GOP vs. Birth Control Pill

[crashhelmet]

There's been a lot of on-going debate about the birth control pill, whether or not it should be covered by insurance, and of course the whole "you're a slut if you take it" controversy.

Today, I ran across this article and it made me think...

The Pill Makes Women Richer

How much of this is a desire to keep women barefoot and pregnant and out of the work force? How much of this is designed to hide the chauvinism in Corporate America that typically pays men more than women for the same role? How much of this is to protect the egos of those men that make less than their wives?

[HYHYBT]

But women aren't supposed to be doing those things anyway. They're supposed to get married right away and stay home having babies and raising them. And if hubby can't make enough to support that, she can maybe spin yarn or take in others' washing or something.

Ow, that hurt to type.

[Andara Bledin]

How much of this is a desire to keep women barefoot and pregnant and out of the work force?

Don't forget out of school and uneducated.

While it's not nearly what it used to be, there is still a lot of discrimination against women in academia, particularly at the higher levels, but also in the public system, where girls are still subconsciously pushed towards being homemakers and support positions and boys are still given more push to be ambitious.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

How much of this is a desire to keep women barefoot and pregnant and out of the work force? How much of this is designed to hide the chauvinism in Corporate America that typically pays men more than women for the same role? How much of this is to protect the egos of those men that make less than their wives?

Sounds pretty far fetched to me. Not wanting to pay for women to have sex whenever they want without having babies is a reasonable opinion to me, even if it doesn't apply to all users.

[crashhelmet]

Sounds pretty far fetched to me. Not wanting to pay for women to have sex whenever they want without having babies is a reasonable opinion to me, even if it doesn't apply to all users.

But you're OK with paying for people that don't take care of their own personal health. Isn't that how the logic breaks down? I'm paying into health insurance and it pays for people that aren't doing things like eating healthy, going to the gym, or staying away from drugs, tobacco, and alcohol?

Where is the movement to end coverage for smokers and/or drinkers? Where's the movement to end coverage for the overweight?

[Andara Bledin]

I'm paying into health insurance and it pays for people that aren't doing things like eating healthy, going to the gym, or staying away from drugs, tobacco, and alcohol?

What about paying into insurance that also covers people who go into war zones? Talk about a dangerous behavior.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

What about paying into insurance that also covers people who go into war zones? Talk about a dangerous behavior.

^-.-^

It's not like there are hospitals in war zones, such as Afghanistan, where it's like in the US. They are military hospitals and billing isn't the same. And your company pays for your health expenses, not insurance. Good try though.

And I don't think I should have to pay for people's health issues due to a lack of healthy living such as drugs, alcohol, etc.

[crashhelmet]

My point though is that we have been doing this for years, but no one contests it. Now that they want to add birth control to what is covered, all of a sudden it's "NOT WITH MY MONEY!!!!"

It's as if they're saying "Sure. Go right ahead and have that third Big Mac. Medical insurance will pay for that knee replacement you need because you're too overweight for your body to support you."

or

"Go on! Smoke 2 packs a day for your whole life. Insurance will cover emphysema treatments."

But birth control, that's different.

[AdminAssistant]

...Wouldn't it be more cost-efficient to pay for birth control and keep women from popping out babies that they can't afford?

[MadMike]

...Wouldn't it be more cost-efficient to pay for birth control and keep women from popping out babies that they can't afford?

My thoughts exactly. I'd much rather pay to prevent women from having babies that they're unwilling or unable to care for, than to pay into welfare to raise unwanted babies to adulthood.

[fireheart17]

But you're OK with paying for people that don't take care of their own personal health. Isn't that how the logic breaks down? I'm paying into health insurance and it pays for people that aren't doing things like eating healthy, going to the gym, or staying away from drugs, tobacco, and alcohol?

Where is the movement to end coverage for smokers and/or drinkers? Where's the movement to end coverage for the overweight?

Out of that list, smokers, drinkers and drug users I can understand. You CHOOSE to smoke. You CHOOSE to take drugs, you CHOOSE to drink to excess. You don't walk past a fat person or a drunk person however and become fat or drunk yourselves.
The overweight issue however is a very broad one. Where exactly do you stop the coverage? Do you stop it when they are 100kg? 150kg? You'd have different parameters for women and men based on underlying body structure among other things. You also need to bear in mind that certain medications can cause weight gain as can certain health problems that may or may not be covered. It's not all because someone's had one too many big macs.

...Wouldn't it be more cost-efficient to pay for birth control and keep women from popping out babies that they can't afford?

From my understanding, they don't care about that. They just want the women to have babies and if they don't want to pop out babies, they just don't have sex. They can suck the guy off all he wants, he can have anal intercourse all he wants, but should he place his dick into a woman's vagina, then you're screwed.

[Greenday]

...Wouldn't it be more cost-efficient to pay for birth control and keep women from popping out babies that they can't afford?

Probably. Instead of having people who give birth to kids who grow up into poverty who then don't have money when they get older because the opportunities are less. Then those kids have kids who are poor. And so on and so forth.

[Gravekeeper]

From my understanding, they don't care about that. They just want the women to have babies and if they don't want to pop out babies, they just don't have sex. They can suck the guy off all he wants, he can have anal intercourse all he wants, but should he place his dick into a woman's vagina, then you're screwed.

No, the onus is on women here. Men are fully permitted to have and enjoy sex. Women are *not* permitted to enjoy sex or want sex. They only have sex for children or at behest of a man. Apparently. Any woman that actually enjoys it is a filthy slut.

GOP 2012 - Just lay still till we're done.

There is absolutely no logical reason to not cover birth control. But then, there's no logical reason to not have a socialized health care system either. So fucked if I know when it comes to American politics.

What really burns me about it is there's such an insane medieval push to force women back to being babymakers and property, yet at the same time, a push to deny them all of the care and support they would require to have children in the first place. We want you to pop out kids like a toaster, but you don't get health care, day care or maternity leave to do it. You should literally be at home cooking dinner and taking care of the kids. Because women aren't allowed to have jobs or careers either.

You are a uterus we own that cooks us dinner and babysits. Because God.

[guywithashovel]

There is absolutely no logical reason to not cover birth control. But then, there's no logical reason to not have a socialized health care system either.

Sure there is.

You see, if we have nationalized health care, then a small handful of freeloaders might get healthcare they haven't paid for. Can't have that, can we?

[Daskinor]

Its much better to have a system that has an inherent conflict of interest. Making more money by not paying out for services that the patient needs. Why would I want to pay for a cat scan your doctor wants you to get, when the insurance company doctor says you don't need it. I pay for services for me, and so that the insurance companies make massive record profits every year. Because yay capitalism.



Ouch that hurt typing that out. Seriously how can we as a nation stand by paying the MOST Per capita for health care. And have care levels not even in the top 20 for industrialized nations. That only pay a fraction of what we do.

There are even some estimates if the USA went with a single payer extended medicare system. We would only need to pay 6 to 8 times the current amount of medicare taxes. And before anyone goes cant raze taxes that socialism or some shit. Compare that to what you pay for insurance through your employer along with what their contribution is.