Page 22 of 28 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 274

Thread: Angry lawmakers challenge lineup at hearing: 'Where are the women?'

  1. #211
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Angry lawmakers challenge lineup at hearing: 'Where are the women?'

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Do you read what I write? I mean at all. Lack of erection is a medical condition. So what exactly would they refuse to pay for?
    Of course I read what you write. I just think you don't understand the entire issue. For example, you apparently didn't realize that insurance prices would be going up and churchs were opting out of contracepticve care - resulting in savings to their premiums.

    Anyway, you do realize that there are very healthy men that will use viagra for various reasons, don't you, or are you just that sheltered? They don't actually have a medical condition or any problem with erections. That type of use is not for a medical condition and would be denied by insurance.

    And nowhere does any Church even question the morality of caring about an erection.
    Why would the church concern themselves with correcting a medical condition that is preventing normal and functional physical behaviour? That is not what contraceptives are about, in a vast majority of cases. Contraceptions are about preventing normal and functional physical behaviour and not about a medical condition and go strictly against the church's beliefs and teachings.
    Last edited by buck; 02-22-12 at 08:26 PM.

  2. #212
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Angry lawmakers challenge lineup at hearing: 'Where are the women?'

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    So is your argument cost, or what they object to?
    I object to the government requiring the church to pay for something that is completly against their teachings and faith. The church shouldnot be required by the government to violate their teachings. And in this case, the government is forcing them to pay for things they are against.
    Last edited by buck; 02-22-12 at 08:27 PM.

  3. #213
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Angry lawmakers challenge lineup at hearing: 'Where are the women?'

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    I object to the government requiring the church to pay for something that is completly against their teachings and faith. The church shouldnot be required by the government to violate their teachings. And in this case, the government is forcing them to pay for things they are against.

    Insurance?

    That's what they are paying for. I repeat, no one is forced to use any of the services. That is up to the employee, who may not be a believer. And as with viagra, the Church is more than willing to let insurance pay for a lot of things that are against their teachings.

    Insurance is compensation, like you pay check. There is no difference. How it is used, much like how money is spent, is up to the employee.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  4. #214
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Angry lawmakers challenge lineup at hearing: 'Where are the women?'

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    Of course I read what you write. I just think you don't understand the entire issue. For example, you apparently didn't realize that insurance prices would be going up and churchs were opting out of contracepticve care - resulting in savings to their premiums.

    Anyway, you do realize that there are very healthy men that will use viagra for various reasons, don't you, or are you just that sheltered? They don't actually have a medical condition or any problem with erections. That type of use is not for a medical condition and would be denied by insurance.
    There is no reason for them to go up. Our cover it and have not gone up. So, either your information is wrong, or the industry is taking advantage of the situation.

    And while healthy men may use it, as anyone may use anything, when you go to a doctor, invoking your insurance, it is always despensed for a medical reason. This is no different for women. The difference is women are denied across the board.

    And yes, for an erection is a medical condition. And it would not be denied by insurance.

    Why would the church concern themselves with correcting a medical condition that is preventing normal and functional physical behaviour? That is not what contraceptives are about, in a vast majority of cases. Contraceptions are about preventing normal and functional physical behaviour and not about a medical condition and go strictly against the church's beliefs and teachings.
    For single men? Think about their teachings. And normal is one of those words that are often misused. But we'll shelf that. There are medical conditions that these things can be used for. So while single men can be promiscuous, women can't decide if they want to prevent a pregnancy or not. Do you seriously not see the contradiction?

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #215
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Angry lawmakers challenge lineup at hearing: 'Where are the women?'

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Insurance?

    That's what they are paying for. I repeat, no one is forced to use any of the services. That is up to the employee, who may not be a believer. And as with viagra, the Church is more than willing to let insurance pay for a lot of things that are against their teachings.
    The church is being forced to pay for it. So, wether an emplyoee is being forced to use it or not is not relevant. Viagra is not against the teachings of the church. Being able to have an errection is normal physical behavior. Not being able to have one is not normal.

    Insurance is compensation, like you pay check. There is no difference. How it is used, much like how money is spent, is up to the employee.
    And the compensation is an agreement between employer and employee. Except in this case, the government has gotte involved and told the church that they must provide compensation thate directly contradicts their beliefs and teachings.

  6. #216
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Angry lawmakers challenge lineup at hearing: 'Where are the women?'

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    There is no reason for them to go up. Our cover it and have not gone up. So, either your information is wrong, or the industry is taking advantage of the situation.
    I've noticed that's a fairly typical response for you. "I don't believe it, so the people that actually deal with the situation are just wrong or making it up. It's all just a conspiracy."

    Look, if a business or church does not offer contraceptives as part of their insurance they will have chepaer premiums. If all of a sudden the business or church starts offering contraceptives at zero co-pay, what do you think will happen? In a democrats mind, it won't cost anything. The blue fairy will pay for it. However, in the real world, the increased costs will result in a higher premium for that business or church.

    And while healthy men may use it, as anyone may use anything, when you go to a doctor, invoking your insurance, it is always despensed for a medical reason. This is no different for women. The difference is women are denied across the board.
    I used to work in the claims area of a major insurance company. So, you are just wrong. There are many items that if determiend not to be for a medical problem, can be and are denied or they will go back to the doctor for additional, clarifying information.

    For single men? Think about their teachings. And normal is one of those words that are often misused. But we'll shelf that. There are medical conditions that these things can be used for. So while single men can be promiscuous, women can't decide if they want to prevent a pregnancy or not. Do you seriously not see the contradiction?
    Yes, there is a physical problem in one case and no physicaly problem in the other. Insurance is used to correct physical problems. It has nothing to do with promiscuity. Instead it is about an abnormal physical condition that has to be corrected. If you want to think it's a normal state for a man not to be able to erect or its abnormal for a women to possibly get pregnant after the act, that's on you. Who am I to argue with your definitions of normal.

    Women can decide if they want to use it to prevent pregnancy. Women should not expect a church who's teachings speak against using contraceptives and morning after pills to pay for them to use it. The women can take their compensation they recieved in the form of salary and buy all of the contraceptives and pill induced abortions they want. When they expect the church to directly pay for it, there is clearly a infringement upon their constituionally guaranteed rights.
    Last edited by buck; 02-23-12 at 10:23 AM.

  7. #217
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Angry lawmakers challenge lineup at hearing: 'Where are the women?'

    [QUOTE=buck;1060228223]
    I've noticed that's a fairly typical response for you. "I don't believe it, so the people that actually deal with the situation are just wrong or making it up. It's all just a conspiracy."

    Look, if a business or church does not offer contraceptives as part of their insurance they will have chepaer premiums. If all of a sudden the business or church starts offering contraceptives at zero co-pay, what do you think will happen? In a democrats mind, it won't cost anything. The blue fairy will pay for it. However, in the real world, the increased costs will result in a higher premium for that business or church.
    Not exactly what I said. I gave two possible explanations. As it doesn't affect our premiums at all, I cannot see any reason why it would effect theirs. It's that simple. insurance is usually structure in a bulk way, having standardized packages. It makes no logical sense that this would be a cost issue.

    But then cost isn't your issue, as I understand you. Remember I asked.



    I used to work in the claims area of a major insurance company. So, you are just wrong. There are many items that if determiend not to be for a medical problem, can be and are denied or they will go back to the doctor for additional, clarifying information.
    If a man is having trouble with erection, and he goes to the doctor, are you telling me he has no medical condition?


    Yes, there is a physical problem in one case and no physicaly problem in the other. Insurance is used to correct physical problems. It has nothing to do with promiscuity. Instead it is about an abnormal physical condition that has to be corrected. If you want to think it's a normal state for a man not to be able to erect or its abnormal for a women to possibly get pregnant after the act, that's on you. Who am I to argue with your definitions of normal.

    Women can decide if they want to use it to prevent pregnancy. Women should not expect a church who's teachings speak against using contraceptives and morning after pills to pay for them to use it. The women can take their compensation they recieved in the form of salary and buy all of the contraceptives and pill induced abortions they want. When they expect the church to directly pay for it, there is clearly a infringement upon their constituionally guaranteed rights.
    Yeah, he physically can't get an erection. What is the Churches stance on single men fooling around? You know, premarital sex?

    And females can have a medical condition that would require them to use contraceptions. They are denied as well.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #218
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Angry lawmakers challenge lineup at hearing: 'Where are the women?'

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Not exactly what I said. I gave two possible explanations. As it doesn't affect our premiums at all, I cannot see any reason why it would effect theirs. It's that simple. insurance is usually structure in a bulk way, having standardized packages. It makes no logical sense that this would be a cost issue.
    First, not all insurance companies offer coverage for contraception. Second, yes. With some insurance companies it is currently possible to opt out of coverage for certain things - such as contraceptions. If that wasn't the case, then there would be zero reason for obama to issue the mandate in the first place (since in your view all insurance companies cover BC)- common sense. But, ignore. They're out to get you and trick you. All of them! Be ware.

    But then cost isn't your issue, as I understand you. Remember I asked.
    Yes, as I already indicated. Forcing the church to provide and pay for coverage specifically for items against their beliefs is what I object to. It's a violation of their rights.

    If a man is having trouble with erection, and he goes to the doctor, are you telling me he has no medical condition?
    I am telling you that some people take viagra even though they are not having medical problems - you're older then me, surely you are aware of this... That woudl not be covered by insruance. If someone truly can not perform, then that is a physical problem outside of the norm and can be corrected via medicine.

    Yeah, he physically can't get an erection. What is the Churches stance on single men fooling around? You know, premarital sex?
    Doesn't matter. It's correcting an abnormality. Female contraception, in 99% of cases, is not corecting an abnormality. It's the exact reason that insurance companies do not cover other forms of BC. Try putting through an insurance claim for condoms. Good luck.

    And females can have a medical condition that would require them to use contraceptions. They are denied as well.
    I've already indicated that if Obama's mandate said that if a woman has XYZ condition that can only be fixed by BC they must recieve BC as part of their insurance, I and most people, would not have an issue with them covering BC in those rare instances. However, that is not what he said.

    Edit: and just to be clear. I think birth control should be covered. It used to not be covered at my wife's work policy, but now it is. I like that. However, the church, against their teachings, should not be forced to cover it by the government.
    Last edited by buck; 02-23-12 at 12:14 PM.

  9. #219
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Angry lawmakers challenge lineup at hearing: 'Where are the women?'

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    First, not all insurance companies offer coverage for contraception. Second, yes. With some insurance companies it is currently possible to opt out of coverage for certain things - such as contraceptions. If that wasn't the case, then there would be zero reason for obama to issue the mandate in the first place (since in your view all insurance companies cover BC)- common sense. But, ignore. They're out to get you and trick you. All of them! Be ware.
    I never said someone couldn't opt out. Or that there weren't different packages, with different deductibles and such. I said, it should not raise cost.

    And while I don't fully understand you last comment, insurance companies do not always raise rates logically.

    Yes, as I already indicated. Forcing the church to provide and pay for coverage specifically for items against their beliefs is what I object to. It's a violation of their rights.
    It isn't. It's whining. It's hyperbolic drama. Nothing more


    I am telling you that some people take viagra even though they are not having medical problems - you're older then me, surely you are aware of this... That woudl not be covered by insruance. If someone truly can not perform, then that is a physical problem outside of the norm and can be corrected via medicine.
    Not from their doctor or insurance they don't. Not getting an erection is a medical condition. So is being pregnant. And so or other medical conditions that contraceptions are used for.



    Doesn't matter. It's correcting an abnormality. Female contraception, in 99% of cases, is not corecting an abnormality. It's the exact reason that insurance companies do not cover other forms of BC. Try putting through an insurance claim for condoms. Good luck.
    I would love to see where you get your number, but a medical condition does not have to be abnormal. Many conditions we treat are normal.

    And it does matter. If they object, it is against their teachings, they are paying for that just as much as what they are refusing to pay for. it is the flaw in their logic. They pay for all kinds of things that is against their teachings, but in the compensation they give in insurance and with the pay check they give out.



    I've already indicated that if Obama's mandate said that if a woman has XYZ condition that can only be fixed by BC they must recieve BC as part of their insurance, I and most people, would not have an issue with them covering BC in those rare instances. However, that is not what he said.
    It makes no difference as you are not making the same objection for males. And you can.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  10. #220
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Angry lawmakers challenge lineup at hearing: 'Where are the women?'

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I never said someone couldn't opt out. Or that there weren't different packages, with different deductibles and such. I said, it should not raise cost.
    I truly just can't believe that you actually think that providing new coverage will not increase costs to the insurance company that will be passed on to the premium paying organizaation... Can you? I mean.. Really?!?

    It isn't. It's whining. It's hyperbolic drama. Nothing more
    In your opinion the government forcing a church to provide birth control (which is specifically against their beliefs and teachings) is not a violation the sepearate of church and state? Well, good luck with that one.

    Not from their doctor or insurance they don't. Not getting an erection is a medical condition. So is being pregnant. And so or other medical conditions that contraceptions are used for.
    In other words, insurance is only covering viagra when it is to correct a medical and physical problem (which is what i've been saying) and they are not covering viagra when it's not correcting a medical problem. Just like it should be for female BC. You just believe that female BC should be one of the only items covered by insurance when it is not correcting a medical and physical problem. That is your double standard that you've been grasping for.

    It makes no difference as you are not making the same objection for males. And you can.
    Of course I am. Viagra should and is only covered by insurance when it is correcting a medical problem. Viagra should not be covered for males when it is not correcting a medical problem. I made the exact same argument for both female BC and viagra.

Page 22 of 28 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •