There is for low income women.
Quick, change the subject…
Pretty much agree, but I’m not sure the BC mandate is really going to make a difference. As noted, anyone can already get BC without paying already. Problem is, you have to go out and get it. Maybe we need to have the pills sent to everyone’s home…
Maybe we should. I’d have no problem with that. Might prevent some unwanted pregnancies.
Better to add it to the drinking water. Then, if a woman wants to get pregnant, she has to actively seek out bottled water from a non-municipal source.
It’s a combination of racism and class warfare.
Racism because the white Republicans have this image of black welfare queens having hot sex all day long and chuckling as they march up to the pharmacy for their free birth control and then get their steak and lobster with food stamps.
Class warfare because what better way to keep the underclass under foot than to force them to perpetually have children than they can’t afford?
**John? ** Please. OK?
Sometimes the wind isn’t called Mariah.
I like how one person says “Pay for my birth control!” and the lady who says “No” is the selfish one. :rolleyes:
So, really, it isn’t the Republican governors who refuse to give their poor folks access to Medicaid and throwing every wrench into the works that they can…its not them who are injuring people’s health and well being, its those dreadful Dems trampling on nuns and denying our wretched poor the advantages of a good stern lesson in personal responsibility.
Boy, if there’s anything going to stop a cervical cancer dead in its tracks, its some of that good old fashioned personal responsibility and fiscal prudence. Oncology recapitulates philosophy.
adaher, cancer doesn’t care if you are Dr. House or Dr. Suess. There may some mild regret over not seeing the same doctor you saw last time. But you phrased in such a way as to insinuate that they wouldn’t be seeing a doctor at all. Don’t do that anymore, ok? Thanks bye.
Both of the above examples were broad brush generalizations. Of the 2, Der Trihs’ was WAY closer to the truth.
A cite? Rather than dig through the internet, I’ll use my open eyes as my cite. I recall an oil giant poisoning the Gulf Of Mexico. I recall fisherman of the Gulf being denied their life’s work. I recall a poor, poor, strained oil executive wanting his life back, rather like a psychopath.
A generalization, sure, and a true one.
Yep, and it’s even worse than that. It’s more like “maybe you’re not lying, but there’s a tiny finite possibility that you might be, and might therefore get something that you don’t ‘deserve’. Go away.”
Conservatives have no problem paying two to three times as much for health care per capita as the rest of the civilized world. They don’t care that a universal single-payer system would save them a fortune, because under a universal system, there is the prospect of the unspeakable horror of some lazy bum getting free health care that they have paid for. They’d much rather pay three times as much to a private insurer to have the satisfaction of knowing that the undeserving are quite properly dying in the streets.
When one understands this logic, everything else about the contemporary conservative ideology becomes clear.
Only when they say “No” to free stuff for others, while saying “Yes!” to free stuff for themselves.
-
Some conservatives believe that artificial contraception is intrinsically immoral, and don’t want to pay for what they consider immorality. (The Catholic Church is the only major church to teach as a matter of doctrine that artificial contraception is wrong, but I think some Orthodox Christians and a small number of evangelicals agree).
-
Some people believe (almost certainly wrongly) that the birth control pill can lead to implantation failures, i.e. the destruction of an embryo. There’s no evidence for this, so I think it should be combatted on the merits. (The claim that ‘contraception is immoral’ can’t really be refuted in the same way, since it’s a question of moral philosophy rather than science).
-
Some religious conservatives, while they may not believe that contraception is a sin, feel a tribal loyalty to conservative Catholics and a sense that ‘we are on the same team’, so they’re sympathetic to the Catholics who object to paying for contraception.
-
Some conservatives are natalists who feel that the US birth rate is too low and that we shouldn’t be further encouraging chosen childlessness.
I’m in favour of publicly provided birth control, but I at least have some sympathy for claims 1, 3, and 4. Not for claim 2- there’s no scientific evidence that the birth control pill actually does inhibit implantation, as far as I know.
Right, and for that exact reason, moral philosophies on which there are broadly different viewpoints – precisely because they reflect individual values – should never be the basis for public policy.
I think the primary flaw with the OP is assuming ALL conservatives feel the way that he’s describing.
There’s a big contingent of religious nuts who are against any sort of premarital sex, and view free birth control as something that encourages that behavior by taking away one of the chief consequences to the action. Why they care about what others do rather than the consequences of what they do is beyond me. People can screw all they want if they’re not spawning unwanted children and screwing up their lives, and making me have to pay for it.
Of course, more rational conservatives realize that a lot of people are too fucking stupid to care when they’re all horned up, so they realize that free birth control is the cheapest and most effective way to prevent a bunch of unwanted babies and the costs that go with that. Plus, it also has the advantage of potentially easing the burden on a lot of low income families by hopefully reducing the number of children they have, and not making them choose between birth control or some other necessity.
But the religious nuts have the Republican party by the short-hairs right now, and are the most shrill and loud, so everyone assumes that they stand for all conservatives, which is most emphatically not true.
First of all, you have offered one alleged example, which does not prove anything about what happens “generally”, as was the claim. And second, you are offering a medical diagnosis based on one sentence the guys said in an interview, which is simply absurd. Thirdly, you used weasel wording (“rather like” as opposed to “is”).
That’s a hat trick of logical fallacies in one short post.
“alleged” example. You make me smile. 
And I acknowleged that the whole ball of wax was a great generalization.
You really think your example was proof of a “vicious, amoral predator”? If you want to lift the “alleged” from my statement, make your case.
“Here is an example of something really bad that happened” is not “Here is something that proves the guy is a vicious, amoral predator”.
Well, good to know you’ll be seeing the cheapest oncologist available.
Look, almost everyone uses contraception. That means that the cost of the contraception that everyone is using gets added directly to your premium. Figure out what the average person pays for contraception and that’s the added premium cost.
But, as we know, in order to make insurance cheaper, the insurance companies narrowed the networks. So there is a direct link between these mandates and the access problems people are facing compared to their old insurance.
Now you can try to explain to voters why one doctor is as good as any other doctor if you want.
Google exists you know - and it’s not like what I’m saying is some obscure factoid. Companies + recruit + psychopaths; here’s the first result. There’s lots of others if you actually want information in the matter and aren’t “Just Asking Questions”.