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

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

why should sandra fluke have to PAY for her insurance at her school, in order for her to attend this school, and not have the coverage she needs.

you know that students pay for their own insurance at this school don't you....and they are forced to pay for health insurance with the school or they can't attend the college.... why should the school get to dictate her coverage?

She could choose to go to a different school, couldn't she?

Just sayin.


And to the OP you aren't going to get a good converstation when you start out saying "I wont properly refer to you as OWS parasites" I mean are you that daft?

 

[Pho_King]

Well lets see where, first off, women that do NOT want "birth control" simply do not order it lol, its as simple as that, no one is telling anyone you HAVE to order it, right? Second the reason why it SHOULD and now IS covered under ALL insurance is simple. it gives access to all, why is that a BAD thing? it will lead to less unwanted preggos and lead to LESS abortions. Also what you have to remember is some women have been in the situation where they want to be responsible, but the only health care insaurence they can afford does not offer it. So they can not afford it. Once you people STOP looking at health care issues as priviliges and start looking at them as a RIGHT, it will become clear how and why its being offered.

Why is forcing others to participate in a policy that runs counter to their religious beliefs a bad thing? The answer is in the question. And, not a single person is harmed if every American has the option to purchase coverage that excludes birth control, and millions exercise that option. Not a soul is hurt. Accommodating those beliefs Need not make birth control, or birth control coverage, any less accessible to anyone. But it would require that lots of people practice a bit more tolerance for the religious beliefs of others.

nice try, as I just explained the other post I just put up, there are OTHER reasons why women are RXed "the pill". Now should women not have access to all their needs? cause that is question you dont seem to be asking yourself. Also thin of this, why are you making the argument that health covers should be able to restrict coverage when trying to make the argument people should be able to choose? ANSWER= all insurance covers it and PEOPLE make the choice for them selfs, no? or do you want to argue for restrictions while also trying to argue freedoms?

If everyone is forced to purchase policies that cover birth control, then everyone is forced to subsidize birth control. And for millions, that runs counter to deeply held religious convictions. Convictions that hurt no one if exercised.

Why not simply allow employers, or employees, to have coverage that does not include birth control? Simply have available a supplemental low copst birth control coverage. That would not remove an liberty interest, and birth control would be perfectly accessible to all. Seems like an easy accommodation. But many do not want to allow others to refrain from subsidizing the birth control of others. Why is that?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

why should sandra fluke have to PAY for her insurance at her school, in order for her to attend this school, and not have the coverage she needs.

you know that students pay for their own insurance at this school don't you....and they are forced to pay for health insurance with the school or they can't attend the college.... why should the school get to dictate her coverage?

they don't. she's free to buy it elsewhere.

fail

Most full-time students in a degree program are required to have adequate health insurance. A charge for the Premier Plan appears on students’ accounts when their course registration meets the eligibility criteria. Enrollment in the Premier Plan can be waived if a student has other adequate coverage.

Georgetown University :: Office of Student Affairs :: Student Health Insurance

Georgetown University :: Office of Student Affairs :: Student Health Insurance

Or that

 

[amrchaos]

It does seem like minimum basic health coverage would be more sensible and cheaper.

 

[Pho_King]

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.

Why is it you're opposed to a baseline in insurance coverage that excludes it? If you don't want to use the service, for whatever religious, ethical, stupidity reason, don't. If you don't want to use viagra, don't.

Freedom of choice is the issue, and birth control pills also have other therapeutic uses.

I agree. There should be a baseline in insurance coverage that excludes birth control, in order to accommodate the religious beliefs of millions. I am nt opposed to that at all. But many obviously are.

 

[Pho_King]

is making that choice for her. Also the people who this affects are the people who use abortion clinique when the "condom" fails, so what is your goal here? to have women forced to carry unwanted preggos and NOT haev access to healthcare?

My goal is to keep birth control readily accessible while maintaining individual liberty to purchase a policy that does not offend their religious beliefs. I thought that much should have been clear.

 

[Dick Tuck]

is making that choice for her. Also the people who this affects are the people who use abortion clinique when the "condom" fails, so what is your goal here? to have women forced to carry unwanted preggos and NOT haev access to healthcare?

My goal is to keep birth control readily accessible while maintaining individual liberty to purchase a policy that does not offend their religious beliefs. I thought that much should have been clear.

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion. No one is telling anyone they must use that specific service.

 

[lukelk]

Why is forcing others to participate in a policy that runs counter to their religious beliefs a bad thing? The answer is in the question. And, not a single person is harmed if every American has the option to purchase coverage that excludes birth control, and millions exercise that option. Not a soul is hurt. Accommodating those beliefs Need not make birth control, or birth control coverage, any less accessible to anyone. But it would require that lots of people practice a bit more tolerance for the religious beliefs of others.

nice try, as I just explained the other post I just put up, there are OTHER reasons why women are RXed "the pill". Now should women not have access to all their needs? cause that is question you dont seem to be asking yourself. Also thin of this, why are you making the argument that health covers should be able to restrict coverage when trying to make the argument people should be able to choose? ANSWER= all insurance covers it and PEOPLE make the choice for them selfs, no? or do you want to argue for restrictions while also trying to argue freedoms?

If everyone is forced to purchase policies that cover birth control, then everyone is forced to subsidize birth control. And for millions, that runs counter to deeply held religious convictions. Convictions that hurt no one if exercised.

Why not simply allow employers, or employees, to have coverage that does not include birth control? Simply have available a supplemental low copst birth control coverage. That would not remove an liberty interest, and birth control would be perfectly accessible to all. Seems like an easy accommodation. But many do not want to allow others to refrain from subsidizing the birth control of others. Why is that?

As I just stated, hormonal birth control, is used to treat other issues, it is a tool at a MDs disposal to help with a LOT of womens issues. Now as I also stated some women are in the situation where they rely on services provided by charity and things of this nature. Also some employers will use the bottom line if not regulated right, they will chose to ONLY carry the cheaper plan for them, which would be NO PILL or they will do it on religious beliefs, let it be noted the 90% of catholic women support the use of birth control. You talk about the freedom to choose, well allowing the employer or charity to make that choice for you is not freedom, is it? and no just cause the insurence company covers it does not mean your subsidizing it. where did you pick up that idea?

 

[Dick Tuck]

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.

Why is it you're opposed to a baseline in insurance coverage that excludes it? If you don't want to use the service, for whatever religious, ethical, stupidity reason, don't. If you don't want to use viagra, don't.

Freedom of choice is the issue, and birth control pills also have other therapeutic uses.

I agree. There should be a baseline in insurance coverage that excludes birth control, in order to accommodate the religious beliefs of millions. I am nt opposed to that at all. But many obviously are.

Once again, too bad. If you don't want to use a specific service, don't. Just don't let every religion be able to force congress to provide specific services they find objectionable.

It's interesting that you're not bitching about Romneycare, since unlike Obamacare, it offers abortion services. Nice principled stand you have.

 

[salem.hills]

@OP I always thought about that to and its divisiveness poking pushing getting more power immediate the public its the commie takeover power grab way I'm guessing. Its unreasonable nonsense

 

[lukelk]

I always thought about that to and its divisiveness poking pushing getting more power immediate the public its the commie takeover power grab way I'm guessing. Its unreasonable nonsense

really? sigh.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

@OP I always thought about that to and its divisiveness poking pushing getting more power immediate the public its the commie takeover power grab way I'm guessing. Its unreasonable nonsense

I think you want another take. That one was ass.

 

[boilermaker55]

As usual, your kind always forget that one little statement now don't you. Purposely too. About it being brought up before congress ever 2(two) years.
Again, pick and choose. Nice try!

try it yourself...

Article 1,Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

1ST Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

and you understand none of that, whining eagle. try reading the words in bold

"general welfare" did not refer to birth control...or the lobotomy you had...or even health insurance for that matter....

 

[ABikerSailor]

The GOP wants limits for birth control because they believe having it available somehow infringes on their religious rights, yet they want UNLIMITED ammo in magazines and clips because otherwise it would limit their rights.

Limited women's health rights, yet unlimited ammo. I think they've got their priorities fucked up.

 

[Pho_King]

is making that choice for her. Also the people who this affects are the people who use abortion clinique when the "condom" fails, so what is your goal here? to have women forced to carry unwanted preggos and NOT haev access to healthcare?

My goal is to keep birth control readily accessible while maintaining individual liberty to purchase a policy that does not offend their religious beliefs. I thought that much should have been clear.

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion. No one is telling anyone they must use that specific service.

No. But they are telling people they must help other people pay for specific services that offend their conscience.

 

[Pho_King]

Why is it you're opposed to a baseline in insurance coverage that excludes it? If you don't want to use the service, for whatever religious, ethical, stupidity reason, don't. If you don't want to use viagra, don't.

Freedom of choice is the issue, and birth control pills also have other therapeutic uses.

I agree. There should be a baseline in insurance coverage that excludes birth control, in order to accommodate the religious beliefs of millions. I am nt opposed to that at all. But many obviously are.

Once again, too bad. If you don't want to use a specific service, don't. Just don't let every religion be able to force congress to provide specific services they find objectionable.

It's interesting that you're not bitching about Romneycare, since unlike Obamacare, it offers abortion services. Nice principled stand you have.

Romneycare has nothing to do with anyone outside a single state. You are confusing the use of a service with payment for a service. Why is it so offensive to you to allow Catholics to have insurance that does not cover birth control?

 

[Lakhota]