Giz - All in good fun!! Men actually should keep and be responsible for what belongs to them. My single prisoner stays right here so why should I pay for "his" millions of escapees.. he he he!

AGAINST

Hey Dee,



How 'bout YOU pay for it.

K - we already do pay for it.. preventable unplanned pregnancy resulting in billions upon billions cast upon the taxpayer.

Earned income credit, pregnancy and birth, prenatal and post natal care, heating assistance, subsidized rent, subsidized and free day care, WIC, food stamps, welfare, welfare insurance, child protective services, foster home payments, schools and after school program, free summer programs, handicapped services, Pel grants, waived college tuition, state and federal matching of child support arrears collection, court systems to collect, sherifs to serve.... Shall I go on?

Easy access to prevention which can be applied in a moment of temporarily regaining of sanity in the deep throws of passion is key.

Food stamps: people should BE RESPONSIBLE for feeding themselves, this is NO different. Subsidized rent: people should BE RESPONSIBLE for sheltering themselves, this is no different.

Added: Try not to be too mean on the personal level guys. Neither any one here (or I) will be paying for MY birth control for me. Endometriosis, menorrhagia and related complications made me infertile at around 34 and I haven't had "ANY" in over 3 years. I'd prefer to provide for people from the beginning because I do remember how much social benefits, cash, insurance, food stamps, heating assistance etc were paid to my family through the government for a disabled child that came with an unplanned pregnancy. Taxpayers paid at that level HUGELY almost like a full-time job would pay.

This "social" insurance thing is being thrust upon us. Hopefully we can make the best of this "socialism" by also providing a prevention program that consists of more than just a college fish bowl of rubbers.

So the fact that I get raped once means you should get to do it again?

I agree with Dee. Until hospitals tell people to have the baby in the parking lot and not pick up the tab I'd much rather shell out for the pill and some rubbers for the idiots who can't think for themselves. When we stop welfare, I will agree with Karl's premise.

Wasn't her argument more about the health benefits of being on birth control pills (reduced rate of fibroids, ovarian cysts, etc.)?

Rush has done a good job of creating a different argument - "I can't believe she wants everyone to help pay for her to have sex without getting pregnant" as opposed to "I can't believe she wants to have everyone help pay for her to not develop tumors in her ovaries." There are plenty here that would oppose either claim, but you have to admit there is a degree of difference between the two statements.

I'm not taking a stance either way, just pointing out that the "use a condom", "use an IUD" argument is ineffective against preventing ovarian cysts and cancer.

I think you need to do a bit more reading on what's going on here.

While medication is indicated and appropriate for certain diseases using birth control as a general-purpose prophylactic by every woman is a VERY bad idea. There are very real risks associated with the use of artificial hormonal treatments, including increased risks of other cancers (notably of the breast), and what's worse is that we don't know what all those risks are.

Taking a drug to treat a disease is one thing, but to use it as a general prophylactic is another, entirely different one. Never mind that for some women the use of these drugs can create long term (and in some cases permanent) impairment of the ability to become pregnant. Arguing that one should as a matter of routine course do this sort of thing is idiotic and on the same level as arguing that men should as a matter of routine use 'roids to body-build because it makes it easier and faster, even though sometimes it also causes cancer and heart disease!

God, it's amazing how many people are promoting a little theft to "prevent" a lot of theft.

http://stevebridges.com/

Presidential impersonator who was on Rush a lot, this guy is dead now, another 40 yo bites the dust. All after the NDAA becomes law and holder states that they can kill Americans overseas. Something stinks here. Coordinated attacks on political opponents. WTF Sorry if this belongs in TIN.

Mr. Denninger,

For a father with a daughter, I'm a bit perplexed about your response. First, law students are of a diversity of ages. You do not necessarily smell a rat. Second, students pay for university by participating in the next credit bubble, i.e. student loans, as you point out every other week. (Connect the dots between your own posts sir!) But most importantly, women use birth-control for less-eponymous uses! Nearly every girl I have ever known has been prescribed birth control for non-contraceptive uses, particularly acne, menstrual cramps, and other problems. Many of the cheaper contraceptives you offer do not have the added benefits many women seek. One debate to have, instead, is whether we should be subsidizing cosmetic health (no), at the cost of reproductive health (no).

Genesis wrote..

While medication is indicated and appropriate for certain diseases using birth control as a general-purpose prophylactic by every woman is a VERY bad idea.

But wasn't she saying that her friend has real medical reasons for taking birth control and that even though Georgetown's insurance policy has a medical exception she was still denied because they didn't believe her or her doctor?

I read through the transcript here http://www.buzzfeed.com/boxofficebuz/tra...., and most of it is centered on the fact that women whose doctors believe they should be on birth control for medical purposes are denied because their insurance is related to a religious institution and said institution does not provide an exception.

Jbreed, the simple solution is for her to find an institution that is CONSISTENT WITH HER BELIEFS. Simple.

Quote:

Heh how do I get the free booze?

Late to the party, but for you Karl?

Easy - head to Duvall Street in Key West during any gay-get together. Just be careful of the roofie shake!

I'm sure the loving men would gladly cover the 'protection' as well. :-)


As for Fluke.... She's Bin Laden. BC issue comes up, WITH substance? Diversion needed ASAP!

Mpilar wrote..

How about we STOP all of those bull**** theft programs to begin with? Eating stolen food, living in stolen housing, paying for electricity with stolen money...

^ That. ...PLEASE make it STOP!!!

Quote:

But wasn't she saying that her friend has real medical reasons for taking birth control and that even though Georgetown's insurance policy has a medical exception she was still denied because they didn't believe her or her doctor?

Prove it.

1. Georgetown's insurance has an exception for medical need.

2. Her "friend" could buy private insurance instead of Georgetown's.

If you VOLUNTARILY sign up for a medical plan with a given set of coverages, why are you complaining?

Quote:

If you VOLUNTARILY sign up for a medical plan with a given set of coverages, why are you complaining?

Exactly! This is emblematic of the greater problem in American society. Nobody wants to take RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR DECISIONS.

geneisis wrote..

So the fact that I get raped once means you should get to do it again?

Yes. That is what they are arguing.

mpilar wrote..

God, it's amazing how many people are promoting a little theft to "prevent" a lot of theft.

Yep. Let me - under color of LAW - steal from my neighbor - because I am too much of a pussy to get off my ass and stick a gun in their faces personally.

That sums up the vast majority of what people think government _should_ do

That is the part of it that is a flat lie, the cost. Why hasn't this been challenged? I have heard that some women do have to take special drugs, but the alternative is to just be careful. This is nothing more than a repeat of that woman they put in there to lie about Clarence Thomas. Had Thomas been a liberal, the woman, despite being black, would have been accused of being part of a racist attack on a black man.

Here we have a woman who is either going to school to charge $500 to $600 an hour in some special capacity or so she can make trouble. We are supposed to pay for her? Karl hits it on the head. If this bitch is so broke, why isn't she going to a cheaper school? Cornell in 2003? She is an elite ***** and whatever she pays for birth control is pocket change. You can bet she has an Iphone, a luxury phone plan, likely lives in the Georgetown area, maybe in an upscale apartment at that.

Rush is a establishment pig himself. His use of words might have been a little rough, but if the woman can't keep her pants on because she can't afford her pills, she is a slut, even if just the fact she is screwing a guy that couldn't afford to raise a kid. If the pills or whatever were $300 a month, I doubt they would sell many of them. Planned Parenthood used to give them away.

I got kicked off Lee Adlers site for calling these bastards fascists. Pay attention to these ****ers when you see them, as they are brown shirt fascists. Lying and cheating isn't outside their norm. Look at that bitch Pelosi, who passes what amounts to a $1 trillion plus a year expense on the American economy and responds that we will read it after we pass it. They have turned the USA into a politboro. Obama doesn't care for oversite, but instead attempts to act as a dictator. When these people want to do something, they bluff, deceive and lie. They care nothing about our property, only their ends.

Here is the other question? What will insurance cost that provides for an elective $300 a month expense?

Frat, you have a good point. Another red herring?

Quote:

Prove it.

1. Georgetown's insurance has an exception for medical need.

2. Her "friend" could buy private insurance instead of Georgetown's.

If you VOLUNTARILY sign up for a medical plan with a given set of coverages, why are you complaining?

Going back to my original point - I said there would be opposition to requiring covering of this. That's not my point, there are arguments for or against. My point is that the argument is not about covering a woman's ability to have sex without pregnancy, which is what Rush has translated it to. In this discussion of whether or not it should be covered, there should be no mention of condoms, IUDs or other forms of birth control. It should center squarely around two points:

- Should health insurance be allowed to not cover specific, medically needed items for religious reasons
- Should government required health insurance be allowed to not cover specific, medically needed items for religious reasons

I think we know where most people on this board stand, I'm just trying to cut the fluff out about sex, condoms and sexual resposibility, all of which have absolutely nothing to do with what the argument as presented by Ms. Fluke.

This whole thing is a big distraction IMO. Then again, so is the presidential race. Then again, so are the various weekly bailout agreements for Greece.

Quote:

- Should health insurance be allowed to not cover specific, medically needed items for religious reasons
- Should government required health insurance be allowed to not cover specific, medically needed items for religious reasons

I think we know where most people on this board stand, I'm just trying to cut the fluff out about sex, condoms and sexual resposibility, all of which have absolutely nothing to do with what the argument as presented by Ms. Fluke.

Show me where the Federal Government, in the Constitution, has the right to require me to buy anything at all (say much less "health insurance" irrespective of what's covered) and we can have that discussion.

Until then you're just trying to find a place where you get a chisel in between my cheeks so you can then insert your gun and threaten to blow my ******* wide open.

Fraudster wrote..

Jbreed, the simple solution is for her to find an institution that is CONSISTENT WITH HER BELIEFS. Simple.

Go back to my first post - I'm not arguing whether this should be covered or not. I'm just pointing out that any mention of condoms, IUDs, abstinence and any other form of birth control has no business being in this argument. Rush has changed this argument into one about whether insurance should cover a woman's ability to have sex without getting pregnant, which has absolutely nothing to do with the argument as presented by the testimony.

I just have a thing against counter-arguments that create a false original argument.

Fluke (argument): I believe the government insurance requirements should not allow religious institutions to opt out of covering birth control pills because there are plenty of times when it is medically necessary

Rush (counter-argument): I don't believe we should pay for you to have sex without getting pregnant. Go buy some condoms if you can't afford birth control.

What kind of exchange is that? He should have just said, as you did, "You can find an insurance carrier that meets your beliefs and covers birth control". But he didn't, and the fact that people can't see that he didn't even answer the original argument bugs me, hence the posting.

mayorquimby wrote..

Socialism is here to stay people. Sorry - it's too late to turn back now. We have to go full on to the left for people to figure things out and that will take decades. THEN the pendulum can swing back the other way.

No, socialism is going broke. Feudalism is next.

Quote:

viagra/cialis/testosterone patches are covered

I'd like to see them covered for medical reasons, same as female hormones for medical reasons...including menopause.

Males with low T can end up with heart disease and cost of more plus they are not as productive, so patch them boys up! And for a few with heart disease, I've seen cialis used daily.

There are actual medical uses for viagra other than for sex. Then it outta be covered.

Just to get hard? pay for it yourself....sure it's a bonus if you need it medically and get sex outta the deal. But a lot of those who need it medically ain't well enough to get it up much.

Quote:

Let's say you work for a devout Hindu employer, and because of your intentional act of eating too many burgers and steaks, you have high cholesterol, so your doctor prescribes statins. Your employer objects at having his insurer pay for the statins, as he bleieves it will encourage continued cow muscle consumption.

Let's say a woman works for a devout Muslim employer, and her husband, who believes she dresses too provocatively, abuses her. She seeks counseling, but her employer objects to his insurer paying, considering the woman to be a ***** who should be stoned to death.

Folks who intentionally light up Marlboro's get ill. Folks who intentionally drink too much need treatment. Folks who intentionally run marathons need medical help from time to time. What does intentionality have to do with it?

Your analogy is all screwed up, so lets clear things up:

First off it would be wrong to FORCE your Hindu employer to BUY you a steak or hamburger. BUT Hindus are NOT against cholesterol drugs, and b/c of HIPAA laws involving medical privacy your Hindu employer would NOT be able to review your medical records, so how would he KNOW that your cholesterol problem is caused by eating beef? Maybe you got it from eating pork or chicken.

Same thing with the woman with a devout Muslim employer: it would be wrong to FORCE the employer to buy her provocative clothing, but as for why she is having problems with her husband there is that HIPAA thing again.

Also, are you aware of any Hindu or Muslim religious teachings against cholesterol drugs or marital counseling?

You either cleverly or accidentally blended having your employer pay for the cause (beef, provocative dressing, cigarettes) with the employer paying for the RESULT of engaging in those behaviors (high cholesterol, marital strife, lung cancer) HIPAA laws pretty much ensure that your employer will not know WHY you are getting any treatment.