Ann Coulter gives Sandra Fluke and her supporters a reality check.

[BlindBoo]

And the American Taliban Right fell for it right on queue.

Nah, Rush is a mole. Deep under cover mole

Last week you fascists claimed he was a pimple on the ass of America, now he's a mole..

Can't your handlers make up the hive-mind?

Hang in there. New orders are just now coming in. I'll let you know in a sec.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, but the Catholic church is providing Viagra as that too is part of the healthcare they provide through insurance.

Nope.

Why is that not mentioned?

Because it's just part of your Big Lie.

Does it not strike you as odd that it is only women who are under attack by the right? Not sure what Goebbels has to do with the lack of support and consideration for a woman's personal life?

Psst, there is no attempt to outlaw birth control. sparky.

Oh, but you know this - you're just doing your part in the Big Lie.

Does Obama have the authority to piss on the constitution and force the Catholic Church to give out contraceptives? Can you of the left FINALLY put an end to that pesky First Amendment?

Well, the Big Lie is what you're banking on as the mega-weapon in your war against the constitution...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Let us not forget about all the GOP politicians that want to have sex without getting their interns pregnant.....

So, what is the exact wording of the law that outlaws birth control?

What? There is no such law? You're just doing Big Lie in support of Obama's war on the First Amendment?

Color me shocked...

A leftist wanting to crush civil rights. as uncommon as an ant that is drawn to sugar....

 

[Disturbed1]

No, but the Catholic church is providing Viagra as that too is part of the healthcare they provide through insurance. Why is that not mentioned? Does it not strike you as odd that it is only women who are under attack by the right? Not sure what Goebbels has to do with the lack of support and consideration for a woman's personal life?
****************************************************************

Viagra is not for the same purpose as birth control pills or any other form of birth control. The Catholic Church is morally opposed to anything that stops procreation from happening. Any interference with that goes against what they believe to be God's natural law. Viagra on the other hand is for something else entirely and not necessarily against what the Catholic Church believes in. People who compare the two and put them on the same "level" so to speak are obviously ignorant.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Uncensored, I get the part about saying the government doesn’t have a right to tell an employer that they can’t ban their employees from receiving safe and effective contraceptive – I get that – you can save the lecture, because I sympathize and understand that point of view. It’s completely valid.

What’s not valid is when people take the approach, “why should I have to pay out of pocket so that you can get contraceptives, so you can have sex”… ie the financial approach. They claim that by adding BC pill coverage as an insurance option, this is going to somehow drive premiums up.

I disagree.

Kevin;

I'm not a Catholic. I don't give any money to the Catholic Church. This has zero effect on me financially.

What I am is a Libertarian, I support civil liberties. Obama launched a war against the Catholic Church in November, this is just a continuation of that war. And the reality is that the real war isn't against the Catholics, but against the First Amendment. That wall of separation is supposed to work both directions - Obama is tearing it down and dictating the policies of churches.

I think that it will drive premiums down, because it will reduce the amount of UNWANTED pregnancies. Why would this drive premiums down? Because a pregnant woman is much costlier to an insurance company than a non-pregnant woman on the pill.

Even if you're right, I don't care.

I won't sacrifice the bill of rights for lower premiums.

The less costlier people you have in your pool, the less your premiums will be overall.

So that’s my point.

Do you agree with my reasoning?

My issue is civil rights and protecting the constitution. It is under direct assault by the administration. My effort is to do what I can to stop them from destroying the constitution.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't agree with the idea of forcing insurance companies to "have to do things" (as that can get dangerous), but it's my opinion that the insurance company is only setting itself up for higher costs down the road if they do not offer this option.

Everyone says "I don't want to pay for her pill"! But guess what, does anyone realize that means you're probably going to pay for her baby?

The pill falls under the category of a "preventative" in my book. Giving birth, having a baby, and all that stuff that comes along with it will make you a much more expensive customer over the next 18 years vs if you were to simply take the pill for the next 18 years.

An emphasis on good preventative care and procedure will reduce health care costs across the entire system.

Unfortunately, the Fluke argument has been politicized into oblivion, and instead of talking about what we should be talking about - what good preventative care can do for our system (and I'm not saying we need a mandate for this either) - we're talking about Rush saying the word "slut" in an offensive manner. We always get sidetracked into pointlessness - it's the American way!

What "I don't want to pay for it" actually means is "I don't want to be FORCED to pay for it whether I want to or not". Although admittedly, I'm not always thrilled with the stupid stuff insurance companies sometimes decide to cover, as long as it's THEIR decision, and MY decision whether or not to insure with them, it's all good. The objection here, however much it's phrased quickly and in shorthand, is the intervention of government to make things be a certain way.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let's all just hold hands and attack each other, starting with an Ann Coulter hatorade article. Ready? Oh, you've all started w/o me. : (

STARTING with Ann Coulter? No, sorry. This started with "I need to ****, and you need to pay for it. If you don't want to pay for my *******, you hate women!"

Cecilie – Let's frame this up so you can understand it.

Insurance pool is 10 people, and 1 is a woman who doesn’t want to get pregnant. She’s going to have sex, no way you can stop her (sorry, it’s America).

Would you rather:

(A) Pay a slightly higher premium so that the woman can have birth control and remain unpregnant ($1,000 cost to insurance).

(B) Pay a much higher premium when that woman becomes pregnant, and uses insurance to cover all pregnancy costs for that year ($50,000+ cost to insurance)

Get it?

You're going to have to pay for her sex either way, whether you like it or not. And because we can't escape this fact, I'd argue the much smarter option is (A), because it's drastically cheaper.

Why would you pick (B), and why do you think you're somehow exempt from paying for her pregnancy bills?

Now I sympathize why people would be opposed to the gov't forcing the insurance company to do something, but you don't take that approach. You take the approach of "why do I have to pay for her....", which I just want to let you know is a weak and crappy one (in my view).
.
.
.
.

Kevin, let's frame this up so YOU can understand it.

Just because something is a good idea does NOT make it a good idea for the government to force people to do it. Brushing my teeth after every meal saves my dental insurance lots of money, but that doesn't make it a good idea for it to be required by law.

When you catch on to the actual topic of conversation, son, you let me know, okay?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Jesus Christ......it's just birth control, it's been around for fifty years

Why the sudden GOP outrage that women actually want to have sex without getting pregnant?

The right seems to believe that all decisions regarding procreation and women's health should be determined by middle-aged, white males.

And apparently, so do you, since you're not a woman, and yet you're still talking about it.

 

[koshergrl]

No, but the Catholic church is providing Viagra as that too is part of the healthcare they provide through insurance. Why is that not mentioned? Does it not strike you as odd that it is only women who are under attack by the right? Not sure what Goebbels has to do with the lack of support and consideration for a woman's personal life?
****************************************************************

Viagra is not for the same purpose as birth control pills or any other form of birth control. The Catholic Church is morally opposed to anything that stops procreation from happening. Any interference with that goes against what they believe to be God's natural law. Viagra on the other hand is for something else entirely and not necessarily against what the Catholic Church believes in. People who compare the two and put them on the same "level" so to speak are obviously ignorant.

 

[uscitizen]

Either way, someone else is paying for it.

No they're not, genius.

Insurance companies charge premiums. Then they pay out claims out of the premiums collected.

It is truly astounding how many conservatives on this board have proven in the last week or two that they do not comprehend that simplest of concepts.

How can you not know that? Seriously, could you answer that question?

Are you under the impression insurance companies keep SEPARATE records deducting the cost of medical care from the individual's premiums -as if they stop coverage once the amount reaches what you paid in your premiums or something? Sorry, premiums go into the company's general revenues and they only stop paying if you hit your lifetime maximum in benefits which is many times more than all premiums you will ever pay.

There is no such thing as "free" -someone ends up footing the bill. This entire exercise is about who foots that bill -those who want birth control pills. Or those who don't. That is what this is ALL ABOUT -because there is NO SUCH THING AS "FREE". Obama says those who don't want birth control pills should be forced to pay for them so those who do want them don't have to. That is it in a nutshell. It is forcing those who don't want birth control pills to pay for them. It means their own premiums go up in order to pay for the "free" birth control pills someone else wants. So YES, it is actually being paid for by other people, most of whom don't want birth control pills. That cost is going to be in the MILLIONS. Which is definitely NOT free.

Seriously I'm amazed at how little liberals understand about how insurance works. On top of which I wonder about their ability to spot a contrived, phony, manufactured issue for what it really is. Because THIS is a totally manufactured phony ass issue. If liberals believe it is so important to ORDER employers and insurance companies to provide "free" ANYTHING -why birth control pills of all possible things? Why not "free" HEART MEDICATION instead? Or "free" insulin? Or "free" high blood pressure medications? Or "free" LIFE SAVING TREATMENT OF ANY KIND? Instead it is once again the left's agenda of forcing Americans to subsidize social immorality by insisting women have a "right" to **** carefree on the dime of someone else. Obama's choice in what he ORDERED to be "free" and even went so far as to order that NO co-pay may be charged so that the people who want them are at least paying more for them than I am -speaks VOLUMES here. Same old shit it always is with liberals.

Of ALL the very real, very serious and even dangerous issues confronting this country at this time-a liberal needs to explain why they SUDDENLY fell in line with an issue that was totally nonexistent just a few weeks ago and now want to pretend birth control pills is a national issue that supersedes all others? Hmm? This is the kind of thing that only reinforces my already very low opinion about the intelligence and critical thinking skills of liberals anyway. If this is what Obama thinks is going to motivate his extremist base and get them out by the millions on election day -he badly miscalculated and in fact took a major hit in the polls from women themselves because of this bullshit manufactured issue. Normal people know in the grand scheme of things, THIS is not what the election will turn on whatsoever. But in the world of liberal extremists who believe people are in general stupid and easily led around by the nose, it once again highlights what a disgustingly low opinion the left has of people and in particular women -as to believe their vote could be bought for a lousy $9 a month. Oh sure, offer women the opportunity to **** more carefree at the expense of someone else - and they will overlook our unsustainable debt, the impending collapse of scores of unaffordable entitlement programs and Congress' nonstop out of control spending spree that has put this country on the fast track to end up exactly like Greece. Just a bunch of dumb bitches in the world of liberals -just cows who will MOOO on command, right? Except they didn't and they won't.

Auto insurance and homeowners and all forms of insurance is the same way.
A pooled risk factor.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The right seems to believe that all decisions regarding procreation and women's health should be determined by middle-aged, white males.

Incorrect. As usual. It's more about mandates that force others to pay for it. You try to make it sound as though middle-aged white males are keeping contrceptives from women. Which is simply not true adn worse, trying to move the subject to something it is not.

Typical progressive.

The advisory panel, for the Blunt amendment, was certainly all middle-aged white males. As for mandates to the healthcare insurance industry, this is nothing new. Telling that industry what baseline services they must provide is a necessary and just function of government.

But your logic is lacking. Should interstate providers of healthcare insurance not be forced to provide prostate screening, because women have no need of it? That's your essential argument. The bottom line remains. The only prescription drugs that the right wingers want excluded from the health insurance baseline is female contraceptives.

Y'know, asshole, since Gabby Giffords resigned, every single elected representative I have is male, and off the top of my head, I believe they're all white and middle-aged. I elected them, with the help of my fellow constituents, to speak for me. That is MY choice, as a woman. Who the **** elected YOU to speak for me, or any other woman, that you feel it's okay to barge in and impose YOUR ideas of what's good for women and what women should want over that of the officials I elected? Those "middle-aged white males" that you're constantly bitching and moaning about have the imprimatur of MY vote. What claim to legitimacy do YOU have, Penis Breath?

 

[uscitizen]

No, but the Catholic church is providing Viagra as that too is part of the healthcare they provide through insurance. Why is that not mentioned? Does it not strike you as odd that it is only women who are under attack by the right? Not sure what Goebbels has to do with the lack of support and consideration for a woman's personal life?
****************************************************************

Viagra is not for the same purpose as birth control pills or any other form of birth control. The Catholic Church is morally opposed to anything that stops procreation from happening. Any interference with that goes against what they believe to be God's natural law. Viagra on the other hand is for something else entirely and not necessarily against what the Catholic Church believes in. People who compare the two and put them on the same "level" so to speak are obviously ignorant.

Viagra is generally used as a recreational drug not a procreational one.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The right seems to believe that all decisions regarding procreation and women's health should be determined by middle-aged, white males.

Incorrect. As usual. It's more about mandates that force others to pay for it. You try to make it sound as though middle-aged white males are keeping contrceptives from women. Which is simply not true adn worse, trying to move the subject to something it is not.

Typical progressive.

But I think what's lost in this whole debate is - would you rather pay for the woman's pill, or the woman's pregnancy? Both are covered by insurance, and one of them costs a whole lot more than the other.

This concept seems to be lost by the "typical right winger".

What's lost in your blather is that I'd rather it continue being MY CHOICE which I'd rather, and the choice of the other individual citizens involved.

You really have trouble focusing on the topic, don't you?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Neither.

If you are covered by medical insurance, you have no choice. Your insurance company will pay for her pregnancy. Do you realize that?

While we all realize that the government, at the behest of the left, is whittling away at all of our free choices where insurance is concerned, it is still a matter of personal choice whether to insure with that company in the first place. Do YOU realize THAT, and just exactly how much do you hate the existence of that remaining freedom?

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Ann Coulter" and "reality" should never be used in the same sentence. Just sayin' . . .

YOU should never try to tell others about reality. Just sayin' . . .

 

[Dick Tuck]

Jesus Christ......it's just birth control, it's been around for fifty years

Why the sudden GOP outrage that women actually want to have sex without getting pregnant?

The right seems to believe that all decisions regarding procreation and women's health should be determined by middle-aged, white males.

And apparently, so do you, since you're not a woman, and yet you're still talking about it.

My position ought to be clear enough. Women's medical decisions, including reproductive rights, ought to be left up to the woman. If she wants to include others in helping her make that decision, be it husband, church, politician, that's up to her.

 

[KevinWestern]

Incorrect. As usual. It's more about mandates that force others to pay for it. You try to make it sound as though middle-aged white males are keeping contrceptives from women. Which is simply not true adn worse, trying to move the subject to something it is not.

Typical progressive.

But I think what's lost in this whole debate is - would you rather pay for the woman's pill, or the woman's pregnancy? Both are covered by insurance, and one of them costs a whole lot more than the other.

This concept seems to be lost by the "typical right winger".

What's lost in your blather is that I'd rather it continue being MY CHOICE which I'd rather, and the choice of the other individual citizens involved.

You really have trouble focusing on the topic, don't you?

I get the point of the topic, but there seems to be two arguments those in opposition to contraceptive coverage are using:

1.) It’s wrong for the government to force employers to include cheap, safe, effective, and cost-saving contraception within their insurance plans. Valid.
2.) I don’t want to pay the additional premium to cover your BC pill, ‘why do I have to pay extra for you to have sex’. Invalid.

Why is 2 invalid? Because what the “2” argument fails to understand is that pill coverage will likely have the opposite effect – premiums will go down. This is because the pill is a cheap way to protect the insurance company against the potential costs associated with a pregnancy. With contraception coverage, I project that the overall amount of cash an insurance company will have to dish out each year overall will be less than without contraception coverage (because there will be less pregnancies in the pool), and therefore premiums will either remain the same or go down.

So how am I getting off topic? I see many examples of people using the “2” argument.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Jesus Christ......it's just birth control, it's been around for fifty years

Why the sudden GOP outrage that women actually want to have sex without getting pregnant?

Let us not forget about all the GOP politicians that want to have sex without getting their interns pregnant.....

Hey, when one of our guys gets a staff member pregnant and then drowns her in an Oldsmobile, perhaps we'll all be interested in your moralizing on the subject . . . although I really doubt it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The right seems to believe that all decisions regarding procreation and women's health should be determined by middle-aged, white males.

And apparently, so do you, since you're not a woman, and yet you're still talking about it.

My position ought to be clear enough. Women's medical decisions, including reproductive rights, ought to be left up to the woman. If she wants to include others in helping her make that decision, be it husband, church, politician, that's up to her.

Your position IS clear enough. "Conservative men should shut the **** up, while enlightened liberal men like me guide these poor, stupid twats into doing the things I think are good for them." **** you very much, and please take your penis elsewhere and mind your own damned business.

If you're going to continue talking about how middle-aged white males - the phrase that keeps leaping from your keyboard ad nauseam - should have no say in "women's reproductive choices", then THAT INCLUDES YOU . . . especially since, unlike elected officials, NO ONE ******* ASKED YOU.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I love the progressives in this thread - they go hate-mongering again.

Progressives have certainly progressed idiocy..

Progressives need to take their fat lazy asses to a pond and fish there..