Health insurance just got canceled.

I really think this thread has run it's course Chilling seem hell bent on derailing it from his extreme pro-choice views to his anti-gun rights derail earlier it's safe to say this needs to be closed.

 

What the hell? Were you never in a debate class?

I'm simply pointing out the Fallacy of Composition, nothing to do with my views at all. If you can't keep up, then just leave the thread for those that can and don't ruin it for everyone.

 

No I never had a "debate class" I have been in debates and if the topic were, " The failings of the current healthcare system." And I went off on a tangent about gun ownership or that a human fetus is a deadly parasite I would be asked to get back on topic.

 

I was hoping to hear discussion on why the Health Insurance Companies are jacking up the cost of health insurance.

 

Obamacare includes mandatory coverage "standards", along with more taxes. More coverage, more taxes....more expensive.

 

Lmao, you are awful. Close thread please. If you really believe you should be able to abort when and as much as you want you are a horrible person. Also, stop trying to argue semantics. It doesn't matter what you call the baby. You're just using "parasite" to give your argument more potency. Also, stop derailing with these tangents. This is the second one.

 

The same reason why energy companies do it, pure greed for the people at the top

 

It illustrates what proportion of each group has an 'absolutist' take on the matter.

To get the "Sometimes ok, sometimes not" population, take 100% and subtract the extremes.

A parasite feeds off of a host, without providing a useful service in return.

Elderly/sick/poor/uneducated are not categories describing forms of feeding or servicing. Not really related.

If you're referring to people likely to be on welfare as parasites, you're branding too broadly.
- Some elderly need assistance, others don't.
- Some sick need assistance, others don't.
- Some poor need assistance, others don't.
- Some uneducated need assistance, others don't.

There are plenty of rich old infirm folks that don't take a penny in welfare that would prefer to not be executed simply due to age.

There are also gobs of folks collecting social security, who paid-in more than they'll get out. Making them anything but a parasite.

Also, not everyone in society is against providing people with help.
A sizable part of the population is in favor of pitching in to help support the unfortunate.
For that portion, those on welfare are not parasites. They are recipients of willful donation.
For the remainder of the population, those on welfare are parasites. They are recipients of forced donation.

In any case, it's relative.
Which is why I say these programs should be opt-in.

The law doesn't deny contraception.
The law allows an individual [who has no decision making authority] to deny another individual contraception, on the grounds of religious freedom.
(Whether that's legally explicit or implicit is a point of legal argument.)

Because participating in the sale of contraception violates their religion - i.e. supports the violation of god's command to procreate.

In any case, it's just an example of screwy behavior.

Note : If it's the individual's private pharmacy, I don't perceive a problem. I support any private proprietor to do business on their own terms. If the customer doesn't like it, they can go elsewhere.

*Although, cases like where the pharmacist refuses to make the sale and also dead ends the client's prescription (so the client can't go elsewhere), are trespassing.






No individual health insurance plan for any male includes birth control coverage, and no one is trying to make it include birth control coverage.
I suppose you could ask for it... not sure why you would.
That would be pointless. Men don't take women's birth control.

The only [political] discussion is whether or not religious institutions that apply for group health insurance plans, that include women, where the women are paying into the plan, can explicitly exclude contraceptive coverage for those women.

(At least that's how it started. I think there was a school later IIRC that had the same issue going on. Like you illustrated with your post, it's grown into a political punching bag that barely characterizes the actual argument in court [or congress].)


People can make the argument that :
"Other people (the men) in the group shouldn't be forced to pay for the women's contraceptives"
But the irony remains where the women in the group are still forced to pay for the men's 'blue pill' (which is commonly covered, just like birth control).
But then again, the religious don't mind paying for blue pill since it's right in line with god's command to procreate.

That whole line of reason degenerates into "just get individual plans", because the women can say they don't want to cover men's prostate cancer, and the men say they don't want to cover women's breast cancer, etc.

In the end, it's cheaper being in a group. So the 'cheapest' solution is for women to accept the coverages that are for men, and the men accept the coverages that are for women.

Although, sometimes I think the women should just form their own group separate from the men and let everyone pay higher rates. It would be amusing to have the men pay more per month, in exchange for not having to pay for birth control. Give them a Pyrrhic victory.


I do agree that it's kinda moot, tho.
The pill is hella cheap.
It's really only an issue if you want one of the more reliable methods, like the patch or the ring, which are more on the order of $50 per regiment.
Not a factor for someone with a half decent career, but since most people live hand to mouth, $50 is getting up there.

Some people see it as no different than exfoliating.
You merely throw away some of your cells.
A completely neutral act, void of any significance.

-scheherazade

 

I was painting that with a broad brush just like the statement I was quoting. And I do not "willfully" donate to the government for welfare it is forcefully taken from my paycheck with the threat of imprisonment if I do not comply.

 

You just described the basic idea of a Government in the first place: Organizations of individuals who have the power to make binding decisions on behalf of a particular community through authoritative and coercive powers.

So what's wrong with what they are doing?

 

Abortions have their own risks.... If you don't want kids, contraceptives are a much safer alternative....

That was pretty well explained a few pages back.

Insurance rates are based on health care costs and "risk factors". When doctors and hospitals increase their rates, the insurance companies increase theirs as well. When the "risk factors" increase, insurance prices increase.

All insurance prices are affected by expense and risk... The difference being that health insurance companies try to spread the cost out, as opposed to increasing rates only for those with higher risk unlike car insurance companies do.

 

Please. Death occurs in 0.0006% of all legal surgical abortions, or one in 160,000 cases). Whereas childbirth (in the U.S.) kills 9 women per 100,000. We are talking over a magnitude of difference here.

Contraceptives are also far more deadlier (believe it or not) than abortion. Here is the fine print from a popular birth control:

 

Ever hear of condoms? Oh wait that you wanted to prove a point never mind this thread is done for.

 

And by using condoms you are trying to force someone to do a personal act that is not pleasurable and in no way could or should be effectively enforced. This is tantamount to forcing people to wear a full face covering in cold weather since it might cut down on the common cold.

Again, what gives you the right to tell someone else how to go about their sexual lives and how to manage the outcomes? Why don't you already institute a license for children while you are managing a persons reproduction?

You still have to answer the question about what makes your way superior.

 

I never claimed my way to be superior you assume too much. You also appear to be desperatatly trying to make others think your opinion (and yes it's your opinion on the matter) is intellectually and socially superior. Get off your soap box and stop derailing this thread.

 

Death isn't the only risk.....

Orally taken birth control, isn't the only form of contraceptive either. There's also IUDs, injected birth control, diaphragms, condoms....

 

....

 

I 100% agree.

However, it all boils back to someone saying that killing a parasite within a host is wrong because according to said person's beliefs, the parasite is a human being. Because of that, the impregnated person must suffer horrible pain and distress for around 9 months to satisfy the other person's belief.

 

NVM it's useless anyways.

 

Do you realize how absurd your platform is? Good luck convincing a woman that is carrying a child that it's a "parasite" and that she shouldn't feel bad whatsoever in getting rid of it.

Also, "horrible pain" and distress? Really? Most pregnancies have minor problems throughout, stop using fringe cases and percentages to make it seem like it's the opposite.

But as I said before, this would be a non issue if proper birth control was practiced. There are so many options for both men and women now, there really is little excuse. But of course, you'll come back with that laughable argument that you should be able to have sex however you want and abort freely as if it's inconsequential. If you were a woman you would certainly be singing a different tune.

The fact of the matter is, every time you abort, you're very likely denying someone a potential shot at existing. Completely excluding religious arguments, that's a dick move, especially if you're one that believes that we're just an anomaly in the grand universe, only here by some grace of probability. It's not an issue that can be boiled down to "my cells, my property". What about the genetic contribution of your partner? How come they would get no say in this pro choice future you want so desperately?