Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


Debate Info

70
44
Abstain or make the guy pay Force everyone else to pay
Debate Score:114
Arguments:76
Total Votes:121
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Abstain or make the guy pay (42)
 
 Force everyone else to pay (32)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(39995) pic



Women who cannot afford contraceptives should....

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dems-hold-mock-hearing-on-contraception-355/2012/03/02/gIQA5aR0mR_video.html

So..., to sum up.  Women want to work for religious organizations and force them to provide health coverage for contraceptives.  This means that the cost will be passed on to everyone else.

Abstain or make the guy pay

Side Score: 70
VS.

Force everyone else to pay

Side Score: 44
4 points

People... people are acting like having sex for pleasure is a need.

Fuck it. Down this path government might as well pay for cable and internet.

Side: Abstain or make the guy pay

Women wanted, and have, control over their lives and their bodies. If they get pregnant, they can have an abortion. If they can't afford contraceptives, they can force the guy to buy them or settle for "alternative sex." If their employer doesn't offer a health care plan that covers contraceptives, they can find employment with an employer that does offer a health care plan that does cover contraceptives. Finally, a woman can abstain from having sex. A woman has many options, but the option the woman in the video wants is to use the Democrat party in order to force religious employers to provide health care coverage for something those employers find offensive.

Side: Abstain or make the guy pay
Jackal(27) Disputed
2 points

If a woman's health insurance doesn't cover contraception and they can't afford it otherwise, what makes you think they can suddenly afford an abortion? Since all the idiot Republicans are trying to ban those as well, what do you propose everyone to do?

Side: Force everyone else to pay
Liber(1730) Disputed
2 points

I detect some pent-up tension brewing within your rather fallacious argument.

If a woman's health insurance doesn't cover contraception and they can't afford it otherwise, what makes you think they can suddenly afford an abortion?

What makes you think it is any of my business?

Since all the idiot Republicans are trying to ban those as well, what do you propose everyone to do?

I get it now! Everybody is an idiot who disagrees with you (and that "you" is a general "you", not just you, but your fellow Democratic airheads).

Side: Abstain or make the guy pay
Bettyjoe(399) Disputed
1 point

Maybe she should settle for oral sex . Or take a vibrator to the vagina.

Side: Abstain or make the guy pay

It is these religious organization's rights to not pay for a woman's contraceptives. While I do not see the problem in paying for it, it is part of their religious rights. Why can't they just make the guy bring a condom or two? Also, a little side question... How little are they making that they can't afford birth control pills?

Side: Abstain or make the guy pay
1 point

Contraceptives cost $3000 per year.

She wants someone else to pay for it.

That's like getting paid to have sex.

There's a word for those women.

Why doesn't she exercise a little self control?

Why doesn't she exercise some of her other options?

Lesbianism is in vogue. Maybe she can do that until she can afford her own contraceptives.

These women give me a headache.

Side: Abstain or make the guy pay
BenWalters(1513) Disputed
2 points

Contraceptives cost $3000 per year.

Your contraceptive bill is 3000 USD a year? How much sex do you have?

Side: Force everyone else to pay

I agree. We are a horny bunch. When we are not arguing amongst ourselves, we are screwing each other. ;)

BTW, that number was quoted by the progressive chick in the video. Typically, our progressives are the horniest of all. Which is why they want free contraceptives and abortions, just in case. An example of a horny progressive would be Bill Clinton. ;)

Side: Force everyone else to pay
1 point

They should learn to suck dick better and spend more time looking for a job to pay their own way.

Side: Abstain or make the guy pay
3 points

Leaving aside the clearly biased way in which the debate-creator has framed the question . . .

......................................

SUMMARY ('cause this post is long)

Yes, contraception coverage should be required because:

1. It's cheaper for everybody in the long run;

2. Most insurers already provide it -- they're just doing a lousy job and need to be doing it better;

3. Health care authorities identify it as an important health care need;

4. The issue of "religious liberty" is a red herring; and

5. Unplanned pregnancy is a social problem of concern to everyone, in which both sexes are involved, and thus it is sensible that everyone should contribute to carrying the costs.

......................................

Point one: requiring contraception coverage saves us all money. That's right, SAVES. It saves us all money because it costs a heck of a lot less to provide contraception coverage than it does to absorb the costs of all the various coverages and benefits involved in unplanned pregnancies. (Whether or not one agrees that one's insurance premiums or tax monies should go towards providing for such various unplanned-pregnancy-related coverages and benefits is not the topic of this debate. For this topic, it is relevant only that as a factual matter, they do. If you want to debate prenatal care coverage or welfare availability or some other topic, kindly create another debate for it.)

The accepted estimated averages for per-woman cost of contraception range between $360 and $600 a year (not $3000, as somebody else has suggested; while Sandra Fluke suggested an average of $3000 incurred in contraceptive costs during the course of law school, that's a three-to-four-year program, and hers would still be a high estimate compared to the most commonly-advanced numbers). Most analysis I've seen predicts that mandating comprehensive contraception coverage might impact individual premiums by up to $16. That is a negligible amount when compared with the absorbing the cost increase for prenatal care, pediatric care, social welfare benefits, etc. etc. that could be predictably expected to result from unplanned pregnancy (whether yours or someone else's).

"Each year, publicly funded family planning in the United States allows women to avoid 1.94 million unintended pregnancies. Without these services, levels of unintended pregnancy and abortion in the United States each year would be about two-thirds higher among women overall and among teens, and almost twice as high among poor women . . . Absent publicly supported services, the U.S. abortion rate— currently one-third below its peak in 1980— would be higher than it has ever been . . . [Additionally,] More than nine in 10 women receiving publicly funded family planning services would be eligible for Medicaid-funded prenatal, delivery and postpartum care services if they became pregnant. As a result, every dollar invested in helping women avoid pregnancies they do not want to have saves $4.02 in federal and state Medicaid expenditures." (Guttmacher Policy Review vol. 12 no. 1 (Winter 2009), accessible at: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/12/1/ gpr120119.html (emphasis added)).

Moreover, unintended pregnancy -- particularly unintended teen pregnancy -- significantly impacts women's participation in the labor market. In other words, women who become unintentionally pregnant -- especially at a young age -- are less likely to pursue further education, less likely to work in lucrative careers, less likely to work steadily or at all, and more likely to collect government benefits. Requiring insurers to provide contraceptive coverage makes sense for the same reasons that requiring parents to provide their children with education makes sense -- it's an investment in the nation's future earning potential. It makes us a wealthier and more productive country down the line. It ultimately means more Americans at work, and more Americans at work doing things that create additional jobs. We gain real benefits by insisting on contraception coverage, and we incur real costs if we don't. Putting government money towards the objective of providing access to contraception also makes sense, for the exact same reasons.

Additionally, the whole notion of "I'm not paying for somebody else's health care costs" is silly, because you do that every time you buy health insurance or go to see any medical provider. Your insurance premiums are basically what it costs you to buy into a "pool" that hedges each purchaser against the costs of an expensive illness or injury on the principle that not many members of the "pool" will actually have an expensive illness or injury. In other words, it spreads out the costs of paying for the people who do have expensive illness or injury (plus the insurance company's profit margin) among the group of purchasers as a whole. It is totally irrelevant to your premium amount that you personally don't end up getting ill or injured during the coverage period -- in fact that's the whole point of "insurance," at least from the insurance company's perspective. Some other people who have the same insurer did get ill or injured during the time period that was used in calculating your base premiums, and the insurer paid for it, and those costs got passed on to you. So, if you really want to pay for your health care costs and only your health care costs, don't buy insurance at all -- stick your money in a bank account and pay for all personal health needs out-of-pocket as they come up. Even then, you're still going to be paying medical bills designed to absorb the provider's costs not only from your own care, but also for the care of everybody who stiffs the provider on the bill (which is a standard factor in how medical providers decide how much to charge for services, and which also would presumably happen a lot less if the non-paying patients had insurance that covered the services).

The upshot is that any time you pay money to any health provider or insurer, part of that money is going to the anticipated costs of providing for other people's care. The only real question left is how to best minimize that expense and maximize the benefit from it, and an obvious answer is: use it on stuff that will prevent me from having to pay even more money for other people's needs in the future. Contraception falls into that category.

Whatever your personal moral opinions on sexual expression may be, the plain fact is that a whole lot of people who don't want to be parents in nine months are going to screw nonetheless. That's going to have consequences. Absent affordable, available, safe, and user-friendly birth control, those consequences will include things like a big increase in the use of abortion services, prenatal services, and pediatric services, all of which will ultimately have an impact on your insurance premiums and/or your tax burden. Notably, unplanned pregnancies are also more likely to result in poor infant and maternal health (for all kinds of reasons including inadequate access to or use of prenatal care, poor self-care, and the health impact of too many pregnancies or pregnancy at too young an age), which means more and higher long-term costs incurred in providing additional health care. Those increased costs to the insurer would also be passed on to purchasers via some level of increase in everybody's premiums, and ditto for distributing the increase in Medicare/Medicaid costs among taxpayers.

Also, absent birth control coverage, the consequences of other-people-screwing-whether-you-approve-of-it-or-not will further include things that state and federal governments agree are social needs, like childhood nutrition and education. We taxpayers essentially pay for that stuff too. Since women who become unintentionally pregnant are more likely to be low wage-earners, this means fewer of us paying more for that stuff.

It therefore makes sense for insurance to cover contraception for the same reason it makes sense for insurance to cover routine checkups and procedures -- it's cheaper than paying for the future consequences of you not getting those things. Likewise, it makes sense for government to mandate contraceptive coverage for much the same reason -- because it cuts their costs in the long run. It also makes sense for us as individuals to support requiring such coverage, again for the same reason -- it ends up costing us all a lot less than the alternative.

.....................

Second point: contraceptive coverage is increasingly the norm in this country already. Just over half the states require it. Most private insurers in any state provide at least some coverage because (a) it's what people want, and (b) most insurance plans are standardized as much as possible-- it's simpler for the insurer if they can use pretty much the same contract whether the purchaser is in Georgia or Wisconsin or California. Providing contraceptive coverage has been the going trend among insurers in the U.S. for a couple of decades now. It's really not as though it's some radical change that's being contemplated. Check your own policy or those of your female relatives -- you're probably already paying for contraception coverage.

What you are probably not getting in exchange for your money is adequate coverage, because your plan may or may not cover the type of birth control that, for reasons of health or availability or choice, you or your covered female family member would prefer to use. Here, promoting more comprehensive coverage provides a particular benefit to women whose coverage is through an employer (whether their own or a family member's) on an essentially "take-it-or-leave-it" deal. The economic reality for many such individuals is that they cannot afford additional or independent health care coverage; they get what the boss-man gives them. The real change that's being contemplated by the legislation is that it would require insurers to cover all FDA-approved contraception. So instead of the current situation where nearly everybody is already paying for inadequate contraceptive coverage, pretty much everybody would be paying for substantially better contraceptive coverage. Again here, it's in everybody's best economic interest to do this both because it prevents the future tax and insurance burdens of unplanned pregnancies, and because it frees up the disposable income of other contraceptive-users so they can plug that cash back into useful vectors of the economy (e.g., by spending it on stuff other than contraceptives manufactured in offshore facilities by multinational conglomerates who can charge whatever they darn well please because the lack of a government health-care mandate minimizes the pressure on them to do otherwise).

.....................

Third point: insofar as the argument that "recreational sex is not a health need" is concerned, then why in the hell am I "paying" for your Viagra? Because that is covered by almost all insurance plans.

More centrally, medical authorities do identify contraception as a "health care need." The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Statement on Contraceptive Equity observes that "[c]ontraception is medically necessary to a woman for more than 30 years of her life. To ignore the health benefits of contraception is to say that the alternative of 12 to 15 pregnancies during a woman's lifetime is medically acceptable." (Accessible at: http://www.acog.org/About_ACOG/ACOG_Departments/State_Legislative_Activities/Contraceptive_Equity_Legislation ). Contraception is also one of the eight recommendations for women's preventive health care services made to Congress by the Institute of Medicine, or IOM (part of the National Academy of Sciences) -- that's one big reason it went into the Affordable Care Act in the first place. (See National Conference of State Legislatures, "Insurance Coverage for Contraception Laws," accessible at: http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/insurance-coverage-for-contraception-state-laws.aspx ). So the medical authorities that we entrust to tell us (among other things) what is and is not a "health care need" have weighed in and said yeah, this is one.

Moreover, as someone else has pointed out, the same drugs that are used as contraceptives are also used to treat other health needs, some of which can be quite serious (polycystic ovaries, uterine fibroids and some other types of tumors, and various menstrual disorders including uterine hemorrhaging, just to name a few). One statistic I've seen estimates that 1.5 million American women use "contraceptive" medications exclusively as treatment for a serious health condition, and all women need coverage that provides for effective health treatment in these circumstances.

(As an aside to the issue of "health needs," there really is a glaring inconsistency in that erectile dysfunction drugs are covered whereas contraceptives are not necessarily covered. I would very much like someone to explain in a rational manner how it is that getting an erection is a "health care need," whereas using an erection is not. I honestly can't think of any health care need that would be served by getting an erection you can't use.)

.....................

Next, in addition to all the good economic and health care arguments in favor of mandating coverage, the notion that an insurance requirement infringes on religious liberty is just pure bollocks. "Religious liberty" does not grant an unlimited freedom to act or refrain from action. For example, Catholic hospitals can't refuse to hire non-Catholics, they can't require their patients or employees to attend mass, and they can't refuse to treat drag queens. They aren't churches, and most if not all of them get public money. That means government gets a fair amount of say in what they can and can't do.

As one writer for the AMA Journal of Ethics points out, not only is there a legally important distinction between an organization with a religious affiliation (like a Catholic or Jewish hospital) and one with a religious mission (like a church or synagogue), there is also no clear reason that the religious beliefs of an insurer or employer should trump those of the insured or the employee. (See A. Sonfield, " The Religious Exemption to Mandated Insurance Coverage of Contraception," Virtual Mentor - The American Medical Association Journal of Ethics vol. 14 no. 2 (Feb. 2012), accessible online at: http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2012/02/pfor1-1202.html ).

Further, as a practical matter, polls of Catholics also indicate that most support contraception accessibility and an insurance mandate, so it's difficult to see how a "religious conscience" argument even applies. (See, e.g., "Catholics support White House contraception mandate," The Washington Post (Feb. 7, 2012), online at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/catholics-support-white-house-contraception-mandate/2012/02/07/gIQAXXu1wQ_story.html ; and also M. Conelly, "Support Is Found for Birth Control Coverage and Gay Unions," The New York Times (Feb. 14, 2012), online at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/us/politics/poll-finds-support-for-contraception-policy-and-gay-couples.html?_r=2 ).

It also makes sense to be very cautious about allowing health care providers to refuse to provide treatment on purely "moral" grounds. The job of a health care provider is not to enforce a particular individual moral stance; it's to provide appropriate health care to each of the patients in accordance with accepted medical guidelines. If we really want to talk about a provider's "choice," we should also talk about his or her choice to assume responsibility for providing the best possible patient care. If the provider can't do that, for whatever "moral" reason, maybe he or she ought to find some other line of work.

.....................

Finally, the notion that contraception is exclusively "about women" or is a "woman's concern" is just ridiculous on its face. Women do not impregnate themselves. Access to contraception is not just a "woman's concern," it is everybody's concern. So yes, once again, it does make perfect sense that everybody should contribute to paying for it.

Side: Force everyone else to pay

OK... I really tried to read all of it but..., it just made me realize that I really don't care about the cost or any of it. All I care about is keeping the government out of my life.

Side: Abstain or make the guy pay
1 point

Fair 'nuff, but requiring contraceptive coverage does a better job of that than not requiring it.

Side: Force everyone else to pay
1 point

Yeah, let's not provide birth control so you can all really complain when women are on welfare because they couldn't afford the child you forced them to have. Sex is a natural human function. Get over it.

There is no excuse for not having federal healthcare, none. And the idea that an employer can arbitrarily decide what medications it wants to provide is ludicrous. You're saying that if you wind up with a heart problem or cancer, the company you work for should suddenly be allowed to refuse to pay for your medication? Are you insane?

Saying that a woman doesn't have to work a job that doesn't provide certain medications is not going to fix the problem. We're in a tough market. I know it's hard for the far right to see the ground from atop their high horses, but saying "get another job" is not going to magically make jobs available.

What about women who are on birth control for different reasons? I was on it before I ever even had sex because I had painful cramps, chronic heavy bleeding and ovarian cysts. I couldn't go to school for two days every month. Are you saying that I should be denied medical care because someone else thinks they have the right to make choices for my life? Absurd.

Side: Force everyone else to pay
Bettyjoe(399) Disputed
2 points

Are you saying that I should be forced to pay for your medical care because you think you have the right to make choices about my finances? Absurd!!!

Side: Abstain or make the guy pay
Jackal(27) Disputed
2 points

If we had federal healthcare, EVERYONE would be paying and EVERYONE would be covered. I'm sorry you're the only person in your life you're capable of thinking about. Must be lonely.

Side: Force everyone else to pay

I want free toothpaste to combat gingivitis. Why doesn't the government force insurance companies to pay for my toothpaste? ;)

Side: Force everyone else to pay
Jackal(27) Disputed
1 point

A bottle of toothpaste costs $3. Less than my insurance co pay.

My particular brand of birth control would be $200 every three weeks.

Side: Abstain or make the guy pay
Liber(1730) Disputed
1 point

Yeah, let's not provide birth control so you can all really complain when women are on welfare because they couldn't afford the child you forced them to have.

No, they shouldn't be on welfare either. Theft involved there, too.

Sex is a natural human function. Get over it.

Precisely. The government shouldn't be involved.

There is no excuse for not having federal healthcare, none.

How about patient survival? There are more MRI machines in Pittsburgh than in all of Canada, and waiting lines to see a doctor in Great Britain are astronomically long. America, though more expensive, has the best medical care in the world - something which many Americans seem to think they can maintain even in a decapitalized environment.

And the idea that an employer can arbitrarily decide what medications it wants to provide is ludicrous.

If they are providing it, then why can't they "arbitrarily decide"?

You're saying that if you wind up with a heart problem or cancer, the company you work for should suddenly be allowed to refuse to pay for your medication?

Yes, unless there is a contract in which the company has agreed to pay for such medications.

Are you insane?

Probably, but so are all great genii.

We're in a tough market.

And placing restrictions/requirements on employers is only going to make it tougher.

I know it's hard for the far right to see the ground from atop their high horses, but saying "get another job" is not going to magically make jobs available.

I redirect you to my previous response.

What about women who are on birth control for different reasons?

The reasoning is irrelevant.

I was on it before I ever even had sex because I had painful cramps, chronic heavy bleeding and ovarian cysts. I couldn't go to school for two days every month.

I could say that I am sorry for you - and the human inside of me truly is sorry at any human suffering - but that does not give you the right to stolen goods.

Are you saying that I should be denied medical care because someone else thinks they have the right to make choices for my life? Absurd.

No, I'm saying that other people don't have the right to make choices for your life. You are twisting the entire idea; if somebody is forced by government to give you something, then the government is now taking over your life.

Side: Abstain or make the guy pay
egga(108) Disputed
1 point

I tend to agree with some of your arguments to a certain extent. However, taxation should pay for people who can't afford it. Taxation pays for the military, roads, public transport, the fire services etc. Why not for medical care? Take 25% of the military budget and the whole thing is covered. No need to get employers to pay.

Side: Force everyone else to pay
Raven01(10) Disputed
1 point

"Yeah, let's not provide birth control so you can all really complain when women are on welfare because they couldn't afford the child you forced them to have."

You are a complete fucktard, I have never forced anyone to have any child. Actually, as a guy I have to recognize that I have ZERO reproductive rights. Only reproductive responsibilities. The woman is the one that can choose to carry to term, give up for adoption (without knowledge or consent of the father) or abort.

Your statement is also insulting to any woman with half a brain and any sense of personal agency.

BCP's can be had for less than $60/year. Sure some are more expensive but if you are going to insist I have to pay for your choice you sure as hell don't get to pick what I am paying for.

If that amount is out of your league you should have bigger priorities than getting laid.

Side: Abstain or make the guy pay
1 point

Eh, fuck it. We already share the load for our roads, our protection, and our schools. Why not give the ladies something to keep them from getting pregnant and flooding the world with unwanted children? Well. There's abortion, but everyone hates that too.

Side: Force everyone else to pay
1 point

The whole system is messed up. Health coverage should be decided by Doctors, not employers.

Side: Force everyone else to pay
1 point

Sex is a fundamental human requirement, as necessary for a healthy (Physically and mentally) person as food and water.

Side: Force everyone else to pay
Liber(1730) Disputed
2 points

You can live an awfully long time without protected sex; you can't live very long without food and water.

Sex is a fundamental human requirement

But not with the use of contraceptives.

Side: Abstain or make the guy pay

And tooth paste. Don't forget tooth paste. Maybe insurance companies should be forced to cover food, water and tooth paste ;)

A year's supply of food is more than $3000 and food is more vital than contraceptives. Some people cannot afford food. Food ought to be covered by insurance companies.. ;)

Side: Abstain or make the guy pay
xyze(39) Disputed
1 point

Some people can't afford food in the US, but food is provided to them through a variety of organisations.

Side: Abstain or make the guy pay
1 point

My original response seems to have double-posted, so I have effectively blanked this one; my apologies for the tech error.

Side: Force everyone else to pay