Sandra Fluke's Testimony - Here it is. Watch so you will not look like such a fool~

It was about whether this administration should have the ability to mandate that organizations established by religious groups be required to provide services that directly violate their religious tenets.

Of course the administration can't do that. The President doesn't legislate. Congress was the one that passed the law.

Congress is part of this administration. They all need to be fired, right along with the apologist-in-chief.

your pardon. the senate first
 
Contraception is a personal issue, but more importantly, one which you should take personal responsibility for, not your insurance company.

:confused: So, if you go to the dentist and get your teeth cleaned under an insured dental plan, what is that? A public service? All of health care is a personal issue. What is the point of health insurance, if it does not cover health care usage?

The point of insurance is to cover unexpected expenses. the reason health care is so expensive in this country is employers and the government keep adding routine expenses to plans and removing market forces that would help keep prices down. Adding more routine expenses to this only makes things worse.
 
Hey, hate to break it to you, but pregnancy and sex are personal choices.

Sex is a personal choice. Pregnancy is a possible consequence of sex. But you make it out to sound like people are doing something wrong by having sex. Sex is a part of life.

Don't know too many folk who decided to allow tumours to grow in their bodies. or decided they should have an aneurysm...

I know alot of people how have chosen to smoke. Do you want to start saying that lung cancer is not a health issue?

As I said, where does personal responsibility come in?

I consider it very responsible for people to use birth control to minimize the risk of unwanted pregnancy.
 
Hey, hate to break it to you, but pregnancy and sex are personal choices.

Sex is a personal choice. Pregnancy is a possible consequence of sex. But you make it out to sound like people are doing something wrong by having sex. Sex is a part of life.

Don't know too many folk who decided to allow tumours to grow in their bodies. or decided they should have an aneurysm...

I know alot of people how have chosen to smoke. Do you want to start saying that lung cancer is not a health issue?

As I said, where does personal responsibility come in?

I consider it very responsible for people to use birth control to minimize the risk of unwanted pregnancy.

I realise that with regard to sex, but I'm still having a problem wondering why policy holders are paying for your fun activity? Sure pregnancy is an offshoot of that activity, but that is your risk, not mine...

Comparing lung cancer to having fun is like comparing apples and oranges. Pretty sure smokers get charged more of a premium, too..

I think people should absolutely use birth conrol. They should also pay for it out of their own pocket.

I like going to watch the football. Like sex, it is a recreational activity. Wanna pay for my tix?
 
Contraception is a personal issue, but more importantly, one which you should take personal responsibility for, not your insurance company.

:confused: So, if you go to the dentist and get your teeth cleaned under an insured dental plan, what is that? A public service? All of health care is a personal issue. What is the point of health insurance, if it does not cover health care usage?

The point of insurance is to cover unexpected expenses. the reason health care is so expensive in this country is employers and the government keep adding routine expenses to plans and removing market forces that would help keep prices down. Adding more routine expenses to this only makes things worse.

Incorrect. You are referring to a catastrophic plan. Preventative medicine saves $.
 
The point of insurance is to cover unexpected expenses.

You might want to inform the insurance companies about that. It would be news to them.

the reason health care is so expensive in this country is employers and the government keep adding routine expenses to plans and removing market forces that would help keep prices down.

That is completely untrue. The reason health care is so expensive is because insurance companies hold so much damned power over the health care of patients, including the costs of health care. It's the insurance companies that are messing with the market, not the employers or government.

Here's an interesting fact that you probably didn't know. When you pay for insurance that covers $X, most of that money actually goes to the insurance company. That's right. If your coverage will pay for $100,000 a year in health care, you're actually only covered for about $33,000 a year in health care. When you reach that limit, you're kicked out. Doctor's "charge" certain amounts for services. But in reality, insurance companies dictate to the doctor how much they will receive, and how much they will bill you for. So, when your insurance company tells you that you have used $1.00 worth of services, what they're not telling you is that they're marking up the actual cost of services about 300% of what it actually cost. With all the rise in health care prices, it's not the actual services that are increasing in price. They can't! The providers are locked into contracts as to what the services will cost. It's the insurance companies that are increasing the prices they tell you it cost.

So why do these doctors and other providers continue to do business with these insurance companies under such terms? They have to. There's no other alternative. They could simply stop being affiliated with such and such insurance company. But then the doctor won't be able to see patients anymore. They could try to rely only on out of pocket payments from people who don't have insurance coverage. But they'd go out of business.

AHA! You think you just got me there, didn't you? You're thinking that what I just said about doctor's going out of business somehow means that the costs of services really are the problem. Actually, its not what I'm saying at all. The problem is that a doctor, in his lonesome practice, will never be enough to meet all of the needs of a typical patient. But unless he's doing business with the insurance companies of other providers, nothing he says or does will matter. So, even if a patient were to rely only on catastrophic coverage, everything that happened before the catastrophe would be thrown out the window after the catastrophe happens, because the insurance company won't pay otherwise.

See, the problem is that when a doctor doesn't participate with a given insurance company, it's like he doesn't exist. What do I mean? Let's say you have a primary care physician, whom you pay out of pocket when you need to see him, but you also have catastrophic coverage just in case of an emergency. Along the way, your doctor performs an allergy test and determines you're allergic to peanuts, and advises you on how to deal with this medical issue. One day, you inadvertently touch a peanut and suddenly you can't breath. You're rushed to the hospital, thanking god you have catastrophic coverage. But when you get to the hospital, nothing that you've ever done with your doctor before matters. Now, you're going to go through everything that you've already gone through. Because in the eyes of the insurance company, you've never been diagnosed. You never saw a doctor. So they're going to give you a whole fresh set of tests. Because that doctor, who doesn't affiliate with the insurance company, does not exist in their eyes. Now, the insurance company is going to decide whether you really are allergic to peanuts. And when they decide they don't want to cover the bill because it was a "pre-existing" condition (even though you had the coverage for years before you were diagnosed) they aren't going to pay.

How do I know all this? My girlfriend manages a doctor's office. I don't know how she does it sometimes. We can't always talk about her job because some of the stuff she tells me about pisses me off so much it makes me want to get violent. Like the time when she battled for a week to get an old man's prescription authorized by the insurance company, who insisted that he didn't really have the condition his doctor said he had and didn't really need the medicine the doctor prescribed. The man was coming into the office every day for six days straight, and she was stuck spending the majority of each day on the phone arguing with the insurance company to authorize the damn medicine. She was on the phone with them when the man coded right there in the office. She made sure to point that out to them just before she hung up to call 911. I could have killed someone that day.
 
I realise that with regard to sex, but I'm still having a problem wondering why policy holders are paying for your fun activity? Sure pregnancy is an offshoot of that activity, but that is your risk, not mine...

:confused: Nobody is saying that you should have to pay for someone else's coverage. Everyone can pay for their own coverage. It's a simple matter of insurance plans having normal medical treatment excised from their coverage for no other reason than to push a religious agenda.

Comparing lung cancer to having fun is like comparing apples and oranges. Pretty sure smokers get charged more of a premium, too..

And women get charged more for health insurance, because of the added risks involved in women's health.

I think people should absolutely use birth conrol. They should also pay for it out of their own pocket.

What is the point in preventing health insurance plans from covering birth control? It's not like the insurance companies are unwilling to cover birth control. There are plenty of insurance plans that cover contraception. But they are blocked by various entities for nothing but religious reasons. I really think you're misunderstanding what's going on here.
 
“House Speaker John Boehner comes out and says Rush’s language was inappropriate. Using the salad fork for your entrée, that’s inappropriate. Not this stuff,” George Will said. “And it was depressing because what it indicates is that the Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh. They want to bomb Iran, but they’re afraid of Rush Limbaugh.”
 
insurance is not designed to cover routine medical expenses.

You might want to inform the insurance companies about that. It would be news to them.

I doubt it. On the other hand, I am sure they like charging people $10 bucks for what they can get at WalMart for $4. So, please, keep insisting they cover bandages, it only makes my point.
 
Last edited:
:confused: So, if you go to the dentist and get your teeth cleaned under an insured dental plan, what is that? A public service? All of health care is a personal issue. What is the point of health insurance, if it does not cover health care usage?

The point of insurance is to cover unexpected expenses. the reason health care is so expensive in this country is employers and the government keep adding routine expenses to plans and removing market forces that would help keep prices down. Adding more routine expenses to this only makes things worse.

Incorrect. You are referring to a catastrophic plan. Preventative medicine saves $.

So people keep telling me. The problem with that is that, since insurance has started covering routine doctor's visits the cost of medical care has increased, not decreased.
 
You might want to inform the insurance companies about that. It would be news to them.

Repeating yourself now? Your short term memory loss might explain why you can't remember your positions from post to post.

That is completely untrue. The reason health care is so expensive is because insurance companies hold so much damned power over the health care of patients, including the costs of health care. It's the insurance companies that are messing with the market, not the employers or government.

Not just untrue, but completely untrue. I didn't know untruth had degrees of truthiness.

Funny how we just passed a law that is designed to completely remake the health care market and you want to argue that the government is not the one that is responsible for everything that they have done to screw up the market.

Here's an interesting fact that you probably didn't know. When you pay for insurance that covers $X, most of that money actually goes to the insurance company. That's right. If your coverage will pay for $100,000 a year in health care, you're actually only covered for about $33,000 a year in health care. When you reach that limit, you're kicked out. Doctor's "charge" certain amounts for services. But in reality, insurance companies dictate to the doctor how much they will receive, and how much they will bill you for. So, when your insurance company tells you that you have used $1.00 worth of services, what they're not telling you is that they're marking up the actual cost of services about 300% of what it actually cost. With all the rise in health care prices, it's not the actual services that are increasing in price. They can't! The providers are locked into contracts as to what the services will cost. It's the insurance companies that are increasing the prices they tell you it cost.

Really? When I pay the insurance company my money actually goes to the insurance company? Can I just say

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6GuEswXOXo"]32 D'oh's in 15 Seconds - YouTube[/ame]

So why do these doctors and other providers continue to do business with these insurance companies under such terms? They have to. There's no other alternative. They could simply stop being affiliated with such and such insurance company. But then the doctor won't be able to see patients anymore. They could try to rely only on out of pocket payments from people who don't have insurance coverage. But they'd go out of business.

No other alternative? really? They are forced to do business with insurance companies? Does that include the doctors that take Medicare/Medicaid? Or the ones who accept indigent patients at no charge? How about the ones that accept cash?

AHA! You think you just got me there, didn't you? You're thinking that what I just said about doctor's going out of business somehow means that the costs of services really are the problem. Actually, its not what I'm saying at all. The problem is that a doctor, in his lonesome practice, will never be enough to meet all of the needs of a typical patient. But unless he's doing business with the insurance companies of other providers, nothing he says or does will matter. So, even if a patient were to rely only on catastrophic coverage, everything that happened before the catastrophe would be thrown out the window after the catastrophe happens, because the insurance company won't pay otherwise.

Nope, wrong again, so far I am just drifting along impressed by your superior grasp of the obvious. I expect that, at some point, you are going to tell me insurance companies actually make money off of people.

The horror!

See, the problem is that when a doctor doesn't participate with a given insurance company, it's like he doesn't exist. What do I mean? Let's say you have a primary care physician, whom you pay out of pocket when you need to see him, but you also have catastrophic coverage just in case of an emergency. Along the way, your doctor performs an allergy test and determines you're allergic to peanuts, and advises you on how to deal with this medical issue. One day, you inadvertently touch a peanut and suddenly you can't breath. You're rushed to the hospital, thanking god you have catastrophic coverage. But when you get to the hospital, nothing that you've ever done with your doctor before matters. Now, you're going to go through everything that you've already gone through. Because in the eyes of the insurance company, you've never been diagnosed. You never saw a doctor. So they're going to give you a whole fresh set of tests. Because that doctor, who doesn't affiliate with the insurance company, does not exist in their eyes. Now, the insurance company is going to decide whether you really are allergic to peanuts. And when they decide they don't want to cover the bill because it was a "pre-existing" condition (even though you had the coverage for years before you were diagnosed) they aren't going to pay.

Doesn't exist? Insurance companies can actually control reality? Or do we actually live in a matrix where people only see what the computer wants them to see?

How do I know all this? My girlfriend manages a doctor's office. I don't know how she does it sometimes. We can't always talk about her job because some of the stuff she tells me about pisses me off so much it makes me want to get violent. Like the time when she battled for a week to get an old man's prescription authorized by the insurance company, who insisted that he didn't really have the condition his doctor said he had and didn't really need the medicine the doctor prescribed. The man was coming into the office every day for six days straight, and she was stuck spending the majority of each day on the phone arguing with the insurance company to authorize the damn medicine. She was on the phone with them when the man coded right there in the office. She made sure to point that out to them just before she hung up to call 911. I could have killed someone that day.

If your girlfriend actually manages a doctors office, why don't you ask her how much time the office spends filling out forms that are Medicare compliant, and then ask her how much they would save if patients came in and paid for doctor's visits out of pocket.
 
Last edited:
With all the incredibly SERIOUS problems facing this country and the very real fact this President has been nothing but a total disaster, WHY ARE WE PLAYING THE DEMOCRATS' FUCKING USEFUL IDIOT GAME HERE?

We knew this was going to be a manufactured issue the MOMENT Stephanopolous asked a question about contraceptives in the Republican debate. Oh wow, did he just MAGICALLY divine that this was going to be a (manufactured phony ass) issue and ordered to do his part? Of course he was -absolutely NO ONE was discussing this but obviously the guy got a heads up about manufacturing a phony issue -and this was going to be the phony issue. Obama cannot run on his record, he MUST have a phony, contrived issue like this. But wow, what a misstep to reveal how the leftwing media is actually in lockstep and indeed, in the back pocket of Democrats than have Stephanolopolous ask such a stupid question -so far in advance of it MAGICALLY becoming an "issue".

All conservatives and all Republicans should refuse to discuss this STUPID ASS ISSUE again. It is manufactured, it is phony and the entire purpose is to distract from the very real and very significant issues we face as a nation when we all know Obama is in over his head and the fact he was never qualified for this job and STILL isn't qualified for this job should be the ONLY issues under discussion. A show of hands here -who thinks the most important issue we are facing in this country is fucking BIRTH CONTROL PILLS?

Abandon all threads discussing the phony issue of birth control pills and stop playing the useful idiot and allowing the left to dominate what issues will even be discussed!
 
Last edited:
Her very first statement that birth control costs $3000 dollars a year is a lie.

That's not what she said. She said it can cost over $3000 during law school.

I already addressed that point. And birth control on average still does not cost $1000 a year. She represented that it did.

At the Planned Parenthood website it states that birth control costs as little as $15 a month.

That's for the pill. You're failing to recognize that there are many forms of birth control that are better or worse options for individuals, based on their specific medical needs. The vaginal ring can cost up to $80 for a three week dosage, which amounts to about $4100 over the course of three years at law school.[/quote]

More rationalizing. She said birth control without any specifics. It's easy to find the most expensive option and call it the norm but it's still being dishonest in premise.

So why listen to the rest of her "testimony" when it is predicated on an untruth from the very start?

You're right about one thing. There's no point in YOU listening, because you're not interested in the facts. You've already made up your mind and are going to rely on false information to justify your refusal to face facts.

No I'm sticking with the belief that the person, institution or employer that provides insurance can choose any policy they want to subsidize.

If you or anyone else has a problem with that policy then you can find another place to get subsidized insurance.
 

Forum List

Back
Top