Obamacare, birth control and our taxes

[Stone]

This is not an Obamacare rant or a birth control/abortion argument.

I've been reading of the Hobby Lobby/Supreme Court decision and the fall out from it that seems to concern other business/religious issues.

Obamacare is meant to provide health coverage for those that can't afford market priced insurance and yet have broad coverage. It's law and my thread isn't intended for challenging it at this late date.....at least not all of it.

With the Supreme Court ruling, women that are working for a business whose owners have religious beliefs that go counter the concept of birth control, these women may no longer have benefits for certain types of birth control.
This thread is not intended to argue that point, either.

Common thought is that Obama will simply cover the above costs using our taxes.

Now comes my point.

If Obamacare was intended to cover those that could not afford birth control, why can't women/families that have jobs pay for their own birth control methods if their employee benefits do not cover it?
Labor unions bargain for the coverage and in reality, that coverage is part of a woman's/family's wages.


Where is the logic that the taxpayer should pay for birth control of those that are working and can afford their own?
Remember, those living at and below the poverty line are subsidized because of a lack of income.
My point concerns those working with enough financial resources to buy the birth control products.


Thoughts?

 

[The Man]

IMO birth control should not be included at all...unless say it was part of a hormone treatment not related to birth control.
Birth control is a convenience IMO.
Lets reverse the genders..A man wants to become sterile via surgery..as it is convenient as there is no need for a condom...dont have to pull..or refrain from sex when the partner is apt to get pregnant....I wouldnt want the govt to pay for such an operation..nor buy someone condoms.
Therefore I am biased by admission and cant not agree for the govt paying for birth control unless it is an actual medical issue.

As a side note...most kids are accidents anyways and for the most part its been working out.
Also our fertility rate is low in the US..we need more accidents.
Pregnancy should not be discouraged to the masses by the govt..unless it was for the greater good of the future.which isnt the case.
Those are just side notes though to my position.

 

[Stone]

IMO birth control should not be included at all...unless say it was part of a hormone treatment not related to birth control.
Birth control is a convenience IMO.
Lets reverse the genders..A man wants to become sterile via surgery..as it is convenient as there is no need for a condom...dont have to pull..or refrain from sex when the partner is apt to get pregnant....I wouldnt want the govt to pay for such an operation..nor buy someone condoms.
Therefore I am biased by admission and cant not agree for the govt paying for birth control unless it is an actual medical issue.

As a side note...most kids are accidents anyways and for the most part its been working out.
Also our fertility rate is low in the US..we need more accidents.
Pregnancy should not be discouraged to the masses by the govt..unless it was for the greater good of the future.which isnt the case.
Those are just side notes though to my position.

Birth rate in the US is lower than much of the rest of the world, but that's a positive when considering the problems of dwindling resources, such as water and arable land and food production in the long run.
So I don't think an argument to increase the birth rate is viable, Man.
Look at the population problems in SE Asia as an example of population expansion out of control.

As far as chemical birth control being a convenience for pleasure, that's really a small part of the issue.

My point is, birth control is becoming an entitlement and there is no justification to apply it by law to those that can afford it. Those that can afford it and want to use it, already are.
This becomes a freebie in a long list of entitlements already burdening the taxpayer.

 

[Alien Allen]

lot of bull shit coming from the left on this case. from what i understand Hobby Lobby does have contraceptives in their coverage and this was about 4 options beyond prevention but for use after having sex?

 

[The Man]

My point is, birth control is becoming an entitlement and there is no justification to apply it by law to those that can afford it. Those that can afford it and want to use it, already are.
This becomes a freebie in a long list of entitlements already burdening the taxpayer.

I agree,
Also I do not think it is a health issue.
BC should not be given unless it is hormone therapy for a health issue if its going to be state funded with Obama care.
As you said your thread is to not argue about whether one believes Obama care should have been implemented to begin with but rather this single issue.

Birth rate in the US is lower than much of the rest of the world, but that's a positive when considering the problems of dwindling resources, such as water and arable land and food production in the long run.
So I don't think an argument to increase the birth rate is viable, Man.
Look at the population problems in SE Asia as an example of population expansion out of control.

I used those as side notes only..the reason for my position is above as they are entitlements as you say.
But I do believe the birth rate in the states here is going down..and will soon be below the 2.0 mark...which will cause a decrease in the population as the older people die.
IMO it is a very bad time for free birth control{not that I approve of it to begin with}..as it will only lower the birth rate more.
Canada is having a low birth rate and has to rely on immigration to prevent a population decline.

Free birth control here in the states is sending the message that children are unwanted items and a further show for the disregard of human life/not a good message to send to future generations IMO.

 

[The Man]

lot of bull shit coming from the left on this case. from what i understand Hobby Lobby does have contraceptives in their coverage and this was about 4 options beyond prevention but for use after having sex?

The lefts have always pushed for anything which compliments their pro choice position and will try to tie religion to anything which is pro life.

 

[Stone]

I think as a generality, unwanted pregnancies lead to unwanted children more than wanted pregnancies do, especially at the lower income levels because of economic factors.
I suspect free birth control at lower income levels would reduce the number of unwanted children.

But that isn't what I intended to discuss in this thread.

 

[The Man]

I think as a generality, unwanted pregnancies lead to unwanted children more than wanted pregnancies do, especially at the lower income levels because of economic factors.
I suspect free birth control at lower income levels would reduce the number of unwanted children.

But that isn't what I intended to discuss in this thread.

But wouldnt that support an argument for birth control for anyone as to prevent unwanted children...as free birth control at any income level would also reduce unwanted children?
I am very bias on this as I dont agree that BC is a health issue to begin with unless it is for hormone therapy for a health issue.
Therefore I cant really argue whether those that can afford BC should get it as an entitlement..as I believe they shouldn't nor the lower income brackets as well.
But assuming I did feel it was a health issue...and we are forced to buy something from the govt{healthcare}
If BC is provided to the lower wage earners then yes it should also be provided to the higher wage earners.
Where do you draw the line..for example..if a higher wage earner can pay for meds for instance{insulin for example}..should that not be provided?..as we are forced to have the insurance so should be able to use it.

 

[Stone]

But wouldnt that support an argument for birth control for anyone as to prevent unwanted children...as free birth control at any income level would also reduce unwanted children?
I am very bias on this as I dont agree that BC is a health issue to begin with unless it is for hormone therapy for a health issue.
Therefore I cant really argue whether those that can afford BC should get it as an entitlement..as I believe they shouldn't nor the lower income brackets as well.
But assuming I did feel it was a health issue...and we are forced to buy something from the govt{healthcare}
If BC is provided to the lower wage earners then yes it should also be provided to the higher wage earners.
Where do you draw the line..for example..if a higher wage earner can pay for meds for instance{insulin for example}..should that not be provided?..as we are forced to have the insurance so should be able to use it.

But wouldnt that support an argument for birth control for anyone as to prevent unwanted children ...as free birth control at any income level would also reduce unwanted children?

It supports an argument that anyone of any income level that doesn't want a pregnancy should be using birth control.
But it doesn't support an argument that those than can afford it should be granted free birth control.
Remember, this only affects women that work for companies that claim religious exemptions, not all of the US. So the discussion isn't nation wide, it's limited to the effects of the SC ruling.

Therefore I cant really argue whether those that can afford BC should get it as an entitlement..as I believe they shouldn't nor the lower income brackets as well.

That argument was settled when Johnson instituted 'The Great Society' concept and welfare.
We may not agree with it, but it's not leaving.
But along those lines, as a generality, those than can't afford the basics of life are given entitlements and birth control is one of those now being considered for women who aren't covered at work.

So my argument, with the SC framing exceptions to Obamacare/business obligations, and scuttlebutt about Obama covering all women, why should those that can afford it get it free?
Medicaid is an entitlement program for a specific element of the public with restrictions.
Welfare is an entitlement program for a specific element of the public with restrictions.
Social Security is an entitlement program for a specific element of the public with restrictions.
So shouldn't restrictions be applied to this entitlement program, too?
Why not a consideration of income level?


I agree. Pregnancy is not a disease, it's a condition of life.
So, as a generality, it's not a health problem to cure.
But it is a financial and social issue for those of low incomes.
That's the POV I think it should be addressed as and why I think those that can afford it should not be granted free birth control unless it's in their existing health insurance contracts. They can afford it.
Granting low wage owners with out the insurance coverage is a significant mechanism that should help prevent stagnation of their financial status. But they have to use it to get any benefit from it.
Many will, however, be covered by subsidized Obamacare.

Where do you draw the line..for example..if a higher wage earner can pay for meds for instance{insulin for example}..should that not be provided?..as we are forced to have the insurance so should be able to use it.

That is a disease and as far as I know, there are no issues of it being covered at any income level.

 

[The Man]

Remember, this only affects women that work for companies that claim religious exemptions, not all of the US. So the discussion isn't nation wide, it's limited to the effects of the SC ruling.

To be honest...I have not followed it the last few months or what the official ruling was...I do know that a religious exception was the argument/but do not know what we are left with currently.

So my argument, with the SC framing exceptions to Obamacare/business obligations, and scuttlebutt about Obama covering all women, why should those that can afford it get it free?

As they are calling it a health issue for some reason.
But going with that line of though..if someone that is covered needs say a few stitches should that be covered if they can afford it?
I say yes.
But since BC isnt a health issue I cant justify it..its as you say just an entitlement.

So shouldn't restrictions be applied to this entitlement program, too?
Why not a consideration of income level?

I think I follow you now...as it is an entitlement.
I think the problem is that BC is part of the coverage of the Obama care..so therefore would be treated like an illness and therefore covered.
But yes I agree..but even go further..there should be no assistance on BC regardless of income...its not a necessity such as food and shelter..not is it a health issue.

I agree. Pregnancy is not a disease, it's a condition of life.
So, as a generality, it's not a health problem to cure.
But it is a financial and social issue for those of low incomes.

I disagree its not really a financial issue as it is not a necessity for the well being of a person.
We all face ups and down in life and may need some help with food ..keeping warm or a home to live in.
I put BC in the group though as a convenience...Thats why I cant even understand the govts involvement..so I am bias to begin with...that makes it difficult for me to agree with any of it.

As a side note I dont have insurance...I will just pay my fine.
But if I had it I wouldn't expect condoms to be paid for as part of healthcare...unless that convenience was an option with the plan.
But I would never approve of the option being "forced' nor a group of others to foot the bill by force.

 

[Stone]

T.....................

I disagree its not really a financial issue as it is not a necessity for the well being of a person.
We all face ups and down in life and may need some help with food ..keeping warm or a home to live in.
I put BC in the group though as a convenience...Thats why I cant even understand the govts involvement..so I am bias to begin with...that makes it difficult for me to agree with any of it.

As a side note I dont have insurance...I will just pay my fine.
But if I had it I wouldn't expect condoms to be paid for as part of healthcare...unless that convenience was an option with the plan.
But I would never approve of the option being "forced' nor a group of others to foot the bill by force.

I disagree its not really a financial issue as it is not a necessity for the well being of a person.
We all face ups and down in life and may need some help with food ..keeping warm or a home to live in.

An unwanted pregnancy not only results with a financial burden on low income families, through entitlements that cover children in those situations, it puts a further burden on taxpayers.
Income tax credits are reformulated for a larger family, programs like wica and food stamps generate additional costs as they kick in or increase their usage and the medical care of that unwanted child in a low income household is likely to be subsidized by Obamacare.
All extra taxation on the taxpayer, but not seen by a low income family that's not generating much of a taxable income.

Slate has an interesting article on savings and government subsidized birth control for low income women:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...irth_control_really_save_taxpayer_money_.html
There is a link to a Brookings study, but it's broken and I can't locate a good link at this time.
I understand the responsibility argument, but I think the issue needs a pragmatic solution for low income women/families that simply can't afford birth control but want to use it..
If it saves the taxpayer as claimed, it's the better argument, imo.

 

[The Man]

An unwanted pregnancy not only results with a financial burden on low income families, through entitlements that cover children in those situations, it puts a further burden on taxpayers.
Income tax credits are reformulated for a larger family, programs like wica and food stamps generate additional costs as they kick in or increase their usage and the medical care of that unwanted child in a low income household is likely to be subsidized by Obamacare.
All extra taxation on the taxpayer, but not seen by a low income family that's not generating much of a taxable income.

Slate has an interesting article on savings and government subsidized birth control for low income women:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...irth_control_really_save_taxpayer_money_.html
There is a link to a Brookings study, but it's broken and I can't locate a good link at this time.
I understand the responsibility argument, but I think the issue needs a pragmatic solution for low income women/families that simply can't afford birth control but want to use it..
If it saves the taxpayer as claimed, it's the better argument, imo.

An unwanted pregnancy not only results with a financial burden on low income families, through entitlements that cover children in those situations, it puts a further burden on taxpayers.

I agree as it is the main reason we have redistribution of wealth...people wouldnt be willing to work for less if not for all the assistance..the result is lower wages and lack of initiative for people to further themselves as there really is no need to as the govt will be up the slack.
The wages for the lower end jobs would go up a little as well as the people available to work them would go down..as the single mothers would be forced to advance themselves thus opening positions in the lower end jobs...but then again the professional jobs they would now be working would also be paying a little less as there would be more competition with qualified applicants.
This would push the middle class down a little and the poor up a little naturally flattening the income inequality curve a little....But the middle class would be stronger as they are not losing a fortune in taxes bumping them back up anyway...socialism..it simply does not work lol.

Slate has an interesting article on savings and government subsidized birth control for low income women:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...irth_control_really_save_taxpayer_money_.html
There is a link to a Brookings study, but it's broken and I can't locate a good link at this time.
I understand the responsibility argument, but I think the issue needs a pragmatic solution for low income women/families that simply can't afford birth control but want to use it..
If it saves the taxpayer as claimed, it's the better argument, imo.

I actually think the figures for the money saved in that link are low..the argument does hold water but the rewards are under estimated IMO as it would only save each tax payer a few bucks a year..IMO the saving would be much more...the variable is we dont know how many pregnancies it will prevent....but none the less it would not need to be a significant number to provide savings.
IMO thats a cave in approach by the govt for an existing problem...would be akin letting illegals walk in as it costs to deport them..wait that is what we are doing..Its is cheaper to deport them that to support them for the long run.

 

[The Man]

lot of bull shit coming from the left on this case. from what i understand Hobby Lobby does have contraceptives in their coverage and this was about 4 options beyond prevention but for use after having sex?

Morning after pills?

 

[porterjack]

Where is the logic that the taxpayer should pay for birth control of those that are working and can afford their own?
Remember, those living at and below the poverty line are subsidized because of a lack of income.
My point concerns those working with enough financial resources to buy the birth control products.


Thoughts?

no govt should ever subsidize birth control for those that can afford to pay themselves. Subsidizing those that can afford will inevitably hurt those that need support, birth control or not