patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,194,246 comments by 13,886 users - ForcedTQ, krc, lehr64, richwicks online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 78 - 116 of 116 Search these comments
CL
2014 Apr 23, 9:37am
No.
It's about personal responsibility.
Why should anyone subsidize anyone elses sexual behavior?
If they choose to have sex, they should bear the responsibility, not anyone else.
Then why subsidize fat people, smokers, congenital defects, sexually transmitted infections, non-sexually transmitted infections, diseases from overseas travel, workplace illness, and on and on?
YOU chose to travel, you got a blood transfusion (I'm looking at YOU, Ryan White!), you chose to work in a coal mine, you chose to drink that West Virginia tap water! Why should I pay?
Why not just require everyone to keep 1 million + in a bank account for a rainy day. Why can't we forbid insurance contracts to exist if this is a free-market????
ACA exacerbated the problem. It added a bunch of mandatory freebies with insurance. There is a difference between mandatory cancer coverage and free birth control pills for everyone.
First you complain about the high cost of health care and then you complain about something that will actually lower health care and other costs and that the insurance companies have no objection to pay for, birth control. The cost of unplanned pregnancy and associated child rearing to society (and you indirectly) is huge.
There is a religious argument for not providing a birth control mandate in employer supplied insurance that is playing out in the Hobby Lobby case, I don’t buy it but we will see. The "freebees" or mandatory insurance coverage requirements such as birth control in the ACA will not only relieve a large amount of human suffering by preventing certain conditions and illness or treating illness early they will almost certainly save money over the long term.
You get catastrophic insurance for this scenario. Generally this would carry a high deductible if you want to go on the cheap.
Funny that so many people are on PatNet complaining about high deductible plans...
Y
2014 Apr 23, 11:54am
You are comparing subsidizing people's self-induced illnesses, versus subsidizing people's self-induced pleasure.
Apples and oranges.
No.
It's about personal responsibility.
Why should anyone subsidize anyone elses sexual behavior?
If they choose to have sex, they should bear the responsibility, not anyone else.Then why subsidize fat people, smokers, congenital defects, sexually transmitted infections, non-sexually transmitted infections, diseases from overseas travel, workplace illness, and on and on?
JH
2014 Apr 23, 12:26pm
You are comparing subsidizing people's self-induced illnesses, versus subsidizing people's self-induced pleasure.
I don't think there is much pleasure in childbirth you moron. For one person, the pleasure is the cigarette, and the self-induced illness is emphysema, lung cancer, suppressed immune system, etc, etc. For another, the pleasure is sex, and the self-induced "illness" is having the baby. The former have been mandated coverage for decades, and are WAY more costly. Why should I pay for a boomer's lung cancer or emphysema when they made the decision to inhale shit, oh, let's say, 20 fucking times every fucking day for 50 fucking years...for the pleasure of it??
Y
2014 Apr 23, 1:58pm
So, to summarize, you equate having a baby to having an 'illness', just like cancer.
And you call me a 'moron'. I see....
Boy, once we cure that 'baby illness' we won't have to worry about insurance payments ever again. There won't be anyone around to make them.
For another, the pleasure is sex, and the self-induced "illness" is having the baby.
JH
2014 Apr 23, 2:31pm
So, to summarize, you equate having a baby to having an 'illness', just like cancer.
And you call me a 'moron'. I see....
Notice in my post that I put quotes ("") around illness but not around moron. Means something.
JH
2014 Apr 23, 2:31pm
Ha Ha Ha... I never though about kids as an "illness"... a chronic illness for like 20 years or so (until they move out)....
Ugh, only half way through (my first)...
JH
2014 Apr 23, 3:36pm
Insurance is for real illness, not for protection of the results of pleasure fucking.
So pleasure fucking one's mouth with cigarettes is OK but not pleasure fucking ones' vagina with a fertile cock?
I should pay for the years of mid to late life care for the one who chooses to pleasure fuck the mouth, but not the other cheaper one?
You do realize that having a baby is typically done at a hospital with a doctor. Thus it falls under health insurance. Women's health, babies health. Damn it all?
It's about personal responsibility.
Why should anyone subsidize anyone elses sexual behavior?
Because it results in activities performed at a hospital and doctor's office. Just like all the other shit that comes from heavy smoking, drinking, soda consumption, lack of exercise, etc etc as someone posted earlier. You're OK subsidizing that with your insurance. Okedokie. Personal responsibility be damned, also.
Homeboy
2014 Apr 23, 3:49pm
No.
It's about personal responsibility.
Why should anyone subsidize anyone elses sexual behavior?
If they choose to have sex, they should bear the responsibility, not anyone else
In my opinion, using birth control IS being responsible.
Paying for birth control is not "subsidizing sexual behavior"; at least not in the normal mind of a person who isn't addicted to Sean Hannity. We're not paying for people's hotel rooms, or vibrators, or dildos, or nipple clamps, or your cab fare down to the docks to pick up hookers, or whatever the fuck you do on your own time. We're subsidizing birth control pills. You have to go to a doctor to get a prescription for them. It is most certainly a part of health care, and it should be covered by insurance.
There might be services or drugs that YOU use that are covered by insurance, and in that sense, they are subsidized by others. And there might be services or drugs that OTHERS use, that are subsidized by YOU. That's what insurance is; you're pooling your financial resources so that nobody is left high and dry when they have to pay for healthcare. It's not gonna just cover the stuff that helps YOU and nobody else. Get the fuck over it. If you don't like it, move to Iraq.
So your big problem with ACA is that it requires insurance to cover birth control pills for women. All right, I think I get where you're coming from now. Keep 'em barefoot and pregnant, eh?
OTOH, you seem to support the pimp daddy attitude of the government.
Unlike you, I don't intend to treat any adult person with kid gloves irrespective of his/her gender.
I don't think an adult woman any less adult than an adult man in terms of handling personal responsibilities.
At most, a husband is responsible for his wife's birth control. When the government takes the role of the husband, you end up seeing many single mothers in society.
Homeboy
2014 Apr 23, 3:57pm
At most, a husband is responsible for his wife's birth control. When the government takes the role of the husband, you end up seeing many single mothers in society.
Christ, could you be any more provincial? I guess you missed the whole sexual revolution and the fact that women aren't considered the property of men anymore. Come join us in the 21st Century, won't you?
First you complain about the high cost of health care and then you complain about something that will actually lower health care and other costs and that the insurance companies have no objection to pay for, birth control. The cost of unplanned pregnancy and associated child rearing to society (and you indirectly) is huge.
This is just one item. There are nine other free items under Obamacare.
The insurance companies should be smart enough to perform the cost benefit analysis on their own. They hire lots of MBAs to do that for them. There is no reason to have a top-down bureaucracy for that.
There is a reason why premium has been going up. Obamacare has been quickly losing confidence among the very people it had intended to help. You may not realize it now.
Homeboy
2014 Apr 23, 4:00pm
Why do I get the feeling half of the people on this forum watch "All In the Family" and side with Archie Bunker?
I guess you missed the whole sexual revolution and the fact that women aren't considered the property of men anymore.
Did I ever say that? Did you even read the whole post??
Women are not property of men, but they are property of government then?? They cannot buy anything on their own unless their pimp daddy government help them? Is that what you think?
Why do I get the feeling half of the people on this forum watch "All In the Family" and side with Archie Bunker?
I am sorry, I side with curious2.
JH
2014 Apr 23, 4:11pm
Why do I get the feeling half of the people on this forum watch "All In the Family" and side with Archie Bunker?
Yup, this thread reminds me of the same cross-section of people debating the same topic on Capitol Hill. This could be a transcript from any one of their Congressional debates.
Homeboy
2014 Apr 23, 5:04pm
Women are not property of men, but they are property of government then??
Try "none of the above".
They cannot buy anything on their own unless their pimp daddy government help them? Is that what you think?
I think you sound like an idiot. That's what I think. You're the one who said it's the husband's job to buy birth control for his wife. What the fuck kind of nonsense is that? If a woman wants to buy birth control pills, she should god damn well be able to go to the fucking doctor and get some, and she doesn't need to get permission from her husband or her daddy or ANYONE, most of all backwards yokels like you.
Homeboy
2014 Apr 23, 5:12pm
The insurance companies should be smart enough to perform the cost benefit analysis on their own.
Um, we already let them run things on their own. I guess you forgot, but we had double-digit yearly rate hikes, millions of uninsured and/or uninsurable Americans, and medical care was the number one cause of bankruptcy. Insurance companies are very good at making money. Making sure everyone who needs medical treatment gets it, not so much.
Y
2014 Apr 23, 11:36pm
Of course, you just skip over the elephant in the room.
People choose to have unprotected sex, they alone should pay the price.
People do not directly choose to get Ill.
If they partake in activities that have been proven to cause illness in the majority of cases, (tobacco) then they too should pay the price.
If you choose to eat at mcdonalds for most of your meals, and develop obesity with all it's complications, you should pay the price, not me.
fuck you. why should I pay for you gorging yourself day after day while I follow all the rules known to mankind to promote good health?
It's all about taking personal responsibility for one's health.
Health insurance should be all about covering people who give a damn about themselves but develop illnesses despite following the rules. ( probably mostly genetically caused )
The rest can wallow in their shit, as that is the course they have chosen through free will.
It's about personal responsibility.
Why should anyone subsidize anyone elses sexual behavior?Because it results in activities performed at a hospital and doctor's office. Just like all the other shit that comes from heavy smoking, drinking, soda consumption, lack of exercise, etc etc as someone posted earlier. You're OK subsidizing that with your insurance. Okedokie. Personal responsibility be damned, also.
Y
2014 Apr 23, 11:38pm
So with the "quotes" you now imply that having a baby is not an 'illness' and cannot be compared to cancer.
Insurance is for real illness, not for protection of the results of pleasure fucking.
SoftShell says
You are comparing subsidizing people's self-induced illnesses, versus subsidizing people's self-induced pleasure.
Apples and oranges.
Thanks for making my point.
JH says
SoftShell says
So, to summarize, you equate having a baby to having an 'illness', just like cancer.
And you call me a 'moron'. I see....
Notice in my post that I put quotes ("") around illness but not around moron. Means something.
Y
2014 Apr 23, 11:42pm
Never heard of that show.
What do you stay up late at night and jerkoff to that one??
Why do I get the feeling half of the people on this forum watch "All In the Family" and side with Archie Bunker?
Homeboy
2014 Apr 24, 4:35am
What do you stay up late at night and jerkoff to that one??
Nah, Sally Struthers was not that hot, even when she was young.
Homeboy
2014 Apr 24, 4:39am
Of course, you just skip over the elephant in the room.
People choose to have unprotected sex, they alone should pay the price.
People do not directly choose to get Ill.
If they partake in activities that have been proven to cause illness in the majority of cases, (tobacco) then they too should pay the price.
If you choose to eat at mcdonalds for most of your meals, and develop obesity with all it's complications, you should pay the price, not me.
fuck you. why should I pay for you gorging yourself day after day while I follow all the rules known to mankind to promote good health?It's all about taking personal responsibility for one's health.
Health insurance should be all about covering people who give a damn about themselves but develop illnesses despite following the rules. ( probably mostly genetically caused )
The rest can wallow in their shit, as that is the course they have chosen through free will.
You are an ugly, self centered, compassionless person. I can only hope you're doing this as some artificial internet persona, and that you don't really believe the hateful things you write.
I don't even want to get started on how ridiculously naive your position is that if you follow some self-proclaimed "rules", that you will be immortal and never get sick.
JH
2014 Apr 24, 5:26am
What do you stay up late at night and jerkoff to that one??
Nah, Sally Struthers was not that hot, even when she was young.
I Love Lucy, on the other hand...
CL
2014 Apr 26, 2:01am
What do you stay up late at night and jerkoff to that one??
Nah, Sally Struthers was not that hot, even when she was young.
I Love Lucy, on the other hand...
And you love Sally on the other hand? Pervert!
New Renter
2014 Apr 26, 2:36am
What do you stay up late at night and jerkoff to that one??
Nah, Sally Struthers was not that hot, even when she was young.
I Love Lucy, on the other hand...
And you love Sally on the other hand? Pervert!
I think you sound like an idiot. That's what I think. You're the one who said it's the husband's job to buy birth control for his wife.
It is worthless to argue with you. You are one of the idiots who can't read.
It is the job the family to pay for anyone's pills. It could be birth control pill or a Viagra pill for that matter. Husband and wife are supposed to bear the cost of the medical care.
Anyway, birth control pill is not just the only issue in Obamacare. There are many more horrifying aspects.
>>
It has been reported that the King County, Washington Public Schools were instructed by the State, pursuant to Section 2953 of Obamacare, to use the State-approved curriculum where fifth grade children are taught how to have oral and anal sex.
Homeboy
2014 Apr 26, 9:13am
It is worthless to argue with you. You are one of the idiots who can't read.
Oh, I can read. I read when you wrote:
At most, a husband is responsible for his wife's birth control.
And then I later read when you wrote:
It is the job the family to pay for anyone's pills.
So you changed the wording of your argument, from "husband" to "family", a sure sign of someone who knows he was wrong and is now trying to backpedal.
Anyway, birth control pill is not just the only issue in Obamacare.
And wasn't that EXACTLY my point when I wrote:
There are some legitimate things to criticize ACA for, but somehow the REAL problems seem to get buried in this heap of complete bullshit that a few of our resident Fox News junkies keep piling on us.
JH
2014 Apr 26, 10:15am
What do you stay up late at night and jerkoff to that one??
Nah, Sally Struthers was not that hot, even when she was young.
I Love Lucy, on the other hand...
And you love Sally on the other hand? Pervert!
Hahahha. Mmmm...JLo
It has been reported that the King County, Washington Public Schools were instructed by the State, pursuant to Section 2953 of Obamacare, to use the State-approved curriculum where fifth grade children are taught how to have oral and anal sex
Reported by who? Just because someone types it into a blog doesn't make it true. Can you back this up with some actual facts?
elliemae
2014 Apr 27, 4:29pm
Reported by who? Just because someone types it into a blog doesn't make it true. Can you back this up with some actual facts?
Damn, you're a cynical sort, aren't you?
Reported by who? Just because someone types it into a blog doesn't make it true. Can you back this up with some actual facts?
Damn, you're a cynical sort, aren't you?
In Texas we say the man's pissing on my boots and telling me it's raining.
Paralithodes
2014 Apr 27, 9:11pm
There is a religious argument for not providing a birth control mandate in employer supplied insurance that is playing out in the Hobby Lobby case, I don’t buy it but we will see.
What don't you buy: You believe that companies should not only be forced to provide birth control coverage, but specifically provide birth control coverage that includes abortifacients? The Hobby Lobby case is about religious freedom, but the "birth control" nexus is specifically about potential abortion, not about "birth control" in general (though I get that many here in patnet would believe that "religion" should be at best tolerated only as long as it does not interfere with what the state wants to do).
The Hobby Lobby case is about religious freedom,
I didn’t know the Hobby Lobby was a church. If it is there are already exceptions in the law for Churches.
The Hobby Lobby from what I understand is a privately owned corporate entity refusing to provide an indirect (they buy insurance which includes, by mandate, birth control) Government mandate that it says offends it's (the owners) personal religious beliefs. I don’t buy it because when one takes on the cloak of a corporation for ones business, one separates ones personal assets from ones corporate assets, this in common terms is called the corporate veil. You can do allsorts of terrible things behind the corporate veil and the owner's (who in this case claim personal religious freedom) personal assets, under ordinary circumstances, can’t be touched. If the stockholders who are the owners and elect the directors of a corporate entity have this sort of *personal* protection why should a corporation have the right to trump a government mandate based on their stockholders *personal* religious beliefs?
« First « Previous Comments 78 - 116 of 116 Search these comments
Interesting comment by Call it Crazy in this thread:
http://patrick.net/?p=1241686
Here is an example of a plan you can find on Covered California, and what you would see when you click on "Plan Benefits":
This one says "Silver Plan", but if you chose a Bronze plan, it would say "Bronze Plan", and if you chose a Gold plan, it would say, "Gold Plan".
Now, what is the VERY FIRST THING in the list of benefits?
That's right, it's the DEDUCTIBLE. And it's even in blue so that it stands out.
So, how could it be possible for a person to sign up for insurance, and then, as Call it Crazy believes, be "surprised" that it has a deductible? Are people that stupid? I don't think so.
There are some legitimate things to criticize ACA for, but somehow the REAL problems seem to get buried in this heap of complete bullshit that a few of our resident Fox News junkies keep piling on us. How about we stick to the facts and stop making up things that aren't true?