Thread: Pay for My ____________

I am frankly beginning to believe that Conservatives are practicing willful ignorance on this subject simply for the sake of argument.

Republicans, not conservatives. A true conservative would never be that willfully ignorant, even for a pony.

Originally Posted by BuckNaked

　
　
Just curious but do you complain when rich mega corporations get tax exemptions for vacations, expense accounts, clothing, cell phones, luxury limousines, yachts, Lear jets, trips to the titty bar, weekdays on the country club golf course, or even hookers/escorts as business expenses??
　
　
Or when corporations like GE profiteer on billions of dollars of annual profits, tax free, while the average wage earner pays at minimum 12-15% of their annual income, that doesn't even come close to 1% of that corporations annual profits?

Insofar as the deductions and exemptions you cite create a convoluted system of favoritism and perverse incentives, yes, I complain about it. My solution would be to abolish the income tax and replace it with a tax on land and natural resources, but that is neither here nor there. The thread topic is not about tax credits and the like, it's about forcing private individuals and institutions to subsidize and provide goods and services against their will.

Originally Posted by toddwv

Thank you for posting your excellent opinion which has already been expressed in countless other "buy me a___" threads because extremist right-wingers don't think that a medical treatment that is used for many things from controlling painful menstrual cycles to preventing unplanned pregnancies should be covered by health insurance plans that the women pay for with their own money through premiums.

Women, are you taking notes?

If you have a medical need for birth control pills for heavy periods, acne, or the few other medical needs, you can get it prescribed and paid for by your insurance, your doctor has to write an order for it though. Do not try to act as if these women are being denied healthcare, they are being denied covered birth control.

Personally I have no real thoughts on this, just thought I would clear the air that these women are not being denied health related medication, they are being denied covered birth control.

Originally Posted by AnnaK

Your health insurance company will provide BC coverage to other women who have a policy with the same company as you and your premium money will be distributed to pay for it. These same women will pay to treat your yeast infections, PAP tests, breast exams, flu, cold, bronchitis, high blood pressure, diabetes or anything else you visit your doctor or are admitted to the hospital for with the premium money YOU pay for the policy. Is there some reason I'm not aware of that YOUR illnesses and preventive health care should be paid for with their money but yours can't be used for BC in order to treat medical conditions or prevent pregnancy in women who simply aren't ready for children or those who have other conditions - heart, kidney, diabetes and so on - that would make it dangerous for them to be pregnant?

I am frankly beginning to believe that Conservatives are practicing willful ignorance on this subject simply for the sake of argument. It really is NOT that hard to understand if one makes the SLIGHTEST effort to do so.

Oh, the irony! The only "willful ignorance" being displayed is yours, my dear. Individuals who VOLUNTARILY enter into a health insurance plan such as you have described are not at issue and never have been. What IS at issue here are the progressive ideologues who DEMAND that private individuals and institutions subsidize and provide such plans against their will. I know progressives have a difficult time distinguishing between voluntarily paying for something and being forced to pay for something by agents of the state, but you have to try your best to make the distinction, because there's an important and not-so-subtle difference between the two. Got it?

The thread topic is not about tax credits and the like, it's about forcing private individuals and institutions to subsidize and provide goods and services against their will.

　
Well what do you think tax credits provide, in a system that is as abused as ours. And when these revenues are lost, don't you believe they must be replaced some how?
　
Besides I was simply asking to see if the OP was against all government injustices or just the ones directed towards the poor, even though this is about insurance and not tax payers buying things for the insured.

Originally Posted by BuckNaked

　
Well what do you think tax credits provide, in a system that is as abused as ours. And when these revenues are lost, don't you believe they must be replaced some how?
　
Besides I was simply asking to see if the OP was against all government injustices or just the ones directed towards the poor, even though this is about insurance and not tax payers buying things for the insured.

No offense, but your posts are formatted very poorly. I'm not going to respond to you anymore unless you post like a normal person.

Originally Posted by savage-republican

If you have a medical need for birth control pills for heavy periods, acne, or the few other medical needs, you can get it prescribed and paid for by your insurance, your doctor has to write an order for it though. Do not try to act as if these women are being denied healthcare, they are being denied covered birth control.

Georgetown's policy didn't cover BC pills even for medical conditions - i.e. the woman with ovarian cysts. Even after getting documentation from her doctor, they still wouldn't cover it.

Personally I have no real thoughts on this, just thought I would clear the air that these women are not being denied health related medication, they are being denied covered birth control.

There are women who have heart or kidney disease, diabetes, are taking chemotherapy and any number of reasons why becoming pregnant would be seriously harmful to them or a baby or even kill them. Most women in school do want them for birth control because if they're in school, they aren't ready to start a family. They want to finish school and become established in a job that can support themselves and a baby BEFORE they have one. Married couples still in school don't want children until they're out of school. BC allows a woman or a married couple to PLAN AHEAD and make sure they're ready to support a child before they have one and allows a woman to decide her own future.

Food is more necessary to life than health care. Maybe government should provide every American with free food.

Originally Posted by Ethereal

I could care less if they buy their own birth control, or if the insurance plan they purchase provides birth control. I'm perfectly fine with that and maybe if you had the reading comprehension of a ten year old, you would realize my problem isn't with contraception, it's with the government forcing private individuals and institutions to subsidize and provide such things.

What I hear when I read your posts:



Grow the (*)(*)(*)(*) up. This is the 21st century. I'd love to say it's a shock that conservatives think that this is a winning issue for them, but I've had too much interactions with the obscenely extreme of the right-wing party.

Originally Posted by Ethereal

Oh, the irony! The only "willful ignorance" being displayed is yours, my dear. Individuals who VOLUNTARILY enter into a health insurance plan such as you have described are not at issue and never have been. What IS at issue here are the progressive ideologues who DEMAND that private individuals and institutions subsidize and provide such plans against their will. I know progressives have a difficult time distinguishing between voluntarily paying for something and being forced to pay for something by agents of the state, but you have to try your best to make the distinction, because there's an important and not-so-subtle difference between the two. Got it?

No, I don't get it. Which individuals and institutions are going to be required to subsidize and provide such plans against their will? Religious institutions won't be - they've been exempted. What individuals? Who will they provide them to?

And I do understand the difference between voluntarily paying for something and being forced to pay for something by the state. That's exactly the situation with the Republican ultrasound bill in Virginia that women will be forced to have and also forced to pay for it themselves. Why are you opposed to having insurance cos pay for BC but not to individuals being forced to pay out of pocket for a state mandated, unnecessary medical procedure before getting an abortion which might have been completely unnecessary if the woman had had access to BC?