Preppers and Nutters, the party is over.

Aoxomoxoa said:
Who said she was using condoms? About a third of her testimony concerned the use of birth control pills not as contraception but as a treatment for polycystic ovarian syndrome. Although I will concede that she was exaggerating the true costs. I believe that Walmart or Target, whose lists of inexpensive drugs include the oral contraceptive Tri-Sprintec priced at $4 for a 28-day supply.
Click to expand...


Then she needs to separate the talk about birth control (contraceptives) from MEDICINE for polycystic ovarian syndrome, or whatever other MEDICAL condition that needs to
be treated and find out why her medical insurance isn't covering these DOCTOR PRESCRIBED MEDICATIONS.....

Either way, its not the taxpayers problem and thats always been the point.

If its contraception, pay for your own
If its medicine, your health-care insurance should be covering it....
 
bravo said:
Then she needs to separate the talk about birth control (contraceptives) from MEDICINE for polycystic ovarian syndrome, or whatever other MEDICAL condition that needs to
be treated and find out why her medical insurance isn't covering these DOCTOR PRESCRIBED MEDICATIONS.....

Either way, its not the taxpayers problem and thats always been the point.

If its contraception, pay for your own
If its medicine, your health-care insurance should be covering it....
Click to expand...

That's typical pennywise, pound-foolish thinking.

Unwanted pregnancies cost the taxpayers MUCH more in the long run. Preventing them is a good priority to have when it comes to coverage.
 
Thing1 said:
Who is saying that?

I think people have a "kitchen sink" approach right now. Get rid of weapons that allow for mass killing, improve what we do for mental health, make school zones safer, be more vigilant for warning signs....ANYTHING. Whatever we can do is what I think most want to do right now.
Click to expand...

You can't get rid of weapons that allow for mass killing. You can take away guns and the nutjobs will turn to bombs. try and limit bomb components and they will come up with something else. Have armed and trained teachers in the schools. That is how you make them safer. Gun safety courses are not that time consuming nor costly. My guess is the local police departments can handle the training in most cases.

Mental health is an area we can certainly improve upon, but the bottom line is that you just can't stop someone who is determined to wreak havoc unless they make a mistake and tell someone ahead of time. We can stop the medias glorification of these cowards. That is a big part of the problem that pushes these cowards to act in such a manner. They want the recognition.
 
Superfreak said:
You can't get rid of weapons that allow for mass killing. You can take away guns and the nutjobs will turn to bombs. try and limit bomb components and they will come up with something else. Have armed and trained teachers in the schools. That is how you make them safer. Gun safety courses are not that time consuming nor costly. My guess is the local police departments can handle the training in most cases.

Mental health is an area we can certainly improve upon, but the bottom line is that you just can't stop someone who is determined to wreak havoc unless they make a mistake and tell someone ahead of time. We can stop the medias glorification of these cowards. That is a big part of the problem that pushes these cowards to act in such a manner. They want the recognition.
Click to expand...

It's a real stretch to say that if automatic/assault-type weapons aren't available, they'll just make bombs.

You're just pulling that out of the air. There is no reasonable backup for it.
 
Thing1 said:
It's a real stretch to say that if automatic/assault-type weapons aren't available, they'll just make bombs.

You're just pulling that out of the air. There is no reasonable backup for it.
Click to expand...

Maybe he's speaking for himself?
 
Thing1 said:
It's a real stretch to say that if automatic/assault-type weapons aren't available, they'll just make bombs.

You're just pulling that out of the air. There is no reasonable backup for it.
Click to expand...

1) Automatics are not available
2) It is hardly a stretch to say that if you take away one weapon from a deranged person trying to do harm/be glorified, that they will turn to another weapon.
3) If the bomb is too much for you then lets go with 'they will simply bring more pistols'... you limit the clip capacity to 10, they bring 5 clips... whatever... the point is, you are not going to stop them with arbitrary rules that are not founded on logic.

4) The CO theater coward rigged up his place with bombs
5) The Columbine cowards also made pipe bombs
 
bravo said:
Then she needs to separate the talk about birth control (contraceptives) from MEDICINE for polycystic ovarian syndrome, or whatever other MEDICAL condition that needs to
be treated and find out why her medical insurance isn't covering these DOCTOR PRESCRIBED MEDICATIONS.....

Either way, its not the taxpayers problem and thats always been the point.

If its contraception, pay for your own
If its medicine, your health-care insurance should be covering it....
Click to expand...

What it ultimately comes down to is, do you want to pay for contraception or unwanted babies?
 
Thing1 said:
It's a real stretch to say that if automatic/assault-type weapons aren't available, they'll just make bombs.

You're just pulling that out of the air. There is no reasonable backup for it.
Click to expand...

The problem with your argument about guns is you, like everyone else making it, don't know what you're taking about. You think some guns are more dangerous than others but have no idea what that something actually is. Its what the first AWB was entirely cosmetic. Add in the fact that its patently unconstitutional, and that there are already 50,000,000+ "assault weapons" out there, and the problem is magnified further still.

The fact remains that your solution is designed to treat symptoms, not the problem.
 
Superfreak said:
Just curious... but why is it that people can't just pay for their own contraception? Why does it need to be mandated as part of an insurance policy?
Click to expand...

I just told you, it is a damn sight cheaper than the social costs of unwanted children. The US has the highest teen pregnancy rates in the developed world something like ten times the rate in somewhere enlightened like the Netherlands.
 
Sparta said:
The problem with your argument about guns is you, like everyone else making it, don't know what you're taking about. You think some guns are more dangerous than others but have no idea what that something actually is. Its what the first AWB was entirely cosmetic. Add in the fact that its patently unconstitutional, and that there are already 50,000,000+ "assault weapons" out there, and the problem is magnified further still.

The fact remains that your solution is designed to treat symptoms, not the problem.
Click to expand...

Charge $10 per bullet minimum with the monies going to fund mental treatment.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Charge $10 per bullet minimum with the monies going to fund mental treatment.
Click to expand...

And people who load their own?

Why not take 15% of our military spending for that cause instead of taxing a constitutional right with the express purpose of limiting it to no benefit.
 
Sparta said:
The problem with your argument about guns is you, like everyone else making it, don't know what you're taking about. You think some guns are more dangerous than others but have no idea what that something actually is. Its what the first AWB was entirely cosmetic. Add in the fact that its patently unconstitutional, and that there are already 50,000,000+ "assault weapons" out there, and the problem is magnified further still.

The fact remains that your solution is designed to treat symptoms, not the problem.
Click to expand...

Like I said, it's a kichen sink approach. If bans on certain kinds of weapons - which police around the nation almost unanimously approve of - make it more difficult to commit certain crimes, then that's something most people today are probably going to support.

And there is nothing unconstitutional about it. Many of our rights have limits or restrictions.
 
Thing1 said:
Like I said, it's a kichen sink approach. If bans on certain kinds of weapons - which police around the nation almost unanimously approve of - make it more difficult to commit certain crimes, then that's something most people today are probably going to support.

And there is nothing unconstitutional about it. Many of our rights have limits or restrictions.
Click to expand...

Its entirely unconstitutional when the USSC has expressly protected those 'types' of weapons. And AGAIN those types' are not identified by anything other than scary LOOKING features. So what weapons would be banned? What ones wouldn't? If you aren't knowledgeable about them, try some pictures.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I just told you, it is a damn sight cheaper than the social costs of unwanted children. The US has the highest teen pregnancy rates in the developed world something like ten times the rate in somewhere enlightened like the Netherlands.
Click to expand...

No, you didn't. You still didn't. Yes, contraception is cheaper than unwanted children. But my question was 'why do people need insurance to pay for it'? It is cheap. Why can't they pay for it themselves rather than mandating everyones insurance pay for it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top