The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sat Nov 23, 2024 8:35 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 9:28 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
This is why no one takes you seriously. You're like a **** cartoon.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 9:34 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Monte wrote:
Ladas wrote:
Look, in the grand scheme of things, this is about as assinine a demand from the Unions as it gets, only to be supplanted by continuing down the line of reasoning you are presenting for the defense of this abomination.


Aaaand now we get to the meat of it. Teachers have to sacrifice everything (including coverage for meds like Viagra *should they need it to treat ED*) "for the good of the children".


How in the **** is tellign them they can't have Viagra on the public dime asking them to sacrifice "everything"?

Quote:
And yet, folks are still wanting to keep the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. 700 Billion dollars added to the deficit in order to keep the top marginal tax rates at Bush-era levels? Well, that's just responsibility. Teachers trying to keep their medical coverage for a drug that treats Erectile Dysfunction? That's an entitlement! BAAAAAD teachers!


We could save a lot of that money by not stimulating and not bailing out idiots, and in any case, teachers with erectile disworking dicks function are really worth a lot less than low tax rates.

Quote:
Rar! Union hate! Look how evil unions are! Rar!!!


Yes, this pretty much demonstrates how bad they are.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 9:35 pm 
Offline
Bru's Sweetie

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:04 am
Posts: 2675
Location: San Jose, CA
So let me get this straight...a male's ability to "get it up" should somehow be paid for with my tax dollars so he doesn't feel physiologically or psychologically impaired...yet if I wish to have a fatty lump removed from my eyelid or have some wrinkles removed or a boob job to ease my mental state and appreciation of self I have to pay for it myself???

Oh, Monte...and here I thought you were all for protecting the women of the world from male dominance! Obviously you're not when it comes to your own masculinity!!

_________________
"Said I never had much use for one, never said I didn't know how to use one!"~ Matthew Quigley

"nothing like a little meow in bed at night" ~ Bruskey

"I gotta float my stick same as you" Hondo Lane

"Fill your hand you son of a *****!"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 9:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
Diamondeye wrote:

We could save a lot of that money by not stimulating and not bailing out idiots, and in any case, teachers with erectile disworking dicks function are really worth a lot less than low tax rates.


Wouldn't actually save us money in the long term. It would cost us. Without the bailouts, stimulus, etc, we would have doubled our job losses and fell into a true Depression. That means less revenue. Those measures saved our **** bacon.

Quote:
Yes, this pretty much demonstrates how bad they are.


Yes, yes. Unions are evil. They work for the benefit of their members. Look how evil they are, with their evil 40 hour work weeks, their evil health care benefits, and the way they eeeeevily protect their members. Evil I say! Like, long mustache evil.

Question, DE - were you ever part of a police officer's union?

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 9:42 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
Monte wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:

We could save a lot of that money by not stimulating and not bailing out idiots, and in any case, teachers with erectile disworking dicks function are really worth a lot less than low tax rates.


Wouldn't actually save us money in the long term. It would cost us. Without the bailouts, stimulus, etc, we would have doubled our job losses and fell into a true Depression. That means less revenue. Those measures saved our **** bacon.

Quote:
Yes, this pretty much demonstrates how bad they are.


Yes, yes. Unions are evil. They work for the benefit of their members. Look how evil they are, with their evil 40 hour work weeks, their evil health care benefits, and the way they eeeeevily protect their members. Evil I say! Like, long mustache evil.

Question, DE - were you ever part of a police officer's union?


Stop talking about things you clearly don't understand. One poorly taught intro to econ class and a dismal background in math does not an economist make... or do I have the professional authority to critique classical swordsmanship because I just finished reading about Rand Al' Thor's heron marked blade?

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 9:46 pm 
Offline
The King
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:34 am
Posts: 3219
Unions aren't evil but they have served their purpose. They screw up things nowadays. All they do now is make sure the dems have a voting block that can be bought and paid for.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 9:53 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Monte wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:

We could save a lot of that money by not stimulating and not bailing out idiots, and in any case, teachers with erectile disworking dicks function are really worth a lot less than low tax rates.


Wouldn't actually save us money in the long term. It would cost us. Without the bailouts, stimulus, etc, we would have doubled our job losses and fell into a true Depression. That means less revenue. Those measures saved our **** bacon.


No we wouldn't, and no they didn't. The entire idea is absurd. You've been pwned repeatedly on this and I'm not rehashing everyone else's arguments. They're far more convincing than you.

Quote:
Quote:
Yes, this pretty much demonstrates how bad they are.


Yes, yes. Unions are evil. They work for the benefit of their members. Look how evil they are, with their evil 40 hour work weeks, their evil health care benefits, and the way they eeeeevily protect their members. Evil I say! Like, long mustache evil.

Question, DE - were you ever part of a police officer's union?


No. Nor was I in a union at the prison I worked at.

That said, I have no problem with fire, police, and prison unions (although I don't like them; I think they are a necessary evil to protect workers from citizens, the press, and superiors attempting to trump up complaints; I'd really rather they were replaced by non-union advocacy groups like OPBA that didn't do collective bargaining) because those unions cannot strike.

Teachers unions would be acceptable (although not good) if they were forbidden to go on strike. They do serve a function in protecting teachers who are nutcases, or taking blame for administrative failures, but teacher strikes are a tremendous social evil. They hold children's education hostage to squeeze people for money, and teachers are generally overpaid as it is.

They also **** substitute teachers right in the ***. When there's budget cuts, substitutes who are paid a pittance by comparison, take the cuts. You have to "pay your dues" as a sub, and if you aren't suitably obsequios when you are one, you'll never get hired there as a regular teacher. There are no raises as a sub as a general rule. My wife has been a substitute since I met her 8 years ago. In 2002 she made $100 a day for a job that requires a college degree. Now she makes $90. That's due to teacher's unions making a school district budget 80% inflexible and demanding a raise every year so they can buy their boats and new cars.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 2:51 pm 
Offline
Noli me calcare
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:26 am
Posts: 4747
Jasmy wrote:
So let me get this straight...a male's ability to "get it up" should somehow be paid for with my tax dollars so he doesn't feel physiologically or psychologically impaired...yet if I wish to have a fatty lump removed from my eyelid or have some wrinkles removed or a boob job to ease my mental state and appreciation of self I have to pay for it myself???

Oh, Monte...and here I thought you were all for protecting the women of the world from male dominance! Obviously you're not when it comes to your own masculinity!!


Oh, Damn. There goes the white knight projection that's been so painstakingly propagated. How dare you use someone's own words to lay bare their hypocrisy and destroy a life's work of internet gallantry? You sharp-tongued she-evil! :twisted:

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 5:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
Jasmy wrote:
So let me get this straight...a male's ability to "get it up" should somehow be paid for with my tax dollars so he doesn't feel physiologically or psychologically impaired...yet if I wish to have a fatty lump removed from my eyelid or have some wrinkles removed or a boob job to ease my mental state and appreciation of self I have to pay for it myself???

Oh, Monte...and here I thought you were all for protecting the women of the world from male dominance! Obviously you're not when it comes to your own masculinity!!


Racist.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 6:11 pm 
Offline
Near Ground
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 6782
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Jasmy wrote:
So let me get this straight...a male's ability to "get it up" should somehow be paid for with my tax dollars so he doesn't feel physiologically or psychologically impaired...yet if I wish to have a fatty lump removed from my eyelid or have some wrinkles removed or a boob job to ease my mental state and appreciation of self I have to pay for it myself???

Oh, Monte...and here I thought you were all for protecting the women of the world from male dominance! Obviously you're not when it comes to your own masculinity!!


Racist.

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 12:37 am 
Offline
Rihannsu Commander

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:31 am
Posts: 4709
Location: Cincinnati OH
Purely as devil's advocate here, but what about the studies that suggest that men who have regular orgasms have a 3-4x lower rate of prostate cancer? Insurance companies pay for preventative medicine (or with cash back incentives) and wellness programs, including weight loss regimens, gym memberships, etc.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 3:34 am 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
One of the problems I have with these types of studies, is the lack of behavioral reference.

Sure, men who have sex X amount of time fewer may have a higher peredeliction towards Y, but what are they doing that leads them to have sex fewer times? Small study groups can't encompass prior lifetime behaviors. Is in not plausable, if not probable, that it is those other things that led to them not having sex which caused the cancer?

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:31 pm
Posts: 1532
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
If sex is an essential part of life, does that mean health care plans should start covering hookers?


no but they should pay taxes

_________________
Ron Paul 2012


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 2169
Monte wrote:
Aaaand now we get to the meat of it. Teachers have to sacrifice everything (including coverage for meds like Viagra *should they need it to treat ED*) "for the good of the children". And yet, folks are still wanting to keep the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. 700 Billion dollars added to the deficit in order to keep the top marginal tax rates at Bush-era levels? Well, that's just responsibility. Teachers trying to keep their medical coverage for a drug that treats Erectile Dysfunction? That's an entitlement! BAAAAAD teachers!


Remove your personal situation from the equation for a minute and think about the actual facts. We get it, you don't want to have pay for it yourself anymore, and are looking forward to being able to use your fiancee's education system health plan to cover the treatment. But it is really worth the jobs of so many other teachers, or the education of children, so you can get your sword out of the sheath?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 2:29 am 
Offline
Peanut Gallery
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 9:40 pm
Posts: 2289
Location: Bat Country
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
If sex is an essential part of life, does that mean health care plans should start covering hookers?


Yes and yes! :twisted:

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 6:48 am 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9354
Location: Ohio
Wwen wrote:
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
If sex is an essential part of life, does that mean health care plans should start covering hookers?


Yes and yes! :twisted:

I'm signing up for Medicaid ASAP. I don't think I'd like the quality of treatment provided by my HMO.

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 11:45 am 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
Hooker Management Organization?

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 12:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
Uncle Fester wrote:
Worth striking over?

http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2010 ... ra/?hpt=T2

Spoiler:
In the time of major budget crunches and layoffs in education, a teacher’s union in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is fighting for the right to Viagra.

From CNN’s affiliate WISN: “The union claims that some teachers could be discriminated against by not having the drug covered by insurance.”

The station also reports that the Milwaukee school system is about $30 million in debt. Erectile dysfunction pills cost about $20 to $25 a pop - that most insurance companies do not provide coverage.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported: “In 2008, the teachers' union filed a charge with the state's Equal Rights Division, complaining that not offering the drug violated the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act.”

Milwaukee parents aren’t quite so sympathetic about the plight of the male teachers and their erectile needs.

"It's a waste of time, let's spend time on the kids," said Deon Patton, who has children enrolled in Milwaukee Public Schools, told WISN.


In before the obligatory, I will be happy if my kids teacher was not sporting a hard on. (insert Catholic school joke)


Erectile dysfunction, while a problem, is not a dangerous health issue. It is not like surgery or medicine for physical sickness. It doesn't affect an employee's work function in the least.

I also view the school's $30 million debt as irrelevant to the issue, especially from lack of information. We don't know why they are in so much debt. Perhaps they built a really fancy indoor pool.

The union here is trying to squander as much as they can. It's the nature of unions, and of most entities, I guess. If they win, it's simply by technicality of contractual terms. By most ethical standards the teachers union is being greedy.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:36 am
Posts: 3083
While the union's actions in this case (assuming there isn't more to the story) are over the top, I don't think the underlying idea that ED treatment should be covered by insurance is ridiculous. After all, we're talking about restoring normal function when a body part/system stops working due to illness or injury, not a purely elective enhancement like a boob job or a face lift. That said, many standard insurance plans limit even vision/dental coverage to acute problems (e.g. accidental injury, infection or other disease, etc.) and don't cover basic corrective treatments like glasses, fillings, root canals, etc. It's pretty hard to argue that the ability to have sex is as fundamentally necessary to a person's well-being as the ability to see clearly or, you know, have teeth.

So, long story short, I don't have a problem with insurance plans choosing not to cover ED treatment for cost reasons, but I think it's a mistake to view such treatment as purely elective or to consider arguments in favor of covering it as obviously silly or lacking in perspective.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:11 pm 
Offline
The Game Master.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:01 pm
Posts: 3729
RangerDave wrote:
After all, we're talking about restoring normal function when a body part/system stops working due to illness or injury, not a purely elective enhancement like a boob job or a face lift.
[Emphasis mine]

Did you read the thread up to this point? Serious question.

RD wrote:
So, long story short, I don't have a problem with insurance plans choosing not to cover ED treatment for cost reasons, but I think it's a mistake to view such treatment as purely elective or to consider arguments in favor of covering it as obviously silly or lacking in perspective.


Why? Again, evidence discussed so far in the thread indicates it is elective.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
RangerDave wrote:
While the union's actions in this case (assuming there isn't more to the story) are over the top, I don't think the underlying idea that ED treatment should be covered by insurance is ridiculous. After all, we're talking about restoring normal function when a body part/system stops working due to illness or injury, not a purely elective enhancement like a boob job or a face lift. That said, many standard insurance plans limit even vision/dental coverage to acute problems (e.g. accidental injury, infection or other disease, etc.) and don't cover basic corrective treatments like glasses, fillings, root canals, etc. It's pretty hard to argue that the ability to have sex is as fundamentally necessary to a person's well-being as the ability to see clearly or, you know, have teeth.

So, long story short, I don't have a problem with insurance plans choosing not to cover ED treatment for cost reasons, but I think it's a mistake to view such treatment as purely elective or to consider arguments in favor of covering it as obviously silly or lacking in perspective.


I think you have a good point about ED being serious enough for insurance. ED is indeed a bodily function and it should be remedied. Note however that dental insurance is often separate from normal healthcare. I am not sure if ED should be covered under a standard health plan.

edit: poor reading comprehension on my part


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 9:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:36 am
Posts: 3083
DFK! wrote:
RangerDave wrote:
After all, we're talking about restoring normal function when a body part/system stops working due to illness or injury, not a purely elective enhancement like a boob job or a face lift.
[Emphasis mine]

Did you read the thread up to this point? Serious question.

Sorry for the delayed response. Not really much to add, but didn't want you to think I was dodging the question. Honestly, I didn't read the whole thread. I skimmed the first page and the last page, which left me with the impression that the thread was mostly jokes, commentary on the union aspect, and shots back and forth with Monte, so I didn't bother reading the second page. As a result, I missed the bulk of the discussion about depression and body image rationales for covering ED and plastic surgery.

Having read through it now, though, my opinion hasn't really changed, as it wasn't based on preventing the psychological harm some people experience as a result of ED. Rather, I just think there's a pretty clear difference between restoring normal function to a body part that isn't working the way it's supposed to and enhancing something that is already in the "normal" range. The latter is much more properly referred to as "elective". And for the sake of clarity, I'll note that my reference to cosmetic surgery was in regard to the classic "she just wants bigger boobs" kind of thing, not skin grafts for burn victims or even boob jobs for breast cancer survivors.

Now, whether or not cosmetic surgery is purely elective for someone with a mental illness like body dismorphia is an interesting question in its own right, but doesn't seem exactly on point w/ respect to a condition like ED where the body part in question actually is malfunctioning/abnormal.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 10:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 2169
Again though RD... what causes ED?

If it were truly a physical condition, which would require muscular problems, nervous system problems or circulatory problems, you would have a point that treatment should be covered to correct that issue.

However, causes because of choices of the individual (diet) or psychosomatic?

Are anti-depressants covered under the plan? Is therapy?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:36 am
Posts: 3083
Ladas wrote:
However, causes because of choices of the individual (diet) or psychosomatic? Are anti-depressants covered under the plan? Is therapy?


It may or may not make sense, but insurance plans generally distinguish between direct treatment of mental illness (e.g. anti-depressants and therapy) and treating the physical symptoms associated with it (e.g. hypertension or digestive disorders related to chronic anxiety/stress). I'm not sure I see why psychologically-induced/aggravated ED should be any different. As for diet, again, insurance generally covers lots of physical conditions that are caused or aggravated by poor lifestyle choices (e.g. heart disease, diabetes, etc.), so why not ED?

Also, I'm a little unclear on whether you're saying that drugs like Viagra are effective for treatment of ED caused by physical conditions, or only for treatment of ED caused by psychological conditions. Can you clarify?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 27, 2010 11:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
Rynar wrote:
One of the problems I have with these types of studies, is the lack of behavioral reference.

Sure, men who have sex X amount of time fewer may have a higher peredeliction towards Y, but what are they doing that leads them to have sex fewer times? Small study groups can't encompass prior lifetime behaviors. Is in not plausable, if not probable, that it is those other things that led to them not having sex which caused the cancer?


Lack of sex doesn't cause cancer, being a nerd causes cancer!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 269 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group