In his bitter words...

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
In his bitter words...
327
Mon, 09-17-2012 - 7:32pm

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
Tue, 09-25-2012 - 10:10am

As a woman, there are many things that I "want", but it's not the job of the government to provide those things for me or to mandate that others do.

What is the purpose of government, when we get right down to the essence? To promote and advance civilisation, our corner of it. We do so by setting policy that encourages and helps these things, and this is decidedly one area where it serves positive purpose.

The government has the right to regulate interstate commerce and the right to regulate insurers. States traditionally have served this purpose, but over the last several decades, the insurers have grown to national in scope and even multi-national. There is a need to regulate contract provisions as well as the financial end of things.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
Tue, 09-25-2012 - 10:07am

You don't want insurers to pay for contraception, because you believe it impacts your cost.

Wrong.

Wrong, why? Oh, because you don't believe the Constitution madates it. Um, the Constitution is a vague document, intentionally so, and it was not meant to be absolute, because it can't be. It can be interpreted in many ways, because the people who created it were not of one opinion. It was meant to be malleable. Otherwise, it wouldn't exist, not enough would have supported it.

As has been pointed out by others as well as me, the consequences of *your choice* costs much more.

The consequences are not a factor in this debate. Strike two.

roflmao. Oh yes they are. That's why the law exists. See point above, you can't argue Constitution on everything you don't like. Iraq war, against the Constitution. Where were you then? Not once did I ever see you argue against the war.

You keep forgetting that pesky 'promote the general welfare' thingie.

You didn't even know this issue existed until the administration made it a nationwide thing. It's sound social policy,  and it in fact reduces costs, not increases it. It reduces other societal issues. It's a huge huge positive.

Again, irrelevant. The argument that the government should be able to force insurers to provide free birth control because, otherwise, those women will be unable to stop themselves from becoming pregnant is demeaning to women. Can you say "War on Women"?

Nope, nice try. Whiff. Points for the spin. Some cannot afford the cost, particularly teens. This helps. And government can regulate interstate commerce, so...

This isn't a big bad government thing. This is government sticking up for average people. 

No, it isn't. It is, first and foremost, Obama buying votes. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just fooling themselves. Strike three.

Obama buying votes? roflmao... care to tell me about all the billionaire money doing an end around in the election? That apparently is okay, but... doing something that you know... actually helps people, why "YOU'RE BUYING VOTES!!!"

How about Republicans blocking votes that help people, and who do it for the sole purpose of making Obama look bad? It's on the record, McConnell said it. That too is okay, it seems.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Sun, 09-23-2012 - 11:46pm
From my point of view, insurers made a mistake in the calculus of birth control cost, particularly considering the cost of pregnancy. Insurance companies covered the cost of male performance enhancing drugs. Am at a loss to explain the "why" of both the above.

I personally don't worry about getting pregnant since that period (pun intended) of my life is over. Years ago, after deciding that two children were the limit, I had a tubal ligation. Abstinence would not have gone over well with my spouse, though it would have been a surefire way to prevent pregnancy.

I don't know what your insurance plan is like or how many choices you have but most employees don't have a whole heckuva lot of choice about coverage, particularly for small businesses. IOW, there isn't much leverage at the consumer level, to compel insurers to change their business model even if the demographic affected is a significant percentage of the insurance risk pool.

Government stepped in and mandated protections for food, air, and water. Got a problem with that too?

I mentioned the Middle East in the context of "outrage". It can be a selfish emotion, particularly when the "outraged" individual decides that her/his expression of that emotion trumps good sense and moderation.

I strongly suspect that there are multiple causes for the animosity towards the U.S. xxxs makes the case that education is rare and religious more often than not. Some have decided that the Obama administration got it wrong about what led to the assaults in Libya and then lied. From what I have read the one thing on which there is consensus is that the Libyan embassy should have had better security, particularly on the anniversary of 9/11. That's a valid point, All the rest is political haymaking. It's early days to be deciding what's "true" and what isn't. The FBI doesn't have it all figured out, much less partisans of the U.S. political opposition.

Jabberwocka

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Sun, 09-23-2012 - 10:23pm

"I have no misunderstandings about the Muslim world and while cartoons and videos may be the excuse given for rioting and murder, it's not the underlying reason. I sure hope that our government isn't naive enough to think it is,  as they were with the Libyan attacks"

   What is the underlying reason?  Of course our government in foriegn relations is naive it has been that way for decades.

 

"As a woman, there are many things that I "want", but it's not the job of the government to provide those things for me or to mandate that others do."

 Health care is provided by government it has been the law for decades.  Any county hospital handles emergency room cases.  Specifically what is it ?  Gonvernment exists to serve the needs of the people. 

 

dragowoman

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Sun, 09-23-2012 - 8:51pm

Interesting but it is the consequences that are important.  Let's fact the fact that Birth Control is far cheaper than either abortion or pregnancy. 

"  The argument that the government should be able to force insurers to provide free birth control because, otherwise, those women will be unable to stop themselves from becoming pregnant is demeaning to women."

     The fact that health care provides that use insurance provide a needed service so women can enjoy their freedom to enjoy sex is hardly an hardship.  In fact it makes solid financial sense. The gonverment did right.  It is wrong to provide to men and not to women.  Gender discrimination is illegal and just plain wrong.  Men do not get pregnant.

 

dragowoman

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
Sun, 09-23-2012 - 5:45pm
nellewrites wrote:

You wish me to be impolite in describing your debate points? 

It's not a matter of manners.

You don't want insurers to pay for contraception, because you believe it impacts your cost.

Wrong.

As has been pointed out by others as well as me, the consequences of *your choice* costs much more.

The consequences are not a factor in this debate. Strike two.

You seem to be okay with insurers paying for a lot of other things, and by the way, government does in fact regulate insurance contracts in most states. There was a time when I gave expert testimony on property casualty insurance contracts.

Irrelevant.

You didn't even know this issue existed until the administration made it a nationwide thing. It's sound social policy,  and it in fact reduces costs, not increases it. It reduces other societal issues. It's a huge huge positive.

Again, irrelevant. The argument that the government should be able to force insurers to provide free birth control because, otherwise, those women will be unable to stop themselves from becoming pregnant is demeaning to women. Can you say "War on Women"?

This isn't a big bad government thing. This is government sticking up for average people. 

No, it isn't. It is, first and foremost, Obama buying votes. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just fooling themselves. Strike three.

 

"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Sun, 09-23-2012 - 4:37pm

Hi

"I don't believe that those who have murdered and are rioting in the Middle East are actually reacting to cartoons and youtube videos. I guess we are now actually learning the truth about what really happened in Libya and why."

   let me correct a misunderstanding about the Muslim world.  Poverty in the average person is quite high.  Education is something only a few obtain.  Many schools are religious backed.  There are in some countries that have religious police (moral police if you will)   Many have the belief that any image of Mohammed the prophet is idolatry. The historical remedy is killing the non-believer! 

  The Libyan attack was by a "militia" group.  Well armed and planned.  Other riots around the world are emotional expressions.

   " My problem is with the government stepping in and mandating it. As a woman, I don't need or want the government to do that for me. I know how not to get pregnant and at least one of the options available to me is free..."

  Actually for women who want a sex life that is not true.  IMO that is the real hidden issue.  Women's sexuality and the supposed to be's that we learn.  Women do want freedom but in that context many are conflicted.  There is in much of the US culture that is designed to restrict the options that women have.   All insurance in the US is regulated by state and federal statues and rules.

  There are others who have a interest is keeping the birth rate high.  Many businesses,military,government agencies have vested interest.  With over 40% of live births being "unplanned".  And the billions of dollars at stake it is not unusual for these forces to want and influence policies that increase the probability that the population is growing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9494812

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/04/117_45496.html

Why governments are conflicted:

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/04/117_45496.html

http://www.economist.com/blogs/feastandfamine/2012/08/america-and-europe

dragowoman

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Sun, 09-23-2012 - 9:37am
I've said before that your opinion is yours but when mentioning it on a debate board, be prepared to defend it. "Tone" is a vague term, particularly when mentioned without specific examples.

As for outrage, that too is a personal emotion. Can't be quantified. Look at what's happening in the Middle East. They're KILLING people there over religious cartoons and IMHO, that's outrage taken much too far. It's not the same thing as outrage over sexism. Do both fit in the same "attack is an attack and wrong" category?

I would like to point out what another poster here (ironically enough, he's male) mentioned last night. The secretary of health and human services, Kathleen Sebelius, says that ACA measures include the coverage of contraception by insurance companies. Those same insurance companies, for the most part, include a number of other procedures and pharmaceuticals including ones which enhance a male's ability to "perform" the act which leads to conception. Yet people are NOT having heated debates about them. Some day, we'll probably look back at this point and say "much ado about nothing". It wasn't that long ago that anesthesia/pain relief for women giving birth was considered to be a violation of the Old Testament verse in which God said that Eve would bear children in pain (Genesis 3:16). http://www.painfreebirthing.com/english/evolution.htm Nobody seems to believe in enforcing that one anymore!

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
Sat, 09-22-2012 - 11:27pm

"Nice try" doesn't quite cut it.

You wish me to be impolite in describing your debate points? 

You don't want insurers to pay for contraception, because you believe it impacts your cost. As has been pointed out by others as well as me, the consequences of *your choice* costs much more. You seem to be okay with insurers paying for a lot of other things, and by the way, government does in fact regulate insurance contracts in most states. There was a time when I gave expert testimony on property casualty insurance contracts.

You didn't even know this issue existed until the administration made it a nationwide thing. It's sound social policy,  and it in fact reduces costs, not increases it. It reduces other societal issues. It's a huge huge positive.

If you don't wish to pay for it, then you can pay for the consequences.

This isn't a big bad government thing. This is government sticking up for average people. Those who make the most noise are organisations with a serious prejudicial streak and distinct self-serving interests... the Catholic church as one.

 

Pages