Why are ppl who are against Affordable Protection Act, for Medicaid & Medicare?

Started by SaintJude
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Browse articles Compare schools My application plan Read Interview Feedback
Practice for interviews Ask an Advisor
S

SaintJude

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I am bit puzzled lately by some people whom I have met who are vehemently opposed to the Affordable Protection Act, but strongly support the continuation of Medicaid & Medicare.

If they enjoy their government guarantees to healthcare when it comes to Medicaid & Medicare, why are they not for the Affordable Protection Act which would allow for an extension of health care options to the underinsured?

It's probably clear where I stand on this issue from my question, but I am sincerely interested in hearing an answer.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Think about it from an economic standpoint. If you're going to give tens of millions of more people access to healthcare, think about the implications that has and what it means for current health care workers, hospitals, and resources.
 
Because health care is expensive. Where do you think the money for the 35 million people will come from?
 
1) A lot of people are afraid/reluctant to change.
2) Health care for everyone has been politicized, which it shouldn't be in my opinion.
3) Propaganda portraying ACA as social medicine and socialism, which is not.
4) People's fear of the economic impact of the ACA.
etc.

Edit: Also, people that have medicare are afraid that their services will be cut because of funding or whatnot. I will add that these people are also driven by political ideologies like the Tea party.
 
Last edited:
images
 
Hospitals are legally obligated to treat everyone regardless of their ability to pay. So please explain to me how it would be more expensive to have these tens of millions of people wait until they are sick enough to necessitate a trip to the emergency room.
 
Well, if you are a health insurance executive, Obamacare is spectacular. The Supreme Court just confirmed a law requiring every American to purchase your product regardless of price, or face a penalty. Protests on the Supreme Court steps were probably drowned out by the clinking of whiskey glasses in health insurance boardrooms around the country.
 
Laura S said:
For me it comes down to religious liberty. As a VERY conservative Christian, the thought of paying a bit more in taxes to help poor people get medical care makes me furious. Also, the gay agenda and communism.
Click to expand...

/Thread.

notbobtrustme said:
And it's better to let 35 million people go without healthcare because why again?
Click to expand...

Why do you think I was implying that letting 35 million people go without health care would be a good thing? I just think they should figure out where to get the money first.
 
Last edited:
Laura S said:
For me it comes down to religious liberty. As a VERY conservative Christian, the thought of paying a bit more in taxes to help poor people get medical care makes me furious. Also, the gay agenda and communism.
Click to expand...

Trolling or not, what has religious faith to do with taxes (unless you mean Tea-Party-Religious, which means conservative politics, not conservative religion)? And since when do Christians loath poor people or something?
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
couldabeenadoc said:
Well, if you are a health insurance executive, Obamacare is spectacular. The Supreme Court just confirmed a law requiring every American to purchase your product regardless of price, or face a penalty. Protests on the Supreme Court steps were probably drowned out by the clinking of whiskey glasses in health insurance boardrooms around the country.
Click to expand...

Not quite, since they are implementing a health insurance exchange in each state consumers are able to shop around and compare prices. Prior to this many insurance companies operated as regional monopolies, so this will in a way force insurance companies to compete against eachother and should drive the price of premiums down. Not only this but the 80-20 law requires these insurance companies to pay out at minimum 80% of revenues on health care, otherwise they have to reimburse policy holders (they reimbursed policy holders somewhere around 1.1 billion dollars last year, which was the first year this policy was in effect)
 
kpcrew said:
Hospitals are legally obligated to treat everyone regardless of their ability to pay. So please explain to me how it would be more expensive to have these tens of millions of people wait until they are sick enough to necessitate a trip to the emergency room.
Click to expand...

I think only county hospitals are obligated to treat you. If its a private hospital they can refuse service, unless its a true emergency they will stabilize you and turn you over to county. But of course county hospitals are paid by our taxes. So giving everybody insurance is one benefit of the healthcare reform, assuming now 40-50 million people can see doctors instead of waiting until they need more costly treatments. The prevention will offset some costs, but still a lot of the $ will come from higher taxes.

couldabeenadoc said:
Well, if you are a health insurance executive, Obamacare is spectacular. The Supreme Court just confirmed a law requiring every American to purchase your product regardless of price, or face a penalty. Protests on the Supreme Court steps were probably drowned out by the clinking of whiskey glasses in health insurance boardrooms around the country.
Click to expand...

While people will be required to buy insurance, people still have options to chose which insurance they will purchase. But insurance companies will be no longer allowed to charge different costs based on pre-existing conditions. But in the end, they will most likely still make a profit from the new beneficiaries.

Dires said:
/Thread.



Why do you think I was implying that letting 35 million people go without health care would be a good thing? I just think they should figure out where to get the money first.
Click to expand...

Higher taxes.


Laura S said:
For me it comes down to religious liberty. As a VERY conservative Christian, the thought of paying a bit more in taxes to help poor people get medical care makes me furious. Also, the gay agenda and communism.
Click to expand...

OP, other than economic reasons this is why people do not want Obamacare. But considering we are going to become doctors, helping poor and sick people should be our priority. Doctors are not businessmen, the current healthcare system encourages quantity and not quality of service. Although I am not sure how gay agenda and communism play a role in the healthcare reform.
 
Last edited:
Doudline said:
Trolling or not, what has religious faith to do with taxes (unless you mean Tea-Party-Religious, which means conservative politics, not conservative religion)? And since when do Christians loath poor people or something?
Click to expand...



There is fortunately not a sarcasm section on the MCAT.
 
FarMD2012 said:
I think only county hospitals are obligated to treat you. If its a private hospital they can refuse service, unless its a true emergency they will stabilize you and turn you over to county. But of course county hospitals are paid by our taxes. So giving everybody insurance is one benefit of the healthcare reform, assuming now 40-50 million people can see doctors instead of waiting until they need more costly treatments. The prevention will offset some costs, but still a lot of the $ will come from higher taxes.

Higher taxes.
Click to expand...

Well... That's not entirely true about taxes. The act also includes policies to control costs, such as bonuses for patient wellbeing vs fee for service, fines for high infection rates for hospitals etc.

Also, no one knows for sure that we will need higher taxes to pay for this in the long term (yet). Lowering emergency room visits/costs may really catch enough people that in the long term, the overall costs are lowered. Remember, the majority of healthcare costs come from a very small percentage of the population. Targeting high-risk/high-cost population has been shown in small regional areas, eg: Camden, AC, etc. So catching those people with more comprehensive care may work, but no one really knows at this point.
 
couldabeenadoc said:
Well, if you are a health insurance executive, Obamacare is spectacular. The Supreme Court just confirmed a law requiring every American to purchase your product regardless of price, or face a penalty. Protests on the Supreme Court steps were probably drowned out by the clinking of whiskey glasses in health insurance boardrooms around the country.
Click to expand...

+1

Laura S said:
For me it comes down to religious liberty. As a VERY conservative Christian, the thought of paying a bit more in taxes to help poor people get medical care makes me furious. Also, the gay agenda and communism.
Click to expand...

😕
So Christians don't want to help those in need? Isn't this what Jesus Christ wanted people to do?
 
As an outsider on this thread comparing it now to the thread I started a few days ago, "Not looking to start an affirmative action debate," I now see how stupid it is to start a thread about an obviously controversial topic like AA or Obamacare on SDN and to pass it off with a statement like "I am genuinely interested in an answer to such and such..." These are controversial topics for a reason and no one is going to convince someone one way or the other on an internet forum like this. I was guilty of this before, and I hope that I have learned my lesson.

As for this thread...
 
speakwhales said:
Well... That's not entirely true about taxes. The act also includes policies to control costs, such as bonuses for patient wellbeing vs fee for service, fines for high infection rates for hospitals etc.

Also, no one knows for sure that we will need higher taxes to pay for this in the long term (yet). Lowering emergency room visits/costs may really catch enough people that in the long term, the overall costs are lowered. Remember, the majority of healthcare costs come from a very small percentage of the population. Targeting high-risk/high-cost population has been shown in small regional areas, eg: Camden, AC, etc. So catching those people with more comprehensive care may work, but no one really knows at this point.
Click to expand...

It is established in the act that people making higher incomes will be paying higher taxes in the future. There will need to be a initial increase in taxes for sometime until we know what the outcome will be in the long run. So yea, the future is unclear right now.

Summary of tax increases: (ten year projection)
Increase Medicare tax rate by .9% and impose added tax of 3.8% on unearned income for high-income taxpayers: $210.2 billion
Charge an annual fee on health insurance providers: $60 billion
Impose a 40% excise tax on health insurance annual premiums in excess of $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for a family: $32 billion
Impose an annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs: $27 billion
Impose a 2.3% excise tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices:$20 billion
Raise the 7.5% Adjusted Gross Income floor on medical expenses deduction to 10%: $15.2 billion
Limit annual contributions to flexible spending arrangements in cafeteria plans to $2,500: $13 billion
All other revenue sources: $14.9 billion
 
Also the majority of the healthcare costs comes from the spending on healthcare professionals, e.g. salaries.
 
Laura S said:
For me it comes down to religious liberty. As a VERY conservative Christian, the thought of paying a bit more in taxes to help poor people get medical care makes me furious. Also, the gay agenda and communism.
Click to expand...

After reading this post, the words of my late grandmother suddenly made perfect sense " If you live long enough, you will see and hear things..."
 
Irish Football said:
As an outsider on this thread comparing it now to the thread I started a few days ago, "Not looking to start an affirmative action debate," I now see how stupid it is to start a thread about an obviously controversial topic like AA or Obamacare on SDN and to pass it off with a statement like "I am genuinely interested in an answer to such and such..." These are controversial topics for a reason and no one is going to convince someone one way or the other on an internet forum like this. I was guilty of this before, and I hope that I have learned my lesson.

As for this thread...
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. Everybody knows these are controversial topics and its one person's opinion against another. So nobody's is right or wrong. But its these controversial topics that stimulates debate and learning. So don't say that you learned your lesson, because you did not make a mistake. Being a doctor is a practice of art as much as it is a practice of science. That is whats so interest and great about medicine. Just my own opinion.
 
Irish Football said:
As an outsider on this thread comparing it now to the thread I started a few days ago, "Not looking to start an affirmative action debate," I now see how stupid it is to start a thread about an obviously controversial topic like AA or Obamacare on SDN and to pass it off with a statement like "I am genuinely interested in an answer to such and such..." These are controversial topics for a reason and no one is going to convince someone one way or the other on an internet forum like this. I was guilty of this before, and I hope that I have learned my lesson.

As for this thread...
Click to expand...

It's that age old saying "discussing politics and religion is always a bad thing". Whether it be among friends, family members, etc, etc.. it can quite literally create a divide among people.
 
FarMD2012 said:
I have to disagree. Everybody knows these are controversial topics and its one person's opinion against another. So nobody's is right or wrong. But its these controversial topics that stimulates debate and learning. So don't say that you learned from your mistakes. Because you did not make a mistake. Being a doctor is a practice of art as much as it is a practice of science. That is whats so interest and great about medicine. Just my own opinion.
Click to expand...

Thanks FarMD, that's kind of what thought when i started my thread, but there are so many people on here that seem annoyed whenever a controversial thread like this is started. I guess some people enjoy debate, while others are so confident in their opinion that they are unwilling to even discuss or learn about a topic any further.
 
Irish Football said:
Thanks FarMD, that's kind of what thought when i started my thread, but there are so many people on here that seem annoyed whenever a controversial thread like this is started. I guess some people enjoy debate, while others are so confident in their opinion that they are unwilling to even discuss or learn about a topic any further.
Click to expand...

Haha yea, I came across many people who refuse to acknowledge opinions other than their own. But for those people who are open minded and would like to see both sides of the argument, learn, form their own opinions and debate, forums is a great anonymous way to do so. But if you come across stubborn arguments (not debates), just ignore it, it is not a contest.
 
Laura S said:
I was being sarcastic.

"When you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Paradoxically, it is the most conservative "Christians" who are most fervently opposed to the PPACA. In my humble opinion, there is inherent value in helping the poor. And, although I believe the PPACA will be cost effective, I don't mind paying 14 cents more for a pizza so that poor people can feel better. I'm not saying the PPACA is perfect but it's okay and its intent is very Christlike.
Click to expand...

:laugh: Phew... For a while there, I wondered what Twilight Zone I had walked into. And the same paradox applies in that some people see no issue with the US spending billions of dollars in aid packages to countries, which just end up in the bank accounts of the ruling elite, but are so opposed to spending on the health and wellbeing of Americans... but i digress

Peace!
 
Laura S said:
I was being sarcastic.

"When you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Paradoxically, it is the most conservative "Christians" who are most fervently opposed to the PPACA. In my humble opinion, there is inherent value in helping the poor. And, although I believe the PPACA will be cost effective, I don't mind paying 14 cents more for a pizza so that poor people can feel better. I'm not saying the PPACA is perfect but it's okay and its intent is very Christlike.
Click to expand...

:laugh: 👍
Agree, paradoxically that is the case. I don't get it though...but whatever.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
FarMD2012 said:
Also the majority of the healthcare costs comes from the spending on healthcare professionals, e.g. salaries.
Click to expand...

Not true. http://understandinghealthcare.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/a-breakdown-of-healthcare-costs/

Even if the majority of healthcare costs come from expenditure on health professional salaries, that still does not negate the fact that a small portion of the population utilize the majority of healthcaredolla. In fact, the specialists/primary care physician ratio is somewhat supporting that.

The term, "higher taxes," also obscures the fact that most of the tax increases does not affect the average American... It's not higher taxes for everyone and, in fact, lowers cost for a lot of people.
 
Laura S said:
I was being sarcastic.

"When you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Paradoxically, it is the most conservative "Christians" who are most fervently opposed to the PPACA. In my humble opinion, there is inherent value in helping the poor. And, although I believe the PPACA will be cost effective, I don't mind paying 14 cents more for a pizza so that poor people can feel better. I'm not saying the PPACA is perfect but it's okay and its intent is very Christlike.
Click to expand...

I think taxpayer funded abortions might be part of the opposition from conservative Christians.

sandra-fluke-free-love_thumb%25255B1%25255D.jpg
 
couldabeenadoc said:
I think taxpayer funded abortions might be part of the opposition from conservative Christians.

sandra-fluke-free-love_thumb%25255B1%25255D.jpg
Click to expand...

I thought she wanted coverage for contraception? What I don't get is this. Georgetown is a catholic institution, right? They obviously do not screen their employees to make sure that they are all practising catholics. So why hire a person who might not share your ideological viewpoint, while fully aware that this is so and then deny the person benefits for a particular thing because it does not align with your ideological viewpoint?

I really would like to understand this, because from where I stand it seems "Freedom of Religion" does not in this country include "Freedom of Lack of Religion" or even "Freedom of Different Religion"

Edit: After reading more, Georgetown covers contraception for employees but not for students...still doesn't make sense.
 
Last edited:
speakwhales said:
Not true. http://understandinghealthcare.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/a-breakdown-of-healthcare-costs/

Even if the majority of healthcare costs come from expenditure on health professional salaries, that still does not negate the fact that a small portion of the population utilize the majority of healthcaredolla. In fact, the specialists/primary care physician ratio is somewhat supporting that.

The term, "higher taxes," also obscures the fact that most of the tax increases does not affect the average American... It's not higher taxes for everyone and, in fact, lowers cost for a lot of people.
Click to expand...

I was just arguing that majority of the money directly goes to paying healthcare professionals for their services. From your chart, physicians alone takes up 25%.

What the healthcare professionals provide is care for perhaps the small portion of the population that utilize these services. I am not arguing who are sub-population of patients that is using clinical services, because I simply do not know.

I answered a previous question regarding where the money going to come from to cover the newly insured patients. I said higher taxes, not higher taxes for everyone. Higher taxes for the richer population, lower health cost for the poorer.
 
Freesia88 said:
I thought she wanted coverage for contraception? What I don't get is this. Georgetown is a catholic institution, right? They obviously do not screen their employees to make sure that they are all practising catholics. So why hire a person who might not share your ideological viewpoint, while fully aware that this is so and then deny the person benefits for a particular thing because it does not align with your ideological viewpoint?

I really would like to understand this, because from where I stand it seems "Freedom of Religion" does not in this country include "Freedom of Lack of Religion" or even "Freedom of Different Religion"
Click to expand...

Yup, you're right. She was upset about not receiving free contraceptives.My bad.

But the taxpayer funded abotion is probably a big sore point with conservative Catholics too.
 
I like the idea that economies of scale don't apply to healthcare argument.

Perhaps this will *gasp* drive the need for more providers, MD's, NP's, PA's, and RN's.

If the system becomes more team based at every tier, then it helps speed things along. NP's/PA's with an attending physician can do a lot of good at the primary care level.
 
couldabeenadoc said:
Yup, you're right. She was upset about not receiving free contraceptives.My bad.

But the taxpayer funded abotion is probably a big sore point with conservative Catholics too.
Click to expand...

First off, taxpayer-funded abortion is NOT part of the ACA. Emergency contraception is. However, that is not abortion and uses the same mechanism that oral contraceptives do but at a higher dose.

And you do realize it is actually cheaper to provide contraception than to pay for people to have children? That's why there wasn't much fuss from insurance companies when Obama's compromise pretty much forced them to provide contraception for free. It saves them money.
 
Laura S said:
This thread is veering off course.

Regarding the B.S. posted above, note a few things.

1. "Since the late 1990s, 28 states have required plans to cover contraception when other prescription drugs are covered."

2. "Nine of the 28 states that have required insurance coverage of contraception have done so without including any religious exemption for employers."

3. "Religiously affiliated schools, hospitals, social service agencies, and insurers serve and employ members of the general public and are a part of the public arena, with an obligation to abide by public rules."

4. "It is not clear why the religious beliefs of any employer or insurer should take precedence over those of its employees or enrollees."

5. "It is difficult to see why an employer has any more right to veto an employee's use of her health benefits than it does to veto her use of her salary, sick leave, or other aspects of her compensation for the same contraceptive services. Moreover, everyone paying for insurance is paying for some services they expect never to need or use, and allowing individuals to pick and choose what specific benefits to cover would undermine the ability of insurance to pool peoples' risks."

http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2012/02/pfor1-1202.html
Click to expand...

Good to know...but I am still confused. If the attitudes in this article are the prevailing attitudes on this issue then why did Sandra Fluke's story blow up like that? I mean even before Rush Limbaugh demonstrated once again to the world what a complete ***** he is (sorry Rush fans) , it was an issue... Or do I have it all wrong?

Re: Barcu

You took the words right out of my mouth... The same people who are anti-contraceptive use likely are the same people against welfare. But seeing as people are going to have sex ( and lots of it nomatter what anyone says...) Makes sense that the result is not children born to lives of misery and poverty.

On the African continent, as someone here pointed out, I think the one of the biggest failings of religious organisations is spreading the message of abstinence and no contraception use, even while overwhelmed by catastrophic HIV infection rates and chldren whose parents do not have the resources to raise them.
 
Last edited:
couldabeenadoc said:
Well, if you are a health insurance executive, Obamacare is spectacular. The Supreme Court just confirmed a law requiring every American to purchase your product
Click to expand...

Unless you're on Medicare. Or Medicaid. Or already have insurance through your employer. Or parents (if you're 26 or younger).

couldabeenadoc said:
regardless of price,
Click to expand...

There actually will be stricter price controls and more competition.

couldabeenandoc said:
or face a penalty.
Click to expand...

Yes, a penalty for exposing the rest of the population to risk. How awful.

couldabeenadoc said:
Protests on the Supreme Court steps were probably drowned out by the clinking of whiskey glasses in health insurance boardrooms around the country.
Click to expand...

That's probably true.

couldabeenadoc said:
I think taxpayer funded abortions might be part of the opposition from conservative Christians.
Click to expand...

Hyde Amendment.
 
Barcu said:
First off, taxpayer-funded abortion is NOT part of the ACA. Emergency contraception is. However, that is not abortion and uses the same mechanism that oral contraceptives do but at a higher dose.

And you do realize it is actually cheaper to provide contraception than to pay for people to have children? That's why there wasn't much fuss from insurance companies when Obama's compromise pretty much forced them to provide contraception for free. It saves them money.
Click to expand...

Actually, it was until an Executive Order;

"WASHINGTON — Anything but jubilant, President Barack Obama awkwardly kept a promise Wednesday he made to ensure passage of historic health care legislation, pledging the administration would not allow federal funds to pay for elective abortions covered by private insurance."

Obama Signs Executive Order On Abortion: Small Group Of Anti-Abortion Lawmakers Witnessed Oval Office Ceremony

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/obama-signs-executive-ord_n_512258.html
 
An aside; I think we're going to need a dedicated "Politics" forum if these type of threads keep being started in pre-allo.

Can we get a Poll? 🙄
 
FarMD2012 said:
I have to disagree. Everybody knows these are controversial topics and its one person's opinion against another. So nobody's is right or wrong. But its these controversial topics that stimulates debate and learning. So don't say that you learned your lesson, because you did not make a mistake. Being a doctor is a practice of art as much as it is a practice of science. That is whats so interest and great about medicine. Just my own opinion.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is where I would disagree. Just because a topic is controversial does not always mean that no one is right or wrong. It means people feel strongly enough about the issue to continue to support one side, be it for emotional, rational, subversive, or other reasons. More importantly, I'm not sure if you've read what goes on in these flame fests, but I think you'd be hard pressed to call it "debate and learning".

To be completely honest, though everyone thinks they are bringing fresh new interpretations to these issues, almost all of these arguments have been made before a thousand times per year. Not only that, we have a wonderful archive of all those threads, and if someone was genuinely interested in "learning" they could quite simply read one of them.

Sure there's nothing wrong with making these threads. It's a public forum and you should explore what interests you. But to make a thread and claim to expect a rational, logical debate that plays by your rules when it is on these emotionally/politically charged topics is sticking your head in the sand and wishing on a star. Be realistic about what will become of these threads.
 
couldabeenadoc said:
Yup, you're right. She was upset about not receiving free contraceptives.My bad.

But the taxpayer funded abotion is probably a big sore point with conservative Catholics too.
Click to expand...

I don't fully remember but wasn't she arguing her insurance should cover her oral contraceptive pills because they were indicated for her Polycystic ovary syndrome. I think I agreed with her, but it has been a long time and I don't feel like googling it.
 
couldabeenadoc said:
Actually, it was until an Executive Order;

"WASHINGTON — Anything but jubilant, President Barack Obama awkwardly kept a promise Wednesday he made to ensure passage of historic health care legislation, pledging the administration would not allow federal funds to pay for elective abortions covered by private insurance."

Obama Signs Executive Order On Abortion: Small Group Of Anti-Abortion Lawmakers Witnessed Oval Office Ceremony

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/obama-signs-executive-ord_n_512258.html
Click to expand...

Didn't know that exact timeline.

Still, it hasn't stopped conservatives from complaining that it does still allow abortions.
 
Barcu said:
Didn't know that exact timeline.

Still, it hasn't stopped conservatives from complaining that it does still allow abortions.
Click to expand...

Me neither, hence my gaffe. Best leave this dirty business to the Washington suits; that's what they're paid for.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Laura S said:
Contraception = abortion, didn't you know?
Click to expand...

For that matter, any masturbatory emissions, where the sperm is clearly not seeking an egg, could be termed reckless abandonment.

Please for the love of God somebody get this reference.
 
TipToad said:
For that matter, any masturbatory emissions, where the sperm is clearly not seeking an egg, could be termed reckless abandonment.

Please for the love of God somebody get this reference.
Click to expand...

:laugh:

Wonder what this means for the thousands of eggs errm...excuse me lives lost when eggs are not fertilized during ovulation... And does this mean women can't masturbbate while ovulating?
 
TipToad said:
For that matter, any masturbatory emissions, where the sperm is clearly not seeking an egg, could be termed reckless abandonment..
Click to expand...

dangit! You just reminded me, I think I spelled "masturbatory emissions" wrong in my personal statement! You think that this is a bad mistake?
 
I don't like governmental involvement. I think we should be reducing the role of the government, not expanding it. I don't think anything that the government has done has been efficient.

Example:
DMV
Post office

Also, they are cutting reimbursement to health care providers. Anyone cutting my future pay check is on my **** list. To put this into perspective, teachers b*tch about a 2% pay cut. If they b*tch, I think I have the right to b*tch about the PPACA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

V
for those who are looking for a resource for undergrad research
Replies
3
Views
480
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
R
Are the MSAR Dates accurate for when decisions are released?
Replies
1
Views
965
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
Mayajae
  • Locked
Why are schools not accepting urm's in the 2024 msar data?
Replies
24
Views
4K
wysdoc
wysdoc
S
What are my chances
Replies
6
Views
2K
Goro
Goro
tinyhandsbob
What are the procedural skills that are formally assessed for medical school graduation?
Replies
1
Views
970
Goro
Goro