On 10-Feb-2012 18:32 , Dick Martin wrote:
Maybe. Maybe not.
Maybe... Maybe not... with regard to what? Or perhaps that is just
an equivalence to "Hmm", as with, a general contemplative introduction?
I find however that emotion is a very significant and important part
of life and our living of life. The sex drive is not a logical
exercise; it is an emotional imperative. In my experience, solving
emotional issues with logic is fated to fail a very high percentage
of the time.
Emotional, spiritual, or whatever gobbledygook, the facts remain facts.
As to this particular issue, my first conclusion is that there are
at least two reasonably sound sides to this issue. Reasonable adults
can come to very different conclusions on this issue, and neither
person will be "wrong." This is an issue that needs fair and adult
discussion and in the end, a common ground can most likely be
Fact. Contraception is not required for individual health care
because conception is [almost exclusively] optional; i.e. conception is
neither an ailment nor ordained. Contraception is neither a right in
the USA constitution nor a requirement anywhere in order to prevent
conception [in the general sense]. Again, no sexual activity means
effectively, no conception. Thus unlike other *needs* such as breathing
to maintain individual health, there is *no* requirement to have
contraception available to an individual in order to maintain individual
In furtherance of the discussion: do you see this as a decision for
the states to make, or are these states wrong, too?
If an insurance company wants to provide contraception, then that
should be their choice as a market differentiation or possibly provided
only as a result of each provider feeling the pressure to do so in order
to remain competitive. For example if a provider thinks that they can
save money in providing coverage for birth\bearing-related issues and
another individual on a family plan, then perhaps they would choose to
do so on their own accord; others might do the same only to match their
competitors, even if they do not expect cost savings.
IMO neither a state nor the feds should establish a mandate on the
matter. IMO the contraception requirement is little different than if a
rule were instituted to mandate coverage by all insurers for every
vehicle policy, for all vehicle-mounted campers and the contents; i.e.
they do not apply except when a camper has been added to the vehicle.