• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

SCOTUS upholds strip-search on arrest.

  • Thread starter Herr Heckler Koch
  • Start date

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
'Health Care' is not a national issue, health insurance is a national issue. Current federal law prohibits a hospital, emergency room, from denying 'health care' due to an inability to pay, or absence of health insurance by the patient.

Just as 'access' to birth control pills is not about access, but about money and lifestyle.

With the cost of beer in pubs, in Georgetown, Fluke could have bought six less beers a month and been able to afford the pill.

Where does this leave us?

I'm sorry I keep doing that. I mean Health Insurance, not Health Care.

As to your "fluke" comment, not just Flukes are on the pill.

My wife, and me have zero chance of pregnancy occurring, and I take the pill, for other reasons of course, but I do take the pill.
 
Last edited:

jammer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
85
Location
, ,
(1)None of us get 'facts'. We get angles.

(2)I wasn't only referring to the Military's discretionary funding.

(3)I never stated that insurance is a source of revenue, I stated that health Insurance ought to be not-for-profit.

(4)I say tax the piss out of the wealthy, cut the military budget, significantly, and take health insurance from the hands of private insurance companies. There is no point in delving deeper, we both know this, because what we will run into is back-and-forth, mile-long posts. Let's stick to generalizations, it will give us more time to do other important things, such as: baking cookies.

I think, that you really like being stripped searched, don"t you? Come on be truthful now.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
I think, that you really like being stripped searched, don"t you? Come on be truthful now.

It was, it was, not what I thought it would be. The guard (female in my case, male if it was the other case) has you walk into a little room, about the size of a large closet. The guard asks you to remove all of your clothes, while there is a drape covering the entry to the little room. Hm, it's kinda like a peep-show; not that I would know what one is of course.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
Just as 'access' to birth control pills is not about access, but about money and lifestyle.

With the cost of beer in pubs, in Georgetown, Fluke could have bought six less beers a month and been able to afford the pill.

Where does this leave us?

It leaves us with you citing a highly dishonest news source. She said, and I'm quoting her from that dishonest/misleading source:
Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.
This is what the dishonest source said about that claim:
CNSNews.com confirmed, however, that the Target store at 3100 14th St., NW, in Washington, D.C., which is 3 miles from the Georgetown Law campus, offers Tri-Sprintec, the generic form of the birth-control pill Ortho Tri-Cyclen. Target sells a month's supply of this birth control pill for just $9 to individuals without health insurance coverage for the pills.

See the difference? One said "it can cost" as in "doesn't have to, but could", the other said "hey, look at the lowest price option, it's nowhere near what she said." No shiat sherlock. Eesh, you could probably show that her numbers were an exaggeration, but outright twisting what was said discounts your point more than anything she said.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
So, what is your point, birth control availability or any 'type' of birth control availability? Fluke has low cost, birth control options readily available, directly contradicting her statements. The 'dishonest' news source provided facts that access is readily available.

That 'dishonest' news source has provided facts that prove that it does not cost $3K over three years for 'birth control'. Fluke did state that it 'could' cost $3K over three years, based on her math that works out to be about $1K a year, yet she states that the $3k is one summer's salary....it boggles the mind how liberals can read that as $3K a year. It works out to be about $20 a week for birth control. Six beers, in a bar, a week in GT.

Is there not a Target or a CVS located at the locations cited? Are the prices quoted not the truth? Did the news source make any factual errors in their quotes of Fluke? Did they fabricate statements then attribute them to Fluke?

Or, is it that you do not like the fact that another source has confirmed that Fluke is only wanting for others, and not her, to pay for her lifestyle choices. If she has to buy birth control that impacts her, lifestyle choices, her beer money.

I particularly liked this statement.
Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception.
That poor woman is now forced to have sex while not on the pill.

I stand by my statements, buy six less beers a week, then by the pill every month, they are cheap at Target and CVS. Then you can have all the sex you can, at your expense, not mine.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
So, what is your point, birth control availability or any 'type' of birth control availability? Fluke has low cost, birth control options readily available, directly contradicting her statements. The 'dishonest' news source provided facts that access is readily available.

That 'dishonest' news source has provided facts that prove that it does not cost $3K over three years for 'birth control'. Fluke did state that it 'could' cost $3K over three years, based on her math that works out to be about $1K a year, yet she states that the $3k is one summer's salary....it boggles the mind how liberals can read that as $3K a year. It works out to be about $20 a week for birth control. Six beers, in a bar, a week in GT.
The dishonest "news" source only showed that it can cost $324 for three years. It did not show that it can not cost $3k for three years. They haven't disproved or even discredited Fluke's statement, they've merely made another one. It's dishonest because it's meant to lead you to the conclusion that she's lying or making a factually incorrect statement. You, of course, swallowed it hook, line, and sinker, since it fit your view of the world.

*edit*
Additionally, the source provides careful wording to make it seem like her claim was even crazier. Note they say Target offers it at $9 "for individuals without health insurance." That sounds like it may be a special program, but it doesn't give enough context - is the $9 figure supplemented by federal funds to cover the rest of the cost, for example? Also, a person who requires a specific form of birth control for medical reasons (not having sex, but preventing things like cysts or the like) will likely not be on the generic pill. Also also, out of all the things where it's okay to go with the generic, do you really want to use generic birth control? Did you know that the federal requirements state that generics must have bioequivalency of 80% to 125% of the name brand? That's a -20 +25 percent swing in hormone amount!

*edit 2*
Yeah, that news source was being dishonest:
"A spokesperson from Target told TheDC that the rate is exclusive to a program called ScriptSave, which provides discount prescription drug rates to the employees of participating area businesses"
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
OK, so CNS and Fluke are even on that score.

The facts are, 'pills' are cheap, and readily available, according to my wife, her doctor, and my bank account. Even at $50 it is still, and only, $1800 for three years. $50 a month, $12.50 a week, three to five beers a week she has to forgo, that could be a hardship for her.

Fluke's math is exceptionally suspect to be polite. Her claims of 'denial of access' based on cost is pure political hyperbole, she knows it, the liberals at that 'hearing' knew too. I'll hazard a guess that most other folks do too. Heck, even you may know it, though you may not want to accept it based on political perspective.

Fluke is bent because she has to pay for her pills, plain and simple, this of course impacts her beer money.

Every woman that I know, not all that many compared to the entire nation, think Fluke is exactly what Rush said she is. My wife gets just a bit peeved that Fluke seems to "....not want to keep her legs closed until she can afford to get some pills."
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
I'm just blown away that any adult would demand that other adults be forced to pay for something she desires to have.

The problem with liberals is that they're basically just kids who never grew up. They never learned life lessons like responsibility, self-sufficiency, saving, etc.

Sure, it's easy for ne'er-do-wells like Beretta, who have zero ambition in life, to say idiotic things like, "tax the piss out of the wealthy" (whom she defines as anyone making her wage +$1). I hear the same sentiment on facebook, when a certain demographic starts bitching and says "I wish the government would help out poor folks like us!" Of course, "the government" never helps anyone out of its own resources, because it has none; it steals from everyone to give to certain, favored groups. Besides, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE POOR. Get off your ass, and work.

Beretta will claim that she only wants "a meager living," paid for by you and I, of course. Like a typical good liberal, she is prepared to reduce everyone to a meager living so that she can sit around on the computer, take random classes at community college, and imprison those poor young souls that have been unfortunately sentenced to live out their minority with her.

I will go on the record as saying that I, and society, owe nothing to anyone. If you voluntarily choose not to work hard enough to obtain the things you want, or even need, too freaking bad. I see nothing morally wrong with allowing a ne'er-do-well to starve to death, provided he has chosen his path in life through his own decisions. Fortunately for the ne'er-do-wells, there are folks who are more soft-hearted (and perhaps soft-headed?) than I, and will prevent even the wastes of life from expiring. These folks work for things called "charities," which take voluntary contributions to fulfill their objectives, unlike the liberals, who have no qualms about putting a gun to your head to steal what possessions of yours they desire.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
OK, so CNS and Fluke are even on that score.

The facts are, 'pills' are cheap, and readily available, according to my wife, her doctor, and my bank account. Even at $50 it is still, and only, $1800 for three years. $50 a month, $12.50 a week, three to five beers a week she has to forgo, that could be a hardship for her.

Fluke's math is exceptionally suspect to be polite. Her claims of 'denial of access' based on cost is pure political hyperbole, she knows it, the liberals at that 'hearing' knew too. I'll hazard a guess that most other folks do too. Heck, even you may know it, though you may not want to accept it based on political perspective.

Fluke is bent because she has to pay for her pills, plain and simple, this of course impacts her beer money.

Every woman that I know, not all that many compared to the entire nation, think Fluke is exactly what Rush said she is. My wife gets just a bit peeved that Fluke seems to "....not want to keep her legs closed until she can afford to get some pills."


You seem awfully convinced this is strictly a trade-off between beer and medicine and that birth control is only for those who are having sex. I was very fortunate going through college that I had a great paying job and got hired to a co-op program (essentially, work full time, get useless college credits) while my parents were able to help fund the majority of my collegiate career. Many people I know were on student loans and/or whatever they could earn at a part-time job. The decision wouldn't be between beer and medication for them, it would be between food/housing and medicine. I say medicine because I know at least two who were not (as far as I'm aware) sexually active but were on low dose progesterone for ovarian cysts. The cost is not merely that of the pills, but of the Ob-Gyn visits and requisite medical checkups. Newsflash: they don't just give you hormone medication over the counter.

So rather than trying to dismiss her concerns as invalid or trying to shout her down as being a ****, as if that has anything to do with the argument, you could try investigating how that could be a significant blocker for those who are attempting to obtain an important education. The fact is, cost can easily lead to denial of access for many female students to obtain proper medical supervision. This cost is not merely in birth control, but the necessary annual visits to the gynecologist and the requisite medical tests.
 

beebobby

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
847
Location
, ,
I don't want to pay for medical treatments for folks that chose to smoke, drink or eat themselves into Type 2 diabetes.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
You seem awfully convinced this is strictly a trade-off between beer and medicine and that birth control is only for those who are having sex. I was very fortunate going through college that I had a great paying job and got hired to a co-op program (essentially, work full time, get useless college credits) while my parents were able to help fund the majority of my collegiate career. Many people I know were on student loans and/or whatever they could earn at a part-time job. The decision wouldn't be between beer and medication for them, it would be between food/housing and medicine. I say medicine because I know at least two who were not (as far as I'm aware) sexually active but were on low dose progesterone for ovarian cysts. The cost is not merely that of the pills, but of the Ob-Gyn visits and requisite medical checkups. Newsflash: they don't just give you hormone medication over the counter.

So rather than trying to dismiss her concerns as invalid or trying to shout her down as being a ****, as if that has anything to do with the argument, you could try investigating how that could be a significant blocker for those who are attempting to obtain an important education. The fact is, cost can easily lead to denial of access for many female students to obtain proper medical supervision. This cost is not merely in birth control, but the necessary annual visits to the gynecologist and the requisite medical tests.
The hardships, the disadvantages, the inconviences you endured were eerily similar to my wife's hardships, disadvantages, and inconviences, yet my wife managed to access, and pay for, out of her own pocket, her specific female related 'medical' requirements.

I arbitrarily dismiss Fluke, and other women sympathetic to her, because many other women, apparently not like her, in college, past and present, some how managed to do what Fluke is incapable of doing. She is bent about not having someone else pay her way through life. I'll stand by my contention that beer money has a place at her monthly budget determination.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I don't want to pay for medical treatments for folks that chose to smoke, drink or eat themselves into Type 2 diabetes.
Well then, vote republican. Liberals constantly claim that republicans want folks to assume room temperature unless those folks can pay for their own healthcare. So, you will not have to pay for folks who "chose to smoke, drink or eat themselves into Type 2 diabetes."
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
The hardships, the disadvantages, the inconviences you endured were eerily similar to my wife's hardships, disadvantages, and inconviences, yet my wife managed to access, and pay for, out of her own pocket, her specific female related 'medical' requirements.

I arbitrarily dismiss Fluke, and other women sympathetic to her, because many other women, apparently not like her, in college, past and present, some how managed to do what Fluke is incapable of doing. She is bent about not having someone else pay her way through life. I'll stand by my contention that beer money has a place at her monthly budget determination.
Though, it is likely the shortage is discovered after the beer money has already been spent.
 

beebobby

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
847
Location
, ,
My point was that no health insurance plans allow you to designate what your premiums go for, whether it's BC or insulin. The healthy policy holders pay for the unhealthy policy holders and those that use the ER for free. That's how insurance works, it's a pool.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
I'm just blown away that any adult would demand that other adults be forced to pay for something she desires to have.

The problem with liberals is that they're basically just kids who never grew up. They never learned life lessons like responsibility, self-sufficiency, saving, etc.

Sure, it's easy for ne'er-do-wells like Beretta, who have zero ambition in life, to say idiotic things like, "tax the piss out of the wealthy" (whom she defines as anyone making her wage +$1). I hear the same sentiment on facebook, when a certain demographic starts bitching and says "I wish the government would help out poor folks like us!" Of course, "the government" never helps anyone out of its own resources, because it has none; it steals from everyone to give to certain, favored groups. Besides, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE POOR. Get off your ass, and work.

Beretta will claim that she only wants "a meager living," paid for by you and I, of course. Like a typical good liberal, she is prepared to reduce everyone to a meager living so that she can sit around on the computer, take random classes at community college, and imprison those poor young souls that have been unfortunately sentenced to live out their minority with her.

I will go on the record as saying that I, and society, owe nothing to anyone. If you voluntarily choose not to work hard enough to obtain the things you want, or even need, too freaking bad. I see nothing morally wrong with allowing a ne'er-do-well to starve to death, provided he has chosen his path in life through his own decisions. Fortunately for the ne'er-do-wells, there are folks who are more soft-hearted (and perhaps soft-headed?) than I, and will prevent even the wastes of life from expiring. These folks work for things called "charities," which take voluntary contributions to fulfill their objectives, unlike the liberals, who have no qualms about putting a gun to your head to steal what possessions of yours they desire.

I'm just blown away that any adult would demand another human suffer because they feel the person doesn't need or deserve medicine.

The problem with conservatives is that they're basically just kids who never grew up. They never learned life lessons like compassion, sharing, etc. They view life as if each of their actions is solely the responsibility of their choices, and that they have not significantly benefited from both the lottery of life nor the policies which came before them.

Sure, it's easy for ne'er-do-wells like ManInBlack, who has zero understanding of life, to say idiotic things like "you don't have to be poor" (despite the ample evidence and research showing that there are many stuck in institutionalized poverty). I hear the same sentiments on facebook, when my anarchistic and libertarian friends start bitching and saying "I wish the government would just disappear and get out of our lives!" Of course, "the government" has already significantly helped them, and its existence not only provided the funding for the internet they are complaining on, the education so they could read and write their complaints, and the millions of other everyday things they take for granted, but it also continues to provide the modicum of security that keeps the masses from banding together and violently rising up to "overthrow" their perceived oppressors.

ManInBlack will claim that he "owes nothing to anyone", ignoring the countless benefits he's already obtained at the expense of tax payers before him. Like a typical bootstrappy person, he is prepared to ignore the vast swath of evidence that shows how much he's benefited in the past.

I will go on record as saying that I realized a couple years ago that I owe quite a bit to the society which has helped me with a public school education from K-4 and 9-12. More than that, I'm lucky to have been born to an upper-middle class family that lives in a country that protects private property and investments from the might of the masses. If you were not as lucky to be born into such a family, you deserve some of the same opportunities I had which lead to my present ability to pay for a lot of things and take for granted expenses that many struggle to fulfill. Fortunately for those who are statistically unlikely to ever be in the income class of the people they oddly fight to protect, the structural understanding of society has shifted to recognize the cost benefit analysis of charity versus institutional programs favors the latter, with the added benefit that it's not generally tied to proselytization. Because in the equation of life, the potential for violence for not engaging with the government and society in which you live outweighs the guaranteed, actual violence that arises in any place where the government and social status is tribalism and rule by might.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
The hardships, the disadvantages, the inconviences you endured were eerily similar to my wife's hardships, disadvantages, and inconviences, yet my wife managed to access, and pay for, out of her own pocket, her specific female related 'medical' requirements.

I arbitrarily dismiss Fluke, and other women sympathetic to her, because many other women, apparently not like her, in college, past and present, some how managed to do what Fluke is incapable of doing. She is bent about not having someone else pay her way through life. I'll stand by my contention that beer money has a place at her monthly budget determination.

Ever heard of the overjustification effect? You're a walking headcase of it.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
My point was that no health insurance plans allow you to designate what your premiums go for, whether it's BC or insulin. The healthy policy holders pay for the unhealthy policy holders and those that use the ER for free. That's how insurance works, it's a pool.
Well crap!

I don't get to designate where my tax dollars go either, big whoop!

Yet, I'm paying for smokes and liquor to be bought with a EBT card, 'free' cell phones, and Pell grants for budding loony-lib-sock-puppets. Their 'free' medical care too, even without Obama Care being fully enacted.

http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20220411pols_welfare_abuse_runs_deep
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Ever heard of the overjustification effect? You're a walking headcase of it.
Actually, you could have gone here instead.

http://www.experiment-resources.com/overjustification-effect.html

Considering that you agree with Fluke and her drive to gain free 'pills', at the expense of others, your diagnosis is without merit.

Many have come before Fluke, and you, and have accomplished what Fluke and apparently you, can not or will not accomplish, get through life without holding their hand out.

But, this is America, go for it.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Actually, you could have gone here instead.

http://www.experiment-resources.com/overjustification-effect.html

Considering that you agree with Fluke and her drive to gain free 'pills', at the expense of others, your diagnosis is without merit.

Many have come before Fluke, and you, and have accomplished what Fluke and apparently you, can not or will not accomplish, get through life without holding their hand out.

But, this is America, go for it.
By the way, it works great on kids, not so much on bill paying, adult wage earners. Unless of course, money is not a issue for you and you are bored easily. how about searching for the entitlement-effect.
 
Top