Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I have in another forums, I have no idea why any health insurance should cover contraception or Viagra. I should not have to pay for someone else's sex life. Sorry.

No need to apologize; no one is seeking agreement from someone as unthinking as you.

Persuasive argument! So, should my health insurance cover my personal trainer? Why should I subsidize somebody's sex life? How are we going to control health care costs when life style choices become health care matters? How can we justify taking money from cancer victims or reducing doctor payments to cover the costs associated with contraception or Viagra?

Others and I have addressed the thin argument repeatedly in the other threads. The "Sorry" PP (don't know if that's you), among others, refuses to deal with the obvious counterarguments. If you're sincerely interested in reasoned debate, you can go read it and get back to me, but I'm not going to write it up for the hypocritical drones to ignore once again.

As they say, "Sorry."

And your argument is? Having a baby involves medical care for both mom and baby, as the lives of both can be at risk. Having sex as often as one wants or continuing to have sex at an older age is not a medical issue. What about legal drugs that build muscles? I want to get bigger, so let my insurer (and you) pay. In this scenario, I have no medical issues, but I simply have the desire to get bigger. What's the difference?

A baby only needs medical care if a woman opts to have one. It's a life choice. You act as though babies just "happen" and suddenly there is a medical need. But you have options, like ...wait for it.... birth control!

A woman who gets pregnant faces medical issues no doubt. A woman who simply wants to have sex without getting pregnant faces no medical issues. Neither does the old man who takes Viagra. And neither does the athlete who uses the local gym. Or the athlete who takes legal drugs to build muscles. I should not pay for birth control, Viagra, gym, or muscle building drugs. Birth control does not diagnose or treat a medical condition. And neither does Viagra, gym or muscle building drugs. It is pretty simple, actually.

You may already pay for the gym. A lot of health plans have discounts for people who make healthy choices. Why? It saves money.

This is what passes for a clever barb in your circles. You took the time to type that out, because you thought it was such a gem. You hit "submit," smiled slightly, and thought, "Mm-hm. I sure zinged him."

Typical liberal - you took the time to type this response all the while someone out there actually spent that much time thinking about you. Get a life. It's really not about you.

I was thinking about the cost of birth control versus the cost of giving birth and I had an epiphany. Who bears this cost? Individuals, government, or others? In the case of employer-provided health insurance, it is most certainly the insurance company (at least for birth if birth control is not covered). So, who then has an interest in seeing birth control covered? The insurance companies. In any contest between Catholic bishops and the insurance industry, it will a blow-out for the insurance industry where the Obama administration is concerned. That's not even a fair contest. Stalin once famously asked, "How many divisions does the Pope have?" The Obama equivalent would be, "How many bundled contributions can the Bishops make?" This is case closed as far as I'm concerned. Compromise or no compromise, birth control will be covered one way or another.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I have in another forums, I have no idea why any health insurance should cover contraception or Viagra. I should not have to pay for someone else's sex life. Sorry.

No need to apologize; no one is seeking agreement from someone as unthinking as you.

Persuasive argument! So, should my health insurance cover my personal trainer? Why should I subsidize somebody's sex life? How are we going to control health care costs when life style choices become health care matters? How can we justify taking money from cancer victims or reducing doctor payments to cover the costs associated with contraception or Viagra?

Others and I have addressed the thin argument repeatedly in the other threads. The "Sorry" PP (don't know if that's you), among others, refuses to deal with the obvious counterarguments. If you're sincerely interested in reasoned debate, you can go read it and get back to me, but I'm not going to write it up for the hypocritical drones to ignore once again.

As they say, "Sorry."

And your argument is? Having a baby involves medical care for both mom and baby, as the lives of both can be at risk. Having sex as often as one wants or continuing to have sex at an older age is not a medical issue. What about legal drugs that build muscles? I want to get bigger, so let my insurer (and you) pay. In this scenario, I have no medical issues, but I simply have the desire to get bigger. What's the difference?

A baby only needs medical care if a woman opts to have one. It's a life choice. You act as though babies just "happen" and suddenly there is a medical need. But you have options, like ...wait for it.... birth control!

A woman who gets pregnant faces medical issues no doubt. A woman who simply wants to have sex without getting pregnant faces no medical issues. Neither does the old man who takes Viagra. And neither does the athlete who uses the local gym. Or the athlete who takes legal drugs to build muscles. I should not pay for birth control, Viagra, gym, or muscle building drugs. Birth control does not diagnose or treat a medical condition. And neither does Viagra, gym or muscle building drugs. It is pretty simple, actually.

That's a pretty tortured logic. A child who has a well exam has no medical issues either. We call those checkups "preventive", and we even give them shots for diseases they don't have. If you wait until the girl gets pregnant, you might as well wait until your child gets sick. Contraceptives prevent what you call a "medical issue". If you don't like prevention, we can cut a whole lot of medical care out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I have in another forums, I have no idea why any health insurance should cover contraception or Viagra. I should not have to pay for someone else's sex life. Sorry.

No need to apologize; no one is seeking agreement from someone as unthinking as you.

Persuasive argument! So, should my health insurance cover my personal trainer? Why should I subsidize somebody's sex life? How are we going to control health care costs when life style choices become health care matters? How can we justify taking money from cancer victims or reducing doctor payments to cover the costs associated with contraception or Viagra?

Others and I have addressed the thin argument repeatedly in the other threads. The "Sorry" PP (don't know if that's you), among others, refuses to deal with the obvious counterarguments. If you're sincerely interested in reasoned debate, you can go read it and get back to me, but I'm not going to write it up for the hypocritical drones to ignore once again.

As they say, "Sorry."

And your argument is? Having a baby involves medical care for both mom and baby, as the lives of both can be at risk. Having sex as often as one wants or continuing to have sex at an older age is not a medical issue. What about legal drugs that build muscles? I want to get bigger, so let my insurer (and you) pay. In this scenario, I have no medical issues, but I simply have the desire to get bigger. What's the difference?

A baby only needs medical care if a woman opts to have one. It's a life choice. You act as though babies just "happen" and suddenly there is a medical need. But you have options, like ...wait for it.... birth control!

A woman who gets pregnant faces medical issues no doubt. A woman who simply wants to have sex without getting pregnant faces no medical issues. Neither does the old man who takes Viagra. And neither does the athlete who uses the local gym. Or the athlete who takes legal drugs to build muscles. I should not pay for birth control, Viagra, gym, or muscle building drugs. Birth control does not diagnose or treat a medical condition. And neither does Viagra, gym or muscle building drugs. It is pretty simple, actually.

Anonymous wrote:This is not about freedom of religion. It is about discrimination in health plans. I am a woman and cannot opt out of coverage for prostrate cancer.

Ah, but what if you belong to the Church of the Holy Metastasis, which opposes all cancer treatment - i.e., CELL MURDER? Then you could claim that Obama was forcing you to violate your religious beliefs.

And the Reps would ignore you, because you wouldn't be a Christian, so you could just fuck off.

Anonymous wrote:

Remember: the left doesn't have a gigantic propaganda machine whipping us into a frenzy over meaningless crap.

To TheManWithaUserName, now that is one of the funniest posts I've read in a long, long time. But what scares me is that you actually believe it.

This is what passes for a clever barb in your circles. You took the time to type that out, because you thought it was such a gem. You hit "submit," smiled slightly, and thought, "Mm-hm. I sure zinged him."

Anonymous wrote:

Remember: the left doesn't have a gigantic propaganda machine whipping us into a frenzy over meaningless crap.

To TheManWithaUserName, now that is one of the funniest posts I've read in a long, long time. But what scares me is that you actually believe it.

What scares me is that you probably believe some to all of the following:

There is a liberal media, and it is out to destroy America
Republicans hold the moral authority in this country
When Christians have a Christian government, everything is good, but when Muslims do it it's all bad.
Fox is presenting America with the sort of unbiased news we all deserve

Yeah, you and your ilk deserve Fox, that's for sure.

It is funny most of the university and hospitals already cover this. They find it hard to staff the place without covering it.

This is not about freedom of religion. It is about discrimination in health plans. I am a woman and cannot opt out of coverage for prostrate cancer.

Remember: the left doesn't have a gigantic propaganda machine whipping us into a frenzy over meaningless crap.

To TheManWithaUserName, now that is one of the funniest posts I've read in a long, long time. But what scares me is that you actually believe it.

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I have in another forums, I have no idea why any health insurance should cover contraception or Viagra. I should not have to pay for someone else's sex life. Sorry.

No need to apologize; no one is seeking agreement from someone as unthinking as you.

Persuasive argument! So, should my health insurance cover my personal trainer? Why should I subsidize somebody's sex life? How are we going to control health care costs when life style choices become health care matters? How can we justify taking money from cancer victims or reducing doctor payments to cover the costs associated with contraception or Viagra?

Others and I have addressed the thin argument repeatedly in the other threads. The "Sorry" PP (don't know if that's you), among others, refuses to deal with the obvious counterarguments. If you're sincerely interested in reasoned debate, you can go read it and get back to me, but I'm not going to write it up for the hypocritical drones to ignore once again.

As they say, "Sorry."

And your argument is? Having a baby involves medical care for both mom and baby, as the lives of both can be at risk. Having sex as often as one wants or continuing to have sex at an older age is not a medical issue. What about legal drugs that build muscles? I want to get bigger, so let my insurer (and you) pay. In this scenario, I have no medical issues, but I simply have the desire to get bigger. What's the difference?

A baby only needs medical care if a woman opts to have one. It's a life choice. You act as though babies just "happen" and suddenly there is a medical need. But you have options, like ...wait for it.... birth control!