that's what I'm saying: it shouldn't be the law. The law stems from the incorrect assumption that BC is necessary medical care
Your "reasoning" is that you're inconsistent. That's okay. Embrace it! But don't pretend you're smarter than that NPR woman.
-
-
no idea whether I'm "smarter" than her. I disagree with her assumptions, as I do with yours. No need for ad hominem.
-
Where's the ad hom? I'm simply suggesting you're no better than that woman, which you implied you are. That's ad hom?
-
Also, what ARE my assumptions, pray tell?
-
don't think I'm better than her, again, just disagree with her/your assumption that BC should be covered.
-
Whoops. You're now assuming my assumptions. Please don't. I stated what the law currently is.
-
The only "assumption" I made is that all reproductive health should be treated the same--pregnancy or not.
-
I would also say IF we're going to leave choices to insurers, we should make sure there is actually competition. There's not.
-
I disagree that all "reproductive health" is the same, but couldn't agree more that we need competition.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.