Collegienne complains coeds are having so much sex that Catholic U should pay for BC

[Little-Acorn]

People have gotten so used to having their health care paid for by others, that they are piling every last possible thing onto the list of what must be paid for - including contraception, which is needed only in response to voluntary activites, like having premarital sex. They are even insisting that institutions with well-know, centuries-old prohibitions on such things, pay for it... as if they didn't know about the prohibitions when they applied to a private college run by those institutions.

Commentator Rush Limbaugh mentioned this on one of his shows, and people are screaming in outrage. But they aren't screaming at the girls , either for having so much sex or for insisting that Catholic schools violate their longstanding standards to pay for it anyway for them. They are screaming at Limbaugh for pointing all this out, and for (correctly) calling the girls "sluts".

The craziness goes on and on. How long will it be before students start demanding that a school training firefighters, stock and pay for extra-large fire extinguishers to make it easier to cope with the students' funloving habit of setting the dormitory curtains on fire several times a week?

---------------------------------------------

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/28/georgetown-co-ed-please-pay-for-us-to-have-sex-were-going-broke-buying-birth-control/

Georgetown co-ed: Please pay for us to have sex … We’re going broke buying birth control

by Tina Korbe
posted at 1:55 pm on February 28, 2012

At a hearing of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee yesterday, a single witness — Georgetown law student and “reproductive rights activist” Sandra Fluke — told sympathetic policy-makers that the administration’s so-called contraception mandate should stand … because her peers are going broke buying birth control.

“Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy (Georgetown student insurance not covering contraception),” Fluke reported.

It costs a female student $3,000 to have protected sex over the course of her three-year stint in law school, according to her calculations.

“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,” Fluke told the hearing.

Craig Bannister at CNSNews.com did the math — and discovered that these co-eds, assuming they’re using the cheapest possible contraception, must be having sex about three times a day every day to incur that kind of expense. What Fluke is arguing, then, is that her fellow law students have a right to consequence-free sex whenever, wherever. Why, exactly, especially if it costs other people something? When I can’t pay for something, I do without it. Fortunately, in the case of contraception, women can make lifestyle choices that render it unnecessary.

At one point, Fluke mentions a friend who felt “embarrassed and powerless” when she learned her insurance didn’t cover contraception. Can you imagine how proud and empowered that same friend would be if she learned she has the ability to resist her own sexual urges? We can only assume she doesn’t know that because Fluke and she both labor under the illusion that contraception is a medical necessity.

Some little part of Fluke must recognize that it’s not … because she sought to bolster her argument with an example of an illness in which contraception might be a medically necessary treatment. Another friend of hers, she said, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, for which contraception is a common treatment. Some insurance programs that don’t cover contraception normally would nevertheless cover it as a treatment for PCOS — but other insurance programs wouldn’t. Fluke makes it sound like contraception is the only treatment for PCOS. In fact, it isn’t — and contraception is prescribed as a treatment only when the woman also wants to contracept. Fluke says her friend is a lesbian — and so wouldn’t need contraception. Why didn’t she opt for any of the other treatments, then?

At the end of her testimony, Fluke spoke in strong language of her resentment of university administrators and others who suggest she should have chosen to attend a different university that would have offered student insurance that does cover contraception — even if that other university wasn’t quite as prestigious as Georgetown.

“We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health and we resent that, in the 21st Century, anyone thinks it’s acceptable to ask us to make that choice simply because we are women,” Fluke said.

Ms. Fluke, I resent that you think women are incapable of controlling themselves, of sacrificing temporary pleasure for the sake of long-term success. You make us sound like animals, slaves to our instincts and able to be used, but we’re better than that. We’re persons, equal to men in dignity and love.

[Little-Acorn]

BTW, I vaguely recall from a lecture my Dad gave me when I was 12, that it takes two to tango. (Not his exact words, he was an OB/GYN and had plenty of exact words).

Why is this woman not complaining to the men these coeds are having sex with, and asking THEM to help out with the costs (and maybe even with the responsibility) that goes with it?

Where I come from, you have to pay to play... no matter which team you play for.

[logroller]

I'm assuming these schools already offer some nominal healthcare coverage. So if these coeds got VD; would the school insurance cover the prescriptive antibiotics?
or do they have to pay for having played?

[jimnyc]

I'm assuming these schools already offer some nominal healthcare coverage. So if these coeds got VD; would the school insurance cover the prescriptive antibiotics?
or do they have to pay for having played?

(I'm going to regret asking, I know, cause I foresee another 15 page thread, but I'm only asking once!)

Why should ANYONE have to pay for ANYTHING related to a voluntary exercise? Yeah, it's great that we can get insurance and all, but now they have to be parents too, and perhaps saviors when we make mistakes? You use protection, or take a chance, or don't have sex. The consequences are perhaps a child, and sometimes a disease such as VD. Either way, these are consequences of a decision made by an individual. Now, if an insurance company wants to add this in there, or a company, great for those involved in the sex. But why should they be TOLD they must give this to people?

Seriously, if someone isn't granted insurance to pay for their mistakes/decisions, they're going to accidentally get stuck with a penis? So they figure out how much it costs to have sex per term, and immediately assume someone else must cover that cost?

[Abbey Marie]

Hey, why don't we pay for a hotel room and alcohol/coke/weed, too, while we're at it. Then there's music, and don't forget cleaning the dirtied sheets. Oh, and maybe soap to wash up- before and after. And you know the girl's gonna need to have some waxing done to look purdy. And we women often get hungry after sex, so there's the apres sex meal to think of too.

All culminating in our paying for the abortion when the paid-for contraceptives fail, of course. :rolleyes:

[logroller]

(I'm going to regret asking, I know, cause I foresee another 15 page thread, but I'm only asking once!)

Why should ANYONE have to pay for ANYTHING related to a voluntary exercise? Yeah, it's great that we can get insurance and all, but now they have to be parents too, and perhaps saviors when we make mistakes? You use protection, or take a chance, or don't have sex. The consequences are perhaps a child, and sometimes a disease such as VD. Either way, these are consequences of a decision made by an individual. Now, if an insurance company wants to add this in there, or a company, great for those involved in the sex. But why should they be TOLD they must give this to people?

Seriously, if someone isn't granted insurance to pay for their mistakes/decisions, they're going to accidentally get stuck with a penis? So they figure out how much it costs to have sex per term, and immediately assume someone else must cover that cost?
Bring on the traffic, no regrets:thumb:
Im not gonna answer your questions, you didn't answer mine! But for the record I don't think the university, or company--whatever-- I don't think they should have to pay for insurance for their students /employees; so I don't really know why I seem to be invite that dilemma's consideration. What I have trouble with is someone thinkin they're a moral authority-- and that their morals can be enforced through fiscal menas; violating what is a well-established right to privacy regarding one's personal healthcare decisions.

[logroller]

Hey, why don't we pay for a hotel room and alcohol/coke/weed, too, while we're at it. Then there's music, and don't forget cleaning the dirtied sheets. Oh, and maybe soap to wash up- before and after. And you know the girl's gonna need to have some waxing done to look purdy. And we women often get hungry after sex, so there's the apres sex meal to think of too.

All culminating in our paying for the abortion when the paid-for contraceptives fail, of course. :rolleyes:
Dang girl; I'd still be virgin if it took all that. Back runs usually suffice.

[jimnyc]

Bring on the traffic, no regrets:thumb:
Im not gonna answer your questions, you didn't answer mine! But for the record I don't think the university, or company--whatever-- I don't think they should have to pay for insurance for their students /employees; so I don't really know why I seem to be invite that dilemma's consideration. What I have trouble with is someone thinkin they're a moral authority-- and that their morals can be enforced through fiscal menas; violating what is a well-established right to privacy regarding one's personal healthcare decisions.

Well, twist my arm why don't you. I'll "try" and answer them. :laugh:


I'm assuming these schools already offer some nominal healthcare coverage. So if these coeds got VD; would the school insurance cover the prescriptive antibiotics?
or do they have to pay for having played?

Depends if the medication is a part of the plan or not. If it is, that person is in luck. If not, I hoped they shopped around for a different plan that protected them better, otherwise they will be paying out of pocket for the medication. Regardless, the ins. co. shouldn't be forced to provide coverage for whatever the antibiotic is.

[logroller]

Well, twist my arm why don't you. I'll "try" and answer them. :laugh:



Depends if the medication is a part of the plan or not. If it is, that person is in luck. If not, I hoped they shopped around for a different plan that protected them better, otherwise they will be paying out of pocket for the medication. Regardless, the ins. co. shouldn't be forced to provide coverage for whatever the antibiotic is.
Ok so let's say I am allergic to novacaine; but my insurance doesn't cover alternative painkillers-- tough luck, fork out the dough or go without? Seems a bit harsh, especially when the other medication is cheaper. I mean, should pharmacists be able to refuse to fill generic prescriptions, because the company which makes them violates their moral belief that patent laws shouldn't expire?

Buto answer your question; people should have to pay for things they voluntarily give another, whether or not one can attach conditions would depend on the general nature of service or product. Gift card, for example, provide a limit on the funds and restrict where one can shop; but not what they buy! Because it's a gift, and its general purpose is give some measure of pleasure, right? As the gift giver, I could instead give them a cd instead of an iTunes gift card, but I gave them the card because part of that purpose( pleasure) is fufilled by their being able to decide for themselves.

Alternatively, say i got a business expense account, they can restrict that by placing conditions on what I can buy because its general purpose is not to provide me with anything other than a limitedmeans to serve the business interests.

Now employer provided health insurance, what's its primary purpose?

[PostmodernProphet]

During the average school year students spend so much of their hard earned money on beer that they can barely afford to take a girl out and experiment with her contraceptives.......thus, colleges should provide all male students with free beer........

[jimnyc]

Ok so let's say I am allergic to novacaine; but my insurance doesn't cover alternative painkillers-- tough luck, fork out the dough or go without?

If you know you need certain medications, you would choose a plan that covers that medication. If something unforeseen should happen, and you need something not covered by insurance, then you're shit out of luck. The alternative is forcing insurance companies to cover EVERY medication. Why should they? Let them offer the plans they want and let the consumer choose in return which companies and plans they would like to purchase. But you shouldn't be able to force them to carry a certain coverage no more than you should be able to force McDonalds to sell a Whopper.


Seems a bit harsh, especially when the other medication is cheaper. I mean, should pharmacists be able to refuse to fill generic prescriptions, because the company which makes them violates their moral belief that patent laws shouldn't expire?

If it's a privately owned pharmacy, and they don't want to fill prescriptions for something against their religion, they shouldn't have to. Just as consumers don't have to shop at their store.


Buto answer your question; people should have to pay for things they voluntarily give another, whether or not one can attach conditions would depend on the general nature of service or product. Gift card, for example, provide a limit on the funds and restrict where one can shop; but not what they buy! Because it's a gift, and its general purpose is give some measure of pleasure, right? As the gift giver, I could instead give them a cd instead of an iTunes gift card, but I gave them the card because part of that purpose( pleasure) is fufilled by their being able to decide for themselves.

There are gift cards with just one place you can shop at; restaurants, Itunes, websites, games... But in your scenario, they shouldn't be able to sell only just one thing with the card, they should all have to offer all services. I'm simply saying that you have 100 cards, each with different things you can do with them, and let the purchaser decide whats best for them.


Alternatively, say i got a business expense account, they can restrict that by placing conditions on what I can buy because its general purpose is not to provide me with anything other than a limitedmeans to serve the business interests.

It's their company, of course they can do that. And when we negotiate for positions, we keep in mind the benefits packages, and we try to get the best we can. If you don't like what the employer is offering, find work elsewhere. But they shouldn't be forced to offer you anything.


Now employer provided health insurance, what's its primary purpose?

As an added incentive to attract good employees, IMO. Each insurance company runs their business as they see fit. Each company does the same. And each consumer/employee shops/works where they best benefit.

[logroller]

If


As an added incentive to attract good employees, IMO. Each insurance company runs their business as they see fit. Each company does the same. And each consumer/employee shops/works where they best benefit.
Then why not just give them the cash value? Isn't that an incentive too; even more so IMO.

[Noir]

I don't understand this 'too much sex' part of the debate.

If a woman is on the pill, then she takes one pill, everyday, regardless of how much sex she is having.


Having sex with 30 men a month costs the same as having sex with one (or none) because the number of pills taken is always the same.

[jimnyc]

Then why not just give them the cash value? Isn't that an incentive too; even more so IMO.

Yes, but then people would actually be responsible for themselves and not have someone hand feed them what they want and need.

[Abbey Marie]

I don't understand this 'too much sex' part of the debate.

If a woman is on the pill, then she takes one pill, everyday, regardless of how much sex she is having.


Having sex with 30 men a month costs the same as having sex with one (or none) because the number of pills taken is always the same.

Yeah, I noticed that comment, too. Pretty dopey.

[jimnyc]

I don't understand this 'too much sex' part of the debate.

If a woman is on the pill, then she takes one pill, everyday, regardless of how much sex she is having.


Having sex with 30 men a month costs the same as having sex with one (or none) because the number of pills taken is always the same.


Yeah, I noticed that comment, too. Pretty dopey.

Dumb wording, but what he stated was:


assuming they’re using the cheapest possible contraception, must be having sex about three times a day every day to incur that kind of expense.

I would think condoms being the cheapest, it would take 3 per day to reach the money that was quoted.

[Thunderknuckles]

You know what my monthly bill for Beer is? I can't afford it but I do it anyway. Someone should help pay for it.
If you dare call me an alcoholic I will be outraged and don't even suggest I cut back on drinking. It's my right to do it so pay up!

[Abbey Marie]

Dumb wording, but what he stated was:

I would think condoms being the cheapest, it would take 3 per day to reach the money that was quoted.

I was referring to the following quote from Rush. The implication is that the more sex you have, the more BC pills you need.

“Your daughter goes up to a congressional hearing conducted by the Botox-filled Nancy Pelosi and testifies she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the Pope.”

[jimnyc]

I was referring to the following quote from Rush. The implication is that the more sex you have, the more BC pills you need.

Well then, I guess I got that one wrong! LOL Noir is spot on then, and yourself, as the amount would be the same whether 5x a month or 5x per day. Dumb comment. I'd explain how I think he probably misspoke, but it's a dumb comment no matter how ya slice it.

Condoms are cheaper though, at least mitigate the circumstances a little! :laugh2:

[Abbey Marie]

Well then, I guess I got that one wrong! LOL Noir is spot on then, and yourself, as the amount would be the same whether 5x a month or 5x per day. Dumb comment. I'd explain how I think he probably misspoke, but it's a dumb comment no matter how ya slice it.

Condoms are cheaper though, at least mitigate the circumstances a little! :laugh2:

Can you believe with all the serious problems we currently have, this is the subject du jour? :laugh:

I do think we need to support those people who aren't afraid to call it as they see it.

[logroller]

Yes, but then people would actually be responsible for themselves and not have someone hand feed them what they want and need.
Nobody's force feeding anybody birth control here Jim. You said the employer could offer them health care insurance as an incentive to be employed; now you're saying it's because the employee is too irresponsible to make their own decisions-- which I think is a fair assessment-- but thats more supportive of the individual mandate. Because maybe the employer is too irresponsible to make the decision for their employees, thus government can mandate what should be a minimum amount of coverage. Look I don't know what's right for you, or the employees I've had in the past-- I'd encourage someone to talk with their doctor about heir religious issues with a medical treatment-- I'll tell you who i wouldn't likely consult-- my employer.

[logroller]

You know what my monthly bill for Beer is? I can't afford it but I do it anyway. Someone should help pay for it.
If you dare call me an alcoholic I will be outraged and don't even suggest I cut back on drinking. It's my right to do it so pay up!
I've got a sixer of Harp on ice...

[DragonStryk72]

Ok so let's say I am allergic to novacaine; but my insurance doesn't cover alternative painkillers-- tough luck, fork out the dough or go without? Seems a bit harsh, especially when the other medication is cheaper. I mean, should pharmacists be able to refuse to fill generic prescriptions, because the company which makes them violates their moral belief that patent laws shouldn't expire?

Buto answer your question; people should have to pay for things they voluntarily give another, whether or not one can attach conditions would depend on the general nature of service or product. Gift card, for example, provide a limit on the funds and restrict where one can shop; but not what they buy! Because it's a gift, and its general purpose is give some measure of pleasure, right? As the gift giver, I could instead give them a cd instead of an iTunes gift card, but I gave them the card because part of that purpose( pleasure) is fufilled by their being able to decide for themselves.

Alternatively, say i got a business expense account, they can restrict that by placing conditions on what I can buy because its general purpose is not to provide me with anything other than a limitedmeans to serve the business interests.

Now employer provided health insurance, what's its primary purpose?

Okay, so here we go: You would have known that Novocaine was a problem for what, a decade or more? So basically, you're an idiot for getting a plan that forces you to use Novocaine, so I don't see how that's the insurance company's problem.

If you're going to a Catholic University, it's been pretty widely advertised that it's Catholic, meaning that you will be held to Catholic moral standards, meaning no premarital sex, and no contraceptives, so I don't see how that's the University's problem. The other idiocy of this is that you can get BC for free almost anywhere, so the whole argument is sort of moot on this front. Basically, everyone seems to keep trying to carpet the world, as opposed to just putting on the slippers they already own.

[LiberalNation]

Free birth control would save a lot of unwanted pregnancy medical bills and babies. Is a good idea all around.

[darin]

Free birth control would save a lot of unwanted pregnancy medical bills and babies. Is a good idea all around.

...so would not having sex. Would save a lot of heartbreak, medical bills, AND the cost of giving BC to folks. Much cheaper option.

[LiberalNation]

Humans were designed to have sex, it is in our nature, we are sexual beings, ext. ext.

[darin]

Humans were designed to have sex, it is in our nature, we are sexual beings, ext. ext.

We also have self control. And discipline. Lowering expectations to 'primal instinct' is a very lame excuse.

Your argument was 'bc' is cheaper (for society). If 'cheaper' is your reasoning, it stands to reason you'd support the CHEAPEST 'fix' to the high costs of birthing another human; abstaining from the cause of pregnancy.

See, your argument is a sham. You don't care if it's cheaper or more expensive - you want absolute absolution of responsibility for your actions, coupled with unexpurgated acceptance and even praise of your choices.

[LiberalNation]

No I want a reasonable solution. No ones going to do abstinence in mass.

[fj1200]

Yeah, I noticed that comment, too. Pretty dopey.

Why doesn't it cost the guy anything? Oh, he's paying $10,000 to take out the girl to get the protected sex. Sounds like she's getting the better end of the deal. :poke:

[fj1200]

Free birth control would save a lot of unwanted pregnancy medical bills and babies. Is a good idea all around.

The social engineering begins, thanks. :2up:

[Gunny]

No I want a reasonable solution. No ones going to do abstinence in mass.

Did you mean en mass?

[revelarts]

Bring on the traffic, no regrets:thumb:
Im not gonna answer your questions, you didn't answer mine! But for the record I don't think the university, or company--whatever-- I don't think they should have to pay for insurance for their students /employees; so I don't really know why I seem to be invite that dilemma's consideration. What I have trouble with is someone thinkin they're a moral authority-- and that their morals can be enforced through fiscal menas; violating what is a well-established right to privacy regarding one's personal healthcare decisions.

Again you want people who disagree with a volentary practice to just forgot about what they think they should do morally and just PAY for it.
Why is it hard to get they it's offensive to them.

As a capitalist guy you should see an opportunity here. An ancillary policy, like Dental or Optical,
"Ho and Player Insurance". It could pay for all the sexually paraphernalia and any consequences including killing babies and experimental aids treatments.
Case closed problem solved.

Let them pay a for a side carrier. no ones making whoring around illegal or insurance coverage for it Illegal, the question is who going to pay for it.
people who agree with or tolerate the practice or are they going to FORCE those who don't to pay for it or sign for it and turn a blind eye.

Why are you trying to force others to accept your moral standard on this? who made you a moral authority on this issue? Telling other what they should or should not accept a proper for them to do.

[revelarts]

I wonder , I've thought about this a while back,

what if there was a pill that erased the sex drive for a 2 days to a week. or like a norplant erased it for months or years.

the 1st thing I wonder is if it would sell well.
I can think of some times when it would have helped.

Or a pill that made it impossible for a guy to get a rise. for 24hrs or more.
an anti-Viagra.

Many Women say they don't really have a sex drives. I know some guys married to women like that. One of my female distant cousins 20 yrs ago told me her mom was like that. And that heard Mom told her that "men don't have to have it". Why do women think if they don't want something men shouldn't either? and stand by it as fact is it a coping thing or what .. but i digress.

I've never heard a guy admit to completely losing the urge, except on viagra commercials.

[Thunderknuckles]

Free birth control would save a lot of unwanted pregnancy medical bills and babies. Is a good idea all around.
It's not FREE. Someone else has to pay for it.
This is what scares me about liberalism. The idea of personal responsibility is completely lost on them. Yes, human beings are sexual by nature but it is YOUR responsibility to take care of YOURSELF when you engage in this voluntary activity. It is not my responsibility to help cover your condom/pill bill. This is the most reasonable solution. Anything else further erodes the idea of personal responsibility. Just look at the situation now. Even if we do pay for your birth control and it fails, no problem. If you don't want the responsibility of a human being that you helped to create, just abort and kill it. If you can't do that, just drop the baby off at a hospital, no questions asked and you get to wash your hands of it all. These are the ideals we want to aspire to? Action without consequence.

[logroller]

Okay, so here we go: You would have known that Novocaine was a problem for what, a decade or more? So basically, you're an idiot for getting a plan that forces you to use Novocaine, so I don't see how that's the insurance company's problem.

If you're going to a Catholic University, it's been pretty widely advertised that it's Catholic, meaning that you will be held to Catholic moral standards, meaning ....

Yea, well, neither does the insurance company. They're for it; it saves them money...savings they can pass on to consumers, rather they use it or not. The "idiot" didn't choose the plan...so some other idiot did.
And I honestly didn't know Georgetown was catholic university. Notre Dame perhaps, but not Georgetown....I did know Georgetown has an awesome law school. BYU, widely advertised as being Mormon. I don't how how widely advertised is that USC is Methodist...which they are, I just happen to know that. Interestingly they were once known as the 'Fighting Methodists' until there was game where they were getting beat pretty bad, and though they still ended up losing, a reporter quipped, 'they fought on like Trojans'...and the rest, as they say, is history. A fun little test to see if someone is a diehard Trojan fan is say "Fight on", to which one should flash the victory sign or say 'fight on' back. Those who don't are just posers.

But I digress, I've said all along; if they don't want to pay for it, then don't offer health services. I simply don't believe an employer or school has the authority, moral or otherwise, to influence one's healthcare decisions. Its a private decision one should make on their own.


Again you want people who disagree with a volentary practice to just forgot about what they think they should do morally and just PAY for it.
Why is it hard to get they it's offensive to them.

As a capitalist guy you should see an opportunity here. An ancillary policy, like Dental or Optical,
"Ho and Player Insurance". It could pay for all the sexually paraphernalia and any consequences including killing babies and experimental aids treatments.
Case closed problem solved.
Yea, well, specifically--I'm a free-market capitalist. So I think the more actors there are in the market, the better the outcome should be. That's why i don't think institutions should be buying insurance for individuals-- it should be an individual decision. If those individuals want to join together to get a better prices for the services they desire, they should be free to do so-- but that's not related to where they go to school or work IMHO.


Why are you trying to force others to accept your moral standard on this? who made you a moral authority on this issue? Telling other what they should or should not accept a proper for them to do.

OK, well first off, I not sure what you mean by moral authority... but I am a moral actor, as are you--allow me to explain why.

I am of the belief that I was instilled by my creator with an innate capacity to reason right from wrong, and the capability to act upon those reasons.
Take young children for example, they are not moral actors. They may behave in manner which is in accordance with my reasons for acting, but that doesn't make them a moral actor...because they haven't reasoned right from wrong. Just because someone acts morally, doesn't make them a moral person. (Not by our acts...so that none shall boast)

There are, of course, limits to one's capacity to reason: cognitive development, as is the case with children, but also imperfect information. When you say moral authority, I assume you mean someone with more/better information, an expert, if you will..and with better information, comes a better chance of reasoning right and wrong. If that's the case, then it isn't I who am acting as a moral authority, its the employer and government. One is saying I know right from wrong, birth control is wrong, so I won't play any part in allowing it! The government says not providing birth control with insurance is wrong, so you can't offer insurance without it. Who's affected by this? Primarily, its the patient and the insurer-- why not leave it up to them?

I may not always know what's right from wrong because I don't have all the pertinent information, and if it were me who wanted BC, I would do my best to gather information (problems, solutions, outcomes etc) and analyze that information to determine what is best for me and act upon that-- That's what a moral agent does. I appreciate other's concern and interest in the matter-- but in the end, the decision is mine
But let me clarify something, if you can tell right from wrong and can act upon that, you have both a moral right and moral duty to do so; as does every other moral actor. Just because you have a right doesn't mean you are morally right. That's why rules and laws aren't contingent on protecting morality, they're contingent on protecting the process by which a moral person should engage before acting.

Take our laws on free speech; you and I are both able to speak based upon whatever reasoning we so desire-- but just because the act of speaking is well-reasoning, doesn't make it moral. Same applies for privacy issues regarding healthcare decisions; if I determine that paying for the healthcare insurance performs some moral good, then giving them healthcare insurance is the right thing for me to do-- Not because I think their going to the doctor serves their moral intentions. I have conveyed a moral idea, whether or not they behave morally is up to them and I should trust that person to act morally also, and allow that that person to act freely.


Let them pay a for a side carrier. no ones making whoring around illegal or insurance coverage for it Illegal, the question is who going to pay for it.
people who agree with or tolerate the practice or are they going to FORCE those who don't to pay for it or sign for it and turn a blind eye.
We all pay for it, in one way or another. Its merely a matter of degree to which our paying for it fulfills our interests. What is the primary interest in healthcare insurance? Answer: mitigating the personal expense for medical care.
I just don't understand how someone can reason, I wouldn't want you unhealthy for lack of money...but since you don't have money, I get to say what's healthy. It goes both ways, I don't think govt should be involved, but then I don't think employers should be either.




Or a pill that made it impossible for a guy to get a rise. for 24hrs or more.
an anti-Viagra....

I've never heard a guy admit to completely losing the urge, except on viagra commercials.
That's a good point, I'm glad you brought it up. Its not about having sex, because I bet the Catholic Healthcare plans cover Viagra...

[jimnyc]

The "idiot" didn't choose the plan...so some other idiot did.

I'm against this healthcare stuff based from a business point of view. When I go to interview with an employer, they generally tell you if they off a healthcare plan, how much they pay and give out some information. THIS is the time to do your due diligence. Insurance companies should offer whatever they want. Companies and individuals are free to buy insurance from whoever they want. If you can't get what you want from (A), then go to (B). If an insurer wants to keep up with the competition, they will offer similar products, and if they don't, that's their issue. A company should be free to purchase whatever plan they desire, and plans with anything covered in their that they desire. No employee is forced to take the insurance and are free to go elsewhere.

I need my yearly teeth cleaning and check-up, but my new insurance doesn't cover this (this is true). I wish I could just jump up and down and force them to offer this. Instead, I need to either pay extra money for a different plan, go entirely elsewhere, or pay out of pocket which is what I'll be doing.

After contraceptives, what's next on the menu that most plans don't cover? I'm sure we can ALL come up with at least ONE thing that we feel they should all cover. Should there be mandates for every one of these things?

And like I said earlier, and funny analogy aside, it's like demanding all burger joints carry a certain product. But in reality they profit as a business by being and offering different. It's all about business, who's buying and what's being sold. If your favorite store doesn't carry a product, go down the road. But it's not just about convenience, it's also about lack of responsibility, and wanting something for free that most people have always paid for. The direction we are going as a country with all of this "welfare, pay my way, give me handouts, the government owes me" mentality is just ANOTHER reason we are going down the shitter.

[revelarts]

OK, well first off, I not sure what you mean by moral authority... but I am a moral actor, as are you--allow me to explain why.......

Same applies for privacy issues regarding healthcare decisions; if I determine that paying for the healthcare insurance performs some moral good, then giving them healthcare insurance is the right thing for me to do-- Not because I think their going to the doctor serves their moral intentions. I have conveyed a moral idea, whether or not they behave morally is up to them and I should trust that person to act morally also, and allow that that person to act freely.
and before
...What I have trouble with is someone thinkin they're a moral authority-- and that their morals can be enforced through fiscal means;...
Their morals don't matter when other are forcing them to support or enable the immoral acts. That's OK though? Where's the freedom your talking about? That's what i I meant by Your Moral authority trumping others.
as you mentioned Separate indiviual policies or as I mentioned a side policy fixes the Morals v (im)Morals it seems.





We all pay for it, in one way or another. Its merely a matter of degree to which our paying for it fulfills our interests. What is the primary interest in healthcare insurance? Answer: mitigating the personal expense for medical care.
I just don't understand how someone can reason, I wouldn't want you unhealthy for lack of money...but since you don't have money, I get to say what's healthy. It goes both ways, I don't think govt should be involved, but then I don't think employers should be either.

"I just don't understand how someone can reason, I wouldn't want you unhealthy for lack of money...but since you don't have money, I get to say what's healthy..."

Um well
It's My Money..., It's pretty simple.
And i'm not determining what's healthy but what i'm going to pay for. If i don't want to cover smokers i can do that too. If you ask me to pay for something I have the right, maybe obligation, to see that it's used in a way i think is proper. If your not happy with that fine, you need to look for other options to pay for what you consider just plain old "health". all the best.




That's a good point, I'm glad you brought it up. Its not about having sex, because I bet the Catholic Healthcare plans cover Viagra...
If they are paying for Married folks to have it that'd be consistent.

[MtnBiker]

...so would not having sex. Would save a lot of heartbreak, medical bills, AND the cost of giving BC to folks. Much cheaper option.


Completely free! and works every time it is used. Simple

[MtnBiker]

Humans were designed to have sex, it is in our nature, we are sexual beings, ext. ext.

Yup, and the sexual act was designed to create a baby! Why is this so hard to understand. A person wants to have sex? Fine, but just realize there are consequences envolved and responsibilites should be exercised when having sex.

Asking someone else to pay for your responsibilities is silly.

[logroller]

Hi
Yup, and the sexual act was designed to create a baby! Why is this so hard to understand. A person wants to have sex? Fine, but just realize there are consequences envolved and responsibilites should be exercised when having sex.

Asking someone else to pay for your responsibilities is silly.
Yup and insurance is designed to mitigate the cost of healthcare; providing someone with health insurance that they dont pay for is what what started this whole dilemma. A person wants to mitigate the cost of another's healthcare? Fine, but just realize there are consequences involved that you may find objectionable. Paying someone else's responsibility is silly...period.

Should an employe b able o work someone death if it's agreed upon? Where do we draw the line between personal responsibility for anothers welfare-- and who decides this? He who pays for it som say-- well, Georgetown doesn't pay taxes, so they shouldn't have any say in the laws in his country-- it they don't lik it they can move to another country.

[gabosaurus]

One question for those of you who might know: Does the military provide condoms for active duty personnel? Or do they have to buy their own? Most likely not freely available in current battle zones.

[Thunderknuckles]

One question for those of you who might know: Does the military provide condoms for active duty personnel? Or do they have to buy their own? Most likely not freely available in current battle zones.
WTF does that have to do with price of tea in China??

[SassyLady]

It's not FREE. Someone else has to pay for it.
This is what scares me about liberalism. The idea of personal responsibility is completely lost on them. Yes, human beings are sexual by nature but it is YOUR responsibility to take care of YOURSELF when you engage in this voluntary activity. It is not my responsibility to help cover your condom/pill bill. This is the most reasonable solution. Anything else further erodes the idea of personal responsibility. Just look at the situation now. Even if we do pay for your birth control and it fails, no problem. If you don't want the responsibility of a human being that you helped to create, just abort and kill it. If you can't do that, just drop the baby off at a hospital, no questions asked and you get to wash your hands of it all. These are the ideals we want to aspire to? Action without consequence.

:clap::clap::clap:

GREAT POST!!!!!

[DragonStryk72]

Yea, well, neither does the insurance company. They're for it; it saves them money...savings they can pass on to consumers, rather they use it or not. The "idiot" didn't choose the plan...so some other idiot did.

Get AFLAC, it'll cover other anesthetics, but again, that's on you, not the insurance company.

And I honestly didn't know Georgetown was catholic university. Notre Dame perhaps, but not Georgetown....I did know Georgetown has an awesome law school. BYU, widely advertised as being Mormon. I don't how how widely advertised is that USC is Methodist...which they are, I just happen to know that. Interestingly they were once known as the 'Fighting Methodists' until there was game where they were getting beat pretty bad, and though they still ended up losing, a reporter quipped, 'they fought on like Trojans'...and the rest, as they say, is history. A fun little test to see if someone is a diehard Trojan fan is say "Fight on", to which one should flash the victory sign or say 'fight on' back. Those who don't are just posers.

Right, but you didn't actually go to georgetown. Most catholic Universities have a Code of Conduct you have to read and sign as part of admittance.

But I digress, I've said all along; if they don't want to pay for it, then don't offer health services. I simply don't believe an employer or school has the authority, moral or otherwise, to influence one's healthcare decisions. Its a private decision one should make on their own.

Except that Universities have no choice in the matter. they HAVE to offer health services, it's the law. They cannot be accredited otherwise, so it seems the least you can do is let them have some control over which health services they do offer within reason.

Yea, well, specifically--I'm a free-market capitalist. So I think the more actors there are in the market, the better the outcome should be. That's why i don't think institutions should be buying insurance for individuals-- it should be an individual decision. If those individuals want to join together to get a better prices for the services they desire, they should be free to do so-- but that's not related to where they go to school or work IMHO.

Yeah, that would be great, but that's not the situation we have. Businesses don't even have much choice in it anymore, past a certain number of employees, they literally have to offer health insurance.

That's a good point, I'm glad you brought it up. Its not about having sex, because I bet the Catholic Healthcare plans cover Viagra...

Depends on the situation there. Trying to get your wife pregnant, and you're unable to rise to the occasion? Yes. You have a shot at a threesome and wanna make sure you're up to the task? No.

[DragonStryk72]

One question for those of you who might know: Does the military provide condoms for active duty personnel? Or do they have to buy their own? Most likely not freely available in current battle zones.

Probably not in battle zones, but then you sort of have other things to worry about there. Otherwise? Yes. They are not, however, a private religious organization.

[LiberalNation]

No it's not free but it is far cheaper than the alternative.

Pregnancy, wic, food stamps, free day care, education.

[jimnyc]

No it's not free but it is far cheaper than the alternative.

Pregnancy, wic, food stamps, free day care, education.

NONE of those things come into play if you exercise your right of personal responsibility.

[gabosaurus]

Probably not in battle zones, but then you sort of have other things to worry about there. Otherwise? Yes. They are not, however, a private religious organization.

It's the government paying for things of a sexual nature.
But otherwise, most colleges offer condoms and birth control. It's part of health care. Those of you who are too old to remember what it was like to have sex regularly probably don't understand. Or perhaps you settle for foot massages nowadays.