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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Ultimately, insurers would rather be able to force people to comply with their edicts, which is why they backed Obamacare because the government is the only entity with the power to enforce compliance. How long do you think it will be before some progressive decides to require people to use contraception for the public good?
you get more stupid by the post.
google non profit
NOn-profit is one of those big lies. They call them "budget surpluses" such as "The budget surplus from teh school means we can buy new Stained Glass Windows for the Church.
Probably should replace this one.
Stained glass windows are usually bought by family members in memoriam for someone, which is why tiny have those tiny little dedication plaques under them.
Ultimately, insurers would rather be able to force people to comply with their edicts, which is why they backed Obamacare because the government is the only entity with the power to enforce compliance. How long do you think it will be before some progressive decides to require people to use contraception for the public good?
Frankly, some people I see in line using food stamps with six out of control kids running amok where no two of them had the same sperm donor, I kind of wish the government would require these people to use birth control for the public good.
My point was, though, that the insurance companies really don't have a problem with this ruling. The Church does because, honestly, they have a clergy that lives in mortal fear someone out there might be enjoying themselves.
Well, if insurance companies had their way, they'd just collect premiums and never pay for any treatments.
But you know, we really should make them do what they promise to do, like any other business.
So if we are really going to be a bunch of meanyheads and make them do what they promised to do, which one do you think would sound more cost effective to them.
Because they've kind of been getting a free ride by people paying out of pocket for their own reproductive health costs.
Keep painting yerself into a corner. It's fun to watch you self-destruct...no...really...NOn-profit is one of those big lies. They call them "budget surpluses" such as "The budget surplus from teh school means we can buy new Stained Glass Windows for the Church.
Probably should replace this one.
Stained glass windows are usually bought by family members in memoriam for someone, which is why tiny have those tiny little dedication plaques under them.
So I have to wonder who paid for that one...
Yes, the Church IS still in the business of selling indulgences, I see.
And your "free market capitalism" has resulted in a population who lives not as long and not as healthy as industrialized western nations with national heath care? That's a failure as a society.
obama caves again
Nazi!
yatzee
Nazi!
yatzee
Ralph and Potsie
Umm, not really.
$300.00 for birth control or $10,000 for an unplanned pregnancy that requires a Caesarian Section? You tell me which an insurance company would rather pay for.
Let me see if I can get this through that hard mass you call a head.
If the insurer provides contraceptive coverage, and the women actually goes to the doctor, gets it, and continues to refill her prescription every month, and then grinds up the pills and uses them to scrub her sink, the insurance company still has to pay for them, and it is still on the hook for the pregnancy that happens because she doesn't actually take the pills, even if she has a seriously complicated pregnancy that results in hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional medical expenses.
Would the insurer like to be able to force women to take the pill instead of getting pregnant? Of course. Can they? Not at this point, but give it time under the world you are advocating and watch it happen.
Okay, now your arguments are getting truly bizarre. Do you really think their are women using their birth control pills as a bathroom cleanser? Do you really think anyone is taking time off work to see a doctor to get pills they don't want, just to screw with an insurance company? Really?
Ultimately, insurers would rather be able to force people to comply with their edicts, which is why they backed Obamacare because the government is the only entity with the power to enforce compliance. How long do you think it will be before some progressive decides to require people to use contraception for the public good?
Frankly, some people I see in line using food stamps with six out of control kids running amok where no two of them had the same sperm donor, I kind of wish the government would require these people to use birth control for the public good.
My point was, though, that the insurance companies really don't have a problem with this ruling. The Church does because, honestly, they have a clergy that lives in mortal fear someone out there might be enjoying themselves.
And your "free market capitalism" has resulted in a population who lives not as long and not as healthy as industrialized western nations with national heath care? That's a failure as a society.
The insurers don't have a problem with the ruling because they know they will be able to get the $3 billion it will cost by raising premiums.
Bullshit.And your "free market capitalism" has resulted in a population who lives not as long and not as healthy as industrialized western nations with national heath care? That's a failure as a society.
Ever notice that the only time that a conservative references The New York Times is when it says something bad about Obama?
Do I think women use their pills to clean? Not really.
Do I think there are women who get the pills and end up not taking them? I know there are, I actually met one.
Ever notice that the only time that a conservative references The New York Times is when it says something bad about Obama?
