FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Debate & Discuss => Topic started by: Abrupt on March 04, 2012, 05:40:07 pm
-
Did anyone watch her testimony before congress? You can check it out on youtube if you haven't. This had me shaking my head and displaying a baffled look. I mean is this really what we have come to? Begging for condoms (I use that word because it puts it in plainer light than to say begging for contraceptives). Old perverts already begged for *bleep* and got it, and I can only imagine sex dolls and sex toys and free passes to The Bunny Ranch will be next. People cannot say they want to keep the Government out of their bedrooms and then go and beg them to participate. I can only guess the intention of her testimony was to make people feel guilty but all I feel is outrage and shame for American society.
There is no point that could be made to sway me to see her point of view -- I am set in this matter, but I am curious as to what others think about it.
-
Did anyone watch her testimony before congress? You can check it out on youtube if you haven't.
I haven't seen that yet but, will check it out later.
This had me shaking my head and displaying a baffled look. I mean is this really what we have come to? Begging for condoms (I use that word because it puts it in plainer light than to say begging for contraceptives). Old perverts already begged for *bleep* and got it, and I can only imagine sex dolls and sex toys and free passes to The Bunny Ranch will be next. People cannot say they want to keep the Government out of their bedrooms and then go and beg them to participate. I can only guess the intention of her testimony was to make people feel guilty but all I feel is outrage and shame for American society.
There is no point that could be made to sway me to see her point of view -- I am set in this matter, but I am curious as to what others think about it.
I'm wondering what effect such testimony had.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlRC0nsjtKQ
Here's a link. I'm too tired to discuss this this heavily, but just remember that us taxpayers are not being asked to pay anything. She wants her insurance --something she pays for-- to cover contraceptives (something that can heavily effect a woman's health and, according to her, can add up to thousands of dollars for students if not covered by their insurers). And when you listen at 4:05 or 5:12, I can understand her concern and why she's fighting. Also when you hear stories like where congress held a committee on women's reproductive rights w/o inviting any women, Fluke just seems like a smaller peice to a larger controversy.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlRC0nsjtKQ
Here's a link. I'm too tired to discuss this this heavily, but just remember that us taxpayers are not being asked to pay anything. She wants her insurance --something she pays for-- to cover contraceptives (something that can heavily effect a woman's health and, according to her, can add up to thousands of dollars for students if not covered by their insurers). And when you listen at 4:05 or 5:12, I can understand her concern and why she's fighting. Also when you hear stories like where congress held a committee on women's reproductive rights w/o inviting any women, Fluke just seems like a smaller peice to a larger controversy.
Taxpayers are being asked to pay for this, or do you not remember the new health care act. Also, the way insurance works and to be capable of sustaining the costs for treatment under insurance will have to be more than without (anyone who tells you different is likely trying to sell you something -- like insurance). The use of her rhetoric of unusual situations at the points you indicated should not make her statement more viable, but instead should make it more dubious. People don't have to have sex. They have the right to choose not to. Here we have a woman who proudly and publicly displays her apparent excessive promiscuity before one of the highest offices in America. She is demanding that we the taxpayers (don't forget that we have to pay our insurance costs and the costs of people who don't have insurance too -- which by liberal descriptions is a very large portion of America) cover the cost of her sexual activities (which must be rather frequent to equal 1000 dollars per year). She still seems to me to be nothing more than a rather loose woman with no sense of decency that is begging for contraceptives from me while trying to make me feel guilty about her promiscuity. I will make a deal with her though, if she is willing to pay for the cost of hookers for me I will pay for condoms for her because I have this personality condition that makes me an *bleep* and rude son of a *bleep* at times that many women find less than charming...
-
If she's having trouble buying her contraceptives, then join FC and make some extra money. There, problem solved.
-
Though this has turned into a brewhahah by the likes of politicians and Limbaugh's diatribe the bottom line is should women's contraceptives be any less available through insurance than *bleep*? After all with all the old farts out there on *bleep* women need contraceptives.
-
Though this has turned into a brewhahah by the likes of politicians and Limbaugh's diatribe the bottom line is should women's contraceptives be any less available through insurance than *bleep*? After all with all the old farts out there on *bleep* women need contraceptives.
Tell me again why I should be forced to work in the fields to subsidize her sex life or bail out his *bleep*?
-
Taxpayers are being asked to pay for this, or do you not remember the new health care act.
Ah yes. Like I said earlier, I was too tired and therefore didn't want to discuss far into it due to sleep deprivation.
People don't have to have sex. They have the right to choose not to.
It's harder than it seems (Wait...did I just make a pun? HIYOOOO!). Though people should be responsible, the vast amount of kids in the US foster care system and families on welfare is ridiculous. I only add that aspect to weigh in on contraception (for sexual practices) vs. no contraception. I'm not on either side of the sexuality issue at the moment, though she tends to avoid that area in her speech and concentrate on the health issues.
Here we have a woman who proudly and publicly displays her apparent excessive promiscuity before one of the highest offices in America.
She still seems to me to be nothing more than a rather loose woman with no sense of decency that is begging for contraceptives from me while trying to make me feel guilty about her promiscuity.
The problem with this argument is that women use birth control for all kinds of health issues, including cystic acne (like you stated that it's unusual, it's really not. It's very very common) and excessive bleeding. Contraception is a hormone stabilizer. Just imagine if your testicles swelled up to the size of tennis *bleep*, causing a ridiculous amount of agonizing pain, you're pissing blood, and then your insurance provider said they wouldn't cover the cost of medication because the medication that could help is labelled as a contraceptive. That was the majority of her argument in her whole speech. These problems should be covered by health insurance for those reasons. I can easily see the point of all of the flak with the sexual activity issues, but not for the health issues.
I will make a deal with her though, if she is willing to pay for the cost of hookers for me I will pay for condoms for her because I have this personality condition that makes me an *bleep* and rude son of a *bleep* at times that many women find less than charmi
Arrrrharharhar!
-
She still seems to me to be nothing more than a rather loose woman with no sense of decency that is begging for contraceptives from me while trying to make me feel guilty about her promiscuity.
Where exactly does she say anything at all about her sex life? Why don't you just call her a *bleep* and a prostitute like the Oxycontin addict (with a fondness for underage Dominican prostitutes) did?
Here's a transcript of her testimony. http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf (http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf)
-
She still seems to me to be nothing more than a rather loose woman with no sense of decency that is begging for contraceptives from me while trying to make me feel guilty about her promiscuity.
Where exactly does she say anything at all about her sex life? Why don't you just call her a *bleep* and a prostitute like the Oxycontin addict (with a fondness for underage Dominican prostitutes) did?
Here's a transcript of her testimony. http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf (http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf)
You know, in all honesty, if I were present during her speech I would have probably yelled out a muffled (under a cough) '*bleep*' remark. I would have done this more for humor effect as certain gems cannot be passed on. I don't really have anything against sluts though and rather enjoy their company. I didn't call her a *bleep* and I don't have to either as she said enough in her speech to let people decide if she is or isn't. I can say, though, when a total stranger begs me for money because of the costs she suffers for her sexual activity that I find my choices of describing her rather limited.
-
Ah yes. Like I said earlier, I was too tired and therefore didn't want to discuss far into it due to sleep deprivation.
I entirely understand and find myself in similar situations far too often of late.
It's harder than it seems (Wait...did I just make a pun? HIYOOOO!). Though people should be responsible, the vast amount of kids in the US foster care system and families on welfare is ridiculous. I only add that aspect to weigh in on contraception (for sexual practices) vs. no contraception. I'm not on either side of the sexuality issue at the moment, though she tends to avoid that area in her speech and concentrate on the health issues.
I entirely agree about people needing to be more responsible. I think most of the modern problems in the US are due to lack of responsibility. That is the single biggest issue facing us in every area of our lives and the economy. Honestly I think her speech was written for her by democratic representatives (I have no proof of this except for traditional politics and the theater that both sides put on so well (or not) at times). If you compare her speech to the subject matter and what it was put in challenge of and how it was presented it becomes almost entirely obvious. A brilliant tactic, but it would not work on those paying attention.
The problem with this argument is that women use birth control for all kinds of health issues, including cystic acne (like you stated that it's unusual, it's really not. It's very very common) and excessive bleeding. Contraception is a hormone stabilizer. Just imagine if your testicles swelled up to the size of tennis *bleep*, causing a ridiculous amount of agonizing pain, you're pissing blood, and then your insurance provider said they wouldn't cover the cost of medication because the medication that could help is labelled as a contraceptive. That was the majority of her argument in her whole speech. These problems should be covered by health insurance for those reasons. I can easily see the point of all of the flak with the sexual activity issues, but not for the health issues.
There are alternate treatments for these conditions that are not only handled by birth control. If we think about the original argument (an incursion on religious belief) we can see why the speech was crafted in this manner and why the bulk of its subject was switched from the main point of contraceptives and religious beliefs to an alternate addition that some of them offer. This was a very clever approach but it was so clever that it makes it blatantly obvious. It is easily countered by remembering what the subject was and why the show was presented to us. They couldn't argue these other issues by themselves as that would be entirely useless so they had to make it seem as if they were exclusively dependent upon contraceptives. This is probably the main reason I have a problem with this woman (and anyone that gleefully lets their cause or voice be hijacked by another for another purpose).
Arrrrharharhar!
I was kidding on this bit but glad it was at least enough to warrant a laugh (whether at or for or even just).
-
She still seems to me to be nothing more than a rather loose woman with no sense of decency that is begging for contraceptives from me while trying to make me feel guilty about her promiscuity.
Where exactly does she say anything at all about her sex life? Why don't you just call her a *bleep* and a prostitute like the Oxycontin addict (with a fondness for underage Dominican prostitutes) did?
Here's a transcript of her testimony. http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf (http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf)
You know, in all honesty, if I were present during her speech I would have probably yelled out a muffled (under a cough) '*bleep*' remark. I would have done this more for humor effect as certain gems cannot be passed on. I don't really have anything against sluts though and rather enjoy their company. I didn't call her a *bleep* and I don't have to either as she said enough in her speech to let people decide if she is or isn't. I can say, though, when a total stranger begs me for money because of the costs she suffers for her sexual activity that I find my choices of describing her rather limited.
Again, where does she say anything about her sex life? I linked to the transcript, surely you can just copy and paste it here?
-
Oh, and I'm also confused how your taxes are paying for a private insurance plan. Care to elaborate?
-
Again, where does she say anything about her sex life? I linked to the transcript, surely you can just copy and paste it here?
When she mentions the cost of contraceptives. One thousand dollars a year for contraceptives sounds more like what I would imagine from a *bleep* star than a college student.
Oh, and I'm also confused how your taxes are paying for a private insurance plan. Care to elaborate?
There are a few ways to answer this. First what is the reason for the testimony? Is it for private insurance plans? No it isn't. Regardless of what is mentioned it is a challenge to the freedom of religion issue with the health care act. Understanding that we can see that it is false for anyone to assume this has anything to do with private insurance plans and that is simply a traditional tactic used in politics to fool those simple minded who are not paying attention.
Secondly, many private plans have already gone up in cost due to the launch of the health care bill to offset the additional costs that is bringing to the overall coverage. I don't know the average that they have gone up but I have heard from 20 percent to 30 percent from people I know that have private insurance. Adding an additional $1000 a year in coverage for all women (forget that 'free' word you hear as it isn't free and never could be free (even though it is already provided free of cost to the user in approximately 70% of US cities/counties and is already paid for via taxes at least one time by us taxpayers)) will result in the cost of insurance being increased by at least enough to cover this cost and proportioned out to those paying the amount with likely a little more in cost to cover the handling of it all. The health care costs will increase also because this will be forced upon them in just the same manor (you cannot force it legally in one area to a private industry and not apply it to the public side of it in this case).
Forget the smoke and mirrors of the presentation. This was simply a very well played democratic execution of the classic "change the subject". Democrats are extremely skilled at this and took a losing issue and turned it into a winning issue in public opinion -- if they can keep people focused on the direct point and not the truth of what the point is about.
-
One thousand dollars a year for contraceptives sounds more like what I would imagine from a *bleep* star than a college student.
Maybe it's been awhile since college, (or longer if one hasn't attended), but that estimate may be a low average for some college students. Some say that it's related to being away from home for the first time and pushing the limits of exploration. Others say, "promiscious".
-
Wow, I was almost fooled. I thought Abrupt was possibly a small government republican who loved freedom and had a mind of his own. Nope. Just a guy that reiterates Rush Limbaugh and Fox News rhetoric. You sir, are a hack. Respect lost sir.
-
WOW! It seems that I am way out of touch with this one. I will have to go and watch it. I had heard on the radio about forcing insurance companies to offer women's contraceptives whether they be for a religious-based company or not. I never knew they were considered it for other health problems. I saw someone say that there are other options for those conditions. I'd like to know what they are.
-
I entirely agree about people needing to be more responsible. I think most of the modern problems in the US are due to lack of responsibility. That is the single biggest issue facing us in every area of our lives and the economy.
Agreed, though expecting responsibility is a pipe dream nowadays. The best bet is just to work hard as one will always have it better doing that than the others feeding off of welfare all their lives.
If you compare her speech to the subject matter and what it was put in challenge of and how it was presented it becomes almost entirely obvious. A brilliant tactic, but it would not work on those paying attention.
That health insurance companies shouldn't pay for the health of their buyers because of some religious (places that don't pay taxes) loophole? Or how this will effect the healthcare bill?
There are alternate treatments for these conditions that are not only handled by birth control.
Like what? How much do these treatments cost as opposed to simple birth control?
WOW! It seems that I am way out of touch with this one. I will have to go and watch it. I had heard on the radio about forcing insurance companies to offer women's contraceptives whether they be for a religious-based company or not. I never knew they were considered it for other health problems. I saw someone say that there are other options for those conditions. I'd like to know what they are.
Wow, I was almost fooled. I thought Abrupt was possibly a small government republican who loved freedom and had a mind of his own. Nope. Just a guy that reiterates Rush Limbaugh and Fox News rhetoric. You sir, are a hack. Respect lost sir.
Abrupt IS a small gov't republican who obviously loves freedom. But imo he pulled the trigger a little too quickly on this one.
I think everyone should listen to Jon Stewart's rebuttle on the Rush Limbaugh pig filth even if one does not like Jon Stewart. It's quite epic and he sets the record straight. If one does not want to watch the whole thing, just listen to 5:30-6:30
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-5-2012/extremely-loud---incredibly-gross
-
One thousand dollars a year for contraceptives sounds more like what I would imagine from a *bleep* star than a college student.
Maybe it's been awhile since college, (or longer if one hasn't attended), but that estimate may be a low average for some college students. Some say that it's related to being away from home for the first time and pushing the limits of exploration. Others say, "promiscious".
You could well be right. It has been a bit since college for me. I joined the service first to get the gi bill for college and got 'some' of my insanity out before hand.
-
Wow, I was almost fooled. I thought Abrupt was possibly a small government republican who loved freedom and had a mind of his own. Nope. Just a guy that reiterates Rush Limbaugh and Fox News rhetoric. You sir, are a hack. Respect lost sir.
I don't listen to Rush actually. I am a small government conservative and maybe even a libertarian. I want freedom for all Americans above anything else and I will fight for our freedoms too. I am wise enough to know that if I get something for not cost at the efforts of another that both myself and the other are less free. I am that sort of person that it is difficult to give me anything or do something for me. You may know the type.
My thoughts in this matter are my own. This entire presentation was a well played and successful "control the message" effort by the Democrats. It was brilliant on their part and seems to have worked for now, but I still remember what this is about and so am not fooled by it.
-
It has been a bit since college for me. I joined the service first to get the gi bill for college and got 'some' of my insanity out before hand.
Many moons for me as well. I joined the service young, (not drafted though), and got the old GI bill. Naturally, this was nothing like having the government pay for contraceptives, (since we had to buy those as needed, using a government paycheck ... same as the government subsidizing our beer, housing and medical care for our service).
Even while being sardonic, I understand the attitude of not wanting tax revenues to pay for things one doesn't like however, as Jon Stewart pointed out, we do this all time. I, for one, don't want churches to be tax exempt, (which results in billions of lost tax revenue dollars).
-
I am that sort of person that it is difficult to give me anything or do something for me. You may know the type.
Post-apocalyptic zombie-shooting survivalist loner or, quasi-quaker? ;)
-
Agreed, though expecting responsibility is a pipe dream nowadays. The best bet is just to work hard as one will always have it better doing that than the others feeding off of welfare all their lives.
I agree on your later point, but I would rather see it all crash down and start up correctly again. Sort of a reboot. As tough as that would be for many I thrive in such an environment and it is only at such times that I truly shine.
That health insurance companies shouldn't pay for the health of their buyers because of some religious (places that don't pay taxes) loophole? Or how this will effect the healthcare bill?
That violating freedom or religion is not something the government can do (except in cases where such freedom involves the intentional harming of others or properties..etc). Remember that women could already get contraceptives free in over 70% of US cities/counties. This is paid for already by taxpayers and yet there are those who would have us pay for it yet again at an even greater cost than current. Having sex is not a disease and isn't something that tends to 'accidentally' happen and is a very strange thing to have on health insurance. It would make the same sense to expect auto insurance to cover gasoline costs too.
Like what? How much do these treatments cost as opposed to simple birth control?
I don't know honestly and am not going to look them up. If they are exclusively connected to birth control that should send out red flags to everyone and immediately sets off my 'scam' alert sensor. Contraceptives should only be just that and nothing else (and many are honestly but I do know there are others with additional effects). Lumping other things as being exclusive to contraceptives when they have nothing to do with the purpose of a contraceptive is very skeptical and a dishonest argument used strictly for leverage and gamesmanship. When someone makes such a fallacious argument (Miss Fluke and many proponents of her points -- not you) I almost invariably am counter to anything else they may have to say in the matter and I will assume it is all deception. I am that way in real life too, if someone mixes a lie (even a small one) into their 'truths' in order to gain something from me I will refuse it all where I might have agreed without the lie, and I will not renegotiate it again as they have shut the book on it by their attempt.
Abrupt IS a small gov't republican who obviously loves freedom. But imo he pulled the trigger a little too quickly on this one.
I think everyone should listen to Jon Stewart's rebuttle on the Rush Limbaugh pig filth even if one does not like Jon Stewart. It's quite epic and he sets the record straight. If one does not want to watch the whole thing, just listen to 5:30-6:30
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-5-2012/extremely-loud---incredibly-gross
Thanks for the support on my small government position. I often act suddenly, hence my handle and have done it chagrin many times. It is who I am though and I would not change that. In this case I still feel as I do. Her position was deceptive because the argument was poised as a challenge to the positions of 'freedom of religion'. It didn't address the issue in any way and instead was a deceptive trick. As I already said it was very dubious considering the things she asked for are already provided free of charge. It was very deceptive considering she scarcely indicated (as pointed out by other posters as a challenge to my language) the purpose of contraceptives and instead focused on side effect that have nothing at all to do with contraception. That last bit was argued by you as well and thus you must admit it is undeniably the focus of her testimony, and strangely enough it has absolutely nothing to do with contraception (which is the sole issue that Catholics are opposed to) -- think about it.
-
I am that sort of person that it is difficult to give me anything or do something for me. You may know the type.
Post-apocalyptic zombie-shooting survivalist loner or, quasi-quaker? ;)
Maybe paranoid "whats the trick" lunatic. I like to pretend myself to be like the Indians in the movie that have to make a fair trade. The real truth is probably that I don't like to feel obligated to anyone and such generosity from others weights heavily upon my mind until I can pay it back and then some.
-
@Abrupt... I don't take issue with your stance. I take issue with its originality. It is to a T (including the prostitution) angle fox and Rush have. It just felt parroted.
I don't like the idea of people asking the govt to intervene and force the insurance company to change how they do business. If mrs Fluke wants her insurance company to cover her birth control she should lobby the people that choose the insurance company. Lobby them to do business with a company that covers birth control.
-
With all the challenges this nation faces ie staggering debt, stifling unemployment, stagnant housing markets, and the increasing chasm between the ultra-wealthy and everyone else, the U.S. Senate is acting like it's the 1950s.
Fluke's testimony came on the heels of the Senate defeated Blunt Amendment that was tacked onto a transportation bill of all things! The amendment would have allowed employers to deny medical coverage to their employees if they [the employer] have religious or moral objections to a medical procedure the employee might want or need. In effect, Senator Blunt of Missouri is using women and their rights as a tactic to try to undermine Obama and his national health care plan. I do not agree with Obama, nor do I agree with all pieces and parts of the Healthcare Reform Act, but it gets me very riled to see a woman's right to govern her own medical care, body, and reproductive system once again being used as a tool by a body consisting of [almost] 100% males.
As far as the statement about 'other things' can be used to control cystic acne, heavy bleeding, etc., that is true in some cases. But guess what? Those other modalities carry a staggering cost in comparison to birth control/hormones and many of them are horrid on the organs and can have longterm affects. Would you want YOUR wife, partner, daughter, or mother put at such great risk?
The amendment had NO business being put forth to begin with, but what really galls me is the sheer hypocrisy of it all. Insurers cover sex-aid medications for men and I'm not hearing any 'moral objections' from hypothetical employers. So it's acceptable for men through medical insurance to get aid in sex, but not for women to control when or even if they get pregnant? It seems as if the conservatives have not bothered to consider the consequences of no birth control. We cannot feed a great percentage of adults and they now want to add more babies to the 'mix'?! Why am I NOT hearing a corresponding cry for affordable child care?
-
For now, most health insurance companies are private companies trying to make a profit. They should be able to decide what they cover. If you do not like the coverage, choose another company. Free market.
-
@Abrupt... I don't take issue with your stance. I take issue with its originality. It is to a T (including the prostitution) angle fox and Rush have. It just felt parroted.
I don't like the idea of people asking the govt to intervene and force the insurance company to change how they do business. If mrs Fluke wants her insurance company to cover her birth control she should lobby the people that choose the insurance company. Lobby them to do business with a company that covers birth control.
I again insist that my ideas are my own and I tried to hunt for any videos of from Fox that mimicked what I said. The only thing I found that resembled it was a Dana Perino discussions on how this was a "control the message" event. I never mentioned a thing about prostitution (unless I have gone completely insane. I am not even looking back at my original post to see as that just doesn't fit with anything I would have said). I am asking you to show me some example of this parroting as I would like to compare it with my own views on it. You shouldn't be surprised to find some similarity from people with similar views but my thoughts are mine (although in time I am sure they will be refined by statements I hear from others who I hold similar thinking with -- but that is only natural to everyone). You have far more experience with Rush than I do, I don't listen to him (I rarely listen to any radio at all and tend to stick to the ipod). On Fox I watch The Five, Redeye, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren and The Factor.
-
For now, most health insurance companies are private companies trying to make a profit. They should be able to decide what they cover. If you do not like the coverage, choose another company. Free market.
I completely agree with you here. Insurance is for emergency situations that are unexpected and rare. As Chris Rocks said, 'They shouldn't call it insurance, but "In case *bleep*"'.
-
Insurance is for emergency situations that are unexpected and rare. As Chris Rocks said, 'They shouldn't call it insurance, but "In case *bleep*"'.
He also went on to mention that, if it " ... doesn't happen, shouldn't you get your money back?" Unless it's some sort of protection racket that loopholes around RICO, of course.
-
With all the challenges this nation faces ie staggering debt, stifling unemployment, stagnant housing markets, and the increasing chasm between the ultra-wealthy and everyone else, the U.S. Senate is acting like it's the 1950s.
Fluke's testimony came on the heels of the Senate defeated Blunt Amendment that was tacked onto a transportation bill of all things! The amendment would have allowed employers to deny medical coverage to their employees if they [the employer] have religious or moral objections to a medical procedure the employee might want or need. In effect, Senator Blunt of Missouri is using women and their rights as a tactic to try to undermine Obama and his national health care plan. I do not agree with Obama, nor do I agree with all pieces and parts of the Healthcare Reform Act, but it gets me very riled to see a woman's right to govern her own medical care, body, and reproductive system once again being used as a tool by a body consisting of [almost] 100% males.
As far as the statement about 'other things' can be used to control cystic acne, heavy bleeding, etc., that is true in some cases. But guess what? Those other modalities carry a staggering cost in comparison to birth control/hormones and many of them are horrid on the organs and can have longterm affects. Would you want YOUR wife, partner, daughter, or mother put at such great risk?
The amendment had NO business being put forth to begin with, but what really galls me is the sheer hypocrisy of it all. Insurers cover sex-aid medications for men and I'm not hearing any 'moral objections' from hypothetical employers. So it's acceptable for men through medical insurance to get aid in sex, but not for women to control when or even if they get pregnant? It seems as if the conservatives have not bothered to consider the consequences of no birth control. We cannot feed a great percentage of adults and they now want to add more babies to the 'mix'?! Why am I NOT hearing a corresponding cry for affordable child care?
It is odd how you present the Blunt Amendment as: "The amendment would have allowed employers to deny medical coverage to their employees if they [the employer] have religious or moral objections to a medical procedure the employee might want or need" when it simply would allow employers to opt out of the coverage requirement for things they had moral objection to. I agree that women are being used as a tool, and it is by the Democratic Party.
As an analogy to "right to choose" I would like to put forth this question to you. If I forage through your larger for my food, can I then accuse you of infringing upon my "right to choose" what food I want to eat simply because you don't stack your larder with what I like?
I ask you why these 'other things' are more costly in their single specific form then they are when tacked onto a product that has nothing to do with them? Wouldn't it be best served to have a product that is designed for its purpose to be cheaper and better at that than a product that isn't designed for that purpose? This seems like some sort of scam to me.
Insurers should be allowed to cover what ever they want to, and I echo what sigmapi1501 said in that regard. I think it is ridiculous for insurance to cover sex-aid medication as well. Most people should never need insurance. Those that purchase it, 99% of the time, should expect to pay out and never use it. It is an emergency luxury item that should cost more in total than it pays out in total and if it is anything else but that then it is unstable and a sham. I said this before and will repeat it, most peoples opinions regarding health insurance is the same as if I felt like my auto insurance should cover the cost of fuel. Such thoughts of insurance make it no longer insurance and entirely wealth redistribution.
In response to your "consequence of no more birth control" I ask you, should we give free crack and heroin and other drugs to those that use them? Just think of the consequences for all the crimes they commit because we don't. Why don't we hire underage Asian prostitutes for all the Pedophiles out there too while we are at it. I tell you now that you cannot hold me responsible for another persons crime and it is pathetic and ridiculous to even suggest that.
I am opposed to the entire Unconstitutional health care act/bill/crime. I will not participate and will not be forced to either. Anyone that tries to force me to do this and attempts to take away my freedom is likely to wind up with a severe case of dead. I imagine that might sound like crazy talk to some, but it isn't. It isn't angry talk either. It is the cold honest truth. Nobody is going to make me into a slave and anyone that has ever felt their freedom in jeopardy will understand exactly what I mean. There are far worse things in life than not having all the rubbers you can use for 'free'.
-
Again, where does she say anything about her sex life? I linked to the transcript, surely you can just copy and paste it here?
When she mentions the cost of contraceptives. One thousand dollars a year for contraceptives sounds more like what I would imagine from a *bleep* star than a college student.
I think your reading comprehension is clouded by desire to paint her as an evil Democrat. She said "Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school . For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary . "
She doesn't say she's paying $1000 a year for contraceptives. She says $3000 is an entire summer's salary. And as has been noted elsewhere on this thread, contraception does not equal sex.
And for all your protestations otherwise, you are parroting the exact arguments that Fox "News" and Rush Limbaugh are spouting. What remarkable odds.
Equating the health care bill with slavery and threatening murder is...hmmm, yeah, I'd have to say pretty crazy.
-
Again, where does she say anything about her sex life? I linked to the transcript, surely you can just copy and paste it here?
When she mentions the cost of contraceptives. One thousand dollars a year for contraceptives sounds more like what I would imagine from a *bleep* star than a college student.
I think your reading comprehension is clouded by desire to paint her as an evil Democrat. She said "Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school . For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary . "
She doesn't say she's paying $1000 a year for contraceptives. She says $3000 is an entire summer's salary. And as has been noted elsewhere on this thread, contraception does not equal sex.
And for all your protestations otherwise, you are parroting the exact arguments that Fox "News" and Rush Limbaugh are spouting. What remarkable odds.
Equating the health care bill with slavery and threatening murder is...hmmm, yeah, I'd have to say pretty crazy.
The average length of time for a full time student in law school is three years and I will let you do the math from there.
Something isn't adding up. For 3000 dollars you can buy over a 27 years supply of the pill from walmart or target. For condoms you can get them in bulk for about .50 each and that would be enough for 6000 condoms and would require intercourse averaging over 16 times per day to expend them in that time at that price. You can also go to any clinic and get either free if you choose.
What is the purpose of a contraceptive? The purpose is to the prevention of fertilization of the egg by the sperm. Egg + sperm = sex, unless artificial insemination but then why would you be using a contraceptive. Men can also use a contraceptive in the form of a prophylactic commonly known as a condom or rubber. Its purpose is the exact same purpose as any other contraceptive. Any additional effects added to oral contraceptives for women have no bearing on contraceptives in general and are disqualified from discussion since their purpose is not contraception. If you are confused look up the definition of contraceptive.
You use Fox news like it is an insult but it only reveals your bias. I challenge you to show me where my words parrot Fox News or Rush. You have accused me and your charge is false unless you can clearly prove it. If your charge is false then you are likewise false and simply following the will of your liberal masters. It should be such an easy thing to prove since you make dual comparisons with such certainty. I am calling you out on this, prove it or be discredited.
I didn't suggest murder as I have a Constitutional right to defend my freedom from oppression. Actually it is an obligation and not simply a right. Nobody will bind me in chains over this bill and since I will not pay any money for this they have little choice but to choose so brash an action to try to enforce it. This bill is slavery for both those that would be forced to pay it and those that would receive the benefits of it. Slavery is being bound to a master and that qualifies for both of those. The government would be the master in this matter. Even the unborn have no defense against it as they become criminal at birth until they pay these fees. The bill would effectively make every American born from now on no longer free. If you are not free you are either a prisoner or a slave. You must think very simply to not see this. You think of the 'free' stuff you would get. I would gladly trade my life for your freedom and yet here you seem more than willing to trade everyone's freedom for your box of condoms....
-
Arguing with people like you is pointless, Abrupt, because you don't accept facts if they get in the way of your ideology. Judging from your rants, you seem pretty unhinged too, which makes it even more pointless.
But go ahead and consider me discredited, at least I have my liberal masters to console me ::)
-
Arguing with people like you is pointless, Abrupt, because you don't accept facts if they get in the way of your ideology. Judging from your rants, you seem pretty unhinged too, which makes it even more pointless.
But go ahead and consider me discredited, at least I have my liberal masters to console me ::)
I present clear facts. Just because the disinformation you were fooled into believing (and that you so naively repeated) doesn't agree with the facts doesn't make the facts any less true. The facts are plainly visible to you in my post and they do not lie. Yet you dismiss them and insult me where it is obvious to anyone reading this that if you were telling the truth you could provide proof. Since you cannot back up your rhetoric, you stoop to the traditional liberal tactic of insult and ridicule.
It is indeed pointless for people like you to argue with people like me as you are poorly equipped to engage in a contest of honest wit and debate.
-
I question your "facts." And no matter what proof I presented to you, you wouldn't believe it. So why should I bother? Besides the amusement, of course.
You talk about disinformation and naivety, and yet you think Fox is a legitimate news source and call the health care bill the equivalent of slavery.
And yes, when someone holds positions as crazy as yours, they do deserve ridicule.
-
I question your "facts." And no matter what proof I presented to you, you wouldn't believe it. So why should I bother? Besides the amusement, of course.
You talk about disinformation and naivety, and yet you think Fox is a legitimate news source and call the health care bill the equivalent of slavery.
And yes, when someone holds positions as crazy as yours, they do deserve ridicule.
It isn't simply about me and you, their are other readers too. If you feel you are correct, then to Hades with me and what I think. You should want to reveal to the reader the truth. If it amuses you then you just can't beat free entertainment and that can also be a good enough reason.
You challenged me on where I came up with $1000 a year and I clearly indicated it with real data. You claimed contraception does not equal sex and I showed you were wrong by giving you the definition/purpose of a contraceptive and pointing out the only other case where the use of a contraceptive could still do its job and not be considered sex and explained why it would be contrary to the intention of the act and thus irrelevant (i.e. using a contraceptive during artificial insemination). I practically begged you to show your implied parroting and you tacitly refused. I brought facts and you brought rhetoric, accusations, and insults.
Every new source tends to show some bias these days (and in fact I think that would likely be true even going back in history). I don't know what issues you have with Fox News. They often have the other News agencies playing catch up because of news stories they cover that they others try to bury in order to protect agendas and ideologies. I have said before (in another thread) that I will tend to watch a news media that is contrary to the standard positions of whoever wields the most power in Washington. I do this because one of the most important jobs of the media is to hold our elected officials accountable and I don't want to listen to a bunch of yes men. Since the other media is in the tank for Obama I will default to Fox News, but I also cover my bases and take in others as well. You seem to simply adhere to the tendencies of confirmation bias.
The health care law is slavery. It is likely of the type of Bonded Labor, or Forced Labor, or a combination of the two. The politicians require people to obligate a debt they have not accumulated and they have no choice in the matter. This debt is generational being passed on to any future citizens and children born into America and they become criminal if they do not pay these 'debt'. That is a textbook definition of a type of slavery. Show me the error in my reasoning? There is no disinformation in what I have shown. It is the pure truth of the matter. Naive, would be the person who cannot see this for what it is, or that does and ignores it for that vile abomination most often referred to as "the greater good".
You are more then welcome to ridicule me all you wish, it will not hurt my feelings (remember I am a conservative, I don't have feelings). You should realize, though, that while you throw pies into your own face and point and laugh my way, that the laughs you hear echoing around you might not be directed at me.
-
You challenged me on where I came up with $1000 a year and I clearly indicated it with real data.
No I didn't. My original point was in regards to you claiming that Sandra Fluke was testifying about her sex life, which she wasn't. You claimed she's spending $1000 a year on contraceptives. Again, that's not true. She never said what she's personally spending, and was only using generalizations. But since you don't like her points, you use those generalized numbers to "prove" that she's spending $1000 a year on contraceptives, and is therefore a *bleep*. That's your real point, that she's a *bleep*. You don't like the message so you shift into character assassination. And hey, that's exactly what Limbaugh did!
You claimed contraception does not equal sex and I showed you were wrong by giving you the definition/purpose of a contraceptive and pointing out the only other case where the use of a contraceptive could still do its job and not be considered sex and explained why it would be contrary to the intention of the act and thus irrelevant (i.e. using a contraceptive during artificial insemination).
A main point of Fluke's testimony, which is what this entire thread is about, was about women using contraceptives not to prevent pregnancy, but to treat other conditions. Your symantical games are nice, but irrelevant.
Every new source tends to show some bias these days (and in fact I think that would likely be true even going back in history). I don't know what issues you have with Fox News. They often have the other News agencies playing catch up because of news stories they cover that they others try to bury in order to protect agendas and ideologies. I have said before (in another thread) that I will tend to watch a news media that is contrary to the standard positions of whoever wields the most power in Washington. I do this because one of the most important jobs of the media is to hold our elected officials accountable and I don't want to listen to a bunch of yes men. Since the other media is in the tank for Obama I will default to Fox News, but I also cover my bases and take in others as well. You seem to simply adhere to the tendencies of confirmation bias.
The issue I have with Fox is that it's a blatant progaganda network pushing conservative viewpoints while pretending to be "fair and balanced." Here's Chris Wallace, a Fox host, admitting that Fox isn't: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-20-2011/fox-news-channel---fair---balanced. Skip to the 2:00 mark.
There's just one example. And since I find most current conservative ideas abhorent and the entire movement extreme and dangerous, I don't like Fox. Simple.
And from your comment it's safe to assume that you didn't watch Fox while Bush was president, since Fox wasn't contrary to his standard positions?
The health care law is slavery. It is likely of the type of Bonded Labor, or Forced Labor, or a combination of the two. The politicians require people to obligate a debt they have not accumulated and they have no choice in the matter. This debt is generational being passed on to any future citizens and children born into America and they become criminal if they do not pay these 'debt'. That is a textbook definition of a type of slavery. Show me the error in my reasoning? There is no disinformation in what I have shown. It is the pure truth of the matter. Naive, would be the person who cannot see this for what it is, or that does and ignores it for that vile abomination most often referred to as "the greater good".
I'm required to buy car insurance and have no choice in the matter. I guess I'm already a slave.
I find your understanding of what the health care law does and doesn't do, and your visceral reaction to it, to be ...odd.
You are more then welcome to ridicule me all you wish, it will not hurt my feelings (remember I am a conservative, I don't have feelings). You should realize, though, that while you throw pies into your own face and point and laugh my way, that the laughs you hear echoing around you might not be directed at me.
Are the voices laughing at you again, Abrupt? Here, have some pie- it's coconut cream.
-
<<<<SIGH>>> :BangHead:Sounds like the 50's all over again. The attack on women's health issues is ridiculous--and serves to divert attention from the real issues that need to be addressed. Poverty, unemployment, homelessness and yes, all the money that buys candidates for the highest office in the land. Let's not forget the saber rattlers either drumming up another war...
-
No I didn't. My original point was in regards to you claiming that Sandra Fluke was testifying about her sex life, which she wasn't. You claimed she's spending $1000 a year on contraceptives. Again, that's not true. She never said what she's personally spending, and was only using generalizations. But since you don't like her points, you use those generalized numbers to "prove" that she's spending $1000 a year on contraceptives, and is therefore a *bleep*. That's your real point, that she's a *bleep*. You don't like the message so you shift into character assassination. And hey, that's exactly what Limbaugh did!
I extrapolated the gist of the argument to the finality of the subject matter and I don't even consider that taking liberties with the argument. The argument was a counterpoint to religions freedom regarding forced coverage of contraceptives and morning after pills. She was talking about contraceptives which serve one single purpose in order to qualify as a contraceptive and that purpose is to directly counter the fertilization of the egg by the sperm during sex. She suggested the cost to be over $3000 for contraceptives during law school and then made a direct link with that statement to herself regarding the amount of work she must perform to cover the cost. She was intentionally playing the victim of some imagined crime. That is what I dislike. I dislike the smoke and mirrors and fallacious arguments she made. She is attending a top 14 law school that costs well over $100,000 for tuition and she is guaranteed a starting salary of over 160,000 a year in her first year of graduation and she is begging me for money? I don't make 160,000 in three years. Considering the fact that she and every example she cited (and she had the audacity to present them as victims of some imagined crime) can get contraceptives for free now I am definitely outraged over this theater put before us. She was representing the voices she was supposedly speaking for and thus she represents the habits of the situations and the sexual connection since she drew a personal connection of it to herself. You cannot play a sympathy/victim card and at the same time expect to be disassociated from that. The argument was presented that it could cost $3000 for contraceptives to someone during a stay at law school and this absolutely means $1000 a year for contraceptives. She was making the argument and thus in order to be voluntarily arguing it she must agree and represent it as truth. If you put your face on something in such a way you become that something.
I didn't call her a *bleep*, you did (through your interpretations of the imagery I presented). I imagine most people would consider having sex 16 times a day to be a good indicator of what may constitute a *bleep* -- but hey I leave that to the reader.
A main point of Fluke's testimony, which is what this entire thread is about, was about women using contraceptives not to prevent pregnancy, but to treat other conditions. Your symantical games are nice, but irrelevant.
And that is another reason why her argument was BS. Contraceptives serve one purpose and that is to prevent sperm from fertilizing the egg. I know people that use rubbers for water balloons (since they are free and you can get as many as you want) but that doesn't mean they are kids toys. I have blue ray in my truck but that doesn't make it an entertainment center. Show me a contraceptive that only treats these other conditions and doesn't prevent sperm from fertilizing the egg. Show me just one single contraceptive that does that. Oh wait, you can't do that as then it wouldn't be a contraceptive. So who is playing games now? You try to present a contraceptive as exclusively performing a task that has nothing at all to do with the purpose of a contraceptive and the purpose of the objection from the Catholic Church. They don't object to women treating these other conditions they object to the use of contraceptives to prevent the fertilization of the egg by the sperm. What are you and Fluke arguing though? Tell me again about playing games...
The issue I have with Fox is that it's a blatant progaganda network pushing conservative viewpoints while pretending to be "fair and balanced." Here's Chris Wallace, a Fox host, admitting that Fox isn't: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-20-2011/fox-news-channel---fair---balanced. Skip to the 2:00 mark.
There's just one example. And since I find most current conservative ideas abhorent and the entire movement extreme and dangerous, I don't like Fox. Simple.
And from your comment it's safe to assume that you didn't watch Fox while Bush was president, since Fox wasn't contrary to his standard positions?
Wait he stated that Fox actually shows the other side instead of a single side and suddenly you have proof that it isn't fair and balanced. So you are saying that showing one side only as the other news media tends to do is somehow fair, but Fox showing both sides isn't? Oh I know you are trying to suggest that he is saying they only show one side, but an incomplete sound bite on a comedy show would not qualify as proof. You are aware that comedy shows are not news programs aren't you? Now I understand why you are confused, you get your news from "family guy" (I am not trying to be mean to you here, just being silly and bring humor to the reader. Think about what you did, you presented an incomplete sound bite from a liberal comedy show as you evidence and that makes you look naive and foolish).
Yes it is safe to assume that I didn't get the bulk of my news from Fox while Bush was president. I could not stoop to watch msnbc though and I did try once or twice but I felt that it could be causing me brain damage. I did also watch Fox though, just as I watch cnn/cbs/abc/nbc news also now as well as various online sources.
I'm required to buy car insurance and have no choice in the matter. I guess I'm already a slave.
I find your understanding of what the health care law does and doesn't do, and your visceral reaction to it, to be ...odd.
You are not required to buy car insurance. If you own a car and wish to drive it on the road (and in many states to register and pay taxes on it) you are required to buy car insurance. If you are simply alive and don't own a car you are not required to buy car insurance, and in order for your comparative analogy to work that would have to be the case. Also States have authority in that matter and some states sill do not require car insurance.
Please share your insight into my understanding of the health care law. I am as curious as how you can determine them as well as how you equate my reasoning into the matter to be emotionally contrary to what my logic dictates.
Are the voices laughing at you again, Abrupt? Here, have some pie- it's coconut cream.
I like pie and have some coconut cream pie in the fridge and some key lime in the freezer. Mmm pie.
-
<<<<SIGH>>> :BangHead:Sounds like the 50's all over again. The attack on women's health issues is ridiculous--and serves to divert attention from the real issues that need to be addressed. Poverty, unemployment, homelessness and yes, all the money that buys candidates for the highest office in the land. Let's not forget the saber rattlers either drumming up another war...
Show me these attacks on women's health please. I wasn't around in the 50's so I would also like to see the attacks on women's health then as liberals have erased much of the history and some of it is difficult to find anymore.
The real issue that needs to be addressed, that is the root of all the problems you hint at, is personal responsibility. If everyone demonstrated personal responsibility 99% of those other issues you indicate would vanish.
-
I give up, the reality you inhabit is simply too bizarre to deal with.
I like pie
I do too, so at least we can agree on something.
-
I give up, the reality you inhabit is simply too bizarre to deal with.
I like pie
I do too, so at least we can agree on something.
See we are not totally opposed on every issue.
Don't give up, you present good arguments. It is simply that I believe you are stuck in an illusion of what the issue is and are not seeing the truth behind the show that is being put on stage for you. It could well be that I am the one being deceived. Leave that issue for the reader and present your best arguments. I like to have debate and have some familiarity with it but I make my share of mistakes in my arguments. I keep my points honest (they could still be wrong though) but I do like to add a little extra energy into some descriptions and sometimes use a poetic tone. I argue as if to the reader and not simply the opposing view and find that is a useful tool to help bring clarity to a contended point.
-
I see both sides of the issue presented by Ms. Fluke. While I believe if *bleep* is covered through some medical insurance then why shouldn't birth control be, I also see the point that the government should have little say when it comes to private insurance companies. I think this is the real issue that is being missed. We are getting more and more government in our private lives and it is doing nothing but taking our rights away. :dontknow:
-
*bleep* is covered because it "cures" erectile dysfunction. Its apples and oranges.
-
*bleep* is covered because it "cures" erectile dysfunction. Its apples and oranges.
I'm going to have to disagree with that point, Sig. Without *bleep*, some men wouldn't be able to get women pregnant, (which obviates the need for birth control measures, no matter who pays for them). The symetry is subtle; it would be more apparent were chastity belts paid for by women's health insurance and the keys to them, by men's insurance.
-
I can't believe the talk on this site. When did it become the Goverment's job to meet people's sexual needs. It is crazy.
-
*bleep* is covered because it "cures" erectile dysfunction. Its apples and oranges.
I'm going to have to disagree with that point, Sig. Without *bleep*, some men wouldn't be able to get women pregnant, (which obviates the need for birth control measures, no matter who pays for them). The symetry is subtle; it would be more apparent were chastity belts paid for by women's health insurance and the keys to them, by men's insurance.
*bleep* is a drug that "cures" a disease. (erectile dysfunction)
Birth Control Pills do not as a primary purpose cure any disease. Unless pregnancy is a disease.
-
*bleep* is covered because it "cures" erectile dysfunction. Its apples and oranges.
I'm going to have to disagree with that point, Sig. Without *bleep*, some men wouldn't be able to get women pregnant, (which obviates the need for birth control measures, no matter who pays for them). The symmetry is subtle; it would be more apparent were chastity belts paid for by women's health insurance and the keys to them, by men's insurance.
*bleep* is a drug that "cures" a disease. (erectile dysfunction)
I could be wrong however, a dysfunction isn't really a disease, (although it's possible that the underlying causes of the dysfunction may be symptoms of other diseases which are contributing to the dysfunction).
Birth Control Pills do not as a primary purpose cure any disease. Unless pregnancy is a disease.
I've heard that they are also useful for hormonal imbalances and regulating irregular periods, (haven't looked this up to verify - it's off the cuff). Some would say that, given the symptoms of pregnancy, it may qualify as a "disease" after all.
-
With all the challenges this nation faces ie staggering debt, stifling unemployment, stagnant housing markets, and the increasing chasm between the ultra-wealthy and everyone else, the U.S. Senate is acting like it's the 1950s.
Fluke's testimony came on the heels of the Senate defeated Blunt Amendment that was tacked onto a transportation bill of all things! The amendment would have allowed employers to deny medical coverage to their employees if they [the employer] have religious or moral objections to a medical procedure the employee might want or need. In effect, Senator Blunt of Missouri is using women and their rights as a tactic to try to undermine Obama and his national health care plan. I do not agree with Obama, nor do I agree with all pieces and parts of the Healthcare Reform Act, but it gets me very riled to see a woman's right to govern her own medical care, body, and reproductive system once again being used as a tool by a body consisting of [almost] 100% males.
As far as the statement about 'other things' can be used to control cystic acne, heavy bleeding, etc., that is true in some cases. But guess what? Those other modalities carry a staggering cost in comparison to birth control/hormones and many of them are horrid on the organs and can have longterm affects. Would you want YOUR wife, partner, daughter, or mother put at such great risk?
The amendment had NO business being put forth to begin with, but what really galls me is the sheer hypocrisy of it all. Insurers cover sex-aid medications for men and I'm not hearing any 'moral objections' from hypothetical employers. So it's acceptable for men through medical insurance to get aid in sex, but not for women to control when or even if they get pregnant? It seems as if the conservatives have not bothered to consider the consequences of no birth control. We cannot feed a great percentage of adults and they now want to add more babies to the 'mix'?! Why am I NOT hearing a corresponding cry for affordable child care?
It is odd how you present the Blunt Amendment as: "The amendment would have allowed employers to deny medical coverage to their employees if they [the employer] have religious or moral objections to a medical procedure the employee might want or need" when it simply would allow employers to opt out of the coverage requirement for things they had moral objection to. I agree that women are being used as a tool, and it is by the Democratic Party.
As an analogy to "right to choose" I would like to put forth this question to you. If I forage through your larger for my food, can I then accuse you of infringing upon my "right to choose" what food I want to eat simply because you don't stack your larder with what I like?
I ask you why these 'other things' are more costly in their single specific form then they are when tacked onto a product that has nothing to do with them? Wouldn't it be best served to have a product that is designed for its purpose to be cheaper and better at that than a product that isn't designed for that purpose? This seems like some sort of scam to me.
Insurers should be allowed to cover what ever they want to, and I echo what sigmapi1501 said in that regard. I think it is ridiculous for insurance to cover sex-aid medication as well. Most people should never need insurance. Those that purchase it, 99% of the time, should expect to pay out and never use it. It is an emergency luxury item that should cost more in total than it pays out in total and if it is anything else but that then it is unstable and a sham. I said this before and will repeat it, most peoples opinions regarding health insurance is the same as if I felt like my auto insurance should cover the cost of fuel. Such thoughts of insurance make it no longer insurance and entirely wealth redistribution.
In response to your "consequence of no more birth control" I ask you, should we give free crack and heroin and other drugs to those that use them? Just think of the consequences for all the crimes they commit because we don't. Why don't we hire underage Asian prostitutes for all the Pedophiles out there too while we are at it. I tell you now that you cannot hold me responsible for another persons crime and it is pathetic and ridiculous to even suggest that.
I am opposed to the entire Unconstitutional health care act/bill/crime. I will not participate and will not be forced to either. Anyone that tries to force me to do this and attempts to take away my freedom is likely to wind up with a severe case of dead. I imagine that might sound like crazy talk to some, but it isn't. It isn't angry talk either. It is the cold honest truth. Nobody is going to make me into a slave and anyone that has ever felt their freedom in jeopardy will understand exactly what I mean. There are far worse things in life than not having all the rubbers you can use for 'free'.
This reply may be a little late, timewise, but this is the first chance I've had to really sit and write it - weekends are not free time for me.
As an analogy to "right to choose" I would like to put forth this question to you. If I forage through your larger for my food, can I then accuse you of infringing upon my "right to choose" what food I want to eat simply because you don't stack your larder with what I like?
I didn't mention "right to choose" and your analogy of the 'larder foraging' isn't really applicable to this, but I see where you're taking it.
I ask you why these 'other things' are more costly in their single specific form then they are when tacked onto a product that has nothing to do with them? Wouldn't it be best served to have a product that is designed for its purpose to be cheaper and better at that than a product that isn't designed for that purpose? This seems like some sort of scam to me.
I don't think you want, or would even understand it, if I were to go through the cost to cost comparison of very expensive procedures and treatments vs taking a [much lower costwise] BC pill for primary and secondary dysmenorrhea and/or endometriosis, polycystic ovarian syndrome, cystic acne....could go on, but won't. The point is, I know what I am talking about, but you want to throw out opinions on a subject you know very little about and that was blatantly clear when you wrote: "Wouldn't it be best served to have a product that is designed for its purpose to be cheaper and better at that than a product that isn't designed for that purpose?" There is NO way, at this time, to make a 'product' that will treat all these things. That is why BC pills, like 100's of other medications, fall under off-label uses and you can't argue that the pills are NOT more cost effective for these uses than repetitive surgeries, having to deal with other problems that will occur if the conditions are left untreated (unable to bear children, 'setting the body up' as a willing and prime environment for cervical, breast, kidney, bladder cancer, many more problems), the dangers of drugs such as Accutane and others (for acne), and all the hospital, office visits that would be needed in most cases for years. So, which one is 'cheaper'?
Insurers should be allowed to cover what ever they want to, and I echo what sigmapi1501 said in that regard. I think it is ridiculous for insurance to cover sex-aid medication as well. Most people should never need insurance. Those that purchase it, 99% of the time, should expect to pay out and never use it. It is an emergency luxury item that should cost more in total than it pays out in total and if it is anything else but that then it is unstable and a sham. I said this before and will repeat it, most peoples opinions regarding health insurance is the same as if I felt like my auto insurance should cover the cost of fuel. Such thoughts of insurance make it no longer insurance and entirely wealth redistribution.
Insurers DO cover what they want. Employers, however, should NOT have the 'power' to dictate or pick and choose which women they like or feel are living by the same religious and moral guidelines the employer is. And why should I, any woman, have to beg for and justify the need for BC methods that are not necessarily being used ONLY to prevent pregnancy? I think it's only fair that a male employee should have to sit in the Human Resource office and explain all the details of why they are unable to 'perform' in bed and describe just how that makes THEM feel. The company will want to know this so they can contact their health insurance carrier for the employee. Wow, insurance falls under the category of "luxury item"? I am not even bothering with that one.
In response to your "consequence of no more birth control" I ask you, should we give free crack and heroin and other drugs to those that use them? Just think of the consequences for all the crimes they commit because we don't. Why don't we hire underage Asian prostitutes for all the Pedophiles out there too while we are at it. I tell you now that you cannot hold me responsible for another persons crime and it is pathetic and ridiculous to even suggest that.
Now you're being petulant. The comparison above re free crack and heroin and the crimes that will be commited vs what I was extrapolating ie more unwanted children, a bigger burden on taxpayers than we already have, and my asking why free childcare for parents that have too many kids and can't afford daycare isn't mentioned. That IS a very relevant observation, suggestion. "I tell you now that you cannot hold me responsible for another persons crime and it is pathetic and ridiculous to even suggest that." Please show me exactly where I suggested that - without going back to the ridiculous handing out of illegal drugs.
I highly doubt you have read the entire Healthcare Reform Bill and ongoing revisions like I have. Scratch that. I know you haven't, it's glaringly apparent in your 'opinions'. I am NOT backing the da*n thing and don't know any colleagues who are either. We have been collectively thrown under the bus for decades as a result of Medicaid and Medicare. Something in this country's healthcare and insurance options has to change. There is far too much disparity between the honest users of it and the dishonest abusers of it! I can't keep track anymore of the amount of time I waste calling, faxing, and pleading with insurance review boards and especially when the person responsible for determining whether a drug should be allowed or used in an off label manner has zero experience in medicine, they are glorified bean counters.
The 'wonderful new health reform' Obama pushed through is just going to add more burden on the backs of all it touches and especially those who practice medicine - it doesn't contain any hoops we have not already jumped through, but it makes the hoops a whole lot smaller. As a result of the astounding cost for longterm oncological treatment, many [most actually] families are financially wiped out and have drained all available assets they possibly can. I have many patients who are under Medicare/Medicaid as far as their health insurance. Most doctors who treat patients with Medicare/Medicaid accept assignment, which means they agree to accept the government approved amount as payment in full. What this equates to (giving an example here) is my being paid $11,000.00 for treatment that costs $55,000.00. Surely you can see the disparity here, yes? I will not argue that charges are sometimes excessive, but I have NO control over what the medications, equipment, diagnostics, support staff (anesthesiologist, nurses, etc.) 'cost'; they need to be reimbursed/paid also and much of that comes out of 'my pocket' in the sense that I receive even less than the 20% allowable payment. There are times when the amount of hours I put into each case/patient ends up being very close to a 'wash' for me. Wonder if that's why so many of us go ape crazy when we receive the latest rundown on medicare and medicaid over billing and fraud. It gives the health care field a bad name and there are certainly enough people bit**ing about what 'we' charge to begin with!
If you can go through life never needing insurance and have enough assets to cover your health needs if an unexpected emergency presents, that's great for you. Families with children really cannot risk that. They never know if one day they'll be told their beautiful 3 year old or their 17 year old 'jock' has just been diagnosed with a life threatening disease that will equate to 100's of thousands in cost to keep them [hopefully] alive.
-
@falcon9 Whereas the birth control pill MAY regulate a period, clear up acne, relate hormones, that is not its FDA recognized purpose.
Erectile Dysfunction along with restless leg syndrome and social anxiety disorder are recognized as "diseases". The motive behind this is corrupt. Since by FDA decree "only a drug can treat or cure a disease" anyone with these issues cannot legally be marketed a natural remedy.
Example: The best action for someone with type two diabetes is diet and exercise. This is not however, a legally recognized "cure" for diabetes. Only a drug can cure a disease.
This is the 4th paragraph. Hopefully something in the previous three made sense or added to any discussion.
-
@ "jordandog":
Extremely well-stated rebuttal.
-
@falcon9 Whereas the birth control pill MAY regulate a period, clear up acne, relate hormones, that is not its FDA recognized purpose.
True, likely those are examples of such "off label" uses as "jordandog" mentioned previously.
Erectile Dysfunction along with restless leg syndrome and social anxiety disorder are recognized as "diseases". The motive behind this is corrupt. Since by FDA decree "only a drug can treat or cure a disease" anyone with these issues cannot legally be marketed a natural remedy.
I see where you're going there ... such medical 'conditions' as get lobbied by drug manufacturers to be FDA classified as "diseases" = big bucks?
Example: The best action for someone with type two diabetes is diet and exercise. This is not however, a legally recognized "cure" for diabetes. Only a drug can cure a disease.
So, back to the Sandra Fluke testimony then; a chastity-belt would not be considered as a preventative 'cure' for the condition of pregnancy?
This is the 4th paragraph. Hopefully something in the previous three made sense or added to any discussion.
Yep, looks good from here.
-
Well said, Jdog. We need you around these parts more often. You keep disappearing!
-
This reply may be a little late, timewise, but this is the first chance I've had to really sit and write it - weekends are not free time for me.
Quite alright and perfectly understandable.
As an analogy to "right to choose" I would like to put forth this question to you. If I forage through your larger for my food, can I then accuse you of infringing upon my "right to choose" what food I want to eat simply because you don't stack your larder with what I like?
I didn't mention "right to choose" and your analogy of the 'larder foraging' isn't really applicable to this, but I see where you're taking it.
Yes and I didn't actually mean "right to choose" it is just a natural thing to type. The point I wanted to get at was that she was voluntarily attending a private school of Jesuit/Catholic identity. She is portraying herself and other women as victims of some sort of discrimination/despicable act/etc. She can already get the products she wants for free, but that is not good enough -- she wants to force this private school to provide these things against the schools religious beliefs. Basically she is suggesting that if she cannot willfully violate the Constitutional guaranteed rights of the school that she is some sort of a victim. This would be quite similar to me going to a Kosher deli and demanding pork products (this is an often used analogy in this comparison but it is accurate I think) and then playing the victim and claiming I was wronged in some case because the product wasn't made available to me.
I don't think you want, or would even understand it, if I were to go through the cost to cost comparison of very expensive procedures and treatments vs taking a [much lower costwise] BC pill for primary and secondary dysmenorrhea and/or endometriosis, polycystic ovarian syndrome, cystic acne....could go on, but won't. The point is, I know what I am talking about, but you want to throw out opinions on a subject you know very little about and that was blatantly clear when you wrote: "Wouldn't it be best served to have a product that is designed for its purpose to be cheaper and better at that than a product that isn't designed for that purpose?" There is NO way, at this time, to make a 'product' that will treat all these things. That is why BC pills, like 100's of other medications, fall under off-label uses and you can't argue that the pills are NOT more cost effective for these uses than repetitive surgeries, having to deal with other problems that will occur if the conditions are left untreated (unable to bear children, 'setting the body up' as a willing and prime environment for cervical, breast, kidney, bladder cancer, many more problems), the dangers of drugs such as Accutane and others (for acne), and all the hospital, office visits that would be needed in most cases for years. So, which one is 'cheaper'?
I know that medical research has found that oral contraceptives with hormone treatments are not proven any more effective or reliable or safe than alternate methods. I know many of the various brands of pills making claims that they treated the conditions you indicated above had to retract those claims and remove them. My question in this matter still remains as to why one cannot remove the contraceptive effect of these 'contraceptives' and still keep the additional effects that you mention. Regardless, I still hold to my claim that since a women can already get these things free that the entire argument she presented is moot and without standing.
Insurers DO cover what they want. Employers, however, should NOT have the 'power' to dictate or pick and choose which women they like or feel are living by the same religious and moral guidelines the employer is. And why should I, any woman, have to beg for and justify the need for BC methods that are not necessarily being used ONLY to prevent pregnancy? I think it's only fair that a male employee should have to sit in the Human Resource office and explain all the details of why they are unable to 'perform' in bed and describe just how that makes THEM feel. The company will want to know this so they can contact their health insurance carrier for the employee. Wow, insurance falls under the category of "luxury item"? I am not even bothering with that one.
I disagree with you here. I think an employer should have full authority in hiring who they want. Yes, why should you feel the need to beg, when you can already get this for free now? Why did this women put herself before Congress and beg for something she already can get for free? She was begging for the ability to deny the Constitutional rights of a US entity based on her idea that if she couldn't do that that somehow she became a victim. She made the most absurd argument I have ever heard, I do believe. I think it is absolutely foolish and intentionally reckless for insurance to cover costs for free/low cost products or procedures. The only reason to cover such things under insurance would be to inflate the cost or destroy the system. Insurance is a luxury. Insurance by definition is a hedge. It is a gamble against excessive risk situations and birth control, sexual stimulants, teeth whitening, glasses, etc are neither excessive cost or risk situations and should never be under insurance. Insurance should generally be a hedge against costs upwards of one years salary and nothing less. Again I ask you should car insurance cover fuel cost? It would have to for your argument to hold true.
Now you're being petulant. The comparison above re free crack and heroin and the crimes that will be commited vs what I was extrapolating ie more unwanted children, a bigger burden on taxpayers than we already have, and my asking why free childcare for parents that have too many kids and can't afford daycare isn't mentioned. That IS a very relevant observation, suggestion. "I tell you now that you cannot hold me responsible for another persons crime and it is pathetic and ridiculous to even suggest that." Please show me exactly where I suggested that - without going back to the ridiculous handing out of illegal drugs.
I highly doubt you have read the entire Healthcare Reform Bill and ongoing revisions like I have. Scratch that. I know you haven't, it's glaringly apparent in your 'opinions'. I am NOT backing the da*n thing and don't know any colleagues who are either. We have been collectively thrown under the bus for decades as a result of Medicaid and Medicare. Something in this country's healthcare and insurance options has to change. There is far too much disparity between the honest users of it and the dishonest abusers of it! I can't keep track anymore of the amount of time I waste calling, faxing, and pleading with insurance review boards and especially when the person responsible for determining whether a drug should be allowed or used in an off label manner has zero experience in medicine, they are glorified bean counters.
The 'wonderful new health reform' Obama pushed through is just going to add more burden on the backs of all it touches and especially those who practice medicine - it doesn't contain any hoops we have not already jumped through, but it makes the hoops a whole lot smaller. As a result of the astounding cost for longterm oncological treatment, many [most actually] families are financially wiped out and have drained all available assets they possibly can. I have many patients who are under Medicare/Medicaid as far as their health insurance. Most doctors who treat patients with Medicare/Medicaid accept assignment, which means they agree to accept the government approved amount as payment in full. What this equates to (giving an example here) is my being paid $11,000.00 for treatment that costs $55,000.00. Surely you can see the disparity here, yes? I will not argue that charges are sometimes excessive, but I have NO control over what the medications, equipment, diagnostics, support staff (anesthesiologist, nurses, etc.) 'cost'; they need to be reimbursed/paid also and much of that comes out of 'my pocket' in the sense that I receive even less than the 20% allowable payment. There are times when the amount of hours I put into each case/patient ends up being very close to a 'wash' for me. Wonder if that's why so many of us go ape crazy when we receive the latest rundown on medicare and medicaid over billing and fraud. It gives the health care field a bad name and there are certainly enough people bit**ing about what 'we' charge to begin with!
If you can go through life never needing insurance and have enough assets to cover your health needs if an unexpected emergency presents, that's great for you. Families with children really cannot risk that. They never know if one day they'll be told their beautiful 3 year old or their 17 year old 'jock' has just been diagnosed with a life threatening disease that will equate to 100's of thousands in cost to keep them [hopefully] alive.
I am not being petulant, instead I am being pragmatic. Why must we pay for these abandoned and unwanted children? The reason is because we have forgone personal responsibility and shed this burden upon the productive and responsible people who are supposedly being represented by the government. We are paying for the laziness and crimes and disregard and lack of self respect and personal responsibility of others. That is true the crime being committed here and growing and wearing on us like a cancer. If we had never done that in the first place there would not even be a debate about contraceptive coverage. Now with this healthcare law we are talking about doing the same thing infinitely vaster.
I haven't read all of the healthcare law. I have read parts. I am familiar with legalese and still find a difficult time of properly digesting and comprehending the parts I have read. Are you trying to suggest that you have a working knowledge of the greater than 1990 pages of this law? I would bet we could combine what I know with what you know and would probably come up with some conclusion that parallels inserting slot A into tab C. This monstrosity has excessive cost and 'team of attorneys' and endless lawsuits and fee's and fines written on every page within it. I looked on the last page half excepting to see the words "Oh and *bleep* you too".
I agree with your diatribe. I honestly believe this bill has but one single outcome and that is to completely destroy our health care system and to set control of peoples lives into the hands of the federal government and it will be wielded as a weapon to gain favor and votes and outrage and control. Their is no distinguishing quality about it to me and I think that any person who voted for it, signed it, encouraged it or otherwise supported it should have to bear the burden of carrying every single page upon their back for a minimum of 40 years.
The odds strongly dictate that insurance should never be needed. That is the nature and purpose and sole reason for insurance. If a model is presented that indicates contrary reason then it is flawed and cannot function self sufficiently, or it is unjust and criminal in its existence.