Rush Limbaugh Apologizes For His "Slut" Remarks.

I don't want the government telling my insurance company what they should include or exclude in a policy

The corporations who have insurance for their employees tell the insurance company what they should include or exclude in a policy now.

According to PrintSmith, you should only get something covered if it is a "dysfunction." So, loss of hearing is a dysfunction but most insurance policies don't cover hearing aids, or if they do, it's the klugiest, least effective ones on the market. If you want something that actually works and doesn't hurt your mastic nerves, you pay the big bucks yourself.

2wlady wrote:

I don't want the government telling my insurance company what they should include or exclude in a policy

The corporations who have insurance for their employees tell the insurance company what they should include or exclude in a policy now.

According to PrintSmith, you should only get something covered if it is a "dysfunction." So, loss of hearing is a dysfunction but most insurance policies don't cover hearing aids, or if they do, it's the klugiest, least effective ones on the market. If you want something that actually works and doesn't hurt your mastic nerves, you pay the big bucks yourself.

That's right. Some things can not be covered - and should not be covered. See, in life there are risks that simply do not make economic sense to insure yourself against. I have a friend who purchased earthquake insurance which would cover his home if it were destroyed by an earthquake- the only problem with that- is that he lives in Denver!

Now- I think it's his choice if he wants to spend his money for that, but it would be wrong to "force" everyone in Colorado to pay for insurance against this risk. Do you agree?

If we lived in California- the risk might be higher.

The fact is that we would ALL go broke trying to insure ourselves against every risk in life, and murphy's law would dictate that we would die from the one thing we forgot to insure ourselves for.

Thinking that the government is the answer to the health care problem is equally idiotic. I want to make my own choices as to what I want to insure myself for- I don't want the government doing that! There is no way that they can cover everyone for everything, again we would all go broke trying.

I want my insurance to cover real medical problems that are not forseen, not routine medical expenses that we could and should be planning for.

Try this excersize out- call a car windshield company and get a quote for a new windshield- tell them you have full coverage insurance. Then call them back the next week and get a quote after telling them you have NO insurance. Do you think the price will be the same?

The difference is the core problem of why our health care system is so dis-functional. We have lost control of our own routine health care costs because we have turned it over to an insurance company. People don't even ask the doctor how much a routine visit costs anymore- we don't care. We let the insurance company handle it.

And some idiots want to turn this over to the government! Ha! No worse choice could be made! People- we need to put health care back in our hands again- we need to take personal responsibility for it again. The answer to controlling costs is NOT to insure ourselves against every risk- but only for those more probable events that are unforseen.

2wlady wrote: A condition can be defined as:

The current health situation of a patient.
A state of health or physical fitness.
A disease or physical ailment.
A state of being, specifically in reference to physical and mental health or well-being.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/condition

So, it is not just a "dysfunction," PrintSmith.

The term may have different meanings in different contexts, but when the same term is used in a comparison it must maintain a consistent definition across the comparison in order for the comparison to have any validity. That requirement is not met by Kate's argument, which is why the argument is a flawed one. Comparing a physical ailment to a state of being is not a valid comparison no matter what terminology is used in an attempt to deceive others into believing two apples are being compared. No matter how one slices, dices and spin dries the argument it will be invalid simply because dissimilar definitions of the same term are required to draw the comparison Kate is attempting to make. When the same definition of the term "medical condition" is applied to both sides in the comparison, the comparison fails. Sorry 2, that is simply the fact of the matter when logic and reason are applied to the argument that Kate is offering. Her argument can only be valid if two dissimilar definitions for the same term are used - and that means that the argument has an inherent logical fallacy contained within it which renders the argument, and all that results from it, invalid.

Some states allow first cousins to marry. The genetic consequences effect insurance costs. I have to live and pay with that , suck it up you bunch of crybaby milksops. You only want your values reflected, we all pay for crap that we don't do or believe in. I don't ride a motorcycle or ski, I pay as part of a pool of risk. Grow up1

Ah, yes, it makes perfect sense in PrintSmith world to have insurance pay for erectile dysfunction medication so that men can have sex, but it's not reasonable for insurance to pay for contraception so that women don't get impregnated by those same Viagra induced erections.

Only PrintSmith could come up with "logic" like that.

One is a correction of a biological dysfunction and the other is the creation of a biological dysfunction Kate. No matter how you attempt to portray it, that is the bottom line of your argument - that insurance companies should be responsible for paying a portion of correcting a biological dysfunction and 100% of the cost for creating a biological dysfunction.

You really don't see any problems with the hypocrisy?

I guess it's a mans' world.

PrintSmith wrote: One is a correction of a biological dysfunction and the other is the creation of a biological dysfunction Kate. No matter how you attempt to portray it, that is the bottom line of your argument - that insurance companies should be responsible for paying a portion of correcting a biological dysfunction and 100% of the cost for creating a biological dysfunction.

PS, you live in your alternate universe. welcome to your world? No thanks
By your Church logic if the man had a boner pill without wanting to conceive ,that is a sin.Sorry you are just a mindless hack for the catholic hierarchy. Try thinking for yourself.

[youtube:1b1cpz8r][/youtube:1b1cpz8r]

Bill Maher is now defending Rush...I think the only reason is so he doesn't look like a hypocrite. I predict that Rush's show will still be on the air a year from now, still #1, and plenty of advertisers.