Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
She didn't say in a year, she said while in law school which would be three years. And she also said up to, some cost 50 a month. If you add in the exam you have to have every year and then add STD testing if your doctor requires it, because that is not included in a Regular exam it could probably cost close to 3,000 while in law school.
And the girl in the main example was a lesbian who needed birth control for health reasons.
Exactly why 'healthcare' is an entitlement rather than a right.
I don't care how she behaves, nor with whom...as long as she takes responsibility for same.
On the other hand, you are perfectly free to contribute to whatsoever clinic you so desire.
This case was not about the gov't paying for birth control but companies owned by religious organization. And if they do cover it for the employees, these women pay a premium every month plus co pays I am guessing. This isn't a entitlement issue, it is companies discriminating against their female employees. If you cover other elective medicines like Viagra it is discrimination. Also the example this girl used was a girl who needed it for health reasons. One reason I needed birth control in the past.
Stop trying to make it intO the issue you want it to be, and try discussing the real issue that was brought up at these hearings and with the mandate.
I saw to it that my children received every recommended vaccination and my husband and I paid for every single one of them out of our own pockets.
Actually, except for those who consider health care in toto an individual rather than a collective responsibility, the moral and social issues ARE what this is about.
What's the purpose of health care, anyway? It's to allow us the enjoyment of life that ill health would prevent us from enjoying, isn't it? To maintain, not just life, but healthy life, enjoyable life. And so, if we believe that health care for this purpose should be a collective expense -- whether in the form of government expenditure or in the form of insurance -- then whether we consider that contraception should be a part of that, depends on whether we consider sex to be a normal and proper part of the enjoyment of life.
If you think that sex is bad-except, and should be discouraged outside of marriage, then you will see contraception as an option not a necessity of life's enjoyment, and will object to it being a collective expense. If you think that sex is good-except, you're likely to believe that contraception, being a necessary medical expense for those who are sexually active, should be covered just like cancer diagnosis or surgery or medications or anything else in the way of medical expense necessary to living and enjoying a healthy life.
Really, it DOES all come down to how you think about sex.
I'm quite happy for you to enjoy your life.... but I'm not going to pay for it. You wanna visit Disney for health benefits? Pay for your own fucking ride. Ain't rocket science.
Even $3,000 in three years is $83/month. A condom 40 pack at Cosco is about $9.69 or 24 cents per each. If the starving law students wanted to pool their resources, they can get a pack of 1000 condoms through Condomdepot or 16 cents per condom. And Planned Parenthood will give them out for free.
The bleeding hearts who have great sympathy for the poor unfortunate folks who can't even afford that could certainly easily contribute enough to cover condoms or whatever for those few folks. But don't write it into law as still another entitlement to be abused by all concerned.
I like bleeding hearts much more than callous hearts. Callous hearts are so judgmental and hypocritical - don't you agree (in your heart of hearts)?
Wrong...It is THE issue.This issue is less about contraception and pre-marital sex than it is about a rather wealthy college coed, allowing herself to be used as a political prop and lying out her ass in the process.
That's YOUR issue with it. I have another. So do most people. I expressed it. That you would prefer to confine the issues to what will support your own political agenda is understandable -- but not allowed.
Even $3,000 in three years is $83/month. A condom 40 pack at Cosco is about $9.69 or 24 cents per each. If the starving law students wanted to pool their resources, they can get a pack of 1000 condoms through Condomdepot or 16 cents per condom. And Planned Parenthood will give them out for free.
The bleeding hearts who have great sympathy for the poor unfortunate folks who can't even afford that could certainly easily contribute enough to cover condoms or whatever for those few folks. But don't write it into law as still another entitlement to be abused by all concerned.
I like bleeding hearts much more than callous hearts. Callous hearts are so judgmental and hypocritical - don't you agree (in your heart of hearts)?
I saw to it that my children received every recommended vaccination and my husband and I paid for every single one of them out of our own pockets.
Really? You had no insurance?
I saw to it that my children received every recommended vaccination and my husband and I paid for every single one of them out of our own pockets.
Really? You had no insurance?
I am going with she does, and just paid a premium just like these women would.
And she's flat lying out her ass that it costs $3,000 a year for contraception.
Fuck you....You want to play along with this second-rate political dog and pony show, as though it's about any issue of any real substance, that's your stupid party man hack problem.Wrong...It is THE issue.That's YOUR issue with it. I have another. So do most people. I expressed it. That you would prefer to confine the issues to what will support your own political agenda is understandable -- but not allowed.
So who the hell appointed you God?
TFB...If BC isn't in the coverage, then it's not in the coverage.I saw to it that my children received every recommended vaccination and my husband and I paid for every single one of them out of our own pockets.
Really? You had no insurance?
I am going with she does, and just paid a premium just like these women would.
Fuck you....You want to play along with this second-rate political dog and pony show, as though it's about any issue of any real substance, that's your stupid party man hack problem.Wrong...It is THE issue.
So who the hell appointed you God?
There really is no end to you sniveling little moochers, is there?
I saw to it that my children received every recommended vaccination and my husband and I paid for every single one of them out of our own pockets.
Really? You had no insurance?
Actually, except for those who consider health care in toto an individual rather than a collective responsibility, the moral and social issues ARE what this is about.
What's the purpose of health care, anyway? It's to allow us the enjoyment of life that ill health would prevent us from enjoying, isn't it? To maintain, not just life, but healthy life, enjoyable life. And so, if we believe that health care for this purpose should be a collective expense -- whether in the form of government expenditure or in the form of insurance -- then whether we consider that contraception should be a part of that, depends on whether we consider sex to be a normal and proper part of the enjoyment of life.
If you think that sex is bad-except, and should be discouraged outside of marriage, then you will see contraception as an option not a necessity of life's enjoyment, and will object to it being a collective expense. If you think that sex is good-except, you're likely to believe that contraception, being a necessary medical expense for those who are sexually active, should be covered just like cancer diagnosis or surgery or medications or anything else in the way of medical expense necessary to living and enjoying a healthy life.
Really, it DOES all come down to how you think about sex.
I saw to it that my children received every recommended vaccination and my husband and I paid for every single one of them out of our own pockets.
Really? You had no insurance?
Yep but this was in the day before government interference into the system. We paid out of pocket for doctor's visits, shots, prescriptions, etc. until we had satisfied a pretty substantial deductible and then the insurance kicked in. And because the insurance companies were on the hook only for the major stuff, our insurance premiums were affordable as was health care in general. Costs for the routine stuff had to stay in a range that people could afford.
This is a really important lesson in economics. When people do not have control of the expense, everything very quickly becomes much more expensive; even unaffordable out of pocket.
If people are buying their contraceptives out of their own pockets, the contraceptives remain affordable in a range that people can afford. If people don't buy them, then nobody will make them. But once the insurance company is required to be on the hook, doctors have no incentive in choosing the most affordable medication or whatever and the people don't care one way or the other. And costs immediately begin escalating because the pharmaceutical companies and other suppliers know they can increase the costs as much as they want and they still get paid.
That's the economics lesson. The morality issue is whether you can demand that I pay for the lifestyle you choose.
Yep but this was in the day before government interference into the system. We paid out of pocket for doctor's visits, shots, prescriptions, etc. until we had satisfied a pretty substantial deductible and then the insurance kicked in.
Yep but this was in the day before government interference into the system. We paid out of pocket for doctor's visits, shots, prescriptions, etc. until we had satisfied a pretty substantial deductible and then the insurance kicked in.
All right, so you did have insurance, and the fact that you paid for the vaccinations out of pocket is due to the fact that your other health-care costs were low enough that your deductible wasn't exhausted. Nevertheless, within the terms of your policy, vaccinations were covered.
An awful lot of health-care expenses could be avoided if people made different life-style choices. If people ate vegetarian diets, got plenty of exercise, didn't smoke or drink or use drugs, and never drove a car, that would sharply reduce the incidents of a great many diseases and accidents. Does that mean there should be no coverage for diseases reasonably attributable to poor lifestyle choices, e.g. lung cancer, diabetes, cirrhosis of the liver, or injuries caused by auto accidents? Is it reasonable to expect people never to drive because driving causes car wrecks which cause hospital expenses, or to pay all their medical costs out of pocket if they do?
Why is this any different than that? I would say there's only one reason: because you consider asking people not to drive unreasonable, while you consider expecting an unmarried woman to be celibate reasonable.
Am I right?
Yep but this was in the day before government interference into the system. We paid out of pocket for doctor's visits, shots, prescriptions, etc. until we had satisfied a pretty substantial deductible and then the insurance kicked in.
All right, so you did have insurance, and the fact that you paid for the vaccinations out of pocket is due to the fact that your other health-care costs were low enough that your deductible wasn't exhausted. Nevertheless, within the terms of your policy, vaccinations were covered.
An awful lot of health-care expenses could be avoided if people made different life-style choices. If people ate vegetarian diets, got plenty of exercise, didn't smoke or drink or use drugs, and never drove a car, that would sharply reduce the incidents of a great many diseases and accidents. Does that mean there should be no coverage for diseases reasonably attributable to poor lifestyle choices, e.g. lung cancer, diabetes, cirrhosis of the liver, or injuries caused by auto accidents? Is it reasonable to expect people never to drive because driving causes car wrecks which cause hospital expenses, or to pay all their medical costs out of pocket if they do?
Why is this any different than that? I would say there's only one reason: because you consider asking people not to drive unreasonable, while you consider expecting an unmarried woman to be celibate reasonable.
Am I right?
