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.

(Yahoo)   GOP Senators to women: "No, you can't have contraception. Not yours"   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 160
    More: Obvious, GOP, Senate, Greg Shaheen, NARAL, Mitch McConnell, United States elections, 2010, contraceptives, Office for National Statistics  
•       •       •

2822 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Jul 2014 at 10:29 AM (22 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



160 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-07-17 06:27:10 AM  
Nope, no war on women here.  No Sirree.
 
2014-07-17 06:31:53 AM  
F*ck them all. Politicians have no business in women's healthcare and reproductive choices. The men should STFU unless their own wife is involved.
 
2014-07-17 06:33:10 AM  

JoieD'Zen: F*ck them all. Politicians have no business in women's healthcare and reproductive choices. The men should STFU unless their own wife is involved.


Even then they should STFU (in public, I don't care what they say in private. none of my business).
 
2014-07-17 07:26:19 AM  
The vote was 56-43 to move ahead on the measure, short of the 60 votes necessary to proceed.

Yeah, that makes sense
 
2014-07-17 07:28:39 AM  
Republicans called the bill a political stunt aimed at helping vulnerable Democratic incumbents in the elections.

Possibly, but you dumbshiats still played right into it, because you just can't help yourselves.
 
2014-07-17 08:23:10 AM  
GOP Senators to women: "No, you can't have contraception. Not yours"

Except they can have contraception, despite the lies Democrats are hoping voters will buy.
 
2014-07-17 10:14:45 AM  

Sumo Surfer: GOP Senators to women: "No, you can't have contraception. Not yours"

Except they can have contraception, despite the lies Democrats are hoping voters will buy.


...but hey..as long as your Viagra is covered we are ok! Small penises I guess need special care. AK-47's with extra long barrels will be covered soon.
 
2014-07-17 10:32:41 AM  

WhiskeyBender: Sumo Surfer: GOP Senators to women: "No, you can't have contraception. Not yours"

Except they can have contraception, despite the lies Democrats are hoping voters will buy.

...but hey..as long as your Viagra is covered we are ok! Small penises I guess need special care. AK-47's with extra long barrels will be covered soon.


Whole lot of this.
 
2014-07-17 10:33:25 AM  

Sumo Surfer: GOP Senators to women: "No, you can't have contraception. Not yours"

Except they can have contraception, despite the lies Democrats are hoping voters will buy.


Unless they can only afford the contraception if it's covered by their health care plan and their employer refuses to cover it because Jesus.
 
2014-07-17 10:34:09 AM  

Sumo Surfer: GOP Senators to women: "No, you can't have contraception. Not yours"

Except they can have contraception, despite the lies Democrats are hoping voters will buy.


Not if they needed their insurance to pay for it.
 
2014-07-17 10:34:12 AM  
Three Republicans broke ranks with their party - Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mark Kirk of Illinois

RINOS!  Mount up baggers we've got some tea to deliver!
 
2014-07-17 10:36:16 AM  
Just another part of hat GOP outreach to female voters.
 
2014-07-17 10:36:52 AM  

LarryDan43: Three Republicans broke ranks with their party - Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mark Kirk of Illinois

RINOS!  Mount up baggers we've got some tea to deliver!


*climbs on hoveround*
 
2014-07-17 10:37:09 AM  
Republicans called the bill a political stunt aimed at helping vulnerable Democratic incumbents in the elections.

How dare the Democrats propose bills that a majority of the electorate would favor!  Will they stop at nothing with their "stunts"?
 
2014-07-17 10:39:53 AM  

WI241TH: The vote was 56-43 to move ahead on the measure, short of the 60 votes necessary to proceed.

Yeah, that makes sense


The way the media has just accepted the filibuster as standard politics is revolting. Not that long ago using it to block popular legislation would have resulted in taking a hit in the polls, now it's business as usual. And it's largely due to the media not calling them on it for fear of looking biased.
 
2014-07-17 10:40:20 AM  
"Republicans called the bill a political stunt aimed at helping vulnerable Democratic incumbents in the elections."

"But Republicans said that the Democratic effort was merely a move to boost struggling incumbents"

"think they can score political points and create divisions where there aren't any by distorting the facts."


You mean ; Like everything the Republicans have done since 2008?

"both parties support a woman's right to make her own health care decisions."

For Republicans, only so long as that Womans choice agrees with the belief of her Employer - and how exactly do you disprove that someone believes something?
 
2014-07-17 10:40:46 AM  

chimp_ninja: Republicans called the bill a political stunt aimed at helping vulnerable Democratic incumbents in the elections.

How dare the Democrats propose bills that a majority of the electorate would favor!  Will they stop at nothing with their "stunts"?


And also even if it was a stunt, they decided to take the bait anyway and do exactly what will help the Democrats most.
 
2014-07-17 10:40:46 AM  
Republicans tell the Catholic Church to just let themselves into your vagina.
 
2014-07-17 10:40:59 AM  
I hope everyone is enjoying our blossoming theocracy here in the US of A!
 
2014-07-17 10:42:18 AM  

dookdookdook: Republicans called the bill a political stunt aimed at helping vulnerable Democratic incumbents in the elections.

Possibly, but you dumbshiats still played right into it, because you just can't help yourselves.


How is this a stunt?  This isn't something frivolous.  This matters to consituents and people have been organizing around it.  Is "scoring political points" with constituents by actually listening to them and doing what they ask a stunt now?
 
2014-07-17 10:43:44 AM  

JoieD'Zen: F*ck them all. Politicians Businesses have no business in women's healthcare and reproductive choices. The men should STFU unless their own wife is involved.


Let's not forget what this is about - your boss preventing your doctor from making sound medical decisions, because of the boss' beliefs.

Politicians tried to make this clear in the ACA (the mandate), and tried to play fair by exempting religious nonprofits. I think it's safe to say that next time, they won't carve anything out for them.

// give them an inch, they take a 7' cross
// and then they borrow your hammer and NEVER return it...
 
2014-07-17 10:43:54 AM  
"A woman's health care decision should be made with her doctor, with her family, with her faith, not by her employer with her employer's faith," Shaheen said in a Senate speech.

What decision is that? Her decision to have birth control provided as part of her health care coverage? Not really a decision, technically.
 
2014-07-17 10:44:09 AM  

Xythero: Is "scoring political points" with constituents by actually listening to them and doing what they ask a stunt now?


You know who complains about their opponent running up the score? Losers. Losers complain when their opponent runs up the score.
 
2014-07-17 10:44:12 AM  

someonelse: I hope everyone is enjoying our blossoming theocracy here in the US of A!


We wouldn't let them play in their sandbox anymore, so they brought their sandbox home.
 
2014-07-17 10:44:49 AM  
Such BS from the left... NOTHING is free.. NOTHING.

Birth control should be available over the counter without prescription.. and the Republicans had that in their latest bill, and it was defeated.

FYI, More and more drugs are being available over the counter and not covered under insurance anymore...

Like the mantra of 'free' preventative care.. free is a load of crap, you still have to pay co-pays out the wazoo.

So would a woman prefer to pay a 30 copay for a doctors visit and then a 10-20 copay for her birth control pills or just go to CVS and pay $25-$30 for a months supply.  I think the answer is obvious.  Over the counter is cheaper for everyone involved.
 
2014-07-17 10:45:12 AM  
Republicans junk must look like they stole it from a 14 year old.

Which they may just have.
 
2014-07-17 10:46:07 AM  
Republicans called the bill a political stunt aimed at helping vulnerable Democratic incumbents in the elections.

This is a line that needs to be on every DNC ad that targets women voters.

The Republican Party of the United States cares more about electability then they do about the health of a woman's body.

Also since when is Jeanne Shaheen been in a 'competative' reflection contest? She's up like 50-43 against that carpetbagger Scott Brown.
 
2014-07-17 10:47:27 AM  

Xythero: dookdookdook: Republicans called the bill a political stunt aimed at helping vulnerable Democratic incumbents in the elections.

Possibly, but you dumbshiats still played right into it, because you just can't help yourselves.

How is this a stunt?  This isn't something frivolous.  This matters to consituents and people have been organizing around it.  Is "scoring political points" with constituents by actually listening to them and doing what they ask a stunt now?


What do you expect them to say? "We think women are little better than cattle"? This is the best thing they can say to divert attention away from the fact that they're assholes, they know their base will believe them, no matter how big the lie.
 
2014-07-17 10:47:31 AM  

dwrash: Such BS from the left... NOTHING is free.. NOTHING.

Birth control should be available over the counter without prescription.. and the Republicans had that in their latest bill, and it was defeated.

FYI, More and more drugs are being available over the counter and not covered under insurance anymore...

Like the mantra of 'free' preventative care.. free is a load of crap, you still have to pay co-pays out the wazoo.

So would a woman prefer to pay a 30 copay for a doctors visit and then a 10-20 copay for her birth control pills or just go to CVS and pay $25-$30 for a months supply.  I think the answer is obvious.  Over the counter is cheaper for everyone involved.


What's the over-the-counter cost of an IUD?
 
2014-07-17 10:50:28 AM  

Karac: dwrash: Such BS from the left... NOTHING is free.. NOTHING.

Birth control should be available over the counter without prescription.. and the Republicans had that in their latest bill, and it was defeated.

FYI, More and more drugs are being available over the counter and not covered under insurance anymore...

Like the mantra of 'free' preventative care.. free is a load of crap, you still have to pay co-pays out the wazoo.

So would a woman prefer to pay a 30 copay for a doctors visit and then a 10-20 copay for her birth control pills or just go to CVS and pay $25-$30 for a months supply.  I think the answer is obvious.  Over the counter is cheaper for everyone involved.

What's the over-the-counter cost of an IUD?


Different issue which is not at stake here... and to be honest, an IUD is cost ineffective in the long run and due to all the problems with them are getting more and more expensive as time goes on due to law suits.  It also doesn't protect from other diseases that are costly to cure/maintain.

If we were serious about disease and birth control in this country, condoms would be pretty much the only thing the CDC should allow.
 
2014-07-17 10:51:08 AM  

Karac: dwrash: Such BS from the left... NOTHING is free.. NOTHING.

Birth control should be available over the counter without prescription.. and the Republicans had that in their latest bill, and it was defeated.

FYI, More and more drugs are being available over the counter and not covered under insurance anymore...

Like the mantra of 'free' preventative care.. free is a load of crap, you still have to pay co-pays out the wazoo.

So would a woman prefer to pay a 30 copay for a doctors visit and then a 10-20 copay for her birth control pills or just go to CVS and pay $25-$30 for a months supply.  I think the answer is obvious.  Over the counter is cheaper for everyone involved.

What's the over-the-counter cost of an IUD?


And will the OTC IUD provide detailed instructions on inserting it? Surely it's as simple as putting in a tampon!
 
2014-07-17 10:52:20 AM  
Wouldn't failing to provide contraceptive coverage actually raise premiums for everybody else?

You'd have to think that it's cheaper for an insurance company to pay for contraception than it is to pay for prenatal care / labor / delivery / hospital stay / maternity / newborn care.
 
2014-07-17 10:52:21 AM  

dwrash: NOTHING is free


Except 20 types of birth control medications, as mandated by ACA. No co-pays, co-insurance, or other cost sharing agreements may be employed with birth control. It is literally free to the patient.
 
2014-07-17 10:53:23 AM  

dwrash: Birth control should be available over the counter without prescription


really?  so women, who have no idea what their needs are medically, should just randomly pick some form of birth control pill that will do God knows what to their physical and mental health?  Birth control pills are not one size fits all.

Karac: What's the over-the-counter cost of an IUD?


yeah, just sit up on the counter and the pharmacist will put it in for you. or you can get a hand mirror and do it yourself.
 
2014-07-17 10:53:58 AM  

dwrash: Such BS from the left... NOTHING is free.. NOTHING.

Birth control should be available over the counter without prescription.. and the Republicans had that in their latest bill, and it was defeated.

FYI, More and more drugs are being available over the counter and not covered under insurance anymore...

Like the mantra of 'free' preventative care.. free is a load of crap, you still have to pay co-pays out the wazoo.

So would a woman prefer to pay a 30 copay for a doctors visit and then a 10-20 copay for her birth control pills or just go to CVS and pay $25-$30 for a months supply.  I think the answer is obvious.  Over the counter is cheaper for everyone involved.


Correct. It isn't free because those women are paying for it through their insurance policies either individually or by virtue of it being part of a compensation package through their employer. The real argument should be are they required to pay more because Jesus.
 
2014-07-17 10:54:01 AM  
GOP: "Women should be economically dependent on men."

All that sluttin' around on birth control undermines that goal.
 
2014-07-17 10:55:45 AM  

someonelse: blossoming theocracy plutocracy

"

The mega-corporations have been running things for years.  We just don't show ourselves since people wouldn't understand...so we let them think they still have a voice"
William Edgars, Babylon 5 - The Exercise of Vital Powers

i1168.photobucket.com
 
2014-07-17 10:56:08 AM  

dwrash: Such BS from the left... NOTHING is free.. NOTHING.

Birth control should be available over the counter without prescription.. and the Republicans had that in their latest bill, and it was defeated.

FYI, More and more drugs are being available over the counter and not covered under insurance anymore...

Like the mantra of 'free' preventative care.. free is a load of crap, you still have to pay co-pays out the wazoo.

So would a woman prefer to pay a 30 copay for a doctors visit and then a 10-20 copay for her birth control pills or just go to CVS and pay $25-$30 for a months supply.  I think the answer is obvious.  Over the counter is cheaper for everyone involved.


Please link me to the bill that republicans proposed making birth control available over the counter that was defeated, I would like to read it.
 
2014-07-17 10:56:55 AM  

dwrash: Karac: dwrash: Such BS from the left... NOTHING is free.. NOTHING.

Birth control should be available over the counter without prescription.. and the Republicans had that in their latest bill, and it was defeated.

FYI, More and more drugs are being available over the counter and not covered under insurance anymore...

Like the mantra of 'free' preventative care.. free is a load of crap, you still have to pay co-pays out the wazoo.

So would a woman prefer to pay a 30 copay for a doctors visit and then a 10-20 copay for her birth control pills or just go to CVS and pay $25-$30 for a months supply.  I think the answer is obvious.  Over the counter is cheaper for everyone involved.

What's the over-the-counter cost of an IUD?

Different issue which is not at stake here... and to be honest, an IUD is cost ineffective in the long run and due to all the problems with them are getting more and more expensive as time goes on due to law suits.  It also doesn't protect from other diseases that are costly to cure/maintain.

If we were serious about disease and birth control in this country, condoms would be pretty much the only thing the CDC should allow.


How is the contraception that Hobby Lobby specifically objected to a different issue which is not at stake in a conversation about the contraception that Hobby Lobby objected to?
 
2014-07-17 10:57:33 AM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: dwrash: NOTHING is free

Except 20 types of birth control medications, as mandated by ACA. No co-pays, co-insurance, or other cost sharing agreements may be employed with birth control. It is literally free to the patient.


It's free to the patient and a net gain to the insurance provider and the people who pay for the policies because birth control is orders of magnitude cheaper than a pregnancy.
 
2014-07-17 10:59:23 AM  

ManateeGag: dwrash: Birth control should be available over the counter without prescription

really?  so women, who have no idea what their needs are medically, should just randomly pick some form of birth control pill that will do God knows what to their physical and mental health?  Birth control pills are not one size fits all.

Karac: What's the over-the-counter cost of an IUD?

yeah, just sit up on the counter and the pharmacist will put it in for you. or you can get a hand mirror and do it yourself.


This isn't my idea.. its the idea of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.. you know, the doctors that prescribe them?

https://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Committee-Opinions/C om mittee-on-Gynecologic-Practice/Over-the-Counter-Access-to-Oral-Contrac eptives
 
2014-07-17 11:00:19 AM  

chimp_ninja: Republicans called the bill a political stunt aimed at helping vulnerable Democratic incumbents in the elections.

How dare the Democrats propose bills that a majority of the electorate would favor!  Will they stop at nothing with their "stunts"?


See also: raising the minimum wage and expanding background checks for gun purchases.
 
2014-07-17 11:00:39 AM  

Doc Daneeka: Wouldn't failing to provide contraceptive coverage actually raise premiums for everybody else?

You'd have to think that it's cheaper for an insurance company to pay for contraception than it is to pay for prenatal care / labor / delivery / hospital stay / maternity / newborn care.


It blows my mind that a group of people that support and value the ideal of "preemption" for their wars, don't understand that paying for a pill preempts all that other 'cost' you outlay in your post.
 
2014-07-17 11:00:42 AM  

dwrash: ManateeGag: dwrash: Birth control should be available over the counter without prescription

really?  so women, who have no idea what their needs are medically, should just randomly pick some form of birth control pill that will do God knows what to their physical and mental health?  Birth control pills are not one size fits all.

Karac: What's the over-the-counter cost of an IUD?

yeah, just sit up on the counter and the pharmacist will put it in for you. or you can get a hand mirror and do it yourself.

This isn't my idea.. its the idea of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.. you know, the doctors that prescribe them?

https://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Committee-Opinions/C om mittee-on-Gynecologic-Practice/Over-the-Counter-Access-to-Oral-Contrac eptives


You are aware that oral contraceptives and IUDs are two completely separate things, right?
 
2014-07-17 11:00:56 AM  
How come Welfare Queens pushing out babies how come?
 
2014-07-17 11:02:08 AM  

dwrash: ManateeGag: dwrash: Birth control should be available over the counter without prescription

really?  so women, who have no idea what their needs are medically, should just randomly pick some form of birth control pill that will do God knows what to their physical and mental health?  Birth control pills are not one size fits all.

Karac: What's the over-the-counter cost of an IUD?

yeah, just sit up on the counter and the pharmacist will put it in for you. or you can get a hand mirror and do it yourself.

This isn't my idea.. its the idea of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.. you know, the doctors that prescribe them?

https://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Committee-Opinions/C om mittee-on-Gynecologic-Practice/Over-the-Counter-Access-to-Oral-Contrac eptives


i don't care whose idea it is.  it's retarded.
 
2014-07-17 11:02:32 AM  

fiddlehead: dwrash: ManateeGag: dwrash: Birth control should be available over the counter without prescription

really?  so women, who have no idea what their needs are medically, should just randomly pick some form of birth control pill that will do God knows what to their physical and mental health?  Birth control pills are not one size fits all.

Karac: What's the over-the-counter cost of an IUD?

yeah, just sit up on the counter and the pharmacist will put it in for you. or you can get a hand mirror and do it yourself.

This isn't my idea.. its the idea of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.. you know, the doctors that prescribe them?

https://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Committee-Opinions/C om mittee-on-Gynecologic-Practice/Over-the-Counter-Access-to-Oral-Contrac eptives

You are aware that oral contraceptives and IUDs are two completely separate things, right?


Absolutely, and my response was to the first section of the quoted post.. and addressed her assertion that you should have to go to a doctor to get a prescription for the pill... the doctors disagree with his/her opinion.
 
2014-07-17 11:02:43 AM  

The Homer Tax: dwrash: Such BS from the left... NOTHING is free.. NOTHING.

Birth control should be available over the counter without prescription.. and the Republicans had that in their latest bill, and it was defeated.

FYI, More and more drugs are being available over the counter and not covered under insurance anymore...

Like the mantra of 'free' preventative care.. free is a load of crap, you still have to pay co-pays out the wazoo.

So would a woman prefer to pay a 30 copay for a doctors visit and then a 10-20 copay for her birth control pills or just go to CVS and pay $25-$30 for a months supply.  I think the answer is obvious.  Over the counter is cheaper for everyone involved.

Please link me to the bill that republicans proposed making birth control available over the counter that was defeated, I would like to read it.


It's the one from yesterdays thread.  The bill that Republicans themselves say is not meant to change anything and is meant merely as a political point.  It's got a bit tacked onto the end that says "The Preserving Religious Freedom and a Woman's Access to Contraception Act ... requests that the Food and Drug Administration study whether prescription contraceptives could be made available safely to adults without a prescription "

So no, drwash is full of shiat.  Their bill wouldn't have made birth control pills over-the-counter.
 
2014-07-17 11:02:57 AM  

dwrash: This isn't my idea.. its the idea of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.. you know, the doctors that prescribe them?


The point  ManateeGag was making is that there are many kinds of birth control which might be chosen for different reasons. For example, if you have seizures, many anti-convulsants make hormonal birth control ineffective. Even without that, many people have negative reactions to hormonal birth control.

As a general rule, I think there's a strong argument to making it OTC, but that doesn't solve the "paying for birth control" problem. It just covers the baseline case. We still need to address the edge cases.
 
2014-07-17 11:03:35 AM  
I'm againt OTC birth control pills due to my own experiences, but keep trying that argument. I don't think you guys have any idea how invasive it is to get that prescription. Or how expensive it is out of pocket. But keep insisting on it not being covered by insurance, won't backfire on you at all.
 
2014-07-17 11:04:10 AM  

ManateeGag: dwrash: ManateeGag: dwrash: Birth control should be available over the counter without prescription

really?  so women, who have no idea what their needs are medically, should just randomly pick some form of birth control pill that will do God knows what to their physical and mental health?  Birth control pills are not one size fits all.

Karac: What's the over-the-counter cost of an IUD?

yeah, just sit up on the counter and the pharmacist will put it in for you. or you can get a hand mirror and do it yourself.

This isn't my idea.. its the idea of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.. you know, the doctors that prescribe them?

https://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Committee-Opinions/C om mittee-on-Gynecologic-Practice/Over-the-Counter-Access-to-Oral-Contrac eptives

i don't care whose idea it is.  it's retarded.


So you do not care about the facts?... I thought you guys agreed that the republicans had that market cornered... when in fact you both live in alternate realities where your ideas trump reality.
 
2014-07-17 11:04:14 AM  
Cost of contraception- maybe a few hundred dollars?
Cost of an abortion- maybe a few hundred dollars?

Cost of a child that must be supported via welfare, sent to school, and taken care of medically when the mother (or father) can't support said child? Oh a lot more than a few hundred dollars.

Short term costs vs Long term costs. Don't be Corporate minded and think 'next quarter'.
 
2014-07-17 11:04:31 AM  

Sumo Surfer: GOP Senators to women: "No, you can't have contraception. Not yours"

Except they can have contraception, despite the lies Democrats are hoping voters will buy.


Of course they can. They just have to pay the wildly inflated prices that pharmaceuticalj companies can charge on the individual market, instead of the much lower prices that insurance companies can negotiate with their market position.

But really it'sOK ig women paying $150 a month retail, instead of the insurance cimpanies paying $32 dollars minus a $30 co-pay. If women wanted comprehensive health coverage, they should have been born as men. They made their choice, and they should accept the consequences.
 
2014-07-17 11:04:36 AM  

Drakuun: Doc Daneeka: Wouldn't failing to provide contraceptive coverage actually raise premiums for everybody else?

You'd have to think that it's cheaper for an insurance company to pay for contraception than it is to pay for prenatal care / labor / delivery / hospital stay / maternity / newborn care.

It blows my mind that a group of people that support and value the ideal of "preemption" for their wars, don't understand that paying for a pill preempts all that other 'cost' you outlay in your post.


Not to mention abortion.  Contraception prevents pregnancy, preventing pregnancy prevents abortions, the GOP doesn't like abortions.  They should be all over this shiat, but they're not, because it's really just about punishing sluts for being slutty.
 
2014-07-17 11:04:38 AM  

dwrash: So would a woman prefer to pay a 30 copay for a doctors visit and then a 10-20 copay for her birth control pills or just go to CVS and pay $25-$30 for a months supply.  I think the answer is obvious.  Over the counter is cheaper for everyone involved.


Can you math?

$30 + ($15-25) x 13 = $225-355

($25-30) x 13 = $325-390

If that's the choice you're laying out, I know which one I'd pick.  But that's irrelevant because not everyone can have those fancy pants plans with copays rather than deductibles anyways.

But all that aside, the most effective AND cheapest long term birth control is exactly the type Hobby Lobby didn't want to cover: implants and IUDs.  You can go to your doctor once and get a device that lasts years.  Problem is the upfront costs are intimidating.  Everyone can think of something they'd rather spend $1000 on now; you don't do quite the same calculation automatically with $30 a month.

The nice thing about no cost birth control is that those short term versus long term cost calculations are removed from the equation and more women choose the cheaper, more effective options.

\Yes, 4 weeks goes into 52 weeks 13 times, not 12, despite what many practitioners seem to think as they keep writing for 12 packs when they know your insurance won't let you come back for 52 weeks.
 
2014-07-17 11:06:19 AM  

dwrash: So would a woman prefer to pay a 30 copay for a doctors visit and then a 10-20 copay for her birth control pills or just go to CVS and pay $25-$30 for a months supply. I think the answer is obvious. Over the counter is cheaper for everyone involved.


dwrash: Hey.. I do like to troll sometimes... there are so many stupid people here that will bite at anything.

 
2014-07-17 11:07:02 AM  

dwrash: Typical response from a hack... I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

The big thing that this country needs is a sit down and for a vote on what the total tax burden should be on every american and corporation and set a percentage cap on it and then make government operate under that hard cap. This entire idea of raising taxes and requiring people to purchase things is a pyramid scheme is bound to collapse when people just don't have any more money to give.

But politicians know that such a discussion, although wise, is political suicide.

The bottom line is that we are all stupid.


Free, openly available birth control is the wisest fiscal option that could be considered for the public.  The billions saved in lost wages, lost education time, welfare, social security, social services, medicaid, unpaid hospital bills, medical complications, etc would change the way our society functions, and create greater freedom for a large portion of our populace.

And those that need this most are the working poor, low income, and those on some form of assistance already.  Restricting it in any way puts a LARGER tax burden on the populace.  This a cost of literally pennies per person per year, and would save billions in hard-dollar services and massive amounts of soft-dollar savings over the next 50 years.

This is a measure that could measurably and demonstrably change millions of lives, making them more productive, and lowering the tax burden on the populace for services.  It's the most sound fiscal decision that could be implemented.

Outdated social expectations are the only reason it's not already law.
 
2014-07-17 11:07:32 AM  

dwrash: ManateeGag: dwrash: Birth control should be available over the counter without prescription

really?  so women, who have no idea what their needs are medically, should just randomly pick some form of birth control pill that will do God knows what to their physical and mental health?  Birth control pills are not one size fits all.

Karac: What's the over-the-counter cost of an IUD?

yeah, just sit up on the counter and the pharmacist will put it in for you. or you can get a hand mirror and do it yourself.

This isn't my idea.. its the idea of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.. you know, the doctors that prescribe them?

https://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Committee-Opinions/C om mittee-on-Gynecologic-Practice/Over-the-Counter-Access-to-Oral-Contrac eptives


From your link:
Unintended pregnancy remains a major public health problem in the United States. Access and cost issues are common reasons why women either do not use contraception or have gaps in use. A potential way to improve contraceptive access and use, and possibly decrease unintended pregnancy rates, is to allow over-the-counter access to oral contraceptives (OCs).  ... Weighing the risks versus the benefits based on currently available data, OCs should be available over-the-counter.

They think birth control pills should be over-the-counter because it would make them cheaper and therefore used more often.  You know what else would make birth control pills cheaper for women to afford?  Not letting employers decide to not include them in health insurance.
 
2014-07-17 11:08:06 AM  
"But Republicans said that the Democratic effort was merely a move to boost struggling incumbents and that both parties support a woman's right to make her own health care decisions."

No, it was a move to get you to show, on the record, that you do not support a woman's right to make her own health care decisions.  And they won. If you had passed the bill, it would have shown you support a woman's right to make her own health care decisions and it would have spiked their guns,
 
2014-07-17 11:09:09 AM  

dwrash: fiddlehead: dwrash: ManateeGag: dwrash: Birth control should be available over the counter without prescription

really?  so women, who have no idea what their needs are medically, should just randomly pick some form of birth control pill that will do God knows what to their physical and mental health?  Birth control pills are not one size fits all.

Karac: What's the over-the-counter cost of an IUD?

yeah, just sit up on the counter and the pharmacist will put it in for you. or you can get a hand mirror and do it yourself.

This isn't my idea.. its the idea of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.. you know, the doctors that prescribe them?

https://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Committee-Opinions/C om mittee-on-Gynecologic-Practice/Over-the-Counter-Access-to-Oral-Contrac eptives

You are aware that oral contraceptives and IUDs are two completely separate things, right?

Absolutely, and my response was to the first section of the quoted post.. and addressed her assertion that you should have to go to a doctor to get a prescription for the pill... the doctors disagree with his/her opinion.


Ironically, one of the reasons that ACOG recommends making OCPs OTC is to avoid dealing with asshole pharmacists who refuse to fill these prescriptions.
 
2014-07-17 11:09:25 AM  

raerae1980: I'm againt OTC birth control pills due to my own experiences, but keep trying that argument. I don't think you guys have any idea how invasive it is to get that prescription. Or how expensive it is out of pocket. But keep insisting on it not being covered by insurance, won't backfire on you at all.


I know how it is, my ex tried the pill for a while and it wreaked havoc on her system, so much so that I didn't want to see her go through it anymore and we went back to condoms.

As far as UID's go.. based on lawsuits, if I were a woman, I would be extremely wary of them and only consider them as a last resort. (yet I cannot see what last resort that would be... a partner that refuses to use a condom or a latex allergy (there are types that supposedly solve that issue).

I hear horror stories about punctured uterus's and uncontrolled bleeding that scare the crap out of me.

For me, I had the two kids that I wanted, then opted for a vasectomy to solve the situation..
 
2014-07-17 11:09:28 AM  

dwrash: Drakuun: dwrash:
The bottom line is that we are all stupid.


No, the question is, Why do you keep playing into the wheelhouse of the people doing it to us?
 
2014-07-17 11:09:37 AM  
Explain to me again why anyone with a vagina should even think about voting for any of these pricks?
 
2014-07-17 11:10:54 AM  

rewind2846: Explain to me again why anyone with a vagina should even think about voting for any of these pricks?


There are a lot of stupid women out there.
A. LOT.
 
2014-07-17 11:11:19 AM  

Skirl Hutsenreiter: Can you math?

$30 + ($15-25) x 13 = $225-355


Can you?

At the low end, $30 + $15($45) x 13 = $585
At the high end, $30 + $25 ($55) x 13 = $715

Even just $30 x 13 = $390, which is out of your stated range....
 
2014-07-17 11:12:11 AM  

rewind2846: Explain to me again why anyone with a vagina should even think about voting for any of these pricks?


How else will they buy all those shoes, and live in the Hamptons with their illegal immigrant slaves?
 
2014-07-17 11:12:37 AM  

dwrash: Such BS from the left... NOTHING is free.. NOTHING.

Birth control should be available over the counter without prescription.. and the Republicans had that in their latest bill, and it was defeated.


Republicans did not suggest make anything more available over the counter.  All the Republican bill did was request the FDA to run a study to determine whether more birth control could be designated as over the counter.

In other words, Republicans were promising to ask someone to look into the matter some time in the future with zero promised results.
 
2014-07-17 11:13:00 AM  

rewind2846: Explain to me again why anyone with a vagina should even think about voting for any of these pricks?


They're the rare kind of women who get moral abortions.
 
2014-07-17 11:14:04 AM  
Somebody take away their farking boner pills, stat.

/at least make off-label uses illegal
 
2014-07-17 11:15:29 AM  

dwrash: As far as UID's go.. based on lawsuits, if I were a woman, I would be extremely wary of them and only consider them as a last resort. (yet I cannot see what last resort that would be... a partner that refuses to use a condom or a latex allergy (there are types that supposedly solve that issue).


There have been concerns that using an OCP while breastfeeding can reduce or eliminate milk supply. Many women choose non-hormonal methods of birth control like an IUD because of this. It's such a common choice that I was given an IUD pamphlet as part of my post-partum package.

/the more you know
 
2014-07-17 11:15:31 AM  

dwrash: Birth control should be available over the counter without prescription.


FAIL. Birth control pills, IUDs, Depo and other methods are serious medicine, unlike aspirin or cold pills. They can alter the body's chemistry (and for most that is what they are supposed to do to prevent pregnancy) in ways that can be life threatening. They are not something I'd want to use without being watched by a physician because they can f*ck you up, even when used as directed.
 
2014-07-17 11:15:58 AM  

dwrash: raerae1980: I'm againt OTC birth control pills due to my own experiences, but keep trying that argument. I don't think you guys have any idea how invasive it is to get that prescription. Or how expensive it is out of pocket. But keep insisting on it not being covered by insurance, won't backfire on you at all.

I know how it is, my ex tried the pill for a while and it wreaked havoc on her system, so much so that I didn't want to see her go through it anymore and we went back to condoms.

As far as UID's go.. based on lawsuits, if I were a woman, I would be extremely wary of them and only consider them as a last resort. (yet I cannot see what last resort that would be... a partner that refuses to use a condom or a latex allergy (there are types that supposedly solve that issue).

I hear horror stories about punctured uterus's and uncontrolled bleeding that scare the crap out of me.

For me, I had the two kids that I wanted, then opted for a vasectomy to solve the situation..


I DON'T WANT TO PAY BECAUSE : PERSONAL ANECDOTES!!
 
2014-07-17 11:16:36 AM  

dwrash: and to be honest, (1) an IUD is cost ineffective in the long run and (2) due to all the problems with them are getting more and more expensive as time goes on due to law suits. (3) It also doesn't protect from other diseases that are costly to cure/maintain.


1. An IUD (ParaGard is the one I'm most familiar with, and IIRC the most common) costs about $600-800, and is good for 12 years. Using $800 over 12 years, that's $5.56 per month on mostly idiot-proof BC that is between 97.8% and 99.9% effective (compared with The Pill, which as used is only about 80-some% effective). How much does a month's worth of The Pill cost?

2. I think you're using older information. In the 60s and 70s, there were some health concerns and a few lawsuits, but the "rebirth" (sorry) of the IUD as a common BC option has had fewer of those problems. Specifically for women who can't take hormonal BC for health reasons, an IUD like ParaGard might be her only option, and docs are prescribing them MORE often these days, not less

3. No other BC option besides condoms do that, and the fact that pregnancy and disease are two different things to protect against may inform your argument. Why shouldn't a married woman be able to have condom-free sex with her husband (both of them disease-free) and be largely secure in the knowledge she won't get pregnant? (Why do you hate freedom?)
 
2014-07-17 11:16:38 AM  

dwrash: raerae1980: I'm againt OTC birth control pills due to my own experiences, but keep trying that argument. I don't think you guys have any idea how invasive it is to get that prescription. Or how expensive it is out of pocket. But keep insisting on it not being covered by insurance, won't backfire on you at all.

I know how it is, my ex tried the pill for a while and it wreaked havoc on her system, so much so that I didn't want to see her go through it anymore and we went back to condoms.


My daughters use birth control to control painful cycles as well as protection from pregnancy. They've had to try different kinds to find one that matched their bodies the best. There isn't one kind out there- there are several. Your ex could work with the doctor to find one that will serve her best.
 
2014-07-17 11:17:24 AM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Skirl Hutsenreiter: Can you math?

$30 + ($15-25) x 13 = $225-355

Can you?

At the low end, $30 + $15($45) x 13 = $585
At the high end, $30 + $25 ($55) x 13 = $715

Even just $30 x 13 = $390, which is out of your stated range....


The $30 doctor visit is only once a year. So it's $30 + ($15*13) not, ($30+$15)*30.

So yeah, Skirl isn't the one with the math problem.
 
2014-07-17 11:18:17 AM  

nmrsnr: ($30+$15)*3013


I can math, but apparently I can't typing.
 
2014-07-17 11:18:50 AM  

dwrash: As far as UID's go.. based on lawsuits, if I were a woman, I would be extremely wary of them and only consider them as a last resort. (yet I cannot see what last resort that would be... a partner that refuses to use a condom or a latex allergy (there are types that supposedly solve that issue).


Endometriosis. But condoms will solve that....  For a group that argued so fervrently about keeping government out of the doctor patient relationship they sure seem to have no problem with having an employer getting between a patient and their doctor. Consistency is not a strong point of political hacks though.
 
2014-07-17 11:19:22 AM  
Disingenuous troll thinks we actually have 'true democracy' in the USA..

So cute.
 
2014-07-17 11:20:10 AM  

dwrash: So would a woman prefer to pay a 30 copay for a doctors visit and then a 10-20 copay for her birth control pills or just go to CVS and pay $25-$30 for a months supply. I think the answer is obvious. Over the counter is cheaper for everyone involved.


The_Six_Fingered_Man: Skirl Hutsenreiter: Can you math?

$30 + ($15-25) x 13 = $225-355

Can you?

At the low end, $30 + $15($45) x 13 = $585
At the high end, $30 + $25 ($55) x 13 = $715

Even just $30 x 13 = $390, which is out of your stated range....


High end of wash's prescription costs: $30 copay for one doctor visit, plus $20 each for 13 sets of four weeks:
$30 + ($20 * 13) = $30 + $260 = $290.

Low end of his OTC costs: $25 each for 13 sets of four weeks:
$25 * 13 = $325
 
2014-07-17 11:22:16 AM  

dwrash: Different issue which is not at stake here... and to be honest, an IUD is cost ineffective in the long run and due to all the problems with them are getting more and more expensive as time goes on due to law suits.  It also doesn't protect from other diseases that are costly to cure/maintain.

If we were serious about disease and birth control in this country, condoms would be pretty much the only thing the CDC should allow.


So, you're making shiat up.

Your information about IUDs is thirty years old.  Studies have shown no increase in PID over the normal rate (provided you don't have Chlamydia).

And the way people actually (mis)use condoms, they're only 84% effective as birth control.  As in, 16% of people relying on condoms will get pregnant after a year.  That's way better than not using anything, and if you can't trust your partners, you certainly need to use condoms for STD protection.  But as someone who's not cool with rolling dice at 84%, you also something else to provide that extra birth control protection.
 
2014-07-17 11:23:47 AM  
"A woman's health care decision should be made with her doctor, with her family, with her faith, not by her employer with her employer's faith," Shaheen said in a Senate speech.

Unfortunately You involved the employers faith by making them part of the health care subsidization scheme.   Now you want them to pay for things they see as optional because you think women should get more free stuff, since they are women.
Faith or not, you should've figured that neither the modern day slavemaster nor the insurer they barter with was going to let that slide.


/Said it before and I'll say it again: They're fighting the wrong battle and everyone is going to lose.
 
2014-07-17 11:24:26 AM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Skirl Hutsenreiter: Can you math?

$30 + ($15-25) x 13 = $225-355

Can you?

At the low end, $30 + $15($45) x 13 = $585
At the high end, $30 + $25 ($55) x 13 = $715

Even just $30 x 13 = $390, which is out of your stated range....


That $30 is a once a year cost.  You don't go to the doctor every month for birth control.

\Order of operations
 
2014-07-17 11:26:06 AM  
Pay attention, voters. In ideal Republicanland, you are supposed to look for a new job every time your employer gets religion.
 
2014-07-17 11:26:39 AM  
When will women learn their place and stop trying to fight it? Women belong in the kitchen and in the homes birthing children and being subservient to their husbands, not trying to be actual human beings or their own people. Birth control is ruining our society by allowing women to think should try to be anything beyond a mother.


/woman
//obvious troll is obvious
///I always loved slashies
 
2014-07-17 11:27:19 AM  

way south: Now you want them to pay for things they see as optional because you think women should get more free stuff, since they are women.


Name the free stuff.
 
2014-07-17 11:29:05 AM  

someonelse: way south: Now you want them to pay for things they see as optional because you think women should get more free stuff, since they are women.

Name the free stuff.


People who don't understand how compensation packages work believe it is free.
 
2014-07-17 11:31:16 AM  
Belief is a beautiful armor.....
 
2014-07-17 11:33:56 AM  
Ah once again the Republican 43-vote supermajority dominates.
 
2014-07-17 11:34:52 AM  
I wished I could actually care about whiny women. As such, no.
 
2014-07-17 11:36:29 AM  

dwrash: Karac: dwrash: Such BS from the left... NOTHING is free.. NOTHING.

Birth control should be available over the counter without prescription.. and the Republicans had that in their latest bill, and it was defeated.

FYI, More and more drugs are being available over the counter and not covered under insurance anymore...

Like the mantra of 'free' preventative care.. free is a load of crap, you still have to pay co-pays out the wazoo.

So would a woman prefer to pay a 30 copay for a doctors visit and then a 10-20 copay for her birth control pills or just go to CVS and pay $25-$30 for a months supply.  I think the answer is obvious.  Over the counter is cheaper for everyone involved.

What's the over-the-counter cost of an IUD?

Different issue which is not at stake here... and to be honest, an IUD is cost ineffective in the long run and due to all the problems with them are getting more and more expensive as time goes on due to law suits.  It also doesn't protect from other diseases that are costly to cure/maintain.

If we were serious about disease and birth control in this country, condoms would be pretty much the only thing the CDC should allow.


Which don't protect against HPV, which causes cancer. Try again, dumbass.
 
2014-07-17 11:37:13 AM  

someonelse: way south: Now you want them to pay for things they see as optional because you think women should get more free stuff, since they are women.

Name the free stuff.


The instant i hear the "free stuff" argument I know the person I'm arguing with either doesn't get how compensation packages work or is a disingenuous troll.
 
2014-07-17 11:45:16 AM  

DrSansabeltNoShiatSlacks: I wished I could actually care about whiny women. As such, no.


NTTIAWWT
 
2014-07-17 11:47:38 AM  

quatchi: someonelse: way south: Now you want them to pay for things they see as optional because you think women should get more free stuff, since they are women.

Name the free stuff.

The instant i hear the "free stuff" argument I know the person I'm arguing with either doesn't get how compensation packages work or is a disingenuous troll.


...and here we go, missing the point again.
 
2014-07-17 11:50:29 AM  
Republicans playing gynecologist is much scarier that imagining your parents mating.
 
2014-07-17 11:50:36 AM  

dookdookdook: Republicans called the bill a political stunt aimed at helping vulnerable Democratic incumbents in the elections.

Possibly, but you dumbshiats still played right into it, because you just can't help yourselves.


This.
 
2014-07-17 11:56:21 AM  
I'm not going to troll today, but I will give you some advice.  When Yahoo posts an article, just go to the comments and cut and paste the first one you see.  This one is pure gold:

This doesn't have anything to do with contraception or women's rights. It has to do with the democrats being poor losers. No body bothers to mention that these contraception types were put in the law after it was passed by some unelected nobodies in the Obama government.
The supreme Court found what they felt was the Constructional right of Hobby Lobby, that is their job. However, Obama choose to waive the employee mandate in the law (which was passed in the law) which was not in his job description.


I've highlighted my favorite parts.
 
2014-07-17 11:57:48 AM  
way south: Now you want them to pay for things they see as optional because you think women should get more free stuff, since they are women.

OK, we'll let men have access to "free" OCPs and IUDs too. EQUALITY.
 
2014-07-17 11:57:57 AM  
Look, I hate the GOP's war on women as much as anyone, but can we please at least acknowledge a difference between "free" and "access"?
 
2014-07-17 11:59:16 AM  

GoldSpider: Look, I hate the GOP's war on women as much as anyone, but can we please at least acknowledge a difference between "free" and "access"?


As long as we can also acknowledge that cost directly affects access.
 
2014-07-17 11:59:43 AM  
Welp, I herped when I should have derped. Apologies.
 
2014-07-17 12:02:21 PM  
WTF is wrong with people?  How do these farkers keep winning elections?  Why would any woman, man who actually respects women, person of color, LGBT person, retired person, person who plans to retire some day, veteran, person who actually read and understood the Bible/Torah/Koran, teacher, librarian, hell, anyone who actually works for a living ever vote for a Republican?  Why?
 
2014-07-17 12:04:19 PM  

qorkfiend: GoldSpider: Look, I hate the GOP's war on women as much as anyone, but can we please at least acknowledge a difference between "free" and "access"?

As long as we can also acknowledge that cost directly affects access.


Of course.
 
2014-07-17 12:11:53 PM  
Buy your own contraceptives, Democrats.
 
2014-07-17 12:13:54 PM  

dwrash: Such BS from the left... NOTHING is free.. NOTHING.

Birth control should be available over the counter without prescription.. and the Republicans had that in their latest bill, and it was defeated.

FYI, More and more drugs are being available over the counter and not covered under insurance anymore...

Like the mantra of 'free' preventative care.. free is a load of crap, you still have to pay co-pays out the wazoo.

So would a woman prefer to pay a 30 copay for a doctors visit and then a 10-20 copay for her birth control pills or just go to CVS and pay $25-$30 for a months supply.  I think the answer is obvious.  Over the counter is cheaper for everyone involved.


Oral contraception can cause things like blood clots, thrombosis and strokes.  There are reasons you get it with a prescription.
 
2014-07-17 12:14:30 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Buy your own contraceptives, Democrats.


1.bp.blogspot.com

               "Why won't you just do what we tell you to?"
 
2014-07-17 12:15:05 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Welp, I herped when I should have derped. Apologies.


I think you have to buy bagels for the office tomorrow.  It's a rule or something.
 
2014-07-17 12:16:53 PM  
"If we pass this bill it will piss off our base."
"Wont they vote for us anyway?"
"Yeah, but if we block it, the Dems can use it as ammunition in the elections."
"Brilliant!"
 
2014-07-17 12:24:29 PM  
What kind of contraceptives does a minority of republicans have control over and outlaw?
 
2014-07-17 12:26:01 PM  
It's not like women are full citizens or anything.
 
2014-07-17 12:30:55 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Buy your own contraceptives, Democrats.


Take your own advice, Repubs.  You've got an out of control birthrate, no knowledge of basic human sexuality, and seem to get angry paying 60 cents for a lifetime of birth control, but will instead plunge half a million into social net services to take care of the child that resulted from not having easy access to common birth control.
 
2014-07-17 12:33:01 PM  

Khellendros: Noam Chimpsky: Buy your own contraceptives, Democrats.

Take your own advice, Repubs.  You've got an out of control birthrate, no knowledge of basic human sexuality, and seem to get angry paying 60 cents for a lifetime of birth control, but will instead plunge half a million into social net services to take care of the child that resulted from not having easy access to common birth control.


They're trying to cut social services, too.  Which will lead these kids straight into the privatized prison system.
 
2014-07-17 12:34:13 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Welp, I herped when I should have derped. Apologies.

I think you have to buy bagels for the office tomorrow.  It's a rule or something.


It's Friday, which means donuts. Not surprisingly, it actually is my day.
 
2014-07-17 12:36:43 PM  

qorkfiend: GoldSpider: Look, I hate the GOP's war on women as much as anyone, but can we please at least acknowledge a difference between "free" and "access"?

As long as we can also acknowledge that cost directly affects access.


Or that insurance coverage under a compensation package isn't free.
 
2014-07-17 12:38:31 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Khellendros: Noam Chimpsky: Buy your own contraceptives, Democrats.

Take your own advice, Repubs.  You've got an out of control birthrate, no knowledge of basic human sexuality, and seem to get angry paying 60 cents for a lifetime of birth control, but will instead plunge half a million into social net services to take care of the child that resulted from not having easy access to common birth control.

They're trying to cut social services, too.  Which will lead these kids straight into the privatized prison system.


Why do you hate vertical integration?
 
2014-07-17 12:38:36 PM  

Khellendros: Noam Chimpsky: Buy your own contraceptives, Democrats.

Take your own advice, Repubs.  You've got an out of control birthrate, no knowledge of basic human sexuality, and seem to get angry paying 60 cents for a lifetime of birth control, but will instead plunge half a million into social net services to take care of the child that resulted from not having easy access to common birth control.


The teen pregnancy rates and highest poverty rates are the worst in conservative states. Not to mention that the most effective way to reduce the number of abortions is making contraception available. Conservatives are simply ignorant.
 
2014-07-17 12:40:50 PM  
I like how the unprecedented suit of the President is a serious attempt to block the Usurper in Chief from Constitutional overreach (you know protecting people from Healthcare and releasing dangerous American POWs) but Democrats trying to re establish Womens rights to control their own bodies is a "Political Stunt".
 
2014-07-17 12:43:19 PM  
Denis Leary once had a bit in which he discussed women bringing their babies to the Supreme
Court and leaving them on the front steps (as in the "safe haven" concept).  The idea was that
the women would say to the justices, "You said we had to have them! NOW YOU RAISE THEM!"
 
2014-07-17 12:44:54 PM  

fiddlehead: Sumo Surfer: GOP Senators to women: "No, you can't have contraception. Not yours"

Except they can have contraception, despite the lies Democrats are hoping voters will buy.

Unless they can only afford the contraception if it's covered by their health care plan and their employer refuses to cover it because Jesus.


And god forbid they end up having a kid when they can't afford it. "Should have made better decisions, welfare queen."
 
2014-07-17 01:00:37 PM  

Karac: Sumo Surfer: GOP Senators to women: "No, you can't have contraception. Not yours"

Except they can have contraception, despite the lies Democrats are hoping voters will buy.

Not if they needed their insurance to pay for it.


Well then they can pull themselves up by their brastraps!

/women, amirite fellas?
 
2014-07-17 01:05:34 PM  
The vote was 56-43 to move ahead on the measure, short of the 60 votes necessary to proceed.


This is the single biggest reason I will never vote for a Republican at the federal level again. They've made it into a tyranny of the minority.
 
2014-07-17 01:07:54 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Khellendros: Noam Chimpsky: Buy your own contraceptives, Democrats.

Take your own advice, Repubs.  You've got an out of control birthrate, no knowledge of basic human sexuality, and seem to get angry paying 60 cents for a lifetime of birth control, but will instead plunge half a million into social net services to take care of the child that resulted from not having easy access to common birth control.

They're trying to cut social services, too.  Which will lead these kids straight into the privatized prison system.


Which is taxpayer funded at ~$30K a year.  Or even if they're not criminals, we're subsidizing their medical care 100%, at 5x the cost because it's all emergency room rates for preventable illnesses.  And WIC.  And housing.  And medicaid.  And on and on.

They don't realize WE PAY FOR IT ANYWAY.  I'm all for paying a few cents now to save hundreds of thousands in subsidized services and lost wages/productivity later.  But I guess that's too difficult for some people.
 
2014-07-17 01:09:34 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: It's Friday, which means donuts. Not surprisingly, it actually is my day.


Sick of donuts.  I want pancakes!
 
2014-07-17 01:14:45 PM  

dwrash: So would a woman prefer to pay a 30 copay for a doctors visit and then a 10-20 copay for her birth control pills or just go to CVS and pay $25-$30 for a months supply.  I think the answer is obvious.  Over the counter is cheaper for everyone involved.


It is NOT that easy.

For starters, not all birth control is a pill format. You're aware of that right? There's also patch, shot and implant, and the decision between all of these should be medically informed.

Birth control can be damn near bulletproof but if you're on the wrong drug you're basically playing Russian Roulette with your body because not all birth control is the same! If you're on the wrong thing it can be completely ineffective or it can result in your body going completely haywire.

BC is not one size fits all, it is tailor chosen for you by someone who understands the gravity of it.

/had to stop hormonal BC because my body went into rejection mode
//periods were lasting longer than two weeks
///has now had a cut and burn tubal ligation and uterine ablation, best ten grand out of pocket I ever spent.
 
2014-07-17 01:18:31 PM  
And in the end, can someone PLEASE explain to me why X person's healthcare can be influenced by Y person's religion, even if Y person owns the company? Health care is PRIVATE, for god's sake! This court decision is goddamn miserable.

i1285.photobucket.com
 
2014-07-17 01:30:51 PM  
How on earth can a business claim they're paying for ANY part of employer provided insurance? It's part of the employee's pay. It doesn't matter if the employee pays for part of it from their normal pay and the employer 'pays' for the rest. The 'rest' of it is part of the overall pay. So my response to "not yours" is the same. That money is "not yours, it's mine, and I'll spend it on what the government says I can. Oh, and fark you for thinking it's yours, and fark you again for imposing your religion on me, and fark you for coming in-between me and my doctor.
 
2014-07-17 01:55:02 PM  
"The government shouldn't come between you and your doctor." This was a GOP rallying cry a few years ago when the ACA was being debated.  What happened to that?  And why is it now OK for your employer and his deity to come between you and your doctor?  It's getting pretty crowded there.
 
2014-07-17 01:56:04 PM  

way south: quatchi: someonelse: way south: Now you want them to pay for things they see as optional because you think women should get more free stuff, since they are women.

Name the free stuff.

The instant i hear the "free stuff" argument I know the person I'm arguing with either doesn't get how compensation packages work or is a disingenuous troll.

...and here we go, missing the point again.


I notice you have not yet named the free stuffs. I assume you're taking a long lunch and will be back here directly to answer my query.
 
2014-07-17 02:08:16 PM  

Khellendros: They don't realize WE PAY FOR IT ANYWAY. I'm all for paying a few cents now to save hundreds of thousands in subsidized services and lost wages/productivity later. But I guess that's too difficult for some people.


Republicans don't give a rolling rat sh*t about that... in those tiny little hamster cages they call "minds" it's all about control, not babies or money. Women who choose to control their own lives and their own bodies tweaks the living sh*t out of them, and these women deserve to SUFFER because they DIDN'T follow THE RULES.
Have unmarried sex? SUFFER!
Have unmarried protected sex? SUFFER!!
Have unmarried protected sex because you choose to have a child at that time in your life? SUFFER!!!!
Have unmarried unprotected sex and choose not to have a child at that time in your life? SUFFER!
Be a woman who makes her own decisions without input from a man? SUFFER X INFINITY!THERE AREN'T ENOUGH EXCLAMATION POINTS!

It's all about the punishment and suffering.
 
2014-07-17 02:10:47 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Noam Chimpsky: Buy your own contraceptives, Democrats.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 500x282]

               "Why won't you just do what we tell you to?"


That is a horrible f*ckin' mask.

I want one.
 
2014-07-17 02:46:28 PM  

Ringshadow: And in the end, can someone PLEASE explain to me why X person's healthcare can be influenced by Y person's religion, even if Y person owns the company? Health care is PRIVATE, for god's sake! This court decision is goddamn miserable.

[i1285.photobucket.com image 659x433]


The person paying the bills usually gets to determine what they want to purchase.  This is case for pretty much everything.. there are options everywhere.  The ACA ended up giving us very few options and also contained some requirements that were written by left wing bureaucrats to test the court system... they tried their gamble and lost... now they are all butt hurt.

I'm starting to think this is all a devious plan by Chief Justice Roberts.. he said the mandate was OK.. now the court is going to weaken it over time till it is no longer financially feasible and a giant wreck... and the democrats will be left owning a piece of costly swiss cheese.
 
2014-07-17 02:47:03 PM  
Why wasn't the Birth Control Mandate included in the law as it was written?
 
2014-07-17 02:49:02 PM  
Threads like these always remind me how uninformed some people really are about BC.  I'm glad there are other people who know the deal and are able to correct these people, but I can't help but notice that they are usually female (of course there are some men too).  It's almost as if those of us with experience in using these things (and thus having spoken with doctors and done research on it) know more about it and should probably be the ones making the decisions about it rather than people who obviously know very little about it (most politicians).

People seem to be extremely ignorant about IUD's as the same information has to be repeated in every thread that mentions them.

/Has had 2 IUD's (replacement due to expiration not complications) and been on various oral BC over the years.

Honestly, when I was younger I thought BC should be offered OTC for convenience issues, but now that I'm older and understand the issues, I don't really agree with that.  There are too many potential health complications associated with BC pills for their use to not be monitored and administered by a doctor (for instance they increased my blood pressure when I was on them which is why I switched to an IUD - not to mention how they made me hormonally crazy).  Also, in the long run it would probably be more expensive if they are OTC since they would no longer be partially covered by insurance (assuming your insurance covers it) and lord knows how much big pharma would charge for OTC BC.

IUD's are just superior anyway.  I get it replaced every 5 years, I don't have to think about it or remember to take anything, and I'm much more "normal" emotionally and physically.  BC pills caused me a lot of complications that I didn't even realize were happening to me until I went off of it.  I would even have my IUD if I never had sex simply because the minor hormonal release from the mirena means I don't get my period and my body crippling cramps don't occur.  Oral BC never provided that benefit to me.

But everyone is different.  My sister for instance can't even get pregnant, but she takes BC pills for her endometriosis.

I wish this issue weren't being exploited for political gain as it feels like women are just pawns in a political game where no one really cares about the facts or the people it affects, but are more concerned with scoring political points for their side.
 
2014-07-17 02:56:09 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Why wasn't the Birth Control Mandate included in the law as it was written?


There were no insurance mandates in the law as it was written. But the law, as it was written, tasked a department, like most laws, and in this case HHS to define the requirements for health insurance.
 
2014-07-17 03:13:54 PM  

dwrash: The person paying the bills usually gets to determine what they want to purchase.  This is case for pretty much everything.. there are options everywhere.  The ACA ended up giving us very few options and also contained some requirements that were written by left wing bureaucrats to test the court system... they tried their gamble and lost... now they are all butt hurt.

I'm starting to think this is all a devious plan by Chief Justice Roberts.. he said the mandate was OK.. now the court is going to weaken it over time till it is no longer financially feasible and a giant wreck... and the democrats will be left owning a piece of costly swiss cheese.


Left wing bureaucrats? You mean the rest of the civilized world, which is shaking their heads in pity because we are failing to take care of our women?

Your reply contains no facts. None. You have literally said that someone's factually wrong opinion means they can decline to pay a bill.

Also, as an actual liberal, there are no liberals in power. We have no actual left wing. Obama is centrist, and in fact, is farther right than Reagan.

/Hobby Lobby doesn't even know what an IUD does
 
2014-07-17 03:25:53 PM  

dwrash: Such BS from the left... NOTHING is free.. NOTHING.

Birth control should be available over the counter without prescription.. and the Republicans had that in their latest bill, and it was defeated.

FYI, More and more drugs are being available over the counter and not covered under insurance anymore...

Like the mantra of 'free' preventative care.. free is a load of crap, you still have to pay co-pays out the wazoo.

So would a woman prefer to pay a 30 copay for a doctors visit and then a 10-20 copay for her birth control pills or just go to CVS and pay $25-$30 for a months supply.  I think the answer is obvious.  Over the counter is cheaper for everyone involved.


Followed by:

Different issue which is not at stake here... and to be honest, an IUD is cost ineffective in the long run and due to all the problems with them are getting more and more expensive as time goes on due to law suits.  It also doesn't protect from other diseases that are costly to cure/maintain.

If we were serious about disease and birth control in this country, condoms would be pretty much the only thing the CDC should allow.


That is a shiattonne of pig-ignorance in two shorts posts.  Not quite dense enough to ignite into a star, but still impressive.

I pity the woman who ever becomes your wife.

If you ever get laid, that is.  You certainly don't display much awareness of how the whole operation actually works.
 
2014-07-17 03:41:36 PM  

dwrash: Ringshadow: And in the end, can someone PLEASE explain to me why X person's healthcare can be influenced by Y person's religion, even if Y person owns the company? Health care is PRIVATE, for god's sake! This court decision is goddamn miserable.

[i1285.photobucket.com image 659x433]

The person paying the bills usually gets to determine what they want to purchase.  This is case for pretty much everything.. there are options everywhere.  The ACA ended up giving us very few options and also contained some requirements that were written by left wing bureaucrats to test the court system... they tried their gamble and lost... now they are all butt hurt.

I'm starting to think this is all a devious plan by Chief Justice Roberts.. he said the mandate was OK.. now the court is going to weaken it over time till it is no longer financially feasible and a giant wreck... and the democrats will be left owning a piece of costly swiss cheese.


Ladies and Gentlemen: The Politics of Spite!

Effective, humane policies?  We'll have none of that!

But if we can Stick It To The Libs?  Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

You lot are repulsive.
 
2014-07-17 04:14:59 PM  
I was able to get bc pills otc in South Africa 15 years ago. The US is a backward country.

Also had my wisdom teeth taken out for 5 rand (about $2 at the time) Was completely painless and no complications
 
2014-07-17 04:32:34 PM  

JoieD'Zen: F*ck them all. Politicians have no business in women's healthcare and reproductive choices. The men should STFU unless their own wife is involved.


Then why did they mandate the coverage in the first place?
 
2014-07-17 04:34:51 PM  

SharkInfested: I was able to get bc pills otc in South Africa 15 years ago. The US is a backward country.



Senate Republicans' Birth Control Bill Could Pave the Way for Over-the-Counter Contraception
 
2014-07-17 04:37:47 PM  

jigger: SharkInfested: I was able to get bc pills otc in South Africa 15 years ago. The US is a backward country.


Senate Republicans' Birth Control Bill Could Pave the Way for Over-the-Counter Contraception


lol

It could also do nothing, which is much more likely.
 
2014-07-17 05:00:06 PM  

SharkInfested: I was able to get bc pills otc in South Africa 15 years ago. The US is a backward country.


These two statements are not connected.  Both are quite true, but have little to do with each other.
 
2014-07-17 05:03:46 PM  

jigger: SharkInfested: I was able to get bc pills otc in South Africa 15 years ago. The US is a backward country.


Senate Republicans' Birth Control Bill Could Pave the Way for Over-the-Counter Contraception


Your link: "The Preserving Religious Freedom and a Woman's Access to Contraception Act ... requests that the Food and Drug Administration study whether prescription contraceptives could be made available safely to adults without a prescription"

Guess what?  The FDA's been doing that for two decades.  And one of the emergency contraceptives Hobby Lobby objects to, Plan B, IS over the counter.
 
2014-07-17 05:03:57 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Skirl Hutsenreiter: Can you math?

$30 + ($15-25) x 13 = $225-355

Can you?

At the low end, $30 + $15($45) x 13 = $585
At the high end, $30 + $25 ($55) x 13 = $715

Even just $30 x 13 = $390, which is out of your stated range....


Yeah...uh...WHERE, exactly, are those numbers in bold coming from?  They're not in your original statement:  So would a woman prefer to pay a 30 copay(this is a high number, by the way.  My own experience has my most expensive co-pay for any doctor visit (including getting a broken bone diagnosed and treated at PatientFirst) I've been to at 20) for a doctors visit and then a 10-20 copay for her birth control pills or just go to CVS and pay $25-$30 for a months supply.  I think the answer is obvious.  Over the counter is cheaper for everyone involved.

Also, as stated above, it would be P=Cd(V)+(Cp*D), Where P is the total price of the pill, Cd is the co-pay of the doctor's appointment, which is calculated yearly - not per visit - now, V is the number of visits being made for the duration of taking the medication for which the copay used in Cd must be paid, Cp is the co-pay/cost of the pills, and D is the duration (in months) the prescription is good for/the pills will be taken.

So, for the costs of the pills for 12 months, using the numbers you provided, the costs are:

With insurance:
Low = 30(1)+(10*12)=30+(120)=150
HIgh = 30(1)+(15*12)=30+(180)=210

Over the Counter, assuming no doctor visits:
Low = 0(1)+25*12=300 (twice as expensive)
HIgh = 0(1)+30*12=360

Hmm....Seems you were wrong.  Let's try two years:

With Insurance:
Low = 30(2)+(10*24)=60+240=300
High = 30(2)+(15*24)=60+360=420(smoke weed erryday)

OTC:
Low = 0(2)+25*24=600(again, twice as much)
High = 0(2)+30*24=720

Ouch.

Oh, before I forget:  the only way this get's better for you is if the yearly co-pay for doctor's visits isn't capped and the doctor has to write more than one prescription a year.  A fairly common practice is a 3-month prescription (4 visits).  Let's see what happens for one year.

Low = 30(4)+(10*12)=120+120=240
High = 30(4)+(15*12)=120+180= 300

Wow.  At the most common practice rate for non-birth-control perscriptions, you STILL lose.
 
2014-07-17 05:22:39 PM  

grumpfuff: The vote was 56-43 to move ahead on the measure, short of the 60 votes necessary to proceed.


This is the single biggest reason I will never vote for a Republican at the federal level again. They've made it into a tyranny of the minority.


It' amazing that nearly every other President has managed to deal with opposite party minorities regardless of the Presidents party.  This president had difficulty with a super-majority senate.  It's pretty clear where the problem is.
 
2014-07-17 05:28:39 PM  

tbeatty: grumpfuff: The vote was 56-43 to move ahead on the measure, short of the 60 votes necessary to proceed.


This is the single biggest reason I will never vote for a Republican at the federal level again. They've made it into a tyranny of the minority.

It' amazing that nearly every other President has managed to deal with opposite party minorities regardless of the Presidents party.  This president had difficulty with a super-majority senate.  It's pretty clear where the problem is.


Yes, well this is also the first time in American history that the entire opposition party has collectively decided to act like petulant children as well.
 
2014-07-17 05:30:03 PM  

tbeatty: It' amazing that nearly every other President has managed to deal with opposite party minorities regardless of the Presidents party.


You forgot to mention that the minority party wasn't abusing the shiat out of filibusters.

tbeatty: This president had difficulty with a super-majority senate.


wat

tbeatty: It's pretty clear where the problem is.


Yup, the problem is the type of people who think the Democrats have a super-majority in the Senate.
 
2014-07-17 05:52:54 PM  

grumpfuff: tbeatty: It' amazing that nearly every other President has managed to deal with opposite party minorities regardless of the Presidents party.

You forgot to mention that the minority party wasn't abusing the shiat out of filibusters.

tbeatty: This president had difficulty with a super-majority senate.

wat

tbeatty: It's pretty clear where the problem is.

Yup, the problem is the type of people who think the Democrats have a super-majority in the Senate.


Ladies and Gentlemen: tbeatty, the Bill Kristol of Fark: never correct, about anything!
 
2014-07-17 09:28:13 PM  
Women can no longer have contraception? Is that headline correct?
 
2014-07-17 09:40:40 PM  

Ambivalence: Nope, no war on women here.  No Sirree.


To me more precise, I call it "The War on My Ass Pocket".

All too often the whiners are sure that access to My Ass Pocket will solve their problems. I am the one under attack, not them.

From now on if you have a right or privilege and your only complaint is that somebody else isn't paying for it we're going to describe the war accurately.
 
2014-07-18 02:01:03 AM  

friday13: tbeatty: grumpfuff: The vote was 56-43 to move ahead on the measure, short of the 60 votes necessary to proceed.


This is the single biggest reason I will never vote for a Republican at the federal level again. They've made it into a tyranny of the minority.

It' amazing that nearly every other President has managed to deal with opposite party minorities regardless of the Presidents party.  This president had difficulty with a super-majority senate.  It's pretty clear where the problem is.

Yes, well this is also the first time in American history that the entire opposition party has collectively decided to act like petulant children as well.


Oh BS.  The left still hates Reagan and GWB and the Dem senate treated them no differently than republicans are treating Obama.  The problem is that Obama lacks the personal charisma that gets things solved.   Look at how Robert Bork and
Douglas H. Ginsburg (look up Douglas Ginsburg and the reasons Dems opposed him and he withdrew) were treated.  the "nuclear option" was first mentioned when Dems collectively decided to act like petulant children.  The opposition does what it does and it always been that way.   The inability to deal with it is what defines this administration, not the opposition.

This is also jut a stunt because even if the senate passed such a bill, the house would not.  Why are they even wasting time on it?  we pay them for his?
 
2014-07-18 02:12:43 AM  

grumpfuff: tbeatty: It' amazing that nearly every other President has managed to deal with opposite party minorities regardless of the Presidents party.

You forgot to mention that the minority party wasn't abusing the shiat out of filibusters.

tbeatty: This president had difficulty with a super-majority senate.

wat

tbeatty: It's pretty clear where the problem is.

Yup, the problem is the type of people who think the Democrats have a super-majority in the Senate.


The problem seems to be your ability to identify tense.  From April 2009 until January 2010, Dems had 60 caucus members.  That is a filibuster proof super-majority and far more than any Republican President had.  He also had a majority in the House which the majority has much more control.
 
2014-07-18 02:41:57 AM  

jst3p: Khellendros: Noam Chimpsky: Buy your own contraceptives, Democrats.

Take your own advice, Repubs.  You've got an out of control birthrate, no knowledge of basic human sexuality, and seem to get angry paying 60 cents for a lifetime of birth control, but will instead plunge half a million into social net services to take care of the child that resulted from not having easy access to common birth control.

The teen pregnancy rates and highest poverty rates are the worst in conservative states. Not to mention that the most effective way to reduce the number of abortions is making contraception available. Conservatives are simply ignorant.


It ain't society that gets pregnant. Individuals should be responsible for their own lives.  But feel free to start a contraceptive charity that will provide free contraceptives. Someone was saying it's really cheap so why expand government? Lots of rich people would be happy as hell to contribute to that.
 
2014-07-18 02:54:06 AM  

tbeatty: Oh BS. The left still hates Reagan and GWB and the Dem senate treated them no differently than republicans are treating Obama.


Nope.  Were you even alive when Reagan was President?  Reagan's pretty much got everything he wanted thanks to a large number of Boll Weevil Dems in the House and Republican control over the Senate.  Bush had the good will of both parties after 9/11 and blew it all after invading Iraq.

tbeatty: From April 2009 until January 2010, Dems had 60 caucus members.


Also nope.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-really-have- 60 -votes-in-the-senate-and-for-how-long/

From July 7. 2009 (when Al Franken was officially seated as the Senator from Minnesota after the last of Norm Coleman's challenges came to an end) to August 25, 2009 (when Ted Kennedy died, although Kennedy's illness had kept him from voting for several weeks before that date at least); and
From September 25, 2009 (when Paul Kirk was appointed to replace Kennedy) to February 4, 2010 (when Scott Brown took office after defeating Martha Coakley);
For one day in September 2009, Republicans lacked 40 votes due to the resignation of Mel Martinez, who was replaced the next day by George LeMieux


Not sure exactly what you mean by "trouble" unless you're referring to Joe Lieberman who stated he never would vote on anything resembling single payer.

 
2014-07-18 06:33:31 AM  
Reality Version: Women can have all the birth control they want if they're willing to do something crazy like... pay for it themselves.

But in liberal lala land unless it comes from the government or is required by the government, it's 'being denied' to you.

Hey! The government didn't buy me the cookies I bought at the store yesterday, why is the government denying me cookies?
 
2014-07-18 08:59:16 AM  

randomjsa: Reality Version: Women can have all the birth control they want if they're willing to do something crazy like... pay for it themselves.


They are paying for it themselves. It's called work. Until Hobby Lobby, health care including birth control was part of their compensation package, aka what they worked for. It's part of the compensation I work for. "The government" wasn't involved in paying for jack sh*t, only asking that BC be included in the compensation that all people earned as part of their jobs under the ACA.

But then you knew that already and just decided, as usual, to be a disingenuous asshole.

/yes, I fed the troll
///I was bored
 
2014-07-18 09:55:28 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: It ain't society that gets pregnant. Individuals should be responsible for their own lives. But feel free to start a contraceptive charity that will provide free contraceptives. Someone was saying it's really cheap so why expand government? Lots of rich people would be happy as hell to contribute to that.


Congrats on supporting an idea championed by every conservative in every country and society that has ever lived on planet Earth during the last 3,000 years - and has failed every time.

It's like some people are incapable of studying human psychology, physiology, history, or biology and learning anything useful about human drives.

Expanding freely available birth control solves so many problems it's silly to even debate.  And it literally pays for itself hundreds of thousands of times over.
 
2014-07-18 12:46:50 PM  

tbeatty: This is also jut a stunt because even if the senate passed such a bill, the house would not.  Why are they even wasting time on it?  we pay them for his?


You know, dude, it's pretty ridiculous to scream that "it's not obstruction, it's Obama's personality", and then go on to describe the very obstruction you claim doesn't exist.

Then again, being ridiculous has never seemed to bother you, so...
 
2014-07-18 03:28:14 PM  
tbeatty:[various comments]

I see you still haven't answered my question on where you got that 45 and 55 from...
 
2014-07-18 03:29:46 PM  

friday13: tbeatty:[various comments]

I see you still haven't answered my question on where you got that 45 and 55 from...


Wait, sorry, wrong person...

Shoulda been this guy:

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Skirl Hutsenreiter: Can you math?

$30 + ($15-25) x 13 = $225-355

Can you?

At the low end, $30 + $15($45) x 13 = $585
At the high end, $30 + $25 ($55) x 13 = $715

Even just $30 x 13 = $390, which is out of your stated range....


HE needs to explain where those numbers (again in bold) came from...
 
2014-07-18 07:56:55 PM  

friday13: friday13: tbeatty:[various comments]

I see you still haven't answered my question on where you got that 45 and 55 from...

Wait, sorry, wrong person...

Shoulda been this guy:

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Skirl Hutsenreiter: Can you math?

$30 + ($15-25) x 13 = $225-355

Can you?

At the low end, $30 + $15($45) x 13 = $585
At the high end, $30 + $25 ($55) x 13 = $715

Even just $30 x 13 = $390, which is out of your stated range....

HE needs to explain where those numbers (again in bold) came from...


While conceding that it wasn't well expressed, is Addition your short suit?

30+15=45. Then: 45*13=585.

That's the low end argued by tbeatty.

I don't need to do the high end, do I?
 
Displayed 160 of 160 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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