagra, then they can pay for birth control - considering that most women use birth control to control their periods. NOT to prevent pregnancy.

 

[Care4all]

Another poster on this forum says, a woman taking responsibility and paying for her own birth control. Is a lie. Is it just me, or is he an idiot for saying that?

If an employer is happy to pay for Viagra, then they can pay for birth control - considering that most women use birth control to control their periods. NOT to prevent pregnancy.

Before obamacare most employers covered birth control on the employee insurance coverage plans.

Most employers prefer their female employees do not get pregnant.

 

[Immanuel]

Another poster on this forum says, a woman taking responsibility and paying for her own birth control. Is a lie. Is it just me, or is he an idiot for saying that?

If an employer is happy to pay for Viagra, then they can pay for birth control - considering that most women use birth control to control their periods. NOT to prevent pregnancy.

Before obamacare most employers covered birth control on the employee insurance coverage plans.

Most employers prefer their female employees do not get pregnant.

And they still do, although that may very well become a benefit of the past. Why should a company continue to offer healthcare to its employees when the employees must get it on their own and the company gets charged a tax to help provide that coverage that is roughly a sixth of what it would cost them to pay for the full insurance? Companies are going to begin paying the tax (or is it a fine at the moment?) rather than paying for the insurance. It only makes sense.

Even Hobby Lobby willingly covers birth control. Hobby Lobby simply refused to cover certain forms of birth control, forms they consider to be forms of abortion. Forcing Hobby Lobby to cover these forms of birth control is not all that different than forcing the parents of Trayvon Martin to cover the cost of defending George Zimmerman on their own.

Care, long time no see, I hope all is well with you.

 

[Care4all]

If an employer is happy to pay for Viagra, then they can pay for birth control - considering that most women use birth control to control their periods. NOT to prevent pregnancy.

Before obamacare most employers covered birth control on the employee insurance coverage plans.

Most employers prefer their female employees do not get pregnant.

And they still do, although that may very well become a benefit of the past. Why should a company continue to offer healthcare to its employees when the employees must get it on their own and the company gets charged a tax to help provide that coverage that is roughly a sixth of what it would cost them to pay for the full insurance? Companies are going to begin paying the tax (or is it a fine at the moment?) rather than paying for the insurance. It only makes sense.

Even Hobby Lobby willingly covers birth control. Hobby Lobby simply refused to cover certain forms of birth control, forms they consider to be forms of abortion. Forcing Hobby Lobby to cover these forms of birth control is not all that different than forcing the parents of Trayvon Martin to cover the cost of defending George Zimmerman on their own.

Care, long time no see, I hope all is well with you.

Holy Moly, mother of goodness!

HI Immie! Where have you been, besides more than likely playing some newest and latest video game? All is good with me and Matt!

Bet ya 10 to 1, the penalty fees will go up....if employers start to jump ship....

And, there is more involved than just the $2000 penalty tax per person, so it's not as big of a difference than you may think... if looking at the full picture...

1- The $2000 penalty per person is not tax deductible as a business expense, Whereas the $5500- $6500 a year for employee insurance is counted as a business expense and is NOT taxable...if the business is in the 35%-39% tax bracket, it makes it where it is not as big of a spread....and without their employees getting any benefit...and without the employer being able to recruit the best people out there to work for them since they have no insurance benefit...

 

[Immanuel]

Before obamacare most employers covered birth control on the employee insurance coverage plans.

Most employers prefer their female employees do not get pregnant.

And they still do, although that may very well become a benefit of the past. Why should a company continue to offer healthcare to its employees when the employees must get it on their own and the company gets charged a tax to help provide that coverage that is roughly a sixth of what it would cost them to pay for the full insurance? Companies are going to begin paying the tax (or is it a fine at the moment?) rather than paying for the insurance. It only makes sense.

Even Hobby Lobby willingly covers birth control. Hobby Lobby simply refused to cover certain forms of birth control, forms they consider to be forms of abortion. Forcing Hobby Lobby to cover these forms of birth control is not all that different than forcing the parents of Trayvon Martin to cover the cost of defending George Zimmerman on their own.

Care, long time no see, I hope all is well with you.

Holy Moly, mother of goodness!

HI Immie! Where have you been, besides more than likely playing some newest and latest video game? All is good with me and Matt!

Bet ya 10 to 1, the penalty fees will go up....if employers start to jump ship....

And, there is more involved than just the $2000 penalty tax per person, so it's not as big of a difference than you may think... if looking at the full picture...

1- The $2000 penalty per person is not tax deductible as a business expense, Whereas the $5500- $6500 a year for employee insurance is counted as a business expense and is NOT taxable...if the business is in the 35%-39% tax bracket, it makes it where it is not as big of a spread....and without their employees getting any benefit...and without the employer being able to recruit the best people out there to work for them since they have no insurance benefit...

For the record, the cost for insuring a family is closer to $13,000 a year. Of course, many companies only pay for the employee portion while some pay for part of the family portion. Forty percent of $6500 is $2,600 making the cost of paying for insurance double the cost of paying the tax. The reason that most employers even offer health insurance is to entice workers to work for them. Health insurance is nothing more than compensation they pay to hire the people they want and keep them from going elsewhere. When employees can, strike that, must, get their own insurance and can do so at government expense (subsidies) many companies will start dropping their coverage. At least, that is what I expect.

It makes sense. Let the government cover the brunt of the cost of insuring the employees. Employees won't need the employer to cover their health insurance, the government will do it for them thus the need of offering health insurance to entice employees to come work for you will diminish.

As for my absence, yes some of it has been gaming, but honestly, I needed a break from the hostility of the site.

 

[Care4all]

And they still do, although that may very well become a benefit of the past. Why should a company continue to offer healthcare to its employees when the employees must get it on their own and the company gets charged a tax to help provide that coverage that is roughly a sixth of what it would cost them to pay for the full insurance? Companies are going to begin paying the tax (or is it a fine at the moment?) rather than paying for the insurance. It only makes sense.

Even Hobby Lobby willingly covers birth control. Hobby Lobby simply refused to cover certain forms of birth control, forms they consider to be forms of abortion. Forcing Hobby Lobby to cover these forms of birth control is not all that different than forcing the parents of Trayvon Martin to cover the cost of defending George Zimmerman on their own.

Care, long time no see, I hope all is well with you.

Holy Moly, mother of goodness!

HI Immie! Where have you been, besides more than likely playing some newest and latest video game? All is good with me and Matt!

Bet ya 10 to 1, the penalty fees will go up....if employers start to jump ship....

And, there is more involved than just the $2000 penalty tax per person, so it's not as big of a difference than you may think... if looking at the full picture...

1- The $2000 penalty per person is not tax deductible as a business expense, Whereas the $5500- $6500 a year for employee insurance is counted as a business expense and is NOT taxable...if the business is in the 35%-39% tax bracket, it makes it where it is not as big of a spread....and without their employees getting any benefit...and without the employer being able to recruit the best people out there to work for them since they have no insurance benefit...

For the record, the cost for insuring a family is closer to $13,000 a year. Of course, many companies only pay for the employee portion while some pay for part of the family portion. Forty percent of $6500 is $2,600 making the cost of paying for insurance double the cost of paying the tax. The reason that most employers even offer health insurance is to entice workers to work for them. Health insurance is nothing more than compensation they pay to hire the people they want and keep them from going elsewhere. When employees can, strike that, must, get their own insurance and can do so at government expense (subsidies) many companies will start dropping their coverage. At least, that is what I expect.

It makes sense. Let the government cover the brunt of the cost of insuring the employees. Employees won't need the employer to cover their health insurance, the government will do it for them thus the need of offering health insurance to entice employees to come work for you will diminish.

As for my absence, yes some of it has been gaming, but honestly, I needed a break from the hostility of the site.

It does seem like this is what would happen...

HOWEVER, in Massachusetts with ROMNEYcare, where the penalty for not covering employees was something like $275 per employee, you would expect employers to drop the very expensive health insurance, much higher than the cost of insurance in florida, that more employers would have dropped it because they would have saved BOOCOOS of money with a penalty so low.....

employer coverage INCREASED by 1%.

Now maybe, with more Unions, and the east coast silicone valley in the state, higher caliber of workers are needed and health care insurance continues to be a ''pull'' for getting the best workers?

 

[Immanuel]

Holy Moly, mother of goodness!

HI Immie! Where have you been, besides more than likely playing some newest and latest video game? All is good with me and Matt!

Bet ya 10 to 1, the penalty fees will go up....if employers start to jump ship....

And, there is more involved than just the $2000 penalty tax per person, so it's not as big of a difference than you may think... if looking at the full picture...

1- The $2000 penalty per person is not tax deductible as a business expense, Whereas the $5500- $6500 a year for employee insurance is counted as a business expense and is NOT taxable...if the business is in the 35%-39% tax bracket, it makes it where it is not as big of a spread....and without their employees getting any benefit...and without the employer being able to recruit the best people out there to work for them since they have no insurance benefit...

For the record, the cost for insuring a family is closer to $13,000 a year. Of course, many companies only pay for the employee portion while some pay for part of the family portion. Forty percent of $6500 is $2,600 making the cost of paying for insurance double the cost of paying the tax. The reason that most employers even offer health insurance is to entice workers to work for them. Health insurance is nothing more than compensation they pay to hire the people they want and keep them from going elsewhere. When employees can, strike that, must, get their own insurance and can do so at government expense (subsidies) many companies will start dropping their coverage. At least, that is what I expect.

It makes sense. Let the government cover the brunt of the cost of insuring the employees. Employees won't need the employer to cover their health insurance, the government will do it for them thus the need of offering health insurance to entice employees to come work for you will diminish.

As for my absence, yes some of it has been gaming, but honestly, I needed a break from the hostility of the site.

It does seem like this is what would happen...

HOWEVER, in Massachusetts with ROMNEYcare, where the penalty for not covering employees was something like $275 per employee, you would expect employers to drop the very expensive health insurance, much higher than the cost of insurance in florida, that more employers would have dropped it because they would have saved BOOCOOS of money with a penalty so low.....

employer coverage INCREASED by 1%.

Now maybe, with more Unions, and the east coast silicone valley in the state, higher caliber of workers are needed and health care insurance continues to be a ''pull'' for getting the best workers?

I'm not familiar with the outcome of Romneycare or even the specifics of the law. About all I know is that it was the predecessor of Obamacare.

One thing I can surmise though is that even though all Massachusetts employers worked under the same laws, there were other employers in neighboring states and throughout the country that employees could find themselves employed with. Therefore, Mass employers still had to compete with the rest of the country. As Obamacare becomes further entrenched, employers will find it easier to drop coverage. I'm sure if this happens that at first they will tell us that our wages will go up to compensate for the difference, but somehow I suspect they will, in fact, win in the long run. But honestly, I don't begrudge them that. I negotiate my salary and if I don't like what my employer is offering, I'll go elsewhere. Isn't that the way things are supposed to work?

Time will tell.

 

[Care4all]

employers that drop their benefit, are being short sited.... I bet ya, a separate employer tax will be created to pay for universal care if that is what we have to go to, and it won't be as cheap...as the present penalty.

if employees whose companies have dropped insurance, have spouses whose employers offer insurance...they will be forced to go on their spouse's plan and not be allowed on to the exchange with subsidies.... And their Spouse's employer is not obligated to contribute at all towards the "family" part of the plan, which you mentioned above....so it could be a real major HIT on the employees whose company drops insurance....even if the employer compensated them more...

 

[Immanuel]

employers that drop their benefit, are being short sited.... I bet ya, a separate employer tax will be created to pay for universal care if that is what we have to go to, and it won't be as cheap...as the present penalty.

if employees whose companies have dropped insurance, have spouses whose employers offer insurance...they will be forced to go on their spouse's plan and not be allowed on to the exchange with subsidies.... And their Spouse's employer is not obligated to contribute at all towards the "family" part of the plan, which you mentioned above....so it could be a real major HIT on the employees whose company drops insurance....even if the employer compensated them more...

The "major hit" is the employee's problem. Do you think the employer or the government really cares? However, that is why this won't happen over night. The employers in your example above who consider dropping coverage will still be competing with employers who don't. This will happen slowly, but I think eventually it will happen. Larger employers (those who don't have to compete so much because it is easy to fill their ranks) will start the ball rolling and then more will follow.

That is assuming that we are not dragged into government sponsored universal healthcare first! A thought which I fully dread, because I don't trust Washington.

 

[Care4all]

employers that drop their benefit, are being short sited.... I bet ya, a separate employer tax will be created to pay for universal care if that is what we have to go to, and it won't be as cheap...as the present penalty.

if employees whose companies have dropped insurance, have spouses whose employers offer insurance...they will be forced to go on their spouse's plan and not be allowed on to the exchange with subsidies.... And their Spouse's employer is not obligated to contribute at all towards the "family" part of the plan, which you mentioned above....so it could be a real major HIT on the employees whose company drops insurance....even if the employer compensated them more...

The "major hit" is the employee's problem. Do you think the employer or the government really cares? However, that is why this won't happen over night. The employers in your example above who consider dropping coverage will still be competing with employers who don't. This will happen slowly, but I think eventually it will happen. Larger employers (those who don't have to compete so much because it is easy to fill their ranks) will start the ball rolling and then more will follow.

That is assuming that we are not dragged into government sponsored universal healthcare first! A thought which I fully dread, because I don't trust Washington.

I can't see the Northeast dropping health care as a benefit anytime soon....in this case, a double THANK GOD, for all the unions up here and companies not unionized feeling they are competing with them for the best employees, thus better benefits all around up here, compared to Florida, at least the employers that i worked for when i lived there....and then up here.

But in Florida, and the south in GENERAL, may follow that gut feeling of yours...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

jackson, chickenwing, Marianne, thereisnospoon - all trying to make this about something different from the op.

I've stated my opinion very clearly - birth control is a human issue and, in a perfect world, both sexes do and should share all aspects and consequences of reproduction and or preventing reproduction.

Bottom line however is that its really the woman who bears and, in most cases, raises the child and men have willingly vacated their part in the abortion decision.

In fact, regardless of the relationship between the man and woman, the state has no authority whatsoever to compel the woman to obtain 'permission' from the father concerning her decision involving her pregnancy, for the state to seek to do so would be an un-Constitutional violation of the woman's right to privacy:

If this case concerned a State's ability to require the mother to notify the father before taking some action with respect to a living child raised by both, therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude as a general matter that the father's interest in the welfare of the child and the mother's interest are equal.

Before birth, however, the issue takes on a very different cast. It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

 

[Politico]

You people aren't able to discuss anything.

 

[jknowgood]

Another poster on this forum says, a woman taking responsibility and paying for her own birth control. Is a lie. Is it just me, or is he an idiot for saying that?

If an employer is happy to pay for Viagra, then they can pay for birth control - considering that most women use birth control to control their periods. NOT to prevent pregnancy.

Viagra shouldn't be covered either, that's a choice.

 

[daws101]

Yeah for the baby.

nice rationalizing, kids born or unborn have no rights at all

Everyone has the right to life.

false! life is just life ..

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yeah for the baby.

nice rationalizing, kids born or unborn have no rights at all

Everyone has the right to life.

As a fact of Constitutional law, prior to birth, the embryo/fetus has no 'right to life' (Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)).

Now, you're at liberty to ignore Constitutional law, of course, and not have an abortion if you believe an embryo/fetus has a 'right to life,' but you're not at liberty to seek to codify that subjective belief in secular law by 'banning' abortion, in violation of the right to privacy.