Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Mandates and Other Such Stuff... Senator Boxer Compares Abortion Pill to Viagra on MSNBC

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth


I question just why the hell the federal government should be mandating that taxpayers, or company sponsored insurance should pay for women's birth control? Is it really the governments business?



Further, Boxer makes a valid point... why should Viagra be mandated coverage for company sponsored insurance or taxpayer funded coverage for those on assistance?

As an aside... from a logical, rational viewpoint why is religion even being discussed? If you're of the mind many religionists have, that birth control is somehow immoral, just don't use the damn stuff.

Via: Memeorandum

12 comments:

  1. I want to know why we have "company sponsored" health insurance in the first place.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  2. I guess the Supreme Court will decide....the constitutionality of birth control pills, whether insurance
    should be mandated and whether a corporation (already an individual just like us-thanks SCOTUS)
    can have a religious preference. The number 90% sticks in my mind of women who have used birth
    control at some point in their lives (including Catholic women). Perhaps the Quiverfull niche will win big?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know perfectly well, I think, that the issue is not the constitutionality of birth control.

      Neither birth control or Viagra is a matter of constitutionality. Whether it is constitutional to require (mandate) taxpayers, insurers, employers,etc to pay for this is another issue.

      Personally, I am rather ambivalent. I paid for my ex wife's birth control out of pocket and I paid for my vasectomy after the third child out of pocket.

      Everything has, or is becoming a right.

      Delete
    2. I can identify with that, RN, right down to the third child. My private employer sponsored
      insurance covered that back in the day, apparently before there was any controversy.

      Delete
  3. Guess I'm getting cynical in old age, but the court arguments in this affair seem less constitutional
    and more personal POVs .

    ReplyDelete
  4. I question just why the hell the federal government should be mandating that taxpayers, or company sponsored insurance should pay for women's birth control? Is it really the governments business?

    Because contraception is part of a woman's healthcare. One might successfully argue that a woman could abstain from sex entirely and thus save her insurer money. I think that is the Limbaugh point-of-view more or less without the admonition about being a slut or whore. That's just misogynistic. (I know, the last refuge of the male feminist.) As far as the Viagra, just be glad it's not you! I suppose there is a lot of support for the disengagement theory of healthcare to this day. I was at the pharmacy once and I saw this dewd looked to be in his early sixties shell out $300 in cash for a bottle of twenty Levitra tablets. He looked like he was damn glad to get the stuff.

    This is about government regulation of healthcare. Its purpose is to protect people, in this case women. Not everybody believes that this should be the case. That's why the PPACA was a major victory for human rights in this country.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Before birth control people had to abstain from sex or use the rhythm method to prevent pregnancy, neither of which is very effective or efficient.

    I'm sure the drug companies are making bundles off birth control. Therein lies the real problem.

    That aside it actually makes sense, I think, because it is by far better to prevent pregnancy in the first place than to abort a pregnancy later.

    Mandates simply as a general rule rub me the wrong way. How far can it lead and when does it end? Lust food for thought.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm as guilty of typos as anyone, but "Lust food for thought" sounds like a birth control ad!

      Delete
    2. Yeah, I guess it does!

      Like my 5th grade English teacher always said... "haste makes waste." Guess I didn't learn that lesson too well huh BB Idaho.

      Delete
  6. "Whether it is constitutional to require (mandate) taxpayers, insurers, employers,etc to pay for this is another issue."

    This is madness. Taxpayers are mandated all the time to pay for stuff they don't agree with or don't use: Wars and public schools, for example. Why is birth control different? IMO, it's because this has to do with sex and women. Very Talibanish.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Single-Payer would address this "dilemma".

    ReplyDelete
  8. Single payer may address this "dilemma" Grung_e_Gene, but I fear it could create a whole new set of problems. But hey, as bad a ObamaCare is I'm beginning to think either go back to the drawing table and start over or just make the leap headlong into the icy waters of total socialism.

    At my age I can say I've lived most of my entire adult life in better times. Time for the young-ens to take over. Maybe they won't screw things up as bad as we have. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.