Sandra Fluke
Are you ok with paying higher premiums so that Sandra Fluke can have sex?
Trending Content
| +89 | Zoomers are doing life wrong | 28 | 1d | |
| +70 | GF doesn’t care about her looks | 46 | 5s | |
| +52 | How to develop a thick skin? | 22 | 5d | |
| +39 | Insurance as High Finance? | 10 | 1d | |
| +36 | Affair with my Associate… In Desperate Need for Advice | 21 | 2h | |
| +35 | 400k/year in HVAC sales? | 26 | 4h | |
| +32 | Would you rather live alone in an outer borough or with roommates in Manhattan? | 23 | 1d | |
| +31 | Framed Photo of CEO on desk. | 16 | 1d | |
| +24 | BO -> ??? | 14 | 5d | |
| +22 | When do you plan to buy your first house and how much do you expect to spend? | 24 | 14h |
Career Resources
Cheaper than paying for a fuckin' baby.
Rush was wrong and way off base to say those things about sandra fluke. But I am once again dismayed at the liberals' propensity to portray people as victims and cast them as heroic figures. They have used rush's comments to avoid discussing a legitimate issue on government subsidies of contraceptives and have resorted to blanket assertions about conservatives' "hatred" of women.
FOX news is a fucking freak show ! I get amused each time i watch this channel. It looks like a "serious" version of the daily show; taking information out of context and ridiculizing the potential dept of a debate. Im pro markets and all, but these guys should stop sipping on the Milton Friedman coolaid. His point of view has its limitations.
Respek the drank, booyakasha.
Respek. Can't even find that word in the dictionary anymore.
'' Our country was built with our hands at work not with our hands out '' 9:55
'nuff said.
I just spent 10 days in America.
Not only should contraception be covered, it should be fucking mandatory.
I'm shocked too. Braverman is now Monsieur Brave the communist frenchmen.
EB you always manage to crack me up loudly at my workplace!
Premiums would go down over time because BC will prevent unwanted pregnancies and other such shit (which also, in theory, helps out the tax payer.)
Side note: who DOESN'T want this covered? What guy cheers for condoms? Holy shit, this is a dream come true for any man in a relationship.
What about men not in relationships?
The left always tries to get their shit covered with the threat of higher premiums if you don't cover it. How about all of us healthy people just opt into a high deductible plan and utilize a HSA. That will gut normal insurance and just drive up the cost for those who use it all the time.
Bang. Why allow yourself to subsidize poor decision making. If this government and country is going to force feed shared responsibility for bad decisions it is all of our duties to remove ourselves from the equation as much as possible.
Lower your tax exposure. Get yourself out of plans that subsidize frequent users. Stop donating to charity.
King - You are a ravenous single man. How is BC going to help you? How is it going to help me? Also, are you willing to trust a woman with making sure YOU don't become a dad?
Seriously, I know two people who were in relationships with the woman on the pill and she "accidentally" forgot to take it or did it wrong. Guess who has a kid now?
Don't blame anyone but yourself when you give away the control over your own body.
How will this help anything? I'd be happy if some pro-BC private group or charity stepped up for free pills rather than having the Gvt mandate it.
I believe Planned Parenthood already does this.
When will people learn that you can't force people to be responsible. Okay, so dumb poor people get knocked up when they shouldn't have kids. Why? Oh, they can't afford birth control. Okay, let's make it free so they can afford it. They still get knocked up. Why? Well they can get it for free, but can't get down to the drug store to get the pills. Okay, let's mail it to their house. They still get knocked up. Why? Oh, because I forgot to take it one day or something. Well, what do we do then?
You can't force people to take the pills...as much as it seems like doing so would solve many of society's problems. You are essentially killing the liberty of the many to protect the few...and those few are probably too dumb to use the stuff you gained by revoking the liberty of the many.
It's insane that people can't see the fundamental issue here that providing more for people who want more will not satisfy them even when they get it. Instead they will only continue to expect and demand more.
Instead of corrupting a nation that was founded on opposing principals, why don't you socialist/liberals educate those poor people and fund their relocation to countries where they can be provided for?
Regards
ANT -
Condoms are effective backup when someone misses a day with the pill. I don't want to subsidize bad decision making either, but I think making access to extremely effective contraception that everyone likes and is easy to use FREE will have benefits in the long-run.
That said, I don't even want to debate it anymore. There will never be consensus here. Well, we can all agree on one thing: condoms are awful!
And I completely agree with you. Just saying condoms do the job of birth control, with the anti STD benefit and are cheaper. At the very least, if insurance is going to cover BC they should cover condoms.
What needs to happen is you need to have hardcore sexed in inner city schools with BC being made available and maybe even paying people to be on it. Now THAT would have tangible benefits.
But condoms suck. I like to freebase it.
Socialism is rampant in here.
I'm certainly no socialist. I'm just not a big fan of the human race.
i'm all in favor of shittier forms of contraception so we can have more abortions.
Condoms do suck...until you get the itchy ballz
i'm going to summarize this whole flap here:
the puritan's objection to bear baiting is not so much that it brings pain to the bear, but that it brings pleasure to the spectator.
How about I summarize.
All insurance companies want to provide free BC because it saves them money. But, at the end of the day, health benefits are provided by an organization as an enticement to work there. They are not required, nor do they have to be quality plans. A private organization has decided that they want to have a less than top notch plan.
What about high deductible plans or places that do not provide health insurance to employees? Women can't get free birth control there?
Government should have simply left religious groups alone. This is what HSA's and Flexible spending accounts are for.
i like mine more because i have bears.
Wait, so people who choose not to take birth control, that we all pay for, then have kids and expect us to all pay for it?
And we can't force them?
Get real. If you refuse to accept the consequences of your actions you are no longer a free American, but a ward of the state. As a child or person unable to take care of yourself, you no longer have free will and will accept the governance or "parenting" of those who are responsible for your actions.
You have liberty or you have slavery, but you cannot have a world where others shoulder your burden while you enjoy the freedom that they provide.
elephonky,
Who the fuck cares about excuses? "Ohhh, they don't have an excuse to get pregnant anymore because the dick police showed up and strapped a condom on him!!" How far do you take it? If someone actually put a condom on some guy's dick but he took it off after the cop left would you be mad then?
'Excuse' is a misnomer because it doesn't actually excuse the behavior. And birth control is plenty available. I could go get morning after pills at the local drug store as well as condoms (both male and female) and birth control pills can be had for rather cheap as well. Or you can go to a government subsidized clinic and get it for free...but again, you would have to actually go...you know, be responsible.
Your argument runs along the lines of banning guns because murders use them to kill people. Did people not die before the 15th century? Of course they did, they were just stabbed with swords and before that hit with clubs. So should we get rid of guns and knives and bats because it becomes too easy for a few people to kill someone? No, because you are hampering the rights of many because of the poor actions of a few. Same premise as with this unconstitutionally mandated law.
You said yourself that it's the government mandating that a PRIVATE organization do something. In this case it's a religious institution and the Constitution couldn't be any clearer.
I know the left loves to drag out the separation of church and state issue when someone wants to put a "Christmas" tree up on the lawn at city hall...but where are they now to recite the rest of the oft forgotten pieces that coincidentally don't match up with their views?
How is it you guys can remember..."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." but you always forget the "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." part?
The First Amendment of the Constitution is abundantly clear that the federal government does NOT have the right to mandate that a religious organization does something against it's doctrine.
Luckily we are in America and you can go elsewhere if you don't like that. It's like you have a choice or something.
Regards
Look, you brought up the whole "well if we give them free birth control, they'll complain that they 'couldn't get to the store' and then we'll have to drive them there" bullshit. That would be an "excuse" for why they couldn't prevent the pregnancy, thus prompting my argument that mandating insurance-covered birth control would prevent much of these "excuses" from having merit.
This just makes it seem like you lack perspective. Not everyone can get to the drug store to buy morning after pills and furthermore not everyone has the money for them. Should they not be having sex in the first place? Sure. But that's a pipe dream; reality is that poor people will have sex, so let's prevent the pregnancies in the most cost-effective way. Ranting that they should have some fucking responsibility is all fun and dandy, so you can do that while the rest of us try to find realistic solutions. (or we could just say fuck it and let the shit continue to hit the fan).
Your analogy sucks, please don't even try to defend it. It reeks of partisan bias and intentional ignorance of facts. I'll try to apply it more appropriately: let's say we have a crime problem amongst the poor populations (basically reality). There are excessive murders each year, primarily in the lower classes. The government mandates that health insurance companies provide an option for subsidized guns for those that live in areas with crime above X% (in case you're not following - these people are the "women" of the birth control debate) for self defense. Guns are made more accessible at the cost of the private insurance companies, but crime is deterred because everyone knows that it's cheaper to have a gun, and thus more likely that trying to murder someone could more easily result in your own death. Overall result: murders amongst lower classes decrease over time.
And the conservatives/liberals/whoever the fuck is against it says:
But what if someone doesn't use their self-defense gun that all our TAX DOLLARS paid for (even though they didn't, but I'll ignore that since you all seem to be stuck on it)? What if their gun is faulty and they get murdered anyway?? What if some anti-NRA group is morally against hazardous weapons being subsidized?!?!? OMGZ WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY AND INFRINGEMENT OF PERSONAL LIBERTIES.
(Go ahead, rip it apart. But in the end it still aligns with the current situation a shit ton more than your analogy.)
Have you read the first amendment? It could be a fucking infinite amount clearer. I can't even believe you just said that.
I know the right LOVES to flip shit when the president/anyone calls his Christmas tree a holiday tree, but where are they now to recite the rest of the oft forgotten pieces that coincidentally don't match up with their views?
Fuck, I'm not even a Democrat and I'm getting all hot and bothered by you. Come to the middle, brother, where the sun shines 24/7 and we're not all on crack cocaine.
Okay, my religion that was established millions of years ago (before anyone could write, so there's no big fancy book or anything) said that everyone must be personally and financially responsible for every action of every day. Thus, my churchgoers shouldn't have to pay for car insurance since it diminishes their perception of risk and the All Superior Supergod (we call him ASS) won't let them into the afterlife! I can't believe the government would make such a heinous law that protects so many people and can improve the country overall when it is in CLEAR defiance of my religion!
Just because you agree with the law doesn't mean it's abundantly clear. Was it fine back in the 19th Century when everyone accepted Christianity shacking up with the government? Absolutely. But nowadays we have a plethora of religious interests that we must avoid offending and/or defending, and the law unfortunately applies to those too. I'm sorry.
Luckily we are in America and you can go elsewhere if you don't like that. It's like you have a choice or something.
EDIT: For the record I am born Catholic and am now a moderate.
Yes, because they will. I'm not making excuses for them...I'm pointing out that they will always have them, up until the point you are forcefully inoculating people. I've seen it time and again. A child is a paycheck to many of these people. They know that if they don't work and they have a kid, the government will send them a check because they don't want that kid to go hungry. Need more money? Just have another kid because the state will send another check. The problem with most people is they try to apply their own rational thought process to a situation they don't really comprehend. Would you ever choose to be homeless? No, probably not...so when you see a homeless person, your immediate thought is they must have been on the wrong end of a bad situation. Some people choose to be homeless, some people choose to be uneducated and never finish high school or go to college, some people choose to work in a toll booth and never advance, because it's easy and life just isn't that bad when you boil it all down. It's hard for people like those of WSO to understand this sometimes because even the 'best' is just a stopping point on the way to achieving 'better'.
I have plenty of perspective. I realize that people often only achieve what they are expected to achieve...and for some reason you want to keep lowering the bar. This nation survived, and thrived, for centuries with no birth control and only one parent work...but for some reason we no longer can. And please, show me some people that can't get a drug store I and will show you someone who is either A) not trying or B) starving to death because they can't get to the grocery store either. And I'm still not sure what your realistic solution is...I've pointed out all the things that could and would go wrong there...but at least you feel better about trying, after all, that's what it's all about...feelings.
Talk about a stretch. Your analogy is far worse than mine. The First Amendment of the Constitution clearly states that the right to practice your religion shall not be infringed upon. Forcing a religious organization to do something that goes entirely against their doctrine is a clear violation of that. I'm not sure where your shitty gun analogy fits in there since the Constitution allows citizens to arm themselves in accordance with local and state laws.
As a matter of fact I have. I'll even quote it here for you so don't have to get beat up trying to figure that whole 'Google' thing out. However, if you do wish to look it up, it's called the Free Exercise Clause (no, it has nothing to do with gym memberships). In part it reads...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Jesus, could it be any clearer than that?!?
I realize this is your attempt to be clever...you know, by using a very similar sentence structure as mine but turning it around on me...but I'm failing to see the point. Obama claims to be a Christian and would likely put up a Christmas tree, not a holiday tree...very similar to how it's been done forever. The beef that the right has is the attempt by the left to marginalize their religious beliefs. Growing up everyone celebrated Christmas, even those that weren't self described Christians and who never went to church. In most people's minds, Christmas means Santa and presidents, not Jesus and church. What changed? Nothing except people now go out of their way to impose their views on others (that can go both ways). Growing up everyone said Merry Christmas, but it's somehow become offensive. Christmas is a federally recognized holiday but I don't see the anti-Christmas folks showing up to work.
The bottom line is the religious right in this country feel as though their beliefs and liberties are under attack. To the point where they can't erect crosses in their own yards. The Christmas issue is just another in a long line that seek to marginalize Christianity. This whole birth control issue is just the straw that broke the camels back. I mean really...we live in a society were you can shit on a carving of Jesus, hang it by a piece of rope and call it art and it is defended as 'freedom of speech/expression' but the old couple who puts a cross up in their yard gets sued by the ACLU because the neighbor finds it 'offensive'.
Unfortunately for you, driving isn't a right...it's a privilege...you don't have to drive, you chose to drive, thus you have to comply with the laws of the state you are in. Of course, you could always move to another state that is more favorable or even another country. Better yet, you should move back to the country that used those unwritten religious rules to establish their society and government as I suspect their laws will be more favorable.
Regards
Love how people continue to twist the facts. Religious organizations should not be forced to provide birth control if they do not want. If you think it is such a societal benefit you should pay for it out of your pockets. Stop projecting your beliefs that I do not hold and using the government to do your dirty work.
Only way I will support these bullshit social programs the left keeps pushing is if we have control. I give with strings attached. Drug tests, mandatory school attendance, etc. People who accept personal responsibility get freedom and liberty.
Also, we are not talking about health care plans in general. We are talking specifically about Catholic groups being forced to pay for a non required benefit.
If you want to live in a socialistic nanny state get a one way ticket across the ocean. Stop trying to destroy the founding document that the greatest nation in recent history was founded on.
No one should be forced to do anything, ever. It's really working out for Somalia, I don't know why we waste our time with government.
THIS. Welcome to the moderate side.
The Articles of Confederation have already been destroyed, so this is a nonissue. And I don't want to live in a socialist nanny state, but I'd like to find realistic solutions to the problems that we face in America today (and for some reason we didn't foresee).
By the way, I'm officially inviting everyone in this thread to my "Social Security just went belly up and none of us are getting our money back!" party. (hopefully it won't happen for at least another 10 years so I'm rich enough to go models and bottles on this shit)
Sorry man, no one is forced to work for a catholic organization or go to a catholic university. No need to force it on them. Health insurance is an option benefit and doesn't need to be provided.
Additionally, this myth that we need to do X or else Y completely ignores a third option, one that we should start doing. Let people own up to their own faults.
Turn a blind eye. Ignore them. Anyone walking around in a city knows how to tune out bums. How we can callously ignore the plight of someone right in front of us, but not be able to legislatively ignore the plight of people we never see if beyond me.
Health insurance is essentially necessary in modern America because of skyrocketing healthcare costs due to inefficiencies and unnecessary price variations.
If you take out the inefficiencies the result is decreased need for health insurance, and then it truly DOES become a benefit. (interestingly, ObamaCare as it was originally intended prioritized this reduction of price variation in the healthcare field above the individual mandate provision but the lobbyist orgy that constantly takes place in D.C. wasn't having any of that). Not sure if you've heard of the Dartmouth Health Atlas, but it's essentially the key to solving medical care in this country - it's worth looking up if you have time.
We agree that people should own up to their own faults. You and I, personally, are fiscally and morally (well, most of the time...) responsible. We can talk ideals all day long about how fucking stupid the poor, [insert racial stereotype] classes are and resent the FUCK out of them. But it won't solve the problem. The market doesn't react well to dropping people on their asses like you suggest, and furthermore we'd lose respect in all of the industrialized world. Our problems (much to both of our chagrin) would continue to increase and this country would continue to spiral downward.
We'll never bring FDR or LBJ back to tell them that their policies for short term success would fuck the country over for decades to come, so let's not waste our breath trying.
You can't stop a morphine addiction by refusing it to an addict (I mean, sometimes you can, but it's definitely not good procedure). In the same way, you can't stop a welfare addiction by just cutting it. You have to teach the person/population that life outside morphine/welfare is actually possible, and then you have to help them see it for themselves. Without doing that, you just end up with a bunch of addicts who give birth to children that pop out already addicted, and the cycle repeats itself while the non-addicts are mysteriously not procreating enough to keep the addict-to-nonaddict ratio intact (boy, that sounds a lot like our current economic situation...).
You and I are inches away friend. You want exactly what I want, but you prefer the carrot, while I prefer the stick. Unfortunately, people are never satisfied and the generous carrot you give today will become shit and resentment in the future. People always want more, regardless of if it was given or earned.
We have the stick, we just are too afraid to use it at this point. Eventually we will get over this squeamishness and truly solve the problem.
Are you ok with paying higher premiums so that Rush can take Viagra?
Insurance should be for catastrophic events - no pills, no viagra.
O'reilly answers your question at 5:11
The moment you start calling Viagra a medical necessity, you get all these excuses about pills as well. ED doesn't kill and it should not be covered. And no, why do we, as a society, have to pay for my VP's adderall so that he only has to pay $10/refill? My point is simple - insurance covering everything creates abuse of the system in the society. In an ideal world, insurance should cover major illness/accidents while everyday events should come out of HSA type savings.
And how do you deal with someone who doesn't want help?
anyone who says that ED isn't a life-threatening disease has disqualified himself from this debate.
ED isn't even a real thing.
ED Cure = Bang Hotter Chicks.
Problem solved.
Men get less of a say in reproduction because, well shit, they don't carry the kid around inside them for 9 months and the overwhelming majority of child rearing is done by women. Men also have a near monopoly on war and violence...or, the termination of reproduction. If prostitution is the world's oldest profession, being a mercenary is a close 2nd.
Is it right? Is it fair? LIFE IS UNFAIR. Deal with it. Jeez
This. If I had any credits I'd reward you for such an awesome post.
(By the way I accidentally flagged your post as spam cause I'm on my phone. My bad.)
No sense in debating you any further. You clearly think your personal beliefs should be forced on a religious institution. Health Insurance is option by the employer and reproductive drugs tend to run afoul of Catholic groups. They have the right and choice to decide what level of optional benefits that are provided to their employees or voluntary members.
These are private groups. If government funding is received, it is at the department level and non essential for the running of their business. Either way, the government should either give the funds without expectation of influence or let the religious groups know that their funds come with strings.
This woman knew their policy and freely chose to apply and then has an issue with their policy. This is disgusting.
Freedom means respecting different opinions. I realize many people on this board have a disdain for organized religion, but when you start forcing them to do things because YOU think it is smart, freedom is done with.
Keep thinking you know what is best for other people.
Obviously ANT is also pro-choice and pro-gay marriage.
Thoughts: 1. I don't give a fuck what Rush called her. Civility is gone and isn't coming back - ever. 2. At least 50% of our population shouldn't be breeding. 3. Providing contraception probably reduces illegitimate births and therefore I'm all for it.
We all have dicks, why do we give a shit?
We have all have rights and don't want them violated.
You have a right to your life and your liberty and that's about it.
Oh man, CPH just spraying knowledge all over the place. So glad we have some correct wing posting going on. Bravo!
"And this, children, is what's wrong with American politics today."
–anyone with eyes
I'd fluke her so flukeing hard.
Flake would be more fit to fluke her IMO.
You know what is wrong with this country? The government thinking it has the right to force religious groups to pay for an entirely non necessary benefit provided.
Just liberals trying to legislate their own opinions on everyone else. If you want free birth control you should choose not to work for a Catholic group.
Fuck Fluke. Obama lackey.
i think what is wrong with this country is that we are about to have a currency collapse brought about by a 80-year experiment with having a massive welfare state combined with a global military empire that is eating up 25% of our GDP and we are arguing about a fat man's mean comments about a fat woman's sex life.
How is 20-25% of GDP breaking this country? National defense isn't making us broke, it is all the other shit.
the military is the ultimate dig-a-hole fill-a-hole expenditure.
You're right, national defense isn't making us broke. All of the nation building in the middle east is.
the difference between military spending and medicare and social security is that at least with welfare spending, we are driving economic growth through capital formation in response to consumption of economic goods. weapons don't produce economic goods.
and all the materials, scientists, engineers, infrastructure that gets sucked into military production is directly stolen out of the private economy. listen to ike's own language about how these are "thefts" from the productive economy. so when we are talking about 25% sucked out of the economy, that's more like 50%, because not only would we not be flushing 25% down the rathole, we'd have another 25% more GDP producing economic goods if these resources were not sucked out by the military.
you conservatives surprise me sometimes. you reflexively bash on big government's wastefulness and incompetence, but you give it so much undeserved credit on the military side.
So nothing comes from the military? I mean this little thing called the internet might be one.
National Defense, always ready and willing, is one of the cornerstone goals of a Federal government. That is something individual states cannot do.
Military is 4-5% of GDP. It is 25% of the budget. Not bad IMO. A strong military ensures freedom and safety. It can also keep order if the population becomes to "entitled". Hand outs keep people at bay only temporarily. In the end, the stick is always a better motivator than the carrot.
thank you for the correction, i conflated budget with GDP.
this is the classic hazlitt "seen/unseen" problem of government expenditure. yes we got the internet, GPS and solar cells and other goodies, for the low low cost of tens of trillions of present dollars. how much more would the private sector have produced if we let them keep some of those trillions? we'll never know if they could have produced these things for 1/1000th the cost. you're judging on the seen but the unseen is unmeasurable. not a fair comparison.
Even when you factor in overseas fighting, it still isn't making us broke. It is a social security system that is underfunded and too large, countless agencies, welfare, etc.
National defense is a true purpose of the government.
i did mention the welfare state which you surely hate in my original comment, but i don't give the military a free pass.
when we are inching toward north korean levels of how much of our national produce of present and future generations we are putting into a totally non-economic purpose, it becomes just as lethally parasitic as any of your hated social welfare programs. although the welfare programs (60% of budget) are larger in apparent size than the miltary (20% fixed, 5% discretionary), again, at least we can eat and drink the welfare checks. can i interest you in a medium rare W-88 plutonium warhead with a side of $400 toilet seat?
I might not be able to eat a warhead, but the guys who make them can eat well. As can the people who own the defense stocks. And we can all benefit from military advancements which trickle down to the civilian life.
Listen, if you want to have an argument about lower taxes or higher military spending, fine. But no way in hell do I want to cut the military, something I actually want the government to run and do, and then funnel those funds to social programs which the government has no business in.
Cut everything and then when we are at a top tax bracket of 10-15% we can discuss cutting defense to get us below 10%.
you'll no hear no argument for me in favor of a welfare state i am getting bled dry to support and will not see a dime out of when i am 65. so let's talk military.
the military is a huge hole digging/hole filling exercise. yes, the hole diggers eat. and the hole fillers eat. and even the shareholders of Allied Hole, LLC get paid. but who's supplying the money with which to feed and pay them? it's gotta come out of the private economy. from people who make food and other things of real economic value. and what did we get for that? a bunch of dug and filled holes.
i use hyperbole here. we need some national defense. beyond the basic necessities of actual defense, i say that the rest is digging and filling holes. building billion dollar programs for jet planes that can't fly in rain or artillery systems the army doesn't want = digging and filling holes. and a few billion here, and a few billion there -- that adds up to real money eventually.
Yes, very true. But lets have history be out teacher. After Vietnam we gutted military spending. Makes sense. And what happened? We had an antiquated military, without quality officers and a pretty shitty armed forces. It took years to rebuild and shift to a professional, all volunteer army.
The military needs a steady state of funding. We need new air craft carriers, extra special forces, new planes, etc.
What needs to happen is we need to cut the fat out of the military. Make things more efficient. More with less. But a lot of military R&D is beneficial to the general public. Advancements in battlefield surgery, robotics, lasers, etc, all benefit us.
And lets not forget the most beneficial thing the US Military provides for us. It allow is to be the reserve currency of the world, by threat of force. Lets be honest, the US has the biggest and best gang on the planet. Just ask Saddam, Osama and Gaddafi how it feels to lose favor with the stars and stripes.
I sleep soundly in bed knowing that the US can impose its will anywhere and anytime.
god, this is what drives me insane about conservatives. Panties are all in a bunch when the government is "imposing its will" in its own goddamn country, but it can impose whatever the fuck it wants wherever else it wants and nothing's wrong with that!
Also, our military prestige is not what it was in the early and mid 20th Century. Since the Cold War and proliferation of nuclear weapons (oh hey Iran), everyone (read: the relevant industrial countries) ends on an equal playing field for the most part. We can all blow the shit out of each other at the touch of a button. All that matters is who will press the button first.
all good points. let's take the two most important ones: history and petrodollar hegemony. first, few here are fans of the welfare state. petrodollar hegemony is what makes it possible, because if we had to square our balance of payments with reality like every other country in the world, we'd have to live within our means. being americans, when we do things, we really like to go overboard, so when we run a welfare state, we aren't even content to run one that operates within the seignorage limits of our dollar printing/boots on the neck of oil producers forced to recycle petrodollars to USTs -- we run a massive one that explodes our debt to insane levels from which the fig leaf is going to blow off eventually. so it looks like we are back to the welfare state after all. right wing militarism supporting military operations whose ultimate beneficiary is the left wing's welfare state.
as for history: i am all for having the biggest guns on the block, but we need to balance that against the cost. all empires have collapsed when the internal finances could not support massive foreign military engagements. this is an iron law. we don't have to go back to rome or byzantium for examples. just look at the UK, another recent global reserve currency issuer.
so: if you cut the military, you can increase innovation and economic growth by freeing up manpower and capital for the private economy. you will actually starve the beast when the world shakes off petrodollar hegemony and democrats have to cut welfare and entitlement transfer payments as the 10-year yield surges off the 1-handle. we have the economically-healthy, eat-what-you-kill fair republican dream society that you all seem to crave. what's wrong with that?
1) The Constitution only applies to America. We can be evil overlords overseas, just not here.
2) Just because you have a few shitty nukes doesn't bring you to the USA's level. Also, nukes are show pieces, not that functional. Only a few nations (USA, Russia, China) have the swag to go nuclear and really F things up. Iran can get a good hit in, but would become a field of glass when things are all said and done.
Besides, I am ardently against nuclear weapons. Destroy too much infrastructure.
1) I agree with that logic. That said, though, Manifest Destiny is dead. We really can't be evil overlords in the modern world, especially since we no longer have a strong religious justification for it.
2) No one's on our level. Period. But that doesn't mean we'd come out clean. I think things are gonna get really testy with China in the coming years, once they realize that our debt that they've been hoarding is going to shit. Not sure what to think about Russia; they've got enough problems at home with Putin that I don't think we'd end up in any kind of standoff with them. But China...I wouldn't be surprised.
I too am against nuclear weapons, but they put everyone in a tough situation because of their power. We can't just continue to fight with simple combat/drones/missiles forever if we know that nuclear technology is available, regardless of UN sanctions.
fucking unbelievable, how anyone with a fucking brain can take this sandra fluke character half seriously.
No, i will not subsidize your sexual habits, because quite frankly, i dont give a shit if you get pregnant. its your decision, you take respnosibilty over your actions. And if you cant feed your baby thats not my fucking problem either. We should be trying to end welfare once and for all.No food stamps, no unemplyoment, none of that crap. Instead we would have people taking responsibilty for their fucking actions. instead we're taking nonsense like this seriously. What a load of crap, seriously.
oh and for all the idiots that say its cheaper for insurance to just give it out rather than cover the baby.,,, thats total crap. If that was the case the companies would have done that on their own without a aw mandating.
Many insurance companies actually do, which is fine. But insurance is an optional benefit, paid in large part by employers. Employers have a right to decide the level of benefit they offer to retain the talent that they want. If an employer doesn't want to pay for birth control (or viagra) they should have that right.
Yeah i'm sure some insurance companies offer it for free, but for those who dont want to, then thats on them. The women dont like it..who gives a shit?
ANT for president.
^ both the right and left are statists now anyways. robbing paul to pay peter or robbing peter to pay paul.
we are far past that point. it's more like paul sr. and peter sr. have already ran up the tab in our names and the names of paul and peter III, IV, V,...
the only way to break out of this is to dump the two-party cartel that created this goatfuck and look at real agents of change like gary johnson, ron paul, dennis kucinich, whomever.
You managed to stuff three faulty assumptions into one short sentence. It is actually turns the bend back into being impressive.
First, it is faulty to assume that unwed humans will only have sex if they have birth control. This is false. If you deprive them of birth control, they will still have sex.
Second, you assume that premiums will be higher if they cover the cost of birth control. This is also false. See point #1. Cheap or free birth control will reduce pregnancies. 75% of out-of-wedlock pregnancies are accidental.
Third, you assume Sandra Fluke was arguing for birth control due to the desire for premarital sex. This is also false. Her testimony was about birth control needed for medical reasons unrelated to sex and not covered by private insurers anyway.
Please return to the pool of YouTube commentators arguing that the Fed faked the moon landing. There is no place for you here.
Hey genius,
If you watch the video, you will realize that the question was asked by O'reilly, not me.
Personal attack instead of arguments? I'm sure you're better than that.
You don't hold the same position? If not, you called me out, and you were correct. I didn't watch the video because I understand O'Reilly's purpose in being bombastic for money, and don't desire to concern myself with it. I was wrong. I hang my head in shame.
OMG. Abdel just ended the conversation. Literally mid debate, dropped the most succinct bomb and convo is done. Peter Schiff just DESTROYED this topic.
Whenever I think of Obama and all he stands for I think of scumbag friends who come to the bar with you and expect you to pay for their drinks. Nothing but moochers.
You just went full retard.
Jesus, what's next?
'I bleed for one week a month just because I'm a woman. My tampons should be covered because it is causing me financial strain.'
Bitch, please. Then I want my razor blades covered.
1) Why would that be the next step?
2) You missed the issue entirely. Insurance companies already cover birth control (for the most part). The Catholic church thinks it's above the law, and thus refuses to pay for an insurance plan that covers birth control. Which most of them do anyway.
3) At least ANT pointed out that condoms are a logical item that should be covered as well. Why on earth would razor blades be covered?
For the economists among us: - Landsburg's initial post: http://www.thebigquestions.com/2012/03/02/rush-to-judgment/ - Landsburg's second post: http://www.thebigquestions.com/2012/03/05/contraceptive-sponges/ University President's memo on Steven Landsburg: http://www.rochester.edu/president/memos/2012/landsburg.html - Landsburg's third post: http://www.thebigquestions.com/2012/03/07/a-contra-conception/ - Landsburg's fourth post: http://www.thebigquestions.com/2012/03/08/aftermath/ - Ann Althouse, law blogger, sharply criticizes Seligman's remarks and defends Landburg: http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/03/university-president-lambastes.html - News article on activists' disruption: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120307/NEWS01/303070022/U…
1) She is growing on me, kinda cute in this picture.
2) Such an epic pic and so true. Typical of the liberal agenda. It truly is a sickness with these people.
^ it's funny cause it's totally not true.
No one is telling the government to pay for their birth control or abortions. The mandate says that private health insurance companies have to include birth control in plans that all employers must purchase. Where are taxpayer dollars spent in this?
its actually not funny, and totally true. but i wouldn't expect liberals to realize that.
Sandra Fluke is a fluke.
Birth Control SHOULD be mandatory. As someone else said cheaper than paying for some kid on welfare. It would actually SAVE taxpayer cash.
.
"Yeah, but if they made it mandatory, then the Catholic church would have to pay for insurance plans that cover it! And that infringes on their right to freedom of religion! So they need an exception for every rule they don't want to follow based on their ancient, unscientific dogma!" –The GOP
Serious question though if anyone is still looking at this thread: what does everyone think of the GOP's decision to attack this issue in an election year? Should they have just backed down? It's making them look really bad with women voters...
gym memberships should be mandatory as well, since it would save taxpayer money as well, because working out lowers your risk for so many diseases. Oh and cigarettes and alcohol and fast food should be banned as well because they cause so many deaths. and unprotected sex should be banned while we're at it cause you might get an STD (or should i say STI to be P.C.).
if it was truly cheaper in the long run, insurance companies would provide it without a law mandating it...
But who am i kidding, you wont provide a thought out rebuttal, after all your a liberal, so by defintion you are immature and have no reasonable counter argument. so you'll just disapear. amiright?
Holy fuck, please tell me you have never taken a class in economics, because if you have, you've just shamed the very existence of the subject.
Your argument is equivalent to saying in 2007, for example - "the iPad will never catch on or make any money for Apple, because if it was such a great idea, another company would have brought the same product to market already." Companies make poor strategic decisions all the time, mostly due to management's maniacal focus on next quarters financials instead of long-term strategic value and a desire to minimize risk at all costs to avoid losing his or her job or control of a company. In the real world, risk minimization often takes precedent over generating appropriate risk adjusted returns, which is why not every CEO is willing to take the risk of investing substantial amounts in R&D for an uncertain future payout when the product eventually comes to market. Exactly the same thing with insurance companies and BC, unwilling to sacrifice a small amount of short-term profit for an uncertain longer term cash payback, which may or may not exceed the sacrificed near-term profit. In my estimation, I think there is a good case that the future cost savings would materially exceed the short-term cash outlay.
I am by no means a liberal, but 95% of the arguments that are made against liberalism on this board are fucking moronic, including yours. There are many negative aspects associated with what you define as liberalism, but you managed to somehow avoid addressing any of these real issues and instead spewed a meaningless catch phrase with no underlying substance.
Your inability to even properly frame the basis for the discussion is frightening. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, and may god have mercy on your soul.
I'm not a "liberal", I just don't think people should be having kids if they don't want them. The cost of taxpayers funding birth control would be less than the cost of bringing an unwanted kid into society. Obviously they should pay for the birth control themselves IF they can afford it. How can I be a liberal if I'm concerned about taxpayers?
Oh man, Canyonman is my new favorite poster.
its an honor ANT. lol
The governement should pay me some hookers. I mean, sex is part of having a good health.
What about massages? If only the governement would pay me some professional massages, I won't have back problems in the future.
Hey, how about some free nba/nhl playoff games ticket? Having the feeling of being part of a group is one of our biological needs. I mean, if it is part of our biological needs, it is a health issue.
It don't have to be an nba game, it could be an xbox or ps3 so I can play online with a community.
Please, for the benefit of human intelligence, just kill yourself.
As expected, you ''shoot'' back with zero arguments.
Many insurance companies do pay for birth control, but some do not. It is at the providers discretion to choose to cover it or not. Birth control is low cost and is an individual choice. Insurance companies should not be forced to cover this and religious groups should not be forced to pay for it either. They should have the freedom to decide.
Now onto the logic of BC. The case that it is cheaper than an abortion or pregnancy is most likely true. Hence why some insurance companies provide it. But that argument is exactly the same as free gym memberships. People who are fit are less likely to have a whole host of costly illnesses. Why are gym memberships not free then?
Because there isn't a biased lobby group pushing for it, that's why.
Liberalism, at its core, is simply about control. Liberals have personal beliefs that they force others to fund and comply with through the government. Plain and simple.
I cannot believe this is still ongoing.
Btw, if you are against the govt mandate on BC coverage in health insurance plans, then I assume you are also against forced transvaginal ultrasounds for women getting an abortion, right? That, to me, is way worse and way more intrusive than bothering the out of touch sensibilities of a bunch of closeted gay old virgins and child rapists.
ps - I had premarital sex last night while wearing a pope costume.
I didn't realize that this was a discussion on transvaginal ultrasounds. I am absolutely against that shit and think we should triple the amount of family planning facilities.
Agreed on that. My point is more that a lot of this stuff from the right is really about control over reproductive rights and the typical religious right non-sense than some sort of constitutional issue. The constitutional argument just provides them with cover for their backwards views on sex and women's reproductive rights. They are absolutely killing family planning at the state level in "tea party" controlled state governments.
How are they killing it? If you mean by lack of funding, good. Why are my tax dollars being spent in all these non governmental ways?
Roe v Wade has not been overturned. Women have complete control of their bodies. I frankly don't think that transvaginal ultrasound shit will hold up in court if it is challenged. I mean the fucking idea that the government has the right to force a non necessary, invasive medical procedure is shocking to me.
See, this is why government is bad and needs to be constrained and shrunk. It is always used for nefarious purposes.
The left hates it when religious groups use the government to enforce social norms.
The right hates it when liberals try and force these social subsidization issues.
At the core it is always the government doing the forcing though. It is the hammer, the power. If we limit it and shrink it there will be nothing for the right or left to use.
Hey, did you guys know that it costs an average law school student almost $3,000 a year for contraception! thats why BC should be for free!!!! duh!
You can get condoms in bulk for less than 25 cents each. If Ms. Fluke had sex once a day, every day of the year, for 3 years, her condom bill would be ~274.00. Lot cheaper than her $3K estimate.
TheKing -
http://www.condomdepot.com/reviews/best-condoms.cfm
Just for you dog. Crown Skinless. Bang.
OMG, your like telling people they can only have sex like only once a day, well ur like a fucking virgin, you'll like never get laid!!!!!!!!! hahahahahaah lololololol
P.S. you hate women!
Ant -
The right seems to fall into two groups:
1.) people who want to slash govt and not pay for anything at all, all the while complaining about problems that could be alleviated with targeted programs (you fall into this category). I.e. people that complain about govt spending on planned parenthood but also complain about kids born out of wedlock being drains on the state.
2.) people whose focus is on pushing their dogmatic and worthless religious beliefs on everyone else, namely by focusing all of their efforts on crushing family planning, access to contraception, and creating time and money intensive hoops for abortions. This seems to be where the majority of the right is in this country. Just take a look at republican controlled state governments in this country. At places like Virginia, Texas, and Mississippi. It's a mad rush to snuff out abortion and access to family planning. All this will do is create longer term issues.
I'm ok with group 1, to an extent, if only because we can at least align on matters of business. Group 2, which is much larger and more vocal, needs to be destroyed completely.
Basically anyone to the left of those groups is either an independent or a moderate democrat.
1.) people who want to slash govt and not pay for anything at all, all the while complaining about problems that could be alleviated with targeted programs (you fall into this category). I.e. people that complain about govt spending on planned parenthood but also complain about kids born out of wedlock being drains on the state.
How am I like this? I want to slash government and have it focus on things that it has business doing. I complain about government spending on planned parenthood because that is not what taxation and government is about. Planned Parenthood should be an independent, privately funded organization. Why should I be working to pay for that?
And why should I be paying for someones child production? We should have a basic welfare safety net and that is it.
This is a standard liberal tactic (not being directed at you). They use the threat of X as a reason to tax you and pay for Y.
Example:
If we don't provide free birth control we will pay more for those out of wedlock kids. The problem with this is it always assumed that we have to pay for either.
Also, I prefer the invisible condom.
"baby, don't worry. It's on, it's just invisible. It's a new brand."
Just FYI - There's lots of kinds of birth control and lots of different uses for them. The big one is of course hormonal birth control which has a variety of uses besides just birth control. Hormonal birth control is the initial treatment protocol for ovarian cysts for example. Its also been used by women as the morning after pill since the 70s. "Plan B" is nothing more than the first 3 or 4 pills in the pack (with all the "low hormone" options nowadays you have to look up what brand you have and what hormone/dose it is.) Because of all these changes in the birth control pharma market, its not typically an easy $30/mo prescription anymore. For example mine is close to $75/mo without my insurance drug coverage. I have a family history of heart disease so I don't take the standard hormonal birth control.
And honestly, framing this as a "subsidizing college co-eds to have wild sex" debate is unfair. Its a family planning thing. I'm engaged, working and in my 30s. Many of my friends have already squeezed out a couple of shit machines, and they take birth control now because having 7 kids is for white trash, new immigrants, and freaks on reality TV. Even the well off can't afford THAT much private school tuition. This isn't even a liberal/conservative debate. If people wanted to have a "subsidize bad sex and bad choices" debate we'd talk about the child tax credit that exempts you from you income tax just for squeezing out shit machines (that credit and the mortgage interest deduction is 90% of the reason only 49% of Americans pay income tax.) Further, 99% of insurance plans provide birth control because its cheaper than paying for a.) birth b.) non-chemical abortions. This is a tiny issue that only effects a few nuts in white robes that take medicare money to run their social services network. We don't live in the 13th century anymore no matter what the Catholic Church thinks. Can we just get over this?
No we can't just get over this. Its a violation of the right to privacy and other consitutional, ideologies, rights and provisions. These liberal policies are the reason healthcare costs have skyrocketed and will continue to do so.
All that aside its none of my business to pay for your sexual pleasure OR your health disorders. A free market would take care of that but the left has destoryed any race of such and we continue to move closer to a communist regime.
Eliminate welfare, reinstate a free market. thats how you fix the problem. Forgetting about it makes it worse.
Oh and the catholic church does not believe in premarital sex and the use of BC, thats their right under the constitution. its also the right of women to leave the insurance companies they are with to join those who offer free bc.
What right to privacy is being violated? HIPPA?
Also, at least in other forms of compliance - the religious exemption has always only applied to church employers that are primarily engaged in religious activities. Title VII and state employment laws can't force you to hire a lesbian priest - but the same does not hold for nurses and janitors. That's been the legal standard for a long time. I don't see it changing. But the church will file these case in 10 different circuits, hope the circuits wildly disagree and wait for the supreme court to snatch it up.
Plus the church has no idea who is on birth control and who isn't. The insurers don't share that information. The mandate is on the health insurer to cover contraception - not the employer. Insurance companies almost always cover contraception WITHOUT a mandate because it saves money in health care costs. They only time they don't is when some catholic moron calls them and says "you will not pay for contraception because God told me to tell you we will all go to Hell if you do!" "God" has a nasty habit of screwing up "free market" choices doesn't he? If the catholic church wants to get around the mandate, they'll have to drop all health insurance coverage entirely. The catholic church don't have a constitutional right to decide which mandates they want to comply with. Particularly when they gladly accept medicare and medicaid reimbursements (and in the end they will comply with the mandate because of that - the same way all the southern cracker hospitals complied with desegregation in the 1960s.)
Pre-marital sex is a non-issue. MOST women using birth control are having post-marital sex. Hence families with only-children instead of a cool half dozen going out to toil in the fields all day. I'm sure you've noticed that.
What welfare are you looking to eliminate? Welfare was eliminated in 1996. By welfare do you mean, employer sponsored insurance plans? What welfare state are you eliminating and what free market do we need? I completely lost that part.
Cayonman, you are bringing tears to my eyes. Keep spreading the truth my friend.
Notice however that you falsely characterize my argument. but i haven't done the same to yours. Your defense is literally, about me being 15 and sexually frustrated. Again, by definition you can't come up with a better counter argument most liberals can't...So the next step is to disappear...... What i want to know is , why on a sunday afternoon, a playa like you ain't getting laid, and instead posting on an internet forum?
Canyon, the kid isn't worth your time. You've laid out simple and logical reasons why the government should not force private insurance providers to cover this and he simply wants to ignore them. That is his choice. No sense wasting your time with someone who is blind to reason.
If an insurance company wants to pay for it, fine, that is their choice. Requiring it be government mandate is entirely different. And if any company doesn't want to have birth control covered under their plan, they have every right to do so. Whatever the reason.
yeah i was gonna right the same thing you wrote to sophie. may b one day we will live in a world where people willl respect the free market. but certainly not today or tomorrow unfortunately.
I respect the free market, i just have a problem with d-bags like yourself. So I adopt your presona, and fight fire with fire.
Now just disappear like the ignorant conservative fuck that you are!
Except not. Because there is a law. Private employers pay employees for wages too, but they can't decide they are "uncomfortable" with paying a woman for labor because she is a woman. Just like southern health care providers can't decided they are "uncomfortable" taking payment from black people for services. Islamic banking outfits can't decide they are "uncomfortable" complying with AML regulations because the Koran tells them those transactions are somehow sacred.
Just as a historical aside, desegregation created the inpatient "private room" which makes hospital costs more expensive. In the old days, hospitals had wards, just rows of beds with sick people which makes the staffing and supply and thereafter the care of those patients much cheaper. When southern hospitals were told to desegregate or lose reimbursements from the medicare program, they created the notion of the private room so white people and black people wouldn't have to end up a few beds away from each other in the same ward. Of course that caught on and now its the industry standard, though there's plenty of evidence it leads to worse and more expensive health care.
God almighty the aws your reffering too, as well as nearly all mandates are by definition unconsitutional. In fact a great deal of regulatory law, is unconstitutional as well. The laws meant o preotect consumers make it worse for them in the long run, because it blocks out competitors and creates oligopolies in the long run. and so you have price fixing, and the liberals fix the problem they creted by passing a new law against collusion.
its the same thing here. GThe libereals think its beneficial for the consumers to mandate regualtory law, on healthcare providers like doctors hospitals and insurers. Since most of them are idiots by definition they dont realize the cause of the costs skyrocketing. So now you have a situation where people cant fucking afford it. Whadya do to fix it?
Passs a new mandate of course! to fix the problems that the old one created....Duh!
and you can justify that law, by pointing put a regulation that was passed 50 years ago, despite its premise being unconstitutional as well. See the cycle?
Where do these trolls come from. Well I suppose when you have no valid argument resorting to personal attacks seems like a good idea.
I crawled out of the same hole you did. you should recognize my tactics, you perfected them.
I respect the free market. I certainly think its a better alternative to complete centralized state industrial planning. There are however cases where a "free market" fails to work. Health care is a good example because no private insurance underwriter would ever write a policy to someone over 65 - and most people can't save enough money for both retirement and possibly half million in health care costs over the course of their lives. Hence Medicare. That is the nature of a public good. The free market doesn't provide it. There's no way to "incentivize" the free market to provide it.
The catholic charity hospitals in dispute here do not operate in a "free market." They operate in a market (health care) with nearly an equal split of public and private goods. If they in fact respected the "free market" ideals they would "allow" the insurance company to do what ever they needed to do to reduce their costs and in turn their premiums. Unless there is a free market ideal that says its rational to pay higher insurance premium costs because of what some guy in a white frock in Italy says.
The church acts like it doesn't have choices here. That's what I object to. As if the big bad liberals have painted them in this corner. They can choose to not provide any health insurance coverage to any employee. They can self insure without a network provider. If knowing some of their employees MAY be getting birth control through their insurance provider is such an awful prospect for the church, they can choose either one of these options. Why is this a big deal?
healthcare costs are skyrocketing because of a lack of free market. if there were no regulatory barrier to industry, there would be companies that would cover the elderly. Its that simple. But instead we have an oligopoly, b/n insurance companies, and so the market has become distorted. if you truly respected the free market you would have figured that out. the free market can absolutely take care of that problem infintely times more efficient than a government can. there is NO issue a free market can handle.
lets not call him a guy in a frock. I'm not a catholic, but have respect for other peoples religion, and address him as the Pope. get the govt. out of everything besides contractual enforcement, and private property protection, problem solved. The church acts like it doesn't have choices here. That's what I object to. As if the big bad liberals have painted them in this corner. They can choose to not provide any health insurance coverage to any employee. They can self insure without a network provider. If knowing some of their employees MAY be getting birth control through their insurance provider is such an awful prospect for the church, they can choose either one of these options. Why is this a big deal?[/quote] Your looking at a thin slice of the debate. This was a non issue up until a couple months ago, when this nonsensical sandra fluke character came out. This debate is about the governments rights t intrude into the bedroom, and the distortion and mockery of the free market.
Title VII and the state versions of Title VII are not unconstitutional. The 14th amendment to the constitution applied most of the federal constitution and the bill of rights to the state. And the federal government has the EXPRESS right to regulate interstate commerce. That one is written right into the document with no equivocating language. Where did you take your constitutional law? LOL.
The fact remains that some high infrastructure industries operate better with natural monopolies. Some really don't. Some are on the precipice either way and probably should be subsidized as a public good. Airlines is a good example of this (they do get subsidies, but not direct ones.) Telecom is another good example. Anti trust laws are usually pushed upon companies that use extremely predatory pricing or various tiers of price discrimination to keep entrants out of the market. But if free markets worked the way they were supposed to, we'd never see a market failure like a natural monopoly because the free market would take care of it right?
And health care costs are not rising because of mandates. Health care costs are rising because of change in patient preferences and new technologies. 50 years ago we didn't do CAT scans for concussions and MRIs for headaches. Nor did we implant internal defibrillators to extend the lives of heart failure patients which is pretty much standard practice nowadays.
Anyway - markets are way more nuanced than what you are reducing them to. But speaking of market failure, I have to go watch the NCAA hockey quarterfinals. There's nothing like a tax payer funded minor league to get your free market blood flowing. Have a nice night!
Health care expenditures in constant 2005 Dollars per Capita, 1930-2011. In 1965, Medicare and Medicaid were created, and boatloads of printed money have been funneled into them ever since.
the en tire premise of the civil rights act are unconstitutional. Unbelievable for some to hear but true. Employers should have the right to choose who they hire, whether or not they base it on race or sex should be entirely up to them. If the prospective employees don't like it they can walk or start their own business.The common clause many people use to justify the civil rights act, is what you refer to as the interstate commerce clause. However i have yet to see any reason fo how this interfers with interstate commerce. Please justify how not hiring women interfers with interstate commerce. Just becuase your misinformed professor told you so does not make it true. The women or minorities that dont get hired can always go out and start their own business if they dont like it. that would solve the potential problems created, to interstate commerce. Its just an abuse of the clause that libs dont wanna admit.
the fact is that govt. has been bought out several times over, high infrastructure industry doesn't operate better with monopolies becuase all industries are connected, so if one market is distorted another one is as well. Supply and demand. {quote] And health care costs are not rising because of mandates. Health care costs are rising because of change in patient preferences and new technologies. 50 years ago we didn't do CAT scans for concussions and MRIs for headaches. Nor did we implant internal defibrillators to extend the lives of heart failure patients which is pretty much standard practice nowadays.Anyway - markets are way more nuanced than what you are reducing them to. But speaking of market failure, I have to go watch the NCAA hockey quarterfinals. There's nothing like a tax payer funded minor league to get your free market blood flowing. Have a nice night![/quote]
Nonsense. Healthcare costs skyrocket because of nonsensical malpractice lawsuits enforced by the govt. as well as barriers to entry, to med school students, as well as, insurance mandates that make it ok for the docs to charge as much as they want for 10 minutes of labor. after all the patient doesn't give a shit the doctor the insurance mandate will pay. But again we can pass a law to fix the price, that way we can fix the shit the old law created.
good night to you to, again typical liberal POOF! least ur rebuttals were half decent. Rehashed nonsense of course, but still half decent and some substance.
canyonman is officially in the running for dumbest post of 2012.
I know we have an issue with excessive political correctness in the 21st century, but you, sir, are nothing but a bigot. If you don't understand the purpose of the Civil Rights Acts (or the Civil War, way back in the 1860s) then you obviously don't understand the basic economics of such a decision, much less the social progression that occurred and was necessary at that point in time.
ANT, if you agree with this joker one more time I can no longer respect your opinion. I know we disagree due to our ideologies, but canyonman shouldn't be reinforced by a smart individual such as yourself.
Keep educating them Canyon!
They'll learn one day lol.
Where oh where did Fake_Clown go?
He is probably on my website jerking off hahah
Fake Clown is good, nice work Canyon.
I see this finally degenerated into a "we shouldn't have any sort of welfare at all and civil rights legislation is unconstitutional" pissing match. Took longer than I expected for it to devolve into a hyper conservative argument for a world that never really existed or worked.
"Just get rid of the govt so when insurance won't pay for your cancer treatments, your neighbors will! Just a bunch of good moral Christians helping out!"
The problem with arguing with the far right is that no moderate compromise position is acceptable to them, even if it makes sense practically. They simultaneously argue that everyone's opinion is valid (which is bullshit), but that only far right conservatism can be used in the practice of governing (i.e. slashing govt and leaving everyone to fend on their own except for defense in which we should still build out a cold war style military and nation build in the middle east.)
Lastly, I hate the bullshit "Love the religion hatred" sarcastic comments. The catholic church and many vocal Christian groups in this country do not deserve any respect. They subscribe to a bunch of cherry picked rules from the bronze age that have no bearing in reality. They divide people and cast out people for being sinners, while simultaneously saying that we were created in god's image. They have the arrogance to claim to know the will of a supreme being, a creator of the universe with its billions of galaxies, and claim that "his" biggest concerns are homosexuals, premarital sex, and abortion. Oh yeah, and the catholic church spent decades raping Ittle boys and covering up the crimes. Meanwhile, the same catholic church argues against letting gays marry despite us all being, again, "made in god's image." Note to the pope: your closeted priests weren't raping little girls, you creep.
What a joke.
Just love the religious hatred :/
I'd give you a silver banana, but I just ran out. Hahaha.
Love how EVERYONE (except apparently two female posters) are ignoring the point that...birth control is often used as hormone therapy to help with endometriosis, prevent ovarian cysts, prevent debilitating cramps that can keep women from going to work and costing the economy productivity, etc. Having insurance cover birth control isn't about family planning...it's about covering the costs of these medically necessary hormone therapies that also just happen to prevent pregnancy.
It's like everyone just takes the sensational irrelevant part of the argument and runs with it, ignoring the main point...sigh.
So wait, I thought the primary goal of birth control was to, you know, control births. Now you are telling me that the vast majority of women are using it for something else and really don't care about control births?
WOOOOWWWWW
How about this. If a woman has a legitimate medical reason, other than recreational sex, it should be covered. Just like medical marijuana is for people who are sick, not people who just want to get high.
I just can't believe that insurance should now pay for predictable, every day items. Pay for condoms, band-aids, sun screen, etc.
FYI: Only medicare part A is fee for service. And there's a reimbursement limit. Doctors don't charge whatever they want. Medicare part B is a DRG (diagnosis related group) reimbursement.
Is that the insurance "mandate" you are referring to? You use the word "insurance mandate" multiple times but I'm not sure I (or you) knows what it means.
Also, that application of commerce clause has been held constitutional many times by the supreme court...going back75 years to the National Labor Relations Act. I don't know why you keep saying its unconstitutional. It clearly isn't. The interstate commerce standard is pretty low. You own a hotel in Mississippi, you have to let black people rent rooms and you can't fire women because they women - unless all your sheets, toilet paper, promotional materials etc originated in Mississippi. That's the nature of interstate commerce. And Title VII and the application of the "ministerial exemption" are well defined constitutional concepts. This is not the purview of misguided professors - you are just wrong. These things are not unconstitutional.
Out of curiosity - if there's nothing the free market can handle, what do we do about national defense or roads or schools for people who can't afford private tuition? How do you propose the elderly insure against health problems? If there was a better, more profitable system, why didn't the free market provide it? Why did it take the creation of the medicare system that elderly people (and their employers) have paid their FICA contributions into?You almost make it sound like the sheer existence of public goods is controversial. This is starting to sound like Somalia. Even most of the Swahili coast, however poor, has some public schooling.
But this is my favorite part of the argument: "get the govt. out of everything besides contractual enforcement, and private property protection, problem solved." So what you are saying, whether you know it or not - is that the government should exist only to protect YOUR interests not anyone else's. You're not against the notion of government regulation, but you are against government regulation for things YOU personally don't like. Contractual enforcement ensures a efficient market for goods, but anti discrimination law ensures an efficient market for labor (and with 60% of the college population nowadays being female, this has added importance.)
So if someone infringes on your property rights, YOU deserve remedy. But if someone pays me less than fair market value for my labor solely because I'm a woman I don't deserve any remedy. Is that correct? So if the management of some firm you are a beneficial owner sells new shares at less than fair market value to some girl because she's hot and he wants to get with her - there should be no breach of fiduciary duty there, no lawsuit by the existing shareholders for crushing their mark because hey - free market! You shouldn't have hired a skirt chaser as management. Live with it. The market will work it out in the wash.
And speaking of skirt chasing: single girls use condoms, married girls use birth control. These are fundamental truths of the universe - drilled into our heads during health class in the 90s. Once she is sure you don't have herpes and you give her a ring, then you get start submitting your Ortho Tri Cylen bill for reimbursement.
Ullam vitae eos quia. Ex quae provident sint facilis occaecati culpa. Vel optio velit quam omnis aliquid quasi voluptatum velit.
Officiis eum aut accusantium odio sunt et repellendus a. Doloremque aliquam facilis illum dolore cupiditate.
Earum provident accusamus est quisquam aut. Alias voluptatem iure ea laborum sit sint ut. Aut molestias temporibus sint velit odit. Laudantium voluptate a delectus vel.
Doloribus nesciunt ipsam debitis fugit amet. Et aperiam quisquam quia ab eveniet aut cupiditate similique. Repudiandae consectetur magni eum. Nihil aut provident cupiditate accusantium. Qui suscipit dolores voluptas aliquid numquam.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Quibusdam enim commodi aut laudantium et sed nam. Iste at iure aut rerum minus.
Sint provident iusto autem quam suscipit hic iure accusantium. Debitis officiis cum necessitatibus explicabo maxime atque nisi cum. Qui est eos non deleniti quibusdam fuga maiores voluptas. Ipsam non et ut non vero ratione temporibus.
Cumque sit temporibus maxime et amet. Nemo qui accusamus perspiciatis similique nobis. Consectetur et reiciendis voluptatum earum id occaecati eius adipisci. Nobis ut voluptatum qui. Sed distinctio optio ex enim ab ab.
Consectetur consequuntur laboriosam sed nisi et ut. Cum placeat doloribus et architecto sed autem molestias. Illum facilis suscipit sint non. Consequatur cum reprehenderit ex reprehenderit quia alias tempora.
Praesentium ut quis quidem quo. Vel quos dolor esse perferendis id vero consequuntur. Voluptatibus voluptatem ut voluptatem ea.
Ipsa et facilis officiis voluptates aut. Error similique et voluptatibus voluptas voluptatem nostrum ducimus. Aut nisi et quo consequatur optio autem ipsum.
Nostrum voluptatem iusto quas in sed voluptatem et. Reiciendis veritatis nulla aut eum possimus. Ex dolor eos soluta. Fugit quidem rem ea alias labore quia ut.
Soluta quis consequatur fugiat ducimus. Quia iusto sint vitae hic enim officia sint. Est odio quia deserunt ut et ut. Reprehenderit minima ipsa ducimus aliquam.
Alias veritatis accusantium laudantium voluptates. Neque et tenetur aut illo vitae quo sint. Perferendis sint et porro qui omnis quo perferendis. Suscipit veniam voluptas aut molestiae. Minima ut et sed maiores commodi.
Repellendus rerum reiciendis quod autem officiis quia id atque. Optio dicta quo maiores natus. Expedita voluptatem sunt et reprehenderit nihil possimus. Ad hic veritatis omnis eveniet est quam rerum. Ea et qui id.
Aspernatur deserunt quis omnis nisi aliquam. Qui inventore non nesciunt mollitia tempora. Dicta numquam rem quia inventore minus natus et quis. Hic qui ducimus beatae quisquam itaque est perferendis quia. Sapiente esse modi illo quia.
Debitis maiores est dolores quis reiciendis. Soluta magnam qui dolorem et voluptate officia. Architecto rerum dolores earum at labore similique deleniti commodi. Officiis rem sit adipisci possimus porro sint.
Consequatur eum est qui modi sunt velit. Repellendus non vero qui nostrum. Tenetur consequatur est id ut cumque. Qui corrupti quo dolorum et deleniti. Ut dolorem omnis repellendus autem eveniet.
Est occaecati maiores commodi eos dolore consequatur. Sed nihil eos delectus qui nemo nostrum dolorum.
Quidem aut sit velit voluptas perspiciatis voluptatem ratione qui. Autem optio quia fugiat.
Nemo quia excepturi pariatur nisi aut amet. Ut eligendi totam sit. Odio voluptatem illum maiores non fugit atque quae. Culpa aut amet impedit vel et in. Sit corporis rerum minima rerum consequatur ut consectetur. Laudantium dignissimos omnis ut quos deserunt expedita.
Amet nobis soluta quaerat omnis sunt. Voluptas ut aliquam odio non. Perferendis ut nam et eos quod officiis.
Rerum consequatur suscipit iusto perferendis maiores. Omnis occaecati quae facilis. Sunt velit nostrum ipsa ipsum. Distinctio sunt quo mollitia saepe omnis dolorem et quisquam.