Sandra Fluke is no fluke

[_Droopy]

This is what the major institutions of our culture have become and reflects clearly and explicitly upon the intellectual and moral level at which they perceive the world.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli ... f_the_year

A woman who claims to run through ten grand a year in contraceptives, who told unflinching, demagogic lies about her political opponents before millions of Americans at the Democratic National Convention, and who thinks I should be forced through taxation to be complicit in her lifestyle choices, is now TIME's person of the year?

Yup. Welcome to the new world, and if there's one thing it isn't, its brave.

[_just me]

Women who have access to free birth control save about $96 a year in healthcare costs.

Free BC would SAVE taxpayers money.

[_subgenius]

Women who have access to free birth control save about $96 a year in healthcare costs.

Free BC would SAVE taxpayers money.

so would abstinence...in fact abstinence would save MORE money
so, what was your point?

[_Jaybear]

Women who have access to free birth control save about $96 a year in healthcare costs.

Free BC would SAVE taxpayers money.

"Free birth control" is a mismoner.
People who have insurance, pay for that policy, either through their services, or from their paycheck.

When I bought a car, it did not come with a "free" airbag. The air bag was a standard feature required by law, to be included.

The fact that you would get such a visceral objection from the right to the requirement that insurance policy cover birth control, when it benefits just about everyone financially, tells you that opposition is not rooted in rational thought.

[_just me]

Women who have access to free birth control save about $96 a year in healthcare costs.

Free BC would SAVE taxpayers money.

so would abstinence...in fact abstinence would save MORE money
so, what was your point?

yes, well, you are one of an extremely small percentage of humans that believe sex is ONLY to be used for making babies. Less than 1%...more like .0000001%.

Married women use BC, too.

Women who have birth control included in their healthcare are healthier and are much less likely to live in poverty. It saves us money and it increases the wellbeing of our society.

Just because you don't want to have sex doesn't mean other people feel that way.

[_just me]

Women who have access to free birth control save about $96 a year in healthcare costs.

Free BC would SAVE taxpayers money.

"Free birth control" is a mismoner.
People who have insurance, pay for that policy, either through their services, or from their paycheck.

When I bought a car, it did not come with a "free" airbag. The air bag was a standard feature required by law, to be included.

The fact that you would get such a visceral objection from the right to the requirement that insurance policy cover birth control, when it benefits just about everyone financially, tells you that opposition is not rooted in rational thought.

True. We should say "birth control included in their healthcare package." But that is a lot to type. Is there an acronym we could use?

[_cinepro]

The fact that you would get such a visceral objection from the right to the requirement that insurance policy cover birth control, when it benefits just about everyone financially, tells you that opposition is not rooted in rational thought.

I suspect any insurance policy that doesn't encourage its members to use birth control isn't basing that policy on fiscal considerations.

Whether or not the other considerations are "rational" is another question.

[Guest]

Women who have access to free birth control save about $96 a year in healthcare costs.

Free BC would SAVE taxpayers money.

Let me get this straight, if this is understood to be within the realm of possibility: free birth control (tax subsidized birth control) would save me, the taxpayer who subsidizes that "free" birth control, money? It would seem that, at anything near Sandra Fluke levels of sexual promiscuity, saving $96 bucks a year is not even worth bringing up.

I also don't accept what appears to be your fundamental premise here that healthcare costs are, or should, by definition, be socialized across the entire economy (otherwise, that $96 dollars (whatever that tiny amount is for) represents her own out-of-pocket outlay from personal funds generated by her participation in the productive processes of society (a "job") and represents no loss to me or to the economy) so that thereby any savings in medical services here through a government subsidy there represents, in some sense, a "savings" to me. Both the $96 in government subsidized medical services and the subsidized contraceptives represent a net loss the the economy (the real economy, just me), and have "saved" nothing.

1. I don't want to pay for Fluke's healthcare costs or her contraceptive usage, and the constitution contains no provisions or text allowing the state to force me to do so.

2. Fluke's contraceptive needs are her own problem and she has no business involving her fellow citizens in the support and abetting of her own lifestyle choices (and contraceptives are hardly expensive, and in fact, quite the opposite (as a quick trip to any local drug store will make apparent)).

3. If Fluke, or anyone else, wishes to live their sex lives at Hefneresque levels, their contraceptive requirements are their own problem and their own responsibility. If those requirements become economically prohibitive, then they can alter their behavior to reflect those economic realities.

[_Droopy]

"Free birth control" is a mismoner.

"Free" anything - including lunch - is a misnomer.

The fact that you would get such a visceral objection from the right to the requirement that insurance policy cover birth control, when it benefits just about everyone financially, tells you that opposition is not rooted in rational thought.

Actually it tells me that its most likely rooted in principled opposition to the state forcing me to be complicit in the lifestyle choices of others with which I strongly disagree through the force of law.

It also tells me that its rooted in principled opposition to the state being involved in human affairs with which it has no competence or business meddling.

[_Droopy]

quote="subgenius"

so would abstinence...in fact abstinence would save MORE money
so, what was your point?

yes, well, you are one of an extremely small percentage of humans that believe sex is ONLY to be used for making babies. Less than 1%...more like .0000001%.

What is the logical relevance of this response to sub's point? If it is the case that something like .0000001% of humans believe that sex is only for making babies (which LDS, by the way, do not believe), then you're using such a vanishingly small group in your argument begs questions.

Methinks, in fact, you have other concepts and assumptions in mind.

Women who have birth control included in their healthcare are healthier and are much less likely to live in poverty. It saves us money and it increases the wellbeing of our society.

These look like a series of non-sequiturs cobbled together from some website that ends in ".gov" (it can only "save us money" if all money is not private but socialized across the entire economy and essentially, in some sense "public" such that what someone saves in medical costs attending sexual activity is somehow "saved" across the entire economy (you said "saves us money") as a collective entity). I do not see how either subsidized RU-486 or subsidized healthcare "save" me anything. These are all net costs to the economy.

Just because you don't want to have sex doesn't mean other people feel that way.

But this is, of course, irrelevant to the points being made. You can have all the sex you want, but both the having of that sex and its consequences are your responsibility, and you have no business socializing the consequences of your lifestyle choices through the coercive powers of the state.