Leonardo Inception (Extended)

Really, unless you want to go have a vasectomy, it's to your benefit, guys, to pay for her birth control.

Hey boredmeme

I wanted to let you know I appreciate your memes and comments. I like the way you look at things and get your ideas across. Your memes are clear and to the point. :)

But Viagra....that's a God-damned Right.... Bestowed by the Creator, I'll guess.

But you should KNOW that Women have the same rights to reproductive healthcare as men. If your "CHRISTIAN" corporation's insurance plan supplies Viagra for Men...it's transparently unfair to deny women.

But MOST importantly....birth control medication has alternate approved uses...like to help some women regulate an irregular cycle.. So this is actually a big deal.

I disagree....but upvote anyways....see people, it can be done.....

Except Viagra is NOT free. There's a co-pay. And I'll have you know that that co-pay (before ACA) was a hell of a lot higher than the co-pay for birth control. It was 80 per month while BC was only 10 per month. Plans that did not subsidise birth control were rare, but there was still a co-pay, similar to any other medically necessary medicine.
So why should anyone have a "right" to "free" birth control, which is not medically necessary (you can throw the rare occasions it's used for medical reasons in there, but you know that's not what women were marching for) , when I still have to pay for my kids antibiotics?

Not sure who really demands free BC either. In fact the use of BC for non-sexual purposes is A Lot more prevalent than you realize. Many doctors and parents start women on them @ an early age, to deal with 'lady issues' - in addition to the fact that Don't want a pregnancy.

People are rallying because of CORPORATE claims to religion - which SCOTUS somehow upheld.

And Why ate we subsidizing Viahta @ all? Seems like a double standard to me - particularly because there is NO medical necessity involved.

But traditionally - boys will be Trump-like, was the ethos...and women are either fallen like Mary Magdalene...or pristine like the other Mary. And control of Women's bodies in a patriarchal culture passes from Father to Husband (as PROPERTY) - so right wing attempts to restrict access seem a bit like a prequel to Margaret Atwoods - A Handmaids Tale.

If we aren't the Republic of Gilead....then why have battles over such a small thing?

I.think that your kids anti bionics AND BC should be heavily subsidized. What's the Alternative?

..
...when NOT FREE.

So saying you have to pay for your own birth control (in other words expecting you to take responsibility for your own choices) somehow equates with the government sanctioned rape in a handmaid's tale?
No one is preventing you from getting it. It's just not being handed to you on a silver platter.

If you pay for HEALTH CARE as a society (because untreated Sick people are bad for Public Health) already....why the hyper-focus on BC?

Not bringing in rape (but Cosby would) but merely Women's freedom and independence. And Control of Women's bodies is a historical reality.

Must our women bear more soldiers for the HOMELAND? Pretty sure Hitler opposed abortion for That reason.

How many unplanned pregnancies do we Want on a planet rapidly reaching the occupancy limit?

1. Under the current system, the government doesn't usually pay for health care. In most cases it is employer provided healthcare.
2. The rules were not that insurers had to subsidise BC at rate similar to other medically necessary drugs, but that they had to provide it at no cost to the women.
3. If you are arguing that the government has a right to force third parties to pay for birth control (rather than simply providing it directly) because population control is a government interest, what else are you okay with allowing the government to force people to do in pursuit of that interest? Forced sterilization? Forced abortions? Perhaps execution of unproductive citizens?

Where the Government is paying....It SHOULD. Where corporations are paying...THEY SHOULD.

The power here is with the Employer - Not the Government. So euthanasia and sterilizations are hardly relevant. Unless Michael's claims a religious Right to force the beliefs of their Ownership upon their employees - and it includes those tenets - its a Stramineus Homo.

Yes the GOVERNMENT can Regulate commerce - and FICTIONAL beings - PERSONS = CORPORATIONS

Since we are mandating HealthCare pursuant to regulations...I Don't see why THAT ONE point should such a problem - unless this is yet another attempt to impose a MINORITY (usually religiously inspired) viewpoint upon the rest of us.

Since 51% are women - what's Soooo shocking about Democracy in action? Granted, some Women vote on religious lines - but lot's of men also approve of unlimited access to BC. And NOT ALWAYS 'cause they like getting laid.

Many of the employers that the mandate is being thrust upon are individuals. Some are clearly religious organizations. If the government chooses provide B.C., I'm fine with that. If the employers choose to provide it, I'm fine with that. If they choose not to, noone is preventing them from getting it on there own. This would not even be an issue if we had single payer, but under the system which coerces employers to be a part of our medical system, how can you possibly be surprised that religious individuals and organizations don't want to finance medical choices that they dissaprove of.
The issue is is that the government, instead of simply providing the care, is involving a third party.

Medical choices are between You and YOUR DOCTOR....NOT you and your employer.

If the mandate applies, it APPLIES. Otherwise a truly small business (5 employees or less - I think.that's the threshold Elsewhere in the Codes) doesn't have the mandate. If you UNDER the Commerce clause...you better comply.

These people sound like OWNERS, of their employees - mot Employers.

Technically (check the tax code) all INDIVIDUALS and PERSONS are in effect mini-Corporations (animate property) held as Chattel by a Much larger one. If the individuals you speak of weren't under the Absolute Authority of Congress - the mandate wouldn't apply either.

You'll get no arguments against a single payer system from me. But in the meantime....your ability to afford or receive all proper medical care (mandated by Congress)....should not be dependant on the enlightenment of your boss.

What about.Jehovah's Witnesses? If my boss is one...can he deny payment for a blood transfusion? Christian Scientists....
there's ALL KINDS of kooky religions with medically-oriented beliefs...

Where would it end.

I agree with the Catholic Church as an employer having "special" consideration as a religious Corporation (Sole). But why they hiring people who Don't follow their top-down tenets..?

Because most US Catholics disagree with their own church.

Let us keep matters of conscience PERSONAL....so employers can't substitute THEIR consciences for those of their employees....at least in PRIVATE and Personal matters.

Hope that this helps you to see.my perspective. I've seen yours before....and have had some time to work on the arguemejts.. Don't know high court would rule...but I'd LOVE to take a shot at this matter.