Government mandated birth control

[fast08busa]

Please excuse me if this is in the wrong place, admins feel free to move this thread.

Wondering what u all think of this, as for myself I disagree with it.

[BusaBret]

I am hoping this is what keeps Obama from getting re-elected.

From my dunce stool :cookoo:

[Tufbusa]

I think women should choose sex partners who can afford a condom!

[Dino]

Ok the government is not mandating birth control, the government is saying insurance companies must fully cover birth control without a co-pay.

The government is not saying that religious institutions have to comply with this if they ONLY serve members of their faith.

When a church runs a business enterprise like a school or a hospital that serves multiple faiths they can't impose their faith on others through the health care options offered by the insurance company they use for their employees.

No one is forced to use birth control if it against their faith.

[skydivr]

Screw around (or don't) all you want, but it's not the governments (taxpayers) responsiblity to pay for your birth control! Rush may be really obnoxious, but he was totally right about that girl that bragged about how much sex she was having at school - maybe promiscious would have been better than '****'. While getting laid in college is every young man's fantasy, it wasn't the purpose. And forcing the Catholic Church, OR ANY PRIVATE NON-GOVERNMENT FUNDED ENTITIY to pay for contraceptives in their health plans is so unconstitutional not to mention wrong....

[zukracer]

ok I admit sometimes I have my head buried in a pile of work... :wtf: I have not heard of any such thing. Gotta link to a reliable place that tells us what this is all about? I can tell ya I will not force my daughters to start taking BC at some age because some asshats in DC think they know better how to raise my kids or have them forced to take meds at some point in their lives. That move to the EU sounds better and better all the time

[zukracer]

Ok the government is not mandating birth control, the government is saying insurance companies must fully cover birth control without a co-pay.

The government is not saying that religious institutions have to comply with this if they ONLY serve members of their faith.

When a church runs a business enterprise like a school or a hospital that serves multiple faiths they can't impose their faith on others through the health care options offered by the insurance company they use for their employees.

No one is forced to use birth control if it against their faith.

ok, now that makes more sense... the thread topic had me at a loss for a min

[Dino]

Screw around (or don't) all you want, but it's not the governments (taxpayers) responsiblity to pay for your birth control! Rush may be really obnoxious, but he was totally right about that girl that bragged about how much sex she was having at school - maybe promiscious would have been better than '****'. While getting laid in college is every young man's fantasy, it wasn't the purpose. And forcing the Catholic Church, OR ANY PRIVATE NON-GOVERNMENT FUNDED ENTITIY to pay for contraceptives in their health plans is so unconstitutional not to mention wrong....

If a church functions as a church only serving members of that faith, they don't have to do anything. However if a church operates as a business (Hospitals, Schools, Television Networks…) they can't discriminate against employees of other faiths through health care options provided by company insurance plans.

How is that unconstitutional?

[Sous]

Strongly disagree with the government being in this in any way, shape or form. So the customer of the insurance company does not have to pay a co-pay for birth control, well some one is going to pay, who would that be? The other customers of the company, or the tax payers, either way it is not free.

If they want to use birth control, great! They can take their happy ass down to CVS and buy it themselves. I don't need to pay for Marry Jane and Jim Bob to have safe sex, that is their responsibility.

Then you have the religious aspect of it, which there is to be a separation between church and state. Well, if the state is telling the people of the church what to do, then that is not separation.

[Dino]

Strongly disagree with the government being in this in any way, shape or form. So the customer of the insurance company does not have to pay a co-pay for birth control, well some one is going to pay, who would that be? The other customers of the company, or the tax payers, either way it is not free.

If they want to use birth control, great! They can take their happy ass down to CVS and buy it themselves. I don't need to pay for Marry Jane and Jim Bob to have safe sex, that is their responsibility.

Then you have the religious aspect of it, which there is to be a separation between church and state. Well, if the state is telling the people of the church what to do, then that is not separation.

What do you think costs more? Birth Control or all the care involved in a pregnancy? Wouldn't it be cheaper for all involved to spend a little to cover birth control or a lot to cover pregnancies?

When you purchase insurance you purchase it for your needs, you don't get to decide what care is given to others. If that were the case I would be all for smokers being uninsurable because of the expense incurred by smoking related illness. If insurance companies didn't have to cover it, my rates would be cheaper.

The state is telling a church run business they must comply with rules established for all businesses.

[BusaBret]

Then you have the religious aspect of it, which there is to be a separation between church and state. Well, if the state is telling the people of the church what to do, then that is not separation.

Although a subject for another thread, @ separation of church and state!!!

From my dunce stool :cookoo:

[Sous]

What do you think costs more? Birth Control or all the care involved in a pregnancy? Wouldn't it be cheaper for all involved to spend a little to cover birth control or a lot to cover pregnancies?

When you purchase insurance you purchase it for your needs, you don't get to decide what care is given to others. If that were the case I would be all for smokers being uninsurable because of the expense incurred by smoking related illness. If insurance companies didn't have to cover it, my rates would be cheaper.

The state is telling a church run business they must comply with rules established for all businesses.

So, we should just have the government tell us that because other people are too careless to buy birth control for themselves, we should buy it for them because it is the law? Maybe we should just have the government tell us we cannot have children at all. Then, once we balance the budget and are not in debt, people can start having children again. Maybe we can take some tips from China on how they regulate population. Come on, it is ridiculous for a government to be in your personal lifestyle. Land of the free, not land of the almost free.

Make the smokers pay more for their coverage, if they cannot afford it, stop smoking. The government again should not be involved in the personal choices some one makes on whether or not they want to smoke. If they make the choice to smoke, let them pay more as they will develop problems. My father died at age 56 because he had smoked since he was 16.

[skydivr]

Telling a private enterprise, whether it be a church or a company, that it must provide (PAY) birth control in its' health plan is going TOO FAR. ESPECIALLY the Catholic church who opposes it in moral and religious grounds. If those plan members want contraceptives, then they should have to pay for them THEMSELVES. Nobody's telling them they can't have them, just that it comes out of their PERSONAL pocket. When/why did it become the public's responsibility?

Once again, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY is being thrown out the door...and it's slowly but surely killing this country...

Let's try to explain it this way:

Tennesee has a helmet law, which I agree with because my tax dollars don't need to go to all the medical expenses of the idiots who are too stupid to protect themselves (sound familiar?) So, the government should buy my helmet, or force my insurance company to buy my helmet so that I will have one to wear? Wow, great analogy if I say so myself!

I can either ride, or not ride. If i choose to ride, it's my responsibility to buy my own helmet. PERFECT

[mrsBusawhipped]

Birth control pills are taken for hormone imbalances as well as preventing unwanted pregnancies. I don't mind paying a little extra for a copay. People taking birth control are to some point being responsible if it is to prevent a pregnancy. I don't think insurance companies should be made to provide it for free. As many of you have said it isn't right that we pay for others "choices"! Next the govt will want to make insurance companies provide Viagra for free.

[Dino]

Telling a private enterprise, whether it be a church or a company, that it must provide (PAY) birth control in its' health plan is going TOO FAR. ESPECIALLY the Catholic church who opposes it in moral and religious grounds. If those plan members want contraceptives, then they should have to pay for them THEMSELVES. Nobody's telling them they can't have them, just that it comes out of their PERSONAL pocket. When/why did it become the public's responsibility?

Once again, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY is being thrown out the door...and it's slowly but surely killing this country...

Let's try to explain it this way:

Tennesee has a helmet law, which I agree with because my tax dollars don't need to go to all the medical expenses of the idiots who are too stupid to protect themselves (sound familiar?) So, the government should buy my helmet, or force my insurance company to buy my helmet so that I will have one to wear? Wow, great analogy if I say so myself!

I can either ride, or not ride. If i choose to ride, it's my responsibility to buy my own helmet. PERFECT

So you don't mind the government dictating that you wear a helmet because it keeps costs down. Yet the fact that providing BC keeps costs down because the cost of a pregnancy is far greater than the cost of BC is going to far?

[chrisjp]

in my opinion...we are talking about a religious organization running a buisness and its employees along with the rest of the country being given the finnacial relief of no co pay (trust me you pay for your health care and so does the employer) is not unconstitutional its SMART. we are overpopulateing this world and to say condoms and birth control is free is a hell of alot better than saying ...here...lets pay for your abortion.. these "religious" organizations make way to much money as it is...and 1 i still belive makes more money than walmart and owns a heck of alot more property and goods and precious metals WORLD WIDE...(yes i am a recovering catholic) so to nit pick the 'constitutionality" and seperation of church and state...sorry they may be a church but they are running a buisness...and that is ALLOWED to have rules governing thier conduct!!!

[skydivr]

So you don't mind the government dictating that you wear a helmet because it keeps costs down. Yet the fact that providing BC keeps costs down because the cost of a pregnancy is far greater than the cost of BC is going to far?

The government or my heathcare plan doesn't PROVIDE ME THE HELMET. It's not the wearing of one the issue, it's making non-riders BUY IT vs. my responsibilty to BUY IT FOR MYSELF.

[captain]

Dino I sure liked this place more when you didn't post...

[GNBRETT]

the law mandates you wear a helmet in most states doesnt it???? I would like to see the government mandate that every 14 yr. old female be on some sort of long term birth control. teen pregnancy absolutely ruins their lives and the cycle continues again 16-18 years later when their kids get pregnant.

the average age of kids having kids in the city I work in is 18 years old. yes, 18 years old! I get sick of giving my hard earned tax dollars to kids who arent even out of high school yet and popping out babies they cant afford to take care of..... and then get on food stamps (WIC), welfare and section 8 for the next 18 years.

this isnt about religion, its about finances and 99% of 18 yr. olds cant afford to raise a baby. I would like to see a law passed that a female would have to be on birth control till she was 25 unless she gets married before that. if there was birth control for men I would want the same for them. reying on condoms just doesnt work obviously.

but then again I think if you chose to smoke you should have to pay 10x what anyone else pays in insurance cause smokers cost insurance companies billions every year and its completely preventable. I dont smoke but have to pay into insurance for those that smoke so when they get lung cancer, COPD or heart disease they can be treated at a cost of billions each year.

not to mention the average smoker will spend $100k in cigarettes alone over their lifetime. that to me is just comical that it would cost $100k for a shot a lung cancer or heart disease....

curtail teen pregnancy and smoking and save our country billions every year.

[dadofthree]

I think women should choose sex partners who can afford a condom!

We give them away. That is tax payers pay for programs that distribute them to children on up.