Posted on 07/08/2015 4:35:25 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Disagree, a little. If they get "subsidies", both male and female taxpayers pay for those. So, it's saved them (as women) some, because some of it, for those who are subsidized, is paid by men.
I've been noticing how much of the Dem programs are robbing Peter to pay Paul. The benefits are promoted and publicized as if they are just and universal; actually, they are an electorally focused bribe. Everyone pays.
I appreciate the free birth control, but I have to ask why my pills should be free but not my dad's blood pressure medicine or my mom's cholesterol medicine or my nephews asthma medicine? Aren't those more important to life and health than my prescription is?
What in the world is he talking about....1 Billion on birth control? Man, what a whopper! Hillary lies about being subpoenaed, when you can see that document.....no wonder Donald Trump is up in all polls....he may be bombastic but he tells the TRUTH....this nation is truly sick of this lying by our elected.
Danielle is too dumb to understand basic economics. The only ways that women would have saved money would be if they reduced usage or the companies lowered the price. What actually happened is that the costs were subsidized by other men and women. There were NO net savings.
Someone is still paying for it...
There’s no such thing as a free lunch, or a free pill.
Except that 2013 isn’t post-Obamacare. 2014 is post-Obamacare.
“While the [Affordable Care Act] preventive service requirements specify that FDA-approved contraception is a covered benefit....”
So...
Yes.
You’re paying for it.
And so is everybody else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.