Is it true that she was begging for a handout to cover something that cost as much as 1.5 latte's at Starbucks per month? I heard some conservatives claim this, but wonder if it is true.
I must like the older Democrats, HR (fellows like William Proxmire and David Boren).............It's totally in the ballpark, dmarks. At Walmart and Target, you can get birth contol for $9 a month and for poorer people there are clinics out there where you can get it for free.
Is anyone surprized deluded Ema has'nt surfaced after this weeks job numbers were released?The liberal fantasy world is an interesting place.....similar to OZ.
It wouldn't have killed Obama to give those Catholic affiliated self-insured businesses a break. a) He gave his SEIU unions buddies a break and b) Catholic charities do a hell of a lot of good work in the community.......And, no, I don't agree with the Catholic church on birth control.
Part of the problem is that prior to the current theological construct, most healthcare plans covered contraceptives. Like most other drug coverage, copay and deductibles were the norm. If a woman was using contraceptives and her insurer removed coverage, she would not be 'begging' IMO. Government mandate aside, we note, "The National Business Group on Health recommends that employers include coverage of contraceptives in their plans, finding that the short-term costs may be modest and will likely be offset rapidly by long-term saving in preventing costs associated with pregnancy." ..indicating a business/medicine conflict with religious interests. Hence I reiterate-the issue will remain controversial.
I agree that it's controversial but I don't think that you can make self-insured (and that's the key here) Catholic affiliated businesses pay for something that they have a fundamental philosophical objection to (and it is a relatively small group of businesses here)....Now, if the government wants to increase contraception funding for clinics that predominantly serve poor people, that would be an entirely different story. That, and Sandra Fluke can still get her contraception at Walmart for 9 bucks.
Will: But don't forget she is as greedy as hell and is entitled to free contraceptives so it doesn't bite into her buying 22 Starbucks coffees on average per month.
She represents the greed and avariciousness... the 'Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you' inflated sense of entitlement and atrophied sense of responsibility that is characteristic of the 47% moochers Romney complained about.
I know he was way off on the 47% actual number, but there is a good idea in there.
Not an outlier -- call her a New Democrat. Parties don't put outliers on the big stage at their conventions...
ReplyDeleteIs it true that she was begging for a handout to cover something that cost as much as 1.5 latte's at Starbucks per month? I heard some conservatives claim this, but wonder if it is true.
ReplyDeleteI must like the older Democrats, HR (fellows like William Proxmire and David Boren).............It's totally in the ballpark, dmarks. At Walmart and Target, you can get birth contol for $9 a month and for poorer people there are clinics out there where you can get it for free.
ReplyDeleteA parasite, pure and simple.
ReplyDeleteBesides, she looks like a frog.
As long as vasectomies and viagra
ReplyDeleteare routinely covered by health insurance, the birth control issue will remain controversial.
Good observation BB. You are correct.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteAfter Tues. this silly twit will have used up her 15 minutes.
ReplyDeleteIs anyone surprized deluded Ema has'nt surfaced after this weeks job numbers were released?The liberal fantasy world is an interesting place.....similar to OZ.
It wouldn't have killed Obama to give those Catholic affiliated self-insured businesses a break. a) He gave his SEIU unions buddies a break and b) Catholic charities do a hell of a lot of good work in the community.......And, no, I don't agree with the Catholic church on birth control.
ReplyDeleteBB: And as long as people are greedy and think they can earn something by begging for it.
ReplyDeletePart of the problem is that prior to the current theological construct, most healthcare plans
ReplyDeletecovered contraceptives. Like most
other drug coverage, copay and deductibles were the norm. If a woman was using contraceptives and
her insurer removed coverage, she
would not be 'begging' IMO.
Government mandate aside, we note,
"The National Business Group on Health recommends that employers include coverage of contraceptives in their plans, finding that the short-term costs may be modest and will likely be offset rapidly by long-term saving in preventing costs associated with pregnancy."
..indicating a business/medicine
conflict with religious interests.
Hence I reiterate-the issue will remain controversial.
I agree that it's controversial but I don't think that you can make self-insured (and that's the key here) Catholic affiliated businesses pay for something that they have a fundamental philosophical objection to (and it is a relatively small group of businesses here)....Now, if the government wants to increase contraception funding for clinics that predominantly serve poor people, that would be an entirely different story. That, and Sandra Fluke can still get her contraception at Walmart for 9 bucks.
ReplyDeleteWill: But don't forget she is as greedy as hell and is entitled to free contraceptives so it doesn't bite into her buying 22 Starbucks coffees on average per month.
ReplyDeleteIt's cheaper than some of my co-pays.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteShe represents the greed and avariciousness... the 'Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you' inflated sense of entitlement and atrophied sense of responsibility that is characteristic of the 47% moochers Romney complained about.
ReplyDeleteI know he was way off on the 47% actual number, but there is a good idea in there.
"...greed and avariciousness.." isn't confined to the 47%. It's
ReplyDeleteendemic .
Again, you're both right.
ReplyDeleteThe article shows the greed of the UAW if anything. A hostile anti-worker organization which has filed a frivolous lawsuit.
ReplyDelete"UAW Files Charges Against Romney for Auto Bail-Out Profiteering"
The headline is rich, considering that the UAW directly benefited from the tens of billions of dollars in corporate welfare called the "auto bailout".
Romney profited from the auto bailout and Buffett profited from the Goldman bailout, if anybody's keeong score.
ReplyDelete