Off topic: Political thread

[White Onyx]

Political thread

In this thread we can talk about political topics as long as we are respectfully towards each others opinions.


(I am gonna modify this post, so if someone still has the introduction-post, please PM it to me)

[Kukalaka]

Interesting poll, but I can't vote yet, because we had an election like 4 weeks ago and the new government hasn't startet yet. The mayor of my town is now in the new government. He's a great person, so I hope, he's doing well there. But it's really sad for us that he's gone and we have to vote again for a new mayor in february.

[TheHumanCoffeePot]

Oh boy.  This is definitely going to be the #1 snarkastic-inducing thread I think.

[Summer]

I voted they suck, but I really don't have time for a massive political rant right now. So all I'm going to say for now: I live in the United States. 'Nuff said.

As for the snarkastic thing... if the power's abused, it will be revoked. Someone disagreeing with your opinion isn't a reason to 'snarkastic' them. Remember that.

[Jaredloverforever]

I voted that they're great. I love our government, as anyone who reads my LJ knows, I'm a big GWB fan *ducks*. As for the structure of our government, that's another story.

[potostfbeyeluvr]

I voted they're great also. My opinion. I think our current government has made mistakes, but has preformed unbelievably well under the circumstances. I am very glad GWB was in office as opposed to Clinton or Gore during 9/11. That's my view, I'll explain it more if you like, but I won't defend it. I shouldn't have to. (Sorry for the last bit, maybe I didn't need to put it, but I've been attacked about this elsewhere.)

[Summer]

The one thing I should warn you all about is that this thread does encourage friendly debate, which includes defending your views. I try to make sure no one attacks your views, but debate is a political strategy and it makes sense to use it. If you're unable to provide sufficient evidence to defend your point of view, then it's probably going to get torn down pretty quickly.

I've been considering having a debate on a selected topic, like we did early on in this thread. Anyone have any ideas?

[nikki]

Well, I have a topic that's been on my mind lately, but I don't know how *political* it is.  I think it is, but I could see how maybe it isn't.

Topic: Pharmacists refusing to fill out prescriptions for various Birth Control products.

Let me know if this isn't fit for this thread and I'll delete my post.
nikki

[Kukalaka]

I've been considering having a debate on a selected topic, like we did early on in this thread.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

[White Onyx]

OMG don't get me started about birth control and 'the goverment' messing with that. I don't have that problem myself, but I got pissed of a while ago about the fact that they refuse to put birth control in our health care package (so you have to pay for them), but viagra the men get for free threw health care. They said: Yeah but viagra is a medicine against a sort of illness.....well what do you call gettin pregnant when you don't want to be. Or even worse when you are to young to be. Sorry, but that brings out the feminist in me.

[Jaredloverforever]

OMG don't get me started about birth control and 'the goverment' messing with that. I don't have that problem myself, but I got pissed of a while ago about the fact that they refuse to put birth control in our health care package (so you have to pay for them), but viagra the men get for free threw health care. They said: Yeah but viagra is a medicine against a sort of illness.....well what do you call gettin pregnant when you don't want to be. Or even worse when you are to young to be. Sorry, but that brings out the feminist in me.

See and I know, I'm going to take a lot of flack for this, but I don't think birth control should be covered in our health care, because I don't believe that it falls under "something that is necessary", but I also think the Viagra logic is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. I don't believe either should be covered. My whole thing with the birth control, and this is where I'm going to take the flack, is that I think it's a load of crap. I was always taught that God decides life and death, and if you are meant to be pregnant you will be, regardless of whether or not you are on the pill. So being on the pill, esentially gives a person a false sense of believing that they won't get pregant, when as has been proven in many cases, one can easily still get pregnant while on the pill.  I do see it's usefulness for other, "regulatory" purposes, but I still don't think that justifies it being covered under health insurance, especially when a person if they don't have insurance can get it from planned parenthood for free. If it is something that can be giving out for free in a case like that, then I can't see the justification for it being covered by health insurance. However, I do see the point of if they are going to cover viagra, then they should absolutely cover birth control, but ultimately, I'd say, stop covering viagra.

[White Onyx]

If they want something to be covered...cover condoms. If a guy can't get it up...well there are reasons why he can't. Go see a doctor, but don't buy Viagra. Or let the government pay for it. And on the birth control subject. Well it may sounds completely insane, like a proud and out of date, but I'm with Lane on the virgin matter (I blame my VERY Christian schoolteacher for brainwashing me). So I have no need for birth control.

[White Onyx]

I've been considering having a debate on a selected topic, like we did early on in this thread. Anyone have any ideas?

1) Hurricane,
2) War,
3) Terrorism,
4) Polar bear not doing so well because of the fact that the ice is melting,

[potostfbeyeluvr]

If you're unable to provide sufficient evidence to defend your point of view, then it's probably going to get torn down pretty quickly.

I didn't mean I wouldn't tell why I believe them. That's not what I meant by defend. I meant I wouldn't take on a defensive attitude. I've been on several debate teams, and I love a good friendly debate. I was simply trying to make it known that I'm not interested in fighting.

[nikki]

I agree that Viagra and BC should be held to the same standards.  The reasoning that Viagra can help other medical issues applies to BC too.  I have a very close friend who wasn’t able to start her cycles.  She had never had one even when she had started college.  Her doctor prescribed BC for two reasons.  (1) To help her body do something that it couldn’t naturally do on its own and (2) to help salvage any chance she might have to have kids.

Both Viagra and BC have “frivilous/non-medical” uses as well as valid medical uses.  Therefore they should be covered in the same fashion whatever that may be.

But I’ve been very frustrated with the pharmacists that refuse to fill BC prescriptions, and lecture people not to use them.  I wholeheartedly respect their beliefs.  I don’t have a problem at all with their beliefs.  But if a person has a prescription, you fill it.  And if you can’t handle that, you get a different job.

I’m not trying to open a new topic, I’m just using this as an example, but if a person who is against abortion went to work in an abortion clinic and then objected to doing part of the job that assisted in the process, we would find this ridiculous, right?  We would say “well then, why are you there?”  So why are people considering the pharmacists explanation as reasonable?

Besides, what if the person who walked into the pharmacy was my friend, who needs it for medical/health reasons?  Why are they allowed to deny her the medical health care that she requires just because they are assuming she is using it for contraceptive purposes?  What gives them that right?  Their belief?  I believe they should get fired, does that give me the right to fire them?  I don’t think so.  They need to act in accordance with the rules and regulations of their job, not their beliefs.

Another topic to add to the list of possibilites:
Same-sex marriage