Still don't have anything except "Not Obama", do you?

2wlady wrote: Yep, still no response about hearing aids.

WHAT?

Rommunism... I like it!

Democracy4Sale wrote: Rommunism... I like it!

Sounds like Scooby Doo politics

Nah...Sounds more like the empty charges of "socialism" that keep getting thrown around by morons that don't understand what it means.

2wlady wrote: Yep, still no response about hearing aids.

Sorry 2w - I've been pondering the question. Sometimes thought is required before responding to an issue raised in a discussion as the merits are examined in a process which is based in reason and logic rather than emotion. In order to give a response I need more information than I currently have on the topic you've raised. I would find it difficult to believe that the cost of procuring hearing aids isn't covered at all by an insurance policy. What I would expect to find is that there are limits on the benefit, not any benefits at all. I am actually looking for my own insurance contract to examine it in light of your question. Like most people who purchase insurance, I haven't read the contract in its entirety and do not know all of what it does and does not cover off the top of my head. I am not a trained lawyer after all is said and done and the contracts are written to be argued in a court of law, not for comprehension by those without legal training.

Taking your allegation at face value, that such medical devices are not usually a covered benefit, I can only surmise that the view is that most hearing loss is the result of self inflicted damage to one's hearing over a period of time. Don't know about the rest of you, but I know that I listened to music in a closed environment at excessively high volumes when I was younger, not to mention that I operated printing presses for 20+ years without donning anything to protect my hearing. Should an insurance company be required to pay for a hearing aid for me when it is more likely than not that I am responsible for the hearing loss to begin with as a result of my actions rather than as a result of aging? It is certainly a dysfunction, but it is very probable that I am responsible for the dysfunction that exists.

Do you think that an insurance company should have had to issue Evel Knievel a health insurance policy which covers hospitalization and being tended to by a doctor when he decided to make a living by jumping fountains and cars on his motorcycle? Do you think that he should also get that coverage at the same rate that I do given the disparate likelihood of the insurance company needing to pay out on the policy? Do you think that an insurance company should be required to issue him a policy without being able to exclude injuries sustained as a result of his attempting to jump buses, cars, tractor-trailers and the Snake River Canyon on his motorcycle or to exclude benefits for treating complications that arise later in life from injuries he sustained before purchasing the policy? Do you honestly think that an insurance company should be required to fork over the money to pay for a motorized wheelchair for him given the willful abuse he inflicted on his body if he loses the function in his legs to bear his own weight as a result of those injuries he willfully assumed the risk of sustaining?

Now, I know that the comparison between Evel Knievel and his physical injuries is an exaggerated comparison to that of my hearing, but the concept involved is what I am driving at. Should I have any more of an expectation that what I did to my hearing will be covered under my insurance benefits given the willful actions I took which are responsible for it being damaged to begin with? It have to tell you 2w, my answer to that is no, I shouldn't have such an expectation. I might not have known the degree to which my actions would ultimately harm my ability to hear, but I did know that there was a high degree of likelihood that I would sustain at least some damage.

To tie it back into the discussion regarding "free" contraception, anyone who engages in sexual activities which can result in a woman becoming pregnant are well aware of the possible consequences of their actions. If they make a willful choice to engage in the behavior anyway, why should they get a "get out of pregnancy free" card when they wind up pregnant at the cost of destroying another human life? That life, according to the foundational principles of our form of government, was created equal to their own and which by its creation is endowed with the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Who should be responsible for paying the cost of assuming the risk? The human life which took the risk or the human life that was created because the risk was taken?

Rook Raggy, Rommunist!

Democracy4Sale wrote: You can tell they know they've lost the argument when they have nothing to post but Rightie cartoons...

Thanks!

Romney has a good batting average at turning around failing companies, no, not every one, but a decent average. Obama on the other hand has all failures on his record, unless they are govt. subsidized, and even then they fail.

You can't blame everyone for wanting "anyone but Obama" He has utterly failed at leadership, hasn't had a budget, and has no plan to get us out of the mess we are in. If I were following someone thru a forest when we were lost, and they are making no progress at getting us out, I would likely follow someone else, if they said they were going to try a different option. Walking in circles (more likely, towards the cliff) isn't ever going to be successful.

I see. So you'd want to follow the one who led you in there and got you lost in the forest in the first place. That's using your noggin'.