Brainfade Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 Do you know that some religious groups are against vaccine for kids' date=' what if they start saying that we wont pay for it ? I have spoken to a priest and he says that as per bible, organ transplants shouldnÃÕ happen even from dyeing or dead people as we are supposed to preserve our bodies. So what if they want to stop paying for kidney transplant ?[/quote'] Vaccines are a public-health issue. If I don't take a vaccine, I am putting others at risk for catching an infection. So, that's apples and oranges. Kidney transplants are life-saving procedures. Ask me when BCPs considered life-saving, and I'll change my mind. The obvious compromise is for the churches to allow coverage when they are specifically prescribed for treatment of specific pathologies, but not exclusively for birth-control.
punjabi_khota Posted June 29, 2012 Author Posted June 29, 2012 Of course' date= he is wrong about that. Just like Obama is completely wrong in his support of partial-birth abortions. :haha::haha: Way to go man. One is an ethics issue about who controls a women's body and what she does with it, other is a scientifically fact grounded in reality. This is such a ridiculous comparison, I don't know whether to laugh or cry that it is coming from you. Since when is that an acid test for a President, and how does that detract from his ability to govern, his economic principles? Because not believing in evolution ( AFTER HAVING STUDIED BIOLOGY/PRE-MED AT BROWN FOR ****'S SAKE) is ultra retarded. This guy from the very beginning looks like a opportunistic charlatan, who has basically given up any pretense of having studied modern science (that too at an elite university) and taken up religious bullshyte to win the votes.
Desi Cartman Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 Vaccines are a public-health issue. If I don't take a vaccine, I am putting others at risk for catching an infection. So, that's apples and oranges. Kidney transplants are life-saving procedures. Ask me when BCPs considered life-saving, and I'll change my mind. The obvious compromise is for the churches to allow coverage when they are specifically prescribed for treatment of specific pathologies, but not exclusively for birth-control. without much details, I know someone who needs to take it, her life becomes hell when she doesnt. She wont die but will be in a lot of pain, wont be able to work or raise her kids. In this case the family can afford to buy it but what about poor people and why does her health problem, choice or whatever it maybe, need approval from employer? The question is not what is acceptable to you as in public health issue or not , its about weather your employer should be able to restrict your health insurance on his belief. Its either yes or no.
Brainfade Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 :haha::haha: Way to go man. One is an ethics issue about who controls a women's body and what she does with it, other is a scientifically fact grounded in reality. This is such a ridiculous comparison, I don't know whether to laugh or cry that it is coming from you. Because not believing in evolution ( AFTER HAVING STUDIED BIOLOGY/PRE-MED AT BROWN FOR ****'S SAKE) is ultra retarded. This guy from the very beginning looks like a opportunistic charlatan, who has basically given up any pretense of having studied modern science (that too at an elite university) and taken up religious bullshyte to win the votes. Your tirade aside, PBAs are not about the woman's body. They are about a viable fetus. We are not talking about a 1-month old fetus here. As for evolution, I agree that it is silly not to accept it, based on evidence. But, how does that prevent him from governing? He managed the oil-spill crisis as well as anyone could have. He came down hard on BP. If you used opportunism as a anti-determinant, you wouldn't vote for anyone (but Ron Paul, possibly). If you think Obama is not opportunistic, you need to get your head out of your rear-end. What do you say about his race-opportunism? He attended Rev Wright's bullshit church for 20 years, and then dumped him by claiming that he never believed his teachings when the media started getting on his case for it. And then his reckless race-baiting statements on the day of the Trayvon Martin murder. Opportunism is par for the course for all politicians.
Brainfade Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 without much details, I know someone who needs to take it, her life becomes hell when she doesnt. She wont die but will be in a lot of pain, wont be able to work or raise her kids. In this case the family can afford to buy it but what about poor people and why does her health problem, choice or whatever it maybe, need approval from employer? The question is not what is acceptable to you as in public health issue or not , its about weather your employer should be able to restrict your health insurance on his belief. Its either yes or no. So, I offered a compromise. If the doctor prescribes it for a specific pathology, it gets paid for. As for affordability, I think most employed people can afford $9*12 = $108 a year. http://www.walmartstores.com/pressroom/news/6747.aspx
Desi Cartman Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 So, I offered a compromise. If the doctor prescribes it for a specific pathology, it gets paid for. As for affordability, I think most employed people can afford $9*12 = $108 a year. http://www.walmartstores.com/pressroom/news/6747.aspx People who are prescribed dont just take the cheapest BCP as its for another specific reason and it usually costs around 30 bucks a month. Which is fine, even if it costs $1 a year, why should my employer have a say in my treatment. Can he using the same basis reject to pay for transplant as its not as per their belief or for vaccination ? If there is a solution then it has to be like the one in Aus where only life saving or essential prescribed drugs have some subsidy (in hospital all is covered) but you cant say that Biden can get viagra but Michelle cant get Diane
Swing_n_Speed Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 Man, it is hard keeping up with this board. It's like taking on machine-gun fire! On one side, we have vvvs, p_k, Ram, Ramu Kaka, Outsider, Lurker, yoda, triam, Texy .... and on the other there's just me! I am surprised that there are no other "desis" who are pro-life, debt-hawk, spending-cut, balanced-budget libertarian minded conservatives. Indulge me as I wallow in a bit of self-pity. are u ron paul? then i'm with yaa :--D:--D
ravishingravi Posted July 1, 2012 Posted July 1, 2012 :haha::haha: Way to go man. One is an ethics issue about who controls a women's body and what she does with it' date= other is a scientifically fact grounded in reality. This is such a ridiculous comparison, I don't know whether to laugh or cry that it is coming from you. Because not believing in evolution ( AFTER HAVING STUDIED BIOLOGY/PRE-MED AT BROWN FOR ****'S SAKE) is ultra retarded. This guy from the very beginning looks like a opportunistic charlatan, who has basically given up any pretense of having studied modern science (that too at an elite university) and taken up religious bullshyte to win the votes. Nailed it.
CG Posted July 1, 2012 Posted July 1, 2012 all amreekan icfers can be found in this thread :hysterical: :giggle:
Ram Posted July 1, 2012 Posted July 1, 2012 Man, it is hard keeping up with this board. It's like taking on machine-gun fire! On one side, we have vvvs, p_k, Ram, Ramu Kaka, Outsider, Lurker, yoda, triam, Texy .... and on the other there's just me! I am surprised that there are no other "desis" who are pro-life, debt-hawk, spending-cut, balanced-budget libertarian minded conservatives. Indulge me as I wallow in a bit of self-pity. Why do 'spending cuts', 'balanced budgets' be synonymous with the word conservative? I consider myself a fiscal conservative and social liberal. I strongly believe in govts, just like individuals, must spend within their means. I also strongly believe that no entity has the right to tell people what they can or cannot do within the confines of their private life. So if somebody wants a late-term abortion, that is the choice they make. Same with gay marriage also.
Recommended Posts