It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sandra Fluke - Advocate for Mandatory Health Coverage for Sex Changes

page: 3
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Then she shows up on The View, and espouses her desires to see sex-change operations subsidized by insurance companies. (Last time I checked, getting a sex-change was elective not a life-saving treatment.)


Again, that's the danger of anything short of blanket coverage... defining what is necessary vs. elective vs cosmetic. Transsexualism is a acknowledged medical condition, the cost of which is an allowable IRS medical deduction. (With the exception of breast augmentation) Can one choose to go without the procedure? Sure. But likewise, what about people that have cleft lips? They can function as-is, but should insurance cover repair? What about alcoholism treatment? Cataract surgery? Child immunizations? Covering only life saving treatments may sound like a good idea to some, but I respectfully disagree with that assessment.




posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Vixen~

Originally posted by beezzer

Then she shows up on The View, and espouses her desires to see sex-change operations subsidized by insurance companies. (Last time I checked, getting a sex-change was elective not a life-saving treatment.)


Again, that's the danger of anything short of blanket coverage... defining what is necessary vs. elective vs cosmetic. Transsexualism is a acknowledged medical condition, the cost of which is an allowable IRS medical deduction. (With the exception of breast augmentation) Can one choose to go without the procedure? Sure. But likewise, what about people that have cleft lips? They can function as-is, but should insurance cover repair? What about alcoholism treatment? Cataract surgery? Child immunizations? Covering only life saving treatments may sound like a good idea to some, but I respectfully disagree with that assessment.


You're welcome to disagree.
I'm sure there are medical plans that cover it. Should insurance companies be mandated to cover it?
No.

Take a look at the big picture. This is an outside agency telling a private entity what it should and should not do.

If it is mandated that it should be covered (specifically a catholic institution) then we are right back at a violation of the 1st Ammendment where a goverment entity is telling a religous institution what it should and should not do.

Hell, Berkley might cover the sex change operations. Why go to a catholic school where it isn't covered and make noise other than to satisfy an agenda?



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



Even though we always dissagree politically,
You are a good, fair man.
And I like having you here.

(just not in the political forums haha)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by sealing
reply to post by beezzer
 



Even though we always dissagree politically,
You are a good, fair man.
And I like having you here.

(just not in the political forums haha)


A star for you!

What a boring place this would be if we all agreed on everything.

Imagine the threads.

OP: This is wrong!
1st poster: Yeah!
2nd poser: Yeah!
3rd poster: I agree!



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
This is typical politics at work here.

We were led to believe that she ws just a stdent with uncontrollable sex drives, who needed free condoms bcause she couldn't afford law school AND condoms.

Now mandated sex change operations in insurance packages. (yes, I said packages,
)

Who pays for all this?

Oh, let me guess! The government will step in to save the day and subsidize it with our tax dollars.

Bill Shakespeare once had a saying about lawyers.
edit on 6-3-2012 by beezzer because: My grammur is failing!


Oh Beezer, there you go again, using subdiffuse, conjecture and ignorance to encourage opposition. Those are the things that Rush wanted you to believe. Sandra Fluke never mentioned anything of the sort in her testimony.

This debate was never about uncontrollable sex drives or condoms or tax dollars. It was never about sex changes either.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Then, pray tell, what was it about?


ETA; it's coming up on midnight here. Will respond in the am.
Cheers
edit on 6-3-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Elective surgery should not be covered as a rule.
There are some areas I do however see as being covered

A woman survivor of breast cancer that had to have a breast removed for example, getting a boob job seems approprate given the surgery. Things like that which dance on needed procedures. Having an auto-accident where your nose got ripped off, etc etc etc.

But ya..gender reassignment...basically, start saving your money, thats on your dime...if you don't get it done, it doesn't cost me a penny, and you won't die.

I do agree with coverage of the pill though. But thats a philosophical stand. the less unwanted babies, the better. Pay a few bucks for a pill monthly, or pay a fortune to welfare, and due to unwanted upbringing, perhaps prison later on in life.

I don't care if she was the grand wizard of feminism when going before congress...if her argument is valid, its valid. I would caution anyone focusing in on the specific woman and trying to assassinate her character..bullying is seen as obscene by most of the sane public. She was discussing a point...the right needs to stop discussing her and focus in on the point.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by SourGrapes

Originally posted by KillerQueen
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
 


She's a law student and women's rights advocate. I'm sure she has ideas and opinions on lots of issues. But they are just that - ideas and opinions. She's educated and experienced on these issues, just because she weighs in on one topic - women's contraceptive rights - doesn't mean she can't also have other ideas and opinions. Or that she is a threat to the American insurance industry, mom, baseball and apple pie.

edit on 6-3-2012 by KillerQueen because: (no reason given)


She's a slut and a prostitute.......for the administration and obamacare.

-Sour



Oh now you done it were all going to have to complain and make sure your sponsors pull there support!!!!!! Oh the out rage and indignation I feel. Heres my question she claims she spends 3,000 dollars in 3 years on her birth control. If she had sex twice a day and bought condoms at say .25 each thats 182.50 a year or in three years 547.50 . This means she would have to have sex 10.95 times a day to cost 1000.00 a year. Not only am i jealous but i think she may be a slut. And also this would give little time to get her law degree.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by windword
 


Then, pray tell, what was it about?


ETA; it's coming up on midnight here. Will respond in the am.
Cheers
edit on 6-3-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)


It SHOULD be about the content of her testimony and how it applied to the Blunt Amendment and the Affordable Health Care Act in regards to religious insititutions and their exemption, that were being discussed by Congress, in a Congression Hearing.

The conversation SHOULD be about her being excluded from testifying during the first hearings on the issues, where only men who espoused opposition to "Obamacare" were heard. If she would have been allowed to speak when she was scheduled to speak, we might not be having this conversation. As it turns out, a special meeting was convened, by Nancy Pelosi, to, finally, allow the invited speaker give her testimony. Cue the hoopla.....now.

Earlier in this thread, someone asked where all the Anti-Sandra Flukes were. They were presented and heard before her, she was the rebuttal. We should be discussing what the original Congressional hearing was presented with and comparing that to what Ms. Fluke presented. Other issues that she may or may not be a proponent of, are of no relevance.

Are you familiar with her testimony? You can read the transcript here www.buzzfeed.com...

Or watch it here:

edit on 6-3-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Elective surgery should not be covered as a rule.
There are some areas I do however see as being covered

A woman survivor of breast cancer that had to have a breast removed for example, getting a boob job seems approprate given the surgery.


And this is another real problem women are facing. A friend of mine had to deal with this after having a breast removed due to cancer. Being a woman with small breasts the smallest implant she could get was noticeably larger than her natural one. She ended up having to pay out of pocket to have the other enlarged just to match the size of the other one. Now I could see some sort of issue if she were trying to get them enlarged to get them enlarged but all she wanted was for them to match. This is the kind of thing that happens when you do not regulate these insurance companies.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


The reason she wasnt allowed to testify is she wasnt qualified to discuss the issue. The Issue was not about reproduction birth control or law school. the issue was "Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?", convened by Rep. Darrell Issa. Darrell Issa convened this committee to see if the government can force the church to pay for something that is against there beliefs. (which is incredibly silly to deny but hey religions ban stupid stuff all the time). This issue concerns me for 1 reason it is not the governments place to decide what religions believe and make them violate there beliefs.

As far as the new hearing she qualifies that was a hearing on women's health and contraception, chaired by Rep. Nancy Pelosi. Heres the catch The only reason this hearing was held was to change the story. This is why i hate politics republicans and democrats trying to gain political advantage over each other nothing more then smoke and mirrors.God we need a third party just to keep these other two in line. Were in sooooooo much trouble.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


HAHA! Oh boy do I agree with you. Good post!

I heard that she was disqualified, but wasn't sure why. I have searched and searched the interweb tubes, and I can't, but would love to find, who testified and what was presented. But alas, either this new personalized Google just doesn't get me, or.....I can't find it. Sandra Fluke's testimony is the only one available.

PS: Love your dragon avatar. I've been drawing/painting dragons all day, for a job. Been having problems with their feet.
edit on 6-3-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join