T1B

poptart wrote:

brad wrote:Obama lies, he says he will ONLY raise taxes on the super super rich, BIG BIG LIE.

Yes, a blatant lie.

ObaMao, in under four years, has added 5 trillion to our debt and proposes adding another 2 trillion+ over the next two years.

That is a tax on everyone and it is a tax on our children and grandchildren.

That is immoral.



The only current candidate who is talking about making real cuts into this obscene deficit is Ron Paul.

How many children do you have? Grandchildren?

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

smackaholic wrote:A bastard factory is one type of factory I'd like to see shuttered a little more often.

Then you're in agreement that The Pill ought to be covered by health insurance?

:facepalm:

You want pills, pay for them, or find a charitable outfit to provide them.

Gee, I wonder why health care costs are increasing with this type of thinking?

"Hmmm... we should distribute pills that cost $15 a pack, and load up the process with middlemen, and make sure mountains of paperwork are involved, and maybe then we can get them cranked up to $50 a pack."


Insanity.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

smackaholic wrote:A bastard factory is one type of factory I'd like to see shuttered a little more often.

Then you're in agreement that The Pill ought to be covered by health insurance?

I really hope your reading comp is better with your lawyering duties, because it sukks dead moose cahk in this place.

Whether or not the pills should be covered should be the decision of the party footing the bill for it.

If I am bankrolling a service to someone, I should be the one deciding just what that service should be. If you are unable to grasp this simple concept, you are a goddamn moron.

You do realize mvscal provides help for folks with that affliction, pro bono.

Jsc810 wrote:If I'm an employer, should I be able to decide that I don't want to cover the medical insurance for someone who breaks a finger in an after hours basketball game? What about if I as an employer don't like motorcycles, should I be forced to pay part of my employees insurance to cover injuries resulting from a motorcycle accident?

Why should employers get to decide what type of health care is covered?

That's a piss poor analogy as birth control pills are not healthcare, but fukk it, I'll play along.

Because it's ..........
















THEIR FUKKING MONEY!!!!!!

Let's say I am an employer who requires very good dexterity in my employees. I could tell them, prior to employing them, don't play pickup basketball games with sawed off little pinoi bastards, because they are savage and play dirty and have been known to snap the fingers off of tall quick white boys in a fit of jealous rage.

Pro athletes have to sign all sorts of agreements about what they can and can't do.

Wanna know why?

Cause the motherfukker with the checkbook says so.

It's the way of the world. The golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

Jsc810 wrote:Even the Pope has called for universal health care.

But because "Obamacare" is a step in that direction, the derpers in the Republican party oppose it.

And the pope thinks contraception is healthcare?

Just what sort of lawyers are you and terry, anyhoo?

Goober McTuber wrote:
I think the word you were looking for is “palpable”, and yes, the point does remain the same. You all need to stop trying to impress us with your fabulous vocabularies.

nice...thanks for the heads up....

grammar, punctuation, spelling....dude, you are all over it....congrats on achieving the tard trifecta.....

Felix wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:
I think the word you were looking for is “palpable”, and yes, the point does remain the same. You all need to stop trying to impress us with your fabulous vocabularies.

nice...thanks for the heads up....

grammar, punctuation, spelling....dude, you are all over it....congrats on achieving the tard trifecta.....

don't fukk with old people when it comes to proper grammar and vocabulary. all the shit that we wasted time studying in school hadn't been invented yet, so they spent a lot of time on that shit.

Dinsdale wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

smackaholic wrote:A bastard factory is one type of factory I'd like to see shuttered a little more often.

Then you're in agreement that The Pill ought to be covered by health insurance?

:facepalm:

You want pills, pay for them, or find a charitable outfit to provide them.

Gee, I wonder why health care costs are increasing with this type of thinking?

"Hmmm... we should distribute pills that cost $15 a pack, and load up the process with middlemen, and make sure mountains of paperwork are involved, and maybe then we can get them cranked up to $50 a pack."


Insanity.

You do realize that you're talking about something completely different, right? And that most prescription-level contraceptives have been covered by health insurance for quite some time, right?

Or are you suggesting that no prescription meds should be covered by health insurance?

If that's the case, why stop there? Hell, why not make it so that no health care is covered by insurance? And if that's the case, why would anyone need, or want, health insurance in the first place?

And btw, you do realize that your hero's former campaign manager died of pneumonia at the ripe old age of 49, don't you? And that he had no health insurance coverage? Ya think maybe that death might have been preventable?

http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/wa ... mer-campai

88 wrote: How is an ultrasound a barrier to abortion? It costs almost nothing and is non-invasive. Is more information bad when making a decision?

Sure it's bad.

Looking at that ultrasound might remind them that this is more than just lancing a boil. The abortion mills don't wanna here about anything that might turn away customers.

Personally, I think abortion should remain legal for pragmatic reasons. But, I do think that women do deserve to know what they are doing. Better to know ahead of time than realize it afterwards and go through a lifetime feeling guilty about offing their kid.

BSmack wrote:

The Seer wrote:

poptart wrote:
1. Balance the budget now.
2. Secure the borders now.
3. Get our troops home from places they don't belong... now.

#3 takes care of #2

And gets us pretty close to #1.

Not even close, idiot.

Terry in Crapchester wrote: Or are you suggesting that no prescription meds should be covered by health insurance?

If that's the case, why stop there? Hell, why not make it so that no health care is covered by insurance? And if that's the case, why would anyone need, or want, health insurance in the first place?

Birth control pills aren't health care, you stupid, pinheaded fuck. Should auto insurance pay for your gas and oil changes?

I'm just curious -- could someone explain to me what possible reasoning there is behind prescriptions being covered by insurance?

Take your time, Terry, lest you say anything profoundly stupid.

The ONLY logical reason anyone could possibly have is to make someone else pay your bills... no other explaination.

Some people really struggle with the concept of "insurance." The government struggles worse than anyone with this.

smackaholic wrote:But, I do think that women do deserve to know what they are doing.

Women "deserve to know that they are doing"? How wonderful.

You act like they're being forced into abortions, or somehow fooled into it. Don't you think they "deserve" not to be forced into a completely unnecessary procedure just to satisfy your misplaced desire to control what they do or don't do?

Jsc810 wrote:It takes time and costs money, both of which are barriers. It serves no medical purpose.

You could say the same thing about abortions.

Mikey wrote:You act like they're being forced into abortions, or somehow fooled into it.

As a point of fact, they are. They have subjected to a steady stream of Orwellian propaganda and newspeak their entire lives that leads them to believe that living human beings, their own children, are mere blobs of tissue to be excised without a second thought or any future regrets.

mvscal wrote:

Mikey wrote:You act like they're being forced into abortions, or somehow fooled into it.

As a point of fact, they are. They have subjected to a steady stream of Orwellian propaganda and newspeak their entire lives that leads them to believe that living human beings, their own children, are mere blobs of tissue to be excised without a second thought or any future regrets.

Yeah those women, they're all pretty fucking stupid, aren't they? Who ever thought any of them could ever make an intelligent decision on their own without your and smackoholic's intervention must have been bat shit crazy.

Thanks for setting me straight, All Knowing and Benevolent Master of Everything that Goes on in the Female Mind.

Jsc810 wrote: Do you realize there are several conditions where birth control is prescribed for purposes other than contraception?

And so what if it is for contraception? What ends up costing less, some pills or more babies on welfare?

The wet moose walks backwards after midnight?

WTF are you talking about?

See if I can type slowly here...

I don't give a fuck what the pills are for. YOU take them... YOU pay for them.

If you're still struggling with that, let me know.

Pills (of any kind) cost $X.

Administration costs for insurance claims cost $Y.

Under your (and Terry's) brilliant plan, it's better to pay X+Y for pills than X.

Sounds like bad math to me.

But it does sound like a great way to get other people to pay your bills. Now, if you could explainto me who, exactly, you think it is that's responsible for paying your bills besides you, and why they should be responsible, I'd love to hear it (by "love to hear it," I mean "laugh at your greed and selfishness").

Jsc810 wrote:So Dinsdale would rather pay more in welfare and food stamps instead of providing for contraception. OK then.

Smackaholic would force contraception on poor women. But I guess he'd also want them to pay for it. Ponderous.

Jsc810 wrote:Here and here, 88.

Are there any other unnecessary medical procedures that you want to force upon people? Just wondering.

A typical ultrasound involves gel applied to the abdomen and the sensor gliding over that area...less invasive than you picking your nose.

Mikey wrote:Yeah those women, they're all pretty fucking stupid, aren't they?

They have been conditioned to accept an intellectually dishonest premise. It is a premise that is further lubricated with soothing euphemisms. If we're going to have "abortions," we ought have the balls to call it what is: baby killing.

Good morning, Miss Fishycrotch. Would you like us to chop your baby up into small pieces and vacuum it out of your snatch today?

Jsc810 wrote:In any event, the procedure is medically unnecessary.

So is abortion. Why should any medically unecessary procedure or medication be covered under any insurance policy?

We did it ! Some folks actually think the Republicans are against birth control! Get ready for four more years of fun on the taxpayer's dime.

Wolfman wrote:

We did it ! Some folks actually think the Republicans are against birth control! Get ready for four more years of fun on the taxpayer's dime.

FTFY.

I'm pretty embarassed to admit that this moron was elected in my district.

Mikey wrote:

Wolfman wrote:

I'm pretty embarassed to admit that this moron was elected in my district.

He's even being mean to this chap

The odds of Slutty Irish Spring there ever having regularly fucked that little gnome are about the same as 'Spray bumping Charles Barkley to become Weight Watcher's next celebrity spokesperson.

Aw, c'mon 8's, she's kinda cute. Who's the dork, btw?

Dennis Kucinich, 65, U.S. House of Representatives from Ohio's 10th District. Celtic Woman there is his wife Elizabeth, who's 34.

Uh-huh.

Felix wrote:

poptart wrote: 1. Balance the budget now.
2. Secure the borders now.
3. Get our troops home from places they don't belong... now.

1. What cost cutting measures must be taken?
2. How do you propose to secure the borders?
3. And how are we going to do that without Afghanistan falling back under the control of those that would do us harm?

The Seer and BSmack gave the answers.

For ideas on how to make spending cuts necessary to balance the budget, you could look at at Rand Paul's proposal to cut 500 billion in one year.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/ ... ill/140043

As I see it, you stop doing things which are unconstitutional and the budget starts to get back to correct posture pretty quickly.


Oh... and won't we be in trouble if we pull out of Afghanistan and the bad guys take over fully, you ask?

Here's a novel approach:
If we are HIT or face a realistic national threat from Afghanistan, we declare war, we fight war, we win war (hi, nukes!), we come home.


And oh... oh... Mikey, I have two children.

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote: Or are you suggesting that no prescription meds should be covered by health insurance?

If that's the case, why stop there? Hell, why not make it so that no health care is covered by insurance? And if that's the case, why would anyone need, or want, health insurance in the first place?

Birth control pills aren't health care, you stupid, pinheaded fuck. Should auto insurance pay for your gas and oil changes?

You are a fucking retard. Birth control is used for non-family planning medical purposes ALL THE FUCKING TIME.

BSmack wrote: Birth control is used for non-family planning medical purposes ALL THE FUCKING TIME.

You can stop shoveling your bullshit any time now. It's not selling. "Non-family planning medical purposes" don't add up to a squirt of piss in the Pacific. In any event, we aren't talking about "non-family planning medical purposes," so why the fuck would you even bring it up?

Oh yes, that would be because you are an intellectually dishonest bag of wingnut chickenshit.

Mikey wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:So Dinsdale would rather pay more in welfare and food stamps instead of providing for contraception. OK then.

Smackaholic would force contraception on poor women. But I guess he'd also want them to pay for it. Ponderous.

Not what I said.

What I said was I would for it upon women as a condition to receive further welfare benefits.

Wanna have 19 kids like that ridiculous sow on TV? Fine. Just don't expect others to bankroll it.

As Dins said. We are talking about 2 simple concepts here.

First of,f insurance, any insurance, is supposed to be for unexpected catastrophic type shit. We used to call it "hospitalization" back in the day before some fukkwit decided it needed to be for everything from a runny nose to extended cancer treatments. And guess fukking what? Costs exploded. Something to do with that x+y algebra thingy Dins was babbling about.

2nd off, People should not make other people to pay for their shit. Back in the day we used to call that theft.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote: Birth control is used for non-family planning medical purposes ALL THE FUCKING TIME.

You can stop shoveling your bullshit any time now. It's not selling. "Non-family planning medical purposes" don't add up to a squirt of piss in the Pacific. In any event, we aren't talking about "non-family planning medical purposes," so why the fuck would you even bring it up?

Oh yes, that would be because you are an intellectually dishonest bag of wingnut chickenshit.

You're the one that said "Birth control pills aren't health care." Did you expect someone not to notice that tsunami of stupid?

smackie wrote:First of,f insurance, any insurance, is supposed to be for unexpected catastrophic type shit. We used to call it "hospitalization" back in the day before some fukkwit decided it needed to be for everything from a runny nose to extended cancer treatments. And guess fukking what? Costs exploded. Something to do with that x+y algebra thingy Dins was babbling about.

Absolutely. The billing on my cancer ordeal so far? Upwards of $750,000. Never mind the radiation, but how on earth they can justify $300,000 just for a few chemo treatments is beyond me. It simply involves a few bags of IV medicines and a nurse standing by while playing on Facebook. A single PET Scan ran $5500.

I haven't had to spend a single night in a hospital, so under your old-style "hospitalization" plans I may not have had coverage for any of this.

Healthcare coverage in this country defies sanity.

Van wrote:how on earth they can justify $300,000 just for a few chemo treatments is beyond me. It simply involves a few bags of IV medicines and a nurse standing by while playing on Facebook. A single PET Scan ran $5500.

That's what happens when you get government involved. There is no incentive at any level to control costs.

BSmack wrote:You're the one that said "Birth control pills aren't health care."

And they aren't. Their primary usage is as a contraceptive. That those hormones might have unrelated theraputic value for other conditions is irrelevant. That other legitimate medical condition and its treatment would doubtless be covered under a healthcare policy, right?

mvscal wrote:

Van wrote:how on earth they can justify $300,000 just for a few chemo treatments is beyond me. It simply involves a few bags of IV medicines and a nurse standing by while playing on Facebook. A single PET Scan ran $5500.

That's what happens when you get government involved. There is no incentive at any level to control costs.

Funny. I thought the GOP was throwing tantrums because the Dems were lowering costs paid to doctors.

And lord knows those costs were kept stable and didn't rise a bit when the GOP was in charge.

Bizzarofelice wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Van wrote:how on earth they can justify $300,000 just for a few chemo treatments is beyond me. It simply involves a few bags of IV medicines and a nurse standing by while playing on Facebook. A single PET Scan ran $5500.

That's what happens when you get government involved. There is no incentive at any level to control costs.

Funny. I thought the GOP was throwing tantrums because the Dems were lowering costs paid to doctors.

And lord knows those costs were kept stable and didn't rise a bit when the GOP was in charge.

costs have been on a non-stop spiral since the government stuck its nose in back in the early 70s.

smackaholic wrote: costs have been on a non-stop spiral since the government stuck it's nose in back in the early 70s.

sounds terrible. damned government lowering costs.

Bizzarofelice wrote:

smackaholic wrote: costs have been on a non-stop spiral since the government stuck it's nose in back in the early 70s.

sounds terrible. damned government lowering costs.

that spiral is in the upward direction, dillweed.

smackaholic wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:

smackaholic wrote: costs have been on a non-stop spiral since the government stuck it's nose in back in the early 70s.

sounds terrible. damned government lowering costs.

that spiral is in the upward direction, dillweed.

usually when people use the term "spiral" it denotes it falling.

maybe you come from a different culture than I do. and maybe you have a problem admitting when you fucked up.