'Your First Amendment Right Can Be Terminated
03-23-2012, 01:55 PM
#61
My question is, if the students genuinely pay 100% of the insurance premiums (aka they are totally unsubsidized by the university or anyone else), then why can't she just go get private health insurance that is tailored to her specific needs and desires? If there are enough female students with the same issues, why don't they form a group and go get group health insurance policies?
Reply
0
0
03-23-2012, 02:00 PM
#62
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
she has provided stories, not facts.
Reply
0
0
03-23-2012, 02:03 PM
#63
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,019
Total Cats: 6,587
Thank you. I'm anxiously awaiting her forthcoming Playboy article.
Here's what the core of the issue really distills down to. Towards the close of her testimony, Sandra the **** makes the following statement:
First, as to the "what did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school?" Maybe you should have expected that the school (and its subsidiary organizations) were not likely to twist their rules 180° opposite the policies of the Church with which they are aligned?
Second, women and men are being treated equally. The university isn't giving contraceptive devices (eg: condoms) to men either, and not wanting to get knocked up is just as big a deal (if not more so) for dudes as it is for Slutty Sandra. At least they can decide to have the tiny little human inside them murdered with a pointy stick and then vacuumed out if they want to. We don't get to make that call, so we're hosed if her hormones get the best of her and she decides to keep her precious little angel and ruin both our lives.
Third, as to "untenable burdens that impede our academic success." Seriously? I managed to get through both high school and college without any publicly-sponsored birth control programs. Frankly, I masturbated a lot. And I don't just mean every day, we're talking about some marathon sessions here. Internet **** (via Usenet) had basically just been invented at the time I was in college, and even at 640x480 in 256 colors, there was still a vast universe out there. And when I needed a condom (presupposing that I'd had a day or two to regenerate after logging off) I paid for the damn thing myself. I didn't consider any of this to be an "untenable burden to my academic success." Frankly, I wouldn't have plowed most of the women that I did back then without a rubber- too much scary stuff out there. So buy a *****- they're about ten bucks, and they will not impede your academic success.
In short, this is just an example of a very smart girl wanting to make a big name for herself in politics by pretending to be a champion for the issues of the poor and downtrodden. (And frankly, that's a huge turn-on for me.)
She does make one good point, however:
Here's what the core of the issue really distills down to. Towards the close of her testimony, Sandra the **** makes the following statement:
In the media lately, conservative Catholic organizations have been asking: what did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school? We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success.
This can be attacked on so many levels... First, as to the "what did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school?" Maybe you should have expected that the school (and its subsidiary organizations) were not likely to twist their rules 180° opposite the policies of the Church with which they are aligned?
Second, women and men are being treated equally. The university isn't giving contraceptive devices (eg: condoms) to men either, and not wanting to get knocked up is just as big a deal (if not more so) for dudes as it is for Slutty Sandra. At least they can decide to have the tiny little human inside them murdered with a pointy stick and then vacuumed out if they want to. We don't get to make that call, so we're hosed if her hormones get the best of her and she decides to keep her precious little angel and ruin both our lives.
Third, as to "untenable burdens that impede our academic success." Seriously? I managed to get through both high school and college without any publicly-sponsored birth control programs. Frankly, I masturbated a lot. And I don't just mean every day, we're talking about some marathon sessions here. Internet **** (via Usenet) had basically just been invented at the time I was in college, and even at 640x480 in 256 colors, there was still a vast universe out there. And when I needed a condom (presupposing that I'd had a day or two to regenerate after logging off) I paid for the damn thing myself. I didn't consider any of this to be an "untenable burden to my academic success." Frankly, I wouldn't have plowed most of the women that I did back then without a rubber- too much scary stuff out there. So buy a *****- they're about ten bucks, and they will not impede your academic success.
In short, this is just an example of a very smart girl wanting to make a big name for herself in politics by pretending to be a champion for the issues of the poor and downtrodden. (And frankly, that's a huge turn-on for me.)
She does make one good point, however:
Reply
1
1
03-23-2012, 02:10 PM
#64
Thank you. I'm anxiously awaiting her forthcoming Playboy article.
Here's what the core of the issue really distills down to. Towards the close of her testimony, Sandra the **** makes the following statement:
First, as to the "what did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school?" Maybe you should have expected that the school (and its subsidiary organizations) were not likely to twist their rules 180° opposite the policies of the Church with which they are aligned?
Here's what the core of the issue really distills down to. Towards the close of her testimony, Sandra the **** makes the following statement:
In the media lately, conservative Catholic organizations have been asking: what did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school? We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success.
This can be attacked on so many levels... First, as to the "what did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school?" Maybe you should have expected that the school (and its subsidiary organizations) were not likely to twist their rules 180° opposite the policies of the Church with which they are aligned?
Second, women and men are being treated equally. The university isn't giving contraceptive devices (eg: condoms) to men either, and not wanting to get knocked up is just as big a deal (if not more so) for dudes as it is for Slutty Sandra. At least they can decide to have the tiny little human inside them murdered with a pointy stick and then vacuumed out if they want to. We don't get to make that call, so we're hosed if her hormones get the best of her and she decides to keep her precious little angel and ruin both our lives.
Third, as to "untenable burdens that impede our academic success." Seriously? I managed to get through both high school and college without any publicly-sponsored birth control programs. Frankly, I masturbated a lot. And I don't just mean every day, we're talking about some marathon sessions here. Internet **** (via Usenet) had basically just been invented at the time I was in college, and even at 640x480 in 256 colors, there was still a vast universe out there. And when I needed a condom (presupposing that I'd had a day or two to regenerate after logging off) I paid for the damn thing myself. I didn't consider any of this to be an "untenable burden to my academic success." Frankly, I wouldn't have plowed most of the women that I did back then without a rubber- too much scary stuff out there. So buy a *****- they're about ten bucks, and they will not impede your academic success.
In short, this is just an example of a very smart girl wanting to make a big name for herself in politics by pretending to be a champion for the issues of the poor and downtrodden. (And frankly, that's a huge turn-on for me.)
She does make one good point, however:
Reply
0
0
03-23-2012, 03:15 PM
#65
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
guys i might not be here next week, ill be in Dc lobbying congress to make sure my car insurance pays for oil changes and dental insurance pays for my toothpaste.
im a ****.
im a ****.
Reply
0
0
03-23-2012, 03:42 PM
#67
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
i just assumed. so now I gotta make sure big daddy o fixes things for me.
and dont worry, im going to make up statistics and name drop all over the place...i dont actually need these things, but im doing it on behalf of those who do.
and dont worry, im going to make up statistics and name drop all over the place...i dont actually need these things, but im doing it on behalf of those who do.
Last edited by Braineack; 03-23-2012 at 03:58 PM.
Reply
0
0
03-23-2012, 08:15 PM
#69
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Central Florida, Land of the Giant Rat.
Posts: 122
Total Cats: 2
If that's the extent of Sandra's argument, and if this is indicative of the quality of law student that Georgetown turns out 
, I will now endeavor never to retain former Georgetown pupils for representation in the case I find myself in even the most dire of circumstances requiring legal council.
I've experienced considerably more cogent, not to mention relevant, petitions from community college students.
Hers' sounded strictly as a plea out of emotion.
She's her own best adversary.
The terms 'contraception' and 'contraceptive' (which she uses to no small degree of infrequency), seem to vaguely imply an idea of not conceiving something. Conceiving what? An Idea? No. Maybe, just maybe, gee, I don't know, lemme see if I can be lucid here, Oh yeah, how about a baby!
This then, would seem to infer the distinct possibility, no matter how remote or improbable, that those of whom are desiring or demanding inclusion to benefits of such a policy are indeed requiring the effects of the requested products, in this case, birth-control; and, are indeed, either engaging in or conceptually, whether with intent or resigning themselves to be engaged in an activity where the very real consequence of said activity may result in conception. (Also sometimes confused with the term 'pregnancy'.)
What that activity consists of, I don't know. But if it has to do with a doctor, a donor and a turkey baster I would say that line of reasoning may be commensurate with the caliber of logic that Georgetown produces if Her dissertation is to be taken seriously.
Maybe there's a whacked out fertility specialist running around on-campus accosting and inseminating students?
I could take her seriously if she had used the term 'hormone therapy'.
And even that is thinly veiled...
My favorite line:
"...contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school."
Maybe she should have enrolled as a art history major?
, I will now endeavor never to retain former Georgetown pupils for representation in the case I find myself in even the most dire of circumstances requiring legal council.I've experienced considerably more cogent, not to mention relevant, petitions from community college students.
Hers' sounded strictly as a plea out of emotion.
She's her own best adversary.
The terms 'contraception' and 'contraceptive' (which she uses to no small degree of infrequency), seem to vaguely imply an idea of not conceiving something. Conceiving what? An Idea? No. Maybe, just maybe, gee, I don't know, lemme see if I can be lucid here, Oh yeah, how about a baby!
This then, would seem to infer the distinct possibility, no matter how remote or improbable, that those of whom are desiring or demanding inclusion to benefits of such a policy are indeed requiring the effects of the requested products, in this case, birth-control; and, are indeed, either engaging in or conceptually, whether with intent or resigning themselves to be engaged in an activity where the very real consequence of said activity may result in conception. (Also sometimes confused with the term 'pregnancy'.)
What that activity consists of, I don't know. But if it has to do with a doctor, a donor and a turkey baster I would say that line of reasoning may be commensurate with the caliber of logic that Georgetown produces if Her dissertation is to be taken seriously.
Maybe there's a whacked out fertility specialist running around on-campus accosting and inseminating students?
I could take her seriously if she had used the term 'hormone therapy'.
And even that is thinly veiled...
My favorite line:
"...contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school."
Maybe she should have enrolled as a art history major?
Reply
0
0
03-24-2012, 12:10 AM
#73
Seriously, kids. This is defending an issue simply to be on the "other" side, as opposed to actually defending something that deserves it. It's sort of akin to the folks who leaped to the side of the cat who happened to be a Christian, while raising a child army and leading rape gangs.
Sometimes, the "other side" isn't an ideological divide, but a real line of lunacy and wrong. Not understanding that taints any position that you then take, because why you do something is as important to what you actually do. You save a girl from drowning because you want to squeeze her ***** while everyone watches, you're not a hero. People need to remember that...
Sometimes, the "other side" isn't an ideological divide, but a real line of lunacy and wrong. Not understanding that taints any position that you then take, because why you do something is as important to what you actually do. You save a girl from drowning because you want to squeeze her ***** while everyone watches, you're not a hero. People need to remember that...
Reply
0
0
03-24-2012, 03:38 AM
#74
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Central Florida, Land of the Giant Rat.
Posts: 122
Total Cats: 2
Perhaps unbeknownst to me I've suffered a stroke due to my wife's birth-control pills which I mistook for Pez and now have memory loss?
As to the 'medically correct' term for 'contraception':
One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any longer.
She is attempting to include the discretional as essential. It is with this I have an objection.
Now, it is however, reasonably acceptable to assume a percentage of the potential beneficiaries of Ms. Fluke's impassioned entreaty to policy change are (or may become) ***** considering her obvious lack of distinction for actual medical necessity.
And these are precisely the girls we're interested in.
I should have used 'emblematic.' Eh, such is life in my little absurdist corner...
If that's all that's wrong with mah li'l diatribe, I'd be surprised.
I have no idea what I'm doing. Except in the fact that I feel Ms. Fluke's assertions deserve a comparable response of the highest regard.
I love Canadian Bacon...
Reply
0
0
03-24-2012, 11:14 AM
#75
I don't know. I have no desire or reason to question nor determine Ms. Fluke's chasteness, and do not believe I have previously; nor have I changed the course of discussion in this matter.
Perhaps unbeknownst to me I've suffered a stroke due to my wife's birth-control pills which I mistook for Pez and now have memory loss?
As to the 'medically correct' term for 'contraception':
In her opening statement she makes no distinction of any medical necessity outside of the reasonable assumption of 'birth control'.
She is attempting to include the discretional as essential. It is with this I have an objection.
Now, it is however, reasonably acceptable to assume a percentage of the potential beneficiaries of Ms. Fluke's impassioned entreaty to policy change are (or may become) ***** considering her obvious lack of distinction for actual medical necessity.
And these are precisely the girls we're interested in.
Perhaps unbeknownst to me I've suffered a stroke due to my wife's birth-control pills which I mistook for Pez and now have memory loss?
As to the 'medically correct' term for 'contraception':
In her opening statement she makes no distinction of any medical necessity outside of the reasonable assumption of 'birth control'.
She is attempting to include the discretional as essential. It is with this I have an objection.
Now, it is however, reasonably acceptable to assume a percentage of the potential beneficiaries of Ms. Fluke's impassioned entreaty to policy change are (or may become) ***** considering her obvious lack of distinction for actual medical necessity.
And these are precisely the girls we're interested in.
Would you equally argue that men who are prescribed hair growth medication as an aid for their prostate/help preventing prostate cancer shouldn't get it because it would...encourage men to lose their hair? Equally ridiculous, requiring coverage of prostate exams by law, but not requiring coverage of breast exams? Lolwut?
That's absolutely stupid logic bro. If someone has a medical condition and they need medication for it, whatever else it is used for doesn't goddamn matter. Our legal system and medical system have never given a ---- that, for instance, that prostate cancer prevention medication that is also used to help with hair loss? Yeah, the hair loss part doesn't matter boo. The reality is this is simply people trying to regulate their personal beliefs into our system, and the people backing this are encouraging the worst kind of government regulation - the regulation of morality and personal beliefs.
On a related tangent to this thread: I find it absolutely mind-boggling that some people here (Not you, RattleTrap) can argue "Government regulation is bad", but then proceed to argue that the government should get involved with such things as banning abortion. To them, I think it means gov't regulation is bad unless it's their personal belief, and then gov't regulation is a-okay. Seriously, how the ---- can someone say all gov't regulation is bad, but be fine with things such as the gov't regulating abortion and similar areas?
Reply
0
0
03-24-2012, 11:54 AM
#76
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or other schools or who works for a religiously affiliated employer who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage. And so, I am here to share their voices and I thank you for allowing them to be heard.
Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.
For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary.
Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy.
One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it.
Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception.
Just last week, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any longer.
Where's the medical necessity you talked about blaen? still waiting.
Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.
You might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that’s not true. Women’s health clinics provide vital medical services, but as the Guttmacher Institute has documented, clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services.
Clinics are closing and women are being forced to go without. How can Congress consider the Fortenberry, Rubio, and Blunt legislation that would allow even more employers and institutions to refuse contraceptive coverage and then respond that the non-profit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis, particularly when so many legislators are attempting to defund those very same clinics?
three medical examples in which contraceptives don't manner
the third was unproven contraceptive was needed as a treatment without surgery to prove it. so get the damn surgery.
rape story
struggle for healthcare they need.
Reply
0
0
03-24-2012, 12:33 PM
#77
She wasn't there to be an attorney, Brainy.
Have you been watching bad TV dramas again Brainy? This would be admissible in court - so why isn't it admissible to you?
I already covered this prior in the thread, Brainy. This is equivalent to saying eBay has all the parts you need to turbo your Miata - just because it is in the arena of contraception medication does not mean it does what, for instance, the women who contracted cancer due to a lack of the proper medication needs it to do.
Your point?
See above.
So, you feel nothing towards an insurance company violating both federal and state law (Remember, the ONLY exemption is for contraception specifically for birth control purposes, NOT for medical reasons), as well as their contract then Brainy? Seriously, that's what I get out of this.
I've already covered this previously, Brainy. Or do I get to start linking to eBay ---- every time you complain about the cost of anything on your Miata? Just because it is birth control does not mean the medication does what the lady needs if it is for medical purposes.
I'll grant you that you are correct if it is for birth control purposes - but that's not even what is being discussed by Fluke!
See above.
Covered later in the post.
Already covered this fallacy - hilariously, it was already covered several times in previous posts.
Great, where's your sources then Brainy? Do you have any reason to say this is false beyond it conflicts your attempt to troll and/or worldview?
You may want to read into that legislation, Brainy.
Brainy, all of which she talked about has a form of contraception prescribed as a form of treatment. http://www.womenshealth.gov/publicat...ometriosis.cfm - even our own government states this clearly.
Are you telling the insurance company to pay for the surgery? If so, I have no argument. But if you read up on that, you'd have realized the insurance company would not pay for the surgery to prove that she had it.
Are you ------- kidding me Brainy? Seriously?
Bullshit.
They agreed to not getting coverage for contraceptive as birth control, not for not getting coverage period. The insurance company and university are hiding behind that clause while refusing to provide coverage for contraception for proven medical needs.
This is the point that you refuse to get Brainy. The ONLY exception provided is contraceptive as birth control, not for ANYTHING else.
This is evidenced in her contract, as well as federal and state law. Why do you think she was even there, FFS?
And if your answer is "Well, sue the insurance company then for violation of contract!", well, two points. 1: She's a college student, she doesn't have the money, and 2: You would be actively mocking her if she did, considering what you've posted in other threads about litigation.
hearsay. over ruled.
sure it can, but it doesn't have to. Assuming that you can get it for $9 a month at Target, then it would take over 27 years of law school to equal $3000.
so?
source? 40% of woman at georgetown are morons if they cant budget $9 a month.
boo hoo. im embarrasses everything I have to show my face in public yet I'm not lobbying for free plastic surgery for my jew nose.
No other choice? they cant go to target?
I'll grant you that you are correct if it is for birth control purposes - but that's not even what is being discussed by Fluke!
she cant budget $9 a month? can she prove this? how much does she spend on alcohol a month? how much on food? how much on mcdonalds? how much on movies? I bet I could find $9 a month.
Where's the medical necessity you talked about blaen? still waiting.
what choice? going to target or not? having to not watch hunger games at $15 a pop instead of getting contraceptive for a month?
false.
still plenty of options. planned parenthood wont go out of business if they are defunded by the taxpayer, it's a small portion of their budget.
finally, but now I dont feel like doing this anymore, but she gives two examples of the same illness many women everyday face, and contraceptive is not a treatment and would not prevent the issues she gave in her example, and the stories would have been the exact same if contraceptive would have been used same ending.
Brainy, all of which she talked about has a form of contraception prescribed as a form of treatment. http://www.womenshealth.gov/publicat...ometriosis.cfm - even our own government states this clearly.
the third was unproven contraceptive was needed as a treatment without surgery to prove it. so get the damn surgery.
lol. moron. ****. -----. is this real life? are you kidding me?
they dont need extra healthcare coverage, they agreed to not getting coverage for contraceptive, a private organization has the right to refuse, and there are plenty of affordable alternatives.
They agreed to not getting coverage for contraceptive as birth control, not for not getting coverage period. The insurance company and university are hiding behind that clause while refusing to provide coverage for contraception for proven medical needs.
This is the point that you refuse to get Brainy. The ONLY exception provided is contraceptive as birth control, not for ANYTHING else.
This is evidenced in her contract, as well as federal and state law. Why do you think she was even there, FFS?
And if your answer is "Well, sue the insurance company then for violation of contract!", well, two points. 1: She's a college student, she doesn't have the money, and 2: You would be actively mocking her if she did, considering what you've posted in other threads about litigation.
Reply
0
0
03-25-2012, 05:04 AM
#78
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Central Florida, Land of the Giant Rat.
Posts: 122
Total Cats: 2
Please realize the content of this post is in no small way alcofluenced by copious amounts of incohol...
Srsly? Rlly? U cnt be 4 rlz...
No kidding. Glad to see you recognize that.
Stunning. Just... Someone give him a cookie. Plz.
Did they even teach reading comprehension at that fancy-schmancy-artsy-fartsy-socialist-fantasy-land liberal arts school your 'rents paid for?
I'll admit my style of communication is just a smidge beyond the orthodox, bordering on the pedantic and even been accused of being ESL, but your interpretations of my posts regarding Ms. Fluke seem to indicate a very real inability to grasp the intricacies of understanding and suggest the possibility that you've had a humor-ectomy. Read what I wrote again, but this time bring along a sense of humor.
Which brings up the point, if you cannot correctly decipher my posts, what chance do you have of untangling Ms. Fluke's convolutions?
I'm not arguing the issue, just her dissertation, nothing more. Look back, you'll see I'm correct in this.
Her first two examples had nothing to do with an adverse medical issue. They're irrelevant.
Last I looked, conception and pregnancy were not considered adverse medical issues that necessitate 'treatment' to be 'cured' or 'healed' or 'prevented'. Why even bring them up? The only 'Focus' she has is in the parking lot next to a Taurus and an aging Dodge Dart. (Fine automobile that Dart.)
Look, I've been sarcastic, I've been snarky in my assessment of Ms. Fluke's little stage-show. But justifiably so. IMNSHO, It is what she deserves for attempting to lead us to believe that receiving contraceptives due to the fact that some woman might 'accidentally' become pregnant because she was on a movie-matinee date with Pee-Wee Herman and slipped and fell butt-first into a puddle of semen is justified and equal to a truly medical necessity.
Okay, the li'l red unnerlines are coming with a frequency not unlike that of a Miami Beach street hooker's turnover rate on a Friday night, and I'm having trouble dealing with that, so...
No kidding. Glad to see you recognize that.
Stunning. Just... Someone give him a cookie. Plz.
Did they even teach reading comprehension at that fancy-schmancy-artsy-fartsy-socialist-fantasy-land liberal arts school your 'rents paid for?
I'll admit my style of communication is just a smidge beyond the orthodox, bordering on the pedantic and even been accused of being ESL, but your interpretations of my posts regarding Ms. Fluke seem to indicate a very real inability to grasp the intricacies of understanding and suggest the possibility that you've had a humor-ectomy. Read what I wrote again, but this time bring along a sense of humor.
Which brings up the point, if you cannot correctly decipher my posts, what chance do you have of untangling Ms. Fluke's convolutions?
I'm not arguing the issue, just her dissertation, nothing more. Look back, you'll see I'm correct in this.
Her first two examples had nothing to do with an adverse medical issue. They're irrelevant.
Last I looked, conception and pregnancy were not considered adverse medical issues that necessitate 'treatment' to be 'cured' or 'healed' or 'prevented'. Why even bring them up? The only 'Focus' she has is in the parking lot next to a Taurus and an aging Dodge Dart. (Fine automobile that Dart.)
Look, I've been sarcastic, I've been snarky in my assessment of Ms. Fluke's little stage-show. But justifiably so. IMNSHO, It is what she deserves for attempting to lead us to believe that receiving contraceptives due to the fact that some woman might 'accidentally' become pregnant because she was on a movie-matinee date with Pee-Wee Herman and slipped and fell butt-first into a puddle of semen is justified and equal to a truly medical necessity.
Okay, the li'l red unnerlines are coming with a frequency not unlike that of a Miami Beach street hooker's turnover rate on a Friday night, and I'm having trouble dealing with that, so...
Last edited by RattleTrap; 03-25-2012 at 05:06 AM. Reason: 80 proof...
Reply
0
0
03-25-2012, 10:47 PM
#79
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
Reply
0
0
03-26-2012, 09:40 AM
#80
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
hearsay. over ruled.
Have you been watching bad TV dramas again Brainy? This would be admissible in court - so why isn't it admissible to you?
sure it can, but it doesn't have to. Assuming that you can get it for $9 a month at Target, then it would take over 27 years of law school to equal $3000.
I already covered this prior in the thread, Brainy. This is equivalent to saying eBay has all the parts you need to turbo your Miata - just because it is in the arena of contraception medication does not mean it does what, for instance, the women who contracted cancer due to a lack of the proper medication needs it to do.
Furthermore, no one Fluke talked about contracted cancer from the lack of treatment from contraception.
source? 40% of woman at georgetown are morons if they cant budget $9 a month.
See above.
boo hoo. im embarrasses everything I have to show my face in public yet I'm not lobbying for free plastic surgery for my jew nose.
So, you feel nothing towards an insurance company violating both federal and state law (Remember, the ONLY exemption is for contraception specifically for birth control purposes, NOT for medical reasons), as well as their contract then Brainy? Seriously, that's what I get out of this.
I'm sorry, was this what she was testifiing about? Should we copy and paste her entire speech again? She's not testifiing to the idea the school is violating a contract, only giving a few loose exmaples as to why they should be forced to add coverage.
So no, I don't feel anything, because that's not what the discussion is about.
No other choice? they cant go to target?
I've already covered this previously, Brainy. Or do I get to start linking to eBay ---- every time you complain about the cost of anything on your Miata? Just because it is birth control does not mean the medication does what the lady needs if it is for medical purposes.
I'll grant you that you are correct if it is for birth control purposes - but that's not even what is being discussed by Fluke!
I'll grant you that you are correct if it is for birth control purposes - but that's not even what is being discussed by Fluke!
Do it. If you find a part on ebay that's cheaper than I found elsewhere, show me. This argument sucks really really bad and you know it.
I shop on amazon.com for prilosec and zertec...I live 50 feet from a CVS.
It doesn't matter for what purposes I need prilosec or zertec, I could be crushing them up and making meth with it for that matters, the fact is, I found it cheaper than where it is readily available to me.
and yes that's correct, that's not what she's discussion because she's ignoring the fact all together that there are plently of affordable options outside of her health coverage plan provided from the school.
So if she's arguing that there are medical reasons her school might need to cover contraception, she should bring it up with the school and campaign for it locally, not nationally for the government to mandate it.
She spends the total of a few sentences on this, all 3 stories that she gives have holes in them.
she cant budget $9 a month? can she prove this? how much does she spend on alcohol a month? how much on food? how much on mcdonalds? how much on movies? I bet I could find $9 a month.
Your ebay argument isn't vaild here. If one cant afford $100 a month on something, but can find it elsewhere readily available for $9 a month, what's the problem?
Where's the medical necessity you talked about blaen? still waiting.
Covered later in the post.
1. polycystic ovarian syndrome again is non-curable. Seems that exercise and a good diet are the best steps to managing it, an actual medical treatment for it. Birth control pills are used to help regulate cycles, if that's a problem and is not the only method of treatment--and it's the "non-pregnancy" method of treatment.
2. Another polycystic ovarian syndrome example--This time she's talking about a huge painful cysts. The birth control pills could not prevent this, reduce the size of it, or treat the pain.
3. Endometriosis is non-curable and doctors will perscribe it to reduce the pain associated with it...but they will also prescribe anti-inflammatories and other hormones that do the same.
4. Another polycystic ovarian syndrome mention.
5. rape story. Student didn't even bother to find out what was covered or not. Not much more I can say about this.
what choice? going to target or not? having to not watch hunger games at $15 a pop instead of getting contraceptive for a month?
Already covered this fallacy - hilariously, it was already covered several times in previous posts.
false.
Great, where's your sources then Brainy? Do you have any reason to say this is false beyond it conflicts your attempt to troll and/or worldview?
still plenty of options. planned parenthood wont go out of business if they are defunded by the taxpayer, it's a small portion of their budget.
You may want to read into that legislation, Brainy.
finally, but now I dont feel like doing this anymore, but she gives two examples of the same illness many women everyday face, and contraceptive is not a treatment and would not prevent the issues she gave in her example, and the stories would have been the exact same if contraceptive would have been used same ending.
Brainy, all of which she talked about has a form of contraception prescribed as a form of treatment. http://www.womenshealth.gov/publicat...ometriosis.cfm - even our own government states this clearly.
the third was unproven contraceptive was needed as a treatment without surgery to prove it. so get the damn surgery.
lol. moron. ****. -----. is this real life? are you kidding me?
they dont need extra healthcare coverage, they agreed to not getting coverage for contraceptive, a private organization has the right to refuse, and there are plenty of affordable alternatives.
They agreed to not getting coverage for contraceptive as birth control, not for not getting coverage period. The insurance company and university are hiding behind that clause while refusing to provide coverage for contraception for proven medical needs.
This is the point that you refuse to get Brainy. The ONLY exception provided is contraceptive as birth control, not for ANYTHING else.
This is evidenced in her contract, as well as federal and state law. Why do you think she was even there, FFS?
And if your answer is "Well, sue the insurance company then for violation of contract!", well, two points. 1: She's a college student, she doesn't have the money, and 2: You would be actively mocking her if she did, considering what you've posted in other threads about litigation.
Reply
0
0
