User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 6:28:17 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are all kinds of legitimate reasons to terminate WANTED pregnancies. Will these not be covered as well? not if you don't pay for the coverage. Which seems fair to me. I mean I don't pay for my neighbor's house, so I'm not allowed in it unless they invite me. So why should I get free shit from my insurance company that I'm not paying for? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 6:31:31 AM EDT
[#2]
What about 40 lbs of rape?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 6:51:53 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So let children be murderd in order to win elections. You can let them be murdered and win the election, or let them be murdered and lose the election. Those are your choices. Stamping your feet and crying isn't going to change it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 6:52:05 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are we RINOs honestly trying this hard to lose?? And Yes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 6:55:42 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So legitimate rape is covered? I thought legitamate rapes NEVER resulted in pregnancies? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 6:58:34 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
not if you don't pay for the coverage. Which seems fair to me. I mean I don't pay for my neighbor's house, so I'm not allowed in it unless they invite me. So why should I get free shit from my insurance company that I'm not paying for? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
There are all kinds of legitimate reasons to terminate WANTED pregnancies. Will these not be covered as well? not if you don't pay for the coverage. Which seems fair to me. I mean I don't pay for my neighbor's house, so I'm not allowed in it unless they invite me. So why should I get free shit from my insurance company that I'm not paying for? I agree. Now if I can just get our legislature to force private companies to remove coverage for infections caused by tattoos! Dirty inkies should have to get separate coverage for their shame. Or, you know, we could let private companies decide what they want their products to do, and consumers could decide what product features they need. Insanity, I know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 6:58:42 AM EDT
[#7]
Talk about controlling the narrative.
This bill basically allows people in Michigan to exercise greater control over their health insurance, and keeps abortion coverage from being subsidize by people that will never, ever have an abortion. And even Arfcom opposes it. So a woman has the right to choose... but not what her insurance covers? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 7:11:49 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are not the first to justify the murder of millions by classifying them as subhuman. Just as you belive it they did too. I take offense to the charge that abortion is the murder of babies. If you want to call it the murder of zygotes or fetuses, then so be it. They are NOT babies. Again, words have definitions, and they are important. Find a pregnant woman and ask how long she's been carrying her fetus and what the gender of the fetus is. You'll probably get smacked. It's only referred to as a fetus when it's unwanted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 7:12:02 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Talk about controlling the narrative.
This bill basically allows people in Michigan to exercise greater control over their health insurance, and keeps abortion coverage from being subsidize by people that will never, ever have an abortion. And even Arfcom opposes it. So a woman has the right to choose... but not what her insurance covers? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Talk about controlling the narrative.
This bill basically allows people in Michigan to exercise greater control over their health insurance, and keeps abortion coverage from being subsidize by people that will never, ever have an abortion. And even Arfcom opposes it. So a woman has the right to choose... but not what her insurance covers? A qualified health plan offered through an American health benefit exchange in this state pursuant to the patient protection and affordable care act, Public Law 111-148, as amended by the health care and education reconciliation act of 2010, Public Law 111-152, shall not provide coverage for elective abortion firearms related injuries. Can I count on your support for my proposed amendment? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 7:13:01 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree. Now if I can just get our legislature to force private companies to remove coverage for infections caused by tattoos! Dirty inkies should have to get separate coverage for their shame. Or, you know, we could let private companies decide what they want their products to do, and consumers could decide what product features they need. Insanity, I know. I'm not allowed to buy insurance that will pay my legal fees if I murder my next door neighbor. Insanity, I know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 7:13:56 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Talk about controlling the narrative.
This bill basically allows people in Michigan to exercise greater control over their health insurance, and keeps abortion coverage from being subsidize by people that will never, ever have an abortion. And even Arfcom opposes it. So a woman has the right to choose... but not what her insurance covers? ^This. And as always the arfcom libs rush in to decry Republicans as if Democrats should just be allowed to make everyone in the nation subsidize the murder of the unborn. All about that LIBERALtarian mindset where the Republicans would win if they could just go liberal enough to have the media and leftist a live them. Liberals of all kinds have been using the federal government and the courts to wage a war on children. They are the social engineers forcing their perverse morals down America's throat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 7:17:10 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can I count on your support for my proposed amendment? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Talk about controlling the narrative.
This bill basically allows people in Michigan to exercise greater control over their health insurance, and keeps abortion coverage from being subsidize by people that will never, ever have an abortion. And even Arfcom opposes it. So a woman has the right to choose... but not what her insurance covers? A qualified health plan offered through an American health benefit exchange in this state pursuant to the patient protection and affordable care act, Public Law 111-148, as amended by the health care and education reconciliation act of 2010, Public Law 111-152, shall not provide coverage for elective abortion firearms related injuries. Can I count on your support for my proposed amendment? I got no problem with it. Insurance shoppers could elect for a "gunshot" rider if they so choose. Coverage should be between the policyholder and the insurer. Government has no place in the discussion, period. This bill is about 2% about abortion and 98% about allowing for free-market principals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 7:18:08 AM EDT
[#13]
Can we all just agree that the zygote grows more and more human every day?
And using pictures of it vs a 9 month developed baby are both correct when discussing abortion? Why can't we be intellectually honest with ourselves without letting emotion come into play? It's like discussing guns with liberals. Yes, guns are designed to kill and kill effectively. What's wrong with that? There's a time and a place for killing people. Self defense is one case. War is another. Why are we ashamed to admit that guns are tools for killing? We have a right to kill when the circumstance is justifiable. A spade is a spade. For the record, my stance is that first trimester should be legal. If you can't decide after that, tough luck. 60 days (let's say you don't know for the first 30 that you're pregnant) - 60 days is a lot of days to contemplate your decision to keep it or not. At the same time, I can't justify throwing elections to attack this one particular issue at this time. Takes back burner to more important ones, me thinks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 7:18:21 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not allowed to buy insurance that will pay my legal fees if I murder my next door neighbor. Insanity, I know. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I agree. Now if I can just get our legislature to force private companies to remove coverage for infections caused by tattoos! Dirty inkies should have to get separate coverage for their shame. Or, you know, we could let private companies decide what they want their products to do, and consumers could decide what product features they need. Insanity, I know. I'm not allowed to buy insurance that will pay my legal fees if I murder my next door neighbor. Insanity, I know. That is insanity. Why the fuck shouldn't I be able to pay a monthly fee to an attorney so that I have the assurance of his assistance when/if I need it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 7:22:25 AM EDT
[#15]
If republicans manage to fuck up best opportunity they will ever have in my lifetime(obamacare) with social conservative issues that KILLS them on the national level they deserve to lose.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 7:22:41 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is insanity. Why the fuck shouldn't I be able to pay a monthly fee to an attorney so that I have the assurance of his assistance when/if I need it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I agree. Now if I can just get our legislature to force private companies to remove coverage for infections caused by tattoos! Dirty inkies should have to get separate coverage for their shame. Or, you know, we could let private companies decide what they want their products to do, and consumers could decide what product features they need. Insanity, I know. I'm not allowed to buy insurance that will pay my legal fees if I murder my next door neighbor. Insanity, I know. That is insanity. Why the fuck shouldn't I be able to pay a monthly fee to an attorney so that I have the assurance of his assistance when/if I need it? Tell a lawyer you want to pay him $1000 a month to have him on standby for if you decide to murder someone. Let me know how that works out for you. You may get some that will ask you to rephrase your intentions and then will agree to it. I suspect most will tell you to get the hell out of their office with a question like that though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 7:25:50 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If republicans manage to fuck up best opportunity they will ever have in my lifetime(obamacare) with social conservative issues that KILLS them on the national level they deserve to lose. There's a flip side to that: If we as a country are dumb enough to keep electing progressives because of stupid shit like gay marriage and abortion, then we deserve to get flushed down the toilet like every other socialist shithole. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 7:26:58 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are we honestly trying this hard to lose?? It would appear so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 7:27:10 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. Lol, even look at all the arfcommers foaming at the mouth. From the article "Oh, and by the way, a woman who is already pregnant is not allowed to purchase the rider. Too bad for her! She should have known she was going to be raped and get pregnant!" No shit, you can't buy insurance after the fact for something. Can you buy full coverage on your truck after you totaled it or flood damage for your house after it was hit by hurricane Sandy and have it covered under your new insurance? I'm going to by $1,000 of insurance so they'll cover my $20,000 operation tomorrow. NO. It's about not forcing the taxpayers (me) to pay for other people's abortions. What spin. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I applaud them for doing this. And of course the narrative is spun and the simpleton mouth breathers fall for it. Good move on their part calling it "rape insurance". I wish we had some people on our side with balls and skills to think and move like that. This. Lol, even look at all the arfcommers foaming at the mouth. From the article "Oh, and by the way, a woman who is already pregnant is not allowed to purchase the rider. Too bad for her! She should have known she was going to be raped and get pregnant!" No shit, you can't buy insurance after the fact for something. Can you buy full coverage on your truck after you totaled it or flood damage for your house after it was hit by hurricane Sandy and have it covered under your new insurance? I'm going to by $1,000 of insurance so they'll cover my $20,000 operation tomorrow. NO. It's about not forcing the taxpayers (me) to pay for other people's abortions. What spin. Exactly. Pretty simple really. What a shame that so many, here, took the leftist spin hook, line and sinker.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 7:30:10 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tell a lawyer you want to pay him $1000 a month to have him on standby for if you decide to murder someone. Let me know how that works out for you. You may get some that will ask you to rephrase your intentions and then will agree to it. I suspect most will tell you to get the hell out of their office with a question like that though. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I agree. Now if I can just get our legislature to force private companies to remove coverage for infections caused by tattoos! Dirty inkies should have to get separate coverage for their shame. Or, you know, we could let private companies decide what they want their products to do, and consumers could decide what product features they need. Insanity, I know. I'm not allowed to buy insurance that will pay my legal fees if I murder my next door neighbor. Insanity, I know. That is insanity. Why the fuck shouldn't I be able to pay a monthly fee to an attorney so that I have the assurance of his assistance when/if I need it? Tell a lawyer you want to pay him $1000 a month to have him on standby for if you decide to murder someone. Let me know how that works out for you. You may get some that will ask you to rephrase your intentions and then will agree to it. I suspect most will tell you to get the hell out of their office with a question like that though. WTF, Ok, so that is between me and the lawyer. Why the fuck do you want .gov making it illegal for the two of us to decide how we interact? Maybe you are under the impression that I wanted the government to force him to offer a particular product? That is not the case. ETA: Oh, I guess you were making the analogy of me and the lawyer in conspiracy to commit murder, or something along those lines. I didn't see that right away because it is a retarded analogy to make, you are not a retard, so I must be misinterpreting your words. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 7:32:15 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like a dog to its vomit, so a fool returns to his folly. If they keep this up they can say goodbye the Republican majority in the Michigan House. Up next no doubt will be a law requiring ultrasound and a waiting period to get an abortion. And parental consent AND viewing the ultrasound while Dr points out any visible features of embryo AND counseling by a priest/minister/rabbi and anything else that RINOs can think of in order to prevent patient from being able to make their OWN choice! Face it, this isn't about insurance, the cost of an abortion doesn't even register when it comes to the total cost of health care, AT ANY level. It's about the government and a few fanatics being able to DENY someone's right to make their own choices! For a forum that advocates Freedom and Personal Responsibility, I can't believe the amount of derp that's flying around on here! Poster ahead of me nailed it, he said this subject is RADIOACTIVE to Republicans and he was absolutely right! This subject has costs dozens of Republicans all over the land their offices. Abortion during the first trimester currently IS the law of the land and Republicans need to get off the subject and out stay out of it! If they don't it's going to cost them their offices and us our gun rights at and the same time! For the ones of you that keep harping about abortions, which do you want, to ban someone else's right to an abortion OR your gun rights? That's exactly what the choice is! As distasteful as I think abortion is, I think MOST people favor it and I seriously doubt that we could elect enough Rs to ban it. But what we could do is to give the Dems enough votes to win most elections and impose gun control! First Cali, then NY, Co and Va. And now it looks like Mi is going to be up for grabs. How many more states must we lose before conservatives stop beating this dead horse issue of abortion and creating more Democratic anti-gun legislatures? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 7:35:03 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
WTF, Ok, so that is between me and the lawyer. Why the fuck do you want .gov making it illegal for the two of us to decide how we interact? Maybe you are under the impression that I wanted the government to force him to offer a particular product? That is not the case. Asking a lawyer on the record for specific coverage in advance if and when you murder someone is walking the line of legality, I'm pretty sure. I don't think you'll ever get them to put it in writing. I know a couple lawyers in CT who would gladly allow you to subscribe to their services though. PM me for their names. Seriously though - likening a pregnancy to an infection from a tattoo? That's extremely pathetic. The cure for an infection comes with treatment. The cure for a pregnancy comes with an abortion? That's a piss poor analogy and you know it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 7:35:23 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He says, as he helps ensures liberal victory. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Whatever it takes to make sure we lose more elections. So let children be murderd in order to win elections. Keeping it classy are you? You know how the Republican party was started it was by people who fought the social issue of their time. You think we should abandon principles in order to get elected when we do that we are worse than those we oppose. There are some on this site that will stand aside when innocent people are being butcherd as long as their guu gets a shot at winning an election. Elections bought with the blood of children is disgusting and damnit those who are alright with it are no differnt than liberals. No one who truly loves liberty will support or passivly sit by against abbortion. He says, as he helps ensures liberal victory. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 7:37:34 AM EDT
[#24]
There is no way this much stupid is accidental.
The GOP is bound and determined to give Hillary a D House too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 7:38:47 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Poster ahead of me nailed it, he said this subject is RADIOACTIVE to Republicans and he was absolutely right! This subject has costs dozens of Republicans all over the land their offices. Abortion during the first trimester currently IS the law of the land and Republicans need to get off the subject and out stay out of it! If they don't it's going to cost them their offices and us our gun rights at and the same time! For the ones of you that keep harping about abortions, which do you want, to ban someone else's right to an abortion OR your gun rights? That's exactly what the choice is! As distasteful as I think abortion is, I think MOST people favor it and I seriously doubt that we could elect enough Rs to ban it. But what we could do is to give the Dems enough votes to win most elections and impose gun control! First Cali, then NY, Co and Va. And now it looks like Mi is going to be up for grabs. How many more states must we lose before conservatives stop beating this dead horse issue of abortion and creating more Democratic anti-gun legislatures? It is radioactive. On both sides. You have pro-choice folks posting "ITS JUST A CLUMP OF CELLS" and pro-life folks posting "IT'S A REAL LIVE BABY ON DAY 1". Neither of those helps the argument. A candidate's position on abortion doesn't even get taken into consideration unless they do something retarded and comment on "legitimate rape" or advocated for "partial birth abortions". Extreme stupidness on either side of the argument, should I discover it, is going to cause to me to rethink my vote. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 7:38:51 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Asking a lawyer on the record for specific coverage in advance if and when you murder someone is walking the line of legality, I'm pretty sure. I don't think you'll ever get them to put it in writing. I know a couple lawyers in CT who would gladly allow you to subscribe to their services though. PM me for their names. Seriously though - likening a pregnancy to an infection from a tattoo? That's extremely pathetic. The cure for an infection comes with treatment. The cure for a pregnancy comes with an abortion? That's a piss poor analogy and you know it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
WTF, Ok, so that is between me and the lawyer. Why the fuck do you want .gov making it illegal for the two of us to decide how we interact? Maybe you are under the impression that I wanted the government to force him to offer a particular product? That is not the case. Asking a lawyer on the record for specific coverage in advance if and when you murder someone is walking the line of legality, I'm pretty sure. I don't think you'll ever get them to put it in writing. I know a couple lawyers in CT who would gladly allow you to subscribe to their services though. PM me for their names. Seriously though - likening a pregnancy to an infection from a tattoo? That's extremely pathetic. The cure for an infection comes with treatment. The cure for a pregnancy comes with an abortion? That's a piss poor analogy and you know it. The .gov deciding which legal medical procedures are legal to cover in a 'comprehensive' plan. Your lawyer analogy goes 'laywers may not conspire to commit murder with clients enrolled in comprehensive plans. A separate optional supplemental coverage plan is required for that service.' Yeah, great analogy |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 7:40:59 AM EDT
[#27]
Oh and another point. Regardless of your stance, it's not a federal issue.
We need less federal laws all around. I would hope we can all agree on that, at least. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 7:41:23 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Talk about controlling the narrative.
This bill basically allows people in Michigan to exercise greater control over their health insurance, and keeps abortion coverage from being subsidize by people that will never, ever have an abortion. And even Arfcom opposes it. So a woman has the right to choose... but not what her insurance covers? The problem with your argument is that this bill ONLY talks about abortion and not about anything else regarding "health insurance"! The people of Michigan (and everywhere else) should be allowed to decide what coverage(s) they want to subsidize. But ALL coverages should be open for a vote and not just abortion. But since this bill ONLY talks about abortion it's clearly an anti-abortion measure and nothing else! You're not fooling anyone by claiming that this is an health insurance issue! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 7:43:06 AM EDT
[#29]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 7:45:26 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh and another point. Regardless of your stance, it's not a federal issue. We need less federal laws all around. I would hope we can all agree on that, at least. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh and another point. Regardless of your stance, it's not a federal issue. We need less federal laws all around. I would hope we can all agree on that, at least. Absolutely 
Quoted:
And yet another example where the correct solution is ".gov GTFO". How about you let the market offer what it wants, and you let consumers buy what they want? But as usual, we get democrats and republicans fighting over how they want to control you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 7:47:08 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Whatever it takes to make sure we lose more elections. Who's this "we" The GOP Establishment whom won't give their candidate much needed campaign money? Or the Republicans who redraw district lines so they LOSE a district than have someone from the Tea Party win reelection. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 7:48:19 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why do republicans care if a group of primarily democrats abort the next generation of democratic voters? I don't get it. Is there some issue where if a woman has an abortion she votes D for life out of shame or loyalty or something? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 7:52:20 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There is no way this much stupid is accidental. The GOP is bound and determined to give Hillary a D House too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 7:52:53 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry but why should every policy cover this? Why is it better to eliminate choice from the consumer? You want less government, more choices, and lower prices for health care? Why do you hate freedom, the Constitution, liberty and puppy dogs so much? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 7:56:53 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The problem with your argument is that this bill ONLY talks about abortion and not about anything else regarding "health insurance"! The people of Michigan (and everywhere else) should be allowed to decide what coverage(s) they want to subsidize. But ALL coverages should be open for a vote and not just abortion. But since this bill ONLY talks about abortion it's clearly an anti-abortion measure and nothing else! You're not fooling anyone by claiming that this is an health insurance issue! I'll concede that point, but it still doesn't make the principle of getting government out of the health insurance equation any less right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 7:57:14 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You are not the first to justify the murder of millions by classifying them as subhuman. Just as you belive it they did too. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Whatever it takes to make sure we lose more elections. So let children be murderd in order to win elections. Keeping it classy are you? You know how the Republican party was started it was by people who fought the social issue of their time. You think we should abandon principles in order to get elected when we do that we are worse than those we oppose. There are some on this site that will stand aside when innocent people are being butcherd as long as their guu gets a shot at winning an election. Elections bought with the blood of children is disgusting and damnit those who are alright with it are no differnt than liberals. No one who truly loves liberty will support or passivly sit by against abbortion. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hXzsOPwHMPI/ULjGqrjVaoI/AAAAAAAAJBM/YPeaCp6LBQY/s1600/Baby+I+have+a+surprise+for+you,+its+poop.jpg This is not a child. http://scm-l3.technorati.com/11/10/27/55025/zygote.jpg?t=20111027092220 See any differences? Words, their meanings are important. Grammatik macht frei. I don't see where he used the term baby? Is it not human? Possibly canine or feline or arachnid? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 8:03:11 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I take offense to the charge that abortion is the murder of babies. If you want to call it the murder of zygotes or fetuses, then so be it. They are NOT babies. Again, words have definitions, and they are important. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So let children be murderd in order to win elections. Keeping it classy are you? You know how the Republican party was started it was by people who fought the social issue of their time. You think we should abandon principles in order to get elected when we do that we are worse than those we oppose. There are some on this site that will stand aside when innocent people are being butcherd as long as their guu gets a shot at winning an election. Elections bought with the blood of children is disgusting and damnit those who are alright with it are no differnt than liberals. No one who truly loves liberty will support or passivly sit by against abbortion. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hXzsOPwHMPI/ULjGqrjVaoI/AAAAAAAAJBM/YPeaCp6LBQY/s1600/Baby+I+have+a+surprise+for+you,+its+poop.jpg This is not a child. http://scm-l3.technorati.com/11/10/27/55025/zygote.jpg?t=20111027092220 See any differences? Words, their meanings are important. Grammatik macht frei. I don't see where he used the term baby? Is it not human? Possibly canine or feline or arachnid? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 8:05:24 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The problem with your argument is that this bill ONLY talks about abortion and not about anything else regarding "health insurance"! The people of Michigan (and everywhere else) should be allowed to decide what coverage(s) they want to subsidize. But ALL coverages should be open for a vote and not just abortion. But since this bill ONLY talks about abortion it's clearly an anti-abortion measure and nothing else! You're not fooling anyone by claiming that this is an health insurance issue! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Talk about controlling the narrative.
This bill basically allows people in Michigan to exercise greater control over their health insurance, and keeps abortion coverage from being subsidize by people that will never, ever have an abortion. And even Arfcom opposes it. So a woman has the right to choose... but not what her insurance covers? The problem with your argument is that this bill ONLY talks about abortion and not about anything else regarding "health insurance"! The people of Michigan (and everywhere else) should be allowed to decide what coverage(s) they want to subsidize. But ALL coverages should be open for a vote and not just abortion. But since this bill ONLY talks about abortion it's clearly an anti-abortion measure and nothing else! You're not fooling anyone by claiming that this is an health insurance issue! Do you know how insurance works? People pay for shit that happened to someone else, with the stipulation that when shit happens to them, everyone else pays for them. What happens when all the men decide they don't want to pay for breast cancer? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 8:08:38 AM EDT
[#39]
This is going to do wonders for conservatives in the next MI election.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 8:11:29 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would love to pick and choose things that I'm covered for. I have little use for abortion, gynecologists, breast exams, birth control, etc... why should I pay? I will not need those things in the course of my life and will impose no costs to the system for them. Making me pay for them, as under obamacare, is wrong and just another attempt to get me to pay for shit that buys Dem votes. I'm willing to bet that it was framed that way and the LAtimes went full retard with it. This. I'll never need birth control, labor and delivery coverage, etc. again, so why shouldn't I be able to save money and purchase a plan that does not cover them! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 8:12:55 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
...snip... He used the word "children," which is even worse. Pre-born centenarian is the preferred nomenclature. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 8:15:51 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you know how insurance works? People pay for shit that happened to someone else, with the stipulation that when shit happens to them, everyone else pays for them. What happens when all the men decide they don't want to pay for breast cancer? Men's health insurance premiums go down. I know exactly how insurance works. Well, how it's supposed to work anyway. It's about managing risk through pooling of resources. It's basically socialism... the only thing that makes it palatable is that it's fully voluntary (at least it's supposed to be). |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 8:19:38 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you know how insurance works? People pay for shit that happened to someone else, with the stipulation that when shit happens to them, everyone else pays for them. What happens when all the men decide they don't want to pay for breast cancer? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Talk about controlling the narrative.
This bill basically allows people in Michigan to exercise greater control over their health insurance, and keeps abortion coverage from being subsidize by people that will never, ever have an abortion. And even Arfcom opposes it. So a woman has the right to choose... but not what her insurance covers? The problem with your argument is that this bill ONLY talks about abortion and not about anything else regarding "health insurance"! The people of Michigan (and everywhere else) should be allowed to decide what coverage(s) they want to subsidize. But ALL coverages should be open for a vote and not just abortion. But since this bill ONLY talks about abortion it's clearly an anti-abortion measure and nothing else! You're not fooling anyone by claiming that this is an health insurance issue! Do you know how insurance works? People pay for shit that happened to someone else, with the stipulation that when shit happens to them, everyone else pays for them. What happens when all the men decide they don't want to pay for breast cancer? Insurance is about mitigating risk by paying up front. The more risk you want to mitigate, the more you pay, which is why a million dollar life insurance policy costs more than a 500k life insurance policy. Men get breast cancer too--they just have a much lesser risk. If a man wants to reduce upfront costs by taking the risk and not having his breast cancer covered, then he should have that choice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 8:27:39 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Whatever it takes to make sure we lose more elections. If only the GOP would give away as much stuff as the DNC, then surely they would win more elections! And that is what is important, no? Winning elections... Though on this issue I am torn. I don't want to pay for abortions for stupid low-rent whores and skanks (be realistic about who actually needs insurance to cover a $300 abortion), versus wanting to kill every man, woman, and child (even the 4-celled ones) who leans Left or will grow up to be a carjacker. Decisions, decisions... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 8:35:44 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Insurance is about mitigating risk by paying up front. The more risk you want to mitigate, the more you pay, which is why a million dollar life insurance policy costs more than a 500k life insurance policy. Men get breast cancer too--they just have a much lesser risk. If a man wants to reduce upfront costs by taking the risk and not having his breast cancer covered, then he should have that choice. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Talk about controlling the narrative.
This bill basically allows people in Michigan to exercise greater control over their health insurance, and keeps abortion coverage from being subsidize by people that will never, ever have an abortion. And even Arfcom opposes it. So a woman has the right to choose... but not what her insurance covers? The problem with your argument is that this bill ONLY talks about abortion and not about anything else regarding "health insurance"! The people of Michigan (and everywhere else) should be allowed to decide what coverage(s) they want to subsidize. But ALL coverages should be open for a vote and not just abortion. But since this bill ONLY talks about abortion it's clearly an anti-abortion measure and nothing else! You're not fooling anyone by claiming that this is an health insurance issue! Do you know how insurance works? People pay for shit that happened to someone else, with the stipulation that when shit happens to them, everyone else pays for them. What happens when all the men decide they don't want to pay for breast cancer? Insurance is about mitigating risk by paying up front. The more risk you want to mitigate, the more you pay, which is why a million dollar life insurance policy costs more than a 500k life insurance policy. Men get breast cancer too--they just have a much lesser risk. If a man wants to reduce upfront costs by taking the risk and not having his breast cancer covered, then he should have that choice. That doesn't change the fact that you are always subsidizing someone else's problems. At no point in time will your monthly payments actually cover your $1mil policy, let alone provide profit to the insurance agency. If that was the case, there would almost no reason to buy insurance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 8:41:03 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That doesn't change the fact that you are always subsidizing someone else's problems. At no point in time will your monthly payments actually cover your $1mil policy, let alone provide profit to the insurance agency. If that was the case, there would almost no reason to buy insurance. Okay... so how do the insurance companies make money?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 8:45:16 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Okay... so how do the insurance companies make money? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That doesn't change the fact that you are always subsidizing someone else's problems. At no point in time will your monthly payments actually cover your $1mil policy, let alone provide profit to the insurance agency. If that was the case, there would almost no reason to buy insurance. Okay... so how do the insurance companies make money? 10 people each spend $100/month on insurance, giving the insurance company $1000 per month. Their bet is that in the pool of 10 people, the total payout won't exceed $1000 per month. (More like they hope it doesn't exceed $700 a month or whatever). Statistics like a motherfucker, actuary tables, etc. Quite a science goes into it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 9:00:41 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He used the word "children," which is even worse. Definition 1A for the word "child" in Webster's is? As others have said; "words mean things". ;) |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 9:13:04 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
10 people each spend $100/month on insurance, giving the insurance company $1000 per month. Their bet is that in the pool of 10 people, the total payout won't exceed $1000 per month. (More like they hope it doesn't exceed $700 a month or whatever). Statistics like a motherfucker, actuary tables, etc. Quite a science goes into it. Exactly. And the more "accurately" you can get yourself in a risk pool, the better off you'll be. The law of large numbers is amazing. Life is crazy and random, but a big enough number of lives, especially similar ones, is frighteningly predicable. Ironically, Vegas works pretty much the same way. You never know which player will win and which will lose, but if you know how many players are in the casino, the house can forecast its "take" with uncanny accuracy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2013 9:59:09 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Definition 1A for the word "child" in Webster's is? As others have said; "words mean things". ;) Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: He used the word "children," which is even worse. Definition 1A for the word "child" in Webster's is? As others have said; "words mean things". ;) |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
