1546: God's Bananas

[Enunciated Piffle]

Whoever wrote to KatG on tumblEr(jesus fuck, does EVERY new thing have to be misspelled??) ..ahem... the person who bitched about having to PAY Keith and the Girl for content is a total piece of shit, or at the very least, 'not a fan of the show.' Don't you WANT Keith and Chemda to be able to be in the position to pay bills. Don't you WANT them to be successful? Hell, personally, I would like to see them become rich or at least 'well-off' as they deserve it. What a truely rotten and selfish and just fucking shit thing to say, "Shame on KatG - chargin me all this money." This listener is either juvenile or simply another sad case of 'Give it to them free - they still bitch" I hate these people.

[GossipTGirl]

Originally Posted by Electric Squirrel

You say that ethnic families are more likely to be close with the extended family. Atleast I assume you mean "close" and not just "know" because that was part of the pole. When I look at ethnic families I don't see closeness, I see, like with Chemda's, that they know eachother but hide things and won't swear or talk about anything important with their families, which isn't close.

I think that's a fair point. I myself am close to my immediate and extended family - I actually like them and enjoy spending time with them. But yes, I think it's common for many ethnic families to only appear "close", and spend time with each other out of obligation rather than actually enjoying each other's company. It's very common. BUT, whether we like our families or not, most ethnic people do know/spend quite a bit of time with their extended families, which I think is the general point of the poll (although I understand that this isn't the point you are trying to make/discuss)

[Rufio]

Originally Posted by scottperezfox

I agree with Keith, Homeland is an amazing show. It's honestly some of the best writing and acting and general concept in quite a while. Go watch.

Regarding Lauren's play this weekend, it seems the NYC tickets are sold out. Say it ain't so?

so those cookies? pay for them yet?

[Bucho]

Originally Posted by stevo8523

Homeland is my favorite series right now. Just watched a movie called "The Guard". I thought it was pretty damn good.

Good call, that's probably the best comedy from last year that nobody's heard of. Hell, I thought it was better than the more hyped comedies last year too (although I haven't seen BRIDESMAIDS yet).

Anyone who liked IN BRUGES should get a good bunch of chuckles out of THE GUARD too - it also stars Brendan Gleeson and is made by the brother of the IN BRUGES director.




And if you haven't seen IN BRUGES yet, see that too. Good times. Just be careful not to freak out at the little fella.

[MrBrit]

Originally Posted by DWarrior

I don't really understand why something you use every day can be part of insurance (not including drugs, since getting that condition is the chance you're insuring against). That's why you don't have Food Insurance, or Rent Insurance.

If you're paying $X/day for a pill you take every day, there's nothing to insure against. So if you get insurance for it, that insurance will just cost you $X/day+processing.

While I somewhat agree with your logic, and I think birth control costs can vary widely depending on the type of birth control used (I know women who were paying almost as much per month for birth control as I was for health insurance, which would throw health insurance costs out of whack), I would point out that some health insurance companies cover viagra. The logic is that it's a "health condition". Of course, viagra seems elective (rather than a medical issue that needs treatment, like a heart condition) and it's a recurring cost like birth control is. It seems like the justification for insurance companies to cover viagra is weaker than the justification for covering birth control. (One thought I had was that maybe viagra costs less so there's less resistance to covering it - but a google search says viagra costs $20+ a pill; I was surprised it was so expensive.)

Related - I think this is a ridiculous thing to say: "Jack Cafferty: Viagra Is For A Medical Condition, Birth Control Is A "Lifestyle Choice""
Jack Cafferty: Viagra Is For A Medical Condition, Birth Control Is A "Lifestyle Choice" | Crooks and Liars

[Blitzgal]

Originally Posted by DWarrior

I don't really understand why something you use every day can be part of insurance (not including drugs, since getting that condition is the chance you're insuring against). That's why you don't have Food Insurance, or Rent Insurance.

If you're paying $X/day for a pill you take every day, there's nothing to insure against. So if you get insurance for it, that insurance will just cost you $X/day+processing.

Um, yes you do have rent insurance. If you don't, and some asshole in your building burns the apartment down, you'll be fucked. Also car insurance, which is something else that you use every day.

You're insuring against pregnancy, which again, is far more expensive. It's more cost effective in general for insurance companies to cover preventive care, whether it's smoking cessation programs or nutritional programs for people at risk of cardiovascular issues. Insurance companies have long struggled against covering preventive care, because they'd rather take a gamble and hope that they end up not having to pay for the preventive care but also somehow avoid paying for the greater health concern later down the road. That's as far as the "logic" goes on this front.

[fluxquanta]

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

Um, yes you do have rent insurance. If you don't, and some asshole in your building burns the apartment down, you'll be fucked. Also car insurance, which is something else that you use every day.

That's not what he meant. Renter's and car insurance insurance aren't things you make a claim on every month to pay your regularly scheduled bills.

That said, birth control should be covered in whatever plan you have, in my opinion. The last thing we need is more fucking kids.

[sklXbns]

Originally Posted by Enunciated Piffle

Whoever wrote to KatG on tumblEr(jesus fuck, does EVERY new thing have to be misspelled??) ..ahem... the person who bitched about having to PAY Keith and the Girl for content is a total piece of shit, or at the very least, 'not a fan of the show.' Don't you WANT Keith and Chemda to be able to be in the position to pay bills. Don't you WANT them to be successful? Hell, personally, I would like to see them become rich or at least 'well-off' as they deserve it. What a truely rotten and selfish and just fucking shit thing to say, "Shame on KatG - chargin me all this money." This listener is either juvenile or simply another sad case of 'Give it to them free - they still bitch" I hate these people.

You are complaining about poor spelling? You have a two spelling-fuck-up minimum in all of your posts. Calm down and behave.

[DWarrior]

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

Um, yes you do have rent insurance. If you don't, and some asshole in your building burns the apartment down, you'll be fucked. Also car insurance, which is something else that you use every day.

I didn't mean homeowner's insurance. I meant Rent Insurance that you pay monthly premiums for, which then pays your rent. Sounds absurd, which is my point. Since rent is a regular recurring non-variable cost, buying insurance for it makes no sense. So you'd similarly be paying monthly to an insurance company that would then pay for your monthly birth control.

You're insuring against pregnancy, which again, is far more expensive.

That's not how insurance works. Preventing something is not insuring against it. Insurance is a lottery that pays out on a negative event.

It's more cost effective in general for insurance companies to cover preventive care, whether it's smoking cessation programs or nutritional programs for people at risk of cardiovascular issues. Insurance companies have long struggled against covering preventive care, because they'd rather take a gamble and hope that they end up not having to pay for the preventive care but also somehow avoid paying for the greater health concern later down the road. That's as far as the "logic" goes on this front.

Except for the insurance companies, pregnancy avoidance may not necessarily be cost-effective. Your premiums would go up and they effectively gain a new customer. This depends on the numbers, but I'd be surprised if they lose money on the kids.

While I somewhat agree with your logic, and I think birth control costs can vary widely depending on the type of birth control used (I know women who were paying almost as much per month for birth control as I was for health insurance, which would throw health insurance costs out of whack), I would point out that some health insurance companies cover viagra. The logic is that it's a "health condition". Of course, viagra seems elective (rather than a medical issue that needs treatment, like a heart condition) and it's a recurring cost like birth control is. It seems like the justification for insurance companies to cover viagra is weaker than the justification for covering birth control. (One thought I had was that maybe viagra costs less so there's less resistance to covering it - but a google search says viagra costs $20+ a pill; I was surprised it was so expensive.)

This is interesting, I didn't know viagra was covered.

[Enunciated Piffle]

Originally Posted by Lord of the Cock Rings

So it can be trademarked.

Oh. So we're raping the english language to make a buck...it all makes sense somehow. My 'nerd-ness' dissapproves