Birth Control

[SparrowHawk]

As far as i am aware we are talking about insurance companies and premiums no tax dollars are involved. Religious institutions them.selves are exempt but not their subsidiaries such as schools or hospitals which is what prompted this.whole argument as far as i am aware.

As an aside. I am sure if men needed the meds it would be covered just the way ED drug are covered. Men seem to make the rules and they have been screwing over women from day one.

View attachment 9373

I'm taking it you have not clue one just how regulated Insurance is? EVERY Government regulation raises the cost to the consumer whether it be a 10 year FDA submission cycle for medications or HIPAA. They can be well meaning or assinine the fact is they raise costs. This is a Hidden Tax on Middle Class and Working poor.

Just out of curiosity do you know what events caused most companies to offer health insurance?

 

[Ms Tree]

Yes I am aware they are regulated (not enough and not correctly in my opinion) and the EEOC ruling in 2000 was what started this ball rolling.

No I do not.

 

[delldude]

dell, IMO, I don't expect to re-take the "House"
B U T,
There will be NO changes @ 1600 or the Senate, except a few MORE D's !!!

As far as 16' is concerned, I'll be retired, living smack dab on the US/Canada border, with (hopefully) dual citizenship !!!!!!!!!!

I never count your chickens......

2016? You won't need dual citizenship by then, we'll all be one happy global communists.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Yes I am aware they are regulated (not enough and not correctly in my opinion) and the EEOC ruling in 2000 was what started this ball rolling.

No I do not.

During WWII FDR instituted Wage and Price controls. As a result the workers who made the equipment to wage war couldn't get a raise. The large industrial unions of the era began to make a stink first with the Government and then with the Manufacturers. Finally they figured out that what became known a "Fringe Benefits" were not part of the Wage/Price controls so as part of the CBA's of the day the employers offered health insurance.

That was what started this debacle of today.

 

[southwind]

As far as i am aware we are talking about insurance companies and premiums no tax dollars are involved. Religious institutions them.selves are exempt but not their subsidiaries such as schools or hospitals which is what prompted this.whole argument as far as i am aware.

As an aside. I am sure if men needed the meds it would be covered just the way ED drug are covered. Men seem to make the rules and they have been screwing over women from day one.

Either way Sally Slut "Doesn't" want to pay a nickle. Just had an MRI done, cost close to $4000.00. Do you know why it cost close to $4000.00 ? Not because that 's the true cost, but to help offset the cost of performing an MRI on someone with no insurance ! Whether it's Federal tax dollars or increased insurance premiums, I'm paying for Sally !

 

[Ms Tree]

Try and follow along. Ms Fluke was arguing to have insurance cover the cost of contraceptives. People who have insurance pay for insurance. So any benefits from insurance are not free, they are paid for with premiums. As far as I am aware, very few if any insurance companies pay for birth control yet most pay for various ED meds. Other than the fact that the companies and policies are run by men, what is the rationale for that?

Personally I would like to see contraceptives for both men and women free of charge or at least sold at cost. Abortions in this countries are used as birth control and we have one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the world. Having low cost or free birth control along with sex ed in schools hopefully would put a dent in those numbers.

I do not doubt that uninsured health care increases the cost. So what do you want to do about it? I only see two options. Compel everyone to get and pay for health insurance or deny medical attention to those who are uninsured or unable to pay. Do you have any other options?

 

[Dog Wonder]

Just had an MRI done,

I disapprove of your insurance covering your MRI.

You may have questionable character, and may have contributed in some way to whatever condition you need diagnosed.

Additionally, the money spent on this procedure either reduces insurance company profits, raises my premiums, or both.

Get well soon.

 

[Kev3188]

Really don't care whether she's throwing down $50 grand a year or $5 bucks a year for tuition, some of us don't want to pay for play time !

Then don't; just realize *you* aren't paying for hers, either.

I just did READ! and My Bad Georgetown is on the DC side of the River. Got it confused with Arlington, VA

No worries! Figured that's what happened, especially given your previous experiences with CCY.

Either way Sally Slut "Doesn't" want to pay a nickle. Just had an MRI done, cost close to $4000.00. Do you know why it cost close to $4000.00 ?

Because you apparently either picked a sh*tty plan during open enrollement, or a facility that charges outrageous fees. Just got the bill for one myself, and UHC was billed a LOT less than that.

Not because that 's the true cost, but to help offset the cost of performing an MRI on someone with no insurance ! Whether it's Federal tax dollars or increased insurance premiums, I'm paying for Sally !

No. You. Are. Not.

And even if you were, guess what? Everyone is this great nation pays for something they don't like.

I disapprove of your insurance covering your MRI.

You may have questionable character, and may have contributed in some way to whatever condition you need diagnosed.

Additionally, the money spent on this procedure either reduces insurance company profits, raises my premiums, or both.

Get well soon.

Win.

 

[delldude]

Look at what's coming out about Fluke.

Video

 

[SparrowHawk]

Look at what's coming out about Fluke.

Video

The problem is that given the fact that it's Bill and Fox news many Progressives will dismiss it out of hand. It could be as true as the sun rising but it's the messenger that will be judged.

 

[Ms Tree]

The problem is that given the fact that it's Bill and Fox news many Progressives will dismiss it out of hand. It could be as true as the sun rising but it's the messenger that will be judged.

I must have missed the part where he provided proof. I thought he said 'he believe...".

The problem is that given the fact that it's Fluke and the liberals many conservatives will dismiss it out of hand. It could be as true as the sun rising but it's the messenger that will be judged.

How is this any different of how Ms Fluke is being treated? She is arguing for insurance coverage for contraceptive medicine. What does it matter who says it? Is the premise of her argument bad? Wrong? If so then argue the issue, don't go around calling a 30 year old daughter, girlfriend or who ever a slut or prostitute. When it gets to that point, it just proves there is no argument.

 

[SparrowHawk]

I must have missed the part where he provided proof. I thought he said 'he believe...".

The problem is that given the fact that it's Fluke and the liberals many conservatives will dismiss it out of hand. It could be as true as the sun rising but it's the messenger that will be judged.

How is this any different of how Ms Fluke is being treated? She is arguing for insurance coverage for contraceptive medicine. What does it matter who says it? Is the premise of her argument bad? Wrong? If so then argue the issue, don't go around calling a 30 year old daughter, girlfriend or who ever a slut or prostitute. When it gets to that point, it just proves there is no argument.

She's a pawn/dupe in the Obama reelection campaign. Pure & Simple!

Yes the premise is flawed! ObamaCare is flawed End of story.

Hypocrisy of the media. Ed from MSNBC can call Laura Ingraham a slut with not nearly the furor that was generated by Limbauch's remarks. Perhaps it's because Rush has actual people who listen while MSNBC is a ratings laggard?

I did a quick look and CNN & MSNBC Combined have lower ratings then FOX! How could that be given all of that high minded Progressive intellect? Say it ain't so!

Here's a news flash for ya! When Ed apologizes to Laura Ingraham for calling her a slut, then we've gotten somewhere!

View attachment 9379

 

[Ms Tree]

And you accuse of me of duck and dodge? lol.

Ms Flukes comments had nothing to do with universal health care as proposed by the Obama administration. Her comments were directed at getting contraceptives covered by insurance as directed by the EEOC and supported by the federal court in 2001. You left out what Bill Maher called Palin in 2008.

I do not think the out cry has anything to do with what Limbaugh called Fluke, I think it has more/all to do with the fact that the right is making a concerted attack on womens rights and womens power. Calling women derogatory names has been a past tome for decades if not centuries. There is a huge double standard in the way society treats women and men. Think of how many vile names a woman can be called and then try and come up with half that many for males. A woman sleeps around and she is a slut, a man does it and he is a stud. A powerful woman is a b!tch ands a powerful man is assertive. A guy needs ED drugs and they are covered by insurance, a woman needs contraceptives as a result of the ED drugs and it's tuff crap.

The men who call women names do so because they have no argument. As I stated above, the difference between the cases is more a matter of what the attack stood for. Had Fluke been arguing about something that did not affect women at large there would be no out cry. I seriously doubt that this is the first time Limbaugh or others have used such vile terminology to address women.

Going back to your statement. How is discounting O'Reilly any different than discounting Fluke? They are both being discounted for who they are and not for what they said. The difference being that O'Reilly had no proof of his accusation, just beliefs as he stated in his piece. What Fluke said was factually correct. Contraceptives are not covered by insurance and about 98% of women will use contraceptives at some point and time.

Of course universal health care as passed is flawed. Obama and Congress compromised to much and passed a watered down version of it.

 

[delldude]

I must have missed the part where he provided proof. I thought he said 'he believe...".
.

That's what the video was about, attempting to find out who's handling her, but you'll never come to realize that in ten lifetimes.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Going back to your horseshite argument about veterans benefits then please show me the EEOC in the COTUS.

I put the words of Ron Paul in the post because he is absolutely 1000% correct when it comes to the role of Government in our daily lives. You are entitled to BREATHE! Everything else you have to earn. Kind of like her law degree don't you think?

It's not an appropriate role of Government to determine what gets covered by Insurance.

Just for fun let's assume that roughly 25% of the US insurance market is women of child bearing years who at one point or another have used birth control of some sort. In a true free market some insurance company would aggressively pursue that 25% of the population market opportunity. Others wouldn't unless they saw a drop in the total numbers of customers.

The above can't happen now due to EEOC, Title 10 and a host of government intervention into a free market. Simple way to lower the cost of health care while expanding coverage is to alter the tax code to effectively end employer paid healthcare. Let the market place fight for customers. State Insurance Commissions can make the rules for each state. Those states that get it right will see lower rates and economic growth. Allow the people to decide. I don't care how brilliant Obama is, 280 million brains solving their unique and specific needs is a far better solution