L@@K! Killer deal! Birth control pills $9/month at Target!!! IN-STOCK

S

Spokker

CAGiversary!
Just got back from my local Target and birth control pills are $9 without insurance with presription. This is a great time for you guys to stock up while away at college. I called Walmart and they do price match.

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/02/14782...arget-sells-pills-for-9-a-month?device=iphone

Normally $3,000 per year, this markdown will set you back around $300 per year instead, though you may want to wait for the Steam summer sale.

So this is a great time to save on birth control while not imposing your views on the $63,000/year university you attend.
 
[quote name='Spokker']Just got back from my local Target and birth control pills are $9 without insurance with presription. This is a great time for you guys to stock up while away at college. I called Walmart and they do price match.

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/02/14782...arget-sells-pills-for-9-a-month?device=iphone

Normally $3,000 per year, this markdown will set you back around $300 per year instead, though you may want to wait for the Steam summer sale.

So this is a great time to save on birth control while not imposing your views on the $63,000/year university you attend.[/QUOTE]
Hey asshole. I have a question for ya and I don't expect you to know because you have a cock(eventhough you seem pretty dickless to me), but how much does it cost to get a prescription if you don't have insurance?
 
[quote name='dohdough']Hey asshole. I have a question for ya and I don't expect you to know because you have a cock(eventhough you seem pretty dickless to me), but how much does it cost to get a prescription if you don't have insurance?[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure it costs less than $63,000 per year. I'm sure it costs less than the student health plan. If only there were private organizations that voluntarily help with this problem.

You guys don't understand how good of a deal this is. I even found a Target that will sell you it for $4 a month.

http://m.plannedparenthood.org/mt/w...rg/mn-nd-sd/free-birth-control-4now-15607.htm

CHECK YOUR STATE YMMV
 
The degree to which the issue moved so quickly from religious rights (with no discussion of medical prudence) to economic impact/medical prudence (with no discussion in religious rights) is astonishing.

It says quite a bit about the desire of people to simply be both incurious and correct (i.e., anything but a genuinely curious intellectual endeavor appreciating discovery, complexity, and multiple angles of an issue) that they would so shamelessly move the goalposts in order to pursue the same misogynistic goals.

If you don't realize the goalposts have even shifted, however, and continue to pursue the same right agenda - congratulations, you are a puppet.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The degree to which the issue moved so quickly from religious rights (with no discussion of medical prudence) to economic impact/medical prudence (with no discussion in religious rights) is astonishing. punishing slutty slut sluts[/QUOTE]

Right wingers live in such a world of lies they have trouble keeping track.
 
I love contraception. Best invention ever. Way better than the toaster, which is overrated. With half of health care plans in the United States already covering contraception (so you have a choice of plans), forcing everybody to cover it regardless of need is another one-size-fits-all approach that is inefficient. Roughly half the states already require insurers to cover routine birth control, which is where it should be decided.

http://www.healthinsurancerates.com/56-birth-control-and-health-insurance.html

Covering routine medication, especially if it's cheap, is not the primary function of insurance. Insurance is meant to cover those catastrophic and unexpected conditions that can bankrupt you otherwise. You don't get insurance for oil changes for your car. When we picked out our pet insurance plan, we did not get the plan that covers routine care like exams. What the insurance is for is to help you save your cat when they get hurt or get cancer.

Requiring insurers and private organizations to cover these things might raise premiums for everyone whether they need the services or not (the studies are inconclusive so far). But look, if a company wants to offer it, and many do, you can choose to get it.

As for the specific story, we have a 30-year-old feminist activist, not an innocent little co-ed thrust onto the national scene and courageously testified in front of congress, who enrolled in a Jesuit university for the sole purpose of challenging their policies. Ironically, Obama's plan would not help student with the kind of health plans Fluke has. Ironically, Georgetown University already offers a health plan that covers contraception for employees.

It's a big production. But she's untouchable because Rush Limbaugh called her a slut.
 
[quote name='Spokker']I'm pretty sure it costs less than $63,000 per year. I'm sure it costs less than the student health plan. If only there were private organizations that voluntarily help with this problem.

You guys don't understand how good of a deal this is. I even found a Target that will sell you it for $4 a month.

http://m.plannedparenthood.org/mt/w...rg/mn-nd-sd/free-birth-control-4now-15607.htm

CHECK YOUR STATE YMMV[/QUOTE]
So you expect a tiny organization like Planned Parenthood, at a time when conservatives are trying to destroy it, to provide ob/gyn services to all the uninsured women in the United States? Are you also aware that many women can't take generics and require them to regulate their menstral cycles?

[quote name='Spokker']I love contraception. Best invention ever. Way better than the toaster, which is overrated. With half of health care plans in the United States already covering contraception (so you have a choice of plans), forcing everybody to cover it regardless of need is another one-size-fits-all approach that is inefficient. Roughly half the states already require insurers to cover routine birth control, which is where it should be decided.

http://www.healthinsurancerates.com/56-birth-control-and-health-insurance.html[/QUOTE]
Do you know how the fuck an organization even gets a group policy? So what happens if an employer doesn't choose a group policy that covers birth control? Not much of a choice there, skippy.

I bet it's mostly red states that doesn't require it.

edit3: Did you even read your link?
 
[quote name='dohdough']So you expect a tiny organization like Planned Parenthood, at a time when conservatives are trying to destroy it, to provide ob/gyn services to all the uninsured women in the United States?[/quote]

https://secure.ppaction.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=pp_ppol_Nondirected_OneTimeGift

Are you also aware that many women can't take generics and require them to regulate their menstral cycles?
Click to expand...
They will be required to pay more.

Do you know how the fuck an organization even gets a group policy? So what happens if an employer doesn't choose a group policy that covers birth control? Not much of a choice there, skippy.
Click to expand...

If the employer based coverage doesn't offer it, get the exam (probably covered) and pay for the $9/month birth control yourself.

What these mandates say to me is that women are so fucking stupid that they can't get or take their birth control unless it is literally shoved into their faces. But I simply don't believe such misogynistic ideas.

Best advice is to support companies that offer contraception coverage and don't support companies that, say, offer cover Viagra and not birth control pills.
 
[quote name='Spokker']
Covering routine medication, especially if it's cheap, is not the primary function of insurance. Insurance is meant to cover those catastrophic and unexpected conditions that can bankrupt you otherwise. You don't get insurance for oil changes for your car. When we picked out our pet insurance plan, we did not get the plan that covers routine care like exams. What the insurance is for is to help you save your cat when they get hurt or get cancer.

[/QUOTE]

Why do we bother covering pregnancy and birth then? How come no one is coming out against that?
 
[quote name='soulvengeance']Why do we bother covering pregnancy and birth then? How come no one is coming out against that?[/QUOTE]
Not sure. That tends to be a choice, not a sudden catastrophic condition. So I'm the wrong guy to ask, but again, I have no problem with a company offering a menu of plans that cover different things, both catastrophic and routine, or catastrophic and not routine, or whatever it takes. My problem is the federal government interfering in these markets. Republicans were just as bad supporting Medicare Part D/Prescription Drug Act.
 
How about instead of stating what you believe, you post something proving there is value in the so-called markets for healthcare.

There was a multi-year "discussion" on the subject, no right winger in the entire country was able to argue a point. Care to try?
 
[quote name='dohdough']If charity was an effective policy, we wouldn't need a social safety net.[/quote]If only everyone were as generous as conservatively minded people. They are tops in giving. I don't consider myself a conservative, but I top my hat to them on that. I think it has more to do with religion though, as religious people tend to be most charitable (including religious liberals, but there are less of them). Still, as an atheist I tip my hat to them too.

In other words, $9 a pack is an invalid metric of the true cost of procuring birth control.
Click to expand...
Because some people must pay more, because some people are poorer than others, is not a valid reason to issue a mandate that everybody be covered. I have no problem with means-tested programs as a compromise, but the majority of the country isn't impoverished (yet).

The average health insurance costs about $250 per month for an individual, but people would rather spend their money on iPads, cable, downloads of games, music and movies, Starbucks, eating out, etc. Everybody loves to talk about how hard up they are for cash, but if you really look into the finances of the average person, they can carve out $250 in their budget to get health insurance. But they choose not to in order to enjoy other things in life. That's a choice, and that's fine. You don't have health insurance but you have a $600 tablet. God bless.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']Right wingers live in such a world of lies they have trouble keeping track.[/QUOTE]

I am pro-abortion, pro-legalization of all drugs, anti-war, pro raising the gas tax, just to name a few things. I'm also weary of more drilling, I am for public transportation (and this where I do my volunteer work) and I hope renewable energy is embraced as the price of oil increases.

Implying that I am a right-winger is simply inaccurate, and feeds into the whole red vs. blue nonsense. I hold socially liberal views (with the exception of maybe race, where I am more of a realist), and fiscally moderate positions.

Principled positions may imply I hate all women, blacks and gays, but I believe in equal opportunity (NOT equality), and I want to scale down the size of government, but not entirely.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Spokker']I am pro-abortion, pro-legalization of all drugs, anti-war, pro raising the gas tax, just to name a few things.

Implying that I am a right-winger is simply inaccurate, and feeds into the whole red vs. blue nonsense. I hold socially liberal views (with the exception of maybe race, where I am more of a realist), and fiscally moderate positions.

Principled positions may imply I hate all women, blacks and gays, but I believe in equal opportunity (NOT equality), and I want to scale down the size of government, but not entirely.[/QUOTE]

Oh god, I really don't want to pull an UncleBob, but I would be absolutely fascinated to know what " hold socially liberal views (with the exception of maybe race, where I am more of a realist)" really fucking means.

Actually, on second thought I can figure it out and any confirmation will just end up pissing me off.
 
What it means is that while I personally support gay marriage for me and my state, and I don't care what people do in the bedroom, I don't think it is the federal government's job to get involved in marriage.

In terms of race, I think that it is the government policies of welfare and affirmative action that have decimated the black family and helped to destroy inner cities. But I also don't discount the culture that infects the "ghetto." My views align with economist Walter E. Williams here. The most succinct way I can put it in 2012 is this, poor blacks have no one to blame but themselves.

You know, in the 60s I would have been an extremist on the issue of race, but in 2012 I would be called a racist.
 
[quote name='Spokker']I am pro-abortion, pro-legalization of all drugs, anti-war, pro raising the gas tax, just to name a few things. I'm also weary of more drilling, I am for public transportation (and this where I do my volunteer work) and I hope renewable energy is embraced as the price of oil increases.

Implying that I am a right-winger is simply inaccurate, and feeds into the whole red vs. blue nonsense. I hold socially liberal views (with the exception of maybe race, where I am more of a realist), and fiscally moderate positions.

Principled positions may imply I hate all women, blacks and gays, but I believe in equal opportunity (NOT equality), and I want to scale down the size of government, but not entirely.[/QUOTE]

You can try to argue with Msut... but, by his logic, if you don't agree with any part of his worldview, you are a "con." ;)

I love how the majority of our country is so devoted to this Democrat vs. Republican charade... while ignoring important issues.
 
Another funny angle to this is what a lot of people were complaining that only men were testifying about contraception, and I sort of got that. I don't agree with federal involvement in this but you must have the differing views on the record about whatever issue is being discussed.

So then they get a female witness to this, and she not only misrepresents herself but she lies through her teeth. Then she cries when someone criticizes her. And boy, oh boy, they think they are going to boycott him, get him off the air and make him apologize as if he were a pussy like John and Ken.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201203...tersForAmerica-All+(Media+Matters+for+America)

Nope.

[quote name='BigT']
I love how the majority of our country is so devoted to this Democrat vs. Republican charade... while ignoring important issues.[/QUOTE]There's actually a world of inbetween positions. If I say I'm against affirmative action I get replies that I'm a retarded neocon and blah blah blah. If I say I oppose drilling in the United States, I get replies that I'm a dirty hippy. If I say I believe in the free market system, then I get replies that I'm a lolbertarian.

And in all cases, if I express one opinion, then I *must* believe everything else that supposedly goes with that opinion. But it's common and I guess it could make posting more fun.
 
[quote name='Spokker']she lies through her teeth. Then she cries when someone criticizes her.[/QUOTE]

She = liar.

Rush Limbaugh = critic.

This kind of framing is why people don't buy that you're as middle of the road as you claim. This is the internet, you can be whatever you want. But your language is revealing.

A man who calls someone "slut," who jests that she should record her sexual escapades as compensation to taxpayers, and who either misunderstands or deliberately misrepresents oral contraception (a pill that must be taken daily without respect to frequency or duration of intercourse) as indicating she is having sex thrice daily, every day - that person is merely a "critic" to you?

And someone who points out that a college plan does not cover contraception, when the college plan does not cover contraception, is "lying through her teeth?"

You have no shame, no matter how moderate you think you are or simply claim to be.

EDIT: It's also impressive that you parried around the point of the goalposts having been moved. Is this matter about religious freedom or finances? It's been one, it's been the other, but it's not been both at the same time. That speaks to how insincere reasonable people see the conservative issue here.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']She = liar.

Rush Limbaugh = critic.[/quote]She said that birth control is $3,000 per year. Either she's very ignorant or a liar. If Rush Limbaugh lied then say so. I'm not stopping you. But one is testifying and one is not.

It doesn't actually matter what birth control is for, though. Look, when I've got problems I go to Walgreens and get the medication I need (though I try not to take too much medication) and that's it. I don't go advocate that someone else be forced to give it to me, especially something so inexpensive.

Look, my girlfriend's mother who is the wife of a deceased Vietnam vet and on Medicare can't get dental work covered. We have to pay out of pocket. You can't have anything covered for you.

EDIT: It's also impressive that you parried around the point of the goalposts having been moved. Is this matter about religious freedom or finances? It's been one, it's been the other, but it's not been both at the same time. That speaks to how insincere reasonable people see the conservative issue here.
Click to expand...
For me the economic issue is more interesting, but I'm not going to interfere with religious freedom over $9/month. I don't want to interfere in markets for $9/month. Just because someone is good doesn't make it okay to just mandate it. But I think it'll pass because of what Rush Limbaugh said. No one can touch her now. Most people, if they were opposed, will not speak out for fear of being compared with him.

I don't know about goalposts though. This is the first time I've posted about the contraception issue anywhere. I think it's all kind of silly and a real distraction from the national debt, spending, wars and the erosion of civil liberties, but if you can't beat 'em...
 
[quote name='Spokker'] As for the specific story, we have a 30-year-old feminist activist, not an innocent little co-ed thrust onto the national scene and courageously testified in front of congress, who enrolled in a Jesuit university for the sole purpose of challenging their policies. Ironically, Obama's plan would not help student with the kind of health plans Fluke has. Ironically, Georgetown University already offers a health plan that covers contraception for employees.

It's a big production. But she's untouchable because Rush Limbaugh called her a slut.[/QUOTE]

Link to where she states that was her intention? I don't read the conserva blogs but I'm sure they've been camped outside her house for days to get info on her.
 
[quote name='Spokker'] But one is testifying and one is not.[/QUOTE]

I am pretty sure she was not allowed to testify.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Link to where she states that was her intention?[/QUOTE]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...tives-hearing/2012/02/16/gIQAJh57HR_blog.html

Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage: She researched the Jesuit college’s health plans for students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not included. “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,” says Fluke, who has spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue. The issue got the university president’s office last spring, where Georgetown declined to change its policy.
Click to expand...
Are there not other schools that are just as good as Georgetown? Georgetown is so desirable to her, the education so great, even though they are so backwards on contraception? I would not go to Georgetown because it would not be the right fit for me. I would go to a school that was more active in providing information and assistance with health issues, including reproductive health.

Why does she insist on changing them?

In any case, birth control is a private decision for both those who wish to use it and those who wish to provide/sell it. Not all women take birth control for various reasons, there are some side effects, and it would be ill-advised to force every plan to include it. If I were a health insurance provider, I would offer a wide range of plans, some that include, others that don't, among other things.
 
I checked, she wasn't initially allowed to testify. She was invited to testify at a second hearing.

Also, you aren't a health insurance provider. You obviously know very little about anything to do with healthcare.

Insurance companies can actually save money by offering birth control coverage.

Birth control is a private decision, but you want to take it out of the private sphere.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I checked, she wasn't initially allowed to testify.[/QUOTE]

This is correct. Nancy Pelosi later put together a hearing in which she testified.

I agree with any opinion that says it was unwise not to get female views on contraception at the first hearing (though I wonder why we are arguing about this at all!). I remember watching the Daily Show clip on the subject and exclaiming to my girlfriend, "Haha look at this. No women were invited to this thing."

Having said that, I would have liked to see female views both from those who support it as well as oppose it. Not all women believe the same things. Remember, there is plenty of female support for Gingrich and Santorum, a kind of "voting against your best interests" type of thing among those who hold those views. However, I believe they are free to believe as they believe.
 
[quote name='Spokker']She said that birth control is $3,000 per year. Either she's very ignorant or a liar. If Rush Limbaugh lied then say so. I'm not stopping you. But one is testifying and one is not.[/quote]

Critic and liar are not the only options.

First off, saying someone is a liar assumes that they knowingly misspoke. If you have access to her sources of data, and that she had access to the information about birth control at target (wonderfully sourced via an unnamed employee saying so, but I digress), then please tell us how she is a liar.

A "critic" is someone who levies legitimate critiques. If I say that Rush Limbaugh is a poo-poo pants, I'm not a critic, I'm just a jerk. If I say that he is on wife #4 and still at child #0, so he's well aware of the costs of birth control - or that he's so wealthy the cost doesn't effect him enough to be bothered by it - therefore his accrued wealth making him so out of touch with the true cost of medical care in this country that he has no perspective with which to empathize or condemn average citizen concerns for care - that's a critique. That's what a critic would say. But to put "slut" on that same page? Silly. It shows that you claim to be reasoned and moderate, yet your debate tactics are of a "give no quarter, admit no wrongdoing, double down and refuse to consider otherwise" variety. Which is not the telltale sign of a reasoned, curious mind. It demonstrates severe incuriosity, in fact.

It doesn't actually matter what birth control is for, though. Look, when I've got problems I go to Walgreens and get the medication I need (though I try not to take too much medication) and that's it. I don't go advocate that someone else be forced to give it to me, especially something so inexpensive.
Click to expand...

PPACA passed. We do not need to go down the path of debating it again. Your quote above is ideological and not rooted in reality. When does "something so inexpensive" cease being so inexpensive so as to expect that insurance ought to cover it? What is the dollar amount that covers that?

For me the economic issue is more interesting, but I'm not going to interfere with religious freedom over $9/month. I don't want to interfere in markets for $9/month. Just because someone is good doesn't make it okay to just mandate it. But I think it'll pass because of what Rush Limbaugh said. No one can touch her now. Most people, if they were opposed, will not speak out for fear of being compared with him.
Click to expand...

Religious orgs balked at the idea of their insurance covering contraception. Obama said "fine, you don't have to cover it. Now all insurance plans have to cover and pay for contraception. Hope you're happy, religion." The roundabout solution was the very result of groups wanting to erode what medical coverage they could offer or deny.

That's the funny thing, and what led to the shifting goalposts, actually. Religious orgs didn't want to pay for it, and Obama said "okay, you don't have to pay for it, because it's going to be included at the insurance companies' expense now!" - and Obama took the blame, not the religious groups. Which of the two fucked it up for everyone? Which of the two?

I know what you'll say, but I will enjoy watching you squirm out of assigning any blame to the Catholic church for this. Now, if the church just said "we can't afford that birth control premium, because our kid-fucking fund has run dry," this might have just been economic all the way.

I don't know about goalposts though. This is the first time I've posted about the contraception issue anywhere. I think it's all kind of silly and a real distraction from the national debt, spending, wars and the erosion of civil liberties, but if you can't beat 'em...
Click to expand...

Ooooh, a deficit hawk, are we? Pay more attention to Europe right about now. See what discussions and conclusions came out of Davos. Look at the annual and aggregate deficit and debt trends (and GDP, and productivity measures, and unemployment measures) for countries who have been preaching and practicing austerity for half a decade or longer. See if you're still into that "free market" thing afterwards, or if you're truly the moderate, rational, intellectual you claim to be, and facts actually pierce the bubble you're typing from.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
First off, saying someone is a liar assumes that they knowingly misspoke. If you have access to her sources of data, and that she had access to the information about birth control at target (wonderfully sourced via an unnamed employee saying so, but I digress), then please tell us how she is a liar.[/quote]If she is such a student of contraception she would know what it costs. The source is not just an anonymous employee. Here's another source: http://www.reproductiveaccess.org/contraception/lowcost_pills.htm

A "critic" is someone who levies legitimate critiques. If I say that Rush Limbaugh is a poo-poo pants, I'm not a critic, I'm just a jerk.
Click to expand...
If you say mean things, you are wrong. I get it. She is the winner here. Her cause is just. She is going to be even more successful after this. The president of the fucking United States called her to see if she was okay. Maybe his next call should be to Lin after what Mayweather said. Tell you what, though, one thing I like about Lin, he didn't get all butthurt after those "racist" comments. He shrugged it off, didn't call for anyone's job, and kept on doing what he's doing, kicking ass on the court.

Say whatever you want about Rush Limbaugh. If I thought she was a slut I would have said it, so clearly I don't agree with Limbaugh on that. On the other hand, I am not offended by anything he said.

When does "something so inexpensive" cease being so inexpensive so as to expect that insurance ought to cover it? What is the dollar amount that covers that?
Click to expand...
Catastrophic injuries or sudden illness. But there are plans to cover less expensive things and half the states already mandate it.

Religious orgs balked at the idea of their insurance covering contraception. Obama said "fine, you don't have to cover it. Now all insurance plans have to cover and pay for contraception. Hope you're happy, religion." The roundabout solution was the very result of groups wanting to erode what medical coverage they could offer or deny.
Click to expand...
It's still a government mandate and those who are against government mandates are going to be against that too.

I know what you'll say, but I will enjoy watching you squirm out of assigning any blame to the Catholic church for this. Now, if the church just said "we can't afford that birth control premium, because our kid-fucking fund has run dry," this might have just been economic all the way.
Click to expand...
I have no desire to defend the Catholic church. I'm an atheist and I dislike them and their organization. I think their teachings result in many unwanted children and irresponsibility about safe sex. I'm just not into forcing them to cover contraception. It's up to people, if they so choose, to convince their followers to put on a condom or take a pill. Though I stick with condoms because birth control can still have side effects and it's something to discuss with a doctor.

Ooooh, a deficit hawk, are we? Pay more attention to Europe right about now. See what discussions and conclusions came out of Davos. Look at the annual and aggregate deficit and debt trends (and GDP, and productivity measures, and unemployment measures) for countries who have been preaching and practicing austerity for half a decade or longer. See if you're still into that "free market" thing afterwards, or if you're truly the moderate, rational, intellectual you claim to be, and facts actually pierce the bubble you're typing from.
Click to expand...
And then there are the examples of Greece and Japan. The debate will not end anytime soon. But let's talk about $9/month pills instead.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Why do you think this makes sense?[/QUOTE]

Why do I think it makes sense that someone who is against government mandates is going to be against a government mandate? I think it's pretty self-explanatory.
 
[quote name='Spokker']If only everyone were as generous as conservatively minded people. They are tops in giving. I don't consider myself a conservative, but I top my hat to them on that. I think it has more to do with religion though, as religious people tend to be most charitable (including religious liberals, but there are less of them). Still, as an atheist I tip my hat to them too.


Because some people must pay more, because some people are poorer than others, is not a valid reason to issue a mandate that everybody be covered. I have no problem with means-tested programs as a compromise, but the majority of the country isn't impoverished (yet).

The average health insurance costs about $250 per month for an individual, but people would rather spend their money on iPads, cable, downloads of games, music and movies, Starbucks, eating out, etc. Everybody loves to talk about how hard up they are for cash, but if you really look into the finances of the average person, they can carve out $250 in their budget to get health insurance. But they choose not to in order to enjoy other things in life. That's a choice, and that's fine. You don't have health insurance but you have a $600 tablet. God bless.[/QUOTE]
In other words, charity isn't enough and the $9 metric is not a good one. As for the ipad example, its a one time expense of $600 for the 32gb version that most people don't buy and health insurance is a recurring monthly expense. If you're going to parrot Santorum, at least pick a more challenging issue.
 
[quote name='Spokker']Why do I think it makes sense that someone who is against government mandates is going to be against a government mandate? I think it's pretty self-explanatory.[/QUOTE]

Tautologies are many things, but self explanatory is not one of them.
 
[quote name='dohdough'] As for the ipad example, its a one time expense of $600 for the 32gb version that most people don't buy and health insurance is a recurring monthly expense. If you're going to parrot Santorum.[/QUOTE]The cable bill, Hulu, Netflix, Gamefly, a current year model vehicle and eating out are all recurring monthly expenses. One could get rid of HBO, buy a used car instead, and not go to Starbucks each day, and it would make it a lot easier to afford your monthly premium.

Those one-time expenses can become recurring if you upgrade your cell phone and tablet every other year, get that fast new video card or an extra two gigs of ram you don't need. Just speaking about video game fandom, there are plenty of people who spend ungodly amounts of money on shit and don't have health insurance. We talk about stagnating wages but it might not be so bad if people didn't get the desktop, and the laptop, and the tablet, and the smartphone, and multiple game consoles, etc., etc., etc. on and on and on (of course, if you're going to do that, you should be on Cheap Ass Gamer and now overpay :) ).

It's a choice, it's their choice, and I am perfectly fine with their choice. I can see how a young person could decide it's not in their best interests to get it.

This doesn't mean there aren't poor folks who might require a needs-tested assistance program, but you don't institute a one-sized-fits-all approach based on the lowest common denominator. I deal with public transportation. They can make the subway fare $1.50 when it costs $3 to provide the service. You want to charge $3 and then provide assistance to those who can prove they need it. You don't just lower fares to *everyone*. People are taking the subway because they avoid traffic or they care about the environment, but they should pay what it costs. Perhaps subsidize it a little based on positive externalities, but not at the rates that we do. But that's not what we do. Transit agencies are struggling and they can't provide the service that actually attracts riders.

So raise bus fares and enough with the federal mandates.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Spokker']Why do I think it makes sense that someone who is against government mandates is going to be against a government mandate? I think it's pretty self-explanatory.[/QUOTE]

I think its a pretty vacuous point. That should be self-evident.
 
[quote name='Spokker']If she is such a student of contraception she would know what it costs. The source is not just an anonymous employee. Here's another source: http://www.reproductiveaccess.org/contraception/lowcost_pills.htm[/quote]

Now you're shifting goalposts. Is she a true Scotsman or not?

I am not offended by anything he said.
Click to expand...

I don't recall you being the subject of Rush Limbaugh's bile. Were you? No? So what right do you have to compare your lack of offense as a male indirect target with ideological predispositions to support the assertions to the utter vilification of a person who was the direct target of the ratings-based outrage?

I never understand how we argue such stupid things. The offensiveness of a statement is rooted in opinion, indeed - but the way that people who are not targets, who are the hegemon, act as if since they aren't offended then none of the claims are offensive, that's fucking stupid.

A person who fires a firearm has a target in mind. If they are aiming at the target at the time they pull the trigger, the bullet (all other things notwithstanding, let's not turn this into a physics discussion) will strike the target. If you're not the target, however, and therefore not hit by a bullet, would you deny that someone was shot?

That's what you're doing here.

Catastrophic injuries or sudden illness. But there are plans to cover less expensive things and half the states already mandate it.
Click to expand...

You initial claim had to do with expense. What's the exchange rate on "sudden illness" with the Euro? Oh, it's not a form of currency? You responded to a question about expense by substituting categories - and pretty amazingly vague, non-medical (in one of two cases) ways?

Now you know what it's like to move a goalpost.

Let me restate the question, then.

When does "something so inexpensive" cease being so inexpensive so as to expect that insurance ought to cover it? What is the dollar amount (EDIT: USING NUMBERS) that covers that?
Click to expand...

If you need me to clear up what I mean by "dollar amount," just let me know, ok?

Also, half the states don't mandate it. There's juice in the glass, baby, but there's room for more juice.

It's still a government mandate and those who are against government mandates are going to be against that too.
Click to expand...

Then make that argument, and not an economic one.

Christ, you can lead a horse to water...

I have no desire to defend the Catholic church. I'm an atheist and I dislike them and their organization. I think their teachings result in many unwanted children and irresponsibility about safe sex. I'm just not into forcing them to cover contraception. It's up to people, if they so choose, to convince their followers to put on a condom or take a pill. Though I stick with condoms because birth control can still have side effects and it's something to discuss with a doctor.
Click to expand...

Good. Thanks for dodging the "who is more responsible here?" question. You got integrity, kid. :roll:

I, I, me, I. You talk about yourself and your experiences too much. Forest for the trees, darlin'.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I think its a pretty vacuous point. That should be self-evident.[/QUOTE]

Another money quote:


"Look, my girlfriend's mother who is the wife of a deceased Vietnam vet and on Medicare can't get dental work covered. We have to pay out of pocket. You can't have anything covered for you."

First she is on medicare and therefore is obviously covered for some things. Also we can have "things" covered for everybody, except morons like spokker are roadblocks in the way. They are against it for reasons I think they don't understand.
 
[quote name='Spokker']If only everyone were as generous as conservatively minded people. They are tops in giving.[/QUOTE]

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

We need a motherfuckin' source check up in this motherfucker.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
Also, half the states don't mandate it. There's juice in the glass, baby, but there's room for more juice.[/quote]Some states have decided it is good for them. Other states can debate it and possibly pass it in the future. States that have it can study its effects and vote to repeal it in the future if they chose. It's a pretty good system when the federal government doesn't muck it up.
[quote name='mykevermin']
A person who fires a firearm has a target in mind. If they are aiming at the target at the time they pull the trigger, the bullet (all other things notwithstanding, let's not turn this into a physics discussion) will strike the target. If you're not the target, however, and therefore not hit by a bullet, would you deny that someone was shot? [/QUOTE]
I didn't deny that Limbaugh "shot" her. I just don't care.

I mean, look, I'm being insulted left and right in this thread, and not in the "I'm attacking your opinion and not you" way. I'm not complaining and I believe people should post what they want, but there are plenty of opportunities here to speak out against that kind of language and behavior that you detest. But I have a feeling you agree with the sentiment behind the insults and I predict you won't do that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
elaborate on what you mean by the federal government 'mucking it up.' How is that more or less superior to what the states are doing?

EDIT: off to the bar, will resume tomorrow.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']elaborate on what you mean by the federal government 'mucking it up.' How is that more or less superior to what the states are doing?[/QUOTE]Different states have different values, different cultures, different priorities. They think differently on fiscal and social issues. The states are often filled with like-minded people (though this is probably more true on a county and city level, and indeed many issues are decided at that level). What works for one states may not work or be accepted in another.

I mean, look, my city has red light cameras and the next city over does not. Who the hell knows which is better? Studies are inconclusive, and even they were conclusive, there may be principled positions for one of the other solution. It would be wrong for the federal government to come and force both cities to adhere to one solution.

These sort of things help people choose where to live. Think of cities, counties and states as "businesses" offering a menu of ordinances and tax rates that will attract different types of people and the tax revenue they generate. There are all kinds of combinations. But it would such if they were all the same and we could not live in the cities that fit our beliefs best.
 
[quote name='Spokker']The cable bill, Hulu, Netflix, Gamefly, a current year model vehicle and eating out are all recurring monthly expenses. One could get rid of HBO, buy a used car instead, and not go to Starbucks each day, and it would make it a lot easier to afford your monthly premium.

Those one-time expenses can become recurring if you upgrade your cell phone and tablet every other year, get that fast new video card or an extra two gigs of ram you don't need. Just speaking about video game fandom, there are plenty of people who spend ungodly amounts of money on shit and don't have health insurance. We talk about stagnating wages but it might not be so bad if people didn't get the desktop, and the laptop, and the tablet, and the smartphone, and multiple game consoles, etc., etc., etc. on and on and on (of course, if you're going to do that, you should be on Cheap Ass Gamer and now overpay :) ).

It's a choice, it's their choice, and I am perfectly fine with their choice. I can see how a young person could decide it's not in their best interests to get it.

This doesn't mean there aren't poor folks who might require a needs-tested assistance program, but you don't institute a one-sized-fits-all approach based on the lowest common denominator. I deal with public transportation. They can make the subway fare $1.50 when it costs $3 to provide the service. You want to charge $3 and then provide assistance to those who can prove they need it. You don't just lower fares to *everyone*. People are taking the subway because they avoid traffic or they care about the environment, but they should pay what it costs. Perhaps subsidize it a little based on positive externalities, but not at the rates that we do. But that's not what we do. Transit agencies are struggling and they can't provide the service that actually attracts riders.

So raise bus fares and enough with the federal mandates.[/QUOTE]
Your examples reveal how out of touch you are with people that don't have or can't afford coverage. Wages have barely kept up with inflation while things like fuel, education, and healthcare has doubled in the last 10 years alone. Also, most people that use public transportation aren't doing it to avoid traffic or care about the environment, its because they have no other choice. To imply otherwise is simply dumb.
 
[quote name='Spokker']Different states have different values, different cultures, different priorities. They think differently on fiscal and social issues.[/quote]

So you think this is an actual response?

Some states want to provide healthcare to the poor, elderly and children.

Some states want to keep Jim Crow.

Who are we to judge?

Myke and I have asked you to justify anything you believe about the "market" case for healthcare, you ignore it every single time.

I pretty much know why, how do you justify it to yourself?
 
[quote name='dohdough']Your examples reveal how out of touch you are with people that don't have or can't afford coverage. Wages have barely kept up with inflation while things like fuel, education, and healthcare has doubled in the last 10 years alone. Also, most people that use public transportation aren't doing it to avoid traffic or care about the environment, its because they have no other choice. To imply otherwise is simply dumb.[/QUOTE]
I use the subway example because they attract many discretionary riders who do own vehicles because they are quick and go where the people are. My example would not apply to regular old bus service. However, you could raise the fare, improve the service, and then subsidize those who truly can't afford it with a discount pass.

If people can't afford coverage and want it, then perhaps a means-tested program is appropriate. And we can debate the desired amounts and what they would pay into it and whatever it takes. But there are many people who can afford coverage but choose not to get it.
 
[quote name='Spokker']What it means is that while I personally support gay marriage for me and my state, and I don't care what people do in the bedroom, I don't think it is the federal government's job to get involved in marriage.
[/QUOTE]

The problem is the government has to be involved in marriage, or just stop recognizing all marriages altogether.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top