gramps Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Nothing is preventing anybody from getting health care of any kind. All that is being debated is whether or not a religious institution should have to pay for it. Your place of employment may not want to pay for coverage of a particular kind, but nothing is preventing you from doing it on your own. My employer pays for insurance that covers me from head to toe - EXCEPT my vision. It's their choice not to, and it's not from a religious perspective. That doesn't mean that I'm forced to go blind. I pay for my own eye exams and buy my own glasses. At one time years ago our insurance did not cover pregnancy. I didn't get bent out of shape; I just paid out of my own pocket for my first child being born. And it was years before we had dental coverage; I paid for our visitis to the dentist before we had it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rani Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 [quote name='gramps' timestamp='1332350707' post='543022'] Nothing is preventing anybody from getting health care of any kind. All that is being debated is whether or not a religious institution should have to pay for it. Your place of employment may not want to pay for coverage of a particular kind, but nothing is preventing you from doing it on your own. My employer pays for insurance that covers me from head to toe - EXCEPT my vision. It's their choice not to, and it's not from a religious perspective. That doesn't mean that I'm forced to go blind. I pay for my own eye exams and buy my own glasses. At one time years ago our insurance did not cover pregnancy. I didn't get bent out of shape; I just paid out of my own pocket for my first child being born. And it was years before we had dental coverage; I paid for our visitis to the dentist before we had it. [/quote] Actually, they're saying they shouldn't have to offer it at all. 'Rani Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gramps Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 It's their option. There are jobs out there with no group insurance at all. In any case you always have the option of buying your own individual plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rani Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 [quote name='gramps' timestamp='1332359761' post='543028'] It's their option. There are jobs out there with no group insurance at all. In any case you always have the option of buying your own individual plan. [/quote] There won't be for long without certain exceptions and Georgetown isn't going to be one of them. Regardless the problem is they want a religious focused exception to a legal standing imposed on their employees. How is that not a violation of the employees rights, not to mention civil rights? They'll give it to you only if your conform to their religious views on your medical health care? So they'll give you Policy A which doesn't allow birth control, or transfusions, or organ donations, etc., but if you want those things on Policy B, you have to go get your own? You're reaching for an argument that won't fly. That's an indirect way of forcing your religious views down my throat and violates my freedom of religion which does support birth control, transfusions, and so on. I sincerely hope this goes to the Supreme Court because, having spoken to my friends in the law profession about the legal versus passionate debate, I can pretty much guarantee you, they will lose. By the way....... Most municipalities solved this years ago on the recommendation of their City Attorneys. They give you an allowance to spend on a cafeteria of health plans. You pick the one you want, and any money left over is returned to you on your paycheck. Problem solved. 'Rani Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScotsman Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 I got an idea, why don't they just DROP the plan altogether. After all, nothing says they have to provide a student plan whatsoever. Cut the brats loose, and let them go buy a gov't NObama plan. It's gonna suck-as, just like everything else the gov't gets involved in, but it's the fitting answer. quit the whole program, and make the whining free-bee bastages like little miss activist go pony up the bucks for their own coverage. They are students, not employees, nothing whatsoever, anywhere says the school has to provide any sort of plan for anyone. /problem /whining /being forced into paying for something you are against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gramps Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Here's to hoping the Supreme Court does the right thing about Obamacare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rani Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 [quote name='gramps' timestamp='1332380281' post='543051'] Here's to hoping the Supreme Court does the right thing about Obamacare. [/quote] I have yet to understand why so many people are so against health care in this country. I mean, really, in what is arguably the richest nation on earth, even at our worst economically, we don't consider heath care to be part of citizens rights? How ridiculous is that, really? The vast majority of the people talking about the horrors of "socialized" medicine have never been treated in a country that has it. I have, and honestly, I got better care in Canada, England, and Japan that I ever did here. We like to think we have the best health care in the world and that that's why all the 3rd world countries send their critical patients here. But just as many go to Canada and England and France, and every other nation with more advanced medical care. We don't hear about it because guess what? We're in America, so we get what kind of news and statistics? American. You have to actually go searching for information on what's being provided in other countries and nobody bothers to do that. Now we have everybody calling it Obamacare in this country.... Come on.... The health care industries has been ripping off the public for decades - ever since they discovered it was a lucrative business. A huge majority of doctors in this country don't go into medicine because they actually want to heal - they go into it to get rich! Even after mal-practice insurance and residency, it's a hell of a gig if you're looking to make a ton of money. For profit insurance companies are exactly that. For profit. If they weren't making a profit, they wouldn't be in business, and most of them are recording record profits year after year, because your health care isn't something you give up[ first in a recession. It's the last thing. But everybody is all doom and gloom about the new health care which frankly should be part and parcel of the lifestyle of the citizens of any civilized nation. In addition, you and I and Scotsman pay for every single uninsured person who steps into an emergency room. We pay for it through our taxes that are sent to hospital to cover their losses, thanks to Federal money filtering down to help cover those losses. We pay for it in our paid for health insurance because the agencies get ripped off all the time by not only exorbitant services fees, but by fraud and illegal aliens bilking the system. it's a disaster, and everybody is up in arms about everybody getting insurance so that the abuses and increases will go away over time? Please, how nearsighted is that? Plus, the few elements that have kicked in are actually helping people! People are paying LESS for services and are better off. That's right, the same doom and gloom people who thought it was going to wreck their health care are finding out just the opposite. And most of it won't even kick in until 2014, but still you hear "My rates went through the roof! And it's all because of Obamacare!" Hell, I remember back in 2008 when our CFO came to us and let us know our co-pays were going to double because the insurance company had doubled the rates. Yep, your rates did go through the roof, but I watched as the health insurance companies took ever advantage and jacked the rates before Obama ever signed the thing! Before it even passed Congress! So please, let's not pretend it's "Obamacare" jacking your insurance rates - they did it, and continue to do it all on their own. Romney wants to get rid of Planned Parenthood altogether. He wants to shut their doors because they perform abortions. If you walk into a Planned Parenthood facility and ask for an abortion, you're going to get one. But you know what Planned Parenthood does more than anything? They provide reasonably priced birth control. Abortions cost more than birth control and there's no way around it. Planned Parenthood would much, MUCH rather issue any woman birth control at a substantial discount and never have to perform an abortion on her because, guess what? It costs more to give her an abortion! Birth control costs a few hundred a year, and an abortion costs a couple thousand. For one! So why does he really want to close Planned Parenthood? Couldn't be something about the Mormon (and Catholic) push to "spread righteous seed", could it? You know, increase their members, become more powerful, take over governments and put it back to the way it was when the Church was in charge? Just what we need. Another 7th century nation. Or maybe another Spanish Inquisition. Think it can't happen? Ask any Jewish survivors if they though a holocaust could have happened before it did. These people defy logic and humanity. Personally, (note I said PERSONALLY) I consider rabid religiousity to be nothing short of evil. But evil is a slippery, slippery slope. No God fearing Christian gets up one morning and decides to murder hundreds or thousands or millions of people. You start by thinking what they're doing is wrong. You pray for them but they keep doing it anyway. Now you start to believe their "evil" infects you. It's "their" fault the economy is bad, wars are ongoing, and you are having problems keeping your job. God has spoken against them. You try to convert them. They don't convert because they like who they are - Godless and gay, or Jewish, or lesbian, or atheist. Now they're more like Godless cattle that are preventing YOUR God from reaching you. From saving YOUR nation. It's only a few short steps from there to boxcars and gas chambers. As any student of history will tell you. So do I think health care, including birth control, is something the religious community needs to stay out of? Bet your ass. They need to stay as far away from legalities, and heath care, and your job, as it's possible to get. Because from all accounts, The Spanish Inquisition was pretty ugly. We don't need another one. END RANT 'Rani 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScotsman Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) And opposite the Spanish Inq we have the nonreligious government actions of Stalin, Pol Pot, Khmer Rouge, Idi Amine, Mao, Hitler, Hussein, Kony, The purges in Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Argentina, Sri Lanka, Chad, Rhodesia, Laos, Peru, Kashmir... Pick one, even the smallest of them is many times more murderous on their own people than the entire spanish inquisition. What's more, the people that died at the hands of those secular governments, died at the hands of a government they themselves put into power. Ya know, between the two, I'll take the religious fruitcakes trying to run my life, over the results of a G*dless government operating under a completely secular version of "morality". The slope of progrressivisim is far deadlier than the pope's decrees. After all, even here in the USA, progressivisim was the beginnings of worldwide eugenics movement - remember margaret Sanger, the founder of MF? In her own words.... [size=3][b]On blacks, immigrants and indigents:[/b] "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, [/size][i]Pivot of Civilization. [/i](don't shoot the messenger... I am just quoting this paragon of progressivisim.) On BC... [b]On the purpose of birth control:[/b] The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the[i] Birth Control Review[/i], Nov. 1921 Rani, your hero is a quite spectacular individual. but you are free to worship at her MF alter all you want. Better read what MF was founded as first, then you can see real evil incarnate. Funny, your words seem to mime the past writings of these progressive creatures of the past, nearly word for word. [url="http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm"]http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm[/url] Hmmmmmm.... edit: Can't spell tonight. Edited March 23, 2012 by TheScotsman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Mason Taylor Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) [quote name='TheScotsman' timestamp='1332478509' post='543117'] And opposite the Spanish Inq we have the nonreligious government actions of Stalin, Pol Pot, Khmer Rouge, Idi Amine, Mao, Hitler, Hussein, Kony, The purges in Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Argentina, Sri Lanka, Chad, Rhodesia, Laos, Peru, Kashmir... Pick one, even the smallest of them is many times more murderous on their own people than the entire spanish inquisition. What's more, the people that died at the hands of those secular governments, died at the hands of a government they themselves put into power. [/quote] Hitler, Hussein and Kony all did what they did using religion to back them. Hitler used the Catholic anti-Jewish fervor of his fellow countrymen. Hussein used the Sunni hatred of the Shi'a, and Kony actually considers himself to be a religious icon, the leader of the Lord's Resistance Army. And Stalin, while he was almost certainly an atheist when he led Russia, went himself to seminary, and allied himself with the Orthodox church during his rise to power. Mao, also an atheist, turned the State itself as well as anti-revisionist communism into a religion, and Kim Il-Sung made himself and his son into gods. Nothing secular about that. More importantly, no state, modern or historical, has ever committed atrocities in the name of secularism. It's always been in the name of an active cause, be it religion or communism or fascism or racism or eugenics, and so on. But even so, the point isn't that religion or non-religion is inherently responsible for the ills committed throughout history, or at least it shouldn't be. The point is, we need a government that is neutral on these matters, so that the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of all can be protected, respected, and kept from exerting control on the lives of others. And Rani, re: the Affordable Health Care Act, one doesn't have to be against improving health care access in this country to be against that law. In a lot of ways, the Public Option would've been much cleaner and less burdensome both to individual citizens and small businesses. Edited March 23, 2012 by Christopher Mason Taylor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rani Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 [quote name='Christopher Mason Taylor' timestamp='1332482372' post='543120'] And Rani, re: the Affordable Health Care Act, one doesn't have to be against improving health care access in this country to be against that law. In a lot of ways, the Public Option would've been much cleaner and less burdensome both to individual citizens and small businesses. [/quote] We're in complete agreement on that one. Unfortunately I think the health care industry manipulated both the public and Congress to make sure the Public Option was dropped because it was "socialized". The Health Care Act is far from perfect. However, like all those precedents that are used against us, this one works for us. Health Care has been untouchable. The lobby too big, the money to great from Big Pharmaceuticals down through the smallest doctor's office and the surge of "friendly" reps pushing their goods and services. By actually putting a health care act into place, it's now opened the door for further changes. Eventually there will almost certainly be a public option, potentially it will evolve into a (Watch out Faux News viewers! Scary word coming....) "socialized" health care system. You know, similar to the two we already have - for the military, and MediCare/MediCaid. Of course, that would put a few ambulance chasers out of business wouldn't it? So we have to get around their money and lobby too. Again, there is simply no excuse for not having a universal system of some kind when almost every other advanced nation has one that works just fine. And guess what? Most of them include birth control and they have fewer abortions as a result. 'Rani Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chreees Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 [quote name='Rani' timestamp='1332516048' post='543134'] [quote name='Christopher Mason Taylor' timestamp='1332482372' post='543120'] And Rani, re: the Affordable Health Care Act, one doesn't have to be against improving health care access in this country to be against that law. In a lot of ways, the Public Option would've been much cleaner and less burdensome both to individual citizens and small businesses. [/quote] We're in complete agreement on that one. Unfortunately I think the health care industry manipulated both the public and Congress to make sure the Public Option was dropped because it was "socialized". The Health Care Act is far from perfect. However, like all those precedents that are used against us, this one works for us. Health Care has been untouchable. The lobby too big, the money to great from Big Pharmaceuticals down through the smallest doctor's office and the surge of "friendly" reps pushing their goods and services. By actually putting a health care act into place, it's now opened the door for further changes. Eventually there will almost certainly be a public option, potentially it will evolve into a (Watch out Faux News viewers! Scary word coming....) "socialized" health care system. You know, similar to the two we already have - for the military, and MediCare/MediCaid. Of course, that would put a few ambulance chasers out of business wouldn't it? So we have to get around their money and lobby too. Again, there is simply no excuse for not having a universal system of some kind when almost every other advanced nation has one that works just fine. And guess what? [b]Most of them include birth control and they have fewer abortions as a result.[/b] 'Rani [/quote] Makes me think conservatives would be gung-ho about having universal healhcare then! But yeah, you know something's wrong when a ton of other countries have it and it works, and your country does not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rani Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 [quote name='TheScotsman' timestamp='1332478509' post='543117'] And opposite the Spanish Inq we have the nonreligious government actions of Stalin, Pol Pot, Khmer Rouge, Idi Amine, Mao, Hitler, Hussein, Kony, The purges in Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Argentina, Sri Lanka, Chad, Rhodesia, Laos, Peru, Kashmir... Pick one, even the smallest of them is many times more murderous on their own people than the entire spanish inquisition. What's more, the people that died at the hands of those secular governments, died at the hands of a government they themselves put into power. Ya know, between the two, I'll take the religious fruitcakes trying to run my life, over the results of a G*dless government operating under a completely secular version of "morality". The slope of progrressivisim is far deadlier than the pope's decrees. After all, even here in the USA, progressivisim was the beginnings of worldwide eugenics movement - remember margaret Sanger, the founder of MF? In her own words.... [size=3][b]On blacks, immigrants and indigents:[/b] "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, [/size][i]Pivot of Civilization. [/i](don't shoot the messenger... I am just quoting this paragon of progressivisim.) On BC... [b]On the purpose of birth control:[/b] The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the[i] Birth Control Review[/i], Nov. 1921 Rani, your hero is a quite spectacular individual. but you are free to worship at her MF alter all you want. Better read what MF was founded as first, then you can see real evil incarnate. Funny, your words seem to mime the past writings of these progressive creatures of the past, nearly word for word. [url="http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm"]http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm[/url] Hmmmmmm.... edit: Can't spell tonight. [/quote] Come on Scotsman, I don't worship anybody walking this earth. I was pointing out the actions of Planned Parenthood not the beliefs it might have been founded on. It's never the information you're given - it's what you do with it that counts. I could pretty much care less what founders of anything thought. All I care about is what exists now. Planned Parenthood does good work overall and I'm not remotely a supporter of "on-demand" abortion used as back-up birth control. In fact, I happen to think abortion is an archaic practice that should be rendered obsolete and extinct through better birth control among other things. 'Rani Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScotsman Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 [quote name='Rani' timestamp='1332516543' post='543137'] [quote name='TheScotsman' timestamp='1332478509' post='543117'] And opposite the Spanish Inq we have the nonreligious government actions of Stalin, Pol Pot, Khmer Rouge, Idi Amine, Mao, Hitler, Hussein, Kony, The purges in Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Argentina, Sri Lanka, Chad, Rhodesia, Laos, Peru, Kashmir... Pick one, even the smallest of them is many times more murderous on their own people than the entire spanish inquisition. What's more, the people that died at the hands of those secular governments, died at the hands of a government they themselves put into power. Ya know, between the two, I'll take the religious fruitcakes trying to run my life, over the results of a G*dless government operating under a completely secular version of "morality". The slope of progrressivisim is far deadlier than the pope's decrees. After all, even here in the USA, progressivisim was the beginnings of worldwide eugenics movement - remember margaret Sanger, the founder of MF? In her own words.... [size=3][b]On blacks, immigrants and indigents:[/b] "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, [/size][i]Pivot of Civilization. [/i](don't shoot the messenger... I am just quoting this paragon of progressivisim.) On BC... [b]On the purpose of birth control:[/b] The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the[i] Birth Control Review[/i], Nov. 1921 Rani, your hero is a quite spectacular individual. but you are free to worship at her MF alter all you want. Better read what MF was founded as first, then you can see real evil incarnate. Funny, your words seem to mime the past writings of these progressive creatures of the past, nearly word for word. [url="http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm"]http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm[/url] Hmmmmmm.... edit: Can't spell tonight. [/quote] Come on Scotsman, I don't worship anybody walking this earth. I was pointing out the actions of Planned Parenthood not the beliefs it might have been founded on. It's never the information you're given - it's what you do with it that counts. I could pretty much care less what founders of anything thought. All I care about is what exists now. Planned Parenthood does good work overall and I'm not remotely a supporter of "on-demand" abortion used as back-up birth control. In fact, I happen to think abortion is an archaic practice that should be rendered obsolete and extinct through better birth control among other things. 'Rani [/quote] But yet you go about the Spanish Inquisition... I get it now, double standards and double talk are fine when you are supporting a liberal cause. What something was founded on, or it's past is irrelevant if you support it, but something to worry about if you can use that same past to denigrate it. Typical liberal spin method - usually ignored by the vast majority of the conservative side, but you gotta know it makes your argument irrelevant when you don't use the same standards on both the side you support, and that which you rail against. If MF is so damn good, then that "woman" from gu should go there, and quit expecting the rest of the world to pay for her BC... since she can't find a boyfriend that isn't an indigent looser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rani Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 And Scotsman you are down to borderline name calling, lol. A sure sign you're giving up pretending you have any rational debate points left as to why birth control shouldn't be part of a woman's health insurance. 'Rani Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScotsman Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 [quote name='Rani' timestamp='1332561262' post='543187'] And Scotsman you are down to borderline name calling, lol. A sure sign you're giving up pretending you have any rational debate points left as to why birth control shouldn't be part of a woman's health insurance. 'Rani [/quote] Where is some "name calling"? I don't care if it's part of health insurance, I just don't want to pay for it for this activist. And if a policy covers BC, it needs to cover all sexual enhancement drugs. You want to pay the bill, belly up to the bar. Send fluke a cheque so she can go buy a box of Trojans, and we can get on with life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rani Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 You don't have to pay for anyone's health insurance but your own and honestly this isn't a man's issue anyway so I don't remotely expect you to understand. And why do I feel justified in saying that? Because if it were men getting pregnant birth control would have been included in health insurance from it's inception's and you know it. Abortion would have been legal for a hundred years. 'Rani Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScotsman Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 So we need an all male-only insurance company, and an all female only company. I know which one is going to last longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Mason Taylor Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 [quote name='TheScotsman' timestamp='1332635467' post='543252'] [quote name='Rani' timestamp='1332561262' post='543187'] And Scotsman you are down to borderline name calling, lol. A sure sign you're giving up pretending you have any rational debate points left as to why birth control shouldn't be part of a woman's health insurance. 'Rani [/quote] Where is some "name calling"? [/quote] I think she was referring to this little gem: [quote]If MF is so damn good, then that "woman" from gu should go there, and quit expecting the rest of the world to pay for her BC... since she can't find a boyfriend that isn't an indigent looser. [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScotsman Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 [quote name='Christopher Mason Taylor' timestamp='1332768320' post='543340'] [quote name='TheScotsman' timestamp='1332635467' post='543252'] [quote name='Rani' timestamp='1332561262' post='543187'] And Scotsman you are down to borderline name calling, lol. A sure sign you're giving up pretending you have any rational debate points left as to why birth control shouldn't be part of a woman's health insurance. 'Rani [/quote] Where is some "name calling"? [/quote] I think she was referring to this little gem: [quote]If MF is so damn good, then that "woman" from gu should go there, and quit expecting the rest of the world to pay for her BC... since she can't find a boyfriend that isn't an indigent looser. [/quote] [/quote] As far as the boyfriend goes, the truth is a positive defense, if he can't come up with 30$/month for BC, he should consider celebacy, obviously his choices are so poor on every level tha natural selection should be allowed to end that portion of the DNA pool. And, for some strange reason, every time I use the first initials for planned parrenthood, in capitol letters, it appears fine in the edit screen, but when it's posted, it changes to "mf". Have no clue why... try it. type MF those are 2 p's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChildoftheHorn Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 I am aa woman on BC and have been for years. Only in the last few have I been taking it for its main intended purpose ( in a comitted relationship with my fiance). It would be great if I didn't have to pay the $15 a month copay and the prescription was covered like many other generics for more frivolous medications ( many acne and male performance medications are 100% ). I don't think that my insurance should have to pay for all of my generic medications by law. However, perhaps putting medications in classifications based on living need would be better. I was originally on BC because of soy hormone interactions ( something the Soy industry isvtrying to hide ). I was having at least one soy product every day and it landed me in the hospitol passing blood clots the size of baseballs, get two blood transfusions, loosing 2/3rds of my blood, loosing 50 lbs in water, and having to have surgery. Guess what? after that I had to be on BC because my body had to get back to normal. At the time, the health insurance didn't give aa copay on it so it was $45 generic that I had to come up with as a student. Birth control is one of the cheapest prescription medications to produce, so why is it that even generic versions are still so much? For reference, I am a fiscal conservative, gun toting, EFF supporting, woman. I may not support abortions ( unless the mother might die or cause serious damage - like when children are raped), but its not really my decision to make for someone else. Birth control does not encourage sluts, but it does help with family planning. Condoms would be holding more blame than BC honestly, but that affects men so we don't talk about it. Plus, they suck. As a public safety announcement, soy can cause serious health problems in girls ages 11-26 while their body is still adjusting. It causes hormone reactions in the reproductive systems of MANY young women and it takes a lot less than you think to land in the hospitol. Its also in a LOT of preprocessed food and almost any candy now. Beware, it can also move your period or make your blood thin in women over a short period. It can also make your blood hard to clot in others and deplete iron content. Its a hushed up issue, but one of many that has had major heltg organizations back off of encouraging soy. The problems generally don't exist in soy sauce and similar fermented versions. Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuie Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Soy is the most genetically modified vegetable in the world second is corn, and both are going to make all of us sterile. Back on track. What is fully covered and what isn't is a bit insane. I can go get all viagra I want for nothing with my insurance. I want a visectomy, well that's ELECTIVE surgery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Mason Taylor Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 [quote name='TheScotsman' timestamp='1332787478' post='543381'] As far as the boyfriend goes, the truth is a positive defense, if he can't come up with 30$/month for BC, he should consider celebacy, obviously his choices are so poor on every level tha natural selection should be allowed to end that portion of the DNA pool. [/quote] I didn't say you were going to court for libel. Though if you ever do, I'd recommend you don't just pull things out of thin air in your defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now