Sandra Fluke's Testimony - Here it is. Watch so you will not look like such a fool~

[Skull Pilot]

The only form of birth control that can be used for purposes other than birth control is the pill.

That is not true.

When she mentioned the one female with the ovary problem the pill was the only thing she could have been talking about.

The pill probably would have been prescribed as the best option. But a vaginal ring could have also probably done the trick. The vaginal ring costs over $4000 a year, and may be the best option for a given woman, based on her particular circumstances. Furthermore, that is only one example. Birth control medications have a several other applications. It can also be possible that one particular form of birth control is the best option for a woman, as opposed to another form of birth control in addition to a second medication to treat a secondary issue. This is what it comes down to....birth control is a normal and common medical practice, for a variety of reasons. The decision of what method(s) of birth control a woman uses is something to be decided between her and her doctor. Women who are attempting to lead healthy lives should not be impeded simply because someone out there has a religious objection to her pursuit of healthy living.

Therefore she's a lying slut when she said birth control was 3000.00

No, you're just uninformed. Man, I really hate when people imply that men don't have a right to have opinions on issues like abortion. But idiots like you and the others on this thread make me start to at least understand where women are coming from when they suggest those things. It's becoming increasingly clear that alot of men really are entirely clueless when it comes to women's reproductive health issues. Not that I expect men to understand such things to the same degree that women do. But God damn, this kind of ignorance is absolutely shameful.

If a woman needs hormone therapy then all that had to be done is to prescribe hormone therapy.

That infertility is a side effect won't be a problem.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I doubt it.

You'd doubt the nose on your face if it said something that even slightly disagreed with you on anything.

On the other hand, I am sure they like charging people $10 bucks for what they can get at WalMart for $4. So, please, keep insisting they cover bandages, it only makes my point.

With the thoughts that you'd be thinking you could be another Lincoln if you only had a brain.

 

[boilermaker55]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that intelligence falls on deaf ears around here.

Stupid people rarely know they're stupid.

Her argument is stupid. You don't recognize that, so what does that make you???

In other words, after a well thought out statement, you aren't able to come up with anything better to rebuke her position. So, you'll just write it off, calling it "stupid," which gives you an excuse to ignore it outright an refuse to address it, while continuing to inspect your own prostate up close for its own cysts.

Individuals like him have no real arguement against reason. Their ploy, to insult and ridicule. And if you show them their medicine they don't get it either.

 

[Dot Com]

people in koshergirls thread have obviously not listened to her testimony. They're going by what oxyRush said

 

[Inthemiddle]

Not just untrue, but completely untrue.

No, it's completely true. I understand that you don't have the first clue about this stuff. But that doesn't make it untrue. You're better not to wade into these waters. You don't know how any of this works. You haven't the first idea.

Funny how we just passed a law that is designed to completely remake the health care market and you want to argue that the government is not the one that is responsible for everything that they have done to screw up the market.

Oh, so things just got bad? Where have you been? The problems have been there for a very long time.

Really? When I pay the insurance company my money actually goes to the insurance company?

Why can't you simply be honest about what people are saying, instead of misrepresenting their statements just so you can tear down the straw man? How about you address what I actually said, which is the fact that the insurance companies pay THEMSELVES for your health care, more than they pay to the doctor. If your policy covers $20,000 in health services, you'll only receive about $6,667 in services before they cut you off. It's like going to the grocery store to buy a gallon of milk, and the store taking back 2/3 of the gallon after you've paid for it. No wonder it's so damn expensive anymore.

No other alternative? really? They are forced to do business with insurance companies? Does that include the doctors that take Medicare/Medicaid? Or the ones who accept indigent patients at no charge? How about the ones that accept cash?

In the grand scheme of things, the amount of patients who either pay cash or are seen by a doctor free of charge is a miniscule minority. And these patients end up having limitations on the total care they can receive. Now, if we move on and actually address what I said, most patients will not have their health care needs met by a singular doctor. There will be times when their primary care physician needs to refer them to a specialist.

Why does that matter? Well, I've already explained it, but I'll try one more time with a slightly different example. Let's say that you have catastrophic coverage, and you pay for primary care out of pocket. Your primary care doctor refers you to a specialist because you've developed an odd grown somewhere on your body. The specialist diagnoses you with cancer, and prescribes a treatment regimen, which is going to end up costing $100,000. But guess what? You think that your catastrophic coverage is going to cover it? Nope! You know why? Because the referral didn't come from a doctor that the insurance company does business with. So, they're going to reject your claim, and make you pay out of pocket for EVERYTHING. And if you try to go back to a different doctor to get the initial referral, do you know what they are going to say? They're going to REJECT your claim, as a pre-existing condition! Because now they have evidence that you knew you had cancer before you ever sought treatment.

This is how the insurance companies essentially force doctors to do business with them. Because under such limitations a doctor cannot sustain his business. Would you go to a primary care doctor, if that's what was going to happen to you if you ever became seriously sick or injured? Of course not.

I expect that, at some point, you are going to tell me insurance companies actually make money off of people.

When have I ever said anything against people making profit? Point out one time. OTHERWISE SHUT THE **** UP AND STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH THAT I NEVER SAID, PAINTING ME WITH A FONT 7 SIZED BRUSH TO COMPLETELY TWIST AND MANIPULATE MY WORDS INTO SOMETHING THEY ARE NOT.

Doesn't exist? Insurance companies can actually control reality? Or do we actually live in a matrix where people only see what the computer wants them to see?

This is your favorite M.O. isn't it?

If your girlfriend actually manages a doctors office, why don't you ask her how much time the office spends filling out forms that are Medicare compliant, and then ask her how much they would save if patients came in and paid for doctor's visits out of pocket.

Actually, we've had this discussion already several times. The number one drag on the office's resources is THE INSURANCE COMPANIES. I see you've completely ignored how she spent nearly 48 hours just battling with them over one patient, who nearly died in the process. Medicare has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

[Inthemiddle]

And birth control on average still does not cost $1000 a year. She represented that it did.

No she didn't. She said it can cost over $3000 over the course of law school.

More rationalizing. She said birth control without any specifics.

The fact that she didn't go into specific forms of birth control makes it a flat out lie for you to try debunking her statement with a singular type.

No I'm sticking with the belief that the person, institution or employer that provides insurance can choose any policy they want to subsidize.

Yes they can. Nobody has challenged whether they can. The question is whether it's good public policy, or whether new public policy needs to be brought forth.

If you or anyone else has a problem with that policy then you can find another place to get subsidized insurance.

Which is exactly what Ms. Fluke addressed in her closing. There is no reason why one should be forced to choose between adequate health coverage and a quality education.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that intelligence falls on deaf ears around here.

Stupid people rarely know they're stupid.

....But, that kind of self-reflection is your first-step towards age-appropriate Maturity.

Congratulations!!!!!

​

 

[Si modo]

And birth control on average still does not cost $1000 a year. She represented that it did.

No she didn't. She said it can cost over $3000 over the course of law school.

More rationalizing. She said birth control without any specifics.

The fact that she didn't go into specific forms of birth control makes it a flat out lie for you to try debunking her statement with a singular type.

No I'm sticking with the belief that the person, institution or employer that provides insurance can choose any policy they want to subsidize.

Yes they can. Nobody has challenged whether they can. The question is whether it's good public policy, or whether new public policy needs to be brought forth.

If you or anyone else has a problem with that policy then you can find another place to get subsidized insurance.

Which is exactly what Ms. Fluke addressed in her closing. There is no reason why one should be forced to choose between adequate health coverage and a quality education.

And, there is no obligation that Georgetown accept her.

They did, and she accepted the terms.

 

[Inthemiddle]

And, there is no obligation that Georgetown accept her.

They did, and she accepted the terms.

So, that makes it somehow inappropriate for her to advocate for improvements in public policy? I don't get this "they don't have to, they don't have to" argument. No shit they don't have to. Nobody has said they do. Nobody has said that anyone has been denied something that the school is required to allow. The question is whether public policy is adequate, whether upcoming changes to public policy provide a benefit to the public.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

OK. Here's the link.

Sandra Fluke's Controversial Birth Control Testimony - YouTube

It is pretty clear to me that most who are discussing this have not heard her testimony.

Right wingers don't care about the truth. They still insist women in Iraq are now free have happy. You can tell by the expression on their faces. See?

The veil of American Liberation descends upon Iraqi Women - University graduation ceremony

The issue at question here has nothing to do with women's health, reproductive rights or anything remotely connected to it.

So, Ms. Fluke was speaking outta-place, huh....that she was simply interfering with what the congressmen were already deciding what was best, for her, huh??

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Stupid people rarely know they're stupid.

Her argument is stupid. You don't recognize that, so what does that make you???

In other words, after a well thought out statement, you aren't able to come up with anything better to rebuke her position. So, you'll just write it off, calling it "stupid," which gives you an excuse to ignore it outright an refuse to address it, while continuing to inspect your own prostate up close for its own cysts.

I rebuked her stupid argument on other threads.

I know what she's doing. And it isn't begging for someone to pay for her rubbers.

What she's trying to do is claim that all of these women's accusations are true when they cannot be proven. She's testifying in front of Congress with hearsay and speculation. It would be laughed out of court if she tried that hogwash. She claims some girl told her this and another told her that. She expects us to believe that BC cost her $3000. I hope she kept all of her receipts.

I think you're lying.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

OK. Here's the link.

Sandra Fluke's Controversial Birth Control Testimony - YouTube

It is pretty clear to me that most who are discussing this have not heard her testimony.

Right wingers don't care about the truth. They still insist women in Iraq are now free have happy. You can tell by the expression on their faces. See?

The veil of American Liberation descends upon Iraqi Women - University graduation ceremony

Tell that to Obama as he ignored the reprisals in the election that vaulted "ImainaJhihad" back into power...

Said Obama..."...We cannot intervene...." When no one was asking him to...but just to side with Liberty of those people...

Yeahhhhhh......I think you're lying, too.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

anyone care what some 30 year old professional college student has to say?

my gawd, like she is an EXPERT on something

what a JOKE

Your Envy is showing.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that intelligence falls on deaf ears around here.

No, just the stupidity of this dumb ass chick and her tales of woe because somebody told her they have to pay for their own contraceptives to the tune of $3k falls on deaf ears. But shit-for-brains like you lap it up....

This Fluke broad.....

You Porky Limbaugh fans are toooooooooooooooo obvious.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

anyone care what some 30 year old professional college student has to say?

my gawd, like she is an EXPERT on something

what a JOKE

Some of us do...and need to point out the use of tools as her...as we knock her out of the park? The Statists will find another "sob story" to foist upon us...

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

anyone care what some 30 year old professional college student has to say?

my gawd, like she is an EXPERT on something

what a JOKE

Really.. 30 and just starting Law School? Did you read what her undergrad degrees are in?

Yeah.....how much-more satisfying & fulfilling her Life would be....if she'd pursued a more-traditional track....

 

[Si modo]

And, there is no obligation that Georgetown accept her.

They did, and she accepted the terms.

So, that makes it somehow inappropriate for her to advocate for improvements in public policy?

....

I'm wondering where I said it was inappropriate.

I don't get this "they don't have to, they don't have to" argument. No shit they don't have to. Nobody has said they do. Nobody has said that anyone has been denied something that the school is required to allow. The question is whether public policy is adequate, whether upcoming changes to public policy provide a benefit to the public.

Actually, I am saying that the administration should respect the First Amendment. It's a higher law than Obamacare.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

anyone care what some 30 year old professional college student has to say?

my gawd, like she is an EXPERT on something

what a JOKE

Really.. 30 and just starting Law School? Did you read what her undergrad degrees are in?

She's a shill to distract the rest of us.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The issue at question here has nothing to do with women's health, reproductive rights or anything remotely connected to it.

The issue is whether or not the government is allowed under law to force a religion to do something that is in direct opposition to its beliefs and teachings.

Haven't you railed endlessly about the wisdom of the separation of Church and State?

Typical Liberal. No law can be equally applied to all.

Oh please. Spare me. From Catholic Charities they admit that nearly 70% of ALL their funding come from the government. 28 states already had the same exact law in place with 8 states requiring the church also cover contraception. Where did Obama get this "law"? From the ******* Republicans.

Remember when they screamed he should be involved in Libya. Then they screamed when he did.

Remember when they screamed he hadn't got Bin Laden, then the fuckers tried to take credit when he did.

Remember when Republicans screamed that Obama should close Gitmo and then screamed when he started the proceedings.

Remember when Republicans screamed that we should get out of Iraq and then screamed when Obama began drawing down.

They want the first black president to fail. If Obama said he was against eating babies, Republicans would insist they should be on the menu.

“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” ~Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, (R-Ky.), October 2010

Here, ya' go.....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc]Mitch McConnell: Top Priority, Make Obama a One Term President - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Inthemiddle]

I'm wondering where I said it was inappropriate.

That seems to be your implication. If it's not, then I'm confused. Are you saying that she should not have gone to Georgetown? I'm not sure what, exactly, your objection is here.

Actually, I am saying that the administration should respect the First Amendment. It's a higher law than Obamacare.

First of all, Congress passes laws, not the President. Second, the first amendment isn't being violated by the law. The only violation of the first amendment would be for religious entities to be given a magical exception to the law. The health care law is a law of general applicability, that does not have anything to do with any inherently religious activities. How can it be a violation of the first amendment?