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.
So does porn. Think of all those men who, with less social stigma and da guberment support, would choose porn over live women. All the ill effects of copulation and surplus population is prevented. Many men would have no use for women at all if properly satisfied in this way especially with free ESPN and beer. Early prevention porn does this in a safe, healthy and environmentally friendly way. Keep men away from women.
Ridiculous strawman, if you could even call it that. Porn doesn't DIRECTLY and medically prevent pregnancies or STDs - in fact, many (not me) would argue it could have the opposite effect.
Quote:
Am I a woman? Do you plan on a sexist response and tailoring it to my gender? Please desist to ask such an irrelevant personal detail.
Uh, no... stop being so paranoid, LOL. I was only asking because it DOES matter in terms of my subsequent comments, since a man (at least a heterosexual one) wouldn't understand my point regarding not having full control over condom usage. It was an extremely relevant question, if you'd bothered to continue reading before getting all emotional.
Quote:
Quality porn on request will do much more than these prophylactics and their heavy environmental impact. I am also not against a free subscription to the Twilight series for women with da guberment approved female sex aids.
The key thing is da guberment involvement. We need as much as we can get. More da gubement.
This issue isn't about government control, considering it mostly pertains to private insurance and hospitals... most/all of which covered BC with a co-pay, until the Catholic hospitals started crying over religious intolerance. IMO, if they want to serve only in a manner which adheres to their religious beliefs, they should call themselves a church or mission instead of a hospital.
There are many things I'd prefer not to pay for. Paying for birth control is a drop in the ocean as compared to military spending, for instance.
Very true! But again, YOU are not really paying for this... only a small portion (Medicaid) of this cost is taxpayer-funded, while the rest is covered by individuals and/or their employers. I'm on a 75% employer-paid Kaiser plan myself, where I pay 25% and they pay the rest - so don't worry, nobody here is paying for any medications I may or may not take.
Very true! But again, YOU are not really paying for this... only a small portion (Medicaid) of this cost is taxpayer-funded, while the rest is covered by individuals and/or their employers. I'm on a 75% employer-paid Kaiser plan myself, where I pay 25% and they pay the rest - so don't worry, nobody here is paying for any medications I may or may not take.
I am not paying for the military? Then how is the military funded, pray tell?
This is where the Republican party really loses me. I mean on stuff like this.
The only reason they have a problem with it, is this evangelical voting block. I mean really, they talk a mean game, but its really trying to make a fire with those bible-belt states.
Look - we know that birth control is cost effective. It is a minimum monthly cost and stops significant money from being spent on birth, delivery, and upkeep, lost wages, lost taxes, etc. To me its a money thing. It will save us money by making sure this is available and free/cheap to everyone.
Who benefits? health insurance companies and the employer. They don't have to pay for the car. Employee benefits to. Especially with lower income workers who may not pay for the stuff themselves.
So if its a win for health insurance, a win for the employers, and a win for the customer? who the F' cares
I think the jury is out on the rest/most of preventive care. its hard to see the cost savings there. . .but this one, its pretty in our face.
Ridiculous strawman, if you could even call it that. Porn doesn't DIRECTLY and medically prevent pregnancies or STDs - in fact, many (not me) would argue it could have the opposite effect.
What? Masturbation precludes the need to have sex with a live woman and the deleterious social result form these frowned upon assignations.
Quote:
Uh, no... stop being so paranoid, LOL. I was only asking because it DOES matter in terms of my subsequent comments, since a man (at least a heterosexual one) wouldn't understand my point regarding not having full control over condom usage. It was an extremely relevant question, if you'd bothered to continue reading before getting all emotional.
Why let it get to that point? Go ahead and have the control you need, but relieving men of their desire in a safe, cocooned and self nutruing environement under da guberment auspices and supervision is in the intrest of the state. We will not need the birth control.
Quote:
This issue isn't about government control, considering it mostly pertains to private insurance and hospitals... most/all of which covered BC with a co-pay, until the Catholic hospitals started crying over religious intolerance. IMO, if they want to serve only in a manner which adheres to their religious beliefs, they should call themselves a church or mission instead of a hospital.
If its da guberment mandate, then honey, its da guberment any which way but da gander, but for da goose.
Sigh, it's NOT FREE, we as woman pay our premiums just like the men do. In order to get an Rx for BC pills we must go to the Dr., have an exam, history, often lab work and depending on the results we will get a perscription. Then depending on your health history you will be required to return for follow up exams and lab work every 3-4 months for the first year or so and then maybe the Dr. will let you go 6 months without a re-exam. These exams are NOT cheap by any streach of the imagination, they can easily run $250-$600. depending on what the Dr. requires. The cost of the pills WITH a prescription plan will run anywhere from $20-$60 a month on average.
Decades ago the insurance companies CHOSE to cover these exams and Rx's under their insurance plans because the costs of doing so were much less than the alternatives, it's called preventative medicine...nothing new folks if you have insurance, woman have been getting coverage for DECADES. NOT FREE but coverage and it will all depend upon your policy how much it will pay.
I think downhill skiing is immoral and contrary to my religious beliefs. I don't want to be forced to have my insurance premiums go to provide care for injuries that those godless downhill skiiers incur.
I feel that way about mountain climbing.
Why do I have to pay for search & rescue for people who choose to put themselves in those situations?
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.
I was only asking because it DOES matter in terms of my subsequent comments, since a man (at least a heterosexual one) wouldn't understand my point regarding not having full control over condom usage. It was an extremely relevant question, if you'd bothered to continue reading before getting all emotional.
