Religious freedom and contraception

[Ziggurat]

You claimed I made up things.
Prove that I made up that NIH site where they clearly show that all contraceptives are not interchangeable, due to life and death concerns.

I never said that this is what you made up.

Prove that the links I gave supporting Flukes research on the price range for contraceptives were made up.

The top end of the price range isn't what matters either. What matters is whether or not what's required is affordable. At it is. No, birth control pills are not arbitrarily interchangeable. Nobody ever said that, that's entirely your own strawman. But they all work with the same two hormones, so the differences are in fact fairly limited. Nobody ever has only one birth control pill that they can safely take.

So once again, you have not shown, and in fact have not even tried to show, that contraception is unaffordable. What you have done is the equivalent of saying that the middle class can't afford airfare since chartered jets cost too much money.

 

[Neally]

Again, you want the cost savings that result from reduced unwanted pregnancy that results from sterilization but don't want to pay for it.

Utter nonsense. We know that sterilization reduces pregnancy. You want the benefits of reduced pregnancy without accepting the costs for those reduced pregnancies.

Column A has:

• The benefit of reduced costs of unwanted pregnancies due to sterilization.
• The cost of sterilization.

Column B has:

• The benefit of reduced costs of unwanted pregnancies due to sterilization.
• The cost of sterilization.

You want to remove the cost of sterilization and keep the benefits for column B. You are failing your algebra.

You are failing in basic logic/reasoning.

You already conceded that if sterilization isn't a paid benefit, the employees wouldn't go off and become breeders. The reason why is that obviously they seriously don't want kids. So what will they do if it isn't a paid benefit? Three things:

1. Pay for sterilization themselves.
2. Use an even more effective alternative method of birth control.
3. Use a less effective alternative method of birth control.

Given their commitment to not having kids, it's rather likely that they would choose #1. This choice would not change the costs of unwanted pregnancies to the company.

Given their commitment to not having kids, it's rather likely that those that don't choose #1 would choose #2 instead. This choice would REDUCE the costs of unwanted pregnancies to the company.

Given their commitment to not having kids, it's less likely that those that don't choose #1 or #2 would choose #3. This choice would increase the costs of unwanted pregnancies to the company.[/U]

In light of the above, the most likely outcome is that there would be no change in the unwanted pregnancy costs to the company by eliminating paid sterilization benefits.

Neally,

If we take away sterilization from plan B why can't we remove sterilization from plan A? You are asserting by fiat that it is impossible. BS, if you can have a plan with only sterilization then you can have a plan with only non-sterilization BC.

I've already explained it and it has nothing to do with fiat or impossibility. Again, we are trying to compare 100% coverage to no coverage. Plan A has 100% coverage. No need to touch that. Plan B has sterilization coverage. We take the premium cost out of that. The company costs of unwanted pregnancies in B remains the same, since the employees will instead simply pay for the cost of sterilization themselves or use an alternative that is as, or more effective.

Apparently you've confused yourself to the point of not being able to understand the simplicity of this. You pride yourself on being Mr. Pragmatic and accepting whatever policies are the most rational, regardless of which side of the political isle they come from, yet here you've hunkered down to desperately trying to twist a simple model to align with your preferred outcome.

That's your fatal error. You continue to refuse to factor the reduced pregnancies resulting from sterilization.

There is no error because the people that had it paid for before will pay for it themselves. Again you've already conceded that without the benefit, they won't just become breeders. Why do you think that is? What will they do instead?

Neally, you want to pretend that getting rid of BC costs (in red) won't affect unwanted pregnancy costs (in blue). Nonsense. Did you happen to notice that both plans are similar in cost/benefit analysis (both have similar BC costs and unwanted pregnancies but according to you sterilization will have zero or near zero affect). Really Neally?

Yes really. Because if it isn't paid for, they just don't abandon birth control. THEY STILL USE IT.

Given that the failure rates are as follows:
Sterilization .5%
Pill 6%

You want me to believe that eliminating sterilization would not increase unwanted pregnancies? Sterilization is the same as no sterilization?

No. Sterilization is the same as sterilization. THEY PAY FOR IT THEMSELVES. Do you think that all the employees that don't get sterilized on plan B, don't use any other birth control? Obviously not. THEY PAY FOR IT THEMSELVES. Likewise if the sterilization benefit is taken away THEY PAY FOR IT THEMSELVES, or use an alternative that is even more effective - IUD or injectables.

However, we have demonstrated A.) it's a public good. B.) It's cost negative. B.) everyone pays for contraception.

I've clearly shown from your own cite that it is not cost negative, and no, everyone doesn't pay for contraception.

 

[crimresearch]

I never said that this is what you made up.



The top end of the price range isn't what matters either. What matters is whether or not what's required is affordable. At it is. No, birth control pills are not arbitrarily interchangeable. Nobody ever said that, that's entirely your own strawman. But they all work with the same two hormones, so the differences are in fact fairly limited. Nobody ever has only one birth control pill that they can safely take.

So once again, you have not shown, and in fact have not even tried to show, that contraception is unaffordable. What you have done is the equivalent of saying that the middle class can't afford airfare since chartered jets cost too much money.

ROTFL!!

So you don't create strawmen, you just claim other people 'make things up' when they cite facts and figures complete with links, while you make up things other people never said, and then follow that by moving the goal posts or simply denying what you actually said.

Sounds like a surefire way to never lose a circular argument .

Thing is, this is about real life, not debate tactics. And in real life, no church in the USA has the right to force religious doctrine onto other people's health care.

 

[RandFan]

You are failing in basic logic/reasoning.

No.

• You arbitrarily remove costs from one plan and assert that it would not change the outcome of that plan.
• You then assert that the same cannot be done to the other Plan for special reasons.

You already conceded that if sterilization isn't a paid benefit, the employees wouldn't go off and become breeders. The reason why is that obviously they seriously don't want kids. So what will they do if it isn't a paid benefit? Three things:

• You have taken a real world model (Plan B) and arbitrarily removed sterilization costs.
• You then assert you cannot remove the sterilization costs for the other model (Plan A) for special reasons.

1. Pay for sterilization themselves.
2. Use an even more effective alternative method of birth control.
3. Use a less effective alternative method of birth control.

Any rationalization that you use to remove sterilization costs from Plan B can be used for Plan A. Otherwise you are special pleading.

Given their commitment to not having kids, it's rather likely that they would choose #1. This choice would not change the costs of unwanted pregnancies to the company.

The same rational could be used to justify the removal of sterilization costs from Plan A (unless you are special pleading and arguing by assertion).

In light of the above, the most likely outcome is that there would be no change in the unwanted pregnancy costs to the company by eliminating paid sterilization benefits.

Then there would be no change to Plan A if you eliminated sterilization benefits. Asserting that you cannot do that because then it wouldn't be 100% coverage is silly. 100% is whatever is offered by the plan. Changing variables will change the outcomes.

I've already explained it and it has nothing to do with fiat or impossibility. Again, we are trying to compare 100% coverage to no coverage. Plan A has 100% coverage.

If removing sterilization has no affect on Plan B then removing it from Plan A would likewise have no affect.

No need to touch that. Plan B has sterilization coverage. We take the premium cost out of that.

If we can come up with a hypothetical to remove costs without affecting unwanted pregnancies from Plan B the we could do the same for Plan A.

There is no error because the people that had it paid for before will pay for it themselves.

If they would utilize other methods if sterilization were removed from Plan B then then they would utilize other methods if sterilization were removed from plan A. Special pleading. Assertion.

Again you've already conceded that without the benefit, they won't just become breeders. ... What will they do instead?

Any effect of removing sterilization from Plan B will be the same for Plan A.

Yes really. Because if it isn't paid for, they just don't abandon birth control. THEY STILL USE IT.

IF THEY STILL use it for Plan B then they will STILL USE it for Plan A.

I've clearly shown from your own cite that it is not cost negative, and no, everyone doesn't pay for contraception.

Your've shown.

• That you can take a real world example and turn it into a hypothetical that can only work the way you demand it to work.
• Your logic is inconsistent (changes made to B won't affect B but the same changes would affect A).
• You are special pleading (Plan B is special in a way that we can remove sterilization costs that Plan A isn't).
• You are arguing by assertion (removing sterilization costs won't affect unwanted pregnancies in Plan B but will in plan A).

 

[Neally]

You arbitrarily remove costs from one plan and assert that it would not change the outcome of that plan.

Arbitrarily? Hardly. I walked you through the three scenarios and demonstrated why it would most likely not change.

You then assert that the same cannot be done to the other Plan for special reasons.

Special reasons? Hardly. Your suggesting to remove sterilization benefits from both would lead to the comparison of Plan A which covers everything but sterilization and plan B which covers nothing. Not exactly the comparison we are trying to look at, but let's try to work with that.

If the sterilization benefit was removed from A many would simply pay out of pocket as I asserted with Plan B. However many would also gravitate to one of the other "free" methods still available from the benefits, thus increasing those costs to the company. Therefore you can't simply take away the expense of of sterilization from A and assume all other costs remain the same. Come up with a rational way or more data to relocate that and we can then compare the two.

Look, I'm just trying to fix what was an obvious flaw in the model that you used to support your case. It's not my fault that you can't come up with better support for your case. I gave you a reasonable fix to the flaw. You came up with an alternative scenario which is still flawed. Unless you can fix the flaw, the best we can agree on is to just throw the whole model out altogether.

So then what exactly is left for your case that full contraception coverage is a net savings to the employer?

 

[RandFan]

Look, I'm just trying to fix what was an obvious flaw in the model that you used to support your case.

Asserting that there was "an obvious flaw" doesn't make it so. We have two real world examples. Both had sterilization. You think you can remove one without affect but not the other. That is simply wrong and none of your special pleading and hand waving will change that.

So then what exactly is left for your case that full contraception coverage is a net savings to the employer?

I'm standing on solid ground. I can't make you see your blatant error where you arbitrarily (yes, arbitrarily) remove costs from one plan without affecting unwanted pregnancies while refusing to allow for removing the costs to the other plan.

That is simply intellectually dishonest.

 

[RandFan]

Neally,

If you had started with a real world example with zero coverage I would accept that. But you start with a real world example that has sterilization and assume you can willy-nilly remove it to create a hypothetical using all kinds of ad hoc rationalization. All the while demanding that the other plan must remain real world for a 100% comparison vs 0% coverage is just special pleading. If we can craft a hypothetical by removing sterilization because it will have no affect from Plan B then we damn well can do it for Plan A.

Just because it upsets your preconceived notions isn't a valid reason for you to be obstinate and inconsistent.

Stop speculating. Give me that real world example.

 

[Neally]

Asserting that there was "an obvious flaw" doesn't make it so.

The obvious flaw is that that we are trying to see what the net cost is for a company that offers contraception vs a company that does not. The model does not do that, therefore it is flawed, not by my assertion, but because it simply doesn't match the comparison we are trying to make.

We have two real world examples. Both had sterilization. You think you can remove one without affect but not the other. That is simply wrong and none of your special pleading and hand waving will change that.

I gave you the benefit of doubt and showed that removing sterilization from both introduces another flaw.

Neally,

If you had started with a real world example with zero coverage I would accept that.

Excuse me, but the flawed example is yours not mine. Come up with better evidence and we can discuss it.

But you start with a real world example that has sterilization and assume you can willy-nilly remove it to create a hypothetical using all kinds of ad hoc rationalization. All the while demanding that the other plan must remain real world for a 100% comparison vs 0% coverage is just special pleading. If we can craft a hypothetical by removing sterilization because it will have no affect from Plan B then we damn well can do it for Plan A.

Fine do so, but correct for the new flaw that would be introduced in the data by not accounting for the alternative choices and reallocation that the employees would make. Did you even read what I wrote?

Give me that real world example.

Now you know better than that. You assert that it's a net cost benefit to the employer by offering full contraception coverage. I'm saying I don't know. It's your responsibility to provide the evidence. Your single flawed model has failed to do so. The burden is on you.

 

[RandFan]

The obvious flaw is that that we are trying to see what the net cost is for a company that offers contraception vs a company that does not. The model does not do that, therefore it is flawed, not by my assertion, but because it simply doesn't match the comparison we are trying to make.

It's not a flaw because the sterilization in both plans provides parity. Now, if Plan A didn't have sterilization and Plan B did then you would have a legitimate complaint. Since we have parity it's nonsense.

Excuse me, but the flawed example is yours not mine. Come up with better evidence and we can discuss it.

It's not flawed because sterilization is in both. We have parity. A source for comparison. All things being equal. You want to make them unequal.

Now you know better than that. You assert that it's a net cost benefit to the employer by offering full contraception coverage. I'm saying I don't know. It's your responsibility to provide the evidence. Your single flawed model has failed to do so. The burden is on you.

Given that sterilization on one side will have the same affect as sterilization on the other I reject your premise. The model is not flawed. If you want a different model then the burden is on you to provide it.

 

[Neally]

It's not a flaw because the sterilization in both plans provides parity.

Parity has nothing to do with it. The goal is to compare contraception coverage to no contraception coverage. The model does do that therefore it is flawed.

It's not flawed because sterilization is in both.

And that is exactly why it's flawed as evidence to support your claim. Since when is sterilization considered not contraception?

We have parity. A source for comparison. All things being equal. You want to make them unequal.

I want them to to show what you claim as evidence that full contraception coverage is a net gain to the employer. Your model doesn't do that.

Given that sterilization on one side will have the same affect as sterilization on the other I reject your premise. The model is not flawed.

The model as given is flawed in that it doesn't support your claim. Your correction to that flaw introduces another flaw in that it doesn't account for the reallocation of choices. That you keep ignoring and hand waving this away doesn't change that fact.

If you want a different model then the burden is on you to provide it.

The burden is on you to support your claim. You have failed to do so. Your case is quit weak if all you have is this model that doesn't even do what it purports to do.

 

[RandFan]

Parity has nothing to do with it.

Parity has everything to do with it. Look, this is common in science. We often don't get perfect comparisons. This is actually a very good example because we have parity.

The goal is to compare contraception coverage to no contraception coverage. The model does do that therefore it is flawed.

And we can do that. Since sterilization is at parity we can compare what is different.

The burden is on you to support your claim.

I have more than met that. Contraception will affect both plans equally. Since there is parity we can then compare the differences.

If you want a different model that is for you to come up with. I'll gladly stand by this study.

 

[tyr_13]

First, I don't need special running shoes, just the off-the-shelf variety at Footlocker.

Then you wouldn't need a doctor's prescription for them would you? You know, like you do for the coverage under discussion?

Second, I don't want "many" forms of insurance, it needs to be mandated that all policies cover this. Third, the doctors need to told that this preventative measure is now covered so that everyone that requests it should receive it.

Yes, the government is making them do something obviously for the benefit of everyone and that's a bad thing.

 

[tyr_13]

What findings? That contraceptives are useful and effective? I'm not disputing that. Findings that including insurance coverage makes much of a cost difference? Sorry, but that is very much NOT a settled fact. Yes, some women get pregnant when they don't want to, and that's not a good thing. Guess what, tyr: some women will do that even with coverage.

So let's punish the ones that try to and need the non-trivial types. Well argued. Guess what, some people don't wear seatbelts either so why require them to be installed on all cars?

And yet, that's not what you chose to contraceptives this too. One wonders why.

Can't figure out what you're trying to say there.

Generally speaking, if you don't have the foresight to buy your own contraceptives, you don't have the foresight to get them even if they're free. Unlike the scenarios you mentioned, this isn't a matter of people not being able to afford contraceptives. People CAN afford them. The question is use, and nothing about coverage will make people magically start using it. Every argument you have made falls down in the face of this rather simple fact: contraceptives are affordable even without insurance coverage.

False assertion. Many people cannot afford the type of contraceptive they need. Joe and RandFan have done an excellent job of supplying the relevant stats. Not all contraceptives are the same and there are many complex factors regarding who should use what and the benefits of each. This is why the doctor and the woman should have the options that they need available and be the ones making that choice, not some church.

Society has also evolved to provide something when a special interest can succeed in rent-seeking. Your axiomatic faith in progressivism is not persuasive.

Special interest? You mean humans? Society? You're simply throwing out conservative scare words.

This isn't about sex education. Go start your own thread about sex education if that's what you want to discuss.

Same subject, reproductive health, and same reasoning. If your positions are inconsistent, ask yourself why.

Nor is this thread about global warming. There are plenty of threads for that already. And since you have failed so colossally in understanding what I've said about the actual topic of this thread, it should come as no surprise to anyone that your conclusions regarding my opinion of those subjects has no connection to reality.




You have absolutely no idea what I think. You have made that abundantly clear.

I've understood what you're saying better than you do apparently. But keep denying what your reasoning entails, refuse to be nailed down, or clarify, and keep repeating the same debunked assertions just like with the other examples I used. Yeah, comparisons are derails.

 

[Ziggurat]

So let's punish the ones that try to and need the non-trivial types. Well argued. Guess what, some people don't wear seatbelts either so why require them to be installed on all cars?

Who said anything about punishing people? I certainly never did. And when you say "non-trivial types", what exactly are you talking about? Be clear: tell me what kind of contraceptive you're talking about, how much it costs, and why it's the only option for whoever it is you're talking about. Because if you can't do that (and so far nobody has), then I've got no reason to think that you aren't just making stuff up.

False assertion. Many people cannot afford the type of contraceptive they need.

Anybody with a job can buy condoms, and even if you or your partner has a latex allergy, there are non-latex condoms available. So this is flat-out false: contraceptives are available cheaply to everyone. If they need hormone pills for something else, then it's not really a contraceptive that they need. Furthermore, nobody has ever shown a single case where such a need could not be fulfilled by a $20/month pill. So far it has been merely unsupported assertion.

Joe and RandFan have done an excellent job of supplying the relevant stats.

Stats of what? The existence of expensive contraceptives? That's not enough.

Not all contraceptives are the same and there are many complex factors regarding who should use what and the benefits of each. This is why the doctor and the woman should have the options that they need available and be the ones making that choice, not some church.

The church isn't choosing under the old rules. Hell, under the old rules, the church doesn't even know if the patient is using contraceptives. And again, yes, I know that birth control pills are not all identical. But all of them are composed of the same two hormones as the active ingredient. And NOBODY here has shown a single example of a condition where only an expensive version is safe for the patient. You have merely asserted it without evidence.

I've understood what you're saying better than you do apparently.

No, you really don't.

 

[tyr_13]

Who said anything about punishing people?

You are. 'If they can't aford it, they shouldn't have sex.' Punish them for the mistake of having sex. You can try to frame it every which way you wish, it's still punishment.

I certainly never did. And when you say "non-trivial types", what exactly are you talking about? Be clear: tell me what kind of contraceptive you're talking about, how much it costs, and why it's the only option for whoever it is you're talking about. Because if you can't do that (and so far nobody has), then I've got no reason to think that you aren't just making stuff up.

Red herring. There are many different types of contraception with many different costs, safety, usage, and reasons for usage. You think I'm making it up? Talk to a doctor about it, the people who are actually experts.

Anybody with a job can buy condoms, and even if you or your partner has a latex allergy, there are non-latex condoms available. So this is flat-out false: contraceptives are available cheaply to everyone. If they need hormone pills for something else, then it's not really a contraceptive that they need. Furthermore, nobody has ever shown a single case where such a need could not be fulfilled by a $20/month pill. So far it has been merely unsupported assertion.

My ex girlfriend's cost a hell of a lot more than that, although I don't know the specific pill. Cherry pick about condoms and the cheap pills all you want, but the finger in ears thing is already played out.

Stats of what? The existence of expensive contraceptives? That's not enough.

Says you.

The church isn't choosing under the old rules. Hell, under the old rules, the church doesn't even know if the patient is using contraceptives. And again, yes, I know that birth control pills are not all identical. But all of them are composed of the same two hormones as the active ingredient. And NOBODY here has shown a single example of a condition where only an expensive version is safe for the patient. You have merely asserted it without evidence.

Cheap is a red herring. There are cheap ADHD meds. I can't use them. Only is a red herring too. The doctor and the woman are the ones making the choice of which option is best. As it should be. Not the church, which is the topic.

No, you really don't.

We can go back and forth all day on what you claim I don't understand. I understand what you're saying, and it's wrong.

It's a poor argument on so many levels that it's hard to wrap around. I'm going back to my original assessment that you choose to dissect sentence for sentence in a weird punctuated argumentum ad verbosium full of straw men and red herrings. It being 'optional' is a very poor argument.

You know what else is optional? Having a child. All reproductive health is optional. Why should I have to pay to subsidize someone else's sex life? Can't afford prenatal care? Don't have sex! Additionally the, 'if they can't afford it' is another layer of poor argument. They can afford it with their insurance. Take that away and they can't, then blame them for not being able to afford it? Then claim that it supports taking it away in the first place? Bad argument.

 

[Ziggurat]

You are. 'If they can't aford it, they shouldn't have sex.' Punish them for the mistake of having sex. You can try to frame it every which way you wish, it's still punishment.

If you don't know how to ski well, you shouldn't go on double black diamond slopes.

I'm such a bastard for wanting to punish unskilled skiers.

Red herring. There are many different types of contraception with many different costs, safety, usage, and reasons for usage. You think I'm making it up? Talk to a doctor about it, the people who are actually experts.

I never said that this is made up. But you've gone beyond this. You've made the claim that the only safe contraceptives for some people are unaffordable. You have presented no evidence that this is true. Taking your above statement as the gospel truth doesn't prove that it is.

My ex girlfriend's cost a hell of a lot more than that, although I don't know the specific pill.

Let me guess: you also don't know why she used that pill, or if there were any cheaper alternatives.

Cherry pick about condoms and the cheap pills all you want, but the finger in ears thing is already played out.

If you have two choices, and one of them is cheap, and I tell you to pick the cheap option if you've got problems paying for the expensive one, that's not cherry picking. Or if it is, then you've deprived the term of any significance to this debate.

Says you.

Yes, I do say. If there are affordable contraceptives available to everyone who need them, then logically the existence of expensive contraceptives in addition to affordable contraceptives doesn't make the affordable contraceptives any less affordable. That's simple logic, and I find it rather amazing that you're having a hard time wrapping your head around it.

Cheap is a red herring. There are cheap ADHD meds. I can't use them.

All birth control pills use estrogen and/or progestin. That's it. The only variations are the doses (or if you include non-pill devices, how they're administered). In contrast, ADHD medications vary greatly. Your inability to get a cheap ADHD drug says nothing about a woman's ability to get a cheap contraceptive pill.

Only is a red herring too. The doctor and the woman are the ones making the choice of which option is best. As it should be. Not the church, which is the topic.

The doctor and patient were the ones making the choice of which option is best. The only difference between you and I on this is that you want to remove cost from their considerations, and I don't think we need to. That you cannot even recognize the essence of our disagreement on this point is not an encouraging sign.

 

[xjx388]

The argument that some women can only use the most expensive forms of BC is a little like saying some people can only eat the most expensive cuts of meat; the cheap cuts give them indigestion.

 

[RandFan]

The argument that some women can only use the most expensive forms of BC is a little like saying some people can only eat the most expensive cuts of meat; the cheap cuts give them indigestion.

Would it be okay to leave it up to the doctor?

 

[xjx388]

Would it be okay to leave it up to the doctor?

A doctor cannot make a unilateral decision for a woman. There is no one right answer for each woman's particular situation. A doctor's advice is helpful, for sure; but, in the end, the woman has to make a decision based mostly on what she wants out of BC and not on any medical need. Because there is no medical need.

 

[RandFan]

A doctor cannot make a unilateral decision for a woman. There is no one right answer for each woman's particular situation. A doctor's advice is helpful, for sure; but, in the end, the woman has to make a decision based mostly on what she wants out of BC and not on any medical need. Because there is no medical need.

Okay, so if a doctor makes a recommendation and she agrees would be okay with you if she takes his advice?

I'd like to leave those decisions between patient and doctor. Seems a reasonable thing to do.