Anti-woman laws in America

No one, because then it would be Christian conservative vaginas the government is sticking its fingers in.

As long it's other people's genitals the government has the right to play with, they don't mind.

edited 30th Apr '12 5:31:11 AM by Sarkastique

Memento Mori

Well, I've seen the claim in the context of gay marriage debates that "fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate." I guess there would be a similar stance in the context of reproduction-centric attitudes towards sex as well.

As for LGBT anti-abortionists, I'm not too surprised. People object to abortion for many different reasons than objecting to homosexuality, so you can't always expect such opposition to go hand-in-hand. I know my dad objects to abortion but not to homosexuality.

I wonder how often they get met with the "get out of the debate since it's not your bodies involved" dismissal.

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

A lot I would imagine, seeing how it a stock rebuttal.

While we are on the subject of infertile couples, should the Taxpayer be expected to pay for IVF trement? And if so is it 'anti woman' to oppose it?

hashtagsarestupid

I think it should be covered. Because usually, government paid plans cost reams less for everyone involved than private.

When it comes to "sex = for reproduction only", sometimes I think only the Appeal to Nature stops them from prohibiting all sex forever and mandating artificial insemination.

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

I know it cost less for the actual patient but how does the dollar to dollar cost of public health care versus private healthcare add up?

hashtagsarestupid

Public healthcare is cheaper by a mile. That's what Midget was saying.

Its insanely cheaper as a public option. The problem with wholly pirivate care is the government has a lot more power to negotiate prices than you or I do, Joey.

If it's cheaper because the government pays for it, then I guess it's not cutting corners. Even in the UK.

Don't get me wrong - single-payer would be better than what we have now, because it's the same complete divorce of health coverage from any reality-based price only less complicated about it - but it chafes me that the same people who always talk about how much less money you'd spend on health care want people to spend ever more money on education.

Hail Martin Septim!

Doma, the reason public health care is cheaper is because the government then has bargaining power in order to drive prices down. It's not about cutting corners.

America gets the same quality of health care as Canada but spends twice as much. If America was somehow getting better care, you might have a case. But we're not getting better care.

Anyway, back to being on topic.

You will note the part where I said we weren't. For the umpteenth time. (Nobody has had an efficient system in decades.)

"Bargaining power" is also a remarkably delicate way to phrase "coercion".

Hail Martin Septim!

You wanna discuss it, start a thread. I have a lot to say on that topic, but I'm not going to derail this thread any further. Suffice it to say, that is catastrophically and fundamentally misleading.

Coincidentally, that works just fine considering that means that workers getting terrible wages is also due to corporate coercion

HAY GUYS REMEMBER THE TOPIC? Gawd

Anyway along with birth control, IVF and other fertile treatments, should they be covered under Medicare?

hashtagsarestupid

Yes. I really don't see why that should be controversial.

I can see both sides. On the one hand, infertility treatments are health care, and if you start making exceptions to the kinds of health care that can be covered with public funds, you open the door for those with an axe to grind to enforce their ideologies via this very important public resource. On the other hand, though, infertility is not exactly "poor health." It doesn't, in itself, reduce someone's quality of life or ability to work.

You know, if you have an ear infection, you don't HAVE to go to a doctor. You can just tough it out and get plenty of rest and drink lots of orange juice and crap.

Seems to me that there's no good reason to limit health care.

I think, actually, infertility is a serious health issue. One of the core things that separates life from other things is it's ability to reproduce. I think that for some people, that ability is more important than their ability to walk around or work. So infertility treatments should definitely be a part of healthcare.

Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.

It's a question of the viability of mankind! At least it is for Japan.

I remember one insurance company claim they didn't have to pay for IVF with their care treatments. On the grounds IVF doesn't actually treat infertility in itself but rather the symptoms of infertility i.e. childlessness.

While they were just trying to avoid paying money I think there is an important distinction between the two.  

hashtagsarestupid

Bull. It's a ridiculous argument. That's like saying they shouldn't have to cover painkillers, because it's not actually treating your MASSIVE TUMOR, but just the pain arising from it pressing against your skull.

I see no reason for them not to cover IVF and fertility treatments.

Then again I think that having children should be seen as a good thing and not a drain on resources in society, considering.

edited 30th Apr '12 7:46:07 PM by ohsointocats

I'm too lazy to make an argument, so watch Rachel Maddow talk about this issue.

Hmmm... a lot of Republicans, it seems, need to do a Big Mommas House for a month or two. That might help.

edited 30th Apr '12 10:47:10 PM by Euodiachloris