You don’t like the dental floss analogy, but that doesn’t make it bad. It’s a matter of degree, not kind. And we should be talking about what is a “typical” expense, not what is “reasonable”. I’m not even sure what “reasonable” means in this context.
I’ve said nothing about “sorry folks”. I have no idea why you are suggesting I am thinking along those lines. I thought I made it clear that I was talking about the other end of the spectrum. The “not sorry folks” who can afford to pay.
You’ll have to take that up with a conservative who likes that then.
As do I.
Your concern about the balance sheet of enormously successful companies is interesting, but not relevant. I’m going to go on the assumption that they know their business better than I do.
How does that translate into: Make employers pay for contraceptives for everyone. That is the question being asked in this thread. No one so far is saying that people who cannot afford BC should not receive assistance in getting it. But if that woman has enough money to afford an 8th kid, I’m not willing to buy her in IUD, and frankly she shouldn’t be asking me to.
Truly indigent women – the kind for whom $25 a month for birth control is a real hardship – are likely either unemployed or hourly workers (and thus don’t have employer-provided insurance anyway), and are definitely eligible for Medicaid, which does cover contraception.
There are two reasons people want to make employers pay for their contraception:
It’s a middle-class entitlement, and those are always popular.
It represents an official embrace of their sexual values. It’s a victory for sexual freedom, and a rebuke for those who think the linkage of sex and procreation is a good and natural thing. It’s a thumb in the eye of those bluenose prudes!
If it was really just about ensuring access to contraception, it’d be easier and cheaper to just expand Medicaid to cover the employees of that small fraction of companies that have such objections.
One of the absurdities here is that the same government that is taking my tax money money to subsidize child-bearing (think of the income tax deduction and many other benefits) is also making me pay, thorough my health insurance, for the prevention of child-bearing.
From a standpoint of satisfying taxpayers, it makes a lot of sense. People who don’t want kids are glad the government mandates free birth control, and people who do want kids are glad there’s a child tax credit.
But from a standpoint of public policy, it comes down to whether we think that there are too many births, or not enough.
Personally, and this is probably not a popular position here, I’m pro-natalist. The US birth rate has been below replacement for the past several years, and this is going to be bad for the US economy. That makes it easy for me to say that getting pregnant is not an illness which the government needs to make it easier to prevent.
If every unplanned baby wasn’t born, the birth dearth would become a disaster of Japanese or even Russian proportions. Young people – lots of young people – are going to have to be paying income tax if we are to be supported in our old age. So the claim that birth control saves society money is short-sighted.
No woman should be forced to have a child, but free birth control is going too far in the other direction at a time when US birth rates are at a record low.
Your analogy fails; it is inaccurate at best. If you had paid Joe to allow me to choose from a number of different fruits, vegetables, meats, cheeses and other food items, you have not given me anything other than opportunity. What I do with that opportunity has nothing to do with you anymore; your role here is done.
That’s why what I do with the money I earn at my job is none of my employer’s business; it isn’t their money anymore.
I’m not a conservative, but as a matter of practical politics, few of them are all that committed to limited government as a consistent principle. Liberals and Conservatives are pretty united on the idea that one of the main purposes of government is to make life difficult for people who believe differently from them.
If the government tells me that I have to pay Marley so that he can give you an apple, then I have provided you with an apple.
What a silly semantic nit pick. And as I said to Marley, change “provide” to “pay for”, if you really insist, and nothing changes. Would you prefer we said “pay for” instead of “provide”? If so, how does that change anything?
This is staggeringly ignorant. Nearly all developed countries have various kinds of mixed public-private parnerships that involve various kinds of fees and copays. See France, for example. The same is truein the DR. Even in fully-subsidized systems like the UK’s NHS, there are procedures they won’t cover, and so it’s still not true that “all medical stuff is free.”
Nice to hear someone gave you charity, but that’s not the norm.
You brought up teeth. My point was that just as there is some birth control not covered (nor should it be) there is some birth control needing a doctor’s intervention that should be.
Lots of people could afford checkups also, but those get covered. Besides the hassle of figuring out income levels (which change over time) thinks like birth control and checkups have a positive RoI, I’d suspect. Thus, the system as a whole benefits from making sure all use these products. You don’t see lawsuits against paying for checkups - if Jesus had said saying aah and bending over were sinful, you would.
[QUOTE=MsWhatsit]
There is no war on women, and complaints to that effect are simply pandering to the base.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, this is basically accurate.
There is a “war on women” in the same sense that there is a “war on Christmas”. Both are phrased the way they are to stir up the base. And, of course, in both cases partisans on either side will respond “THERE REALLY IS A WAR ON (my side) BUT THE OTHER SIDE IS LYING!!!”
Not quite. Remove the “war” metaphor for a moment— there is an organized, concerted effort by the Right to oppose policies that would directly benefit women, and to impose policies that will negatively affect women. There is no organized effort by the Left to do anything whatsoever to Christmas.
I agree, these are exactly the same. The “War on Christmas” consists of some businesses making the business decision not to use religiously specific greetings in December, and a few individuals attempting to make the government follow its own rules about religious displays in government venues. Likewise, the “War on Women” consists of one political party attempting to establish by law or by economic leverage diminished access to medical services relevant to women’s reproductive health. No difference whatsoever.
All these whiners need to just shut up and grow a pair.*
Regards,
Gorsnak
*Because if they had a pair then they’d be men and have opinions worthy of consideration.:rolleyes:
Exactly - what if I went to work for PETA who refused to let me have my insulin, which IIRC is an animal derivative, or [do they still refuse medical treatment?] Christian Scientists who refuse to allow health insurance? [obviously if CS doesn’t still refuse medical treatment, make up some religion who thinks doctors, medicine and hospitals are all evil and refuse to allow it.]
I really do not see why any form of medical treatment should even be discussed with ones employers at all - unless one is needing time off for an operation, or a change in hours to allow for PT [which did happen with me for 38 sessions] or light duty [and all that should be is a note from the doctor saying For medical reasons X is not allowed to pick up or carry more than 5 pounds/X is not allowed to walk more than 100 feet/stand for more than 1 hour or whatever. ]