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.
Originally posted by mastahunta
Insurance plans cover smokers, drunkards and fat asses, are you gonna apply them to your
series of lifestyle grouping?
No, that is how you are interpreting it, big difference
You have elected to treat pregnancy as a disease, when it is in fact a natural and normal function of the female of any species.
Do conservatives understand that their are many lifestyle choices that are essentially covered by insurance?
Old people who die more often that young people are making young people pay for their old asses dying.
should not be forced to pay for a fat ass who eats nasty found and smokes
cigarettes, yet I do, if you want to get all technical about it.
Originally posted by jdub297
Originally posted by mastahunta
Insurance plans cover smokers, drunkards and fat asses, are you gonna apply them to your
series of lifestyle grouping?
It covers idiots, too; feel safer?
"Smokers, drunkards and fat asses" are descriptions of people; "pregnancy" is a natural condition following procreative sex or insemination.
Only an idiot would confuse them.
No, that is how you are interpreting it, big difference
You have elected to treat pregnancy as a disease, when it is in fact a natural and normal function of the female of any species.
I am not interpreting anything.
Progressives continually reapeat the "women's health care" mantra, and speak of "prevention" as if pregnancy was a disease. It is your own rationalization thrown back at you in plain English.
It is so revealing that you instinctively recoil from un-biased observations, and try to distance yourself from the reality of the condition and the tenets of basic health insurance coverage.
Do conservatives understand that their are many lifestyle choices that are essentially covered by insurance?
Old people who die more often that young people are making young people pay for their old asses dying.
Age is no more a lifestyle choice than immaturity or stupidity. Are you arguing for "preventive care" against supporting an aging population? Goes back to the eugenics basis of abortion, doesn't it? How about "Death Panels;" want those, too?
should not be forced to pay for a fat ass who eats nasty found and smokes
cigarettes, yet I do, if you want to get all technical about it.
If anything, those are "pre-existing conditions" that progressives demanded be covered, regardless of cost.
How about congenital or hereditary diseases/cancers, such as breast cancer and hemophilia? Want to piss on them, too?
jwedit on 4-3-2012 by jdub297 because: (no reason given)
ya know, this is the second time i've read this from you and someone needs to point out that you are mistaken.
Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by AuntB
---snip --- in other words, some forms, probably the newest versions would not be covered, but then the will provide the generic for a few bucks...
notice, this is for covered drugs only.
Obamacare.gov In 2011, seniors who reach the coverage gap will receive a 50 percent discount when buying Medicare Part D covered brand-name prescription drugs.
The Angry Pharmacist Now you may be thinking “gee TAP, 10% cut in your fee isn’t so bad, thats only like a buck”. Therein lies the problem. MediCal didn’t cut our dispensing fee, they cut THE WHOLE FreaKING REIMBURSEMENT.
Quick and Dirty:
Drug costs 200 bucks. We get paid 210 bucks. Take 10% off of that 210 bucks and you’re left with 190 bucks. The drug still f***ing costs the pharmacy 200 bucks. We make a whopping -10 dollars. Thats right, the pharmacy LOSES 10 dollars (in this case) with EACH F***ING HIGH DOLLAR TRADE NAME FILL. Throw in some chemo drugs like Xeloda that costs the pharmacy THOUSANDS or HIV drugs at 600 bucks each, and you have yourself a closed pharmacy.
But no, it gets better. You see, MediCal is in bed with the drug manufacturers. The drug manufacturers give “kickbacks…er..REBATES” to the state to use THEIR product. (brand-name) Why else do you think Nasonex is the ONLY nasal steroid instead of generic Flonase. Why do you think generic Morphine ER isn’t covered, but BRAND ONLY Kadian is? The state is getting a rebate, not the consumer, for having these on their formulary.
So not only do we lose money on each brand-name prescription, but we are forced to use brand name for certain drug classes.
See how absolutely f***ed this is? So whats a pharmacy to do?
Easy, send the patient somewhere else for brand name drugs. California Business and Profession code prevents the selling of products for less than what it costs you. Its part of the anti-predatory pricing laws.
Does this suck for the MediCal patients who need HIV/Actos/Nexium/Kadian/etc? Yup, it sure does. Our hearts are out to those patients who can’t get their drugs filled, but what other choice do we have? The chains can absorb the cost for a time until they pull the plug, and the independents cant absorb any of that.
Oh no, it doesn’t stop there. You know how I said that the cuts were put into law June 1st but got held up in court? Well they made the cuts retroactive. Pharmacies are going to get a BILL from MediCal for the 10% difference for EVERY FreaKING PRESCRIPTION they filled since June 1st.
yeah, so ??? as a religious obligation, it's not so much a choice for those who adhere to the doctrine prescribed.
here, we are talking about no coverage of birth control, period!!!
totally agreed.
to say the system is broke, well, ya, no kidding!!!
ummmm, NO ... the auto insurances are doing just fine with individual coverage options.
to think that we each should be able to pick and chose just what we wish to be covered for, and our rates be adjusted accordingly, well, wouldn't this kind of kill the insurance companies?
people who comprise the "pool" of juveniles should foot the bill.
I mean, just who is gonna buy insurance for juvenile diabetes, unless they have the disease??
BS and doubly BS ... risk is not universal hence no policy should be either.
the insurance companies can only make money if they can pool all the risks together
I have used facts,
Originally posted by kevpa
Originally posted by mastahunta
Originally posted by Muttley2012
Originally posted by WTFover
But, the fact is, no matter how many "reasons" you dream up, that pesky little First Amendment just keeps getting in your way.
That is the heart of the issue and all the Sandra Flukes in the world won't change it.
What does the first amendment have to do with birth control?
Its another typical right wing way to instill their Fascist ideas on America,
just like Citizens Untied. Constitution is toilet paper to be used like toilet
paper I guess.
I've enjoyed reading these awkward rantings from mastahunta that make no sense whatsoever. I understand your liberal viewpoints, and that's great, you are involved in politics, more people should be. But is it me or are there more and more threads on ats popping up with these stupid liberal and right wing rants? As I said in another thread, you should debate FACTS
I do hope that you are aware that our country is a Republic, mastahunta. Now that is a FACT. It is true that some republicans may have fascist ideas just the same as some democrats may have communist ideas. Which one is better you ask? The system we have in place is better because the citizens hold the power in a Republic. And no, the power elite do NOT hold all the cards by just putting someone in as President, because we have the power to vote at a local level which makes more of a difference than voting for the President. More of which people need to do but for some reason usually just forget to.
And back to my point, if I were to say "Obama is using his communist viewpoints to get Obamacare and is ruining our country by spending trillions of dollars we don't have because he is just pushing his communist ideas on us," how does that sound? It sounds stupid just like you sound. So please get over yourself and move on.
And please people, lighten up and enrich us all with your talent and not your hatred.
Originally posted by yamammasamonkey
reply to post by mastahunta
It is cheaper to buy a bullet for every person on welfare than to support them the rest of their lives. Is your whole argument about cost? The problem has nothing to do with insurance companies or money. The problem is the Government demanding a person or group buy something that they are against. No matter what it is it's wrong. Would it be right for the Government to require vegetarian food producers or restaurants provide meals with meat for their employees? Hell naw!!! Quit trying to make others do what you want. You want birth control? Go buy it with your money. You want your work to provide it? Find a job with an employer that doesn't have objections. You're like the #ing Gestapo you #ing people!
Originally posted by Honor93
i'm wondering ... would you agree with the concept that "the pill" and only pharmaceuticals should be universally covered when and only when deemed "medically necessary" ??
i could be in agreement with that argument and truly don't see a religious conflict as medically necessary usually averts the entire premise of "pregnancy".
however, in such a stance, i would also have to insist that condoms were NOT covered as they are specific to the activity of sex, whereas the pill and other treatments for women are not.
as much as i would like to agree with either suggestion, i don't see where that would be applicable to Obamacare as it passed.
I think it would be smart to create a supplemental option --- snip --- It might be smart for Religious to create new funds that segregate their money from larger pools so that their money is not used to pay for claims relating to things they object to
Universal care is in the garbage heap because marketers succeeded in scaring the
Originally posted by Honor93
any supplemental option is going to cost additional funds (from wherever) ... so where's the universal coverage?
groups that can claim any exemption are not fully participating as everyone is expected to and i'm already PO'd that Congress exempted themselves.
why would you even suggest a segregated fund ??? i thought Obamacare was aimed at the collective approach.
i'm all for not spending money on things of which i don't approve or consent, i just don't see Obamacare meeting that standard.
Originally posted by mr3dboot
reply to post by mastahunta
Just for the sake of argument, why should I, or anyone else for that matter, be required to fund birth control for anyone?
It's a personal choice to use, therefore an individual should have no issues paying for it on their own right?
If it is already in your insurance plan, fantastic! If not, request it. If they can not/will not provide it, buy it yourself or find another job that has insurance that covers it. A 30 day supply for $9 at Target can't exactly make you broke, unless your a college student who wants to go on tv to tell everyone your sexual activity is at such a high level that buying it yourself will make you starve to death.
No Federal involvement is needed. Republicans and Democrats should stay out of the issue period and let the individuals and insurance companies work it out. No insurance you say? How about not getting Starbucks for at least two times in a month or just say to to two Mcdonalds meals and there you go! You have saved enough money to buy birth control for 30 days!
Originally posted by mastahunta
Someone else's sexual activity is not your realm to dictate,
Originally posted by mr3dboot
reply to post by mastahunta
Just for the sake of argument, why should I, or anyone else for that matter, be required to fund birth control for anyone?
It's a personal choice to use, therefore an individual should have no issues paying for it on their own right?