I heard a very interesting take on all this on my local commute radio talk show, Armstrong And Getty.

They had connected all the dots on this and concluded that this whole thing from beginning to now was very likely to be a ploy of the Democrat party to initiate a theme that we'd hear throughout the campaign season Republican's, "War Against Women".

Already that's the soundbite that's starting to be used.

They thought the entire thing is a new low for the media, although in their opinion Obama calling the girl to console her was a brilliant political move

Quote:

INTENTIONAL acts are not insurable. ... This is not "insurance." It is forcing those who do not want to buy a given thing to pay for it .....

Ding!

I am always freaked out by those IUD commercials on tv that say in rare cases they can penetrate through the uterus wall and start to do a whole mess of other things. I'm a guy and just the thought of such happening makes me cringe.

Quote:

They had connected all the dots on this and concluded that this whole thing from beginning to now was very likely to be a ploy of the Democrat party to initiate a theme that we'd hear throughout the campaign season Republican's, "War Against Women".

Well, if Republicans had another motivation, they'd just keep repeating the mantra that forcing anyone to buy something is wrong. They should be for removing any and all barriers that keep people from being disadvantaged buying health care individually against those who get theirs paid by employers (Obamacare, tax breaks, cost-shifting, etc etc). Let people make their decisions with their wallets.

From their current line of arguing, and the fact they're just looking for tiny exemptions in the current abomination, it seems they don't have that motivation, and you're left with "war on women" being an arguable explanation for what comes out of their mouth (and the Catholic bishops, Issa's panel, etc etc).

Sandra certainly isn't pioneering the idea of insurance companies providing coverage we don't want to pay for. I see her advocating the inclusion of "contraception" as part of the existing system (i.e. premium one pays for coverage). Much like the fact that although I only see a doctor on average less than once a year, I am currently lumped into an age group with all the unhealthy fat ****s who stuff their faces with big macs and then pop pills like tic tacs because they get diabetes or high blood pressure resulting in my premium at a premium.

Oh yeah, El Rusbo is a douche.

Quote:

It is not unusual to find a 31 year old starting law school. I was 33 when I started, and I was far from being the oldest in my class.

How did it take you so long to decide to***** your life away? Seriously, were you in a coma for 10 years? Suffer a minus 30 IQ injury? You job as a human tick dry up? Ima wondering...

For what it's worth, her actual testimony is available here: http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/st....

Do not judge her actions, only her good intentions.

Freepers gone wild

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat....

The title is obviously wrong and should be "Limbaugh Is Right Boys" What a load of vehement fraternity crap in the article and commentary. What a side show the market ticker has suddenly become. I'm surprised this meaningless tripe was initiated on market ticker. I'll refrain from further typing at this point or maybe getting banned would finally make me stop bothering with market ticker. Good luck, Boys!

Wow...after four post...We will miss your insight at our next kegger!!

Quote:

Let's say you work for a devout Hindu employer, and because of your intentional act of eating too many burgers and steaks, you have high cholesterol, so your doctor prescribes statins. Your employer objects at having his insurer pay for the statins, as he bleieves it will encourage continued cow muscle consumption.

Let's say a woman works for a devout Muslim employer, and her husband, who believes she dresses too provocatively, abuses her. She seeks counseling, but her employer objects to his insurer paying, considering the woman to be a ***** who should be stoned to death.

Folks who intentionally light up Marlboro's get ill. Folks who intentionally drink too much need treatment. Folks who intentionally run marathons need medical help from time to time. What does intentionality have to do with it?

It all comes down to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Birth control is cheap and it doesn't cost anywhere close to what she says.

"Any woman who lets the guy buy the condoms is an idiot. Quality control, folks. There are guys out there who actually *want* to get you pregnant."

This is more frequently the reverse than as you stated, much more frequently. But yes, it does happen that way occasionally.

"How did it take you so long to decide to***** your life away? Seriously, were you in a coma for 10 years? Suffer a minus 30 IQ injury? You job as a human tick dry up? Ima wondering..."

FWIW, most top EMBA programs the median age is 35-40. I think people do sometimes find themselves later in life. I don't see a problem with that.

I agree with Timetrader. I read all of Karl's posts but can't be bothered with the forum anymore. I wanted to check the comments on this ticker to see if anyone mentioned the following:

1. Birthcontrolbuzz is a Canadian pharmacy. Could an average American woman purchase an implant online (legally) and do the procedure herself? According to http://www.lhj.com/health/sexual/reprodu.... it's more like $500-$750 although I'm not sure you'd pay that little for an exam if you were uninsured and walking into a doctors office. It's also extra if you want it removed. Granted it's not $3k. How much would the pill cost in America, with no insurance?

2. Why is everyone acting like the taxpayer is paying for her contraception? It'd be the employer/school paying (which, they didn't of course).

3. How come Rush (and the Boyz here) aren't demanding online videos of sex due to "taxpayer funded" Viagra? Doesn't that fall under:
"INTENTIONAL acts are not insurable. ... This is not "insurance."
And hey, this is covered by insurance, so let's get those vids online. After all, I paid for it ;-)

Quote:

It is also my understanding that the lifetime cost of birth control is dwarfed by the medical cost (to the insurance company) of a single pregnancy and birth. It would appear, that based on actuarial-type data, health insurance companies should be crying about this requirement - all the way to the bank!

Yes, I've considered this as well. In a truly free market system, the insurance companies which refused to cover birth control would be seriously handicapping themselves.

Ha-haaa!!! I took one look at her whiny face and knew she was a setup. Nobody paid for my contraceptives all these years. I don't know why we need to be shoveling out the dough now. All this Limbaugh noise is just a diversion.

Two done.

From the "testimony" (which it wasn't, it was a press conference):

Liar wrote..

Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy.

Utter and complete crap.

First of all, once she CLAIMS that CONTRACEPTION is unavailable due to cost, she THEN tries to tie in therapeutic use of drugs for actual medical conditions. Of course.

More Lies wrote..

One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but it can’t be proven without surgery, so the insurance hasn’t been willing to cover her medication. Recently, another friend of mine told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome.

These are medical conditions. Endo is a serious disease but to actually diagnose it you need tests, YOU CANNOT GUESS. The same is true for polycystic ovarian syndrome.

Medical conditions are covered as MEDICAL CONDITIONS. Even this liar admits this -- if and only if it's a medical condition.

But these women don't want to be examined, they don't want to be tested, they don't want an actual diagnosis confirmed. Why is that? Why is nobody interested in knowing what the **** is wrong with them? If my left ball hurt every time I ****ed, I'd go to the ****ing doctor and I'd jack off in front of him until it hurt, then have him examine me and figure out what the hell is going on!

I'll tell you why - because it's not about disease. It's about PAY ME FOR MY LIFESTYLE DAMNIT!

These are women who are attending a FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLAR A YEAR law school. A school that in three or four years will result in a MORE THAN $150,000 COST, but they're bitching about what they CLAIM is $3,000, and in FACT is more like $250/year.

PLANNED PARENTHOOD says the pill costs from $15 - $50/month, with the more expensive brands I'm sure being the nice exotic stuff. FIFTEEN DOLLARS. That's 50 cents a day, and that's in The United States. These damned LEACHES are running around with $150/month CELLPHONE CONTRACTS with their iPHONES and they CAN'T AFFORD $15 TO **** ALL THEY WANT?

BULL****ING****!

That online source I cited was one that will ship to the US. You pay real prices, in cash and the common ones when bought in "threes" (three month supplies) are all about $20. If you buy "ones" they're $50. Go figure; there's a quantity discount. Duh.

The "norplant style" thing IS available. It's called Implanon, and costs about $400. But -- it lasts THREE YEARS.

$3,000 over three years in law school?

Bull****. That's inflated MASSIVELY. Rubbers are about a buck a piece, maybe a bit more, and you get both pregnancy protection (imperfect, but present) AND some disease protection. The pill is treated as a "free **** license" but it's not, as your partner's willy could be dripping with god-knows-what.

This is exactly like someone saying that I have to not only provide them with basic sustenance but I am also required to pay for Beluga Caviar, Prime Ribeyes and Lobster every night PLUS two packs of cigarettes a day!

Why? Because SHE wants all of the above, that's why.

In a word: No.

I had to buy my own damned rubbers when I was 15, 16, 20, 25, 30 and so on. I eventually decided I was sure I didn't want more kids and I got snipped. I paid for that too, in cash, with my own damn money. $600, one time including the two tests for swimmers and all done. 15 minutes with a drape over my nuts and then twice back to the doc on two week intervals to have him look at my spoo under a microscope and make sure nothing was swimming.

My dick, my choice to use it, my choice to pay for whatever protection I decide on with my own damn money. If I can't or decide not to, I can keep my dick in my pants.

Her vagina, her choice to use it, her choice to pay for whatever protection SHE decides with HER OWN DAMNED MONEY. If SHE can't or decides not to, SHE can keep HER vagina in HER pants.

Period.

PS: If I ever need it I should have to buy my own damned Viagra too!

Genesis--I absolutely 100% agree with you. I'm only torn that it's still a lot cheaper than paying for the birth, tax credits, freebies, etc for a potential kid by a long shot. I actually think this person is just plant though to force an issue that democrats think they can "win" off of.

I demand that we not pay for ANY of that ****. You want to have a kid, fine. Have all you want. And pay for them yourself.

I agree with that 100%..I just know our current tax & benefit laws unfortunately do not.

"Any woman who lets the guy buy the condoms is an idiot. Quality control, folks. There are guys out there who actually *want* to get you pregnant."

"This is more frequently the reverse than as you stated, much more frequently. But yes, it does happen that way occasionally."

I actually have no idea which is more common. I haven't seen any surveys or studies on the matter. Have you? Can you cite any? I'd love to see any data. In any case, the bottom line is that if you don't want to have kids, you'd better make sure on your own that it doesn't happen, and not rely on someone else's contraception.

Things are getting a wee bit nutty around here!

A market top, perhaps?

Kareninca--It's a matter of observation and logic. What does a guy get out of impregnating a woman? 18 years of child support payments to the woman. What does a woman get out of impregnation? 18 years of child support payments to herself. Let's assume the odds of impregnation are equally likely between a man and a woman that is trying to bind themselves to the other for "love"..the deciding (and dominate factor, IMO) is child support.

The odds of you finding a study (which mostly are done at the university level or public funding level) that proves this is beyond astronomical, but it is in fact the truth. I have seen so many times, even when it was simply beyond belief (ex: trying to sleep with inmates), that I have a hard time not believing it.