Words of wisdom from the GOP

chibiyui

I would say how certain states run sex ed in public schools, and their subsquent teen pregnancy rates, show letting everything to the states to be a not great idea.

huskypuppy14

JCbride2015 said:

AprilH81 said:

NYCBruin said:

thisismynickname said:

But... regarding the whole "paying for things we don't need", the people who are against birth control for religious purposes probably aren't against cancer treatment and whatnot that they don't need now and maybe won't ever need.  So, that's separate from paying for a lot of stuff to pool risk; people are forced to purchase things they are morally against purchasing.  

I'm not at all trying to argue, just presenting a perspective.  

If someone's against birth control for religious reasons, that's a completely separate issue.  And they should also be against a whole bunch of other medical procedures that no one ever gets in a fuss over.  If you're sooooooo against something, then advocate to ban it.  If your complaint is that you have to "pay" for something you don't support, tough luck, welcome to democracy or business.  We all have to pay for shit we don't support.  That's part of living in a diverse society, not everyone supports or believes the same things.  I don't get to not pay taxes because I think our prison spending is out of control.  If everyone got to "opt out" of something every time they didn't agree with it, we would cease to exist as a nation.

This is where I think limited government comes in.  Personally, I think that outside of national defense and public safety (and a few other smaller areas) the government should not be telling us how to live our lives or how to spend our money.

Conservatives often get accused of being "cold" and "mean" because we (most of us) believe in personal responsibility.  If I can't afford to take care of children properly I either pay for birth control or don't have sex so I avoid having kids.  Why should my tax dollars go to (general) you to pay for your personal decision to have sex and/or to not pay for birth control?

I'm not anti-welfare, anti-food stamps or anti-government assistance, but these programs have become so bloated and full of special interests that they don't work as they were intended to do.

And just because someone doesn't believe in something or doesn't agree with something doesn't mean that NO ONE should be able to do it.

I agree with you here.  If you are anti-abortion, anti-BC, whatever, just don't do that thing.  It's not your place to stop everyone else from doing it.

Obviously a line has to be drawn.... we as a society are anti-murder and anti-robbery, for example.  But just because Hobby Lobby's owner's are anti-BC (certain kinds) doesn't mean they should be able to tell all their employees they can't have insurance that covers BC.

Exactly. Especially because there are some religions that don't agree with other medically accepted practices that no one would ever dream of cutting out of insurance. 

Are companies run by Jehovah witnesses going to tell their employees they can't have insurance that covers blood transfusions? What if a business owner doesn't believe in vaccinations; sorry employees our insurance won't cover vaccinations for your kids.  Of course not. So why should BC be any different?

penguin44

thisismynickname said:

NYCBruin said:

thisismynickname said:

But... regarding the whole "paying for things we don't need", the people who are against birth control for religious purposes probably aren't against cancer treatment and whatnot that they don't need now and maybe won't ever need.  So, that's separate from paying for a lot of stuff to pool risk; people are forced to purchase things they are morally against purchasing.  

I'm not at all trying to argue, just presenting a perspective.  

If someone's against birth control for religious reasons, that's a completely separate issue.  And they should also be against a whole bunch of other medical procedures that no one ever gets in a fuss over.  If you're sooooooo against something, then advocate to ban it.  If your complaint is that you have to "pay" for something you don't support, tough luck, welcome to democracy or business.  We all have to pay for shit we don't support.  That's part of living in a diverse society, not everyone supports or believes the same things.  I don't get to not pay taxes because I think our prison spending is out of control.  If everyone got to "opt out" of something every time they didn't agree with it, we would cease to exist as a nation.

Totally agree, which is why I, personally, am for small government, to minimize this as much as possible.  No one should have to roll over because someone else decided something was in their best interest. That's why people ARE fighting both sides.  That expression, "If you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything" applies here, in my opinion.  

Besides, employer-sponsored insurance was started decades ago as an easy way to pool risk. It was a benefit and became a way for companies to compete for and retain talent.  The fact that we've gotten to a point where the government can actually mandate employers do something like this is really interesting.  They could have just mandated health insurance like they do car insurance and let everyone do things individually, with the insurance companies managing the risk pools themselves and the employers completely out of it.  People could chose the variety of products and protections themselves, and there wouldn't be a kerfluffle over provisions that go against religious beliefs.  

Oh well, it is what it is now. 

Again, not arguing! Just offering perspective.    

That is pretty much what they wanted to do, but the Tea Party rallied against. This is why we have the system we have. The system you just suggested is what conservatives call "socialist." They didn't want Universal Healthcare where everyone could pick a plan they want. 

AprilH81

NYCBruin said:

AprilH81 said:

NYCBruin said:

AprilH81 said:

NYCBruin said:

thisismynickname said:

But... regarding the whole "paying for things we don't need", the people who are against birth control for religious purposes probably aren't against cancer treatment and whatnot that they don't need now and maybe won't ever need.  So, that's separate from paying for a lot of stuff to pool risk; people are forced to purchase things they are morally against purchasing.  

I'm not at all trying to argue, just presenting a perspective.  

If someone's against birth control for religious reasons, that's a completely separate issue.  And they should also be against a whole bunch of other medical procedures that no one ever gets in a fuss over.  If you're sooooooo against something, then advocate to ban it.  If your complaint is that you have to "pay" for something you don't support, tough luck, welcome to democracy or business.  We all have to pay for shit we don't support.  That's part of living in a diverse society, not everyone supports or believes the same things.  I don't get to not pay taxes because I think our prison spending is out of control.  If everyone got to "opt out" of something every time they didn't agree with it, we would cease to exist as a nation.

This is where I think limited government comes in.  Personally, I think that outside of national defense and public safety (and a few other smaller areas) the government should not be telling us how to live our lives or how to spend our money.

Conservatives often get accused of being "cold" and "mean" because we (most of us) believe in personal responsibility.  If I can't afford to take care of children properly I either pay for birth control or don't have sex so I avoid having kids.  Why should my tax dollars go to (general) you to pay for your personal decision to have sex and/or to not pay for birth control?

I'm not anti-welfare, anti-food stamps or anti-government assistance, but these programs have become so bloated and full of special interests that they don't work as they were intended to do.

And just because someone doesn't believe in something or doesn't agree with something doesn't mean that NO ONE should be able to do it.

That's cool and I'm all for your viewpoint in particular, but here are my thoughts.

1.  I WANT my tax dollars to go towards people's birth control because statistically people are having sex whether they can afford birth control or not.  If we are going to have tax supported healthcare (and we've already crossed that bridge), I'd prefer that program to be run as efficiently as possible (re: lots of preventative care, birth control to avoid expensive unwanted pregnancies, etc.).

2.  On the personal responsibility thing, should we also not fund wheelchairs because if you can't walk but you want to have mobility outside the house, you should either pay for your wheelchair yourself or stay in your house all day.  I mean, leaving the house is a choice, right?

3.  I just hate that birth control is ALWAYS the thing that gets picked on.  Of all the dumb shit that insurance companies/government paid for health care covers, why on earth is a relatively inexpensive prescription (which is an overall cost saver) the one thing that gets picked on?  You can call it a liberal conspiracy all you want, but choosing something like birth control to pick on really does seem anti-woman.

I get upset about the birth control issue because when the government madates that ALL policies cover birth control at 100% that means, that my husband's policy (him alone, not family coverage) must build in the cost of a product he will never use. On the flip side, why should a policy that a woman buys be forced to cover Testicular Cancer (or insert other sex specific issue here)? 

People who buy insurance should be able to decide for themselves the amount of coverage they want and are comfortable paying for.  If someone has the cash flow to deal with all but catastrophic medical issues (cancer/loss of limb/etc.) why should they be forced to purchase a comprehensive insurance policy they don't want?  

I (again, just me personally) don't like that our government has decided how we should all live and how much risk we can tolerate.  If I want to eat myself into my grave while I smoke cigarettes and and drink myself silly that is MY PROBLEM.  The government is using tax laws to try to provide incentives/consequences for behaviors that are none of their business (cigarettes, tanning beds, alcohol taxes, green energy credits, etc.).

I wish our government would step back, keep us safe from terrorists/crazy dictators, keep our national infrastructure safe and then let the states handle just about everything else.

I can respect your position, but I still fucking hate that birth control is the example that everyone latches on to.  If you're anti-government involvement, pick one of the literally thousands of other things the government "forces" people to do that encroaches on their personal choices.   Perhaps one that applies universally across the board and doesn't just impact women

penguin44 said:

thisismynickname said:

NYCBruin said:

thisismynickname said:

But... regarding the whole "paying for things we don't need", the people who are against birth control for religious purposes probably aren't against cancer treatment and whatnot that they don't need now and maybe won't ever need.  So, that's separate from paying for a lot of stuff to pool risk; people are forced to purchase things they are morally against purchasing.  

I'm not at all trying to argue, just presenting a perspective.  

If someone's against birth control for religious reasons, that's a completely separate issue.  And they should also be against a whole bunch of other medical procedures that no one ever gets in a fuss over.  If you're sooooooo against something, then advocate to ban it.  If your complaint is that you have to "pay" for something you don't support, tough luck, welcome to democracy or business.  We all have to pay for shit we don't support.  That's part of living in a diverse society, not everyone supports or believes the same things.  I don't get to not pay taxes because I think our prison spending is out of control.  If everyone got to "opt out" of something every time they didn't agree with it, we would cease to exist as a nation.

Totally agree, which is why I, personally, am for small government, to minimize this as much as possible.  No one should have to roll over because someone else decided something was in their best interest. That's why people ARE fighting both sides.  That expression, "If you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything" applies here, in my opinion.  

Besides, employer-sponsored insurance was started decades ago as an easy way to pool risk. It was a benefit and became a way for companies to compete for and retain talent.  The fact that we've gotten to a point where the government can actually mandate employers do something like this is really interesting.  They could have just mandated health insurance like they do car insurance and let everyone do things individually, with the insurance companies managing the risk pools themselves and the employers completely out of it.  People could chose the variety of products and protections themselves, and there wouldn't be a kerfluffle over provisions that go against religious beliefs.  

Oh well, it is what it is now. 

Again, not arguing! Just offering perspective.    

That is pretty much what they wanted to do, but the Tea Party rallied against. This is why we have the system we have. The system you just suggested is what conservatives call "socialist." They didn't want Universal Healthcare where everyone could pick a plan they want. 

May I have misunderstood one of these two posts, but what the Tea Party is calling Socialism is when the government is telling the citizens what they have to buy.  Letting people pick and choose what kind of insurance policy they purchase (if any at all) is the definition of the free market capitalism that the Tea Party wants.

huskypuppy14

So who is going to pay for all the emergency room visits by people without insurance? Someone has to pay for it, because doctors can't refuse medical care to people that need it. 

penguin44 is correct. The people who wanted health care reform wanted the single payer system, but the republicans (tea party?) wouldn't go for it. So what we have now is the compromise. 

KGold80

thisismynickname said:

But... regarding the whole "paying for things we don't need", the people who are against birth control for religious purposes probably aren't against cancer treatment and whatnot that they don't need now and maybe won't ever need.  So, that's separate from paying for a lot of stuff to pool risk; people are forced to purchase things they are morally against purchasing.  

I'm not at all trying to argue, just presenting a perspective.  

I'm morally opposed to the death penalty, but my tax dollars sure as hell fund it.

There are some religious groups that are morally opposed to medical interventions of any kind. Does that mean a business owner who is a member of one of these religious groups can refuse to provide any insurance coverage to employees on the same grounds Hobby Lobby is claiming? It is a dangerous slippery slope when private businesses are granted the same exemptions that are reserved for actual religious organizations.

JCbride2015

KGold80 said: But... regarding the whole "paying for things we don't need", the people who are against birth control for religious purposes probably aren't against cancer treatment and whatnot that they don't need now and maybe won't ever need.  So, that's separate from paying for a lot of stuff to pool risk; people are forced to purchase things they are morally against purchasing.  
I'm not at all trying to argue, just presenting a perspective.   I'm morally opposed to the death penalty, but my tax dollars sure as hell fund it. There are some religious groups that are morally opposed to medical interventions of any kind. Does that mean a business owner who is a member of one of these religious groups can refuse to provide any insurance coverage to employees on the same grounds Hobby Lobby is claiming? It is a dangerous slippery slope when private businesses are granted the same exemptions that are reserved for actual religious organizations. Exactly.  However any of us personally feels about BC or the ACA, this is a very important legal distinction.  Hobby Lobby is a privately-owned business, not a religious organization.  

PrincessOfHavoc

My current issue with Republican vocal ...

We must defend the Constitution. Yes. I agree.

We must stop homosexual marriage. Erm, why? Any idea uses a person's religion as basis.

You do not get both issues. Forcing your religious beliefs on a government issue violates the Constitution.

The only basis against birth control and abortion go towards religion. Again. Violation of the Constitution.

ACI is socialism. As are public schools, Social Security, federal road programs..... it remains cheaper to provide preventive care than absorbing the cost by increasing insurance rates when a person defaults on a million + dollar bill. Effective birth control is cheaper than WIC. You wind up paying for one or the other, WIC will then go to education, welfare, Medicaid/Medicare.

emmaaa

My current issue with Republican vocal ... We must defend the Constitution. Yes. I agree. We must stop homosexual marriage. Erm, why? Any idea uses a person's religion as basis. You do not get both issues. Forcing your religious beliefs on a government issue violates the Constitution. The only basis against birth control and abortion go towards religion. Again. Violation of the Constitution. ACI is socialism. As are public schools, Social Security, federal road programs..... it remains cheaper to provide preventive care than absorbing the cost by increasing insurance rates when a person defaults on a million + dollar bill. Effective birth control is cheaper than WIC. You wind up paying for one or the other, WIC will then go to education, welfare, Medicaid/Medicare.

BOX???

I can think of other reasons people are against BC or abortion that aren't linked to religion. However, the argument that using religion to justify being against it and why other people shouldn't use it, it against the constitution. 

buddysmom80

I just had this talk with my dad the other day. I feel like he comes to me with these complaints since 99% of my job is dealing with insurance companies.

He's 64, retired at 60 with no employer pension, he buys his own insurance through Blue Cross Empire, his rates went up (no surprise, everyone's rates go up!) last year and he blamed it on Obama and AHA. He's bitching that he has to pay for maternity coverage when my mom is 68. My mom is on Medicare and AARP, so that argument is invalid.

Now I'm not democrat or republican but it makes my blood boil when people blame Obama/Bush/whoever on everything.

Anyway, I explained it to him like this (and I think a PP summed it up nice too). I pay for car insurance, yet I haven't had an accident in 5 years. Meanwhile, where I work people come in for auto accidents all the time and the insurance companies pay thousands of dollars to these people. When my auto insurance goes up, I don't groan and complain and blame it on Progressive Flo. I pay my shit and move on because I know if/when I do get into an accident, my ass is covered. Same as healthcare. Yeah, it's expensive for something that I use once a year, but if I get an abnormal pap smear or whatever, I know my ass will be covered.

To a PP who asks who pays for uninsured patients who come into emergency rooms? Most people assume it's taxpayers, but hospitals do have free fund programs available, and are usually more than willing to help these people out.

 

wandajune6

The ACA has had a huge impact on my life. I buy my insurance on the exchange. My rates went up but I can now afford maternity coverage. That's good. My company is too small to afford corporate health insurance and we wouldn't have been able to get started without the ACA (and a few months covered by COBRA.

The ACA pushed FI's company into offering insurance. Previously, he was an uninsured because no company would insure diabetics. Insurance companies negotiate rates with providers and pharmacies so the uninsured pay more than anyone else. FI paid for what he could but ended up with a few preventable hospitalizations over the years - hospitalizations that used hospital charity funds and emptied his savings. I've been in healthcare for most of my career so I helped when I came into the picture, but there are always compromises.

With insurance, he can be proactive about his healthcare and has been much healthier while spending less money on his healthcare. He's no longer draining public resources and he'll be around and contributing to the economy- and in my life - a lot longer.