Mia Love: House N*gger and dirty worthless whore

[Rob's House]

the point is many contraceptives are not even for sex, yet women are denied it. viagra is only for sex, but covered...

I don't get it. That's the point of what?

[Doc]

but they increase the chance you wont get pregnant... really man... why the hell would a insurance plan not be required to cover viagra if you need it? let alone contraceptives.

Condoms also increase the chance you won't get pregnant AND infinitely increase the chance you won't get STD's versus OCP, which don't do anything for STD's. That's the point. They're also a LOT cheaper.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Condoms also increase the chance you won't get pregnant AND infinitely increase the chance you won't get STD's versus OCP, which don't do anything for STD's. That's the point. They're also a LOT cheaper.

The magnums I need to buy are a little more expensive.

[Doc]

The magnums I need to buy are a little more expensive.

Cut 'em in half, tie one end of the half without the receptacle end, and you'll save money.

[3rdnlng]

Cut 'em in half, tie one end of the half without the receptacle end, and you'll save money.

 

And you know this how?

[Doc]

And you know this how?

Suspicion.

[3rdnlng]

Suspicion.

 

That's ok Doc. Just in case you're interested:

 

 

http://www.sexpillguru.com/

[Doc]

That's ok Doc. Just in case you're interested:

 

 

http://www.sexpillguru.com/

Nope, not interested in Ron Jeremy.

[DC Tom]

the point is many contraceptives are not even for sex, yet women are denied it. viagra is only for sex, but covered...

 

Actually, Viagara is used to treat blood pressure problems, too (I recall at least one story where a woman was prescribed Viagra for blood pressure reasons, which the insurance company denied because "Viagra isn't prescribed to women.")

 

And by definition, contraceptives are for sex. Otherwise, they're not contraceptives. They may have other uses, for which they're prescribed off-label...like, for example, Viagra.

 

Try knowing what you're talking about before you talk about it, moron.

[3rdnlng]

 

 

Actually, Viagara is used to treat blood pressure problems, too (I recall at least one story where a woman was prescribed Viagra for blood pressure reasons, which the insurance company denied because "Viagra isn't prescribed to women.")

 

And by definition, contraceptives are for sex. Otherwise, they're not contraceptives. They may have other uses, for which they're prescribed off-label...like, for example, Viagra.

 

Try knowing what you're talking about before you talk about it, moron.

 

 

Actually Viagra started out as a blood pressure medicine but when older males in the trial stage started walking around with boners like when they were 18 the drug company got a bigger boner and took it in another direction.

[TakeYouToTasker]

a 3 yr old can work? what if the mom is single?

 

if poor people dont have access to contraceptives, obviously this increases the rate for unwanted pregnancy, right?

 

so wouldnt it be cheaper and less of a burden on the state to provide bc for poor people?

 

 

 

disabled, old, sick, children, market vulnerability, all keep you from being personally responsible.

 

you dumb ***** on the right keep saying get a job, ( someone has to hire you, and it needs to have a decent wage, all which are not guaranteed in a free market, which you advocate ironically)

 

really?

You've provided a list of circumstances that a) aren't being discussed (the disabled, the elderly) b) are accounted for in my list of acceptable solutions , or c) aren't my problem. I have no interest in being more concerned or responsible for someones own family or quality of life than they are. Do for you and your own or die trying. Need isn't currency, and you aren't entitled to anything simply because you showed up.

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

Actually, Viagara is used to treat blood pressure problems, too (I recall at least one story where a woman was prescribed Viagra for blood pressure reasons, which the insurance company denied because "Viagra isn't prescribed to women.")

 

And by definition, contraceptives are for sex. Otherwise, they're not contraceptives. They may have other uses, for which they're prescribed off-label...like, for example, Viagra.

 

Try knowing what you're talking about before you talk about it, moron.

 

no ****, but why are women denied care by the insurance company but men arent?

 

You've provided a list of circumstances that a) aren't being discussed (the disabled, the elderly) b) are accounted for in my list of acceptable solutions , or c) aren't my problem. I have no interest in being more concerned or responsible for someones own family or quality of life than they are. Do for you and your own or die trying. Need isn't currency, and you aren't entitled to anything simply because you showed up.

 

babies and children can work? get jobs?

 

whats the point of health insurance if you cant get contraceptives covered? really? preventing pregnancy is not a medical issue??? why would anyone be opposed to this?

Edited September 1, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER

[Philly McButterpants]

MDP is a true liberal democrat. Do NOTHING to solve a problem; throw money at the aftermath in the hope that it does some good. Vilify as heartless/brainless/racist anyone who disagrees.

 

Did I miss anything?

Edited September 1, 2012 by Fatty McButterpants

[/dev/null]

MDP is a true liberal democrat. Do NOTHING to solve a problem; throw money at the aftermath in the hope that it does some good. Vilify as heartless/brainless/racist anyone who disagrees.

 

Did I miss anything?

 

I don't think he's ever had a real job and had to pay bills or be self sufficient

[TakeYouToTasker]

no ****, but why are women denied care by the insurance company but men arent?

This is an intellectually dishonest question, and you know it. "Women" aren't denied coverage; certain prescriptions are, and these denials of coverage are based on actuarial expense tables which examine cost of treatment and care vs. likelyhood of treatment and care. Insurance can't cover routine care which the large majority of the population will use on a daily basis at a fraction of the cost of care and remain solvent. There are very strict laws regarding cash holdings relative to potential liabilities that insurers must adhere to.

 

babies and children can work? get jobs?

No, but their parents can; and it's their job to support their own families, not mine. If they can't, they can surrender their children to the state, or join the military. What they can't do is claim the right to the resources of others simply because they like to !@#$ irresponsibly.

 

whats the point of health insurance if you cant get contraceptives covered?

To cover unforeseen eventualities and maladies that only a small portion of the population will experience at any given time, thus taking advantage of a shared risk pool and lowering the financial burden of those occurrences. Birth control doesn't fit this model because it breaks the shared risk pool. It's use is regular and common in too large a segment of the population to reduce costs.

 

really? preventing pregnancy is not a medical issue???

No more than preventing foot trauma with the issue of government shoes would be a medical issue.

 

why would anyone be opposed to this?

Because they understand cost/benefit ratios, understand perverse incentive, and believe in personal responsibility. Edited September 1, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

This is an intellectually dishonest question, and you know it. "Women" aren't denied coverage; certain prescriptions are, and these denials of coverage are based on actuarial expense tables which examine cost of treatment and care vs. likelyhood of treatment and care. Insurance can't cover routine care which the large majority of the population will use on a daily basis at a fraction of the cost of care and remain solvent. There are very strict laws regarding cash holdings relative to potential liabilities that insurers must adhere to.

 

No, but their parents can; and it's their job to support their own families, not mine.

If they can't, they can surrender their children to the state, or join the military.

What they can't do is claim the right to the resources of others simply because they like to !@#$ irresponsibly.

 

so you proved my point, by not having access to contraception, the chances go up that poor people will have unwanted pregnancy, thus creating an even heavier burden on the state... but dont worry, im a liberal democrat that ignores reality, ( people wont have sex)

 

To cover unforeseen eventualities and maladies that only a small portion of the population will experience at any given time, thus taking advantage of a shared risk pool and lowering the financial burden of those occurrences. Birth control doesn't fit this model because it breaks the shared risk pool.

It's use is regular and common in too large a segment of the population to reduce costs.

 

so like pretty much all medical coverage, the demand is great, and supply is low, hence the reason it doesnt work in a market, which is why we need single payer... when we are the only 1st world country that cant get contraception for women, either its a market issue, or anti-women issue, or both...

 

No more than preventing foot trauma with the issue of government shoes would be a medical issue.

 

 

see post on single payer...

 

Because they understand cost/benefit ratios, understand perverse incentive, and believe in personal responsibility.

 

 

pretty much a simpleton answer, obviously market health care doesnt work, your post proves that... and for the same reason the police and fire wouldnt work in a market... incredible demand that is needed not wanted, which creates market vulnerability, which makes your regurgitated, non critical thinking ass, comment on personal responsibility !@#$ing dumb as !@#$...

[TakeYouToTasker]

I'm off to have dinner with the wife, but will be back to deal with your ignorant ass soon enough.

[TakeYouToTasker]

so you proved my point, by not having access to contraception, the chances go up that poor people will have unwanted pregnancy, thus creating an even heavier burden on the state...

Slow down there, Tonto. First of all, we're not working with the base assumption that the state should be a caretaker or provider. If you want to build on that assumption first you'll have to convince me, and anyone else who takes umbrage, of the idea that a non-merit based (or merit based, for that matter) social welfare program is the proper role of the state.

 

Secondly, you're making wild leaps in logic about what's been "proven". Initially, without access to contraception, those poor who are responsible enough to use the offered contraception might see an increase in pregnancy in that demographic. However, since we're speaking about a group who are separated from those who wouldn't use the available contraception at all in the first place by their tendency to be more responsible I find it unlikely that the lack of government subsidised birth-control would suddenly drive them into irresponsible behavior. Additionally, I find the notion that a large enough sub-segment of the poor population, whose behavior in poverty can best be described with any adjective other than "responsible", are making use of the offered free contraception to be dubious at best.

 

]but dont worry, im a liberal democrat that ignores reality, ( people wont have sex)[/b]

No, what you are is a !@#$ing moron who makes wild leaps of logic and correlates behaviors with policy that has nothing to do with eventual outcomes. The fact that you're a self-described liberal Democrat (you should at least know enough to capitalize proper nouns) has nothing at all to do with those poor tendencies, although I do find it humorous that you would demonize your preferred ideology by ascribing those traits to all of it's members in broad brush strokes.

 

]so like pretty much all medical coverage, the demand is great, and supply is low, hence the reason it doesnt work in a market, which is why we need single payer...[/b]

So your assertion is that all insurable medical conditions happen with the same frequency and affect the same amount of the population at any given time as birth control? That is the dumbest thing I've ever read here, and that's saying something. First of all, stop conflating medical coverage with medical care. They aren't even remotely the same thing; and if your argument is against scarcity of resources then your argument becomes even worse because you're arguing for policy that will create even greater scarcity, doing harm to an even greater number of people. Nearly all problems are best solved by the market and those that aren't, such as catastrophic coverage for pre-existing conditions, demand elegant solutions. If you want to argue for a nationalized risk pool for those sorts of ailments where no market based solution is viable, I'm all ears. However, when you want to insure things like well visits, mundane illness, and birth control; which the large majority of the population will suffer from or need/desire, you make them far more expensive, and less accessable, for everyone.

 

]when we are the only 1st world country that cant get contraception for women, either its a market issue, or anti-women issue, or both... [/b]

Actually, condoms are readily available in the US. They are provided free of charge by multiple well funded charities, clinics, and universities. Additionally, they can be purchased for about 50 cents/per on the market. The market has already solved this issue, and your bloviating assertions to the contrary are absurd. Leninists like yourself like to toss out canards about everything market based being "anti-some protected group", when the truth is that your insistance in seperating and protecting them locks them into a permanent and unescapable merit-based caste system. If anyone is anti-women here, it's you; insisting that they are inferior and therefor need extra help.

 

]see post on single payer...[/b]

If it was anything like the enourmous corn-riddled **** you took in the post I'm currently disecting, I'll spare myself the time, and you the intellectual beat down.

 

pretty much a simpleton answer, obviously market health care doesnt work, your post proves that... and for the same reason the police and fire wouldnt work in a market... incredible demand that is

Fiat declaration built around a foolish assumption which I've already debunked in this post above.

 

]needed not wanted[/b]

It's becoming clear that you don't have a very good handle of the language.

 

]which creates market vulnerability,[/b]

There is no such thing as "market vulnerability", there are actions and consequences. Peddle your Leninism somewhere else.

 

]which makes your regurgitated, non critical thinking ass, comment on personal responsibility !@#$ing dumb as [/b]!@#$...

I'll let this stand, and allow the reader to decide if this is an apt descriptor of me, or if you've been caught staring too deeply into a mirror. Edited September 2, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker

[Oxrock]

I wonder why we didn't see her on mainstream networks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL7wZuHVx9A&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

Wonder if she was called names and is receiving hate mail as well.

Edited September 2, 2012 by Oxrock

[/dev/null]

I wonder why we didn't see her on mainstream networks.

 

Cuz Mitt Romney is a greedy racist capitalistic pig that enjoys putting people of colour out of work and preventing 30 year old Democratic Activist College Girls from spreading their legs

 

And anyone that says otherwise is flat Earther who belives Sarah Palin's God invented the world 5000 years ago

 

Do yourself a favour my friend. Stop thinking for yourself or the The People's Party may brand you Racist® and Unperson you