Raees wrote: ... that means the free contraception we've been hearing so much about is finally coming into fruition for a huge chunk of American women..
I'll find out how free it is when my insurance renews in November.
Shouldn't we also pay them cab fare so they can see the doctor to get the prescription? Plus another cab far to pick it up. It's not fair to have them pay for gas.
But let those who need a prescription just to stay alive continue with those co-pays! :bash
Raees wrote: Unless the bus is full it really doesn't cost any more to carry an extra passenger.
By that logic only the first passenger should pay.
Actually your logic is wrong each additional passenger adds extra weight to the bus thereby decreasing fuel mileage. A tiny amount yes but still measurable.
Raees wrote: I'm sure taxpayers would be so much better off paying to subsidize children in unwanted pregnancies....
And both policies have been brought to you by the same "progressive" minded folks, haven't they. Since their first efforts failed so miserably, they are looking to find a solution to the problem they have created for the rest of us and this is what they came up with. Convince the lower class to voluntarily sterilize themselves at the expense of everyone else and there will be less cost associated with them not being sterilized, right Raees?
Only one problem that I see here. The majority of those children who are being subsidized have parents who think their stature is enhanced if they are a baby momma or have fathered lots of children with different women. How are you going to convince those most responsible for bearing children that have to be subsidized to stop having children? You think a teenager who isn't using contraception now because they wish to keep their parents in the dark about them being sexually active are going to risk having their parents find out simply because the contraception is now free of charge to them? You think that a college student who had to pay $10 a month for contraception before is going to get the prescription now that they don't have to pay the $10? Not to mention the likelihood of them still becoming pregnant because being young and foolish they fail to follow the instructions that came with the prescription.
For those women that all of a sudden do decide to start chemically sterilizing themselves because they are no longer going to have to pay a monetary price for doing so, they also get the increased risk of health problems now and down the road. I can't be the only one who has seen the ads from the lawyers shopping for clients for their class action lawsuits for some of the newer chemical sterilizers that have entered the marketplace after being approved by the FDA. There is, after all, no free lunch. Temporary chemical sterilization comes with its own set of health risks; which is why, after decades of use, they are still a prescriptive medication and not available over the counter.
It's funny how Fox used the term "Obamacare" as a negative for Health Care Reform and the Obama folks picked it up and ran with it. Now, it's a reminder of who to thank for this.
It's funny how Fox used the term "Obamacare" as a negative for Health Care Reform and the Obama folks picked it up and ran with it. Now, it's a reminder of who to thank for this.
We'll see how many thanks they get once the premiums skyrocket and the young healthy people have to start paying the forced tax. Should be a real celebration for all of us. :thumbsup:
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
