18Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Go back and read twiceOriginally Posted by Wooglin
Who are you? Ed Henry? how does an enlarged penis stop unwanted pregnancies?
huh?
Yes, True!!! And you know what else isn't a requirement for sex? BC.An enlarged penis is not a requirement for sex, an actual erection is. That's what I know about "normal" sex.
Finally!
Go back and read twice
Who are you? Ed Henry? how does an enlarged penis stop unwanted pregnancies?
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus
It won't fit?
Sorry, can't help it but that was a setup and a half.
Chimo
We really need to make you a moderator again, you are having too much fun for your own good
Trying to distract from the stupid trap I setup for myself
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus
This has been fun reading as I see two things that stand out like a sore thumb. One, men really don't like paying for something that doesn't benefit them directly. The second is more complicated but involves the tendency of baby boomer men to avoid talking about birth control. Went on in 1973 and still goes on today. Back then it was "You're on birth control aren't you?" Or "you do have condoms, don't you?" leading to "No, I thought you were doing something." Also remember "what birth control?" from friends of mine. Guys from my generation just didn't discuss, nor know much about, birth control and to this day still don't. Seems many thought it would somehow take care of itself, or it would just quietly fade away, or they would just get damn lucky nothing happened. I know none of my friends ever discussed birth control options with their girl friends whatsoever. Hopefully a younger generation of men can sit down and talk to their girl friends about the different options for birth control. Maybe the fact that they most likely had more info on the process of sex, while in school during the 90's, will help compared to the total lack of what I had between 1959-1971.
One thing you can bet the farm on. If all those women kept their legs together like some here have said those would be the very same guys wailing the loudest if that really happened. The era of the cheap date would be over. Once women relearns the power they have between their legs, dinner a movie then shooting your DNA in a latex bag would be a thing of the past. You'd have to....MARRY her before she would consent to have sex. She'd still have the power though and even after bearing the wedding expense you'd have to do things like take out the garbage, do the dishes, rub your mother in law's bunions, etc before the wife would even begin to get into the mood. A condom never was my idea of a good time either. There is nothing that feels like the real thing.
And yet strangely enough that didn't happen in the past when no effective form of contraception was available
When you realize that the college students of today are being taught and influenced by the same academics that were the "free love generation" of the 60' & 70's....and now.... they want all of us to pay for their lovin'...... so much for "free" love! But then again, we were paying for it back then too(in other ways)!
I was under the impression we weren't paying for it, rather it was a government requirement for private insurers to provide it...When you realize that the college students of today are being taught and influenced by the same academics that were the "free love generation" of the 60' & 70's....and now.... they want all of us to pay for their lovin'...... so much for "free" love! But then again, we were paying for it back then too(in other ways)!
"Draft beer, not people."
and...who pays the private insurers??I was under the impression we weren't paying for it, rather it was a government requirement for private insurers to provide it...
Well this comes back to the premise of this law: reducing unwanted pregnancies, which eliminates the substantial cost to the insurer and/or employers from maternity leave, hospital costs, abortions etc., finally resulting in a net savings which can be passed on to the customer, i.e. you and I.and...who pays the private insurers??
Last edited by Red Team; 07 Mar 12, at 03:37.
"Draft beer, not people."
FactCheck.org : Cloudy Contraception CostsSummary
Is the Obama administration correct when it claims its contraception mandate will be “cost neutral” for insurance companies? Or are the critics right when they say Catholic institutions will pay a hidden cost in the form of higher premiums when their insurers are required to give “free” contraceptives to their female employees?
We’ve found plenty of evidence. But it’s often conflicting — and ultimately inconclusive. Some leading examples:
The administration cites Hawaii’s birth-control mandate, which a study said “did not appear” to increase health insurance premiums. Interestingly, the same study also showed an increase in the number of pregnancies after contraception coverage was required.
The administration cites a 1995 study that found significant savings from contraception. The study also said insurance company costs are likely to increase if coverage is simply provided to people who would otherwise buy birth control.
When Pennsylvania considered a birth-control mandate, an independent state agency concluded that “the amount of possible savings relative to the cost of the legislation is unclear.”
Connecticut also could not conclude whether private insurance plans saved enough from reduced pregnancy costs to cover the added expenses of providing coverage under that state’s mandate.
A Texas study estimated that covering contraception would not produce enough savings to cover the added cost. It reasoned that, in most cases, women would get contraceptives on their own even if not covered by insurance.
Premiums did not increase when the Federal Employee Health Benefit System was required to cover contraceptives. Some of the 300 plans in the system covered contraception prior to the mandate.
A recent survey of 15 insurance companies said six of them expected costs to rise while another three believed the mandate would be cost neutral. None predicted a net cost savings by reducing unintended pregnancies.
Reading through FactCheck, it appears their info based on multiple findings point towards an 'inconclusive' result rather than an invalidation of the projected cost increases/decreases.
In the summary's ending paragraph:In other words, it's all up in the air until more statistical data is compiled.There are other studies, some of which we describe in the Analysis section which follows. But altogether, they produce a murky picture. Until better data are [sic] available, we're unable to conclude whether the Obama birth control mandate is likely to result in a net cost increase or not.
"Draft beer, not people."
Really? I guess that you never knew that until the 1960's the rates of children born to unwed mothers was much much lower than today. Now it is something like 40% of the kids are born out of wedlock. In 1940 it was around 4%. Modern birth control was in its infancy stage and not used nearly at the rates of today. Point being, if single women screwed around in the 1940's like they do today and not have effective birth control the birthrate for out of wedlock kids would have been much higher. Kind of strange Huh?
Maybe shotguns were used much more often back then...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: