Abortion bills force both parties to rethink political calculus

Jul 6, 2013 Full story: The Washington Post 1,168

People gather outside the state legislature as Senate Republicans gave their final approval to legislation requiring additional rules surrounding abortions in North Carolina, even as hundreds of protesters against the bill watched from the gallery in Raleigh, N.C., Wednesday,July 3. As a member of the Wisconsin State Assembly years ago, Republican ... (more)

Read more

“Blessed Be”

Level 1

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#882 Oct 22, 2013
incredulous wrote:
<quoted text>See, there you go! You were asked a polite question and you come back insulting and foaming at the mouth like a rabid bitch.
You can't fathom the fact that slooter wanted something for nothing. She wanted the school to change their insurance policy to suit her needs. Policies do NOT always cover contraception and you refuse to acknowledge that by pretending it is a prescription medication which it is NOT always classified as that.
There are other 'meds' that are excluded from policies so you continue to argue about the same useless point. You've lost the argument. You also had a failed analogy. I don't know what your problem is but you apparently are so filled with hate towards those who want to be independent.
Slooter CHOSE the school and knew how much it would cost to attend. She surely knew her bc pills were going to have a charge as well. If ten bucks a month were such a hardship for her.....
1. She could have found out the plan wouldn't cover it and find another plan that would.
2. Use Planned Parenthood services to access her contraception and figure that into her budget
3. Attend a college that wouldn't put her in such financial distress
There is nothing more disgusting than someone who whines and complains because they don't have enough people giving them something for nothing.
I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. Birth control pills are ALWAYS prescription. Not only that, but they require a yearly exam in order to GET the prescription. Even at Planned Parenthood.

My point stands. Asking for a medication to be covered by an insurance plan you are already paying for is NOT wanting "something for nothing".

As for the other poster, mind your own business.
incredulous

Carmel, IN

#883 Oct 22, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
No, she did not. You just keep repeating this lie, that's all.
I understand, lies are all you have.
You are incorrect, the BENEFIT is a prescription plan, not the individual medications which may, or may not be covered.
However, ANY medication that is covered in a prescription plan that is part of healthcare benefits one PAYS for is NOT getting "something for nothing".
You're an idiot.
I realize you enjoy repeating your lies because you have nothing more to add to this discussion....but please.... don't project your ignorance on me, however.

Everyone knows what a prescription plan is. Not every prescription written is necessarily covered by a prescription plan as previously discuss but ignored by you.

Birth Control pills, fertility drugs, acne meds and certain experimental drugs are commonly exempt from these plans. Underwriters and the businesses who purchase these plans decide on the level of coverage they can afford. Student policies are not very comprehensive and more than likely cover the bare minimum. It couldn't support providing this benefit based upon the cost of the policy. Slooter wanted a Cadillac policy for a Cash for Clunkers price....and she whined and complained about it all over Washington. She wanted something for nothing, once again.

Additionally, birth control pills were NOT a covered benefit in her plan and slooter demanded that it should be a covered benefit and an eligible drug under the prescription plan...which is wasn't. Something for nothing.

You keep repeating the same stupid thing without even attempting to understand how insurance works. Seriously, you should be embarrassed because you almost seem developmentally delayed.
Ink

Levittown, PA

#884 Oct 22, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
If you can't follow what the discussion actually is, why do you bother? Do you ENJOY looking like an idiot?
Has anybody told you what a nasty snarly person you are today? The idiots are the ones expecting a Catholic School to provide contraception coverage.
incredulous

Carmel, IN

#885 Oct 22, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. Birth control pills are ALWAYS prescription. Not only that, but they require a yearly exam in order to GET the prescription. Even at Planned Parenthood.
My point stands. Asking for a medication to be covered by an insurance plan you are already paying for is NOT wanting "something for nothing".
As for the other poster, mind your own business.
Who said bc pills weren't prescription? Of course they are. College girls have been managing this for decades. PP has been an excellent resource for many. Others continue on their parent's policies which may or may not provide coverage for contraceptives. I have found the cost for bc pills is pretty much the same as what they would get a PP. In many instances, it's cheaper at PP. An annual exam is covered by many policies although student policies are usually very crappy. If she had one annual exam in her policy, then she gets it and the doc writes a prescription and she goes to PP. OR she does the entire thing at PP like everyone else. I'm not sure why you continue to wail about this. Slooter had plenty of options available to her and she chose to act like a stupid helpless bimbo unable to problem solve a very simple thing. If ten bucks a month is too much for slooter to pay, she should have chosen a less expensive school or a school with a more comprehensive health plan. She wanted something for nothing.

“Blessed Be”

Level 1

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#886 Oct 22, 2013
incredulous wrote:
<quoted text>
I realize you enjoy repeating your lies because you have nothing more to add to this discussion....but please.... don't project your ignorance on me, however.
Everyone knows what a prescription plan is. Not every prescription written is necessarily covered by a prescription plan as previously discuss but ignored by you.
Birth Control pills, fertility drugs, acne meds and certain experimental drugs are commonly exempt from these plans. Underwriters and the businesses who purchase these plans decide on the level of coverage they can afford. Student policies are not very comprehensive and more than likely cover the bare minimum. It couldn't support providing this benefit based upon the cost of the policy. Slooter wanted a Cadillac policy for a Cash for Clunkers price....and she whined and complained about it all over Washington. She wanted something for nothing, once again.
Additionally, birth control pills were NOT a covered benefit in her plan and slooter demanded that it should be a covered benefit and an eligible drug under the prescription plan...which is wasn't. Something for nothing.
You keep repeating the same stupid thing without even attempting to understand how insurance works. Seriously, you should be embarrassed because you almost seem developmentally delayed.
You are the one repeating a lie.

It is not asking for "something for nothing" to ask for a medication to be covered in a plan that you are paying into. Period.

“Blessed Be”

Level 1

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#887 Oct 22, 2013
incredulous wrote:
<quoted text>Who said bc pills weren't prescription? Of course they are. College girls have been managing this for decades. PP has been an excellent resource for many. Others continue on their parent's policies which may or may not provide coverage for contraceptives. I have found the cost for bc pills is pretty much the same as what they would get a PP. In many instances, it's cheaper at PP. An annual exam is covered by many policies although student policies are usually very crappy. If she had one annual exam in her policy, then she gets it and the doc writes a prescription and she goes to PP. OR she does the entire thing at PP like everyone else. I'm not sure why you continue to wail about this. Slooter had plenty of options available to her and she chose to act like a stupid helpless bimbo unable to problem solve a very simple thing. If ten bucks a month is too much for slooter to pay, she should have chosen a less expensive school or a school with a more comprehensive health plan. She wanted something for nothing.
Since the subject was having birth control pills covered, and you said it's not always considered a "prescription medication", you did, Fool.

“Blessed Be”

Level 1

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#888 Oct 22, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Has anybody told you what a nasty snarly person you are today? The idiots are the ones expecting a Catholic School to provide contraception coverage.
Once again you prove that you don't have the wit to follow along, or you'd have seen the other poster call me a "rabid bitch".

Still, if you find my posts so nasty, don't read them.

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the debate. But if you are going to participate, at least stop whining like a spoiled little brat.

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#889 Oct 22, 2013
incredulous wrote:
<quoted text>Who said bc pills weren't prescription? Of course they are. College girls have been managing this for decades. PP has been an excellent resource for many. Others continue on their parent's policies which may or may not provide coverage for contraceptives. I have found the cost for bc pills is pretty much the same as what they would get a PP. In many instances, it's cheaper at PP. An annual exam is covered by many policies although student policies are usually very crappy. If she had one annual exam in her policy, then she gets it and the doc writes a prescription and she goes to PP. OR she does the entire thing at PP like everyone else. I'm not sure why you continue to wail about this. Slooter had plenty of options available to her and she chose to act like a stupid helpless bimbo unable to problem solve a very simple thing. If ten bucks a month is too much for slooter to pay, she should have chosen a less expensive
school or a school with a more comprehensive health plan. She wanted something for nothing.
She wanted the college, which was collecting federal funds, to be subject to federal law. The college declared itself above the law, due to 'religious freedom'. Sandra Fluke allowed herself to be the guinea pig for this legal action's precedence...and it won her enemies like you.
Ink

Levittown, PA

#890 Oct 22, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again you prove that you don't have the wit to follow along, or you'd have seen the other poster call me a "rabid bitch".
Still, if you find my posts so nasty, don't read them.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the debate. But if you are going to participate, at least stop whining like a spoiled little brat.
I did see that. Maybe if you stopped being so insulting you wouldn't cause people to react in like kind.

I can stand the heat I just want to point out your personality flaws for your own good. Constructive criticism.
Ink

Levittown, PA

#891 Oct 22, 2013
dedbebbies wrote:
<quoted text>She wanted the college, which was collecting federal funds, to be subject to federal law. The college declared itself above the law, due to 'religious freedom'. Sandra Fluke allowed herself to be the guinea pig for this legal action's precedence...and it won her enemies like you.
It won her contraception for a $10 a month co pay.

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#892 Oct 22, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
It won her contraception for a $10 a month co pay.
Good.
incredulous

Carmel, IN

#893 Oct 22, 2013
dedbebbies wrote:
<quoted text>She wanted the college, which was collecting federal funds, to be subject to federal law. The college declared itself above the law, due to 'religious freedom'. Sandra Fluke allowed herself to be the guinea pig for this legal action's precedence...and it won her enemies like you.
Since when is religious freedom above the law? It's supposed to BE the law! I still do not think a govt. has any right to force a business, institution or organization to provide specific coverages. I wouldn't go to a Jewish school and demand pork or demand they allow gentiles to sit at the milk table and eat meat. If someone doesn't like Catholic dogma, don't go to their schools or their masses. Slooter did nothing but prove to the world she is nothing more than a stupid lazy slout who couldn't problem solve her way out of a box of Kotex. She demanded something for nothing.
incredulous

Carmel, IN

#894 Oct 22, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
It won her contraception for a $10 a month co pay.
Something for nothing. She demanded the school bow down to her selfish lazy fat butt because she was too stupid and needy to pay PP ten bucks without involving the school. What a drama queen and an embarrassment to women.
incredulous

Carmel, IN

#895 Oct 22, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Since the subject was having birth control pills covered, and you said it's not always considered a "prescription medication", you did, Fool.
I said it's not always a covered benefit or it may not qualify under a policy's prescription plan. If I said that it wasn't a prescription medication, please prove it before you call me a fool. You're the one who can't comprehend simple English and continue ranting on and on about nothing.

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#896 Oct 22, 2013
incredulous wrote:
<quoted text>It's very obvious you know very little about business which explains a lot.
1. She wanted to ADD a benefit to her policy that did NOT exist. Adding benefits costs money. She wanted something for nothing. You can't refute it so give it up. You look truly stupid.
2. If all she wanted to do was 'pay' for her 'medication'......why didn't she go to PP and pay for it there? It's because she wanted something for nothing. She wanted to bully others so they could pay for her contraception. THAT's what this is about. I have had insurance for years that never covered contraception. It would have added to the cost of the policy for this coverage. Sloot wanted something for nothing. You don't simply add in bc pills as if it were already deemed a covered benefit. It wasn't and the cost of the policy reflected that.
If I went to a grocery store and DEMANDED they carry a brand of bread that would cost them money to provide it....do you think they would carry it? So go to Whole Foods and get the bread you want and quit badgering folks who don't want to lose money carrying it. Sometimes, you can't get away with trying to get something for nothing.
It also DOES matter if a business doesn't want to cover certain things. If they don't want to provide maternity, contraception, fertility treatments in their health plans, it should be their right. A business should have a right to cover whatever they want....just as a grocery store should have the right to carry the brands they want to carry.
note: Maybe with all this repetition, it will finally sink in.
Gee, you sound frustrated....and bitter....and angry...
and like a broken record.
;)

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Level 1

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#897 Oct 23, 2013
incredulous wrote:
<quoted text>You're not very bright. There is a reason businesses don't provide contraceptive coverage. It is excluded because it is a financial burden....an extra cost to the policy. She wanted the coverage for nothing. She felt she was entitled to contraceptive coverage even though she took out the policy knowing that it WAS NOT a covered benefit. She could have gone to PP to receive pills for ten bucks a month and yet the whiney sloot didn't want to take responsibility. She wanted something for nothing.
How can BC be a financial burden if only 10 bucks a month as you claim?

Why would BC be a financial burden but Viagra not? Erections are covered but a woman trying to avoid the medical condition of pregnancy or taken for other medical purposes is not? Sorry you can not find the contradiction in that. But being a man such as you are certainly helps with the bias.
Ocean56

AOL

#898 Oct 23, 2013
incredulous wrote:
She isn't intelligent...she's nothing more than a stupid slooter trying to get something for nothing. Georgetown should be embarrassed for admitting such a dirty slout into their school because she has the sense of a piece of dirt. She insults women by portraying them as whiny helpless idiots who don't have the common sense to manage their own contraception without govt intervention. Needy lazy folks like that turn my stomach.....man, woman or a combo of both.
As far as I'M concerned, Sandra Fluke is a lot smarter than YOU, which is probably why you hate her so much. Your obsessive posts about her make THAT very clear as well.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Level 1

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#899 Oct 23, 2013
incredulous wrote:
<quoted text>Outed? Please explain. Typing in something and attaching a name to it does nothing but prove your desperate attempt to discredit me....which btw...is a huge fail. There are literally hundreds of thousands of posts so who would be able to snag something like that? Of course they wouldn't......unless they felt compelled to make up stuff because they can't discuss the issue intelligently.
I have to snicker at why you are so focused on me...so much so that you imagine my presence all over Topix. What a weirdo!
I'm not a guy although I doubt you would recognize females since you're too much of an angry butch lezzy. Please know you are the greatest insult to all women because they don't want to be associated with such gross creatures like yourself. Fly off witch or stay on topic.
You were outed. You are a man playing a woman. We know what you are and how you change your names regularly. But sorry honey your writing and thoughts are all the same. You pretend to play nice then fly off the handle into a raging name calling fest. You do it every time then piss and moan about others not playing nice with you. Troll much?
Ocean56

AOL

#900 Oct 23, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
How can BC be a financial burden if only 10 bucks a month as you claim?
Why would BC be a financial burden but Viagra not? Erections are covered but a woman trying to avoid the medical condition of pregnancy or taken for other medical purposes is not? Sorry you can not find the contradiction in that. But being a man such as you are certainly helps with the bias.
"Incredulous" keeps claiming to be a woman, but I seriously doubt it. Its posts are full of misogynistic language that is usually written by angry guys who hate women, so the claim of being a woman is highly suspect.
Ocean56

AOL

#901 Oct 23, 2013
incredulous wrote:
1. Ah ha, here it is! At least you admit your bigoted and hateful views! There is nothing regressive about putting kids first although it does explain why society has been producing so many deviants. No reason to wonder why our schools are filled with brats who not only are not ready to learn, they aren't ready for anything. They have parents who don't give a rat's patootey because they are too busy putting their selfish needs first. Why bother to have kids? Seriously, I certainly hope you do not. Do society a favor and get those tubes tied. Maybe PID has already done the job.
2. Before decent men and women DECIDE to have children, they discuss what their roles are going to be.
1. What nonsense. It is hardly bigoted or hateful to call something regressive or backward. Your kind of "thinking" was popular in the 1850's and the 1950's, it was just labeled differently. In the 1850's it was called "woman's sphere," and in the 1950's was called "woman's role." Either way, that kind of life was more like a straightjacket than anything else. No wonder our feminist foremothers wanted no part of it.

2. Actually, that discussion needs to take place long before that couple even gets married. Any guy who wants his future wife to be another June Cleaver is a guy the woman needs to DUMP, as quickly as possible.


Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Immigration Reform Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Poll: Bush popular in GOP; Rubio, Walker have m... 6 min Lawrence Wolf 13
Rose's Pub (Mar '10) 36 min Agents of Corruption 137,790
News Evangelicals: Pray for Boehner on immigration r... (Dec '13) 1 hr swedenforever 18
News Pew Researcher: Rate of Illegal Immigrant Males... 1 hr Who Guessed It 4
News Crawfish And Greek Yogurt Are Becoming Casualti... 1 hr Who Guessed It 1
News Boehner, Back in DC, Denies Mocking GOP Colleag... (Apr '14) 1 hr swedenforever 39
News Boise Immigration Rally Draws Hundreds, Call fo... (May '13) 1 hr Who Guessed It 122
More from around the web