Slut Or Not??

[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.

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.

She said 1K a year for 3 years including doctor visits and female related exams.

 

[Oddball]

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.

^^^^^
This....

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

You left out a 3.

 

[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.

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.

Absolutely. I have been beating the drum forever that the federal government should be doing NOTHING that the various states or private enterprise cannot do more efficiently, effectively, and/or economically. That means it provides the common defense and promotes the general welfare to secure ALL our unalienable rights, andf then leaves us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.

As for Granny's scooter, I don't see how any insurance company, let alone the tax payer, should be on the hook for that at least via government mandate. Let Granny buy her own scooter or look to me and the rest of the family to help her out. If the cost is too burdensome, help from the community or private charities can be accepted with profound gratitude.

As a matter of personal pride, ethics, and general sense of justice and morality, I don't expect YOU to buy it for her.

 

[Wiseacre]

What if we call her a bitch instead of a slut?

 

[Dragon]

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.

Birth control pills are a monthly cost rather than per-sex and that is the most common form of birth control for women. Condoms do have the advantage of also preventing STDs which other forms of contraception don't.

It's really not that hard to develop a reasonable annual cost for reproductive and sexual health and to incorporate that into a set of overall limits of coverage. Oh, and I don't think payments to prostitutes need be covered but Viagra probably should.

 

[Dragon]

It really is not a difficult concept for those who weren't brainwashed into seeing the nanny state as an unalienable right.

As I said, for those who as a matter of ideology think that ALL medical costs should be borne by the individual and oppose all forms of collective coverage, public or private, there's no logical problem here. The problem arises if you think that medical expenses relating to some areas of life should be covered, but those related to sex should not.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

Birth control pills are a monthly cost rather than per-sex and that is the most common form of birth control for women. Condoms do have the advantage of also preventing STDs which other forms of contraception don't.

It's really not that hard to develop a reasonable annual cost for reproductive and sexual health and to incorporate that into a set of overall limits of coverage. Oh, and I don't think payments to prostitutes need be covered but Viagra probably should.

The cost of birth control pills has already been debunked. PP gives them free or for a $15.00 charge. She can pay for it herself.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

But it isn't necessary to mandate insurance for a wellness model either. When I was working for a hospital in Kansas we became aware of a lot of health issues with our 300+ employees. (I was working in human resources and doing commications at the time so was on the inside track.) So the employer offered a bonus up front for non smokers with the incentive of a bonus offered to any employees who would quit smoking for three months. (Testing was required of course to ensure no nicotine in the system.) It was a huge incentive and produced some great results. And because of the regular testing, I'm pretty sure we addressed some other substance abuse as well.

We set up a program for overweight employees with a modest kitty everybody contributed to to sign up and maintain, some nurses volunteered their time to do and record the weigh ins, and a couple of doctors volunteered their time to do initial check ups and help develop diet plans etc. Each week, the employees who gained weight put a dollar in the kitty for each pound or partial pound gained. The one who lost the most got the kitty for the week. Another huge success producing some outstanding results.

Taking personal responsibility and self-directed social contract is so superior to any government program or paying for insurance for what people can do for themselves.

 

[FuelRod]

A moocher seems like the most appropriate label.

 

[Texanmike]

It really is not a difficult concept for those who weren't brainwashed into seeing the nanny state as an unalienable right.

As I said, for those who as a matter of ideology think that ALL medical costs should be borne by the individual and oppose all forms of collective coverage, public or private, there's no logical problem here. The problem arises if you think that medical expenses relating to some areas of life should be covered, but those related to sex should not.

No. The problem arises when you mandate exactly what must be covered. You are distorting the issue of all or none. The bottom line is there should be selective coverage. You as an individual should be able to sit down with your insurance agent and say "I want coverage for this, this, this and this. I don't care about this, this, this and this... what will it cost me." Then an actuary looks at your risk/cost factors and tells your agent that based on these factors you must pay premium x. It has nothing to do with individual or collective and it is not a matter of ideology.

Actuarial science is exactly that. They are the ones who set your insurance premiums based on your risk factors. You corrupt it when you require that everyone buy a policy that includes the cost of birth control. The same would be true if you mandated that everyone buy insurance that covers the common cold.

Mike

 

[Foxfyre]

It really is not a difficult concept for those who weren't brainwashed into seeing the nanny state as an unalienable right.

As I said, for those who as a matter of ideology think that ALL medical costs should be borne by the individual and oppose all forms of collective coverage, public or private, there's no logical problem here. The problem arises if you think that medical expenses relating to some areas of life should be covered, but those related to sex should not.

The problem comes when the government presumes to dictate what will be covered. If the government gets out of it, and returns the insurance industry to the free market, the insurance industry is at the mercy of we the consumers just as all other private industry was intended to be. We buy the insurance that most closely meets our needs at the most attractive price we can get. If all of us do that and prefer the same kinds of coverage, most other insurance companies will follow suit. And those companies tailoring coverage to fit the preferences of the consumer and profiting by doing so will encourage other companies to do likewise in order to get a slice of the pie. If most customers want contraceptives covered and are willing to pay the additional premium to have it, then contraceptives will be covered.

But if consumers discover that contraceptives cost a whole lot less to buy them directly than it costs to cover them via an insurance policy, consumers should have the right to choose that option as well.

 

[Luissa]

A moocher seems like the most appropriate label.

So you guys think it is alright for a company to cover viagra, and other elective medications, but draw a moral line at birth control?
You right wingers makes it into " I don't want to pay for it issue", when in reality it has nothing to do with it. If a woman is paying for the same health insurance as a man, a company should not be allowed to discriminate against her.
This is why women have already won law suit regarding their employers not covering birth control.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think it is fine for an insurance company to cover whatever it wants to cover. I think it is also fine for an insurance company to not cover whatever it doesn't want to cover.

I don't think it should ever be the prerogative of the federal government to make those choices for a private insurance company or the private entities who buy insurance.

 

[Luissa]

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.

Absolutely. I have been beating the drum forever that the federal government should be doing NOTHING that the various states or private enterprise cannot do more efficiently, effectively, and/or economically. That means it provides the common defense and promotes the general welfare to secure ALL our unalienable rights, andf then leaves us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.

As for Granny's scooter, I don't see how any insurance company, let alone the tax payer, should be on the hook for that at least via government mandate. Let Granny buy her own scooter or look to me and the rest of the family to help her out. If the cost is too burdensome, help from the community or private charities can be accepted with profound gratitude.

As a matter of personal pride, ethics, and general sense of justice and morality, I don't expect YOU to buy it for her.

I guess it is my bleeding heart, or the fact I take care of the elderly, but I have no problem with health insurance or medicare providing a scooter for Granny. Of course I don't live in fantasy land when it comes to the elderly and how one might be taken care of by their family. And how much charities really give to the elderly.

 

[whitehall]

Like it or not Websters defines "slut" as a promiscuous woman. What do you call an unmarried woman who testifies before congress about wanting taxpayers to pay for her escalating cost of birth control?

 

[American Horse]

Medicare . . .

[ ... ] Bush was the absolute worst big government spender in that area.
[ ... ]

Would that comment RE Bush be about Medicare Part D?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Absolutely. I have been beating the drum forever that the federal government should be doing NOTHING that the various states or private enterprise cannot do more efficiently, effectively, and/or economically. That means it provides the common defense and promotes the general welfare to secure ALL our unalienable rights, andf then leaves us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.

As for Granny's scooter, I don't see how any insurance company, let alone the tax payer, should be on the hook for that at least via government mandate. Let Granny buy her own scooter or look to me and the rest of the family to help her out. If the cost is too burdensome, help from the community or private charities can be accepted with profound gratitude.

As a matter of personal pride, ethics, and general sense of justice and morality, I don't expect YOU to buy it for her.

Why, you....you...you 'conservative' you!!!

 

[Luissa]

Like it or not Websters defines "slut" as a promiscuous woman. What do you call an unmarried woman who testifies before congress about wanting taxpayers to pay for her escalating cost of birth control?

not a slut

 

[PoliticalChic]

Like it or not Websters defines "slut" as a promiscuous woman. What do you call an unmarried woman who testifies before congress about wanting taxpayers to pay for her escalating cost of birth control?

not a slut

In “A Study of History,” by Arnold J. Toynbee, in the chapter called ‘Schism in the Soul, “Toynbee observed that one of the consistent symptoms of a disintegrating civilization is that elites begin to imitate the bottom of society. ... In disintegrating civilizations, the creative minority (elites) are no longer confident and setting the example. They "lapse into truancy" (reject the obligations of citizenship) and "surrender to a sense of promiscuity" (succumb to vulgarization of manners, the arts and language). Until a few decades ago, the groups we used to call "low-class" or "trash", are now called the underclass. The upper-class, instead of challenging trashy behavior, often imitates and placates it.

a. … four-letter words were unknown in public discourse and among the elites and were used sparingly even in private discourse. Today, vulgar language knows no class, sex, age or place. As late as 1960, sleeping with one's boyfriend was mostly a lower-class thing. It was deemed sluttish and something to be kept secret; today it's open and assumed to be normal…. In some instances, unwed mothers proudly hold baby showers celebrating their illegitimate offspring. Homosexual marriages were unheard of; today, in some jurisdictions, homosexual marriages have legal sanction. Of course, to be judgmental about the new codes of conduct is to risk being labeled a prude and possibly a racist, sexist or a homophobe.”
America's New Role Models