# Now Insurers Must Cover 100% of Birth Control, Other Female Services



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Aug 1, 2011)

> WASHINGTON (AP)  Health insurance plans must cover birth control as preventive care for women, with no copays, the Obama administration said Monday in a decision with far-reaching implications for health care as well as social mores.
> 
> The requirement is part of a broad expansion of coverage for women's preventive care under President Barack Obama's health care law. Also to be covered without copays are breast pumps for nursing mothers, an annual "well-woman" physical, screening for the virus that causes cervical cancer and for diabetes during pregnancy, counseling on domestic violence, and other services.
> 
> ...



These increasing mandates on insurers by the government is only going to fuel further increases in insurance costs for all Americans across the board.  There is no reason why these listed services need 100% coverage.  But hey, if we're going to go that route, why do only women get the benefit?  If men are going to have to pay higher insurance costs, why aren't we getting free prostate exams, free condoms, and free "wellness" physicals?  Considering that unemployment has hit men harder than women and women now make up the majority of college students isn't it about time the government stop treating them like they are incapable of providing for themselves?


----------



## chanel (Aug 1, 2011)

It's ridiculous.  You mean to tell me that birth control pills are more important than other meds?  Why should sick people have to pay a copay for a life saving drug, but a fertile female does not?  I don't get it.  Anybody can afford five or ten bucks.

Breast pumps?  Good Lord.  Who's buddy has that contract?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 1, 2011)

Women may own their bodies but the government now has a 99 year triple net lease on it.

Wow. Obamacare gives the government total control.

How did we not see that coming?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nk_HPs34usU]&#x202a;Congressman John Dingell: "It takes a long time to ... control the people"&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Care4all (Aug 1, 2011)

the women are paying several thousand dollars a year for their insurance policy....i think the once a year gyno check up should be included in that fee just like a physical would be and all insurance policies that i have had, do cover this annual check up, without deductibles....so that part is nothing new.

I have no problems with a breast pump being covered in full either.  

BC pills were not covered by insurance at all, in my youth....only the last decade and a half have i seen insurance companies moving to cover them.  so, i think full coverage with no deductible is a reach....but, i'd rather people buying insurance get the full coverage 4 them than making us tax payers pay for them.....


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 1, 2011)

Beats abortions


----------



## KissMy (Aug 1, 2011)

Care4all said:


> I have no problems with a breast pump being covered in full either.



I have a problem paying for others brest pumps unless I get to be the one doing the pumping.


----------



## Modbert (Aug 1, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> These increasing mandates on insurers by the government is only going to fuel further increases in insurance costs for all Americans across the board.  There is no reason why these listed services need 100% coverage.  But hey, if we're going to go that route, why do only women get the benefit?  If men are going to have to pay higher insurance costs, why aren't we getting free prostate exams, free condoms, and free "wellness" physicals?  Considering that unemployment has hit men harder than women and women now make up the majority of college students isn't it about time the government stop treating them like they are incapable of providing for themselves?



You do realize you contradict your own post, correct? While either argument would be valid on it's own, together it's just a mish-mash of sorts.

You can't say in one sentence that it's wrong because costs are going to go up and then in the next complain that men aren't covered. Otherwise your first argument invalidates your second.

Personally, any increase in price is going to suck. The question becomes a matter of how much and the result of these changes. After all, about half of pregnancies are unplanned. I'd be interested in seeing the result this would have in changing that number. If it's by a significant amount, then the cost of premiums would likely be offset because of the would-be future costs of those children being born to the system.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 1, 2011)

Modbert said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > These increasing mandates on insurers by the government is only going to fuel further increases in insurance costs for all Americans across the board.  There is no reason why these listed services need 100% coverage.  But hey, if we're going to go that route, why do only women get the benefit?  If men are going to have to pay higher insurance costs, why aren't we getting free prostate exams, free condoms, and free "wellness" physicals?  Considering that unemployment has hit men harder than women and women now make up the majority of college students isn't it about time the government stop treating them like they are incapable of providing for themselves?
> ...



And now that the Republicans have seen fit to defund Planned Parenthood, as Rightwinger said, this option is better than abortion (or having an unwanted child).


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 1, 2011)

Care4all said:


> the women are paying several thousand dollars a year for their insurance policy....i think the once a year gyno check up should be included in that fee just like a physical would be and all insurance policies that i have had, do cover this annual check up, without deductibles....so that part is nothing new.
> 
> I have no problems with a breast pump being covered in full either.
> 
> BC pills were not covered by insurance at all, in my youth....only the last decade and a half have i seen insurance companies moving to cover them.  so, i think full coverage with no deductible is a reach....but, i'd rather people buying insurance get the full coverage 4 them than making us tax payers pay for them.....



boy are you uniformed. who do you think is gonna pay for them? If they can't afford birth control pills they sure as hell can't afford insurance payments. so that leaves 50% of us again toting the other 50% on our backs.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 1, 2011)

WillowTree said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > the women are paying several thousand dollars a year for their insurance policy....i think the once a year gyno check up should be included in that fee just like a physical would be and all insurance policies that i have had, do cover this annual check up, without deductibles....so that part is nothing new.
> ...



Beats abortion


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 1, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



no it doesn't


----------



## chanel (Aug 1, 2011)

For once I agree with Modbert. If the free pill will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, it may be money well spent. However, I am not that optimistic.

Breast pumps are a convenience; not a life saving medical device. Absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## Trajan (Aug 1, 2011)

I don&#8217;t know, I am trying to get my head around my neighbor asking me to foot the bill for his daughters contraception, and then me asking him to foot the bill for my daughters abortion&#8230;&#8230;.just cannot get my head into either one of those.  

wasn't there supposed to be a codicil to obamacare via exec. order forbidding abortion form being paid for?


and Chanel, nothing is ever free


----------



## Political Junky (Aug 1, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Beats abortions


Cons hate birth control and abortions. Everyone should be celibate. It's worked so well throughout history.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 1, 2011)

WillowTree said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Thanks for showing your priorities


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 1, 2011)

Preventive medicine saves money in the long run.  I am all for covering birth control.   I can't understand how conservatives could bitch about this, unwanted pregnancy, "welfare babies", and abortion.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Aug 1, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> > WASHINGTON (AP)  Health insurance plans must cover birth control as preventive care for women, with no copays, the Obama administration said Monday in a decision with far-reaching implications for health care as well as social mores.
> >
> > The requirement is part of a broad expansion of coverage for women's preventive care under President Barack Obama's health care law. Also to be covered without copays are breast pumps for nursing mothers, an annual "well-woman" physical, screening for the virus that causes cervical cancer and for diabetes during pregnancy, counseling on domestic violence, and other services.
> >
> ...



Dang! Just think of all the people who won't be around so that you can complain about them being on welfare!


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 1, 2011)

chanel said:


> For once I agree with Modbert. If the free pill will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, it may be money well spent. However, I am not that optimistic.
> 
> Breast pumps are a convenience; not a life saving medical device. Absolutely ridiculous.



That's not true.  It's not debatable that breast milk is better for formula.  However, it's hard to get young mothers who are below the poverty line to breast feed due to the inconvenience.  Pumping allows them to store their own milk and ultimately have healthier babies and save money.


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 1, 2011)

WillowTree said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > the women are paying several thousand dollars a year for their insurance policy....i think the once a year gyno check up should be included in that fee just like a physical would be and all insurance policies that i have had, do cover this annual check up, without deductibles....so that part is nothing new.
> ...



The tax payer ultimately pays for it anyways.  Might as well try and subsidize some health efforts (i.e. screening) that tend to save money in the long run.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Aug 1, 2011)

Modbert said:


> You can't say in one sentence that it's wrong because costs are going to go up and then in the next complain that men aren't covered. Otherwise your first argument invalidates your second.



I was being facetious in the second part.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Aug 1, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> And now that the Republicans have seen fit to defund Planned Parenthood, as Rightwinger said, this option is better than abortion (or having an unwanted child).



Planned Parenthood has not been defunded.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Aug 1, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Beats abortion



So does personal responsibility, but I realize that's an anathema to people like you.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Aug 1, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Preventive medicine saves money in the long run.



That depends on who you ask.

Preventive care not always cost effective, experts say - CNN


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Aug 1, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> Dang! Just think of all the people who won't be around so that you can complain about them being on welfare!



See Post 22 and then come back to me with  a more whitty retort.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Aug 1, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > boy are you uniformed. who do you think is gonna pay for them? If they can't afford birth control pills they sure as hell can't afford insurance payments. so that leaves 50% of us again toting the other 50% on our backs.
> ...



What saves money is eradicating the welfare state.


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 1, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Beats abortion
> ...



It's not an "anathema", it's just un-pragmatic.  Making policy based on the hopes that people will do the responsible thing is stupid.


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 1, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Preventive medicine saves money in the long run.
> ...



Not all screens are cost effective, but many are.  Individual screens should be evaluated for this.  This is exactly what happened when the USJPTF recommended that women over 40 don't need an annual mammogram and everyone went batshit crazy (and claimed it was "Obamacare".)   When it comes to medical science, you can't "politic" away the facts.  

However, on the whole, preventative medicine saves money.


----------



## del (Aug 1, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Beats abortions
> ...



i can think of at least two people for whom celibacy would have been a wise choice.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Aug 1, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > Dang! Just think of all the people who won't be around so that you can complain about them being on welfare!
> ...



There is no H in witty.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 1, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



that's the problem dude,, the taxpayer is expected to pay for everything, and only 50% of us pay FEDERAL taxes.. the gimmmie gimmmie crowd is now larger than the giver crowd.. we're going down.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 1, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> > WASHINGTON (AP)  Health insurance plans must cover birth control as preventive care for women, with no copays, the Obama administration said Monday in a decision with far-reaching implications for health care as well as social mores.
> >
> > The requirement is part of a broad expansion of coverage for women's preventive care under President Barack Obama's health care law. Also to be covered without copays are breast pumps for nursing mothers, an annual "well-woman" physical, screening for the virus that causes cervical cancer and for diabetes during pregnancy, counseling on domestic violence, and other services.
> >
> ...



Why does the government think it's their job to tell private businesses what products they must provide and how much they must charge for it?


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 1, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> > For once I agree with Modbert. If the free pill will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, it may be money well spent. However, I am not that optimistic.
> ...



It also does something conservatives should love...

It allows them to go back to work


----------



## Defiant1 (Aug 1, 2011)

So then women's policies should be more expensive.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 1, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Beats abortion
> ...



Just say no children...

Bristol Palin knows best


----------



## Trajan (Aug 1, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Preventive medicine saves money in the long run.  I am all for covering birth control.   I can't understand how conservatives could bitch about this, unwanted pregnancy, "welfare babies", and abortion.



 because it addresses the symptom not the disease...as a budding MD you should appreciate that


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 1, 2011)

Yet another non-issue; the coverage is perfectly appropriate in the context of the ACA, including breast pumps. Im sure all on the right want mothers to go to work, lest they become welfare queens. 



> So does personal responsibility, but I realize that's an anathema to people like you.



Sarcasm or serious? 

If the latter this is private insurance paid for by private funds; this isnt pubic assistance.  

But your issue isnt with required coverage for women, this is just more pointless whining about the ACA.


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 1, 2011)

WillowTree said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Our revenue in this country comes from taxes.  Of course the taxpayer literally pays for "everything".  It's just a matter of what individuals deem worthy of paying for.  

Until we get to the point where we are going to start denying people in this country health coverage, if we are going to pay anyways, we might as well pay for things that are going to save money in the long run. 

Birth control is pennies on the dollars return when you start factoring the cost of unwanted pregnancies on society.  

I can't figure out why anyone would think it's a bad idea.


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 1, 2011)

Trajan said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Preventive medicine saves money in the long run.  I am all for covering birth control.   I can't understand how conservatives could bitch about this, unwanted pregnancy, "welfare babies", and abortion.
> ...



What's the disease?


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 1, 2011)

The right wing opposes sex education, birth control and abortion

Then they bitch about paying for unwanted babies


----------



## jillian (Aug 1, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



the disease is people like sex. the right hates that.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 1, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



oh balderdash! we'll pay for the damn contraceptives, they won't take them and the abortions and un wanted pregnancies will continue who are you trying to kid? Personal responsibility ain't in the retardeddimocrats book of knowledge.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 1, 2011)

jillian said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



it's cool to like sex,, you just shouldn't be a whore and make the taxpayer pay for your sex..


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 1, 2011)

WillowTree said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Of course there will still be unwanted pregnancies and abortions.  If it lowers the rate of both of those things though, how can that be a bad thing?


----------



## jillian (Aug 1, 2011)

chanel said:


> For once I agree with Modbert. If the free pill will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, it may be money well spent. However, I am not that optimistic.
> 
> Breast pumps are a convenience; not a life saving medical device. Absolutely ridiculous.



not really. for a working mom who's nursing a breast pump is a necessity. and, theoretically, breast feeding leads to healthier children.


----------



## jillian (Aug 1, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Beats abortion
> ...



using contraception IS being responsible.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 1, 2011)

WillowTree said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



If you are "healthy" enough to have sex, you are responsible for birth control.
If you are "healthy" enough to have sex, you are "healthy" enough to have a job and pay for your own insurance/medical costs.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 1, 2011)

> The right wing opposes sex education, birth control and abortion
> 
> Then they bitch about paying for unwanted babies.



Having children is the only thing the poor can do on par with the rich, which conservatives disapprove of.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 1, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Preventive medicine saves money in the long run.  I am all for covering birth control.   I can't understand how conservatives could bitch about this, unwanted pregnancy, "welfare babies", and abortion.



How much a year are "you" paying in taxes?  Are you willing to pay double that amount to cover people that aren't working at "documented" jobs?


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 1, 2011)

logical4u said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Yeah, that's really worked like gangbusters in our recent history, hasn't it?


----------



## logical4u (Aug 1, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> > For once I agree with Modbert. If the free pill will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, it may be money well spent. However, I am not that optimistic.
> ...



If they think "breast feeding" is inconvient, do you really think they will be use a "breast pump"?


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 1, 2011)

logical4u said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Preventive medicine saves money in the long run.  I am all for covering birth control.   I can't understand how conservatives could bitch about this, unwanted pregnancy, "welfare babies", and abortion.
> ...



"Double"?  

C'mon.  Furthermore, you are talking about a separate issue.


----------



## Dr.House (Aug 1, 2011)

jillian said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



You sound rediculous when you go full on wingnut....


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 1, 2011)

logical4u said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > chanel said:
> ...



Breast feeding is inconvenient when you are trying to work a job.  Despite what you think, it's not always a matter of personal convenience.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 1, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



If your family is getting hungry and the gov't comes and takes what is left of your food for people that are "worse off than you" how is that a bad thing?


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 1, 2011)

logical4u said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Yes.  Because that is what the government does.  Tax people into famine.  

Once again, get real.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 1, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Are you asking if "welfare" has produced massive quantities of unwanted pregnancies?  Are you asking if "welfare" has destroyed the traditional family in many cultural communities?  Are you asking if "sex education" has reduced the number of STDs?

Paying people to be uneducated, unmarried and unemployed will not help any children.  The unborn are murdered for the convenience.  And yet, here you are, telling us to continue this pattern, because "it couldn't hurt".  You do know that the Lord lays cowards down with the women and children killed in war (that probably includes all those babies that were aborted, crying non-stop), don't you.  If you won't stand up for truth, it is going to be a fitful rest for you, until judgement day.  All you are doing is encouraging more people to enter the "handout cycle".  They will never have any pride or self worth in their own work.  They will never know how much their children could accomplish (many will choose the path of their "parent").  They are indoctrinated in envy, deceit, and theft.  What a good life you are wishing on millions.


----------



## jillian (Aug 1, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



just pointing out the absurdity of the loons


----------



## logical4u (Aug 1, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Do you think "healthcare" is free?  Are you suggesting that doctors and nurses that dedicate themselves to school and discipline should have their pay "set" by government?  Do you think they should be "forced" to administer care?  Are you okay with "slavery"?


----------



## logical4u (Aug 1, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



You are suggesting that young mothers below the poverty line would use breast pumps.  My point was: if they are below the poverty line, they are probably not working, and it would be more "convenient" for them to nurse than it would be for them to pump.  If they are working, they are probably not in the type of work that the employer would "allow" them time to "pump".


----------



## Cuyo (Aug 1, 2011)

jillian said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



Republicans think sex is bad, because with them it always is.  Sha-zam!


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 1, 2011)

logical4u said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



While off topic, I was going to at least read your rant, but then you lost me with the "the Lord lays cowards down" tangent.  

If I wanted to be preached at, I'd go to church.  

"Judge not.  Lest you be judged yourself."


----------



## logical4u (Aug 1, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Got it.  You want to preach to those of us paying taxes (you never did answer if you would be willing to pay double), in the name of the "children" or the "poor".  But what ever we do, we should not answer you by preaching back, because you want to pretend that you don't know what you are "actually" doing.  You want to concentrate on your "intentions", and not focus on the "suffering" that you are causing others.  There I was thinking I found someone interensting, oh well, it was a fun, short, conversation.


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 1, 2011)

logical4u said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Uh no.  I don't want you going religious whacko on me.  We can discuss policy without you having to evoke your thoughts about my eternal fate.

I would have thought that would have been pretty obvious, but maybe it went over your head.


----------



## Dr Grump (Aug 1, 2011)

I have a huge problem with insurers paying for contraception. I see sex as recreation, not one of life's necessities (well, almost!!). Gaming and playing soccer are also recreation. Can I send the bill of my xbox live account and new soccer ball I just bought to my insurer, too??


----------



## jillian (Aug 1, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> I have a huge problem with insurers paying for contraception. I see sex as recreation, not one of life's necessities (well, almost!!). Gaming and playing soccer are also recreation. Can I send the bill of my xbox live account and new soccer ball I just bought to my insurer, too??



insurance plans pay for viagra. 

sex may be recreation, but if it's unprotected, the societal costs are very high. if it cuts down on abortion and unwanted pregnancies, i see it as a good thing.


----------



## Dr Grump (Aug 1, 2011)

logical4u said:


> The unborn are murdered for the convenience.



How can somthing that is unborn be murdered? You can't murder something that isn't alive yet....


----------



## Trajan (Aug 1, 2011)

jillian said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...





jillian said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



your lack of expertise ala sex has been established but then, we already knew this....


----------



## Dr Grump (Aug 1, 2011)

jillian said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > I have a huge problem with insurers paying for contraception. I see sex as recreation, not one of life's necessities (well, almost!!). Gaming and playing soccer are also recreation. Can I send the bill of my xbox live account and new soccer ball I just bought to my insurer, too??
> ...



They shouldn't pay for viagra either...I agree re the costs being high, but I doubt those that are the main cause of the problem are even insured in the first place...It's shit like this that causes premiums to go up. Does the fed sub. any of this?


----------



## Trajan (Aug 1, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



lack of  self control, will, personal responsibility. and yes society has done their part to contribute to that, mightily, so there is a correlation and a fair amount of causation.


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 1, 2011)

Trajan said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



I tell you what.  You guys get to work on starting a counter sexual revolution where "morals and personal responsibility" will overwhelm biological drive and people will wait until marriage to have sex.  

In the meantime, those of us grounded in reality will try and address the problem in a way that actually might have some effect.


----------



## Dr Grump (Aug 1, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



That aside, I would still object if insurers had to pay out for what is basically a recreational activity.

I don't think it much to ask if that if you like shagging, don't want to get knocked up, then you pay for your own contraception (goes for men too)


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 1, 2011)

jillian said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > I have a huge problem with insurers paying for contraception. I see sex as recreation, not one of life's necessities (well, almost!!). Gaming and playing soccer are also recreation. Can I send the bill of my xbox live account and new soccer ball I just bought to my insurer, too??
> ...



which ones? Be specific please!!!


----------



## chanel (Aug 2, 2011)

A manual breast pump costs around $35.  A good electric one is a couple hundred bucks.  If they are "free" who will NOT get the best one they can - whether or not they are breastfeeding.  

I purchased a decent one with my last baby.  I used it about 10 times and then gave it away.  Our landfills will be filling up with unused or underused machines.  People should just rent them.  Where are the environmentalists?


----------



## strollingbones (Aug 2, 2011)

insurance companies pay for viagra ....for men.....why not birth control for women?


----------



## chanel (Aug 2, 2011)

Is it "free" bones?


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 2, 2011)

strollingbones said:


> insurance companies pay for viagra ....for men.....why not birth control for women?



so we cover his dick and your vajay jay,, I thought you people wanted government to stay outta your bedroom? wtf?


----------



## jillian (Aug 2, 2011)

Trajan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



really?

funny, unlike the abstinence-only, anti-choice rightwingnuts, i understand that people DO have sex.

you sound like an idiot when you post things like that. 

is it intentional?


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 2, 2011)

jillian said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



To many Americans, sex is still dirty and the Gubmint shouldn't do anything to encourage it


----------



## masquerade (Aug 2, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Beats abortions
> ...



Give up your broad brush Political Junky.


----------



## masquerade (Aug 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> The right wing opposes sex education, birth control and abortion
> 
> Then they bitch about paying for unwanted babies



I have an issue with sex education being taught to elementary school kids.   Such a class should be taught to during the middle school years.  Birth control I'm all for and I really don't have a problem with it being covered by insurance.  Hell, I wish it was so many years ago when I was on the pill. Abortions ... well that's another story.  Personally I could never have one and I wish other women wouldn't but .... that is their choice.  I'd prefer potential abortions to go full-term, deliver and put the baby up for adoption.


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 2, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



Sex is a "recreational activity"?  

Uno is a recreational activity.  You aren't hard wired to play Uno.  Lonely people in hotels in strange cities don't peruse the internet for "Uno Services".    

Sex is fun, but I think it goes a bit beyond "recreation".  

It only has a degree of recreation to encourage procreation.  

I get that people on birth control don't want to procreate.  Neither do people who have unwanted pregnancies.  Either way, the taxpayer foots a large part of the bill for unwanted pregnancy rates.

I can see one potential problem with this.  A rise in STDs as women don't make their partners use condoms for birth control since they are on the pill.


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 2, 2011)

chanel said:


> Is it "free" bones?



How about this:  medicaid covers viagra but not birth control.


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 2, 2011)

jillian said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Intentional or not, it is low rent.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 2, 2011)

masquerade said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The right wing opposes sex education, birth control and abortion
> ...



I agree

Personally, I oppose abortion but it has been a fact of life for 40 years that is not going to change.

We need to do things to reduce the need for abortions. This includes sex education, education on how to handle peer pressure/sexual advances, open access to birth control. Once pregnant, women need to know about adoption services, receive low cost pre-natal care and assistance with the delivery. Post birth they need low cost child care.

You have to give young, scared, single women an option other than abortion. If they have no other alternative...they will go for abortion


----------



## chanel (Aug 2, 2011)

But why no copay? Copays and deductibles decrease premiums. Is this going to start a trend - a trend that will raise healthcare costs for everyone? Hmmm. Maybe that's the true intent.


----------



## Trajan (Aug 2, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...


----------



## Trajan (Aug 2, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



wow. "low rent"? .


----------



## Trajan (Aug 2, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> > Is it "free" bones?
> ...



yes and? thats already been noted.


----------



## Trajan (Aug 2, 2011)

jillian said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...




maybe its my 90 IQ....


jillian,  my dear,  you above all should be the last one posting anything to anyone  regards idiocy. 

you are just here to drop some of your pithy turds of hackage and the minute the conversation turns serious requiring any heavy lifting- which for you is anything beyond employing your dipso trio-;  loon- wingnut- whacko labeling inanity, you're gone... 

I never rendered an opinion one way or another see post 69 ( no pun intended )  my last one on this,  YET ala "abstinence-only, anti-choice" you have not the foggiest idea how I feel about either one as it applies in this context, you have ASSUMED that everyone who doesn't think like you has an extreme opinion, (and of course pro life has got to be an extreme 'opinion' despite all of its variations right Jillian? see how that works?  ) if it APPEARS they don't agree with you....welcome to the hack farm.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 2, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



*  Sex is a "recreational activity"?  
*

Depends how good you are at it....for some it is punishment


----------



## Trajan (Aug 2, 2011)

some like it that way


----------



## chanel (Aug 2, 2011)

May I change the subject for a moment? Is there a birth control pill/patch for men? Just curious.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 2, 2011)

chanel said:


> May I change the subject for a moment? Is there a birth control pill/patch for men? Just curious.



As a woman, would you trust a man who told you..."Don't worry, I'm on the pill"?


----------



## chanel (Aug 2, 2011)

Well RW - I'm married.  I was thinking more about my two offspring.


----------



## Trajan (Aug 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> > May I change the subject for a moment? Is there a birth control pill/patch for men? Just curious.
> ...



I never ever trusted a lady who told me she was either so.........


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 2, 2011)

chanel said:


> May I change the subject for a moment? Is there a birth control pill/patch for men? Just curious.



It's not on the market.

Birth Control Pill for Men: Would You Count on It? - ABC News

I don't think I'd trust it.  Much dicier to interrupt a process that produces six million sperm versus one egg.


----------



## editec (Aug 2, 2011)

*



Now Insurers Must Cover 100% of Birth Control, Other Female Services

Click to expand...

 
Good!

Apparently unlike some of the little boys here, I know and actually like a few women.*


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 2, 2011)

Trajan said:


> you guys? Oh, I get it
> 
> tell _you_ what;
> 
> ...


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 2, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > And now that the Republicans have seen fit to defund Planned Parenthood, as Rightwinger said, this option is better than abortion (or having an unwanted child).
> ...



You're right. It didn't pass. But they tried hard to, and will revisit the issue again, for sure.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 2, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Beats abortion
> ...



When some conservative tells me how to force "personal responsibility" upon someone else, I'll be willing to accept that as a workable solution. In the meantime, we have tens of thousands of people who either _can't_ or wont take personal responsibility, the result being thousands more children born that we can't very well just shoot and hope for a better outcome next time.


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 2, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Also, there has never been federal funding for abortion.  The proposed cuts to planned parenthood wouldn't affect abortion.  They would have affected women's health.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 2, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Preventive medicine saves money in the long run.
> ...



Like that's ^ going to actually happen in a majority of cases. Now you're just struggling to justify a moot point. 

Ironically, the elderly woman in your linked story would NOW be able to have counseling by her doctor as to the medical and/or quality of life decisions she might need to discuss with a professional. Of course conservatives attempted to brand THAT as "death panel" decisions.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 2, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



And yet another HUGE mistake conservatives make: Tossing around those words as if they actually mean something. They don't. If you exclude fixed entitlement programs (you do know the difference, I hope), "welfare" accounts for a very small portion of government spending. Someone took the time to break down the facts, using government statistics. Read it.

Newsvine - How Much Does Welfare Cost?


> According to The Budget for Fiscal Year 2008, Historical Tables, total outlays for Means Tested Entitlements in 2006 were $354.3 billion. This was 2.7% of GDP and
> Includes Medicaid, food stamps, family support assistance (AFDC), supplemental security income (SSI), child nutrition programs, refundable portions of earned income tax credits (EITC and HITC) and child tax credit, welfare contingency fund, child care entitlement to States, temporary assistance to needy families, foster care and adoption assistance, State children's health insurance and veterans pensions.
> (from Table 8.1, page 133)
> 
> The cost of these programs has increased from 0.8% of GDP in 1962 (before Medicaid) to 2.7% of GDP in 2006, or by 1.9% of GDP. If we exclude Medicaid, health care for children and veterans pensions it is 0.89 % of GDP, or $117 billion. (The numbers for the excluded items are found in Table 8.5, page 142). This represents approximately 7.5% of total non-Social Security receipts to the Federal Government. So, for every one of your tax dollars to the Federal Government, about 7.5 cents goes to these programs. I hate to use averages, but the average taxpayer had a tax rate of 12.45% in 2005 (the latest data available here), so if we multiply things out we see that about 0.93% of the average taxpayer's income went to non-medical "welfare". So, if you made $50,000 and paid $6,225.00 in Federal income tax, approximately $465.00 went to all of these programs x-healthcare and veterans pensions.



Eliminate the fraud and duplicity, and even those numbers will be reduced. But "welfare" as itemized above, will never completely go away. If you think so, then you're delusional.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 2, 2011)

WillowTree said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



And 60% of corporations pay nothing yet THEY'RE able to stuff their pockets. But that's fine and dandy. Got it.


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 2, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Most of the clips tossed out about medicine are years behind the time.  We do know that PSA is no longer a good screen for colon cancer.  In fact, it's better medicine to simple do a DRE (digital rectal exam) and much cheaper.  However, PSA is a good marker for prostrate cancer recurrence and severity.  

That being said, routine colonoscopies at the age of 50 do reduce morbidity and mortality.  On my surgery rotation, I followed a patient from clinic and then to the OR and then to the post op period because they had discovered a carcinoid tumor on routine colonoscopy.  He was completely asymptomatic (and most people with carcinoid are until it reaches the liver and then it is too late).


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 2, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > > WASHINGTON (AP)  Health insurance plans must cover birth control as preventive care for women, with no copays, the Obama administration said Monday in a decision with far-reaching implications for health care as well as social mores.
> ...



Because in the long run, unwanted pregnancies cost far more. What's not to get? Hell, in some major cities in Texas (you know, that holier-than-all-the-other-49 states state), public high schools even use state education funds for day care centers to care for the children of unwed teens trying to graduate. Think that isn't costly?


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 2, 2011)

Trajan said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Preventive medicine saves money in the long run.  I am all for covering birth control.   I can't understand how conservatives could bitch about this, unwanted pregnancy, "welfare babies", and abortion.
> ...



So how do you cure the "disease" of having unprotected sex? I'm sure we'd all love to know your answer to that. Short of castration and/or hysterectomy, there is none. (Unless of course you choose to be gay! )


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 2, 2011)

WillowTree said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



There are no right-wing whores. Fact. 

Right-wing men never EVER solicit sex in dark alleys. Fact.

Right-wingers always have protected sex when they're off the calendar's "rhythm method" and never, EVER act out of pure instantaneous lust. Fact. 

Right-wing men never even masturbate. Fact.

Right-wing women are always ALWAYS married before they have sex. Fact.

There are no right-wing parents who are shocked when their tween gets knocked up. Fact.

Right-wing women never seek abortions; right-wing men would never ask a woman to have an abortion. Fact.


Just ask them.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 2, 2011)

logical4u said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You must be a virgin. Nobody -- *NOBODY *-- ever thinks "It could happen to me..." *NOBODY!!!* 

And these days, not everyone has a "job," in case you've been asleep for three years.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 2, 2011)

logical4u said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Preventive medicine saves money in the long run.  I am all for covering birth control.   I can't understand how conservatives could bitch about this, unwanted pregnancy, "welfare babies", and abortion.
> ...



 Non sequitur, usually a last ditch effort when the argument is lost.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 2, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...




Plus, if you don't have a job......what else you going to do all day?


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 2, 2011)

logical4u said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Now you're just grasping at silly straws with barstool idiocy.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 2, 2011)

logical4u said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



I agree that much more oversight is needed, but cutting back on "welfare" programs isn't going to help *that* one iota. The people who are in charge of what nominal oversight already exists are too few and paid too little to do the job adequately. If you cut even more, there will be more fraud and more people able to game the system.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 2, 2011)

logical4u said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Health care is a basic human *necessity*. Without it, nothing else matters; _nothing_ else of any magnitude can be accomplished. The more people who *GET THAT*, we will be on our way to solving the entire problem. Obamacare is a bandaid, just like all the others.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 2, 2011)

masquerade said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The right wing opposes sex education, birth control and abortion
> ...



If sex education isn't taught early, they get it from their peers, often misinformation. Surely you know that. Hell there are stories of eight-year olds raping girls just because they "think" they're suddenly mature because they can get a hard-on. At least kids that young have two sets of information to think about: The truth and the exaggerations heard in the locker room.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 2, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> > Is it "free" bones?
> ...



It must be a state option, because I remember a few years ago there was a big hoopla over that and it was removed from the standard Medicaid guidelines. If states want to pony up for Viagra, I guess they can but I don't think they'd get a waiver or reimbursed.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 2, 2011)

Trajan said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...


----------



## Care4all (Aug 2, 2011)

WillowTree said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...


enough with this continued lie of yours willow.

you have been shown MNAY TIMES OVER that you are lying about 50% of working Americans do not pay federal taxes.

lie lie lie lie and lie.

STOP IT....pretty please willow, STOP LYING.

45% of workers do not pay federal INCOME taxes, but ALL OF THEM, every single one of them, do pay FEDERAL TAXES.  All workers pay Federal Social security taxes, and ALL of them pay Federal Medicare taxes, and near all of them pay Federal Gasoline taxes, and many of them pay Federal Cigarette taxes......

AND, EVERY Couple paying federal income taxes DO NOT PAY ANY FEDERAL INCOME TAXES on their first 20 k earned, with children...no one pays taxes on the first 25-30k earned....

MOST of these people not owing federal income taxes, are getting NOTHING that all the rest of us don't get with Standard and personal deductions.....

yes, a few get the earned income credit, up to the amount they have paid in to social security tax, and NOT A DIME MORE, but these are few and far between....and these people are still paying in for all the other federal taxes listed above.

Income tax collection and social security tax collection revenues are about equal in our federal revenues collected.  And Social security taxes are collected in SURPLUS, and used to fund what income taxes should be paying for....

Plus no one gets away with not paying a portion of every corporation's federal taxes, incorporated in to the price of their products.

So, it is SIMPLY A LIE, that 50% of working Americans do not pay Federal taxes....

Please STOP REGURGITATING THIS LIE.

Care


----------



## BDBoop (Aug 2, 2011)

Obama





> Insurance companies will be required to provide contraception without a copay&#8212;and conservative opposition, while predictable, makes no sense. Amanda Marcotte asks: Don&#8217;t they want to save money?
> 
> /snip
> 
> These new contraception regulations will pay for themselves easily in the short term by reducing the insurance payouts that come along with unintended pregnancies, but insurance companies should expect long-term savings. When children are planned, children are cheaper. As the Guttmacher noted (PDF) in its testimony on these proposed regulations, improved contraception use means women space out their pregnancies more, and putting some time in between pregnancies leads to better birth outcomes with lower medical costs. In addition, women who plan their pregnancies tend to get better prenatal care and are more likely to breast-feed, two behaviors that improve children&#8217;s health outcomes and reduce overall long-term health-care costs.



merged w/existing thread


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Aug 2, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> Obama
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And the Retard in Chief marches on.  Meanwhile, he plunges us trillions of dollars in debt annually, makes a joke of the U.S. on the global stage and dines on Kobe beef.

What a useless shitbag.  '12 can't come soon enough... he's gone.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Aug 2, 2011)

Your like a class clown boop. You post so many meaningless threads just to get attention.


----------



## Dr.House (Aug 2, 2011)

thread merge with the one started YESTERDAY on this?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 2, 2011)

Very good. The beginnings of a rational approach to women's healthcare.

Of course, the local wingnuts are going to have a field day describing why this is so evil. With all that free birth control, might not be any evil abortions to scream about. And your daughter might be screwing around more. LOL


----------



## BDBoop (Aug 2, 2011)

Thank you, whoever merged. I have to search for existing threads every time, not just when I'm not having an "ooh! Shiny!!" moment.


----------



## Trajan (Aug 2, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...


----------



## Trajan (Aug 2, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



do you have your hyperbole card stamped now? is that it?


----------



## Trajan (Aug 2, 2011)

Care4all said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



that is true, its not 50%,  what % do you think it is Care?


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 2, 2011)

jillian said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



Yeah "personal responsibility" to them when it comes to this issue really means "just don't have sex."  

Such realism!


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 2, 2011)

Care4all said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...




The sad thing is that even after this smackdown and others in the past that show her the reason so many fall below the income tax line is because of the BOOOOOOOSSHHH tax cuts that were shoved down our throat she will continue to say the same shit over and over and over again.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 2, 2011)

Trajan said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



It is 50%, pay zero FEDERAL INCOME TAX and we have to give rebates to many of those who pay ZERO FEDERAL INCOME TAX. and since it isn't a lie that then makes you care four nothing a liar.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Careful, you just KNOW there's someone who will take you seriously.


----------



## hellofromwarsaw (Aug 2, 2011)

The amount of Pubdrivel the dupes believe...this will save the gov't BILLIONS of dollars- all part of why NHC will save trilions...gd morons. tyvm


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 2, 2011)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Your like a class clown boop. You post so many meaningless threads just to get attention.



Wow. Don't let the facts get in your way, grampy.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 2, 2011)

Trajan said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



It was more or less posted for Willow's reading pleasure, obviously satirical. She thinks that EVERYTHING in the world that's bad is caused by liberals, including unwed sex.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 2, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



If you make the American Taxpayer pay for your sexual activities you are a whore.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 2, 2011)

WillowTree said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



Taxpayers aren't paying for this any more than anything else insurance covers


----------



## Trajan (Aug 2, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > you guys? Oh, I get it
> ...


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Aug 2, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



No, actually it's called self-accountability and it's quite intelligent and logical.  If they don't do the right thing then they fuck their own life up and that's their problem.  Living in a free country means having the freedom to succeed as well as the freedom to fail.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Aug 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Bristol Palin is raising her child and to my knowledge not collecting from the welfare state to do it.  What's the problem?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Aug 2, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > So does personal responsibility, but I realize that's an anathema to people like you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Quite serious and I never said anything about public assistance.  Perhaps you should read more carefully.  You're not nearly as smart as you think you are.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Aug 2, 2011)

jillian said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Having someone else pick up the tab isn't.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 2, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



I did not mention your "judgement".  I told you of something stated in the Bible.  Hence the quote "G*d hates a coward".
Still didn't answer the question: would you, that is you personally be willing to have your taxes doubled so all people could have health care?

If some one else has to provide something for you, how can it be a "right"?


----------



## hellofromwarsaw (Aug 2, 2011)

Another macho moron...pay $15/mo, save thousands and thousands...and please get rid of your animated signature...


----------



## logical4u (Aug 2, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > The unborn are murdered for the convenience.
> ...



If a baby is growing in the womb and you stop it from growing by KILLING the baby, is that not murder?


----------



## logical4u (Aug 2, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> > Is it "free" bones?
> ...



It is a lot easier for the gov't to supply people with viagra than explain why they are bankrupting the country.  If they didn't supply viagra, there would be a lot more people paying atttention to what the gov't is doing IMHO.


----------



## daveman (Aug 2, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Beats abortions
> ...



I wish your parents had remained celibate.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 2, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Maybe they need to work harder at getting a job instead of working harder to have sex.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Go find a job?????


----------



## daveman (Aug 2, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...


It makes a funny sound when reality and leftist stereotypes collide.

Primetime Live Poll: More Republicans Satisfied With Sex Lives Than Democrats - ABC News
The poll analysis includes a breakdown by many subgroups, including region, age and even political party affiliation, which is the topic of results released today:


 Of those involved in a committed relationship, who is very satisfied with their relationship?

Republicans -- 87 percent; Democrats -- 76 percent

 Who is very satisfied with their sex life?

Republicans -- 56 percent; Democrats -- 47 percent

 The poll analysis also reveals who has worn something sexy to enhance their sex life:
Republicans -- 72 percent; Democrats -- 62 percent

 When asked whether they had ever faked an orgasm, more Democrats (33 percent) than Republicans (26 percent) said they had.​


----------



## Dr Grump (Aug 2, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> It was more or less posted for Willow's reading pleasure, obviously satirical. She thinks that EVERYTHING in the world that's bad is *caused by liberals, including unwed sex*.



Just ask the offspring of that uber 'liberal' Sawah Palin about that....


----------



## Dr Grump (Aug 2, 2011)

logical4u said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Because, you know, there is a job for every person who is unemployed, right?

Illogicial4U indeed...


----------



## logical4u (Aug 2, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



NO, I am repeating history.  Socialism/Communism/Islam all work great until you run out of other people's money.  In the most violent of those, that is where the "gov't" kills those that cannot be taxed any longer, so they murder them and steal any inheritance to give it to the "mob"/legion.

You want to pretend the "wealthy" are shitting money.  They are not.  The feds want it, the states want it, the counties want it, and the cities want it.  And the "lefties" want it.  All of them are saying the same thing: you can afford to give a little more.  The "wealthy" are wondering how they are going to pay their bills.  Their disposable income has been coveted.

If you believe that, then open up your wallet and where it says you can give extra money on your tax forms, DO IT.  Be a leader, show us how it is done.

Otherwise, get your hands (and all the politicians hands) out of other peoples' pockets.   If you leave nothing in reserve (investment cash) the economy will never move.  You want jobs, go make them, stop telling the gov't to rob your neighbor.


----------



## BDBoop (Aug 2, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Bristol Palin is raising her child and to my knowledge not collecting from the welfare state to do it.  What's the problem?



Yeah, she's your typical unwed mother. How much did Candies pay her again?


----------



## daveman (Aug 2, 2011)

chanel said:


> May I change the subject for a moment? Is there a birth control pill/patch for men? Just curious.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 2, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



The pilgrims that came here were a lot tougher than we are now.   When they were left on the shores of this great land, there were no hospitals.  There were no stores.  If they couldn't grow it, make it, or hunt it, they went without.  How is that now when we have all these great things that people want someone else to take care of them (like the slaves were taken care of by their masters)?  People have always died without health care.  They are dropping at a faster rate in those countries that "provide" health care.  Why do you want that here?

If someone else has to provide something "for" you, it is not a "right".  You are taking from someone else if you "force" (tax) them to aid you.


----------



## daveman (Aug 2, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> masquerade said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Yes, there's a lot of really stupid information out there.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 2, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



There are things that can be done to improve yourself.  And there are jobs: maybe not the manager of a multimillion dollar company, maybe not full-time, but there are jobs.  I am seeing more people that will not take a job where I started, because they think it is "beneath" them.  They refuse to "pay their dues" and can't figure out why no one wants to hire them into a leadership position.  Some of them just do not want to "labor".

Having sex where there is a chance of producing a child is irresponsible.  Sex is so much more fun than looking for work.  But lefties know they can always get the gov't (read their neighbors) to "pay their way".


----------



## Dr Grump (Aug 2, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



So are you saying there is a plethora of unemployed people who wake up every day going "ah, I don't think I'll look for work today, I'll have sex instead'? That is your argument?


----------



## Vel (Aug 2, 2011)

Let's see...my insurance premiums increased by $2400.00 this year courtesy of the changes mandated by ObamaCare. I suppose I can expect another hefty increase in my premiums for next year in order to pay for this mandate. I hope all the USMB cheerleaders for this realize that insurance companies are not going to absorb the cost. They will simply pass it on. Perhaps when your employer decides that they can no longer afford to provide your health insurance, some of you might get a clue. This is just another way for this administration to force increases in private insurance so that a public option will start to seem more attractive.
 Just like "energy prices will necessarily skyrocket" in order to advance an agenda, so will health insurance premiums.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Aug 2, 2011)

chanel said:


> But why no copay? Copays and deductibles decrease premiums. Is this going to start a trend - a trend that will raise healthcare costs for everyone? Hmmm. Maybe that's the true intent.



Healthcare cost went up over 125% in the last decade, so healthcare costs going up for everyone, is already a done deal.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Aug 2, 2011)

Vel6377 said:


> *Let's see...my insurance premiums increased by $2400.00 this year courtesy of the changes mandated by ObamaCare*. I suppose I can expect another hefty increase in my premiums for next year in order to pay for this mandate. I hope all the USMB cheerleaders for this realize that insurance companies are not going to absorb the cost. They will simply pass it on. Perhaps when your employer decides that they can no longer afford to provide your health insurance, some of you might get a clue. This is just another way for this administration to force increases in private insurance so that a public option will start to seem more attractive.
> Just like "energy prices will necessarily skyrocket" in order to advance an agenda, so will health insurance premiums.



_"A recent survey of large companies by the National Business Group on Health found that employers estimate their health-care-benefit costs will increase by an average of 8.9% in 2011"  In 2010 premiums went up 7%.

Read more: Health-Insurance Changes for 2011
 Become a Fan of Kiplinger's on Facebook

I think you had better change insurance companies, you're getting taken for a ride.
FYI, insurance premiums have increased by over 120% in the last decade.._


----------



## Vel (Aug 2, 2011)

kiwiman127 said:


> Vel6377 said:
> 
> 
> > *Let's see...my insurance premiums increased by $2400.00 this year courtesy of the changes mandated by ObamaCare*. I suppose I can expect another hefty increase in my premiums for next year in order to pay for this mandate. I hope all the USMB cheerleaders for this realize that insurance companies are not going to absorb the cost. They will simply pass it on. Perhaps when your employer decides that they can no longer afford to provide your health insurance, some of you might get a clue. This is just another way for this administration to force increases in private insurance so that a public option will start to seem more attractive.
> ...


_

Yeah.. the same ride that everyone else purchasing individual coverage is taking. It's the ride that subsidizes all those group plans._


----------



## gwenM (Aug 3, 2011)

This is good news for all women especially mothers. Now, birth control expense is not anymore a financial burden. As an element of health care reform regulation, no insurance company can require that any person have any co-pay whatsoever for birth control medication. Contraception pills will not cost any female with health insurance a dime. I found this here: Insurance companies cannot demand co-pays for birth control. This is a good point for the Obama administration just in case Obama is planning to run again for presidential elections.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 3, 2011)

daveman said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> > May I change the subject for a moment? Is there a birth control pill/patch for men? Just curious.



Hey, wait, I saw this scene at a BDSM party once . . .


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 3, 2011)

gwenM said:


> This is good news for all women especially mothers. Now, birth control expense is not anymore a financial burden. As an element of health care reform regulation, no insurance company can require that any person have any co-pay whatsoever for birth control medication. Contraception pills will not cost any female with health insurance a dime. I found this here: Insurance companies cannot demand co-pays for birth control. This is a good point for the Obama administration just in case Obama is planning to run again for presidential elections.



This sort of attitude and outlook on life is why I keep saying that giving women the vote was a monumental mistake in regards to the good of the nation as a whole.


----------



## BDBoop (Aug 3, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> gwenM said:
> 
> 
> > This is good news for all women especially mothers. Now, birth control expense is not anymore a financial burden. As an element of health care reform regulation, no insurance company can require that any person have any co-pay whatsoever for birth control medication. Contraception pills will not cost any female with health insurance a dime. I found this here: Insurance companies cannot demand co-pays for birth control. This is a good point for the Obama administration just in case Obama is planning to run again for presidential elections.
> ...



You're talking to a spammer. Check their post history.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 3, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > gwenM said:
> ...



I was actually talking more ABOUT her than TO her.


----------



## MeBelle (Aug 3, 2011)

Care4all said:


> the women are paying several thousand dollars a year for their insurance policy....i think the once a year gyno check up should be included in that fee just like a physical would be and all insurance policies that i have had, do cover this annual check up, without deductibles....so that part is nothing new.
> 
> I have no problems with a breast pump being covered in full either.
> 
> BC pills were not covered by insurance at all, in my youth....only the last decade and a half have i seen insurance companies moving to cover them.  so, i think full coverage with no deductible is a reach....but, i'd rather people buying insurance get the full coverage 4 them than making us tax payers pay for them.....



Unlike Medicare paying for the little blue pills ever since they came on the market!!!!
grrrrrrrrrrrr
Almost seems, uh, like, um, discrimination, yeah, that's the word!!


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 3, 2011)

logical4u said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Pilgrims were lucky to survive into their thirties. If they got sick, they died. Most of your children died, if the crops were bad.....you starved. If Indians attacked, you were unprotected

That is why we exist as a society. We rely on the whole to look after the few, the weakest, the struggling. That way, everyone survives

We are stronger as a society than we are as a bunch of rugged individuals


----------



## editec (Aug 3, 2011)

RW has that right.

If it weren't for societies, there would not BE any rugged individuals.

There are no "self made" men.

Everybody is working with and within the confines of the society as a whole.

Some work much harder, some do much better, but NONE did it ALONE.


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 3, 2011)

logical4u said:


> The pilgrims that came here were a lot tougher than we are now.   When they were left on the shores of this great land, there were no hospitals.  There were no stores.  If they couldn't grow it, make it, or hunt it, they went without.  How is that now when we have all these great things that people want someone else to take care of them (like the slaves were taken care of by their masters)?  People have always died without health care.  They are dropping at a faster rate in those countries that "provide" health care.  Why do you want that here?
> 
> If someone else has to provide something "for" you, it is not a "right".  You are taking from someone else if you "force" (tax) them to aid you.



And their life expectancy was 40 years old.  

That's less then the life expectancy in Afghanistan right now.

The Encyclopedia of Aging and The Elderly: life expectancy

You guys are making nonsensical arguments that actually refute your point.  That is, unless you think living to 40 is a good outcome.


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 3, 2011)

Trajan said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 3, 2011)

logical4u said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > chanel said:
> ...



That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Viagra isn't "Soma" (the Soma from the Huxley book and not the actual drug).  It doesn't induce a stupor where people are unable think critically.


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 3, 2011)

logical4u said:


> NO, I am repeating history.  Socialism/Communism/Islam all work great until you run out of other people's money.  In the most violent of those, that is where the "gov't" kills those that cannot be taxed any longer, so they murder them and steal any inheritance to give it to the "mob"/legion.



Wow.  I wasn't aware that "Islam" was an economic philosophy.


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 3, 2011)

Vel6377 said:


> Let's see...my insurance premiums increased by $2400.00 this year courtesy of the changes mandated by ObamaCare. I suppose I can expect another hefty increase in my premiums for next year in order to pay for this mandate. I hope all the USMB cheerleaders for this realize that insurance companies are not going to absorb the cost. They will simply pass it on. Perhaps when your employer decides that they can no longer afford to provide your health insurance, some of you might get a clue. This is just another way for this administration to force increases in private insurance so that a public option will start to seem more attractive.
> Just like "energy prices will necessarily skyrocket" in order to advance an agenda, so will health insurance premiums.



You can prove that your premiums went up by $2400 as a result of "ObamaCare"?


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 3, 2011)

chanel said:


> A manual breast pump costs around $35.  A good electric one is a couple hundred bucks.  If they are "free" who will NOT get the best one they can - whether or not they are breastfeeding.
> 
> I purchased a decent one with my last baby.  I used it about 10 times and then gave it away.  Our landfills will be filling up with unused or underused machines.  People should just rent them.  Where are the environmentalists?



To come back to this issue:  On the first point, if you've ever dealt with government issue of equipment you would know that generally, you get what was made by the lowest bidder.  That means I highly doubt this will be a "breast pump buffet" where people get a choice.  

Secondly:

Study: Lack of breastfeeding costs lives, billions of dollars - CNN


----------



## chanel (Aug 3, 2011)

Breastfeeding is a good thing.  The government need not subsidize every good thing.

Red wine can be good for you too.  Where's my wine check?


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 3, 2011)

chanel said:


> Breastfeeding is a good thing.  The government need not subsidize every good thing.
> 
> Red wine can be good for you too.  Where's my wine check?



Don't go all absurdum ad reductio on me.

If drinking red wine could be shown to save billions of dollars and lives, maybe the government should consider it.  At best though, it causes a modest raise in HDL and you can get that through niacin, which the government does fund.  

So, you know, apples and footballs.


----------



## chanel (Aug 3, 2011)

I would bet that there are more wine drinkers in this country than lactating mothers.  Just a hunch.

Free breast pumps will save billions of dollars?  I'd like to see that research.

A decision to nurse or not is a personal one.  I hated it; as many of women do.  And the price of a pump does not encourage or discourage any female from returning to work.  If they have a job; they can afford one.  $35 for a manual one on Amazon.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 3, 2011)

MeBelle60 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > the women are paying several thousand dollars a year for their insurance policy....i think the once a year gyno check up should be included in that fee just like a physical would be and all insurance policies that i have had, do cover this annual check up, without deductibles....so that part is nothing new.
> ...



Are you saying it's discrimination for Medicare to cover Viagra but not birth control?  Because that makes as much sense as saying it's discrimination for Medicare to cover prostate exams for men, but not women.

Or are you saying what Medicare does or doesn't cover has anything at all to do with what private insurers do and don't cover?  Because that ALSO makes no sense.


----------



## BDBoop (Aug 3, 2011)

I hated it "as many of women do"? Aside from the crap grammar, cite your stats, please.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 3, 2011)

chanel said:


> Breastfeeding is a good thing.  The government need not subsidize every good thing.
> 
> Red wine can be good for you too.  Where's my wine check?



Dark chocolate is very good for the heart.  Where's my Godiva subsidy?


----------



## daveman (Aug 3, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > chanel said:
> ...



That dude ain't gettin' ANYBODY pregnant.  0% failure rate.


----------



## Trajan (Aug 3, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...






I don't know, I framed it as a Question,  I was supposing as in I thought. 

If I recall there was or thought, there was a lot of hub re: the Stupak amendment, which I thought then was crazy because the pres. , I THINK,  or suppose,  cannot sign an exec. order waiving statutes?

and, I am still curious, what is low rent?


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 3, 2011)

Trajan said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



The federal government still does not fund abortion.  I don't really see any point in introducing a hypothetical about that.

Your jab at jillian was pretty low rent, IMO.


----------



## Trajan (Aug 3, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...


----------



## Care4all (Aug 4, 2011)

I see no problem in covering a woman's yearly gyno appointment as part of the policy that these women are paying thousands of dollars a year for....

Why shouldn't young people on insurance get something for themselves?

they are paying for their policy, just like the old man is paying for his policy who gets a 100% paid for PSA test for prostate cancer at the age of 50, or the woman who is over 40 who gets a 100% covered, yearly Pap smear....or the older woman who gets 100% paid for Mammogram each year. 

why shouldn't the younger woman of child bearing years get something for themselves out of the insurance policy they pay for?

*they have to pay more for their insurance for the man getting the PSA test or the older woman getting a mammogram?


----------



## chanel (Aug 4, 2011)

They do care4all. They get childbirth expenses paid for. How much does a C-section cost these days - 20K?

I have no problem with birth control pills being covered under a prescription plan, just like any other drug. But I don't know of any other drug that is "free".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 4, 2011)

Care4all said:


> I see no problem in covering a woman's yearly gyno appointment as part of the policy that these women are paying thousands of dollars a year for....
> 
> Why shouldn't young people on insurance get something for themselves?
> 
> ...



Why are left-leaners so unable to tell the difference between "this is a good idea" and "the government should do this/the government should force others to do this"?


----------



## Care4all (Aug 4, 2011)

chanel said:


> They do care4all. They get childbirth expenses paid for. How much does a C-section cost these days - 20K?
> 
> I have no problem with birth control pills being covered under a prescription plan, just like any other drug. But I don't know of any other drug that is "free".


chanel, the drug is NOT FREE.....it costs these women in their policy price a minimum $5000 a year for their health care policy....

I have no idea why you keep saying this is free....someone is paying the insurance company thousands of dollars for each policy....???

And Vaccines are medicines that do not have deductibles.....


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 4, 2011)

Trajan said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



So you have to go offshore to prove your point?



> Your jab at jillian was pretty low rent, IMO.



humm, I would say that unless you are privy to all of the back history, your comment was presumptuous.[/QUOTE]

Whatever.


----------



## Care4all (Aug 4, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > I see no problem in covering a woman's yearly gyno appointment as part of the policy that these women are paying thousands of dollars a year for....
> ...


if I were a single young woman, is it a good idea that I have to pay for some old man to get his annual PSA test or for some old broad to get her yearly mammogram with no deductible?

that's how policies are set up....what makes the older woman getting her mammogram 100% paid for with no deduction, and that man or woman over 50 getting a colonoscopy with no deductible any different from the young woman getting her annual gyno visit without a deductible?

It's a good idea and should be included in her $5k minimum a year policy....

she is not getting that colonoscopy, and she is not getting yearly mammograms paid for yet in the cost of her policy, she is sharing in paying for those costs for other individuals....?  Why shouldn't she get her annual gyno visit at 100% with no deductibles like all those other folks get their recommended yearly tests with no deductible?

you guys are just bitching for the sake of bitching in my humble opinion and have no idea how your own insurance policies work....


----------



## Trajan (Aug 4, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Whatever.[/QUOTE]

yea, whatever. 

and the forum claims another victim. nice talking to you while it lasted.


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 4, 2011)

Trajan said:


> yea, whatever.
> 
> and the forum claims another victim. nice talking to you while it lasted.



Vaya con Dios.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 4, 2011)

Care4all said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Given that private insurers generally don't cover old people, instead expecting them to go on Medicare, it's highly unlikely that any young person is paying into a policy that also covers seniors.

If you mean "paying for" them in the sense that taxpayer dollars go to paying their Medicare, well, that would be the whole "It's a good idea for them to have it, therefore it's a good idea for the government to do it" syndrome again.

However, you go on to babble about how policies are set up, and once again, you're not getting the difference between "it's a good idea for insurance policies to cover XYZ" and "it's a good idea for the government to FORCE insurance companies to cover it".  It doesn't matter whether it's a good thing for the insurancy company to do or not.  It's ALWAYS a bad idea for the government to be dictating products and prices to the private sector.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 4, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > NO, I am repeating history.  Socialism/Communism/Islam all work great until you run out of other people's money.  In the most violent of those, that is where the "gov't" kills those that cannot be taxed any longer, so they murder them and steal any inheritance to give it to the "mob"/legion.
> ...



Apparently, you are not "aware" of a lot.  Read history, islam is all about taking other cultures' money and subjugating their people.  Islam is more obvious about it, because they have been using the same methods (though now they are using dems/socialist/communist too) for fourteen "hundred" years.  I can see why you missed it.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 4, 2011)

Trajan said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



Low rent is cheap, "ghetto" (only it is made to sound not racist).


----------



## logical4u (Aug 4, 2011)

Care4all said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Yeah, this would be great if these young women were actually paying for it.  The reason it is bothering so many people is because "medicaid" will be paying it (read taxpayer).  The people on "medicaid" will pay NOTHING, NOTHING for it, but we will.


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 4, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Yeah, this would be great if these young women were actually paying for it.  The reason it is bothering so many people is because "medicaid" will be paying it (read taxpayer).  The people on "medicaid" will pay NOTHING, NOTHING for it, but we will.



These regulations pertain to private insurance ("a group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage").


----------



## logical4u (Aug 4, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, this would be great if these young women were actually paying for it.  The reason it is bothering so many people is because "medicaid" will be paying it (read taxpayer).  The people on "medicaid" will pay NOTHING, NOTHING for it, but we will.
> ...



You are right.  Sorry.  It will go on the taxpayer because it will allow the insurance companies to declare bankrupcy.  It is against the Constitution for the gov't to tell a company what services they "must" offer.  
Why is it when it comes to sex the left is all about choice and freedom, but when it comes to others ability to reject those views, it is all about mandates and force?


----------



## St.Blues (Aug 4, 2011)

Nancy Pelosi: We can't tell you what in it until we pass it......... 
It was very bi partisan of the democrats to do this... Now the Dems bitch about the Rep congress.
You know its a show.. Think of DC as a Hollywood full of puppet actors. It doesn't make a difference any more who is a dem or who is a rep. They talk like they hate each other.. its just show time for the cameras while all the while they're fuckin us dearly. Anyone who doesn't agree isn't paying attention.
I'm 53 and watching our country fall into the hands of liars and cheats who want absolute control and they're winning.


----------

