Rush Limbaugh And Sandra Fluke

[klunderbunker]

Were did I ever state that men should EVER be excused from their responsibility? Seriously? You have to resort to flat out lying about what I wrote in order to provide some defense of your position? Where did I ever state that the responsibility of COST for the birth control should rest squarely on the woman? Cash handed over to the pharmacist from a man's wallet pays for birth control just as well as cash coming out of a woman's purse. At no point did I EVER state men shouldn't have to share responsiblity.

Are you really that desperate, that you have to make shit up about what I said?

Never said you did ya loud mouthed jackass. However, men can have sex without risk of pregnancy, but women should abstain if they can't, at least according to you. That sounds quite a bit like what I said earlier, but given what you've said so far in this, you wouldn't listen to logic and reasoning if it beat you over the head, so I'm done.

 

[Stormtrooper]

So, to summarize:

Due to being born a certain gender, some people (as in men) can have sex when they like regardless of cash because they won't get pregnant. Women however need to have money to afford it because they might get pregnant. Even though there is a pill that can easily prevent this, is cheaply available and has other medical incentives, it should not be provided to women, meaning that the ability to have sex should be an advantage that men continue to have because they were born with it.

Thank you. It's cheap already. Just buy it yo damn self. If you can't afford it, you can't afford it, too damn bad.

The same is true for Men. If they can't afford it, they can't afford it. They do not get the product for free. Last time I checked, insurance plans have co-pays. I know for name brand products I end up paying like 30 bucks for a 30-day supply. And since (as far as I know) Viagra doesn't have a generic equivalent that would be cheaper, it would likely be in a similar range, if not more (I've had to pay upwards of 80 bucks out of pocket for name-brand meds).

I think that summarizes this whole argument nicely: men can have sex because they were born men, but women have to earn the right to have sex because they were born women.

No. (Straight) men can't have sex because in order for (Straight) men to have sex, they need a WOMAN to consent. The woman shouldn't consent if she cannot afford Birth Control and the man doesn't have a condom. If she consents to unprotected sex, pregnancy is her risk, just like STDs are both their risk. It's not that hard to comprehend, really.

Note: Gay or bisexual men can't have sex without consent either, but this argument is about pregnancy and birth control, which is why I specifically mentioned straight men. I know most of you dumbasses would read the preceeding paragraph and immediately think I'm some anti-gay piece of shit. That's not at all true.

 

[klunderbunker]

Thank you. It's cheap already. Just buy it yo damn self. If you can't afford it, you can't afford it, too damn bad.

The same is true for Men. If they can't afford it, they can't afford it. They do not get the product for free. Last time I checked, insurance plans have co-pays. I know for name brand products I end up paying like 30 bucks for a 30-day supply. And since (as far as I know) Viagra doesn't have a generic equivalent that would be cheaper, it would likely be in a similar range, if not more (I've had to pay upwards of 80 bucks out of pocket for name-brand meds).

This is different from women needing specific kinds of birth control which are more expensive.....how?

No. (Straight) men can't have sex because in order for (Straight) men to have sex, they need a WOMAN to consent. The woman shouldn't consent if she cannot afford Birth Control and the man doesn't have a condom. If she consents to unprotected sex, pregnancy is her risk, just like STDs are both their risk. It's not that hard to comprehend, really.

Note: Gay or bisexual men can't have sex without consent either, but this argument is about pregnancy and birth control, which is why I specifically mentioned straight men. I know most of you dumbasses would read the preceeding paragraph and immediately think I'm some anti-gay piece of shit. That's not at all true.

And consent costs how much? Nothing? Meaning this has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[Ty Burna]

Lulz, they weren't arguing that the government should pay for birth control, the argument was that if it was a requirement for employer's health insurance to cover birth control.

So this whole taxpayer argument, down the drain and goodbye. I don't get health insurance for free, I gotta pay $200 some odd dollars to cover my family, and birth control damn well better be covered for my wife and stepdaughter if I'm paying that much a month.

 

[Stormtrooper]

This entire thing between KB and Davi can be explained in one simple way. KB put words in Davis mouth, who in turn also put words in KBs mouth.

Moral of the story:

The people on the left will lie, cheat, steal, and do whatever they can to make the people on the right look like a fool.

Conversely, the people on the right will lie, cheat, steal, and do whatever they can to make the people on the left look like a fool.


Politics is a bunch of fucking stupid bullshit, with a whole bunch of lying pieces of shit trying to convince the general public that they aren't lying pieces of shit, when everyone and their mother knows that they all are in fact lying pieces of shit.

 

[Davi323]

Never said you did ya loud mouthed jackass. However, men can have sex without risk of pregnancy, but women should abstain if they can't, at least according to you. That sounds quite a bit like what I said earlier, but given what you've said so far in this, you wouldn't listen to logic and reasoning if it beat you over the head, so I'm done.

I don't recall limiting abstinence to women. You see pregnancy as solely being a woman's responsibility, and I call bullshit on that. Physically, yeah. But I am talking about emotional responsibility too. It takes two people for a pregnancy to occur, it takes two sets of genetic code to provide life to that child, and it's supposed to take two to raise that child. You assume that I think men shouldn't have to accept any responsibility for getting a woman pregnant, and that is an assumption based on a willful and deliberate misrepresentation of everything I have said. Men who father children need to take care of their children. I condemn absentee/deadbeat fathers as much as I would condemn someone like Octomom. Men take care of their kids.

So yeah, by your summarization of what you claimed I said, you did in fact say that I thought men should be able to do whatever the fuck they wanted.

And, if that was a referral to Viagra, I have already stated that I thought Viagra should NOT be mandatory in insurance policies. I also don't give a damn if an insurance company CHOOSES to include birth control. It's the Government dictating that they must, even when they serve religious institutions with clear religious beliefs that I object to. I am not opposed to preconception forms of birth control. At all. I am opposed to the Government FORCING religious institutions to cover it in their insurance plans because it violates their 1st Amendment rights. You want it? Work at a place that doesn't offer it in part of their insurance plans? You can still get it for cheap, or in some cases, for free anyway.

 

[klunderbunker]

I don't recall limiting abstinence to women. You see pregnancy as solely being a woman's responsibility, and I call bullshit on that. Physically, yeah. But I am talking about emotional responsibility too. It takes two people for a pregnancy to occur, it takes two sets of genetic code to provide life to that child, and it's supposed to take two to raise that child. You assume that I think men shouldn't have to accept any responsibility for getting a woman pregnant, and that is an assumption based on a willful and deliberate misrepresentation of everything I have said. Men who father children need to take care of their children. I condemn absentee/deadbeat fathers as much as I would condemn someone like Octomom. Men take care of their kids.

So yeah, by your summarization of what you claimed I said, you did in fact say that I thought men should be able to do whatever the fuck they wanted.

Oh emotion. We're bringing emotion into this now. I thought we threw that out with the good side effects that birth control can bring because it was all about keeping women unpregnant. That would be a good thing and logical though, so why would you care about it?

 

[Stormtrooper]

This is different from women needing specific kinds of birth control which are more expensive.....how?

Bullshit.

They don't need BIRTH CONTROL that's more expensive. They need hormones that may be more expensive. Birth Control has one need.

And consent costs how much? Nothing? Meaning this has nothing to do with what I said.

Actually, you were saying that Men can have sex, while women can't. I was saying that men can't have sex without women consenting. If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, don't consent unless you have a condom.

The argument here has only been about sex. None of these medical conditions. The medical conditions should be treated.

Lulz, they weren't arguing that the government should pay for birth control, the argument was that if it was a requirement for employer's health insurance to cover birth control.

So this whole taxpayer argument, down the drain and goodbye. I don't get health insurance for free, I gotta pay $200 some odd dollars to cover my family, and birth control damn well better be covered for my wife and stepdaughter if I'm paying that much a month.

Yeah, thanks for bringing up a week old post way after the fact.

Fine, the "Taxpayers" won't pay for it. The POLICYHOLDERS will. As in all the policyholders, just so that women can have their promiscuous sex-pills.

Who are the Policyholders? Taxpayers.

Ergo, the Taxpayers are paying for it.

And I bring up my other point again. You all bitch and moan that this recreational product should be paid for by the insurance company. Lets say they cave to your stupidity. Don't come to me bitching and moaning when your rates go up because they need to cover this recreational drug.

Yes, Birth Control is recreational, when used to control birth.


Should they also cover marijuana for recreational use? Cocaine? Heroin? ALCOHOL? No. But lets let them cover recreational uses for Birth Control.

 

[Davi323]

Oh emotion. We're bringing emotion into this now. I thought we threw that out with the good side effects that birth control can bring because it was all about keeping women unpregnant. That would be a good thing and logical though, so why would you care about it?

Didn't you say you were done? Thought I read that somewhere...

Men and women share equal responsibility in making sure that unwanted pregnancies don't occur, because that child is both of their responsibility after.

 

[klunderbunker]

Bullshit.

They don't need BIRTH CONTROL that's more expensive. They need hormones that may be more expensive. Birth Control has one need.



Actually, you were saying that Men can have sex, while women can't. I was saying that men can't have sex without women consenting. If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, don't consent unless you have a condom.

All of which can be done. by birth control. But you don't like the primary effect so you want some new treatment because.....well because you're a stupid person.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

Well, when people were bringing up the "government" paying for it, what usually happens is when the government pays for something, taxes go up. Hence, it really is relevant.

The government doesn't run health insurance companies. It would just be government mandated. Do some reading, man. This is actually a pretty cool bill for women.

How many times have I said that people don't use Birth Control for medicinal purposes? Zero.

You seem pretty solid on your stance that birth control is ONLY for birth control and should be treated as if its ONLY used for birth control.

How many times have I said that we shouldn't pay for people to use Birth Control, but we can and should pay to use a similar/the same product for medicinal purposes? Every time.

These others options take the form of multiple pills and more money. Mandating birth control would be cheaper for everyone involved.

My argument here has been that I should not pay for women to have unprotected promiscuous sex, which will happen if the policyholders/taxpayers/whatever have to pay for BIRTH CONTROL.

The fact that you keep saying this tells me that you don't really know what you're talking about. You just don't. Stop.

I had already replied numerous times already. Everything I said in my post replying to you I had already said. Hence why I brought it up. Not to mention it led to 2 more dumbasses replying to it, thinking that it was some new thing that I never replied to.

So? Not all of us have been following the thread from the first post. I just got here, and I had a response to what you said in the beginning of the thread. And you didn't even amend anything you said throughout the thread, so why does it even matter? Your counter-arguments to other peoples' responses didn't change anything.

Why do people not understand why the population shouldn't pay for Birth Control.

The population wouldn't be paying for it. The health insurance companies do. But, please, argue semantics again.

"Companies = run by people. People = population".

We get it. You're carefully choosing words so that you're always right, every time you speak.

BIRTH CONTROL!!! I mean Jesus Christ, it's fucking called BIRTH CONTROL for a reason. It's PRIMARY purpose is to CONTROL (get this) BIRTH. Not to lighten a period, or fight cancer. Jesus Titty-Fucking Christ how fucking stupid are you mother fuckers? Stop acting like I'm some asshole that doesn't want to help people that NEED help. I've never said that, I just dont' want to help the people who don't need it. God fucking damnit you people are fucking stupid.

Your opinion about what birth control is, what it does, its name, or anything of the sort is irrelevant. Birth control DOES help prevent ovarian cancer, lighten periods (no female gives one shit about your opinion on periods), and that's just something you have to deal with. I'm really sorry, you're a friend of mine, and I don't know how to make this sound any less harsh. You are simply wrong. It's called birth control, and it's simply the cheapest and most efficient way to deal with this shit ton of female health issues.

 

[Stormtrooper]

All of which can be done. by birth control. But you don't like the primary effect so you want some new treatment because.....well because you're a stupid person.

Again, I just don't want to pay for the primary effect of the drug. I've already given you my answer ten thousand fucking times.

Let insurance pay for enough of a medication to fix your medicinal problem. You don't need to pay to fix both.

If we start with that, then they should end up paying for Alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, and Heroin. That is exactly what you're arguing. The policyholders should pay for recreational use of a drug. Birth Control when used for the purposes namesake is 100% recreational. If you want to pay for that, then you also want to pay for all recreational drugs, since there is virtually no difference.

 

[justinsayne]

Thank you. It's cheap already. Just buy it yo damn self. If you can't afford it, you can't afford it, too damn bad.

Seriously, you clearly have no clue what you're talking about at all. Here is a list of other things doctors prescribe birth control for...

Birth control pills provide certain health benefits in addition to preventing pregnancy.

Menstrual cycle regulation. Birth control pills cause menstrual cycles to occur regularly and predictably. This is especially helpful for women with periods that come too often or too infrequently. Periods also tend to be lighter and shorter.

Decrease risk of iron deficiency (anemia). Birth control pills reduce the amount of blood flow during the period. Less blood loss is helpful in preventing anemia.

Reduce the risk of ovarian cysts. The risk of developing ovarian cysts is greatly reduced for birth control pills users because they help prevent ovulation. An ovarian cyst is a fluid - filled growth that can develop in the ovary during ovulation.

Protection against pelvic inflammatory disease. Birth control pills provide some protection against pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). Pelvic inflammatory disease is a serious bacterial infection of the fallopian tubes and uterus that can result in severe pain and potentially, infertility.

Can improve acne. For moderate to severe acne, which over-the-counter and prescription medications can't cure, birth control pills may be prescribed. The hormones in the birth control pill can help stop acne from forming.

Reduce the risk of symptomatic endometriosis. Women who have endometriosis tend to have less pelvic pain and fewer other symptoms when they are on the Pill. Birth control pills won't cure endometriosis but it may stop the disease from progressing. Birth control pills are the first-choice treatment for controlling endometriosis growth and pain. This is because birth control hormones are the hormone therapy that is least likely to cause bad side effects.

Improve fibrocystic breasts. 70 - 90% of patients see improvement in the symptoms of fibrocystic breast conditions with use of oral contraceptives.

Improved excess hair (hirsutism). Women with excessive facial or body hair may notice an improvement while taking the Pill, because androgens and testosterone are suppressed by oral contraceptives. High androgen levels can cause darkening of facial and body hair, especially on the chin, chest, and abdomen.

Prevent ectopic pregnancy. Because birth control pills work primarily by suppressing ovulation, they effectively prevent ectopic pregnancy as well as normal pregnancy. This makes the pills an excellent contraceptive choice for women who are at particular risk for ectopic pregnancy, a potentially life-threatening condition.

Help prevent osteoporosis. Studies show that by regulating hormones, the pill can help prevent osteoporosis, a gradual weakening of the bones.

My ex's doctor put her on birth control for several of those things, she wouldn't have been able to afford if it wasn't for her medicaid. There are many many other reasons why women are on birth control that have nothing to do with contraception only.

And since (as far as I know) Viagra doesn't have a generic equivalent that would be cheaper, it would likely be in a similar range, if not more (I've had to pay upwards of 80 bucks out of pocket for name-brand meds).

Did you seriously just compare Viagra to Birth Control?!

 

[Ty Burna]

And I bring up my other point again. You all bitch and moan that this recreational product should be paid for by the insurance company. Lets say they cave to your stupidity. Don't come to me bitching and moaning when your rates go up because they need to cover this recreational drug.

Yes, Birth Control is recreational, when used to control birth.

So let me point you to my previous post in this thread since you think birth control is recreational:

Uh first of all my step daughter is on birth control. She's still a virgin (any of you motherfuckers get any sick ideas in your head, leave. Now. Immediately.) and she's been on birth control for over a year now.

Do you know what she was like when she was on her period before getting on the pill? A raging bitch to say the least. And that's not mincing words.

She gets put on birth control, she's relatively her usual self. That in itself is a blessing.

Now let's go further. Let's say she decides to have sex one day. Let's say she's not on birth control. Let's say the condom breaks. No secondary defense and now I'm a soon to be step grandfather. All it takes is one time, even if you're wearing a condom. Even if the woman is on birth control and the man is wearing a condom, it can happen. The point is would you like to have a 50% effectiveness rate or a 95% effectiveness rate? I'll throw my lot in the 95%.

So just because my stepdaughter is on birth control suddenly makes her a ****e? Fuck you if you think that way. She's on the pill because it helps regulate her hormones which means she doesn't bite my fucking head off over every little thing, and as a precautionary measure in case she does decide to become active sexually.

Sorry, it's 20 motherfucking 12. Get with the times. We ain't in the fucking 50's anymore. Women have every right to be sexual if they choose to be. If my stepdaughter decides to have sex, well what's really stopping her from doing so? I'm not going to be a fucking hypocrite because I was doing the same shit back then. That said I will sit down and discuss with her on how to be safe and that she does take her birth controls on time. If she does become sexually active that does not make her a ****e, that makes her a human being with the same god damn urges that we all got.

And this all of course will pertain to my 2 year old when she gets up there in age. You motherfuckers who want to say women are ****es, look in the fucking mirror. How many times have you looked at a woman and said something like "Damn look how hot she is or, holy fuck is she fine" (guilty as charged on my own, truuuuuust me). I'm not saying we need to go full blown feminist movement with this shit, I'm just saying maybe you should take a step back and shut the fuck up about women's bodies and what they can or cannot take. They aren't yours, you need to let them be in the fucking discussion about their own bodies. Taking a pill to prevent pregnancy is the same thing as guys carrying a condom in our pocket. It doesn't mean we're going to go fuck everything with two legs, it means that if the situation arises, we are prepared for said situation to prevent something from happening. Sex is about stimulation 99% of the time nowadays. For fuck sake in the marriage retreat shit I had to do, in a Catholic church mind you, they taught us family planning SO YOU COULD PLAN ON WHEN TO HAVE SEX MERELY FOR THE ENJOYMENT OF IT SO YOU WOULDN'T GET PREGNANT.

Yes. That's right. Even fucking hardcore born again Catholics are teaching how to get it on safely. Problem is, I ain't trusting my mind to keep control of my dick so contraceptives it is. I realize of course they aimed that family planning for married couples blah blah blah. Same concept could be used in a committed non married relationship however, the fact remains that they're teaching how to have sex without having to worry about the reproductive part of it.

So please, quit acting like every woman that's on birth control is a ****e. Next time you go buy a box of condoms, let me know so I can call you a ****e in return as well. Because clearly buying condoms gives you the same go ahead pass that birth control give women according to that theory.

To reply about the rates going up, my insurance already covers the birth control pills my wife and stepdaughter get each month. Suck on that Trebek.

Birth Control doesn't even cost that much but when my insurance (that hey guess what, I pay for) covers a majority of it, that's just a smaller bill that I have to pay for each month rather than coming out of my pocket. I make 50k a year right now, but covering birth control probably saves me a good $400 a year if not more. I don't know your financial status but $400 is still a solid chunk of change to me. So not only does this affect women's ability to get birth control and/or afford it (because the generic standard birth control does not work for every woman.), but this also affects my bank account. And just because some rich white motherfuckers have an impotence complex and can't properly comprehend that this ain't "the good old days" of men controlling everything, I may have to pay more out of my pocket to help support the medical needs of my family. Over some motherfuckers who never even held down a regular job or struggled with bills because mommy and daddy paid for everything and they got away with fucking everything when I busted my ass night and day to just bring home a paycheck. No. Fuck that. I pay for my insurance to cover all of the medical needs of my family, and that includes birth control to help regulate their hormones as well and prevent any unwanted pregnancies. I pay. Not you, not the government, my employee pays a percentage but I still pay a majority and still pay the co-pay that goes with it.

Nah I realized now it's more then $400 a year I'd say. I think wifey's pills are around $50 a month and so is my stepdaughter's. $100 a month, I pay $24 for my copay ($12 for each). $75 a month x 12 = $900 a year I save roughly because my health insurance covers it. You want to talk about insurance rates? Let's say I pay $210 a year. They raise it to $230. I'm still saving a fuck ton of money compared to what would happen if I had to pay for those birth control pills out of pocket.

 

[klunderbunker]

Again, I just don't want to pay for the primary effect of the drug. I've already given you my answer ten thousand fucking times.

Let insurance pay for enough of a medication to fix your medicinal problem. You don't need to pay to fix both.

If we start with that, then they should end up paying for Alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, and Heroin. That is exactly what you're arguing. The policyholders should pay for recreational use of a drug. Birth Control when used for the purposes namesake is 100% recreational. If you want to pay for that, then you also want to pay for all recreational drugs, since there is virtually no difference.

How exactly I'm arguing those things without ever saying them will need to be explained to me but whatever.

And again, "We should spend time and money developing something new because I don't like what something does." My doctor prescribed me to buy a bag of frozen peas and a bag of frozen carrots to put on a shoulder injury once. There are special ice packs available, but they're more expensive and can't be eaten later. Why prescribe vegetables? because they do the primary function, they're cheaper and have other purposes. That makes sense though, so why do such a thing, right?

 

[Stormtrooper]

The government doesn't run health insurance companies. It would just be government mandated. Do some reading, man. This is actually a pretty cool bill for women.

It would be a pretty cool bill for pot smokers if the government mandated that insurance companies were forced to cover marijuana for recreational use, too.

cool =/= good.

You seem pretty solid on your stance that birth control is ONLY for birth control and should be treated as if its ONLY used for birth control.

Yes. Because policyholders shouldn't have to spend a dime more to pay for a drug to be used recreationally.

These others options take the form of multiple pills and more money. Mandating birth control would be cheaper for everyone involved.

Not at all. It would make it more expensive for everyone, because health insurance would cost even more money, because the insurance c ompanies need to cover the added cost of paying for a drug to be taken recreationally, which is what everyone here is arguing.

The fact that you keep saying this tells me that you don't really know what you're talking about. You just don't. Stop.

Why should I stop when I'm the only one using logic?

So? Not all of us have been following the thread from the first post. I just got here, and I had a response to what you said in the beginning of the thread. And you didn't even amend anything you said throughout the thread, so why does it even matter? Your counter-arguments to other peoples' responses didn't change anything.

Do you want me to dig up an old thread that you posted in, then reply to your post that you had already answered?

The population wouldn't be paying for it. The health insurance companies do. But, please, argue semantics again.

The population would pay for it because the insurance companies will offset the cost by raising their rates.

"Companies = run by people. People = population".

We get it. You're carefully choosing words so that you're always right, every time you speak.

Just like I'm right here.

Your opinion about what birth control is, what it does, its name, or anything of the sort is irrelevant. Birth control DOES help prevent ovarian cancer, lighten periods (no female gives one shit about your opinion on periods), and that's just something you have to deal with. I'm really sorry, you're a friend of mine, and I don't know how to make this sound any less harsh. You are simply wrong. It's called birth control, and it's simply the cheapest and most efficient way to deal with this shit ton of female health issues.

When did I say it doesn't do that. Never. I never said that the pills don't help people with those legitimate medical issues.

What I've said (again, for the ten thousandth time) is that if you have ovarian cancer, insurance should pay for it. When you have issues with periods, insurance should pay for it to be used for that sole purpose (last I checked periods do not last every day). If you are trying to have unprotected sex without pregnancy, you're on your own.

 

[Davi323]

How exactly I'm arguing those things without ever saying them will need to be explained to me but whatever.

And again, "We should spend time and money developing something new because I don't like what something does." My doctor prescribed me to buy a bag of frozen peas and a bag of frozen carrots to put on a shoulder injury once. There are special ice packs available, but they're more expensive and can't be eaten later. Why prescribe vegetables? because they do the primary function, they're cheaper and have other purposes. That makes sense though, so why do such a thing, right?

Except ice packs can be refrozen and used multiple times. Hell, I use the same ice pack every day to keep my lunch cool. It's more than paid for it's cost, 200x over. If you use your vegetables, then if you get injured again, you have to keep buying bags of frozen vegetables.

You really didn't think that through much, did you?

 

[Stormtrooper]

A Glass of wine a day is good for your heart. Therefore, the insurance companies should be paying for me to drink a bottle of wine a day.

Marijuana has whatever the hell medicinal benefits it has (I don't recall them off the top of my head). Therefore, insurance companies should pay for huge amounts of it to be used daily.

This is the argument I here from you people.

 

[klunderbunker]

Except ice packs can be refrozen and used multiple times. Hell, I use the same ice pack every day to keep my lunch cool. It's more than paid for it's cost, 200x over. If you use your vegetables, then if you get injured again, you have to keep buying bags of frozen vegetables.

You really didn't think that through much, did you?

And if I do, I keep getting a tasty and healthy meal out of it plus the pain goes away, so the initial problem is taken care of and a second benefit is gained for little cost. You get one problem taken care of and it costs you more money.

Want to try again?

 

[Ty Burna]

A Glass of wine a day is good for your heart. Therefore, the insurance companies should be paying for me to drink a bottle of wine a day.

Marijuana has whatever the hell medicinal benefits it has (I don't recall them off the top of my head). Therefore, insurance companies should pay for huge amounts of it to be used daily.

This is the argument I here from you people.

Stormtropper > Arguing for big businesses that have more money now then I'll ever see in my life time.

Ty > Arguing that saving $900 is a blessing.

Yep.

 

[Davi323]

And if I do, I keep getting a tasty and healthy meal out of it plus the pain goes away, so the initial problem is taken care of and a second benefit is gained for little cost. You get one problem taken care of and it costs you more money.

Want to try again?

You get a one time benefit, and then you are left with nothing. Buying the ice pack provides repeated benefits, as many times as you need, with no additional expense. Even if you add in the cost of having to buy the single bag of frozen veggies separately, for that one meal you got out of your plan, the ice pack will still end up being the far more economical decision.

 

[klunderbunker]

You get a one time benefit, and then you are left with nothing. Buying the ice pack provides repeated benefits, as many times as you need, with no additional expense. Even if you add in the cost of having to buy the single bag of frozen veggies separately, the ice pack will still end up being the far more economical decision.

Let's say the ice pack is $20. The carrots and peas are let's say $4 for one set. If my shoulder only hurts once (which is the case) then I save $16 and get a meal out of it.

 

[Davi323]

Let's say the ice pack is $20. The carrots and peas are let's say $4 for one set. If my shoulder only hurts once (which is the case) then I save $16 and get a meal out of it.

If you hurt it once, chances are you will hurt it again, or another body part. I don't know of anyone who has only ever had a single muscle bruise in their entire life.

 

[klunderbunker]

If you hurt it once, chances are you will hurt it again, or another body part. I don't know of anyone who has only ever had a single muscle bruise in their entire life.

This was roughly 5 years ago. It hasn't hurt since.

 

[DirtyJosé]

Those same policy providers also have to help pay for painkiller drugs. Those drugs are used as "recreational drugs" by many. Are you saying medical insurance shouldn't cover those as well?