http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101031/ap_on_he_me/us_birth_control

your thoughts?

I have always been against the universal health care idea, and this further proves my point. In addition, I still think its awful that I have to pay for health insurance for EVERYONE WHO I DONT KNOW....rant over.

While I agree that the health care bill wasn't very good I think birth control being free isn't too bad of an idea. I mean, you can't complain about freeloading career welfare parents and then complain when something that would probably lower the likelihood of those scenarios comes up.

I Wear Pants;540853 wrote:While I agree that the health care bill wasn't very good I think birth control being free isn't too bad of an idea. I mean, you can't complain about freeloading career welfare parents and then complain when something that would probably lower the likelihood of those scenarios comes up.

I am not Catholic, but I know many. Several of them have certain objections to the pill and some other forms of birth control. To them...having to pay or provide for such forms of birth control is an affront to their religious beliefs. But then...so is abortion to a much larger group of citizens and yet...it's provided as well. Don't tell me about Obama's executive order...it has no teeth, no backbone and is unenforceable.

What happens to ObamaKare when one size doesn't fit all? Force them in? Mandate them in? Unless you're Amish or certain other religions as enumerated in ObamaKare, your square peg gets shoved in their round hole.

Guess what, folks: It's NOT free.

Somebody is paying for it.

And if you mandate it be a part of all insurance coverage -- everyone sees their rates increase exponentially because it's just the latest in a group of mandated things the government tells insurers they HAVE to provide with each policy.

At what point are we going to "get" that these mandates, while well-intended, screw up the cost of insurance in a major league way -- for everybody.

Wouldn't it be better to offer people THE CHOICE of whether they want this type of coverage included in a policy, as opposed to being required to pay for it, even if you don't want/need/or use it?

I think we've lost our collective minds when it comes to this stuff.

I think you should be forced onto birth control and only let off of it if you can prove you're able to raise a child.

BGFalcons82;540867 wrote:I am not Catholic, but I know many. Several of them have certain objections to the pill and some other forms of birth control. To them...having to pay or provide for such forms of birth control is an affront to their religious beliefs. But then...so is abortion to a much larger group of citizens and yet...it's provided as well. Don't tell me about Obama's executive order...it has no teeth, no backbone and is unenforceable.

What happens to ObamaKare when one size doesn't fit all? Force them in? Mandate them in? Unless you're Amish or certain other religions as enumerated in ObamaKare, your square peg gets shoved in their round hole.

I am Catholic but I'm also of the opinion that birth control is not an objectionable thing.

And it isn't free but I wouldn't be opposed to birth control being subsidized or there being a program for low income people to get it. Hell, if it helps people not have children until they are financially able to do so then I'm all for it.

It's been a while since I readBrave New World, but I believe birth control, as well,as 'happy drugs' were government subsidized too.

I mean, you can't complain about freeloading career welfare parents and then complain when something that would probably lower the likelihood of those scenarios comes up.

Isn't it amazing how one government program begets another?

Some Pharmacies already implement free birth control for generics.

In other words, "I've got mine, you can go to hell".

I Wear Pants;541014 wrote:I am Catholic but I'm also of the opinion that birth control is not an objectionable thing.

And it isn't free but I wouldn't be opposed to birth control being subsidized or there being a program for low income people to get it. Hell, if it helps people not have children until they are financially able to do so then I'm all for it.

See...Here's the part of the welfare equation you keep forgetting:

More children = Bigger welfare check

Good luck in getting welfare mamma to pop the "free" Pill.

But why does something like that have to be legislated in? Within in 1/2 hour of me, I can go to about 6 or 7 different places, walk in and ask for, and walk out with some variation of birth control at a reduced price. AND, if my income is low enough, I wouldn't have to pay for it at all.
.............................

Louie, that line:"I've got mine, you can go to hell" - is so old, it's even desensitized to itself. If you get your ya-ya's out of having the government nickle and dime you, fine. Have a happy party with it. If this new "healthcare law" and every single thing in it makes you sweat in ecstacy, that's your fetish, and not everybody has one.
It's not that most people mind helping others, but there SHOULD be a time when they can have the right to say "ENOUGH!" to a government that is insatiable.

Maybe I'll get on board with this if they start issuing free governmental protection condoms. Now THERE'S an idea!

I Wear Pants;541014 wrote:I am Catholic but I'm also of the opinion that birth control is not an objectionable thing.

And it isn't free but I wouldn't be opposed to birth control being subsidized or there being a program for low income people to get it. Hell, if it helps people not have children until they are financially able to do so then I'm all for it.

See...Here's the part of the welfare equation you keep forgetting:

More children = Bigger welfare check

Good luck in getting welfare mamma to pop the "free" Pill.

CenterBHSFan;541252 wrote:Maybe I'll get on board with this if they start issuing free governmental protection condoms. Now THERE'S an idea!

Your tax dollars already at "work". Coming soon to a public high school near you!

HitsRus;541041 wrote:It's been a while since I readBrave New World, but I believe birth control, as well,as 'happy drugs' were government subsidized too.



Isn't it amazing how one government program begets another?

No, the birth control was mandatory.

Hell, forget free birth control, I've got an idea. Forced sterilization for anyone on welfare more than 1 year until they prove they have and can keep a job. Problem solved. If the government has to pay for your welfare, you shouldn't be allowed to get pregnant.

tk421;541334 wrote:Hell, forget free birth control, I've got an idea. Forced sterilization for anyone on welfare more than 1 year until they prove they have and can keep a job.

I like it but if you sterilize them and they do "prove" they can hold down a job, how do you un-sterilize them? But since holding down a job means earning a paycheck as opposed to collecting Food Stamps, free health care, and a welfare check so what's the incentive in finding a job?

tk421;541334 wrote:Problem solved.

Not really. They'll just adopt a few illegal immigrants to up the welfare check.

tk421;541334 wrote:If the government has to pay for your welfare, you shouldn't be allowed to get pregnant.

Won't happen. The Dems want the future votes.

True, can't stop those welfare babies, those are future democratic party votes.

tk421;541334 wrote:Hell, forget free birth control, I've got an idea. Forced sterilization for anyone on welfare more than 1 year until they prove they have and can keep a job. Problem solved. If the government has to pay for your welfare, you shouldn't be allowed to get pregnant.

Cass Sustein, is that you?

(wink wink NUDGE NUDGE)

CenterBHSFan;541811 wrote:Cass Sustein, is that you?

(wink wink NUDGE NUDGE)

Say no MORE!

What about paying them a montly fee to not get pregnant? Start when they are of birthing age, pay them a monthly installment for a yearly fee, say $12000 to get the shot broken down monthly to $1000. If they want to have kids after that time, reduce the price for every child they have. It is only considered forced if they cant survive at all on their own.

redstreak one;541847 wrote:What about paying them a montly fee to not get pregnant? Start when they are of birthing age, pay them a monthly installment for a yearly fee, say $12000 to get the shot broken down monthly to $1000. If they want to have kids after that time, reduce the price for every child they have. It is only considered forced if they cant survive at all on their own.

Legislated bribes? Or rather, bribe incentives?

If you don't want them having welfare babies just have the gubment make em get a Smashsmortion. "Oh what's that, you got knocked up at prom by a dead beat dad? Smashmortion time." That ought to help destroy the disease of dependence pushed by those crooks in the Democratic Party.

There are crooks in all parties.

we should take kids away from people who have them and cant support them, rather than paying them to raise them

derek bomar;542088 wrote:we should take kids away from people who have them and cant support them, rather than paying them to raise them

Okay...then who's going to raise them, you? The government? Foster care is already a fucked up mess full of abuse and neglect -- and you want to make it BIGGER?

Yeah that sounds like a great idea.

derek bomar;542088 wrote:we should take kids away from people who have them and cant support them, rather than paying them to raise them

Besides the obvious moral and legal issues, have you seen the foster care system?