The Soapbox Archives:
I had said,
"If businesses are allowed to exclude birth control coverage in their employee's health plans, wouldn't that most likely increase the likelyhood of their employees getting an *abortion*? Or maybe I just don't get it."And someone wrote in with:
"Why should business's have to pay for their employees irresponsible behavior...it's not like pregnancy is unpreventable. Just saying..."Which is a valid point. And I said, "...because people are going to have sex, even if they shouldn't. Most religions say "Go forth and multiple". They don't add the caveat "...only if you can afford it."
This issue should be primarily about the health of the general population. Instead, it's an issue of control...over women. If they wanted to be fair, they shouldn't pay for viagra or cialis, either. After all, why should we pay for people to be able to have sex when God decided that they shouldn't be able to?
The bottom line is, should only rich people have access to the medication they need? After all, people who can't afford to buy birth control probably can't afford to have kids either. It's too late to buy birth control once the kid shows up.
By the way, just my two cents, but wanting to use birth control *is* responsible behavior when you can't afford to have children. The alternative? More kids on welfare. Which is more responsible and which costs the rest of us less?
Back in the old days when I still had money from an IPO, I was working with a stockbroker who would call me to see if I wanted to buy or sell a certain stock. He had give his clients a chance to buy a stock before he was allowed to so he couldn't to benefit from a good deal until his clients had a chance first. Likewise, he was not allowed to sell a stock from his own portfolio unless he advised his clients to do the same so his clients could get the best prices. And it made him think whether or not it was a good idea in the first place.
I was thinking what a great idea it would be if the members of our local, state, and federal governments were not allowed to get any government benefits unless their constituents were given the same benefit first. Should our congressmen and senators get free healthcare when so many people can't afford to pay for it? What would they do if they couldn't get good healthcare unless their constituents got it first? Of course, at a base salary of $174,000 a year (93rd percentile of incomes for individuals), you have to ask why they don't have to pay for their health care while so many of us have to.
Saw a wonderful quote on Facebook attributed (allegedly) to the Dalai Lama:
"When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know; But when you listen, you may learn something new."