I have never called for the compelte subsidation of anythingQuote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
I'd be more than happy with easily accesible and afforadable
Printable View
I have never called for the compelte subsidation of anythingQuote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
I'd be more than happy with easily accesible and afforadable
I would encourage you to read the HHS mandate, because that is kind of what this whole discussion is about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
These women are called sluts b/c of there decison to take control of there own bodies and recognize that they are in fact sexual beings. Not only are they sexual beings but they can have control over that and it goes farther than dont have sex
Sarah Palin gets called a :daisy: for the same reason Obama gets called a :daisy:
The two are incompaitble
As I said before...... Birth Control PILLS. And your wealth is irrelevant. Nor do girls need to tell their parents. My ex first got them for very cheap (i believe 10 per month) and then when she went to get more 6 months later they gave her a completely different kind. FREE.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
They have condoms as well I noticed when I went with my girl. I don't use them as I assume they are cheap and I go through them regularly enough that it would be a pain to get them there.
But that would ruin my ability to shoot from the hip and engage in sanctimonius rantsQuote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Why would you rob me of that?
Woah bro, no need to shout. Thanks for clarifying. I didn't know PP filled prescriptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
I have already given my point about how expensive 10 bucks is to stupid young people who probably don't have jobs. I don't recall anyone talking about kids being afraid of their parents.Quote:
And your wealth is irrelevant. Nor do girls need to tell their parents.
I am not an expert on birth control. I just know that they are concentrated packages of hormones. That being said, arn't the compositions different between methods and/or brands? Swapping from one kind of control to another completely doesn't sound smart....but I could be completely wrong here.Quote:
My ex first got them for very cheap (i believe 10 per month) and then when she went to get more 6 months later they gave her a completely different kind. FREE.
Lucky for you the smaller sizes are cheaper, otherwise I am sure you would see how expensive birth control can be for people like me.Quote:
They have condoms as well I noticed when I went with my girl. I don't use them as I assume they are cheap and I go through them regularly enough that it would be a pain to get them there.
My university gave out free condoms as part of a sexual awareness campaign as you were free to help yourself. They even gave out high quality durex ones. But to the issues at hand:
I have to agree with some of the points here though from both sides of the fence, to quote Panzer above me:
The idea that people simply can open their hands out and go "condoms please" even in a system such as the NHS over here is cringe worthy. If some one has actually medical reasons as described by Strikes for the South, they should have unfettered access to pills which also act as birthcontrol, in order to help relieve those physical duress they might be experiencing. I understand the religious objection to birthcontrol, but does the church ban wearing pants as they hinder easy access? Of course it doesn't because it would be awfully silly of them to, having such an organisation ban the use of medication for a purpose that isn't being used as birthcontrol should be acceptable. End of the day, i am sure those religious people who are enrolled in those plans are devote followers and wouldn't do such a thing anyway and become sinners.Quote:
Nothing you wrote has anything to do with completely subsidizing contraception for every woman in America. It is incredibly wasteful.
I think this is a pretty fair position that both sides agree on pretty much from what I have read people say, but for some reason, it seems a little lost in the communication. Feel free to agree or disagree and say why.
Now to the next point, the speaker herself.
This is really a double-edged sword.. this is why I think so.
- Whatever her personal life, may it be with a long term boyfriend, random strangers on the street, whatever the case, end of the day, it doesn't matter. If she wants to be a "harlot" in your eyes, it is her choice, and for a bunch of people yelling at the top of their lungs about the invasion of liberty, it seems awfully hypocritical. Whatever her situation it does not distract from what her arguments and claims are.
- Her arguments at first glance actually pretty bad as they fail to make sense. You don't actually need to attack her character when what she says appears to be so failed. $1000 a year on contraception for the sole purpose of recreational activity is a really poor case to make. Now, if it is she has to take certain contraception because of physical duress, not because of sexual activity then it should be covered by the insurance (if that covers medication and repeat subscriptions). Then there is the other factor related to sexual activity, is that $1000 what it costs? Then you break down the figures, what is that being spent on, why is it being spent on it, analysing the situation at hand. If it is because she buys the most expensive packets of condoms and gets it delivered via a forklift truck to her house, then it really is more of her own personal issue. If it was a case that contraception really was that expensive for "reasonable use", then there should be ways of looking into why it is so expensive. There have been talks inthread of $10 a month being a figure for their wives/girlfriends, $120 does sound a lot more acceptable cost. I haven't got this information at hand to give any real thoughts on the matter, but this is a couple of things to think about.
On a moderators note:
Keep this topic on track with the arguments and opinions expressed. I do not want to see anymore personal attacks upon other forum members (including the mentioning the race of the president) and other such disappointing reading in this thread.
:grin:Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Here's a bit of anecdote to put the issue in perspective. My cousin is 33. She has a great job, as does her husband. They do not want kids and she is considering a full range of more permanent and costly contraceptive procedures to make sure they do not have them. Under this mandate, any one of those procedures will be completely covered under her insurance. There is absolutely no reason why she should not contribute to whichever procedure she decides on so that my premiums don't go up and/or my tax dollars don't end up subsidizing it through the back end. There is a big difference between my cousin and a 16 year old inner city girl living with her baby daddy in his Caprice Classic. This mandate makes no distinction.
Why sign up for insurance in the first place? All your money is going to other people for their bad choices. Most people's health issues are due to their own lifestyle. If you don't feel like paying for other's choices, don't participate in a communistic system to begin with. Pay for yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Babby daddy has urban connitationsQuote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Urban has black connitations
Bringing up skin color is racism
Vuk will be along shortly
But I agree with you to a point, for the most part selective procedures should not be covered but I will also point out this debate has sprialed beyond that
The pill allows women a certain autonomy and even footing with men that was not possible before. This is a subtle distiniction that I feel is being ignored and different than a tubal ligation or vasectomy (forgive me if I am forward)
We all have to sign up for insurance in 2014. (I have a feeling your post wasn't completely serious.)Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
You can thank the GOP of the 90s and early 00's for that mandate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuuvi
But I was being semi serious. Insurance are run like communistic dictatorships, everyone pays in and you get as much as you need, if the dictator decides he has enough money at the moment. It's inherently inefficient, and if people made sure they didn't get obese, health care costs would plummet because there wouldn't be nearly as much demand on our system as there currently is. At this point most of your money just subsidizes people's bad health choices.
Is the pursuit of happiness an unalienable right?
" it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"
So aren't condoms and the pill included in Effective Saftey and Happiness? :smoking:
When I become dictator, PJ is going to be my PR guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
This is an interesting look into Sandra Fluke's beliefs regarding what insurance should cover. Really? This woman is off her rocker.
You can buy it here if you want to read the whole thing.
Here is an interesting article on her.
This woman has 'fake' written all over her. This entire incident was manufactured, knowing that the GOP would feel that religious rights were being threatened, so they could then whine that the GOP hate women. The whole thing is a farce!
I hate to point this out, but the entire trap was outlined in the cover article of the February 13th issue of Newsweek. In detail. The GOP had ample warning, but they thought they had a winner on their hands. (And of course, Rushbo handed this entire issue over to the left by being publicly, demonstrably evil. According to news reports last night, he now blames his own behavior on the left. Gotta love that conservative philosophy of personal responsibility!)Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
The more Machiavellian observer might even suspect this is actually an improved bait and switch by Obama to more firmly identify the religious right with opposition to contraception, its weakest issue by far, and to shore up support among independent women and his more liberal base. I’ve found by observing this president closely for years that what often seem like short-term tactical blunders turn out in the long run to be strategically shrewd. And if this was a trap, the religious right walked right into it.
Take a look at the polling. Ask Americans if they believe that contraception should be included for free in all health-care plans and you get a 55 percent majority in favor, with 40 percent against. Ask American Catholics, and that majority actually rises above the national average, to 58 percent. A 49 percent plurality of all Americans supported the original Obama rule forcing Catholic institutions to provide contraception coverage. And once again, American Catholics actually support that more controversial position by a slightly higher margin than all Americans, with 52 percent backing it. So on religious-freedom grounds, the country is narrowly divided, but with a small majority on Obama’s side.
And on the issue of contraception itself, studies have shown that a staggering 98 percent of Catholic women not only believe in birth control but have used it. How is it possible to describe this issue as a violation of individual conscience, when no one is forced to use contraception against their will, and most Catholics have already consulted their conscience, are fine with the pill, and want it covered? This is not like abortion, a far, far graver issue. Even the church hierarchy—in a famous commission set up by Pope John XXIII to study birth control—voted to allow oral contraception under some circumstances, only to be controversially vetoed by Pope Paul VI in 1968. And the truth is, there is no real debate among most actual living, breathing American Catholics on the issue, who tend to be more liberal than most Americans. [...]
But some Republicans and conservative Catholics have already rejected the compromise. They have declared it to be just as inimical to religious freedom as church organizations being forced to pay for their employees’ contraception. Before the compromise, the spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops went even further, arguing that entirely secular corporations, if owned or run by faithful Catholics, should be able to exclude contraception from their employees’ health-insurance coverage. “If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell,” he declared, “I’d be covered by the mandate.” And even that would be unacceptable.
So Catholic doctrine should, according to the bishops’ spokesman, also apply to non-Catholics—even if they are merely selling burritos.
This kind of rhetoric is not about protecting religious freedom. It is about imposing a particular religious doctrine on those who don’t share it as a condition for general employment utterly unrelated to religion at all. And if that is the hill the Catholic hierarchy and evangelical right want to fight and die on, they will lose—and lose badly.
A right to purchase something is not the same as the entitlement of being given that item by the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
CR
So you whine becuase they were out played politicaly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
No, but the American people are being lied to. That is not important to you? Also, our President has the media completely in his palm. State-run media does pose certain problems, don't you agree? When nearly all mass media is taking directives from the President, isn't that what we have?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
"State-run" media? For reals? Isn't that a bit hysterical? I haven't felt this strong of an urge to be silly since Hosa posted his rant about how Obama would end capitalism and make us all dependents of the Stalinist state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
By over-stating your case like that, you make yourself sound exactly as silly as the lefties who screamed about "fascism" and "dictatorship" under Bush 2.
I forget which comedian said it, but nobody's going to take your guns away (on the left), and nobody's going to take your birth control away (on the right). Speaking of which, that's another good parallel; imagine if the Democrats had been baited and lured into holding hearings about whether or not Americans should be allowed to own guns. Imagine the outrage, the backblast. That's pretty much what happened here. As I said, the GOP had ample warning. Why didn't they listen? I have no idea.
So your saying someone lobbying the government is lying? How will we ever press on in the face of such monstorous obstacles? She is a Georgetown law student, simply becuase the issue is pretinent to her and she has worked before she went to law school is really immterial to the issue at hand. I heard her testimony and assumed she had an agenda to push becuase she is lobbying congress.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
State run media? That's hyperbole. The big 3 networks do tend to lean a bit to the left but in the same vein they also tend to take the side of the people. If the nation is feeling more libreal they will slant further to the left, more conservative to the right. To say that this adminstration has them in the palm of his hand is disingenous at best. The problem is people are clamoring for investigation into things like birth certificates which gets wrapped up with issues actually worth investigarting thus cheapining the underdogs cries for attention. The same thing happend with Bush. The left was convinced that the adminstration was hidiing something but the real issues got wrapped up in the tin foil hat stuff
To truly investigate like solyandra or F&F you need pages of texts or hours of TV. The real issue here is the 24 hr news cycle and the 30 second sound byte. Peoples analytical & critical thinking skills have been so blunted that if the information can be processed quickly and in a high degree of black and white then it doesn't make the news. One only needs to look at the tripe you try to pass off as a learned, logical opinion to see the devolution of these skills. That's the real problem with the media today, not the fact they cheerlead
Sorry for all the words. Next time I'll try to break it up by using bright colors and perhaps a puppet show
I vote for the puppet show. :yes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
I've been inferred worse
She didnt switch kinds because they were cheaper they just thought they would be a better fit for her. She just asked for it to be free this time around the brand was irrelevant. Most girls when they first start out on BC will switch around and take a few different kinds until they find the perfect fit.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
The cost of insurance generally is the cost they payout plus a profit margin.
Insurance is to cover accidents. The pricing structure they operate under looks at the risk and amount of a claim adds a safety margin adds a profit margin and their are your rates.
If your contraceptives cost $1000 a year then expect an insurance plan to cost an extra $1000 + profit margin per year.
Unless the insurance company gets to chose and bulk buy your contraceptives.
End of the day the insurance company will make a profit. So if you know you are
going to do something it is cheaper to pay for it yourself.
Oh a happy note, looks like this dust-up is causing advertisers to pull their ads from all controversial talk-show radio. Couldn't happen to a more toxic genre. Now if only our society could engineer the downfall of 24-hour cable news channels ...
Premiere Networks, which distributes Limbaugh as well as a host of other right-wing talkers, sent an email out to its affiliates early Friday listing 98 large corporations that have requested their ads appear only on “programs free of content that you know are deemed to be offensive or controversial (for example, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Leykis, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity).”
This is big. According to the radio-industry website Radio-Info.com, which first posted excerpts of the Premiere memo, among the 98 companies that have decided to no longer sponsor these programs are “carmakers (Ford, GM, Toyota), insurance companies (Allstate, Geico, Prudential, State Farm), and restaurants (McDonald’s, Subway).” Together, these talk-radio advertising staples represent millions of dollars in revenue.
Valerie Geller, an industry insider and author of Beyond Powerful Radio, confirmed the trend. “I have talked with several reps who report that they're having conversations with their clients, who are asking not to be associated with specifically polarizing controversial hosts, particularly if those hosts are ‘mean-spirited.’ While most products and services offered on these shows have strong competitors, and enjoy purchasing the exposure that many of these shows and hosts can offer, they do not wish to be ‘tarred’ with the brush of anger, or endure customer anger, or, worse, product boycotts.”
I think it's unacceptable that Limbaugh gets his clock cleaned essentially for holding onto an unpopular opinion. If this isn't censorship, I don't know what is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Freedom to do whatever you want with your money?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
How so? Rush can still say what he wants, it's just that big companies no longer want to pay him for his views. If the government shut him up, that would be censorship, removing his funding to protect your company's name is just good business.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Don't forget kids, money = speech. Or rather, money is the volume knob on free speech.
The sponsors are within their rights to pull their ads (probably). However, the "mean-spirited" comment is a bit childish. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Also on the article: "..offensive or controversial.." applies to an entire genre of comedy as well.