Stepping into an emerging culture clash over women, President Barack Obama made a supportive phone call Friday to a law student who testified before Congress about the need for birth control coverage, only to be called a "slut" by Rush Limbaugh.
These remarks come from the debate raging over an aspect of a mandate allowing contraceptives free of charge via health insurance plans.
I question whether or not the President should have placed himself in this particular component of the debate, but its a safe play because I doubt many people will defend Limbaugh. At least not many people that were considering voting for Obama.
I think if he would have attacked Rush, or anything like that, he would have oppened himself up for backlash.
Calling somebody to tell her "thank you for speaking out, it was brave, etc..." is a pretty safe bet, and if he is attacked for that it would make the attacker look out of touch IMO.
What did she misstate? Did she exaggerate the out of pocket costs? Or was her friend's winding up having an ovary removed due to not having coverage for birth control not actually what happened?
Calling her a slut was Rush trolling real life. That's largely what he's paid to do, but he's an unamerican idiot, scumbag and hypocrite anyway.
biccat wrote:She lied (or intentionally misstated the truth) before Congress.
I think at least a little mockery is in order. Calling her a "slut" may have been a bit much.
Ah, someone's been out in the weeds of the right-wing blogosphere, I see.
He wasn't going after her for "lying" to Congress, by the way. He was going after her because he believes she has a lot of sex. The guy who came back from the Dominican Republic with a Viagra prescription in somebody else's name and told folks he had a great time, but couldn't talk about it.
The only thing that could make this more prototypical social conservative behavior is if Rush is outed as gay in the next couple months.
biccat wrote:She lied (or intentionally misstated the truth) before Congress.
I think at least a little mockery is in order. Calling her a "slut" may have been a bit much.
Ah, someone's been out in the weeds of the right-wing blogosphere, I see.
He wasn't going after her for "lying" to Congress, by the way. He was going after her because he believes she has a lot of sex. The guy who came back from the Dominican Republic with a Viagra prescription in somebody else's name and told folks he had a great time, but couldn't talk about it.
The only thing that could make this more prototypical social conservative behavior is if Rush is outed as gay in the next couple months.
Well 4 wives in with no kids I would not be surprised. Then again, it's probably because he uses what the rest of humanity uses to prevent having kids. BIRTH CONTROL.
Seaward wrote:Ah, someone's been out in the weeds of the right-wing blogosphere, I see.
Not sure what you're talking about. And this comment is especially entertaining given that the video posted is from a left-wing blog.
The woman clearly and obviously lied before Congress. I think that in that case it's appropriate to make fun of her. Rush was clearly making a joke at her expense, although I think he went a little OTT. If you really want to see some political hatred, check out what the left said about Breitbart over the past few days.
Seaward wrote:Ah, someone's been out in the weeds of the right-wing blogosphere, I see.
Not sure what you're talking about. And this comment is especially entertaining given that the video posted is from a left-wing blog.
The woman clearly and obviously lied before Congress. I think that in that case it's appropriate to make fun of her. Rush was clearly making a joke at her expense, although I think he went a little OTT. If you really want to see some political hatred, check out what the left said about Breitbart over the past few days.
Manufactured outrage is awesome.
Your forgetting to mention how she lied. You say she lied but what did she lie about?
And remember, its only lieing if its deliberate.
Thats not a lie, Its just misappropriation. Coould be a simple slip of tongue. Republicans lie all the time(remember death panels?)
Also, If it was a lie(its not) Attacking of character s not a way to go.
Not big enough to be scary, as if you cant' afford $3k I doubt $1k is much better.
Big enough to noticeable.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, as a person that went through law school... having a lot of sex will in no way interfere with graduating and passing the bar.
Polonius wrote:I don't think it's ridiculous that it could cost that much.
It could cost that much, sure. But when your complaint is that you can't afford X, you don't use the most expensive option, well, unless you're trying to deceive people.
I can't afford a car, does that mean my income is too low by the price of a Ferrari or by the price of a used Honda?
Polonius wrote:I don't think it's ridiculous that it could cost that much.
It could cost that much, sure. But when your complaint is that you can't afford X, you don't use the most expensive option, well, unless you're trying to deceive people.
I can't afford a car, does that mean my income is too low by the price of a Ferrari or by the price of a used Honda?
The difference is that there might not be a cheaper alternative available. I don't know the facts, and I know we're all shocked that a person would use carefully worded and selected facts in a political discussion.
Conversion vans with wheelchair elevators cost more than hondas. But... if we accept that people should be able to get around, you gotta acknowledge what that costs.
I was puzzled by Rush's comment that she was having so much sex she couldn't afford the contraception. I was like "huh? but the pill is once daily regardless of how much sex you have..."
Yeah, he's an idiot; I doubt if he's even talked to a woman regardless of how many times he's been married.
Polonius wrote:The difference is that there might not be a cheaper alternative available.
But there are.
Polonius wrote:I don't know the facts, and I know we're all shocked that a person would use carefully worded and selected facts in a political discussion.
I wouldn't be shocked if she were a politician. But she is (or at least was presented as) an impartial witness to discuss the increased cost of receiving contraceptive benefits that Georgetown doesn't cover because of their religious beliefs.
Of course, if Georgetown has to cover the expense for birth control, her insurance is going to go up. What she's really asking for is a gender-based tax and subsidy - most women will get the pill, but only have to pay half the cost in increased premiums. Men will pay increased premiums but won't get any advantage.
Polonius wrote:Conversion vans with wheelchair elevators cost more than hondas. But... if we accept that people should be able to get around, you gotta acknowledge what that costs.
You do realize that some people are allergic to latex, and non-latex condoms are far more expensive? Also, many people use both the pill and condoms in combination.
Now, I'd agree that it's likely that the $1k a year in contraception costs are more due to preference... but that preference is still preventing pregnancies.
And since women derive roughly half the benefit from contraception, I don't see a problem with them paying for only half the cost!
hotsauceman1 wrote:Because, If we spend moeny on birth control we save in others, Such as social welfare programs or maybe daycares.
well, we'd also cut down on abortions.
Interestingly, while the same group of people generally opposes paying for all of these, they still pitch a fit over by far the cheapest and most morally palatable.
Polonius wrote:You do realize that some people are allergic to latex, and non-latex condoms are far more expensive? Also, many people use both the pill and condoms in combination.
Now, I'd agree that it's likely that the $1k a year in contraception costs are more due to preference... but that preference is still preventing pregnancies.
Condoms are available for free, especially around a college campus.
I think it's a good idea for insurers to cover contraception costs, especially on a college campus, but I don't think they should be required to do so.
Polonius wrote:And since women derive roughly half the benefit from contraception, I don't see a problem with them paying for only half the cost!
I doubt there's an equal distribution of men and women receiving the benefit of contraception.
Polonius wrote:You do realize that some people are allergic to latex, and non-latex condoms are far more expensive? Also, many people use both the pill and condoms in combination.
Now, I'd agree that it's likely that the $1k a year in contraception costs are more due to preference... but that preference is still preventing pregnancies.
And since women derive roughly half the benefit from contraception, I don't see a problem with them paying for only half the cost!
Yeah, I'm allergic to latex and it sucks. Let's have a list of things that have latex in them:
Band-aids.
Condoms.
Balloons.
That's all I can think of right now, but it still sucks. I CANT EVEN HAVE BALLOONS AT MY BIRTHDAY!
Polonius wrote:You do realize that some people are allergic to latex, and non-latex condoms are far more expensive? Also, many people use both the pill and condoms in combination.
Now, I'd agree that it's likely that the $1k a year in contraception costs are more due to preference... but that preference is still preventing pregnancies.
Condoms are available for free, especially around a college campus.
I think it's a good idea for insurers to cover contraception costs, especially on a college campus, but I don't think they should be required to do so.
Again, not necessarily latex-free. Maybe that's changed since I last had sex on a college campus...
Polonius wrote:And since women derive roughly half the benefit from contraception, I don't see a problem with them paying for only half the cost!
I doubt there's an equal distribution of men and women receiving the benefit of contraception.
Maybe she should charge a per-user fee?
How do you figure? Do you think the number of sexually active men and women are different?
It's like the old joke: "I sleep with a lot of girls, but it never lasts because they turn out to be tramps."
Polonius wrote:You do realize that some people are allergic to latex, and non-latex condoms are far more expensive? Also, many people use both the pill and condoms in combination.
Now, I'd agree that it's likely that the $1k a year in contraception costs are more due to preference... but that preference is still preventing pregnancies.
Condoms are available for free, especially around a college campus.
I think it's a good idea for insurers to cover contraception costs, especially on a college campus, but I don't think they should be required to do so.
Again, not necessarily latex-free. Maybe that's changed since I last had sex on a college campus...
Yeah, as far as I'm aware, they still don't have free latex-free condoms.
It's more a case of the Dems want it so they're against it....goes with the whole "Party of 'NO'" thing.
My take on medication is:
Step one, do you have to have a prescription to buy it? If yes, go to step two. If no, it's not coverable.
Step two, is there medical evidence that taking this medication can prevent illness or injury? If yes, it should be covered by insurance. If no, it's not coverable.
That's probably an overly simplistic approach but it's my take on the matter which means Rush's viagra wouldn't be covered nor would the allergy medicine I have to take as it's over the counter.
Sex is a choice, ovarian cancer isn't. BC pill use has been proven to help prevent that type of cancer.
It's a sweeping generalization but since I worked as a social worker for a number of years; it would be cheaper to pay for BC than to have more mouths in the system. It's always irked me that the far right is so comfortable with "social insurance" but adamant about not helping people stay off of the system. Especially since we all know which is cheaper for tax payers, those of us in the middle class that actually pay taxes rather than glean all of our income from tax sheltered sources.
biccat wrote:But when your complaint is that you can't afford X, you don't use the most expensive option, well, unless you're trying to deceive people.
You must really hate advertising then.
Also, Rush is a troll. We're currently feeding him.
What's so frustrating about all this bs is the fact that, if they actually bothered to stick to the main point rather than going off on the moral crusades they adore so fiercely, biccat's people would actually be able to end this argument pretty easily.
It's not about religious freedom for the overwhelming supermajority of Christians in this country.
It's not about the fact that the social right wants to force everyone to live by their interpretation of Biblical morals.
It's about whether or not Obamacare is unconstitutional. Period. If it's unconstitutional, any argument stemming from it - including this one - is rendered moot.
Unfortunately for Republicans, the moonbat wing of their party just can't keep their hands off social issues, and it's why Obama's going to win reelection without much effort. Well, that, and the fact that the Republicans have quite curiously chosen to run the usual sort of big government conservatives they've been putting up for president since Eisenhower.
Melissia wrote:Using multiple layers of birth control exponentially reduces the risk of pregnancy FWIW.
Of course it does. Unfortunately, there are some antediluvians amongst us who believe that reducing the risk of pregnancy violates the imaginary laws of an imaginary being, and thus are the soul of evil. One of them is running for president.
biccat wrote:
She said that a woman at Georgetown would spend $3000 for birth control while attending law school.
No she didn't.
Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.
Direct quote from this source. Chosen because its making essentially the same argument you are, without unnecessary misrepresentation of Fluke's statement in order to call her a liar.
biccat wrote:
Manufactured outrage is awesome.
Indeed.
Moreover, as Polonius noted, there are significant variables to consider regarding latex allergies, and even specific needs in terms of individual birth control pills (its not one size fits all).
dogma wrote:Moreover, as Polonius noted, there are significant variables to consider regarding latex allergies, and even specific needs in terms of individual birth control pills (its not one size fits all).
How DARE you suggest that us womenfolk aren't all the same!
Johnny-Crass wrote:
A vicious personal attack on a student because she can not afford something that should be a RIGHT is low and filthy.
That is the problem. It is not a right.
Why should I be forced to go against my beliefs (an ACTUAL right) so that someone else doesn't have to fund their own optional medical choices?
If I don't pay for your birth-control, does that make it impossible for you to get it? No. You just have to pay for it yourself.
What a shocking idea! Pay for something you want!
Bottom line, is it essential for your health? No. Humans live just fine without it. It may limit you on how you decide to live your life. But you will not die without it.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Why should I be forced to go against my beliefs (an ACTUAL right) so that someone else doesn't have to fund their own optional medical choices?
It's my beliefs that funding anyone else's medical operations of any kind is morally wrong.
We should abolish medicare and medicaid and go to a purely capitalist medical system, which also includes getting rid of all governemtn funding for research and getting rid of the drug portion of the FDA. If you want to know how a drug works, do your own damned research!
Melissia wrote:It's my beliefs that funding anyone else's medical operations of any kind is morally wrong.
We should abolish medicare and medicaid and go to a purely capitalist medical system, which also includes getting rid of all governemtn funding for research and getting rid of the drug portion of the FDA. If you want to know how a drug works, do your own damned research!
Obnoxious. That is how you come across, FYI.
You disagree with me so you jump to an obviously stupid statement in an attempt to discredit me. How mature.
We are talking about forcing religious based organization to fund something they disagree with. You can reply with all the "derp" you want, but it wont change what we are talking about.
No one forces students to attend catholic universities. No one is forced to work for a Catholic Institution. No one is forced to accept anything Catholics. It is all choice. Further, nothing is done to prevent them from obtaining private insurance.
But people want to FORCE Catholics to go against their teachings. There is only one side dealing in compulsion here.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Why should I be forced to go against my beliefs (an ACTUAL right) so that someone else doesn't have to fund their own optional medical choices?
You have the right to believe whatever you want (mostly because no one can really make you believe anything else), but you have no right to act on your beliefs. If you did, then the concept of law is effectively irrelevant.
To be hyperbolic:
"I believe all people named Steve deserve to die."
*kills Steve*
"Well, we can't punish you, because you have the right to act upon your beliefs."
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Bottom line, is it essential for your health? No. Humans live just fine without it. It may limit you on how you decide to live your life. But you will not die without it.
That's not a strong argument because there are very few things that are necessary for human life. You won't die without roads, plumbing, or national defense either. Or (to keep this strictly medical) in most cases, prescription antibiotics.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
That is the problem. It is not a right.
Why should I be forced to go against my beliefs (an ACTUAL right) so that someone else doesn't have to fund their own optional medical choices?
If I don't pay for your birth-control, does that make it impossible for you to get it? No. You just have to pay for it yourself.
What a shocking idea! Pay for something you want!
Bottom line, is it essential for your health? No. Humans live just fine without it. It may limit you on how you decide to live your life. But you will not die without it.
Nonsensical argument; we pay for things we don't believe in everyday. You are currently paying for uninsured people to have children through medicaid and are then paying to feed them through welfare. Depending on the state, you probably also pay for these people's children to attend daycare.
The religious angle of the argument was taken off of the table when Obama backed off. There are plenty of people that don't believe in war but we all pay the military industry to go out and kill people all over the world and for our soldiers to die protecting a group of people that doesn't want us there.
I also believe you have mistaken your actual right. You have the right to choose what you believe in, you do not have the right to force others to observe it; that's actually completely the opposite of what the constitution states.
Johnny-Crass wrote:
A vicious personal attack on a student because she can not afford something that should be a RIGHT is low and filthy.
That is the problem. It is not a right.
Why should I be forced to go against my beliefs (an ACTUAL right) so that someone else doesn't have to fund their own optional medical choices?
If I don't pay for your birth-control, does that make it impossible for you to get it? No. You just have to pay for it yourself.
What a shocking idea! Pay for something you want!
Bottom line, is it essential for your health? No. Humans live just fine without it. It may limit you on how you decide to live your life. But you will not die without it.
You're right. It's not a right for my oldest daughter to take it to keep from bleeding to death. Literally.
She had to have 2 emergency blood transfusions due to her body not having the hormones to tell her when
to stop bleeding. Being 14 at the time, she was affraid to tell us about the bleeding and scared as hell. But I'm
sure she's not got the right to live, right.
I'm sure bicat would tell her to be more responsible.
You're right. It's not a right for my oldest daughter to take it to keep from bleeding to death. Literally.
She had to have 2 emergency blood transfusions due to her body not having the hormones to tell her when
to stop bleeding. Being 14 at the time, she was affraid to tell us about the bleeding and scared as hell. But I'm
sure she's not got the right to live, right.
I'm sure bicat would tell her to be more responsible.
I am sorry your daughter has that problem. Again, I am not saying she has no right to medicine. So using an obviously sympathetic story to insinuate that I am uncaring is BS.
She has every right to go get it. I would encourage her to do so. I have nothing against her getting it, actually.
But why make someone else pay for it? And not just any someone else... but someone who opposes the very idea of it?
Your daughter has a medical need. I wont stand in your way, but why should I foot the bill? I don't know you. You are not chipping in for my wife's care.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
agnosto wrote:
I also believe you have mistaken your actual right. You have the right to choose what you believe in, you do not have the right to force others to observe it; that's actually completely the opposite of what the constitution states.
So you believe Catholics should provide birth control. But "you do not have the right to force others to observe it." Right?
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
But why make someone else pay for it? And not just any someone else... but someone who opposes the very idea of it?
I'm not sure of the specific theological reasons for the Catholic opposition to birth control, but as far as I know its based on the assumption that birth control enables recreational sex. If someone is taking birth control for a specific medical reason, and not engaging in recreational sex, then it would seem there is no issue.
Perhaps forcing insurance companies to cover birth control proscribed for medically necessary reasons would be an acceptable compromise. I mean, while there may be ways to treat hormonal deficiencies without using birth control, I doubt they would anywhere near as cheap as birth control. Even if the average is 3000 USD over 3 years, that is amazingly cost efficient as daily medication (assuming the relatively standard 28 pill pack) goes.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Your daughter has a medical need. I wont stand in your way, but why should I foot the bill? I don't know you. You are not chipping in for my wife's care.
If you both have the same insurance company, then yes he is.
Polonius wrote:Do you want to share how or why she lied?
I know you enjoy argument over debate, but I'd actually be interested to see why you think she lied.
She said that a woman at Georgetown would spend $3000 for birth control while attending law school.
Annual checkup (assuming she doesn't go to a free clinic) - $100.
Monthly prescription - $10-20.
For 3 years, that's just over $1000 for birth control.
If she's in a 4-year program, less than $1500.
Allow me to point out that your "monthly prescription" rate is with insurance. The pubs want it so that ANY insurer can opt out for moral or religious reasons. If you don't think most/all insurers will jump at the chance to NOT pay for something, you're extremely deluded.
agnosto wrote:It's more a case of the Dems want it so they're against it....goes with the whole "Party of 'NO'" thing.
Either you don't know about the Catholic objection to contraceptives or you have no idea of the concept of religious freedom.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
biccat wrote:But when your complaint is that you can't afford X, you don't use the most expensive option, well, unless you're trying to deceive people.
You must really hate advertising then.
Actually, I do when they advertise before Congress. They're called lobbyists, and I think they're a problem, or more specifically, a symptom of a problem.
Seaward wrote:biccat's people would actually be able to end this argument pretty easily.
What the hell do you mean "my people"? People who oppose a tyrannical government? Yeah, good idea, lets fething roll over and let President Obama make all of our decisions for us.
You may like tyranny, I don't.
Seaward wrote:the moonbat wing of their party just can't keep their hands off social issues
Did you just call me a "moonbat"?
I think you mean the moonbat wing of the left-wing party in this country. Do you know how long women survived without Catholic organizations providing coverage for contraceptives?
Are women who work for Catholic organizations more likely to get ovarian cancer, or have abortions, or be poor because they have to have children? Hell, do women who work for these companies have any measurable difference in standard of living? No, they don't.
It's not the Republicans who are pushing this issue, it's the Democrats. I find their rampant disregard for individual and religious liberty offensive. Obama apparently has aspirations towards petty tyranny, and there are plenty of useful idiots in this country who either don't care or actually want him (and his proposals) to be immune from the democratic process and constitutional restrictions.
Melissia wrote:We should abolish medicare and medicaid and go to a purely capitalist medical system, which also includes getting rid of all governemtn funding for research and getting rid of the drug portion of the FDA. If you want to know how a drug works, do your own damned research!
I would not want to live in a country with such a mind-blowingly stupidly designed medical system, Biccat.
I hope you realize I was being sarcastic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:I think you mean the moonbat wing of the left-wing party in this country. Do you know how long women survived without Catholic organizations providing coverage for contraceptives?
Don't you know how long men have survived without any internet? You should get rid of your internet connection now.
biccat wrote:Obama apparently has aspirations towards petty tyranny, and there are plenty of useful idiots in this country who either don't care or actually want him (and his proposals) to be immune from the democratic process and constitutional restrictions.
streamdragon wrote:Allow me to point out that your "monthly prescription" rate is with insurance.
No it's not. My wife paid $20/month when her insurance company wouldn't cover birth control pills, and that was before Target and WalMart started offering them at discounts.
Apparently you can now get them for $9/month at Target.
Melissia wrote:I would not want to live in a country with such a mind-blowingly stupidly designed medical system, Biccat.
I hope you realize I was being sarcastic.
So you do want to live in a country with a "mind-blowingly stupidly designed medical system."
biccat wrote:
No it's not. My wife paid $20/month when her insurance company wouldn't cover birth control pills, and that was before Target and WalMart started offering them at discounts.
Apparently you can now get them for $9/month at Target.
Must be a locality thing then. I know my sister complained about much higher rates when she was between jobs.
biccat wrote:
No it's not. My wife paid $20/month when her insurance company wouldn't cover birth control pills, and that was before Target and WalMart started offering them at discounts.
Apparently you can now get them for $9/month at Target.
Must be a locality thing then. I know my sister complained about much higher rates when she was between jobs.
It varies a lot according to state law governing who can buy birth control, and under what circumstances.
In either case, the lesson we can take from this thread is that tyranny is equivalent to being forced to pay for a health plan that covers birth control.
biccat wrote:
Either you don't know about the Catholic objection to contraceptives or you have no idea of the concept of religious freedom.
I am well aware of the Catholic objection to contraceptives, I am also sufficiently abreast of current events to know that their objections were noted and addressed in as fair a manner as possible with even a good number of that group stepping forward to commend Obama for opening the whole thing to dialog. Maybe you just haven't grasped the whole separation between Church and state thing.... You can believe what you want but it doesn't necessarily have any bearing on the creation and/or enforcement of law. I suppose if I create a religion that doesn't believe in jail then I won't be jailed. I know that certain groups believe they are the alpha and omega of the world and should be catered to but you'd be surprised the growing population of those that don't hold the same values. Next you'll be telling me that they should shut down NASA because the Pope still believes the world is flat and the sun isn't the center of the solar system.
agnosto wrote:Maybe you just haven't grasped the whole separation between Church and state thing.... You can believe what you want but it doesn't necessarily have any bearing on the creation and/or enforcement of law.
Short of specifically forcing Catholics to pay for birth control, anyway.
biccat wrote:So you do want to live in a country with a "mind-blowingly stupidly designed medical system."
If you're going to intentionaly misconstrue what I said-- after I specifically clarified my intention even-- I'm just going to put you on ignore so that I don't break the first rule of dakka. You wouldn't be worthy of that rule.
Part of what made Rush's comment so dumb is that it more or less confirmed to my mind that conservatives didn't suddenly wake up six weeks ago and decide they cared deeply about religious freedom.
They just don't like the idea of women having sex as they choose. The reason the term was so insulting, and the reason the outrage isn't manufactured, is that it ties into the idea that a large chunk of the country finds the idea of women having sex freely distasteful, and want to do everything possible to make them feel bad about doing so.
agnosto wrote:Maybe you just haven't grasped the whole separation between Church and state thing.... You can believe what you want but it doesn't necessarily have any bearing on the creation and/or enforcement of law.
Short of specifically forcing Catholics to pay for birth control, anyway.
Granted, it's a touchy subject but when the bulk of Catholic organizations already pay for insurance that includes birth control. States like NY already have a mandatory piece in place and the Catholic church complied without a whimper.
Compromise can be made if people put their pitchforks down and step off of the soapbox long enough to talk about it rationally.
It doesn't need to be so prickly a subject; it's been inflated because of all the right-wing angst and anti-obama rhetoric espoused by people that supported much the same bill when the republicans tried to pass it back in the Clinton era.
agnosto wrote:
Granted, it's a touchy subject but when the bulk of Catholic organizations already pay for insurance that includes birth control. States like NY already have a mandatory piece in place and the Catholic church complied without a whimper.
Compromise can be made if people put their pitchforks down and step off of the soapbox long enough to talk about it rationally.
It doesn't need to be so prickly a subject; it's been inflated because of all the right-wing angst and anti-obama rhetoric espoused by people that supported much the same bill with the republicans tried to pass it back in the Clinton era.
Oh, no doubt, the issue isn't some sudden sympathy for the "Catholic plight". The issue is drumming up support for the Republicans as opposed to Barack the Magic Tyrant, which is largely centered on the healthcare reform bill.
I was just noting that if the law specific stated that Catholics, as a group, must carry health insurance that contains birth control coverage, then there would be a first amendment issue. But passing a law that says all American citizens must carry such insurance escapes that.
agnosto wrote:I am also sufficiently abreast of current events to know that their objections were noted and addressed in as fair a manner as possible with even a good number of that group stepping forward to commend Obama for opening the whole thing to dialog.
WTF? No, you haven't been paying attention if you think this is what happened.
agnosto wrote:Maybe you just haven't grasped the whole separation between Church and state thing.... You can believe what you want but it doesn't necessarily have any bearing on the creation and/or enforcement of law.
You're missing a second important component to the separation of church and state: free exercise. Government can't enact a law that impinges on your religious freedom, which is what they are trying to do here (using the term "law" loosely).
Separation of Church and State is not a one-way street.
Polonius wrote:They just don't like the idea of women having sex as they choose.
This comment would make sense if Republicans were trying to outlaw contraceptives. They're not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:If you're going to intentionaly misconstrue what I said-- after I specifically clarified my intention even-- I'm just going to put you on ignore so that I don't break the first rule of dakka. You wouldn't be worthy of that rule.
I'm not misconstruing what you wrote. The current medicare/medicaid system is a mind blowingly stupidly designed medical system.
Unless you think sarcasm is offensive. If so, I don't think there's any help for you.
dogma wrote:I was just noting that if the law specific stated that Catholics, as a group, must carry health insurance that contains birth control coverage, then there would be a first amendment issue. But passing a law that says all American citizens must carry such insurance escapes that.
The law previously didn't require Catholics to carry birth control insurance. Catholics were by and large the only group who didn't do so. The law has been changed so that insurance is now mandatory - which effectively only impacts Catholics.
If the government passed a law requiring everyone to eat pork, would that be a violation of religious liberty?
biccat wrote:
The law previously didn't require Catholics to carry birth control insurance. Catholics were by and large the only group who didn't do so. The law has been changed so that insurance is now mandatory - which effectively only impacts Catholics.
Actually, I imagine most Catholics that carry insurance carry insurance that covers birth control. Even Georgetown's (the Catholic university in question) current policy covers it for faculty and staff, just not for students. Clearly the issue isn't necessarily a moral one.
biccat wrote:
If the government passed a law requiring everyone to eat pork, would that be a violation of religious liberty?
Sure, and this is a violation of religious liberty too, but we violate religious liberty all the time. Its not a bedrock principle, claiming a religious belief does not mean the state can't work to prevent you from acting on that belief. So long as the state makes no law respecting an establishment of religion, ie. "Catholics must carry insurance that covers birth control." or "Muslims must eat pork.", there is no issue.
Now, if the state mandated the consumption of pork, there would be a significant issue as it is a much more intrusive violation of religious liberty; impacting the lives of the faithful on a daily basis. Forcing people to carry insurance that covers birth control is not comparable, as you don't have to use birth control, or engage in the casual sex that is the root issue.
I mean, if you really really object to birth control, then you shouldn't have any insurance of any kind, because your money almost certainly supports the policies that cover birth control held by other people.
dogma wrote:Now, if the state mandated the consumption of pork
OK, instead of mandating consumption, how about mandating that everyone carry "food insurance," and that food insurance must cover bacon.
dogma wrote:I mean, if you really really object to birth control, then you shouldn't have any insurance of any kind, because your money almost certainly supports the policies that cover birth control held by other people.
You should also avoid having to pay taxes, because the federal government funds a lot of objectionable issues. But most people don't think going to jail is a necessary precondition for being Catholic.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Bottom line, is it essential for your health? No. Humans live just fine without it. It may limit you on how you decide to live your life. But you will not die without it.
You know I was going post a whole thing about how religious people seem the cherry pick certain parts of their "beliefs" in order to make a fuss about laws. But than you added this bit at the end. The way I look at it your beliefs are the same thing, humans live just fine without em so you do not NEED them. You wanna live your life with em fine, but do not tell others to do as I say not as I do. Health vs 'Faith' is a no brainer, one you need to live and one is a luxury.
biccat wrote:
OK, instead of mandating consumption, how about mandating that everyone carry "food insurance," and that food insurance must cover bacon.
Its a violation of religious liberty in the same sense that making the killing of a random person a criminal offense is. That is, any possible person of any possible faith is not free to exercise that faith if their faith requires that they kill a random person.
Having to carry insurance does not require that you eat religiously objectionable food, it requires only that you carry food insurance. Catholics don't have to use contraception, and I doubt very much that the issue is really about supporting the use of contraception. If it were, then there would be pronouncements from Holy Mother Church regarding the evils of Blue Cross Blue Shield.
Now, there is an argument that the Bishops constitute the Catholic faith (Many people will argue against this vehemently.), but without explicit evidence that carrying insurance is against a religious proclamation you're not going to have a very good case. And, to be clear, what is an is not a religious proclamation is dodgy at best. There are plenty of fatwas that criminal law prevents the free exercise of.
biccat wrote:
You should also avoid having to pay taxes, because the federal government funds a lot of objectionable issues. But most people don't think going to jail is a necessary precondition for being Catholic.
All issues are objectionable, that's why they're issues.
Though, so far as I know, no one is under threat of incarceration for not carrying approved insurance policies.
biccat wrote:
WTF? No, you haven't been paying attention if you think this is what happened.
I'll refer you to my previous post with links to information that clearly shows a large number of Catholic institutions that have no problem with paying for contraceptives...they already are, this is not a new issue as states already have existing laws that require it.
biccat wrote:
You're missing a second important component to the separation of church and state: free exercise. Government can't enact a law that impinges on your religious freedom, which is what they are trying to do here (using the term "law" loosely).
Separation of Church and State is not a one-way street.
Conversely, the separation of church and state does not give religious institutions carte blanche to run hither and yon ignoring existing law. The Catholic church exists in most countries in the world, many of which mandate coverage of contraceptives regardless of religious disposition; why they think they're special in America is beyond me when it's the case in Rome.
1963-1968 two commissions of Bishops were convened to discuss contraception, all voted that the use of contraceptions is not against any tenants in the faith but Pope Paul VI didn't heed their recommendations. Even more recently, Pope Benedict XVI stated condom use to be "a lesser evil" than the spreading of disease; he even wrote a book about it.
The fact is, people are hiding behind their faith to take political advantage of a sensitive situation. Meanwhile, nations around the world laugh at us as we squabble over this silliness.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Bottom line, is it essential for your health? No. Humans live just fine without it. It may limit you on how you decide to live your life. But you will not die without it.
You know I was going post a whole thing about how religious people seem the cherry pick certain parts of their "beliefs" in order to make a fuss about laws. But than you added this bit at the end. The way I look at it your beliefs are the same thing, humans live just fine without em so you do not NEED them. You wanna live your life with em fine, but do not tell others to do as I say not as I do. Health vs 'Faith' is a no brainer, one you need to live and one is a luxury.
True, but I don't ask you to pay for my church. Don't ask my church to pay for your "sin". (Disclaimer: I am not actually Catholic, nor do I think birth-control is a sin... but I do see their side of the story on this.)
So if the 2 sides stay out of each other's way, then this problem is resolved. If you want treatment, go get it! Just don't ask Father O'Mally to foot the bill if he thinks you are doing a moral wrong.
I do pay for your church. Because it enjoys tax exept status my taxes are slightly higher. And because churches are apparently not subject to zoneing laws I now have homeless drug addicts walking around my nieghborhood waiting for the soup kitchen or what ever. this has had a marked effect on the value of my home, as though it needed help getting any lower.
All the special accomedations made for your fantasies carry a price.
Yep thats what I want, a President stooping to getting into an argument with radio blah blah guy. I guess now that he's solved the economy, the budget crisis, driven up gasoline prices to desired levels, the Euro crisis, and Iran he can now get around to the more mundane things. Oh wait...
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:True, but I don't ask you to pay for my church. Don't ask my church to pay for your "sin". (Disclaimer: I am not actually Catholic, nor do I think birth-control is a sin... but I do see their side of the story on this.)
This.
I don't know why people have such a problem with "don't make me do stuff I don't want to do" (at least until it comes to sex).
biccat wrote:
I don't know why people have such a problem with "don't make me do stuff I don't want to do" (at least until it comes to sex).
Its not so much that people have a problem with the idea, as much as it is they don't care, or find the argument in opposition to be weak. We make prospective murderers not murder, after all. We also make you pay taxes, be born as a citizen, live under a democratic government, and do numerous other things.
By the way, conflating rape with sex is probably not a thing you want to do.
thatdudefilthy wrote: I do pay for your church. Because it enjoys tax exept status my taxes are slightly higher. And because churches are apparently not subject to zoneing laws I now have homeless drug addicts walking around my nieghborhood waiting for the soup kitchen or what ever. this has had a marked effect on the value of my home, as though it needed help getting any lower.
All the special accomedations made for your fantasies carry a price.
Not sure if you are serious here...
So you think churches paying no taxes = you paying for chuches (since you pay taxes).
So all the 50% (roughly) of people in the US who do not pay Federal Income taxes are being paid by you? Any of their less desirable activities, such as drug use, rape, etc are therefore funded by you?
I disagree with that.
I also like the argument that we should be compassionate to human dignity and provide birth control... But those damn homeless people need to go away! So very compassionate...
It's worth noting that the insurance companies are much happier providing birth control as it saves them money.
All these "I shouldn't have to pay for you to have sex" arguments are bs for the simple fact that these women PAY for health insurance and the insurance companies would much rather save money by not having them "pump out a unit" as George Carlin would say .
I really hope santorum wins the nomination, I wonder how many people are going to jump ship as this weirdo stands at the podium arguing how we should abolish contraception and abortion for all while also tossing away any social programs designed to mitigate the negative effects of out of wedlock children who's parent or parents have no viable way of supporting them.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
I also like the argument that we should be compassionate to human dignity and provide birth control... But those damn homeless people need to go away! So very compassionate...
I am tired of those slutty old people in Florida getting paid by the government to have sex. All that Viagra and such.
Of course my family likes to argue that Viagra covers a medical problem, so it's okay even though the end result is the same "paying for the ability to have sex."
I then asked them if Grandma Smith with vaginal dryness should get reimbursed by medicare for her Astroglide since that is a medical condition as well, but that didn't go anywhere.
Polonius wrote:Do you want to share how or why she lied?
I know you enjoy argument over debate, but I'd actually be interested to see why you think she lied.
She said that a woman at Georgetown would spend $3000 for birth control while attending law school.
Annual checkup (assuming she doesn't go to a free clinic) - $100.
Monthly prescription - $10-20.
For 3 years, that's just over $1000 for birth control.
If she's in a 4-year program, less than $1500.
Are you quoting from the university health program's fee schedule? Do you have the card or a brochure showing their prescription co-pays? IME they can be significantly higher than your numbers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Yep thats what I want, a President stooping to getting into an argument with radio blah blah guy.
He didn't. He's made a point of not getting into arguments with these idiots and scumbags. Even when O'Reilly interrupted or talked over the President nearly fifty times in a conversation, the President kept his cool.
The President called and gave his support to a young woman who testified before Congress on a matter of national policy which is personally relevant to her, and was vilified and abused in the media by a hypocritical degenerate of a man, who depressingly has a massive national audience. Being supportive of Fluke is a nice gesture; telling her that her parents should be proud, and thanking her for her efforts to serve her country despite public abuse. If Genghis Connie someday went up before Congress to testify re: legislation, and some scumbag called her nasty names on the radio for an audience of millions, do you think you as a parent would appreciate a supportive word from the President?
It's disgusting that Rush Limbaugh called this girl a slut- especially when she had to have at least some courage to testify. Courage is something that Rush Limbaugh has never had. He's an Unamerican, cowardly draft-dodger, who should have no place in American politics. He should never, ever call himself a patriot. If he can't do his duty when Uncle Sam calls him to, he shouldn't call himself an American. It's even more pathetic that by dodging the draft, he sent another man to die for America in his place, so that he could continue to spew his bs.
Seaward wrote:biccat's people would actually be able to end this argument pretty easily.
What the hell do you mean "my people"?
Far right social conservatives.
People who oppose a tyrannical government?
Certainly not. I would never dream of saying social conservatives stand opposed to tyranny.
It's not the Republicans who are pushing this issue, it's the Democrats. I find their rampant disregard for individual and religious liberty offensive.
Your religious liberty is perfectly safe. If you work for an employer whose faith dictates that contraceptives are the spawn of Satan, said employer will not have to provide contraceptive coverage. The insurance company will.
Polonius wrote:You do realize that some people are allergic to latex, and non-latex condoms are far more expensive? Also, many people use both the pill and condoms in combination.
Now, I'd agree that it's likely that the $1k a year in contraception costs are more due to preference... but that preference is still preventing pregnancies.
And since women derive roughly half the benefit from contraception, I don't see a problem with them paying for only half the cost!
Yeah, I'm allergic to latex and it sucks. Let's have a list of things that have latex in them:
Band-aids.
Condoms.
Balloons.
That's all I can think of right now, but it still sucks. I CANT EVEN HAVE BALLOONS AT MY BIRTHDAY!
You would think if you were allergic to latex you would have figured out they make balloons out of Mylar and sell them at the 99c store.
biccat wrote:What the hell do you mean "my people"?
Far right social conservatives.
I'm a far right social conservative?
Interesting.
Edit: just to make sure: when you referred to "moonbats" up thread, were you referring to social conservatives?
Seaward wrote:Certainly not. I would never dream of saying social conservatives stand opposed to tyranny.
Must be an interesting world you live in then.
Seaward wrote:Your religious liberty is perfectly safe. If you work for an employer whose faith dictates that contraceptives are the spawn of Satan, said employer will not have to provide contraceptive coverage. The insurance company will.
You appear to be OK with the government requiring me to do things that my religious beliefs might prohibit. If that's your definition of religious liberty...well, you should sit down and think about it for a minute.
d-usa wrote:I am tired of those slutty old people in Florida getting paid by the government to have sex. All that Viagra and such.
The funny thing is, old people in Florida do get paid to have sex. Social Security and Medicare are basically the government paying people to stay out of the workforce.
Seaward wrote:Your religious liberty is perfectly safe. If you work for an employer whose faith dictates that contraceptives are the spawn of Satan, said employer will not have to provide contraceptive coverage. The insurance company will.
You appear to be OK with the government requiring me to do things that my religious beliefs might prohibit. If that's your definition of religious liberty...well, you should sit down and think about it for a minute.
You are not paying attention if that's what it appears like to you.
he's ok with the government requiring an employer that provides non-religious services to to pay for something for it's employees that the employer stakeholders find disagreeable.
I'm just not impressed that anybody's religious freedoms are actually violated. No more than a Quaker's are violated when paying for war, or a Christian Scientist when paying medicare taxes.
There is a difference between violating a person's religious freedom, and offending their sense of morality. Outside of the clergy, the prohibition against contraception is widely ignored among Catholics.
The rules against contraception aren't exactly divine law, either. The Church allows and endorses the natural family planning, including fertiilty awareness, which has perfect use efficiency close to that of condoms. Which raises, in my mind, a pretty obvious question: why can't we just use the stuff that's easier and more effective?
Which is why Catholics, as a rule, don't take that stuff to seriously.
Near as I can tell. We can do a full questionnaire if you dispute that assessment.
Edit: just to make sure: when you referred to "moonbats" up thread, were you referring to social conservatives?
Yup.
biccat wrote:
Seaward wrote:Certainly not. I would never dream of saying social conservatives stand opposed to tyranny.
Must be an interesting world you live in then.
It's a pretty depressing one, actually. Social conservatives stand against tyranny from the left - largely by shouting angrily on the internet - but they're just fine with theocratic tyranny, so long as it's their particular theology backing up the tyrannizing.
biccat wrote:You appear to be OK with the government requiring me to do things that my religious beliefs might prohibit. If that's your definition of religious liberty...well, you should sit down and think about it for a minute.
What is the government requiring you to do that your religious beliefs prohibit, pray tell?
If I found a religion that prohibits individuals from paying taxes or obeying traffic laws, will you be right there to back them up, screaming your head off about religious liberty?
Polonius wrote:I'm just not impressed that anybody's religious freedoms are actually violated. No more than a Quaker's are violated when paying for war, or a Christian Scientist when paying medicare taxes.
There's a difference between paying taxes and buying insurance. Taxes are a general expense that you pay to the government who decides how that money is allocated.
Insurance requires purchasing specific items and paying based on those items.
i'd wager that the birth control used to prevent ovarian cysts would be stronger than regular anti baby pills... I'd wager then it'd cost more than regular birth control so it could be $50 a month after tax that brings it to close to $3k a year....
I'm not seeing how she lied if she rounded up a little.
BUT
That being said i'm not a medical person, nor do i take the pill
We also don't have access to her friends medical records or costs but i'd say a range of $1000-$3000 is a reasonable range for these costs to be in.
Its not like the actual cost was 42.2 million total and she said it was $200 million a day... that would be lies
Seaward wrote:Near as I can tell. We can do a full questionnaire if you dispute that assessment.
Then you haven't been paying attention.
Seaward wrote:
Edit: just to make sure: when you referred to "moonbats" up thread, were you referring to social conservatives?
Yup.
Forwarded to moderators for further discussion.
Seaward wrote:but they're just fine with theocratic tyranny
I'm fine with theocratic tyranny now? Wow, that's a new one.
Seaward wrote:What is the government requiring you to do that your religious beliefs prohibit, pray tell?
Providing contraceptives to women.
Well, not my religious beliefs, but the religious beliefs of others.
I happen to think that it's a problem when the government violates others' rights.
Seaward wrote:If I found a religion that prohibits individuals from paying taxes or obeying traffic laws, will you be right there to back them up, screaming your head off about religious liberty?
I would argue that those are laws of general applicability that serve a compelling government interest. The purpose and effect of the laws also do not substantially burden religious belief.
Plus, I think you would have a hard time convincing anyone that such religious beliefs are sincerely held, rather than simply being concocted to oppose certain laws.
Well, not my religious beliefs, but the religious beliefs of others.
I happen to think that it's a problem when the government violates others' rights.
Plus, I think you would have a hard time convincing anyone that such religious beliefs are sincerely held, rather than simply being concocted to oppose certain laws.
biccat wrote:Then you haven't been paying attention.
I have. That you don't like the label for your positions is on you.
biccat wrote:
Seaward wrote:but they're just fine with theocratic tyranny
I'm fine with theocratic tyranny now? Wow, that's a new one.
As long as it's the right strand, sure. Likely other forms of tyranny as well. I dunno, though, I wasn't around to see how you responded to some of the previous administration's shredding of the Bill of Rights.
Providing contraceptives to women.
That's funny, I've seen no legislation at all requiring you to personally hand out contraceptives to women. I've seen legislation requiring you to buy health insurance. That's probably unconstitutional. Say, I bet you could make that case and nip this whole thing in the bud, as I've been saying from the start.
I would argue that those are laws of general applicability that serve a compelling government interest. The purpose and effect of the laws also do not substantially burden religious belief.
Plus, I think you would have a hard time convincing anyone that such religious beliefs are sincerely held, rather than simply being concocted to oppose certain laws.
How dare you tell me, a devout follower of Theus, as real a deity as any other, how deeply important or unimportant the running of stop signs is to the proper worship of the Pentavirate? And how dare you suggest Theus' divine word is simply a scheme to avoid reckless drivings summons? The intolerance towards religion you're displaying is disturbing. If I wasn't on my way to set up the celebratory diorama on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, I'd have more to say.
1) Rush calls woman a slut and a prostitute for behaving in a way with 90+% of all other women her age.
2) People object to this.
3) biccat defends Rush by calling the woman a liar and then comes out to make reference to liberals being bad because of Breitbart?
4) People ask biccat to show where she lied. He fails to do so.
5) Conversation goes on as biccat continuously humiliates himself with stupid comments.
6) biccat victimizes himself because he believes people should just accept his stupid, bigoted, and insipid comments.
7) biccat confuses with "freedom of religion" with "religion is free to impose its will on people".
8) Profit?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, biccat, I'm hoping Empire gets a new army book so I can get a $50 box set for that army after I win our bet and Obama crushes Romney. <3
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, hey, I forgot to mention this whole hilarious part.
Oh, wait, crap, he was coming from the Dominican Republic. I bet he used all that Viagra on the sandy beaches of the Dominican Republic. I'm sure this has nothing to do with the Dominican Republic having a despicable sex tourism industry.
I'm sure these two facts have nothing to do with one another.
biccat wrote:Then you haven't been paying attention.
I have. That you don't like the label for your positions is on you.
I don't have a problem with social conservatives. I disagree with them, but I don't have a problem with them.
The problem here is that I'm not a social conservative, any more than you're a Fascist.
Seaward wrote:As long as it's the right strand, sure. Likely other forms of tyranny as well. I dunno, though, I wasn't around to see how you responded to some of the previous administration's shredding of the Bill of Rights.
Your insight into my (unexpressed) political views is amazing.
Wrong, but amazing nonetheless.
Seaward wrote:That's funny, I've seen no legislation at all requiring you to personally hand out contraceptives to women.
So you agree that legislation requiring me to personally hand out contraception would be a violation of religious liberty?
What's the difference between that and requiring me to pay for said contraception?
What about if, instead of paying for it, I have to hire someone else who pays for it?
Seaward wrote:I've seen legislation requiring you to buy health insurance. That's probably unconstitutional. Say, I bet you could make that case and nip this whole thing in the bud, as I've been saying from the start.
I could, you're right. However, this is a separate issue. If Obamacare is constitutional, this action still might be unconstitutional.
Seaward wrote:How dare you tell me, a devout follower of Theus, as real a deity as any other, how deeply important or unimportant the running of stop signs is to the proper worship of the Pentavirate? And how dare you suggest Theus' divine word is simply a scheme to avoid reckless drivings summons? The intolerance towards religion you're displaying is disturbing. If I wasn't on my way to set up the celebratory diorama on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, I'd have more to say.
I'm not questioning the legitimacy of your beliefs, I'm questioning your sincerity.
frgsinwntr wrote:*spam*
You forgot "Maidens that have paid me money." It's a core tenet of liberalism that the only people who disagree with them are being paid by evil corporations. Or, in this case, churches.
biccat wrote:You appear to be OK with the government requiring me to do things that my religious beliefs might prohibit. If that's your definition of religious liberty...well, you should sit down and think about it for a minute.
This has always been an interesting point for me. My interpretation was always that if an employer asked someone to do something that was in their employment contract, they should do it or find another job. There's nothing stopping anyone from opening a "Christian pharmacy," quite frankly. The whole business about someone not dispensing a morning after pill, when it's a very time-sensitive issue kind of makes me wonder why they chose that profession in the first place.
biccat wrote:
There's a difference between paying taxes and buying insurance. Taxes are a general expense that you pay to the government who decides how that money is allocated.
Insurance requires purchasing specific items and paying based on those items.
Neither of those statements are true.
The state, ostensibly, collects taxes in order to fund specific enterprises. Obviously, as should be clear by the use of the word "ostensibly", funds are shifted around as politically necessary.
Similarly, while insurance companies charge for particular policies, funds are shifted around as necessary in order to maintain a profit margin. If they were not, the entire concept of insurance would amount to little more than charity. You pay for a particular type of coverage, but what your money actually contributes to is not at all your decision. You are, in essence, contributing to a general fund.
Hence the idea that, if Holy Mother Church really hated birth control, Holy Mother Church would be excoriating Blue Cross Blue Shield.
biccat wrote:
Seaward wrote:
Edit: just to make sure: when you referred to "moonbats" up thread, were you referring to social conservatives?
Yup.
Forwarded to moderators for further discussion.
I'm not a moderator, but considering some of the things you've said in this thread you have very little room to complain.
You effectively implied that anyone who doesn't oppose the birth control mandate is in favor of tyranny, and a useful idiot.
biccat wrote:
You appear to be OK with the government requiring me to do things that my religious beliefs might prohibit. If that's your definition of religious liberty...well, you should sit down and think about it for a minute.
So, to be clear, murder should be perfectly alright so long as there exists a fatwa endorsing it?
Or are Muslims that adhere to the fatwas of radical clerics not religious?
Dogma, just let it go; he likes to argue, it comes with the profession.
As I pointed out earlier i the thread; even the current Pope doesn't have a huge problem with BC as he calls them a "lesser evil" and the Catholic Church convened at least two committees which both recommended a softer stance on the issue.
Obama backed down and allowed a face saving measure for the church which was accepted by a large number of the governing bodies, now it's just the fat, old white guys that have a problem with it (whatever that Bishop's group is).
The fact of the matter is, we all pay for things that we may not agree with. I personally think food stamps and welfare in general is blight. I lived in two countries that had a more common sense (in my eyes) stance on the matter than the US does, just dolling out aid willy-nilly. You pay taxes, your tax dollars go to provide medical services for much more reprehensible things than BC so that the system doesn't become even more taxed.
The thing I never got about this whole thing is the "government is forcing me to do something that's against my religion". As I stated earlier, this is just showboating and hiding behind a religion to make easy political points. If they were so concerned; they would be demanding the cessation of war since, you know, the whole "thou shall not kill" thing being one of the major tenants of the religion, even more so than BC I would imagine. Besides, Christians break the laws of their religion every day; if they lived by the bible, they'd live in caves and go around flagellating themselves.
I even proved that Catholic organizations are already abiding by more than several state laws that require BC coverage and have been doing it for some time without a whimper.
No, this is just politics at it's usual worst and cherry picking what someone is going to be irate about.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:This has always been an interesting point for me. My interpretation was always that if an employer asked someone to do something that was in their employment contract, they should do it or find another job. There's nothing stopping anyone from opening a "Christian pharmacy," quite frankly. The whole business about someone not dispensing a morning after pill, when it's a very time-sensitive issue kind of makes me wonder why they chose that profession in the first place.
There are a lot of Christian pharmacies. But there are rules that require pharmacies to stock certain types of drugs, but generally include an exception for religious views - Catholic organizations can't be required to stock abortion drugs, but would have to refer people elsewhere.
There was a minor issue a few years ago when Washington, at the urging of Planned Parenthood, withdrew the religious exemption allowing pharmacies to refer out instead of stocking Plan B. The State of Washington eventually lost that fight.
biccat wrote:I don't have a problem with social conservatives. I disagree with them, but I don't have a problem with them.
On what do you disagree with them?
biccat wrote:Your insight into my (unexpressed) political views is amazing.
You've expressed quite a few political views. That they all unerringly line up with social conservative political positions is, once again, hardly my fault.
What's the difference between that and requiring me to pay for said contraception?
You're not paying for said contraception. An insurance provider is. I assume you have health insurance; I have no idea who you're with, but some insurance companies provide coverage for abortions. If you're with such an insurance company, are you paying for abortions?
Was my religious liberty violated when my tax dollars went to faith-based initiatives? Was your reaction as zealous?
I'm not questioning the legitimacy of your beliefs, I'm questioning your sincerity.
And I take it I'm free to question the religious sincerity of anyone arguing against contraception coverage in insurance plans. If I can label them all as insincere, their religious liberty can't possibly have been violated, and thus there is no issue of religious liberty violation.
I figured that a "ditto" head would have posted this already.
Elrushbo backed down and said "sorry" for his choice of words to the young lady.
He apparently lost 6 advertisers, and made the appology online this weekend. Funny
how the "bootomline" can affect a strongly held conviction.....
alarmingrick wrote:I figured that a "ditto" head would have posted this already.
Elrushbo backed down and said "sorry" for his choice of words to the young lady.
He apparently lost 6 advertisers, and made the appology online this weekend. Funny
how the "bootomline" can affect a strongly held conviction.....
Were they 6 big advertisers?
I'm actually kinda interested, seeing as how Rush doesn't really stick his foot in his mouth all too often.
alarmingrick wrote:I figured that a "ditto" head would have posted this already.
Elrushbo backed down and said "sorry" for his choice of words to the young lady.
He apparently lost 6 advertisers, and made the appology online this weekend. Funny
how the "bootomline" can affect a strongly held conviction.....
Were they 6 big advertisers?
I'm actually kinda interested, seeing as how Rush doesn't really stick his foot in his mouth all too often.
I just caught a blurb on MSNBC earlier while doing laundry.
I'll see what I can find.
"If we're going to have to pay for this, then we want something in return, Ms. Fluke," Limbaugh said. "And that would be the videos of all this sex posted online so we can see what we're getting for our money."
"If we're going to have to pay for this, then we want something in return, Ms. Fluke," Limbaugh said. "And that would be the videos of all this sex posted online so we can see what we're getting for our money."
Biccat, you're a lawyer, right?
Is this Sexual Harrasment?
No, that's negotiating for the public interest. Then someone smart makes it so you have to watch the videos as they are posted instead of picking and choosing; and make sure there's lots of man in man action using publically purchased condoms.
There you go Rush; be careful what you wish for.
AustonT wrote:. Then someone smart makes it so you have to watch the videos as they are posted instead of picking and choosing; and make sure there's lots of man in man action using publically purchased condoms.
There you go Rush; be careful what you wish for.
Polonius wrote:You do realize that some people are allergic to latex, and non-latex condoms are far more expensive? Also, many people use both the pill and condoms in combination.
Now, I'd agree that it's likely that the $1k a year in contraception costs are more due to preference... but that preference is still preventing pregnancies.
And since women derive roughly half the benefit from contraception, I don't see a problem with them paying for only half the cost!
Yeah, I'm allergic to latex and it sucks. Let's have a list of things that have latex in them:
Band-aids.
Condoms.
Balloons.
That's all I can think of right now, but it still sucks. I CANT EVEN HAVE BALLOONS AT MY BIRTHDAY!
You would think if you were allergic to latex you would have figured out they make balloons out of Mylar and sell them at the 99c store.
Yeah, well I don't really care about balloons that much so I didn't bother to found a place in my town that sold the mylar ones. Condoms and band-aids are the only things that kinda bother me, and even then not that much. I mean, the latex-free ones just cost a bit more.
"If we're going to have to pay for this, then we want something in return, Ms. Fluke," Limbaugh said. "And that would be the videos of all this sex posted online so we can see what we're getting for our money."
Biccat, you're a lawyer, right?
Is this Sexual Harrasment?
Nope.
Seaward wrote:
biccat wrote:I don't have a problem with social conservatives. I disagree with them, but I don't have a problem with them.
On what do you disagree with them?
A lot of things, actually.
Seaward wrote:You're not paying for said contraception. An insurance provider is. I assume you have health insurance; I have no idea who you're with, but some insurance companies provide coverage for abortions. If you're with such an insurance company, are you paying for abortions?
If the service is covered and I'm paying premiums - yes.
Seaward wrote:Was my religious liberty violated when my tax dollars went to faith-based initiatives?
Nope.
Seaward wrote:And I take it I'm free to question the religious sincerity of anyone arguing against contraception coverage in insurance plans. If I can label them all as insincere, their religious liberty can't possibly have been violated, and thus there is no issue of religious liberty violation.
You can question their sincerity, but there should be some reason why you're questioning it.
Seaward wrote:Was my religious liberty violated when my tax dollars went to faith-based initiatives?
Nope.
I'm curious as to what you think religious liberty is.
biccat wrote:You can question their sincerity, but there should be some reason why you're questioning it.
There have been several pages establishing the reasons to question the sincerity of the religious objection presented by Catholic Bishops, several presented by Catholics.
Polonius wrote:You do realize that some people are allergic to latex, and non-latex condoms are far more expensive? Also, many people use both the pill and condoms in combination.
Now, I'd agree that it's likely that the $1k a year in contraception costs are more due to preference... but that preference is still preventing pregnancies.
And since women derive roughly half the benefit from contraception, I don't see a problem with them paying for only half the cost!
Yeah, I'm allergic to latex and it sucks. Let's have a list of things that have latex in them:
Band-aids.
Condoms.
Balloons.
That's all I can think of right now, but it still sucks. I CANT EVEN HAVE BALLOONS AT MY BIRTHDAY!
You would think if you were allergic to latex you would have figured out they make balloons out of Mylar and sell them at the 99c store.
Yeah, well I don't really care about balloons that much so I didn't bother to found a place in my town that sold the mylar ones. Condoms and band-aids are the only things that kinda bother me, and even then not that much. I mean, the latex-free ones just cost a bit more.
biccat wrote: If you really want to see some political hatred, check out what the left said about Breitbart over the past few days.
Manufactured outrage is awesome.
Breitbart is an iinteresting figure, because the people rushing to defend him and acting "outraged" at people that have spoken ill of him despite his death really seem to havent spent much time reading his work or what he himself advocated and practiced.
Breitbart has a large body of public quotes and statements in which he prided himself on as he put it "making enemies" and "stiring the pot".
The things he himself said about Ted Kennedy within minutes of Kennedy's death ( before the body was even cold) are just as salacious and intentionally harsh as ANYTHING said about Breitbart.
In fact Breitbart made it pretty clear that he did not think the recently deceased deserved any special protection or "hands off" period as far as criticism of them was concerned. Which makes the manufactured outrage that so many (including some people right here) pretended to have seem rather short-sighted and ill-placed.
Breitbart wore criticism of himself as a badge of honor, even retweeting what his detractors said about him and posting their quotes on his various blogs and sites.
Breitbart was someone who lived to tell people exactly what he thought of others at all times, and was not a hypocrit in expecting and allowing others to do same about him.
Too bad this fact is lost on so many who rushed to defend someone who didnt ask to be defended when he was alive nor dead...
And I'm still left waiting for the day that movement conservatism hits rock bottom, and people start saying 'wait a minute, if we have to defend this bs I'd rather be doing something else'.
Here we are at a new low, Limbaugh calling some random girl a slut, and yet the usual suspects aren't embaressed enough to start thinking about moving away from such a crass, hatefilled political movement. I really have to wander how much further there is to fall.
biccat wrote:Of course, if Georgetown has to cover the expense for birth control, her insurance is going to go up. What she's really asking for is a gender-based tax and subsidy - most women will get the pill, but only have to pay half the cost in increased premiums. Men will pay increased premiums but won't get any advantage.
Except, of course, the guy has sex with a girl who can't get pregnant. For people who don't have some bizarre hatred of sex, and also think it is a good thing to be able to choose when and with whom you want to have children, then this is plainly a good thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:That is the problem. It is not a right. Why should I be forced to go against my beliefs (an ACTUAL right) so that someone else doesn't have to fund their own optional medical choices? If I don't pay for your birth-control, does that make it impossible for you to get it? No. You just have to pay for it yourself. What a shocking idea! Pay for something you want!
Bottom line, is it essential for your health? No. Humans live just fine without it. It may limit you on how you decide to live your life. But you will not die without it.
And this is where the ideology of free choice runs smack bang into the problem of social benefit. We know society functions, and we know that people have sex whether they can access birth control or not. And we know that it is bad, for society and for the child, when a pregnancy is unplanned.
So we can consider the absolute importance of free choice and making the person who uses a thing pay for it and base that and all other decision upon it, or we can consider the benefit to all of society by allowing every person to have sex without the risk of an unplanned pregnancy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:No, it actually isn't.
I disagree with Gen. Lee Losing here, but you're just making things up.
Protip: Google what "optional" means.
He isn't. If a thing is simply left up to those who can afford it, then there is no right to it if you don't have the money. So, for instance, if alarmingrick couldn't afford to pay for the pill, his child would be without it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:But why make someone else pay for it? And not just any someone else... but someone who opposes the very idea of it? Your daughter has a medical need. I wont stand in your way, but why should I foot the bill? I don't know you. You are not chipping in for my wife's care.
Because healthcare doesn't fit at all well with the assumptions needed for a free market, and as such simply leaving it up to 'user pays' is almost certain to produce a sub-optimal result.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Either you don't know about the Catholic objection to contraceptives or you have no idea of the concept of religious freedom.
California law right now is exactly like the proposed Federal law. Rick Warren has happily operating his ministry in California under this very same system, paying for the contraception methods of his employees, and never raised one second of protest. Now that this is being proposed as Federal law he's claiming he'd rather go to jail than tolerate such a system.
And so when we consider how to describe outrage and calls for civil disobedience suddenly appearing from people who worked under that system without raising one second of protest before, the best description has to be manufactured outrage.
And you really, really ought to know about Warren's hypocrisy, given that I started a thread explaining that hypocrisy, and that you posted in that thread. But you either failed to read, or simply chose to ignore it, in order to continue towing the line of movement conservatism.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zakiriel wrote:Pay for your own birth control. Take responsibility for your own actions. Don't be a brood mare for the state.
Deep down, you know that's complete gibberish, don't you?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Yep thats what I want, a President stooping to getting into an argument with radio blah blah guy. I guess now that he's solved the economy, the budget crisis, driven up gasoline prices to desired levels, the Euro crisis, and Iran he can now get around to the more mundane things. Oh wait...
Yeah, a President should remain outside of political dialogue, especially when it relates to debate over major policy he personally has staked most of his administration on passing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote:
biccat wrote:Edit: just to make sure: when you referred to "moonbats" up thread, were you referring to social conservatives?
Yup.
I find it's generally the fringe left that gets called moonbats. The fringe right gets called wingnuts. I don't know why.
moonbats v wingnuts is a rivalry from the days of the dinosaur, noone can understand it......
(except maybe Frazz! )
So far Limbaugh has lost 2 stations(dropping his show) and 12 advertisers. And I've been hearing talk of
him being dropped by AFR(Armed Forces Radio). Nice to see his mouth finally draw it's desreved payback.
dogma wrote:I'm curious as to what you think religious liberty is.
To be perfectly honest, at this stage, I'm really not. We all know more or less the form biccat's answer will take, and we all know that it'll make about as much sense as any of the other conservative positions he's endeavoured to defend.
Really at this point I'm just watching US conservatism drift into more and more ridiculous nonsense, waiting for the moment when biccat finally says he's had enough of defending their silliness. It has to be soon. I mean he's here defending a major conservative figure calling some random girl he doesn't know a slut, and the only argument the conservative noise machine has given him to justify this is speculation that the girl could have overstated the cost of contraception. So I figure the breaking point has to be soon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:But no one gets called a moonnut.
Does that seem right to you?
Or a wingbat. But then that wouldn't be much of an insult, or really much of an anything, considering bats have wings.
alarmingrick wrote:moonbats v wingnuts is a rivalry from the days of the dinosaur, noone can understand it......
(except maybe Frazz! )
So far Limbaugh has lost 2 stations(dropping his show) and 12 advertisers. And I've been hearing talk of
him being dropped by AFR(Armed Forces Radio). Nice to see his mouth finally draw it's desreved payback.
Live by the blowhard die by the blowhard? Now if we can exterminate Bill Maher's and Michael Moore's careers then I can call it a good day.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
sebster wrote:
I find it's generally the fringe left that gets called moonbats. The fringe right gets called wingnuts. I don't know why.
But no one gets called a moonnut.
Does that seem right to you?
Wingbat seems both cool and oxymoronic though. Plus it would make Batman twitch every time there's a commercial on the TV.
alarmingrick wrote:moonbats v wingnuts is a rivalry from the days of the dinosaur, noone can understand it......
(except maybe Frazz! )
So far Limbaugh has lost 2 stations(dropping his show) and 12 advertisers. And I've been hearing talk of
him being dropped by AFR(Armed Forces Radio). Nice to see his mouth finally draw it's desreved payback.
Live by the blowhard die by the blowhard? Now if we can exterminate Bill Maher's and Michael Moore's careers then I can call it a good day.
except this "extermination" was brought around by Rush himself.
alarmingrick wrote:moonbats v wingnuts is a rivalry from the days of the dinosaur, noone can understand it......
(except maybe Frazz! )
So far Limbaugh has lost 2 stations(dropping his show) and 12 advertisers. And I've been hearing talk of
him being dropped by AFR(Armed Forces Radio). Nice to see his mouth finally draw it's desreved payback.
Live by the blowhard die by the blowhard? Now if we can exterminate Bill Maher's and Michael Moore's careers then I can call it a good day.
except this "extermination" was brought around by Rush himself.
What "except" they've all made similar stupid comments.
Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage: She researched the Jesuit college’s health plans for students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not included. “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,” says Fluke, who has spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue. The issue got the university president’s office last spring, where Georgetown declined to change its policy.
alarmingrick wrote:moonbats v wingnuts is a rivalry from the days of the dinosaur, noone can understand it......
(except maybe Frazz! )
So far Limbaugh has lost 2 stations(dropping his show) and 12 advertisers. And I've been hearing talk of
him being dropped by AFR(Armed Forces Radio). Nice to see his mouth finally draw it's desreved payback.
Live by the blowhard die by the blowhard? Now if we can exterminate Bill Maher's and Michael Moore's careers then I can call it a good day.
except this "extermination" was brought around by Rush himself.
Then all Frazz needs to do is provoke Bill and Michael into calling him a Slut, and then it's mission accomplished.
biccat wrote:I believe Maher dropped the c-word a few times.
Selective outrage.
Or ignorance of things that Maher does, seeing as he is, you know, a middling stand-up comedian with a poorly rated late-night talk show on a premium channel.
biccat wrote:I believe Maher dropped the c-word a few times.
Selective outrage.
Or ignorance of things that Maher does, seeing as he is, you know, a middling stand-up comedian with a poorly rated late-night talk show on a premium channel.
vs. a middling stand up commedian on a poorly rated AM radio talk station?
Rush Hudson Limbaugh III ... is an American radio talk show host, conservative political commentator, and an opinion leader in American conservatism. He hosts The Rush Limbaugh Show, which is aired throughout the U.S. on Premiere Radio Networks and is the highest-rated talk-radio program in the United States. Limbaugh signed an 8-year, $400 million contract extension with Clear Channel in 2008.
alarmingrick wrote:moonbats v wingnuts is a rivalry from the days of the dinosaur, noone can understand it......
(except maybe Frazz! )
So far Limbaugh has lost 2 stations(dropping his show) and 12 advertisers. And I've been hearing talk of
him being dropped by AFR(Armed Forces Radio). Nice to see his mouth finally draw it's desreved payback.
Live by the blowhard die by the blowhard? Now if we can exterminate Bill Maher's and Michael Moore's careers then I can call it a good day. .
Not sure who bill maher is(i probably know just cant recall the name) But Moore, Yes. He is such a pretentious moron.
dogma wrote:Or ignorance of things that Maher does, seeing as he is, you know, a middling stand-up comedian with a poorly rated late-night talk show on a premium channel.
Maher gets about 1 million viewers a night. Which is roughly on par with the best non-Fox news program (Rachel Maddow) [as an aside, since when do Hannity, O'Reilly, Maddow, Schultz and O'Donnell count as news shows?]
Seems like his views are important to some people.
biccat wrote:
Maher gets about 1 million viewers a night. Which is roughly on par with the best non-Fox news program (Rachel Maddow) [as an aside, since when do Hannity, O'Reilly, Maddow, Schultz and O'Donnell count as news shows?]
Seems like his views are important to some people.
Its also a weekly, rather than daily show. Which is to say, barring re-runs (I can't find data on them) significantly fewer people watch Real Time than watch Rachel Maddow on a weekly basis.
Some people may care about what he has to say, but you can't really argue that his significance as a public figure even approaches Limbaugh's.
streamdragon wrote:Limbaugh is considered a comedian now?
Everyone outside of the USA assumes he is a parody character when they first hear/read about him.
Then we discover that he's apparently serious which is even more amusing.
Why do you think he's serious? Why does anyone think or take him seriously.
And compariing him to the Daily Show is still a battle of nobody vs. nobody. Trying to draw a difference so its ok for the left wing crazies to be crazies is nonsense.
Frazzled wrote:Why do you think he's serious? Why does anyone think or take him seriously.
Depends on what the issue is.
He's serious on a lot of things, not so serious on others.
I did particularly enjoy when the left got righteously indignant over the "Magic Negro" song.
Frazzled wrote:And compariing him to the Daily Show is still a battle of nobody vs. nobody. Trying to draw a difference so its ok for the left wing crazies to be crazies is nonsense.
I'd rather they just say "left wing crazies are allowed to be crazy," it would let us know where they stand. Rather than trying to create false barriers that break down when they would negatively impact liberal crazies.
Doesn't, at some point, the context of the comment also factor in?
I mean, there's a reason there isn't outrage every time a policeman beats a suspect too.
Oh, and "Rush doesn't have any influence on conservatives" is up there with "I'm not a Republican, I'm an independent" and "I'm not right wing, I'm moderate" with things conservatives say that always amuse me.
I disagree with Gen. Lee Losing here, but you're just making things up.
Protip: Google what "optional" means.
He isn't. If a thing is simply left up to those who can afford it, then there is no right to it if you don't have the money. So, for instance, if alarmingrick couldn't afford to pay for the pill, his child would be without it.
Gen. Lee Losing was talking about paying for optional medical procedures and medications. Go back and read the posts.
Regulating hormones to keep one from bleeding to death is not, by most reasonable definitions, optional if that is what is deemed medically necessary.
How about we address each instance of stupid on its own merit?
Why should we play a constant game of "it's okay that Rush did it because X did it, and it's okay that X did it because Y did it before him".
Why not be angry at each person for his or her own offense? If you are justifying it, then are already acknowledging that he was wrong and you are just trying to ding a reason to make it okay.
d-usa wrote:How about we address each instance of stupid on its own merit?
Why should we play a constant game of "it's okay that Rush did it because X did it, and it's okay that X did it because Y did it before him".
Why not be angry at each person for his or her own offense? If you are justifying it, then are already acknowledging that he was wrong and you are just trying to ding a reason to make it okay.
i think I already did that. Come on D-Usa catch up. The Frazzled victory train is heading out!
I would like to know what his or a general definition of slut really is.
Girl has sex with a 1 guy in a high school. Word gets around. Slut.
Girl sleeps with a few guys. Slut.
Is it a certain number of guy? number of guys in a period of time? Not married to they guy(s).
Not to sound like some feminist fighting for women's sexual freedom and expression, but men seem to be too fixated on women and their number of partners they may have had and not point the finger at themselves.
He's an ass.
What about Gov. Kasich refusing "Federal assistance" at first? Saying they didn't need it.
And all because of polotics. The guy you linked is a talking head. Kasich is the leader of a state
and his actions could actually hurt those victims.
Frazzled wrote:No I am saying put them all against the proverbial ratings wall.
Limbaugh rates, and will continue to rate. There's always an audience out there waiting to feel outraged over stuff that angry radio people claim is outrageous, even when it's stupid made up nonsense.
Same as Maher will continue to appeal to nasty, small minded people that like feel intellectually superior, and so he'll pick up enough ratings to shuffle along.
We can't, and mustn't, shut down these kinds of voices, but it then becomes important for everyone that values real debate, on both sides, to come out and tell everyone that people like Limbaugh and Maher are just noisy little nobodies who make up gak to feel good about themselves. Make sure that their nasty, stupid politics is kept on the fringe where it belongs.
We should not, as some people have unfortunately tried in this thread, defend them, even with as milquetoast an effort of targetting the girl he abused while shouting 'your side does it too!'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:I did particularly enjoy when the left got righteously indignant over the "Magic Negro" song.
That's actually another point I thought you guys would have hit rock bottom, and decided that there really must be something better to do than defend that hatefilled stupidity.
I'd rather they just say "left wing crazies are allowed to be crazy," it would let us know where they stand. Rather than trying to create false barriers that break down when they would negatively impact liberal crazies.
The left wing crazies will be crazy. Find me anyone nearly as crazy as Limbaugh who has anything like his influence within the party, and you'd have a point. As there is no such person, all we have is you talking bs to avoid accepting that there really is a major problem with flying rodent gak insanity in the core of the conservative movement.
Seriously, it doesn't have to be this way, and it wasn't always this way in the Republican party. There is a intellectual legacy of good and thought political argument in the party, that you're presently gaking all over by putting up not only with Limbaugh's nonsense, but also by pretending there's any merit at all in this stupid 'don't make people pay for contraception
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:Gen. Lee Losing was talking about paying for optional medical procedures and medications. Go back and read the posts.
Regulating hormones to keep one from bleeding to death is not, by most reasonable definitions, optional if that is what is deemed medically necessary.
Are we really derping this hard right now?
No, he didn't. We'll go back and get his post, shall we?
"I am sorry your daughter has that problem. Again, I am not saying she has no right to medicine. So using an obviously sympathetic story to insinuate that I am uncaring is BS. She has every right to go get it. I would encourage her to do so. I have nothing against her getting it, actually.
But why make someone else pay for it? And not just any someone else... but someone who opposes the very idea of it? Your daughter has a medical need. I wont stand in your way, but why should I foot the bill? I don't know you. You are not chipping in for my wife's care."
See there, where he says 'why make someone else pay for it?' That means he thinks it is up to the individual to pay for it, or for their parents to do so. Which means, as I already said, there is no effective right to the medication, because if you don't have the money you can't get the medication.
EDIT - whoever set up the word filter so that flying rodent gak turns up as flying rodent gak is an absolute genius.
Limbaugh rates, and will continue to rate. There's always an audience out there waiting to feel outraged over stuff that angry radio people claim is outrageous, even when it's stupid made up nonsense.
Same as Maher will continue to appeal to nasty, small minded people that like feel intellectually superior, and so he'll pick up enough ratings to shuffle along.
We can't, and mustn't, shut down these kinds of voices, but it then becomes important for everyone that values real debate, on both sides, to come out and tell everyone that people like Limbaugh and Maher are just noisy little nobodies who make up gak to feel good about themselves. Make sure that their nasty, stupid politics is kept on the fringe where it belongs.
We should not, as some people have unfortunately tried in this thread, defend them, even with as milquetoast an effort of targetting the girl he abused while shouting 'your side does it too!'
Came to see conservatives defending a man branding a woman whose sex life is unknown to him a "slut" and a "prostitute" in front of millions of people, leaving satisfied yet saddened.
Monster Rain wrote:Gen. Lee Losing was talking about paying for optional medical procedures and medications. Go back and read the posts.
Regulating hormones to keep one from bleeding to death is not, by most reasonable definitions, optional if that is what is deemed medically necessary.
Are we really derping this hard right now?
No, he didn't. We'll go back and get his post, shall we?
"I am sorry your daughter has that problem. Again, I am not saying she has no right to medicine. So using an obviously sympathetic story to insinuate that I am uncaring is BS.
She has every right to go get it. I would encourage her to do so. I have nothing against her getting it, actually.
But why make someone else pay for it? And not just any someone else... but someone who opposes the very idea of it?
Your daughter has a medical need. I wont stand in your way, but why should I foot the bill? I don't know you. You are not chipping in for my wife's care."
See there, where he says 'why make someone else pay for it?' That means he thinks it is up to the individual to pay for it, or for their parents to do so. Which means, as I already said, there is no effective right to the medication, because if you don't have the money you can't get the medication.
EDIT - whoever set up the word filter so that flying rodent gak turns up as flying rodent gak is an absolute genius.
Which, not that it matters, I did pay for it. I pay a bit of every paycheck to my insurance plan.
Plus i pay a negotiated price for my medications and co-pays to doctors.
Frazzled wrote:Oh jeez now I'm agreeing with Sebster.
Don't feel too bad, it happens to the best of us.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alarmingrick wrote:Which, not that it matters, I did pay for it. I pay a bit of every paycheck to my insurance plan.
Plus i pay a negotiated price for my medications and co-pays to doctors.
Yeah, and sorry to use your daughter as a point for debate. I was just trying to point out that 'you have the right to something as long as you pay for it' basically means 'if you can't pay for something you have no right to it'.
Frazzled wrote:Oh jeez now I'm agreeing with Sebster.
Don't feel too bad, it happens to the best of us.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alarmingrick wrote:Which, not that it matters, I did pay for it. I pay a bit of every paycheck to my insurance plan.
Plus i pay a negotiated price for my medications and co-pays to doctors.
Yeah, and sorry to use your daughter as a point for debate. I was just trying to point out that 'you have the right to something as long as you pay for it' basically means 'if you can't pay for something you have no right to it'.
No problem, I opened the door for the discussion on the subject. I feel it's important to show there's a need for the"pill" other than BC.
And you are correct about "no cash, no service". I've been without insurance and it was a nightmare.
At no point did I see a quote from Gen. Lee Losing specifically wishing harm on the children of another poster. He started off talking about paying for optional vs. mandatory healthcare regarding whether or not taxes should pay for it, and later (in the post you quoted) expanded on his views. Questioning who pays for something doesn't mean that someone shouldn't receive whatever that thing is.
Monster Rain wrote:At no point did I see a quote from Gen. Lee Losing specifically wishing harm on the children of another poster.
Obviously not. No-one is saying that he did.
He started off talking about paying for optional vs. mandatory healthcare regarding whether or not taxes should pay for it, and later (in the post you quoted) expanded on his views. Questioning who pays for something doesn't mean that someone shouldn't receive whatever that thing is.
I wish you good luck in your search.
Are you really, really going to pretend he is just questioning who pays for a thing, and that's all he's doing? That there's no element of 'it should be you who pays for it'.
I'll just repeat the post again;
"I am sorry your daughter has that problem. Again, I am not saying she has no right to medicine. So using an obviously sympathetic story to insinuate that I am uncaring is BS.
She has every right to go get it. I would encourage her to do so. I have nothing against her getting it, actually.
But why make someone else pay for it? And not just any someone else... but someone who opposes the very idea of it?
Your daughter has a medical need. I wont stand in your way, but why should I foot the bill? I don't know you. You are not chipping in for my wife's care."
Seriously, it isn't hidden in the subtext. He thinks it should be up to the individual to pay for that treatment, not greater society, and certainly not him. And that means, as I've said a few times now, that when an individual cannot pay for the treatment, he goes without.
sebster wrote:[And that means, as I've said a few times now, that when an individual cannot pay for the treatment, he goes without.
Why does one person not wanting to pay for something, or even a sub-set of people in a society feeling that way mean that there can't be a way for people to get medical care that they can't afford?
To be perfectly honest, at this stage, I'm really not. We all know more or less the form biccat's answer will take, and we all know that it'll make about as much sense as any of the other conservative positions he's endeavoured to defend.
Really at this point I'm just watching US conservatism drift into more and more ridiculous nonsense, waiting for the moment when biccat finally says he's had enough of defending their silliness. It has to be soon. I mean he's here defending a major conservative figure calling some random girl he doesn't know a slut, and the only argument the conservative noise machine has given him to justify this is speculation that the girl could have overstated the cost of contraception. So I figure the breaking point has to be soon.
sebster wrote:[And that means, as I've said a few times now, that when an individual cannot pay for the treatment, he goes without.
Why does one person not wanting to pay for something, or even a sub-set of people in a society feeling that way mean that there can't be a way for people to get medical care that they can't afford?
Well, I'm interested in hearing how this would work.
Insurance is based on creating a risk pool where healthy and unhealthy people pay premiums to cover the increased costs of people who are unhealthy. Therefore, if youare part of an insurance plan, you are sutomatically paying for someone else.
sebster wrote:To be perfectly honest, at this stage, I'm really not. We all know more or less the form biccat's answer will take, and we all know that it'll make about as much sense as any of the other conservative positions he's endeavoured to defend.
Cool story, bro.
Long story short, you're wrong.
sebster wrote:I mean he's here defending a major conservative figure calling some random girl he doesn't know a slut, and the only argument the conservative noise machine has given him to justify this is speculation that the girl could have overstated the cost of contraception. So I figure the breaking point has to be soon.
Way to not read the thread. I knew there was a reason I had you on ignore.
What I've learned from this whole situation (and thread) is that it's OK to attack conservatives when they insert themselves into the political debate (or have a brief connection with a political figure), but it's not OK to attack liberals when they insert themselves into the political debate.
biccat wrote:
Way to not read the thread. I knew there was a reason I had you on ignore.
What I've learned from this whole situation (and thread) is that it's OK to attack conservatives when they insert themselves into the political debate (or have a brief connection with a political figure), but it's not OK to attack liberals when they insert themselves into the political debate.
Well, not so much "learned" as "confirmed."
Someone else didn't read the thread, and is further painting with an intentionally, and unnecessarily, broad brush.
Also, I'm not sure anyone can really claim this was a case of Rush inserting himself into the political debate, so much as being one more instance demonstrating that Rush is part of the political debate.
dogma wrote:Also, I'm not sure anyone can really claim this was a case of Rush inserting himself into the political debate, so much as being one more instance demonstrating that Rush is part of the political debate.
Polonius wrote:In my experience, nothing disproves the notion that you're being intentionally obtuse than being intentionally coy.
I'm not sure why you think I'm being coy. There are two people being discussed in this thread: Rush and a liberal activist. I also don't know why you think I'm being obtuse.
dogma wrote:Also, I'm not sure anyone can really claim this was a case of Rush inserting himself into the political debate, so much as being one more instance demonstrating that Rush is part of the political debate.
Hint: I'm not talking about Rush.
Oh, you mean Gen. Lee Losing.
I agree sebster is off base in claiming that he tacitly seeks anyone else's death based on his comments here.
But that really only means you're objecting to hostility towards conflicting political views in the context of the larger political debate. Which is sort of weird thing to object to. I mean, you've also called OWS "dangerous", and further described people you disagree with politically as "useful idiots".
Polonius wrote:In my experience, nothing disproves the notion that you're being intentionally obtuse than being intentionally coy.
I'm not sure why you think I'm being coy. There are two people being discussed in this thread: Rush and a liberal activist. I also don't know why you think I'm being obtuse.
Since I still don't know who or what you're talking about, I'm either missing something or you're not being clear.
Polonius wrote:In my experience, nothing disproves the notion that you're being intentionally obtuse than being intentionally coy.
I'm not sure why you think I'm being coy. There are two people being discussed in this thread: Rush and a liberal activist. I also don't know why you think I'm being obtuse.
I gave you too much credit.
You're equating the use of intentionally derogatory, and blatantly sexist, language with the relatively emotionally neutral criticism of a position.
Saying its bad to use an epithet doesn't entail the claim that its bad to consider a position untenable.
dogma wrote:You're equating the use of intentionally derogatory, and blatantly sexist, language with the relatively emotionally neutral criticism of a position.
No, actually I'm not.
Rush gets attacked for using harsh language (which, again, I think was improper) towards a woman who inserted herself into the political debate. There are plenety of examples where conservative women have been attacked far more harshly than the young lady here was, where there was no heated discussion about the appropriateness of the comments.
Hell, you've excused a liberal talk show host calling women "c----" "w----" and "s---" on the ground that the speaker is not as popular as Rush.
dogma wrote:But that really only means you're objecting to hostility towards conflicting political views in the context of the larger political debate. Which is sort of weird thing to object to. I mean, you've also called OWS "dangerous", and further described people you disagree with politically as "useful idiots".
Given the rapes, diseases, and general unlawfulness of OWS, I'm not sure how you could argue otherwise.
I only consider actual useful idiots to be "useful idiots." I disagree politically with people who aren't useful idiots. President Obama, for one.
biccat wrote:
Rush gets attacked for using harsh language (which, again, I think was improper) towards a woman who inserted herself into the political debate. There are plenety of examples where conservative women have been attacked far more harshly than the young lady here was, where there was no heated discussion about the appropriateness of the comments.
Speaking to, say, Bill Maher, there has been quite a bit of heated discussion about things he has said. Not as much as regards things Rush has said, but that makes sense considering Maher is viewed/listened to by a much lower number of people.
biccat wrote:
Hell, you've excused a liberal talk show host calling women "c----" "w----" and "s---" on the ground that the speaker is not as popular as Rush.
No, I excused the absence of equal amounts of criticism on grounds that one is less popular than the other. That is to say, more people notice what Rush says, because more people hear what he says.
You either didn't read the thread, or you're being intentionally obtuse.
biccat wrote:
Given the rapes, diseases, and general unlawfulness of OWS, I'm not sure how you could argue otherwise.
You made the claim well before any of that was publicized. In fact, while it will take me time to track it down, I believe you were speaking directly to the general sentiment of anti-corporatism.
biccat wrote:
I only consider actual useful idiots to be "useful idiots." I disagree politically with people who aren't useful idiots. President Obama, for one.
Really?
Your statement seems at odds with this:
biccat wrote:
Obama apparently has aspirations towards petty tyranny, and there are plenty of useful idiots in this country who either don't care or actually want him (and his proposals) to be immune from the democratic process and constitutional restrictions.
You seem to be implying that anyone who might agree with Obama, a politician, is a useful idiot. I don't know how you consider that anything other than a political disagreement.
dogma wrote:You seem to be implying that anyone who might agree with Obama, a politician, is a useful idiot. I don't know how you consider that anything other than a political disagreement.
Only if you ignore context, grammar, and word definitions.
For example, the word "plenty" doesn't mean "all." In fact, it doesn't even mean "most." In another example, what you infer from a comment is not necessarily what is implied.
There are also plenty of Obama supporters who do care about tyranny from the Executive, whether it's from a Republican or Democrat.
biccat wrote:
Only if you ignore context, grammar, and word definitions.
For example, the word "plenty" doesn't mean "all." In fact, it doesn't even mean "most." In another example, what you infer from a comment is not necessarily what is implied.
And "anyone" doesn't necessarily mean "everyone", just as a seeming implication is not necessarily the result of an analysis according to formal logic.
Well, unless we take likely premises as equivalent to explicit premises.
Also, there's very little difference between a seeming implication and an inference.
Monster Rain wrote:At no point did I see a quote from Gen. Lee Losing specifically wishing harm on the children of another poster.
He only wished harm on them indirectly.
Like wishing that Pyongyang woudl be bombed to hell, but then following it up by saying "I wouldn't want the children of Pyongyang to be hurt".
Alright, lets slow down here.
I'd like you to go the the shelf and open the jar that your brain is in, plug it back into your head, and then read what I am about to say.
1. Most insurances cover BC.
2.A catholic insurance or institution will not as it is against the tenets of their faith (even if it a less practiced tenet).
3. No one is forced to use the catholic system.
4. No one is prevented from going outside the catholic system.
So am I saying "screw that girl!"? No.
Am I saying "Screw people like her!"? No.
Am I wishing harm to any person? No.
Are you being unnecessarily cruel in your depiction of me? Yes.
The little girl (an innocent in this discussion) and her family is not forced to use Catholic based insurance. They can opt to have private insurance. That may cost them more, but I imagine the family would think it is worth it. They are not trapped. There are lots of health plans out there.
(I also believe that the catholic system would address the health issue in a way that may be more complicated than a simple BC pill, but they would not let the child die).
Easy E wrote:Well, I'm interested in hearing how this would work.
It probably wouldn't.
The point you should take away from this is that someone being philosophically opposed to having money taken from them to pay for goods and services for other people doesn't mean that they think on some level that another poster's children should die.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
2.A catholic insurance or institution will not as it is against the tenets of their faith (even if it a less practiced tenet).
I'm not sure what tenet of the Catholic faith forbids paying for birth control.
it is the one about not being obtuse to "burn" someone on an off topic forum.
There is also that whole "BC is a Sin" belief in Catholic Church. This combined with the tenet of "causing another to sin is the same as sinning yourself" does clearing point out why they have a problem with it.
Again, there are a lot of insurance companies out there that would love to cover it! There is no gun to anyone's head about where you get your insurance. If you are morally opposed to the Catholic view, don't work for a Catholic institute or use their insurance plans. You have options.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
it is the one about not being obtuse to "burn" someone on an off topic forum.
There is also that whole "BC is a Sin" belief in Catholic Church. This combined with the tenet of "causing another to sin is the same as sinning yourself" does clearing point out why they have a problem with it.
I'm not trying to "burn" you. Believe me, you would know if I were.
I'm directly questioning the idea that the objection mounted by the Bishops is a legitimate religious objection.
You can't just say "Its religious." when you object to something and get a free pass.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Again, there are a lot of insurance companies out there that would love to cover it! There is no gun to anyone's head about where you get your insurance. If you are morally opposed to the Catholic view, don't work for a Catholic institute or use their insurance plans. You have options.
So do Catholic organizations. Simply having options has no bearing on what option should be exercised.
I'm not trying to "burn" you. Believe me, you would know if I were.
I'm directly questioning the idea that the objection mounted by the Bishops is a legitimate religious objection.
You can't just say "Its religious." when you object to something and get a free pass.
Simply having options has no bearing on what option should be exercised.
Okay, lets get into it.
Person A applied for a job at a Catholic Hospital. No force was used in the application. He was aware it was a Catholic Institution.
Catholic Hospital offered employment to Person A. No force was used in the offer. He was aware it was a Catholic Institution.
Person A accepts employment offer. No force was used in the acceptance. He was aware it was a Catholic Institution.
Person A is offered Insurance thru the Catholic Hospital. No force was used in the offer. He was aware it was a Catholic Institution.
Person A accepts the offer of insurance. No force was used in the acceptance. He was aware it was a Catholic Institution.
Person A asks for BC. He was aware it was a Catholic Institution.
The Catholic Insurance declines on religions grounds. He was aware it was a Catholic Institution.
Person A does not want to pay for his own BC outside of insurance. He feels that getting new insurance would cost more. He does not want to spend his money. He wants someone else to spend money. He attempts to force the Catholic Insurance to pay for it against their beliefs.
So person A made many choices, well aware of who he was getting into bed with, and at the end of all those choices he is unhappy.
Now that he is unhappy with the choices he has made, he wants others to cover the costs.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
So person A made many choices, well aware of who he was getting into bed with, and at the end of all those choices he is unhappy.
Now that he is unhappy with the choices he has made, he wants others to cover the costs.
How is Person A a victim here?
Right, let me parse this a bit. There seem to be four issues here.
The first is that I think the emphasis on Catholicism is a red herring. The real issue you (I'm putting aside theology vs. pragmatism), and many others, are taking is that a group is being forced to do something that they don't want to do, for whatever reason.
The second is that there seems to be an idea that we should not force people to do, in general, things they do not want to do. I think this is a bit disingenuous, or at least highly selective, but I also studied philosophy so "doing things" is a highly flexible idea for me.
Third, making an informed choice entails the forfeiture of any power to try and alter the conditions of that choice.
Fourth, that there is victim.
Regarding the fourth issue, I consider the injection of victim terminology to be off base. There is no victim here, not by necessity, for much of the reason you outlined.
Broadly, I consider the third issue to be a non-issue. One can legitimately take a job and then demand/request certain concessions, it happens all the time.
The second issue is more complicated, but the essence of it is that no one has the option to do nothing, so any policy requires everyone to do something; where "something" is largely defined by what not to do.
The first is really just my appraisal given this thread, and other information.
Amaya wrote:Thou shalt not spill thy seed upon the ground or some such nonsense.
The meaning of that passage has really very little to do with "no birth control, no masturbation" or anything of that sort. But talking more about that would be a very of-topic theological discussion.
Easy E wrote:Well, I'm interested in hearing how this would work.
It probably wouldn't.
The point you should take away from this is that someone being philosophically opposed to having money taken from them to pay for goods and services for other people doesn't mean that they think on some level that another poster's children should die.
I agree with you. I don't think that is what they are thinking.
However, one could argue that the poster aspousing such a position is not thinking their statement through to the full and logical conclusion. of course, not all treatable diseases lead to detah, but it does lead to someone having an untreated disease.
For example, I'm part of an insurance pool. But I and several others decide that we don't want to pay for X, because it is too expensive. Sadly, little Joe Bob has X., and his parents are part of the now limited insurance pool. Because I and several others reduced the pool of money due to X, their is not sufficient money to pay for claims related to X.
Now, who is going to pay for little Joe Bob who has X? What happens to Joe Bob if X is not treated? Who decides what part of the money pool that does exist for X goes to mary Sue or Joe Bob?
Edit: Monster Rain- I heartily endorse your use of that Monty Python clip.
Now that I read your assertions, I see that your were not stating what i thought you were.
i owe you an apology for the confrontational tone of my post. (I was on defense from the "Gen. Lee hates people" bit going on.)
taking Theology out of this, here is how I see it.
1. Two parties agree about coverage.
2. Later on one of the party changes its mind on desired coverage.
3. Neither party really has a right to force the other party to change the coverage.
4. The dissenting party has the right to walk away from the agreement.
So I don't see the need to force a change on one side, when both parties accepted the terms at the begining.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
1. Two parties agree about coverage.
2. Later on one of the party changes its mind on desired coverage.
3. Neither party really has a right to force the other party to change the coverage.
4. The dissenting party has the right to walk away from the agreement.
So I don't see the need to force a change on one side, when both parties accepted the terms at the begining.
I don't think need enters into the equation at all.
One party wants something that another party doesn't provide, so they attempt to force that party into providing it.
To generalize the issue, its much like agreeing to a particular contract, and then asking your boss for a raise or a bonus. Its simply that your boss said "No." and you therefore sought external restitution.
dogma wrote:
I don't think need enters into the equation at all.
One party wants something that another party doesn't provide, so they attempt to force that party into providing it.
To generalize the issue, its much like agreeing to a particular contract, and then asking your boss for a raise or a bonus. Its simply that your boss said "No." and you therefore sought external restitution.
The party can demand. Asking for a raise, asking for more vacation time, etc is all part of the great tradition of modern employment.
The party should not be allowed to force.
If you make demands, and they are not met, you walk or you go back to work. That's how it works.
Platinum Medical Insurance is not a right. But you do have freedom to select what coverage you want. In selecting you analyse costs to benefit ratios. If you select a cheaper insurance that provides partial coverage, you get exactly what you wanted. Partial coverage.
Easy E wrote:Now, who is going to pay for little Joe Bob who has X?
I suppose the simplest answer would be "Someone who wants to." This is getting a little far from the original topic, though, I think. I'm for helping people out when they need it to a certain extent, though. I can just understand not wanting money taken from you to pay for something optional for someone else. The "optional" part is what people seem to be missing.
Easy E wrote:What happens to Joe Bob if X is not treated?
Sadly, the same thing that will happen to all of us at some point, and happens to millions of people across the globe every day.
Easy E wrote:Who decides what part of the money pool that does exist for X goes to mary Sue or Joe Bob?
That decision will need to be made regardless of the size of the pool of money. There's always going to be a limit on resources.
Easy E wrote:Edit: Monster Rain- I heartily endorse your use of that Monty Python clip.
biccat wrote:[What I've learned from this whole situation (and thread) is that it's OK to attack conservatives when they insert themselves into the political debate (or have a brief connection with a political figure), but it's not OK to attack liberals when they insert themselves into the political debate.
Well, not so much "learned" as "confirmed."
Can you truly not see why people are painting you with the "deliberately obtuse" brush here?
Can you honestly say that you really believe that people were upset solely because Limbaugh attacked a "liberal activist", and not explicitly because of the way he chose to do so?
So far as the attacks on Breitbart right after he died, while it's true that he also said crappy things about Kennedy before the body was cold, that doesn't make it OK. The people on the left who did so should not have, and the fact that Breitbart would have, in their opinion, been OK with it is the worst sort of self-justifying rationalization. At some point we need to stop being jerks because someone "on the other team" acted like a jerk once.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
The party can demand. Asking for a raise, asking for more vacation time, etc is all part of the great tradition of modern employment.
The party should not be allowed to force.
If you make demands, and they are not met, you walk or you go back to work. That's how it works.
That's not a real answer, its just "love it or leave it" all over again.
As regards force, why shouldn't people be allowed to exercise their freedom to kill other people and take their things?
No serious moral or legal thinker of the last 75 years has felt that an employment contract was between equals.
Hardly anybody takes a job because they want to work for a certain organization. They take the best/first/only job offered.
they also don't quit jobs to find better ones for a variety of reasons. All in all, you have person who needs the job more than the employer needs the employee.
This, by the way, is increasingly true for more easily replacable employees. Which, btw, are the ones least able to pay for BC, and likely the least hurt by unplanned pregnancy.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
The party can demand. Asking for a raise, asking for more vacation time, etc is all part of the great tradition of modern employment.
The party should not be allowed to force.
If you make demands, and they are not met, you walk or you go back to work. That's how it works.
That's not a real answer, its just "love it or leave it" all over again.
As regards force, why shouldn't people be allowed to exercise their freedom to kill other people and take their things?
The old "Your freedom to more your arm ends where my nose begins."
You cant keep changing the rules of the discussion. Are we talking about rights or morals?
Religions have rights (See First Amendment, free practice). You may disagree with that and want to change it. But in a discussion about law, the law is relevant.
The "love it or leave it" is better stated as"Freedom for both parties". Freedom for the person to obtain whatever insurance they like and freedom for religions to believe what they want and act on those beliefs.
The funny thing about the last part you said (the "Kill and take" ) that is what is happening here in a way. People want to kill the catholic faith and force it to pay for "sin" (not that I agree that it is sin, to be clear)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:No serious moral or legal thinker of the last 75 years has felt that an employment contract was between equals.
Hardly anybody takes a job because they want to work for a certain organization. They take the best/first/only job offered.
they also don't quit jobs to find better ones for a variety of reasons. All in all, you have person who needs the job more than the employer needs the employee.
This, by the way, is increasingly true for more easily replacable employees. Which, btw, are the ones least able to pay for BC, and likely the least hurt by unplanned pregnancy.
Freedom and Rights do not equal "fair".
Life is not fair. But while people will take whatever job, the great thing is that they can buy any insurance they want! They can research and verify BC coverage. They are free. They may get an offer of coverage from employment, but they can reject it!
So at the end of the day, we are talking about people not liking the service they receive from one group, while hundreds of competitors are available.
Or...
"I wanted steak at the Vegan Restaurant that is part of my Club Discount Membership . They don't have steak. I could go buy steak, but the steakhouse across the street is expensive. I will sue the Vegan Restaurant to force them to sell steak, because I am anemic and steak is an easy way to get iron!. "
Getting a job with the benefits you need/want is not as easy as picking a restaurant.
As Polonius said, people have limited options and it's an unbalanced power relationship.
Life is not fair. When we had no laws against child labor, it was worse. Society and government are there in part to even out some of these inequities for the general good.
Monster Rain wrote:Why does one person not wanting to pay for something, or even a sub-set of people in a society feeling that way mean that there can't be a way for people to get medical care that they can't afford?
There might be another way, through charity or something. Of course, there also might not. And that's the point, when people say they do not want government (and therefore themselves as taxpayers) to commit to paying for a thing, there is a chance that treatment will be denied because the money can't be raised, one way or another.
Now, if people are happy with that, because they feel most people can afford it by themselves (a reasonable to make over most birth control) or because charity is likely to step in, then fair enough. But it means what it means.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Way to not read the thread. I knew there was a reason I had you on ignore.
Because dropping out of threads when your position begins to look ridiculous was beginning to take a toll on your ego?
What I've learned from this whole situation (and thread) is that it's OK to attack conservatives when they insert themselves into the political debate (or have a brief connection with a political figure), but it's not OK to attack liberals when they insert themselves into the political debate.
I don't attack conservatives. I attack that portion of the US right wing that's drifted off into loonie land, and is trying to drag the rest of the party with them. To the extent that you feel compelled to keep defending the crazies, well then you join them and become a target for that same criticism. Sorry if that makes you sad, but the simple solution would be to stop defending the crazies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:I agree sebster is off base in claiming that he tacitly seeks anyone else's death based on his comments here.
You misread my argument. I didn't say he was seeking anyone's death, just that he was more willing to let someone die, than to consider paying for it himself.
But that really only means you're objecting to hostility towards conflicting political views in the context of the larger political debate. Which is sort of weird thing to object to. I mean, you've also called OWS "dangerous", and further described people you disagree with politically as "useful idiots".
There was also that thread where he called the left wing murderous lunatics, or something like that. That was a doozy.
sebster wrote:There might be another way, through charity or something. Of course, there also might not. And that's the point, when people say they do not want government (and therefore themselves as taxpayers) to commit to paying for a thing, there is a chance that treatment will be denied because the money can't be raised, one way or another.
If a sufficient portion Americans decided that they wanted universal healthcare and gave up a certain portion of their monthly income they could probably pull it off without a single Catholic (or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Zoroastrian) having to pay for something they are philosophically opposed to.
sebster wrote:Now, if people are happy with that, because they feel most people can afford it by themselves (a reasonable to make over most birth control) or because charity is likely to step in, then fair enough. But it means what it means.
What it doesn't mean is that being opposed to taxpayer-funded optional medications means that you think other poster's children should be denied life-saving medical intervention.
Monster Rain wrote:If a sufficient portion Americans decided that they wanted universal healthcare and gave up a certain portion of their monthly income they could probably pull it off without a single Catholic (or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Zoroastrian) having to pay for something they are philosophically opposed to.
But the Catholics, Muslims and Zoroastrians* would still be paying for it, because they'd be paying taxes that go into. The same reasoning is used by people opposed to abortion to make the case that no taxpayer money should go towards abortion, and they won that argument by the way - by law no taxpayer funding can go towards abortion.
What it doesn't mean is that being opposed to taxpayer-funded optional medications means that you think other poster's children should be denied life-saving medical intervention.
It means if the money can't be found, he'd prefer it be denied than be paid for by taxpayers.
*I met one of them like two weeks ago. Well, I'd met him a few times before that but it was only two weeks ago I found out he was Zoroastrians. Apparently the worst thing is that they have to marry within the faith, but there's hardly any of them of them around, so it's really hard to meet someone. Which means I guess I'd be surprised if they were opposed to contraception, because they clearly need more babies in their religion.
sebster wrote:But the Catholics, Muslims and Zoroastrians* would still be paying for it, because they'd be paying taxes that go into.
That doesn't really follow what I said. I'm not talking about taxation. I'm talking about everyone who wants universal healthcare in the US could chip in some money every month to build a fund.
Apparently, 62% of people want to have some sort of universal health care. source
That's 186,000,000 people in the US. (300,000,000 X .62)
If all of these people chipped in 30 dollars a month (1 dollar per day) that's $66,969,000,000 per year. That would cover all of these birth control expenses and then some. Or do they think that everyone should have healthcare, but they shouldn't be responsible for the bill?
sebster wrote:It means if the money can't be found, he'd prefer it be denied than be paid for by taxpayers.
No, it means that the people who are directly involved in the issue would have to find some way to pay for it.
Monster Rain wrote:That doesn't really follow what I said. I'm not talking about taxation. I'm talking about everyone who wants universal healthcare in the US could chip in some money every month to build a fund.
Apparently, 62% of people want to have some sort of universal health care. source
That's 186,000,000 people in the US. (300,000,000 X .62)
If all of these people chipped in 30 dollars a month (1 dollar per day) that's $66,969,000,000 per year. That would cover all of these birth control expenses and then some. Or do they think that everyone should have healthcare, but they shouldn't be responsible for the bill?
I think you need to realise that's a really unique and completely unworkable version of universal healthcare. First up, the present cost to cover that many people in the US (so 62% of the 2.324 trillion spent on healthcare in 2010) is $1.441 trillion, which works out at $7,747 per person, or $646 a month.
Then there's a problem with opt in/opt out. If the scheme is willing to deny new members because of pre-existing conditions, then you end up with 'universal healthcare' that's exactly like what you've got now. Or you say you'll accept anyone, and you have a problem with people waiting until they're sick before they bother joining. At which point you realise in order to have healthcare that'll accept anyone, you need to make people pay into it before they're sick. At which point you get people complaining that they don't want to be forced into paying for health cover, or they don't want to be forced to pay for stuff they're opposed to.
No, it means that the people who are directly involved in the issue would have to find some way to pay for it.
You keep pretending that there is always some way to pay for healthcare, and that just fething isn't true. If they're 'lucky' they get the treatment and then default on the payments later on (at which point other people's treatment goes up to cover the loss, so they're paying anyway) and that person goes bankrupt, losing whatever they had.
And you can't pretend that doesn't happen. Before the GFC medical costs were the most common form of bankruptcy.
sebster wrote:I think you need to realise that's a really unique and completely unworkable version of universal healthcare. First up, the present cost to cover that many people in the US (so 62% of the 2.324 trillion spent on healthcare in 2010) is $1.441 trillion, which works out at $7,747 per person, or $646 a month.
Surely you realize that the number that would be spent solely on the uninsured would be less than that.
sebster wrote:Then there's a problem with opt in/opt out. If the scheme is willing to deny new members because of pre-existing conditions, then you end up with 'universal healthcare' that's exactly like what you've got now. Or you say you'll accept anyone, and you have a problem with people waiting until they're sick before they bother joining. At which point you realise in order to have healthcare that'll accept anyone, you need to make people pay into it before they're sick. At which point you get people complaining that they don't want to be forced into paying for health cover, or they don't want to be forced to pay for stuff they're opposed to.
I don't know why we're talking about pre-existing conditions all of a sudden.
sebster wrote:You keep pretending that there is always some way to pay for healthcare, and that just fething isn't true.
If it costs money it can be paid for, right? Isn't that what insurance does?
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
The old "Your freedom to more your arm ends where my nose begins."
Why should I recognize that principle?
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
You cant keep changing the rules of the discussion. Are we talking about rights or morals?
There isn't much of a distinction, unless you're speaking only to the Constitution, at which point we're really just having a legal argument. I do, however, generally subscribe to the notion that rights are contingent upon rough social consensus. If you cannot convince anyone that you have a right, then you don't have that right, but the convincing is still the result of a moral, or ethical, argument.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Religions have rights (See First Amendment, free practice). You may disagree with that and want to change it. But in a discussion about law, the law is relevant.
The only rights religions, specifically, have is to have no law made with respect to their establishment. In the broadest sense this means not only that there can be no official US religion, but that no law can specifically target a religion. This does not mean that practices that some people feel obligated to engage for a religious reason cannot be made illegal in a general sense. If it did, no law making would be possible.
Are law prohibiting murder, assault, and battery Unconstitutional because many Muslims feel they are religiously obligated to engage in violent Jihad?
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
The "love it or leave it" is better stated as"Freedom for both parties". Freedom for the person to obtain whatever insurance they like and freedom for religions to believe what they want and act on those beliefs.
Any given party is free to oppose a position if they so desire, if they lose the ensuing conflict they are free to find redress in a subsequent conflict, or a continuation of the first conflict. It is not possible for all people to have an equivalent degree of freedom, where freedom is the ability to do a thing unopposed.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
The funny thing about the last part you said (the "Kill and take" ) that is what is happening here in a way. People want to kill the catholic faith and force it to pay for "sin" (not that I agree that it is sin, to be clear)
No one is "killing" the Catholic faith. The objection to birth control is ignored by most Catholics, and isn't heavily grounded in the faith (Why is a condom bad, while NFP is fine?. Further, the prohibition is against the use of birth control, not the purchase of insurance covering its use. And, as I said up thread, if this were really a moral objection to supporting the ability of people to access birth control, then the Church should be campaigning against all insurance, because doubtlessly some portion of the premiums paid by Catholics inevitably fund birth control for others.
Point 1) Why should anyone else have to pay for contraception. People don't have a right to have sex and no one died from lack of sex.
Point 2) Despite all out increasing technological and social advances, pill, morning after pill, condoms, abortion, sex education - people are *still* getting pregnant. Kinda ironic really.
Phototoxin wrote:Point 1) Why should anyone else have to pay for contraception. People don't have a right to have sex and no one died from lack of sex.
Why should pacifists have to pay for the military? Why should people with no children help pay for public schools? Why should people who want pot legalized have to help fund police forces that raid and arrest people for smoking pot. Why should people who don't give two gaks about anyone other than themselves have to help foot the cost of a poor person who is hit by a car and is sent to an emergency room? I could go on all night.
The fact is that since it isn't just 12 of us living in a village together there are some things we are going to pay for in taxes we may not choose to on our own, but it also allows to pay for things we do want as well. The Catholic Church isn't being forced to hand out condoms in the church, but their business interests have to give the option to it's employees to allow a third party insurance company to help cover family planning costs if they choose to avail them of such. Just being a religion doesn't mean you get absolutely everything you want at all times in a pluralistic society. I personally don't think Churches should be tax exampt in the slightest but I'm ok with accepting that it is a reasonable thing to do, for a lot of reasons. Still, if it were up to me they would lose all those benefits.
Phototoxin wrote:Point 2) Despite all out increasing technological and social advances, pill, morning after pill, condoms, abortion, sex education - people are *still* getting pregnant. Kinda ironic really.
Some people aren't seeking not to get pregnant. Just becuase a woman can use BCPs doesn't mean she is being forced to take them. Just becuase a man can wear a condom doesn't mean he has to.
Sex is a highly complicated biological and psychological event and sometimes smart people get caught up and make mistakes.
Some people aren't informed and actual information on safe sex is sometimes even purposely withheld becuase it is controversial to teach.
And then of course some people are just stupid and don't take anything into consideration beyond getting laid.
Also, that isn't ironic at all, and your misuse of ironic isn't ironic either.
Point 2) Despite all out increasing technological and social advances, pill, morning after pill, condoms, abortion, sex education - people are *still* getting pregnant. Kinda ironic really.
I didn't realize getting pregnant or having sex was an objective sin.
Phototoxin wrote:Point 1) Why should anyone else have to pay for contraception. People don't have a right to have sex and no one died from lack of sex.
A woman can die, or at the very least become an unproductive member of society, from lacking the birth control pill due to the pill's effects on the woman's biology not being exclusively linked to birth control.
It's a common point of ignorance amongst much of the population (especially the male half ,but not exclusively) that birth control pills are only there for birth control.
Phototoxin wrote:Point 2) Despite all out increasing technological and social advances, pill, morning after pill, condoms, abortion, sex education - people are *still* getting pregnant. Kinda ironic really.
Phototoxin wrote:Point 2) Despite all out increasing technological and social advances, pill, morning after pill, condoms, abortion, sex education - people are *still* getting pregnant. Kinda ironic really.
Why should pacifists have to pay for the military? Why should people with no children help pay for public schools? Why should people who want pot legalized have to help fund police forces that raid and arrest people for smoking pot. Why should people who don't give two gaks about anyone other than themselves have to help foot the cost of a poor person who is hit by a car and is sent to an emergency room? I could go on all night.
The fact is that since it isn't just 12 of us living in a village together there are some things we are going to pay for in taxes we may not choose to on our own, but it also allows to pay for things we do want as well. The Catholic Church isn't being forced to hand out condoms in the church, but their business interests have to give the option to it's employees to allow a third party insurance company to help cover family planning costs if they choose to avail them of such. Just being a religion doesn't mean you get absolutely everything you want at all times in a pluralistic society. I personally don't think Churches should be tax exampt in the slightest but I'm ok with accepting that it is a reasonable thing to do, for a lot of reasons. Still, if it were up to me they would lose all those benefits.
Best point in this thread. As a Catholic whose wife was on BC (before we started having kids), I'm sickened by the Church's actions here. We're supposed to be morally against most wars, torture, the death penalty, etc... and yet, in my entire life of going to mass at least 3 Sundays in 4, I haven't heard an outcry about any of those equaling what I've been hearing the last couple of months regarding freaking condoms and birth control pills.
Ouze wrote:Can you truly not see why people are painting you with the "deliberately obtuse" brush here?
Nope, I honestly can't.
Are people upset about the words Rush used, or the fact that he went after her in the first place?
As to the first, I already said - I think in my first post in this thread - that I think the language he used was wrong/improper/whatever. No woman should be called those things.
As to the second, when you insert yourself into the public debate you open yourself up to criticism - some of it unfair. People will call you names, they will scrutinize everything you say, and they will vehemently disagree with you. What I think is going on in this thread is a lot of white knighting for a liberal activist. She shouldn't be targeted because of her political positions.
To evidence this point, I've pointed out where other (liberal) talk show hosts have said some incredibly misogynistic and hateful things about conservative women. And a number of posters here have, instead of condemning those attacks in addition to Rush's, tried to justify or excuse those attacks.
So, again: did Rush say something wrong? Yes. Did he apologize for it? Yes. Issue resolved.
The continued inability of certain posters here (especially some who typically leap to the defense of women) to condemn offensive language against Conservative women shows that the response to Rush's comments is political, not borne out of any objection to the words used.
Polonius wrote:No serious moral or legal thinker of the last 75 years has felt that an employment contract was between equals.
Damn, too bad Adam Smith isn't around to see this.
Polonius wrote:Hardly anybody takes a job because they want to work for a certain organization. They take the best/first/only job offered.
I know a lot of people that took jobs because they wanted to work for certain companies. Must be I only know that handful of people
Ahtman wrote:Why should pacifists have to pay for the military? Why should people with no children help pay for public schools? Why should people who want pot legalized have to help fund police forces that raid and arrest people for smoking pot. Why should people who don't give two gaks about anyone other than themselves have to help foot the cost of a poor person who is hit by a car and is sent to an emergency room? I could go on all night.
There's a common theme running through all of your examples: government spending. In none of these cases is a person being compelled to give money directly to someone else. No one is compelled to buy military equipment - the government taxes, decides how to spend the money, and buys military equipment.
If there were a law requiring pacifists to buy guns; or pay for tuition; or help police raid drug houses; or pay for someone else's health care - you'd have a point. But none of these exist.
biccat wrote:What I think is going on in this thread is a lot of white knighting for a liberal activist. She shouldn't be targeted because of her political positions.
And this is where you are being deliberately obtuse.
We are not saying "she shouldn't be targeted", we're saying "she shouldn't be attacked".
Or perhaps you want people to start calling every Republican an oppressive fascist theocrat?
biccat wrote:No one is compelled to buy military equipment
Using the circuitous logic used by the churches so vehemently opposed to this, yes, they are.
If a person who has to pay more for insurance because some people use insurance to get birth control is effectively paying for birth control, then a person who has to pay more for taxes because some people use these takes to buy military equipment is effectively paying for birth control.
You can try to hold a double standard biccat, but don't BS yourself in to thinking it's anything but a double standard.
If the military isn't tax payer funded, how does it get all those cool toys? Why is there that chunk of spending on the graph of government expenditures labeled 'military'?
Melissia wrote:We are not saying "she shouldn't be targeted", we're saying "she shouldn't be attacked".
Why? What makes her immune from attack?
She inserted herself into the political debate. This wasn't an innocent question posed to a politician on camera.
You want to play politics? Fine, get ready for the mud slinging.
Is civil discourse really too much to hope for? Go after the ideas, not the person. (Yes, this applies to all participants, not just the conservatives). Is it time for another Rally to Restore Sanity? Apparently, the first one didn't help.
biccat wrote:Why? What makes her immune from attack?
So you're saying it's perfectly acceptable to label anyone who adheres to a Christian faith a "theocratic loony" right? Or that it's perfectly acceptable to label anyone who supports Santorum a fething slow? Or to label anyone who doesn't vote for Obama an un-American traitor who supports terrorists and hates/eats babies?
Attacking an opponent's political position in a debate is fine. Attacking an opponent is not. It's why arguments are generally weakened (and most everyone on this forum has done this or been sorely tempted to, it's part of being human after all) by such attacks, which are known in the field of formal logic as ad hominem fallacies.
Jeep wrote:Is civil discourse really too much to hope for? Go after the ideas, not the person. (Yes, this applies to all participants, not just the conservatives).
Why does this argument never come out when Democrats say offensive things?
Jeep wrote:Is it time for another Rally to Restore Sanity? Apparently, the first one didn't help.
Jeep wrote:Is civil discourse really too much to hope for? Go after the ideas, not the person. (Yes, this applies to all participants, not just the conservatives).
Why does this argument never come out when Democrats say offensive things?
Jeep wrote:Is it time for another Rally to Restore Sanity? Apparently, the first one didn't help.
I can't imagine why not.
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
I suppose that's enough for now.
As I stated, it should apply to everyone. When you see Democrats saying blatantly offensive things, call them out. Indeed, many people at the rally didn't understand the intent of it wasn't to point fingers, but rather a call to improve the quality of discourse.
I do have to note though, that most of those signs are against institutions rather than individuals. I feel that makes a difference.
Rush Limbaugh is under fire for responding in trademark fashion to the congressional testimony of Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, who wants you to pay for her contraception. If the rest of us are to share in the costs of Ms. Fluke’s sex life, says Rush, we should also share in the benefits, via the magic of online video. For this, Rush is accused of denying Ms. Fluke her due respect.
But while Ms. Fluke herself deserves the same basic respect we owe to any human being, her position — which is what’s at issue here — deserves none whatseover. It deserves only to be ridiculed, mocked and jeered. To treat it with respect would be a travesty. I expect there are respectable arguments for subsidizing contraception (though I am skeptical that there are arguments sufficiently respectable to win me over), but Ms. Fluke made no such argument. All she said, in effect, was that she and others want contraception and they don’t want to pay for it.
To his credit, Rush stepped in to provide the requisite mockery. To his far greater credit, he did so with a spot-on analogy...
So, what happened to the professor for clearly and concisely disagreeing with Ms. Fluke without disparaging her?
Protesting students entered Landsburg’s room at the beginning of his mid-afternoon class. “They formed a line between him and the class. And he continued to lecture,” said UR spokeswoman Sharon Dickman. She noted that a couple of University Security officers were on the scene, but they didn’t need to take any action. Landsburg dismissed class about five minutes early, Dickman said. UR student Alykhan Alani, one of the protesters, said the group was not ready to discuss their concerns. But a flier found at the protest says, “We denounce professor Steven Landsburg’s attempt to smear a gender with derogatory terms.”
Note that Mr. Landsburg never "smear[ed] a gender with derogatory terms," instead, he criticized the argument.
Fortunately, the school president issued a statementsupporting the professor and his right to opine on the topic attacking the professor:
Professor Landsburg has the right to express his views under our University’s deep commitment to academic freedom. And, of course, no reasonable person would ever assume that he speaks for the University of Rochester.
I also have the right to express my views. I am outraged that any professor would demean a student in this fashion. To openly ridicule, mock, or jeer a student in this way is about the most offensive thing a professor can do. We are here to educate, to nurture, to inspire, not to engage in character assassination.
So there you go. The bulk of criticism of Rush is not the words he chose (although some may be based on that), rather it is the fact that he disagreed with Ms. Fluke's argument.
A person might wonder how reasoned debate can exist when one side will attack, disrupt, and threaten in order to get their way.
biccat wrote:
There's a common theme running through all of your examples: government spending. In none of these cases is a person being compelled to give money directly to someone else. No one is compelled to buy military equipment - the government taxes, decides how to spend the money, and buys military equipment.
Of course they, they're giving it the government, who further gives it to other entities as they see fit. In this way the taxpayer is indirectly funding the activities of anyone the government does business with.
In the case we're looking at now, the Catholic Church is being required to give money directly to an insurance company. This company then uses the money as it sees fit, meaning that anyone holding a policy from that company is indirectly supporting the activities of anyone that company does business with. The only change being made is that Catholic Church is required to authorize, by way of a policy change, any insurance company it does business with to offer a new benefit to people under the aegis of its policy.
Now, you might object to this on the grounds that the state cannot force anyone to pay for a good or service offered by a private corporation (though the issue of government-granted monopolies would come into play), but that this is somehow an issue of religious freedom is, at best, a sideshow.
biccat wrote:
If there were a law requiring pacifists to buy guns; or pay for tuition; or help police raid drug houses; or pay for someone else's health care - you'd have a point. But none of these exist.
I agree that there is a distinction, it simply surprises me that you do.
Though I would also say that the distinction is minor at best.
dogma wrote:In the case we're looking at now, the Catholic Church is being required to give money directly to an insurance company. This company then uses the money as it sees fit
No, it doesn't. The insurance company uses the money to provide the service the Catholic Church has purchased. In fact they're legally obligated to provide the service the Church purchased under the mutually agreed-upon terms.
That's basic contract law.
dogma wrote:Now, you might object to this on the grounds that the state cannot force anyone to pay for a good or service offered by a private corporation (though the issue of government-granted monopolies would come into play), but that this is somehow an issue of religious freedom is, at best, a sideshow.
Actually, the issue of compelling individuals to enter into a contractual relationship is a separate issue. The religious issue is certainly relevant here, even if Obamacare is a constitutional exercise of Congressional power.
dogma wrote:I agree that there is a distinction, it simply surprises me that you do.
I'm genuinely curious, do you think it's a clever tactic to be demeaning and not-so-subtly suggest that people who disagree with you are intellectually inferior? Or is it just widely considered to be good debating? Mind, I don't have a formal education in logic, so perhaps "be condescending to others because anyone who disagrees with you is prima facie stupid" is part of the educational experience.
biccat wrote:
So, what happened to the professor for clearly and concisely disagreeing with Ms. Fluke without disparaging her?
Wait, really?
He explicitly stated that her position deserved to be mocked, which is fine.
He then claimed that Rush supplied the requisite mockery, which seemingly implies an endorsement of the methods of mockery used by Rush. This, of course, involved referring to Fluke as a "slut", referring to her as a "coed" (which generally relates only to women at coeducational institutions), and invoking the term "feminazi". The last is ambiguous, of course, but unless Rush wants a whole bunch of men sending him sex tapes, I'm guessing it was limited to the female sex.
biccat wrote:
So there you go. The bulk of criticism of Rush is not the words he chose (although some may be based on that), rather it is the fact that he disagreed with Ms. Fluke's argument.
Yeah, totally, because Landsburg didn't couch his own comments in Rush's at all.
biccat wrote:
No, it doesn't. The insurance company uses the money to provide the service the Catholic Church has purchased. In fact they're legally obligated to provide the service the Church purchased under the mutually agreed-upon terms.
That's basic contract law.
They're legally obligated to provide the service, they aren't legally obligated to use the funds provided by the Catholic Church to provide the service. The goal is for individual policies to be self-sustaining, but that is obviously not possible, and the necessary funds to provide for the agreed services have to come from somewhere.
biccat wrote:
The religious issue is certainly relevant here, even if Obamacare is a constitutional exercise of Congressional power.
I disagree. And I've spelled out the substance of the disagreement several times. The Catholic Church cannot claim that they have a religious objection and therefore have any given law be considered a violation of their religious freedom. They must make a reasonable case as to why their objection is ground in religious belief, and I don't believe they can do that.
biccat wrote:
I'm genuinely curious, do you think it's a clever tactic to be demeaning and not-so-subtly suggest that people who disagree with you are intellectually inferior? Or is it just widely considered to be good debating? Mind, I don't have a formal education in logic, so perhaps "be condescending to others because anyone who disagrees with you is prima facie stupid" is part of the educational experience.
Do you think its clever tactic to immediately play the victim, and widely considered to be indicative of good debate? But hey, what do I know, I don't refer to people who disagree with me as "useful idiots" working to enable a "tyrant".
I'm surprised that you agree because you have shown a pronounced tendency to remove the government from questions regarding government spending by claiming that the state has no money of its own, which seems to imply that the state is merely an extension of the taxpayer, and that therefore the taxpayer directly pays for any service or good paid for using their money.
biccat wrote:So there you go. The bulk of criticism of Rush is not the words he chose (although some may be based on that), rather it is the fact that he disagreed with Ms. Fluke's argument.
None of the criticism in this thread has been based on that. Further, while Landsburg opens his comments by saying Fluke should be accorded basic respect, he then goes on to write "To his credit, Rush stepped in to provide the requisite mockery. To his far greater credit, he did so with a spot-on analogy..."
Right here is where he appears to applaud Rush's words, not merely those mocking the argument but those demeaning and insulting the person. This appears to be (based on the school president's comments) exactly why Landsburg was protested as well. Not for criticising someone's argument, but for being an ass about it and insulting them into the bargain.
This was a setup as well. They may have thought their opposition would respond with it's usual timidity.
But that was not the case with Rush as he called it like he saw it on his show.
Ms. Fluke for that matter is a 31 year old law student being trotted up to capital hill to testify about her subject. She is no kid.
She knew what she was up to and made herself in doing so a public figure. As I understand it then as a public figure you don't get the same traction in crying foul.
The media will criticize you and should do so
.
If you can't run with the big dogs stay under the porch.
"What do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea? Answer = A good start."
But the thing he's being attacked and condemned for, and the action being used to help in fundraising, and the act which resulted in his losing sponsorships, was his abusing the girl in offensive terms.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zakiriel wrote:Ms. Fluke for that matter is a 31 year old law student being trotted up to capital hill to testify about her subject. She is no kid.
She knew what she was up to and made herself in doing so a public figure. As I understand it then as a public figure you don't get the same traction in crying foul.
A) Being "trotted up" by whom? She's a private citizen testifying to Congress on legislation of personal relevance to her.
B) Testifying before Congress doesn't automatically make you a public figure. A public figure is someone who's life normally involves being in the media or public spotlight. Like a celebrity or politician. I don't become a public figure automatically by appearing in a TV news story.
.
Zakiriel wrote:If you can't run with the big dogs stay under the porch.
That sounds like you're saying that if you don't have a major media outlet and audience of millions yourself, you shouldn't disagree with anyone who does, and it's your own fault if they choose to single you out for abuse.
Mannahnin wrote:None of the criticism in this thread has been based on that.
I suggest you read the thread more carefully. There has been plenty of criticism here, and elsewhere, on opposition to the contraception mandate.
There's a distinction between criticizing a position, and criticizing how that position was supported. You yourself made this distinction while rather clumsily attempting to conflate criticism of Rush's choice of words with his position.
Well, at least presuming Rush doesn't actually think that Fluke is a slut. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Killkrazy wrote:
What you are saying that Rush Limbaugh is allowed to say anything he likes about people in the public eye, but other people aren't allowed to reply.
Oh no not at all. Rush is also a media / public figure so reply respond and have at all you want!
Zakiriel wrote:Rush is also a media / public figure
She wasn't/isn't a public figure. One bit of testimony in front of congress doesn't make one a public figure.
Also important to remember(to me anyway), she's one hell of alot more qualified to testify to the subject being discussed,
as opposed to Elrushole's quilifications to speak about the same subject, or her.
Testifying before Congress does make you a public figure as you have entered the most popular of blood sports, politics. Getting yourself on the news, getting your testimony entered into the congressional record,ect, ect. Besides Bill Maher says far worse of women and men but seldom ever gets held to account since he is one of the Left's own. I rather dislike double standards.
Zakiriel wrote:Testifying before Congress does make you a public figure as you have entered the most popular of blood sports, politics. Getting yourself on the news, getting your testimony entered into the congressional record,ect, ect.
No, that's not what a public figure is. A public figure is someone who is commonly and routinely in the public eye as part of their life and work. Not a private citizen who makes an isolated public statement.
Zakiriel wrote: Besides Bill Maher says far worse of women and men but seldom ever gets held to account since he is one of the Left's own. I rather dislike double standards.
Bill Maher has not been exempted in this thread. A distinction was drawn between him and Rush based on the sizes of their respective audiences. Bill talks to a much smaller audience of paying cable subscribers; Rush talks to a much larger national audience of radio listeners. I also note that you say Maher "says far worse of women and men"; which is an interesting point. Bill Maher is a profane comedian who uses foul language toward people he is contemptuous toward regardless of their gender.
Mannahnin wrote:No, that's not what a public figure is. A public figure is someone who is commonly and routinely in the public eye as part of their life and work. Not a private citizen who makes an isolated public statement.
No, that's a general public figure. A specific public figure is someone who has entered the public debate in a limited area.
David Kappos is not a general public figure. He certainly is a public figure in the patent law community.
Mannahnin wrote:Bill Maher has not been exempted in this thread.
Of course he has.
Do you think that Bill Maher should apologize to Mrs. Palin, and possibly be boycotted or lose advertisers?
So it's OK to call some women offensive names, but not others.
Any specific test you'd like to apply?
dogma wrote:There you go again with that word, "should".
Yes, well I'm asking for an opinion.
If you think Maher should apologize (operative word here being "think") then you're being consistent. If not, then you're not upset with the words used, you're upset with the target.
biccat wrote:
Yes, well I'm asking for an opinion.
If you think Maher should apologize (operative word here being "think") then you're being consistent. If not, then you're not upset with the words used, you're upset with the target.
Well, first off, I should probably report you for that little attempt (come on man, subtlety) at a dig. I won't though, because I would rather keep you around so I can annoy you.
I think that both Maher and Limbaugh should do what they are materially compelled to do. Neither one has ever offended me personally.
You're conflating my explanation of the opposition to Limbaugh's comments with and endorsement of that opposition.
biccat wrote:
So it's OK to call some women offensive names, but not others.
Didn't you once besmirch Rachel Maddow's femininity?
And, further, explicitly state that it was based on your dislike for her, as a person?
Mannahnin wrote:No, that's not what a public figure is. A public figure is someone who is commonly and routinely in the public eye as part of their life and work. Not a private citizen who makes an isolated public statement.
No, that's a general public figure. A specific public figure is someone who has entered the public debate in a limited area.
David Kappos is not a general public figure. He certainly is a public figure in the patent law community.
Which is an irrelevancy, and dodging the point.
biccat wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Bill Maher has not been exempted in this thread.
Of course he has.
Do you think that Bill Maher should apologize to Mrs. Palin, and possibly be boycotted or lose advertisers?
Maher has been called out repeatedly on his comments. And Sarah Palin is a public figure and was long before anyone started saying anything nasty about her.
So it's OK to call some women offensive names, but not others.
Any specific test you'd like to apply?
I thought we were talking about what is and is not a public figure.
A governor is a public figure. Their kids are generally considered to be less so. There's also the fact that Bill Maher is making jokes, and Rush, by all appearances, was not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:If you think Maher should apologize (operative word here being "think") then you're being consistent. If not, then you're not upset with the words used, you're upset with the target.
I don't think either of them should have to apologize in order to not be fired.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:Maher has been called out repeatedly on his comments.
He's gotten into quite a bit of trouble in the past, as I recall.
Didn't you once besmirch Rachel Maddow's femininity?
To quote the Lorax, "That's a woman?!?"
I think she would be attractive if she tried to look like a woman, I mean its not like shes a dog, she just wears little make up and has a blokes hair cut.
The number one turn off for me is fat people. If a chick looks like she works out then I can forgive a less than exceptional grid. My missus hasnt got classically good looks, but she weighs 105lbs and looks like she can run all day, thats enough for me.
I bet she would be pretty tidy if she wore a nice dress, sported some fake eyelashes and got some hair extensions!
dogma wrote:Well, first off, I should probably report you for that little attempt (come on man, subtlety) at a dig. I won't though, because I would rather keep you around so I can annoy you.
I'm not sure what you think was a "dig."
I don't think either Maher or Limbaugh should be forced to apologize, I'm curious as to your opinion. If you don't wish to express one in Maher's case (despite clearly expressing one in Rush's), then others can draw the conclusion they wish.
But you (and others) are not applying the same standard to Limbaugh as to Maher, which suggests that the offense was not at the words used but rather the political argument.
dogma wrote:Didn't you once besmirch Rachel Maddow's femininity?
And, further, explicitly state that it was based on your dislike for her, as a person?
I've been known to make fun of people I disagree with. But I didn't besmirch her femininity, I besmirched her looks.
Mannahnin wrote:Which is an irrelevancy, and dodging the point.
It's not irrelevant. The woman inserted herself into the public debate about whether churches should be required to forgo their religious beliefs to finance a woman's sexual indiscretions.
Mannahnin wrote:Maher has been called out repeatedly on his comments. And Sarah Palin is a public figure and was long before anyone started saying anything nasty about her.
Which actually is an irrelevancy and dodging the point.
I think Rush was right to apologize. Do you think Maher should apologize?
Monster Rain wrote:A governor is a public figure. Their kids are generally considered to be less so. There's also the fact that Bill Maher is making jokes, and Rush, by all appearances, was not.
Someone speaking publicly about an issue is a public figure.
Also, Rush was making a joke.
Monster Rain wrote:I don't think either of them should have to apologize in order to not be fired.
Neither do I.
Do you think Maher should apologize?
Why isn't anyone willing to condemn calling Sarah Palin nasty names?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:She reportedly has female genitalia, so yes.
In today's modern world genitalia is not dispositive of the issue.
Mannahnin wrote:No, that's not what a public figure is. A public figure is someone who is commonly and routinely in the public eye as part of their life and work. Not a private citizen who makes an isolated public statement.
No, that's a general public figure. A specific public figure is someone who has entered the public debate in a limited area.
David Kappos is not a general public figure. He certainly is a public figure in the patent law community.
Which is an irrelevancy, and dodging the point.
It's not irrelevant. The woman inserted herself into the public debate about whether churches should be required to forgo their religious beliefs to finance a woman's sexual indiscretions.
You've packed quite I disagree with in there, so it'll take a bit to unpack it.
1. That doesn't make her a public figure; someone who is considered to have forgone the same expectations of privacy that most of us have, like a celebrity or politician does. She doesn't even constitute a limited purpose public figure, because she did not thrust herself to the forefront of a controversy. Rush did that against her will.
2. I disagree with your categorization of the nature of the debate. You're making the same nasty mistake or deliberate distortion here as Rush, equating use of birth control with sexual indiscretion, which is ignorant, offensive, and possibly misogynistic. I don't think you can even claim ignorance here, as the point has been made here repeatedly, so the most likely conclusion seems to be that you are deliberately being dishonest.
3. I disagree that a church would have to forego its religious belief to finance birth control. Their members who don't want to use it are not being forced to use it. And many (most?) Catholics in America do use birth control. If they don't use the medication they usually use other means.
4. She testified after the legislation had been shifted to the insurance company financing it. Birth control medicine is much cheaper than paying for prenatal care, births, and postnatal care, so it's not even as if the insurance company's costs will be higher and necessitate higher premiums.
biccat wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Maher has been called out repeatedly on his comments. And Sarah Palin is a public figure and was long before anyone started saying anything nasty about her.
Which actually is an irrelevancy and dodging the point.
No, it's not. You made the (false) claim that liberals don't get called out for making nasty remarks, unlike conservatives. Which was patently untrue.
biccat wrote:I think Rush was right to apologize. Do you think Maher should apologize?
For what, specifically? He says a lot of rude stuff. Please cite a specific comment and I'll be happy to give my opinion on whether he should apologize for it.
biccat wrote:
I'm not sure what you think was a "dig."
I'll remind you:
biccat wrote:
If you think Maher should apologize (operative word here being "think") then you're being consistent.
You first used "think" as a stand in for "believe" (the words "think", and "should" don't get along without belief), and then seemed to impugn my ability to think by placing it in quotation. I may have read it wrong, if so, I apologize.
I'm not sure why you brought up consistency, though. I never said anything about who should or shouldn't apologize.
biccat wrote:
I don't think either Maher or Limbaugh should be forced to apologize, I'm curious as to your opinion. If you don't wish to express one in Maher's case (despite clearly expressing one in Rush's), then others can draw the conclusion they wish.
No opinion was expressed. I've explained why people object to his comments, and further why others who have criticized Rush might not have criticized Maher.
Anything else is just your confirmation bias acting up again.
biccat wrote:
But you (and others) are not applying the same standard to Limbaugh as to Maher, which suggests that the offense was not at the words used but rather the political argument.
Where have I expressed that Limbaugh offended me? Or even criticized him on moral grounds? He said something that was made stupid by his position, that's basically it. I don't know the man, so I won't claim he meant anything by his statements.
In fact, I recall explicitly that neither Maher or Limbaugh has ever offended me.
If you want an opinion, I think Rush is a moron (and not just because I disagree with his politics, Beck is far more savvy), and that Maher is a douche who is occasionally funny but otherwise irrelevant.
biccat wrote:
But I didn't besmirch her femininity, I besmirched her looks.
I'm just going to go out on a limb and assume you weren't judging her according to masculine, transgender, or even furry standards.
You besmirched her looks as a member of the female gender, at least most likely. The other options are...interesting, but unlikely.
biccat wrote:
In today's modern world genitalia is not dispositive of the issue.
Gender is mutable, sex isn't. Maddow is female, no doubt. She's also homosexual, no doubt. I think, as female homosexuals go, she's pretty good looking.
Mannahnin wrote:1. That doesn't make her a public figure; someone who is considered to have forgone the same expectations of privacy that most of us have, like a celebrity or politician does. She doesn't even constitute a limited purpose public figure, because she did not thrust herself to the forefront of a controversy. Rush did that against her will.
Under Wamstad the test is a three-part analysis:
1) public discussion and likely to affect individuals outside of the controversy;
2) more than trivial or tangential role in the controversy;
3) defmation is germane to the plaintiff's participation.
Explain how any of these three points aren't met by the current controversy.
Mannahnin wrote:2. I disagree with your categorization of the nature of the debate. I think it's dishonest and offensive, to be honest. You're making the same nasty mistake or deliberate distortion here as Rush, equating use of birth control with sexual indiscretion, which is ignorant, offensive, and possibly misogynistic.
I would greatly appreciate it if you wouldn't call me offensive names. I'd report your post, but we both know nothing would come of it, mainly due to the bracketed letters under your username.
However, the question here is not birth control for medical reasons (those are already covered), but birth control for a contraceptive purpose.
Mannahnin wrote:3. I disagree that a church would have to forego its religious belief to finance birth control.
Cool. The churches disagree, and have done so for a long time. Excuse me if I defer to their position on what their religious beliefs are.
Mannahnin wrote:so it's not even as if the insurance company's costs will be higher and necessitate higher premiums.
Actually, they will. Providing a service is more expensive than not providing a service.
Mannahnin wrote:No, it's not. You made the (false) claim that liberals don't get called out for making nasty remarks, unlike conservatives. Which was patently untrue.
Given the repeated dodges of liberals here to dodge Maher's comments, I think it's a fair criticism. Given the lack of populist outrage when those comments were made, I think it further reinforces the criticism.
Mannahnin wrote:For what, specifically? He says a lot of rude stuff. Please cite a specific comment and I'll be happy to give my opinion on whether he should apologize for it.
"speaking of dumb t--ts..."
"stupid c---, there's just no other word for her."
biccat wrote:
If you think Maher should apologize (operative word here being "think") then you're being consistent.
You first used "think" as a stand in for "believe" (the words "think", and "should" don't get along without belief), and then seemed to impugn my ability to think by placing it in quotation. I may have read it wrong, if so, I apologize.
I'm not sure why you brought up consistency, though. I never said anything about who should or shouldn't apologize.
That's only a dig if you see consistency as a positive. I'm pretty sure you don't, and have expressed that before.
My criticism is for those who attack Limbaugh and defend (or ignore) attacks on conservative women. If they really cared about the words used, they would be universally outraged. But they're not, so they don't care about the words used, they tend to use the issue politically.
biccat wrote:
That's only a dig if you see consistency as a positive. I'm pretty sure you don't, and have expressed that before.
No, consistency is a positive. I'm just very flexible when it comes to how that consistency is expressed.
biccat wrote:
My criticism is for those who attack Limbaugh and defend (or ignore) attacks on conservative women. If they really cared about the words used, they would be universally outraged. But they're not, so they don't care about the words used, they tend to use the issue politically.
No problem with that, but at least be honest.
I already made the argument about viewership, so just go back a few pages.
Mannahnin wrote:1. That doesn't make her a public figure; someone who is considered to have forgone the same expectations of privacy that most of us have, like a celebrity or politician does. She doesn't even constitute a limited purpose public figure, because she did not thrust herself to the forefront of a controversy. Rush did that against her will.
Under Wamstad the test is a three-part analysis:
1) public discussion and likely to affect individuals outside of the controversy;
2) more than trivial or tangential role in the controversy;
3) defmation is germane to the plaintiff's participation.
Explain how any of these three points aren't met by the current controversy.
Mannahnin wrote:2. I disagree with your categorization of the nature of the debate. I think it's dishonest and offensive, to be honest. You're making the same nasty mistake or deliberate distortion here as Rush, equating use of birth control with sexual indiscretion, which is ignorant, offensive, and possibly misogynistic.
I would greatly appreciate it if you wouldn't call me offensive names. I'd report your post, but we both know nothing would come of it, mainly due to the bracketed letters under your username.
I didn't call you any names. I called your action ignorant, offensive, and possibly misogynistic. Feel free to report me. Something might come of it. If it doesn't, it's more likely because your act was how I characterized it. Feel free to poll the membership if you think they'll disagree with the moderators on that.
biccat wrote:However, the question here is not birth control for medical reasons (those are already covered), but birth control for a contraceptive purpose.
She talked about both.
Sandra Fluke wrote:“A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown’s insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy.
“Unfortunately, under many religious institutions and insurance plans, it wouldn’t be. There would be no exception for other medical needs. And under Sen. Blunt’s amendment, Sen. Rubio’s bill or Rep. Fortenberry’s bill there’s no requirement that such an exception be made for these medical needs.
“When this exception does exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers rather than women and their doctors dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose are not, women’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.
“In 65% of the cases at our school, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed prescription and whether they were lying about their symptoms.
“For my friend and 20% of the women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription. Despite verifications of her illness from her doctor, her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay. So clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy
for her.
“After months paying over $100 out-of-pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore, and she had to stop taking it.
“I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of the night in her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room. She’d been there all night in just terrible, excruciating pain. She wrote to me, ‘It was so painful I’d woke up thinking I’ve been shot.’
“Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary as a result.
“On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she was sitting in a doctor’s office, trying to cope with the consequences of this medical catastrophe. “Since last year’s surgery, she’s been experiencing night sweats and weight gain and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She’s 32-years-old.
“As she put it, ‘If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no choice at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies simply because the insurance policy that I paid for, totally unsubsidized by my school, wouldn’t cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.’
“Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at such an early age – increased risk of cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis – she may never be able to conceive a child.
“Some may say that my friend’s tragic story is rare. It’s not. I wish it were
“One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but that can’t be proven without surgery. So the insurance has not been willing to cover her medication – the contraception she needs to treat her endometriosis.
“Recently, another woman told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome and she’s struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it.
“Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown’s policy, she hasn’t been reimbursed for her medications since last August.
“I sincerely pray that we don’t have to wait until she loses an ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these women are taken seriously.
“Because this is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends: A woman’s reproductive health care isn’t a necessity, isn’t a priority.
“One woman told us that she knew birth control wasn’t covered on the insurance and she assumed that that’s how Georgetown’s insurance handle all of women’s reproductive and sexual health care. So when she was raped, she didn’t go to the doctor, even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections, because she thought insurance wasn’t going to cover something like that – something that was related to a woman’s reproductive health.
Mannahnin wrote:3. I disagree that a church would have to forego its religious belief to finance birth control.
Cool. The churches disagree, and have done so for a long time. Excuse me if I defer to their position on what their religious beliefs are.
Really? We've had the same kind of law in NH for twelve years. I don't recall a stink being raised when it was enacted. How about in California or any of the other states with similar laws? I also dispute that "the churches" are one monolithic entity. Do we need to make allowance for a small minority of churches which aren't representative of their denomination or membership?
biccat wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:so it's not even as if the insurance company's costs will be higher and necessitate higher premiums.
Actually, they will. Providing a service is more expensive than not providing a service.
Paying for birth control is a lot cheaper than paying for prental and postnatal care, and for a birth. Their overall costs will be lower.
biccat wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:No, it's not. You made the (false) claim that liberals don't get called out for making nasty remarks, unlike conservatives. Which was patently untrue.
Given the repeated dodges of liberals here to dodge Maher's comments, I think it's a fair criticism. Given the lack of populist outrage when those comments were made, I think it further reinforces the criticism.
I think you're moving the goalposts. Links were posted earlier in the thread to criticisms of Maher.
biccat wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:For what, specifically? He says a lot of rude stuff. Please cite a specific comment and I'll be happy to give my opinion on whether he should apologize for it.
"speaking of dumb t--ts..."
"stupid c---, there's just no other word for her."
Give me some context. A link, maybe? Who was he saying it about, and when? Was it in resonse to anything?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:My criticism is for those who attack Limbaugh and defend (or ignore) attacks on conservative women. If they really cared about the words used, they would be universally outraged. But they're not, so they don't care about the words used, they tend to use the issue politically.
It's not about the words (at least not for me). It's about the nature of the attack, and the position and actions of the person it's directed toward. If Maher attacked a private person, say a conservative law student, with those terms, for testifying before Congress about a law in contradiction to Maher's beliefs, I absolutely would condemn him for it.
Testifying before congress, or at least giving the appearance of testifying before congress, is not a trivial level of participation.
FWIW, I heard about her before Rush made his comments.
Mannahnin wrote:I didn't call you any names. I called your action ignorant, offensive, and possibly misogynistic.
You've already made it clear in another thread that attacking someone's comment as sexist is a violation of forum rules. I'm unclear what the distinction is here.
Well, aside from you being a moderator.
Mannahnin wrote:Really? We've had the same kind of law in NH for twelve years. I don't recall a stink being raised when it was enacted. How about in California or any of the other states with similar laws?
The California law was challenged at the time it was enacted. I think New Hampshire is working on passing an exception for religious groups.
Mannahnin wrote:I also dispute that "the churches" are one monolithic entity. Do we need to make allowance for a small minority of churches which aren't representative of their denomination or membership?
If freedom of religion means anything, then yes. No person's religious beliefs should be subject to majority approval.
Mannahnin wrote:It's not about the words (at least not for me). It's about the nature of the attack, and the position and actions of the person it's directed toward.
That's quite clear, and your position on the issue has been noted. You don't disagree with "misogyny", you disagree with conservative positions.
I hope that people reading this thread will view your comments in the appropriate context.
biccat wrote:
If freedom of religion means anything, then yes. No person's religious beliefs should be subject to majority approval.
Their beliefs are not, the actions that might follow from those beliefs are not.
If they aren't, then we have to release Nidal Malik Hasan.
biccat wrote:
You don't disagree with "misogyny", you disagree with conservative positions.
No, that's nonsense analysis, bordering on being intentionally duplicitous. Mannahnin claimed that the nature of the attack, and the target, determined his opinion of the attack. This might include political leanings, but it doesn't have to.
Your confirmation bias is, again, acting up.
biccat wrote:
I hope that people reading this thread will view your comments in the appropriate context.
I agree, I hope the people reading this thread will view your actions in the appropriate context.
Testifying before congress, or at least giving the appearance of testifying before congress, is not a trivial level of participation.
It is trivial within the greater controversy. Her role is tiny. She is not a public figure. Wamstad was someone who become one through "years of press coverage".
biccat wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:I didn't call you any names. I called your action ignorant, offensive, and possibly misogynistic.
You've already made it clear in another thread that attacking someone's comment as sexist is a violation of forum rules. I'm unclear what the distinction is here.
No, that's not what happened. You can characterize an action or a statement as offensive without attacking the person. This is what Rush failed to do, and what Landsberg apparently was attempting (but failing) to do. I didn't say in another thread that calling a comment sexist is a violation of forum rules.
biccat wrote:Well, aside from you being a moderator.
I'm sorry that's available for you to use an excuse.
biccat wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Really? We've had the same kind of law in NH for twelve years. I don't recall a stink being raised when it was enacted. How about in California or any of the other states with similar laws?
The California law was challenged at the time it was enacted. I think New Hampshire is working on passing an exception for religious groups.
Both laws were passed. Some of the ignoramuses elected in NH since then have recently jumped on the Santorum bandwagon.
biccat wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:I also dispute that "the churches" are one monolithic entity. Do we need to make allowance for a small minority of churches which aren't representative of their denomination or membership?
If freedom of religion means anything, then yes. No person's religious beliefs should be subject to majority approval.
This comes back to what kinds of laws churches can be exempted from. They're not allowed to claim (for an extreme example) religious protections for murder. A Fatwa being declared doesn't suddenly exempt Muslims from that law. Covering birth control medication for employees who choose to use it is not the same as compelling any religious person to use it themselves in violation of their beliefs.
biccat wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:It's not about the words (at least not for me). It's about the nature of the attack, and the position and actions of the person it's directed toward.
That's quite clear, and your position on the issue has been noted. You don't disagree with "misogyny", you disagree with conservative positions.
Entirely incorrect. The question I'm not entirely clear on is whether it's an honest mistake or a deliberate mischaracterization.
Didn't you once besmirch Rachel Maddow's femininity?
To quote the Lorax, "That's a woman?!?"
I think she would be attractive if she tried to look like a woman, I mean its not like shes a dog, she just wears little make up and has a blokes hair cut.
The number one turn off for me is fat people. If a chick looks like she works out then I can forgive a less than exceptional grid. My missus hasnt got classically good looks, but she weighs 105lbs and looks like she can run all day, thats enough for me.
I bet she would be pretty tidy if she wore a nice dress, sported some fake eyelashes and got some hair extensions!
Monster Rain wrote:Surely you realize that the number that would be spent solely on the uninsured would be less than that.
You were off by a factor of 20. Sure, we can hypothesize some discount for people on the lower end of the market, but by a factor of 20? Come on.
I don't know why we're talking about pre-existing conditions all of a sudden.
Because of the reasons I just explained. You can't have a come one, come all system that'll take people even if they've got pre-existing conditions, without realising that people will wait until they're sick before signing up. At which point you either have a taxpayer funded system, or you have a requirement for an individual health insurance mandate, or you have a system where insurers can reject people with pre-existing conditions.
It's really that simple.
If it costs money it can be paid for, right? Isn't that what insurance does?
And you keep pretending that everyone can simply have insurance, if they so will it. That isn't true. People go without treatment. This is just how it fething is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phototoxin wrote:Point 1) Why should anyone else have to pay for contraception. People don't have a right to have sex and no one died from lack of sex.
Because people are going to have sex. And when they do, they're going to make babies and they're going to spread STIs. And that is going to cost the rest of society a fortune.
If we accept they're going to have sex, and that it is better for everyone that that sex is protected so that they avoid STIs and only produce babies when they actually want a baby, then it becomes very fething obvious that it is best to get contraception out there as cheaply as possible.
Point 2) Despite all out increasing technological and social advances, pill, morning after pill, condoms, abortion, sex education - people are *still* getting pregnant. Kinda ironic really.
Unplanned pregnancies, especially unplanned pregnancies among teenagers, are way, way down on where they were in the early 90s.
People pretend this isn't true because they'd rather have an easy philosophy wrapped around easy ideas that actually engage with how the world really works.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Damn, too bad Adam Smith isn't around to see this.
Oh for feth's sake, you haven't even read Wealth of Nations have you?
"We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform, combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate [...] Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this rate. These are always conducted with the utmost silence and secrecy till the moment of execution; and when the workmen yield, as they sometimes do without resistance, though severely felt by them, they are never heard of by other people". In contrast, when workers combine, "the masters [...] never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combination of servants, labourers, and journeymen"
Just let me repeat something that needs to made absolutely clear - you know absolutely nothing of economics. Not one fething thing. So stop pretending otherwise, realise that right wing nutters dropping the names of famous economists in their political screeds is not an education in economics, and that you really, really need to go away and start reading.
Monster Rain wrote:Surely you realize that the number that would be spent solely on the uninsured would be less than that.
You were off by a factor of 20. Sure, we can hypothesize some discount for people on the lower end of the market, but by a factor of 20? Come on.
Since I'm feeling magnanimous, I looked up uninsured medical expenses in the US. It's 125 Billion USD.
So, make it 60$ a month for those people I mentioned before. Boom. Problem solved.
sebster wrote:
I don't know why we're talking about pre-existing conditions all of a sudden.
Because of the reasons I just explained. You can't have a come one, come all system that'll take people even if they've got pre-existing conditions, without realising that people will wait until they're sick before signing up. At which point you either have a taxpayer funded system, or you have a requirement for an individual health insurance mandate, or you have a system where insurers can reject people with pre-existing conditions.
It's really that simple.
What is that simple? Still not sure how this has anything to do with what I said.
sebster wrote:
If it costs money it can be paid for, right? Isn't that what insurance does?
And you keep pretending that everyone can simply have insurance, if they so will it.
No I don't. You said that medical costs can't be paid for. I refuted that fact. Again, this all seems a bit overblown.
T
sebster wrote:That isn't true. People go without treatment. This is just how it fething is.
Monster Rain wrote:Since I'm feeling magnanimous, I looked up uninsured medical expenses in the US. It's 125 Billion USD.
Citation needed.
What is that simple? Still not sure how this has anything to do with what I said.
I don't believe that's even slightly possible. My point really, really wasn't that complex.
No I don't. You said that medical costs can't be paid for.
No, that's not what I said. Please just read what I'm saying.
I am saying that if you have a system where individuals have to pay for their own treatment, or pay for their own insurance, then there will be people who cannot afford such. This is just a fething thing that's true. I mean look at this dude;
It is not a contentious argument to say he couldn't afford insurance, or to pay for kidney dialysis. At which point you have to consider other systems to pay for his healthcare, or you say 'I don't care if he doesn't get treatment'.
The 125 Billion was from a site that didn't have what I would consider sufficient citation. This one, from a somewhat more reputable source, actually fits nicely in my original number.
sebster wrote:
What is that simple? Still not sure how this has anything to do with what I said.
I don't believe that's even slightly possible. My point really, really wasn't that complex..
We're talking about paying for uninsured medical expenses. Pre-existing medical conditions is utterly irrelevant. I'm not going to sit here and hash out an entire public option healthcare system with you. Which leads me to our next point.
sebster wrote:*snip*
At which point you have to consider other systems to pay for his healthcare, or you say 'I don't care if he doesn't get treatment'.
This whole conversation is about other systems to pay for health care. I even suggested one.
The 125 Billion was from a site that didn't have what I would consider sufficient citation. This one, from a somewhat more reputable source, actually fits nicely in my original number.
First up, that number reconciles back to the $125 billion, more or less. 42.7 / 0.37 = $115 billion. I mean, read the article, 37% of the cost of treatment of uninsured goes unpaid, so logically the total cost of treatment for those uninsured people is grossed up to $115 billion.
Second up, that's health care undertaken by people paying out of their own pocket, when they had so little money they couldn't get insurance. So you get people who are sick, and ignore it because they cannot afford to pay for treatment. The idea that if they had insurance they'd keep going to the doctor exactly as often as before is madness. Instead, you'd find they'd start getting treatment about as often as everyone else with coverage.
sebster wrote:We're talking about paying for uninsured medical expenses. Pre-existing medical conditions is utterly irrelevant. I'm not going to sit here and hash out an entire public option healthcare system with you. Which leads me to our next point.
We were talking about that, until you decided to announce your own system of getting uninsured people to pay into a healthcare system. At which point I tried to explain the problems with that, and you tried to confuse the conversation as much as possible.
This whole conversation is about other systems to pay for health care. I even suggested one.
And I explained what was wrong with that system. And you did not want to follow that point.
Mannahnin wrote:Sebster, I believe MR is trying to engage in good faith. Please try to keep it friendly and constructive. Work with him; he's a good dude.
Fair point. I know Monster Rain is a pretty decent guy, and he does engage in good faith. I don't know, maybe we're just seeing the terms of this debate from fundamentally different points of view, because I just cannot where he's coming from.
I don't think anyone is saying she's head turning (to a heterosexual male), but she's not a dog either.
I've known plenty of less attractive straight women.
But, at the end of the day, this is the internet: the only place worse than gossip columns when it comes to judging physical appearance (male or female, but mostly female).
Mannahnin wrote:Sebster, I believe MR is trying to engage in good faith. Please try to keep it friendly and constructive. Work with him; he's a good dude.
sebster wrote:Fair point. I know Monster Rain is a pretty decent guy, and he does engage in good faith. I don't know, maybe we're just seeing the terms of this debate from fundamentally different points of view, because I just cannot where he's coming from.
Aww, gee whiz guys.
Glad I read the thread back over before posting my response to see if perhaps I was reading things with somewhat more hostile intent than was actually there.
Hey Sebster, I realize that I didn't quite have a fully fleshed out health care reform bill back there. But surely you can appreciate the basic principle behind what I was saying, right?
I think he's saying that he gets your gist but that the math doesn't add up, and that if you allow people to choose not to sign up, they numbers of people who don't, but then wind up needing care and only signing up after they need care, will F up the whole system.
You need those folks...
A) Paying in while they're still healthy.
B) Having the coverage so they're more likely to actually go to the doctor and get preventive care, which helps avoid a lot of the nastiest and most expensive problems in the first place.
Monster Rain wrote:Hey Sebster, I realize that I didn't quite have a fully fleshed out health care reform bill back there. But surely you can appreciate the basic principle behind what I was saying, right?
Yeah, I can, and I think that something like that is going to be the foundation of a working healthcare model going forward. But in the next post Mannahin summed up the issue perfectly in the post following yours, that the monthly payable is a lot higher than you suggested, and you need folk paying in while they're still healthy. And the solution to that is either to have government cover low income providers for free, or to make people pay into a low cost insurance scheme (essentially a mandate).
