Words of wisdom from the GOP

HisGirlFriday13 · May 2014

So I'm at a political seminar and I heard a speaker this morning say:

'Other than Rick Santorum, who won't shut up about it, and the Duggars, who have a TV show about it, and me and my wife, who are now really careful, I have no idea what kind of contraception people use and I don't care. And I don't know why the party that's supposed to be limited government cares what people do between the sheets. In my house, it's sleeping, but we have a five-year-old, a four-year-old, and twin toddlers. I'm sure other people do other, more fun things, and I'm jealous of that, but I don't want to regulate it.'

A.men.

rajahmd · May 2014

I like that guy.

phira · May 2014

Booyah.

OnceUponAVine · May 2014

Please tell me who this is so I can vote for them! I'm at the point I'll vote for any politician who has a decent amount of common sense in their head.

climbingsingle · May 2014

Seriously. This is one of the many reasons I don't understand the GOP.

wandajune6 · May 2014

Those are the wisest words I've heard from a politician in a while!

AprilH81 · May 2014

I'm probably one of the few conservatives that hang around here so I feel like I have to stick up for the GOP (although as a whole I get can disgusted with them too).

Most Republicans don't care about birth control. You want to avoid having kids? Go for it... Most Republicans I know are Pro-Life but could care less about your preferred method of birth control.

But that candidate sounds like a common sense kind of guy/gal.

KGold80 · May 2014

AprilH81 said:

I'm probably one of the few conservatives that hang around here so I feel like I have to stick up for the GOP (although as a whole I get can disgusted with them too).

Most Republicans don't care about birth control. You want to avoid having kids? Go for it... Most Republicans I know are Pro-Life but could care less about your preferred method of birth control.

But that candidate sounds like a common sense kind of guy/gal.

Then they need to stop voting for the whackjobs who are overly concerned with what goes on in a woman's uterus. Period.

HisGirlFriday13 · May 2014

AprilH81 said:
I'm probably one of the few conservatives that hang around here so I feel like I have to stick up for the GOP (although as a whole I get can disgusted with them too).

Most Republicans don't care about birth control. You want to avoid having kids? Go for it... Most Republicans I know are Pro-Life but could care less about your preferred method of birth control.

But that candidate sounds like a common sense kind of guy/gal.

I am a conservative as well and I agree with you that the rank-and-file Republicans don't care about birth control, but the leadership sure does, and they kept making it a plank in the platform and I don't understand WHY. No Republicans I know give a damn about who does what for birth control, so why can't the GOP leadership pick candidates who embody that??

NYCBruin · May 2014

HisGirlFriday13 said:

I'm probably one of the few conservatives that hang around here so I feel like I have to stick up for the GOP (although as a whole I get can disgusted with them too).

Most Republicans don't care about birth control. You want to avoid having kids? Go for it... Most Republicans I know are Pro-Life but could care less about your preferred method of birth control.

But that candidate sounds like a common sense kind of guy/gal.
I am a conservative as well and I agree with you that the rank-and-file Republicans don't care about birth control, but the leadership sure does, and they kept making it a plank in the platform and I don't understand WHY. No Republicans I know give a damn about who does what for birth control, so why can't the GOP leadership pick candidates who embody that??

I blame the primary system. And the electoral college.

banana468 · May 2014

NYCBruin said:

HisGirlFriday13 said:

AprilH81 said:
I'm probably one of the few conservatives that hang around here so I feel like I have to stick up for the GOP (although as a whole I get can disgusted with them too).

Most Republicans don't care about birth control. You want to avoid having kids? Go for it... Most Republicans I know are Pro-Life but could care less about your preferred method of birth control.

But that candidate sounds like a common sense kind of guy/gal.
I am a conservative as well and I agree with you that the rank-and-file Republicans don't care about birth control, but the leadership sure does, and they kept making it a plank in the platform and I don't understand WHY. No Republicans I know give a damn about who does what for birth control, so why can't the GOP leadership pick candidates who embody that??

I blame the primary system. And the electoral college.

I've had this discussion with FIL. The Republican party needs leaders that stop the right wing agenda or the party will continue to lose respect.

thisismynickname2 · May 2014

This is the reason I identify most with Libertarian philosophies. I'm for small government, and I couldn't care less what other people do with their lives. Plain and simple, philosophically speaking.

cupcait927 · May 2014

banana468 said:

HisGirlFriday13 said:

I'm probably one of the few conservatives that hang around here so I feel like I have to stick up for the GOP (although as a whole I get can disgusted with them too).

Most Republicans don't care about birth control. You want to avoid having kids? Go for it... Most Republicans I know are Pro-Life but could care less about your preferred method of birth control.

But that candidate sounds like a common sense kind of guy/gal.
I am a conservative as well and I agree with you that the rank-and-file Republicans don't care about birth control, but the leadership sure does, and they kept making it a plank in the platform and I don't understand WHY. No Republicans I know give a damn about who does what for birth control, so why can't the GOP leadership pick candidates who embody that??

I blame the primary system. And the electoral college.
I've had this discussion with FIL. The Republican party needs leaders that stop the right wing agenda or the party will continue to lose respect.

I'm very strongly liberal but FI leans more conservative. He's grown weary and frustrated with the leadership in the Republican party and agrees that without change, the respect and support will continue to dwindle. Republican leaders are giving the party a bad name in general. I did field work for a state senate race right after college and I can say with certainty that the majority of voters don't do much research on candidates and will vote based on party lines. The Republican leaders are shooting themselves in the foot because they've been stereotyped. As PP's have said, most "rank and file" Republicans aren't the crazed right-wing leaders and supporters you see on television.

AprilH81 · May 2014

thisismynickname said:

This is the reason I identify most with Libertarian philosophies. I'm for small government, and I couldn't care less what other people do with their lives. Plain and simple, philosophically speaking.

I'm a registered Independent and recently have started identifying as Libertarian. I want small limited government that stays the heck out of my personal life. Lower taxes, more personal responsibility and less government oversight.

wandajune6 · May 2014

I'm always a bit uncomfortable with the labels of conservative and liberal. For a lot of us, it's a part of our identities. I grew up in a very political family and while everyone still claims the same label, our views have been changing.

I'm socially incredibly liberal. Fiscally, I'm finding myself getting more conservative as I get older.

Cookie Pusher · May 2014

Sadly, the Tea Party is the squeaky wheel in the Republican Party that's getting the grease...

AprilH81 · May 2014

Cookie Pusher said:

Sadly, the Tea Party is the squeaky wheel in the Republican Party that's getting the grease...

The Tea Party (the groups I'm aware of anyway ) doesn't care about birth control either. They (we) want a fiscally responsible and smaller government.

Yes, there are some people who care deeply about the birth control issue, but in my experience it is more often used as a scare tactic by some (not all) of the liberal Democrats and media as a "war on women".

I think one of the issues that is most often cited is relating to the ACA/Obamacare. Republicans pushed back about the requirement that birth control be provided for "free" with all policies.

That stance is often twisted around to say that Republicans don't want women to have access to birth control. It is absurd in my opinion, that my husband pay more for his insurance so he has "free" birth control pills. He is a man and can't take them but he has to pay for them anyway. The same goes for women who have had hysterectomies, gone through menopause or don't want to take hormonal birth control. They all have to have a policy that provides this coverage even if they don't need it or want it.

NYCBruin · May 2014

AprilH81 said:

Cookie Pusher said:

Sadly, the Tea Party is the squeaky wheel in the Republican Party that's getting the grease...

The Tea Party (the groups I'm aware of anyway ) doesn't care about birth control either. They (we) want a fiscally responsible and smaller government.

Yes, there are some people who care deeply about the birth control issue, but in my experience it is more often used as a scare tactic by some (not all) of the liberal Democrats and media as a "war on women".

I think one of the issues that is most often cited is relating to the ACA/Obamacare. Republicans pushed back about the requirement that birth control be provided for "free" with all policies.

That stance is often twisted around to say that Republicans don't want women to have access to birth control. It is absurd in my opinion, that my husband pay more for his insurance so he has "free" birth control pills. He is a man and can't take them but he has to pay for them anyway. The same goes for women who have had hysterectomies, gone through menopause or don't want to take hormonal birth control. They all have to have a policy that provides this coverage even if they don't need it or want it.

I never understood this position. We all "pay" for a ton of crap we don't use or need. And other people "pay" for our "free" crap that they don't need or use. That's the whole idea behind insurance, pooling risk.

Besides, if you're looking at it from a cost perspective, why on earth wouldn't you want free birth control. Birth control is a whole hell of a lot cheaper than prenatal care (and the next 18 years of healthcare for the child). It just makes economic sense to provide "free" birth control regardless of whose paying for it (insurance premiums, government, etc.) because the same people "paying" for that birth control would be "paying" the much higher costs of pregnancy.

chkmeowt · May 2014

NYCBruin said:

AprilH81 said:

Cookie Pusher said:

Sadly, the Tea Party is the squeaky wheel in the Republican Party that's getting the grease...

The Tea Party (the groups I'm aware of anyway ) doesn't care about birth control either. They (we) want a fiscally responsible and smaller government.

Yes, there are some people who care deeply about the birth control issue, but in my experience it is more often used as a scare tactic by some (not all) of the liberal Democrats and media as a "war on women".

I think one of the issues that is most often cited is relating to the ACA/Obamacare. Republicans pushed back about the requirement that birth control be provided for "free" with all policies.

That stance is often twisted around to say that Republicans don't want women to have access to birth control. It is absurd in my opinion, that my husband pay more for his insurance so he has "free" birth control pills. He is a man and can't take them but he has to pay for them anyway. The same goes for women who have had hysterectomies, gone through menopause or don't want to take hormonal birth control. They all have to have a policy that provides this coverage even if they don't need it or want it.

I never understood this position. We all "pay" for a ton of crap we don't use or need. And other people "pay" for our "free" crap that they don't need or use. That's the whole idea behind insurance, pooling risk.

Besides, if you're looking at it from a cost perspective, why on earth wouldn't you want free birth control. Birth control is a whole hell of a lot cheaper than prenatal care (and the next 18 years of healthcare for the child). It just makes economic sense to provide "free" birth control regardless of whose paying for it (insurance premiums, government, etc.) because the same people "paying" for that birth control would be "paying" the much higher costs of pregnancy.

that love it was me

cupcait927 · May 2014

NYCBruin said:

AprilH81 said:

Cookie Pusher said:

Sadly, the Tea Party is the squeaky wheel in the Republican Party that's getting the grease...

The Tea Party (the groups I'm aware of anyway ) doesn't care about birth control either. They (we) want a fiscally responsible and smaller government.

Yes, there are some people who care deeply about the birth control issue, but in my experience it is more often used as a scare tactic by some (not all) of the liberal Democrats and media as a "war on women".

I think one of the issues that is most often cited is relating to the ACA/Obamacare. Republicans pushed back about the requirement that birth control be provided for "free" with all policies.

That stance is often twisted around to say that Republicans don't want women to have access to birth control. It is absurd in my opinion, that my husband pay more for his insurance so he has "free" birth control pills. He is a man and can't take them but he has to pay for them anyway. The same goes for women who have had hysterectomies, gone through menopause or don't want to take hormonal birth control. They all have to have a policy that provides this coverage even if they don't need it or want it.

I never understood this position. We all "pay" for a ton of crap we don't use or need. And other people "pay" for our "free" crap that they don't need or use. That's the whole idea behind insurance, pooling risk.

Besides, if you're looking at it from a cost perspective, why on earth wouldn't you want free birth control. Birth control is a whole hell of a lot cheaper than prenatal care (and the next 18 years of healthcare for the child). It just makes economic sense to provide "free" birth control regardless of whose paying for it (insurance premiums, government, etc.) because the same people "paying" for that birth control would be "paying" the much higher costs of pregnancy.

^^ all of this. Love it.

JCbride2015 · May 2014

NYCBruin said:

AprilH81 said:

Cookie Pusher said:

Sadly, the Tea Party is the squeaky wheel in the Republican Party that's getting the grease...

The Tea Party (the groups I'm aware of anyway ) doesn't care about birth control either. They (we) want a fiscally responsible and smaller government.

Yes, there are some people who care deeply about the birth control issue, but in my experience it is more often used as a scare tactic by some (not all) of the liberal Democrats and media as a "war on women".

I think one of the issues that is most often cited is relating to the ACA/Obamacare. Republicans pushed back about the requirement that birth control be provided for "free" with all policies.

That stance is often twisted around to say that Republicans don't want women to have access to birth control. It is absurd in my opinion, that my husband pay more for his insurance so he has "free" birth control pills. He is a man and can't take them but he has to pay for them anyway. The same goes for women who have had hysterectomies, gone through menopause or don't want to take hormonal birth control. They all have to have a policy that provides this coverage even if they don't need it or want it.

I never understood this position. We all "pay" for a ton of crap we don't use or need. And other people "pay" for our "free" crap that they don't need or use. That's the whole idea behind insurance, pooling risk.

Besides, if you're looking at it from a cost perspective, why on earth wouldn't you want free birth control. Birth control is a whole hell of a lot cheaper than prenatal care (and the next 18 years of healthcare for the child). It just makes economic sense to provide "free" birth control regardless of whose paying for it (insurance premiums, government, etc.) because the same people "paying" for that birth control would be "paying" the much higher costs of pregnancy.

This times like a thousand. And nobody complains that women are "paying more" so men can have prostate cancer treatment, or Viagra (well, comedians complain about this one). I'm "paying more" as a healthy woman so other people can get "free"/covered treatment for cancer, cholesterol, their broken leg, whatever.

That's the whole point of health insurance. Pooling risk as Bruin said.

chkmeowt · May 2014

OMG the love its are back!

thisismynickname2 · May 2014

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.

NYCBruin · May 2014

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.

AprilH81 · May 2014

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.

thisismynickname2 · May 2014

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.

JCbride2015 · May 2014

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.

NYCBruin · May 2014

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.

cupcait927 · May 2014

@NYCBruin. If only you could be around every time FI and I get into heated political debates. It's like your in my head!

AprilH81 · May 2014

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.

NYCBruin · May 2014

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.

Words of wisdom from the GOP

Re: Words of wisdom from the GOP

Choose Another Board

Search Boards