[News] Senate Republicans Block Equal Pay Measure for Women
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
- Status
fade
Staff member
I'm having great difficulty swallowing the risk argument. Partly because the same insurance plan covers childbirth usually, which is a statistical risk of not using birth control. And partly because my insurance already covers things that are regular costs, like well visits and dental cleaning. They do this because their risk mitigators, like birth control reduces the risk of unplanned childbirth costs and subsequent well and sick child coverage.
I'd understand the moral stuff and the small government stuff (even if I disagreed), but I'm not really feeling the risk thing.
I'd understand the moral stuff and the small government stuff (even if I disagreed), but I'm not really feeling the risk thing.
The risk only comes into play if you let people choose to add birth control covage as an opt in. If everyone has to participate in birth control coverage, or no one has to participate, then you are correct, it's just like other health maintenance costs and risk mitigators.
However it breaks down if people can choose to opt in or not. At that point, no matter how you slice it, the employer ends up using some of their funds to pay for birth control.
The only problem I see is if the government tries to force this "compromise" - it breaks the insurance model, and still forces the employer to cover some of the costs.
However it breaks down if people can choose to opt in or not. At that point, no matter how you slice it, the employer ends up using some of their funds to pay for birth control.
The only problem I see is if the government tries to force this "compromise" - it breaks the insurance model, and still forces the employer to cover some of the costs.
For the moral argument: no offense people, but the Constitution and any other law you care to name doesn't give those religious institutions any moral ground to stand on to deny rights or whatever. Because they're not people. They're institutions. The employee has the right to choice; the employer does not have a right to determine what they're willing to pay for. Firstly, as Ravenpoe said - you can't discriminate against certain people getting your money; the same insurance pays for circumcision as well (in some places). Secondly, institutions have 0 universal/human rights. The corporation as a legal person is a moral fiction.
Using the pill is just as much a matter of choice to REDUCE healthcare costs as a yearly visit to the dentist or a GP. It's a way of avoiding unwanted children, complications at child birth, child rearing, ... It makes sense from an insurance perspective. In fact, from an insurance perspective, it'd be more intelligent and financially interesting to say you HAVE to use birth control as long as you're not trying for a baby. Just like it makes sense to force people to go see a dentist every year, or an optician every few years, or women over 40 to get a mammography every year, etc etc. I admit that may be a tad too far, but still....
Anywya, there's no reason whatsoever why (most) forms of birth control would be against the Bible. Spiral and such (which don't prevent fertilization but prevent nesting of the egg) I can see. Most pills (and the Nuva etc) cause no eggs to be developed... And nobody's saying that using the pill leads to pre-marital sex, or vice versa. Premarital sex is wrong and evil - using a pill to ease your menstruation isn't.
Using the pill is just as much a matter of choice to REDUCE healthcare costs as a yearly visit to the dentist or a GP. It's a way of avoiding unwanted children, complications at child birth, child rearing, ... It makes sense from an insurance perspective. In fact, from an insurance perspective, it'd be more intelligent and financially interesting to say you HAVE to use birth control as long as you're not trying for a baby. Just like it makes sense to force people to go see a dentist every year, or an optician every few years, or women over 40 to get a mammography every year, etc etc. I admit that may be a tad too far, but still....
Anywya, there's no reason whatsoever why (most) forms of birth control would be against the Bible. Spiral and such (which don't prevent fertilization but prevent nesting of the egg) I can see. Most pills (and the Nuva etc) cause no eggs to be developed... And nobody's saying that using the pill leads to pre-marital sex, or vice versa. Premarital sex is wrong and evil - using a pill to ease your menstruation isn't.
I assume you mean the employer does not have the right to determine what the employee will pay for.
If, instead, you mean that the employer does not get to determine how they spend their resources, then I simply have to disagree with you there. Perhaps in a non-capitalist system where companies are not autonomous that would make sense, but that's not the economy we're talking about here.
...Let me rephrase. If health care is made a legal obligation, you have to pay for healthcare. I'm sure many a corporation would gladly not pay taxes; they're still forced to do so. Moral grounds for not participating in a society-wide system doesn't work. Much like the people over here who like to take the government to court every couple of years becase there's taxx money going to army upkeep, which is all wrong and evil because they have weapons and those should be banned or some such idiocy - it's not a personal choice. Society says we need an army and the government pays for it - so we all pay for it. If a democratic majority decides you need general health care, and the government decides how/what/where to pay - good luck not paying it.
Problem stems, in part, from the wishy-washy version of healthcare you're trying to have - keep the private insurance companies in business while still forcing everyone to have insurance, yet not giving them monopolies or too much power. If healthcare was a separate tax (13.5% of gross income + 11% of employer's taxes in Belgium, for example) collected by the government and redistributed to the private corporations/people/etc/ involved (whether a third-party-payer system as the UK, or some sort of rebates after paying yourself, or whatever - there's a host of options), it'd be more clear-cut.
Anyway, we'll just agree to disagree. I can't wrap my head around some of the things Americans like to think of as self evident (No, I don't mean the constitution...I just have a very different idea of what a government could/should/ought to be allowed to do and what it shouldn't....And I'm considered libertarian by Belgian standards, for the record)
Well you and I are no too different then. If everyone is forced to pay for birth control health care, then no one should be exempt. I don't believe the government should enact a halfway measure that allows people to pick and choose. They should either declare birth control a human right, or an option.
There are too many problems with going halfway.
If it becomes a law, though, then employers will have to comply regardless.
There are too many problems with going halfway.
If it becomes a law, though, then employers will have to comply regardless.
I like how some say that women should get paid less because of the pregnancy leave or birth control nonsense.
Excuse me, how does either of those benefit my situation exactly?
Simply put, it's stone age caveman, chest pounding gorilla alpha male nonsense. "I should get paid more cause I have a penis"
Excuse me, how does either of those benefit my situation exactly?
Simply put, it's stone age caveman, chest pounding gorilla alpha male nonsense. "I should get paid more cause I have a penis"
Oh so many guy-to-guy conversations I've heard over the years.
There is ZERO reason to pay a woman different other than sexism. There's ZERO justification for it. Any "bonuses" that a woman gets, that supposedly gives "reason" to why she's paid less, should be an "option" not a "benefit".
There is ZERO reason to pay a woman different other than sexism. There's ZERO justification for it. Any "bonuses" that a woman gets, that supposedly gives "reason" to why she's paid less, should be an "option" not a "benefit".
I would be very very surprised if you couldn't find at least a dozen United States Elected Officials that said something like that.
Well there is more of me to pay, innit.
Charlie Don't Surf - That's because the majority of the country are Jersey Shore watching mouth-breathers who elect them into office in the first place.
GasBandit
Staff member
Ah. I had the impression it was a politician, or at least a notable pundit, or perhaps someone in this or a related thread, who had made such an assertion.
I agree there's no reason to pay a woman of equal qualifications less for the same job - however, I gnash my teeth every time we hire a young female. Just when I have her trained enough to do the job (and yes, I mean every time), she gets preganant and decides to be a mom full time, leaving me to have to spend another year training the next future former traffic director.
However, I read something interesting the other day that said the career woman married to a stay-at-home dad is actually becoming a lot more common a thing now.
I agree there's no reason to pay a woman of equal qualifications less for the same job - however, I gnash my teeth every time we hire a young female. Just when I have her trained enough to do the job (and yes, I mean every time), she gets preganant and decides to be a mom full time, leaving me to have to spend another year training the next future former traffic director.
However, I read something interesting the other day that said the career woman married to a stay-at-home dad is actually becoming a lot more common a thing now.
While I agree with you on moral grounds, I suppose the practise depends on the system and how it is used. Over here, when a couple has a child, the employer of the mother stands to lose more than the employer of the father (maternity leave 3 months, paternity leave 1-18 days). Any other optional leaves or benefits that might be shared amongst the parents are overwhelmingly taken by the mother, while the father goes back to work. All other things being equal, an employer might thus expect to get more out of a male employee than a female. Perhaps it is not 'right' for this to influence wages or hiring preferences, but I think there might be some correlation here.
I think this might be a significant part of the problem. With men, this is a lot less common.
Yeah, you missed the whole part where you entire paragraph means nothing to someone in my situation.
Yes, men never quit their jobs...
If there was some sort of maternity leave tax maybe you'd have a point, but paying a woman less because she might leave is ludicrous...
And the lower wages are definitely a result of women only entering the male dominated part of the work force in the past 100 years... unless you think male nannies get paid more...
Well you could totally still get pregnant if you wanted to, so there...
Didn't miss, actually. As you can read from my quote of your post, I was focussing on the 'no reason to pay a woman different than a man' part.
Don't any of them come back when the maternity time is over? That's how it works over here...
Yes, women never quit their jobs...
An employee taking two weeks off is nothing a robust enough organisation can't handle. An employee taking 3-10 months off requires recruiting and training somebody to fill in for them.
Please clarify the point you are making.
Do you think I'm off base?
So you see how irrelevant that is...
Well maybe where your from...
But my experience aside, that also happens when your sick etc, and could easily be handled the same way...
Lower wages aren't about maternity, but historical context...
He mentioned that they've all decided to just become full-time, stay at home moms.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt as there was no way you could have written that entire paragraph about maternity leave after I just saying that doesn't apply to me in any way.
And award for most appropriate avatar goes to...
GasBandit
Staff member
You keep saying that, but your personal situation is irrelevant to the setting of policy. You have to set policy based upon what generally happens, not based upon the single, solitary, psychotic lesbian exception.
GasBandit
Staff member
Not only no, but one of them actually took all her paid maternity leave and THEN called to say she wasn't coming back, bilking us AND leaving me in the lurch. At least the other two were up front about quitting in advance.
Don't forget all that slacking off they do due to not being as smart or efficient as a man. And how woozy they get from being away from the kitchen for so long.
- Status