Snails - Response on Threads Part 3

[SilverBear]

... despite Bear's opinion ...

And this is my opinion re: Birth Control and ACA (and/or ANY insurance program)... "Hobby Lobby" or not.

If any couple wants to engage in sexual activity that may or may not result in the spawning of a new life, it should be THEIR RESPONSIBILITY to assure the outcome goes as planned. In other words: PAY FOR IT OUT OF POCKET. Don't spread OR stick it in and then come to MY TAX MONEY to assure she doesn't become great with child. You wanna play???... then YOU gotta pay.

There. How's that?

 

[AttyPops]

Good morning snails.

 

[tiburonfirst]

morning, bear and ces!


just my - much cheaper to provide tax-payer-funded birth control than to support the ensuing kids for 18 yrs

 

[tiburonfirst]

and here's atty!



how's it looking for you, ces?

Most of Alabama was under a flash-flood warning, with parts under tornado watches, while Mobile, Ala., was put under a more severe tornado warning by the National Weather Service.

People in Jefferson County, Ala., were evacuated as their homes started taking on water, said Bob Ammons, a spokesman for the Alabama Emergency Management Agency. More than 200 apartments in one complex were heavily flooded, he said.

 

[SilverBear]

... support the ensuing kids for 18 yrs ...

Change in the "welfare" system?

 

[AttyPops]

I have no problem with that Bear. If you want to sell that as national policy, fine.

What I have a problem with is someone altering other people's insurance coverage for religious reasons. Examples: Some religions don't believe in health care at all (just pray over them). What about them? You break a leg? Just pray, because company X doesn't cover health costs.....

Nit picking this stuff apart based on religion X is fraught with peril. Just buy "standard" insurance and let people make their own decisions. Besides, for your specific point, BC coverage LOWERS the cost of insurance policies. Not covering BC ends up making policies more expensive in the long run (cheaper to buy a pill than support a new child for 26 years on the policy). So objecting on a cost basis doesn't make sense.

And good morning again.

 

[AttyPops]

And jinx Tibs

 

[SilverBear]

... but then again, this is not The Outside ...

I will NOT post in that Slum Of ECF.

 

[CES]

We have some flooding around here, but none in my immediate vicinity. they were doing water rescues through the night in some of the low lying areas near creeks. A fair number of roads closed, some at or in major traffic corridors.

 

[AttyPops]

Nice to see that you're taking the high ground Bear.

Some people have to fight in the trenches, though.

Off to find some breakfast......

 

[tiburonfirst]

Change in the "welfare" system?

don't hold your breath, bear



@ atty - big difference between refusing health care all together and allowing certain companies/people to refuse add-ons

 

[tiburonfirst]

Nice to see that you're taking the high ground Bear.

Some people have to fight in the trenches, though.

Off to find some breakfast......

oh, the obligations!

 

[SilverBear]

So objecting on a cost basis doesn't make sense.

And consistently and continually bailing people out after making bad/irresponsible choices does.

OK... here is your allotment of THREE (3) pills and one box of BASIC Trojans "on the house" (none of this "ribbed for her pleasure" crap).

After that, reach into your OWN pocket.

 

[CES]

I'm with Tibs on this one, I'd rather have my taxes pay for birth control than have more unwanted children stuck in the system. Actually, i'd almost rather take it a step farther- make birth control mandatory until the age of 25.

 

[SilverBear]

don't hold your breath, bear

And RIGHT THERE, you have it.

The hole has been dug SO DEEP, there is NO getting out of it.

 

[SilverBear]

Some people have to fight in the trenches, though.

And you are making GREAT headway, I must say!!!

There comes a time to just walk away.

 

[AttyPops]

don't hold your breath, bear



@ atty - big difference between refusing health care all together and allowing certain companies/people to refuse add-ons

To the insured...yes...a big difference. However, the legal precedent is dangerous. If you let them refuse stuff, even little stuff, on a religious basis at first...what about "the big stuff" next??? Slippery slope.

 

[tiburonfirst]

I'm with Tibs on this one, I'd rather have my taxes pay for birth control than have more unwanted children stuck in the system. Actually, i'd almost rather take it a step farther- make birth control mandatory until the age of 25.

not a bad idea

not sure if it should be mandatory in an insurance plan, i'd prefer it to be optional but help should definitely be available for those who can't afford it.
might be a losing battle though because those who really should use it prefer not to .................... sigh
and here come 18yrs of support compliments of us

 

[CES]

not a bad idea

not sure if it should be mandatory in an insurance plan, i'd prefer it to be optional but help should definitely be available for those who can't afford it.
might be a losing battle though because those who really should use it prefer not to .................... sigh
and here come 18yrs of support compliments of us

Since mandating use really isn't possible (and an incredible invasion of choice). I'd really like it to be easily available for all who'd like to use it, and that youngin's whose brains aren't developed enough to make rational choices be really strongly encouraged to use it.

 

[tiburonfirst]

Since mandating use really isn't possible (and an incredible invasion of choice). I'd really like it to be easily available for all who'd like to use it, and that youngin's whose brains aren't developed enough to make rational choices be really strongly encouraged to use it.

that sounds good to me and i'd be more than happy seeing my tax dollars going that way