View Poll Results: Should we pay for Sandra Fluke's birth control?

Voters
78. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    28 35.90%
  • No

    50 64.10%
Page 64 of 82 FirstFirst ... 1454626364656674 ... LastLast
Results 631 to 640 of 811

Thread: Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

  1. #631
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,600

    Re: Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aderleth View Post
    Have you already forgotton how I got into this conversation? What we - you and I - were initially talking about? It wasn't the war on women, it wasn't Sandra Fluke, it was the validity of a contraception mandate, and specifically as applied to the Catholic Church. So yes, everything you're brining up in this post is, indeed, irrelevant.
    Funny...the OP is about Ms Fluke...and her contraception is covered...even at a catholic school. So...we DO have that covered...right? At least we can throw out that whole idiotic 'war on women' thing. ANd obviously we can throw out a large part of YOUR argument as well since...again...WOMAN at a Catholic school is ALREADY covered by THEIR insurance. Now we are left to the question of whether or not the government has the right to force a church to accept and adopt a position that runs contrary to their moral and stated beliefs. Nice that you think it is so cut and dried. But then...you only 'believe' that because your position supports YOUR position. Funny how when it comes to reality it is never that cut and dried. Personally...I disagree with the catholic church's position on contraceptives. My position and belief is irrelevant to their free practice of religion.

  2. #632
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,343

    Re: Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    It's obviously not a no brainer because you haven't countered the aggregate argument, just said "it's cheaper". Recurring costs without medical benefit are not what insurance is about, insurance isn't about funding a lifestyle which is what BC typically is used for. You cannot with a straight face state that millions of women using a recurring expense montly is going to save money, that is completely impossible.
    You forgot what birth control pills are used for I guess. They are used to prevent pregnancy a covered expense. Pregnancy costs $1000's more than the pill.
    The fact is you don't care if it is cheaper to cover contraception, it is against your religious beliefs and you wish to impose them on others. You are in the wrong country.
    Last edited by iguanaman; 09-06-12 at 08:26 PM.

  3. #633
    Guru
    Aderleth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-08-16 @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,294

    Re: Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Funny...the OP is about Ms Fluke...and her contraception is covered...even at a catholic school. So...we DO have that covered...right? At least we can throw out that whole idiotic 'war on women' thing.
    When have we ever had a conversation about either Ms Fluke or the war on women?

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    ANd obviously we can throw out a large part of YOUR argument as well since...again...WOMAN at a Catholic school is ALREADY covered by THEIR insurance.
    What part of my argument do you feel is addressed by that fact?

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Now we are left to the question of whether or not the government has the right to force a church to accept and adopt a position that runs contrary to their moral and stated beliefs. Nice that you think it is so cut and dried. But then...you only 'believe' that because your position supports YOUR position.
    A penetrating analysis if ever there was one. Unfortunately you're mistaken. I believe what I believe about the government's rights in this situation because I've studied the first amendment extensively and I know what I'm talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Funny how when it comes to reality it is never that cut and dried.
    In this case it is, according to relevant first amendment precedent. Broadly speaking, religious practices may be curtailed or contravened by a "neutral law of general applicability," which this certainly is.

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Personally...I disagree with the catholic church's position on contraceptives. My position and belief is irrelevant to their free practice of religion.
    Yes. Yes they are.

  4. #634
    Guru
    Aderleth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-08-16 @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,294

    Re: Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    You GET that that makes the point....women are being prescribed and receiving medically indicated oral contraceptives. So........
    So... what? The women who aren't being prescribed and receiving medically indicated oral contraceptives don't matter anymore? I'm not sure what you think you've established here.

  5. #635
    Guru
    Aderleth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-08-16 @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,294

    Re: Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Ahh, so "the media center" is a substitute for risk management models now.
    Go ahead and run with that strawman if it makes you happy. If you'd like to address the arguments I've actually made, feel free to do so. I anticipate being bored at work tomorrow, so I'll need a distraction.

  6. #636
    Educator Schutzengel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Last Seen
    04-20-13 @ 11:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    719

    Re: Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aderleth View Post
    So... what? The women who aren't being prescribed and receiving medically indicated oral contraceptives don't matter anymore? I'm not sure what you think you've established here.
    Well for one, if it isnt medically indicated, then insurance companies shouldnt be forced by mandate to pay for it ... it should be elective coverage.
    History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid. - Ike

    Tea is better for you than Kool-Aid.

  7. #637
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Why would you assume that "they're covered for those services?" Insurance plans can differ substantially in the types of things they will cover and to what extent. Thus, it's not true that "Everyone receives the same coverage," the way insurance works, you get different levels of coverage depending on how much you're willing to pay for your particular insurance plan.
    There are definitely services which 100% of people are covered for, yet only a small percentage of people utilize. Chemotherapy, for example.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  8. #638
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Yes, but as I have stated that was already allowable with a simple physician's waiver before the mandate. Why now is it mandated for elective? IOW the medically necessary was already covered, now it doesn't matter and we all have to pay for some lifestyle choices.
    Because of many inconsistencies in coverage for medically necessary uses. Ignoring physician recommendations, for example. That **** happens quite a bit, for many issues not just medically necessary BC. ****, the insurance company did not want to cover many of my father's treatments when he was in a coma because they decided, without once laying eyes upon him, that he'd never recover from his coma (despite the fact that his doctors were saying that he was close to coming out of it, which they were correct about, BTW).

    It the industry's unethical behavior which leads to these kinds of mandates.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #639
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    The medical costs that people incur for their biological conditions are expensive, that does not prove anything wrong.
    My arguments are not disingenuous.

    It still does not disprove that insurance claims, where the resulting loss is from the intent and actions of the insured party, should be covered.
    Adjectives describe the noun they are connected with, not nouns which appear later on in the sentence. "Uncertain" is an adjective. Pregnancy is a biological condition, not a loss. When you figure out why I am saying that, you'll realize immediately why your arguments have been disingenuous.


    (hint: Your argument relies on you applying the adjective "uncertain" to the wrong noun in the sentence)
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  10. #640
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    That is not how insurance works.
    You purchase additional coverage, at an additional cost, to cover additional things you want.
    There are a multitude of services for which 100% of insured people are covered, but only a small percentage of people utilize. In fact, the vast majority of services which are covered fit that description.

    The only way insurance companies could be profitable is because what I am saying is not only true, but it is the ****ing business model upon which the industry is built.

    Seriously. It's the ****ing business model.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

Page 64 of 82 FirstFirst ... 1454626364656674 ... 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
  •