Is the Conservative Movement Waging A War on Women?
There is a rising hue and cry by the political left that conservatives are waging a war on women. With the increase in legislation on all levels toward controlling women’s access to healthcare, it would appear that there may be substance to the claims. However, if there is a war on women, it involves much more than just access to healthcare.
For the vast majority of my adult life I have been surrounded by girls and women. With one ex-wife, three daughters and a current wife, I’ve absorbed plenty of estrogen by the process of osmosis. This has had the net impact of sensitizing me to the state of being for the female of our species in our society. I don’t claim to be any Alan Alda, but I am fully aware of girls and women’s capabilities and their limitations.
If one looks to our species history, the majority of which has been spent as hunter-gatherer groups of 25 to 30 individuals, women have been the major contributors to the daily dietary needs. Women in the hunter-gatherer groups, as indicated by anthropologists, provided on average of 80 percent of the calories consumed. Approximately 11 to 12 thousand years ago, as humans transitioned from hunter-gatherer societies to agrarian sedentary societies, the social structure changed in response to changes in the physical environment and thus, changed women’s roles.
No longer were groups of humans dependent on her ability to gather, but agricultural production shifted much of the effort to cultivation and harvest of primarily cereal crops. This created the need for the male’s bigger and stronger bodies and left women with their only other primary functions of reproduction and child rearing. In addition, with sedentary existence and dependence of the available productive land and water, again the male’s bigger and stronger physiology made him the primary protector of the production resources. Over the course of 10 millennia; position and authority shifted from egalitarian or matrilineal control to patrilineal control and power. This did not bode well for the female of the species; she had been demoted to the status of chattel and remained in such a state until well into mid-twentieth century.
For millennia a woman’s worth was determined by her fecundity or potential fecundity. She was used to create alliances between families, tribes and nations along with being a means for retention, transference and redistribution of wealth. This is the primary rationale for maintaining a female’s sexual purity, whereas she would have no other sexual relationship with someone other than her selected mate. This is also the strong prohibition against adultery. The social structure was based on patrilineal hereditary and any question as to a male offspring’s parentage put the entire system at risk. Adultery was seen as a property crime and treated as such. It is no secret that adultery primarily impacted women. Husbands having coitus with someone other than his wife/wives or concubine/concubines was seen as normal and was accepted as a social norm, unless it was with another man’s female chattel.
The male-dominated society was based on three basic principles:
- His physical size and upper body strength;
- Control of women’s reproduction;
- The need for the female to perform as the primary caregiver to subsequent children. Over the course of the last 150 years the role of women has dramatically changed.
The advent of technology, for the most part, has freed women from the limitations of their lack of physical strength and size. Women are capable of performing the majority of jobs that only a short time ago was reserved strictly for men. With the vast majority of occupations now in the service sector, more and more vocations are now open. Just as in modern warfare; an M-16 rifle or F-15 fighter doesn’t care whether it’s a male or female pulling the trigger or flying the plane. However, freedom to pursue new careers still has not fully freed women.
The ultimate limitations on any women and especially in the U.S. are their fecundity and the role as primary caregiver. Women’s true liberation did not begin until they had access to inexpensive and universally effective birth control. Safe and effective birth control finally gave women the ability to control their own fecundity. A woman could now decide whether to abstain from sex or to engage in sex without the risk of an unwanted pregnancy. Two rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court opened the way for women’s right to privacy. With Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade rulings made it legal to not only practice birth control, but to terminate on demand any unintended pregnancy. The net effect was to free women from having to marry early to assure her financial security, going from dependency on a father to dependency on a husband.
Without the immediate need of marriage, women could then pursue their education and careers outside of the “pink collar” professions. It was now possible for women to create and maintain their own wealth without the need of a male partner or husband. However, ever since Roe v. Wade; conservative forces have worked diligently to either overturn the ruling or severely limit the practice of pregnancy termination on demand. Over the last 40 years, conservative forces have been able to restrict pregnancy terminations and are now working on restricting sexual education and birth control.
With women now free of unwanted pregnancy and the ability to choose when, where and with whom they would become pregnant, they are still confronted with the issue of being the primary caregiver. Women of greater means have more options for finding quality childcare, but women of limited means are placed into a dilemma; either quit working or find childcare of uncertain quality. In addition, with pregnancy, birth and childcare responsibilities; most women find their careers interrupted resulting in the inability to fully reach their career potential; creating a penalty based on fecundity. Other cultures and societies have addressed the problem with a number of successful solutions.
A good example of providing a rational solution is Denmark. Women are given up to 24 months of extended maternity leave at 60 percent of wages or salary. At age 3 the child can be enrolled in state-supported school and daycare. If women decide to go back to their careers before the 24-month limit, her partner can take her place as the primary care parent and is given the 60 percent benefit. This gives families additional options and does not subject them to forced economic distress.
In reviewing the original question: Is the conservative movement waging a war on women? It is clear that there is a focused and systematic program to roll back women’s rights with the ultimate goal to return women to the domestic kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. The conservative movement is male dominated and the rollback will assure male dominance, power and control. By attacking women’s healthcare and reproductive rights the conservative movement is forcing women back into the shackles of chattel.
With the short and long-term consequences of forcing women back to 1960 America, I can’t possibly understand why any woman, liberal or conservative would voluntarily return to subservience. Large numbers of conservative women, who I have spoken to about this, claim that it is the role that G-d placed upon their gender along with Eve’s curse for the original sin. Just as history is written by the winners, the Bible is no different.
Heather Asiyanbi
2:19 pm on Monday, April 2, 2012
And yes, of course, women can be whatever they choose - I don't think Lyle was ever positing otherwise. In fact, he made a point to highlight how women can and do the same work as men.
James R Hoffa
2:38 pm on Monday, April 2, 2012
@Lyle -
You pose the question "Is the Conservative Movement Waging A War on Women" in the title of your blog, and then only have this to say about the realities of the current conservative movement:
"It is clear that there is a focused and systematic program to roll back women’s rights with the ultimate goal to return women to the domestic kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. The conservative movement is male dominated and the rollback will assure male dominance, power and control. By attacking women’s healthcare and reproductive rights the conservative movement is forcing women back into the shackles of chattel."
I'm confused.
Might I suggest either a different title to your blog or a more complete analysis of exactly how and why you feel conservatives are waging a war on women?
Lyle Ruble
3:23 pm on Monday, April 2, 2012
@JRH...I will follow up with comments.
Randy1949
4:34 pm on Monday, April 2, 2012
The Conservative view of women is oddly schizophrenic. We all ought to admit that a full-time homemaker is a very valuable asset to a family. But in today's world, it's economic suicide, especially for the person who stays home. They lose in earning capacity on return to the workforce, Social Security retirement benefits, and healthcare.
Randy1949
6:09 pm on Monday, April 2, 2012
Tell me mau, does your benefit from your 18 years of Social security equal what your spousal benefit would be based on your husband's earnings?
I'm vested in Social Security and I have IRAs that I have contributed to since 1980, but it's still going to be tight. I'm assuming your husband is still employed if you are living comfortably, but who comfortable would you be without his salary? Time off from the workplace, voluntary or otherwise, costs a person.
Bren
4:28 pm on Monday, April 2, 2012
This is a thought-provoking article! Certainly we have seen regressive legislation introduced and passed in GOP-dominated legislatures, but I observe that men are indirectly affected by restrictions on women's reproductive issues. As you point out, other countries value children and families and "incentivize" childbirth by providing stipends and family leave. There are those in this country who pontificate about "family values" but do nothing to attack/address the underlying causal social issues.
Matthew 6:5: And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
SkinnyDude
5:20 pm on Monday, April 2, 2012
This clearly another warped opinion peace by Lyle. He is living on a far different planet than I do . Women today have never had so many options . We all reap what we sow. Unfortunately , the left advocates cradle to grave entitlements which actually deters and delays the choices we Human Beings should be making for ourselves. I don't know what you advocate for women Lyle. You speak on behalf of women ,but your views largely lack common sense . You honestly think we are going back to the 1960's for women . That comment is laughable.
Women's rights are more expansive in the USA than anywhere in the world and you being a lefty need a reason to bitch I guess. Good luck with that. Most the women I know don't fit into the helpless picture you paint. But I am sure you would advocate further entitlements to replace common sense.
I knew reading this nonsense was a bad idea. Imagine a liberal finding another VICTIM! (VERY PREDICTABLE). I much rather hold up successful women who make decisions for themselves based on what THEY want and not want you advocate!
Lyle Ruble
6:02 pm on Monday, April 2, 2012
@skinnyDUDE...I agree that women have more options than they have had in the past. However, if we legislate and begin restricting access to women's healthcare, including contraception, they will begin regressing. If anything, society should be looking at ways to level the playing field even more with good quality universal childcare.
You are completely wrong about women in the U.S. having the most expansive rights in the world. It's quite telling about your range of experience and knowledge. There are a number of nations where women have many more rights and are better represented than they are here.
As long as a woman's fecundity is used as a tool for manipulation and/or restriction, then they are being victimized based on their gender. Conservatives understand that women in control will roll back the conservative agenda. If all else fails, conservatives don't have to take responsibility because the Bible and G-d told me to do it.
Lyle Ruble
9:55 am on Tuesday, April 3, 2012
@J.B. Schmidt....(continued)
8- Legislating that correlation studies should be included in documents that state that single parent mothers are the chief cause of child abuse and neglect
9- Allowing employers to determine what healthcare will pay for
10- Not passing legislation that puts real teeth in child support laws where fathers are not pursued and prosecuted to the full extent of the law when they don't pay their court ordered child support
11- Nor pursuing labor laws against employers who discriminate against female employees and don't provide equal pay for equal work
These are just some of the most recent issues surrounding women's rights and many of the restrictions are based on her reproductive freedoms and the right to privacy. Show me where allowing women reproductive freedoms are damaging a stable society.
Cricket
5:39 pm on Monday, April 2, 2012
As a grown, intellectual and conservative female, me and only me control my reproductive and employment rights. I make that decision, not who ever occupies the white house. I have to pay money if I want my cholesterol lowered or put my depression at bay. If I have to pay for birth control so I don't get pregnant do it and not wait for someone to give it to me for free. In my case, I can no longer use birth control pills as I have a family history of breast cancer and had been on them a long time. I must then choose to find another alternative to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. My decision and mine alone. The only person that can put me back in a 1960's kitchen, barefoot and pregnant is me. Don't you libs get sick of being victims already? Stand up for yourselves and stop blaming conservatives for every perceived problem that doesn't exist. In this day and age women want it all, claim they can do it all but don't want to pay for their own birth control. Makes sense to me.
Randy1949
5:56 pm on Monday, April 2, 2012
How much do you pay for your cholesterol lowering drugs or your anti-depressants? They can be expensive without a prescription drug plan that covers them. They can be out of the reach of some people if a high deductible had to be met. The same thing might be true for mammograms (preventive care) or vaccinations.
Why should contraception drugs and devices be singled out as something an employer can refuse to cover? Everyone has the right to do anything, as long as they can afford it, but there's the rub.
Randy1949
6:00 pm on Monday, April 2, 2012
@mau -- the reason preventive drugs and procedures were earmarked to be available without co-pay or satisfying a deductible was to encourage people to prevent expensive outcomes. Conservatives are just jumping on the birth control issue because OMG -- it's SEX!!!! But this encompassed things like vaccinations for children and mammograms too.
Lyle Ruble
6:28 pm on Monday, April 2, 2012
@Cricket...I don't agree that you and only you control your employment rights. Our archaic system of dealing with employees pregnancy is beyond your control. If you have a meaningful career and committed to advancing, what impact does pregnancy have on that. Do males suffer the same when they begin a family?
If certain conservative forces have their way, not only will you be limited to birth control but also to the type of birth control. What about women the women that have to have hormonal therapy for other conditions other than just pregnancy prevention? Should they not have this medication covered?
A trend that I am fully supportive of is fathers and male partners becoming stay at home primary caregivers. However, this is the exception rather than the rule. To often, women not only hold the role of being an income contributor, mother, but still have to take on the majority of domestic chores.
lu
9:39 am on Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Makes sense to me. Cricket, you have to remember that most of your lib friends are usually associated with male chauvinist friends, partners, husbands, whatever and that is why they are so unhappy and bitter about life in general. Did you ever notice that they usually end up with a very dominating partner. Misery loves company.
lu
9:52 am on Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Sorry posted on wrong comment earlier....
Makes sense to me. Cricket, you have to remember that most of your lib friends are usually associated with male chauvinist friends, partners, husbands, whatever and that is why they are so unhappy and bitter about life in general. Did you ever notice that they usually end up with a very dominating partner. Misery loves company.
Lyle Ruble
10:11 am on Tuesday, April 3, 2012
@lu...What are you trying to say? It's pretty unclear as to who is miserable and who is dominating and who is being dominated.
SkinnyDude
7:08 pm on Monday, April 2, 2012
@ lyle
I noticed you didn't mention those great countries for women rights.Are you refering to the mideast or China? I guess the cat got your tongue. I will hold america Up against any country . As for all your complaints for the countless victims we have here. It still the one place more than any country people want to be. Of course all the socialist systems are falling on there own swords. So all the good ideas of giveaways/Rights collapse cause the Well went dry.
Lyle Ruble
8:42 pm on Monday, April 2, 2012
@skinnyDUDE...First of all, the nations that you are claiming that are falling on their swords are members of the Euro Zone, primarily Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal. Other nations such as Germany, France, the Low Countries and Scandinavia are all rock solid social democracies providing good support for families and especially women. In the Middle East, Israel also has a strong social democratic network. The Islamic nations are still behind as well as China, but over time they will progress.
As far people wanting to come here, that is true but that has also subsided. There is a new global standard that we haven't caught up with yet.
Lyle Ruble
9:46 am on Tuesday, April 3, 2012
@J.B. Schmidt...(continued) You maintain that you shouldn't have to pay for women's healthcare if it includes pregnancy protection. That is just illogical. I pay taxes for a number of things that I don't personally support. Should I refuse to pay to support school vouchers or for families that have over a certain number of children?
You maintain that it should be up to the legislatures to define appropriate lifestyles. If we did that with women under represented in said legislatures, then it is still primarily white males making decisions for women. This fully supports my argument that males want to control women's fecundity and sexual behavior. That kind of approach is not viable until women are fully represented so that their voices carry equal weight.
Conservatives have made a concerted effort to restrict women by proposing the following:
1- Restricting access to pregnancy termination
2- Restricting universal access to birth control
3- Restricting if sex education classes can be taught and if so, only a limited content focused on abstinence only
4- Restrictions on marriage
5- Making sexual relations illegal between certain classes of citizens
6- Defunding the premiere women's health advocacy organization, Planned Parenthood
7- Resisting any programs that would provide for universal childcare and meaningful maternity leave for both men and women
(continued)
J. B. Schmidt
10:34 am on Tuesday, April 3, 2012
@Lyle
1) We don't restrict termination on the basis of restricting sex. Much sex can be had without the termination of pregnancy. We object to the killing part.
2)Women have universal access to birth control. I have to pay for mine, they should pay for theirs. Sex is not a right. It is act one chooses to engage in.
3)Why should my child be subject to liberal sexual thought because a couple of moron parents refuse to talk birds and bees with their children.
4)We will always have restriction on marriage or are you will open up marriage to include anything or creature?
5)Where is sex illegal between citizens? Or are you looking to open up the under 18 crowd to your sexual desires?
6)Woman can get everything they need without the government. If the group is such a blessing to society I am sure they can find private funding.
7)Maternity leave is a choice. Either have kids or a job. FMLA is already a burden on employers.
8)You are using studies to show that not providing the pill is a drag on the health system and hence requires legislation. However, if a study shows that single mothers tend to have abusive boyfriends emerges suddenly its a conspiracy.
9)What? OK. Let the employers decide. Remove regulations from healthcare. The birth control mandate proposed by Obama did the opposite.
10)Who is against that? Show me the bill that wasn't passed.
(cont.)
J. B. Schmidt
10:34 am on Tuesday, April 3, 2012
@Lyle (cont)
11)It has been achieved. The difference is that women become caregivers of the family and hence the numbers drop as women get to their mid 30’s. You are actually looking for laws that provide equal pay for unequal work.
You continue with your fallacious argument. Government cannot give freedoms. They can only take freedoms. Currently women have access to whatever drug they want. They have to pay a co-pay, but I must do that more son’s asthma meds. I am against the government mandating the drugs be given away. Assuming the government steps in and mandates free birth control for all women. The women are then giving that decision to the government. The government can then decide who gets them, when, at what age or what version. Is the pill rally better or should we only use the something that is implanted or vice versa? Maybe we artificially make all women sterile to age 30 in order to safe money? Your one size fits all approach is typical liberal short sighted thought. Your idea of freedom is to tie women to a government bureaucracy.
James R Hoffa
10:36 pm on Monday, April 2, 2012
@Lyle -
And how exactly is the conservative movement "attacking women's healthcare and reproductive rights?" You assume that such is a commonly accepted fact in your blog, but fail to realize that in the reality of the situation, nothing could be farther from the truth.
By answering this question, we'll know exactly where you stand on this issue - Trance Around The Word (Above & Beyond) OR A State of Trance (Armin Van Buuren)?
Lyle Ruble
9:08 am on Tuesday, April 3, 2012
@J.B. Schmidt....Your sarcasm is yielding bounties of information about your true values system. How dare you reduce women to the status of participating in the "World's Oldest Profession" when women have access to inexpensive and universally available birth control. You go on to say that birth control makes women irresponsible and animalistic. Why not just come out and admit what you want is a society where people are restricted from having sex for pleasure and that it should only be allowed within the confines of marriage between a man and a woman. In your world everything is to be held "verboten" unless it meets the conservative male's idea of social stability. No one who is in support of women being able to control their reproduction is disrespecting them, if anything it is showing them the highest level of respect, understanding that they are competent enough to make their own decisions. You automatically assume that since birth control is available that it will mean that women will automatically involve themselves in debauchery. You and other conservatives' message is clear, sex without consequence cannot and should not be allowed or tolerated. Your hypocrisy is self evident. You claim to be defending family values, but your family values moves women to a lesser status. In truth, family values includes a much richer landscape of living allowing people freedoms over their own bodies. (continued)
Randy1949
9:12 am on Tuesday, April 3, 2012
@James R Hoffa -- How about the slew of 'Human Life' amendments that are being introduced in state legislatures? Mississippi voted one down last year in referendum that would have outlawed hormonal birth control and IUDs as 'abortifacients'. How about Rick Santorum calling birth control dangerous and wrong? How about the defunding of Planned Parenthood, whose main mission is to prevent unwanted pregnancies through contraception so there won't have to be as many abortions? We see that on a government and private charity level.
Governor Walker removed the Wisconsin Well Woman contract from Planned Parenthood clinics, making those free pap smears and mammograoms for low-income women difficult to impossible to get in those four counties wher PP was the only provider for that program. That's an effect on women's healthcare if I ever saw one.
And now this big hoop-tee-doo about covering birth control as a preventive service under an insurance plan. Birth control is less expensive overall than pregnancies,especially the kind that aren't really wanted. I know you'll blandly say that this doesn't limit a woman's right to prevent pregnancy through abstinence, but that is fatuous. It's still lacing a moral judgment on an individual'smedical care.
Randy1949
9:34 am on Tuesday, April 3, 2012
@Lyle -- "You and other conservatives' message is clear, sex without consequence cannot and should not be allowed or tolerated."
And they're not so thrilled about the consequences if the consequences happen to low-income families who may need help with medical expenses. "Pay for your own health insurance out of your wages. And by the way, we're working on doing away with the minimum wage -- it kills jobs."
J. B. Schmidt
10:40 am on Tuesday, April 3, 2012
@Randy
Which sex has no consequences? Did we cure Aids? Have we eliminated all STD's? Is there a type of sex that removes all emotional consequences? Can I now cheat on my wife? The assumption that removing the production of a child is the inhibiting factor between women and sex. That is what I deem animalistic. That is what makes liberal men sexist.
J. B. Schmidt
10:51 pm on Monday, April 2, 2012
I thought my piece was devoted to fear mongering. You beat me hands down.
Ladies grab your halter tops and fishnets in Lyle's world you are guaranteed birth control and soft place for your back; but remember if you vote conservative they are already welding together iron chastity belts.
No more self control. It's 2012 you do whatever you want and Denmark will pay for it. Never mind that as we continue to depersonalize our interactions and turn them into nothing more then animal instincts depression and anxiety sky rocket. The problem here is conservative men who expect a society where you (male and female) respect their bodies. Forget those stuffy conservatives, you need strong male role models like the Kennedy boys, Bill Clinton, Elliott Spitzer, John Edwards or Wilt Chamberlain. They'll not only provide you with endless supplies of government birth control, they even do in-home testing. (Funny how conservatives are labeled as anti-woman for wanting them to be respected, while liberals are pro-woman as they make every attempt to disrespect them)
Most conservatives wish for 2 things. 1)You can pay for your own reproductive pills if there use is for sexual purposes and not a diagnosed medical disorder. 2) If this lifestyle is perfect for our society let the peoples elected legislature vote on it.
Beyond that, I don't care what or who you do with your body.
Smoke if you got'em.
Randy1949
9:24 am on Tuesday, April 3, 2012
@J.B. Schmidt -- On behalf of all the married couples who have been enjoying a freer and more natural sex life together since, I don't know, 1965 or thereabouts, I take great exception to your characterization of prostitute garb and a soft life 'on your backs'.
Women postpone childbearing to finish education, advance in careers, and space their children in a healthy manner. There is nothing dirty about it.
Honest to Pete, are we going back to doctors telling their husbands to sleep on the roof if they don't want that sixth baby?
J. B. Schmidt
9:34 am on Tuesday, April 3, 2012
@Randy
Lyle's piece is about making women equal through sex. More importantly equal through a government controlled system of reproductive handouts. I apologize if I believe that women don't need sex or government handouts to be considered equal.
Women can do what ever they want. They have that right. They don't have the right to do it on my dime. If you and your wife have better sex because of birth control, I am happy for you. I should have to support that better sex life. Pay for it yourself.
You are engaged in the same dishonest tactic as Lyle. This is not about sex for pleasure this is about socialized medicine. You pay for your own reproductive health and keep me out of it. My concern is for the women in my life, not the women in yours, Lyle's or Sandra Fluke's.
Randy1949
9:56 am on Tuesday, April 3, 2012
@J.B. Schmidt -- This discussion was not about taxpayers paying for other people's sex lives. It was about private insurance treating contraception like any other prescription drug or medical device. Whether it comes out of taxpayer funds or insurance premiums (the cost of which filters around to the rest of us eventually) we all pay anyway. We pay more for people deciding to have babies than we do for people who decide not to have babies.
SkinnyDude
8:40 am on Tuesday, April 3, 2012
@ Lyle Do you know a insurance policy that isnt restrictive? Do you honestly think it will be less restrictive run under a Government pile up debt it cant possibly repay?
Logic is suppose to be an attribute of Human beings, I am still looking for yours.
You certainly have a right to your opinion , but it doesn't reflect the realities of this nation or vast number of accomplished women I know.
Alfred
9:17 am on Tuesday, April 3, 2012
You have to love the liberal logic here...all of you white males stay out of my reproductive decisions, but pay for them! Lyle you eunuch you.
Randy1949
9:28 am on Tuesday, April 3, 2012
I don't know, Alfred, I think the men who laugh and tell women to use aspirin between the knees are the eunuchs, because abstinence for a woman means abstinence for the man too.
Alfred
9:40 am on Tuesday, April 3, 2012
You liberals are incorrigible, you realize this right? You want us all to stay out of your personal lives, but keep that check book handy so we can pay for your immoral and illicit lifestyles. Gimme Gimme Gimme, hey Randy?
Randy1949
9:45 am on Tuesday, April 3, 2012
@Alfred -- You want your insurance to pay for your kids to be born in the hospital, have their vaccinations and ear infections paid for, and you don't call that a gimme. You want to have your triple bypass paid for after a life of Big Macs and Doritos, and your chemo paid for after a life of smoking. I call BS on you.
Alfred
9:59 am on Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Randy, the goobermint and my fellow tax payers are not paying for my health insurance. With a combination of a high deductible HSA and catastrophic health insurance policy(between me and my insurer) I take care of it. Now Randy, you seem to have a lot of time on your hands, why not use this energy to get a job?
Randy1949
10:09 am on Tuesday, April 3, 2012
@Alfred -- The 'goobermint' wasn't going to be paying for these employer provided health insurance plans either. If you have a HSA, your costs are being spread across the pool of people who use your insurance company, and it's tax deductible, which means we taxpayers ARE subsidizing you too.
The last three jobs I worked did not offer health coverage or sufficient wages to pay for it on my own They're allowed to do that. But you seem to be such a valuable individual -- why don't you get a job with a Cadillac health plan?
Alfred
10:11 am on Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Good God Randy, you don't know what an HSA is. Do I bother educating you or continue mocking you?
Randy1949
10:42 am on Tuesday, April 3, 2012
@Alfred -- It stands for Health Savings Account, from which you pay for medical expenses and health insurance premiums. To my knowledge, it is tax deductible at both the state and federal levels now.
J. B. Schmidt
9:26 am on Tuesday, April 3, 2012
@Lyle
Your entire piece is dedicated to making women equal through sexual interaction. How is one supposed to take that? I believe that women are equal without having to be engaged in sex.
You continue to distort the issue. This has nothing to do with sex for pleasure. This has everything to do with socialized medicine. You want government to supply birth control at the expense of others. You want government to provide abortion at the expense of others. You want government to provide extended maternity leave at the expense of others. Anyone who tries to put the brakes on the 'at the expense of others' part is said to deny women the right to sex. I want to deny women the right to sex on my dime.
Yet, as I point out the liberals who claim to be for women's rights have no respect for women to begin with. However, the respect portion doesn't matter, it is simply the ability to engage in sex that liberal men want.
This is about control. A government that provides can also take away. If you implement a program where the government pays for birth control, freedom is lost not gained. The choice of which product, what age and how often are now controls solely held by the government. Any women who believes freedom is giving the government those rights probably shouldn't be having kids anyway.
James R Hoffa
12:29 pm on Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Here, here!
Well said J.B. - my sentiments precisely!
Keith Schmitz
7:33 am on Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Once again, conservatives are not good when understanding money. Birth control is far cheaper to all of us than birth. I know that the so-called Christians want us to be fruitful and multiple, but mission accomplished.
There is more behind this than people claiming they are being "made" to pay for birth control.
Again with the tired argument as with affirmative action that by being against something you are for it, which is utter BS and you know it.
This is not control but empowerment. Effective birth control on its own is expensive, but again far cheaper than the cost of birthing and the costs going forward of raising the child and covering its health care.
You have to disinvest yourself that somehow, somewhere there is someone who is not "living off the government." We all do in some ways. Its how we choose to do it that should be at issue. This assertion, like so many from the right like "activist judges" is intellectually dishonest and ultimately feeds the gross inequality in this society.
Yeah it is about freedom. Giving women (and yes, we are all given something in this society by someone) the right to control when she gives birth is enormous freedom. And as usual like every political calculation the right makes, because women tend to vote Democratic, you are against THOSE freedom.
Man, you guys are so transparent its ridiculous.
Again Jimmy, you are smarter than that.
J. B. Schmidt
7:46 am on Wednesday, April 4, 2012
@Keith Schmitz
Your answer only proves my point. Women as not capable of making the correct decision for themselves. Hence, liberal men must come and make it for them.
Keith Schmitz
10:00 am on Wednesday, April 4, 2012
It does not JB. Can't you read?
Being able to pay and making a decision are two different things.
Randy1949
11:05 am on Wednesday, April 4, 2012
@J.B. -- If women have options, they can make intelligent use of them. This 'buy your own birth control, honey' serves to limit options, especially if $30 a month is a significant portion of their income.
You rarely hear, "Buy your own mammogram, honey. I don't have breasts."
J. B. Schmidt
12:06 pm on Wednesday, April 4, 2012
@Randy
"Buy your own birth control limits options", really. Compared to what? The government option. That is true nowhere. Does Medicare/caid extend the options of the participants? Do food stamps extend the options of the participants? You might be able to make that claim if those people have nothing; however, compared to private sector, all of those are restrictive entities that place limits to the detriment of the participant. As I have pointed out before, the government will (as it always does) end up controlling which birth control, how much and to whom. You are asking women to chain themselves to government. Not unlike men in Europe not having access to the best prostate medicine because of cost. If your truly believe women can support themselves then let them.
You and your brethren seem to have this notion that health care for men and women is exactly the same, except women have sexual organs. Therefore they require additional care above and beyond what men require. Yet, while you reference mammograms, I am sure most women being checked for breast cancer are not also being checked for testicular cancer.
If an insurance company wishes to provide birth control of their own volition, I am ok with that. I am completely against any government regulation (or handout) saying so, because government only screws up everything it touches.
SkinnyDude
3:13 pm on Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Lyle don't you have enough respect for women to think they are smart enough to make the decisions that are right for them without you forced approach?
Isn't it wise for me to buy insurance that reflects my needs, and not your need to give everyone everything ?
We all have different perspectives and perhaps some women agree with you. But some our insulted by you . You don't want them back in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant , but you do want DADDY GOVERNMENT to make all decisions they should be making for themselves.
IF one size fits all there would only be one size of shoe . Different people have different views. In your world you confuse Rights with Privileges. In a capitalistic system we should all work for those Privileges based on the type of life we wish to have. Work and productivity is an important part of the equation as it made us the richest nation in the world . Its not wise to paint everyone with one brush . In fact , its more expensive.Liberals never worry about the cost of a BAD idea.
Economics needs to be a Big component in any social entitlements. Otherwise those privileges all dry up when buried in debt.
Everyday is not Christmas . We all save up for that event if it is important to us . But that is my choice unless Obama signs The One Gift From Santa bill and its distributed by the government . Because who better to decide what is better for Christian kids than the Government. It sounds insane but it entails your basic premise !
Randy1949
3:33 pm on Tuesday, April 3, 2012
What is 'forced', skinnyDUDE? Other than to keep an employer from making that choice for you and denying you coverage that you need and would choose to have? Employee health plans are kind of one size fits all. Some people will have no need for the obstetrical coverage, but their employee contribution is the same as those workers who do have a need for it. You aren't obliged to use those birth control pills, but they should be available under the prescription plan for those who need them.
James R Hoffa
7:51 pm on Tuesday, April 3, 2012
@Lyle -
You base the entire premise of your supposition on one mistaken assumption: that women are the inherently vulnerable gender.
I believe that William Petersen said it best in 1998's 'Kiss the Sky' when his character said:
"That lunatic in heaven played a really bad joke on us. He took that place in women where pleasure and desire and the reproductive system and everything else that makes them female lives and he buried it deep inside, out of sight, nicely tucked away. But look at us, our dick and our balls are out there flapping in the breeze."
Good evening!
Kay
11:49 am on Wednesday, April 4, 2012
I'm forever amazed at how women are threatened , emotionally hurt and traumatized when their sex life is threatened. But ripping apart fetus's or sucking out their brains before they leave this fragile women's cavity doesn't seem to bother them.
I can't wait until the healthcare bill is thrown out. Anything that has to be passed in the dead of night by 1 vote(not the vast majority like Obama claims) has flaws and needs to be redone.
Our congressional representatives should have been dealing with the real issues/problems long before now..such as pre-existing conditions, allowing us to purchase Insurance across state lines, or the ability for small businesses to group together and enjoy premium discounts etc.etc.etc..Instead they come up with this mammoth disaster that has many unforeseen repercussions waiting to happen.
Shame on all of you women who have fallen for this Liberal distraction. You follow Obama like the mice follow the pied piper// News flash..He's not listening , you are executing his plan just the way he planned it. Distracting the country from the debt problems and the bankrupt country we will become if we don't get him out of office.
Randy1949
12:02 pm on Wednesday, April 4, 2012
The idea of women enjoying their sexuality without the fear of pregnancy sure makes you squeamish, doesn't it? For every woman who does that, it also means a man gets to enjoy his sexuality too.
I'll refrain from speculating about the sex-lives of conservatives.
J. B. Schmidt
12:17 pm on Wednesday, April 4, 2012
@Randy
You continue to distort the issue. This is not about sex for pleasure. This is about government regulation. You want to confuse that topic in order to demonize conservatives.
I believe that Jason Patzfal has already written a blog describing the sex lives of Conservatives.
lu
12:28 pm on Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Kay, he is banking on winning re-election by reaching that segment of women that are clueless on the real issues and that is what his real agenda is. You would think that the women who have fallen for his Liberal distraction would be extremely upset that he truly believes they are that stupid.
Randy1949
12:45 pm on Wednesday, April 4, 2012
@J.B. -- Do you have a problem with the reasonable regulation about other preventive procedures not being subject to co-pay and deductible? It makes a ton of sense economically to encourage people to get prostate exams, vaccinations for their children, mammograms, and yearly examinations to keep minor problems from becoming expensive major illnesses. That's a regulation. It saves money for everyone who pays insurance premiums. And so does giving women the option of preventing pregnancy (while still enjoying a sex life) if they choose to do so.
If it's not about sex for pleasure, you sure could have fooled me based on the tone the conservatives are taking in these discussions.
@lu -- I disagree. The GOP and the Catholic Bishops thought they had a winner by making it about conservative social issues. I think they really underestimated the number of people who don't think that way anymore. You're right -- it's about jobs and our ability to get by in life, and they're trying to distract us with the horrid vision of all those women fornicating like crazy on your dollar. By all means, ignore where the dollars and the jobs are actually going.
J. B. Schmidt
1:21 pm on Wednesday, April 4, 2012
@Randy
Yes. Every time the government imposes new regulation costs go up. If you look at services not covered by insurance (ie lasik, cosmetic plastic surgery) their costs are low and competative (in fact the cost of lasik has come down) while still creating Doctors that are very rich. Why? Because the private sector does things better the government.
From an emotional position, it makes people feel good to know that they have mandated the evil insurance companies provide certain medical procedures. However, you are not solving the problem. In fact, I would argue that people are less healthy today then they 75 years ago before most of the regulation. We are creating unhealthy people that can live forever by balancing their behavior with expensive medication. If people are given control of their own health and what must be paid for, maybe that dinner at the Heart Attack Grill will be more meaningful from a pocket book stand point. (this next part will sound evil) If a person therefore, eats themselves into forklift weight, that is on them. Not the health care system. Same with birth'n babies. In other words, responsibility.
Hence, if you want sex without kids, then pay for it. If your boyfriend wants sex without kids, then tell him to front the money. Don't tell Obama that the country must pay for your birth control pills under the threat that you will produce babies that will drag down our health care system if he doesn't.
Randy1949
10:47 am on Thursday, April 5, 2012
@J.B. -- The how do you feel about Wisconsin insurance plans that mandate chiropractic coverage? I've never visited a chiropractor, so I don't know how expensive they've become.
As for paying for it yourself if you want to have sex without kids, fine. As long as you pay out of your own pocket for having the kids too. Who knows, maybe the cost of a maternity stay or a C-section would come down.
J. B. Schmidt
10:54 am on Thursday, April 5, 2012
@Randy
You are advocating personal responsibility and the reduction of regulation that will reduce cost. Isn't that what I have been asking for this entire thread?
No, mandate for chiropractor is dumb.
J. B. Schmidt
1:52 pm on Thursday, April 5, 2012
@Mau
You are in favor of the government mandating that an insurance company must provide chiropractic coverage?
Randy1949
1:58 pm on Thursday, April 5, 2012
@mau -- I beg to differ with you, especially when it comes to progressive scoliosis. My mother went to a chiropractor who treated her scoliosis symptomatically, even though I strongly urged her to get an evaluation by an orthopedic surgeon. She missed her window of opportunity to have her spine surgically stabilized, and she's paying the price now.
But why not pay for chiropractic out of your own pocket? You see, it's your choice to go the alternate treatment route.
Randy1949
2:46 pm on Thursday, April 5, 2012
@mau -- http://oci.wi.gov/pub_list/pi-019.pdf
"Chiropractors - All health insurance policies
must cover services provided by a chiropractor if
the policy would provide coverage for the same
services if performed by a physician or osteopath.
Policies may not require the insured to be referred
to a chiropractor by a physician to receive benefits."
JayZee
9:37 am on Thursday, April 5, 2012
There is no War on Women, it's all made up. This is a maneuver to create another "need" so the gubment can ride to the rescue and create another entitlement. The "War" is a defense mechanism. Many conservatives are opposed to more defect spending, hence the fake War on Women.
Lyle Ruble
10:45 am on Thursday, April 5, 2012
@JayZee...I don't see that there is any entitlement called for. I see denial of benefits and rights.
J. B. Schmidt
10:50 am on Thursday, April 5, 2012
@Lyle
The pill is a right? Only via judicial activism and constitutional corruption.