Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Okay, this is getting annoying. Someone please point out where insurance companies were denying coverage of BC prior to this. The point is not that it's now being covered (it's BEEN covered), the point is that they are not allowed to require a copay.
The copay could have been as much as $60 (in my experience with different insurance policies over the years) depending on what the drug is. I always got generics b/c the cost to me was the lowest copay applicable, usually about $10. Those who want the fancy new pills that help with PMDD and acne (which is not what BC is for!) paid more, usually in the $50-$60 range.
But now, women will not have to pay a dime for any of it. Many will get the more expensive brand names and this ends up with more money in the drug companies' hands b/c the gov't can't allow the free market to work itself out. Sounds like collusion to me....
It may also drive prices up. This negatively impacts women who cannot afford insurance but are not poor enough to receive welfare or free/low cost BC from PP. It also impacts health insurance premiums which will of course be passed on to the policyholders. ALL policyholders. And if Obama gets his way, everyone will be a policyholder come 2014.
Someone tell me why this is a good thing, now that I've explained it so even a monkey can understand.
At the very least, stop saying it will decrease abortions, etc. It has no bearing on that whatsoever.
Conservatives do spend more money on donations than liberals. These donations go to support multiple causes, many of which involve helping the poor. But yet you assert that conservatives hate the poor.
Don't you look stupid.
Ah yes, not comprehending my post and personal attacks/T.O.S. violations!
Ah yes, not comprehending my post and personal attacks/T.O.S. violations!
Then report me. It's no worse than you saying that conservatives hate poor people, since that is an outright lie and a derogatory thing to say about people who simply don't see eye to eye with you.
My point is that this thread is not about abortions. It's about the fiscal concerns that this raises and also about how the gov't continues to interfere where they shouldn't.
Then report me. It's no worse than you saying that conservatives hate poor people, since that is an outright lie and a derogatory thing to say about people who simply don't see eye to eye with you.
Done! "Don't you look stupid" is about as obvious a personal attack as there is.
You do know that liberal/progressive margaret sanger, founder of 'planned parenthood' was into eugenics, don't you?
I didn't know this, but I respect her even more now.
The Nazis gave eugenics a very bad name by killing those they considered less than optimal, but it was the killing that was bad--not the idea that humans will be much better off in the future if we stop providing incentives for those most burdensome to society to reproduce. Things like schizophrenia are incurable and strongly likely to be passed down to future offspring. This doesn't mean schizophrenics should be killed. It does mean that we need to stop giving incentives for schizophrenics to reproduce, as we do when we give them income from SSI, exempt them from having to work, and push the social idea that no matter what your genetic affliction, you can and should reproduce.
Do we really want a future world where most of the population suffers from genetic diseases and disabilities, when we could have minimized the number of people suffering by simply offering a system of incentives and disincentives that will work over time without restricting any one individual? We already have incentives and disincentives for reproduction--but they currently reward behavior that is bad for society. A system designed to offset these perverse rewards would barely level the playing field.
We all know how it works today. Ever since the 1970's, a very intelligent and productive Middle Class couple will probably limit themselves 2 children or less, since they will have neither the time nor the money to support more than that comfortably (actually, the working class is no longer really able to afford even one child, but society has long lags in understanding changes). They bear the heavy tax burden of federal, state and local government, all of which ramp up their confiscation as the working couple work harder and get more experience. Soon, the tax load is so much that the couple wonders why they work at all. Those who don't work have just as much money, and actually have time and energy to live their lives. And in the end, the working class doesn't even get to retire: high cost of living, destruction of the housing market, loss of investments and savings through dollar devaluation, have all wiped out everyone's life savings no matter how much they succeeded in their careers.
On the other hand, teenage girls in the inner cities are surrounded by poverty and economic hopelessness, but know that producing a child will instantly earn them a government income. It's the only "job" they have available, and it requires none of the hellish slavery to a desk 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. And since both society and government love babies, the cycle continues.
Our current system provides incentives that maximize the number of government "takers," and minimizes the number and income of taxpayers. We have reached the point of crisis--national bankruptcy. So much government debt that the economy simply isn't productive enough to pay back, no matter how long we push the payments out.
Having children will not give you happiness, and in fact will make you less happy in the end when both you and your children are penniless. We need to stop giving tax incentives and tax breaks for having children. We need to stop subsidizing the cost of educating and insuring children. Once parents actually bear the cost of the children they produce, only those who can afford them will have children. We must further limit that group to those who are genetically healthy enough to reproduce.
My spouse and I, though hard-working and with high IQs, saved future generations from acid reflux, migraines, poor eyesight, and susceptibility to heart disease. We also hope to give an advantage to the most deserving nieces and nephews by giving them the assets we have accumulated (which otherwise would have been spent on raising and educating our own offspring). I feel very good about that, and it is our legacy to the future.
Then report me. It's no worse than you saying that conservatives hate poor people, since that is an outright lie and a derogatory thing to say about people who simply don't see eye to eye with you.
Yes, but that isn't personal...and your s was......and it's true. All anyone needs for proof is to read the threads in here...the neo/con Repugs display total hatred towards the poor consistantly.
You do know that liberal/progressive margaret sanger, founder of 'planned parenthood' was into eugenics, don't you? Sure, it was a liberal/progressive dream, but still.
Yes. She did the right thing for the wrong reasons. She's not the first.
In this country our money... is SHARED for the COMMON GOOD.
People worry that birth control will be paid for with THEIR money? NO, it will be paid for with OUR money....
Cool. So if I give you my home address, can you send me some of "OUR money"? I could use a grand or so, but if you need to do that in payments, I'll accept it.
Quote:
Unwanted pregnancies ARE expensive.....to EVERYONE!
Especially for the baby sucked out and tossed into a dumpster.
Condoms are pretty cheap, but it takes all the fun out of flings, huh?
Wait! condoms also would stop the transmission of HIV and other STDs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
