Religious freedom and contraception

[Bri]

It prevents health problems for the employee. It increases productivity for the employer. It is good for society. No brainer.

It also reduces abortions.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

It also reduces abortions.

-Bri

Thank you.

 

[RandFan]

Obamacare was solely responsible...

Again, the source said "modest".

Let's not forget, the CBO report still shows savings and reduction in the deficit. Add to that people who don't have insurance will have it and that's a pretty good deal.

 

[johnny karate]

Oops yourself. You disputed that my premiums went up as a result of Obamacare.They have. Your cite confirmed it. My policy and checking account has confirmed it. The % amount that some GOP have claimed, which what you are trying to back peddle with now, has nothing to do with it.

Your premiums went up mostly as a result of rising health care costs. You failed to mention that.

Also known as lying by omission.

Back peddle again.

How am I back-pedaling? Do you honestly think I didn't realize my cite didn't attribute some of the increase to Obamacare?

Unlike certain partisan zealots, I unable to take an honest look at this issue and discuss it. I never claimed Obamacare hasn't resulted in premium increases, merely challenged the notion that it is the sole, or even primary, reason for those increases. Your post suggested it was.

I plainly said that the premiums went up due to additional coverage I was forced to pay for.

Obamacare was solely responsible for the premium increase resulting from the additional coverage that was mandated.

Now who's back-pedaling? You made no such qualification in the statement I challenged:

Sorry, I couldn't get past the headline, "Health reform makes health care more affordable", when in fact, my health insurance premiums went up as a direct result of Obamacare.

Once again, lying by omission.

Oh and the rest of the increase, yeah, Obamacare didn't remedy that either, but color me a bit skeptical, just like your cite, that I'll eventually, one day be saving $2,500 per year.

The cost-saving measures of Obamacare - or even really the law itself - haven't gone into effect yet.

But your position is clear.

If something is broken, it's Obama's fault.

If something was already broken, it's Obama's fault for not fixing it yet.

 

[Ziggurat]

It prevents health problems for the employee. It increases productivity for the employer. It is good for society. No brainer.

A good diet prevents health problems, increases productivity, and is good for society. I don't want it included in my health insurance plan.

You have made a case for making contraception widely available. But it is widely available even without health insurance. You have not made a case for why the government should require its inclusion.

 

[xjx388]

Special pleading.

• Scientology, but your honor blood transfusions are not the same as psychology.
• Jehovah's Witness: But your honor, HIV medicine is not the same thing as blood transfusions.
• Fundamentalist: But your honor, our case is special from all the rest.

Blood transfusions treat anemia, among other things. Antiretrovirals treat HIV infection. The hormones in contraceptives can be used to treat a variety of conditions. The treatment of these conditions serves a public good -eliminating illness, therefore, it's ok to mandate that insurances cover these things over the objections of religious institutions that might have to pay for it.

Birth Control is only intended for one thing: to prevent pregnancy. This takes it out of the category of "medicine" in that you aren't taking it to treat a specific illness. It doesn't cure anything.

People are free to have sex as much as they like. They are free to use birth control if they like and to have abortions if they choose to. The Catholic Church (and anyone else who objects), however, should be free to choose not to support those activities directly. They can't control the behavior of their parishioners, but they can certainly control what their money pays for.

Pregnancy is a health risk.

Then don't have sex. Or buy your own birth control. Or pay for your own abortions. No one's freedom is being impinged if their insurance doesn't cover birth control.

It prevents health problems for the employee. It increases productivity for the employer. It is good for society. No brainer.

I think that's a pretty weak argument for mandating coverage. Again, it's widely available and very cheap if not free. You can find it at Target and Wal-Mart for $9 a month.

Given that BC is cheap and widely available, why should it be covered?

 

[johnny karate]

If birth control is so cheap, then the argument against covering based on cost burden goes out the window.

So the question becomes, why shouldn't it be covered?

 

[leftysergeant]

Putting aside other uses for it (which would be covered by any insurance plan), contraception is used so that you can have sex without worrying about getting pregnant.

Which is an important thing if you already have children and cannot risk getting pregnant again for health reasons, but still want a loving relationship with your spouse. I am going to assume you have never had to deal with a pregnancy (at least I hope not, because I do not get the impression that you are the sort of person on whom a pregnant woman would want to depend for anything) and I will point out that it is staggeringly expensive.

Pregnancy is not an illness.

Some women die from it. You are arguing from ignorance.

It's not really a health issue in the same way that blood transfusions and mental health are health issues.

Crisis pregnancy is a mental health iussue.

You won't die if you don't have sex.

But your life woud totally suck. Kind of hard to keep a marriage going if one partner finds out that there is a medical problem if they concieve.

If you don't want to get pregnant but still want to have sex then you can buy your own contraception. It's cheap and in many places you can get it for free.

Condoms don't help a woman who has an irregular menstrual cycle or a tendancy to ovarian cysts or who is allergic to latex.

So again, where is the pressing public need for contraception?

Well, there is the fact that there are too damned many of us already, and that a lot of people should not be having children to begin with because of health problems. Comon sense stuff.

(Maybe that's why the right wing doesn't understand it.)

 

[xjx388]

Which is an important thing if you already have children and cannot risk getting pregnant again for health reasons, but still want a loving relationship with your spouse. I am going to assume you have never had to deal with a pregnancy (at least I hope not, because I do not get the impression that you are the sort of person on whom a pregnant woman would want to depend for anything)

Aaaannnnnd you lost me. Nice burn, but it completely negates anything else you want to say -or at least makes it so I don't really care what you have to say. It's amazing to me that on a forum of critical thinkers that some people just can't argue without resorting to unprovoked personal attacks. Good work.

 

[leftysergeant]

Um no, they are forced to add stuff to my policy that I don't want or need. Stuff isn't free you know, well maybe in the case of your coverage, since you get more coverage at a less cost, or so you claim.

That's what they want you to believe. They just need to find an excuse to jack up their prices. They probsbly cover a lot of other things that you do not want just because they are bloody expensive, so that the 20% they skim off the top is bigger.

 

[xjx388]

If birth control is so cheap, then the argument against covering based on cost burden goes out the window.

So the question becomes, why shouldn't it be covered?

The argument isn't cost burden.

 

[leftysergeant]

Aaaannnnnd you lost me. Nice burn, but it completely negates anything else you want to say -or at least makes it so I don't really care what you have to say. It's amazing to me that on a forum of critical thinkers that some people just can't argue without resorting to unprovoked personal attacks. Good work.

I mentioned that because it is clear that you are not arguing from a broad-enough data base.

There comes a time when reproduction becomes harmful. The woman is then left with a choice of celebicy or birth control.

That you cannot see what harm celebicy within a marriage can do, you need further education.

There still exists the possibility that you are too self-centered to grasp the problem even when it is explained to you.

For instance, do you deny that pregnancy can be life-threatening at some point?

 

[leftysergeant]

The argument isn't cost burden.

Your argument seems to be that if a woman has normal sexual relations with her spouse, she should have to accept the risk that she will become pregnant, whether her health permits it or not.

 

[xjx388]

I mentioned that because it is clear that you are not arguing from a broad-enough data base.

Whatever, dude. . .

There comes a time when reproduction becomes harmful. The woman is then left with a choice of celebicy or birth control.

Easy choice, it's birth control every time. If that's what she wants of course.

That you cannot see what harm celebicy within a marriage can do, you need further education.

There's no need to be celibate; use birth control if you want to.

There still exists the possibility that you are too self-centered to grasp the problem even when it is explained to you.

I understand the problem. The solution is birth control. Get it, use it, enjoy it.

For instance, do you deny that pregnancy can be life-threatening at some point?

Of course it can. So if you don't want to get pregnant but you still want to have sex, use birth control.

Just don't force the Catholic Church (or anyone else who might object) to buy it for you. I don't think you grasp what I am arguing here. You seem to think I'm against birth control. I'm not. I'm against mandating that religious institutions purchase it.

So maybe you can answer why it should be mandated?

 

[crimresearch]

Whatever, dude. . .

Easy choice, it's birth control every time. If that's what she wants of course.

There's no need to be celibate; use birth control if you want to.

I understand the problem. The solution is birth control. Get it, use it, enjoy it.

Of course it can. So if you don't want to get pregnant but you still want to have sex, use birth control.

Just don't force the Catholic Church (or anyone else who might object) to buy it for you. I don't think you grasp what I am arguing here. You seem to think I'm against birth control. I'm not. I'm against mandating that religious institutions purchase it.

So maybe you can answer why it should be mandated?

And yet you still won't answer the question. Your silence speaks volumes.

 

[leftysergeant]

Just don't force the Catholic Church (or anyone else who might object) to buy it for you. I don't think you grasp what I am arguing here. You seem to think I'm against birth control. I'm not. I'm against mandating that religious institutions purchase it.

So maybe you can answer why it should be mandated?

I guess the solution is to just pass single-payer, maybe Medicare for all. If we are still going to be stuck with the for-profit vampires and are forced to depend on group policies to avoid being turned down for some absurd reason, those group policies should cover everything reasonable.

Women who most need contraceptives for health reasons are not going to be able to afford indivdual coverage, if they can get it at all.

 

[RandFan]

Birth Control is only intended for one thing: to prevent pregnancy.

No. That's flat out not true. Women take it for many reasons other than to stop pregnancy.

Then don't have sex.

This is sticking your head in the sand. People do have sex and it is a public health issue. People make lots of decisions that impact society and their health including smoking, unprotected gay sex, not exercising, poor diet, etc.. We can either do something to help society or not. We choose to help. Now, I'm fine with finding ways to increase personal responsibility. But this idea that people who make bad choices can suck it is rather short sighted and ignorant of human behavior and social health.

Or buy your own birth control. Or pay for your own abortions. No one's freedom is being impinged if their insurance doesn't cover birth control.

If there were no impact to society then perhaps. But unwanted children cost society. Women who do get pregnant and have complications increase social costs and decrease productivity. It's good for the individual. It's good for the employer. It's good for society.

I think that's a pretty weak argument for mandating coverage.

Not sure how that's a weak argument. Good for the individual. Good for the employer. It's cost negative. Good for society. That's got win painted all over it in my book.

Again, it's widely available and very cheap if not free. You can find it at Target and Wal-Mart for $9 a month.

I've no problem with that but then the problem is a bit more complicated than that isn't it?

source

In short, the scientific evidence and the balance of costs and benefits all point to the same conclusion: As the IOM panel and DHHS work to establish guidelines for women’s preventive care and screenings, they have every reason to incorporate family planning. Such incorporation should include the full range of reversible and permanent contraceptive drugs, devices and procedures; related clinical services necessary to appropriately supply those methods

So long as Guttmacher and Brookings are recommending it based on scientific data then it really is a no brainer. Take it up with them.

 

[johnny karate]

The argument isn't cost burden.

It is from Neally.

Your argument seems to stem from one of religious freedom, and then lack of public need.

The public need argument has been addressed. That preventing unwanted pregnancies is better for society as a whole seems obvious.

As far as religious freedom goes, it's quite simple. If religious institutions want to engage in the secular arena, then they are bound by the rules of that arena, and don't get to impose their own religious dogma on everyone else.

So again I ask, why shouldn't contraception be covered?

 

[xjx388]

And yet you still won't answer the question. Your silence speaks volumes.

Which question?

I really haven't been silent here so I think you'll have to clarify what you mean.

 

[xjx388]

I guess the solution is to just pass single-payer, maybe Medicare for all. If we are still going to be stuck with the for-profit vampires and are forced to depend on group policies to avoid being turned down for some absurd reason, those group policies should cover everything reasonable.

Women who most need contraceptives for health reasons are not going to be able to afford indivdual coverage, if they can get it at all.

Why can't they just buy it? It's less than $10 . . . and they can get it free from Planned Parenthood and other sources. Why must everything be provided to them through health insurance?