hustler

iTrader: (6)

Blaen, please post my entire quote in regard to rape on your signature. This way you won't be a hopeless ---- who pruned my comment for your benefit in a sad attempt to belittle me. I ----ed your mother.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

This sounds to me like a contractual issue. Why can't the junior attorney seem to figure this out? If her friends signed a contract providing this coverage and it's denied, they're looking at a breach-of-contract issue.

FRT_Fun

iTrader: (19)

So then tell me. You approve of them getting birth control for medical reasons unrelated to preventing birth ONLY?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

So, the university covers Finasteride and similar treatments for help with prostate cancer and enlarged prostate. See http://health.nytimes.com/health/gui...dications.html for a full list of all of which they cover, actually.

Why won't they cover birth control for women at risk for Ovarian Cancer then, Hustler?

FRT_Fun

iTrader: (19)

I'll take this one:

It's because then every female who wants birth control will suddenly be at risk for Ovarian Cancer.

The school is NOT against drugs that prevent prostate cancer.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Oh no, give 'em birth control for whatever little reason they want IMO.

But when it comes to a situation like this, it is completely insane that anyone can deny someone coverage of a medication that they provably medically need.

That's where I'm arguing from right now, FRT. Hustler and I can go back and forth on the "But Birth Control being required to be provided is bad!" all day long...

But that's not where I'm arguing from right now. I'm arguing from the "Okay, they provide medications to help prevent prostate cancer. Now why the ---- won't they provide medications to help prevent ovarian cancer?" position right now.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

Because she is a woman and sex is for men. You cannot rape your wife because you own her.

Again, what is in the contract she signed for health coverage?

hustler

iTrader: (6)

Actually, we can't. We agree on most issues in this thread, differ on the implementation. I think it should be provided for everyone, because it makes sense for the insurer and the policy holder. However, we differ in opinion when it comes to regulation. I believe every person should be able to select the coverages they want, it appears to me that you believe all schools and businesses MUST provide coverage for everything under the sun. I'd rather take my money somewhere else than force a private sector company to provide something against their will because it will probably cost more.

I hate religion, I think it's totally stupid because it makes no sense to me at all. However I realize its a difference in perspective, but I also realize that religious institutions should not be required to provide coverages for things they don't believe in because I don't want someone forcing me to pay for something I don't believe in.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

If you read her testimony, you'd have realized that the insurance company and the university are hiding behind the clause in which they do not have to provide birth control Hustler. That's the entire argument currently. The "religious" clause is allowing insurance companies and universities to deny someone who needs birth control even if it is medically necessary for them to have it. That's the issue!

Sidenote: I'm going to make my current arguing stance crystal clear. I'm *absolutely not* currently arguing for birth control to prevent birth right now. I'm arguing for birth control as a medical necessity (I.e., those with PCS) right now.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

I really don't have much of an issue with what you've said.

I'd be 100% for it with one critical addition: Someone is allowed to select what they want on their insurance plan regardless of what their employer has to say on the topic. I'm all on board with that.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

Again, we need to look at the contract. If there is a list of drugs they won't provide, she's in trouble and rightfully so because she did not pay for coverage.

Let me give you an awesome tip:
Stop referring to this as "birth-control" and start referring to it as "multi-purpose pharmaceuticals" because that way, you might win an argument or two.

I have a life insurance policy. It specifically does not cover death on the racetrack. If I die on the track, my GF does not expect to receive the benefits because it's barred on my policy. If I could get a health-insurance policy that didn't allow for coverage for AIDS and it saved me money I would get it...because I'm not bare-backing with poz-rods. Well, not often.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

Yes, this is behavioral. If she doesn't like the terms of coverage or if those coverages were misrepresented, this is a contract law case and she should take her money to another provider.


Be careful my friend, your quote above is in stark contrast to what your socialist, liberal, northerner friends believe and want to enforce upon America.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

His show is very profitable. That's good for my business, and thus, relevant to my interests.

If you believe that Rush or his program is supposed to have any greater socio-political importance than, say, American Idol, well, sorry.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Finasteride is a hair growth medication that is also used as a way to help with enlarged prostates. I would have absolutely zero qualms in calling it a hair growth medication prescribed to help with prostate cancer.

Saying "multi-purpose pharmaceuticals" is nothing but a weasel word when the entire debate rages around "birth control". I'm not some goddamn politically correct robot who is going to tweak what I say because it offends someone (You know who you are, lulz) or because it helps an argument in image but not substance.

You are making an argument from semantics that has little to no meaningful impact on the actual discussion.

I don't disagree with the sentiments here.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

I am really impressed with myself by incorporating the notion that a woman can consciously solicit rape, and someone ran with it. lol

hustler

iTrader: (6)

Semantics win court cases. If you want to keep calling it birth-control, you're going to keep losing against churches and Santorum. Fram the argument around contract provisions, not around something SCOTUS can debate 5-years from now.

On a related note, my GF has provisions on her health insurance policy which she is required to buy from her university for hair-plugs.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

What if the coverages were misrepresented, but the university and insurance company are hiding behind the clause that has been pointed out several times?

The clause *does* make it "legal"-ish in that case, and I would imagine it's freaking hard to get a University to change providers when it's what they want.

The hilarity of this statement only comes when you realize I and most of the people where I am from are moderate right in leaning, Hustly.

The big problem I, and the people I have talked to in depth on the subject, have is that the Right extremists make our outies become innies from the retardedness. When the Right has people like Sarah Palin, Limbaugh, or Santorum, it pushes us steadily leftward - even though the left is almost as bad in my eyes. But at least the Left doesn't have Santorum.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

Then the contract should be executed consistent with its representation at the time of signing.

I imagine so, but requiring students to buy health coverage sucks and purchasing it should be a choice. "Should" also means you are free to change universities if the healthcare options are inconsistent with your desires.

lol, no you're not.

I agree with this. It's tough for me to knowingly fall into the the class of people who "believe they are better than the candidates, and too good and intellectual to vote for them!" However, this is truly the case, I have too much dignity to vote for any of these nominees. Well, aside from Romney...I'll vote for him since Kid Rock is going to perform at his rally.

I keep waiting for the new GOP candidate to pop out of a cake somewhere and say "Surprise!!! You're on candid camera" after all the ---- we've seen. Somehow, Herman Cain may have been the best option, if foreign policy is not your thing.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

But it's not. Which is the problem.

Changing universities is not anywhere near as easy as changing employment, Hustly.

As an example, I personally have exactly two options for my graduate degree. They are across my state from each other. Moving across the state because a university won't provide what they promised me is bullshit.

If you said this about employers, I'd have a much smaller issue (We talked about it in the above post), but universities aren't the same.

An ardent Ron Paul supporter who has even donated to his campaign, who staunchly supports individual liberties, and thinks the government needs to cut it's budget, get a lot smaller, and in general GTFO of our lives isn't on the right? This is news to me.

If Paul doesn't become the nominee, I really don't know what I'm going to do. Frankly, the whole Republican nominee circus is like a bad nightmare. There's an obvious choice, but the media does their best to do a blackout on him, his own political party is against him, etc. - and who is polling highly? Why, batshit crazy Santorum!

JasonC SBB

People looooove wedge issues. Thus the existence of a mass market for Rush, et al.

Humans are evolved to "win" and to "be part of a team", not to seek truth:
http://www.cracked.com/article_19468...you-think.html

Then the pundits and politicos use the ensuing shrill arguments to get people to "joint their team". The resulting FALSE DICHOTOMY allows the Establishment to continue to pick our pockets and erode our rights while attention is diverted.


Re: abortion. I believe the right question to ask is *not* "should it be allowed or not" but "at what point is the fetus a human being with a right to life?" (i.e. is it 1 day or is it 8 months 29 days?) Also, I agree with Ron Paul that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned but NOT because abortion should be banned, but because the Fed Gov doesn't have the authority to pass that, the individual States do. (The argument can also be used to end the Federal War on Drugs).