Tears for Ms. Fluke

[toomuchtime_]

Good question. Sometimes birth control jas a legit medical purpose, just like viagra and they should be covered. Buy if used for fun , it should be on you dime and not covered

So Medicare for example should only cover lifesaving healthcare, and not quality of life type healthcare?

Maybe Medicare should cover nose jobs and boob jobs and penis enlargement since these procedures also improve quality of life, and while we are at it, maybe Medicare should cover hookers, both male and female, since these would certainly improve the quality of the lives of many Medicare recipients.

Not everything that can only be done safely by a medical provider is health care; some things such as nose jobs, boob jobs, penis enlargement, contraception, abortion, are lifestyle choices, and should not be covered by Medicare, Medicaid or government health insurance mandates, if we have to have them. Without Obama's heavy hand wrapped around their throats, insurance companies are willing to cover anything consumers are willing to pay for, so some group health insurance plans already covered contraception and abortion before Obama became president because the participants in the plan decided they were willing to pay for it and some plans didn't cover these things because the participants weren't willing to pay higher premiums to cover them.

When the federal government mandates that all insurance plans, public or private, must pay for contraception/abortion, that is equivalent to levying a tax on all Americans to pay for the lifestyle choices of only some. If Obama believes no one should have to pay for contraception or abortion, that is a social welfare issue, not a health care issue, and it should be handled elsewhere and funded by an explicit new tax, not by a tax Obama is trying to sneak in through health insurance companies.

 

[freedombecki]

So Medicare for example should only cover lifesaving healthcare, and not quality of life type healthcare?

Medicare is one of the reasons why our health care costs are so high.

No, US healthcare costs are the reason our healthcare costs are so high. Many countries have Medicare-similar healthcare programs and pay half what we pay for healthcare.

And unionizing the healthcare industry through the Obamacare is going to reduce US healthcare? Au contraire! It isn't gonna happen. That little entitlement is going to quadruple-plus already-high salaries, and nobody gets a choice. Also, that does not improve healthcare, it ships jobs overseas or brings them over here. It's just another government-control scheme to give Democrats more power, more control over everyday people, etc., and less control of the individual over his or her own health costs. Also, euthanasia is not desired by people who think people have a right to life. Democrats push euthanasia, and will choose who lives and who dies.

Bad idea.

 

[candycorn]

.

"I wanna get laid, but I want someone else to pay so I don't get pregnant."

Is that pretty much her demand?

.

In the congressional testimony she said she wanted her insurance companies to cover the meds so she would just have her co-pay as she would for vicodin, celebrex, or amoxicillin.

I am unaware of her wanting it for free. Maybe subsequent statements were made???

 

[beretta304]

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/What-Does-Health-Reform-Mean-for-You-A-Consumers-Guide.pdf

Pages 4 thru 10 are particularly interesting for those that think this is a great thing.

Repeal it!


Some Major Costs of the Reform. In general, for every benefit there is an offsetting cost.
More than half the costs of this reform, for example, will be borne by the elderly and
disabled on Medicare:
 $716 billion of health reform’s 10-year cost (2013-2022) will be paid for by cuts in
spending on Medicare enrollees, according to Congressional Budget Office.
5
 In addition, there are new taxes on drugs and on such medical devices as wheelchairs,
crutches, pacemakers, artificial joints, etc. — items disproportionately used by Medicare
enrollees.
Reduced spending and reduced subsidies will have an especially big impact on seniors:
 Of the 15 million people expected to enroll in Medicare Advantage programs, 7½ million
will lose their plans entirely, according to Medicare’s chief actuary, and the remainder
will face higher premiums and lower benefits.
6
 Nearly 6 million retired employees will lose their employer drug coverage, according to
the 2010 Medicare Trustees report. 6 What Does Health Reform Mean for You?
There are other measures that will affect the more general population:
 A new tax on health insurance is likely to cost the families of employees of small
businesses more than $500 a year in higher premiums.
7
 A 40% tax on the extra coverage provided by expensive “Cadillac” plans will apply to
about one-third of all private health insurance in 2019; and because the tax threshold is
not indexed to medical inflation, over time the tax will eventually reach every health plan.
 Scores of other items will be taxed, ranging from tanning salons to the sale of your home,
in some cases.
There are also hidden costs of certain benefits:
 Health insurers will have to raise premiums for everyone in order to charge people with
pre-existing conditions less than the expected cost of their care. Young people, for
example, could see a doubling or tripling of their premiums, according to industry
estimates.
8

 In order for employers to provide health insurance (or more generous insurance) to their
employees, they will have to reduce what they pay in wages and in other benefits.
 According to one estimate, the extra burden on employers could cost as many as
700,000 jobs by 2019.
9
 The CBO estimated that 800,000 fewer people might be employed as a result of the
health care law.
10
 If low-income workers displaced by the cost of health insurance mandates are included,
the total number of people unemployed due to the health care law could exceed 1
million.
11
What Health Reform Does Not Do. During the debate leading up to health reform legislation,
participants discussed many problems and many goals. Here are some goals that will not be
achieved:
Health care costs will rise, rather than fall. Although the CBO initially predicted a
slight lowering of overall health care costs in future years, it is now expressing doubts.
12
Medicare’s chief actuary and most private forecasts expect overall costs as well as the
government’s costs to be higher than otherwise.
13
Health care expenditure is expected
to consume one-fifth (19.6% of GPD) of the economy by 2021. Spending was 17.9% in
2010. The public share of health care expenditure is expected to rise to 50% from
46%.
14
A recent analysis by the Office of the Medicare Actuary predicts that the new law will
increase, rather than decrease, health care spending.
15
The graph below shows the
prediction of the RAND Corporation, a respected private think tank.
16
Overview: A Better Health Care System? 7
One of the great uncertainties in this regard is whether the federal government will
actually follow through on cuts in Medicare spending in future years — as called for
under the new law. Medicare fees paid to doctors are required to drop by 27% in next
year.
17
The CBO estimates the 10-year cost of repealing or overriding the cuts at $271
billion.
18
As a report from Medicare’s actuaries explains:
19

 Medicare fees paid to doctors and hospitals will fall below Medicaid levels by
2019 and going forward will fall increasingly behind the rates paid by other
patients.
 By 2050, Medicare fees are projected to be only one-half of what the private
sector pays.
 By 2080, they will be only one-third.
Health economist Joe Newhouse explains what will happen if we follow this projected
path:
20
 Medicare fees paid to doctors and hospitals will fall increasingly behind what
private insurers are paying.
 As a result, seniors and the disabled will have increasingly less access to care,
as providers tend first to the better-paying patients.
 In the near future, the fate of Medicare patients would come to resemble that of
today’s Medicaid enrollees, or even worse — with seniors and the disabled
having to seek care at community health centers and safety net hospitals. 8 What Does Health Reform Mean for You?
Will future Congresses and future presidents actually allow this to happen? Both
President Obama and Congress have committed to it. But other actions suggest that
their commitment may be weak. For example, current federal law is supposed to limit
Medicare fee increases to doctors to no more than the rate of growth of national
income. But for the past seven years Congress has stepped in to prevent these limits
from being imposed.



If you read the whole thing I think you will be surprised at what you will find.

 

[Mac1958]

.

"I wanna get laid, but I want someone else to pay so I don't get pregnant."

Is that pretty much her demand?

.

In the congressional testimony she said she wanted her insurance companies to cover the meds so she would just have her co-pay as she would for vicodin, celebrex, or amoxicillin.

I am unaware of her wanting it for free. Maybe subsequent statements were made???

Hell, I dunno.

So she's equating those medications with birth control pills. And, as I understand it, she vastly overestimated the annual cost of birth control pills, as well.

Calling this a "women's health issue" just sounds like an Olympian stretch to me, that's all. Getting laid and demanding subsidies for not getting pregnant. Yikes.
.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Democrats don't want government invading their vaginas, the just want government to pay for everyone else invading it

Yep,

The socialist are using this to gain power and spread the wealth around.

 

[candycorn]

.

"I wanna get laid, but I want someone else to pay so I don't get pregnant."

Is that pretty much her demand?

.

In the congressional testimony she said she wanted her insurance companies to cover the meds so she would just have her co-pay as she would for vicodin, celebrex, or amoxicillin.

I am unaware of her wanting it for free. Maybe subsequent statements were made???

Hell, I dunno.

So she's equating those medications with birth control pills. And, as I understand it, she vastly overestimated the annual cost of birth control pills, as well.

Calling this a "women's health issue" just sounds like an Olympian stretch to me, that's all. Getting laid and demanding subsidies for not getting pregnant. Yikes.
.

Well 2 things about that:

While it's true that there is a definitive way to prevent exposure, surely you wouldn't say that all preventative medicines should be off the insurance company formularies.

Secondly, hormonal imbalances are also treated by what we commonly call contraceptives. It isn't just about prevention.

At the end of the day....aside from having other data, she's asking for items that she'll pay for; not me. So I have no problem with it. If it becomes a "free ride" argument; then it becomes a different animal all together.

 

[Greenbeard]

 By 2050, Medicare fees are projected to be only one-half of what the private
sector pays.
 By 2080, they will be only one-third.

But how far above the actual cost of each medical tricorder scan will private insurance reimbursements be set?

 

[Mac1958]

In the congressional testimony she said she wanted her insurance companies to cover the meds so she would just have her co-pay as she would for vicodin, celebrex, or amoxicillin.

I am unaware of her wanting it for free. Maybe subsequent statements were made???

Hell, I dunno.

So she's equating those medications with birth control pills. And, as I understand it, she vastly overestimated the annual cost of birth control pills, as well.

Calling this a "women's health issue" just sounds like an Olympian stretch to me, that's all. Getting laid and demanding subsidies for not getting pregnant. Yikes.
.

Well 2 things about that:

While it's true that there is a definitive way to prevent exposure, surely you wouldn't say that all preventative medicines should be off the insurance company formularies.

Secondly, hormonal imbalances are also treated by what we commonly call contraceptives. It isn't just about prevention.

At the end of the day....aside from having other data, she's asking for items that she'll pay for; not me. So I have no problem with it. If it becomes a "free ride" argument; then it becomes a different animal all together.

Believe me, anything that will flatten out a woman's freakin' hormones for even an hour is freakin' aces with me, buddy.

The "free ride" thing is what concerns me, primarily because lowering health care costs is absolutely essential right now. Anything in the other direction gives me the heebie jeebies.

.

 

[francoHFW]

Jeeeeebus, what a bunch of STUPID brainwashed hater dupe sexist SHYTTEHEADS.

A) It's cheaper for insurers and the country to have free birth control, for single AND married women.
B) Will decimate number of abortions
C) Teddy/Romneycare ALREADY proves ACA will cut costs- rises in Mass are now 2%/year- Hell, national cost under OBAMACARE, which hasn't really started yet, is down to 4%! Instead of 15% for total BS Pubcare we have now.
D. Dupes are so dumb, you wonder how you breathe. Assume the position, ya lying POSs.

 

[Mac1958]

Jeeeeebus, what a bunch of STUPID brainwashed hater dupe sexist SHYTTEHEADS.

A) It's cheaper for insurers and the country to have free birth control, for single AND married women.
B) Will decimate number of abortions
C) Teddy/Romneycare ALREADY proves ACA will cut costs- rises in Mass are now 2%/year- Hell, national cost under OBAMACARE, which hasn't really started yet, is down to 4%! Instead of 15% for total BS Pubcare we have now.
D. Dupes are so dumb, you wonder how you breathe. Assume the position, ya yiing POSs.

While franco's post is replete with his customary and tedious rage, epithets and immaturity, his point about long term cost savings is correct. When a woman is pregnant there are certainly going to be significant predictable costs, let alone emergency costs if something goes wrong. So preventing an unwanted pregnancy in the first place is a reasonable strategy.

This is one of those times when economics and culture clash.

.

 

[Darkwind]

.

"I wanna get laid, but I want someone else to pay so I don't get pregnant."

Is that pretty much her demand?

.

In the congressional testimony she said she wanted her insurance companies to cover the meds so she would just have her co-pay as she would for vicodin, celebrex, or amoxicillin.

I am unaware of her wanting it for free. Maybe subsequent statements were made???

She was free to switch insurance providers that would provide those drugs in their coverage. The insurance program she had, which was being paid for by someone else, did not; because it was against their religious beliefs.

She testified and demanded that government make the program she had, which was being provided by that someone else, include the drugs she wished.

It was, to her and the lefts way of thinking, unreasonable for her to have to find another insurance program that would meet her desires or needs.

Now, the argument was made that she was paying for the insurance program that the religious institution was providing. It is stated that she makes a small co-payment for the insurance provided. In some instances, it was stated that the insurance was provided to her, free of charge.

In any instance, she had and has no right to infringe upon the religious freedom of others to meet her particular medical needs.

She was more than able to shop around for an insurance program that met her needs and to pay for the insurance program.

So, what she wanted was for someone else to pay for her medical needs.

Plain and simple. From that, the loony tune leftist conclude that the right are conducting a war on women.

The funny thing about all this is that when Ms Fluck graduates, she will immediately enter the 1% of this countries wealthy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Good question. Sometimes birth control jas a legit medical purpose, just like viagra and they should be covered. Buy if used for fun , it should be on you dime and not covered

So Medicare for example should only cover lifesaving healthcare, and not quality of life type healthcare?

Maybe Medicare should cover nose jobs and boob jobs and penis enlargement since these procedures also improve quality of life, and while we are at it, maybe Medicare should cover hookers, both male and female, since these would certainly improve the quality of the lives of many Medicare recipients.

Not everything that can only be done safely by a medical provider is health care; some things such as nose jobs, boob jobs, penis enlargement, contraception, abortion, are lifestyle choices, and should not be covered by Medicare, Medicaid or government health insurance mandates, if we have to have them. Without Obama's heavy hand wrapped around their throats, insurance companies are willing to cover anything consumers are willing to pay for, so some group health insurance plans already covered contraception and abortion before Obama became president because the participants in the plan decided they were willing to pay for it and some plans didn't cover these things because the participants weren't willing to pay higher premiums to cover them.

When the federal government mandates that all insurance plans, public or private, must pay for contraception/abortion, that is equivalent to levying a tax on all Americans to pay for the lifestyle choices of only some. If Obama believes no one should have to pay for contraception or abortion, that is a social welfare issue, not a health care issue, and it should be handled elsewhere and funded by an explicit new tax, not by a tax Obama is trying to sneak in through health insurance companies.

If having sex for non-reproductive reasons is a 'lifestyle choice', than having sex for reproductive reasons is a lifestyle choice.

By the astoundingly stupid 'logic' being tossed around here, any healthcare related to a woman's pregnancy shouldn't be covered by insurance.

 

[candycorn]

.

"I wanna get laid, but I want someone else to pay so I don't get pregnant."

Is that pretty much her demand?

.

In the congressional testimony she said she wanted her insurance companies to cover the meds so she would just have her co-pay as she would for vicodin, celebrex, or amoxicillin.

I am unaware of her wanting it for free. Maybe subsequent statements were made???

She was free to switch insurance providers that would provide those drugs in their coverage. The insurance program she had, which was being paid for by someone else, did not; because it was against their religious beliefs.

She testified and demanded that government make the program she had, which was being provided by that someone else, include the drugs she wished.

It was, to her and the lefts way of thinking, unreasonable for her to have to find another insurance program that would meet her desires or needs.

In our system most insurance comes from the organizations to which we belong. If I wanted Congress's insurance system; I would have to join congress. The health system I work for does not offer the Congressional system.

Now, the argument was made that she was paying for the insurance program that the religious institution was providing. It is stated that she makes a small co-payment for the insurance provided. In some instances, it was stated that the insurance was provided to her, free of charge.

In any instance, she had and has no right to infringe upon the religious freedom of others to meet her particular medical needs.

She had the right to testify before a congressional panel, no? Lawmakers make those laws.

She was more than able to shop around for an insurance program that met her needs and to pay for the insurance program.

So, what she wanted was for someone else to pay for her medical needs.

Nonsense. She would pay her insurance when she has to pay for her insurance and therefore pay for her meds in accordance with the policy's mandates. You're simply telling a lie at this point.

Plain and simple. From that, the loony tune leftist conclude that the right are conducting a war on women.

The funny thing about all this is that when Ms Fluck graduates, she will immediately enter the 1% of this countries wealthy.

Why is that funny?

 

[squeeze berry]

.

"I wanna get laid, but I want someone else to pay so I don't get pregnant."

Is that pretty much her demand?

.

pretty much

 

[squeeze berry]

So Medicare for example should only cover lifesaving healthcare, and not quality of life type healthcare?

Maybe Medicare should cover nose jobs and boob jobs and penis enlargement since these procedures also improve quality of life, and while we are at it, maybe Medicare should cover hookers, both male and female, since these would certainly improve the quality of the lives of many Medicare recipients.

Not everything that can only be done safely by a medical provider is health care; some things such as nose jobs, boob jobs, penis enlargement, contraception, abortion, are lifestyle choices, and should not be covered by Medicare, Medicaid or government health insurance mandates, if we have to have them. Without Obama's heavy hand wrapped around their throats, insurance companies are willing to cover anything consumers are willing to pay for, so some group health insurance plans already covered contraception and abortion before Obama became president because the participants in the plan decided they were willing to pay for it and some plans didn't cover these things because the participants weren't willing to pay higher premiums to cover them.

When the federal government mandates that all insurance plans, public or private, must pay for contraception/abortion, that is equivalent to levying a tax on all Americans to pay for the lifestyle choices of only some. If Obama believes no one should have to pay for contraception or abortion, that is a social welfare issue, not a health care issue, and it should be handled elsewhere and funded by an explicit new tax, not by a tax Obama is trying to sneak in through health insurance companies.

If having sex for non-reproductive reasons is a 'lifestyle choice', than having sex for reproductive reasons is a lifestyle choice.

By the astoundingly stupid 'logic' being tossed around here, any healthcare related to a woman's pregnancy shouldn't be covered by insurance.

should we pay for your blow-up doll?

 

[squeeze berry]

Jeeeeebus, what a bunch of STUPID brainwashed hater dupe sexist SHYTTEHEADS.

A) It's cheaper for insurers and the country to have free birth control, for single AND married women.
B) Will decimate number of abortions
C) Teddy/Romneycare ALREADY proves ACA will cut costs- rises in Mass are now 2%/year- Hell, national cost under OBAMACARE, which hasn't really started yet, is down to 4%! Instead of 15% for total BS Pubcare we have now.
D. Dupes are so dumb, you wonder how you breathe. Assume the position, ya lying POSs.

look, there are other methods of birth contol besides free pills.

1. rubbers

2. not getting drunk

3. crossing the legs

4. swallowing ( my favorite)

but really it seems like a lifestyle choice moe than anything. for thinkng that that we are haters and sexists?

Bullshit on that

We love women more than you limp wristed fairies and I'm sure they like us better too

 

[francoHFW]

Jeeeeebus, what a bunch of STUPID brainwashed hater dupe sexist SHYTTEHEADS.

A) It's cheaper for insurers and the country to have free birth control, for single AND married women.
B) Will decimate number of abortions
C) Teddy/Romneycare ALREADY proves ACA will cut costs- rises in Mass are now 2%/year- Hell, national cost under OBAMACARE, which hasn't really started yet, is down to 4%! Instead of 15% for total BS Pubcare we have now.
D. Dupes are so dumb, you wonder how you breathe. Assume the position, ya lying POSs.

look, there are other methods of birth contol besides free pills.

1. rubbers

2. not getting drunk

3. crossing the legs

4. swallowing ( my favorite)

but really it seems like a lifestyle choice moe than anything. for thinkng that that we are haters and sexists?

Bullshit on that

We love women more than you limp wristed fairies and I'm sure they like us better too

Another genius Rushbot braindamaged MORON>

 

[PredFan]

Democrats don't want government invading their vaginas, the just want government to pay for everyone else invading it

Lol! Post of the day.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Jeeeeebus, what a bunch of STUPID brainwashed hater dupe sexist SHYTTEHEADS.

A) It's cheaper for insurers and the country to have free birth control, for single AND married women.
B) Will decimate number of abortions
C) Teddy/Romneycare ALREADY proves ACA will cut costs- rises in Mass are now 2%/year- Hell, national cost under OBAMACARE, which hasn't really started yet, is down to 4%! Instead of 15% for total BS Pubcare we have now.
D. Dupes are so dumb, you wonder how you breathe. Assume the position, ya lying POSs.

look, there are other methods of birth contol besides free pills.

1. rubbers

2. not getting drunk

3. crossing the legs

4. swallowing ( my favorite)

but really it seems like a lifestyle choice moe than anything. for thinkng that that we are haters and sexists?

Bullshit on that

We love women more than you limp wristed fairies and I'm sure they like us better too

Do you choose to have children? Why then should insurance have to cover pregnancies? Why should you get huge tax breaks for choosing to have children?