U.S. Presidential race - Republican Discussion

[Deleted]

Birth control is not a low-cost procedure.

Just so I make sure I speak of the same thing, what do you mean when you speak of "Birth Control"?

Because condoms and birth control pills are low-cost. Abortion is not.

[Wells]

Just so I make sure I speak of the same thing, what do you mean when you speak of "Birth Control"?

Been following american politics? The big issues right now is the availability and coverage of prescription birth control, mostly the pill, but a few other options as well like rings and patches. The kind of stuff you need a doctor to prescribe.

Birth control is a bit of a misnomer since they're widely used for non birth control purposes of course, with something like half of all women using them using them at least in part for non reproductive reasons.

I mean sure its not the same cost as a round of chemo, but it can run well outside the range of many people, especially those least likely to already have health care.

Right now there is a super spotty system of charities, my own girlfriend got what she needed through Planned Parenthood for a number of years, but their resources are stretched where they're even available.

There's a large push by the GOP over the last several years to limit access to reproductive and ummmm "feminine" care for women, with the latest offense being the "blunt amendment" which allows employers to refuse to cover any medical procedure they deem morally unacceptable (read birth control). The GOP wants to allow any employer who offers health care to force their moral decisions on the private lives of their employees and its disgusting. What happens between my doctor and I isn't my boss's business.

Essentially for some fucking reason the GOP is deciding this is the issue they want to fight right now and as pissed as the things they say make me, politically I'm thrilled because most of America wants nothing to do with their horse shit. Even our politically blind populace can see the sexism and slut shaming they're so poorly hiding.

---------- Post added 2012-03-04 at 10:49 AM ----------

Because condoms and birth control pills are low-cost. Abortion is not.

Pills are not low cost for many many many Americans, not to mention the cost of the exam. Average range is 15 to 50 a month and it can get much much higher. Reproductive control should not be out of reach of the poor.

---------- Post added 2012-03-04 at 10:55 AM ----------

I'm going to bed, but the say that the Pill is low-cost is a pretty huge mountain of privilege.

[Deleted]

Pills are not low cost for many many many Americans, not to mention the cost of the exam. Average range is 15 to 50 a month and it can get much much higher. Reproductive control should not be out of reach of the poor.

Just to give you some perspective, in socialist Finland you pay the cost of the pill out of your pocket. The government can only assist you with an appointment with a doctor. If you want to advocate that the government pays for the pill for poor people, that's one thing.

But to mix up private health insurance and government, and force them to provide everything, well that right there is one reason for the obscene healthcare costs in the US. You're advocating corporatism.

The insurance company must be able to tailor their product to cover what they want, and then customers through their demand will steer the companies to provide sought after products. A plan that covers everything is both inefficient and a cause for higher prices down the road. And it should most certainly be up to the companies to decide the content of the plans they offer. It has nothing to do with the patient-doctor relationship in this case.

[Wells]

But to mix up private health insurance and government, and force them to provide everything, well that right there is one reason for the obscene healthcare costs in the US. You're advocating corporatism.

No one is saying they have to cover everything, though I did misspeak up thread. We're saying they need to cover birth control, as HCR set basic levels of coverage that have to be met by policies and employers should have no right to block treatment payments or refuse to provide coverage for legitimate medical procedures based on moral beliefs.

Fact is the GOP in this county wants to let your employer refuse to offer birth control with their coverage because if they want to impose their moral values on the private lives of people working for them.

Birth control is a super basic medical treatment and should be a standard part of basic care by any stretch of the imagination. Unplanned pregnancy is too great a dampener on the economy.

There's a huge difference between saying a carrier needs to cover birth control and saying they need to cover experimental procedures or even vision.

---------- Post added 2012-03-04 at 11:10 AM ----------

Actually going to bed now.

[Deleted]

Fact is the GOP in this county wants to let your employer refuse to offer birth control with their coverage because if they want to impose their moral values on the private lives of people working for them.

And they should be allowed to do so, however ridiculous it may seem. The employer is a private entity and it sure as hell is allowed to instill moral or even religious values at the workplace.

Birth control is a super basic medical treatment and should be a standard part of basic care by any stretch of the imagination. Unplanned pregnancy is too great a dampener on the economy.

Then a separate birth control insurance incase you happen to become pregnant makes more sense. However, you have to remember that if there is no risk (Probability is 0% or approaching 100%) involved, then insurance shouldn't be involved either. The purpose of insurance is to reduce the risk of sudden financial stress.

If your aim is to take birth control pills at regular intervalls for years, then insurance is not designed for this. There is no risk as the probability is 100%. All you're doing is paying the insurance company to shuffle papers while you could just take the money to the store and buy it outright without the insurance company.

[Catta]

and there lies the problem!! that's not legal! employers are required to provide a basic level of health insurance in pretty much every state.. and since health insurance is so heavily regulated.. it's nearly impossible to get a health insurance plan as an individual..

as it stands.. with the exception of certain religious institutions.. almost all health insurance plans cover birth control..

the only thing that will change if madam-i-have-sex-three-times-per-day-every-day gets her way is that those few religious institutions will be forced to pay for and provide something they do not agree with..

it would be like forcing a Muslim deli to sell ham.. it won't hurt anyone.. it's just wrong!

So its also fine when the Jehova's witnesses start denying their employees blood transfusions and stuff like that...?

[Deleted]

So its also fine when the Jehova's witnesses start denying their employees blood transfusions and stuff like that...?

They can't "deny" that. Their insurance only doesn't cover it. The employee would have to pay for it out of their own pocket, or would have to extend the insurance on their own dime.

Alternatively the employee would not take insurance from the employer but instead recieve a higher wage, or outright not work for that employer.

[saffi]

And they should be allowed to do so, however ridiculous it may seem. The employer is a private entity and it sure as hell is allowed to instill moral or even religious values at the workplace.

If this was the case, then employers would also be allowed to actively discriminate against any social groups they don't like. I don't see this happening anytime soon, do you?

[Deleted]

If this was the case, then employers would also be allowed to actively discriminate against any social groups they don't like. I don't see this happening anytime soon, do you?

The employer is not saying that if you use contraceptives we will fire you. It's simply saying that "we won't provide that for you, you'll have to buy that with your own wage".

Many companies for example celebrate christmas and may even have christianity related objects on display during that time, yet that's hardly "active discrimination" towards non-christians. Companies also have moral values they operate by.

This has nothing to do with discrimination.

[saffi]

The employer is not saying that if you use contraceptives we will fire you. It's simply saying that "we won't provide that for you, you'll have to buy that with your own wage".

Many companies for example celebrate christmas and may even have christianity related objects on display during that time, yet that's hardly "active discrimination" towards non-christians. Companies also have moral values they operate by.

This has nothing to do with discrimination.

Eh? You said that companies may be able to instill moral or even religious values at the workplace. So that could be translated to that a church may be able to turn down an applicant, purely due to the fact that he/she is gay for instance. That is illegal as per today.

[Deleted]

Eh? You said that companies may be able to instill moral or even religious values at the workplace. So that could be translated to that a church may be able to turn down an applicant, purely due to the fact that he/she is gay for instance. That is illegal as per today.

Well aren't religious institutions allowed to discriminate for certain positions though (i.e. Imam at a mosque)? It makes sense that they're allowed to atleast to some extent. For example it makes sense that a church requires their employees to be christian. Either way, your example is discrimination.

Instilling moral or religious values at the workplace does certainly not have to be discriminatory.

[saffi]

Well aren't religious institutions allowed to discriminate for certain positions though (i.e. Imam at a mosque)? It makes sense that they're allowed to atleast to some extent. For example it makes sense that a church requires their employees to be christian. Either way, your example is discrimination.

Instilling moral or religious values at the workplace does certainly not have to be discriminatory.

Yes, my example is discrimination. But this is exactly what I mean, letting religious institutions to do w/e they want and somehow be above the law is not okay. If someone wants to be an employer, they need to do it in the same way every other employer does it.

But if your arguement is that every and any employer should be able to do w/e they want, then that's a different discussion.

[Deleted]

Well aren't religious institutions allowed to discriminate for certain positions though (i.e. Imam at a mosque)? It makes sense that they're allowed to atleast to some extent. For example it makes sense that a church requires their employees to be christian. Either way, your example is discrimination.

The majority of businesses aren't Churches or Mosques or the like; so why exactly should a business that is not directly affiliated with a Religion or doesn't employ entirely Religious staff be able to turn around to one of their non-religious staff and say "We're not going to provide that because we don't like it". That's both insanely stupid and completely wrong. It's like being mad at someone for eating a doughnut because you're on a diet.

[Deleted]

Yes, my example is discrimination. But this is exactly what I mean, letting religious institutions to do w/e they want and somehow be above the law is not okay. If someone wants to be an employer, they need to do it in the same way every other employer does it.

But if your arguement is that every and any employer should be able to do w/e they want, then that's a different discussion.

So churches should not be allowed to turn down atheists or muslims on the basis of their religion (or non-religion)?
You know they're not going to hire them anyway, so why force them to lie?

But again, this discussion has nothing to do with what I was saying earlier: That business can instill moral and religious values at the workplace. What the boundaries for this is, can certainly be discussed.

why exactly should a business that is not directly affiliated with a Religion or doesn't employ entirely Religious staff be able to turn around to one of their non-religious staff and say "We're not going to provide that because we don't like it"

While I agree with you that making this action on religious grounds is ridiculous as I'm not religious myself. Altough I can certainly see how horrible it must be for a religious person to be forced by the government to go against their religious beliefs in some cases.

However, let me turn around this question to you:

If the owner of a business can choose what wage and other compensation (e.g. car, house) he offers the employee, why shouldn't the owner be allowed to choose what form of health insurance is offered? Regardless if his motivation is religious, moral or financial.

[Catta]

So churches should not be allowed to turn down atheists or muslims on the basis of their religion (or non-religion)?
You know they're not going to hire them anyway, so why force them to lie?

But again, this discussion has nothing to do with what I was saying earlier: That business can instill moral and religious values at the workplace. What the boundaries for this is, can certainly be discussed.

While I agree with you that making this action on religious grounds is ridiculous as I'm not religious myself. Altough I can certainly see how horrible it must be for a religious person to be forced by the government to go against their religious beliefs in some cases.

However, let me turn around this question to you:

If the owner of a business can choose what wage and other compensation (e.g. car, house) he offers the employee, why shouldn't the owner be allowed to choose what form of health insurance is offered? Regardless if his motivation is religious, moral or financial.

Only when they are specifically needed to have said faith when possesing the job they can be allowed to only allow persons of their own faith - but when it comes to things like janitor's then no they shouldnt be allowed to discriminate...
Just like a model agency can say: No you cannot be a model because you are a man and we only use female models - while they are not allowed to say: You cannot be a janitor because we only use female janitors...

I believe some law passed around this issue when it came to model agencies and Hooters and companies like that but ofc the religions prolly have some "special" status

[Deleted]

Only when they are specifically needed to have said faith when possesing the job they can be allowed to only allow persons of their own faith - but when it comes to things like janitor's then no they shouldnt be allowed to discriminate...
Just like a model agency can say: No you cannot be a model because you are a man and we only use female models - while they are not allowed to say: You cannot be a janitor because we only use female janitors...

I believe some law passed around this issue when it came to model agencies and Hooters and companies like that but ofc the religions prolly have some "special" status

Sure, but again this has nothing to do with the issue at hands, which is allowing businesses to decide what compensation they give. It also doesn't mean that employers shouldn't be allowed to instill moral and religious values in their business.

[saffi]

So churches should not be allowed to turn down atheists or muslims on the basis of their religion (or non-religion)?
You know they're not going to hire them anyway, so why force them to lie?

Well, government can't force them to hire someone, but here's the thing. There is a big difference between letting a church turn down job seekers (let's say a janitor) based on the fact that they have a faith that the chruch doesn't agree with (let's say atheist for the sake of argument), and making them consider that janitor based on his qualifications.

But look, if they want the position of a priest to be filled, it's obvious that people that aren't christian, are not qualified for the job. No discrimination there, see?

And about the health insurance thing; every other organization has to follow these exact same rules. The church, mosque, synagogue (or w/e organization) is not above the law, and is required to follow it. No private business in the US can break the law and expect 0 consequence, why should it be different for religious entities? Is it okay for people to break the law just because they have a book that tells them to?

[Spectral]

Instilling moral or religious values at the workplace does certainly not have to be discriminatory.

I'd love to hear how this rationalization works.

[Deleted]

I'd love to hear how this rationalization works.

For example, alot of companies do not want to show any religious symbols during the christmas and use expressions like "seasons greetings" and "happy holidays" instead of "merry christmas". Telling their christian employees not to use the expression "merry christmas" is not discrimination.

Or the opposite, where a company decides to use christian christmas symbols and greet people with "merry christmas". If a non-christian is offended by working in that environment, then too bad.

Instilling moral or religious values happens at pretty much every workplace. All the jobs have their own culture with different moral values and possibly religious values.

[Spectral]

For example, alot of companies do not want to show any religious symbols during the christmas and use expressions like "seasons greetings" and "happy holidays" instead of "merry christmas". Telling their christian employees not to use the expression "merry christmas" is not discrimination.

Or the opposite, where a company decides to use christian christmas symbols and greet people with "merry christmas". If a non-christian is offended by working in that environment, then too bad.

Instilling moral or religious values happens at pretty much every workplace. All the jobs have their own culture with different moral values and possibly religious values.

You just claimed that this behavior isn't discriminatory, then demonstrated that it is discriminatory. That's some amazing cognitive dissonance.