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

[UpAndAbout]

course any liberal/Democrat who instead wants conctraception they can't afford should have it - what about 3 generations we'll be rid of Democrats.

UpAndAbout - This makes no sense and has no basis in reality. Period.

Sigh! Just wishful thinking!!

 

[Dr Grump]

That's nice.

Pay for your own *******

Uncensored, are you covered by medical insurance?

If so, are you aware that if a sexually active couple who wants no kids, in your insurance pool, is irresponsible and gets pregnant because they don't use contraception, you will have to pay for that?

Do you tell them to "pay for your own *******" in that scenario too, and petition your insurance company not to pay for the costs of pregnancy?

Do you at least agree that by insurance covering the BC pill, you and the entire insurance pool will be protected to a degree from the financial risk of an unwanted pregnancy?

Are you going to pay for my sons fees for his football team? That is recreation, too, no?

I can't for the life of me see why anybody should pay for somebody else's rubbers.

I'm going to the movies tomorrow night. You wanna pay for my ticket? Yet, another recreational activity.

Your argument seems to be based around "if you don't pay for my contraception and I get knocked up then you pay more". How about you take personal responsibility for your own sex?

 

[KevinWestern]

That's nice.

Pay for your own *******

Uncensored, are you covered by medical insurance?

If so, are you aware that if a sexually active couple who wants no kids, in your insurance pool, is irresponsible and gets pregnant because they don't use contraception, you will have to pay for that?

Do you tell them to "pay for your own *******" in that scenario too, and petition your insurance company not to pay for the costs of pregnancy?

Do you at least agree that by insurance covering the BC pill, you and the entire insurance pool will be protected to a degree from the financial risk of an unwanted pregnancy?

Are you going to pay for my sons fees for his football team? That is recreation, too, no?

I can't for the life of me see why anybody should pay for somebody else's rubbers.

I'm going to the movies tomorrow night. You wanna pay for my ticket? Yet, another recreational activity.

Your argument seems to be based around "if you don't pay for my contraception and I get knocked up then you pay more". How about you take personal responsibility for your own sex?

It's called protecting oneself from risk. I will suffer personally when some irresponsible person who wants no kids has unprotected sex and gets knocked up. I have to pay for their bad decision, because my insurance pool will have to cover the costs of that pregnancy, which could cost anywhere from $12k - $100k. I will suffer, because if this happens enough premiums go up - for everyone, including me - despite the fact it's not me having unprotected sex.

BC pills are a mechanism to curb against this risk, which at a cheap price tag reduces the amount of unwanted and costly pregnancies in the overall insurance pool that I am a part of.

Movie ticket? If I pay for that what risk am I protecting my insurance pool from?

None.

Pay for your son's football team? Again what risk would that action protect the insurance pool from?

None.


Why is it so insanely difficult to get across the concept of protecting oneself from risk? Why can't you grasp this?

 

[Dr Grump]

[

It's called protecting oneself from risk. I will suffer personally when some irresponsible person who wants no kids has unprotected sex and gets knocked up. I have to pay for their bad decision, because my insurance pool will have to cover the costs of that pregnancy, which could cost anywhere from $12k - $100k. I will suffer, because if this happens enough premiums go up - for everyone, including me - despite the fact it's not me having unprotected sex.

BC pills are a mechanism to curb against this risk, which at a cheap price tag reduces the amount of unwanted and costly pregnancies in the overall insurance pool that I am a part of.

Movie ticket? If I pay for that what risk am I protecting my insurance pool from?

None.

Pay for your son's football team? Again what risk would that action protect the insurance pool from?

None.


Why is it so insanely difficult to get across the concept of protecting oneself from risk? Why can't you grasp this?

But you are also taking away ones personal responsiblity to have responsible sex.

Oh, I get the concept, I just disagree with it. BTW, I'm a centrist here, not a conservative. I also come from NZ but live in Australia and I've been telling people about this thread and they can't believe that insurance is to cover contracpetion.

To a person they have said "Why don't they pay for it themselves".

Also, the costs of having a baby down here are a lot cheaper than up there. Cost us virtually nothing to have both my sons at our National Woman's Hospital in NZ. Before you say, well 'it cost the taxpayer'..you're right it did. But I've paid taxes for 28 years, so I think I'm covered...;o)

 

[GoneBezerk]

Coulter ***** slapped that.....SLUT.

 

[KevinWestern]

[

It's called protecting oneself from risk. I will suffer personally when some irresponsible person who wants no kids has unprotected sex and gets knocked up. I have to pay for their bad decision, because my insurance pool will have to cover the costs of that pregnancy, which could cost anywhere from $12k - $100k. I will suffer, because if this happens enough premiums go up - for everyone, including me - despite the fact it's not me having unprotected sex.

BC pills are a mechanism to curb against this risk, which at a cheap price tag reduces the amount of unwanted and costly pregnancies in the overall insurance pool that I am a part of.

Movie ticket? If I pay for that what risk am I protecting my insurance pool from?

None.

Pay for your son's football team? Again what risk would that action protect the insurance pool from?

None.


Why is it so insanely difficult to get across the concept of protecting oneself from risk? Why can't you grasp this?

But you are also taking away ones personal responsiblity to have responsible sex.

Oh, I get the concept, I just disagree with it. BTW, I'm a centrist here, not a conservative. I also come from NZ but live in Australia and I've been telling people about this thread and they can't believe that insurance is to cover contracpetion.

To a person they have said "Why don't they pay for it themselves".

Also, the costs of having a baby down here are a lot cheaper than up there. Cost us virtually nothing to have both my sons at our National Woman's Hospital in NZ. Before you say, well 'it cost the taxpayer'..you're right it did. But I've paid taxes for 28 years, so I think I'm covered...;o)

Believe me, in a perfect world where everyone takes every effort to have sex responsibly, I wouldn't argue so diligently for insurance covered BC pills. My aim is not to give people free BC because I'm a thoughtful guy.

This isn't a perfect world, and at the end of the day people are going to make bad decisions within my insurance pool. After a few drinks, people get frisky and the next thing you know 9 months later there's a baby. However, if you can get those high risk people on BC, I think everyone in the insurance pool will benefit overall. I'm approaching this in a purely mathematical, statistical sort of way.

In a perfect world where people didn't break into your home at night, I wouldn't have to invest $30 in a baseball bat to protect myself. You can (with good intention) say that people need to learn personal responsibility and not break into homes, but at the end of the day... it's going to happen anyways. Therefore I invest in ways to protect from this risk.

Again, I'm not arguing for BC pill coverage to benefit the lives of the people who get access to them as a result; I'm arguing for coverage because it's going to protect ME and everyone else in my pool from higher premiums.

But anyways, I guess we agree to disagree.

 

[saveliberty]

KW your theory is a fail. These not responsible people are going to take the birth control as prescribed? Why do you think they can do one thing but not another?

 

[BlindBoo]

Coulter ***** slapped that.....SLUT.

And then that "SLUT" turned to Ann and offer her thre other cheek.......

 

[KevinWestern]

KW your theory is a fail. These not responsible people are going to take the birth control as prescribed? Why do you think they can do one thing but not another?

Point is, if it's covered, more likely it will be used.

Studies that I've read back up the claim, and find that for every $1 an insurance company spends on BC, it saves on average about $2-$6 in the long run by not having to pay for pregnancy.

I believe I posted the link earlier.

 

[Dr Grump]

Believe me, in a perfect world where everyone takes every effort to have sex responsibly, I wouldn't argue so diligently for insurance covered BC pills. My aim is not to give people free BC because I'm a thoughtful guy.

This isn't a perfect world, and at the end of the day people are going to make bad decisions within my insurance pool. After a few drinks, people get frisky and the next thing you know 9 months later there's a baby. However, if you can get those high risk people on BC, I think everyone in the insurance pool will benefit overall. I'm approaching this in a purely mathematical, statistical sort of way.

In a perfect world where people didn't break into your home at night, I wouldn't have to invest $30 in a baseball bat to protect myself. You can (with good intention) say that people need to learn personal responsibility and not break into homes, but at the end of the day... it's going to happen anyways. Therefore I invest in ways to protect from this risk.

Again, I'm not arguing for BC pill coverage to benefit the lives of the people who get access to them as a result; I'm arguing for coverage because it's going to protect ME and everyone else in my pool from higher premiums.

But anyways, I guess we agree to disagree.

I would love to see the stats of unwanted pregnancies vis-a-vis those that actually have insurance - especially amongst teenagers...

 

[saveliberty]

KW your theory is a fail. These not responsible people are going to take the birth control as prescribed? Why do you think they can do one thing but not another?

Point is, if it's covered, more likely it will be used.

Studies that I've read back up the claim, and find that for every $1 an insurance company spends on BC, it saves on average about $2-$6 in the long run by not having to pay for pregnancy.

I believe I posted the link earlier.

No, your point was we need to help prevent irresponsible pregnancies. Your theory requires them to be responsible about taking birth control as prescribed. A contradiction to be sure.

Further, you don't require them to be responsible in paying for the medicine. Paying makes it far more likely they will use it.

 

[KevinWestern]

KW your theory is a fail. These not responsible people are going to take the birth control as prescribed? Why do you think they can do one thing but not another?

Point is, if it's covered, more likely it will be used.

Studies that I've read back up the claim, and find that for every $1 an insurance company spends on BC, it saves on average about $2-$6 in the long run by not having to pay for pregnancy.

I believe I posted the link earlier.

No, your point was we need to help prevent irresponsible pregnancies. Your theory requires them to be responsible about taking birth control as prescribed. A contradiction to be sure.

Further, you don't require them to be responsible in paying for the medicine. Paying makes it far more likely they will use it.

No, my point is that BC pill coverage protects an insurance pool against the risk of unwanted pregnancies. Yes, irresponsibility plays into that, but not everyone who has an unwanted pregnancy is necessarily irresponsible overall (maybe I overemphasized that word earlier). If you're on a really tight budget, you might just choose to "take the risk" and not go on the pill, even though overall you're a generally responsible person.

Either way, believe what you want to believe, I'm getting burnt out on this subject.

Quick snippet from a website before I retire, with data that backs my projection that it pays for insurance to invest in contraceptives in order to reduce costs overall:

*Numbers based off research performed by both the Guttmacher Institute and the Brookings Institute. Brookings Institute is apparently relatively well respected for their unbiased and independent research.

"Yet, although the costs of contraception can be daunting for individual women, insurance coverage of contraceptive services and supplies—both public and private—actually saves money. Guttmacher Institute research finds that every public dollar invested in contraception saves $3.74 in short-term Medicaid expenditures for care related to births from unintended pregnancies. In total, services provided at publicly funded family planning centers saved $5.1 billion in 2008. (Significantly, these savings do not account for any of the broader health, social or economic benefits to women and families from contraceptive services and supplies and the ability to time, space and prepare for pregnancies.) A 2010 Brookings Institution analysis came to the same conclusion, and projected that expanding access to family planning services under Medicaid saves $4.26 for every $1 spent"

Off to sleep.



The Case for Insurance Coverage of Contraceptive Services And Supplies Without Cost-Sharing
.
.
.
.

 

[Salt Jones]

That ship has sailed, right-wingers. You have already lost this battle and the war, but please continue arguing the benefits of Betamax.

Nobody cares what you think.
The ship that has sailed is liberal control of Capitol Hill. It ends in November.
Hey Salty...It was claimed in November of 2008 that since the new President was a black guy, everything was gonna be roses for black people. How's that working out for ya?
Oh that's right. He has told you he needs "just one more term" and he's going to make it all better. Because "yes, I had other things going on, but I ma here for you now. Please vote for me this November"....
What is the difference between a politician who makes all kinds of promises and then does nothing and a two bit carnival charlatan?....Nothing.

It is working great for me and my family. I just got my son a job that starts out at $35 an hour. I did 20 years in the Navy and had a job before my terminal leave ended. I'm making 6 figures working in the defense industry. Everyone in my family is either working, in school or in my parents case, retired. This has been a great decade for the Salt Jones crew.

Everything is roses for MY black people, because we said **** whoever the president is, we determine our own fate.

 

[saveliberty]

Point is, if it's covered, more likely it will be used.

Studies that I've read back up the claim, and find that for every $1 an insurance company spends on BC, it saves on average about $2-$6 in the long run by not having to pay for pregnancy.

I believe I posted the link earlier.

No, your point was we need to help prevent irresponsible pregnancies. Your theory requires them to be responsible about taking birth control as prescribed. A contradiction to be sure.

Further, you don't require them to be responsible in paying for the medicine. Paying makes it far more likely they will use it.

No, my point is that BC pill coverage protects an insurance pool against the risk of unwanted pregnancies. Yes, irresponsibility plays into that, but not everyone who has an unwanted pregnancy is necessarily irresponsible overall (maybe I overemphasized that word earlier). If you're on a really tight budget, you might just choose to "take the risk" and not go on the pill, even though overall you're a generally responsible person.

Either way, believe what you want to believe, I'm getting burnt out on this subject.

Quick snippet from a website before I retire, with data that backs my projection that it pays for insurance to invest in contraceptives in order to reduce costs overall:

*Numbers based off research performed by both the Guttmacher Institute and the Brookings Institute. Brookings Institute is apparently relatively well respected for their unbiased and independent research.

"Yet, although the costs of contraception can be daunting for individual women, insurance coverage of contraceptive services and supplies—both public and private—actually saves money. Guttmacher Institute research finds that every public dollar invested in contraception saves $3.74 in short-term Medicaid expenditures for care related to births from unintended pregnancies. In total, services provided at publicly funded family planning centers saved $5.1 billion in 2008. (Significantly, these savings do not account for any of the broader health, social or economic benefits to women and families from contraceptive services and supplies and the ability to time, space and prepare for pregnancies.) A 2010 Brookings Institution analysis came to the same conclusion, and projected that expanding access to family planning services under Medicaid saves $4.26 for every $1 spent"

Off to sleep.



The Case for Insurance Coverage of Contraceptive Services And Supplies Without Cost-Sharing
.
.
.
.

It seems you discount poor kids as only a burden on society and not potential positive contributors. You also tap danced around my comments poorly.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And I'm going to bet that a) couples having sex as an expression of love and bonding aren't going through $1000 a year in birth control

How do you figure?

I'd argue that the more loving and fiery your relationship is, the more you'll spend on contraception.

If you express your love 4 times weekly, and don't want a kid yet, you'd probably find it in your best interest to invest in some form of contraception to protect yourselves.

If you sleep in a separate bed than your spouse, when faced with the contraception investment you'd probably say "screw it", why spend on contraception? ....we don't have sex anyways.

Loving and fiery? Fine. $1000 a year? I know hookers and nymphos who don't spend that much on contraception. Where the hell are these Georgetown hoochies shopping, anyway?

 

[Cecilie1200]

People can screw whether birth control is available or not

The issue is responsible family planning and it is in societies best interests that unwanted children be kept to a minimum

No hate larger than calling another human being unwanted.

What kind of sick bastard EVER thinks of a baby as "unwanted"? "Unplanned", maybe, but "unwanted"?

 

[Cecilie1200]

As opposed to you, who believes they don't think at all.

 

[saveliberty]

People can screw whether birth control is available or not

The issue is responsible family planning and it is in societies best interests that unwanted children be kept to a minimum

No hate larger than calling another human being unwanted.

What kind of sick bastard EVER thinks of a baby as "unwanted"? "Unplanned", maybe, but "unwanted"?

I see some are using "unintentional" now. What? They didn't know what they were doing?

 

[Cecilie1200]

And, of course, liberals are pro-choice....as long as it is a choice they want. Let someone chose something they don't like and all of a sudden, they are not so pro-choice.

Same can be said about the Republicans.

Specifically, many social Christian conservatives will preach "keep government involvement out of my life!", yet at the same time support candidates who want to use the government to outlaw practices that are deemed "sinful" - such as gay marriage, or in the recent case of Santorum - "hardcore pornography".

Whoa up there, buddy. How do you "outlaw" something that has never before existed? If you want to talk about the heinous Republicans opposing homosexual "marriage", then I will thank you to do so clearly and honestly, not with this disingenuous horseshit about "outlawing" it, as though we were all going along happily, everyone getting state-sanctioned marriage certificates to whomever they wanted, until BAM! those bastard Republicans suddenly decided out of the blue to pass laws against it.

Every time you use sloppy, dishonest catch phrases like that, you're putting up a huge, neon sign over your head, flashing "Liar here! Not worth debating! Ignore me, please!"

Be honest, or get lost.

 

[Salt Jones]

No hate larger than calling another human being unwanted.

What kind of sick bastard EVER thinks of a baby as "unwanted"? "Unplanned", maybe, but "unwanted"?

I see some are using "unintentional" now. What? They didn't know what they were doing?

I prefer unwanted, it fits the case.