My insurance pays for birth control.

• roman catholic - just a little info for ya
  • Wrong. - Harbinger
    • IF life begins at conception - technically
      • Wrong again. Care to take another whack at it? - Harbinger
      • politics and religion go hand in hand... - Kendra
        • we don't have a law against - murder
          • You're right--that's why noone ever goes to prison for murder. nm - Kendra
        • Perhaps this is why - insurance does not pay
          • My insurance pays for birth control. - NM
          • whose insurance does not pay for birth control? - Kendra

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

supports abstinence-only education in schools, but she has also said she does not support tax payer dollars to distribute birth control in schools. She is a member of Feminists for Life, which is an pro-life group.

Feminist for Life is a pro-life group that has had its positions distorted to show that they are against birth control. Palin critics (including many in the media) have cherry picked in order to smear Gov. Palin.

companies.  There was one company out there advertising 3 cpl for ASR.  Their add said they need MTs who can "hit the ground running."  It was on MTdaily a few days ago.  There should be "ASR control" where they can't continue to lower our pay.  Remember years ago when people voted for "rent control" and won?  Time to sign those petitions for "ASR control."

Imagine what these companies are making off ASR.

...we have hired them to handle certain management tasks with OUR money. 

We have grown too large to defend the country with just a militia. We have high-rise buildings and can no longer get by with volunteer fire departments.  We need street crews because we have too much roadway, highways and freeways, and no longer can simply neaten up the road that runs past our property.  We produce far too much trash to simply take it out back and burn it (if that were even still legal in some areas.)  Some elements of modern life have grown just to large and complicated to handle on our own.

We have a system of compulsory schooling now that is doing SUCH a great job educating our children.  Kids were far more literate and better educated when the bulk of their learning occurred in the home.  Read anything written by John Taylor Gatto - Weapons of Mass Instruction is his most recent book - about the origins of public education.

I quote here what was in an earlier post:  *If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until the government gives it to you for free.*  What the government dispenses, the government rations.  Do you really want a government bureaucrat in control of whether you get surgery or some diagnostic test your doctor says you need?  Bad enough you have to fight about it with your insurance company now.  You really want to turn this over to the government?  Really?

They certainly must for so many MTs to be all atwitter over this plan.  Fred Thompson said it perfectly last PM. 

So those "moneybags" need to stop griping about MQ and how crappy it pays.  You think you have less in your pockets now?  You think this crap he's promising is free?  How ignorant!

Even he see the unfairness here.  Some conservatives are fond of saying that Democrats want to tax the wealthy unfairly, but what I would like to see is the wealthy taxed equally.  "Mr. Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent."  Here is the entire article.  It's a great read.  Trust me.

Tom Bawden in New York

Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

The comments are among the most signficant yet in a debate raging on both sides of the Atlantic about growing income inequality and how the super-wealthy are taxed.

They echo those made this month by Nicholas Ferguson, one of the leading figures in Britain’s private equity industry, when he criticised tax rates that left its multimillionaire venture capitalists “paying less tax than a cleaning lady”.

Last week senior members of the US Senate proposed to increase the rate of tax that private equity and hedge fund staff pay on their share of the profits, known as carried interest, from the 15 per cent capital gains rate to about 35 per cent.

Lloyd Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, acknowledged in an interview yesterday that there were justified concerns about the huge profits generated by private equity firms and that he worried that income inequality was “poisoning democracy”. He also said that he would be voting for the Democrat candidate at the next election. Mr Blankfein is the highest-paid executive on Wall Street, earning $54 million last year.

Mr Buffett, who runs the investment group Berkshire Hathaway and is widely regarded as the world’s most successful investor, said that he was a Democrat because Republicans are more likely to think: “I’m making $80 million a year – God must have intended me to have a lower tax rate.”

Mr Buffett said that a Republican proposal to eliminate elements of inheritance tax, which raises about $30 billion a year from the assets of about 12,000 rich families, would broaden the disparity between rich and poor. He added that the Republicans would seek to recover lost revenue by increasing taxes for the less prosperous.

He said: “You could take that $30 billion and give $1,000 to 30 million poor families. Or should you favour the 12,000 estates and make 30 million families pay an extra $1,000?”

Barack Obama And Joe Biden Have Consistently Lied To Americans About John McCain's Plan. Their claims have failed every fact-check - from CBS to the Washington Post. John McCain is not going to raise taxes on middle class families. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are the only ones in this race that plan to raise taxes.

OBAMA FICTION
John McCain Will Tax Health Care Benefits For The First Time And Will Be the Largest Middle Class Tax Increase In History.

What's the difference who says no?  Some insurance companies pretty much say no to everything but wellness visits - and that's simply so they can find out if you develop a condition, so they can drop your coverage on a threabare excuse, or jack your rates to the moon so you'll have to drop it.  Then no other company has to cover you due to it being preexisting.  I don't want to pay for insurance that only covers me if I'm not sick!

At least if there was universal healthcare, even with a wait, they'd have to treat you eventually instead of NEVER.  And do it for free.

...involved in the transcription of patient notes?

That just doesn't make sense.

we are all driving basically the same model and we are insuring it for what could possibly happen, not what will or actually does. 

Way back in the 1960s when I first started working, my company's health insurance did not cover single women for most 'female' issues, especially birth control and/or pregnancy-related issues, which has since been deemed discriminatory.  Now you must cover everyone equally for every contingency. 

The only way to individually ajust coverage costs would to be to exclude coverage based on genetic testing and/or family history, or maybe lifestyle issues such as alcohol or tobacco use or risky behavior like sky diving, which consumers have been fighting for years.  This would probably also be deemed discriminatory.

should have checked a few things out.

I feel for you, but a pre-existing condition is NOT uninsurable if you have had insurance for 30 days prior to the illness.

Case in point: We had private health insurance paid for out of our own pockets for 6 years. DH had open heart surgery. In the meantime I got a job with a company, signed up for insurance and they stated a 1 year before they would insure him. Yet, it was less than 30 days since I signed up. All I needed was a Certificate of Insurance from our private carrier, and then no waiting period. I got that, and he is now totally insured under the company plan.

If you did not cancel your insurance until after your problem, you have a way out. Just ask the former insurance company for a certificate of insurance and no one can turn you down.

I'm not trying to be mean or whatever you want to call it, I'm trying to help, so don't take it the wrong way. Best of luck and hopefully, things will turn around for you.

Doesn't anybody in DC have a conscience?  The system as it stands now is disgusting.  They are literally making billions by killing of thousands upon thousands (maybe millions?) of Americans.  Anyone with half a brain should recognize profit-driven health insurance only serves the best interest of the CEOs of the insurance companies - not healthcare recipients! This needs to change NOW!

I saw my first AMA commercial last night urging people to vote with the millions of uninsured Americans in mind.  I loved it!  It is at least a step in the right direction.  Vote with the healthcare crisis in mind people!

I just came across these stats in an article I was reading.  How can there possibly any doubt that lobbying has single handedly taken over Washington?  Especially in light of the fact that the healthcare plans on the table are pushing for more insured rather than single payer system?  If we don't shove out the insurance companies, how are the prices for our healthcare ever expected to go down, or even stay at the current level for any length of time? 87% in 10 years?  Absolutely ridiculous.  We are not reaping any benefit from it whatsoever.   

"As premiums have ballooned by 87 percent in the past decade, insurance-industry profits have climbed from $20.8 billion in 2002 to $57.5 billion in 2006. During that same period, health-care interests spent $2.2 billion on federal lobbying, more than did any other sector, and as of last month, had flooded the presidential candidates with over $11 million in campaign contributions to keep the present system intact."