Your "belief" is not more important than my reality.

[bg23]

Ok, I see your point. But how far will you take the it? Should they pay for your seat-belts in your car? We know that accidents get worse if you're not strapped in.

We also know that pet-owners have a longer statistical life-expectancy and remains more healthy in old age. Should the insurance be required to pay for my dog?

Slippery slope arguments are weak unless you can show a direct link to causation.

Your examples are outlandish and irrelevant. Irrelevant to your point, even. If the point you're making is that you shouldn't have to pay for other people's choices, it's already been demonstrated that that is how insurance works, so get over it.

This tangential point you're making is grasping at straws - the legislation isn't asking insurance companies to pay for things that reduce the risk to their customers - and thus, themselves. That's something that's in THEIR interest, but it's not what's being proposed.

Some insurance companies already do things to promote healthier living in its members, for example, by offering subsidised gym memberships, discounts on driving lessons (in some cases, free lessons), etc, etc. Doing so is actually in the interests of those companies, because healthier people result in less insurance claims, safer drivers result in fewer accidents (and again, fewer claims).

 

[StrangeLife]

A man does not have a uterus. His body does not need to slough off a uterine lining.

He will never get pregnant....

I take it you haven't met the Governor of New Jersey....

So, does that go for pregnancy too? You didn't say.

As for the rest, that's how insurance works. You pay and might never get anything back, (though when that happens you should consider yourself lucky rather than cheated.)
And there are lots of accident or illness prone behavior that ends up in hospitals or doctor's surgeries and paid for by health insurance.

Swings and roundabouts.

Sorry - pregnancies should be covered of course. Which in turn even might prompt the insurance to offer free birth control voluntarily because it makes financially sense to them

But simply being horny is not a disease....

 

[RobDownSouth]

Do you complain about having to pay for heart surgery for people who clogged up their arteries from too much fatty foods?

Liver transplants for people who drank too much?

What about the accidents that result from things like mountain climbing, sky diving, etc?

Do you complain about the guy who shoots himself in the foot accidentally?

None of this seems fair -- it's not like you get to be the one who shoots him but you still have to pay for it...

Or what about you having to pay for somebody else's birth? Insurance covers the actual birth too. If you have a problem covering the contraception surely you have a problem covering the birth.

Man, it's almost like this is how insurance works or something.

This "chinese restaurant plan" e.g. "one from column a, one from column b" etc....is what Julybaby04 has been advocating tirelessly for months. "Those people" should be grateful to "pay a little more" for their defects so that she and her children can save money on premiums.

It absolutely defeats the purpose of "insurance" when you have to specify specific coverages. THAT is what insurance companies were doing for years until Obamacare forced a level playing field, and why we have folks like Julybaby04 and now Strange Life nattering about the "unfairness" of it all.

"Life is not fair" - Abraham Lincoln

 

[Lorilei]

I don't know who the hell you straight guys think you're going to be having sex with if women can't afford birth control. Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot (or the dick, in this case).

 

[julybaby04]

I don't know who the hell you straight guys think you're going to be having sex with if women can't afford birth control. Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot (or the dick, in this case).

Just a question......

Are the men not capable of providing birth control as well? Why does it have to be the woman who must take on this responsibility by herself?

 

[evesdream]

Hold on. Hormone treatment in order to manage ovulation in connection with a health condition is not "birth control". That's treatment.

But if you are otherwise healthy, birth control is only needed if you're having recreational sex with somebody. Unless that somebody is working at the insurance company, how can it ever be their problem?

I mean, what's next? Do you want the insurance company to pay for the boat when you go water skiing too? Or finance the harness for your next spelunking?

All you're telling me is that you're ignorant about how women's bodies work, (and that's okay there's no shame in that). But the point remains, that a woman's health and reproductive system are fundamentally tied. It's that basic, clownchild.
If a woman uses birth control to prevent herself from carrying a pregnancy that's absolutely a health decision, same goes for many of the other reasons that women and doctors choose particular types of contraceptive drugs.

 

[Brollyanna]

I take it you haven't met the Governor of New Jersey....





Sorry - pregnancies should be covered of course. Which in turn even might prompt the insurance to offer free birth control voluntarily because it makes financially sense to them

But simply being horny is not a disease....

So does your argument boil down to your perceived morality? If you're "simply horny" and fuck, then insurance should pay if you get pregnant and decide to keep the baby, but not if you want to prevent a pregnancy.

Same simple hornless...

Also, I think you're the only one talking about horny as a disease - nobody else is suggesting that.

 

[phrodeau]

Just a question......

Are the men not capable of providing birth control as well? Why does it have to be the woman who must take on this responsibility by herself?

Well, most rapists use rubbers these days, but there are always a few who don't.

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

Which circles us, back, to the start of this thread-

Their religious belief in the sacredness of life, is not so very steady-
The religious belief based companies invested their money-
They made a profit on the sale of birth control.
The terrible, horrible birth control that *gasp* might cause abortions!
They pour over everything else with a magnifying glass, to seek possible murder of cells-
But, where they make their profits, qualifies as an exception from that scrutiny- and they do not bother to investigate ?
Why is that ?

from the first page of this thread-

"your belief, religious or not, does not entitle you to ignore the law and stomp all the fuck over women's reproductive rights."

"Do you think religious beliefs are more valid or important than any other individually held belief?
"Why? Are they more important than reality?"

 

[Brollyanna]

Just a question......

Are the men not capable of providing birth control as well? Why does it have to be the woman who must take on this responsibility by herself?

Aren't you a woman?

 

[julybaby04]

Well, most rapists use rubbers these days, but there are always a few who don't.

Of course you would know this. Sounds like you study the methods of rapists alot!

 

[StrangeLife]

All sexually active heterosexual people can cause the need for contraceptives, abortion and childbirth, maybe waivers for celibate people?

It's just like paying property taxes that support schools even though you don't have children or don't use public schools?

That's a totally different kettle of fish Noor. If you're talking about the state or the county subsidising Planned Parenthood, I have no problem with that. They're doing great work. But forcing a private company to do it, is wrong.

You're basically talking about channelling money from the sick to the horny...

Slippery slope arguments are weak unless you can show a direct link to causation.

Your examples are outlandish and irrelevant. Irrelevant to your point, even. If the point you're making is that you shouldn't have to pay for other people's choices, it's already been demonstrated that that is how insurance works, so get over it.

This tangential point you're making is grasping at straws - the legislation isn't asking insurance companies to pay for things that reduce the risk to their customers - and thus, themselves. That's something that's in THEIR interest, but it's not what's being proposed.

Some insurance companies already do things to promote healthier living in its members, for example, by offering subsidised gym memberships, discounts on driving lessons (in some cases, free lessons), etc, etc. Doing so is actually in the interests of those companies, because healthier people result in less insurance claims, safer drivers result in fewer accidents (and again, fewer claims).

The whole idea is a slippery slope. And if it's so "logical" then why bother with legislation in the first place? Surely it will happen automagically, right?

I don't think my argument is irrelevant bg. How far away from actual diseases should we go before it becomes absurd?

 

[Lorilei]

Just a question......

Are the men not capable of providing birth control as well? Why does it have to be the woman who must take on this responsibility by herself?

This can't actually be a serious question. Because women are the ones who bear children, not men. Aren't you the one who's always preaching "personal responsibility"? And no, men are not really capable of providing birth control, other than condoms, which have a 12% failure rate. In any case, why should women relinquish control of their reproductive systems to anyone else?

Aren't you a woman?

Right?!?!

 

[julybaby04]

This can't actually be a serious question. Because women are the ones who bear children, not men. Aren't you the one who's always preaching "personal responsibility"? And no, men are not really capable of providing birth control, other than condoms, which have a 12% failure rate. In any case, why should women relinquish control of their reproductive systems to anyone else?



Right?!?!

I understand all of what you said. All I am saying is that there are other ways to prevent pregnancy and the woman NOT have to pay for it. For that matter, women can buy the condoms themselves.

I do advocate personal responsibility, but the guys are not without that either. I don't see women relinquishing control just because they want the man they are going to have sex with, to care about that as well. It seems that, I guess, other than a one night stand, that both would care about it as they probably care about each other.

It takes two to have sex and both should care about each other enough to protect against pregnancy if that is the desire. Birth control pills are NOT the only option for birth control.

 

[Lorilei]

I understand all of what you said. All I am saying is that there are other ways to prevent pregnancy and the woman NOT have to pay for it. For that matter, women can buy the condoms themselves.

I do advocate personal responsibility, but the guys are not without that either. I don't see women relinquishing control just because they want the man they are going to have sex with, to care about that as well. It seems that, I guess, other than a one night stand, that both would care about it as they probably care about each other.

It takes two to have sex and both should care about each other enough to protect against pregnancy if that is the desire. Birth control pills are NOT the only option for birth control.

Then aside from condoms (which are unreliable), or sterilization, what do you suggest? You do know how babies are made, right?

 

[StrangeLife]

I don't know who the hell you straight guys think you're going to be having sex with if women can't afford birth control. Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot (or the dick, in this case).

If I bring a gift, surely I should be expected to be responsible for the wrapping paper too, right?

So does your argument boil down to your perceived morality? If you're "simply horny" and fuck, then insurance should pay if you get pregnant and decide to keep the baby, but not if you want to prevent a pregnancy.

Same simple hornless...

Also, I think you're the only one talking about horny as a disease - nobody else is suggesting that.

Hey, I've got no morals what so ever. I'm a Literotica writer...


But yeah - if you fuck somebody it's your responsibility to use your erotic powers and abilities responsibly and safely. Just like when you're driving your car safely or warming up before doing yoga in order to avoid accidents.

But if you do get pregnant, get an STD, pull a muscle, gets electrocuted by your new PowerGasm-2000x or set your bed on fire, your insurance will kick in and help you. Just like if you crash your car.

Notice that I said that being horny is not a disease. Hence no insurance coverage...

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

I give you a list of medical uses for oral contraceptives, and you respond with a joke, and avoid a valid question-

Should oral contraceptives be paid for by insurance companies, if they serve a medical need
and not just a contraceptive need?

The joke about men not having a uterus-
"I take it you haven't met the Governor of New Jersey.... "

gsgs comment- Unless it is the most successful masquerade in modern history,
I very much doubt that Mr. Christie has a uterus,
or, that he has the ability to maintain a single pregnancy for years and years.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I understand all of what you said. All I am saying is that there are other ways to prevent pregnancy and the woman NOT have to pay for it. For that matter, women can buy the condoms themselves.

I do advocate personal responsibility, but the guys are not without that either. I don't see women relinquishing control just because they want the man they are going to have sex with, to care about that as well. It seems that, I guess, other than a one night stand, that both would care about it as they probably care about each other.

It takes two to have sex and both should care about each other enough to protect against pregnancy if that is the desire. Birth control pills are NOT the only option for birth control.

Oh boy, I laughed out loud at the bolded statement above. You bellowed for months that you were NOT gonna get health insurance for your family, that no Negro President was gonna interfere with your freeeeeeeeeeedom.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I give you a list of medical uses for oral contraceptives, and you respond with a joke, and avoid a valid question-

Should oral contraceptives be paid for by insurance companies, if they serve a medical need and not just a contraceptive need?

I am of the opinion that it doesn't matter one bit if they are for "medical need" OR "contraceptive need".

They are currently "prescription medicines" and as such should be covered under health insurance. Period.

Now, there's a small movement trying to make BC pills non-prescription (over the counter) owing to their 50 year history of safety. If BC pills ever become OTC, then they should NOT be covered under health insurance, the same as condoms.

Just my 2 cents from a guy with a pocket full of change.

 

[Lorilei]

If I bring a gift, surely I should be expected to be responsible for the wrapping paper too, right?





Hey, I've got no morals what so ever. I'm a Literotica writer...


But yeah - if you fuck somebody it's your responsibility to use your erotic powers and abilities responsibly and safely. Just like when you're driving your car safely or warming up before doing yoga in order to avoid accidents.

But if you do get pregnant, get an STD, pull a muscle, gets electrocuted by your new PowerGasm-2000x or set your bed on fire, your insurance will kick in and help you. Just like if you crash your car.

Notice that I said that being horny is not a disease. Hence no insurance coverage...

Of course it isn't. But a healthy sexual relationship is key to any healthy marriage.

Why do you keep harping on the word "disease"? Insurance covers many, many things that don't involve curing diseases. Pregnancy isn't a disease, either; are you opposed to insurance coverage for that? Are you familiar with the term "preventive healthcare"?

 

[Brollyanna]

Well, since nobody here is asking to be treated against being horny, that's a good thing it's not a disease.

 

[StrangeLife]

I give you a list of medical uses for oral contraceptives, and you respond with a joke, and avoid a valid question-

Should oral contraceptives be paid for by insurance companies, if they serve a medical need
and not just a contraceptive need?

The joke about men not having a uterus-
"I take it you haven't met the Governor of New Jersey.... "

gsgs comment- Unless it is the most successful masquerade in modern history,
I very much doubt that Mr. Christie has a uterus,
or, that he has the ability to maintain a single pregnancy for years and years.

I meant no insult Snow - being insufferable is part of my personality. I would crack bad jokes while going down with The Titanic (after first having strangled Celine Dion of course). I'm even worse in real life, if you can believe that.


But yes - everything that serves a medical need should be on the table for a health package. But when it comes to prophylactics, we have to be very careful because we're opening a can of worms.

Birth control for the purpose of allowing recreational sex is not a medical need any more than ammo for my hunting rifle is or batteries for my wireless keyboard. If you want to have sex and don't feel the need for a kid, take some responsibility yourself. I mean, you don't want your insurance to dictate how often you can have sex, right? Or who you can have it with? Then don't expect your insurance to pay you to have sex either.

 

[StrangeLife]

Of course it isn't. But a healthy sexual relationship is key to any healthy marriage.

Why do you keep harping on the word "disease"? Insurance covers many, many things that don't involve curing diseases. Pregnancy isn't a disease, either; are you opposed to insurance coverage for that? Are you familiar with the term "preventive healthcare"?

So now my insurance is responsible for my marriage too?

C'mon Lori - surely you can't mean that? Whether or not I live a healthy life style at home might technically have an effect on my over-all health, but making my insurance responsible for something as personal as my sex-life? It sounds absurd.

A pregnancy is no disease - true - but it is a high-risk state for the mother as well as the child. As such it falls well within the normal area of coverage.

 

[Lorilei]

So now my insurance is responsible for my marriage too?

C'mon Lori - surely you can't mean that? Whether or not I live a healthy life style at home might technically have an effect on my over-all health, but making my insurance responsible for something as personal as my sex-life? It sounds absurd.

A pregnancy is no disease - true - but it is a high-risk state for the mother as well as the child. As such it falls well within the normal area of coverage.

Oh, good. Then you agree that there is no reason for insurance to cover treatment for erectile dysfunction, either.

 

[about_average]

And no, men are not really capable of providing birth control, other than condoms, which have a 12% failure rate.

Not entirely true, I got fixed after we had our second child.

And I watched to make sure they did it.