We WANT Republicans to run against "contraception"

[kwc57]

American women will remember who stood up for them in November.

You do realize that abortion and contraception is denied to no women, correct? All they need do is go to an abortion clinic, the pharmacy or send their boyfriend into the rest room at the local truckstop.

This issue has nothing to do with women's rights. It has to do with an overreaching socialist trying to force churches to provide services against their beliefs. Go ahead and try to frame it differently, but you'll just continue to make yourself look even more foolish.

Chris has no idea what a woman is.....unless its a blowup one....

You sir, have been repped!

 

[kwc57]

American women will remember who stood up for them in November.

Believe me, they will.

Who exactly is doing this "standing" and what is it they are standing for? Do you mean that the president wants to force catholic charities to fund abortions for their employees? If that's what you mean, it's another nail in Obama's coffin. Getting knocked up is not a medical condition. If you are too stupid to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, abortions are readily available to any one who wants one.......in many cases, free of charge. Forcing an employer or an insurance company to cover an elective procedure won't fly with any reasonable and responsible American. You see, the adults in the room know that their employer and their insurance company isn't going to pay for your liposuction or your nose job because they are not vital to your health. Having an abourtion is not vital to your health. I realize liberals think the governmnets role is to hold your hand, kiss your boo boo's and fix your problems, but Obama's mistaken and miscalculated stance is going to be remembered by more people against him than the small minority who want a cheap abortion on demand because they didn't have sex in a responsible manner. Get over it.

 

[kwc57]

I haven't seen any Obama ads against any of the GOP candidates. Therefore, who's spending money on ads?

DNC have launched considerable ads against Romney in particular.

Google

Many.

Yeah, but the DNC is just fighting back against some of Romney's distortions against Obama. The big money is being spent by the GOP candidates attacking each other.

Distortions? The man is an abject failure and arguably the worst president this nation has ever seen.

 

[Katzndogz]

American women will remember who stood up for them in November.

Believe me, they will.

Who exactly is doing this "standing" and what is it they are standing for? Do you mean that the president wants to force catholic charities to fund abortions for their employees? If that's what you mean, it's another nail in Obama's coffin. Getting knocked up is not a medical condition. If you are too stupid to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, abortions are readily available to any one who wants one.......in many cases, free of charge. Forcing an employer or an insurance company to cover an elective procedure won't fly with any reasonable and responsible American. You see, the adults in the room know that their employer and their insurance company isn't going to pay for your liposuction or your nose job because they are not vital to your health. Having an abourtion is not vital to your health. I realize liberals think the governmnets role is to hold your hand, kiss your boo boo's and fix your problems, but Obama's mistaken and miscalculated stance is going to be remembered by more people against him than the small minority who want a cheap abortion on demand because they didn't have sex in a responsible manner. Get over it.

Your reasonablness and accumen notwithstanding the entirety of the propaganda coming from the government is that pregnancy is a preventable disease and the cure is abortion.

 

[saveliberty]

I haven't seen any Obama ads against any of the GOP candidates. Therefore, who's spending money on ads?

PACs from BOTH sides. Obama caved. Again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I haven't seen any Obama ads against any of the GOP candidates. Therefore, who's spending money on ads?

You haven't seen any Obama ads because your nose is so far his ass all you can see is his prostate.

FYI, Obama thinks he can win on having won in 2008.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v896_ZvM97Y]The Story of Us: Five Years Ago Today - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is ridiculous. Insurance companies SELL the coverage, and all government is doing is making sure they provide actual service for the money that is paid to them.

You want to ***** about cost? The pharma companies that are allowed to jack the price of medicines sold in the US to the sky are the same ones that still make obscene profits around the world selling the same meds for a tiny fraction of what they cost the society that provided the infrastructure for them to succeed. ***** about that.

Insurance companies generally run a profit margin of a little over 3%, what makes you think they are not providing the service people are paying for? Besides, what Obama said is he wants insurance companies to provide this service to everyone, even if they do not want, or need, it, and they have to do it for free. That is not a service that is being paid for. Unless, of course, you agree I am right and they will actually jack up the price to cover their expenses, in which case I am not sure why you are arguing with me.

FYI, insurance and pharmaceuticals are tow different industries. Come to think of it, the real beneficiaries of this proposal will be the pharmaceutical companies that make birth control. Unless, of course, I am right again and women in America already have access to birth control, in which case everyone but insurance companies and big pharma get screwed.

Seriously, of you want to hurt the companies like you pretend you do you should join me in getting the government to stop propping these industries up.

IF that 3% is accurate, it is only recently, and only because of government regulations. What you consider profit is what's left after advertising, lobbying, etc. That's a faulty method of accounting what is paid out directly in providing (paying out for) the coverage consumers pay for.
This might offer some insight:

The Bomb Buried In Obamacare Explodes Today-Hallelujah! - Forbes

As for:

Besides, what Obama said is he wants insurance companies to provide this service to everyone, even if they do not want, or need, it, and they have to do it for free.

That is not a service that is being paid for. Unless, of course, you agree I am right and they will actually jack up the price to cover their expenses,

No cost will incur for contraceptives not accessed by those covered. It isn't as if the insurance companies are being told to buy pills or condoms and ship them to patients who have no use for them. They are only told that the ability to access such products must be a covered benefit. Since that would go towards meeting their 80%-85% payout quota, it really isn't costing the insurance companies any extra at all. If they do jack up their premiums, it would ultimately bite them in the ass.

And they may be 2 industries, but they sell complementary goods, one sells the products, and the other bets it can sell more coverage than it needs to pay out, in many cases going so far as to deny legitimate claims for fishy reasons. They actually prop each other up, as the existance of private insurance allows the pharmecutical companies to hike their prices in a way that government contracts would never allow, and this gives the insurance companies cover to hike their rates in response.

Recently? Because of regulations? go ahead, prove it, otherwise simply admit that you don't know what you are talking about.

FYI, the fact that 99% of women in the US proves that there is plenty of access to birth control, the mandate is about shifting the cost to other people because the women's lobby thinks it is fair, not because women can't access birth control. Funny thing, when I was married the cost of my wife's birth control came out of my pocket, my guess is that is how it works about half the time when a woman is in a relationship. Can't prove that, and am not actually claiming it is true, but I bet no one can prove otherwise either.

Actually, the insurance industry only started covering prescription drugs recently, before then it was all out of pocket. The government got involved because it wasn't fair that poor people couldn't pay for expensive stuff. Rather than wait until supply and demand brought the cost down they thought they could fix it by making insurance pay for it, which simply drove up the cost of insurance, and actually decreased access to health care. Unintended consequences are so much fun.

I love people that think that free means free, they are so gullible. contact me for a great deal on oceanfront property in Arizona. my emails is thisisascam at scammail dot sucker.

 

[Barb]

Insurance companies generally run a profit margin of a little over 3%, what makes you think they are not providing the service people are paying for? Besides, what Obama said is he wants insurance companies to provide this service to everyone, even if they do not want, or need, it, and they have to do it for free. That is not a service that is being paid for. Unless, of course, you agree I am right and they will actually jack up the price to cover their expenses, in which case I am not sure why you are arguing with me.

FYI, insurance and pharmaceuticals are tow different industries. Come to think of it, the real beneficiaries of this proposal will be the pharmaceutical companies that make birth control. Unless, of course, I am right again and women in America already have access to birth control, in which case everyone but insurance companies and big pharma get screwed.

Seriously, of you want to hurt the companies like you pretend you do you should join me in getting the government to stop propping these industries up.

IF that 3% is accurate, it is only recently, and only because of government regulations. What you consider profit is what's left after advertising, lobbying, etc. That's a faulty method of accounting what is paid out directly in providing (paying out for) the coverage consumers pay for.
This might offer some insight:

The Bomb Buried In Obamacare Explodes Today-Hallelujah! - Forbes

As for:

Besides, what Obama said is he wants insurance companies to provide this service to everyone, even if they do not want, or need, it, and they have to do it for free.

That is not a service that is being paid for. Unless, of course, you agree I am right and they will actually jack up the price to cover their expenses,

No cost will incur for contraceptives not accessed by those covered. It isn't as if the insurance companies are being told to buy pills or condoms and ship them to patients who have no use for them. They are only told that the ability to access such products must be a covered benefit. Since that would go towards meeting their 80%-85% payout quota, it really isn't costing the insurance companies any extra at all. If they do jack up their premiums, it would ultimately bite them in the ass.

And they may be 2 industries, but they sell complementary goods, one sells the products, and the other bets it can sell more coverage than it needs to pay out, in many cases going so far as to deny legitimate claims for fishy reasons. They actually prop each other up, as the existance of private insurance allows the pharmecutical companies to hike their prices in a way that government contracts would never allow, and this gives the insurance companies cover to hike their rates in response.

Recently? Because of regulations? go ahead, prove it, otherwise simply admit that you don't know what you are talking about.

FYI, the fact that 99% of women in the US proves that there is plenty of access to birth control, the mandate is about shifting the cost to other people because the women's lobby thinks it is fair, not because women can't access birth control. Funny thing, when I was married the cost of my wife's birth control came out of my pocket, my guess is that is how it works about half the time when a woman is in a relationship. Can't prove that, and am not actually claiming it is true, but I bet no one can prove otherwise either.

Actually, the insurance industry only started covering prescription drugs recently, before then it was all out of pocket. The government got involved because it wasn't fair that poor people couldn't pay for expensive stuff. Rather than wait until supply and demand brought the cost down they thought they could fix it by making insurance pay for it, which simply drove up the cost of insurance, and actually decreased access to health care. Unintended consequences are so much fun.

I love people that think that free means free, they are so gullible. contact me for a great deal on oceanfront property in Arizona. my emails is thisisascam at scammail dot sucker.

Recently? Because of regulations? go ahead, prove it, otherwise simply admit that you don't know what you are talking about.

Did you click on the link?

Actually, the insurance industry only started covering prescription drugs recently, before then it was all out of pocket.

what the hell is your definition of "recently?!"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oh, I've got it!!

The Dems think we're running against Contraception because we say Obama is such a scumbag!

 

[grunt11b]

People use contraception to limit the size of their families to what they can financially support. They space out the children so the mother can recover between children and so they don't have a lot of babies they can't support all at one time. For many women, contraceptives are also used for health reasons.

The vast majority of women take contraceptives including nearly every women of child bearing age including married women.

Republicans are trying to pick a fight against contraception.

All I can say is "bring it on". It's a fight Democrats welcome.

Contraception is the new abortion for the left. The left cannot win on the abortion issue so they are trying to bait the GOP into being against contraception, which I dont know one GOP member that is. Which brings us to the catholic church issue, because there are no people in the GOP that are against birth control the left needed a launching pad for the fight to begin, the catholic church was perfect for them. Only problem is, for the amount of votes Obama might gain on this subject he will lose twice as many because alot of his voter base was catholic. Kinda shot himself in the foot with that one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

IF that 3% is accurate, it is only recently, and only because of government regulations. What you consider profit is what's left after advertising, lobbying, etc. That's a faulty method of accounting what is paid out directly in providing (paying out for) the coverage consumers pay for.
This might offer some insight:

The Bomb Buried In Obamacare Explodes Today-Hallelujah! - Forbes

As for:

No cost will incur for contraceptives not accessed by those covered. It isn't as if the insurance companies are being told to buy pills or condoms and ship them to patients who have no use for them. They are only told that the ability to access such products must be a covered benefit. Since that would go towards meeting their 80%-85% payout quota, it really isn't costing the insurance companies any extra at all. If they do jack up their premiums, it would ultimately bite them in the ass.

And they may be 2 industries, but they sell complementary goods, one sells the products, and the other bets it can sell more coverage than it needs to pay out, in many cases going so far as to deny legitimate claims for fishy reasons. They actually prop each other up, as the existance of private insurance allows the pharmecutical companies to hike their prices in a way that government contracts would never allow, and this gives the insurance companies cover to hike their rates in response.

Recently? Because of regulations? go ahead, prove it, otherwise simply admit that you don't know what you are talking about.

FYI, the fact that 99% of women in the US proves that there is plenty of access to birth control, the mandate is about shifting the cost to other people because the women's lobby thinks it is fair, not because women can't access birth control. Funny thing, when I was married the cost of my wife's birth control came out of my pocket, my guess is that is how it works about half the time when a woman is in a relationship. Can't prove that, and am not actually claiming it is true, but I bet no one can prove otherwise either.

Actually, the insurance industry only started covering prescription drugs recently, before then it was all out of pocket. The government got involved because it wasn't fair that poor people couldn't pay for expensive stuff. Rather than wait until supply and demand brought the cost down they thought they could fix it by making insurance pay for it, which simply drove up the cost of insurance, and actually decreased access to health care. Unintended consequences are so much fun.

I love people that think that free means free, they are so gullible. contact me for a great deal on oceanfront property in Arizona. my emails is thisisascam at scammail dot sucker.

Recently? Because of regulations? go ahead, prove it, otherwise simply admit that you don't know what you are talking about.

Did you click on the link?

Actually, the insurance industry only started covering prescription drugs recently, before then it was all out of pocket.

what the hell is your definition of "recently?!"

Are you aware that the medical loss ratio and the profit margin are two different things? One requires the insurance agency to figure out how to prevent fraud without actually spending money on preventing fraud, the other is the difference between their revenue and their expenses.

My definition of recently is when "Cadillac" plans for unions became a bargaining point for unions. Companies ended up self insuring because no responsible actuary thought they could make a profit off of covering routine expenses, so the CEOs went to state legislatures and had them order companies to start covering them.

 

[Barb]

QW, None of that answered the questions I asked, or even addressed them. You're talking out of your ass, and you keep changing the subject. It just looks stupid.

So you edited while I was typing. Get a date. provide a link.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QW, None of that answered the questions I asked, or even addressed them. You're talking out of your ass, and you keep changing the subject. It just looks stupid.

Really? You provided a link talking the medical loss ration, did not once mention the profit margin, and assumed that they are the same thing, and I am the one talking out my ass? That is really funny.

If you actually read the article you posted you will see this paragraph.

That would be the provision of the law, called the medical loss ratio, that requires health insurance companies to spend 80% of the consumers’ premium dollars they collect—85% for large group insurers—on actual medical care rather than overhead, marketing expenses and profit. Failure on the part of insurers to meet this requirement will result in the insurers having to send their customers a rebate check representing the amount in which they underspend on actual medical care.

Look at that, they MLR is the amount of money they get to spend out of the premiums they collect on non medical expenses and profit. Insurance companies are actually lobbying to count fraud detection as part of actual medical spending, not administrative costs. No one knows if they will get that or not, but at this point everything I said is true. It is not my fault you don't know enough about the ins and outs of Obamacare to actually follow a discussion about it, but that does not mean I am the one that is talking out of my ass.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Dean sure is stupid.

 

[Valox]

Old, crusty Republicans are always against birth control, but never have a problem with milking the taxpayer to fund their erectile dysfunction problems.

No birth control for you, but I will damn make sure that the taxpayer makes my penis fly at full mast.

 

[grunt11b]

Old, crusty Republicans are always against birth control, but never have a problem with milking the taxpayer to fund their erectile dysfunction problems.

No birth control for you, but I will damn make sure that the taxpayer makes my penis fly at full mast.

Nobody is against birth control, we are however against the government mandating birth control against peoples religious beliefs. It's overbearing and the government is out of pocket with this, and they know it.
It has more to do with taking peoples minds of of obamas failures in the last three years during an election year than it has to do with the issue of contraception itself. Whatever it takes to keep the public mind off of his failures is what they will keep throwing at us. There will be more to come, bet on it.

 

[Barb]

QW, None of that answered the questions I asked, or even addressed them. You're talking out of your ass, and you keep changing the subject. It just looks stupid.

Really? You provided a link talking the medical loss ration, did not once mention the profit margin, and assumed that they are the same thing, and I am the one talking out my ass? That is really funny.

If you actually read the article you posted you will see this paragraph.

That would be the provision of the law, called the medical loss ratio, that requires health insurance companies to spend 80% of the consumers’ premium dollars they collect—85% for large group insurers—on actual medical care rather than overhead, marketing expenses and profit. Failure on the part of insurers to meet this requirement will result in the insurers having to send their customers a rebate check representing the amount in which they underspend on actual medical care.

Look at that, they MLR is the amount of money they get to spend out of the premiums they collect on non medical expenses and profit. Insurance companies are actually lobbying to count fraud detection as part of actual medical spending, not administrative costs. No one knows if they will get that or not, but at this point everything I said is true. It is not my fault you don't know enough about the ins and outs of Obamacare to actually follow a discussion about it, but that does not mean I am the one that is talking out of my ass.

on actual medical care rather than overhead, marketing expenses and profit.

That was what I was talking about, in re "only recently," as far as the 3% profit margin you claimed, and the idea that I'm saying its the same thing:

What you consider profit is what's left after advertising, lobbying, etc. That's a faulty method of accounting what is paid out directly in providing (paying out for) the coverage consumers pay for.

I don't give a rats ass if the bag men driving up the cost of health care in America (in tandem with the drug companies) make less money because of MLR, and the idea that the MLR has no dircect relation TO the profit margin is assinine.

Your ass, talking out of it.

Fraud detection is not providing a service to the consumer, but a way for providers to weasel out of coverage, and it belongs in administration.

 

[saveliberty]

Fraud detection is not a consumer service? It controls costs and in doing so, keeps expenses down, which in turn keeps premiums lower. As far as profit goes, there is gross profit and net profit. The 3% would be a net figure and that has always been after expenses like advertising. Americans are driving up the costs of healthcare with their unhealthy life styles, love of law suits and willingness to spend during an end of life event.

 

[teapartysamurai]

We get it. This is why Stephanopolus peppered Romney with the "can states ban birth control."

This is why Obama is trying to force free birth control on Catholic Hospitals and how to force insurance companies to pay for it.

You want to convince people with the fictitious fear that Republicans want to ban birth control.

So, here's the thing.

Give me ONE EXAMPLE of a Republican Gov, President, Congressman, etc, EVER banning birth control and you will have your argument.

Until then, this is all just BS fear mongering by a desperate president who can't run on his own record, because his own record SUCKS.

So, bring it. Give us the examples.

My guess is, there will stuipid quotes of Santorum from six years ago. There will be NO EXAMPLES OF Republicans trying to ban birth control. There will be total silence. OR there will be just the usual sputtering from outraged liberals because no one should ever dare pin them down on their total preposterous lies.

Bring it libs. I'm waiting. I know I won't get a straight answer.

PS, ABORTION IS NOT BIRTH CONTROL. That's infanticide. There are plenty of methods of birth control that prevents conception.

You know why you libs have changed the subject to birth control. You have lost the argument on abortion. Most people are against it now.

You started the subject, so don't change it, because someone's pinned you down on it. BIRTH CONTROL. Give us the examples.

I'm waiting, but I won't hold my breathe.

 

[kwc57]

Old, crusty Republicans are always against birth control, but never have a problem with milking the taxpayer to fund their erectile dysfunction problems.

No birth control for you, but I will damn make sure that the taxpayer makes my penis fly at full mast.

Seriously? If you're this stupid, perhaps you should be on pinterest instead of posting in a political forum. Provide for us one name of a Republican "against" birth control........and abortion doesn't count. Hell, I'll even make it easy for you and expand your search to include state as well as federal. Of course, along with the name, you'll need to provide a linkable quote. Go ahead, we'll wait. Put up or shut up.