PDA

View Full Version : Law school and birth control



luvmylabs23139
03-05-2012, 06:14 PM
Lets just look at this by the numbers and see if it makes sense. Law school is 3 years if going full time. According to Pelosi's shrill it costs the shrill $3,000 for birth control during law school.
$1000 per year?????
This does not even add up! She wants the pill I guess. The generic version of the pill does not cost $1000 per year. You can get it from Walmart for $5 per month= $60 per year.
It gets more comical. The pill does not protect against STD's. You need a condom for that. Condom's are not covered.
Really get a grip liberal fools.

Gerry Clinchy
03-05-2012, 07:23 PM
I think that is the whole point of the woman's rather pointless argument ...

If the health plan were to cover contraception, maybe the health plan should ONLY cover condoms ... think of how efficient that would be in preventing STDs AND pregnancies for the same money.

WRL
03-05-2012, 07:35 PM
I do think it should cover birth control.

I don't think birth control is $5 from Walmart. I paid $10 a month because it was not covered by my insurance. Still its not going to break the bank.

But lets look at the bigger picture.

Box of condoms $10.....birth control pills $10/month.....IUD $450 (for about a year).

Paying for a birth (if they can't afford to pay for birth control, then the taxpayer is going to pay for the birth of the child one way or the other).......$10k plus.

I'd be happy to pay for birth control.

WRL

luvmylabs23139
03-05-2012, 08:16 PM
I do think it should cover birth control.

.....IUD $450 (for about a year).


.

WRL

One shot deal for 5 years. Does not cost 450 per year.
HOwever If a person wants any taxpayer funds they must have it installed.
NO FOOD STamps, no section * no medicaid for their spawn etc until IUD.!

M&K's Retrievers
03-05-2012, 09:03 PM
I do think it should cover birth control.

I don't think birth control is $5 from Walmart. I paid $10 a month because it was not covered by my insurance. Still its not going to break the bank.

But lets look at the bigger picture.

Box of condoms $10.....birth control pills $10/month.....IUD $450 (for about a year).

Paying for a birth (if they can't afford to pay for birth control, then the taxpayer is going to pay for the birth of the child one way or the other).......$10k plus.

I'd be happy to pay for birth control.



WRL

That's just great but as soon as that same person who is getting their birth control covered wants to have a child, she will have coverage for that as well. Maternity and contraceptives are not an illness and should not be covered by insurance.

Pay for that stuff yourself.

luvmylabs23139
03-05-2012, 09:23 PM
I do think it should cover birth control.

I don't think birth control is $5 from Walmart. I paid $10 a month because it was not covered by my insurance. Still its not going to break the bank.

But lets look at the bigger picture.

Box of condoms $10.....birth control pills $10/month.....IUD $450 (for about a year).

Paying for a birth (if they can't afford to pay for birth control, then the taxpayer is going to pay for the birth of the child one way or the other).......$10k plus.

I'd be happy to pay for birth control.

WRL
THe breeder can just keep her legs crossed. That is free. When the breeder chooses to do otherwise she and she only should pay for her stupid actions!
NO WIC no food stamps no section 8 no nothing ! She bred it she deals with it not me the taxpayer! I don;t want to hear about "but its or the children".
NOt my problem, as I didi not breed it!!!!

WRL
03-05-2012, 09:38 PM
Not all IUDs are for 5 years. When I looked into them, they were 12-18 months.

Your statements are unrealistic.

I'd rather pay for contraception then pay thousands more for the births.

WRL

Raymond Little
03-05-2012, 09:50 PM
If ya can't feedem don't breedem. I want me some free Viagra! Why should my erection be overlooked?????

luvmylabs23139
03-05-2012, 09:58 PM
Not all IUDs are for 5 years. When I looked into them, they were 12-18 months.

Your statements are unrealistic.

I'd rather pay for contraception then pay thousands more for the births.

WRL

The taxpayer should pay for neither. The breeding bitch must me held resonsible for her actions ens of story. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that I must pay for the breeders litter.

mngundog
03-05-2012, 11:03 PM
If ya can't feedem don't breedem. I want me some free Viagra! Why should my erection be overlooked?????
Medicare use to pay for that.

Matt McKenzie
03-06-2012, 09:25 AM
A couple of articles that shed more light on the issue.

http://thecollegepolitico.com/sandra-fluke-gender-reassignment-and-health-insurance/

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/9-price-months-supply-birth-control-pills-target-3-miles-georgetown-law

Jason Glavich
03-06-2012, 09:35 AM
A couple of articles that shed more light on the issue.

http://thecollegepolitico.com/sandra-fluke-gender-reassignment-and-health-insurance/

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/9-price-months-supply-birth-control-pills-target-3-miles-georgetown-law

but but but but but She said 3000!!! I refuse to hear anything else!

This girl is a joke. She can buy a condom, or BC, or get sterilized....Or she could just NOT HAVE SEX! That is FREE!!!!!

road kill
03-06-2012, 09:50 AM
She enrolled into a Jesuit school knowing full well what the rules and principals are.
Her sole intent was to do what she is doing.


This is what "secular progressives" are about.

Taking away YOUR freedoms and libertys.

All they have to do is give you FREE stuff and YOU guppy up.


Disgraceful!!


RK

BTW--This poor young COED is 30 freakin years old.:rolleyes:

Buck Mann
03-06-2012, 09:58 AM
Not all IUDs are for 5 years. When I looked into them, they were 12-18 months.

WRL

There are two IUDs on the market now. One is good for 5 years the other is good for 10 years.

Buck

WRL
03-06-2012, 09:59 AM
The taxpayer should pay for neither. The breeding bitch must me held resonsible for her actions ens of story. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that I must pay for the breeders litter.

No where in the constitution does it say a lot of things.

However, like I said, I'd rather pay a few hundred dollars rather than thousands. Are you saying you'd rather pay thousands?

Your stance is great BUT, its unrealistic.

Step into the 21st century and think about what is going to WORK not want you want in a perfect world.

This law student isn't the issue. She's a political pawn with an agenda. What we are really talking about is welfare/low income people who are going to dump their kids onto the system along with costing the taxpayer to bring them into the world.

Once again, I'd rather pay for BC.

WRL

Jason Glavich
03-06-2012, 10:00 AM
She enrolled into a Jesuit school knowing full well what the rules and principals are.
Her sole intent was to do what she is doing.


This is what "secular progressives" are about.

Taking away YOUR freedoms and libertys.

All they have to do is give you FREE stuff and YOU guppy up.


Disgraceful!!


RK

BTW--This poor young COED is 30 freakin years old.:rolleyes:

So if they gave her BC and she still gets pregnant...What happens then?

road kill
03-06-2012, 10:02 AM
So if they gave her BC and she still gets pregnant...What happens then?

Sloppy morals begets sloppy morals.
My point exactly!!!:cool:


RK

GoldenSail
03-06-2012, 10:25 AM
The higher end birth control pills can and often do cost up to $100 a month. It is true there are cheaper generics ($10-20 month) but when dealing with hormones it can be touchy and they don't work for everyone. So she very well could have paid $3000 for birth control. Still cheaper than having a baby for sure....but for those on the lower end of the socioeconomic scale they might not be able to afford it. And if they get pregnant...well I guess we'll pay for that in Medicaid. Can't win. Would personally rather not see children born into that and taxes turned around to support the children, JMO.

Matt McKenzie
03-06-2012, 10:32 AM
No where in the constitution does it say a lot of things.

However, like I said, I'd rather pay a few hundred dollars rather than thousands. Are you saying you'd rather pay thousands?

Your stance is great BUT, its unrealistic.

Step into the 21st century and think about what is going to WORK not want you want in a perfect world.

This law student isn't the issue. She's a political pawn with an agenda. What we are really talking about is welfare/low income people who are going to dump their kids onto the system along with costing the taxpayer to bring them into the world.

Once again, I'd rather pay for BC.

WRL

Are we talking about welfare/low income people who work for religious institutions? How many people get welfare while working for Saint Luke's Hospital or Georgetown University or Notre Dame? That's what started the whole discussion. The current administration put into effect regulations requiring all employers to provide a health care pacakage that includes birth control. Some religious institutions disagree with that. So do I, but not for religious reasons. I've benefitted greatly over the years from modern methods of contraception and I'm a big fan. I believe that anyone should be able to purchase contraception if they intend to have sex. I don't think that it's the job of our government to force employers or insurance companies to provide it at no cost to the user.
Those on welfare have their BC provided by you and I already. Unfortunately for us, its use is not mandated. In fact, we have a system that encourages those who cannot afford to support children to have more children in order to earn more benefits.
Now we have a different issue about college students not being provided BC by the college. I don't know about you, but of the 4 colleges I've attended, I haven't received health care benefits from any of them. Was I entitled to them? Why should Georgetown or any other college provide BC to its students? There are drug stores that sell BC cheaply to uninsured women. There's Planned Parenthood that does the same. WTF?

Gerry Clinchy
03-06-2012, 10:33 AM
Hey, guys, did you actually read the articles cited?

1) Fluke's larger agenda is to get coverage for sex-change operations.

I've mentioned before that when we complain at the cost of health care today, we forget about all the advances that have occurred in medical care in the past 20 or 30 years. do we expect that new life-saving treatments come at no cost?

I expect that whether sex-change surgery should be covered is a whole different debate. That might be counter to the beliefs of many religions. Fluke was very deft at choosing contraception as the talking point ... and both warping the facts and using it as a wedge for larger issues.

After all, I don't think anyone on this forum has spoken against use of contraception ... the issues being whether it should be covered by insurance or whether those who oppose it on religious grounds should be compelled to pay for it. Isn't it interesting how the real issues devolved into whether contraception was wiser than non-contraception?

I can remember buying my BC pills for $21 at the local pharmacy about 20 years ago. Today, it says CVS in DC sells them for $33; while they can also be gotten as low as $6 in some places. So, the cost of contraception is ONE thing that has actually decreased in cost in the past 20 years.

2) The $3000 figure Fluke cited for a "friend" has to do with treating ovarian cysts. That would be very different from "routine" contraception. Since the ovarian cysts are considered a medical condition, I would not classify them in the same category as purely contraception. For this treatment, supposedly a more expensive pill is needed.

And, certainly, if hormone pills (BC pills) are used for a specific disease treatment, there is reason to include this in coverage. It probably would be, even for RC policies. The govt and insurors would have to be alert for a surge in the use of this more expensive pill :-)

How much ya wanna bet it will happen? Is it far-fetched to imagine that someone short on cash, will get insurance to pay for this "treatment", then sell these more expensive pills for cash & buy the generic for $9? Like the way people sell their food stamps at a discount, to purchase drugs and/or alcohol?

Fact is that Fluke is an "activist" before she is "just another law student". Nothing wrong with activists as long as they stick with the facts; not just go grabbing headlines.

This is NOT an endorsement of Limbaugh! Seems like one has to make that abundantly clear in any statement here that might disagree with Ms. Fluke's position.

Jason Glavich
03-06-2012, 10:33 AM
The higher end birth control pills can and often do cost up to $100 a month. It is true there are cheaper generics ($10-20 month) but when dealing with hormones it can be touchy and they don't work for everyone. So she very well could have paid $3000 for birth control. Still cheaper than having a baby for sure....but for those on the lower end of the socioeconomic scale they might not be able to afford it. And if they get pregnant...well I guess we'll pay for that in Medicaid. Can't win. Would personally rather not see children born into that and taxes turned around to support the children, JMO.

Even with high end brand name drugs they can fail for a number of reasons, so if they paid for it or not they could have a baby, or free abortion drugs, or they always have the free method of not having sex.

I see this as an issue of the Gov paying for a lifestyle choice, they are paying for people to be able to have sex and not have kids. A person could argue that they could just not have sex thus not need BC. If the person chooses to have sex why should anyone else pay for it?

Does wanting free BC make someone pro-choice.....? :BIG:
Hope everyone takes the last part as a joke, lately people have no sense of humor.

The Virginia ultrasound bill is way more fun to make fun of.

Matt McKenzie
03-06-2012, 10:38 AM
Hey, guys, did you actually read the articles cited?

1) Fluke's larger agenda is to get coverage for sex-change operations.

I've mentioned before that when we complain at the cost of health care today, we forget about all the advances that have occurred in medical care in the past 20 or 30 years. do we expect that new life-saving treatments come at no cost?

I expect that whether sex-change surgery should be covered is a whole different debate. That might be counter to the beliefs of many religions. Fluke was very deft at choosing contraception as the talking point ... and both warping the facts and using it as a wedge for larger issues.

After all, I don't think anyone on this forum has spoken against use of contraception ... the issues being whether it should be covered by insurance or whether those who oppose it on religious grounds should be compelled to pay for it. Isn't it interesting how the real issues devolved into whether contraception was wiser than non-contraception?

I can remember buying my BC pills for $21 at the local pharmacy about 20 years ago. Today, it says CVS in DC sells them for $33; while they can also be gotten as low as $6 in some places. So, the cost of contraception is ONE thing that has actually decreased in cost in the past 20 years.

2) The $3000 figure Fluke cited for a "friend" has to do with treating ovarian cysts. That would be very different from "routine" contraception. Since the ovarian cysts are considered a medical condition, I would not classify them in the same category as purely contraception. For this treatment, supposedly a more expensive pill is needed.

And, certainly, if hormone pills (BC pills) are used for a specific disease treatment, there is reason to include this in coverage. It probably would be, even for RC policies. The govt and insurors would have to be alert for a surge in the use of this more expensive pill :-)

How much ya wanna bet it will happen? Is it far-fetched to imagine that someone short on cash, will get insurance to pay for this "treatment", then sell these more expensive pills for cash & buy the generic for $9? Like the way people sell their food stamps at a discount, to purchase drugs and/or alcohol?

Fact is that Fluke is an "activist" before she is "just another law student". Nothing wrong with activists as long as they stick with the facts; not just go grabbing headlines.

This is NOT an endorsement of Limbaugh! Seems like one has to make that abundantly clear in any statement here that might disagree with Ms. Fluke's position.

What Gerry said!

GoldenSail
03-06-2012, 10:40 AM
It's true they can fail. Almost sucks either way but if it does prevent more unwanted births it's worth it, IMO. Also wanted to point out that the figure could be accurate. The reality is the government already pays for it anyway. Medicaid pays for just about anything and everything with $0 copay--birth control included.

road kill
03-06-2012, 10:43 AM
Hey, guys, did you actually read the articles cited?

1) Fluke's larger agenda is to get coverage for sex-change operations.

I've mentioned before that when we complain at the cost of health care today, we forget about all the advances that have occurred in medical care in the past 20 or 30 years. do we expect that new life-saving treatments come at no cost?

I expect that whether sex-change surgery should be covered is a whole different debate. That might be counter to the beliefs of many religions. Fluke was very deft at choosing contraception as the talking point ... and both warping the facts and using it as a wedge for larger issues.

After all, I don't think anyone on this forum has spoken against use of contraception ... the issues being whether it should be covered by insurance or whether those who oppose it on religious grounds should be compelled to pay for it. Isn't it interesting how the real issues devolved into whether contraception was wiser than non-contraception?

I can remember buying my BC pills for $21 at the local pharmacy about 20 years ago. Today, it says CVS in DC sells them for $33; while they can also be gotten as low as $6 in some places. So, the cost of contraception is ONE thing that has actually decreased in cost in the past 20 years.

2) The $3000 figure Fluke cited for a "friend" has to do with treating ovarian cysts. That would be very different from "routine" contraception. Since the ovarian cysts are considered a medical condition, I would not classify them in the same category as purely contraception. For this treatment, supposedly a more expensive pill is needed.

And, certainly, if hormone pills (BC pills) are used for a specific disease treatment, there is reason to include this in coverage. It probably would be, even for RC policies. The govt and insurors would have to be alert for a surge in the use of this more expensive pill :-)

How much ya wanna bet it will happen? Is it far-fetched to imagine that someone short on cash, will get insurance to pay for this "treatment", then sell these more expensive pills for cash & buy the generic for $9? Like the way people sell their food stamps at a discount, to purchase drugs and/or alcohol?

Fact is that Fluke is an "activist" before she is "just another law student". Nothing wrong with activists as long as they stick with the facts; not just go grabbing headlines.

This is NOT an endorsement of Limbaugh! Seems like one has to make that abundantly clear in any statement here that might disagree with Ms. Fluke's position.
Gosh, I wish I could make this point and someone could understand.
Maybe if I typed several more paragraphs it would mean so much more.

#1--Yes, I read it, she is not what they prtrayed her to be. She is a "professional" activist, she gets compensated for her efforts.
#2--The left (secular progressievs) are playing it as though its about "reproductive rights," it is NOT!!
#3--This is who the secular progressives play, it's nothing new.

The end game is to herd us all onto the "government plantation!!"
And so many are in such a hurry to get there.:cool:


RK

Gerry Clinchy
03-06-2012, 10:47 AM
It's true they can fail. Almost sucks either way but if it does prevent more unwanted births it's worth it, IMO. Also wanted to point out that the figure could be accurate. The reality is the government already pays for it anyway. Medicaid pays for just about anything and everything with $0 copay--birth control included.

And how has that worked for us? Sorry ... just couldn't resist.

Who would want free contraception when it is more lucrative to have more children?

But here we are talking about whether we think contraception is good or bad ... not whether we should compel someone to pay for it if they are against it on religious grounds.

I disagree with the RC position on this, but it is part of their religious tenets; has been forever; no surprise on that. Doesn't matter how many "sinners" there are within the church's congregation. The guys who wrote the law should have been bright enough to anticipate that. The guys who read the law before they voted (did any of them even do that?) should have been bright enough to figure it out as well.

road kill
03-06-2012, 10:58 AM
And how has that worked for us? Sorry ... just couldn't resist.

Who would want free contraception when it is more lucrative to have more children?

But here we are talking about whether we think contraception is good or bad ... not whether we should compel someone to pay for it if they are against it on religious grounds. That is all I have been talking about and it is the true point!!!

I disagree with the RC position on this, but it is part of their religious tenets; has been forever; no surprise on that. Doesn't matter how many "sinners" there are within the church's congregation. The guys who wrote the law should have been bright enough to anticipate that. The guys who read the law before they voted (did any of them even do that?) should have been bright enough to figure it out as well.

CRIPES!!

RK

GoldenSail
03-06-2012, 11:23 AM
I would agree that the church should not be forced to pay for something that they feel is ethically immoral.

The OP however felt like the cost was not a realistic value. Well, it can be for many women. I've had married friends forking over that much ($100/month) for their birth control because they can't tolerate the cheaper generics and are not ready for the time and financial costs of children yet. There are also plenty of young teenagers on the more costly BC because they can't tolerate the generics that are using them for non-contraception reasons and under the guidance of their parents.

M&K's Retrievers
03-06-2012, 12:12 PM
No where in the constitution does it say a lot of things.

However, like I said, I'd rather pay a few hundred dollars rather than thousands. Are you saying you'd rather pay thousands?

Your stance is great BUT, its unrealistic.

Step into the 21st century and think about what is going to WORK not want you want in a perfect world.

This law student isn't the issue. She's a political pawn with an agenda. What we are really talking about is welfare/low income people who are going to dump their kids onto the system along with costing the taxpayer to bring them into the world.

Once again, I'd rather pay for BC.

WRL

Key word here. I'd rather you pay for it as well, not the taxpayer, employer in the form of premiums or the insurance co. None of this crap is an illness and should be treated as such.

If normal maternity/well baby coverage and birth control were sold as an optional benefit instead of mandated, very few would buy it. That's why it is seldom sold on groups of less than 15 employees. They don't have to buy it.

ARay11
03-06-2012, 01:00 PM
No where in the constitution does it say a lot of things.

However, like I said, I'd rather pay a few hundred dollars rather than thousands. Are you saying you'd rather pay thousands?

Your stance is great BUT, its unrealistic.

Step into the 21st century and think about what is going to WORK not want you want in a perfect world.

This law student isn't the issue. She's a political pawn with an agenda. What we are really talking about is welfare/low income people who are going to dump their kids onto the system along with costing the taxpayer to bring them into the world.

Once again, I'd rather pay for BC.

WRL

I think we can pay for BC for the welfare/low income population but we can't force them to take it.
Do we really believe that free birth control (derived from a paid for insurance policy so technically it's not free) is going to lower the birth rate among the low income??

steve hoppas
03-06-2012, 01:55 PM
"If you can't afford to pay, then you can't afford to play!"

Because no birth control is 100%. And when it fails we have another Decmocrat to pay for,
This is not an attack on women's rights; it an attack on my wallet. No one even oh RICK is trying to outlaw the pill. We just don't want to pay for someone else's nightlife.

Jason Glavich
03-06-2012, 02:41 PM
I would agree that the church should not be forced to pay for something that they feel is ethically immoral.

The OP however felt like the cost was not a realistic value. Well, it can be for many women. I've had married friends forking over that much ($100/month) for their birth control because they can't tolerate the cheaper generics and are not ready for the time and financial costs of children yet. There are also plenty of young teenagers on the more costly BC because they can't tolerate the generics that are using them for non-contraception reasons and under the guidance of their parents.

This is an interesting tidbit. If the BC is not being used for BC then is it really saving them any money? It has been used for many things other than BC, like most drugs during trials they find another use for the drug, that is how we got such marvels as Rogaine,Viagra, Post it note glue...

When my wife was trying to control her migraines they tried a bunch of non headache medicines to help her, really odd ones. So my question is, if you are taking the drug for something other than BC is it still covered?

menmon
03-06-2012, 02:43 PM
The taxpayer should pay for neither. The breeding bitch must me held resonsible for her actions ens of story. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that I must pay for the breeders litter.

So you are saying put them in a sack and throw he/she in the pond when the neighbor comes over with a six pack and thinks get a little carried away:rolleyes:

I can't do that, so I guess we have to pay for the birth and childcare thereafter:(

See Obama's plan has logic...it is not about the cost of a pill, it is about the cost to the rest of us.

Condoms are cheaper true...but who likes using them;-)

GoldenSail
03-06-2012, 02:53 PM
So my question is, if you are taking the drug for something other than BC is it still covered?

It depends on your insurance company. Some insurance companies do cover BC even if for contraception. That's their choice and really the simplest answer, isn't it? Let the insurance companies decide what they cover, and let the policy holders decide which insurance they pay for. Most insurance companies probably don't even know why someone is on it (painful menses vs acne vs contraception vs ???).

ARay11
03-06-2012, 03:06 PM
ok, so here's a question....

IF:
All employers are required to provide healthcare to their employees..check
All insurance companies must provide birth control for free as a part of their policy... check

THEN:
As an employee... am I required to purchase said policy? am I allowed to opt for the coverage which DOES NOT include bc and/or maternity and such should carry a lower premium? am I allowed to opt out of paying the premium at all if I elect to NOT have health insurance?...

Are all EMPLOYED Americans going to be REQUIRED to pay for an Insurance premium which is higher due to coverages for birth control regardless of need or want??

I know we dont talk about this much...but what about men's rights?? Are you fellas going to pay a higher premium for health insurance even tho you arent taking the pill? lol...just had to throw that in.:oops:

menmon
03-06-2012, 03:11 PM
ok, so here's a question....

IF:
All employers are required to provide healthcare to their employees..check
All insurance companies must provide birth control for free as a part of their policy... check

THEN:
As an employee... am I required to purchase said policy? am I allowed to opt for the coverage which DOES NOT include bc and/or maternity and such should carry a lower premium? am I allowed to opt out of paying the premium at all if I elect to NOT have health insurance?...

Are all EMPLOYED Americans going to be REQUIRED to pay for an Insurance premium which is higher due to coverages for birth control regardless of need or want??

I know we dont talk about this much...but what about men's rights?? Are you fellas going to pay a higher premium for health insurance even tho you arent taking the pill? lol...just had to throw that in.:oops:

I pay for a lot of coverage I don't need as you do. When is the last time you had prostate cancer...same as me getting ovarion cancer;-)

ARay11
03-06-2012, 03:36 PM
I pay for a lot of coverage I don't need as you do. When is the last time you had prostate cancer...same as me getting ovarion cancer;-)

LOL!!
I think the insurance companies take gender related illness into account when pricing a policy. But I suppose they will have to cover sterilization and/or condoms for the fellas as well as the pill for ladies??

To my point though... we should be able to choose our coverage... or LACK of coverage if we so choose.

road kill
03-06-2012, 03:38 PM
LOL!!
I think the insurance companies take gender related illness into account when pricing a policy. But I suppose they will have to cover sterilization and/or condoms for the fellas as well as the pill for ladies??

To my point though... we should be able to choose our coverage... or LACK of coverage if we so choose.

Regardless what policy you choose, YOU will help pay for FREE stuff!!!

Nuttin' you can do about it, because at the end of the day....there is no FREE stuff!!!



RK

WRL
03-06-2012, 03:41 PM
LOL!!
I think the insurance companies take gender related illness into account when pricing a policy. But I suppose they will have to cover sterilization and/or condoms for the fellas as well as the pill for ladies??

To my point though... we should be able to choose our coverage... or LACK of coverage if we so choose.

Well there used to be a time when you could get coverage for 1) one child 2) two to four children 3) five or more.

When I had insurance through my work, I had to pay the same rate as someone who had 8 kids while I had only one.

Isn't that the same? We ALL pay for more than we use. An insurance company should WANT to pay for BC as that is a lot cheaper than a birth nowadays.

WRL

road kill
03-06-2012, 03:45 PM
Well there used to be a time when you could get coverage for 1) one child 2) two to four children 3) five or more.

When I had insurance through my work, I had to pay the same rate as someone who had 8 kids while I had only one.

Isn't that the same? We ALL pay for more than we use. An insurance company should WANT to pay for BC as that is a lot cheaper than a birth nowadays.

WRL
The insurance company will NOT pay for the FREE stuff, we will!

RK

ARay11
03-06-2012, 03:58 PM
Regardless what policy you choose, YOU will help pay for FREE stuff!!!

Nuttin' you can do about it, because at the end of the day....there is no FREE stuff!!!



RK

I have no wish to receive nor to provide FREE stuff.
I want to CHOOSE a)whether or not to be covered b)what coverage I want.
I want my insurance company to be free to adjust my policy to include/exclude certain coverages.

WRL
03-06-2012, 03:58 PM
The insurance company will NOT pay for the FREE stuff, we will!

RK

I agree. It comes down to not IF you want to pay but HOW MUCH you want to pay......

I elect for the lesser of the amounts.

WRL

ARay11
03-06-2012, 04:22 PM
Regardless what policy you choose, YOU will help pay for FREE stuff!!!

Nuttin' you can do about it, because at the end of the day....there is no FREE stuff!!!



RK

WHAT ABOUT MY RIGHT TO CHOOSE NO POLICY AT ALL???

Gerry Clinchy
03-06-2012, 04:37 PM
LOL!!
I think the insurance companies take gender related illness into account when pricing a policy. But I suppose they will have to cover sterilization and/or condoms for the fellas as well as the pill for ladies??

To my point though... we should be able to choose our coverage... or LACK of coverage if we so choose.

Actually, that is what employers did do with "cafeteria" plans. They offered a selection of benefits you could choose from based on an overall dollar amount. You might be able to combine a higher overall deductible in order to get dental coverage ... by your own choice. Or keep a lower deductible and pay for your own dental. You get the idea: Here is $X of dollars to spend; let the employee choose what they want or don't want.

So, why not let people pay "by the child" rather than "family"? That would be an incentive to use contraception.

Overall, that is what insurance is about: making a group diverse enough to keep the overall fiscal soundness. That's why Obamacare HAS to have a universal compliance mandate once they mandated that ALL pre-existing conditions would be covered. And there was NO WAY you can have the funds to do that unless you compel everyone to be part of the "group".

Obviously that is why Medicare and Medicaid have problems ... the group is not diverse enough to cover expenses from premiums collected. The govt then has to kick in. Watch the "state exchanges" take a real hosing, with premiums gradually increasing. And those whose income is low enough will be subsidized.

There just isn't any way around this: If hospitals give care free to those who can't pay, they charge more to those who DO pay to make up for their losses. If the govt mandates that everyone be covered, this is great for hospitals and doctors ... no more freebies. However, SOMEbody WILL pay. The govt only has the $ it gets from those who pay taxes (or fines or penalties).

And, yet, for those who figure the penalty is cheaper than the health insurance, if they get sick the hospitals and doctors will still treat them. Hospitals even give expensive care like dialysis to illegal residents. Those who DO pay will STILL be paying for those who do NOT pay.

It's really just a shell game that makes for good rhetoric on a campaign trail.

paul young
03-06-2012, 05:59 PM
WHAT ABOUT MY RIGHT TO CHOOSE NO POLICY AT ALL???

we have that option where i work. we call it the "moron policy choice".

i pay over $100/ week, that's a bargain today.-Paul

ARay11
03-06-2012, 06:12 PM
we have that option where i work. we call it the "moron policy choice".

i pay over $100/ week, that's a bargain today.-Paul


I assure you I am not a moron...however I do support someone's right to be one. :razz:

HPL
03-06-2012, 09:36 PM
WHAT ABOUT MY RIGHT TO CHOOSE NO POLICY AT ALL???
Seems a reasonable option as long as when you have gone completely bankrupt paying for some catastrophic illness or accident you don't then expect me to contribute to your care. If you opt out, you have to be completely out. That is a very hard position both for you and for me.

ARay11
03-06-2012, 10:40 PM
Seems a reasonable option as long as when you have gone completely bankrupt paying for some catastrophic illness or accident you don't then expect me to contribute to your care. If you opt out, you have to be completely out. That is a very hard position both for you and for me.

I do not intend for this to be a "reasonable" option.... Only that I do not want a government large enough to remove my ability to make a CHOICE

JDogger
03-06-2012, 11:09 PM
It's funny...I pay more per month for my TV, land line,and internet sevice then I do for elec. and gas combined. JD

JDogger
03-06-2012, 11:12 PM
It's funny...I pay more per month for my TV, land line,and internet sevice then I do for elec. and gas combined. JD

There are no choices...

Whats wrong here?

BTW I give a FRA about about birth control for college students. JD

Buzz
03-06-2012, 11:54 PM
Seems a reasonable option as long as when you have gone completely bankrupt paying for some catastrophic illness or accident you don't then expect me to contribute to your care. If you opt out, you have to be completely out. That is a very hard position both for you and for me.

Interesting, this is the type of conservative thinking that originally spawned the idea of the individual mandate in right think tanks. Something about personal responsibility.

road kill
03-07-2012, 06:56 AM
75% of the counties in the USA provide FREE birth control for those who can't afford it.
It already exists.



Title X: America’s Family Planning Program
Title X has been key to helping millions of American women prevent unintended pregnancies and obtain reproductive health care for almost four decades.

The Title X family planning program began in 1970 as a bipartisan commonsense approach to ensuring that low-income Americans have access to contraceptive services and other preventive health care. For almost 40 years, Title X has been the nation's only program dedicated solely to reducing unintended pregnancy by providing contraceptive and related reproductive health care services to low-income women. In fact, Title X supports six in 10 of all family planning health centers in the United States, and Title X funds account for 24 percent of those health centers' total revenue (Frost, 2006; Fowler, et al., 2008).




But.....deflect from the real issue, the state making the church do something against its beleifs.

More FREE stuff!!!!


RK

Jason Glavich
03-07-2012, 07:46 AM
75% of the counties in the USA provide FREE birth control for those who can't afford it.
It already exists.



But.....deflect from the real issue, the state making the church do something against its beleifs.

More FREE stuff!!!!


RK

But what if I want my free stuff to be paid for by insurance? Not anyone else. If I pay for insurance they should give me free stuff. Insurance companies are evil and should look at it as a cost savings.

luvmylabs23139
03-07-2012, 08:46 AM
No where in the constitution does it say a lot of things.

However, like I said, I'd rather pay a few hundred dollars rather than thousands. Are you saying you'd rather pay thousands?

Your stance is great BUT, its unrealistic.

Step into the 21st century and think about what is going to WORK not want you want in a perfect world.

This law student isn't the issue. She's a political pawn with an agenda. What we are really talking about is welfare/low income people who are going to dump their kids onto the system along with costing the taxpayer to bring them into the world.

Once again, I'd rather pay for BC.

WRLAs ar as I am concerned I should not pay a darn dime for either!!!!
Lets follow the constitution not liberal CRAP!

ErinsEdge
03-07-2012, 09:34 AM
75% of the counties in the USA provide FREE birth control for those who can't afford it.
It already exists.


Exactly-this whole topic is all baloney. It's been that way as long as I can remember. You either paid for your contraception or you went to the free clinics. I used to volunteer at the free clinics aimed at the college students-everyone knows they exist, even at the Catholic Universities

road kill
03-07-2012, 09:38 AM
Exactly-this whole topic is all baloney. It's been that way as long as I can remember. You either paid for your contraception or you went to the free clinics. I used to volunteer at the free clinics aimed at the college students-everyone knows they exist, even at the Catholic Universities

Well....not "everyone."

Evidently President Obama and Ms. Fluke don't know!!:rolleyes:


RK

ErinsEdge
03-07-2012, 09:43 AM
Well....not "everyone."

Evidently President Obama and Ms. Fluke don't know!!:rolleyes:


RK

Yeah right-the deception to get the vote-look what we are doing for you or maybe to the liberals and feminists who may not know it exsists, but are incensed at the injustice.
As far as gender reassignment surgery, it is neither necessary, nor anything more than elective extensive cosmetic surgery which is not free either.

luvmylabs23139
03-07-2012, 10:17 AM
The higher end birth control pills can and often do cost up to $100 a month. It is true there are cheaper generics ($10-20 month) but when dealing with hormones it can be touchy and they don't work for everyone. So she very well could have paid $3000 for birth control. Still cheaper than having a baby for sure....but for those on the lower end of the socioeconomic scale they might not be able to afford it. And if they get pregnant...well I guess we'll pay for that in Med croosedicaid. Can't win. Would personally rather not see children born into that and taxes turned around to support the children, JMO.


She could just keep her legs crossed!!!! Costs nothing if you don't act like a darn bitch in heat!!!!!

menmon
03-07-2012, 10:21 AM
She could just keep her legs crossed!!!! Costs nothing if you don't act like a darn bitch in heat!!!!!

Tell them "Rush"!!!!!!!

luvmylabs23139
03-07-2012, 10:23 AM
So you are saying put them in a sack and throw he/she in the pond when the neighbor comes over with a six pack and thinks get a little carried away:rolleyes:

I can't do that, so I guess we have to pay for the birth and childcare thereafter:(

See Obama's plan has logic...it is not about the cost of a pill, it is about the cost to the rest of us.

Condoms are cheaper true...but who likes using them;-)


YOu breed it you feed it end of story. The bitch can keep her darn legs crossed end of story!
As far as I am concerned hold the breeding slut responsible end of story.
I have no problem saying that I will not pay for her spawn. May sound cold but tough! I'm sick of paying for this crap.
Spay and neuter the breeders! Heck I have to pay extra to own an intact dog that has never been bred.

luvmylabs23139
03-07-2012, 10:25 AM
Tell them "Rush"!!!!!!!


Not Rush just a disgusted taxpayer! Enough is enough of this crap. They played they pay not me!!!!

menmon
03-07-2012, 10:33 AM
Not Rush just a disgusted taxpayer! Enough is enough of this crap. They played they pay not me!!!!

I'm a disgusted taxpayer too...that is really sick and tired of America policing the world:mad: Just a little bit bigger issue and waste of my tax dollars:mad:

As for as Iran is concerned, if they threatening you deal with yourself!! If you need planes and bombs we sell them to you...COD

So please get out of the weeds on this and address the real burden on our tax dollars:rolleyes:

luvmylabs23139
03-07-2012, 10:39 AM
I'm a disgusted taxpayer too...that is really sick and tired of America policing the world:mad: Just a little bit bigger issue and waste of my tax dollars:mad:

As for as Iran is concerned, if they threatening you deal with yourself!! If you need planes and bombs we sell them to you...COD

So please get out of the weeds on this and address the real burden on our tax dollars:rolleyes:


Leaches are the biggest draw on my overall tax dollars! That means federal state and local. MEDICAID, SECTION 8, FOOD STAMPS etc.
OH and paying for school for their spawn including illegals and the anchor babies.

D Osborn
03-07-2012, 10:39 AM
Ok, I rarely post over here, but a few things.
I had a hysterectomy a week ago. I would have had to have a hysterectomy about 13 years ago if I had not been on Birth Control. In the long run, if you say we pay for insurance, that would have cost you a hell of a lot more insurance wise, when you add in drugs, hormones etc.
No, even though my mother and grandmother had endometriosis, when I first started teaching, insurance would not cover it. Out of pocket for a school teacher then was 50 bucks minimum, but they covered viagra. Sigh.
However, I would have had to have a surgery a year, and miss at least 1 day a month w/o it.
NOW, with insurance I was paying 45, and until last week, 30.
Still not cheap. The fact is, as proven by what they found in surgery last week, my BC was needed for my life to be somewhat normal. And quite frankly, unless men have ever had cramps, they need to get over themselves. Think stomach virus cramps x 5. While I understand some people believing we should not pay for people to play, there are other issues at stake here.

Back to lurking.

M&K's Retrievers
03-07-2012, 10:55 AM
Ok, I rarely post over here, but a few things.
I had a hysterectomy a week ago. I would have had to have a hysterectomy about 13 years ago if I had not been on Birth Control. In the long run, if you say we pay for insurance, that would have cost you a hell of a lot more insurance wise, when you add in drugs, hormones etc.
No, even though my mother and grandmother had endometriosis, when I first started teaching, insurance would not cover it. Out of pocket for a school teacher then was 50 bucks minimum, but they covered viagra. Sigh.
However, I would have had to have a surgery a year, and miss at least 1 day a month w/o it.
NOW, with insurance I was paying 45, and until last week, 30.
Still not cheap. The fact is, as proven by what they found in surgery last week, my BC was needed for my life to be somewhat normal. And quite frankly, unless men have ever had cramps, they need to get over themselves. Think stomach virus cramps x 5. While I understand some people believing we should not pay for people to play, there are other issues at stake here.

Back to lurking.

I believe most companies will cover birth control pills if they are used to treat a diagnosed condition.

coachmo
03-07-2012, 11:08 AM
Sambo,
Since you brought it up let's get out of the weeds and address some other issues like foreign aid, interventions/wars, etc. From your comments it appears you are not in favor of the bilateral relations we have with Israel nor do you agree with keeping our allies strong if we are going to continue to be involved in the Middle East for various reasons. You and I will probably agree on very little due to our contrasting political views but I do agree that war and involvement of the USA as the world police is not good; however, I think it is important to support our allies against impending assault and Ahmadinejad has made it clear that he intends to "wipe Israel of the face of the planet". I know this will be a simplistic comparison but if your friend was being mugged would you not intervene to help? I know I'm one of those knuckle dragging, gun toting, Bible reading conservatives that the liberals like to bash but in my part of the woods my buddies can always count on me in a bar fight. I have their back and they have mine.

menmon
03-07-2012, 11:33 AM
Sambo,
Since you brought it up let's get out of the weeds and address some other issues like foreign aid, interventions/wars, etc. From your comments it appears you are not in favor of the bilateral relations we have with Israel nor do you agree with keeping our allies strong if we are going to continue to be involved in the Middle East for various reasons. You and I will probably agree on very little due to our contrasting political views but I do agree that war and involvement of the USA as the world police is not good; however, I think it is important to support our allies against impending assault and Ahmadinejad has made it clear that he intends to "wipe Israel of the face of the planet". I know this will be a simplistic comparison but if your friend was being mugged would you not intervene to help? I know I'm one of those knuckle dragging, gun toting, Bible reading conservatives that the liberals like to bash but in my part of the woods my buddies can always count on me in a bar fight. I have their back and they have mine.

For the record, I'm a bible toting, gun toting guy that sees through the bullshit and the democrats align better with what I think is important:D

Last time I looked, none of those countries threatened by Iran have any financial issues, including Isreal. Last time I looked, we could not afford to take care of our own. Shit from what I have been reading on this tread, we can not afford a few birth control pills, but lets get a loan from China and fight someone else war. That don't make sense to me. All this bitching about helping someone you know like your neighbor with you tax dollars and debt on your country, but then you give a stranger or someone that can't stand you a blank check to fight their war. Would you ask your friend to buy you a beer when he didn't have a job and you did?

I'm ok with helping if they pay for the help:D

coachmo
03-07-2012, 12:17 PM
I did not mention anything about financial support to Israel (although we do in a big way) but by the way you seem to approach this would you first ask your friend for his wallet before you stopped the mugging? Or just demand payment upon intervening? I'm curious. As far as being able to afford a few birth control pills, I think it's more of a principle thing like you not wanting to send foreign aid to other countries. Just saying.

Golddogs
03-07-2012, 01:09 PM
If ya can't feedem don't breedem. I want me some free Viagra! Why should my erection be overlooked?????


I can see where you might need it.:D

Seriously, if you have prescription coverage, Viagra is covered.

Until we approve spay and nuter for humans, I am fine with BC pills.

Golddogs
03-07-2012, 01:15 PM
Leaches are the biggest draw on my overall tax dollars! That means federal state and local. MEDICAID, SECTION 8, FOOD STAMPS etc.
OH and paying for school for their spawn including illegals and the anchor babies.


Best add in earmarks, farm subsidies, aid to the oil companies, aid to all foreign countries, tobacco, peanut and sugar subsidies, ethanol subsidies, ect.,ect.,ect.

And lets not forget all the inflated defense contrats.

Cody Covey
03-07-2012, 01:16 PM
I did not mention anything about financial support to Israel (although we do in a big way) but by the way you seem to approach this would you first ask your friend for his wallet before you stopped the mugging? Or just demand payment upon intervening? I'm curious. As far as being able to afford a few birth control pills, I think it's more of a principle thing like you not wanting to send foreign aid to other countries. Just saying.

Unfortunately, and it pains me to say this, I agree with Sambo. A mugging is a poor analogy in this situtation...helping out fend off a mugging doesn't take any money but send weapons and ships and men to the middle east to help Israel takes a lot of money. The better analogy would be would you get a huge loan that your children will have to pay off to buy your friend a gun in case he gets mugged. We can't afford to take care of ourselves but we should get a loan to take care of others?

Now generally, not speaking for sambo though, is when the liberals all say that humanitarian aid shouldn't stop for other countries even though we can't afford that either~

Jason Glavich
03-07-2012, 02:05 PM
I can see where you might need it.:D

Seriously, if you have prescription coverage, Viagra is covered.

Until we approve spay and nuter for humans, I am fine with BC pills.

Eugenics programs used to do this. They stopped the programs...

But then again we have people getting implanted with 8 eggs and having 8 kids at a time for a total of 14 who can't afford them as well.

coachmo
03-07-2012, 02:30 PM
Again, I never mentioned offering monetary support to Israel. I was merely making the point to support our allies. You know that united we stand, strength in numbers thing. The current administration seems to at times have trouble distinguishing our foes from our friends.

menmon
03-07-2012, 04:32 PM
Again, I never mentioned offering monetary support to Israel. I was merely making the point to support our allies. You know that united we stand, strength in numbers thing. The current administration seems to at times have trouble distinguishing our foes from our friends.

The current president knows that attacking Iran is not like Ganada. Planes will be shot down and mens lives will be lost. I like that some thought is happening before we commit our armed forces. That did not happen the last two times we did it. This is a big commitment, so lets let those really treaten by them lead the fight and sell them the planes they need:cool:

luvmylabs23139
03-09-2012, 11:16 AM
Best add in earmarks, farm subsidies, aid to the oil companies, aid to all foreign countries, tobacco, peanut and sugar subsidies, ethanol subsidies, ect.,ect.,ect.

And lets not forget all the inflated defense contrats.


Forget just the allotments for farm subsidies they also tell people that unless the goobernment aproves a farmer can't grow a crop on their own land.Tabacco and peanuts come to mind.
Enthanol is thankfully gone.
GET rid of green energy crap too!

luvmylabs23139
03-09-2012, 11:21 AM
we have that option where i work. we call it the "moron policy choice".

i pay over $100/ week, that's a bargain today.-Paul

It's not always a MORON clause. For a while I worked for a company that had 100% employer paid FAMILY medical. MY husband's company paid the employee to not take coverage. He certainly wasn't a moron for taking the cash since he was fully covered on my policy!