Originally Posted by joeydb (Post 843665)

OK in fairness I did not see the entire clip of her testimony.

The use of the pill should be covered as a treatment for ovarian cysts, and any other condition where it's the appropriate treatment. If it's not - get a better insurance company, because that one will not be around long.

I said she was being responsible insofar as her making the necessary provisions - but - she should pay for it, nobody else.

The hearing was an attempt to save the Obama administration from the very unpopular stand that they have taken against religious freedom. They stepped in it when they forced the Catholic Church to pay for insurance for their non-clergy employees - and here's the key - that MUST cover birth control.

There is little difference between a tax paid directly to the government versus a mandated payment to a third party like an insurance company. If you want to split hairs between what a taxpayer is and a mandated insurance customer, be my guest.

The assumption that someone who is single and taking birth control when not medically necessary by another condition is promiscuous is a reasonable one. There are always exceptions like any assumption, but who would take the medical risks (blood clots for example) and expense for a product that they didn't anticipate a need for?

And it is socialistic to take money from one person to give to another, whether directly or in the form of provided products. Taxation and those funds should be minimized by only paying for needs of the entire country - like the Defense Department, court system, Congress and the presidency, and, on a local level fire departments and police, and other similar functions. It should not be used to take money from one group and give it to another just because they complain. That's where the complaints of class warfare arise from too.

Originally Posted by jms62 (Post 843671)

So you are against government funding of birth control and also against welfare. You are for less government in our lives but want more government in our lives when it comes to making abortion illegal and putting expensive barricades in place for those that seek to exercise their rights. All the while you blame Obama for raising deficit. :zz: Why not just say you hate anything the democrats are for at least you won't look like such a hypocrite.

Originally Posted by mclem0822 (Post 843672)

From today's USA Today Rush says " I have always tried to maintain a level of integrity and independence with this program"! Who the F*ck is he trying to fool with that quote Five Year Old's! That's one of the biggest loads of crap he's ever uttered, and that's saying something! Considering he's the Leader of the radio Right-Wing Propaganda machine for the Republican Party! :mad:

Originally Posted by Coach Pants (Post 843677)

All of the problems in Politics/Society and this is a hot topic on this forum?

Good grief you people are conditioned and dumb. Happy Purim.

Originally Posted by joeydb (Post 843679)

Hey look, without these topics going on, there would be less opportunity for sarcastic comments. Wouldn't you agree? :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Coach Pants (Post 843682)

Can't get enough of the manufactured drama. Two shills for their respected parties are going at it! Ohhh pick a side!!

How about both of them fu.ck off? How about people wake up to the fact that this is nothing more than a cheap diversionary tactic to keep your mind distracted from the multitude of real problems this country is facing.

And it's fitting that it involves an issue that shouldn't exist in the first place. Personal responsibility is lost on most.

Now lets devolve to the point where we're comparing sex addicts to alcoholics. They have no control! Oh no save them gubmint!

Originally Posted by geeker2 (Post 843676)

I guess you expressed your outraged with Maher calling Palin a dumb c*nt....and I am sure you equally questioned his apology much like you did Rush's :rolleyes:


It is amazing to be that the media is focused on this nonsense when Roman is burning :zz:

Originally Posted by joeydb (Post 843670)

Obama's "step back" is nothing of the sort. So now instead of it appearing as a line item that the employer must pay for, it's in the "must provide" section of coverage.

Before Obama's revision, the bill to the employer might look like this:

BASIC INSURANCE PREMIUM for Jane Doe: $100
BIRTH CONTROL ADDITIONAL COVERAGE for Jane Doe: $20

Now, after Obama's 'accommodation', the revised bill is:

MINIMUM COVERAGE PREMIUM for Jane Doe: $120

It's the easiest shell game to see through. There has been no change, therefore the issue is the same, and I hope he pays a big political price for it.

If you read what I wrote, I'm actually not disagreeing with you on that many points. If the pill is required as treatment for a documented condition, it should be covered.

Pregnancy is not 'punishment' but one of the most common consequences of sexual behavior, as God intended (or Darwin would explain), or both.

The subsidizing of elective behavior is the issue. She wants to be promiscuous and wants us to pay for it.

Different example: Let's say I am a fisherman. I also suffer from extreme motion sickness, and I take an anti-motion-sickness medication. It's better than dramamine, but it requires let's say a week to get into my system and protect me from the motion sickness I might get while out on my fishing boat.

Question: If I am taking the motion sickness medication I described above today, would it be a safe assumption that I plan to go fishing within a week?

The principle is the same with the logic surrounding the assumption for the motivation for using the birth control pill.

Originally Posted by joeydb (Post 843683)

Does the alcoholic get free scotch from the government? Better make it Johnny Walker Blue - not that cheap Cutty Sark.

Originally Posted by Coach Pants (Post 843689)

The only reason why this is an issue is due to collectivism. The pharmaceutical industry practically owns Washington. Forcing insurance companies and employers to cover birth control will only increase the cost of these products. I don't need a statistical chart from the infamous cooked book brigade to tell me otherwise. I still have common sense, thanks.

Originally Posted by joeydb (Post 843683)

Does the alcoholic get free scotch from the government? Better make it Johnny Walker Blue - not that cheap Cutty Sark.

Originally Posted by joeydb (Post 843683)

Does the alcoholic get free scotch from the government? Better make it Johnny Walker Blue - not that cheap Cutty Sark.

Originally Posted by Coach Pants (Post 843727)

And those savings will be spent for more warfare or some other bulls.hit reason.

The reality is responsible folks who earn their money will pay more for bc at the store. The cost will be dumped on the working class so the lazy f.ucks can have sex for free.

Many programs for people 300% above the poverty level and below provide bc for free through the drug companies

Really wish you would wake the f.uck up and stop making it easier for scum to prevent pregnancies. You will pay for it. The pennies you save in taxes will be made up. Count on it.

Originally Posted by joeydb (Post 843659)

BUT - make no mistake - it is her responsibility to cover that cost. Birth control is not free - and neither is sex. If you cannot afford the consequences that may come from sexual behavior, then guess what - you shouldn't be having sex.

We have a nation of spoiled brats. Waaaaaaahhhh, pay for my stuff, waaaaaahhh. Grow up people.

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike (Post 843648)

Clear Channel is owned by Bain Capital; guess that's why Mitt Romney issued a "non-denouncing denouncement" of Rush.


Ocala Mike

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 843730)

that's always been my concern, that savings in one area would mean spending in another.
however....why would it be a bad idea to prevent unwanted pregnancies? not only do i not get why you feel cussing makes a better point, but i certainly don't get why i need to wake up in that regard. you read every day about kids abused or killed, so i'm dumb for wanting people to be informed on how to prevent having kids they don't want? i'm missing your logic there.
and if bc is provided free already, how can you drag increased costs in-wouldn't they already have that increase if it's already free?

Originally Posted by Coach Pants (Post 843739)

Because the link you posted is assuming these retar.ds will have the mental capacity to use birth control. They overlook the fact that mandatory coverage does not equal personal responsibility. And lets be realistic, the costs of the unwanted pregnancies center around stupid people being irresponsible.

This fix won't work. They will keep adding mandates until we get to the point that they start promoting sterilization and having it tax-funded.

It's a slippery slope of fail and that's where our government shines.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 843595)

Any man who wants Viagra must have a digital rectal exam and a cardiac treadmill test

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 843733)

I know. Funny nobody has picked up on that one :p

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 843838)

Gene Weingarten :



Etc.... it gets better!

http://live.washingtonpost.com/gene-...6.html?hpid=z5

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 843732)

No, we have a nation of self-identified moral zealots trying to force their personal sexual "morality" down the throats of every other American.

Birth control pills are a prescribed medication just like antibiotics or steroids. Of course preventive medication should be covered by insurance as preventive health care if a doctor prescribes them within the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship. For some to make the government step into the doctors office, examine a patient's motives, and take that right away is undemocratic theocratic zealotry on the part of a few.

People have individual rights, and the freedom from having others opinions, especially religious, forced upon us is the cornerstone of this democracy.

Originally Posted by joeydb (Post 843861)

It is not an overly moralistic statement to say that your own elective behavior should not be subsidized.

As I pointed out a couple of times - I do agree that when that medication is prescribed as treatment for other conditions it should be covered.

You can't have it both ways. You will not have much in the form of individual rights if you want everything managed and subsidized by government. Like it or not, an inescapable consequence of capitalism is "he who pays the bills dictates the rules." You can only preserve your individual rights by acting - uhh -- as an individual. An individual who is as independent as possible of the government. Otherwise, you will eventually become a serf, or ward of the state, subject to all the rules and control that the state wishes to exert on your life.

And the mechanism you cite is backwards. It is not the people forcing their will upon women like Ms. Fluke. It is Ms Fluke trying to force her will upon the rest of us by demanding a subsidy to her lifestyle.

Originally Posted by joeydb (Post 843861)

It is not an overly moralistic statement to say that your own elective behavior should not be subsidized.

As I pointed out a couple of times - I do agree that when that medication is prescribed as treatment for other conditions it should be covered.You can't have it both ways. You will not have much in the form of individual rights if you want everything managed and subsidized by government. Like it or not, an inescapable consequence of capitalism is "he who pays the bills dictates the rules." You can only preserve your individual rights by acting - uhh -- as an individual. An individual who is as independent as possible of the government. Otherwise, you will eventually become a serf, or ward of the state, subject to all the rules and control that the state wishes to exert on your life.

And the mechanism you cite is backwards. It is not the people forcing their will upon women like Ms. Fluke. It is Ms Fluke trying to force her will upon the rest of us by demanding a subsidy to her lifestyle.

Originally Posted by joeydb (Post 843861)

It is not an overly moralistic statement to say that your own elective behavior should not be subsidized.

As I pointed out a couple of times - I do agree that when that medication is prescribed as treatment for other conditions it should be covered.

You can't have it both ways. You will not have much in the form of individual rights if you want everything managed and subsidized by government. Like it or not, an inescapable consequence of capitalism is "he who pays the bills dictates the rules." You can only preserve your individual rights by acting - uhh -- as an individual. An individual who is as independent as possible of the government. Otherwise, you will eventually become a serf, or ward of the state, subject to all the rules and control that the state wishes to exert on your life.

And the mechanism you cite is backwards. It is not the people forcing their will upon women like Ms. Fluke. It is Ms Fluke trying to force her will upon the rest of us by demanding a subsidy to her lifestyle.

Originally Posted by Antitrust32 (Post 843874)

Did you even read her testimony? She didn't even talk about herself once. For all anyone knows, she could be a virgin. Your last sentence is painfully ignorant.