Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Washington Post)   Dems to GOP: "I heard you need more rope? Here take as much as you need. And be sure to tell people they're unclean while they're ovulating too"   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 606
    More: Amusing, GOP, Democrats, Terri Schiavo, democratic coalition, advice columnist  
•       •       •

10413 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Feb 2012 at 9:52 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



606 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-17 02:37:30 PM  

moralpanic: skullkrusher: moralpanic: I have a question, is Obama the luckiest SOB ever, or is he a Jedi Master playing on a completely different level then everybody else.

neither. You don't have to be terribly lucky or masterful when your opposition is a stupid as his is. Just an average level of competence is enough to beat these farking circus monkeys :)

Then what does that say about Romney who is losing to Santorum?


not much since they are performing for the same circus crowd.
 
2012-02-17 02:39:42 PM  
I just don't get why this has turned into a BC issue, when it's a health issue in general. My wife has PCOS, and in order to prevent uterine cancer that's associated with that condition, she's supposed to take BC whenever she's not specifically trying to get pregnant (she is trying right now). The BC isn't to prevent her from getting pregnant (it's hard enough to accomplish that as it is), it's to regulate her menstrual cycle to keep her uterine lining from becoming too thick, which can ultimately cause uterine cancer.

Why is it that trying to keep my wife from getting cancer should cost her $50-60 per month, because other people use it to prevent pregnancy when all of her other meds have co-pays of $10 or $20 at most? I've never understood this. I don't give a damn what your religion is. You have no right to tell my wife she has to pay more for what could be a lifesaving drug because your own invisible sky wizard says people shouldn't try to prevent pregnancy. It's not a pregnancy issue for us! It's a living issue!
 
2012-02-17 02:40:04 PM  
I'm wondering if the unintended consequence of this debate is a step down the road to single payer or universal health care. People on the left don't want an employer to have the power to determine the extent of healthcare coverage based on the employer's morality. On the right, people don't believe an employer should be required to provide types of health care mandated by the government. Everyone seems to agree that passing health care through employment is a crummy way to do business. The logical conclusion - to me, at least - is to decouple health care and employment and make it so that the individual carries the plan with them.
 
2012-02-17 02:42:20 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: TheIndependent: Unfortunately they are the only party advocating for repeal of ACA so they will get my vote as that bill is an unmitigated train wreck.

In what respect?


And how is it worse than what we had before?
 
2012-02-17 02:44:58 PM  

bugontherug: Just take care to understand that both sides are not equally bad, and one should never, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, vote Republican.


Oh of course not. I look forward to the day when the Republican party once again becomes about small government and individual rights, but until then I can't imagine ever voting for one of those cretins.
 
2012-02-17 02:47:07 PM  

BeesNuts: First off, many BC pills provide health and wellness benefits besides not having babies. Reduced acne, hormone imbalance issues as girls go through puberty, menstruation issues such as extremely heavy or extremely light periods, inconsistent periods...


yes, been covered. 14% of women who take the pill were prescribed it to treat health issues.

BeesNuts: Secondly, my insurance doesn't cover Tussin either. OTC items rarely see any impact from insurance plans. I'm confused about why you're making this an issue


Again, because the point was to increase access for women to birth control. One of the methods used was this employer covered copay. There is no mention of getting men access to reproductive health products. It wouldn't have to be done through insurance although it certainly could be. Hell, they could make condoms a tax deductible item.

BeesNuts: Furthermore, a years prescription of Orthotricyclen about 500 dollars without any insurance at all. (38 - 40 dollars for 28 tabs, which actually works out to 13 refills per year, instead of monthly). A years worth of condoms is probably what... (a study done by Trojan actually says that the average amount of sex in America is 84 times per year, so lets say 100 condoms at 50 cents apiece) 50 bucks. 10% the cost.


this is an illogical comparison since we're not discussing the cost of BC "without any insurance at all". We're talking about a farking $10 a month copay. Anyway, Trojans are more expensive than that and, unlike the pill, they also protect against disease.

BeesNuts: This isn't just about men v women. I assume, as a man, that you feel as I do. I want women's junk to work right almost as much as they do. And sexually inactive women can need these drugs as much, if not more than sexually active ones.


it isn't a man vs woman issue. However, you hear a lot about how opposition to this part of the bill is a "War on Women" when the compromise the resulted from that opposition still does far more for women in this area than it does for men.
As I said, I think forcing employers to pay for contraception coverage is bullshiat. I don't have much of an issue with the status quo however - that employers must offer contraceptive coverage to their employees but are not required by law to pay for it.
 
2012-02-17 02:48:07 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: bulldg4life: Debeo Summa Credo: Forcing me to provide medical coverage or forcing me to provide certain benefits if I choose to provide coverage is infringing on my rights.

That right being the right to impose my views on other people?

No. Jesus Christ this isn't that hard to understand. The right to pay for what you want and not what you don't want. Employees are free to buy BC with their own money.


No. Insurance is part of my compensation package. It's MY MONEY, not my bosses.
 
2012-02-17 02:50:07 PM  

BritneysSpeculum: Edsel: Remaining GOP electorate will consist entirely of white males under 65.

[s3.amazonaws.com image 312x500]

Not as long as my Rascal can get me to my diabetes doctor, it won't.


Fun question. How does a person like that... you know... exist?

Sometimes I see them and wonder a great many things. How do you:
shower?
operate a fork?
make a phone call?
type?
perform basic home maintenance?
hold a job?
drive a car?

Then I start to wonder very strange things like:
Exactly what part of your ass, using the coccyx as the origin and up as the positive Y and down as negative Y, do you sit on?
Can you reach every part of your derma without some kind of wand?
You're wearing earrings. Can you actually touch your right ear with your left hand? Or have you developed the skills necessary to put an earring in with one hand? Or perhaps you have someone else do it for you?
WHERE THE FARK DID YOU BUY THOSE PANTS? HOW CAN THE ANKLES BE THAT SMALL AND YET THE WAIST LARGE ENOUGH TO REACH ALL THE WAY AROUND THAT THING YOU'RE CALLING YOUR "HIPS"?
 
2012-02-17 02:54:08 PM  

bugontherug: moralpanic: I have a question, is Obama the luckiest SOB ever, or is he a Jedi Master playing on a completely different level then everybody else.

He's been playing the Republicans like a fiddle since day one.



Bullshiat. He has been doing it lately, but in the beginning he tried the whole 'post-partisan' thing. He sought compromise on every issue, often starting with what would have been a reasonable middle ground. It took him a surprising amount of time to realize that when the opposing forces opinions are 'stimulus spending can spur growth' and 'Obama shouldn't be president' there is no middle ground to be had.
 
2012-02-17 02:54:26 PM  

skullkrusher: this is an illogical comparison since we're not discussing the cost of BC "without any insurance at all". We're talking about a farking $10 a month copay. Anyway, Trojans are more expensive than that and, unlike the pill, they also protect against disease.


What catholic-owned organizations are fighting for is to not provide coverage for any birth control at all. As in, the full cost - not the copay. If they could come up with a way to make it more difficult to buy condoms too, they would, because that is also against their religion.

And women buy condoms too. They aren't magically covered for women and not for men. Your beef is with the fact that drug companies have not funded research on a male birth control option, even though there are many promising studies out there.
 
2012-02-17 02:55:40 PM  
I think it's cool that Obama can now tell the Catholic Church what it can and can't do.


He should be able to do that to everybody.

shiat....why did no one think of this before?

That whole "freedom" thing is SO over-rated!
 
2012-02-17 02:58:34 PM  

Johnnyknox: I think it's cool that Obama the Catholic Church can now tell the Catholic Church me what itI can and can't do.


ThHe should be able to do that to everybody.

shiat....why did no one think of this before?

That whole "freedom" thing is SO over-rated!


ftfy
 
2012-02-17 02:58:44 PM  
Johnnyknox:

It's like full retard day here at Fark.
 
2012-02-17 02:58:55 PM  

skullkrusher: no, however, your argument, that employers should be forced to pay the copay because it saves them money, isn't really very good though.


I think you may have gotten slightly lost here, though that's understandable since it seems to have been a long, sprawling argument. There's actually two parallel arguments being made here:

The reason that employers should be compelled to do this is because it's in society's best interest for as many people as possible to have health insurance available that meets some minimal standards, including in this case coverage of said preventative medicine. Whether it costs employers more, less, or the same amount doesn't have any particular bearing on this point.

However, at least one person in this thread put forth the argument that employers shouldn't be made to do it because it would cost them more. As a complete aside, it was explained to that person that it would not cost them more and, in fact, would cost them considerably less. That's not the reason why employers should be made to do it - it's simply the reason why that particular argument for not making employers to do it (that it would cost them more) doesn't make sense.
 
2012-02-17 03:00:13 PM  

raanne: What catholic-owned organizations are fighting for is to not provide coverage for any birth control at all. As in, the full cost - not the copay. If they could come up with a way to make it more difficult to buy condoms too, they would, because that is also against their religion.


they have provided birth control coverage for a decade as that has been the law.

raanne: And women buy condoms too. They aren't magically covered for women and not for men. Your beef is with the fact that drug companies have not funded research on a male birth control option, even though there are many promising studies out there.


ugh... it isn't the matter that condoms are covered for women and not men, it is that FEMALE birth control is covered by the bill while MALE contraception is not. And no, that is not my beef at all.
 
2012-02-17 03:01:23 PM  
OOH!

Has anyone told the Muslims that they have to provide birth control to their employees yet?


cause I'll bet they're gonna be PISSED!
 
2012-02-17 03:01:53 PM  

Biological Ali: The reason that employers should be compelled to do this is because it's in society's best interest for as many people as possible to have health insurance available that meets some minimal standards, including in this case coverage of said preventative medicine. Whether it costs employers more, less, or the same amount doesn't have any particular bearing on this point.


you just presented a cogent argument as to why society should do this. Not why employers should do it.

Biological Ali: However, at least one person in this thread put forth the argument that employers shouldn't be made to do it because it would cost them more. As a complete aside, it was explained to that person that it would not cost them more and, in fact, would cost them considerably less. That's not the reason why employers should be made to do it - it's simply the reason why that particular argument for not making employers to do it (that it would cost them more) doesn't make sense.


I haven't made the cost argument. It's $10 a month, after all
 
2012-02-17 03:02:13 PM  

Johnnyknox: I think it's cool that Obama can now tell the Catholic Church what it can and can't do.


He should be able to do that to everybody.

shiat....why did no one think of this before?

That whole "freedom" thing is SO over-rated!



Are you calling for a religious exemption to child molestation laws?
 
2012-02-17 03:02:59 PM  

fracto73: bugontherug: moralpanic: I have a question, is Obama the luckiest SOB ever, or is he a Jedi Master playing on a completely different level then everybody else.

He's been playing the Republicans like a fiddle since day one.


Bullshiat. He has been doing it lately, but in the beginning he tried the whole 'post-partisan' thing. He sought compromise on every issue, often starting with what would have been a reasonable middle ground. It took him a surprising amount of time to realize that when the opposing forces opinions are 'stimulus spending can spur growth' and 'Obama shouldn't be president' there is no middle ground to be had.


The perception--accurate--that Obama bent over backwards to compromise with what turned out to be a band of Western Jihadist cretins will serve him well this November. It won't help the Republicans at all. Obama easily occupies the center. Now, not even Romney has any hope of competing with him for it.
 
2012-02-17 03:03:05 PM  

skullkrusher: BeesNuts: snip


I know, of course, that you're arguing in good faith, and you're not terribly off the mark. Sorry for going back over some stuff that was already covered upthread. I've since tried to catch up.

Yeah, we're talking about a 10 dollar copay. An option that some employers are arguing should go away. Exempting BC pills from prescription drug coverage. At that point we *would* be talking about BC without insurance. Since no insurance covers condoms (that I'm aware of) it is absolutely apples to apples, unless of course you're suggesting that a discussion about men's 'reproductive health' has no place in a discussion about women's 'reproductive health' because they two concepts have damn near nothing to do with one another. Hell, the primary difference between women and men is... drumroll... our reproductive systems. My main point with that last post wasn't to say that women's BC is more worth coverage than men's. I'm just saying that the two topics are very different and so saying "it's not fair" really doesn't hit home for me.

The "war on women" though... I'd really like to address that more. Opposition to this one part of this one bill doesn't make you a woman warrior. But a great many people (who are not you, I'm sure) who oppose this part of this bill also:
Want to defund Planned Parenthood
Want abstinence only education
Would outlaw abortion if it were politically feasible
...
you've seen the table... you know what I'm getting at.

There are a good number of issues that threaten to set back women's rights by about 50 years or so. Fortunately, we gave them the right to vote a while back, and I trust that they will use it to maintain those rights.

This issue? Small potatoes in that scheme of things. But as part of the overall portrait of our contemporary political landscape? It's like the happy cloud that ties the mountains to the sky and gives us a sense not necessarily of being there, but always of 'being'.
www.createtv.com
It's the little things.
 
2012-02-17 03:05:21 PM  

raanne: Johnnyknox: I think it's cool that Obama the Catholic Church can now tell the Catholic Church me what itI can and can't do.


ThHe should be able to do that to everybody.

shiat....why did no one think of this before?

That whole "freedom" thing is SO over-rated!

ftfy


holy crap this isn't what this is about. The Catholic Church is NOT telling you what you can and cannot do unless you're a Catholic and still then they have no legal authority over you. If someone does not buy you something, they are not making you do anything. This entitled nonsense is 95% of the problem in these sorts of threads. Repeat after me: Freedom to purchase and use birth control and the right to have birth control provided for free are not the same thing. Refusal to give you something for free is not the same as saying you cannot have that something nor is it "making" you do anything.
 
2012-02-17 03:05:56 PM  

skullkrusher: they have provided birth control coverage for a decade as that has been the law.


BS. maybe in some states, but my second job out of college our insurance (at a completely secular engineering consulting firm) was through a catholic-owned company called "care choices" and no birth control was covered. As in $0. I had to pay 100% of the cost. This was 8 years ago. As to your other point, if that isn't your beef, can you point to a prescription-based male birth control that you feel should be covered? If it existed, it would be part of this bill.
 
2012-02-17 03:05:58 PM  

bugontherug: fracto73: bugontherug: moralpanic: I have a question, is Obama the luckiest SOB ever, or is he a Jedi Master playing on a completely different level then everybody else.

He's been playing the Republicans like a fiddle since day one.


Bullshiat. He has been doing it lately, but in the beginning he tried the whole 'post-partisan' thing. He sought compromise on every issue, often starting with what would have been a reasonable middle ground. It took him a surprising amount of time to realize that when the opposing forces opinions are 'stimulus spending can spur growth' and 'Obama shouldn't be president' there is no middle ground to be had.

The perception--accurate--that Obama bent over backwards to compromise with what turned out to be a band of Western Jihadist cretins will serve him well this November. It won't help the Republicans at all. Obama easily occupies the center. Now, not even Romney has any hope of competing with him for it.



I agree that the truth of the situation supports Obama, but I don't think that he was playing them in the beginning. I think he wanted to work with them cooperatively and if someone was getting played it was Obama. For instance, they got him to give up an awful lot on the ACA without getting anything from them.
 
2012-02-17 03:07:59 PM  

skullkrusher: The Catholic Church is NOT telling you what you can and cannot do unless you're a Catholic and still then they have no legal authority over you.


The Catholic Church claims to be God's vessel on Earth. It is most definitely telling you what you can and cannot do, even if you're a Catholic. And it claims more coercive power than any state, since Catholic priests claim the power to forgive sin, and thus damn to or save from Hell.
 
2012-02-17 03:08:17 PM  

skullkrusher: Biological Ali: The reason that employers should be compelled to do this is because it's in society's best interest for as many people as possible to have health insurance available that meets some minimal standards, including in this case coverage of said preventative medicine. Whether it costs employers more, less, or the same amount doesn't have any particular bearing on this point.

you just presented a cogent argument as to why society should do this. Not why employers should do it.

Biological Ali: However, at least one person in this thread put forth the argument that employers shouldn't be made to do it because it would cost them more. As a complete aside, it was explained to that person that it would not cost them more and, in fact, would cost them considerably less. That's not the reason why employers should be made to do it - it's simply the reason why that particular argument for not making employers to do it (that it would cost them more) doesn't make sense.

I haven't made the cost argument. It's $10 a month, after all


He doesn't have to argue why employers should do it. In the United States Healthcare insurance is primarly centered around the employer. Thus, if its good for society then you go to the main purveyors of the service and enact your policy. Since most people are on employer-based healthcare insurance (those that have it) why would you deliberately exclude this huge portion of society?

If employers don't want to deal with this issue then they should get on board with a form of national healthcare plan. Otherwise the idea behind mandating the employers do it is because of the healthcare system in place in the United States.
 
2012-02-17 03:08:43 PM  

skullkrusher: raanne: Johnnyknox: I think it's cool that Obama the Catholic Church can now tell the Catholic Church me what itI can and can't do.


ThHe should be able to do that to everybody.

shiat....why did no one think of this before?

That whole "freedom" thing is SO over-rated!

ftfy

holy crap this isn't what this is about. The Catholic Church is NOT telling you what you can and cannot do unless you're a Catholic and still then they have no legal authority over you. If someone does not buy you something, they are not making you do anything. This entitled nonsense is 95% of the problem in these sorts of threads. Repeat after me: Freedom to purchase and use birth control and the right to have birth control provided for free are not the same thing. Refusal to give you something for free is not the same as saying you cannot have that something nor is it "making" you do anything.


So you think it would be ok for your employer to refuse to pay for coverage for antibiotics if he was against them? How about pain medication? Would you be ok with your employer refusing to pay for coverage for that? What about chemotherapy? I mean chemotherapy can cause miscarriages and spontaneous abortions in women who become pregnant while on it? That would be ok by you, right?
 
2012-02-17 03:08:59 PM  

BeesNuts: The "war on women" though


to address this, in NO way do I support the GOP's bullshiat with regards to PP, abortion bans, personhood amendments, etc. This particular example, however, I agree with them... well I should say I agreed with them, past tense. Many do seem willing to take this much further past their legitimate gripes.

As I've said, I am cool with the status quo in this regard. Employers must provide the option for BC coverage but are not required to pay for it. Makes me happy even though it is forcing employers to do something - I can deal with it. Making people pay for something directly that they find objectionable from a religious standpoint, I can't agree with.
 
2012-02-17 03:09:50 PM  

fracto73: I agree that the truth of the situation supports Obama, but I don't think that he was playing them in the beginning. I think he wanted to work with them cooperatively and if someone was getting played it was Obama. For instance, they got him to give up an awful lot on the ACA without getting anything from them.


What provision(s) did "they get him" to give up. Citation, please.
 
2012-02-17 03:13:00 PM  

vsavatar: skullkrusher: raanne: Johnnyknox: I think it's cool that Obama the Catholic Church can now tell the Catholic Church me what itI can and can't do.


ThHe should be able to do that to everybody.

shiat....why did no one think of this before?

That whole "freedom" thing is SO over-rated!

ftfy

holy crap this isn't what this is about. The Catholic Church is NOT telling you what you can and cannot do unless you're a Catholic and still then they have no legal authority over you. If someone does not buy you something, they are not making you do anything. This entitled nonsense is 95% of the problem in these sorts of threads. Repeat after me: Freedom to purchase and use birth control and the right to have birth control provided for free are not the same thing. Refusal to give you something for free is not the same as saying you cannot have that something nor is it "making" you do anything.

So you think it would be ok for your employer to refuse to pay for coverage for antibiotics if he was against them? How about pain medication? Would you be ok with your employer refusing to pay for coverage for that? What about chemotherapy? I mean chemotherapy can cause miscarriages and spontaneous abortions in women who become pregnant while on it? That would be ok by you, right?


well, first of all, I would be aware of those limitations in my healthcare insurance prior to taking the job. Secondly, I would feel very unhappy that he refused to pay for the coverage for those because they are important things. Of course, I wouldn't say that he was telling me I couldn't buy pain medication or antibiotics by refusing to cover it in my insurance because that would be a very stupid farking thing to say. Get it?
 
2012-02-17 03:13:05 PM  

bugontherug: fracto73: I agree that the truth of the situation supports Obama, but I don't think that he was playing them in the beginning. I think he wanted to work with them cooperatively and if someone was getting played it was Obama. For instance, they got him to give up an awful lot on the ACA without getting anything from them.

What provision(s) did "they get him" to give up. Citation, please.



The public option.
 
2012-02-17 03:13:27 PM  

skullkrusher: you just presented a cogent argument as to why society should do this. Not why employers should do it.


Society is doing it (or will be doing it) by requiring employer-provided plans to meet minimal standards. And I don't think these are the only plans that have to meet those standards either - I might be wrong, but I believe that even individuals privately purchasing insurance for themselves would have to have plans of a certain quality in order to qualify.

I haven't made the cost argument. It's $10 a month, after all


Debeo Summa Credo
made the initial argument, and it stretched on for quite a while. You've also said that what you object to is employers being made to pay for said coverage, so it's understandable that some might infer that you were making the cost argument, and respond based on that.
 
2012-02-17 03:15:40 PM  
Another topic I love.

It doesn't matter who wins, the GOP loses.

/has mamma grizzly weighed?
//we really need her opinion
 
2012-02-17 03:17:55 PM  

BeesNuts: Debeo Summa Credo: stoli n coke: Bessame: Debeo Summa Credo: phyrkrakr: skullkrusher: no, the compromise was about employers which are affiliated with a religious organization not having to pay for the contraceptive coverage. I still 't see how this is an example of your boss coming between you and your doctor though.

Employee: "Hi, Insurance Company? Does your plan cover birth control?"

Insurance Company: "Why yes, Employee, it sure does!"

Boss: "Well, we're not going to get that insurance plan, then!"

What about this are you not getting?

Employer: "Hi, Insurance Company? Do you have plans that don't cover birth control?

Insurance Company: "Why, yes, in fact our plan with no BC coverage is $21 (new window) cheaper per month"

Employer: "Great! We'll take that one."

Liberals: "OMFG you're infringing on your employees' reproductive rights!!!"

What about this are you not getting?
-------------------------

You have any examples of insurance plans being CHEAPER by not offering bc? Because paying for pregnancy care, birth, and not being able to kick sick kids off their parent's insurance anymore costs more than bc, I am pretty sure.

Better quit it now with that there logic.

Go to the farking link I posted. $21 per year extra per that study.

From the summary from that link:
"Research and experience now suggest that contraceptive coverage does not raise insurance premiums and that employers providing such coverage can, in fact, save money by avoiding costs associated with unintended pregnancy."

And later, the context surrounding the 21.40/year:
The estimated cost to private-sector employers of providing contraceptive coverage is extremely low. A 1998 report by AGI suggests that the average total cost (including administrative costs) of adding coverage for the full range of prescription contraceptives to health plans that do not currently cover them would increase total health care costs for private-sector employees and their dependents by $21.40 per employee p ...


It says it will cost employers $21.40 per year. How farking hard is that to read?
 
2012-02-17 03:18:43 PM  
I just told the Muslims they have to provide birth control to their employees and I was right......they're PISSED, guys!!!

I tried to tell them that it was a women's health issue but they're not buying it!

They said to tell you guys: Allah Ak Bar?.....I don't know....but I'm telling you...they're REALLY pissed......
 
2012-02-17 03:19:28 PM  

fracto73: bugontherug: fracto73: I agree that the truth of the situation supports Obama, but I don't think that he was playing them in the beginning. I think he wanted to work with them cooperatively and if someone was getting played it was Obama. For instance, they got him to give up an awful lot on the ACA without getting anything from them.

What provision(s) did "they get him" to give up. Citation, please.


The public option.


If by "they" you mean "the Republicans," then "they" did not get him to drop the public option. If by "they" you mean dug-in Blue Dog Democrats who opposed the public option--like Lieberman (technically Lieberman wasn't even a Democrat) and Conrad, then "they" certainly did get him to drop it. You're wrong, however, that Obama didn't get anything in exchange for dropping it. He got their votes for the plan that did pass, which would not have passed but for their votes.
 
2012-02-17 03:19:43 PM  

raanne: skullkrusher: they have provided birth control coverage for a decade as that has been the law.

BS. maybe in some states, but my second job out of college our insurance (at a completely secular engineering consulting firm) was through a catholic-owned company called "care choices" and no birth control was covered. As in $0. I had to pay 100% of the cost. This was 8 years ago. As to your other point, if that isn't your beef, can you point to a prescription-based male birth control that you feel should be covered? If it existed, it would be part of this bill.


did you not have prescription drug coverage?
 
2012-02-17 03:22:12 PM  

Old enough to know better: Its going to be farking hilarious in Nov when the GOP finds out the hard way that right-wing fundies aren't the only people who vote in the US.


So much.
 
2012-02-17 03:22:43 PM  

skullkrusher: did you not have prescription drug coverage?


I had prescription drug coverage. Birth Control was specifically excluded. And this was for a completely secular company. It was the Insurance company that was catholic-owned. This was in Michigan - 2004ish. I understand that 3/5s of the country have laws that say it needs to be included. Apparently Michigan was not one of those states.
 
2012-02-17 03:22:53 PM  

Wasteland: This. Also, the whole "required BC insurance coverage is already state law in around 3/5 of the country, and no one's been crying about it up until now" thing


Horseshiat. It's been an issue in states where the rule was passed. You just havent been aware of it because it didn't make to fark beause it wasn't a national issue until Obama 1/20 mandate.
 
2012-02-17 03:23:03 PM  

skullkrusher: vsavatar: skullkrusher: raanne: Johnnyknox: I think it's cool that Obama the Catholic Church can now tell the Catholic Church me what itI can and can't do.


ThHe should be able to do that to everybody.

shiat....why did no one think of this before?

That whole "freedom" thing is SO over-rated!

ftfy

holy crap this isn't what this is about. The Catholic Church is NOT telling you what you can and cannot do unless you're a Catholic and still then they have no legal authority over you. If someone does not buy you something, they are not making you do anything. This entitled nonsense is 95% of the problem in these sorts of threads. Repeat after me: Freedom to purchase and use birth control and the right to have birth control provided for free are not the same thing. Refusal to give you something for free is not the same as saying you cannot have that something nor is it "making" you do anything.

So you think it would be ok for your employer to refuse to pay for coverage for antibiotics if he was against them? How about pain medication? Would you be ok with your employer refusing to pay for coverage for that? What about chemotherapy? I mean chemotherapy can cause miscarriages and spontaneous abortions in women who become pregnant while on it? That would be ok by you, right?

well, first of all, I would be aware of those limitations in my healthcare insurance prior to taking the job. Secondly, I would feel very unhappy that he refused to pay for the coverage for those because they are important things. Of course, I wouldn't say that he was telling me I couldn't buy pain medication or antibiotics by refusing to cover it in my insurance because that would be a very stupid farking thing to say. Get it?


Not necessarily stupid. Millions of Americans every year have to choose between buying food or medicine because they're paid minimum wage and their health plans don't cover much. To those people it would not be out of line to say that they couldn't buy said pain medication or antibiotics. That's especially true with chemotherapy, which costs thousands of dollars per round. The easiest way to control someone is having power over the purse.
 
2012-02-17 03:23:24 PM  

Biological Ali: Society is doing it (or will be doing it) by requiring employer-provided plans to meet minimal standards. And I don't think these are the only plans that have to meet those standards either - I might be wrong, but I believe that even individuals privately purchasing insurance for themselves would have to have plans of a certain quality in order to qualify.


that's not "society" doing it. Society doing it would be using tax dollars to provide free BC to women. If society does truly benefit, society should be bearing the cost. Not a small subset of society.

Biological Ali: Debeo Summa Credo made the initial argument, and it stretched on for quite a while. You've also said that what you object to is employers being made to pay for said coverage, so it's understandable that some might infer that you were making the cost argument, and respond based on that.


well, that's the controversy, isn't it? That employers are being forced to pay for it. That's not to say that the cost is onerous or that an argument can't be made that it does benefit them in the long run
 
2012-02-17 03:24:01 PM  

bugontherug: fracto73: bugontherug: fracto73: I agree that the truth of the situation supports Obama, but I don't think that he was playing them in the beginning. I think he wanted to work with them cooperatively and if someone was getting played it was Obama. For instance, they got him to give up an awful lot on the ACA without getting anything from them.

What provision(s) did "they get him" to give up. Citation, please.


The public option.

If by "they" you mean "the Republicans," then "they" did not get him to drop the public option. If by "they" you mean dug-in Blue Dog Democrats who opposed the public option--like Lieberman (technically Lieberman wasn't even a Democrat) and Conrad, then "they" certainly did get him to drop it. You're wrong, however, that Obama didn't get anything in exchange for dropping it. He got their votes for the plan that did pass, which would not have passed but for their votes.



I disagree, I think that the blue dog position was due to the effectiveness of the GOP campaign against the public option among conservative leaning constituants in their district, but I can see where you are coming from on that.

I still disagree that Obama played them from day one. Can you show an example of him playing them from early in his presidency?
 
2012-02-17 03:26:03 PM  

vsavatar: Not necessarily stupid. Millions of Americans every year have to choose between buying food or medicine because they're paid minimum wage and their health plans don't cover much. To those people it would not be out of line to say that they couldn't buy said pain medication or antibiotics. That's especially true with chemotherapy, which costs thousands of dollars per round. The easiest way to control someone is having power over the purse.


well then we have a very fundamental disagreement on the nature of reality. If I don't buy you a beer, I am not forcing you to be sober.
 
2012-02-17 03:26:44 PM  

Lord_Baull: Debeo Summa Credo: Forcing me to provide medical coverage or forcing me to provide certain benefits if I choose to provide coverage is infringing on my rights.

No one is forcing you to use birth control. Only to provide it to others who do. How is that infringing on YOUR right for YOU to not use birth control?


You're missing the point entirely. It's making someone pay for something they don't want to pay for that is infringing upon their rights.

I want a couple beers after work. A law requiring you to give me $10 for the drinks would infring on your rights even though you don't have to drink them.
 
2012-02-17 03:27:47 PM  

raanne: skullkrusher: did you not have prescription drug coverage?

I had prescription drug coverage. Birth Control was specifically excluded. And this was for a completely secular company. It was the Insurance company that was catholic-owned. This was in Michigan - 2004ish. I understand that 3/5s of the country have laws that say it needs to be included. Apparently Michigan was not one of those states.


that sounds to be in violation of an EEOC decision from 2000:

Link (new window)
 
2012-02-17 03:29:45 PM  

skullkrusher: well then we have a very fundamental disagreement on the nature of reality. If I don't buy you a beer, I am not forcing you to be sober.


Ah - but if I buy a plan to cover all my beverages, and you help me pay for that plan with the expectation that it doesn't cover beer, and I go to the store and get them to provide the beer to me for free even without you, provided I buy the rest of my food from them - i would say that you are still not buying me a beer. And I don't have to be sober. Its a win/win. ;)
 
2012-02-17 03:31:39 PM  

fracto73: I disagree, I think that the blue dog position was due to the effectiveness of the GOP campaign against the public option among conservative leaning constituants in their district, but I can see where you are coming from on that.

I still disagree that Obama played them from day one. Can you show an example of him playing them from early in his presidency?


I think what you say was incompetent negotiation--offering reasonable compromises up front--was how he played them. The conservative base would tolerate NO cooperation with Obama, no matter how reasonable. Obama knew that, and knew he had the perfect opportunity to force the Republicans irrevocably to the right while he whipped out his big black d*ck, swung it around, and straddled the center. We'll see how it works out in the long run, but for now he seems to have a good chance to be re-elected. This despite an anemic recovery, and a disappointed base.

There may have been a downside to his approach, in that it contributed to the progressive base's perception that Obama wasn't really pursuing a progressive agenda. That in turn may have contributed to the 2010 meltdown. But I believe that, at worst, contributed to it. 2010 would have been a Republican year no matter what. It just might not have been as bad. And if he had given more blue meat to the base, he wouldn't be as well positioned for a big win in 2012.
 
2012-02-17 03:34:55 PM  

skullkrusher: BeesNuts: The "war on women" though

to address this, in NO way do I support the GOP's bullshiat with regards to PP, abortion bans, personhood amendments, etc. This particular example, however, I agree with them... well I should say I agreed with them, past tense. Many do seem willing to take this much further past their legitimate gripes.

As I've said, I am cool with the status quo in this regard. Employers must provide the option for BC coverage but are not required to pay for it. Makes me happy even though it is forcing employers to do something - I can deal with it. Making people pay for something directly that they find objectionable from a religious standpoint, I can't agree with.


Oh damn, too bad so sad. I paid for the wars, as the common example. Welcome to society, folks.

That's actually kind of a cop out... I'm going to elaborate, [stop and listen]

Employers pay into my insurance. I use that insurance for things that insurance covers. My employer doesn't see the bill, the claim, the doctor, the prescription... in fact, they don't even see that I actually USED the insurance. Anybody who finds that objectionable can go suck on a brick. Are you going to go through every service offered by BCBS and make sure that your employees can't get things you don't agree with? God gave you poor vision! Lasik is the work of Satan! Only Jesus heals the blind!

Don't leave MEDICAL decisions even indirectly into the hands of employers. Two people should be involved in your medical decisions. Neither of them is your boss.

But this has nothing, in reality, to do with that. This is about revisiting the 90's where you could rally the troops by crying about dead babies. This is about revisiting the 00's when the ethics of using discarded fetuses created in a laboratory through in vitro fertilization were reduced to a cartoon depicting Christopher Reeves sucking the goo out of an aborted fetus.

It's just the latest tactic in the failing religious extremism that was so successful for 20 - 40 years in this country. These stalwarts of American politics are losing their grip on the electorate and that just chaps their ass. It's not about YOUR reproductive freedom. No. It's about OUR religious freedom. Christianity, particularly evangelism, thrives on being victimized. In an environment in which they are absolutely catered to, they have to manufacture this outrage. And this is today's. And its farking ridiculous.
 
2012-02-17 03:35:34 PM  

skullkrusher: that sounds to be in violation of an EEOC decision from 2000:


I don't think so, because I doubt they covered vasectomies / tubal / etc. That decision appears to be based upon equal treatment, and not covering it for anyone would qualify as equal. See this line in the decision: "Respondents may not discriminate in their health insurance plan by denying benefits for prescription contraceptives when they provide benefits for comparable drugs and devices.

And I can guarantee that ALL forms of BC - not just women's forms - would be excluded if Catholic organizations could. They aren't against bc for women. They are against any sex not being for reproductive purposes (or at least having possible reproductive side effects).
 
2012-02-17 03:37:13 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: BeesNuts: Debeo Summa Credo: stoli n coke: Bessame: Debeo Summa Credo: phyrkrakr: skullkrusher: no, the compromise was about employers which are affiliated with a religious organization not having to pay for the contraceptive coverage. I still 't see how this is an example of your boss coming between you and your doctor though.

Employee: "Hi, Insurance Company? Does your plan cover birth control?"

Insurance Company: "Why yes, Employee, it sure does!"

Boss: "Well, we're not going to get that insurance plan, then!"

What about this are you not getting?

Employer: "Hi, Insurance Company? Do you have plans that don't cover birth control?

Insurance Company: "Why, yes, in fact our plan with no BC coverage is $21 (new window) cheaper per month"

Employer: "Great! We'll take that one."

Liberals: "OMFG you're infringing on your employees' reproductive rights!!!"

What about this are you not getting?
-------------------------

You have any examples of insurance plans being CHEAPER by not offering bc? Because paying for pregnancy care, birth, and not being able to kick sick kids off their parent's insurance anymore costs more than bc, I am pretty sure.

Better quit it now with that there logic.

Go to the farking link I posted. $21 per year extra per that study.

From the summary from that link:
"Research and experience now suggest that contraceptive coverage does not raise insurance premiums and that employers providing such coverage can, in fact, save money by avoiding costs associated with unintended pregnancy."

And later, the context surrounding the 21.40/year:
The estimated cost to private-sector employers of providing contraceptive coverage is extremely low. A 1998 report by AGI suggests that the average total cost (including administrative costs) of adding coverage for the full range of prescription contraceptives to health plans that do not currently cover them would increase total health care costs for private-sector employees and their dependents by $21.40 per ...


Oh I read it. I noticed that's all your read. There's other stuff surrounding it. Like the part that says that you're completely farking wrong. But that's okay. I've found a much more interesting conversation with someone who doesn't feel like pretending to be an idiot.
 
Displayed 50 of 606 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report