Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig
in regards to your last paragraph, why do you keep referencing socialism and taxation? she was testifying about student insurance provided by a private company, the premiums all the students responsibility-georgetown wasn't on the hook for any of it. not sure why you keep dragging in taxpayers, this entire discussion has been about insurance companies-not subsidies from the govt.
also, obama stepped back weeks ago from demanding employers cover the costs, instead making it part of the package that insurance companies must offer. it's not about religious freedoms when the onus falls on blue cross or others like them to offer birth control.
there are myriad reasons people must take birth control other than cysts. if a doctor prescribes them, that should be all that's necessary for the insurer to cover them. again, there are other medications that also don't always have a medical reason to be prescribed, and yet they ARE covered.
i know a girl who'd been on the pill for years-and hadn't engaged in any sexual activity in several years' time-but if she did, she wouldn't have to worry about an unplanned pregnancy. one behavior doesn't automatically point to another.
as for religious freedoms dictating what to cover. like i've said elsewhere-where would that stop? some religions are against blood transfusions, others against organ donations, etc. do you want to have to argue about your health with your employer?
|
Obama's "step back" is nothing of the sort. So now instead of it appearing as a line item that the employer must pay for, it's in the "must provide" section of coverage.
Before Obama's revision, the bill to the employer might look like this:
BASIC INSURANCE PREMIUM for Jane Doe: $100
BIRTH CONTROL ADDITIONAL COVERAGE for Jane Doe: $20
Now, after Obama's 'accommodation', the revised bill is:
MINIMUM COVERAGE PREMIUM for Jane Doe: $120
It's the easiest shell game to see through. There has been no change, therefore the issue is the same, and I hope he pays a big political price for it.
If you read what I wrote, I'm actually not disagreeing with you on that many points. If the pill is required as treatment for a documented condition, it should be covered.
Pregnancy is not 'punishment' but one of the most common consequences of sexual behavior, as God intended (or Darwin would explain), or both.
The subsidizing of elective behavior is the issue. She wants to be promiscuous and wants us to pay for it.
Different example: Let's say I am a fisherman. I also suffer from extreme motion sickness, and I take an anti-motion-sickness medication. It's better than dramamine, but it requires let's say a week to get into my system and protect me from the motion sickness I might get while out on my fishing boat.
Question: If I am taking the motion sickness medication I described above today, would it be a safe assumption that I plan to go fishing within a week?
The principle is the same with the logic surrounding the assumption for the motivation for using the birth control pill.