Ya see Tam...this is what is wrong with America today. The government is spending all of this money on frivolous green energy when the real role of the federal government should be to hunt women down for having abortions and trying to get contraception.
<<<The government is spending all of this money on frivolous green energy when the real role of the federal government should be to hunt women down for having abortions and trying to get contraception.>>>MustbeFriday, honestly, are you some paranoid nut case with tin foil on your head? I mean honestly.Let me know one, just ONE example of the government hunting down women for having abortions and trying to get contraception.Last I looked, you can go over the counter at Kmart, or walk into any doctor's office in America and be inundated with birth control.Abortion, that is a State issue, restricted by Roe v. Wade. Let me know of any such demand not being met.And let me know when Romney comes with the gestapo to take said women to concentration camps and retrains them with the rhythm method.God, paranoid and delusional...Tinker
Let me know one, just ONE example of the government hunting down womenI will give you one recent example:http://www.mantecabulletin.com/section/142/article/39765/From Obama's Democratic strategist (HILIARY Rosen):"His wife has actually never worked a day in her life," Rosen said. "She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of women in this country are facing." She's a managing director of SKD Knickerbocker, a communications and public relations firm she joined in 2010 that has been paid $120,000 by the Democratic National Committee in this election cycle, financial disclosure records show. A party official said the services were provided by former Obama adviser Anita Dunn, another managing director at the firm. Want to know what Democrats think of women???? It seems that having children is not deserving of respect.....maybe that explains their obsession with Obamascare paying for birth control??Rosen says it all!!!Women unite against this outrage.
Tinker, do you have your eyes shut? All over this country there are legislatures trying to make abortion illegal. Is it Arkansas where there is now only one provider in the entire state and they have just passed a law that may drive that one out of business? Have you missed that just because birth control may be widely sold, that one still has to get the prescription and one still has to pay for it ... which can be a problem if one's health coverage doesn't cover it.
Duma, apparently you have let yourself get suckered in by the media on this one. If one sees the quote in context, it is quite clear that Rosen meant that Ann Romney had no experience with the world of working women, not that Ann Romney had never done any work. Frankly, I'll bet she didn't have to work very hard with those kids, having every kind of help she could want, but that isn't the point because that's not what Rosen was talking about.Here's the context:ANDERSON COOPER: Hilary, to the Romney camp's point ... they're focusing on the economy, and that's what women overwhelmingly say they really care about in poll after poll. Whether it's a typical pattern or not, women are seeing jobs come back much more slowly than men are. Is there anything really wrong, then, with reaching out to women on an issue that they care about, on the economy? HILARY ROSEN, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, first, can we just get rid of this word "war" on women? The Obama campaign does not use it. President Obama does not use it. This is something that the Republicans are accusing people of using, but they're actually the one spreading it. With respect to economic issues, I think actually that Mitt Romney is right, that ultimately, women care more about the economic well-being of their families and the like. But there's -- but he doesn't connect on that issue either. What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying, "Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues. And when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing." Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and how do we -- why we worry about their future. So I think it's -- yes, it's about these positions and, yes, I think there will be a war of words about the positions, but there's something much more fundamental about Mitt Romney. Because he seems so old-fashioned when it comes to women. And I think that comes across. And I think that that's going to hurt him over the long term. He just doesn't really see us as equal.
I read what she said and it isn't favorable to women period. Your commentary is further disrespect making "ass"umptions of what she did or didn't go through raising kids, etc.Similarly to the other "Hiliary" who was ashamed to sit home and bake cookies.......see the trend amongst you liberals?Instead, extremists issue on paying for women's birth control was a pure political stunt with no rational economic principle to justify it.There is simply no reason to "pay" for birth control in a country that is desperate to afford health care. Shall Obamascare pay for trojans as well?Rosen's commentary is further evidence of your disdain for women in general.
Duma, your position is so ludicrous, that it isn't even worth responding to. It reminds me of the the Romney "I'm rubber; you're glue" approach to trying to deflect valid criticisms.
Duma, your position is so ludicrous, that it isn't even worth responding to. It reminds me of the the Romney "I'm rubber; you're glue" approach to trying to deflect valid criticisms. When you post valid criticism, let me know.Explain why Obamscare must cover womens' birth control.Explain why Romney's wife didn't work or doens't understand women's plight in this country.I know you think the two issues above are "ludicrous"......that is the liberal way......utter disrepect for women!
Explain why Obamscare must cover womens' birth control.Because it is a health issue? Why should it be excluded? Do you want to exclude Viagra?Explain why Romney's wife didn't work or doens't understand women's plight in this country.Explain how raising children without holding a job anywhere qualifies one as a spokesperson for women in the workforce. Isn't one of Romney's criticisms of Obama that he hasn't held any good old fashioned capitalist jobs?
Time to rename this board to something more appropriate, I think......
Wow!I thought the info provided in the link was worth talking about.....
Explain why Obamscare must cover womens' birth control.Because it is a health issue? Why should it be excluded? Do you want to exclude Viagra?It is NOT a health issue......it is a birth control issue. Viagra is not similar in that this is a medication given for a tool that doesn't work properly. Birth control is working properly.The more appropriate parallel would be that men should be able to charge in condoms.It should be excluded without question......we are having discussions in this country about life and death health care that is unaffordable and you liberals want to give free birth control. This was a pure political ploy plain and simple. There is NO compelling healthcare need. Condoms, birthcontrol pills......go ahead but its your dime.....not the taxpayer.Explain why Romney's wife didn't work or doesn't understand women's plight in this country.Explain how raising children without holding a job anywhere qualifies one as a spokesperson for women in the workforce. Isn't one of Romney's criticisms of Obama that he hasn't held any good old fashioned capitalist jobs?Exactly what did Romney's wife say that deserved the liberals ire???You have no idea what her life was like or how much support she had at home for her large family. Just because people have some money doesn't mean their lives are that much easier. It some ways, it could be more complex.Bringing in Obama's complete lack of experience has nothing to do with the MRS..........she is not running for office.......he is. So yes, Obama's lack of experience is germane but not Mrs. Romney.But let's get back to your original statement:Duma, your position is so ludicrous, that it isn't even worth responding toIt seems pretty clear you are the ridiculous one......Viagra = birth control????? Romney's wife can't comment because Obama didn't have experience?????This is why your intent here is unwelcomed. You just obfuscate and distort the truth even when it is smacking you in the face.You are extremist to the core!!!
Sure crapped up this thread, didn't it.If you did want to talk about it, I would suggest starting a new thread for the purpose.
I'd like to know if their method of capturing carbon dioxide is practical for large-scale biofule manufacting. The last method I knew was to somehow capture it at power plants and transport to these algae farms. It seems to me algae is the most promising form of biofuel there is. But the problem is being able to grow enough. It already has several factors going for it. It is fast growing, and has a higher concentration of mass that can be turned into biofuel, as it does not grow stems or leaves, and takes a lot less land than other plantlife currently being used.
It is NOT a health issue......it is a birth control issue. Viagra is not similar in that this is a medication given for a tool that doesn't work properly. Birth control is working properly.BS, Duma. Putting hormones in one's body long term is very, very much a health issue. Moreover, lots of women are taking them for hormone regulation, not sex. Not to mention that conception and birth are dramatically medical issues.Exactly what did Romney's wife say that deserved the liberals ire???What ire? All I heard is someone reacting to Romney referring to his wife as if she was some great source on women's economic issues. Now, if she was a Ph.D. in economics, that might make some sense. This isn't a reaction to anything that Ann Romney said at all.You are extremist to the core!!!The more you say, the more it is clear that you are not the pretend moderate independent you like to claim to be. Among other things, one would expect someone in the middle to find good things and bad things about both sides, but you are so incredibly polarized against Obama that nothing he ever does is right and so extreme as to be unthinkable, even though there are lots of people left of him ... people who aren't even left enough to be some mild favor of socialists ... who are pissed with him because he isn't left enough.To me, just on the surface, this means one of two things:1. You aren't anywhere near as centrist as you claim to be; or2. You have some reason for unreasonably hating Obama that goes beyond actual beliefs.
BS, Duma. Putting hormones in one's body long term is very, very much a health issueYou are ever the desperate extremist liberal!First you argue that Repubs are hunting down uteruses and use the contraception issue in support. Then you argue that viagra is covered so the BC pill should be. Now you argue that because a women is ingestion hormones in her body (the very same ones she already produces herself), that justifies tax dollars going to Big Governments mandate for insurance coverage.By your specious argument, my baby aspirin should be covered. My trojans should be covered. My vitamins should be covered. My protein powder should be covered......and so on.This was a PURE POLITICAL addendum to the Obamascare fiasco.....plain and simple.In your world, pregnant women who care for their kids are to be condemned. Only neutered women that burn bras and hail to the Obamachief are to be praised......the rest are ignorant.Sorry......you are shameful!
Because it is a health issue? Why should it be excluded? Do you want to exclude Viagra?I am all for dumping Viagra from healthcare coverage. And birth control should NOT be covered if it's for the sake of birth control. That said, my wife has been on birth control for a couple of decades now because it's been shown to reduce the risk of ovarian cancer - a cancer that claimed her mother. So, recognize, there are legitimate medical reasons for birth control...
So, recognize, there are legitimate medical reasons for birth control... ---Preventing pregnancy is a completely legitimate medical reason for birth control.
So, recognize, there are legitimate medical reasons for birth control... Preventing pregnancy is a completely legitimate medical reason for birth control. The issue isn't really whether there should be contraceptives or who has a right to use them.The issue is who has the obligation to pay for it.IMO, patients should have responsibility of some amount to pay. When we took that responsibility away from the patient and doctor any years ago, and gave it to insurance companies.......medical care costs skyrocketed.The BC pill issue is a mere political stunt by liberals.....plain to see.....tesifying before Congress on a women's right to be paid for contraception????? Come on!
Actually, I do think trojans should be covered. Birth control of all forms should be covered ... not because it enables sex, because the sex is going to happen anyway, but because it prevents unwanted births. Nothing we have considered even slightly approaches the consequences of an unwanted birth.And hey, there is an argument for covering vitamins and the like too.
And birth control should NOT be covered if it's for the sake of birth control.Why?If a person is not ready for kids, they should have to abstain or use a less sure method? When the consequence of error is an unwanted child?
If a person is not ready for kids, they should have to abstainYep. It's called personal responsibility. You should try it sometime...
<<<If a person is not ready for kids, they should have to abstainYep. It's called personal responsibility. You should try it sometime...>>>What is a person suppose to buy for themselves? We have to buy birth control for all, next will be food for all, shoes for all, clothes for all, cars for all, houses for all, helmets for all, exercise equipment for all, companion animals for all....name it.They are health related in very rational ways, guess one at a time as politicians promise something new each and every election cycle as the previous promises are paid for.As Duma says, we cannot afford it, and yet we keep expanding what we are entitled to, more and more and more while empoverishing ourselves more and more, with unintended consequences ignored, personal responsibility out the window, and yes, socialism and all that comes with that.There is no end to this line of thought, no end to the power of government, other than government is now the official church of the country, as it can even override the right of a church, profoundly and honestly held belief, in lieu of some politicans desire to buy votes and create a wedge issue.No, there is no crisis of some inabiliyt for people to buy birth control, no compelling reason for government to have to pay for it, even over the religious belief of millions of Americans, so call it what it is, socialism...when the government has the power to give you everything, it has the power to take everything from you as well...Yes, another line from the video Duma linked us to, and it is so true.Tinker
exercise equipment for allI can honestly see tamhas saying the government should provide free exercise equipment (or at the very least gym memberships). I just remind myself he's not an elected official so it doesn't really affect anything.
You recognize that a significant number of those people who are not ready for kids are MARRIED?
This "if we do X, then we have to do everything" is complete BS. We set barriers and limits all the time. We decide "this is about health", "this has societal impacts", "this is something a kind culture will do", and we also decide that lots and lots of things are outside this boundary. Really, we are a long, long way from everyone to their own devices as a cultural norm, not only now but for hundreds of years.And, frankly, buying birth control for people is a net savings!!! Much cheaper than dealing with the kids, especially unwanted kids.
You recognize that a significant number of those people who are not ready for kids are MARRIED? As if marital status is even relevant to whether or not government should be obligated to give someone contraceptives/birth control.
As Duma says, we cannot afford it, and yet we keep expanding what we are entitled to, more and more and more while empoverishing ourselves more and more, with unintended consequences ignored, personal responsibility out the window, and yes, socialism and all that comes with that.How come we never hear "we cannot afford it" when it comes to military spending? How come we never hear "unintended consequences" when it comes to military spending?Every frigging time some crisis comes up (Think Bosnia & Libya) it's always "the U.S. is the only country with the capabilities to deal with it" so it's off to war we go, (with the accompanying increased spending) followed by the need to replenish our capabilities while "impoverishing ourselves more and more".I'd like to think that it is a case of unintended consequences, but some times I wonder if it isn't a case of big out of control government engaged in redistribution of wealth.Sound familiar? :<)B
The BC pill issue is a mere political stunt by liberals.....plain to see.....tesifying before Congress on a women's right to be paid for contraception????? Come on! --If it was a political stunt, it sure was effective in highlighting how out of touch the republicans are vs. mainstream thinking on issues related to contraception and fertility. I think the republicans would have a much greater chance at winning the presidential election in the fall if their primary candidates hadn't espoused such extremist viewpoints on contraception, vaginal ultrasounds, etc. These issues are not insignificant to female voters, it's the female vote that will lose Romney the election in the fall according to current polls. It certainly is influencing my thinking as an independent.As for whether or not it makes sense for contraception to be included in a package of health care--is that even worthwhile getting into those nuances given that there is not agreement on whether or not health care itself should be funded?
And, frankly, buying birth control for people is a net savings!!! Much cheaper than dealing with the kids, especially unwanted kids.I'm really trying to resist the smarta$$ed urge to respond to what tamhas has set himself up for with this statement...
<<<How come we never hear "we cannot afford it" when it comes to military spending? How come we never hear "unintended consequences" when it comes to military spending?>>>Seriously, your equating free birth control for all with national defense...got it.Thanks for that serious discussion...I'm sure birth control would have kept the Soviets at bay (too busy enjoying themselves with free contraceptives as they crossed the border), and of course will appease the desires of the riled up Islamists who would otherwise be bent on flying more airplanes into buildings, derivign nuclear weapons...yada yada you know....Got it B.Choice is rather stark this election cycle, ain't it.Btw/in Africa, it is the condom, not the pill, that is of real value given the heterosexual AIDS crisis on the continent, but not the proper wedge voter for this War on Women, now is it.Tinker
Thanks for that serious discussion..You want to talk about birth control as if covering it, or not, makes a lick of difference in the grand scheme of things but then you turn around and lecture me about getting serious...yeah got it.I'm sure birth control would have kept the Soviets at bayThe Soviets were "kept at bay" by the simple concept of MAD which served us well for 50 years. Once that money was spent much of the money spent since has been pissed away with very little IMO to show for it.The Russians still have their nukes.The Chinese still have their nukes.It didn't keep North Korea, Pakistan,India and quite possibly Iran from acquiring there's.It did nothing to prevent 9-11 and quite possibly contributed to making us the target. (When you get beyond utterly insane belief & behavior)On the other hand we are the only nation on earth that has found ourselves in a nearly continuous state of war my entire life.KoreaVietnam GrenadaPanamaBosnia and HerzegovinaIraq ISomaliaAfghanistanIraq IILibyaWould you care to point to even one of those wars beyond perhaps Bosnia that made any meaningful difference, let alone meeting the standard of keeping us safer.What I see is more a case of "If you build it they will come."Nice plan if you are a baseball fan, not so much when it comes to war.Choice is rather stark this election cycle, ain't it.When it comes to funding the war machine, sadly not all that much from my perspective. B
Point being, you are expecting people to be married and abstaining if they are not emotionally or economically ready for children ... or even just don't want them. Not going to happen. The predictable result is unwanted children. The health cost of that to both mother and the child which would not otherwise exist dwarfs the cost of the birth control. Birth control should be supported not because it enables sex without consequences, but because it substantially reduces the cost burden on the health care system.
Point being, you are expecting people to be married and abstaining if they are not emotionally or economically ready for children ... or even just don't want them. Not going to happen.The predictable result is unwanted childrenNow that we all understand how you were born.....So BIG GOVERMENT should subsidize poor planning......got it.Repeat after me.......The Era of BIG Government is Over!Stop this madness......THE ERA OF BIG GOVERNMENT is OVER!By WIlliam Jefferson Clinton.......who at least knew how to pivott.
This is NOT subsidizing poor planning. This is investing a small amount to save much more later.Shouted slogans don't make for a very interesting conversation.
This is NOT subsidizing poor planning. This is investing a small amount to save much more later.<?i>Oh really...prove it!I suppose the female liberal activist attorney who testified before Congress regarding paying for her birth control......she is your target demographics right?Because an attorney cannot afford birth control......got it.The Era of Big of Government is Over!Bill Clinton knew better........and he had all the more reason to assure birth control ;)
A point being missed here that also has nothing to do with investing is that hormone replacement in the form of birth control is often prescribed to women strictly for health related reasons other then birth control.James
Sandra Fluke is a law **student**, not an attorney.She is only a part of the demographic by virtue of being female, not by the archetype demographic being law students. Also note that birth control pills are often prescribed for reasons other than controlling birth. Why should any of those prescriptions be treated any differently than any other medication? What business of yours is it to get between the doctor and the patient that way?As for the costs, you surely are kidding, right? The cost of raising a child to 18 is over $200,000. That's a lot of birth control pills! Even the cost of health insurance for the child is likely to be $1000 or more a year, not to mention the out of pocket. And, of course, even once you have the child and are paying for the first one, either one stops having sex or one needs the birth control to prevent a second. We are talking many orders of magnitude. Not to mention the cost of the pregnancy alone and the health cost of pregnancy risks.
A point being missed here that also has nothing to do with investing is that hormone replacement in the form of birth control is often prescribed to women strictly for health related reasons other then birth control.James Good point James and one would expect that indication to be covered under health insurance since it is health issue.But family planning is not a health insurance issue to be subsidized by Big Government taxation cramdown Obamascare.All this may be mute since the SCOTUS is likely to strike down the mandate but we shall know for sure around June this year.
<< Birth control should be supported not because it enables sex without consequences, but because it substantially reduces the cost burden on the health care system. >>tamhas is absolutely right on this point.The ultimate form of birth control (tubal ligation) is fully subsidized by federal dollars (here in California, it's called Medi-Cal).........at around $12,000 per procedure.The attendnet savings in caring for more (clearly "unwanted") children far exceed this initial outlay.It is preventive medicine at its "finest". Alan
What is the relative cost of tubal ligation vs other, less dramatic forms?
As for the costs, you surely are kidding, right? The cost of raising a child to 18 is over $200,000. That's a lot of birth control pills! Even the cost of health insurance for the child is likely to be $1000 or more a year, not to mention the out of pocket. And, of course, even once you have the child and are paying for the first one, either one stops having sex or one needs the birth control to prevent a second. We are talking many orders of magnitude. Not to mention the cost of the pregnancy alone and the health cost of pregnancy risks.Still preaching children are mistakes, are we? Based on cost, are you? Well, for each birth controlled baby, that's one less future tax payer...something libretards should loathe...
Still preaching children are mistakes, are we?What ARE you talking about? I have talked only about wanted versus unwanted children. If they are wanted, then fine, one has accepted the consequences. If they are not wanted, the consequences are there regardless, to both the individuals and society.
<< What is the relative cost of tubal ligation vs other, less dramatic forms? >>Good question. I don't know the cost of decades worth of birth control pills off the top of my head.The real difference is that (for all intents and purposes) a tubal ligation is a permanent solution. It's a fixed cost with a fixed outcome. (Sorry, but I couldn't resist. Hard not to slip in the word "fixed" a couple times when discussing birth control)Alan
It's a fixed cost with a fixed outcome.And thus a good solution for someone who is sure that they never want any [more] kids, especially since it avoids on-going dosing of the body with hormones, but not a good solution for someone who is thinking "not now, someday".
As far as new paradigms in birth control this solves the "not now someday" option. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03/male-birth-control-...
Or, *might* depending on clinical trials and such ..."Researchers are hopeful that the procedure will be on the market in the U.S. by 2015, with clinical trials beginning in 2012. Currently, the process is only available to Indian men involved in the trials."
<<<<< Birth control should be supported not because it enables sex without consequences, but because it substantially reduces the cost burden on the health care system. >>tamhas is absolutely right on this point.>>>>Really? Then why don't health insurers do it in their own best interests? Oh, I know, they are just evil, and refuse to do it out of spite.Insurance companies have called into serious question this supposition.As has the cost savings of "preventative" medicine. Which by the way, back to my original point, the best preventative medicine is to require a good diet, prevent obesity, and get some exercise.So of course the government, under thie healthcare proposal if found constitutional, will have the power to require us to purchase the food and exercise equipment of our choice or charge us a "penalty" or simply buy it for all of us, for free.There is no difference, NONE, at all to this preventative care argument. Lets just all give up this pretense, and just start handing over 100% of the money we make to the government so that the government can turn it back over to us how it seems fit to.Of course, for those dismissing the grade issue if everyone shared grades, try to picture the impact this "egalitarian" approach would have on our prosperity. And by the way, this is exactly what this Supreme Court case is about and you can see, concretely, where it goes in the next decade or two with this "preventative" care argument...nothing is off limits that can be rationally articulated as enhancing the healthcare market. There is no limit to this very steep slope.But why set limits...we might as well all be wards of the State, well except for those who run the state, like the GSA, or politicians, as they are more than this, now arn't they as they get to sleep on sheets (I'm sure over the head of most this last reference).Tinker
There is no difference, NONE, at all to this preventative care argument.There is a very, very big difference between birth control and broccoli. Birth control works in a predictable and dependable way almost all of the time. Broccoli, or any of the other good habits to which you allude, have, at best, a correlative relationship and then only taken as a whole and then only in the context of many other factors.If there was some super vitamin pill that reduced disease by 50%, wouldn't you want to make sure it was available to everyone that wants it?This, btw, illustrates the other big, big difference which you overlook. The only thing that the HCR policies are attempting to do is to insure that, IF a person wants or needs medically prescribed pills which are sometimes, but not always used for birth control, that those pills are covered by the insurance. That is not saying in any way that everyone must want or take birth control, nor broccoli.Frankly, the only reason this discussion is even occurring is because of the association with sex. There is no argument being offered that insurance companies have to cover insulin or statins or whatever ... although some of the more ridiculous bills offered would have allowed a Christian Scientist employer to exclude all such ... because there is no association between those drugs and sex. There is not even any argument being offered against Viagra and its kin because that is enabling male sex. Only about birth control. How transparently hypocritical!
Viagra and its kin because that is enabling male sex. Only about birth control. How transparently hypocritical!This issue is far more expansive than your ridiculous attempt to create similarities where none exist.This is about a country that is broke and cannot afford Obamascare. It is about a country that needs to make tough choices on who gets medical care paid for and for what indications. It is about a president who is runamuck over the Comstitution. It is about an end to big government that seeks to get into your bedroom and every other place it can and will find to create dependency.It is not about birth control pills and their efficacy vs. tubal Ligation or whether a child is "opportune" for the parents or not. You are simply distracting from the core issues above......and providing true comedy by you accusing anyone of hypocrisy!The era of big government is coming to an end.....or we all better hope so for the sake of our kids and their kids!
Frankly, the only reason this discussion is even occurring is because of the association with sex. There is no argument being offered that insurance companies have to cover insulin or statins or whatever ... although some of the more ridiculous bills offered would have allowed a Christian Scientist employer to exclude all such ... because there is no association between those drugs and sex. There is not even any argument being offered against Viagra and its kin because that is enabling male sex. Only about birth control. How transparently hypocritical! No, the reason it's occuring is because you're expecting the government to subsidize your LIFESTYLE. If you're flat broke and can't afford condoms, don't have sex. You have a CONSCIOUS choice to have sex or not. I'm not for Viagra or birth control because we are paying for others to enable their lifestyle. My opinion is not based on religion or being against birth control. It's based on paying people to conduct activities they have a conscious choice to avoid if they cannot pay for it which to me is not the role of the government.Paying for birth control is the ultimate in paying for preventing additional expense on the healthcare system. If someone is so broke they can't afford television, cars, beer, living in the cheapest apartments with roommates, don't have a dime to their name, that they have no choice but to turn to the government, because that's the only time it should be done, to spend $15 a month on birth control, then they sure can't afford to have a baby, and can't afford a gym membership or exercise equipment and are at risk of cardiovascular diseases for being out of shape, and put additional strain on the healthcare system, therefore there IS no difference between paying for birth control or gym memberships or free exercise equipment if the same logic applies.
So, Duma, change the subject and launch into your standard lecture because you don't have a good answer? Typical.
11x, your position would have more credibility if something besides birth control were being singled out. In fact, it sounds like a perfect argument for someone who was in favor of the so-called "death panels" ... wouldn't want to waste scarce health services dollars on old people after all. No, the whole thing that makes this discussion a travesty is focusing on birth control pills. This is clearly a medical issue. It is putting hormones in one's body for a sustained period. It is often done for reasons other than preventing pregnancy. But, because some people who object to sex among unmarried persons there is this idea that the government shouldn't pay for people to have sex ... not noticing that a LOT of the people on birth control are married, many are talking it for reasons other than preventing pregnancy, and it isn't even the only way that a doctor can act to help prevent pregnancy ... anyone remember IUDs, which are certainly not expensive. Not to mention, it isn't the government that is mandated to pay for birth control, it is the insurance company!!!! For whom it is actually in their self interest! Who is objecting? NOT the insurance companies! Rather, it is people who don't want to enable sex. Place your arguments in context and they are nonsense.
Hey, lets not pay for Cialis, Viagra, etc., as well. It is $134 for several months worth. You'll pay more for one night with a hooker. So be it. Heaoth insurance should cover real and catastrophic illnesses. Impotency is one of those elective health issues.God, what will you not raise to try to change the subject of this utterly failed administration.Change the subject, change the subject, change the subject...Lets talk about the subject...butr cannot do that. That leads to failure for Obama...but it is racist if one brings his record and prior words against him, as it was predictable his policies would fail. Hey, I told you so, just as it has happened, just not even the worse case critics could imagine $1.5 trillion per year in deficit spending!Tinker
<< .....for those dismissing the grade issue if everyone shared grades..... >>Tinker,I've been reading your posts here for over a decade. IIRC, you've received two graduate degrees (MBA and JD). Are you telling me that the reason and the amount you studied was because of the grading system, not what you wanted to learn for your profession?Are you telling me that if your schools had a no-grade system, you wouldn't have studied?? Don't you continue studying (law journals, classes, seminars, etc.) even though there are no tests, no grades involved?Can you honestly say that the external reward of a letter grade is what made you a good student?Alan
Tinker ... have you considered that erectile dysfunction is potentially a form of birth control and so by medicating it away one is enabling pregnancy.Again, NOT comparable. Having erectile dysfunction impacts the person, possibly the partner. It does not cause another person to be born.But, yes, erectile dysfunction is a medical problem and thus should be covered.As for changing the subject for more slogan flinging, better we should drop the subject and get on topic.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |