Does birth control really cost

[IGotWorms 4,058]

Come off? What, are you focking kidding me? How small are you? And no, I've never had one break. If that's a concern I suggest wearing two. It would still cost less than a thousand bucks a year.

 

I hope you are kidding, because wearing two condoms is actually a very bad idea.

 

And I've only had one come off once, during a particularly freaky session in which may odd angles were used. I am not small, not in the least.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

You've never had a condom break on you or come off during the act?

 

Of course he's never had one break with his skeeter peeter.

 

And anyone who's ever used condoms regularly has had one vanish up there.

 

One time, me and a girlfriend were focking in the living room. I heard my roomates key in the lock, so we ran back to the bedroom, wherupon I noticed that I was no longer wearing a condom. I assumed it had slipped off during my mad dash, so I get dressed and go nonchalantly looking for it while talking to the roomate. Couldn't find it.

 

Get back to the bedroom, and she says... I think its still in me.

 

Plus, the #1 reason why condoms don't work... people don't use them, because they suck and take much of the sensation away.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

So why should we pay for it if it's not for birth control?

 

Why should "we" pay for any prescription drug under that logic?

[IGotWorms 4,058]

Of course he's never had one break with his skeeter peeter.

 

And anyone who's ever used condoms regularly has had one vanish up there.

 

One time, me and a girlfriend were focking in the living room. I heard my roomates key in the lock, so we ran back to the bedroom, wherupon I noticed that I was no longer wearing a condom. I assumed it had slipped off during my mad dash, so I get dressed and go nonchalantly looking for it while talking to the roomate. Couldn't find it.

 

Get back to the bedroom, and she says... I think its still in me.

 

Plus, the #1 reason why condoms don't work... people don't use them, because they suck and take much of the sensation away.

 

I'm starting to think Strike has never successfully convinced a woman to take his peter.

[MDC 7,422]

So why should we pay for it if it's not for birth control?

 

I think insurers should pay for it either way. It's a lot cheaper than prenatal care for women who have unwanted pregnancies.

 

And no, they're not more reliable than condoms when condoms are used correctly.

 

Maybe, but in the real world people misuse condoms all the time.

[Strike 5,541]

Why should "we" pay for any prescription drug under that logic?

 

I don't think the government should mandate anything that an insurance company covers. I think that's between the consumer and the insurance company.

 

[MDC 7,422]

Of course he's never had one break with his skeeter peeter.

 

And anyone who's ever used condoms regularly has had one vanish up there.

 

One time, me and a girlfriend were focking in the living room. I heard my roomates key in the lock, so we ran back to the bedroom, wherupon I noticed that I was no longer wearing a condom. I assumed it had slipped off during my mad dash, so I get dressed and go nonchalantly looking for it while talking to the roomate. Couldn't find it.

 

Get back to the bedroom, and she says... I think its still in me.

 

Plus, the #1 reason why condoms don't work... people don't use them, because they suck and take much of the sensation away.

 

This happened to me once in college. I've also had condoms break on me twice.

[Strike 5,541]

I think insurers should pay for it either way. It's a lot cheaper than prenatal care for women who have unwanted pregnancies.

 

 

Care to offer up an argument for why insurance companies should be forced when it's not for birth control? Cause that was the question. We already know you believe they SHOULD pay for it under those circumstances. Now care to tell us WHY?

[Strike 5,541]

I'm starting to think Strike has never successfully convinced a woman to take his peter.

 

Ooh, personal attacks. Good for you.

[MDC 7,422]

Care to offer up an argument for why insurance companies should be forced when it's not for birth control? Cause that was the question. We already know you believe they SHOULD pay for it under those circumstances. Now care to tell us WHY?

 

I never said they should be forced to cover it. I think they should cover it because it likely saves money in the long-run and IMO contraception falls under basic healthcare. hth

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

You people are focking insane. Insurance companies don't pay for birth control because they are nice focking guys. They pay because its GOOD BUSINESS because the prenatal care alone, let alone the birth and 25 possible years of covering the child, costs far more than the focking birth control does.

 

If we were smart, government trucks would leave massive piles of ortho-tricyclen on street corners in ghettos and trailer parks all across America. Why? BECAUSE IT IS CHEAPER THAN THE MEDICAID, AFDC, GOVERNMENT CHEESE, HEAD START, EDUCATION AND EVENTUAL INCARCERATION OF ALL THESE FOCKING KIDS.

 

I get your ideology and all, but sometimes its smart to bend a little to avoid a bigger problem later.

 

Morons.

[Strike 5,541]

I never said they should be forced to cover it. I think they should cover it because it likely saves money in the long-run and IMO contraception falls under basic healthcare. hth

 

Ok

[jerryskids 6,797]

Sure, but that is lying with statistics. The real question is: does the cost of providing birth control for free to all women outweigh the cost of prenatal care for those who do get pregnant? Also, health care for the baby doesn't count because you need a new (read: more expensive) plan when you have a dependent.

 

Empirically, I would say that the birth control option is more expensive, because if it weren't, insurance companies would be begging people to take it for free. I believe we've established that insurance companies care about nothing but the bottom line, right?

 

Bump for TBBOM

[IGotWorms 4,058]

Ooh, personal attacks. Good for you.

 

Did you or did you not state that I must have a small cack?

 

Hypocrite.

[Strike 5,541]

Did you or did you not state that I must have a small cack?

 

Hypocrite.

 

No, I didn't. That's what the question mark at the end of the sentence means. And the phrasing. And it was an off the cuff reaction to the assertion that condoms fall off. I've never heard of it being a significant issue and that was the only circumstance where I could envision it happening. It was not intended as an attack. Now I'm sorry I even entered this thread. MDC is going off on worthless tangents and you, like usual, can't have an intelligent discussion.

 

[MDC 7,422]

MDC is going off on worthless tangents

 

I answered the OP's question and informed you that birth control has medical uses other then contraception, so condoms aren't always a replacement.

 

You're the one going full retard here buddy.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

No, I didn't. That's what the question mark at the end of the sentence means. And the phrasing. And it was an off the cuff reaction to the assertion that condoms fall off.

 

[Strike 5,541]

I answered the OP's question and informed you that birth control has medical uses other then contraception, so condoms aren't always a replacement.

 

You're the one going full retard here buddy.

 

This whole thread is in the context of whether the government should be forcing insurance companies to pay for certain services, in this case birth control. So that's the context of the discussion. Apparently you think insurance companies should offer the pill for reasons other than that, which is fine, but really has nothing to do with this thread, either it's substance or it's context. And I don't know that many people would disagree with you. But it's clearly WAYYYYY outside anything being discussed in this thread. Of course I'll admit I'm late to this party, and probably won't be staying long. It's just unbelievable to me how frequently people go outside the intended discussion in a thread. It's confusing and makes no sense. Of course, if you'd started your own thread titled "insurance companies should offer birth control pills because it's good policy", it's probably be a short thread since most people probably think it's a good idea.

 

[Strike 5,541]

 

Yeah I get it. You've never been good at discerning nuance. I find that odd since you profess to be a lawyer and every lawyer I know understands nuance exceptionally well. It's one of the reasons I've had trouble believing you were actually a lawyer.

[MDC 7,422]

This whole thread is in the context of whether the government should be forcing insurance companies to pay for certain services, in this case birth control. So that's the context of the discussion. Apparently you think insurance companies should offer the pill for reasons other than that, which is fine, but really has nothing to do with this thread, either it's substance or it's context. And I don't know that many people would disagree with you. But it's clearly WAYYYYY outside anything being discussed in this thread. Of course I'll admit I'm late to this party, and probably won't be staying long. It's just unbelievable to me how frequently people go outside the intended discussion in a thread. It's confusing and makes no sense. Of course, if you'd started your own thread titled "insurance companies should offer birth control pills because it's good policy", it's probably be a short thread since most people probably think it's a good idea.

 

 

The OP's question was about whether birth control can cost $1,000/year. I answered that question and said I think insurers should cover it - most of them already do. You're really confused about what that has to do with the discussion? It's not like I came on here talking about the new Avengers trailer.

[KSB2424 3,148]

This whole thing is stupid and a red herring. Most insurance companies cover contraception already. The ones that don't have their reasons. Maybe it's due to religious reasons like a Catholic 'entity'. If you are a woman who happens to somehow have insurance not covering contraception but wants it then you can in fact go shopping for another insurance that does. Or you can do what women who do not have insurance at all do and go to an already government funded clinic like Planned Parenthood and get inexpensive out of pocket contraception. There is no problem. There is no issue. It's simply the governments way of gaining more control in the private sector thinly veiled as some women's health issue.

[drobeski 3,061]

This whole thing is stupid and a red herring. Most insurance companies cover contraception already. The ones that don't have their reasons. Maybe it's due to religious reasons like a Catholic 'entity'. If you are a woman who happens to somehow have insurance not covering contraception but wants it then you can in fact go shopping for another insurance that does. Or you can do what women who do not have insurance at all do and go to an already government funded clinic like Planned Parenthood and get inexpensive out of pocket contraception. There is no problem. There is no issue. It's simply the governments way of gaining more control in the private sector thinly veiled as some women's health issue.

Its all about garnering the womans vote.

[remote controller 143]

Some women can only take certain kinds of birth control because they have reactions to other kinds. My guess is this particular woman is limited to an expensive brand of birth control.

 

But really, is it any of your effing business? Or Rush Limbaugh's, for that matter?

If she thinks we should pay for it, it is.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Isn't that just slightly misogynistic?

See, there ya go bringing moral judgement into the equation. This is about cost, remember?

 

Try to focus.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

So why should we pay for it if it's not for birth control? And no, they're not more reliable than condoms when condoms are used correctly.

Unless you are a pencil d!ck like Worms.

[DAVID RUFFIN 2]

With his own radio show and innerweb TV network?

 

 

Fox has rightly, if belatedly, declared that there is no place for Beck’s messages on its airwaves, and Beck will return to the fringes. He is now on some obscure network with an audience of 107.

[posty 2,699]

Rush has apologized...

 

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/03/a_statement_from_rush

 

For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

 

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.

 

My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.

[frank 2,306]

Sure, but that is lying with statistics. The real question is: does the cost of providing birth control for free to all women outweigh the cost of prenatal care for those who do get pregnant? Also, health care for the baby doesn't count because you need a new (read: more expensive) plan when you have a dependent.

 

Empirically, I would say that the birth control option is more expensive, because if it weren't, insurance companies would be begging people to take it for free. I believe we've established that insurance companies care about nothing but the bottom line, right?

That's rationalism, not empiricism.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Fox has rightly, if belatedly, declared that there is no place for Beck’s messages on its airwaves, and Beck will return to the fringes. He is now on some obscure network with an audience of 107.

 

You said Rush was gonna end up like Beck. They both have huge radio shows, both are best selling authors, and Beck has some innerweb TV thing going, as well as his website. Not too sure either one is suffering too much right now.

 

But hey, you can go on some lightly trafficked FFB website and mock them as failures, so I guess you showed them.

[jerryskids 6,797]

That's rationalism, not empiricism.

 

I think it crosses into empiricism if we accept my stated premise that insurance companies care only about the bottom line. But your nit is noted.

[DankNuggs 305]

Its all about garnering the womans vote.

Obama's first bill signed was a equal woman's pay bill that was worthless beyond the media soundbyte. All fluff no substance

[DankNuggs 305]

I think it crosses into empiricism if we accept my stated premise that insurance companies care only about the bottom line. But your nit is noted.

You'd think.

[gocolts 300]

In fairness to Rush, most women are sluts.

POW!!!

[gocolts 300]

Who said anything about the patch? And women typically have to try a few different kinds of pills before they find one that works for them, so they can't all just "get a cheaper one".

 

This is exactly why men shouldn't be in charge of making laws about our vaginas.

Seriously??? Not too long ago, peenie said she gets birth control pills and just gives them to her sister.

[nikki2200 4]

You'd think.

 

Except that the fact that most large insurance companies already cover birth control at a very low co-pay. Kinda throws a wrench in the it's more expensive than getting pregnant theory which doesn't even make any sense using any logic. Just the hospital bill for giving birth is a few thousand dollars.

 

Oh and FYI, a lot of major insurance companies also cover abortions.

[gocolts 300]

How did we pay for our own birth control the last forty years and now all of a sudden we can't?

Funny how everyone is going rabid over this, yet ignored this question.

 

I would love to know how in the focking hell women have been surviving for all these years without free birth control.

[nikki2200 4]

Seriously??? Not too long ago, peenie said she gets birth control pills and just gives them to her sister.

 

Well if peenie gives them to her sister.... then maybe I was making it up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But yes... seriously. Birth control pills are pretty harsh hormones and they are all different and some of them just fock you up (depression, gaining weight, having your period every single day, and general craziness). It often takes a few tries before you get one that works with your body.

[nikki2200 4]

Funny how everyone is going rabid over this, yet ignored this question.

 

I would love to know how in the focking hell women have been surviving for all these years without free birth control.

 

The answer to this question is that if you have health insurance, you are probably already getting your birth control for a very inexpensive price (with some exceptions). I don't know why this is an "issue" or why Obama would be mandating that it be covered at no cost. If I had to guess it's political gamesmanship to make it a women's rights issue and when the Repubs argue with this, make them look like they want to oppress women and our vaginas.

 

There is also Planned Parenthood, which I am obviously a big advocate of, where you can get birth control for very cheap or free.

 

I'm not sure that this really was an "issue" that needed to be addressed, but it's certainly starting to piss me off constantly hearing a bunch of men discuss how to best handle the needs of women's reproductive systems.

[gocolts 300]

Well if peenie gives them to her sister.... then maybe I was making it up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But yes... seriously. Birth control pills are pretty harsh hormones and they are all different and some of them just fock you up (depression, gaining weight, having your period every single day, and general craziness). It often takes a few tries before you get one that works with your body.

I actually thought you were correct and peenie was wrong and just wanted some clarification. THanks.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

 

I'm not sure that this really was an "issue" that needed to be addressed, but it's certainly starting to piss me off constantly hearing a bunch of men discuss how to best handle the needs of women's reproductive systems.

 

You should take your own advice and apply it to football. Wimmens aren't involved, so you obviously have nothing of value to offer on the subject.