• Sharebar

Are you ok with paying higher premiums so that Sandra Fluke can have sex?

Comments (216)

  • Brady4MVP's picture

    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.

  • 16rl's picture

    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.

  • In reply to swagon
    Flake's picture

    swagon wrote:
    16rl wrote:
    these guys should stop sipping on the Milton Friedman coolaid.

    *kool-aid.

    Respek the drank, booyakasha.

    Respek. Can't even find that word in the dictionary anymore.

    Under my tutelage, you will grow from boys to men. From men into gladiators. And from gladiators into SWANSONS.

  • In reply to swagon
    happypantsmcgee's picture

    swagon wrote:
    Edmundo Braverman wrote:
    I just spent 10 days in America.

    Not only should contraception be covered, it should be fucking mandatory.


    whaaa?!?!? thought u were libertarian bro!! y u goin all french commie on us?!?!?

    I think that was more of a comment on the general intelligence of our populace than it was an actual political stance.

    If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

  • In reply to Edmundo Braverman
    Kenny Powers's picture

    Edmundo Braverman wrote:
    I just spent 10 days in America.

    Not only should contraception be covered, it should be fucking mandatory.

    My drinkin' problem left today, she packed up all her bags and walked away.

  • TheKing's picture

    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.

  • TNA's picture

    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.

  • TheKing's picture

    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!

  • In reply to Edmundo Braverman
    happypantsmcgee's picture

    Edmundo Braverman wrote:
    happypantsmcgee wrote:
    swagon wrote:
    Edmundo Braverman wrote:
    I just spent 10 days in America.

    Not only should contraception be covered, it should be fucking mandatory.


    whaaa?!?!? thought u were libertarian bro!! y u goin all french commie on us?!?!?

    I think that was more of a comment on the general intelligence of our populace than it was an actual political stance.

    Bingo. Give that man a cigar.


    Not comfortable with the phalic nature of my reward

    If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

  • In reply to TheKing
    TNA's picture

    TheKing wrote:
    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.

  • In reply to TNA
    Flake's picture

    ANT wrote:
    TheKing wrote:
    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.

    Under my tutelage, you will grow from boys to men. From men into gladiators. And from gladiators into SWANSONS.

  • In reply to Jimage
    cphbravo96's picture

    Jimage wrote:
    ANT wrote:
    Stop donating to charity.

    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

    "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
    - Ronald Reagan

  • TNA's picture

    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.

  • In reply to melvvvar
    happypantsmcgee's picture

    melvvvar wrote:
    i like mine more because i have bears.

    I laughed...also reminded me of blastoise

    If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

  • In reply to Jimage
    cphbravo96's picture

    Jimage wrote:
    cphbravo96 wrote:
    I believe Planned Parenthood already does this.

    Not a pure charity. They get a good deal of government funding, no?

    I agree pretty much with everything you said, CPH

    You are right, they aren't...and I don't think they should necessarily receive government funding anyways. I guess the problem I have is too many people in the country stop trying to figure out how they achieve an objective and have been devoting time to how they can achieve the objective for free.

    I don't know anyone in school that wasn't able to afford BC if they needed/wanted it. Was it because I know how much everyone made? No, it's because I saw them spend $300 on new bathing suits every year before going on their spring trip or the nights out drinking, etc.

    Again, it's about priorities and we, as a nation, are telling young people to feel free to be responsible because we will save your ass every time. This breeds complacency and dependence...two things that counter to everything that made this nation a great power.

    Jimage, none of that was directed at you...just a general statement.

    Regards

    "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
    - Ronald Reagan

  • In reply to cphbravo96
    elephonky's picture

    cphbravo96 wrote:
    Jimage wrote:
    ANT wrote:
    Stop donating to charity.

    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're right, you absolutely cannot force people to be responsible. You can, however, give people an easy opportunity to be responsible. They have little excuse if birth control is easily available and subsidized, despite your heavy exaggerations to the contrary. We can argue all day that poor people will never use the subsidized birth control and that it's a waste of time and money, but we both know that a reasonable number of people would take advantage of it.

    cphbravo96 wrote:
    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.

    You actually can force people to take the pills, but that's called totalitarianism and even liberals don't desire that. I really enjoy your exaggerations - who exactly are the "many" from whom liberty is being stripped? Insurance companies? Churches who think "freedom of religion" means "imposition of views on the 'many'"? Because the majority of America would agree that easily accessible birth control is not a step in the wrong direction as far as personal liberty is concerned.

    Why should the poor, which is growing at a faster rate every day, keep procreating if there is a potential solution to the problem? At the very least a solution that would leave them with little excuse for their excessive babymaking? By the conservative logic, it's almost IRRESPONSIBLE for us to continue on this vicious path that allows the poor to pin blame on lack of accessible birth control if there's an easy solution to the problem. Let's make them fucking responsible for their actions already.

    cphbravo96 wrote:
    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

    I get where you're coming from - welfare, medicaid, social security, etc. We're on the same page as far as entitlement is concerned, because I hate very much that my tax dollars are wasted on programs that will never benefit me and are so corrupt and bloated that it's sickening.

    This situation, however, is not an entitlement. The poor, for all intents and purposes, aren't dying for cheap birth control. They've got welfare and condoms if they desired to protect themselves once in a while. This is a mandate that PRIVATE insurance companies provide subsidized birth control in all employers' most basic plans, which will leave very few excuses as to why people are having kids when they shouldn't be. And that is what we call a benefit to society.

  • TNA's picture

    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.

  • cphbravo96's picture

    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

    "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
    - Ronald Reagan

  • In reply to cphbravo96
    elephonky's picture

    cphbravo96 wrote:
    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?

    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.

    cphbravo96 wrote:
    '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.

    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).

    cphbravo96 wrote:
    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.

    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.)

    cphbravo96 wrote:
    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.

    Have you read the first amendment? It could be a fucking infinite amount clearer. I can't even believe you just said that.

    cphbravo96 wrote:
    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?

    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.

    cphbravo96 wrote:
    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

    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.

  • TNA's picture

    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.

  • In reply to TNA
    elephonky's picture

    ANT wrote:
    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.

    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.

    ANT wrote:
    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.

    THIS. Welcome to the moderate side.

    ANT wrote:
    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.

    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)

  • TNA's picture

    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.

  • midnightoil's picture

    Abdel wrote:
    Are you ok with paying higher premiums so that Sandra Fluke can have sex?

    Are you ok with paying higher premiums so that Rush can take Viagra?

    Insurance should be for catastrophic events - no pills, no viagra.

  • In reply to midnightoil
    Abdel's picture

    midnightoil wrote:
    Abdel wrote:
    Are you ok with paying higher premiums so that Sandra Fluke can have sex?

    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

  • In reply to Abdel
    midnightoil's picture

    Abdel wrote:
    midnightoil wrote:
    Abdel wrote:
    Are you ok with paying higher premiums so that Sandra Fluke can have sex?

    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.

  • In reply to midnightoil
    Abdel's picture

    midnightoil wrote:
    Abdel wrote:
    midnightoil wrote:
    Abdel wrote:
    Are you ok with paying higher premiums so that Sandra Fluke can have sex?

    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

    Did any one die of ED? If not, 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.

    Well I agree with that. That's what insurance is supposed to be for (unlickly to happen catastrophic events)

  • In reply to TNA
    elephonky's picture

    ANT wrote:
    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...).

  • In reply to elephonky
    TNA's picture

    elephonky wrote:
    ANT wrote:
    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.

  • In reply to TNA
    swagon's picture

    ANT wrote:
    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.

    ...said the vagina to the butthole.

  • duffmt6's picture

    ANT wrote:

    Condoms FTW

    "For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."

  • In reply to Edmundo Braverman
    UFOinsider's picture

    Edmundo Braverman wrote:
    happypantsmcgee wrote:
    swagon wrote:
    Edmundo Braverman wrote:
    I just spent 10 days in America.

    Not only should contraception be covered, it should be fucking mandatory.


    whaaa?!?!? thought u were libertarian bro!! y u goin all french commie on us?!?!?

    I think that was more of a comment on the general intelligence of our populace than it was an actual political stance.

    Bingo. Give that man a cigar.


    I'd like to just point out that, among other things, (1) braverman is a thinking person which means that (2) his stance on some things will change over time given new information. Things change. Trying to get this across in the hipsteriffic political atmosphere of "I've always said blah blah blah" in America is like trying to teach the finer points of structuralist economics to fucking plants.

    People in this country often KNOW they're wrong and force the issue anyway, like eating some crow and saying "oops, sorry, I screwed up" will kill them. Sometimes, a thought is complicated and can't be summed up into a three syllable stump one liner (or maybe i'm not smart enough to?). Don't believe me?....ask a banker if they (1) believe in free markets and (2) agree with fixed 2% float takedown...and then marvel at the contradiction.

    Get busy living

  • UFOinsider's picture

    1. She picked a fight with the Church because that's just what some people do
    2. She's actually right, and the issue is legit
    3. In five years, no one will care who the hell she is
    4. Catholic institutions need to totally decouple themselves from the state

    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

    Get busy living

Pages