Quantcast

A serious question for women!

Gracie - Proud Conservative 2012/04/08 20:01:18
As a women I am seriously perplexed about what is going on in the heads of other women. We're women and we're strong, right? We don't need a man to take care of us or to tell us what to do, right? We can take care of ourselves and our families? I see women say that a mother can raise a child with no father and they'll turn out just fine! I see women wanting to fight about these things and to say otherwise is backwards and ridiculous.

BUT, suddenly women are saying that they need government or they won't be able to make the right decisions about their health or get their own birth control without forcing someone else to give it to them for free? They want everyone else out of their uterus but they need the entire government in it? The women that say this consider themselves PROGRESSIVE?

I say that Progressive and Liberal women are giving women a bad name. I think they are setting our gender back 200 years. If you can't take care of yourself maybe you shouldn't be a mother? If you need government to supply everything for you and your family all you've done is replace the traditional husband and father with GOVERNMENT?

I know what my fellow Conservative women think. They think they can take care of themselves and even include a husband and father. They don't need to exclude them, they just hopefully will find a good one.

So, ladies....which is it.....enabled or helpless?
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • Kat ♪ ~ ♪ 2012/04/08 20:08:31
    Kat ♪ ~ ♪
    +77
    We are enabled.

    Liberal females are hopeless. (helpless) they want to blame everything on someone else like BO. They want to use sex as a hobby they need to pay for it, one way or the other. Progressing straight to socialism.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Gracie ... Lady Wh... 2012/04/09 00:58:58
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    +6
    Sorry, my apologies!
  • Lady Wh... Gracie ... 2012/04/09 09:47:59
    Lady Whitewolf
    +1
    LOLZ you're fine!
  • Chieki 2012/04/08 20:12:31
    Chieki
    +3
    If a woman chooses to raise her children by herself, I'm sure she has her reasons. It could be getting out of a violent home or removing herself from a loveless marriage.

    As for asking the government for help (food stamps, medical care, etc.), more families (husband and wives) have applied for help from the government with the situation the economy is in.

    A mother in most cases will do what is best for the children.

    I know a lot of children that have been raised by single parents (men & women) that are productive members of society. I feel it's better to remove them from a volatile situation or a loveless home that could be detrimental to their mental, physical and spiritual well-being, than to leave them in a home just to say that they have a father present.
  • Gracie ... Chieki 2012/04/08 21:02:23
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    +6
    I agree that being with a single parent over a violent set of parents is best. However, when you look at child abuse statistics it shows that most violence against children comes from a boyfriend of the mother. That is an appaling statistic.

    No family is perfect but when you start out saying that a two-parent loving committed relationship isn't at all important, you help destroy society.
  • Chieki Gracie ... 2012/04/08 21:06:05
    Chieki
    +1
    I would never say it's not important to have a loving, safe 2 parent home.

    It seems that most of the weight in society falls on the mother to rear the children.

    As mothers, they need to be more vigilant about anyone they let come in contact with their children.

    I hear about this type of abuse a lot and it makes me sick to my stomach!
  • Angela Chambers 2012/04/08 20:12:04 (edited)
    Angela Chambers
    +2
    I am helpless, but I still don't want a man. I really don't want to put up with one. Getting SSI and getting inseminated.
  • Gracie ... Angela ... 2012/04/08 21:02:48
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    +5
    So do you want government to be your man?
  • Angela ... Gracie ... 2012/04/08 21:09:38
    Angela Chambers
    +1
    Guess so.
  • Gracie ... Angela ... 2012/04/08 21:11:21
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    +6
    Well, at least you're honest.
  • Angela ... Gracie ... 2012/04/08 21:13:47
  • Kat ♪ ~ ♪ 2012/04/08 20:08:31
    Kat ♪ ~ ♪
    +77
    We are enabled.

    Liberal females are hopeless. (helpless) they want to blame everything on someone else like BO. They want to use sex as a hobby they need to pay for it, one way or the other. Progressing straight to socialism.
  • Lynn Kat ♪ ~ ♪ 2012/04/09 03:29:08
    Lynn
    +2
    You do understand women that work do pay for there insurance right ? So if I am paying for my insuence then why shouldn't I be able to use it and make a copay just like every other med i get. Explane to me how that is haveing the goverment take care of me???
  • FanOreilly Lynn 2012/04/09 15:57:04
    FanOreilly
    +50
    I can explain it.

    If you buy a car, you can't use the government to force others to pay for your gas, your engine upgrades, an MP3 player or oil changes...that's on you.

    Sadly too many women think voting liberal means they get free stuff.

  • COCO FanOreilly 2012/04/09 23:25:24
    COCO
    +8
    Pathetic isn't it?
  • Stryder FanOreilly 2012/04/10 01:33:37
    Stryder
    +6
    I really wish they could track this woman down and see if she still feels the same.
  • bettyboop FanOreilly 2012/04/10 21:11:21
    bettyboop
    +1
    Brain washed.
  • FeedFwd... Lynn 2012/04/09 21:54:35
    FeedFwd ~POTL
    +3
    Some insurance policies may cover it and some may not. It is a point of negotiation. Some companies have prescription drug coverage and others do not. Some impose a higher co-pay on name brand drugs vs generics. Basically, prescription drugs (and OTC for that matter) aren't really a risk pooling scenario. If you want the insurance to cover contraceptives, then expect the premium to go up. Maybe they will have a lower co-pay on cheap condoms vs more expensive pills. Maybe their actuaries have determined there is a higher incidence of problems in women who take the pill and so if you take the pill, you need a higher premium rate. Insurance companies are in the business to make money. They are dealing with risks and probabilities and statistics. If they are lucky, they will make more money and if not, they will lose money. But on average, they aren't making egregious profits. They have future liabilities, and unlike the government, they must keep those liabilities on the books and show reserves to cover them. They also invest some of the premiums they collect to try and make some investment returns to keep premium prices down. That also entails risk. Because when the economy tanks, there's going to be less investment income and premiums are going to have to compens...
    Some insurance policies may cover it and some may not. It is a point of negotiation. Some companies have prescription drug coverage and others do not. Some impose a higher co-pay on name brand drugs vs generics. Basically, prescription drugs (and OTC for that matter) aren't really a risk pooling scenario. If you want the insurance to cover contraceptives, then expect the premium to go up. Maybe they will have a lower co-pay on cheap condoms vs more expensive pills. Maybe their actuaries have determined there is a higher incidence of problems in women who take the pill and so if you take the pill, you need a higher premium rate. Insurance companies are in the business to make money. They are dealing with risks and probabilities and statistics. If they are lucky, they will make more money and if not, they will lose money. But on average, they aren't making egregious profits. They have future liabilities, and unlike the government, they must keep those liabilities on the books and show reserves to cover them. They also invest some of the premiums they collect to try and make some investment returns to keep premium prices down. That also entails risk. Because when the economy tanks, there's going to be less investment income and premiums are going to have to compensate. So anything is possible, but there will be a cost. Furthermore, just because a company can cover something, doesn't mean the should or will. Some insurance companies like some companies at large have some sense of a "social conscience" and may be motivated to not cover contraception while others may. Just like come company insurance plans may cover vision care or other specialties while others may not.
    (more)
  • Lynn FeedFwd... 2012/04/09 22:15:04
    Lynn
    So in your thinking then if a women works for a company and they pay a higher premium to cove BC then your ok with it right? Let me just turn this around and say if a man could take oral BC it would be coverd for sure.... But I will go alone with you if I want BC to be covered I would pay the higher premium. My point was the tax payers have nothing to do with me useing my insurance.
  • Todd~AFCL Lynn 2012/04/09 22:56:26
    Todd~AFCL
    +6
    And the government has no business forcing the insurance companies to cover it at taxpayer expense.
  • Lynn Todd~AFCL 2012/04/10 05:02:46
    Lynn
    +1
    But the goverment made it there business to force us as tax payers to insure our cars...Where is the personal freedom in that and how did that become a law? Do you think the insurance companys lobbyest might have had something to do with it.
  • Todd~AFCL Lynn 2012/04/10 14:18:45
    Todd~AFCL
    +1
    When you crash into somebody else, you deny them their property rights. If the crash is bad enough, you also deny them their rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
    Also, it is the states who require auto insurance, IF you choose to drive. They are not forcing me to pay for your auto insurance, nor are they forcing you to pay for mine.
  • Lynn Todd~AFCL 2012/04/11 00:12:36
    Lynn
    Thats my point I work I pay my part for my insurance and my company pays theres tell me where you or any other tax payer is paying for me? I also pay a higher amount to cover my BC . The point I am makeing is if my company desides at some point that no matter what the will not cover my BC how is that fair to me since I pay a higher cost to have it covered? Where dose any of that cost trickel down to the tax payer? Here is one more thought if you dont like brithcontrol dont use it just dont tell me what to do.
  • jubil8 ... Todd~AFCL 2012/04/11 03:58:23
    jubil8 BN-0 PON
    +1
    Your insurance company is forcing you to share the risk with all other policyholders. They set their rates based on statistical models about probability, and we all pay for it (within a company).

    If your rates go up because your insurance company has to offer better coverage as a result of a state law, you're just begging the question to say the state isn't forcing you to pay for someone else's auto insurance. Sure they are, it's just indirect.
  • Sawdust... Lynn 2012/04/10 00:23:18
    Sawdust_128
    +1
    "Let me just turn this around and say if a man could take oral BC it would be coverd for sure...." How do you know?
  • jubil8 ... Sawdust... 2012/04/11 03:58:44
    jubil8 BN-0 PON
    Just a guess.
  • Sawdust... jubil8 ... 2012/04/11 04:23:38
    Sawdust_128
    Well then, the amount that your comment has meaning and helps the conversation goes directly to none.
  • FeedFwd... Lynn 2012/04/10 18:18:31
    FeedFwd ~POTL
    +1
    Turn it around. I don't think insurance is appropriate for routine expenses, whether it is Viagra or birth control. Insurance is supposed to be risk pooling to protect against an unlikely, but financially catastrophic expense (or loss). As for health care that is more predictable and not financially catastrophic, insurance isn't the proper vehicle. You can choose your doctor and pay cash or pre-pay for future services just like you can with a lawyer. For medicines, whether prescription or not, they are generally paid at the time of service. Now if I have dental insurance and it covers a few days of pain meds along with wisdom teeth removal, or I have an organ transplant and must have anti-rejection drugs for the rest of my life, those are part and parcel of the insured problem and should be paid as required. But if I want vitamins or birth control or Viagra or OTC meds it's more like a predictable expense and shouldn't be covered by insurance. I can negotiate a deal, perhaps... a group buy, for example, but it is on me. Now if my employer happens to offer a health care benefit, it is like any other benefit. It is part of my total compensation. When I choose a job nd an employer, I will find that each has different job conditions, compensation packages and workplace ...
    Turn it around. I don't think insurance is appropriate for routine expenses, whether it is Viagra or birth control. Insurance is supposed to be risk pooling to protect against an unlikely, but financially catastrophic expense (or loss). As for health care that is more predictable and not financially catastrophic, insurance isn't the proper vehicle. You can choose your doctor and pay cash or pre-pay for future services just like you can with a lawyer. For medicines, whether prescription or not, they are generally paid at the time of service. Now if I have dental insurance and it covers a few days of pain meds along with wisdom teeth removal, or I have an organ transplant and must have anti-rejection drugs for the rest of my life, those are part and parcel of the insured problem and should be paid as required. But if I want vitamins or birth control or Viagra or OTC meds it's more like a predictable expense and shouldn't be covered by insurance. I can negotiate a deal, perhaps... a group buy, for example, but it is on me. Now if my employer happens to offer a health care benefit, it is like any other benefit. It is part of my total compensation. When I choose a job nd an employer, I will find that each has different job conditions, compensation packages and workplace amenities and I will choose based on the total package. But if I pick an employer with higher pay and lower benefits, I can't go back later and say I want the same benefits as another employer offers unless I am willing to forgo some salary. And the reason why people should pick their own healthcare is because everybody has different needs and predictable routine care requirements that aren't always what an employer or large group may decide is optimal. I don't need maternity benefits as we are done having kids. My kids don't need geriatric care because they are young. I should be able to find a doctor that suits my needs and budget without having to deal with insurance at all. Healthcare plans for predictable healthcare expenses are like coupon books where you may use some of the coupons and not others. If you use them all, you will get much more than you pay, but if not, you may have wasted your money. Or they can be simply prepaid service like you might get if you buy a new car or computer. Not all dealers offer them and not all such benefits are the same. But ultimately, somebody pays for the benefits. And if they are not a low probability expense, anything that gets added to the menu is going to be paid by you one way or the other by higher premiums or reduced benefits elsewhere. That's why I say there isn't much advantage to having contraceptives paid by your healthcare plan. If they do, they will just raise the cost of the plan to you or whoever is paying for it. What is unfair, is to saddle everybody with paying for something like contraceptives when half of the population don't need them and half of what's left may not want them.
    (more)
  • Yankee ... Lynn 2012/04/10 09:34:20
    Yankee Traveler
    Since when has birth control been a healthcare issue, free birth control = government help= being taken care of
  • Lynn Yankee ... 2012/04/11 00:18:34
    Lynn
    You do understand some women take the pill for other reasons. Its not free if you work and pay your premium and the company you work for pays theres explane how that costs the tax payer anything of how thats free??
  • Gracie ... Lynn 2012/04/11 02:59:13
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    +2
    And it's covered if it's for legitimate "other reasons". It was at Georgetown also.
  • wysiwis Gracie ... 2012/04/15 03:03:04
    wysiwis
    +1
    And there in-lies the crux of the debate! I do believe Young Miss Fluke only used the term "contraceptives" in her meeting with the "Democrat Leaders", NOT birth control pills.
  • Cap wysiwis 2012/04/15 06:49:29
    Cap
    You're touching on a part of the Fluke matter I never saw adequately followed up on. The charge was made - I believe it was made in Ms. Fluke's testimony, but my recollection has gotten fuzzy - that BC for "other reasons", e.g., prescription of birth control pills, even on a temporary basis, to regularize irregular menstrual cycles, was also denied coverage. That seemed to me to be a justifiable concern (after a fashion, since, in the main I agree with the point being made in other discussions in this thread that a basic problem is over-regulation of health insurance in the first place), but an inappropo one, since it seemed to be a technically incorrect denial that should have been resolvable thru an appeal process, but I never saw it followed up on. Are you aware of a place where this aspect of BC denial is discussed in reasonable detail?
  • wysiwis Cap 2012/04/15 13:51:38
    wysiwis
    I haven't seen any "good" followup either(come to think of it, I don't think I've seen ANY followup). I think I've seen, but can't remember where, that Georgetowns insurance did allow "the pill" to be used treat other conditions(other than simple BC). The Catholic Church (at least my diocese(I asked our Bishop)) recognizes that it("the pill") can treat (and on rare occasions, cure) some conditions that women have, and that IS a justifiable concern. Miss Fluke complained the contraceptives would cost $3000 over the course of a "students" studies there. That's over twice the price that "the Pill" would cost (at least here($28 full generic price), I've checked). Contraceptives, being a wide range of products, not just the pill, is what she was saying should be freely available. To my knowledge, none of the other contraceptives can be used for treatment. I'm not aware of any place where this has been discussed.
  • Brad # ... Kat ♪ ~ ♪ 2012/04/09 15:52:52
    Brad # 2486547
    +8
    Excellent.
  • K-ZOOMI-----0 2012/04/08 20:03:00
    K-ZOOMI-----0
    +13
    Shared this for you. :)
  • Gracie ... K-ZOOMI... 2012/04/08 21:03:10
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    +6
    Thanks.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/12/20 12:21:48

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals