Why Does the Government Think We Should Pay For Others to Have Sex?

That's Obamacare. Here's a portion of an article. It makes pretty good sense.

The administration has shifted, not eliminated, costs. Thus, everyone under a plan covering contraceptives will pay for the benefit, even if they do not use them, never intend to use them, and are morally opposed to using them. That may be a good deal for the person who wants contraception, but not for the rest of us.

At least this makes more sense than the administration rule, which says insurance companies have to pay for the coverage. If they can’t charge specifically for birth control, they will treat coverage like an administrative expense. Either all plans offered to religious organizations or simply all plans for everyone (for the sake of simplicity) will incorporate the cost. Then we all will pay so Washington can satisfy the ideological preferences and financial interests of clamorous political groups.

Sixth, requiring coverage of contraception (as well as abortifacients and sterilization) is worse than other mandates because it violates the conscience of some religious believers. Requiring Catholics and some others to subsidize birth control is a direct assault on their faith. One can argue about the rule’s constitutionality — First Amendment jurisprudence is notoriously complex — but the government should not challenge people’s fundamental moral beliefs without a serious, even compelling justification. There is none for relieving those having sex from paying for contraception. Sex is good, but that doesn’t mean the rest of us should have to pay for those using birth control while engaging in sex.

If I'm buying the rubbers, I'm having the sex. End of story.

http://www.cato.org/publications/com...macare-alchemy

If I'm buying the rubbers, I'm having the sex. End of story.
Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

And that is as it should be!!! The hypocrisy of the left is outrageous. They scream, "Keep the government out of the bedroom, except to pay for contraceptives, abortions and little blue pills!"

Small price to pay IFF it reduces teen pregnancy (or pregnancy for anybody who can't afford a baby).

Small price to pay IFF it reduces teen pregnancy (or pregnancy for anybody who can't afford a baby). Originally Posted by essence

"A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money."

No matter how you rationalize it, essence, such expenses are not constitutionally legitimate – especially subsidizing the little blue pills and then paying for abortions!?! Even the notion is friggin' ridiculous!

We should not be paying for the blue pills.

We should be investing in birth control. Much cheaper in the long term by any strech of studies. It may not suit some morally but from a money standpoint it is a great investment.

Which does the right hate most?
Paying for birth control.
Supporting more people on welfare.

We're not paying for people to have sex. We're paying for people not to have expensive babies that we're going to have to pay for in the future.

We're not paying for people to have sex. We're paying for people not to have expensive babies that we're going to have to pay for in the future. Originally Posted by jbravo_123

what if we didnt pay for either one

whatever you pay for you are gonna get a lot more of

We're not paying for people to have sex. We're paying for people not to have expensive babies that we're going to have to pay for in the future. Originally Posted by jbravo_123

You're paying for the irresponsible behavior of other people. That should make you angry. Taking away the state safety net would force people to be more responsible or force them to deal with the consequences themselves. As such, they'd serve as an example for others who choose not to make wise choices.

when I pay school taxes, I'm paying for yhe irresponsible behavior of folks thst want others to bare the cost of educating their kids...why no gripe about that?

when I pay school taxes, I'm paying for yhe irresponsible behavior of folks thst want others to bare the cost of educating their kids...why no gripe about that? Originally Posted by WTF

start a movement..... oh wait....i mean form a group

Ya gotta love old Unaliar... "Here's a portion of an article."

LMAO @ Salina Jizz Guzzler

We're not paying for people to have sex. We're paying for people not to have expensive babies that we're going to have to pay for in the future. Originally Posted by jbravo_123

Exactly! Thank you for seeing through COG's spin. No one is being paid to have sex. They are going to do that anyway. Paying for contraception eliminates the consequences of the sex. And it is cheaper for society in the long run. Think how much money society can save not having to pay for the education and probable eventual incarceration of at least some or all of Antonio Cromartie's dozen illegitimate children.

You're paying for the irresponsible behavior of other people. That should make you angry. Taking away the state safety net would force people to be more responsible or force them to deal with the consequences themselves. As such, they'd serve as an example for others who choose not to make wise choices. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

As a general proposition, you are paying for contraception of ALL people, not just the irresponsible.

More importantly, you're paying for the irresponsible behavior of other people no matter what. If they have the kids, you pay for the medical bills, the education, and frequently, the incarceration of the kids.

And you are NEVER going to get rid of the state safety net. I don't like entitlement programs any more than you do, but they are a FACT of life. The average person wants it. Ayn Rand LOST. Get over it.

Social Security is here to stay.

Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare - whatever you want to call it - is here to stay.

So the only intelligent course to follow is to minimize the costs of those programs.

And contraceptives are clearly cheaper than the social costs of unwanted children.

In the area of healthcare, you would never say that the government should pay the cost of hospitalization to treat people with flu, rubella, polio, small pox, and the like, but should NOT pay the costs of vaccines thatprevent those ailments from occurring in the first place.

Think of birth control pills as vaccines for preventing Antonio Cromartie's baby mamas from getting pregnant. That should bring the issues into focus.

what if we didnt pay for either one

whatever you pay for you are gonna get a lot more of Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Not paying for either has social and fiscal consequences that will cost us much more in the long run.

I don't think more people are going to have sex just because their insurance covers contraceptives. People are going to have sex regardless of if they're on contraceptives or not.

You're paying for the irresponsible behavior of other people. That should make you angry. Taking away the state safety net would force people to be more responsible or force them to deal with the consequences themselves. As such, they'd serve as an example for others who choose not to make wise choices. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I'm also paying for the responsible behavior of people as well.

There are plenty of things that I pay for that I don't use or agree with (likewise there are probably services that I use that others don't agree with or use), but I understand that for society to function as a whole for the greater good, everyone has to chip in.

As ExNYer points out, things like assistance for the poor or medical care for anyone who walks into the ER are things we're never going to get rid of. Honestly, the alternative is much worse (letting people starve to death / bleed out in the streets).

Overall, I'd much rather we pay a much smaller cost for contraceptives than to pay for the much more consequences of not having contraceptives readily available.

Not paying for either has social and fiscal consequences that will cost us much more in the long run.

I don't think more people are going to have sex just because their insurance covers contraceptives. People are going to have sex regardless of if they're on contraceptives or not.



I'm also paying for the responsible behavior of people as well.

There are plenty of things that I pay for that I don't use or agree with (likewise there are probably services that I use that others don't agree with or use), but I understand that for society to function as a whole for the greater good, everyone has to chip in.

As ExNYer points out, things like assistance for the poor or medical care for anyone who walks into the ER are things we're never going to get rid of. Honestly, the alternative is much worse (letting people starve to death / bleed out in the streets).

Overall, I'd much rather we pay a much smaller cost for contraceptives than to pay for the much more consequences of not having contraceptives readily available. Originally Posted by jbravo_123

on the one hand college girls or rabid sandra fluke types should get no and need no assistance with purchasing birth control

the fairly rare pregnancy there is an object lesson and any child can be cared for privately

poorer inner city girls (or women) are what you may be essentially talking about and are who's children you seem to not want . i think there are already clinics available for free contraception for them (and for the college girl too).

but those women are not stupid as one might sense you may think from a logical extension of your concern. i think they have things fairly well figured out. most have the entire welfare/earned income credit/disability income/chips/foodstamp thing pretty well scoped out

look at statistics of out of wedlock births since we started all this

it might very well be that not paying for these babies for 18 plus years would magically diminish their production

in my opinion the fight about contraception in obamacare is really about liberals and liberal womens rights groups fighting for some universal semblance of what they perceive men to have- sexual freedom -(although that is not a verity,merely a resentment), and to remove from women any association with any consequence and if they could change human biology they would. its about what they think is a struggle for equal rights with men. the only problem is, why is anyone forced to pay for that (especially those with moral and religious objections)? its like having to pay for a prisoners demand for sex reassignment surgery