Slut Or Not??

[Dragon]

I expect those who cannot afford a driver's license, insurance, and/or the fuel for their vehicles to not drive until they can or take their chances with the law.

That's not what I asked, of course. Let me connect the dots and make it clearer.

If you don't drive, you have a greatly reduced risk of being injured in an auto accident. (It could still happen if a car hits you while you're walking or riding a bike or riding public transit, but the odds are drastically improved.) Being injured in an auto accident is thus a lifestyle-related medical problem.

Is it reasonable to expect people who drive to pay for their own medical care from any injuries resulting from auto accidents, rather than having it be covered by insurance, on that basis?

Related question: Is it reasonable to expect people not to drive?

Parallel:

If you don't have sex, you have a greatly reduced risk of getting pregnant. (It could still happen if you're raped, but the odds are drastically improved.) Getting pregnant is thus a lifestyle-related medical concern.

Is it reasonable to expect women who are having sex to pay for their own contraception so as to prevent pregnancy, rather than having it be covered by insurance, on that basis?

Related question: Is it reasonable to expect people not to have sex?

 

[Katzndogz]

No one expects her to remain celibate. Just pay for her own requirements.

I recall quite clearly the heydays of the 70s and 80s. Pre AIDS. everyone was fucking like bunnies. No one expected someone else to buy their birth control. Women who didn't want to pay a monthly BC pill bill got an IUD. Those in a relationship split the cost or the guy just paid for it as a courtesy. Wanting to shift the cost of entertainment to the public is brand new.

 

[American Horse]

Same thing. If you think that for a young, unmarried woman to use contraceptives is normal and healthy, then you don't have a problem with it being a collective responsibility like the rest of health care. If you think she shouldn't be doing that, then you object.

It really, truly does all come down to sex.

And if I don't believe a young, unmarried woman SHOULD be having sex?--disclaimer here that I don't care one way or the other--I should be required via my taxes or via higher insurance premiums to pay for her choice to do that? Sex after all is something we can choose to engage in or not.

I don't want to pay higher taxes or higher insurance premiums just so that you can have the lifestyle you choose. YOU pay for the lifestyle you choose. You may not be as happy having to take responsibility for your own choices, but I'll be a far sight more happy. I like that better.

This issue isn't about you paying for it. It is about companies and university providing birth control to women who pay for health insurance. How hard is it for you people to stick to this issue?

Everybody has the same mandates in their insurance policy and everybody pays proportionally for those mandates.

 

[Texanmike]

I expect those who cannot afford a driver's license, insurance, and/or the fuel for their vehicles to not drive until they can or take their chances with the law.

That's not what I asked, of course. Let me connect the dots and make it clearer.

If you don't drive, you have a greatly reduced risk of being injured in an auto accident. (It could still happen if a car hits you while you're walking or riding a bike or riding public transit, but the odds are drastically improved.) Being injured in an auto accident is thus a lifestyle-related medical problem.

Is it reasonable to expect people who drive to pay for their own medical care from any injuries resulting from auto accidents, rather than having it be covered by insurance, on that basis?

Related question: Is it reasonable to expect people not to drive?

Parallel:

If you don't have sex, you have a greatly reduced risk of getting pregnant. (It could still happen if you're raped, but the odds are drastically improved.) Getting pregnant is thus a lifestyle-related medical concern.

Is it reasonable to expect women who are having sex to pay for their own contraception so as to prevent pregnancy, rather than having it be covered by insurance, on that basis?

Related question: Is it reasonable to expect people not to have sex?

No. It is reasonable however, to expect the drivers and the sex havers to pay more money for the premiums. I looked into skydiving at one point. I had to buy separate insurance for that purpose if I wanted to do it.

Let me ask you this.

Is it right to expect that those who do not drive or have sex pay for the results of driving and having sex?

Mike

 

[Dragon]

No one expects her to remain celibate. Just pay for her own requirements.

Would you say the same about driving a car? (See above re medical coverage of injuries from auto accidents.)

 

[Texanmike]

Same thing. If you think that for a young, unmarried woman to use contraceptives is normal and healthy, then you don't have a problem with it being a collective responsibility like the rest of health care. If you think she shouldn't be doing that, then you object.

It really, truly does all come down to sex.

And if I don't believe a young, unmarried woman SHOULD be having sex?--disclaimer here that I don't care one way or the other--I should be required via my taxes or via higher insurance premiums to pay for her choice to do that? Sex after all is something we can choose to engage in or not.

I don't want to pay higher taxes or higher insurance premiums just so that you can have the lifestyle you choose. YOU pay for the lifestyle you choose. You may not be as happy having to take responsibility for your own choices, but I'll be a far sight more happy. I like that better.

This issue isn't about you paying for it. It is about companies and university providing birth control to women who pay for health insurance. How hard is it for you people to stick to this issue?

It is about paying for it. If you require that all insurance companies pay for something then you always put me in the same risk pool as those people. In other words you increase my premium to cover their risk.

Mike

 

[Katzndogz]

I expect those who cannot afford a driver's license, insurance, and/or the fuel for their vehicles to not drive until they can or take their chances with the law.

That's not what I asked, of course. Let me connect the dots and make it clearer.

If you don't drive, you have a greatly reduced risk of being injured in an auto accident. (It could still happen if a car hits you while you're walking or riding a bike or riding public transit, but the odds are drastically improved.) Being injured in an auto accident is thus a lifestyle-related medical problem.

Is it reasonable to expect people who drive to pay for their own medical care from any injuries resulting from auto accidents, rather than having it be covered by insurance, on that basis?

Related question: Is it reasonable to expect people not to drive?

Parallel:

If you don't have sex, you have a greatly reduced risk of getting pregnant. (It could still happen if you're raped, but the odds are drastically improved.) Getting pregnant is thus a lifestyle-related medical concern.

Is it reasonable to expect women who are having sex to pay for their own contraception so as to prevent pregnancy, rather than having it be covered by insurance, on that basis?

Related question: Is it reasonable to expect people not to have sex?

It is very reasonable to expect people to support their own social and recreational activities. Now IF we are to suppose just hypthetically, that sex is so important to sustaining life that it must be paid for by public funds, then we have to determine what is the reasonable frequency of sex and maybe supply her with two free condoms a week. Sex twice a week is fair. The nerd who can't get laid has to have his whore bill paid twice a week too just so it's fair.

 

[Oddball]

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?

I expect those who cannot afford a driver's license, insurance, and/or the fuel for their vehicles to not drive until they can or take their chances with the law.

I expect those who aren't responsible enough to buy their own condoms to wait to have sex until they can or take their chances with pregnancy or disease.

Both driving and sex are not necessities of life and both are choices.

Not only that, but your auto insurance doesn't pay for new tires or oil changes.

This is another poorly veiled ploy by the hard socialist left to drive medical care insurers out of the business, so that the feds become the only place you can get insurance, then hello socialized medical services.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Total slut....But not in the conventional sense of the word.

Who else but a no-pride political slut would let herself be used by congress the way that Fluke has been?

On top of that, it's evident to anyone who isn't totally in the tank with the whackaloon left, that the figure of $3,000 for an annual contraception tab is simply an over-the-top lie.

a. The Obama administration will do anything to get his string of failures out of the news.

That has been evident since the the moment that the whole contrived "debate" over contraception was ginned up.

According to Planed Parenthood, birth control pills cost $15 to $50 a month or $180 to $600 annually.

The slut is a liar.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

I expect those who cannot afford a driver's license, insurance, and/or the fuel for their vehicles to not drive until they can or take their chances with the law.

I expect those who aren't responsible enough to buy their own condoms to wait to have sex until they can or take their chances with pregnancy or disease.

Both driving and sex are not necessities of life and both are choices.

Not only that, but your auto insurance doesn't pay for new tires or oil changes.

This is another poorly veiled ploy by the hard socialist left to drive medical care insurers out of the business, so that the feds become the only place you can get insurance, then hello socialized medical services.

Exactly. If the government mandated that auto insurance had to fix your flat tire or replace your worn out tires or do that regular maintenance and oil changes on your car, few of us could afford insurance without government subsidies. The cost would go through the roof. And the cost of all those things would become much more expensive.

Also if your homeowner's insurance was required to replace your leaky faucet or worn out carpeting or the sunbaked trim or the worn out roof, few of us could afford homeowner's insurance without somebody susidizing it. And the cost of a yard of carpet or a can of paint would triple or quadruple.

So what is so difficult to understand that if insurance did NOT pay for routine doctor's visits, shots, and other minor medical issues, those things would be much more affordable and we wouldn't have a bunch of leftists demanding that others pay it for them?

 

[Gadawg73]

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?

I expect those who cannot afford a driver's license, insurance, and/or the fuel for their vehicles to not drive until they can or take their chances with the law.

I expect those who aren't responsible enough to buy their own condoms to wait to have sex until they can or take their chances with pregnancy or disease.

Both driving and sex are not necessities of life and both are choices.

Not only that, but your auto insurance doesn't pay for new tires or oil changes.

This is another poorly veiled ploy by the hard socialist left to drive medical care insurers out of the business, so that the feds become the only place you can get insurance, then hello socialized medical services.

That is why I oppose ALL routine office visits be paid for by health insurance.
Blank check health care demanded as a benefit be it private company or government paying the tab has ruined American health care and is the sole reason our health care is 3 times more cost than every other industrialized nation with private health care.
Your homeowner's insurance does not pay for paint and new carpet.
Health insurance should only cover catastrophe. Everything else folks should be responsible for themselves.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I expect those who cannot afford a driver's license, insurance, and/or the fuel for their vehicles to not drive until they can or take their chances with the law.

That's not what I asked, of course. Let me connect the dots and make it clearer.

If you don't drive, you have a greatly reduced risk of being injured in an auto accident. (It could still happen if a car hits you while you're walking or riding a bike or riding public transit, but the odds are drastically improved.) Being injured in an auto accident is thus a lifestyle-related medical problem.

Is it reasonable to expect people who drive to pay for their own medical care from any injuries resulting from auto accidents, rather than having it be covered by insurance, on that basis?

Related question: Is it reasonable to expect people not to drive?

Parallel:

If you don't have sex, you have a greatly reduced risk of getting pregnant. (It could still happen if you're raped, but the odds are drastically improved.) Getting pregnant is thus a lifestyle-related medical concern.

Is it reasonable to expect women who are having sex to pay for their own contraception so as to prevent pregnancy, rather than having it be covered by insurance, on that basis?

Related question: Is it reasonable to expect people not to have sex?

Is it reasonable for a woman to appear before congress and grossly overstate the cost of contraception and no one question her?
The average annual cost of birth control pills is about $400-$475. -- NOT $3000.
is it reasonable for Democrats in congress to try and make this an issue of women's rights?
Is it reasonable for a person who chooses to have sex to pay about $8.50 a week to avoid getting pregnant??

$3000 a year is what it WILL COST in just a few years if the government mandates that people don't have to pay for it.

 

[Texanmike]

I expect those who cannot afford a driver's license, insurance, and/or the fuel for their vehicles to not drive until they can or take their chances with the law.

I expect those who aren't responsible enough to buy their own condoms to wait to have sex until they can or take their chances with pregnancy or disease.

Both driving and sex are not necessities of life and both are choices.

Not only that, but your auto insurance doesn't pay for new tires or oil changes.

This is another poorly veiled ploy by the hard socialist left to drive medical care insurers out of the business, so that the feds become the only place you can get insurance, then hello socialized medical services.

That is why I oppose ALL routine office visits be paid for by health insurance.
Blank check health care demanded as a benefit be it private company or government paying the tab has ruined American health care and is the sole reason our health care is 3 times more cost than every other industrialized nation with private health care.
Your homeowner's insurance does not pay for paint and new carpet.
Health insurance should only cover catastrophe. Everything else folks should be responsible for themselves.

I don't know that I agree with that. I think that the insurance policy should be able to set the premiums. Actuarial science is very specific and it is great at determining the risk in order to cover an individual. If you want to purchase only a catastrophic policy then you can (or used to be able to). What you do when the government requires that all policies cover things is you handcuff people. THAT is how you make things get too expensive.

Mike

 

[Gadawg73]

I expect those who cannot afford a driver's license, insurance, and/or the fuel for their vehicles to not drive until they can or take their chances with the law.

I expect those who aren't responsible enough to buy their own condoms to wait to have sex until they can or take their chances with pregnancy or disease.

Both driving and sex are not necessities of life and both are choices.

Not only that, but your auto insurance doesn't pay for new tires or oil changes.

This is another poorly veiled ploy by the hard socialist left to drive medical care insurers out of the business, so that the feds become the only place you can get insurance, then hello socialized medical services.

Exactly. If the government mandated that auto insurance had to fix your flat tire or replace your worn out tires or do that regular maintenance and oil changes on your car, few of us could afford insurance without government subsidies. The cost would go through the roof. And the cost of all those things would become much more expensive.

Also if your homeowner's insurance was required to replace your leaky faucet or worn out carpeting or the sunbaked trim or the worn out roof, few of us could afford homeowner's insurance without somebody susidizing it. And the cost of a yard of carpet or a can of paint would triple or quadruple.

So what is so difficult to understand that if insurance did NOT pay for routine doctor's visits, shots, and other minor medical issues, those things would be much more affordable and we wouldn't have a bunch of leftists demanding that others pay it for them?

I agree and it was government mandates that also raised the costs.
But it was unions and all other employee mandates that started it.
We know many people Republicans and Democrats and all in between that believe it is the responsibility of their employer to fund their health care expenses.
And all seniors believe that. AARP is the biggest street gang in America today. We spend our youth's future on the elderly, many that can easily afford their own health care expenses. As a result of that poverty today wears a diaper.

 

[Gadawg73]

Not only that, but your auto insurance doesn't pay for new tires or oil changes.

This is another poorly veiled ploy by the hard socialist left to drive medical care insurers out of the business, so that the feds become the only place you can get insurance, then hello socialized medical services.

That is why I oppose ALL routine office visits be paid for by health insurance.
Blank check health care demanded as a benefit be it private company or government paying the tab has ruined American health care and is the sole reason our health care is 3 times more cost than every other industrialized nation with private health care.
Your homeowner's insurance does not pay for paint and new carpet.
Health insurance should only cover catastrophe. Everything else folks should be responsible for themselves.

I don't know that I agree with that. I think that the insurance policy should be able to set the premiums. Actuarial science is very specific and it is great at determining the risk in order to cover an individual. If you want to purchase only a catastrophic policy then you can (or used to be able to). What you do when the government requires that all policies cover things is you handcuff people. THAT is how you make things get too expensive.

Mike

Sure they should and I agree Mike. But the insurance company is the third party in the equation. They could care less what coverages the public demands as long as they can keep raising the premiums an average of 15% each year to cover the increases in demand.
The more the public demands the more they charge because their costs go up.
Then the next company has to offer it because of competititon.
As long as a 3rd party is paying the tab and NOT THE CONSUMER, we will continue to see health care prices rise at a 15% each year no matter what the inflation rate is for everything else.
Currently, free market forces of supply and demand have nothing to do with most of the health care industry. They set their prices based on HOW MUCH the insurance company will pay, NOT on what the demand is.

We DEMAND too much from our health care system. We have the absolute finest disease care in the world here. Why shouldn't we? We spend 55% of ALL HEALTH CARE DOLLARS on it treating 4% of the population. The other 45% of ALL HEALTH CARE DOLLARS treats the other 96% of society. And one wonders why we are one of the unhealthiest nations on earth as far as health goes. No wonder MOST doctors go into disease care specialities now. And the KICK IN THE ASS ON THIS IS: 7 out of the 8 top diseases they treat which account for 90% of that 55% of all health care dollars spent ARE PREVENTABLE DISEASES.
The current system is beyond broke. I know as I own 3 corporations and pay a pant load in health insurance premiums FOR A BUNCH OF HEALTHY FOLK.
We have met the enemy and he be us.

 

[Wiseacre]

Not interested in making judgements about sluttiness, but will on political bullshit. And this is 100% pure political bullshit. The left has absolutely nothing to show for the last 3plus years, and so are forced to manufacture said bullshit to demagogue the repubs as much as possible.

 

[Gadawg73]

As it is now why should I have to be in an insurance pool where many employees of other companies have smokers, heavy drinking fat folks?
That is the current system. And look at Medicare. Most of those folks are beyond fat and we all have to pay.
Something has to change sports fans. Those of us that have a few million invested in our private companies see the problems with the current system first hand and it is beyond broke.
We oppose the Obama plan 100%
We advocate a wellness plan mandatory. If you are unhealthy as a result of your smoking, being fat and lazy and are not willing to get fit and in shape then you are automatically labeled as such and the entire pool of employees in your organization are rated accordingly. Corporations can fire at will if those folks are unwilling to receive the help offered both by the insurance industry, as wellness programs will be the norm within 10 years.
The private insurance companies want this change. They are also tired of the massive costs of underwriting an unhealthy nation. 1000+ different companies with 1000+ different plans, commissions, rules and massive underwriting costs add almost 50% to health care premiums.
The good news is my main business just went to this wellness model and my costs were cut $2K a year per employee with a dental plan thrown in for free.
Only when we change the system from a disease care model to a wellness health care model will we see costs go down. Continue on this private blank check "health" care night mare we are now using and Medicare costs alone will bankrupt us in 20 years.

 

[Foxfyre]

It really is not a difficult concept for those who weren't brainwashed into seeing the nanny state as an unalienable right. Such people seem not to be able to see that there really is no such thing as a free lunch, and the only rights that should be seen as unalienable (or non negotiable) are those that require no contribution or participation by somebody else.

When the government mandates that anybody or any entity provide a service or product to somebody else, the cost of providing that service or product is passed on to everybody else whether they want it or not. At least if the state or local community requires something that we see as undesirable or unacceptable, we can move to another state that doesn't require it. But when it is the federal government requiring one-size-fits-all policy for something, there is no escape short of removing ourselves from our country; therefore we lose our unalienable rights as American citizens. It was the intention of the Founders that those rights be inviolate.

Also, it is so easy to miss the forest because of focus on a single tree. Mandating that insurance companies include contraceptives is a relatively minor thing and maybe the small amount it costs everybody else is not of any major consequence. But you add that one small thing to some other small thing and then another and then another and then another, and pretty soon everything is out of control.

One penny doubled every day for 10 days totals more than ten dollars. In 30 days more than a million dollars. So you don't have to double very many pennies here and there before you talking really serious money.

 

[Gadawg73]

It really is not a difficult concept for those who weren't brainwashed into seeing the nanny state as an unalienable right. Such people seem not to be able to see that there really is no such thing as a free lunch, and the only rights that should be seen as unalienable (or non negotiable) are those that require no contribution or participation by somebody else.

When the government mandates that anybody or any entity provide a service or product to somebody else, the cost of providing that service or product is passed on to everybody else whether they want it or not. At least if the state or local community requires something that we see as undesirable or unacceptable, we can move to another state that doesn't require it. But when it is the federal government requiring one-size-fits-all policy for something, there is no escape short of removing ourselves from our country; therefore we lose our unalienable rights as American citizens. It was the intention of the Founders that those rights be inviolate.

Also, it is so easy to miss the forest because of focus on a single tree. Mandating that insurance companies include contraceptives is a relatively minor thing and maybe the small amount it costs everybody else is not of any major consequence. But you add that one small thing to some other small thing and then another and then another and then another, and pretty soon everything is out of control.

One penny doubled every day for 10 days totals more than ten dollars. In 30 days more than a million dollars. So you don't have to double very many pennies here and there before you talking really serious money.

Well said but are you willing to take on the electric scooter for Gramps and Granny companies?
Medicare pays an average of almost $1000 OVER what the market rate is on each one.
And most seniors that buy one do not even need it.
Until we take this on ACROSS THE BOARD, nothing gets done. Medicare costs tens times more for us taxpayers than anything else and the fraud rate is astronomical.
Medicare is government mandate galore!
No politician will do anything about it. Bush was the absolute worst big government spender in that area.
Can anyone name a Republican with the balls to end Medicare?
Until WE CITIZENS QUIT DEMANDING IT, nothing changes.
End it tomorrow. Send those programs to the states.

 

[Wry Catcher]

And if I don't believe a young, unmarried woman SHOULD be having sex?--disclaimer here that I don't care one way or the other--I should be required via my taxes or via higher insurance premiums to pay for her choice to do that?

And if you don't believe that parents SHOULD vaccinate their children? And if you don't believe people ever SHOULD visit a doctor instead of relying on faith in God? And if you don't believe people ever SHOULD go under a surgeon's knife because it's a violation of the body?

All of these views are held on a religious basis by some people in this country, and none of them are considered grounds for objecting to either taxes or insurance premiums. This is no different.

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. We did not see it as anybody else's responsibility to vaccinate our kids. We didn't see it as anybody else's responsibility to feed, clothe, house, and educate our kids either. In the early years it was tough going and we went without a lot of stuff we would have liked to have had so that we could meet our responsibilities as grown ups, meet our obligations, and take care of what we had to do.

I do not expect you to provide me with anything just because I can't afford it myself. I don't want to be obligated to pay for your lifestyle choices.

And that is the difference in a nutshell between a responsible grown up conservative and a dependent, brainwashed, entitlement mentality liberal.

Thank you for not being judgmental. Now give youself a pat on the back and say over and over what a good girl am I, what a good girl am I.

But, I'm better then you. I did all that you did and paid off my oldest son's student loans and gave my youngest son the down payment on his home. I also coached LL baseball, CYO Basketball, served on our community swim team board of directors, served on the parent club at the elementry school and took days off to aid in special events there too. Oh, and did I mention my wife of 38 years was a stay at home mom after our second son was born?

I'm not brainwashed nor have I ever been dependent on anyone since graduating from High School at age 17. I served in the Navy and worked my entire adult life through college and grad school. I spent 32 years as a law enforcement officer and saw poverty and violence in person. Guess what, it convinced me that conservatives don't know shit and are in this life only for themselves.

But I digress, thanks so much for sharing and not being judgmental as so many conservatives seem to be.