ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags birth control issues , health care issues , Mike Huckabee , obamacare

Reply
Old 28th January 2014, 04:20 PM   #281
Neally
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,671
Originally Posted by elbe View Post
If they can afford it they'll buy it but if they can't they should have the right to be responsible with their lives and be able to obtain BC, a medical drug.
They always have had the right to have it covered via insurance. The difference now is that some people no longer have the choice of not having it.
Neally is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 04:31 PM   #282
Alferd_Packer
Philosopher
 
Alferd_Packer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,746
Mike Huckabee and the war on women

Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
This is it. People who don't want BC coverage pay more so that people who do want it can pay less. The question is: why must it be this way? There are other options that would not reduce the availability of BC.
The same logic would apply to heart medications, insulin, all drugs really.

At that point, what's the point of insurance?
__________________
No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post
Alferd_Packer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 05:25 PM   #283
mortimer
NWO Janitor
 
mortimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,518
I think it's pretty clear that some have a specific problem with birth control and are not willing to admit it. BC is no different than other preventative medications, but they have never complained about insurance coverage for those other medications. I eat healthy foods in moderation and exercise, why should I pay for coverage of blood pressure or cholesterol medications for others? No, it's just birth control that is the problem. I think it's pretty clear why.
__________________
"why would i bother?" - Bikerdruid, on providing evidence for his claims
"I view hamas as an organization fighting for the freedom of its people." - Bikerdruid
mortimer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 05:45 PM   #284
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11,610
Originally Posted by mortimer View Post
I think it's pretty clear that some have a specific problem with birth control and are not willing to admit it. BC is no different than other preventative medications, but they have never complained about insurance coverage for those other medications. I eat healthy foods in moderation and exercise, why should I pay for coverage of blood pressure or cholesterol medications for others? No, it's just birth control that is the problem. I think it's pretty clear why.
Quite right. It's entirely obvious.
uke2se is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 05:48 PM   #285
elbe
Illuminator
 
elbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,983
Originally Posted by mortimer View Post
I think it's pretty clear that some have a specific problem with birth control and are not willing to admit it. BC is no different than other preventative medications, but they have never complained about insurance coverage for those other medications. I eat healthy foods in moderation and exercise, why should I pay for coverage of blood pressure or cholesterol medications for others? No, it's just birth control that is the problem. I think it's pretty clear why.
They never cared about BC being covered until now either.
__________________
"Take the weakest thing in you and beat the bastards with it"
realityisnotadditive... blog... thingy...
elbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 05:49 PM   #286
elbe
Illuminator
 
elbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,983
Originally Posted by Neally View Post
They always have had the right to have it covered via insurance. The difference now is that some people no longer have the choice of not having it.
I'm pretty sure women have the choice to not buy BC if they don't want it or don't have sex.
__________________
"Take the weakest thing in you and beat the bastards with it"
realityisnotadditive... blog... thingy...
elbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 06:47 PM   #287
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,097
Originally Posted by elbe View Post
Short answer is that women deserve to be treated equally. If they can afford it they'll buy it but if they can't they should have the right to be responsible with their lives and be able to obtain BC, a medical drug.
If insurance companies were simply required to offer BC coverage as an option, wouldn't that accomplish the same thing?

Secondly, if women can't afford BC, then they can get it through Medicaid. If they don't qualify for Medicaid, there are options for $4-$20 per month.

Thirdly, they can always buy an insurance plan that covers it.

Given the above three points, it's clear that there isn't an "equal treatment" problem with women's BC.

Quote:
The dems aren't forcing women to buy it just making it as available as viagra
Viagra is not universally available on insurance plans.

Quote:
while also allowing women to take advantage of insurance price negotiations to get cheaper prices.
That advantage exists even if I don't buy BC coverage.

Quote:
Various states already mandated it in insurance prior to the aca. This isn't a new idea.
And most of those states allow exemptions for religious reasons. And even then, before ACA, people were not forced to participate in the plan.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 07:02 PM   #288
Neally
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,671
Originally Posted by Alferd_Packer View Post
The same logic would apply to heart medications, insulin, all drugs really.
No it wouldn't. By your logic your car insurance should be paying for your gasoline.

Quote:
At that point, what's the point of insurance?
As been explained multiple times in this thread, there is but one purpose of insurance: to mitigate unacceptable risk. Needing BC is not a risk that should be insured against. Since it isn't, people shouldn't be forced to simply buy stuff for others.

Originally Posted by mortimer View Post
I think it's pretty clear that some have a specific problem with birth control and are not willing to admit it.
I think it's pretty clear that some have no logical answer as to why some people should be forced to pay for BC when they don't want or need it. No one has argued in this thread against BC for religious reasons.

Quote:
BC is no different than other preventative medications, but they have never complained about insurance coverage for those other medications.
Maybe because being fertile and enjoying sex is not a medical risk. Medical insurance is for medical risks.

Quote:
I eat healthy foods in moderation and exercise, why should I pay for coverage of blood pressure or cholesterol medications for others? No, it's just birth control that is the problem.
If policies had the option to opt out for those particular things and you didn't want them since you felt your lifestyle wouldn't bring them on, then you shouldn't have to pay for that coverage. Same is true for BC previously. Now we have no choice.
Quote:
I think it's pretty clear why.
Do tell.

Originally Posted by elbe View Post
They never cared about BC being covered until now either.
Because people had a choice as to whether they wanted that coverage or not. Now they don't.

Originally Posted by elbe View Post
I'm pretty sure women have the choice to not buy BC if they don't want it or don't have sex.
Nope, not any more. We all have to pay for it with higher premiums so that those that want it, can get it free through their insurance.
Neally is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 10:38 PM   #289
elbe
Illuminator
 
elbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,983
Originally Posted by Neally View Post
Because people had a choice as to whether they wanted that coverage or not. Now they don't.
Are you so sure? Cause your track record on all things insurance leaves a lot to be desired.

Quote:
Nope, not any more. We all have to pay for it with higher premiums so that those that want it, can get it free through their insurance.
No. I don't think that's it.

I am really curious about why it's so cheap that anyone can buy it out of pocket but so expensive that it'll raise insurance premiums.
__________________
"Take the weakest thing in you and beat the bastards with it"
realityisnotadditive... blog... thingy...
elbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 10:39 PM   #290
elbe
Illuminator
 
elbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,983
Edited: I apologize for being course. Working third shift always seems to make me angry at everything.
__________________
"Take the weakest thing in you and beat the bastards with it"
realityisnotadditive... blog... thingy...

Last edited by elbe; 28th January 2014 at 10:58 PM.
elbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2014, 11:23 PM   #291
Neally
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,671
Originally Posted by elbe View Post
Are you so sure? Cause your track record on all things insurance leaves a lot to be desired.
Are you claiming that no policies didn't not cover BC prior to Obamacare?

Quote:
I am really curious about why it's so cheap that anyone can buy it out of pocket but so expensive that it'll raise insurance premiums.
Not "it'll". It has. Policies that didn't include all the essential coverages mandated by Obamacare are no longer available. Guess what? Stuff costs money. Those mandates have raised the costs of policies.
Neally is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2014, 01:20 AM   #292
quixotecoyote
Howling to glory I go
 
quixotecoyote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 10,379
Originally Posted by Neally View Post
Not "it'll". It has. Policies that didn't include all the essential coverages mandated by Obamacare are no longer available. Guess what? Stuff costs money. Those mandates have raised the costs of policies.
Oh. Well I guess if it was so expensive it raised costs of policies enough that you noticed, it's a good thing it's covered so people who need it can get it.
__________________
If people needed video games to live, a national single payer plan to fund those purchases would be a great idea.
quixotecoyote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2014, 07:36 AM   #293
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,097
Originally Posted by quixotecoyote View Post
Oh. Well I guess if it was so expensive it raised costs of policies enough that you noticed, it's a good thing it's covered so people who need it can get it.

Why couldn't those people get it before? It was cheap and available. Why do I have to pay more? Why can't they pay more?
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2014, 07:58 AM   #294
Silly Green Monkey
Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness
 
Silly Green Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,264
oh noes your XY discount has expired
__________________
Normal is just a stereotype.
Silly Green Monkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2014, 08:18 AM   #295
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,097
Originally Posted by elbe View Post
I am really curious about why it's so cheap that anyone can buy it out of pocket but so expensive that it'll raise insurance premiums.

Oral BC pills are available for $4. Anyone who doesn't qualify for Medicaid can fit that in their budget. Even at $20-$50 for the newer/more convenient forms is affordable for most.

It raises premiums in two ways:

1) Eliminating cheap high-deductible/low premium insurance plans and forcing everyone to buy a plan with the EHBs at a higher premium

2) making it free means that the added costs have to be factored into everyone's premium. And if it's free, people will tend to choose the more expensive BC options.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2014, 08:22 AM   #296
Myron Proudfoot
Master Poster
 
Myron Proudfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Northern VA/DC
Posts: 2,361
let me get this straight. If I pay into a common pool from which other people's expenses are paid, then I have some right to tell them what they can and can-not have? So I have some right of ownership? Cool. I think I'll drive down to Norfolk this weekend and tell the US Navy that I don't like them spending so much on aircraft carriers. Then I am going to demand a piece of one of those aircraft carriers. The Harry S. Truman is based there. I think I'll go grab a piece of the Truman. Hey, I PAID FOR IT!


Seriously, if you don't like women using birth control on insurance that they paid into, well, Too ***** bad. Grow up and mind your own damn business.
__________________
InfoWars. Punching logic in the face on a daily basis. (from Facebook)
Myron Proudfoot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2014, 08:32 AM   #297
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,097
Originally Posted by Myron Proudfoot View Post
let me get this straight. If I pay into a common pool from which other people's expenses are paid, then I have some right to tell them what they can and can-not have? So I have some right of ownership? Cool. I think I'll drive down to Norfolk this weekend and tell the US Navy that I don't like them spending so much on aircraft carriers. Then I am going to demand a piece of one of those aircraft carriers. The Harry S. Truman is based there. I think I'll go grab a piece of the Truman. Hey, I PAID FOR IT!


Seriously, if you don't like women using birth control on insurance that they paid into, well, Too ***** bad. Grow up and mind your own damn business.

Now that's a straw man of epic proportions.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2014, 09:28 AM   #298
SomedayGirl
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 826
Originally Posted by Neally View Post
They always have had the right to have it covered via insurance. The difference now is that some people no longer have the choice of not having it.
People no longer have the choice of not having airbags and anti-lock brakes either. Those things made cars cost more. The simple fact is standards change. The standard for health insurance policies changed. The standard for lead based paint changed, the standard for large purchases of certain kinds of fertilizer changed, the standard for baby cribs changed, the list is nearly endless and all had some kind of cost/ benefit calculus applied to them.

I'm not sure if your argument is that things should never change or if they just shouldn't change if they affect you.
__________________
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their own desires.

--Susan B. Anthony
SomedayGirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2014, 10:40 AM   #299
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,097
Originally Posted by SomedayGirl View Post
People no longer have the choice of not having airbags and anti-lock brakes either. Those things made cars cost more.
ABS is not required in the US. I can avoid the airbag mandate by simply buying a car produced before the law went into effect or by not buying a car at all. I am not mandated to buy a car.

And this is more equivalent to mandating that everyone who buys a vehicle also has to buy a car seat. Surely you can recognize that would be a stupid mandate.

Quote:
The simple fact is standards change. The standard for health insurance policies changed.
But they shouldn't change unless there is a compelling need. Given that BC is widely and cheaply available, what is the compelling need here?

Quote:
The standard for lead based paint changed, the standard for large purchases of certain kinds of fertilizer changed, the standard for baby cribs changed, the list is nearly endless and all had some kind of cost/ benefit calculus applied to them.
Those are all laws designed to enhance public safety. What is the purpose of the BC mandate? Not public safety. Not public health. So what then?

Quote:
I'm not sure if your argument is that things should never change or if they just shouldn't change if they affect you.
Generally, I am against making changes simply because, "things change." In order to legislate a change in the status quo, there should be a compelling reason. What is the compelling reason behind the BC mandate?
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2014, 10:57 AM   #300
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 10,493
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
What is the compelling reason behind the BC mandate?
it's been explained over and over, you don't accept the explanations. Welcome to the world, disagreements over such things are normal.

Society has evolved to accept what you don't. Deal with it, but don't deny it's happened.
__________________
For 15 years I never put anyone on ignore. I felt it important to see everyone's view point. Finally I realized the value of some views can be measured in negative terms and were personally destructive.
DavidJames is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2014, 11:37 AM   #301
Neally
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,671
Originally Posted by Myron Proudfoot View Post
let me get this straight. If I pay into a common pool from which other people's expenses are paid, then I have some right to tell them what they can and can-not have?
You don't have it straight. You are being forced into a pool that covers things you don't want or need. The option of not buying into that pool has been taken away.


Originally Posted by SomedayGirl View Post
People no longer have the choice of not having airbags and anti-lock brakes either.
Sorry, the conspiracy method of debate doesn't cut it here: "what about this, what about that..." Respond to the previous points made before throwing out new stuff.

Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
it's been explained over and over, you don't accept the explanations.
Those "explanations" are flawed:
  • BC is a drug!
  • Viagra is covered!
  • BC is cheaper than pregnancy!

Quote:
Society has evolved to accept what you don't.
Argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Last edited by Neally; 29th January 2014 at 11:44 AM.
Neally is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2014, 11:46 AM   #302
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 10,493
Originally Posted by Neally View Post
Argumentum ad populum fallacy.
Nonsense. I wasn't trying to make an official Internet debating argument. I was just stating the facts. What I stated was true. That's the way things work here in the real world.
__________________
For 15 years I never put anyone on ignore. I felt it important to see everyone's view point. Finally I realized the value of some views can be measured in negative terms and were personally destructive.
DavidJames is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2014, 12:05 PM   #303
Neally
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,671
Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
Nonsense. I wasn't trying to make an official Internet debating argument. I was just stating the facts. What I stated was true. That's the way things work here in the real world.
The implication was clear, "society has evolved to a higher level than you and that makes them right and you wrong..." which is indeed a Argumentum ad populum fallacy. Or perhaps you are saying "it's the law, that makes it right..."
Neally is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2014, 12:08 PM   #304
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,097
Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
it's been explained over and over, you don't accept the explanations.
It really hasn't. I've heard, "because society,". "Equality," etc but those aren't really compelling arguments.

A compelling argument might be that women have no other way to access BC, but that wouldn't be true.

Another good argument is that it would improve public health. But since oral BC does not prevent STDs it really doesn't address all the relevant public health issues.

The best argument I've seen is that it will reduce overall costs. But even this doesn't really have much evidence to back it up. In the meantime, it has increased costs for a lot of people. I don't see the utility in increasing some people's costs just so that other people's will be lower.


Quote:
Welcome to the world, disagreements over such things are normal.
And spirited debate is key to resolving those differences. I have an open mind. Do you?

Quote:
Society has evolved to accept what you don't. Deal with it, but don't deny it's happened.
This is the kind if thing that doesn't help.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2014, 02:25 PM   #305
Polaris
Penultimate Amazing
 
Polaris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,220
Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon View Post
Preventative medicine is more cost effective than treatment after the fact.
But it's so much more fun watching all those little sluts have to struggle to make ends meet after they've been forced to bring unwanted children to term - they could have just not had sex!
__________________
"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

"Let your ears hear this beautiful song that's hiding underneath the sound," Ed Kowalczyk.
Polaris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2014, 02:48 PM   #306
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
 
hgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 15,892
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Another good argument is that it would improve public health. But since oral BC does not prevent STDs it really doesn't address all the relevant public health issues.

At some point, this starts to look like intentional ignorance.
hgc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2014, 03:19 PM   #307
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,097
Originally Posted by hgc View Post
At some point, this starts to look like intentional ignorance.

How does providing free BC impact public health? All it does is prevent pregnancy; it doesn't stop the spread of disease.

Vaccines impact public health by eradicating or suppressing the outbreak of disease. I don't see similar benefit to offering BC for free.

Enlighten me.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2014, 03:56 PM   #308
Neally
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,671
Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
But it's so much more fun watching all those little sluts have to struggle to make ends meet after they've been forced to bring unwanted children to term - they could have just not had sex!
And another one that thinks women aren't smart enough to figure out that BC is way cheaper than raising a kid. "Well if BC isn't free, I'll just take my chances!"
Neally is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2014, 04:13 PM   #309
AlBell
Philosopher
 
AlBell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,360
Originally Posted by Black Hole Box View Post
WND and lifenews. Well, at least with those sources you never have to endure the discomfort of reading something with which you disagree.
No comment on the 55 millions killed?
__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." M. Thatcher, Economics: Share The Wealth. Obamanomics: Share The Pain.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Stay well back: I'm allergic to Stupid.
AlBell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2014, 04:39 PM   #310
mortimer
NWO Janitor
 
mortimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,518
Originally Posted by Neally View Post
Maybe because being fertile and enjoying sex is not a medical risk. Medical insurance is for medical risks.
Being pregnant is a medical risk. Birth control is a preventative medicine to avoid that medical risk. Having high cholesterol is a medical risk. Statins are preventative medicines to avoid that risk. Please explain to me how those are different.
__________________
"why would i bother?" - Bikerdruid, on providing evidence for his claims
"I view hamas as an organization fighting for the freedom of its people." - Bikerdruid
mortimer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2014, 05:18 PM   #311
Olowkow
Philosopher
 
Olowkow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,230
Originally Posted by AlBell View Post
No comment on the 55 millions killed?
Yeah. Life goes on. Deal with it.

http://www.hopexchange.com/Statistics.htm
Quote:
  • There are about 4.4 million confirmed pregnancies in the U.S. every year.
  • 900,000 to 1 million of those end in pregnancy losses EVERY year.
  • More than 500,000 pregnancies each year end in miscarriage (occurring during the first 20 weeks).
  • Approximately 26,000 end in stillbirth (considered stillbirth after 20 weeks)
  • Approximately 19,000 end in infant death during the first month.
  • Approximately 39,000 end in infant death during the first year.
  • Approximately 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage; some estimates are as high as 1 in 3. If you include loss that occurs before a positive pregnancy test, some estimate that 40% of all conceptions result in loss.
  • Approximately 75% of all miscarriages occur in the first trimester.
  • An estimated 80% of all miscarriages are single miscarriages. The vast majority of women suffering one miscarriage can expect to have a normal pregnancy next time.
  • An estimated 19% of the adult population has experienced the death of a child (this includes miscarriages through adult-aged children).
Olowkow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2014, 08:13 PM   #312
Neally
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,671
Originally Posted by mortimer View Post
Being pregnant is a medical risk. Birth control is a preventative medicine to avoid that medical risk. Having high cholesterol is a medical risk. Statins are preventative medicines to avoid that risk. Please explain to me how those are different.
Already did. Being fertile and enjoying sex is not a medical risk. There is no risk when you know before hand that you want to buy contraceptives. It's a known expense. The purpose of insurance is to mitigate unacceptable risk, not pay for regular known monthly expenses.

No one seems to want to answer why an auto insurance policy shouldn't be required to pay for gas.

No one seems to want to respond why people should be have fewer choices like they do now under Obamacare.
Neally is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2014, 08:53 PM   #313
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,253
This isn't a particularly difficult concept.

Fewer unwanted pregnancies is better for society.

Better access to contraceptives results in fewer unwanted pregnancies.

And this is what we as a society have decided through our legally elected representatives and the process of passing laws.

Sometimes, when you live in a society, you don't always agree with the decisions being made by the rest of us.

I didn't enjoy paying for two prolonged wars that resulted in thousands dead and trillions of dollars being flushed down the toilet.

Some people apparently really, really hate the idea of bearing a slight financial burden for women to have sex without the risk of pregnancy.

We all have are bugaboos.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2014, 12:42 AM   #314
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by AlBell View Post
No comment on the 55 millions killed?

My comment would be this:

Based on the experience of other western nations, a combination of comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives results in low rates of abortion (as well as lower rates of teenage pregnancies). There seems no obvious reason why a similar policy in the United States wouldn't result in the same outcome.

And yet many of those in the U.S. who oppose abortion the strongest are also steadfastly against comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives. Such folks are, by their opposition to these policies, actually contributing to the higher rates of abortion seen in the United States as compared to many of its peers.

That 55 million figure you cite, assuming it is accurate, would quite likely have been much lower had there not been opposition to the policies of comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives. So, those strident anti-abortionists who oppose these two policies are actually contributing to the problem of abortion in the United States.
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2014, 02:27 AM   #315
Silly Green Monkey
Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness
 
Silly Green Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,264
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
It really hasn't. I've heard, "because society,". "Equality," etc but those aren't really compelling arguments.

A compelling argument might be that women have no other way to access BC, but that wouldn't be true.

Another good argument is that it would improve public health. But since oral BC does not prevent STDs it really doesn't address all the relevant public health issues.

The best argument I've seen is that it will reduce overall costs. But even this doesn't really have much evidence to back it up. In the meantime, it has increased costs for a lot of people. I don't see the utility in increasing some people's costs just so that other people's will be lower.


And spirited debate is key to resolving those differences. I have an open mind. Do you?


This is the kind if thing that doesn't help.
Originally Posted by Alferd_Packer View Post
The same logic would apply to heart medications, insulin, all drugs really.

At that point, what's the point of insurance?
This is the only compelling argument needed. You don't need birth control? Well, I don't need insulin, why am I paying for diabetic drugs? I don't need immunosuppressive drugs, because I don't have a transplanted organ, so why should my insurance cover them? You can't pick and choose what your insurance covers, and you never should have been able to. Insurance cannot support individual choices.
__________________
Normal is just a stereotype.
Silly Green Monkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2014, 06:26 AM   #316
Polaris
Penultimate Amazing
 
Polaris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,220
Originally Posted by Neally View Post
And another one that thinks women aren't smart enough to figure out that BC is way cheaper than raising a kid. "Well if BC isn't free, I'll just take my chances!"
The little smiley at the end of my post which you quoted indicates sarcasm.
__________________
"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

"Let your ears hear this beautiful song that's hiding underneath the sound," Ed Kowalczyk.
Polaris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2014, 10:41 AM   #317
Regnad Kcin
Philosopher
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,779
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 View Post
My comment would be this:

Based on the experience of other western nations, a combination of comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives results in low rates of abortion (as well as lower rates of teenage pregnancies). There seems no obvious reason why a similar policy in the United States wouldn't result in the same outcome.

And yet many of those in the U.S. who oppose abortion the strongest are also steadfastly against comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives. Such folks are, by their opposition to these policies, actually contributing to the higher rates of abortion seen in the United States as compared to many of its peers.

That 55 million figure you cite, assuming it is accurate, would quite likely have been much lower had there not been opposition to the policies of comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives. So, those strident anti-abortionists who oppose these two policies are actuallyI have basic Excel training all day tomorrow at 50 Wolf Rd.

The arm is now where the pain is centered (with my shoulder blade area pretty okay). This is like before when the central area of the hurt changed dependent on who knows why.

All okay? contributing to the problem of abortion in the United States.
Not long ago I read some comments from a member of congress who is also a doctor (whose name I can't recall). He began by saying that he is anti-abortion. He added that a highly effective way to reduce abortions is through birth-control to help prevent pregnancies in the first place. The rub: the congressman said that his efforts to discuss this point with colleagues, seeking ways for government to promote and help facilitate the method, is rejected out of hand.
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.

Last edited by Regnad Kcin; 30th January 2014 at 10:45 AM.
Regnad Kcin is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2014, 11:07 AM   #318
Neally
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,671
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
This isn't a particularly difficult concept.

Fewer unwanted pregnancies is better for society.

Better access to contraceptives results in fewer unwanted pregnancies.
Because if it isn't free via insurance, women are so stupid that they would think, "Heck, I'll just risk getting pregnant since my insurance doesn't provide it"

Quote:
And this is what we as a society have decided through our legally elected representatives and the process of passing laws.
If it's legal it must be right!
Remember slavery?


Quote:
Sometimes, when you live in a society, you don't always agree with the decisions being made by the rest of us.
Yep, those abolitionists should have just gone along with the flow.
Quote:
Some people apparently really, really hate the idea of bearing a slight financial burden for women to have sex without the risk of pregnancy.
Yep women are so stupid that they would risk pregnancy if they can't get BC from insurance.

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey View Post
This is the only compelling argument needed. You don't need birth control? Well, I don't need insulin, why am I paying for diabetic drugs? I don't need immunosuppressive drugs, because I don't have a transplanted organ, so why should my insurance cover them?
My car needs gas every week. Why shouldn't my car insurance company pay for gas!

Quote:
You can't pick and choose what your insurance covers, and you never should have been able to. Insurance cannot support individual choices.
LOL. We had it before Obamacare. People get to pick and choose what coverages they want in other insurance policies. Reality check.
Neally is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2014, 11:29 AM   #319
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,253
Originally Posted by Neally View Post
Because if it isn't free via insurance, women are so stupid that they would think, "Heck, I'll just risk getting pregnant since my insurance doesn't provide it"
Fewer unwanted pregnancies is better for society. Better access to contraceptives results in fewer unwanted pregnancies.

Those are facts. And they remain facts despite whatever pathetic, mysogynistic straw man arguments conservatives dredge up from their depraved minds.

Quote:
If it's legal it must be right!
Remember slavery?
I don't recall making the particular argument. The Straw Man Express rolls on.

(And no, I don't remember slavery. It was abolished over a century before I was born.)

Quote:
Yep, those abolitionists should have just gone along with the flow.
I'm not telling you to "go along with the flow".

Rant and rave all you want.

Continue to vote for people who espouse your point of view.

Heck, you could even run for office on a "no free contraception" platform and attempt to effect change yourself.

Good luck and be sure to let us know how your battle against tyranny progresses.

Quote:
Yep women are so stupid that they would risk pregnancy if they can't get BC from insurance.
Fewer unwanted pregnancies is better for society. Better access to contraceptives results in fewer unwanted pregnancies.

Those facts remain despite you repeating the same tired straw man argument.

Maybe try holding your breath and stomping your feet.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2014, 11:49 AM   #320
Neally
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,671
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Fewer unwanted pregnancies is better for society. Better access to contraceptives results in fewer unwanted pregnancies.
You need to support the claim that including BC in insurance results in fewer unwanted pregnancies. I happen to believe that women are smart enough figure out how to prevent unwanted pregnancies even without getting BC from their insurance plan. Apparently you don't, so do support your claim.

Quote:
I don't recall making the particular argument.
Short memory much. Let me remind you,
"And this is what we as a society have decided through our legally elected representatives and the process of passing laws." Clearly the implication is that "It's the law, that makes it right"


Quote:
I'm not telling you to "go along with the flow".
That sure is the implication with your, "Sometimes, when you live in a society, you don't always agree with the decisions being made by the rest of us."

Quote:
Fewer unwanted pregnancies is better for society. Better access to contraceptives results in fewer unwanted pregnancies.
Right, because if it's not free via insurance, women are too stupid to figure out that unwanted pregnancy is way more expensive than figuring out how not to get pregnant. But, like I said, do support your claim that insurance provided BC will reduce the unwanted pregnancy rate.

Last edited by Neally; 30th January 2014 at 12:30 PM.
Neally is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:41 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.