If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Not news: GOP tries to get amendment into bipartisan highway bill. Awjeeznotthisshiatagain: Allowing all employers to deny paying for birth control related health services   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 255
    More: Stupid, GOP, amendments, highway bill, Democrats, birth control, culture war, Party leaders of the United States Senate, bipartisan support  
•       •       •

3354 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Feb 2012 at 7:55 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-02-14 08:06:02 PM
7 votes:
How do they think this is actually
a) good public policy
b) politically worthwhile
c) going to help them in November?

1.bp.blogspot.com
2012-02-14 09:03:05 PM
5 votes:
Let's be honest. The conny's want to use children as punishment for having sex. They take away birth control and abortions so that women will be forced to have children, then take away welfare so that said women can't afford to take care of said children. The goal is to make it as miserable as possible, so that they can say "see, you shouldn't have had sex".
2012-02-14 07:52:04 PM
5 votes:
Dear GOP:

Please go F--- yourself, you unamerican dominionist dog fornicators.

Sincerely,
The 21st Century
2012-02-14 10:24:59 PM
4 votes:

CujoQuarrel: In that case it's no longer birth control is a medicine that treats what ever that other condition is, right?


It's still packaged and sold as birth control.

teeny: My argument is that *mandated* coverage isn't going to help anything


Here is the crux of the issue, why should any medical insurance company be allowed refuse to cover anything deemed necessary by a doctor? Because when you have insurance companies ducking out of covering things, it becomes tantamount to them practicing medicine. Which they're not licensed to do.
2012-02-14 08:25:32 PM
4 votes:
Alright the religious institutions don't have to cover birth control for their employees but that comes with the drawback of losing their tax exempt status. If a religious organization want to play in politics they should lose their tax exempt status.
2012-02-14 08:12:17 PM
4 votes:
What about the freedom of an employee from the religious beliefs of their employer?
2012-02-14 08:06:33 PM
4 votes:

intelligent comment below: Conservatives think restricting the freedoms of everyone else to conform to what you believe is actual "freedom."

Just like restricting gays to not be able to marry is enforcing the freedoms of heterosexuals.

"I have the freedom to oppress you!" Says the master.


You know what? I'm a conservative. I'm a Republican. And, no, I don't believe any of that stuff. These a-holes in Congress are religious fundies posing as conservative Republicans. I know, the party has been hijacked by religious fundies. I'm all for throwing all of these douchebags out of office.
2012-02-15 03:47:08 AM
3 votes:

CujoQuarrel: wademh: Meanwhile, they aren't having to pay for anything. Health insurance is cheaper for everyone if you include contraceptive services. These zealots who wish to exclude it are asking everybody else to pay more so that others will be denied a service they apparently don't want.

Keep them out of my bedroom and my medicine cabinet. I'm not taking anything from them, they are taking from me.

None of your arguments hold water.


Ahhh, now we get down to it. Their keeping their beliefs is going to cost you money so to hell with them.


No. Your argument is that they should not have to pay for services they object to. Fact: it doesn't cost them extra so they aren't paying for it. So if logical truth counts, their argument, as related by you, is logically null and void. The attempt to tie the providing of BC services to be a matter of *them* paying for it fails as a fundamental matter of logic, not theology or morality.

Further, they are effectively asking others to subsidise the religious objections of a minority view. Where else do we do that? Do we prohibit the serving of coffee to soldiers because some people object to caffeine?

You have yet to put forward a logically viable case for omitting BC from health insurance.
You've tried to "paying for it" objection but it fails.
You've tried the "it isn't a disease" argument which also fails.
You've tried to claim that charitable hospitals will then pack up their bags and abandon the poor and that fails on so many levels.
And you don't have the moral character to even admit that your arguments have been destroyed.
You're probably a troll but I prefer to call you a foil that has allowed me to demonstrate the completely vapid nature of the objection to BC services in health insurance. I only wish you were more coherent so it didn't seem so much like taking candy from a babe.
2012-02-14 08:27:23 PM
3 votes:

CujoQuarrel: You know we could just let everyone pay for their own birth control. Can't see any reason is should be covered under insurance which is meant to cover such things as disease and accidents as a shared unexpected risk. This isn't unexpected.

I'm not opposed to BC. In fact I'd be in favor of making it OTC if possible.

I just don't see it as an insurance issue.


Yeah I mean I hear you on the "why is a predictable reoccurring expense covered in insurance" but really companies provide health CARE, not health INSURANCE. It's dumb that we live in a world where part of your compensation is paid out in health care but here we are. Until we have another alternative that properly distributes the risk along a big pool like single payer (please please please) it seems okay to me for the government to step in with cludges like this.

Also, would you say people should pay for their own routine checkups? This falls into the same category. Health care vs. health insurance. We get health care, not health insurance.
2012-02-14 08:09:47 PM
3 votes:

Can we PLEASE get this through your fundie skulls?

The Treaty of Tripoli, unanimously ratified by a Senate full of founding fathers and signed by devout minister John Adams:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,

Link
2012-02-15 01:33:31 AM
2 votes:

CujoQuarrel:

Well, you still can , you know. Go BUY the stuff.

Somehow I'm missing why you think that just because no one is handing you the pills you can't obtain them. Do you need someone to punch them out and hand you a glass of water too?


Consider: We could have public policy that ultimately saves money in the form of ultimately lower health care costs while providing many a desired service or we could stick our heads in the sand and ignore the savings because some people want to make an arbitrary distinction between treatments that keep you healthy and treatments that correct things after they've gone wrong.

Turns out it's cheaper to provide BC than to pay for the predictable consequences of not paying for it. It's a simple matter of one path being smart and the other being stupid.
2012-02-15 12:15:33 AM
2 votes:

skullkrusher: freetomato: Do you think it is less expensive to prevent unplanned pregnancies (and costly hysterectomy surgery for things like endometrosis when a simple pill could cure it) than it is to cover a family with children and their sundry and assorted healthcare needs? The insurance companies would most definitely benefit, in that they'd not be paying out for those extended expenses. Just like if they'd cover, say, Chantix, they'd save themselves probably millions in lung cancer or emphysema (sp) treatment costs.

I suppose that's the question. If it is so simple, so obvious to us non-actuary types, why don't many insurance companies cover BC pills? Either they have some problem with birth control pills or covering pills doesn't work out to their benefit in the long run. My guess is the latter.


Many don't? Many do.

Link (new window)

According to the last in-depth study of insurance coverage of contraception-a nationally representative survey of private U.S. health insurers in 2002-almost every reversible and permanent contraceptive method available was covered by 89% or more of typical insurance plans, with similarly strong coverage of both the methods themselves and related services (such as the insertion and removal of a long-acting method). Eighty-six percent were covering all five of the leading reversible methods at the time, and only 2% were covering none of them.10045 More recent surveys of employers' health plans have found similarly high levels of coverage for oral contraceptives or prescription contraceptives generally.
2012-02-15 12:09:13 AM
2 votes:

skullkrusher: The Why Not Guy: skullkrusher: well as I understand it the argument is that it is to the insurance company's benefit to offer BC. I don't buy that.

If I was an insurance company I'd much rather offer birth control coverage than pay out claims for pre-natal and delivery expenses.

that's the thing. I have a feeling that someone, somewhere ran the models and determined that paying for BC is not a cost effective way of reducing other payouts.


It probably isn't as effective as another room full of lawyers.
2012-02-14 11:50:24 PM
2 votes:

CujoQuarrel: smeegle: CujoQuarrel: Have the government provide the BC then. Don't fob it off on a third party (the insurance companies).

Do you really want that? I don't want the government anywhere near my reproductive health choices, unless of course it is to make sure I still get to have those choices.

The insurance companies can handle it trust me.

But what they want is for the government to MANDATE that the insurance companies provide it. Just passing the buck.

If you have an insurance company that wants to cover it fine because it would be their choice. The people who object to paying for other peoples BC could then go find some other insurance. Or you could find another if they didn't cover it.

Or you could just go buy it. You can do that you know. You are allowed to purchase your own medications from the pharmacy. They even take cash.


Does your mother know you are up late being stupid on the computer?
2012-02-14 11:39:37 PM
2 votes:

GoldSpider: Vindibudd: how could you logically argue that kidney transplants shouldn't be provided free to everyone?

You mean aside from the minor detail that donor kidneys aren't manufactured in near-limitless quantities like birth-control pills?


i thought that's why god made Ukraine.
2012-02-14 11:13:59 PM
2 votes:

CujoQuarrel: it if it's not something they agreed to pay for up front


health insurance companies routinely declare things high risk in specific cases even though no doctor would declare it high risk. Then they call things experimental no doctor thinks of experimental. Anmd good luck getting a health insurance provider to state upfront in writing what they won't cover. And you may want to ask some doctors if refusing to pay for care constitutes practicing medicine.
2012-02-14 11:07:19 PM
2 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: Vindibudd: Ultimately single payer will result from insurance companies no longer being in business

Good. Adios. It's been real.


No it wont. We have single-payer universal coverage in Hong Kong, and yet we still have plenty of private insurance companies.
They provide premium service, so, for instance, can sleep in your own hospital room instead of in a big ward with other patients. You also don't have to wait in line as long to see your doctor or to pick up your meds. (In emergencies they will take care of you right away)
And because there is universal coverage, insurance companies must compete against the government - forcing them to be more responsible to the patients than they are in countries where they are the only option.
2012-02-14 10:58:54 PM
2 votes:

GoldSpider: And you don't think that's just a bit of a stretch in the face of health insurance costs that prevent people from getting life-saving care??


Health insurance companies would have a lot more money to spend if they became more efficient and stopped spending so much time trying to screw over policy holders and otherwise hassle. them. Just think how much money is spent on referral visits. If your knee hurts you know what type of doctor you need to see. Requiring people to get a referral is just paying money for something that it need not be spent on. Furthermore you're taking away time from the referring physician he or she could be spending on taking care of people. Plus there's the paperwork costs.
2012-02-14 10:53:01 PM
2 votes:

Yeah_Right: Yes.. and Germany has less than 1/3 the population, and a very small in comparison to the U.S.


Germany spends less on health care per person than the US does. Also the size of the population has nothing to do with it.
2012-02-14 10:42:58 PM
2 votes:

Yeah_Right: That's nice... but impossible.


Funny, in Germany, France, etc everyone has coverage for every medical eventuality and condition. Hell they'll even send you to another country if that's where the best or only care for a condition is.
2012-02-14 10:26:10 PM
2 votes:

CanisNoir: heap: for some women, getting pregnant is an extreme life threatening condition. unless the suggestion is 'live a celibate married life' (as would be the case in the situation i am familiar with), it's birth control or abortion. there is no medically sane option of conception/carrying to term.

Because there is no surgery that can be preformed that will prevent pregnancies with the same amount of success rate as Birth Control, amiright?


Ahem...

FYCK! OFF! you piece of shiat farking dick sucking scum shiatting asstard! It's every woman goddamngiven farking right to fark and get farked, and not getting farked over by squishing out another spawn every damn time and being subject to a life of ever-spawning servitude.
I'm saying this as a guy who LIKES to fark, for pleasure, and why on farking earth shouldn't women have the same right?
2012-02-14 10:23:51 PM
2 votes:
there's one aspect i've seen mentioned a couple of times - the 'why am i in a pool of people paying into something i'll never use, nor do i personally see the need for' angle.

i've gotta wonder...people do know what insurance is, right?
2012-02-14 10:21:04 PM
2 votes:

Genevieve Marie: And only when it comes to women's sexual health do people even feel entitled to this debate. I can't think of another medical issue where people feel like they're totally cool to judge the medical wisdom of a doctor and the needs of a patient.


That's all this is about. Sex. It's always about the sex. Social conservatives simply cannot stand the idea that people are out there having fun with no consequences. If you're not a straight male you are not allowed to do anything they do not approve of, and if you do you should be punished for it.
2012-02-14 10:14:15 PM
2 votes:

freetomato: GoldSpider: themeaningoflifeisnot: Why would the condition have to be life-threatening? If it's an adverse medical condition, isn't that enough?

He compared conditions treated by birth control to treating a heart condition. I wanted to make sure we were comparing apples to apples.

My sister had endometriosis and (if you want to know the ugly facts of it) bled for two weeks out of the month - gushed blood and passed giant clots. She was so anemic that she nearly passed out regularly and couldn't be away from a bathroom for longer than 20 minutes or so. 6 months on birth control pills and her cycle was normalized. I think a heart condition might almost be preferable to that especially if stodgy old men didn't give you grief about heart medication that kept you healthy.

/Not trying to marginalize heart conditions in the slightest - it's just ridiculous that this is even an issue.


And only when it comes to women's sexual health do people even feel entitled to this debate. I can't think of another medical issue where people feel like they're totally cool to judge the medical wisdom of a doctor and the needs of a patient.
2012-02-14 10:13:38 PM
2 votes:
This whole thing is like the abortion "debate": If men needed birth control pills this would have been established law 50 years ago.
2012-02-14 10:12:01 PM
2 votes:

GoldSpider: themeaningoflifeisnot: Why would the condition have to be life-threatening? If it's an adverse medical condition, isn't that enough?

He compared conditions treated by birth control to treating a heart condition. I wanted to make sure we were comparing apples to apples.


My sister had endometriosis and (if you want to know the ugly facts of it) bled for two weeks out of the month - gushed blood and passed giant clots. She was so anemic that she nearly passed out regularly and couldn't be away from a bathroom for longer than 20 minutes or so. 6 months on birth control pills and her cycle was normalized. I think a heart condition might almost be preferable to that especially if stodgy old men didn't give you grief about heart medication that kept you healthy.

/Not trying to marginalize heart conditions in the slightest - it's just ridiculous that this is even an issue.
2012-02-14 10:08:52 PM
2 votes:

GoldSpider: themeaningoflifeisnot: Why would the condition have to be life-threatening? If it's an adverse medical condition, isn't that enough?

He compared conditions treated by birth control to treating a heart condition. I wanted to make sure we were comparing apples to apples.


Not all heart conditions are life threatening. Some hormone-imbalance conditions that can be treated with birth control pills can be. Can we move beyond this irrelevancy now?
2012-02-14 09:56:20 PM
2 votes:

GoldSpider: WhyteRaven74: So if a woman needs birth control pills due a medical condition and her insurance doesn't cover them, she should pay for them out of pocket, while someone with a heart condition gets their heart medication covered?

It might help to give a few examples of life-threatening conditions are treated with birth control pills.

/genuinely curious.


Endometriosis may not be life threatening but bleeding like a stuck pig for days on end certainly is not healthy and does not lend itself to quality of life.
2012-02-14 09:34:01 PM
2 votes:

teeny: Sorry, my bad. Meant to say that the dems are acting outraged as though that's the logical consequence of allowing an opt-opt out. In previous threads, they insisted that insurance companies/employers loved it because unwanted or unexpected pregnancies were much more costly and inconvenient.


Did you read the article?

As written, it would permit all employers to deny any health services in their insurance plans that aren't in accordance with their "religious beliefs and moral convictions." The measure states no limitations or criteria, which means employers have free rein to decide what medical care their employees may or may not receive.

This goes far beyond contraception. It's ridiculous, and Democrats and other sane and vrational people are right to be outraged. I wish we had a single payer system, where employers had nothing to do with providing health insurance. But unless and until that happens, a bill of this nature would have catastrophic results.
2012-02-14 09:25:21 PM
2 votes:

CanisNoir: Maybe there should be a mandate that you keep your pecker in your pants and not in some girls vagina.


Nice job wanting to control people's lives. And not every woman who takes birth control bills does so to avoid being pregnant.
2012-02-14 09:21:44 PM
2 votes:

Keep repeating this:

The GOP thrives on masses of superstitious and uneducated poor people.



The birth control mandates takes a chunk out of the "masses" part.
2012-02-14 09:19:43 PM
2 votes:

ole prophet: his is just a case of the GOP being old and stupid to explain what is going on and the Dems being too knob-slobbering of Obama in an election year to realize they are being had.


See it as you wish, I see it as a direct attack on the use of BC orchestrated by the Catholic bishops, no surprise there.
I agree it does line the pocket of the insurance/pharm but that's what Obama care does and that is a whole nuther discussion
Right now it's about the church trying to insert themselves into policy and the GOP falling for it.

If it makes you feel better to call me an idiot, fine; but it does nothing to bolster your position.
2012-02-14 09:19:31 PM
2 votes:
Why is it even legal for health insurance to not cover birth control in the first place? Birth control bills aren't just used for birth control, they're used for a whole slew of other things. Why should insurance companies get any say so in what medication a person can or can't get? Is it FDA approved? Then that settles it.
2012-02-14 09:08:57 PM
2 votes:
FTA: 'As written, it would permit all employers to deny any health services in their insurance plans that aren't in accordance with their "religious beliefs and moral convictions."'

So, it's safe (and correct) to advertise that Republicans are now fully supporting the extremes of radical Islam and other fringe religions?
2012-02-14 09:07:38 PM
2 votes:

TV's Vinnie: fusillade762: Oh FOR F*CK'S SAKE.

I hear they also want to strip all funding for mass transit from the bill.

They think that mass transit and bicycles are only for creeps and weirdos.
[farm1.staticflickr.com image 501x640]
[bikeportland.org image 571x353]


Wow, I've never seen those...

What bull---- stigma.
Only poor people and crazy people ride the bus! Be embarrassed that you bike to class! Hot girls in the passenger seats of car will think you are ridiculous!

Yes car companies, a brand new car is a great purchase for a college student to take to class. Ya know will all that ample parking and student loan money...

Anti public transportation people drive me nuts.
2012-02-14 08:52:43 PM
2 votes:

SilentStrider: Go away. Just leave. You're losing this battle. Any farther and you risk getting your ass handed to you this November like Mondale did in '84.


Dude! Don't warn them! I bought a brand new pair of Doc Martens to plant firmly up their collective ass this Fall. I got over thirty years of pent-up rage from being forced to helplessly watch the outrageous sh*t they have done that I wanna pay back to them in one glorious night.
2012-02-14 08:47:06 PM
2 votes:

Niveras: there are rules against being vulgar/insulting to your opponent.


www.bittenandbound.com
2012-02-14 08:45:06 PM
2 votes:
Why is that sort of amendement to an unrelated bill not illegal?
2012-02-14 08:33:43 PM
2 votes:
Is this a War on Women or War on Vagina? I think both. I think Waging War on Women, who now fight in war, are required to work (while under burden of having babies), plus expected to look good at all times while beating back erect wieners hopped up on Viagra SHOULD be considered cruel and unfair. They have it hard enough.

Seeing a bunch of white men in there old age biatch about birth control, string it loosely to Jesus and then string that to the constitution should STFU.
2012-02-14 08:32:31 PM
2 votes:

A Terrible Human: Alright the religious institutions don't have to cover birth control for their employees but that comes with the drawback of losing their tax exempt status. If a religious organization want to play in politics they should lose their tax exempt status.


i483.photobucket.com
is a great idea
2012-02-14 08:27:17 PM
2 votes:
So Obama has gotten the gop, in an election year, to argue against having to provide birth control to women.

When 98% of them use it.

Holy crap, this is masterful stuff, i've no clue how he pulled it off.
2012-02-14 08:26:24 PM
2 votes:

CujoQuarrel: You know we could just let everyone pay for their own birth control. Can't see any reason is should be covered under insurance which is meant to cover such things as disease and accidents as a shared unexpected risk. This isn't unexpected.

I'm not opposed to BC. In fact I'd be in favor of making it OTC if possible.

I just don't see it as an insurance issue.


So you don't oppose insurance paid birth control, because insurance should only be used for unexpected emergencies. Well,insurance doesn't work that way right now - welcome to the world as it is today, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way in.
2012-02-14 08:25:25 PM
2 votes:

smeegle: be, I fear for Obamas safety


If he could be killed, he already would be. The secret service are employing ninjas and wizards, its the only explanation. Even if he did die "AFTER" the elction, it wouldnt matter. The people will have spoken and the policy for the next 4 years will be set.

I believe that in 10 years, after this is all over (or worse) some SS guy will publish a book about all the attempts on Obama's life that were hushed up. America will shiat itself that day.
2012-02-14 08:20:21 PM
2 votes:

DeltaPunch: We've reached the end of reason, here...


When I read the Hand Maid's Tale, I never really thought that there would be those kind of whack jobs in power. He's living proof and he's down right scary.

If the Dems are successful in November, and it's highly likely they will be, I fear for Obamas safety.
2012-02-14 08:13:33 PM
2 votes:
Well, if the GOP wants to give away an election and push any woman who is pre-menopause, or any man wishing to fark a woman who's pre-menopause, this is how you do it.

/chicken farking, this is how it's DONE
2012-02-14 08:13:29 PM
2 votes:

Lionel Mandrake: Dear GOP:

[i159.photobucket.com image 446x532]


Well, I'm sure we're all glad you approve of this action.

See
Urban Dictionary (new window)
2012-02-14 08:13:16 PM
2 votes:
Good. Just keep alienating people you GOP farkwads. You are merely increasing Obama's margin of victory by even more percentage points.
2012-02-14 08:11:10 PM
2 votes:
Republicans of taking cues from surging presidential contender Rick Santorum, who as recently as last Fall said the use of contraception in and of itself is "not okay."

Well Mr. Santorum you don't get to decide what's okay and not okay for American women, even though I know you would like to because you sir, are a dangerous boob that needs to crawl back into your Medieval farking hole.
2012-02-15 09:56:25 AM
1 votes:

RedT: CujoQuarrel: derp

CujoQuarrel: derp

CujoQuarrel: derp

CujoQuarrel: derp

CujoQuarrel: derp

CujoQuarrel: derp

CujoQuarrel: derp

CujoQuarrel: I'm up this late because I'm working , you should try it sometime. You know being responsible. Earning money. Not waiting on someone else to give me a hand out.

CujoQuarrel: derp

CujoQuarrel: derp

CujoQuarrel: derp

CujoQuarrel: derp

CujoQuarrel: derp

CujoQuarrel: derp


"Working" huh . . . you must have a very important job


Check the timestamps. The gloryhole stalls don't need to be mopped out as often at that time of night.
2012-02-15 03:30:23 AM
1 votes:
CujoQuarrel: It's not the utilisation that's the problem. It's the forcing of payment on people who believe it's a mortal sin to provide it.

Odd. You don't seem to give a shiat that I'm paying for our invasion of Iraq.
2012-02-15 01:32:41 AM
1 votes:

CujoQuarrel: In that case they aren't birth control pills then are they?


We've replaced this man's regular reality with a sippee cup full of owl cum and broken glass - let's see if anyone can tell the difference.
2012-02-15 01:22:36 AM
1 votes:

CujoQuarrel: wademh: CujoQuarrel: wademh: CujoQuarrel:
I just don't see it as an insurance issue.

With some health plans, you get vision coverage, but I don't think they can treat your particular malady.

Nope good vision. Still can't see it as an insurance issue. Insurance is for 'Oh crap why is my left arm getting numb' not something like this.

Says who?
You are speaking of catastrophic health insurance to cover accidents and other catastrophic events. But note the lack of the word "catastrophic" in the term "health insurance". Thus they are different concepts even if your limited vision makes it difficult for you to see this. Others can see it. Apparently you have a sort of tunnel vision that you were not aware of and are perhaps in denial regarding. The cure for your ailment is not however to be found at a health care clinic.

BC pills are not used for a disease. It's not used for an accident. It's actually not absolutely necessary. You have other options.

If your insurance company covers BC fine go for it , it's actually in their best interest. If it doesn't buy it yourself. Or use a condom. Or not Fark. You know, be an adult.

I'm amazed at all you people who seem to be totally incapable of providing anything for your self where you expect a hand out for every little thing.


In the US, I paid premiums for health insurance and so it wasn't a "hand out" but something that was paid for, partly by me, partly by my employer as part of my compensation package. So "hand out" is a complete non sequitur. Next, by making birth control part of the package, the cost of the overall expenses within an insurance package drops which means I actually pay less and my employer pays less. How is advocating for smarter plans looking for a "hand out"?
You string together words in the general imitation of a logical argument but they fail to form a coherent position. Your unconventional bias that health insurance is all about catastrophic events or disease is an idiosyncratic definition that stands up to neither historical precedent nor fiduciary thrift. You even seem to realize that neither history nor economics is on your side but you stubbornly cling to your "vision" of what health insurance should be. Doesn't the connotative dissonance hurt?
2012-02-15 12:57:35 AM
1 votes:

GoldSpider: If the common perception is that states have more powers to restrict personal rights


again, i don't think the above negates actual state's rights - i think government (at any level) has penetrated up the collective ass for long enough that concentrating on civil rights (and even the expansion/further enumeration of civil rights) for awhile will not only have the advantage of potentially reversing some of that, but will additionally give time to cleanse the pallet of the santorumy taste associated with the term/position 'state's rights'.

exactly because it has been misused by a 3 ring circus of idiots ensured that a state's right necessarily requires hampering a civil right - be it one listed in the Big10, or any other enumerated right.
2012-02-15 12:55:45 AM
1 votes:
I really hope (and changey) that Obama's second term will come with a new set of brass ones big enough to start laying some smack down on these religious wackos. Actually, I'd be happy with just a bit of STFU and STFD from him....just once....stop playing middle of the road and tell Americans just how full of shiat you think these guys are. They deserve to hear the twoof.
2012-02-15 12:49:49 AM
1 votes:
Guys like Santorum need to bleed uncontrollably out the end of their dick for 4 days......or 2 weeks. Hell, 15 seconds, and he'd be screaming in panic.

But that goes back to the whole "if men could get pregnant, any type of reproductive health care would be a God-given right" argument.
2012-02-15 12:40:29 AM
1 votes:
GoldSpider: I'm all for states asserting their constitutional rights, but I'm not going to sell my point of view particularly well by staking it to such a universally unpopular stance.

i'd smile and nod at state's rights occasionally if it ever involved actual civil rights in the context used.

yet somehow, whenever state's rights as a topic is raised, it's a state's right to restrict an individual in a manner utterly inconsistent with what would be acceptable by federal standards.

the above doesn't remove the rights of a state, nor do i think it should - it just means as a term, that brand has been ran thru so much muck....how about we cheerlead for civil rights, not what level of government can bend you over and to what depth penetration consists of.

maybe after that diversion for a few years, people might be able to hear the phrase 'state's rights' without assuming the sentence ends '....to remove your civil rights'.
2012-02-15 12:36:47 AM
1 votes:

WhyteRaven74: Fart_Machine: Kaiser

I think I found your problem.....


The funny thing is that I was insured with them through various companies (since it was offered in their benefits plan) for over 20 years. Shopping around as an independent really sobered me up.
2012-02-15 12:34:48 AM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: WhyteRaven74: skullkrusher: Insurance plans not covering the pill is not something new

According to what someone posted, not covering birth control was at least in years past incredibly rare.

point being is that it is not in response to recent Republican chatter about BC


Makes you wonder where the GOP poutrage was while Bush allowed such a thing under his watch, doesn't it?
2012-02-15 12:28:05 AM
1 votes:

ftudor: Is this a War on Women or War on Vagina?


They're not exactly sold seperately. You can't have one without the other.
2012-02-15 12:25:18 AM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: Insurance plans not covering the pill is not something new


According to what someone posted, not covering birth control was at least in years past incredibly rare.
2012-02-15 12:20:08 AM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: My wife's insurance doesn't pay for the pill so she used to pay for it but when she was pregnant they paid for all her OB visits and our son's birth only cost $1,500 out of pocket not including the private room at the hospital which was not covered.


pregnancy coverage is federally mandated. that wasn't their largess or actuarial table.

no, really. has been since the days before MASH got preachy.
2012-02-15 12:19:14 AM
1 votes:

Fart_Machine: Kaiser


I think I found your problem.....
2012-02-15 12:18:55 AM
1 votes:

CanisNoir:
organize a bunch of co-workers in an effort to get the companies HR department to choose another option.


You mean collectively bargain?

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA. You sir are getting your troll mojo right back. I give this 10/10 based upon all your previous arguments. Good job mr troll, good job.
2012-02-15 12:18:34 AM
1 votes:
If you worked for a Christian Science organization, would they be able to deny you any medical care at all? Imagine getting an insurance plan that only covers prayer.
2012-02-15 12:17:08 AM
1 votes:

Badfrog: Thankfully most of the things Obama would like won't happen either, because we have three branches of government.


Yes because taking care of those in need is such a horrible thing.
2012-02-15 12:17:05 AM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: Either they have some problem with birth control pills or covering pills doesn't work out to their benefit in the long run. My guess is the latter.


I think you left out a third possibility - they're giving in to the pressure from Republicans who see birth control as evil. Now, before you clutch your pearls and talk about how it's only a few fringe people, read the story that goes with this thread again, and remember that the current frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination is on record as saying he thinks birth control should be illegal. Not just that insurance shouldn't cover it. He said it should be illegal.
2012-02-15 12:16:17 AM
1 votes:

0Icky0: Especially when you've got a pre-existing condition that another company refuses to cover.


Just to show how low the standard for "pre-existing" conditions are, I have minor asthma that utilizes a generic brand of inhaler. After losing my insurance due to being laid off, I tried to re-apply again under an individual plan (which was cheaper than going in with my wife). Keep in mind I'm a non-smoker, in good health, and in decent physical shape otherwise without any other medical problems according to their standard checklist. I was told that the lower cost plan of $188 was unavailable due to my asthma and that their only other alternative was a $605 a month plan. WTF?

I'm now insured through another company with Blue Shield and I pay around $205. Still I have yet to receive an adequate response as to why I was such a risk (this was going though a Kaiser agent) even when I sent in an appeal letter.
2012-02-15 12:10:54 AM
1 votes:
You know what? I'm a conservative. I'm a Republican. And, no, I don't believe any of that stuff. These a-holes in Congress are religious fundies posing as conservative Republicans. I know, the party has been hijacked by religious fundies.

No. They didn't take over your party. Your party rolled out the red carpet and invited them in, welcoming them with smiles and open arms, selling out your so-called values because it meant victory on election day. You invited the tasmanian devil to your cocktail party and now you don't understand why your dishes are broken and there's taco dip on the walls.

I've been voting against Jean Schmidt for years, but the Democrats...

Oh thank God you found a way to make it the Democrats' fault.
2012-02-15 12:10:47 AM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: I have a feeling that someone, somewhere ran the models and determined that paying for BC is not a cost effective way of reducing other payouts.


Here's the thing, they shouldn't get to not cover it, period, ever.
2012-02-15 12:09:41 AM
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: Yeah, it's sooo easy to switch insurers. It's like switching from Coke to Pepsi!


Especially when you've got a pre-existing condition that another company refuses to cover.
I mean..seriously..WTF is wrong with the brains of these people? Do the two brain cells not communicate with each other?
2012-02-15 12:07:54 AM
1 votes:
As written, it would permit all employers to deny any health services in their insurance plans that aren't in accordance with their "religious beliefs and moral convictions." The measure states no limitations or criteria, which means employers have free rein to decide what medical care their employees may or may not receive.

Remember when folks were saying it was silly to bring up comparisons of blood transfusions and organ transplants? Good times!

Bbbbbbbbut First Amendment!!!!11111
2012-02-15 12:07:04 AM
1 votes:

Vindibudd: you don't want the government in "your bedroom" but you want them all over your hospital bed.


You seem to think that if the government arranges single payer insurance it will take over the hospitals as well.
2012-02-15 12:05:24 AM
1 votes:

Vindibudd: Mrtraveler01:

Alright, how about Australia and Canada? They've got a diverse makeup of the population just like us (if not more) and yet they're able to have single payer insurance without any issue.

I've read all sorts of "issues" that people are having in those countries.

A perspective from a Canadian

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451570546396929.html

About Australia's awesome system:

"Myth No. 2: Claims of rationing are exaggerated.

Jonathan Cohn, author of Sick, wrote that the "stories about [rationing in] Canada are wildly exaggerated." Yet advocates of single-payer never say what they mean by "exaggerated."

The fact is that people often suffering great pain and anxiety while they spend months on a waiting list for surgery. Others spend months waiting for a surgery, only to have it cancelled, after which they will spend even more time waiting for another surgery. Sometimes people even die while on the waiting list.

Media in foreign nations are full of stories about people suffer while on a waiting list. In Canada, Diane Gorsuch twice had heart surgery cancelled; she suffered a fatal heart attack before her third surgery. In Great Britain, Mavis Skeet had her cancer surgery cancelled four times before her cancer was determined to have become inoperable. In Australia, eight-year-old Kyle Inglis has lost 50 percent of his hearing while waiting nearly 11 months for an operation to remove a tumor in his ear. Kyle is one of over 1,000 children waiting over 600 days for ear, nose and throat surgery in Warnbro, a suburb in Western Australia." Link (new window)


But nobody ever died or even had their condition deteriorate while they waited for the courts to hear their suit against an insurance company that declared their routine procedure to be "experimental", and therefore not covered.
2012-02-15 12:04:42 AM
1 votes:

Vindibudd: Mrtraveler01:

Alright, how about Australia and Canada? They've got a diverse makeup of the population just like us (if not more) and yet they're able to have single payer insurance without any issue.

I've read all sorts of "issues" that people are having in those countries.

A perspective from a Canadian

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451570546396929.html

About Australia's awesome system:

"Myth No. 2: Claims of rationing are exaggerated.

Jonathan Cohn, author of Sick, wrote that the "stories about [rationing in] Canada are wildly exaggerated." Yet advocates of single-payer never say what they mean by "exaggerated."

The fact is that people often suffering great pain and anxiety while they spend months on a waiting list for surgery. Others spend months waiting for a surgery, only to have it cancelled, after which they will spend even more time waiting for another surgery. Sometimes people even die while on the waiting list.

Media in foreign nations are full of stories about people suffer while on a waiting list. In Canada, Diane Gorsuch twice had heart surgery cancelled; she suffered a fatal heart attack before her third surgery. In Great Britain, Mavis Skeet had her cancer surgery cancelled four times before her cancer was determined to have become inoperable. In Australia, eight-year-old Kyle Inglis has lost 50 percent of his hearing while waiting nearly 11 months for an operation to remove a tumor in his ear. Kyle is one of over 1,000 children waiting over 600 days for ear, nose and throat surgery in Warnbro, a suburb in Western Australia." Link (new window)


Media in America is full of the exact same kinds of stories. Natalie Sarkisyan developed leukemia. The treatment caused her liver to shut down. Aetna refused t to pay for the transplant, and she died before she could have her appeal heard.
2012-02-15 12:04:22 AM
1 votes:

Vindibudd: If the government rations something and the government is the only source of that resource, you have no where else to go.


Except the single payer system that 0Icky0 so helpfully explained proves your argument demonstrably false.

Vindibudd: If a company rations something, you can always go to a competitor for that item.


Unless your national health insurance system links coverage with employment, in which case your only option is to pay for your own coverage entirely out-of-pocket.

Vindibudd: I've had enough for the evening.


Yes, I think you have.
2012-02-15 12:03:26 AM
1 votes:

Vindibudd: If the government rations something and the government is the only source of that resource, you have no where else to go.

If a company rations something, you can always go to a competitor for that item.


Yeah, it's sooo easy to switch insurers. It's like switching from Coke to Pepsi!
2012-02-15 12:02:29 AM
1 votes:

Vindibudd: If the government rations something and the government is the only source of that resource, you have no where else to go.


Right. But they're not. As you've been shown. Private insurance companies can and do coexist with single payer systems in many places. Your "America is big and diverse and stuff" isn't proof by itself that it couldn't work here.
2012-02-15 12:00:20 AM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: well as I understand it the argument is that it is to the insurance company's benefit to offer BC. I don't buy that.


Do you think it is less expensive to prevent unplanned pregnancies (and costly hysterectomy surgery for things like endometrosis when a simple pill could cure it) than it is to cover a family with children and their sundry and assorted healthcare needs? The insurance companies would most definitely benefit, in that they'd not be paying out for those extended expenses. Just like if they'd cover, say, Chantix, they'd save themselves probably millions in lung cancer or emphysema (sp) treatment costs.

It's probably easier to quit having sex than to quit smoking, I'd guess. Many have no choice in the "quit having sex" area - they simply are not getting laid, and they are mad about it. And a lot of those assholes are the ones deciding that it is almost criminal to have sex without procreation in mind.
2012-02-15 12:00:18 AM
1 votes:

Vindibudd: Mrtraveler01:

Alright, how about Australia and Canada? They've got a diverse makeup of the population just like us (if not more) and yet they're able to have single payer insurance without any issue.

I've read all sorts of "issues" that people are having in those countries.

A perspective from a Canadian

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451570546396929.html

About Australia's awesome system:

"Myth No. 2: Claims of rationing are exaggerated.

Jonathan Cohn, author of Sick, wrote that the "stories about [rationing in] Canada are wildly exaggerated." Yet advocates of single-payer never say what they mean by "exaggerated."

The fact is that people often suffering great pain and anxiety while they spend months on a waiting list for surgery. Others spend months waiting for a surgery, only to have it cancelled, after which they will spend even more time waiting for another surgery. Sometimes people even die while on the waiting list.

Media in foreign nations are full of stories about people suffer while on a waiting list. In Canada, Diane Gorsuch twice had heart surgery cancelled; she suffered a fatal heart attack before her third surgery. In Great Britain, Mavis Skeet had her cancer surgery cancelled four times before her cancer was determined to have become inoperable. In Australia, eight-year-old Kyle Inglis has lost 50 percent of his hearing while waiting nearly 11 months for an operation to remove a tumor in his ear. Kyle is one of over 1,000 children waiting over 600 days for ear, nose and throat surgery in Warnbro, a suburb in Western Australia." Link (new window)


You know stories like that happen here too right? Except sub a waiting list, with not being able to pay for the operation.

So tell me how our system is any better?
2012-02-14 11:59:36 PM
1 votes:

GoldSpider: Vindibudd: "Myth No. 2: Claims of rationing are exaggerated.

I love this one. Railing against government "rationing" care (read: managing costs/resources) while defending private insurance companies doing the exact same thing, only on a more egregious scale.


If the government rations something and the government is the only source of that resource, you have no where else to go.

If a company rations something, you can always go to a competitor for that item.

You guys are comical, you don't want the government in "your bedroom" but you want them all over your hospital bed.

I've had enough for the evening.
2012-02-14 11:58:51 PM
1 votes:

0Icky0: Well, that's refreshing at least.
The reason I get from right-wingers in my American family is that it works in Hong Kong because we don't have a bunch of Negroes abusing the system.


mine call it a wildly diverse cultural spectrum. to-may-toh, to-mah-toh.
2012-02-14 11:58:13 PM
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: Vindibudd: Then you will say, well it's just birth control. Then I will say nothing is preventing it from being liver transplants or liposuction or rhinoplasty.

And then what's to stop people from marrying more than one person or more than one animal?

Oh crap, I got my slippery slope fallacies all mixed up.


He did reference plastic rhinos, so it was an easy mistake.
2012-02-14 11:57:51 PM
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: Alright, how about Australia and Canada? They've got a diverse makeup of the population just like us (if not more) and yet they're able to have single payer insurance without any issue.


There's also pretty much everywhere else.

CujoQuarrel: That no matter what your doctor thinks you need you should always have it payed for no matter what? Do you really think that will work?


If it's medically necessary? Yes. And funny it works pretty much everywhere. Hell Canadians get sent to the US when it turns out that what they need is only available in the US. Good luck getting a US health insurance company to send you elsewhere if that's where the care you need is available. And the same goes for England, France etc.
2012-02-14 11:57:28 PM
1 votes:

Vindibudd: Sometimes people even die while on the waiting list.


No. Way.
2012-02-14 11:56:42 PM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: what's the "sloshing bucketfuls"?


that the assumption of rational actors has no factual backing?

how about 'it's 2012, and we're fighting over birth control. also, rick santorum. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaa'.
2012-02-14 11:56:22 PM
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: Vindibudd: Dusk-You-n-Me: Vindibudd: and therefore it is a system that ultimately will lead to single payer and the financial destruction of private health insurance companies in this country.

That's not true. 0Icky0 already covered this. Link (new window)

What works in Hong Kong, a large city, is not going to necessarily work in the United States, a country with a population north of 300 million and a wildly diverse cultural spectrum. I would have expected this to be self evident.

Alright, how about Australia and Canada? They've got a diverse makeup of the population just like us (if not more) and yet they're able to have single payer insurance without any issue.


Top sources have informed me that those comparisons, along with all others, mean absolutely nothing because America is uniquely awesome? Personally, I would have gone with uniquely moronic, but these are top sources we're talking about here.
2012-02-14 11:56:19 PM
1 votes:

GoldSpider: Vindibudd: "Myth No. 2: Claims of rationing are exaggerated.

I love this one. Railing against government "rationing" care (read: managing costs/resources) while defending private insurance companies doing the exact same thing, only on a more egregious scale.


Yeah but it's ok if they do it.
2012-02-14 11:54:54 PM
1 votes:

Vindibudd: What works in Hong Kong, a large city, is not going to necessarily work in the United States, a country with a population north of 300 million and a wildly diverse cultural spectrum. I would have expected this to be self evident.


Well, that's refreshing at least.
The reason I get from right-wingers in my American family is that it works in Hong Kong because we don't have a bunch of Negroes abusing the system.
2012-02-14 11:51:19 PM
1 votes:

Vindibudd: The argument is that birth control is a hugely important feature that everyone MUST HAVE ACCESS to.


So you're going for the straw man then.

The actual issue is why something as mundane as birth control should be undermined by Bronze Age religious dogma or why it's being made an issue in a farking highway bill.
2012-02-14 11:50:03 PM
1 votes:

Yeah_Right: WhyteRaven74: Yeah_Right: That's nice... but impossible.

Funny, in Germany, France, etc everyone has coverage for every medical eventuality and condition. Hell they'll even send you to another country if that's where the best or only care for a condition is.

Yes.. and Germany has less than 1/3 the population, and a very small in comparison to the U.S.

apples/oranges


So they have 1/3 of the resources to draw from? And they're still able to provide a reasonable level of care to their entire population? Maybe we could learn something from them. That is if they weren't so...you know...European.
2012-02-14 11:49:49 PM
1 votes:

Vindibudd: GoldSpider: Vindibudd: I would have expected this to be self evident.

Yet you declined the opportunity to educate us.

Well I just did in the first part of that post, did you miss it?


Canada and Australia are similarly diverse as us and yet they have no problem with health insurance and health care do they?
2012-02-14 11:45:49 PM
1 votes:
How these voting jerks who support this BS can talk about standing between the stirruped legs of a woman, blocking her doctor's exam and second guessing him, and the evils of "big government intrusion" in the same breath is beyond me.

How farkin' DARE Frothy Buttjuice talk about the government imposing its will upon the populace while he wants his own moral code to be law and can keep a straight face?

He couldn't keep a straight face if he tried, that's right.

I'm in no danger of having unwanted kids, myself, but the farkin' gall just astounds me. The right seems to be passing the rumor that the left is disaffected with the President and won't vote as a result. WRONG. It won't happen just because they want it to. It's not that Obama is perfect, it's that the Clown Parade on the right is so awful to contemplate being in power. A. Obama is not nearly as bad as they'd hoped and B. We are even more motivated to keep the likes of Santorum, Gingrich and Romney out of the ultimate position of power. These assholes have just about declared war on the middle class and are proud of it.
2012-02-14 11:44:27 PM
1 votes:

Vindibudd: What works in Hong Kong, a large city, is not going to necessarily work in the United States, a country with a population north of 300 million and a wildly diverse cultural spectrum. I would have expected this to be self evident.


The key word being necessarily. It does work in other cities and countries. Quite successfully, actually. America is diverse and large. And? And it can work here, and those two qualities of America are not proof by themselves that it can't.
2012-02-14 11:42:22 PM
1 votes:

Vindibudd: Dusk-You-n-Me: Vindibudd: and therefore it is a system that ultimately will lead to single payer and the financial destruction of private health insurance companies in this country.

That's not true. 0Icky0 already covered this. Link (new window)

What works in Hong Kong, a large city, is not going to necessarily work in the United States, a country with a population north of 300 million and a wildly diverse cultural spectrum. I would have expected this to be self evident.


Alright, how about Australia and Canada? They've got a diverse makeup of the population just like us (if not more) and yet they're able to have single payer insurance without any issue.
2012-02-14 11:41:37 PM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: Occam's Razor says that it would not be in their benefit.


If logic applied to health insurance decisions, we aren't having this discussion right now.
2012-02-14 11:40:57 PM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: I still don't see how an insurance company would not offer birth control if it turned out to be in their financial benefit. Occam's Razor says that it would not be in their benefit.


is this one of those things were we assume rational actors in spite of great sloshing bucketfuls of contrary evidence?
2012-02-14 11:40:21 PM
1 votes:

CujoQuarrel: And if you think that the insurance company is in violation of your contract with them by not paying you can take them to court or in some cases to arbitration.


Because if you need something done right now you can afford to wait to drag it through court. Also, if you can't pay for it yourself, what are the odds you'll have the money for a court case?

Vindibudd: am saying that there is no safeguard to prevent it from happening and therefore it is a system that ultimately will lead to single payer and the financial destruction of private health insurance companies in this country.


And none of us will care because the health insurance companies have brought it on themselves.
2012-02-14 11:38:51 PM
1 votes:

Vindibudd: Then you will say, well it's just birth control. Then I will say nothing is preventing it from being liver transplants or liposuction or rhinoplasty.


And then what's to stop people from marrying more than one person or more than one animal?

Oh crap, I got my slippery slope fallacies all mixed up.
2012-02-14 11:38:44 PM
1 votes:

Vindibudd: therefore it is a system that ultimately will lead to single payer and the financial destruction of private health insurance companies in this country.


Why are they not destroyed in countries that have single payer?

Do you have a reason? Or have you gone beyond that niggling little detail?
2012-02-14 11:34:31 PM
1 votes:

themeaningoflifeisnot: It's very frustrating to talk to insurance company representatives who agree that my doctors and I are right on every point--including the financial benefit to the insurance company--and yet continue to hold to the company line simply because they are too obstinate to change unless they stand a chance to get tagged big in a lawsuit or are forced to change by the government.


Yep, that's how it goes. And how it should never be allowed to.
2012-02-14 11:24:42 PM
1 votes:
GoldSpider: It might help to give a few examples of life-threatening conditions are treated with birth control pills.

/genuinely curious.


I know of two young women who ended up in the ER after ruptured ovarian cysts. While the cysts themselves are not life threatening, complications from a ruptured one can be. Compare the thousands spent on one ER visit ($3500 in one case) to the cost of pills.
2012-02-14 11:24:17 PM
1 votes:

CanisNoir: You pay a portion and you're employer pays a portion.


As part of your compensation package. Let's be honest here. Your employer doesn't pay a nickel more than is required to keep you showing up every Monday morning. He isn't some big, lovable Daddy Warbucks that just spends money because he likes you. He spends the least he can get away with in order to get the maximum output from you. And it's a negotiated agreement between the both of you. This nonsense about your employer paying for it is nonsense, and you know it.
2012-02-14 11:18:38 PM
1 votes:
Well if the GOP wants to continue to marginalize themselves from independent/moderate voters with this kind of bullcrap.

Who are we to stop them?
2012-02-14 11:17:45 PM
1 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: Thank you. Sincerely. I was somewhat sure that was this was the case but now I am sure. Your move, Vindibudd.


Just to be clear, when I wrote " (In emergencies they will take care of you right away)" I meant that to mean the government hospitals.
I was taken to one in an emergency, even though I am covered privately. The ambulance ride cost me 12 US dollars. The stay in the hospital for two nights cost me $24 dollars. Of course I paid for this with taxes over the years, but I am more than happy to help pay for other people who cannot afford private insurance. Because that's what makes a FARKING CIVILIZATION!.
After I was out of danger and able to move, I went to the private hospital that was covered by my insurance. The medicine was no different, and the food about the same. The only real difference was the private room and the quiet.
2012-02-14 11:13:50 PM
1 votes:

CanisNoir: GhostFish: Pills cost a lot less than pregnancy and dependents.

...and not farking cost even less. Maybe there should be a mandate that you keep your pecker in your pants and not in some girls vagina. You know, how's about a law that says if you fark someone when you're not economically able to take care of the consequences of your actions you're jailed. I mean that would be good public policy by the standards of the arguments in this thread.


So then you're all for forcefully imprisoning a hard working man who doesn't remember to put neosporin on a cut he suffered at work? For forgetting to bring a dust mask with him as he walks through a polishing room? Fining a woman thousands for not giving herself a breast exam at least monthly while in the shower? For not checking the temperature of the meat loaf before taking it out of the oven and serving it for dinner? Removing a child to CPS because they failed to wash their hands before dinner?
2012-02-14 11:09:36 PM
1 votes:

Yeah_Right: Yes.. and Germany has less than 1/3 the population, and a very small in comparison to the U.S.

apples/oranges


So the US has three times as many taxpayers to pay for it. apples/apples
2012-02-14 11:05:27 PM
1 votes:

GoldSpider: depend on screwing policyholders (my main reason for supporting single-payer).


If they are so badly run they can't make money except by screwing people over, then they ought not be in business. They could save a ton of money by being more efficient, yet they refuse to do it. That alone should get them curb stomped.
2012-02-14 11:03:42 PM
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: If insurers had no restrictions in their policies, the cost would be even higher than it is now. Do you realize that?


If they had to pay up then hospitals wouldn't be stuck with unpaid medical bills as much. Meaning they wouldn't fall as short. Meaning they'd have less money they need to recoup. Meaning less need to increase fees going into the future....

CujoQuarrel: If it saves the insurance company then the insurance company should decide to provide it. Not you. Not the government.


Considering how incapable health insurance companies are about saving money?
2012-02-14 11:03:38 PM
1 votes:

mrmyxolodian: Even my Catholic friends who go to mass every week use birth control.
The hell are they thinking??


When you've got God on your side, you don't need anyone else.

Of course, the Catholic hierarchy ought to know better giver the 500 year beat-down they've been enduring since the Reformation, but much of this is coming from their allies in women's health asshattery; the Evangelical anti-abortion* movement.


*which is to say, the "Drag women back to the 1800s" movement
2012-02-14 11:03:25 PM
1 votes:

themeaningoflifeisnot: This is why single-payer is the only viable solution. Take the employers out of the mix completely.


The fly in your ointment is that even with single-payer, after you've removed employers from the equation, you still have the god-botherers. And they are the root of the problem. The rallying cry just shifts from "why should employers pay for those dirty slutty women?" to "why should taxpayers pay for those dirty slutty women?". We saw this two years ago with the original HC reform talks.
2012-02-14 10:55:51 PM
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: No, you can have as much sex as you want. Employers just shouldn't have to provide coverage for birth control or abortions if they don't want to.


Why should the employer have any say so, ever, as to what things health insurance covers for their employees?
2012-02-14 10:54:38 PM
1 votes:

Yeah_Right: Yes.. and Germany has less than 1/3 the population, and a very small in comparison to the U.S.


Funny how America is ExceptionalTM except when it comes to actually fixing any of our problems.
2012-02-14 10:53:35 PM
1 votes:

Yeah_Right: WhyteRaven74: Yeah_Right: That's nice... but impossible.

Funny, in Germany, France, etc everyone has coverage for every medical eventuality and condition. Hell they'll even send you to another country if that's where the best or only care for a condition is.

Yes.. and Germany has less than 1/3 the population, and a very small in comparison to the U.S.

apples/oranges



Which is why little mom and pop stores consistently out preform Walmart, economies of scale favor smaller providers.
2012-02-14 10:52:51 PM
1 votes:

CujoQuarrel: Elective is something the other person could do without. Like a cosmetic nose job. Insurance shouldn't cover that either.


let's just say i think you could do without a great many things. probably a good thing there are mandates clearly stating what an insurance policy must offer in order to call itself an insurance policy rather than my arbitrary judgement, eh?

smeegle: You are just so damn cute.


there is a kinda old school vibe around here the last few days...i could just be having flashbacks, tho.
2012-02-14 10:51:52 PM
1 votes:

Vindibudd: A single payer system removes all choice.


No it doesn't; it isn't as if private practice would be declared illegal in a single-payer system. Private practitioners, private hospitals, private insurance companies; all of these still exist in public-option, single payer systems like Britain, Japan, Canada and Germany, they simply exist beside a large public health-care bureaucracy that keeps their prices down by aggressively negotiating, enforcing, and providing affordable (or free) health care/medical insurance. The folks with the money to afford the very best doctors working in the most exclusive hospitals will still have the choice to get treated by them; the only difference would be that the rest of us would actually be able to get the treatment we need, when we need it, without beggaring our family for two generations.

And then there's how inexpensive it would render death, something which certainly isn't that for anyone unfortunately enough to buy in it a US hospital. Mother Mercy; is the death of a parent, spouse, or relative really the time when private business should be warming up the debt-reamer and diagramming rectal entry strategies? Under the current system that certainly seems to be their priority; gotta monetize that human suffering man, 'cause every falling tear and agony-strain you ain't squeezed a dollar from puts you that much further from a new yacht to stuff your marina quay with. And if hassling a widow to suicide with nasty, threatening "debt-recovery specialists" for a tiny be more wealth to heap on your pile isn't worth it, then what is?
2012-02-14 10:50:26 PM
1 votes:

GoldSpider: Let me know when someone may die from not being able to get it up.


that's a condition that can be very hard on someone's psychological state and mental health. May not kill them, but it can greatly degrade their quality of life.

Vindibudd: They aren't practicing medicine, they are simply saying they will not pay for certain procedures and those that they will not pay for are outlined in the policy.


When they say "We'll play if you go to this doctor and this hospital, but we'll only cover 60% if you go somewher else", they are practicing medicine. When they say "Sorry, but even though you need this procedure to live we're not covering it because we're declaring that it's experimental". That is all practicing medicine. Impeding a person's access to and reception of is practicing medicine by proxy.
2012-02-14 10:48:58 PM
1 votes:

themeaningoflifeisnot: Genevieve Marie: And only when it comes to women's sexual health do people even feel entitled to this debate. I can't think of another medical issue where people feel like they're totally cool to judge the medical wisdom of a doctor and the needs of a patient.

Try living with mental illness. People trip over themselves to malign those with mental health problems. It's hilarious to so many people. And no one in government on either side of the aisle is willing to commit anywhere near the level of resources truly necessary to address the problem.


Oh. I'm aware. And then they complain about homeless people and other people who are unable to hold down jobs or live productive lives due to mental illness.

LET'S REFUSE TO TREAT IT AND THEN BLAME PEOPLE FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO GET TREATMENT! IT'S A COMPLETELY BRILLIANT PLAN!

Sigh.
2012-02-14 10:46:59 PM
1 votes:

GoldSpider: Let me know when someone may die from not being able to get it up.


again, the idea that death is the only reason a pill is prescribed is arbitrary, not reflected in reality, nor particularly rational.
2012-02-14 10:46:04 PM
1 votes:

Vindibudd: If the government health care says you wait for a knee replacement,


Not everywhere with universal coverage has the government making any decisions. Also, you should see how long some people in the US wait for knee replacements.

GoldSpider: but for it to serve the most people possible it has to have limits.


The limits it would need would blow even the best current health insurance out of the water.
2012-02-14 10:45:06 PM
1 votes:

CujoQuarrel: Sock Ruh Tease: Obama wants people to have easy access to birth control.

Republicans come out against something the vast majority wants/uses, and not just for "birth control" purposes either (at least for female pills).

Obama doesn't even need to campaign this year.

[i.imgur.com image 450x300]

There is still 'easy access'. The pharmacies still stock the pills. There is nothing stopping the patient from personally buying the product. It's just that you want other people to buy it for you.


Cujo you dumb shiat insurance covers pregnancies, just like it covers vaccinations. it covers drugs that make life easier without actually curing a disease, like acne medicine, male hormone replacement (androgen) and sports physicals, so why the fark it shouldn't it cover birth control?
Which is a preventative measure, like a yearly physical and a vaccination?

Fortunately, men like yourself and the Gop don't get to pick and chose what conditions they are willing to cover with their health insurance. I'm not likely to ever need diabetes meds which is for a.very avoidable condition, but I don't get to tell my health insurance that I don't want my premiums to cover diabetes patients.
Get over yourself and realize the BC actually save insurance, and therefore You money.
2012-02-14 10:42:33 PM
1 votes:

WhyteRaven74: So health insurance companies should be allowed to practice medicine by proxy and declare what health care their policy holders get?


That's what they have been up to for some time by deciding if a certain test is needed based on economics instead of medicine. This pisses off doctor friends that I know.
They don't like their medical decisions over ruled by insurance companies and I don't blame them.
2012-02-14 10:40:52 PM
1 votes:

Vindibudd: This is why leftists aren't fun to argue with, they lose and then resort to violence.


hoootyhooo, i get to be a leftist. i haven't gotten to be one of those since way back when cheney was shooting people in the face.

good times, man. good times.
2012-02-14 10:40:45 PM
1 votes:

Genevieve Marie: And only when it comes to women's sexual health do people even feel entitled to this debate. I can't think of another medical issue where people feel like they're totally cool to judge the medical wisdom of a doctor and the needs of a patient.


Try living with mental illness. People trip over themselves to malign those with mental health problems. It's hilarious to so many people. And no one in government on either side of the aisle is willing to commit anywhere near the level of resources truly necessary to address the problem.
2012-02-14 10:39:34 PM
1 votes:

GoldSpider: I'll ask you to clarify that for me when I'm 70 and asking you to pay for my boner.


that's just it. what is a 'need' to you could be seen as not needed by somebody else.

that's part and parcel of being in a shared risk pool. it's the whole freaking point to begin with. things i don't need and will never use will be available, and used by others. they will pay for things that they don't need and will never use but will be available to me.

again, this is the whole freaking point.
2012-02-14 10:36:25 PM
1 votes:

Vindibudd: Insurance companies work on the law of large numbers, not the law of whatever the magic fairy says they should pay for.


So health insurance companies should be allowed to practice medicine by proxy and declare what health care their policy holders get? Also your house analogy isn't even remotely close to the same thing.
2012-02-14 10:34:49 PM
1 votes:

Vindibudd: That's like saying because your contractor wants to add a room onto your house the bank should be forced to pay for it because they are not licensed to build houses.


this is why arguing by analogy should be accompanied by a testicular electrical shock.
2012-02-14 10:32:55 PM
1 votes:

fusillade762: Oh FOR F*CK'S SAKE.

I hear they also want to strip all funding for mass transit from the bill.


Yup, and give it to highway projects. Because Odin Knows we need more motherfarking highways in this motherfarking country. Anyway, I think we can all agree that cutting federal funding to rural, metro, and state mass transit programs at a time when, due to a crappy economy and high gas prices, more people than ever are relying on it is just the crackerjackiest god-damn way imaginable to slay those budget-demons and send our native Randian Ubermenschen into such paroxysms of entrepreneurial euphoria that the common man won't be able to walk to his mail-box without wading through a swamp of wealth-spewage.
2012-02-14 10:32:52 PM
1 votes:

Vindibudd: A single payer system removes all choice


If everyone has everything covered, why any need for choice?
2012-02-14 10:31:41 PM
1 votes:

GoldSpider: Maybe I missed those. I've seen plenty of "Why am I paying for people's elective medication?", which isn't the same thing.


you say 'elective', i say 'something i'll never use, nor do i personally see the need for'.

in conversational practice so far, it's the same damned thing.
2012-02-14 10:30:45 PM
1 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: Genevieve Marie: And only when it comes to women's sexual health do people even feel entitled to this debate. I can't think of another medical issue where people feel like they're totally cool to judge the medical wisdom of a doctor and the needs of a patient.

That's all this is about. Sex. It's always about the sex. Social conservatives simply cannot stand the idea that people are out there having fun with no consequences. If you're not a straight male you are not allowed to do anything they do not approve of, and if you do you should be punished for it.


And you know, it gets exhausting. Seriously. I'm a pretty active feminist. I focus on this stuff more than a lot of people do. But sometimes... it just gets so unbelievably exhausting to have to constantly convince people in power that they're not allowed to treat us like we aren't people.
2012-02-14 10:28:48 PM
1 votes:

GoldSpider: heap: there's one aspect i've seen mentioned a couple of times - the 'why am i in a pool of people paying into something i'll never use, nor do i personally see the need for' angle.

Maybe I missed those. I've seen plenty of "Why am I paying for people's elective medication?", which isn't the same thing.


Insurance companies pay for plenty of preventative medication. I don't know why you think BC is different.
2012-02-14 10:28:26 PM
1 votes:

heap: i've gotta wonder...people do know what insurance is, right?


Did you see the thread last week about the dude planning to sky dive from 120,000 feet? A lot of people were not aware, and a few couldn't be convinced, that at altitude his terminal velocity is far greater than it is at 10,000 feet. So yeah, there are a good number of people who don't get what insurance is.
2012-02-14 10:25:36 PM
1 votes:

A Dark Evil Omen: CujoQuarrel: If it's that important the companies that have the option in their insurance plans will get the better employees etc. You can also find a job with a better company if it means that much to you.

Ah, in the face of all reality, a True Believer. Especially ridiculous in the current employment environment, but always cute to see, even in better times.


Well, you could pay for this out of your pocket till you found another job couldn't you?
And truthfully if I wanted I could have another job tomorrow but I'm sure a lot of people couldn't do that.

Sabyen91: CanisNoir: You pay a portion and you're employer pays a portion. You're not paying for it yourself. Also, the "boot strap" argument is that if you don't like what's offered, find another company. (i.e. Prioritize things in your life and act on them)

What your employer pays is part of your compensation so that is a bad argument ("You don't pay for it yourself").

Your second argument is ridiculous for most people on its face. Can you guess why? (Hint: It isn't like going to Target instead of Wal-Mart if you don't like Wal-Mart).


A lot of people don't understand that they pay all of their health insurance and all of their social security and that their company doesn't pay any. No matter what they tell you or what it says on your pay stub you are paying it all.
2012-02-14 10:25:09 PM
1 votes:

Satanic_Hamster: teeny: My argument is that *mandated* coverage isn't going to help anything. There aren't hoards of working women with health coverage that are screaming for free birth control. You're under the impression that when the government forces free and unlimited access to something, there are no economic consequences. This is an illusion.

Fark my mother (psychopathic biatch that she is) at your own goddamned risk, with or without a condom. I don't think anyone should have to give you the condom for free, though.

All states have mandates on what the minimum amount of healthcare coverage should cover. As well there should be.


28 states have also mandated birth control coverage.
2012-02-14 10:23:44 PM
1 votes:

teeny: My argument is that *mandated* coverage isn't going to help anything. There aren't hoards of working women with health coverage that are screaming for free birth control. You're under the impression that when the government forces free and unlimited access to something, there are no economic consequences. This is an illusion.

Fark my mother (psychopathic biatch that she is) at your own goddamned risk, with or without a condom. I don't think anyone should have to give you the condom for free, though.


All states have mandates on what the minimum amount of healthcare coverage should cover. As well there should be.
2012-02-14 10:23:36 PM
1 votes:

A Dark Evil Omen: This whole thing is like the abortion "debate": If men needed birth control pills this would have been established law 50 years ago.


If men had wombs there would be no debate about BC or abortion.
2012-02-14 10:19:36 PM
1 votes:

GoldSpider: Hehe I think the very existence of the "man pill" would cause no insignificant number of heads to explode.


i'd expect it would be not only over the counter, but available as a ben and jerry's ice cream.
2012-02-14 10:18:03 PM
1 votes:

Shaggy_C: Not to mention the pill is sexist. Whar man pill whar


Hehe I think the very existence of the "man pill" would cause no insignificant number of heads to explode.
2012-02-14 10:17:16 PM
1 votes:

CanisNoir: then it's fair to point out that a rubber is just as effective and perfectly cheap


Haha wow. I don't know if you're playing dumb or being yourself.

CanisNoir: (i.e. I wanna fark but not be responsible for the consequences)


If you didn't want to get sick, you shouldn't have shaken hands.
If you didn't want to get into an accident, you shouldn't have driven your car.
If you didn't want to tear your ACL, you shouldn't have played football.

Your arguments are as tired as the GOP's contraception stance is outdated.
2012-02-14 10:17:00 PM
1 votes:

CanisNoir: Yea, that's the loosing angle they're taking. I'd prefer them to fight this on the principle that the Government should not be mandating what an insurance company covers, rather than the whole "War on Religions" schtick.


They are taking that angle because the religious Right is working to be the ruling force of the GOP. This is not a new thing. They tried it before with the whole "moral majority" thing.

It gets pretty sticky when government is allowed to mandate insurance coverage. I can actually see both sides of it. Everyone has a right to equal access to health care.

What's worse, mandates from religious institutions or the government? They both suck and I guess it is asking too much for insurance companies to have any semblance of ethics.
2012-02-14 10:16:33 PM
1 votes:

Genevieve Marie: freetomato: GoldSpider: themeaningoflifeisnot: Why would the condition have to be life-threatening? If it's an adverse medical condition, isn't that enough?

He compared conditions treated by birth control to treating a heart condition. I wanted to make sure we were comparing apples to apples.

My sister had endometriosis and (if you want to know the ugly facts of it) bled for two weeks out of the month - gushed blood and passed giant clots. She was so anemic that she nearly passed out regularly and couldn't be away from a bathroom for longer than 20 minutes or so. 6 months on birth control pills and her cycle was normalized. I think a heart condition might almost be preferable to that especially if stodgy old men didn't give you grief about heart medication that kept you healthy.

/Not trying to marginalize heart conditions in the slightest - it's just ridiculous that this is even an issue.

And only when it comes to women's sexual health do people even feel entitled to this debate. I can't think of another medical issue where people feel like they're totally cool to judge the medical wisdom of a doctor and the needs of a patient.


Seriously.
2012-02-14 10:15:41 PM
1 votes:
What in the fu(k does birth control or anything to do with health insurance have to do with a highway bill? Over the years I've gone from thinking that politicians were a necessary evil, just like cops to just evil. Todays Republicans are traitors.
2012-02-14 10:11:11 PM
1 votes:

GoldSpider: treating a heart condition.


Not all heart conditions are life threatening. And as for the debate goes, a medical condition is a medical condition, doesn't matter how severe. Especially in light of the wording of the amendment allowing employers to opt out of coverage for anything they decide for any reason.
2012-02-14 10:08:26 PM
1 votes:
November is going to be hilarious.
2012-02-14 10:05:32 PM
1 votes:

CujoQuarrel: If it's that important the companies that have the option in their insurance plans will get the better employees etc. You can also find a job with a better company if it means that much to you.


How about this, make it mandatory that all health insurance policies cover it? And nothing is stopping health insurance companies from lowering their costs. The people who do noting but sift through claims looking for legit claims to deny cost a fair bit of money. Also insurance companies bouncing people around refusing to cover a claim until they get paperwork X, which they don't need because the doctor or hospital has already provided documentation, that drives up their costs. Hell having paperwork period drives costs up. It wouldn't cost much for an insurance company to operate completely without paperwork. And with no delays in paying out claims.
2012-02-14 10:05:31 PM
1 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: There's data, and then there's your opinion, which it appears is all you are able to provide.


You expect a rightist to provide facts? That would imply there were ever facts that supported right-wing ideas. This whole tempest-in-a-teapot is the right wing in a nutshell: Anything that will help people that don't "deserve" it will be fought tooth and nail, in the face of all facts and reality. If reality doesn't conform to right wing dogma, it's reality that's wrong and must be changed.
2012-02-14 10:05:02 PM
1 votes:
The right acts like BC paid for by insurance companies is some sort of welfare program. You fricking pay for the damned policy!

/"Why don't you bootstrap up and pay for it yourself?" You damned well already do if it is covered under your insurance and most provide it already.
2012-02-14 10:03:33 PM
1 votes:
I mean this is about Birth Control, think about that for a minute...Birth Control That debate was settled nearly 2 generations ago. They are trying to drag us back into a debate on something that is settled and so utterly ubiquitous, that it boggles the mind. Literally I sit here and am astounded that we are actually having a national discussion on access to Birth Control!

How does the "Liberal" media frame this? As if there are two equal and opposing sides with valid opinions. These clowns should be scorned, ridiculed and driven out of office. Yet they are treated as though they have a valid perspective to bring to the table.
2012-02-14 10:03:24 PM
1 votes:

CanisNoir: Because there is no surgery that can be preformed that will prevent pregnancies with the same amount of success rate as Birth Control, amiright?


that *is* birth control, you ninny.
2012-02-14 10:03:18 PM
1 votes:

CanisNoir: Women aren't the only ones involved in preventing pregnancies. You could spend an hour collecting soda bottles and purchase a jimmy. So I'll repeat, "Birth Control isn't exactly cost prohibitive".


And contraception isn't only for preventing pregnancies. How many times are we going to beat this horse? And you can repeat that all you want. There's data, and then there's your opinion, which it appears is all you are able to provide.
2012-02-14 10:02:56 PM
1 votes:

LordJiro: But that's SOCIALISM. If we make sure everyone's health is protected, then we might as well be Communist Russia.


I reiterate:

lh4.googleusercontent.com

That's why we see the difficulty in passing comprehensive health care reform.

It's also why we're not going to see the recording industry, the film and television industry, or publishing doing much to reform their own outdated models anytime real soon, and are going to be screaming to keep their piece of the pie for as long as they can, even though they're quickly being obsolete...

To be fair: IF we had a single payer system, no business would have to choose. People would be responsible for their own choices. Catholics, Baptists, who ever, wouldn't have to worry about what they supported, because people would be free to choose on their own. Be that to NOT get care, be that to NOT get birth control, be that to NOT have abortions, be that to NOT fill out a living will. Ultimately, folks would choose by their own merits, and while there would always be options, it would be like everything else in life: folks would choose.

That's the funny thing about folks who oppose choice: people are free to choose to NOT as much as they are able to choose something. Choose to have premarital sex, or not. Choose to have birth control, or not. I just want folks be able to make that choice for their own selves--including whether or not to enter into a loveless marriage to support some outdated idea of what "marriage" ought to be, or not. NOT is still a portion of the choice, and thus, the faithful can still make the conscious decision to do or not do something. While those who don't share that faith, they aren't bound to the proscriptions of a faith that isn't their own.
2012-02-14 10:02:50 PM
1 votes:

ole prophet: A Dark Evil Omen: ole prophet: dumb words

Yes, we should and will have single-payer health care, you're right. Until then, stopgaps are necessary.

No we won't and it is stupid to think we will.


Well, I'm convinced. I mean, you're wrong and stupid, but ever so eloquent.
2012-02-14 10:02:24 PM
1 votes:

GoldSpider: WhyteRaven74: So if a woman needs birth control pills due a medical condition and her insurance doesn't cover them, she should pay for them out of pocket, while someone with a heart condition gets their heart medication covered?

It might help to give a few examples of life-threatening conditions are treated with birth control pills.

/genuinely curious.


I don't know about life-threatening, but I was driven to the doctor at 15, screaming in agony, in order to get a BC prescription to regulate my periods from hell. Exactly how much pain do you require a woman to be in before you think she should get the Pill covered?

Anyway, reproductive health is a critical part of health care. I don't know why so many people think that if a drug is just for contraceptive purposes, it somehow doesn't count because it's "optional." Having the ability to decide when and how many children is a fundamental right.

Y'all need universal healthcare.

/Canadian
2012-02-14 10:02:21 PM
1 votes:

heap: GoldSpider: It might help to give a few examples of life-threatening conditions are treated with birth control pills.

preventing pregnancy, for one.

for some women, getting pregnant is an extreme life threatening condition. unless the suggestion is 'live a celibate married life' (as would be the case in the situation i am familiar with), it's birth control or abortion. there is no medically sane option of conception/carrying to term.


And trying to find a doctor that will do an under 30 tube tying or hysterectomy is difficult.
2012-02-14 10:01:46 PM
1 votes:

CujoQuarrel: If it's that important the companies that have the option in their insurance plans will get the better employees etc. You can also find a job with a better company if it means that much to you.


Ah, in the face of all reality, a True Believer. Especially ridiculous in the current employment environment, but always cute to see, even in better times.
2012-02-14 10:00:55 PM
1 votes:

GoldSpider: It might help to give a few examples of life-threatening conditions are treated with birth control pills.


How about just medical conditions? Like they prevent the reoccurance of ovarian cysts, pelvic inflammatory disease, also a host of conditions that fall under the umbrella heading of benign breast disease. And there are others.
2012-02-14 10:00:46 PM
1 votes:
You know, we could just avoid this whole issue of whether employer's have to provide what specific kinds of insurance by just expanding medicare and the VA to providing care for anybody who needs it.

I used to think single payer would screw things up, but listening to republicans plans for private insurance for three years had made me realize that it's probably the way to go.
2012-02-14 10:00:16 PM
1 votes:

GoldSpider: It might help to give a few examples of life-threatening conditions are treated with birth control pills.


preventing pregnancy, for one.

for some women, getting pregnant is an extreme life threatening condition. unless the suggestion is 'live a celibate married life' (as would be the case in the situation i am familiar with), it's birth control or abortion. there is no medically sane option of conception/carrying to term.
2012-02-14 09:58:47 PM
1 votes:

GoldSpider: WhyteRaven74: So if a woman needs birth control pills due a medical condition and her insurance doesn't cover them, she should pay for them out of pocket, while someone with a heart condition gets their heart medication covered?

It might help to give a few examples of life-threatening conditions are treated with birth control pills.

/genuinely curious.


Why would the condition have to be life-threatening? If it's an adverse medical condition, isn't that enough?
2012-02-14 09:56:36 PM
1 votes:

GoldSpider: WhyteRaven74: So if a woman needs birth control pills due a medical condition and her insurance doesn't cover them, she should pay for them out of pocket, while someone with a heart condition gets their heart medication covered?

It might help to give a few examples of life-threatening conditions are treated with birth control pills.

/genuinely curious.


Pregnancy is prevented. It is life threatening.

Less over dramatic response: Since when is "life-threatening condition" a condition for covering a prescription?
2012-02-14 09:54:44 PM
1 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: CanisNoir: you couldn't possibly find another job

There are currently four people for every one available job in this country. Your idea of how things work is laughable.

CanisNoir: nor could you organize a bunch of co-workers in an effort to get the companies HR department to choose another option

Sounds uniony.


It's okay, he'll be complaining about how Fartwango isn't doing anything about jobs and the unions are evil and keeping people down in the next thread. Cognitive dissonance? In my far-rightists?
2012-02-14 09:54:00 PM
1 votes:
I didn't know black dogs suffered from major mental handicaps.
2012-02-14 09:52:34 PM
1 votes:

Genevieve Marie: Oh agreed, but that's because insurance companies are awful, not because having to cover birth control is a bad thing.

But I know I'm preaching to the choir there.


I worked for a major insurance company. It was f*cking evil. (IMHO, of course).
2012-02-14 09:52:28 PM
1 votes:

CanisNoir: you couldn't possibly find another job


There are currently four people for every one available job in this country. Your idea of how things work is laughable.

CanisNoir: nor could you organize a bunch of co-workers in an effort to get the companies HR department to choose another option


Sounds uniony.
2012-02-14 09:51:18 PM
1 votes:

CujoQuarrel: I'm saying that people need to take responsibility for themselves and not expect other people to buy stuff for them that they should and can be buying for themselves.


So if a woman needs birth control pills due a medical condition and her insurance doesn't cover them, she should pay for them out of pocket, while someone with a heart condition gets their heart medication covered?
2012-02-14 09:50:58 PM
1 votes:

WhyteRaven74: Wait, I thought you were against labor organization.


i think that was the invisible hand of socialism.
2012-02-14 09:50:29 PM
1 votes:

themeaningoflifeisnot: Genevieve Marie: themeaningoflifeisnot: Zmog: ole prophet: Why are democrats so hell-bent on lining the pockets of Big Pharm/Insurance?

By suggesting Big Insurance offer birth control coverage free-of-charge?

Aside from the question of whether it's only the Dems lining their pockets, do you really think that insurance companies are going to absorb the cost of providing birth control? Ain't going to happen. They will simply adjust the employer contribution to cover the expected expense of BC.

One thing that will never, ever happen: cornering the insurance lobby with an unrecoverable cost.

Birth control is cheaper for them to pay for than labor and delivery costs.

I doubt that the insurance companies will ever calculate their lowered costs because of BC and then offer to lower premiums. They'll do the opposite instead: even if BC saves them on labor and delivery costs, they will still calculate the increase in BC costs and find a way to roll them into an increased employer contribution without actually itemizing the increase due to BC costs.


Oh agreed, but that's because insurance companies are awful, not because having to cover birth control is a bad thing.

But I know I'm preaching to the choir there.
2012-02-14 09:49:43 PM
1 votes:

CanisNoir: nor could you organize a bunch of co-workers in an effort to get the companies HR department to choose another option.


Wait, I thought you were against labor organization. Also it's cute how you think the HR department would listen. If the people deciding what insurance they offer had a clue in the first place, they'd make sure what they offer covers their employees properly.
2012-02-14 09:49:09 PM
1 votes:

Genevieve Marie: themeaningoflifeisnot: Zmog: ole prophet: Why are democrats so hell-bent on lining the pockets of Big Pharm/Insurance?

By suggesting Big Insurance offer birth control coverage free-of-charge?

Aside from the question of whether it's only the Dems lining their pockets, do you really think that insurance companies are going to absorb the cost of providing birth control? Ain't going to happen. They will simply adjust the employer contribution to cover the expected expense of BC.

One thing that will never, ever happen: cornering the insurance lobby with an unrecoverable cost.

Birth control is cheaper for them to pay for than labor and delivery costs.


I doubt that the insurance companies will ever calculate their lowered costs because of BC and then offer to lower premiums. They'll do the opposite instead: even if BC saves them on labor and delivery costs, they will still calculate the increase in BC costs and find a way to roll them into an increased employer contribution without actually itemizing the increase due to BC costs.
2012-02-14 09:48:45 PM
1 votes:

themeaningoflifeisnot: Genevieve Marie: Dusk-You-n-Me: CanisNoir: You really have no clue how the Market Place works do you? Nobody is being forced to get their insurance from Company X - if they don't cover what you want, shop around for one that does.

Except that's not how the market place works. Most Americans are at the mercy of what employers provide. That's how it works in America. Sure, Mitt Romney likes to be able to fire his insurance company, because he's rich. Middle class Americans don't have that option.

It's EASY! JUST GO MAKE 300 MILLION DOLLARS BY SHEER WILL POWER AND THE SWEAT OF YOUR BROW! THIS IS A REALISTIC EXPECTATION TO HAVE OF PEOPLE!

Duh.

This is why single-payer is the only viable solution. Take the employers out of the mix completely.


To be fair, I would be far happier with a single payer system, than this half assedness that we passed to keep the insurance industry on life support for another twenty years before we get the gumption to do what most civilized nations realized some time ago...

I don't begrudge folks making a living. I do begrudge that the American taxpayer is essentially subsidizing the insurance industry, and people clamored for it, because a middle man ALWAYS makes things better. I mean, look at Hollywood, right? The music industry? Heck, look at how we get our produce today--those middle men make those industries really so much better...
2012-02-14 09:47:52 PM
1 votes:

Alien Robot: Guidette Frankentits: Birth control is cheaper than prenatal care + birth/c-sections + complications + neonatal intensive care + coverage for the child with a small increase in premiums or abortions. Times these figures by N where N is the number of unintended pregnancies carried to term.

Sterilization is cheaper still. Maybe the government should force poor people to get sterilized; is that what you want?


If it results in less people like you then I'm all for it.
2012-02-14 09:47:45 PM
1 votes:

themeaningoflifeisnot: Genevieve Marie: Dusk-You-n-Me: CanisNoir: You really have no clue how the Market Place works do you? Nobody is being forced to get their insurance from Company X - if they don't cover what you want, shop around for one that does.

Except that's not how the market place works. Most Americans are at the mercy of what employers provide. That's how it works in America. Sure, Mitt Romney likes to be able to fire his insurance company, because he's rich. Middle class Americans don't have that option.

It's EASY! JUST GO MAKE 300 MILLION DOLLARS BY SHEER WILL POWER AND THE SWEAT OF YOUR BROW! THIS IS A REALISTIC EXPECTATION TO HAVE OF PEOPLE!

Duh.

This is why single-payer is the only viable solution. Take the employers out of the mix completely.


But that's SOCIALISM. If we make sure everyone's health is protected, then we might as well be Communist Russia.
2012-02-14 09:47:16 PM
1 votes:

CanisNoir: You really have no clue how the Market Place works do you


Go find a health insurance company that has no exceptions for surgery that is medically necessary, that never tries to weasel out of coverage by either declaring a procedure experimental or high risk. Furthermore, go find me a health insurance company that releases its actuarial data.

teeny: A lesbian, an infertile, a post-menopausal woman.


Many lesbians and infertile women take birth control pills. Not because they want to avoid being pregnant, but because of any of number of medical conditions for which birth control pills are the standard treatment.
2012-02-14 09:46:23 PM
1 votes:

themeaningoflifeisnot: Zmog: ole prophet: Why are democrats so hell-bent on lining the pockets of Big Pharm/Insurance?

By suggesting Big Insurance offer birth control coverage free-of-charge?

Aside from the question of whether it's only the Dems lining their pockets, do you really think that insurance companies are going to absorb the cost of providing birth control? Ain't going to happen. They will simply adjust the employer contribution to cover the expected expense of BC.

One thing that will never, ever happen: cornering the insurance lobby with an unrecoverable cost.


BC is cheaper than pregnancy and childbirth, so shouldn't our rates drop?
2012-02-14 09:44:04 PM
1 votes:

themeaningoflifeisnot: Genevieve Marie: Dusk-You-n-Me: CanisNoir: You really have no clue how the Market Place works do you? Nobody is being forced to get their insurance from Company X - if they don't cover what you want, shop around for one that does.

Except that's not how the market place works. Most Americans are at the mercy of what employers provide. That's how it works in America. Sure, Mitt Romney likes to be able to fire his insurance company, because he's rich. Middle class Americans don't have that option.

It's EASY! JUST GO MAKE 300 MILLION DOLLARS BY SHEER WILL POWER AND THE SWEAT OF YOUR BROW! THIS IS A REALISTIC EXPECTATION TO HAVE OF PEOPLE!

Duh.

This is why single-payer is the only viable solution. Take the employers out of the mix completely.


Oh, agreed completely. I hate our health care system and I'd LOVE a decent single payer system.
2012-02-14 09:43:22 PM
1 votes:

themeaningoflifeisnot: Zmog: ole prophet: Why are democrats so hell-bent on lining the pockets of Big Pharm/Insurance?

By suggesting Big Insurance offer birth control coverage free-of-charge?

Aside from the question of whether it's only the Dems lining their pockets, do you really think that insurance companies are going to absorb the cost of providing birth control? Ain't going to happen. They will simply adjust the employer contribution to cover the expected expense of BC.

One thing that will never, ever happen: cornering the insurance lobby with an unrecoverable cost.


Birth control is cheaper for them to pay for than labor and delivery costs.
2012-02-14 09:43:01 PM
1 votes:

themeaningoflifeisnot: Zmog: ole prophet: Why are democrats so hell-bent on lining the pockets of Big Pharm/Insurance?

By suggesting Big Insurance offer birth control coverage free-of-charge?

Aside from the question of whether it's only the Dems lining their pockets, do you really think that insurance companies are going to absorb the cost of providing birth control? Ain't going to happen. They will simply adjust the employer contribution to cover the expected expense of BC.

One thing that will never, ever happen: cornering the insurance lobby with an unrecoverable cost.


I dunno, I think it goes in the "80% of premiums collected have to go to care" column.
2012-02-14 09:43:00 PM
1 votes:

Genevieve Marie: Dusk-You-n-Me: CanisNoir: You really have no clue how the Market Place works do you? Nobody is being forced to get their insurance from Company X - if they don't cover what you want, shop around for one that does.

Except that's not how the market place works. Most Americans are at the mercy of what employers provide. That's how it works in America. Sure, Mitt Romney likes to be able to fire his insurance company, because he's rich. Middle class Americans don't have that option.

It's EASY! JUST GO MAKE 300 MILLION DOLLARS BY SHEER WILL POWER AND THE SWEAT OF YOUR BROW! THIS IS A REALISTIC EXPECTATION TO HAVE OF PEOPLE!

Duh.


This is why single-payer is the only viable solution. Take the employers out of the mix completely.
2012-02-14 09:42:43 PM
1 votes:

teeny: SilentStrider: WhyteRaven74: And not every woman who takes birth control bills does so to avoid being pregnant.

This should be repeated for emphasis.
The pill has legitimate uses that aren't birth control related.


Yes, but setting aside for the moment the exceptions to the rule, why should it be necessary that all working women get it provided for free? A lesbian, an infertile, a post-menopausal woman...there are many cases where it's not necessary. The value of wide access to birth control is undisputed (by me). I just think that when it comes to accessibility, a working woman with health coverage doesn't have what I'd consider to be "limited access." Therefore, there's no reason to mandate coverage.


Except that there are health plans that don't cover it and it's expensive. And even lesbian women and infertile women occasionally need hormonal birth control for medical reasons.

And all of that is besides the point, because I don't get to choose a plan that doesn't cover viagra or diabetes medication, even though I have no need for either one.
2012-02-14 09:42:30 PM
1 votes:

teeny: why should it be necessary that all working women get it provided for free? A lesbian, an infertile, a post-menopausal woman...there are many cases where it's not necessary.


are you under the impression that a medicine being available for a patient's insurance coverage equates like...birth control being mailed to women whether they want it or not....or something?

i'm trying to make sense of what you said without that implied goofiness, and i can't.
2012-02-14 09:41:10 PM
1 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: CanisNoir: You really have no clue how the Market Place works do you? Nobody is being forced to get their insurance from Company X - if they don't cover what you want, shop around for one that does.

Except that's not how the market place works. Most Americans are at the mercy of what employers provide. That's how it works in America. Sure, Mitt Romney likes to be able to fire his insurance company, because he's rich. Middle class Americans don't have that option.


It's EASY! JUST GO MAKE 300 MILLION DOLLARS BY SHEER WILL POWER AND THE SWEAT OF YOUR BROW! THIS IS A REALISTIC EXPECTATION TO HAVE OF PEOPLE!

Duh.
2012-02-14 09:40:30 PM
1 votes:

themeaningoflifeisnot: That would be hilarious.


could we call the agency responsible for enforcing this 'Sex Panels'?
2012-02-14 09:39:41 PM
1 votes:

Alien Robot: Guidette Frankentits: Birth control is cheaper than prenatal care + birth/c-sections + complications + neonatal intensive care + coverage for the child with a small increase in premiums or abortions. Times these figures by N where N is the number of unintended pregnancies carried to term.

Sterilization is cheaper still. Maybe the government should force poor people to get sterilized; is that what you want?


No, let's go with the one that's good public policy.
2012-02-14 09:39:32 PM
1 votes:

CanisNoir: You really have no clue how the Market Place works do you? Nobody is being forced to get their insurance from Company X - if they don't cover what you want, shop around for one that does.


Except that's not how the market place works. Most Americans are at the mercy of what employers provide. That's how it works in America. Sure, Mitt Romney likes to be able to fire his insurance company, because he's rich. Middle class Americans don't have that option.
2012-02-14 09:39:09 PM
1 votes:
Blatantly unconstitutional discrimination in my GOP legislation?

I'm shocked. Shocked!
2012-02-14 09:38:41 PM
1 votes:
You know those men who make dating profiles saying they are super nice guys and then cry out when nobody pays attention to them? They are the same guys wanting to restrict birth control because they hate when so much for not giving them attention.
2012-02-14 09:37:45 PM
1 votes:

ole prophet: dumb words


Yes, we should and will have single-payer health care, you're right. Until then, stopgaps are necessary.
2012-02-14 09:37:39 PM
1 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: As written, it would permit all employers to deny any health services in their insurance plans that aren't in accordance with their "religious beliefs and moral convictions." The measure states no limitations or criteria, which means employers have free rein to decide what medical care their employees may or may not receive.

This goes far beyond contraception. It's ridiculous, and Democrats and other sane and vrational people are right to be outraged. I wish we had a single payer system, where employers had nothing to do with providing health insurance. But unless and until that happens, a bill of this nature would have catastrophic results.


What, so I as an employer should be forced to pay for cancer treatments which attempt to subvert God's will?
2012-02-14 09:36:55 PM
1 votes:

CujoQuarrel: smeegle: Pincy: CujoQuarrel: I just don't see it as an insurance issue.

You are obviously not an insurance company.

True but what's the difference between covering BC and meds for getting and keeping a woody long enough to fark till you keel over from a heart attack?

One is because of a medical condition that is from a disease and the other isn't

BC for women is not equivalent to Viagra/Cialis for men

The closest comparison would be
BC is the same as Prophylactics
Viagra is the same as fertility treatments

The first two are not because of a medical failure or disease. The second two are.


Wow. It's amazing all the wrong you crammed into one tiny post. Women are prescribed birth control for reasons other not getting pregnant. When I was young, I had problems with excessive periods (20+ days), and I was prescribed birth control, which, by the way, was not covered by insurance. It turns out there are several reasons women are prescribed the pill that don't involve preventing pregnancy. (new window) And, according to a number of doctors I know, most Viagra/Levitra/Cialis/Staxyn being prescribed is not for men who have any real medical impediment (unless you count not being 17 a medical impediment).

Now, to reiterate: the Pill helps some women with life-threatening diseases and is not covered. Viagra/Levitra/Cialis/Staxyn do not help anyone with a life-threatening condition and are covered. For every man who wants them. For what ever reason a man will use them. And, Viagra/Levitra/Cialis/Staxyn are bad for the species because they allow older men, who have lower quality sperm, to remain fertile past the time when their genetic material are damaged. (new window)
2012-02-14 09:33:29 PM
1 votes:

GoldSpider: How about no elective procedure/medication be covered?


so long as we make sure a guy in a funny outfit with a collection plate determines elective/non-elective, of course.

after all, what 'we' need is an easy thing to answer when 'we' is 'me'. when it isn't?
2012-02-14 09:29:53 PM
1 votes:
Things that need to happen with insurance, no more refusing to cover things because the insurance company deems it experiment or high risk, no refusing to cover any medication for any indicated condition, those are the big two, there's others. Oh and another big one, make their actuarial data available to the public.
2012-02-14 09:28:03 PM
1 votes:

WhyteRaven74: And not every woman who takes birth control bills does so to avoid being pregnant.


This should be repeated for emphasis.
The pill has legitimate uses that aren't birth control related.
2012-02-14 09:26:28 PM
1 votes:

CanisNoir: I mean that would be good public policy by the standards of the arguments in this thread.


by the argument you lay out, pregnancy itself shouldn't be covered, as that pecker could have stayed pantsed.

please, scream this policy initiative from the rooftops. it will do social conservatives wonders.

really.
2012-02-14 09:23:06 PM
1 votes:
One day, I'm going to work out why this whole "Riders that have less than bugger all to do with the primary bill" thing is not just legal, but normal. Has this particular loophole ever been used for good, or just for fundamentalist chicken-farking?
2012-02-14 09:22:22 PM
1 votes:

teeny: . In other words, aren't employers ALREADY allowed to opt out of birth control coverage?


No, unless they sign up for a policy that doesn't cover it. Good luck with that if you have a lot of female employees.
2012-02-14 09:20:08 PM
1 votes:
In another thread, one of the popular arguments was that birth control is so cost effective, that insurance companies loved it. Now all of a sudden they're itching for a reason to drop the coverage.

What is the current situation? How many current plans cover birth control, opposed to plans that don't? Does an employer choose a plan and simply check or uncheck what he wants included or excluded? ... In other words, aren't employers ALREADY allowed to opt out of birth control coverage? Or is it only allowed for religious reasons?

How would the amendment change the way things currently are?
2012-02-14 09:20:08 PM
1 votes:
Forgive me, but didn't Congress just give Obama line-item veto powers? Just pass it, and have Obama veto those lines in a big ceremony to draw attention to how ass-backwards the GOP is. Christ if they're gonna give you the rope to hang themselves with you might as well tie the knot.
2012-02-14 09:16:27 PM
1 votes:

CujoQuarrel: Sock Ruh Tease: Obama wants people to have easy access to birth control.

Republicans come out against something the vast majority wants/uses, and not just for "birth control" purposes either (at least for female pills).

Obama doesn't even need to campaign this year.

[i.imgur.com image 450x300]

There is still 'easy access'. The pharmacies still stock the pills. There is nothing stopping the patient from personally buying the product. It's just that you want other people to buy it for you.


Health insurance plans that don't cover birth control should cost more. Pills cost a lot less than pregnancy and dependents. You're arguing that everyone else should foot the bill for the increased cost brought on by other peoples religious objections.
2012-02-14 09:12:56 PM
1 votes:

Sock Ruh Tease: Obama wants people to have easy access to birth control.

Republicans come out against something the vast majority wants/uses, and not just for "birth control" purposes either (at least for female pills).

Obama doesn't even need to campaign this year.

[i.imgur.com image 450x300]


There is still 'easy access'. The pharmacies still stock the pills. There is nothing stopping the patient from personally buying the product. It's just that you want other people to buy it for you.
2012-02-14 09:08:40 PM
1 votes:

Dog Welder: You know what? I'm a conservative. I'm a Republican. And, no, I don't believe any of that stuff. These a-holes in Congress are religious fundies posing as conservative Republicans. I know, the party has been hijacked by religious fundies. I'm all for throwing all of these douchebags out of office.


and every dime you contribute to any republican just keeps these farks in office. Sorry man, you're just enabling the bastards at this point.

/ex-republican
//jumped ship a decade ago
///you can too
2012-02-14 09:07:17 PM
1 votes:
I said it in the other thread, but the idea that all women can have access to affordable contraception must really piss of those cranky, miserable men that can never get laid.

/yes, that includes bishops
2012-02-14 09:07:12 PM
1 votes:
The last person I'd trust to give sex advice is a Republican. Keep out of my bedroom, asshats.
2012-02-14 09:06:31 PM
1 votes:
Universal, easy and cheap access to birth control is good public policy and a net benefit to society. So no wonder that Republicans, conservatives and the GOP oppose it.
2012-02-14 09:05:54 PM
1 votes:

smeegle: Pincy: Good. Just keep alienating people you GOP farkwads. You are merely increasing Obama's margin of victory by even more percentage points.

I'm getting suspicious that they don't even want to win. Just look at the pool of choices.
Listen to the crap that they spew. Incredible and ridiculous.



I've been wondering this myself lately, whether the Repubs are tanking on purpose this year, a la the Colts. Could actually be a shrewd move, to finally give their old-guard has-beens a final push off the cliff.

Either way, it sure is fun to watch.
2012-02-14 09:05:03 PM
1 votes:

flamingboar: I'm getting tired of the BC issue. I thought it was done and over with but no. That chicken needs farking.


Even though this is one issue that most Americans overwhelmingly agree on and only nutjobs believe that restricting birth control access is a good idea.

Sigh.
2012-02-14 09:02:22 PM
1 votes:

CujoQuarrel: True but what's the difference between covering BC and meds for getting and keeping a woody long enough to fark till you keel over from a heart attack?

One is because of a medical condition that is from a disease and the other isn't

BC for women is not equivalent to Viagra/Cialis for men


Actually, it is quite similar when you realize that BC is prescribed as medication to treat heavy/painful/debilitating periods. Actually, the BC use case seems far more beneficial than the ED one.
2012-02-14 09:01:08 PM
1 votes:
Birth control on the highway. Is that like a blow job while you're driving?
2012-02-14 09:00:28 PM
1 votes:
Man, those assholes are really, really scared of the vagina.
2012-02-14 08:59:46 PM
1 votes:
I'm getting tired of the BC issue. I thought it was done and over with but no. That chicken needs farking.
2012-02-14 08:59:36 PM
1 votes:

smeegle: stupidly thinking it's a great issue


that really is the crux of the biscuit. catholic bishops say a lot of shiat, we didn't have a national discussion, repeated media showcases, and rafts of attempted legislation/policy wonkery based on their statements regarding the death penalty, bush doctrine/pre-emptive war, the minimum wage...etc.

the i'm-not-romney brigade is shooting the party in the general election foot in favor of primary red meat to toss at the social conservatives...on a topic only social conservatives give any semblance of a shiat about. but they're grabbing ahold of that chicken and farking the feathers off it, none the less.
2012-02-14 08:58:54 PM
1 votes:

Jim_Callahan: Really? Of all the issues for the few Catholic republicans to try to turn into planks in the party platform, this is the one they go with?

Not, you know, the Church's no-excuses anti-war position? Maybe the Church's open advocacy of universal healthcare and strong welfare systems? Birth control? Really?


Fighting birth control allows them to stand up for a man's right to treat his woman like his property. Universal health care and welfare would undermine that right.
2012-02-14 08:55:25 PM
1 votes:

fusillade762: Oh FOR F*CK'S SAKE.

I hear they also want to strip all funding for mass transit from the bill.


They think that mass transit and bicycles are only for creeps and weirdos.
farm1.staticflickr.com
bikeportland.org
2012-02-14 08:53:57 PM
1 votes:

theknuckler_33: I mean, I guess it is technically a 'medical condition'.


Right and some women take BC for medical conditions.
This is really about the GOP caving to the Catholic bishops sniping and stupidly thinking it's a great issue to try and unseat Obama.
2012-02-14 08:53:36 PM
1 votes:

Nadie_AZ: Well, guess what, GOP? Less and less people care, anymore. And I really do hope you crank your volume up to 11 because that'll get everyone off their asses and to the voting booths in November.


if nothing else, i hope the frothy side of the party gets their way this time around in presidential nominations.

it's not that people won't claim their loss was due to an insufficiently conservative candidate, but it'll be all the more humorous if they have to do so in relation to rick freaking santorum.
2012-02-14 08:51:43 PM
1 votes:

mrmyxolodian: How do they think this is actually
a) good public policy
b) politically worthwhile
c) going to help them in November?

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 320x240]


Ironically, the conservative, Bible Belt states supported the Democrats up until '64. Goldwater brought them into the GOP.
2012-02-14 08:51:33 PM
1 votes:

CujoQuarrel: Or you could just go buy it. You can do that you know. You are allowed to purchase your own medications from the pharmacy. They even take cash.


Then if people want Viagra they can go pay for it themselves.
2012-02-14 08:51:23 PM
1 votes:

smeegle: theknuckler_33: re ED meds really covered typically by insurance? Honest question.

I asked that question sometime back and was told that yes indeed they do. I think this is generally accepted as true.
Maybe it depends on the caliber of the insurance package.


I mean, I guess it is technically a 'medical condition'. I wonder if Rogaine is covered. I mean, baldness is a 'medical condition' too. Or Proactiv.
2012-02-14 08:50:55 PM
1 votes:

Karac: fusillade762: Oh FOR F*CK'S SAKE.

I hear they also want to strip all funding for mass transit from the bill.

That makes sense. Birth control has sweet fark-all to do with highways, so obviously we've got to shoehorn that shiat into the bill, while mass transit is obviously connected to highways, so that's got to get the fark out.


Babies and mass transit are only related if you're the Octomom or the Duggars.
2012-02-14 08:49:15 PM
1 votes:
Oh for shiat's sake. What the hell is wrong with everyone?

GOP: It's a goddamn HIGHWAY BILL. Farking focus on the topic at hand.

Ms. Boxer: The current level of accessibility to birth control is hardly "medieval". If you're super concerned about the cost of unwanted or unexpected pregnancies, perhaps you should focus on the demographic that has the largest share of them. Hint: It's not women who are employed full-time with health benefits.
2012-02-14 08:48:50 PM
1 votes:
Hehe.

The GOP can no longer count on the economy as a winning argument. I heard recently that the focus was now going to be on social issues. These were more important to the electorate, the person being interviewed said.

Well, guess what, GOP? Less and less people care, anymore. And I really do hope you crank your volume up to 11 because that'll get everyone off their asses and to the voting booths in November.
2012-02-14 08:48:46 PM
1 votes:

Zoophagous: I love the GOP so much.

Not only are they handing Obama a second term by running nothing but retards they are making sure it's a blow out.

Hoping Frothy gets the nomination. The debates will be epic.


What's crazy is the Atlantic just published an article about how people keep getting more conservative but the Pew research center's latest poll shows Obama is widening his lead over Romney and Santorum. A big part of that is the economy, but it's still funny that even though the majority of people agree with the right philosophically, the GOP crazy train is managing to alienate everyone but the derptards. I for the love of God don't know why they're doubling down on that strategy instead of playing to the moderates.
2012-02-14 08:48:03 PM
1 votes:

smeegle: CujoQuarrel: Have the government provide the BC then. Don't fob it off on a third party (the insurance companies).

Do you really want that? I don't want the government anywhere near my reproductive health choices, unless of course it is to make sure I still get to have those choices.

The insurance companies can handle it trust me.


But what they want is for the government to MANDATE that the insurance companies provide it. Just passing the buck.

If you have an insurance company that wants to cover it fine because it would be their choice. The people who object to paying for other peoples BC could then go find some other insurance. Or you could find another if they didn't cover it.

Or you could just go buy it. You can do that you know. You are allowed to purchase your own medications from the pharmacy. They even take cash.
2012-02-14 08:46:37 PM
1 votes:

theknuckler_33: re ED meds really covered typically by insurance? Honest question.


I asked that question sometime back and was told that yes indeed they do. I think this is generally accepted as true.
Maybe it depends on the caliber of the insurance package.
2012-02-14 08:45:37 PM
1 votes:

Karac: Badfrog: stoli n coke: I see. Now that Santorum's wife has already gotten her abortion, it's necessary to roll back women's reproductive rights back to the 40s?

For shame, Frothy.

Yes, because not giving things to everyone for free is the exact same thing as banning it and taking their rights away.

/where's my free gun?

You do realize that Frothy thinks the government should outlaw contraception (even to married couples), that no abortions should be allowed for any reason (even if it would save the life of the mother, as in his wife's case), and that polygamy, adultery, sodomy, and other actions "antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family" should be made illegal?

Hell, this is the man who blamed the priests abusing altar boys on the pinko communism originating from Boston.

So getting rid of any kind of contraception, getting rid of any abortions, putting sodomy laws back in place - yeah, Santorum does want to take women's reproductive rights back to at least the '40's. The man is a odious hypocrit obsessed with controlling the private lives of consenting adults. The fact that a major policital party holds him up as a potential president is both laughable and depressing.


They sold their souls to the Devil during "Saint" Ronnie's administration. This is merely what one should have expected as a result.
2012-02-14 08:45:01 PM
1 votes:
Obama wants people to have easy access to birth control.

Republicans come out against something the vast majority wants/uses, and not just for "birth control" purposes either (at least for female pills).

Obama doesn't even need to campaign this year.

i.imgur.com
2012-02-14 08:43:02 PM
1 votes:
Sometimes I wonder if the other, slightly-more-sane, politicians in Congress just straight up ask "What the fark is this shiat?" - in precisely those words - when this sort of thing gets proposed. In most cases they probably still know it's coming before it even hits the floor. But still, put that sort of incredulous reaction "on-record", even though - as I understand it - there are rules against being vulgar/insulting to your opponent.

On the other hand, I also wonder if this kind of stupidity is proposed expressly for the purpose of having the original bill voted down. But I can't imagine what kind of partisan hackery would involve attacking some of the more mundane legislations. I mean, if this was over philosophical differences I might understand: for example, attached to the original "supply birth control" mandate might be an amendment to say "kill ALL the babies!" just to make the whole thing unpopular. But simple infrastructure? Why? Is it the meta game? "The [other party] are do-nothings! They couldn't pass a simple bill to fund our ailing infrastructure!" And never mind that it was the other side that made all the bills so repulsive that the only solution is to vote no.
2012-02-14 08:42:51 PM
1 votes:
Q. Why did the chicken cross the highway?

A. So the Republicans could keep farkin it.
2012-02-14 08:39:44 PM
1 votes:

Badfrog: stoli n coke: I see. Now that Santorum's wife has already gotten her abortion, it's necessary to roll back women's reproductive rights back to the 40s?

For shame, Frothy.

Yes, because not giving things to everyone for free is the exact same thing as banning it and taking their rights away.

/where's my free gun?


You do realize that Frothy thinks the government should outlaw contraception (even to married couples), that no abortions should be allowed for any reason (even if it would save the life of the mother, as in his wife's case), and that polygamy, adultery, sodomy, and other actions "antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family" should be made illegal?

Hell, this is the man who blamed the priests abusing altar boys on the pinko communism originating from Boston.

So getting rid of any kind of contraception, getting rid of any abortions, putting sodomy laws back in place - yeah, Santorum does want to take women's reproductive rights back to at least the '40's. The man is a odious hypocrit obsessed with controlling the private lives of consenting adults. The fact that a major policital party holds him up as a potential president is both laughable and depressing.
2012-02-14 08:39:36 PM
1 votes:
Really? Of all the issues for the few Catholic republicans to try to turn into planks in the party platform, this is the one they go with?

Not, you know, the Church's no-excuses anti-war position? Maybe the Church's open advocacy of universal healthcare and strong welfare systems? Birth control? Really?
2012-02-14 08:37:41 PM
1 votes:
I love the GOP so much.

Not only are they handing Obama a second term by running nothing but retards they are making sure it's a blow out.

Hoping Frothy gets the nomination. The debates will be epic.
2012-02-14 08:33:09 PM
1 votes:

orclover: I believe that in 10 years, after this is all over (or worse) some SS guy will publish a book about all the attempts on Obama's life that were hushed up. America will shiat itself that day.


Hmm I would like to think you are wrong but sadly you are probably dead on. Pun intended:)
2012-02-14 08:30:13 PM
1 votes:
Please take the right wing, lunatic, fundie-religous bullshiat and stuff it up your god-fearing ass.


And while you're at it, STFU and sit down, us adults are tired shiat.
2012-02-14 08:28:08 PM
1 votes:

CujoQuarrel: You know we could just let everyone pay for their own birth control. Can't see any reason is should be covered under insurance which is meant to cover such things as disease and accidents as a shared unexpected risk. This isn't unexpected.

I'm not opposed to BC. In fact I'd be in favor of making it OTC if possible.

I just don't see it as an insurance issue.


Contraception is often prescribed for medical reasons other than preventing pregnancy.

And that's not even mentioning that preventing an unintended pregnancy is far cheaper for the insurance company than paying for a baby to be born and for 18-26 years thereafter.
2012-02-14 08:24:39 PM
1 votes:

fusillade762: Oh FOR F*CK'S SAKE.

I hear they also want to strip all funding for mass transit from the bill.


That makes sense. Birth control has sweet fark-all to do with highways, so obviously we've got to shoehorn that shiat into the bill, while mass transit is obviously connected to highways, so that's got to get the fark out.
2012-02-14 08:23:40 PM
1 votes:

CujoQuarrel: I just don't see it as an insurance issue.


Until then, it is an insurance issue. It's way more expensive to deal with unwanted pregnancies in the ranks of the poor than it is to provide them with affordable BC.
2012-02-14 08:23:37 PM
1 votes:
I see. Now that Santorum's wife has already gotten her abortion, it's necessary to roll back women's reproductive rights back to the 40s?

For shame, Frothy.
2012-02-14 08:21:09 PM
1 votes:
You know we could just let everyone pay for their own birth control. Can't see any reason is should be covered under insurance which is meant to cover such things as disease and accidents as a shared unexpected risk. This isn't unexpected.

I'm not opposed to BC. In fact I'd be in favor of making it OTC if possible.

I just don't see it as an insurance issue.
2012-02-14 08:19:25 PM
1 votes:
cdn.androidpolice.com

I'm not sure who's trolling who in this whole contraceptive debate, but somebody's getting it to the maximum
2012-02-14 08:19:13 PM
1 votes:

Troy McClure: Good thing those morons also want to give Obama line-item veto power.


Eh, he has to power to request it, doesn't he still need congressional approval?
2012-02-14 08:18:26 PM
1 votes:

CujoQuarrel: Lionel Mandrake: Dear GOP:

[i159.photobucket.com image 446x532]

Well, I'm sure we're all glad you approve of this action.

See
Urban Dictionary (new window)


"In any case, KFTC seems to be a gesture of support to the recipient to continue doing whatever it is that they're doing, despite what others may say, so long as it makes them happy."

In other words

"Yea, keep doing this nutty shiat if it makes you happy GOP, you are only making yourself look more idiotic. and that is good for me.
2012-02-14 08:16:58 PM
1 votes:

Pincy: Good. Just keep alienating people you GOP farkwads. You are merely increasing Obama's margin of victory by even more percentage points.


I'm getting suspicious that they don't even want to win. Just look at the pool of choices.
Listen to the crap that they spew. Incredible and ridiculous.
2012-02-14 08:16:21 PM
1 votes:

smeegle: Republicans of taking cues from surging presidential contender Rick Santorum, who as recently as last Fall said the use of contraception in and of itself is "not okay."

Well Mr. Santorum you don't get to decide what's okay and not okay for American women, even though I know you would like to because you sir, are a dangerous boob that needs to crawl back into your Medieval farking hole.


I remember hearing him say things like "sex before marriage is not right" and "birth control leads to behavior that's not OK".... there's no political argument, or economic angle, or any type of reasoning whatsoever. What we "should" and "shouldn't" do is exclusively determined by whatever Mr. Biblethumper thinks is good or bad.

We've reached the end of reason, here...
2012-02-14 08:15:15 PM
1 votes:

intelligent comment below: Dog Welder:
You know what? I'm a conservative. I'm a Republican. And, no, I don't believe any of that stuff. These a-holes in Congress are religious fundies posing as conservative Republicans. I know, the party has been hijacked by religious fundies. I'm all for throwing all of these douchebags out of office.

Well they took over your party and your label, so until you vote them out, that's what they will be called. Just like moderate Democrats these days like Obama always get the liberal label even though they never were.


I've been doing my part. I've been voting against Jean Schmidt for years, but the Democrats only see fit to run certifiably insane people against her. Schmidt BARELY WINS in a heavily-weighted GOP district. This might be the year we get rid of her, though.

And a friend of mine who wants to oppose John Boehner in his district on the platform "I'm not John Boehner." I think he would have a shot at winning.
2012-02-14 08:11:35 PM
1 votes:

mrmyxolodian: How do they think this is actually
a) good public policy
b) politically worthwhile
c) going to help them in November?

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 320x240]


Thank you for finding that quote...I was just looking for it.

I don't know why they're going down this road but:

a) it's not good public policy
b) it's only minimally worthwhile politically
c) it's going to doom them in November

Republican leadership needs to pull their collective heads out of their asses, but I know it's not going to happen until the GOP gets buried in November. The only way they could get any dumber would be to start screaming for Obama's REAL birth certificate again.

When the Democrats got curb-stomped back in 2002, they really had to go back and reassess their priorities. Maybe this will be the GOP's wake up call, but I can't see any of these idiots learning how to compromise with anybody.
2012-02-14 08:10:08 PM
1 votes:

Dog Welder:
You know what? I'm a conservative. I'm a Republican. And, no, I don't believe any of that stuff. These a-holes in Congress are religious fundies posing as conservative Republicans. I know, the party has been hijacked by religious fundies. I'm all for throwing all of these douchebags out of office.


Well they took over your party and your label, so until you vote them out, that's what they will be called. Just like moderate Democrats these days like Obama always get the liberal label even though they never were.
2012-02-14 08:10:00 PM
1 votes:
So sick of this nonsense, but you know what? I think it's actually gonna be the GOP that's the lame duck party for some time to come. I think they have wandered much further into the wilderness than even they realize. A new century is here, and they think they can make-do with busted pro-wealth-concentration economic policies and outdated pro-bigotry social policies.


Oh, and this:

Kazan: Dear GOP:

Please go F--- yourself, you unamerican dominionist dog fornicators.

Sincerely,
The 21st Century

2012-02-14 08:08:55 PM
1 votes:
holy freeeekin farkin arrrggghhh ^(*$%00000000#!

Just STOP IT!

Whew...

We really need to run these farktards out on a rail in november.
2012-02-14 08:05:46 PM
1 votes:
The GOP could very well lose the election to Obama solely because of Santorum's medieval view on reproductive rights, and yet they insist on continuing to f*ck that chicken over and over again...

/good on them, i guess
2012-02-14 08:05:35 PM
1 votes:
From what I understand, it is religious persecution to not allow fundies to force all their views on the American public.
2012-02-14 08:04:44 PM
1 votes:
Good thing those morons also want to give Obama line-item veto power.
2012-02-14 08:03:41 PM
1 votes:
Conservatives think restricting the freedoms of everyone else to conform to what you believe is actual "freedom."

Just like restricting gays to not be able to marry is enforcing the freedoms of heterosexuals.

"I have the freedom to oppress you!" Says the master.
2012-02-14 08:02:00 PM
1 votes:
Oh FOR F*CK'S SAKE.

I hear they also want to strip all funding for mass transit from the bill.
2012-02-14 07:21:23 PM
1 votes:
k.wigflip.com
2012-02-14 07:19:37 PM
1 votes:
Go away. Just leave. You're losing this battle. Any farther and you risk getting your ass handed to you this November like Mondale did in '84.
2012-02-14 07:18:11 PM
1 votes:
Dear GOP:

i159.photobucket.com
 
Displayed 255 of 255 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report