RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Wom (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Arturas -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Wom (3/18/2012 10:27:16 AM)

quote:

Why don't you explain exactly how the privacy between a patient/insured and their doctors and insurers is anyone elses fucking business other than the patient/insured?


I can do that. The Hippa privacy does not pertain to the insurance company since it must know why the claim is submitted. Each claim must be justified by a diagnosis or medical procedure covered by the plan. This is how insurance works. It would be impossible to insure anyone if they could simply go to a doctor and decide to "do this" or "do that" and tell the insurance company to pay a certain amount on a "trust me" basis. Thus, privacy between Doctor and patient is only fully respected if you don't file a claim and want to pay fo rit yourself.



tazzygirl -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Wom (3/18/2012 10:30:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

No you didnt.  But you often dont.


Yes, I did. Then requoted it.



quote:

Condoms are a piss poor substitute, which is your answer to the problem


No it's not, that's a strawman again, as pointed out already. I'd made a very specific point to a very specific statement, and you're trying to spin it off into something unrelated.


To which I gave a very specific response.

Really, dont you have any ability to admit when you are wrong?

You are here, claiming that women should not be entitled to birth control, free of out of pocket expense for various reasons.

Because its morally repugnant for them to provide it.

Because men use condoms.

Because not everyone has sex.

Because it will cost the risk pool more.

Yet I have given proof that condoms are not as reliable.

You have been given proof that smoking, like pregnancy, costs the risk pool more.

But you are fine with smokers being charged more.

And with those NOT getting pregnant charged more.

If you were intellectually honest, you would see the problem with that belief.

And if you are a virgin... IF... why do you care?

Because you might pay a few dollars more for the woman who doesnt want to get pregnant?

Yet you are more than willing to pay more for the women who do get pregnant?

Back pedal all you want.  You have posted far too much on this topic for anyone to believe anyone but you are being intellectually dishonest.



tazzygirl -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Wom (3/18/2012 10:31:43 AM)

quote:

I can do that. The Hippa privacy does not pertain to the insurance company since it must know why the claim is submitted. Each claim must be justified by a diagnosis or medical procedure covered by the plan. This is how insurance works. It would be impossible to insure anyone if they could simply go to a doctor and decide to "do this" or "do that" and tell the insurance company to pay a certain amount on a "trust me" basis. Thus, privacy between Doctor and patient is only fully respected if you don't file a claim and want to pay fo rit yourself.


Insurance companies already know what is being prescribed and why its being prescribed.  Its called.. ICD 9 coding.



Raiikun -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Wom (3/18/2012 10:32:00 AM)

Wow, lots of strawmen in that post. And you claim I'm being intellectually dishonest, wow.



farglebargle -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Wom (3/18/2012 10:33:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

Why don't you explain exactly how the privacy between a patient/insured and their doctors and insurers is anyone elses fucking business other than the patient/insured?


I can do that. The Hippa privacy does not pertain to the insurance company since it must know why the claim is submitted. Each claim must be justified by a diagnosis or medical procedure covered by the plan. This is how insurance works. It would be impossible to insure anyone if they could simply go to a doctor and decide to "do this" or "do that" and tell the insurance company to pay a certain amount on a "trust me" basis. Thus, privacy between Doctor and patient is only fully respected if you don't file a claim and want to pay fo rit yourself.


No. I mentioned INSURERS right there. I'm wondering how the EMPLOYER thinks they get a say...



tazzygirl -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Wom (3/18/2012 10:35:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

Wow, lots of strawmen in that post. And you claim I'm being intellectually dishonest, wow.


You do realize that the past. oh... 10 posts, perhaps, have been nothing but claiming people are strawmanning?

Dude, honestly, shit or get off the pot.



Raiikun -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Wom (3/18/2012 10:36:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


You do realize that the past. oh... 10 posts, perhaps, have been nothing but claiming people are strawmanning?



If people will stop making claims as to my stance that I didn't make, it wouldn't be necessary.

MM made a statement about men being "free riders". I addressed that one single point with a silly response, and you're making all kinds of wild assumptions about what I meant from it that I never made. It's tiresome.



tazzygirl -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Wom (3/18/2012 10:37:53 AM)

Men are free riders.  They get women pregnant, yet, insurance wise, unless they are married and claim the dependent on their policy, they dont pay more.



Arturas -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Wom (3/18/2012 10:38:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

I am also sure insurance complany assets are ours since most company health plans are in fact only administered by the insurance company and the employees are really self-insured as a group with the employer paying most of the premum as an inducement to get you to hire on with them.


I hope you don't tell that fairytale to the IRS when it's time to put down your Total Compensation...

No employer is paying a dime for an employee's healthcare costs. They're taking that right off the top your total compensation, and to suggest otherwise kinda disqualifies you from the discussion...


Actually, my insurance benefits are Pre-tax and I only pay for them if there is a monetary distribution from that insurance fund because less claims were paid out then originally forcasted. I would be taxed and have been taxed for these assets when they come out of that self-insured plan and into my bank account.

I'm glad for the opportunity to steer you straight on the subject so you now can vote armed with the correct information, the truth. I do wish it were not necessary to read those curse words. Would you mind finding some other way to make your point? Thanks.



farglebargle -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Wom (3/18/2012 10:39:17 AM)

So, then clarify everything by definitively stating for the record,

"What happens in a doctor's exam room is private and confidential between the doctor, the patient/insured, and the insurer.

Neither YOU, I, nor ANYONE ELSE has the privilege to infringe upon that privacy by speculating upon or criticizing any aspect of it."




Raiikun -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Wom (3/18/2012 10:40:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Men are free riders.  They get women pregnant, yet, insurance wise, unless they are married and claim the dependent on their policy, they dont pay more.


Hasty generalization. At least the logical fallacy is not a strawman this time.



tj444 -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Wom (3/18/2012 10:42:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Why is how much extra it is going to cost only an issue for reproductive care?


It's not. My insurance coverage charges higher premiums for smokers than non-smokers. I think applying that logic to other services or at risk factors would be a fair way of handling it.

ummm.. i seriously doubt that the higher premiums cover all the costs associated with treatment and continual care due to the various diseases caused by smoking.. There are some horrid ads on tv right now and the entire ad people are wheezing and coughing constantly due to the emphysema caused by smoking, which those people will have until the day they finally die.. how ever many years that takes..

This is from a 1998 study.. and who knows how the medical costs have increased for treatment & care since the study was done.. [8|]
"the actual cost of medical care for smoking-related disease in the next 25 years will be an astronomical $1.8 trillion."
http://berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1998/0916/smoking.html

eta- Not to mention that insurers tend to have a maximum limit on coverage... once you hit that limit then who pays if you cant?



Arturas -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Wom (3/18/2012 10:43:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

Why don't you explain exactly how the privacy between a patient/insured and their doctors and insurers is anyone elses fucking business other than the patient/insured?


I can do that. The Hippa privacy does not pertain to the insurance company since it must know why the claim is submitted. Each claim must be justified by a diagnosis or medical procedure covered by the plan. This is how insurance works. It would be impossible to insure anyone if they could simply go to a doctor and decide to "do this" or "do that" and tell the insurance company to pay a certain amount on a "trust me" basis. Thus, privacy between Doctor and patient is only fully respected if you don't file a claim and want to pay fo rit yourself.


No. I mentioned INSURERS right there. I'm wondering how the EMPLOYER thinks they get a say...



The employer gets a general say because they do pay into the fund and need to keep their employees happy, that is the reason for the insurance fund and benefit to begin with. Thus, if it is necessary to keep the majority of their employees happy and if their employees want to fund that benefit then the employer finds an insurance plan that fits: 1) what the employee can pay for in their contribution, 2) what the employer can pay in that contribution and 3)what the employer can support that is not contrary to their core corporate culture or belief.



Arturas -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Wom (3/18/2012 10:47:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

So, then clarify everything by definitively stating for the record,

"What happens in a doctor's exam room is private and confidential between the doctor, the patient/insured, and the insurer.

Neither YOU, I, nor ANYONE ELSE has the privilege to infringe upon that privacy by speculating upon or criticizing any aspect of it."




To perhaps intrude on this conversation. Nobody cares about that. What they care about is government mandating coverage and the loss of basic liberties represented by that control by the government on private enterprise and our pocket books.



farglebargle -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Wom (3/18/2012 10:49:09 AM)

The "employer contribution" is a myth. It all comes out of your gross total compensation, and just like your employer gets no say in the contract you sign with Walt Disney World Resorts for vacation, aside from:

1) forwarding the quotes and contract forms from the insurer to you

2) collecting the signed contracts on the insurer's behalf.

3) Telling you some fairy tale about how generous they are and that they're not just cutting their 'contribution' out of your gross compensation numbers.

4) Forwarding the premiums on your behalf to the insurer.

Notice how the EMPLOYER isn't a signatory to the CONTRACT itself. Which, of course, in every court of law in the universe, means, they have no rights in terms of the PRIVATE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE INSURED AND INSURER.



Lucylastic -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Wom (3/18/2012 10:50:44 AM)

But allowing the church to mandate zero BC OR abortion coverage for female non believers is fine with you?
apparently



farglebargle -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Wom (3/18/2012 10:51:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

So, then clarify everything by definitively stating for the record,

"What happens in a doctor's exam room is private and confidential between the doctor, the patient/insured, and the insurer.

Neither YOU, I, nor ANYONE ELSE has the privilege to infringe upon that privacy by speculating upon or criticizing any aspect of it."




To perhaps intrude on this conversation. Nobody cares about that. What they care about is government mandating coverage and the loss of basic liberties represented by that control by the government on private enterprise and our pocket books.


On exactly what planet have Insurance Companies never been a product of state regulation?



Musicmystery -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Wom (3/18/2012 10:51:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


You do realize that the past. oh... 10 posts, perhaps, have been nothing but claiming people are strawmanning?



If people will stop making claims as to my stance that I didn't make, it wouldn't be necessary.

MM made a statement about men being "free riders". I addressed that one single point with a silly response, and you're making all kinds of wild assumptions about what I meant from it that I never made. It's tiresome.

You also never addressed the point.

Other posters are right--it's about winning an argument for you.



tazzygirl -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Wom (3/18/2012 10:52:45 AM)

quote:

To perhaps intrude on this conversation. Nobody cares about that. What they care about is government mandating coverage and the loss of basic liberties represented by that control by the government on private enterprise and our pocket books.


Sort of like when the insurance company denied coverage to a new born because they were at 99 percentile on a growth chart, therefore being obese?

Or when insurance companies decided to drop patients with aids, regardless of the coverage they were entitled too and had to subsequently fight for?

Private enterprise does not have "our" best interests at heart... only its own wallet.



Raiikun -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Wom (3/18/2012 10:55:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

You also never addressed the point.


When the point is made without a logical fallacy, I'll do more to address it. Or at least try to. It's hard to keep up with the barrage of attacks right now.



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125