What would you do to the bill to make it not retarded?

Again, you seem to lose control of your own thought process. "People have sex and don't want babies all the time...you sad ridiculous person. And they are paid for...They're called premiums and and insurance companies are fleecing America with them." The first sentence makes sense. Your first "they" seems to be talking about "babies", and by extension the second "they" (they're) would be "babies"......."babies [are]....called premiums and insurance companies are fleecing America with them"?????

I'm sorry, I'm not friends with people who don't know the possible consequences of their actions. You must have some really intelligent friends who like having sex but don't want babies. Do you know the practical reason we have sex?

I'm sorry, you're gonna have to address what i was addressing: your original statement. I'll repost it for your perusal:

"No, because insurers have hoodwinked America and gained the system in their favor by monopolizing regions, picking and choosing whom they insure, eliminating those who actually need to cash in on the insurance they've paid through "pre-existing" condition clauses, all while driving up costs to such a degree that a deductible is what you would pay anyway should their particular insurance have never existed.

However it would drive down costs if health insurance was not horribly fucked up. It's pretty simple.

1. A condom is a contraceptive. A condom protects against 99.8% of STDs. STDs are more expensive than condoms.

2. Reasonably many who do not want to get pregnant cannot afford a child. A child a parent cannot afford raises insurance costs for everyone more than the price of contraceptives.

That would only be the case where insurance was held to some sort of standard though"

you are doing four things there: answering the question with one word, trying to sound like private insurance is a bad thing, saying men should get free condoms, and saying that people who have sex that don't want babies are ENTITLED to contraceptives, paid for by someone other than themselves. Am I getting that right?

apparently you're now saying someone is to blame for the most expensive health system in the world. who is that? big bad insurance and pharmaceuticals?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112522353

Have fun actually defending what you've said

What would you think of a debate format where there are two opposing sides (original, right?), but everyone can only post something once. That isn't saying it very well, and calls for explanation. Let's say i put something on the "yes" side of a "yes/no" question. Instead of having a string of conversation (which I'm not putting down, I just observe that it makes for visual clutter), you select a "reply to" option, and we engage in a one on one conversation, either politely opposing each other, or talking about why we chose the same side. From there, there're lots of options: creating a plan to address whatever we are talking about (read: real world solutions), creating opposing groups dedicated to debating each other, with the desired outcome resolution/compromise, and formation of a solution.

Arguing is easy. Conceding anything is not.

your #1 is stupid. it is stupid because you didn't think when you said it. a condom is a f'ing condom. all this bullshit about abortion and contraceptives is about women's rights. condoms cost like 99 cents at a gas station, bro. no one needs insurance to cover that.

um. #2? was that English? people who don't want babies don't have sex.

the statement for this debate is misleading. insurance companies wouldn't be "giving away contraceptives". if they were, who would be paying for them?