OBY played Fluke and Rush like a piano

[The Fanatic]

Setting aside all this religious hoopla and political bullshit regarding contraception and healthcare makes the average joe like myself start to question the root of the problem here to begin with.

Since when does the choice by an individual to engage in sexual activity become an insurance companys problem, or any other entity (employer, etc.) that pays for an individuals "healthcare"?

We're not talking about some type of medical test or procedure that is needed to correct a health problem, look for a possible health problem or any other scenario that is deemed unwanted or desired by an individual that he/she is trying to correct or prevent.

Having sex is a choice made by individuals that is desired.

Smoking cigarettes, doing drugs, etc. is a choice made by individuals, and those that do so normally tend to be charged more for healthcare coverage because they are choosing to put themselves at a higher risk of disease or becoming unhealthy dictating the insurance company is at much more risk of having to pay out big expenses for medical treatment, etc.

In some instances those individuals are denied coverage due to making that choice to engage in activity that is perceived as risky.

Alot of these companys won't cover the cost of quit smoking aids because it is a choice of the individual to begin with to engage in activity that the insurance company doesn't approve of, therefore they don't want to foot the bill help that individual quit.
Other companys elect to cover those aids viewing them as possibly saving them healthcare coverage down the road and having a healthier client if they do quit.
I'm no expert, but these companys aren't forced by the government to cover these types of aids to individuals who made a poor choice to begin with.

Having sex IMO is not much different in the eyes of insurance companys.

Getting pregnant or acquiring a sexually transmitted disease by choosing to have sex is not a health related issue that was in no way potentially anticipated by those individuals.

We're not talking about a required test, bloodwork, etc. to help ensure preventative health issues here that come about by accident, etc.

You don't accidently have sex, start smoking or start doing drugs.

Sorry, but having sex IMO is a choice that is made and should not be something that insurance companys should be forced to foot the bill for to prevent individuals from having an accident.

Last I checked, you can't die or get sick from not getting laid.

[Galen Sevinne]

Setting aside all this religious hoopla and political bullshit regarding contraception and healthcare makes the average joe like myself start to question the root of the problem here to begin with.

Since when does the choice by an individual to engage in sexual activity become an insurance companys problem, or any other entity (employer, etc.) that pays for an individuals "healthcare"?

We're not talking about some type of medical test or procedure that is needed to correct a health problem, look for a possible health problem or any other scenario that is deemed unwanted or desired by an individual that he/she is trying to correct or prevent.

Having sex is a choice made by individuals that is desired.

Smoking cigarettes, doing drugs, etc. is a choice made by individuals, and those that do so normally tend to be charged more for healthcare coverage because they are choosing to put themselves at a higher risk of disease or becoming unhealthy dictating the insurance company is at much more risk of having to pay out big expenses for medical treatment, etc.

In some instances those individuals are denied coverage due to making that choice to engage in activity that is perceived as risky.

Alot of these companys won't cover the cost of quit smoking aids because it is a choice of the individual to begin with to engage in activity that the insurance company doesn't approve of, therefore they don't want to foot the bill help that individual quit.
Other companys elect to cover those aids viewing them as possibly saving them healthcare coverage down the road and having a healthier client if they do quit.
I'm no expert, but these companys aren't forced by the government to cover these types of aids to individuals who made a poor choice to begin with.

Having sex IMO is not much different in the eyes of insurance companys.

Getting pregnant or acquiring a sexually transmitted disease by choosing to have sex is not a health related issue that was in no way potentially anticipated by those individuals.

We're not talking about a required test, bloodwork, etc. to help ensure preventative health issues here that come about by accident, etc.

You don't accidently have sex, start smoking or start doing drugs.

Sorry, but having sex IMO is a choice that is made and should not be something that insurance companys should be forced to foot the bill for to prevent individuals from having an accident.

Last I checked, you can't die or get sick from not getting laid.

I don't think you understand how insurance companies view insurance costs. Have you wondered why insurance companies aren't out complaining about their "liberties" being trampled like the low-information conservatives are being encouraged to think? Its an odd phenomenon huh? One would think that if such an idea like "Obama ramming this down the throats of the insurance companies" was real then the insurance companies would be lobbying against and you would hear more than rating whores like Rush making his comments.

The truth is that for insurance companies to cover the minimal costs of birth contol pills, which 20% are prescribed for reasons other than actual contraception, is far cheaper than to cover the costs of 9 months of a pregnancy, the ensuing birth, the neonatal care and any further complications. The majority of states have insurance mandates for contraceptive coverage which only further demonstrates THAT insurance companies WANT to cover contraception.

Just like it is GOOD social policy to provide contraception, it is also GOOD financial policy for insurance companies to provide preventative care in the form of contraception. Most insurance companies also provide smoking cessation care because it is much cheaper than covering 2 years of lung cancer treatment. You just need to know what and how to ask for it. Its good policy for insurance companies.

Of course anywhere from 65% to 98% of women in favor of contraception depending on what poll you read demonstrates how pro-contraceptive coverage women are but hey, why listen to those sluts right?

So women like the policy and insurance companies like the policy. Obama's favorability with women has grown by 10% over this "debate" so you guys can listen to Rush all you want but he is taking you down a losing road. After all it was Rush that just this week in amoment of apparent frustration let this gem out about how he has made his money,

“pandering to the prejudices and insecurities of marginally literate, unfathomably ignorant jackasses who have to be told what to hate”?


Obama needs the woman and hispanic vote and he just spent a week working on the woman vote and Republicans fell hook, line and sinker for it. Next up Hispanic vote. The guy is brilliant.

[AirFlacco]

Last I checked, you can't die or get sick from not getting laid.

No, but you might go blind if you get the drift.

:grbac:

[NCRAVEN]

I don't think you understand how insurance companies view insurance costs. Have you wondered why insurance companies aren't out complaining about their "liberties" being trampled like the low-information conservatives are being encouraged to think? Its an odd phenomenon huh? One would think that if such an idea like "Obama ramming this down the throats of the insurance companies" was real then the insurance companies would be lobbying against and you would hear more than rating whores like Rush making his comments.

Which is why BHO's compromise of “fine you don’t have to provide these plans, but the insurance providers must provide it for free” is hilarious, the plans are still being paid for, and as a result of the insurance companies offering more services we both know they’ll just raise their rates, so the religious org’s are still paying for it. It kinda reminds me of people who say their against hunting as their eating a hamburger, animals are still being killed, just not directly by you…

The majority of states have insurance mandates for contraceptive coverage which only further demonstrates THAT insurance companies WANT to cover contraception.

You hit the nail on the head, this is a STATE issue. The Federal Government (HHS) stepping in and telling all organizations in separate stats is wrong. Than the POTUS telling private companies what they have to offer is even worse. Tell me Galen, where does the President have the power to do that?

That's rhetorical btw.

Answer this though, if it was "W" would you be okay with him unilaterally telling anybody anything... I don't think so...

So women like the policy and insurance companies like the policy. Obama's favorability with women has grown by 10% over this "debate" so you guys can listen to Rush all you want but he is taking you down a losing road. After all it was Rush that just this week in amoment of apparent frustration let this gem out about how he has made his money,

Which was the point of this whole charade. Obama was polling miserably with women prior to this whole thing. Since the nations view on abortion has shifted, they need a controversy to get the woman vote. Knowing some would move to protect religious freedom, they used Republicans (and a few Dem's) trying to overturn the mandate as "hey look these people are against contraception". Sad this is what it takes to get people to elect you, but the useful idiots fall for that stuff.

Obama needs the woman and hispanic vote and he just spent a week working on the woman vote and Republicans fell hook, line and sinker for it. Next up Hispanic vote. The guy is brilliant.

Thank you for admitting our President uses race, gender and class to divide the country so he can get elected. And what is so sad about this is you applaud this as brilliance. How truly pathetic.

[JStruds]

Of course anywhere from 65% to 98% of women in favor of contraception depending on what poll you read demonstrates how pro-contraceptive coverage women are but hey, why listen to those sluts right?

I'm surprised by this number. You'd figure 100% would want something for free.

Your point that it is good business for insurance companies to provide contraception vs paying for birth related procedures makes sense. For that matter, contraception and protection make sense to most of us, but not to the Catholic Church. If they choose to stick with their doctrine and not follow best business practices, that is their choice and the Fed should not interfere.

NC Raven pointed out that it is really a state issue which is another reason for the Fed to stay out, and Fanatic is correct that sex is a choice, not a treatable illness; so again, even if it's bad business in the long run, why can't an insurance company refuse to cover contraception?

[AirFlacco]

LOL - Now Maher is defending Rush telling the libs they look bad for not
accepting Rush's apology. He apologized so let it be, said Maher.

What's going on here? After telling Rush he had not sponsors which is true,
HBO does have subscribers. Could they be losing them?

Somebody is putting pressure on Maher.



http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...ooking-bad-not

[Galen Sevinne]

I'm surprised by this number. You'd figure 100% would want something for free.

Your point that it is good business for insurance companies to provide contraception vs paying for birth related procedures makes sense. For that matter, contraception and protection make sense to most of us, but not to the Catholic Church. If they choose to stick with their doctrine and not follow best business practices, that is their choice and the Fed should not interfere.

The "Fed" isn't interfering.

Why can't an insurance company refuse to cover contraception?

I don't know...why can't a grocery store refuse to not refrigerate its meat? Maybe because its unhealthy AND it would be bad business practice. So why would they? Sometimes simple common sense wins over these misguided liberty arguments.

[NCRAVEN]

The "Fed" isn't interfering.

You know he meant the Federal government not "The Fed". But yes the "Federal Governments is interfering...

I don't know...why can't a grocery store refuse to not refrigerate its meat? Maybe because its unhealthy AND it would be bad business practice. So why would they? Sometimes simple common sense wins over these misguided liberty arguments.

False equivalency.

I love how you try to mock liberty and freedom etc. as it's something to be embarrassed to be for.

[AirFlacco]

He watches Maher who mocked the constitution as mentioned above.

TODAY'S LIBERALS ARE THE COMMIES OF 1916.


OBAMA KILLED OSAMA.

[JStruds]

The "Fed" isn't interfering.

You're a bright guy. Being intentionally obtuse does not match your usual standards.

I don't know...why can't a grocery store refuse to not refrigerate its meat? Maybe because its unhealthy AND it would be bad business practice. So why would they? Sometimes simple common sense wins over these misguided liberty arguments.

You cannot legislate common sense. If the Catholic Church wants to influence bad business decisions based on their doctrine, that is their problem and the Federal Government should not be involved.

[Galen Sevinne]

You cannot legislate common sense. If the Catholic Church wants to influence bad business decisions based on their doctrine, that is their problem and the Federal Government should not be involved.

You should read this comment again, You cannot legislate common sense. If you can't legislate common sense what is it that you legislate?

The only people in opposition of this are several Catholic Bishops and extremely conservative white males and that is it. No one else! Insurance companies aren't complaining, Catholic women aren't complaining as aren't the rest of the 80% of the nation that could care less about who DECIDES on their own through their OWN sense of liberty and responsibility to take contraception or not. Even most of the GOP congressional leaders are silent on it because they know it makes sense and is a losing issue for them.

[NCRAVEN]

The only people in opposition of this are several Catholic Bishops and extremely conservative white males and that is it. No one else! Insurance companies aren't complaining, Catholic women aren't complaining as aren't the rest of the 80% of the nation that could care less about who DECIDES on their own through their OWN sense of liberty and responsibility to take contraception or not. Even most of the GOP congressional leaders are silent on it because they know it makes sense and is a losing issue for them.

You are missing the point by such a wide margin I don't know why I keep trying to point out. It's not whether people are for against it, it's not the role of the Federal government to get involved in State matters!