252 replies to this topic

[Mr. Roboto]

OMG dude, I can't even get through all your irrational blather.

I didn't find it irrational.

[artcinco]

Why are you asking?

Zimbochick's post before mine.

And the cost of the birth control is the lesser issue. The government's requiring institutions to provide services that they have religious objections to is the main point. Although compelling a company to offer a service at no cost is also significant.


#iThing #word

[Jill]

Zimbochick's post before mine.

And the cost of the birth control is the lesser issue. The government's requiring institutions to provide services that they have religious objections to is the main point. Although compelling a company to offer a service at no cost is also significant.


#iThing #word

No they aren't. The religious institution isn't providing any services at all. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. They simply have to provide access to health insurance plans that cover female contraception. And since there is a ZERO percent increase in the cost of insurance when contraceptive coverage is included, it's a completely made-up bullshit political game they're playing.

[PERM BANNED]

y

[artcinco]

Rush Limbaugh Isn't The Only Media Misogynist


#iThing #word

[Jill]

On what planet do you live where forcing an insurance company to provide an additional service costs them nothing? You can argue it's a marginal increase or that the good outweighs the burden. But nothing is free and someone is getting paid for manufacturing those pills. Just because insurance companies haven't raised their premiums for incuring that coverage doesn't mean they can't. And you're arguing different things. In your first rant you said " there was no cost increase as a result of providing coverage of contraceptive services." And in your follow up post you claim " there is a ZERO percent increase in the cost of insurance when contraceptive coverage is included."

Those are two very different arguments. But you're so caught up in talking points that you don't even notice that.

On what planet do you live where you don't bother to read supporting links and just willy-nilly dismiss the facts based on your idiotic assumptions?

The cost of adding contraceptives to insurance coverage is zero because other costs, such as those associated with pregnancy go down. It is actually cheaper for an insurance company to cover contraceptives than it is to cover pregnancy. In fact, if you wanted to criticze my number, you could have come back with the fact that the cost difference isn't zero, it's -15%!

And dude, those statements are the same thing, simply rephrased.

And religious freedom is something that is an actual right in this nation, unlike unlimited or provided access to birth control. The ban on birth control has probably been the most visible conflict the catholic church has had with the mainstream for the past 50 years. It's not a secret. You trying to dumb down the argument on a technicality by saying "It's not the Church giving them the pill, it's the INSURANCE company HAHAHA." doesn't pass the bullshit detector. If you want to use birth control while working for a Catholic organization who forbids it, pay the damn 5$-30$ out of your own pocket. Cause we're not talking about someone who is unemployed wihtout insurance. We're talking about people who are. And if 30$ a month is too much for you to pay, then you probably need to sit down with a financial counselor and reassess your spending habbits.

But before you sell yourself as a subject matter expert or informed authority, can you at least get your arguments straight?

How about you work on your own arguments. My argument is factually-informed, yours is fraught with emotion, bad information and strawmen out the hooha.

This isn't about religious freedom. It's about women's health. Religious organizations won't be "paying for" contraceptives any more than they "pay for" chemotherapy. At best they provide insurance coverage, for which the insured pays a portion themselves. Even if I were to accept your argument, I could just as easily claim that the $30 for the pills as coming out of the insured's portion of the premium and not the employer's.

Rush Limbaugh Isn't The Only Media Misogynist


#iThing #word

David Frum addressed that quite well this morning: Are We Being Fair To Rush Limbaugh?

[freedom78]

Rush Limbaugh Isn't The Only Media Misogynist

Interesting article. I dunno...maybe she doesn't go the places I do, but I've seen the internet left react strongly to a lot of the things she mentioned...especially any of it from the 2008 campaign.

And it's worth noting that a lot of that wasn't sexist or misogynistic. Wondering if Sarah Palin is capable of thought isn't sexist...it's rational observation. And it's a stretch to suggest that the basis for Michelle Bachman being "batshit crazy" is her sex. There are other such examples throughout the article, which is a shame, because the ultrasensitivity with which she treats these things seems to me to distract from her valid points by including them with skewed interpretations and the rantings of a comedian.

[freedom78]

I"m thinking of getting a medical degree, joining a bustling emergency room, converting to Christian Science, and refusing to treat anyone.

[Zimbochick]

First off, I'm not saying that insurance companies shouldn't pay for contraception or at least condone its use. My mother runs the pre-natal department for a large health insurance company that covers Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania. I've seen all their statistics and guidance on this issue. Bottom line, assisting the subscriber with contraception is much cheaper than paying for all the exams and procedures leading up to, during and after the child is born. It's simple math. As I stated from post 1, I am for the use of birth control. I'm just not buying into the line of shit that 1.) this is an attac on women's rights 2.) This disucssion only affects women and 3.) Birth control is very expensive or a burden on your average user. There are multiple methods of birth control out there, ranging from the condom to the pill to vasectomies. I think some of the responsibility should fall on the person. It's far too tedious to call your insurance company to get a box of condoms every couple of weeks. If you can afford to engage in sexual intercourse and the risk that you'll either become pregnant or get someone pregnant, you can afford over the counter birth control. The cost of raising a child far exceeds the 5$ for a box of trojans.

Yes I'm aware that the pill is used for other medical purposes such as regulating hormones and the menstrual cycle. In these cases, there is often a medical justification and the cost of the pill is incured by the provider anyway. This bullshit about birthcontrol costing $3k a year is taking extreme cases for people who choose a special form of birth conrol. It's not medically related and a conveinence. Just because you don't want to practice another method, doesn't mean your insurance company is obligated to meet your everyw him. This falls in line with superficial surgery like breast augmentation. Most insurance policies don't cover them because its not a medical necessity and is purely for the pleasure of the subscriber. The difference between plastic surgery and birth control is by offering birth control, the company saves itself money in the long term. But it's purely an economic and self serving purpose. I know plenty of men who have had vasectomies and they too have been covered by their provider. Again, it's cheaper than paying for the birth of a child.

But to get to your main question. Yes, an insurance company should pay for treatment of an STD. An STD can be a life threatening condition and should be taken serious. And bottom line is it's a medical condtion. Regardless of how you got it, it's a medical condition that falls under the scope of expected medical care. If your genitals are oozing puss and it hurts to urinate, that needs some medical attention. I hope you see the distinction between a medical ailment and someone wanting the pill solely because they don't like condoms. The severity for consideration and treatment are light years apart.

This is what I was trying to get across in my original post. There's nothing wrong with having protected sex. But there is a problem when we turn a blind eye to individuals who decide to pratice unsafe sex - be that without contraception or frequency of partners. Because as we all know, no birth control is 100%. And someone who is engaging in lots of sex with lots of different people is increasing their odds of eventually becoming unlucky. And unlike someone who engages in sex with only one partner, there is likely not to be any personal relationship between the two leading to.....(drumroll) DA DA DA............. single parents. And that is where I say the left has a horrible record dealing with the issue of contraception and safe sex. Advocating entitlement over entitlement and celebrating single parenthood has only increased in both raw numbers and percentage, the number of unwanted children born into poverty that are poorly educated, get involved with crime and continue the cycle.

That's the part of the discussion those on the left want to avoid. It's easy to laugh at Santorum for being against condoms. Anyone with any common sense is going to realize how stupid that is. Yes, teenagers should be taught about safe sex, because they're interested in it and a lot of them will have it. But go back to your teenage years and remember what a big deal sex was then. How taboo the topic was and how it was spoken in whispers. Now by passing out condoms in class, you are making it safer for those students. I won't deny that. But you're also removing the taboo or the caution involved with sex. And by removing that caution before those kids have a chance to mature and grasp responsibility, you're almost saying "fuck your brains out, go ahead it's okay." And that message is something I think we should discuss. Becuase it's not 30 somethings who shove fireworks in a mailbox, go car surfing or do drive buys with airsoft guns. It's teenagers; people who act a lot before they put any thought into it. That's why we don't treat them as adults under the legal system. We don't allow them to drink or smoke or numweous other things because they don't have the ability to handle it. And telling teenagers it's ok to have as much sex as you want, well you just increased the odds that they'll be replicating. I've seen studies showing that teen pregnancy is much more common now than it was 50 years ago. And my question is why is this not at the center of the debate. Not necessarily teen pregnancy, but the discussion that yes, you're free to act how you want as an adult. But, if you fuck up, you're responsible for that - not society at large. And that's the part of the discussion the left won't have. They won't tell someone they fucked up and need to make adjustments to correct the situation. They hand you a tissue, a pat on the shoulder and hand over a check. Now I'm not saying a complete 180 is the right answer where we let mother and child starve. But there has to be some effort to explain to people that we're not god damn rabbits. We should exercise caution and you better have a damn plan when the condom breaks or the pill didn't work.

That's the discussion we should be having because there are a lot of things to be said and consider on that issue. No side has is right and both could bring something to the table. But both people on the right and left don't want to frame it that way. They want to scream about some imaginary attack on women's rights or the american family. And that's not advancing the issue at all. It's a complete distraction. You can continue like Jill and talk complete nonsense to get on your soapbox and talk about things unrelated to what I said and attack conservatives, or you can have an honest discussion. Something is broke in our system and neither side want to have an honest talk about it. I enjoy discussing this issue bcause I like hearing the opinions of others. But i can get the talking points and "strawnan's" (Thanks Jill!) by watching the evening news on Fox and MSNBC.

First off, teen pregnancy rates are at an all-time low:

http://www.guttmache...s/FB-ATSRH.html

If I had my way reproductive health care would be subsidized by the government, as would health care for children for the first 5 years of life, but that's a separate topic.

What you repeatedly refer to is your own opinion on morality. Now you may not condone people having multiple sex partners and not practicing safe sex, but it's really not your business.

As for sex ed, despite the fact that I attended school back in the dark ages, we had a fully comprehensive sex and relationship ed class, which was light-years ahead of its time. Topics discussed included birth control, pregnancy, STD's (along with gross pictures), trust, respect, abuse, safety, common practices. There was nothing left out. IMO REAL education is key, and I implement that with my kids, but this generation of children are not getting relevant information.

I realize STD's have medical implications, but you are stating that apart from a few medical conditions oral contraceptives are only used for sex, well STD's are only caused by sex, so....Okay, what about the treatment of impotence? That is a huge (sic) industry, from a variety of medications to implants. Should that be covered by HI?

[artcinco]

I was going to buy a car for $50,000. Then I decided to buy one for $25,000. I saved $25,000. My new car is free.

[artcinco]

Sandra Fluke and Monica Lewinsky

[Jill]

Sandra Fluke and Monica Lewinsky

"... she was granted a unique platform in front of which to spew her venom for personal responsibility: a congressional committee."

So wait. What were the men who testified to the congressional committee doing? Were they also "spewing venom"? Not to mention, what the hell's so "unique" about testifying before a congressional committee? Thousands of people have done it. I can't even read any further, that piece is such obvious bullshit fucktudity.

Why do you read that kind of crap, Art? Seriously, I don't get it.

[Zimbochick]

I was going to buy a car for $50,000. Then I decided to buy one for $25,000. I saved $25,000. My new car is free.

What?

[Zimbochick]

Sandra Fluke and Monica Lewinsky

"Her claim that it costs many of her fellow law students up to $1,000 a year for birth control is either blatantly false, or outlandishly ridiculous. As Jimmie Bise tweeted, “either her argument is crap or she’s having sex with anything that can’t outrun her.” Condoms are $7 a box, pills can be bought for $20 a month. The amount of sex that Sandra Fluke must be having to necessitate $1,000 a year in contraception makes one wonder how she manages to actually attend law school. Either Fluke and her fellow students are, er, indulging themselves five times a day every day of the year, or she’s lying. The smart money is on the latter."

The price of oral contraceptives vary greatly depending on which one is prescibed by her physician.

And again a dumbfuck who has no idea regarding human biology, or how oral contraceptives work. A woman takes one pill a day, just one. It doesn't matter if she sleeps with one thousand men, 13 women, and a donkey, she still only takes ONE FUCKING PILL A DAY!

[Jill]

What?

I'm glad you asked. That was a head-scratcher for me, too.

"Her claim that it costs many of her fellow law students up to $1,000 a year for birth control is either blatantly false, or outlandishly ridiculous. As Jimmie Bise tweeted, “either her argument is crap or she’s having sex with anything that can’t outrun her.” Condoms are $7 a box, pills can be bought for $20 a month. The amount of sex that Sandra Fluke must be having to necessitate $1,000 a year in contraception makes one wonder how she manages to actually attend law school. Either Fluke and her fellow students are, er, indulging themselves five times a day every day of the year, or she’s lying. The smart money is on the latter."

The price of oral contraceptives vary greatly depending on which one is prescibed by her physician.

And again a dumbfuck who has no idea regarding human biology, or how oral contraceptives work. A woman takes one pill a day, just one. It doesn't matter if she sleeps with one thousand men, 13 women, and a donkey, she still only takes ONE FUCKING PILL A DAY!

And that's not the only thing she gets utterly wrong in that piece. I did read further. This dumbshit thinks that a Democrat using insurance is akin to stealing from working people.

"Her talking points represent a very real attitude quickly manifesting itself into mainstream American thought process: that a person literally deserves the resources of another."

What the ever loving bloody fuck? Since when are insurance benefits that one earns by working for one's employer, the "resources of another"???

That moron can gnash her teeth all she wants about how Democrats think, but at least we aren't stupid idiots like she is.