Romney is a still a piece of [inks] coward

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Rush Limbaugh is a shock jock. He gets good ratings by being controversial (by, surprise-surprise, saying controversial things). Regardless of merit, he is also influential (he is the real life jmfcst, the leader of the jmfcsts).

neither the jmfcst, nor the jmfcsts, listen to Rush Limbaugh

[opebo]

Rush Limbaugh is a shock jock. He gets good ratings by being controversial (by, surprise-surprise, saying controversial things). Regardless of merit, he is also influential (he is the real life jmfcst, the leader of the jmfcsts).

neither the jmfcst, nor the jmfcsts, listen to Rush Limbaugh

Why?  Cause he's not a christian?

[BigSkyBob]

At this point I would like to ask if any of us are aware of the non-contraceptive health effects of hormonal birth control and why some women might need or want them.

So, women are entitled to free mood stabilizing medication if they call it "pregnancy prevention?" This is exactly how costs explode. If women had to pay for their own birth control more would opt for the $9 generics at Walmart and Target. But, since someone else is paying, they can opt for the pricey name-brand prescription drugs that are no more effective at preventing pregnancy, but, have desireable side effects. $3,000 isn't too high a price to pay when someone else is footing the bill!

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

At this point I would like to ask if any of us are aware of the non-contraceptive health effects of hormonal birth control and why some women might need or want them.

So, women are entitled to free mood stabilizing medication if they call it "pregnancy prevention?" This is exactly how costs explode. If women had to pay for their own birth control more would opt for the $9 generics at Walmart and Target. But, since someone else is paying, they can opt for the pricey name-brand prescription drugs that are no more effective at preventing pregnancy, but, have desireable side effects. $3,000 isn't too high a price to pay when someone else is footing the bill!

Okay, so the answer to my original question was 'no'.

Hormonal birth control, like any other hormonal drug, has multifarious effects beyond misogynistic canards, some of them good and some of them not so good from the perspective of overall health. There are conditions where you can lose parts of your reproductive or endocrine systems without this kind of hormonal treatment. Rare, but they exist.

[memphis]

At this point I would like to ask if any of us are aware of the non-contraceptive health effects of hormonal birth control and why some women might need or want them.

So, women are entitled to free mood stabilizing medication if they call it "pregnancy prevention?" This is exactly how costs explode. If women had to pay for their own birth control more would opt for the $9 generics at Walmart and Target. But, since someone else is paying, they can opt for the pricey name-brand prescription drugs that are no more effective at preventing pregnancy, but, have desireable side effects. $3,000 isn't too high a price to pay when someone else is footing the bill!

The logical extension of your argument would be to end all insurance schemes altogether.

[BigSkyBob]

At this point I would like to ask if any of us are aware of the non-contraceptive health effects of hormonal birth control and why some women might need or want them.

So, women are entitled to free mood stabilizing medication if they call it "pregnancy prevention?" This is exactly how costs explode. If women had to pay for their own birth control more would opt for the $9 generics at Walmart and Target. But, since someone else is paying, they can opt for the pricey name-brand prescription drugs that are no more effective at preventing pregnancy, but, have desireable side effects. $3,000 isn't too high a price to pay when someone else is footing the bill!

Okay, so the answer to my original question was 'no'.

Um, the answer was,"Yes."  Again, drugs like Yaz advertise themselves as lessening hormonal mood fluctuations. Beyond that, some gals are using Nuva-ring to cease menstruating.

If Yaz is being prescribed as an alternative to other mood-altering drugs, then, it should be reimbursed in exactly the same way as other drugs in that category. It isn't. That's the financial problem with making birth control an entitlement: it drives up costs because it allows people to game the system for free drugs rather than incents them to lower costs.

You stand with big Pharma. I stand with the taxpayer.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

At this point I would like to ask if any of us are aware of the non-contraceptive health effects of hormonal birth control and why some women might need or want them.

So, women are entitled to free mood stabilizing medication if they call it "pregnancy prevention?" This is exactly how costs explode. If women had to pay for their own birth control more would opt for the $9 generics at Walmart and Target. But, since someone else is paying, they can opt for the pricey name-brand prescription drugs that are no more effective at preventing pregnancy, but, have desireable side effects. $3,000 isn't too high a price to pay when someone else is footing the bill!

Okay, so the answer to my original question was 'no'.

Um, the answer was,"Yes."  Again, drugs like Yaz advertise themselves as lessening hormonal mood fluctuations. Beyond that, some gals are using Nuva-ring to cease menstruating.

If Yaz is being prescribed as an alternative to other mood-altering drugs, then, it should be reimbursed in exactly the same way as other drugs in that category. It isn't. That's the financial problem with making birth control an entitlement: it drives up costs because it allows people to game the system for free drugs rather than incents them to lower costs.

You stand with big Pharma. I stand with the taxpayer.

No I do not stand with big pharma. If you haven't noticed I hate the current health care system and would like as strongly price-controlled and generic a pharmaceutical industry as possible with the possible exception of research and development. You're right that you do stand with the 'taxpayer', but that doesn't matter because the greater issue is that your use of the word 'taxpayer' indicates that, like most Republicans, your primary conception of US citizens is monetary.

[BigSkyBob]

At this point I would like to ask if any of us are aware of the non-contraceptive health effects of hormonal birth control and why some women might need or want them.

So, women are entitled to free mood stabilizing medication if they call it "pregnancy prevention?" This is exactly how costs explode. If women had to pay for their own birth control more would opt for the $9 generics at Walmart and Target. But, since someone else is paying, they can opt for the pricey name-brand prescription drugs that are no more effective at preventing pregnancy, but, have desireable side effects. $3,000 isn't too high a price to pay when someone else is footing the bill!

The logical extension of your argument would be to end all insurance schemes altogether.

The logical conclusion of my position is that "insurance" should cover bills that one can't pay. Thus, the need for "insurance." Homeowners insurances pays to replace your home in the event of a fire. It does not pay you to paint your home. That's a routine maintenance cost. When medical "insurance" is conflated with prepaid medical care, incentives to control costs are destroyed, especially when prepaid medical care is mandated.

[Politico]

If you haven't noticed I hate the current health care system and would like as strongly price-controlled and generic a pharmaceutical industry as possible with the possible exception of research and development.

Why would pharmaceutical companies invest in research and development if they would not get a return on their investment? Pharmaceutical companies need to be given exclusive monopoly rights on new drugs for at least a few years in order to receive a return on their investments in R&D.

This is the fantasy world these people live in, Bob. This is why Mitt Romney must defeat Barack Obama.

[BigSkyBob]

At this point I would like to ask if any of us are aware of the non-contraceptive health effects of hormonal birth control and why some women might need or want them.

So, women are entitled to free mood stabilizing medication if they call it "pregnancy prevention?" This is exactly how costs explode. If women had to pay for their own birth control more would opt for the $9 generics at Walmart and Target. But, since someone else is paying, they can opt for the pricey name-brand prescription drugs that are no more effective at preventing pregnancy, but, have desireable side effects. $3,000 isn't too high a price to pay when someone else is footing the bill!

Okay, so the answer to my original question was 'no'.

Um, the answer was,"Yes."  Again, drugs like Yaz advertise themselves as lessening hormonal mood fluctuations. Beyond that, some gals are using Nuva-ring to cease menstruating.

If Yaz is being prescribed as an alternative to other mood-altering drugs, then, it should be reimbursed in exactly the same way as other drugs in that category. It isn't. That's the financial problem with making birth control an entitlement: it drives up costs because it allows people to game the system for free drugs rather than incents them to lower costs.

You stand with big Pharma. I stand with the taxpayer.

No I do not stand with big pharma. If you haven't noticed I hate the current health care system and would like as strongly price-controlled and generic a pharmaceutical industry as possible with the possible exception of research and development.

Irrevelent inasmuch as we live in the real world, not the world of pie-in-sky fantasies about how things ought to be. In the real world Big Pharma cut a deal with Obama to help pass his health care scheme in exchange for Big Pharma's interests being protected. It is exactly that corrupt deal that you are defending. You can try to state your support for the deal, but, your opposition to the corruption, but that isn't how the real world works. This latest mandate means money in the pockets of Big Pharma, and higher costs for employers, employees and taxpayers. Whether, you like it or not, and, whether you realize it for not, you are standing for Big Pharma and against the taxpayer.

[Politico]

At this point I would like to ask if any of us are aware of the non-contraceptive health effects of hormonal birth control and why some women might need or want them.

So, women are entitled to free mood stabilizing medication if they call it "pregnancy prevention?" This is exactly how costs explode. If women had to pay for their own birth control more would opt for the $9 generics at Walmart and Target. But, since someone else is paying, they can opt for the pricey name-brand prescription drugs that are no more effective at preventing pregnancy, but, have desireable side effects. $3,000 isn't too high a price to pay when someone else is footing the bill!

The logical extension of your argument would be to end all insurance schemes altogether.

The logical conclusion of my position is that "insurance" should cover bills that one can't pay. Thus, the need for "insurance." Homeowners insurances pays to replace your home in the event of a fire. It does not pay you to paint your home. That's a routine maintenance cost. When medical "insurance" is conflated with prepaid medical care, incentives to control costs are destroyed, especially when prepaid medical care is mandated.

This is a great analogy.

The debate should be over whether or not the "pill" should still require a prescription. Why not make it OTC after one fills out a quick questionnaire with a pharmacist, verifying there is minimal risk of adverse side effects? I mean, the "pill" has ONLY been around half a century. Fierce competition in an OTC market for the "pill" would drive down prices to affordable levels, like any other OTC pill. This is an example of a deregulatory measure that would substantially benefit consumers (i.e., consumers of the "pill" in this case).

[Politico]

At this point I would like to ask if any of us are aware of the non-contraceptive health effects of hormonal birth control and why some women might need or want them.

So, women are entitled to free mood stabilizing medication if they call it "pregnancy prevention?" This is exactly how costs explode. If women had to pay for their own birth control more would opt for the $9 generics at Walmart and Target. But, since someone else is paying, they can opt for the pricey name-brand prescription drugs that are no more effective at preventing pregnancy, but, have desireable side effects. $3,000 isn't too high a price to pay when someone else is footing the bill!

Okay, so the answer to my original question was 'no'.

Um, the answer was,"Yes."  Again, drugs like Yaz advertise themselves as lessening hormonal mood fluctuations. Beyond that, some gals are using Nuva-ring to cease menstruating.

If Yaz is being prescribed as an alternative to other mood-altering drugs, then, it should be reimbursed in exactly the same way as other drugs in that category. It isn't. That's the financial problem with making birth control an entitlement: it drives up costs because it allows people to game the system for free drugs rather than incents them to lower costs.

You stand with big Pharma. I stand with the taxpayer.

No I do not stand with big pharma. If you haven't noticed I hate the current health care system and would like as strongly price-controlled and generic a pharmaceutical industry as possible with the possible exception of research and development.

Irrevelent inasmuch as we live in the real world, not the world of pie-in-sky fantasies about how things ought to be. In the real world Big Pharma cut a deal with Obama to help pass his health care scheme in exchange for Big Pharma's interests being protected. It is exactly that corrupt deal that you are defending. You can try to state your support for the deal, but, your opposition to the corruption, but that isn't how the real world works. This latest mandate means money in the pockets of Big Pharma, and higher costs for employers, employees and taxpayers. Whether, you like it or not, and, whether you realize it for not, you are standing for Big Pharma and against the taxpayer.

You're absolutely right. If some states want Obamacare, let them have it. But to force it upon states that do not want it is unconstitutional as the Supreme Court will decide soon enough.

[Tidewater_Wave]

This thread is off topic lol. I don't like name calling at all in politics and it's terrible that someone did this.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Bob: I don't support the system that the PPACA created. At all. I just want to go back to the previous one even less.

I certainly stand against the taxpayer. I stand against ~*~'the taxpayer'~*~ as a dehumanizing construct.

Politico: Nullification is unconstitutional. Also, I'm fine with temporary monopolies on newly developed drugs--or newly developed anything, really--and I never said that I wasn't; after those few months or years, I put it to you that the entire thing can and should just be made generic and mass-produced as a public good. This is all assuming without evidence, of course, that it is impossible that we could find some way of developing drugs that didn't rely on the all-hallowed 'profit motive'.

Constructing fantasy worlds in which people and businesses can be held to basic standards of social responsibility and generalized decency in exchange for certain concessions to baser motives is preferable to complacently wallowing in the terms and premises of a twisted and malign reality.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Politico: Nullification is unconstitutional.

I really hate to defend Politico, but he never mentioned nullification.  It's a pure tenth amendment argument here. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If the individual mandate does not fall within the "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" then since it is not "prohibited by it to the States" then it wold be unconstitutional for the Feds to implement, but perfectly legal for the States to do so (subject to any restrictions imposed by their own constitutions).

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Politico: Nullification is unconstitutional.

I really hate to defend Politico, but he never mentioned nullification.  It's a pure tenth amendment argument here. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If the individual mandate does not fall within the "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" then since it is not "prohibited by it to the States" then it wold be unconstitutional for the Feds to implement, but perfectly legal for the States to do so (subject to any restrictions imposed by their own constitutions).

So it becomes a question of whether or not this falls within the taxation power, which is what we all knew it was anyway. Politico should have said so from the beginning rather than using this kind of rhetoric.

[Tidewater_Wave]

Nullification is unconstitutional. Also, I'm fine with temporary monopolies on newly developed drugs--or newly developed anything, really--and I never said that I wasn't; after those few months or years, I put it to you that the entire thing can and should just be made generic and mass-produced as a public good. This is all assuming without evidence, of course, that it is impossible that we could find some way of developing drugs that didn't rely on the all-hallowed 'profit motive'.

That quote above I have to agree with somewhat. Take advancements in communication for example that were used by our military first before going public. Here you say the same about prescription drugs it's sounding like. I think we actually already have the technology for hydrogen powered cars and for political reasons it's being kept off shelf so to speak.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Politico: Nullification is unconstitutional.

I really hate to defend Politico, but he never mentioned nullification.  It's a pure tenth amendment argument here. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If the individual mandate does not fall within the "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" then since it is not "prohibited by it to the States" then it wold be unconstitutional for the Feds to implement, but perfectly legal for the States to do so (subject to any restrictions imposed by their own constitutions).

So it becomes a question of whether or not this falls within the taxation power, which is what we all knew it was anyway. Politico should have said so from the beginning rather than using this kind of rhetoric.

What rhetoric are you referring to?

If some states want Obamacare, let them have it. But to force it upon states that do not want it is unconstitutional as the Supreme Court will decide soon enough.

To interpret that as pro-nullification rhetoric requires either stupidity or dishonesty since having the Supreme Court decide what is Constitutional is the complete opposite of nullification.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Politico: Nullification is unconstitutional.

I really hate to defend Politico, but he never mentioned nullification.  It's a pure tenth amendment argument here. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If the individual mandate does not fall within the "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" then since it is not "prohibited by it to the States" then it wold be unconstitutional for the Feds to implement, but perfectly legal for the States to do so (subject to any restrictions imposed by their own constitutions).

So it becomes a question of whether or not this falls within the taxation power, which is what we all knew it was anyway. Politico should have said so from the beginning rather than using this kind of rhetoric.

What rhetoric are you referring to?

If some states want Obamacare, let them have it. But to force it upon states that do not want it is unconstitutional as the Supreme Court will decide soon enough.

To interpret that as pro-nullification rhetoric requires either stupidity or dishonesty since having the Supreme Court decide what is Constitutional is the complete opposite of nullification.

Not stupidity but rather momentary forgetful ignorance. I forgot the precise meaning of 'nullification' and only remembered its general meaning.  I always get a little jumpy and vaguely hackish around Tenth Amendment jurisprudence, because while I understand why the amendment is there I often find myself somewhat uncomfortable with the way it is used, particularly in right-wing rhetoric (perhaps because I fall into the strictest or second-strictest level of E.B. White's definition of a Yankee). Sorry.