The Sandra Fluke thread.
09-10-2012, 03:24 PM
#41
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,488
Total Cats: 4,077
THAT is not even the argument.
First of all, the birth control was not for her, but for her friend.
Second of all, it wasn't for contraceptive purposes, it was for medical purposes, and was prescribed by a doctor as a treatment.
If you are going to tell someone they don't know what the argument is about, you should probably actually know yourself.
First of all, the birth control was not for her, but for her friend.
Second of all, it wasn't for contraceptive purposes, it was for medical purposes, and was prescribed by a doctor as a treatment.
If you are going to tell someone they don't know what the argument is about, you should probably actually know yourself.
Was the argument not that Catholic/religous schools with health plans should not have to provide contraceptives (in cases of medical treatment)?
And where did I argue something different? I even used the same term used in her statement (which I've read/watched fully): contraceptive, as birth control is incorrect.
Reply
0
0
09-10-2012, 03:56 PM
#42
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
However, the last thing I want want is a government enforcing religious ideas in and outside of religious circles. When the Republicans decide that a religious idea should govern our nation in some capacity (limiting birth control availability/mandatory abortion-sonograms) I will deplore empowerment.
Reply
0
0
09-10-2012, 04:09 PM
#46
Boost Pope
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,017
Total Cats: 6,587
However, the last thing I want want is a government enforcing religious ideas in and outside of religious circles. When the Republicans decide that a religious idea should govern our nation in some capacity (limiting birth control availability/mandatory abortion-sonograms) I will deplore empowerment.
If anything, it sounds to me like the more right-leaning elements of the government, inasmuch as they've paid any attention to the Fluke issue, have tended to favor less interaction between government and religious institutions, by not attempting to use the government to interfere with the policies of a religious institution.
Reply
0
0
09-10-2012, 04:23 PM
#47
So, if a Mormon owns a convenience store, he must be forced to sell liquor in order to provide the same standard of convenience as a store owned by any other person? If the catholic church owns a grocery store, they must be forced to sell condoms for the same reason?
I don't buy this argument one bit.
I don't buy this argument one bit.
I think understand what you're saying (at the core at least). Ultimately, if you don't like the offerings at a particular shopping venue, just go somewhere else. I can see how you could apply that sort of logic to a hospital for certain things (check-ups for example: I don't like the brand of gloves that doctor uses, they grate my ---- walls while he checks my prostate, I'll go to a different doc), but what about emergencies?
Abstract this a bit: You've been in a terrible car crash, lots of broken bones, cuts, bruises, etc. and need to be taken to a hospital. You are conscious, but unable to speak due to face trauma caused by a faulty airbag. You are also single, with no close family.
The closest hospital is one run by a religious sect that advocates not using ANY painkillers or anaesthetics. They believe that painkillers are harmful and that they are following the tenant of 'Do no harm' by withholding them. Why should they be forced to provide painkillers to everyone?
You would be forced to have multiple bones re-set, several rounds of stitching, a minor surgery, and possibly DAYS of healing before you could communicate well enough to transfer yourself to a facility that wasn't quite so batshit insane.
There NEEDS to be a certain standard of care at an institution like a hospital as you don't necessarily always get a choice.
Reply
0
0
09-10-2012, 04:31 PM
#48
its like going into a church and demanding football be played on a tv during a sermon (not a bad idea, but dont demand it), or walking into someones yard and demanding for your dog to **** there.
Its not okay for free **** to be handed out on my taxed dollar without the receiving end working for it.
thats a nice watch you have there... I need it.
Dont like the school policy, go somewhere else. You aren't forced to be enrolled at that school.
Reply
0
0
09-10-2012, 04:36 PM
#50
To add to what Jeff said, you cant change an employer provided health insurance as you would a convenience store. You just don't have a choice sometimes. So IMHO the insurance companies should provide a standard level of coverage. Does it have to be free birth control? Maybe not free, but some coverage should exist and if anything it should be based on the plan one selects. But to outright not cover it is a bit retarded. I.E. A potential employee that needs it now will think twice about accepting a position with the company. Just because the company or health insurance is religious does not mean the policy holders are too.
Reply
0
0
09-10-2012, 04:43 PM
#51
To add to what Jeff said, you cant change an employer provided health insurance as you would a convenience store. You just don't have a choice sometimes. So IMHO the insurance companies should provide a standard level of coverage. Does it have to be free birth control? Maybe not free, but some coverage should exist and if anything it should be based on the plan one selects. But to outright not cover it, is a bit retarded since the person that needs it now will think twice about accepting a position with this company over something as foolish as drug coverage in the health insurance policy.
A student isnt forced to be enrolled there, its a choice. If they got a grant, great, but beggars cant be choosers. If you pay your own way to be a student, but wont offer something you need/want, dont give your money and move on to some institution that will. I for one think its absolutely insane to be enrolled in a religious controlled private school, but thats their choice not mine. A job is a lot different, you are busting your *** doing work, with a health policy that might not suit the employees need. Birth control shouldnt be free at all imo, but I agree some should be covered because medication is extremely overpriced as it is.
Reply
0
0
09-10-2012, 04:43 PM
#52
i <3 how you dont see a problem with how this was carried out. I dont care what the topic was, i have my own issues with paying for some dirty lazy hippy getting non-life demanding meds and education for free on my paycheck.
its like going into a church and demanding football be played on a tv during a sermon (not a bad idea, but dont demand it), or walking into someones yard and demanding for your dog to **** there.
Its not okay for free **** to be handed out on my taxed dollar without the receiving end working for it.
thats a nice watch you have there... I need it.
Dont like the school policy, go somewhere else. You aren't forced to be enrolled at that school.
its like going into a church and demanding football be played on a tv during a sermon (not a bad idea, but dont demand it), or walking into someones yard and demanding for your dog to **** there.
Its not okay for free **** to be handed out on my taxed dollar without the receiving end working for it.
thats a nice watch you have there... I need it.
Dont like the school policy, go somewhere else. You aren't forced to be enrolled at that school.
You do realize that this has nothing at all to do with taxes, right? Under the law/executive order/whatever it was that Obama did, this is specifically about the insurance companies including birth control in their coverage AS A MEDICINE and in no way includes ANY of your tax dollars paying for it.
The conservative media knows you get mad at anything that has to do with taxes, so they have transformed this into "Obama is making me pay my tax money for people to have sex" which is so far from the truth that it isn't even funny.
They played you, and you danced to their tune like a good little puppet.
Reply
0
0
09-10-2012, 04:47 PM
#53
You do realize that this has nothing at all to do with taxes, right? Under the law/executive order/whatever it was that Obama did, this is specifically about the insurance companies including birth control in their coverage AS A MEDICINE and in no way includes ANY of your tax dollars paying for it.
The conservative media knows you get mad at anything that has to do with taxes, so they have transformed this into "Obama is making me pay my tax money for people to have sex" which is so far from the truth that it isn't even funny.
They played you, and you danced to their tune like a good little puppet.
The conservative media knows you get mad at anything that has to do with taxes, so they have transformed this into "Obama is making me pay my tax money for people to have sex" which is so far from the truth that it isn't even funny.
They played you, and you danced to their tune like a good little puppet.
But thats another useless debate that everyone is hard headed about and bias in their own beliefs and opinions.
Reply
0
0
09-10-2012, 04:49 PM
#54
Boost Pope
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,017
Total Cats: 6,587
That's sort of a stretch. Can you honestly say that hospitals should be held to the same standards as a corner store?
(Reductio ad absurdum)
There NEEDS to be a certain standard of care at an institution like a hospital as you don't necessarily always get a choice.
(Reductio ad absurdum)
There NEEDS to be a certain standard of care at an institution like a hospital as you don't necessarily always get a choice.
Of course, in the Fluke case, this isn't about a hospital at all. It's about a private insurance company. When a person signs up with a certain insurer, and that insurer makes it clear that they will not cover contraceptives, it's a bit of a stretch to argue that the should cover contraceptives, regardless of what medical justifications one might concoct.
Yes, I think we all understand that contraceptive medications can be indicated for uses other than birth control, just as nuclear weapons can be indicated for uses other than killing yellow / brown people. They can, for instance, be used as a carbon-neutral alternative to diesel powered earthmoving equipment in large-scale excavation operations. None the less, I do not expect Greenpeace to start sanctioning the development of new variable-yield atomic weapons, nor would I argue with them to the contrary. I also would not expect whatever employer-sponsored health plan Disney offers to cover gender-reassignment surgery, and for the same reasons.
Reply
0
0
09-10-2012, 04:55 PM
#55
You are right. Do you know where it comes from? THE INSURANCE COMPANY!
It is not a tax in any way whatsoever. We are talking about an issue between a private business (insurance provider) and a private person (customer). There is no government and no tax involved.
My apologies on confusing you for a Rush Limbaugh mouthpiece. You do sound quite a bit like it.
If you want, you can read more about it here.
Reply
0
0
09-10-2012, 04:56 PM
#56
Obviously it's possible to dream up hypothetical scenarios to justify (or refute) pretty much any imaginable point of view.
Of course, in the Fluke case, this isn't about a hospital at all. It's about a private insurance company. When a person signs up with a certain insurer, and that insurer makes it clear that they will not cover contraceptives, it's a bit of a stretch to argue that the should cover contraceptives, regardless of what medical justifications one might concoct.
Yes, I think we all understand that contraceptive medications can be indicated for uses other than birth control, just as nuclear weapons can be indicated for uses other than killing yellow / brown people. They can, for instance, be used as a carbon-neutral alternative to diesel powered earthmoving equipment in large-scale excavation operations. None the less, I do not expect Greenpeace to start sanctioning the development of new variable-yield atomic weapons, nor would I argue with them to the contrary.
Of course, in the Fluke case, this isn't about a hospital at all. It's about a private insurance company. When a person signs up with a certain insurer, and that insurer makes it clear that they will not cover contraceptives, it's a bit of a stretch to argue that the should cover contraceptives, regardless of what medical justifications one might concoct.
Yes, I think we all understand that contraceptive medications can be indicated for uses other than birth control, just as nuclear weapons can be indicated for uses other than killing yellow / brown people. They can, for instance, be used as a carbon-neutral alternative to diesel powered earthmoving equipment in large-scale excavation operations. None the less, I do not expect Greenpeace to start sanctioning the development of new variable-yield atomic weapons, nor would I argue with them to the contrary.
Agree with someone's offers and restrictions? Good; if you dont, move on. I wish all the turbo bitties on my car could be 100% covered by my insurance, but they couldnt, so I could either try and find someone else (threatened to find someone else), or just deal with it.
I dealt with it, and got at least 60% aftermarket covered, by their good graces and me not being a whiny ***.
Reply
0
0
09-10-2012, 05:07 PM
#58
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
To be fair, isn't the government involved in mandating what the private insurance company, contracted by the private university, must or must not provide coverage for?
Reply
0
0
09-10-2012, 05:17 PM
#59
Yes. The government is involved in mandating lots of things in the world of healthcare. Like that drugs should be tested before they are sold.
In fact, here in Illinois, the government mandates what kind of car insurance I have to buy. There is a "minimum coverage" that needs to be met.
There are still no tax dollars changing hands, so at no point is the government paying for people to have sex. Again, this wasn't even about sex, until Limbaugh brought it up. This was about treatments for polycystic ovary syndrome. Which happen to be birth control.
In fact, here in Illinois, the government mandates what kind of car insurance I have to buy. There is a "minimum coverage" that needs to be met.
There are still no tax dollars changing hands, so at no point is the government paying for people to have sex. Again, this wasn't even about sex, until Limbaugh brought it up. This was about treatments for polycystic ovary syndrome. Which happen to be birth control.
Reply
0
0
