Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And the American Taliban Right fell for it right on queue.
Nah, Rush is a mole. Deep under cover mole
Last week you fascists claimed he was a pimple on the ass of America, now he's a mole..
Can't your handlers make up the hive-mind?
No, but the Catholic church is providing Viagra as that too is part of the healthcare they provide through insurance.
Why is that not mentioned?
Does it not strike you as odd that it is only women who are under attack by the right? Not sure what Goebbels has to do with the lack of support and consideration for a woman's personal life?
Let us not forget about all the GOP politicians that want to have sex without getting their interns pregnant.....
Uncensored, I get the part about saying the government doesnt have a right to tell an employer that they cant ban their employees from receiving safe and effective contraceptive I get that you can save the lecture, because I sympathize and understand that point of view. Its completely valid.
Whats not valid is when people take the approach, why should I have to pay out of pocket so that you can get contraceptives, so you can have sex ie the financial approach. They claim that by adding BC pill coverage as an insurance option, this is going to somehow drive premiums up.
I disagree.
I think that it will drive premiums down, because it will reduce the amount of UNWANTED pregnancies. Why would this drive premiums down? Because a pregnant woman is much costlier to an insurance company than a non-pregnant woman on the pill.
The less costlier people you have in your pool, the less your premiums will be overall.
So thats my point.
Do you agree with my reasoning?
I don't agree with the idea of forcing insurance companies to "have to do things" (as that can get dangerous), but it's my opinion that the insurance company is only setting itself up for higher costs down the road if they do not offer this option.
Everyone says "I don't want to pay for her pill"! But guess what, does anyone realize that means you're probably going to pay for her baby?
The pill falls under the category of a "preventative" in my book. Giving birth, having a baby, and all that stuff that comes along with it will make you a much more expensive customer over the next 18 years vs if you were to simply take the pill for the next 18 years.
An emphasis on good preventative care and procedure will reduce health care costs across the entire system.
Unfortunately, the Fluke argument has been politicized into oblivion, and instead of talking about what we should be talking about - what good preventative care can do for our system (and I'm not saying we need a mandate for this either) - we're talking about Rush saying the word "slut" in an offensive manner. We always get sidetracked into pointlessness - it's the American way!
Let's all just hold hands and attack each other, starting with an Ann Coulter hatorade article. Ready? Oh, you've all started w/o me. : (
STARTING with Ann Coulter? No, sorry. This started with "I need to fuck, and you need to pay for it. If you don't want to pay for my fucking, you hate women!"
Cecilie Let's frame this up so you can understand it.
Insurance pool is 10 people, and 1 is a woman who doesnt want to get pregnant. Shes going to have sex, no way you can stop her (sorry, its America).
Would you rather:
(A) Pay a slightly higher premium so that the woman can have birth control and remain unpregnant ($1,000 cost to insurance).
(B) Pay a much higher premium when that woman becomes pregnant, and uses insurance to cover all pregnancy costs for that year ($50,000+ cost to insurance)
Get it?
You're going to have to pay for her sex either way, whether you like it or not. And because we can't escape this fact, I'd argue the much smarter option is (A), because it's drastically cheaper.
Why would you pick (B), and why do you think you're somehow exempt from paying for her pregnancy bills?
Now I sympathize why people would be opposed to the gov't forcing the insurance company to do something, but you don't take that approach. You take the approach of "why do I have to pay for her....", which I just want to let you know is a weak and crappy one (in my view).
.
.
.
.
Jesus Christ......it's just birth control, it's been around for fifty years
Why the sudden GOP outrage that women actually want to have sex without getting pregnant?
The right seems to believe that all decisions regarding procreation and women's health should be determined by middle-aged, white males.
No, but the Catholic church is providing Viagra as that too is part of the healthcare they provide through insurance. Why is that not mentioned? Does it not strike you as odd that it is only women who are under attack by the right? Not sure what Goebbels has to do with the lack of support and consideration for a woman's personal life?
****************************************************************
Viagra is not for the same purpose as birth control pills or any other form of birth control. The Catholic Church is morally opposed to anything that stops procreation from happening. Any interference with that goes against what they believe to be God's natural law. Viagra on the other hand is for something else entirely and not necessarily against what the Catholic Church believes in. People who compare the two and put them on the same "level" so to speak are obviously ignorant.
Auto insurance and homeowners and all forms of insurance is the same way.Either way, someone else is paying for it.
No they're not, genius.
Insurance companies charge premiums. Then they pay out claims out of the premiums collected.
It is truly astounding how many conservatives on this board have proven in the last week or two that they do not comprehend that simplest of concepts.
How can you not know that? Seriously, could you answer that question?
Are you under the impression insurance companies keep SEPARATE records deducting the cost of medical care from the individual's premiums -as if they stop coverage once the amount reaches what you paid in your premiums or something? Sorry, premiums go into the company's general revenues and they only stop paying if you hit your lifetime maximum in benefits which is many times more than all premiums you will ever pay.
There is no such thing as "free" -someone ends up footing the bill. This entire exercise is about who foots that bill -those who want birth control pills. Or those who don't. That is what this is ALL ABOUT -because there is NO SUCH THING AS "FREE". Obama says those who don't want birth control pills should be forced to pay for them so those who do want them don't have to. That is it in a nutshell. It is forcing those who don't want birth control pills to pay for them. It means their own premiums go up in order to pay for the "free" birth control pills someone else wants. So YES, it is actually being paid for by other people, most of whom don't want birth control pills. That cost is going to be in the MILLIONS. Which is definitely NOT free.
Seriously I'm amazed at how little liberals understand about how insurance works. On top of which I wonder about their ability to spot a contrived, phony, manufactured issue for what it really is. Because THIS is a totally manufactured phony ass issue. If liberals believe it is so important to ORDER employers and insurance companies to provide "free" ANYTHING -why birth control pills of all possible things? Why not "free" HEART MEDICATION instead? Or "free" insulin? Or "free" high blood pressure medications? Or "free" LIFE SAVING TREATMENT OF ANY KIND? Instead it is once again the left's agenda of forcing Americans to subsidize social immorality by insisting women have a "right" to fuck carefree on the dime of someone else. Obama's choice in what he ORDERED to be "free" and even went so far as to order that NO co-pay may be charged so that the people who want them are at least paying more for them than I am -speaks VOLUMES here. Same old shit it always is with liberals.
Of ALL the very real, very serious and even dangerous issues confronting this country at this time-a liberal needs to explain why they SUDDENLY fell in line with an issue that was totally nonexistent just a few weeks ago and now want to pretend birth control pills is a national issue that supersedes all others? Hmm? This is the kind of thing that only reinforces my already very low opinion about the intelligence and critical thinking skills of liberals anyway. If this is what Obama thinks is going to motivate his extremist base and get them out by the millions on election day -he badly miscalculated and in fact took a major hit in the polls from women themselves because of this bullshit manufactured issue. Normal people know in the grand scheme of things, THIS is not what the election will turn on whatsoever. But in the world of liberal extremists who believe people are in general stupid and easily led around by the nose, it once again highlights what a disgustingly low opinion the left has of people and in particular women -as to believe their vote could be bought for a lousy $9 a month. Oh sure, offer women the opportunity to fuck more carefree at the expense of someone else - and they will overlook our unsustainable debt, the impending collapse of scores of unaffordable entitlement programs and Congress' nonstop out of control spending spree that has put this country on the fast track to end up exactly like Greece. Just a bunch of dumb bitches in the world of liberals -just cows who will MOOO on command, right? Except they didn't and they won't.
The right seems to believe that all decisions regarding procreation and women's health should be determined by middle-aged, white males.
Incorrect. As usual. It's more about mandates that force others to pay for it. You try to make it sound as though middle-aged white males are keeping contrceptives from women. Which is simply not true adn worse, trying to move the subject to something it is not.
Typical progressive.
The advisory panel, for the Blunt amendment, was certainly all middle-aged white males. As for mandates to the healthcare insurance industry, this is nothing new. Telling that industry what baseline services they must provide is a necessary and just function of government.
But your logic is lacking. Should interstate providers of healthcare insurance not be forced to provide prostate screening, because women have no need of it? That's your essential argument. The bottom line remains. The only prescription drugs that the right wingers want excluded from the health insurance baseline is female contraceptives.
Viagra is generally used as a recreational drug not a procreational one.No, but the Catholic church is providing Viagra as that too is part of the healthcare they provide through insurance. Why is that not mentioned? Does it not strike you as odd that it is only women who are under attack by the right? Not sure what Goebbels has to do with the lack of support and consideration for a woman's personal life?
****************************************************************
Viagra is not for the same purpose as birth control pills or any other form of birth control. The Catholic Church is morally opposed to anything that stops procreation from happening. Any interference with that goes against what they believe to be God's natural law. Viagra on the other hand is for something else entirely and not necessarily against what the Catholic Church believes in. People who compare the two and put them on the same "level" so to speak are obviously ignorant.
The right seems to believe that all decisions regarding procreation and women's health should be determined by middle-aged, white males.
Incorrect. As usual. It's more about mandates that force others to pay for it. You try to make it sound as though middle-aged white males are keeping contrceptives from women. Which is simply not true adn worse, trying to move the subject to something it is not.
Typical progressive.
But I think what's lost in this whole debate is - would you rather pay for the woman's pill, or the woman's pregnancy? Both are covered by insurance, and one of them costs a whole lot more than the other.
This concept seems to be lost by the "typical right winger".
Neither.
If you are covered by medical insurance, you have no choice. Your insurance company will pay for her pregnancy. Do you realize that?
"Ann Coulter" and "reality" should never be used in the same sentence. Just sayin' . . .
Jesus Christ......it's just birth control, it's been around for fifty years
Why the sudden GOP outrage that women actually want to have sex without getting pregnant?
The right seems to believe that all decisions regarding procreation and women's health should be determined by middle-aged, white males.
And apparently, so do you, since you're not a woman, and yet you're still talking about it.
Incorrect. As usual. It's more about mandates that force others to pay for it. You try to make it sound as though middle-aged white males are keeping contrceptives from women. Which is simply not true adn worse, trying to move the subject to something it is not.
Typical progressive.
But I think what's lost in this whole debate is - would you rather pay for the woman's pill, or the woman's pregnancy? Both are covered by insurance, and one of them costs a whole lot more than the other.
This concept seems to be lost by the "typical right winger".
What's lost in your blather is that I'd rather it continue being MY CHOICE which I'd rather, and the choice of the other individual citizens involved.
You really have trouble focusing on the topic, don't you?
Jesus Christ......it's just birth control, it's been around for fifty years
Why the sudden GOP outrage that women actually want to have sex without getting pregnant?
Let us not forget about all the GOP politicians that want to have sex without getting their interns pregnant.....
The right seems to believe that all decisions regarding procreation and women's health should be determined by middle-aged, white males.
And apparently, so do you, since you're not a woman, and yet you're still talking about it.
My position ought to be clear enough. Women's medical decisions, including reproductive rights, ought to be left up to the woman. If she wants to include others in helping her make that decision, be it husband, church, politician, that's up to her.
