DVD Talk
The Republican Field and Primary Thread (Part 4) [Archive] - Page 4 - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : The Republican Field and Primary Thread (Part 4)


Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7

kvrdave
03-01-12, 12:23 PM
And this is all why we would be better off if employers didn't provide any coverage, gave employees the money and people picked their own coverage. They'd actually have some skin in the game, and they might even look for a better deal.

X
03-01-12, 12:52 PM
If my employer is able to selectively deny my coverage am I able to selectively pay for only those things I want?I'm changing my healthcare now and am able to selectively pay for only those things I want. I can choose prescription coverage or not, maternity coverage or not, etc. And it's costing significantly less than the inferior employer-provided plan I was on.

That's why people should be responsible for their own healthcare coverage, not their employers.

X
03-01-12, 12:56 PM
Granted, I've never had coverage provided by an employer so I am a little biased in that regard. It's a good feeling to take responsibility for your own health rather than relying on what your employer or Congress want you to have.Not being a slave to a job due to fear of losing the healthcare insurance they provide is a liberating feeling. Too bad more people don't know what it's like.

CRM114
03-01-12, 01:00 PM
And this is all why we would be better off if employers didn't provide any coverage, gave employees the money and people picked their own coverage. They'd actually have some skin in the game, and they might even look for a better deal.

That wouldn't solve this problem. Employers still wouldn't want their money paying for contraception. (At least in theory. I think this whole thing is feigned outrage meant to hurt Obama and nothing more.)

CRM114
03-01-12, 01:03 PM
That's why people should be responsible for their own healthcare coverage, not their employers.

You act as though the people wanted this system. This was the system we were born into and have little choice unless we work for progressive thinking companies or are sole proprietorships.

Artman
03-01-12, 01:04 PM
The bill died... along with yet a little more of our freedom.

CRM114
03-01-12, 01:05 PM
Everyone knew it would die....because it was dumb and overreaching.

Th0r S1mpson
03-01-12, 01:19 PM
Everyone knew it would die....because it was dumb and overreaching.

Wait- Obama's dead?

CRM114
03-01-12, 01:23 PM
You think Obama is dumb? That's one adjective I wouldn't think many people would use to describe him.

Th0r S1mpson
03-01-12, 01:24 PM
Actually, I was teasing.

JasonF
03-01-12, 01:29 PM
Not being a slave to a job due to fear of losing the healthcare insurance they provide is a liberating feeling. Too bad more people don't know what it's like.

I agree -- it is too bad. Unfortunately, my wife has several pre-existing conditions that would have made it prohibitively expensive for me to purchase health insurance outside of a group policy prior to the reforms of the PPACA.

CRM114
03-01-12, 01:41 PM
That's YOUR problem, man!


Seriously, the most disturbing part of this whole healthcare debate is the everyone for themselves mentality and "too bad for you" sentiment in a modern, 21st century American society.

Th0r S1mpson
03-01-12, 01:45 PM
Seriously, the most disturbing part of this whole healthcare debate is the everyone for themselves mentality and "too bad for you" sentiment in a modern, 21st century American society.

Says the mom to her fetus.

CRM114
03-01-12, 01:48 PM
Key word being "her". Not yours.

X
03-01-12, 01:52 PM
I agree -- it is too bad. Unfortunately, my wife has several pre-existing conditions that would have made it prohibitively expensive for me to purchase health insurance outside of a group policy prior to the reforms of the PPACA.That is an area that also needs to be revamped. But I would call your attention to the word "insurance", which is protection before particular conditions occur. It's "subsidy" if other people pay part of your known healthcare costs.

I think people being able to shop for healthcare services in a freer marketplace of them would help a lot with that.

Th0r S1mpson
03-01-12, 01:53 PM
Key word being "her". Not yours.

Yup. When she drowns her baby in a bathtub, nobody cares either.

Point being, the word "her" really isn't the issue here.

JasonF
03-01-12, 01:59 PM
That is an area that also needs to be revamped. But I would call your attention to the word "insurance", which is protection before particular conditions occur. It's "subsidy" if other people pay part of your known healthcare costs.

I think people being able to shop for healthcare services in a freer marketplace of them would help a lot with that.

That's fair enough, but what do we do about people with conditions like MS or Parkinson's or any other long-term condition that requires expensive medical care? Some of these illnesses can cost thousands of dollars annually to treat -- do we expect people to be in a position to spend that kind of money? If not, are we willing to see people die of treatable conditions simply because their income doesn't pay for treatment?

Tracer Bullet
03-01-12, 02:01 PM
If not, are we willing to see people die of treatable conditions simply because their income doesn't pay for treatment?

I think you know the answer to that.

X
03-01-12, 02:02 PM
That's fair enough, but what do we do about people with conditions like MS or Parkinson's or any other long-term condition that requires expensive medical care? Some of these illnesses can cost thousands of dollars annually to treat -- do we expect people to be in a position to spend that kind of money? If not, are we willing to see people die of treatable conditions simply because their income doesn't pay for treatment?I don't know the details of what their care entails, surgeries, drugs, ??? so I can't really propose any potential solution. But I think it's a debate that we should have. In the long run very expensive treatments are going to have to be rationed anyway.

Tommy Ceez
03-01-12, 02:13 PM
but your boss might make a better medical decision for you than a chemotherapist (sp?) when you've got advanced pancreatic cancer & and your chance of survival is less than 3%. He might suggest there are better ways to go. ;)

death panel!

Th0r S1mpson
03-01-12, 02:15 PM
Death panel, is an ugly, ugly term. I'm sure they would name it something nicer like "Natural passing selection committee."

PenguinJoe
03-01-12, 02:20 PM
Damn liberal media biased by the Los Angeles Times.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/23/nation/la-na-gop-candidates-deficit-20120224

CRM114
03-01-12, 02:35 PM
Yup. When she drowns her baby in a bathtub, nobody cares either.

Point being, the word "her" really isn't the issue here.

I suppose if you omit the fact that the fetus is in her womb, connected to her vital systems rather than taking a bath. So, the point is the word "her" is more meaningful than anything you or any other man could possibly imagine.

Th0r S1mpson
03-01-12, 02:37 PM
I guess you have a very good imagination then.

We should probably drop the subject. :)

JasonF
03-01-12, 02:37 PM
I don't know the details of what their care entails, surgeries, drugs, ??? so I can't really propose any potential solution. But I think it's a debate that we should have. In the long run very expensive treatments are going to have to be rationed anyway.

Didn't we just try to have the debate? As I recall, one side of the debate spent most of the time screaming about death panels, government interference with Medicare, and tort reform being the solution to everything, but we did try to have the debate.

CRM114
03-01-12, 02:38 PM
I can only slightly imagine. But I don't assume that I have complete understanding.

CRM114
03-01-12, 02:39 PM
Didn't we just try to have the debate? As I recall, one side of the debate spent most of the time screaming about death panels, government interference with Medicare, and tort reform being the solution to everything, but we did try to have the debate.

:lol:

orangecrush
03-01-12, 02:48 PM
Didn't we just try to have the debate? As I recall, one side of the debate spent most of the time screaming about death panels, government interference with Medicare, and tort reform being the solution to everything, but we did try to have the debate.All while the other side was complaining about health insurance companies profit margins while totally ignoring drug companies and the actual costs of care.

X
03-01-12, 02:50 PM
Didn't we just try to have the debate? As I recall, one side of the debate spent most of the time screaming about death panels, government interference with Medicare, and tort reform being the solution to everything, but we did try to have the debate.I don't think it's a debate that "we" should have (I've been around here long enough to know better than that), but one that the country should have.

classicman2
03-01-12, 02:52 PM
Didn't we just try to have the debate? As I recall, one side of the debate spent most of the time screaming about death panels, government interference with Medicare, and tort reform being the solution to everything, but we did try to have the debate.

Which side was that?

wendersfan
03-01-12, 02:53 PM
I don't think it's a debate that "we" should have (I've been around here long enough to know better than that):lol:

Since 1987 even. I don't think I'd discovered USENET at that point...

X
03-01-12, 02:59 PM
Apparently we can't even handle a debate about the debate.

Navinabob
03-01-12, 03:16 PM
As someone with a pre-existing medical condition, you can't buy insurance. They physically won't take money, even if offered well above normal premiums. The only way I don't die, is if I work. I had to drop out of school to find a job, and then go back to school to get my degree while I'm working full time. I still fondly recall having to change bloody bandages in university bathroom on the first day back at school because my stitches tore the night before from a surgery I had 3 days earlier, but I couldn't get them redone until I had a free day from school and a slow day at work.

As you can imagine, I have a slightly different point of view on government insisted healthcare.

Artman
03-01-12, 03:17 PM
The reporter's description was a fair and accurate description of the bill

Not even close, nice try though.

Venusian
03-01-12, 03:24 PM
and "too bad for you" sentiment in a modern, 21st century American society.

isn't that what folks are saying to the Catholic charities who are forced to pay for something against their beliefs? "too bad for you because it is good for me"

Artman
03-01-12, 03:30 PM
"too bad for you because it is good for me"

"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."

Navinabob
03-01-12, 04:20 PM
I have no idea how some people can embrace Rush Limbaugh... It is really depressing that some people up everything this guy says. The links have several videos so I suggest clicking the links and watching.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/donnad/rush-limbaugh-confuses-contraception-with-prostitu

Rush Limbaugh Confuses Contraception With Prostitution

In summary, Rush Limbaugh believes that somehow wanting your health insurance to cover contraception is the equivalent of admitting your sex life is so active you have no time to go to work and make enough money to pay for it yourself.

He believes that 40% of Georgetown's female law students are sluts promoting casual sex/prostitution.

He believes there is no purpose for birth control outside of wishing for consequence-free sex. That it does not have medical uses unrelated to pregnancy prevention.

He believes that the President should force these "sluts" into marriage whether they like it or not and they should be kept at home and pregnant until the end of their days.

These are things Rush Limbaugh believes.


And then to solidify that he is a piece of shit...

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201203010012

Limbaugh's Misogynistic Attack On Georgetown Law Student Continues With Increased Vitriol

Rush Limbaugh is not backing down after widespread condemnation over his misogynistic attack on Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University Law School student who testified before Congress recently about the problems caused when women lack access to contraception.

If anything, Limbaugh has increased the vitriol, at one point asking Fluke: "Who bought your condoms in sixth grade?"

Yesterday, Limbaugh called Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute."

Those comments were quickly condemned. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) called on Republicans to denounce Limbaugh's attack on Fluke, calling out his "despicable attack," which Maloney identified as "a new low in a season of lows."

Limbaugh is not backing down.

Opening his show Thursday, Limbaugh characterized the criticism of his comments as "a conniption fit," which he called "hilarious." He offered what he said was a "compromise" to contraception coverage: purchasing "all the women at Georgetown University as much aspirin to put between their knees as possible."

Limbaugh returned to the controversy later, claiming to have "run some numbers" on contraception costs and arguing that contraception coverage was "flat-out thievery" that would force taxpayers to pay to "satisfy the sexual habits of female law students at Georgetown."

Limbaugh later dismissed concerns over lack of access to contraception coverage and mocked Fluke's congressional testimony, affecting a baby's voice and pretending to cry, saying: "I'm going broke having sex. I need government to provide me condoms and contraception. It's not fair."

Limbaugh later questioned why insurance should cover contraception and played a portion of Fluke's testimony laying out the problems many college-age women face paying for contraception. He asked, "Ms. Fluke, have you ever heard of not having sex? Have you ever heard of not having sex so often?"

After saying that the Washington, D.C., Department of Health "will send you free condoms and lube," Limbaugh said: "So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I'll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch."

After discussing outrage over his comments, Limbaugh again attacked Fluke, asking: "Who bought your condoms in junior high? Who bought your condoms in the sixth grade? Or your contraception. Who bought your contraceptive pills in high school?"

wendersfan
03-01-12, 04:24 PM
Since I expect my medical insurance to provide me with physical therapy, I guess by Limbaugh's logic that makes me a professional tennis player.

Th0r S1mpson
03-01-12, 04:35 PM
I have no idea how some people can embrace Rush Limbaugh... It is really depressing that some people up everything this guy says. The links have several videos so I suggest clicking the links and watching.
He believes that the President should force these "sluts" into marriage whether they like it or not and they should be kept at home and pregnant until the end of their days.

These are things Rush Limbaugh believes.

I'm not going to click all the links and watch the videos, so can you show me the quote where Rush actually says this?

Navinabob
03-01-12, 04:43 PM
I'm not going to click all the links and watch the videos, so can you show me the quote where Rush actually says this?

I suspect mined from this part of the transcript of his show:

A Georgetown co-ed told Rep. Nancy Pelosi's hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex that they're going broke, so you and I should pay for their birth control. Speaking at a hearing held by Pelosi to tout Pres. Obama's mandate that virtually every health insurance plan cover the full cost of contraception and abortion-inducing products, Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke said that it's too expensive to have sex in law school without mandated insurance coverage. Apparently, four out of every ten co-eds are having so much sex that it's hard to make ends meet if they have to pay for their own contraception, Fluke's research shows."

Can you imagine if you're her parents how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be? Your daughter goes up to a congressional hearing conducted by the Botox-filled Nancy Pelosi and testifies she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the Pope. "'Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy (Georgetown student insurance not covering contraception), Fluke reported. It costs a female student $3,000 to have protected sex over the course of her three-year stint in law school, according to her calculations.

'Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,' Fluke told the hearing. $3,000 for birth control in three years? That's a thousand dollars a year of sex -- and, she wants us to pay for it." All of this just since January 7th. Just since January 7th. You guys who are thinking you're not gonna go to college? Let me just say one thing to you: Georgetown. They're admitting before congressional committee that they're having so much sex they can't afford the birth control pills! That's all you gotta come up with. And all of this is the Republicans' fault. Sandra Fluke, one of the Butt Sisters, is being dragged out of law school by the hair. Wait 'til Rick Santorum hears about this. Wait 'til Gingrich hears about this! What do you think they'll do? They'll put a stop to this right away! They'll head over that university and they'll stop it!

They'll spy on Sandra Fluke and interrupt her in mid-coitus, and then they'll make 'em get married.

They'll make 'em get married and then make 'em have those babies and make 'em have 10,000 babies and then stay home...

What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We're not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word. Okay, so she's not a slut. She's "round heeled." I take it back.

Well, I guess now we know why Bill Clinton went to Georgetown and why Hillary went to Wellesley. Well, all the sex going on at Georgetown. Sandra Fluke. So much sex going on, they can't afford birth control pills. She said that to Nancy Pelosi yesterday. Pelosi probably said, "Have you heard what Botox costs? I can relate!"

Although, if you want them to justify that one line you are sorta missing the big picture here.

kvrdave
03-01-12, 04:48 PM
I also have seen in the past that Rush Limbaugh has said something outrageous, so I've looked into it, and he didn't say it. It was taken out of context. In fact, it is hard to think of an instance where that didn't happen.

If the top outrage is based on the stuff bolded, I think it is pretty obvious that this is fake outrage by someone.

Th0r S1mpson
03-01-12, 04:49 PM
It sounds like Rush was being sarcastic. If they can't detect that, I have little interest in the other things they have to say because they are obviously prone to an absurd level of error.

I have no problem with criticizing Limbaugh, but if they have to make things up or distort his words in order to make your point, then they fail at any meaningful commentary.

You wonder why people "eat up the things" Limbaugh says. I wonder why anyone would eat up what these idiots say about him.

orangecrush
03-01-12, 04:56 PM
I suspect mined from this part of the transcript of his show:



Although, if you want them to justify that one line you are sorta missing the big picture here.Rush's douchness notwithstanding, does the pill really cost $1k/year w/o insurance. That seems really high. There are many different companies that produce different forms of it.

And that said, 1k/year would buy a lot of condoms. Why not just use them? Or is the side benefit of protection from STDs undesirable?

Dr Mabuse
03-01-12, 04:57 PM
BTW, now the Republicans have decided that Romney gets 16 delegates out of MI, and Santorum gets 14.

The power brokers are dead set on doing most anything, like how how Romney 'won' in Iowa and the like, to push Romney on a base and country that doesn't want him I guess.

Tracer Bullet
03-01-12, 04:58 PM
And that said, 1k/year would buy a lot of condoms. Why not just use them? Or is the side benefit of protection from STDs undesirable?

Um, because the pill puts contraception under the control of the woman? Do people really not get this?

Navinabob
03-01-12, 05:01 PM
I also have seen in the past that Rush Limbaugh has said something outrageous, so I've looked into it, and he didn't say it. It was taken out of context. In fact, it is hard to think of an instance where that didn't happen.

If the top outrage is based on the stuff bolded, I think it is pretty obvious that this is fake outrage by someone.

The bolded part was just to address a specific question, surely you didn't just gloss over the mountain of shit just to read those two lines? No research is really needed on your part, only a bit of gaze widening.

The biggest objection was calling her, and the fellow women who want the school to cover birth control, "sluts". I'm confident if you did a "looked into it" expedition you might have finally found this elusive in context instance you have been seeking all this time.

orangecrush
03-01-12, 05:02 PM
Um, because the pill puts contraception under the control of the woman? Do people really not get this?Woman have the power to make a dude wear a condom. It has always been pretty simple math to me. If you want to have sex with someone, you'll wear a condom if they say you have to. Sex w/ condom > sex with yourself.

Tracer Bullet
03-01-12, 05:03 PM
Woman have the power to make a dude wear a condom. It has always been pretty simple math to me. If you want to have sex with someone, you'll wear a condom if they say you have to. Sex w/ codom > sex with yourself.

How did that work out for women before the pill was invented?

wendersfan
03-01-12, 05:04 PM
Rush's douchness notwithstanding, does the pill really cost $1k/year w/o insurance. That seems really high. There are many different companies that produce different forms of it. Yes, they're that expensive.And that said, 1k/year would buy a lot of condoms. Why not just use them? Or is the side benefit of protection from STDs undesirable?

Um, because the pill puts contraception under the control of the woman? Do people really not get this?
They also have a lot of other beneficial effects besides birth control.

wendersfan
03-01-12, 05:05 PM
No offense, Tracer, but it's pretty sad and scary that you have a better understanding of birth control than a lot of straight dudes.

Nausicaa
03-01-12, 05:06 PM
Um, because the pill puts contraception under the control of the woman? Do people really not get this?

This whole contraception debate has been really disheartening. I honestly can't believe it. Rush's comments are crazy, and it is frightening that most of his listeners will probably eat them up and work it into their twisted world view.

I mean really, "us" paying for contraception is even worth debating, with all the shit going on in the world?

Bandoman
03-01-12, 05:06 PM
I also have seen in the past that Rush Limbaugh has said something outrageous, so I've looked into it, and he didn't say it. It was taken out of context. In fact, it is hard to think of an instance where that didn't happen.

If the top outrage is based on the stuff bolded, I think it is pretty obvious that this is fake outrage by someone.

Did you not read the entire quote? I especially like this part:

What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We're not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word. Okay, so she's not a slut. She's "round heeled." I take it back.

That's not taken out of context, it's what he said. I heard him say it. And he is wrong on so many levels.

Josh-da-man
03-01-12, 05:07 PM
Instead of spending $3000 on birth control pills, these college girls could just start doing anal.

Just make the guy provide the lube, and it won't cost them a thing.

orangecrush
03-01-12, 05:08 PM
How did that work out for women before the pill was invented?Okay for the women at Georgetown law school?

wendersfan
03-01-12, 05:09 PM
Okay for the women at Georgetown law school?There's a representative cross-section of American women if I ever saw one.

Navinabob
03-01-12, 05:11 PM
Rush's douchness notwithstanding, does the pill really cost $1k/year w/o insurance. That seems really high. There are many different companies that produce different forms of it.

And that said, 1k/year would buy a lot of condoms. Why not just use them? Or is the side benefit of protection from STDs undesirable?

Because, 14% to 33% (depending on age) of women do not use the pill for sex related reasons. The reasons are:

Reducing cramps or menstrual pain (31 percent); menstrual regulation (28 percent); treatment of acne (14 percent); and treatment of endometriosis (4 percent). Endometriosis is an often painful disorder in which tissue that normally lines the inside of the uterus grows elsewhere in the body, typically within the pelvic region, according to the Mayo Clinic.

For virgins on the pill: Fifty-seven percent said they use it to treat menstrual pain, 43 percent for menstrual regulation, and 26 percent for acne treatment.

Many people with autoimmune diseases or receiving cancer treatment go on the pill to reduce the impact of menstruation on the body since they are already weakened from illness.

For Rush to call these women sluts is repugnant.

orangecrush
03-01-12, 05:22 PM
Yes, they're that expensive.
I did a little googling and it looks like prices range from $15-$100/mo depending on which one you have to get and where you buy it. So, I guess $1K/year isn't as off as I thought it might be. The Georgetown student clearly needs to get a Costco membership.

orangecrush
03-01-12, 05:32 PM
Because, 14% to 33% (depending on age) of women do not use the pill for sex related reasons. The reasons are:



For virgins on the pill:

Many people with autoimmune diseases or receiving cancer treatment go on the pill to reduce the impact of menstruation on the body since they are already weakened from illness.

For Rush to call these women sluts is repugnant.I am certainly no fan of Rush and I agree that it is ridiculous to think that the only reason a woman would be on the pill is to have lots of sex (whatever that even means). But I also don’t care if the University wants to provide coverage for the pill or not. Many university health plans are not major medical plans and don’t fall under the purview of the various insurance commissioners.

kvrdave
03-01-12, 05:36 PM
The bolded part was just to address a specific question, surely you didn't just gloss over the mountain of shit just to read those two lines? No research is really needed on your part, only a bit of gaze widening.

The biggest objection was calling her, and the fellow women who want the school to cover birth control, "sluts". I'm confident if you did a "looked into it" expedition you might have finally found this elusive in context instance you have been seeking all this time.

Like I said, I use to look into them. I found that they were taken out of context to a large degree and they were trying to make something outrageous that was just typical Limbaugh stuff, but it wasn't what they said it was.

Tell you what....if you really want me to look into it, I will. But if I do, and I find out that it is just the same old crap I've described, then you have to agree to research anything you post about Rush Limbaugh in the future so that people don't waste their time with fake outrage. How's that sound?

Tracer Bullet
03-01-12, 05:42 PM
No offense, Tracer, but it's pretty sad and scary that you have a better understanding of birth control than a lot of straight dudes.

Being a feminist doesn't have much to do with sexuality. :shrug:

Tracer Bullet
03-01-12, 05:44 PM
I did a little googling and it looks like prices range from $15-$100/mo depending on which one you have to get and where you buy it. So, I guess $1K/year isn't as off as I thought it might be. The Georgetown student clearly needs to get a Costco membership.

I think you should focus less on Georgetown students and more on, say, poor black women, but what do I know.

kvrdave
03-01-12, 05:55 PM
Am I the only person who lives in a county with a health department that gives contraception away to the poor? Seriously.

kvrdave
03-01-12, 06:01 PM
:lol: Okay, I looked up some of it. I found this transcript on his site about it, etc. as well. It's entertaining to me.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/01/left_freaks_out_over_my_fluke_remarks

#fauxoutrage

Navinabob
03-01-12, 06:07 PM
Like I said, I use to look into them. I found that they were taken out of context to a large degree and they were trying to make something outrageous that was just typical Limbaugh stuff, but it wasn't what they said it was.

Tell you what....if you really want me to look into it, I will. But if I do, and I find out that it is just the same old crap I've described, then you have to agree to research anything you post about Rush Limbaugh in the future so that people don't waste their time with fake outrage. How's that sound?

... You don't have anything to look into. People are upset at her being called a "slut". I posted the transcript from Rush's website. It is all there, already posted, nothing to look into (well... one day is posted, I didn't do the other day where he revisited the topic, so technically you can see how much he was being redundant if you want to look into it).

I'll post it again and help out with bolding the "slut" word; I'll not include all the implied "slut" or the reworded "slut", or his sarcastic taking back the word "slut", as it might just confuse things because more would be bold then unbold:

A Georgetown co-ed told Rep. Nancy Pelosi's hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex that they're going broke, so you and I should pay for their birth control. Speaking at a hearing held by Pelosi to tout Pres. Obama's mandate that virtually every health insurance plan cover the full cost of contraception and abortion-inducing products, Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke said that it's too expensive to have sex in law school without mandated insurance coverage. Apparently, four out of every ten co-eds are having so much sex that it's hard to make ends meet if they have to pay for their own contraception, Fluke's research shows."

Can you imagine if you're her parents how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be? Your daughter goes up to a congressional hearing conducted by the Botox-filled Nancy Pelosi and testifies she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the Pope. "'Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy (Georgetown student insurance not covering contraception), Fluke reported. It costs a female student $3,000 to have protected sex over the course of her three-year stint in law school, according to her calculations.

'Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,' Fluke told the hearing. $3,000 for birth control in three years? That's a thousand dollars a year of sex -- and, she wants us to pay for it." All of this just since January 7th. Just since January 7th. You guys who are thinking you're not gonna go to college? Let me just say one thing to you: Georgetown. They're admitting before congressional committee that they're having so much sex they can't afford the birth control pills! That's all you gotta come up with. And all of this is the Republicans' fault. Sandra Fluke, one of the Butt Sisters, is being dragged out of law school by the hair. Wait 'til Rick Santorum hears about this. Wait 'til Gingrich hears about this! What do you think they'll do? They'll put a stop to this right away! They'll head over that university and they'll stop it!

They'll spy on Sandra Fluke and interrupt her in mid-coitus, and then they'll make 'em get married.

They'll make 'em get married and then make 'em have those babies and make 'em have 10,000 babies and then stay home...

What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We're not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word. Okay, so she's not a slut. She's "round heeled." I take it back.

Well, I guess now we know why Bill Clinton went to Georgetown and why Hillary went to Wellesley. Well, all the sex going on at Georgetown. Sandra Fluke. So much sex going on, they can't afford birth control pills. She said that to Nancy Pelosi yesterday. Pelosi probably said, "Have you heard what Botox costs? I can relate!"

Th0r S1mpson
03-01-12, 06:09 PM
Am I the only person who lives in a county with a health department that gives contraception away to the poor? Seriously.

Stop hating women!

aktick
03-01-12, 06:10 PM
Am I the only person who lives in a county with a health department that gives contraception away to the poor? Seriously.

:lol: No shit.

Navinabob
03-01-12, 06:11 PM
:lol: Okay, I looked up some of it. I found this transcript on his site about it, etc. as well. It's entertaining to me.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/01/left_freaks_out_over_my_fluke_remarks

#fauxoutrage

No, that's his reaction where he is putting spin on it. Clearly you can see that right?

You actually want his original tirade found here:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/02/29/butt_sisters_are_safe_from_newt_and_rick

kvrdave
03-01-12, 06:22 PM
No, that's his reaction where he is putting spin on it. Clearly you can see that right?

rotfl

You are asking about how clearly I can see something on this issue? Do we have an agreement? If so, I'll look into this stupid thing.

Th0r S1mpson
03-01-12, 06:26 PM
Yes. Look into it. Find out all you can about RUSH LIMBAUGH. What did RUSH LIMBAUGH say this time? Come on, Dave. Don't let RUSH LIMBAUGH get away with it. Watch more. That'll show him, with every advertising dollar he receives he will feel so ashamed that he will quit saying such things.

Navinabob
03-01-12, 06:28 PM
And speaking of embarrassing prominent members of the Republican party:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/sheriff-joes-posse-probable-cause-obama-certificate-a-fraud/

PHOENIX – An investigative “Cold Case Posse” launched six months ago by “America’s toughest sheriff” – Joe Arpaio of Arizona’s Maricopa County – has concluded there is probable cause that the document released by the White House last year as President Obama’s birth certificate is a computer-generated forgery.

The investigative team has asked Arpaio, who is at a news conference in Phoenix live-streamed by WND TV that began at 3 p.m. Eastern time, to elevate the investigation to a criminal probe that will make available the resources of his Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.

The posse says it has identified at least one person of interest in the alleged forgery of Obama’s birth certificate.

Arapaio, known for his strict enforcement of immigration laws, commissioned the investigative team after local citizens presented him with a petition expressing concern that Obama might not be eligible for Arizona’s presidential ballot.

In addition to the live-streaming, WND is making available to the public a report distributed to media today by Arpaio’s investigators.

GET A FREE COPY OF THE ARPAIO REPORT THAT WAS DISTRIBUTED TO PRESS TODAY

The posse, comprised of former law enforcement officers and lawyers with law enforcement experience, has interviewed dozens of witnesses and examined hundreds of documents. It also has taken numerous sworn statements from witnesses around the world.

Mike Zullo, Arpaio’s lead investigator, said his team believes the Hawaii Department of Health has engaged in a systematic effort to hide from public inspection any original 1961 birth records it may have in its possession.

“Officers of the Hawaii Department of Health and various elected Hawaiian public officials may have intentionally obscured 1961 birth records and procedures to avoid having to release to public inspection and to the examination of court-authorized forensic examiners any original Obama 1961 birth records the Hawaii Department of Health may or may not have,” Zullo said.

The investigators say the evidence contained in the computer-generated PDF file released by the White House as well as important deficiencies in the Hawaii process of certifying the long-form birth certificate establish probable cause that a forgery has been committed.

The investigation was launched after 250 members of the Surprise, Ariz., Tea Party, presented a signed petition to Arpaio in August 2011 asking him to undertake the investigation.

The Tea Party members petitioned under the premise that if a forged birth certificate was used to place Barack Obama on the 2012 Arizona presidential ballot, their rights as Maricopa County voters could be compromised.

Arpaio believes a congressional investigation might be warranted and has asked that any information relevant to the investigation held by other law enforcement agencies be forwarded to his office.

The Cold Case Posse advised Arpaio that they believe forgers committed two crimes. First, they say it appears the White House fraudulently created a forgery that it characterized as an officially produced governmental birth record. Second, the White House fraudulently presented to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large a forgery represented as “proof positive” of President Obama’s authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate.

“A continuing investigation is needed to identify the identity of the person or persons involved in creating the alleged birth certificate forgery and to determine who, if anyone, in the White House or the state of Hawaii may have authorized the forgery,” Arpaio said.

Among the evidence released at the press conference are five videos – which can be seen at the end of this article – to demonstrate why the Obama long-form birth certificate is suspected to be a computer-generated forgery.

The videos consist of step-by-step computer demonstrations using a control document. They display the testing used by the investigators to examine various claims made by supporters of the April 27 document.

The investigators contend the videos illustrate their conclusion that the features and anomalies observed on the Obama long-form birth certificate were inconsistent with features produced when a paper document is scanned, even if the scan is enhanced by Optical Character Recognition, OCR, and optimized.

Additionally, the posse says, the videos demonstrate that the Hawaii Department of Health Registrar’s name stamp and the registrar’s date stamp were computer-generated images imported into an electronic document, as opposed to rubber stamp imprints inked by hand or machine onto a paper document.

“That we were able to cast reasonable suspicions on the authenticity of the registrar stamps was especially disturbing, since these stamp imprints are designed to provide government authentication to the document itself,” Zullo said, emphasizing that if the registrar stamps are forgeries, the document itself is likely a forgery.

The investigators also chronicled a series of allegedly inconsistent and misleading representations that various Hawaii government officials have made over the past five years regarding any original birth records held by the Hawaii Department of Health.

“As I said at the beginning of the investigation, the president can put all this to rest quite easily,” Arpaio said. “All he has to do is demand the Hawaii Department of Health release to the American public and to a panel of certified court-authorized forensic examiners all original 1961 paper, microfilm and computer birth records the Hawaii Department of Health has in its possession.”

Arpaio emphasized that the Hawaii Department of Health needs to provide, as part of the full disclosure, evidence regarding the chain of custody of all Obama birth records, including paper, microfilm and electronic records to eliminate the possibility that a forger or forgers may have tampered with the birth records.

The sheriff said the president should also authorize Honolulu’s Kapi’olani Hospital, the birth hospital listed on the Obama long-form birth certificate, to release any hospital patient records for Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, his mother, and for the newly born Barack Obama, to provide corroboration for the records held in the Hawaii Department of Health vault.

“Absent the authentic Hawaii Department of Health 1961 birth records for Barack Obama, there is no other credible proof supporting the idea or belief that President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, as he and the White House have consistently asserted,” Zullo said.

“In fact, absent the authentication of Hawaii Department of Health 1961 birth records for Barack Obama, there is no other proof he was born anywhere within the United States.”

In addition, investigators say they have developed credible evidence that President Obama’s Selective Service card was a forgery, based on an examination of the postal date stamp on the document. Also, records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards filled out by passengers arriving on international flights originating outside the United States in the month of August 1961, examined at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., are missing records for the week of President Obama’s birth.

He provide Youtube videos as proof. Too bad most of this crap was already debunked... I suppose next he'll show Youtube footage of the WTC being blown up from the inside because jet fuel doesn't melt metal. -screwy-

TheBigDave
03-01-12, 06:34 PM
I didn't know Sheriff Joe and Rush Limbaugh were running for President. Or is this just a catch-all Republican bashing thread?

kvrdave
03-01-12, 06:38 PM
No, that's his reaction where he is putting spin on it. Clearly you can see that right?

You actually want his original tirade found here:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/02/29/butt_sisters_are_safe_from_newt_and_rick

Damn you for putting me through one of these "Limbaugh said women just enjoy rape!" type things. I read through the original tirade and "clearly you can see what it is," can't you? You have got to be kidding me with all the fake and manufactured outrage over this.

The end of the transcript you linked to....
Okay, so she's not a slut. She's "round heeled." I take it back.
:lol:

Fuck me, this is some pretty stupid shit to act like you are outraged about. Especially since it started with this.....

http://www.buzzfeed.com/donnad/rush-...-with-prostitu

Rush Limbaugh Confuses Contraception With Prostitution

In summary, Rush Limbaugh believes that somehow wanting your health insurance to cover contraception is the equivalent of admitting your sex life is so active you have no time to go to work and make enough money to pay for it yourself.

He believes that 40% of Georgetown's female law students are sluts promoting casual sex/prostitution.

He believes there is no purpose for birth control outside of wishing for consequence-free sex. That it does not have medical uses unrelated to pregnancy prevention.

He believes that the President should force these "sluts" into marriage whether they like it or not and they should be kept at home and pregnant until the end of their days.

These are things Rush Limbaugh believes.

Clearly you can back up where Rush said that 40% of the female law students are sluts.
Clearly you can point out where he says there are no other medical reasons for birth control pills.
Clearly you can point out where Rush says he believes the president should force these women into marriage.

Fuck, didn't you say something about spin? How is this not the same bullshit outrage and manufactured crap we always see on the issue? How is this not pure and simple propaganda to get the liberals into a fury when they are saying that the evil Rush Limbaugh said all these things that I can't find any evidence that he said? I went back and saw something about the president forcing these women into marriage, and it was talking about what he expects the left will say about all this? And that's exactly what they did....in what you quoted?

Did you say something about how we should be able to clearly see this for what it is?

Fuck, keep your outrage over Limbaugh on this. If this is what it takes you get you outraged, just wait for them to tell you what is next, because apparently they can make you outraged over all kinds of shit that didn't happen.

wendersfan
03-01-12, 06:42 PM
I didn't know Sheriff Joe and Rush Limbaugh were running for President. Or is this just a catch-all Republican bashing thread?
No, sometimes it's a catch-all Obama bashing thread.

kvrdave
03-01-12, 06:43 PM
Did you not read the entire quote? I especially like this part:



That's not taken out of context, it's what he said. I heard him say it. And he is wrong on so many levels.

:lol: I guess I find it funny that anyone would be outraged by this and blow it into all the stuff I found while looking into it. It looks to me like fighting absurdity with absurdity. The idea that she looks around and sees the sad faces of all the women who can't afford birth control (or however she said it in the youtube video of her testimony).

I am amazed that people can let the media swarm down with such propaganda to create some groundswell of hatred (and mostly disinformation) over what some radio host said. It's fucking stupid.

kvrdave
03-01-12, 06:47 PM
After saying that the Washington, D.C., Department of Health "will send you free condoms and lube," Limbaugh said: "So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I'll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch."

"Limbaugh wants porn videos mandated in exchange for reproductive rights."

Fuck, you guys and the shit you gobble up. :lol:

Josh-da-man
03-01-12, 07:07 PM
I might be upset by what Limbaugh is saying if I could figure out what the fuck he's going on about.

Is he always this rambling and incoherent?

Numanoid
03-01-12, 07:12 PM
Listen to Dave, he has a degree in Women's Studies.

Navinabob
03-01-12, 07:23 PM
Damn you for putting me through one of these "Limbaugh said women just enjoy rape!" type things. I read through the original tirade and "clearly you can see what it is," can't you? You have got to be kidding me with all the fake and manufactured outrage over this.

The end of the transcript you linked to....

:lol:

Fuck me, this is some pretty stupid shit to act like you are outraged about. Especially since it started with this.....



Clearly you can back up where Rush said that 40% of the female law students are sluts.
Clearly you can point out where he says there are no other medical reasons for birth control pills.
Clearly you can point out where Rush says he believes the president should force these women into marriage.

Fuck, didn't you say something about spin? How is this not the same bullshit outrage and manufactured crap we always see on the issue? How is this not pure and simple propaganda to get the liberals into a fury when they are saying that the evil Rush Limbaugh said all these things that I can't find any evidence that he said? I went back and saw something about the president forcing these women into marriage, and it was talking about what he expects the left will say about all this? And that's exactly what they did....in what you quoted?

Did you say something about how we should be able to clearly see this for what it is?

Fuck, keep your outrage over Limbaugh on this. If this is what it takes you get you outraged, just wait for them to tell you what is next, because apparently they can make you outraged over all kinds of shit that didn't happen.


"Clearly you can back up where Rush said that 40% of the female law students are sluts."

RUSH: But Fluke presented research to the committee: four out of every ten co-eds are having so much sex that it's hard to make ends meet if they have to pay for their own contraception. Have you heard of anything more ridiculous? This is flat-out thievery. It's outright ridiculous that taxpayers should pay for the personal sexual desires and habits of everybody, including women, at Georgetown Law. Fluke reported: "Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy (Georgetown student insurance not covering contraception)." The poor babes have to buy their own pills. What has gone wrong with our country? What has happened to our country where law students have to buy their own contraceptives? What has happened to us, folks? What have we done with our hearts? How did we become so cruel?

"Clearly you can point out where he says there are no other medical reasons for birth control pills."

I can't because he dodged the question where she talked about how some women suffer medically with:

RUSH: Ms. Fluke, have you ever heard of not having sex? Have you ever heard of not having sex so often? What next that you can't afford are you gonna go to Pelosi and say we need to buy? Mink? A Volt? A Prius? What next are you going to want, Ms. Fluke, that you see etched in misery on the faces of fellow students at Georgetown because they don't have? "When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected..." Play the opening line of this again. Sound bite number four. Listen to this.

The closest "I" said about it was: "I suspect mined from this part of the transcript of his show". I clearly was addressing Thor who was addressing the editorialized statement from the original blogger. Note the two words "suspect" and "mined".

Although I find it a bit funny that several people here hit upon the non-sexual medical benefits of birth control and yet Rush has never heard about it.

"Clearly you can point out where Rush says he believes the president should force these women into marriage."

I can't. I never made that argument. I never made any of the arguments you say I did really (Straw Man attack -ptth-).

My argument was that he called her a slut, and I followed with the opinion that he was repugnant. I stand by those two things. The blogger I posted a link to did their own spin, but those were not "my views" nor "my argument." If your point is that the Left does there own spin, I won't deny it.. Hell I clearly posting a link to it! But again, that was not my argument nor what I helped you "look into".

What I offered was proof via transcripts from his own site. If you want to dodge it, promise to "look into it", or go off on your own tirade on the manufactured Leftist outrage that's fine too... but none of those thing makes me back down from two things: He called her a slut. He is repugnant.

Numanoid
03-01-12, 07:36 PM
Breaking News on CNN (not a joke): Sheriff's office: Bomb squad checking out suspicious package at radio host Rush Limbaugh's home in Palm Beach, Florida. Big box of condoms?

kvrdave
03-01-12, 07:44 PM
"Clearly you can back up where Rush said that 40% of the female law students are sluts."
Do you actually think you did that? He reports that she reports that 40% are struggling financially because they don't get free birth control (and we won't question that :lol: ). But the "news" article you posted said...
He believes that 40% of Georgetown's female law students are sluts promoting casual sex/prostitution.

So, you think you backed that up?



"Clearly you can point out where he says there are no other medical reasons for birth control pills."

I can't because he dodged the question where she talked about how some women suffer medically with:

Well, hell...who needs to back it up if it is dodged? We should assume we know what he would have said and call it news. It's in a news article, after all. They must know that is what he would have said.


"Clearly you can point out where Rush says he believes the president should force these women into marriage."

I can't. I never made that argument. I never made any of the arguments you say I did really (Straw Man attack -ptth-).
My mistake. I was only going off the news article you posted which showed as representation (I assume) of what is being reported that Rush Limbaugh said, and we should be enraged over those things....apparently whether or not he actually said them...which we can't back up.

My argument was that he called her a slut, and I followed with the opinion that he was repugnant. I stand by those two things. The blogger I posted a link to did their own spin, but those were not "my views" nor "my argument." If your point is that the Left does there own spin, I won't deny it.. Hell I clearly posting a link to it! But again, that was not my argument nor what I helped you "look into".

What I offered was proof via transcripts from his own site. If you want to dodge it, promise to "look into it", or go off on your own tirade on the manufactured Leftist outrage that's fine too... but none of those thing makes me back down from two things: He called her a slut. He is repugnant.

Fine. He did call her a slut. I've never said he isn't repugnant either. I don't like getting into the position of defending him. But this is what happens when people post some news article about what terrible thing Rush Limbaugh has said. Someone takes it (your blogger) and manufactured things that he didn't say. Then it gets spread even more, and everyone says that Rush said all kinds of crap that he didn't say. So then everyone is pissed off about something that didn't even happen. And invariably, I try to go back and verify these outrageous claims and it can't be done. But by then it doesn't matter because everyone read about it on the internet and they KNOW he said all of it.

I think the way he called her a slut was outrageous for outrageousness sake, and I think he baited people, and they took it. He seems to do that. But I also found the entire thing amusing. But then, I may not buy into the sob story of Georgetown law students not being able to afford contraception. That's apparently something we think is happening. It was on the internet.

RoyalTea
03-01-12, 07:45 PM
Breaking News on CNN (not a joke): Big box of condoms?

It' can't be a bomb. Everybody knows that (threats of) violence against someone with an opposing point of view is a game that progressives don't play.

kvrdave
03-01-12, 07:47 PM
We should pass a bomb control law. Then this sort of thing wouldn't happen.

Th0r S1mpson
03-01-12, 07:49 PM
We should pass a bomb control law. Then this sort of thing wouldn't happen.

That's pretty sexist towards women who want to blow up their own body.

Navinabob
03-01-12, 07:58 PM
Do you actually think you did that? He reports that she reports that 40% are struggling financially because they don't get free birth control (and we won't question that :lol: ). But the "news" article you posted said...

So, you think you backed that up?

Well, hell...who needs to back it up if it is dodged? We should assume we know what he would have said and call it news. It's in a news article, after all. They must know that is what he would have said.

My mistake. I was only going off the news article you posted which showed as representation (I assume) of what is being reported that Rush Limbaugh said, and we should be enraged over those things....apparently whether or not he actually said them...which we can't back up.

Fine. He did call her a slut. I've never said he isn't repugnant either. I don't like getting into the position of defending him. But this is what happens when people post some news article about what terrible thing Rush Limbaugh has said. Someone takes it (your blogger) and manufactured things that he didn't say. Then it gets spread even more, and everyone says that Rush said all kinds of crap that he didn't say. So then everyone is pissed off about something that didn't even happen. And invariably, I try to go back and verify these outrageous claims and it can't be done. But by then it doesn't matter because everyone read about it on the internet and they KNOW he said all of it.

I think the way he called her a slut was outrageous for outrageousness sake, and I think he baited people, and they took it. He seems to do that. But I also found the entire thing amusing. But then, I may not buy into the sob story of Georgetown law students not being able to afford contraception. That's apparently something we think is happening. It was on the internet.

Technically is wasn't a "news article" but I get your point. The article mentioned also included videos so I suppose the reader could have verified the editorialized content.

But, I do strongly agree with most everything you said in the last two paragraphs. So at least we will always have that together :toast:

kvrdave
03-01-12, 08:06 PM
:lol: And with that we have wasted an afternoon together. :up:

Josh-da-man
03-01-12, 08:07 PM
Breaking News on CNN (not a joke): Big box of condoms?

If it's a big "suspicious" package at Limbaugh's home, maybe it's a salad or an exorcise machine.

Groucho
03-01-12, 08:16 PM
CNN now says it was a "business opportunity". Why does Limbaugh hate capitalism? :mad:

Jason
03-01-12, 09:25 PM
And speaking of embarrassing prominent members of the Republican party:


He provide Youtube videos as proof. Too bad most of this crap was already debunked... I suppose next he'll show Youtube footage of the WTC being blown up from the inside because jet fuel doesn't melt metal. -screwy-

http://bmadore.squarespace.com/storage/post_images/fark/beat_dead_horse-PA_sm.jpg

dork
03-01-12, 09:49 PM
It' can't be a bomb. Everybody knows that (threats of) violence against someone with an opposing point of view is a game that progressives don't play.
Looks like you called it. :up: :up: :up:

Tommy Ceez
03-01-12, 09:53 PM
The real scandal here is how one OF TWO major parties has gone completely tone deaf on anything related to women. It has become so primal in its rhetoric that it has regressed to caveman level woman bashing.

Artman
03-01-12, 10:31 PM
Big box of condoms?

I love how the "progressives" set such a good example of democracy.

I tuned into a few hrs of Rushbo today (while working) so I heard most of the quoted comments. He is crude at times, I don't agree with much of anything, he's really just the fallback when I can't find anything else. I did smirk at his eagerness for someone to call and challenge him...sadly no one did.

Artman
03-01-12, 10:41 PM
But I also don’t care if the University wants to provide coverage for the pill or not.

That's what I don't get. Didn't realize universities even offered benefits... what a weak country we've become. I went to a college to learn a trade, I didn't expect them to wipe my ass for me.

Artman
03-01-12, 11:28 PM
Thinking about trying to see Romney tomorrow morning. It's a few miles from work, at the time I'm usually getting to work...it's Friday, literally the stars couldn't align any more as far as convenience. I'm not a star seeking kinda guy, the last time I did it was the Planet Hollywood opening in 96...Bruce Willis & band put on a good blues show.

What say the otters!? If I'm granted a handshake what shall my question be?

Tommy Ceez
03-02-12, 12:02 AM
That's what I don't get. Didn't realize universities even offered benefits... what a weak country we've become. I went to a college to learn a trade, I didn't expect them to wipe my ass for me.

I'm pretty sure these students are WORKING for the university as a condition of their education. You do realize that getting advanced degrees in the hopes of being an academic requires years of cheap university labor?

PenguinJoe
03-02-12, 12:02 AM
GOP attacks tampons?

http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/02/29/newest-gop-attack-on-women-just-say-no-to-tampons/

Josh-da-man
03-02-12, 12:22 AM
What say the otters!? If I'm granted a handshake what shall my question be?

Ask him if he wears magic underpants.

Artman
03-02-12, 12:24 AM
I'm pretty sure these students are WORKING for the university as a condition of their education. You do realize that getting advanced degrees in the hopes of being an academic requires years of cheap university labor?

Well, I'm sorry, I went to a technical college to learn a trade, so I'm unfortunately one of the unbaptised non-4yr groups. I realize this diminishes my pov, and has now placed me in the unwashed masses part of the community. A title I gladly accept btw.

dork
03-02-12, 12:48 AM
I realize this diminishes my pov, and has now placed me in the unwashed masses part of the community.
It certainly does, but nowhere near as much as saying this:

Bruce Willis & band put on a good blues show.

kvrdave
03-02-12, 12:53 AM
The real scandal here is how one OF TWO major parties has gone completely tone deaf on anything related to women. It has become so primal in its rhetoric that it has regressed to caveman level woman bashing.

The real travesty is how this all started with George Snufalufagus asking Santorum if the states have the power to make birth control illegal. Santorum continually said that no one was proposing that, or talking about that, etc. But if you frame a "what rights do the states have?" question around an issue dealing with women, you can't answer the states rights question because it isn't really one to begin with. It is a trap to make people talk about women's issues instead of states rights.

None of this has ever been about women's issues, but most people are too blind to see what it was about all along....a "gotcha'" question that had no correct answer.

Who has ever said that women should be denied birth control? It was never about birth control but about the federal government having the authority to tell employers what they must provide. It could have been about Viagra, but that would have gotten laughs instead of outrage, and apparently everyone is still falling for it and focused on some issue about women that didn't exist to begin with.

Fucking sheep.

JasonF
03-02-12, 01:00 AM
Fucking sheep.

I'm pretty sure Santorum objects to that, too.

Just so I understand, is it your position that this whole debate is about an abstract argument about religious freedom and government mandates, but that nobody really wants to deny women access to birth control?

Artman
03-02-12, 01:03 AM
The real travesty is how this all started with George Snufalufagus asking Santorum if the states have the power to make birth control illegal.

Dave doesn't have Snuffleupagus' back. :( Don't tell me I'm gonna show up in the morning and you won't be there for me...

I'm still taking that name for my MMO character!

Artman
03-02-12, 01:06 AM
It certainly does, but nowhere near as much as saying this:

Have you no shame! It was a fun night.... sure Bruce's hair was bleached for the fifth element but that doesn't discredit my musical taste!

kvrdave
03-02-12, 01:14 AM
I'm pretty sure Santorum objects to that, too.

Just so I understand, is it your position that this whole debate is about an abstract argument about religious freedom and government mandates, but that nobody really wants to deny women access to birth control?
Has anyone said that women should be denied access to birth control? Of course it isn't about anyone wanting to deny women access to birth control.

Where did the entire argument start? I've gone back to see where it could have begun, and it all leads back to Santorum and George. Santorum has said some wacky stuff about his own beliefs, but he has never once said that women shouldn't be allowed to have birth control.

Venusian
03-02-12, 08:38 AM
Yup. When she drowns her baby in a bathtub, nobody cares either.

Point being, the word "her" really isn't the issue here.

Some would agree

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

Venusian
03-02-12, 08:40 AM
Just so I understand, is it your position that this whole debate is about an abstract argument about religious freedom and government mandates, but that nobody really wants to deny women access to birth control?
i'm sure some want to deny women access to birth control, but that isn't what the debate is about. the debate is about religious freedom

Venusian
03-02-12, 08:41 AM
The real scandal here is how one OF TWO major parties has gone completely tone deaf on anything related to women. It has become so primal in its rhetoric that it has regressed to caveman level woman bashing.

Not wanting to force people to pay for something against their beliefs means you're tone deaf to women? Does that mean the other party is completely tone deaf to religious freedoms?

Groucho
03-02-12, 08:57 AM
i'm sure some want to deny women access to birth control, but that isn't what the debate is about. the debate is about religious freedomYes, just a quiet debate about religious freedom on which one side insists that women who use birth control are "sluts" who should shut their legs.

Venusian
03-02-12, 09:01 AM
Yes, just a quiet debate about religious freedom on which one side insists that women who use birth control are "sluts" who should shut their legs.

You're going to paint an entire side by Limbaugh? Seriously?

JasonF
03-02-12, 09:18 AM
Limbaugh is hardly the only person who has taken a misogynistic position on the kinds of women who use birth control. It's also not as if Limbaugh is some random man off the street with no standing in Republican circles.

I will also note that I think there's a reason this debate has focused on birth control and not, say, blood transfusions.

Venusian
03-02-12, 09:23 AM
Limbaugh is hardly the only person who has taken a misogynistic position on the kinds of women who use birth control. It's also not as if Limbaugh is some random man off the street with no standing in Republican circles.like i've said numerous times, i don't listen to limbaugh so i don't know what he says. but people totally fall for his shock jock crap. i'm surprised people still eat it up

I will also note that I think there's a reason this debate has focused on birth control and not, say, blood transfusions.
because the catholic constituency is much bigger than the jehovah's witness? are they forced to pay for blood transfusions?

Groucho
03-02-12, 09:24 AM
You're going to paint an entire side by Limbaugh? Seriously?One comment was from a radio personality who has millions of listeners who proudly say "Ditto" to everything he says. The other is from the main backer of a leading presidential candidate.

Dr Mabuse
03-02-12, 09:24 AM
Man... Limbaugh knows how to play people like a cheap fiddle and they just dance to his tune any time he wants them to.

Venusian
03-02-12, 09:27 AM
The "debate" is so much easier when you can just dismiss the other side as misogynists who want to keep women down.

No one seems to be addressing the religious freedom aspect.

Religious freedom is explicitly stated in the Constitution. The right to have your employer pay for your healthcare isn't. Seems like a simple "debate" to me.

Venusian
03-02-12, 09:28 AM
The other is from the main backer of a leading presidential candidate.
so now the donors to campaigns are considered the spokespersons for that half of the political spectrum?

Venusian
03-02-12, 09:34 AM
"Half of the country" I should say

Last week a CNN/ORC International poll demonstrated the stark division over the issue – 50% of those asked about the administration's policy disapprove, with 44% saying they approve.

dork
03-02-12, 09:39 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/us/politics/americans-divided-on-birth-control-coverage-poll-finds.html

Tommy Ceez
03-02-12, 09:42 AM
Not wanting to force people to pay for something against their beliefs means you're tone deaf to women? Does that mean the other party is completely tone deaf to religious freedoms?

No. Calling women who want birt control 'sluts', saying there is an emotional reason to not have women in combat, saying that Americans would be better served learning trades instead of snobbish education (where women's physical disadvantages are eliminated), blowing the abortion dog whistle, stating birth control harms women...all that speaks loud and clear to women...

Not so much to white guys from the deep woods.

Tommy Ceez
03-02-12, 09:46 AM
Well, I'm sorry, I went to a technical college to learn a trade, so I'm unfortunately one of the unbaptised non-4yr groups. I realize this diminishes my pov, and has now placed me in the unwashed masses part of the community. A title I gladly accept btw.

And we have a winner. The defensiveness of your response illustrates perfectly why Santorum says such ignorant shit. People out there honestly believe that a Bachelors makes you an elitist snob! This election is no longer about 1952...we have dialed it back to 1352!

Tommy Ceez
03-02-12, 10:08 AM
i'm sure some want to deny women access to birth control, but that isn't what the debate is about. the debate is about religious freedom

Lol. Let's see how that flys when a Muslim business tries to deny all coverage for anything woman related.

So if 'religious conscious' is so important to people, then the Blount amendment should also allow people opposed to war to not pay income taxes into the military during times of war? Rastafarians should be exempt from funding anti-pot police programs?

This is REALLY about the Theocrats using their last demographically favorable election cycle to stamp out dirty, dirty sex.

What a shitty generation the sun is setting on...hippies acted like ****s in their teens because they were jealous of their parents accomplishments, and Theocrats act like ****s in their 60's because their jealous they never got laid by hippies.

orangecrush
03-02-12, 10:11 AM
I think you should focus less on Georgetown students and more on, say, poor black women, but what do I know.The whole rant (my post was in response to that) was about Georgetown law students. Does Medicaid not cover the pill?

Sean O'Hara
03-02-12, 10:22 AM
That's YOUR problem, man!


Seriously, the most disturbing part of this whole healthcare debate is the everyone for themselves mentality and "too bad for you" sentiment in a modern, 21st century American society.

Sorry, I have a hard time sympathizing with anyone who would work for a Catholic organization and then complain that they're a bunch of backwards medieval fuckwits.

CRM114
03-02-12, 10:28 AM
Like a major university? :lol:

BTW, hasn't this issue already been resolved with the compromise Obama worked out a couple weeks ago?

Dr Mabuse
03-02-12, 10:34 AM
Obviously not!!1!

Rush Limbaugh is a "theocrat" who is trying to ban sluts!!1!

Tommy Ceez
03-02-12, 10:48 AM
http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lx37fg7dEV1r9oi2no1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ6IHWSU3BX3X7X3Q&Expires=1330789678&Signature=0nuCJ9%2BFXaxheAp9%2FA738a2Y5nM%3D

Tommy Ceez
03-02-12, 10:51 AM
Sorry, I have a hard time sympathizing with anyone who would work for a Catholic organization and then complain that they're a bunch of backwards medieval fuckwits.

Yes, anyone taking a job at a hospital should suffer for their choices.

orangecrush
03-02-12, 10:52 AM
One comment was from a radio personality who has millions of listeners who proudly say "Ditto" to everything he says. The other is from the main backer of a leading presidential candidate.So, no one who has any power to actually do anything about the issue and no Republican candidates or members of congress? Al notwithstanding, did Air American radio personalities represent every view of the Democratic Party?

aktick
03-02-12, 11:47 AM
You know, I thought WI was turning crazy and into the Florida of the north...but amazingly enough, most every Republican AND Democrat I know believes women have just as many rights as men, and have the freedom to do what they want in regards to contraception. Apparently all the Republicans in the other 49 states are all misogynists? Good to know.

Venusian
03-02-12, 11:59 AM
You know, I thought WI was turning crazy and into the Florida of the north...but amazingly enough, most every Republican AND Democrat I know believes women have just as many rights as men, and have the freedom to do what they want in regards to contraception.

I haven't seen anyone say anything to the contrary*

*note: i don't know what limbaugh said

Venusian
03-02-12, 12:00 PM
Not so much to white guys from the deep woods.so now it is a race issue?

CRM114
03-02-12, 12:08 PM
I haven't seen anyone say anything to the contrary*

*note: i don't know what limbaugh said

Sure, you are allowing one class of employers to selectively deny coverage of a single prescription drug that only effects women.

Venusian
03-02-12, 12:30 PM
Sure, you are allowing one class of employers to selectively deny coverage of a single prescription drug that only effects women.

and the women still have the right to do whatever they want and the employers do too.

CRM114
03-02-12, 12:39 PM
No, women who work for such an employer aren't able to get this drug through their plan like any other drug on their plan. Erythromycin, no problem Oxycontin, no problem. It's intrusive and inconvenient for the employee for a reason that has nothing whatsoever to do with the employee.

JasonF
03-02-12, 12:48 PM
*note: i don't know what limbaugh said

It's too bad nobody has posted a transcript of his remarks to this thread.

wishbone
03-02-12, 01:32 PM
5 things you need to know about the birth control mandate
by Julie Appleby
Kaiser Health News
3/2/2012

While controversy over one aspect of the Obama administration's contraception rule – whether and when religiously affiliated employers must comply – has dominated recent headlines, that debate has obscured other questions about how the rules will actually be implemented.

Under the health law, insured women will qualify for contraceptives without a copayment as part of a range of preventive medical services. But insurers and advocates are frustrated by the lack of details. They’re asking, for example, whether surgical procedures must also be covered at no additional cost to patients.

"The unknown answers to the myriad of questions remain very worrisome," says Judith Lichtman, senior advisor to the National Partnership for Women and Families, an advocacy group in Washington D.C.

America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the industry lobbying group, sent a list of questions to the Department of Health and Human Services (HSS) in September, asking for clarification on what types of contraceptives must be covered and how insurers should structure their policies. A spokesman for AHIP says the group is still awaiting answers to some questions.

Contraceptives are part of a package of women’s preventive health care services under the Affordable Care Act -- including screening for diabetes, counseling about sexually transmitted diseases and breast feeding support -- that must be provided without deductibles or co-pays in all new policies beginning Aug. 1. The package was drawn up after recommendations from the Institutes of Medicine (IOM). Other parts of the health law also provide no-cost-sharing preventive services for children and all adults, such as certain cancer screenings and immunizations.

Here are some questions, and answers when we could determine them, about the rules:

1. Are male-based contraceptive methods, such as vasectomies or condoms, covered by the rule?

An HHS official said last week that women’s preventive services guidelines apply to women only.

Guidelines issued by the Health Resources and Services Administration, part of HHS, require coverage without cost sharing for "all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity" as prescribed by a provider, according to the Federal Register.

The insurers' letter from September says they interpreted the rule to include only female-based contraception and that the requirement to waive co-payments "does not apply to methods and procedures intended for males."

But Adam Sonfield, senior public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research group, says the language is unclear, and it would be foolish to exclude vasectomies. For one thing, he says, they are less expensive and pose a lower risk of complications than female surgical sterilization methods. Plus, he says, waiving co-payments for services for one sex but not the other raises issues of discrimination.

“I can’t see how it would be in anyone’s interest to treat them differently,” says Sonfield.

2. Are over-the-counter products like female condoms, spermicides, sponges covered by the rules and, if so, will they require a prescription and how will insurers reimburse policyholders for purchases at retail stores?

Products that must be covered without cost-sharing include over-the-counter contraceptives when they are prescribed by doctors, the HHS official said Friday. But getting a prescription for such items raises other issues, say advocates and insurers.

Insurers wrote HHS in September that "it is unclear what specific over-the-counter products are to be included."

In addition, the letter warned that requiring a prescription for such items "would increase the burden on an already over-burdened primary care system and drive up administrative costs."

Insurers wrote the industry has no simple way to track and reimburse policyholders who purchase those items at retail stores. Setting up such systems, "could cost tens of millions" and exceed the cost of the products themselves.

Requiring a prescription should definitely not be required, says Lichtman, who said such a move would make using contraception more difficult and expensive for women.

3. If a hospital stay is required for surgical procedures, such as when a women gets her tubes tied, would the procedure be covered without cost sharing?

Insurers say it is not clear if hospitalization or complications that might occur from surgery would be covered without the patient paying a co-payment or a deductible because they are not considered preventive.

Sonfield at Guttmacher argues they would be covered.

"It’s like saying you have to cover blood transfusions, but not the hospital stay," he says. "That doesn’t make sense. If you’re covering it, you’re covering it all."

HHS has not weighed in on this question, but is expected to issue additional guidance in the coming months.

4. Will insurers be required to cover all products in a class, such as all IUDs, or all birth control pills? Can insurers require a co-pay for a brand-name drug if a generic is available?

Many insurers have "tiered" pharmacy benefits under which patients pay differing amounts for brand-name, as opposed to generic, products. Some require patients who choose a brand-name drug, when an equivalent generic is available, to pay the price difference between the two. Insurers say HHS guidance allows them to use such "reasonable medical management" to help control costs. That would include allowing insurers to charge patients for brand name drugs, it says.

Insurance coverage might steer women to costlier -- but more effective -- birth control

The HHS official confirmed that, but stressed the plan must "accommodate any individuals for whom it would be medically inappropriate by having a mechanism for waiving the otherwise applicable cost-sharing for the branded version."

Advocacy groups and insurers are in discussions with HHS over those and other questions related to preventive care, says Lichtman. Her group hopes the agency will soon release additional guidelines that “are broad enough so that all methods prescribed by doctors necessary for women’s health will be covered.”

5. Who will be covered for contraceptives without co-payments?

The package of women’s preventive care benefits must be offered in all new insurance policies sold to individuals and employers starting Aug. 1, as well as in most policies that renew afterwards on the date that they renew. There is an exception for insurance provided by certain nonprofit religious employers who object to birth control.

Twenty-eight states already require insurers to cover contraceptives, although large, self-insured employers are generally exempted from state rules. But a 2010 Kaiser Family Foundation/HRET survey of employers found that 85 percent of large firms offered prescription contraceptives in their plans, although they often required a patient co-pay or deductible. (KHN is a program of the foundation)

As for the types of procedures covered, the IOM cites a 2011 Bureau of Labor Statistics analysis of 3,900 employer plans, which found that policy documents representing about 70 percent of participants did not mention sterilization. But when sterilization services were mentioned, nearly 90 percent of the policies covered both female and male surgical sterilization procedures.http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/02/10554349-5-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-birth-control-mandate

This mandate seems to have supplied more questions than answers.

Venusian
03-02-12, 01:46 PM
No, women who work for such an employer aren't able to get this drug through their plan like any other drug on their plan. Erythromycin, no problem Oxycontin, no problem. It's intrusive and inconvenient for the employee for a reason that has nothing whatsoever to do with the employee.

it is intrusive for the employer too.

the women can buy the contraceptives elsewhere, or get it free from their health clinic or PP

Venusian
03-02-12, 01:47 PM
It's too bad nobody has posted a transcript of his remarks to this thread.

not wasting my time reading his crap

Navinabob
03-02-12, 01:56 PM
I like how some people feel that the Constitutional "religious freedom" that some people rally behind to support the view the an employer can selectively discriminate against someone was promised by our founding fathers and yet somehow miss seeing the rest of the picture. Our principle of religious freedom was based on the feeling of oppression and promised not only to allow you to practice your faith, but to also not have the faith of someone else forced upon you. You should not be discriminated against (denied an area of heathcare) because your employer is forcing a religious rule that you do not subscribe to.

"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

Venusian
03-02-12, 02:04 PM
I like how some people feel that the Constitutional "religious freedom" that some people rally behind to support the view the an employer can selectively discriminate against someone was promised by our founding fathers and yet somehow miss seeing the rest of the picture. Our principle of religious freedom was based on the feeling of oppression and promised not only to allow you to practice your faith, but to also not have the faith of someone else forced upon you. You should not be discriminated against (denied an area of heathcare) because your employer is forcing a religious rule that you do not subscribe to.

No one is denying healthcare. No one is selectively discriminating. Just becasue you say it, doesn't make it true.

orangecrush
03-02-12, 02:04 PM
I like how some people feel that the Constitutional "religious freedom" that some people rally behind to support the view the an employer can selectively discriminate against someone was promised by our founding fathers and yet somehow miss seeing the rest of the picture. Our principle of religious freedom was based on the feeling of oppression and promised not only to allow you to practice your faith, but to also not have the faith of someone else forced upon you. You should not be discriminated against (denied an area of heathcare) because your employer is forcing a religious rule that you do not subscribe to.To be fair, most of the founding father's level of indignation at what all you might include in your definition of discrimination would probably be much less than yours.

CRM114
03-02-12, 02:10 PM
it is intrusive for the employer too.

the women can buy the contraceptives elsewhere, or get it free from their health clinic or PP

No it isn't. An employer contracts with SoAndSo BlueCross and enrolls their employees in Prescription Plan A with no caveats. It's more convenient for both parties and the employer never has to know who is actually prescribed any particular drug - you know, because it's none of their business.

Th0r S1mpson
03-02-12, 02:13 PM
because your employer is forcing a religious rule that you do not subscribe to.

Sorry, but if you work for a religious institution, you have to acknowledge that the institution holds beliefs that you are going to need to abide by to some extent. If you are not comfortable with their rules, you really shouldn't be working for that institution.

Adultery isn't illegal, and I would say we need to defend the right to commit adultery even though I diagree with it. But if a church wants to fire their pastor because he commits adultery, you bet I'm going to defend that right as well. It doesn't mean I think they should necessarily, but I believe they should have that right.

Religious organizations and companies are necessarily different.

The issue of contraception seems different because most of us (myself included) feel that it's a little silly to even debate. But it's a well-known and stringent belief within Catholicism, whether people choose to practice it or not. That's between them and their church. But the church shouldn't be forced to pay for it.

Remember, the lack of contraception coverage wasn't even an issue prior to these new rules.

CRM114
03-02-12, 02:16 PM
You obviously never worked at a college or university. Just because it is an entity founded on religious principles does not mean by any measure that employees there subscribe to said religion. It's absolutely ludicrous to assume a university is only going to hire Catholic professors or librarians or janitors or security guards. Furthermore, it is equally ludicrous to assume some seeking a job would take that into consideration unless the university is some kooky one like Liberty or Bob Jones.

Tommy Ceez
03-02-12, 02:19 PM
so now it is a race issue?

Wait, Republicans are courting someone besides white men? Because if they are, they suck at it.

Tracer Bullet
03-02-12, 02:20 PM
Well, I'm sorry, I went to a technical college to learn a trade, so I'm unfortunately one of the unbaptised non-4yr groups. I realize this diminishes my pov, and has now placed me in the unwashed masses part of the community. A title I gladly accept btw.

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of your martyrdom.

Tommy Ceez
03-02-12, 02:23 PM
Sorry, but if you work for a religious institution, you have to acknowledge that the institution holds beliefs that you are going to need to abide by to some extent. If you are not comfortable with their rules, you really shouldn't be working for that institution.

Adultery isn't illegal, and I would say we need to defend the right to commit adultery even though I diagree with it. But if a church wants to fire their pastor because he commits adultery, you bet I'm going to defend that right as well. It doesn't mean I think they should necessarily, but I believe they should have that right.

Religious organizations and companies are necessarily different.

The issue of contraception seems different because most of us (myself included) feel that it's a little silly to even debate. But it's a well-known and stringent belief within Catholicism, whether people choose to practice it or not. That's between them and their church. But the church shouldn't be forced to pay for it.

Remember, the lack of contraception coverage wasn't even an issue prior to these new rules.

The Blunt amendment didn't specify religious organizations.

And BTW I honestly don't care if women buy the pill in Target or via their plan...it's the suicidal stupidity of the Republicans that amazes me and scares me.

And BTW, would you support St Johns University if they fired a groundskeeper because he had pre-marital sex?

Venusian
03-02-12, 02:29 PM
No it isn't. An employer contracts with SoAndSo BlueCross and enrolls their employees in Prescription Plan A with no caveats. It's more convenient for both parties and the employer never has to know who is actually prescribed any particular drug - you know, because it's none of their business.

then why are they required to pay for it if it isn't their business?

CRM114
03-02-12, 02:32 PM
They are required to supply a prescription plan. Again, it is not our problem that the US has decided they want an employer-provided healthcare system and not a government-provided healthcare system.

Tommy Ceez
03-02-12, 02:41 PM
That's basically the point. This healthcare plan is basically Republicare. Where were these caveats when they invented it?

Are there any objections on the grounds of religious conscience in Medicare?

Th0r S1mpson
03-02-12, 02:50 PM
You obviously never worked at a college or university. Just because it is an entity founded on religious principles does not mean by any measure that employees there subscribe to said religion. It's absolutely ludicrous to assume a university is only going to hire Catholic professors or librarians or janitors or security guards.

Then the University probably should not hold them to Catholic standards, or they risk an employment and funding problem.


And BTW, would you support St Johns University if they fired a groundskeeper because he had pre-marital sex?

I would support their right to do so, but I wouldn't support the firing. And I imagine a lot of people would hold it against St Johns University, perhaps enough for them to regret doing so.

Tommy Ceez
03-02-12, 02:57 PM
I would support their right to do so, but I wouldn't support the firing. And I imagine a lot of people would hold it against St Johns University, perhaps enough for them to regret doing so.

If they did it, they would be sued. It's illegal, regardless of religious conscience.

Tommy Ceez
03-02-12, 03:02 PM
I don't think people realize that there are 611 catholic hospitals, 244 catholic universities, and 7000 catholic schools in this country alone.

Th0r S1mpson
03-02-12, 03:05 PM
I don't think people realize that there are 611 catholic hospitals, 244 catholic universities, and 7000 catholic schools in this country alone.

Sweet googly moogly. That would mean there are at least 10,000 catholics! -eek-

Tracer Bullet
03-02-12, 03:14 PM
I don't think people realize that there are 611 catholic hospitals, 244 catholic universities, and 7000 catholic schools in this country alone.

I had to go to the emergency room last night and they asked my religion. I thought that was weird.

wishbone
03-02-12, 03:20 PM
Blood transfusions and certain religions?

kvrdave
03-02-12, 03:21 PM
Why don't we just have the government mandate that Georgetown University must lower it's tuition by $1,000 a year, and then the students could afford the $1,000 a year for birth control?

kvrdave
03-02-12, 03:25 PM
I had to go to the emergency room last night and they asked my religion. I thought that was weird.

The correct answer is "whatever one gets the best care.....what religion is the doctor? I'm that."

Th0r S1mpson
03-02-12, 04:30 PM
I had to go to the emergency room last night and they asked my religion. I thought that was weird.

Same when I last went to the ER. It seemed really strange to me. But yeah, it's so they can be sensitive to any preferences you might have in treatment, so it's a standard question. It also affects their course of action when you're about to die (contacting a local church/mosque/spaghetti factory). I felt like telling them it's none of their business... not sure why. :lol:

I assume you're mostly alright now, since you're posting?

How long was your ER wait?

Numanoid
03-02-12, 04:34 PM
Once when I was in the ER with some suspected heart issues (false alarm), a minister came in for a while to talk to me. Maybe they ask so they know which chaplain to send in (or keep out).

Tracer Bullet
03-02-12, 04:34 PM
The correct answer is "whatever one gets the best care.....what religion is the doctor? I'm that."

:lol:

Tracer Bullet
03-02-12, 04:35 PM
Same when I last went to the ER. It seemed really strange to me. But yeah, it's so they can be sensitive to any preferences you might have in treatment, so it's a standard question. It also affects their course of action when you're about to die (contacting a local church/mosque/spaghetti factory). I felt like telling them it's none of their business... not sure why. :lol:

I assume you're mostly alright now, since you're posting?

How long was your ER wait?

Yeah, I'm fine. I cut my knuckle on a glass and ended up needing 6 stitches. It's more annoying that anything else--although I did get to see bone, which was great!

To get in to see a doctor took about 4 hours.

Navinabob
03-02-12, 04:36 PM
To be fair, most of the founding father's level of indignation at what all you might include in your definition of discrimination would probably be much less than yours.

Agreed, but, you also have to understand that people back then had a pretty strong backlash against the Puritans who immediately set up their own religions standards after the US was colonized. Most early colonist came to America to work, but once they got here religion became a big deal because religious laws were used as social laws. The Puritans wanted everyone to worship and abide by Puritan standards of living (including standards of employment). Nonconformists were fined, banished, whipped, and even imprisoned... It took the Anglicans to spearhead a wide backlash, that the working class and poor embraced and got behind, that was one of our reasons for our standards of freedom & separation.

I don't think it is a fair comparison to judge the cultural standards of today with the standards of the time back then. Our laws have gone through many years of revisions and our culture is radically different. Racism and sexism were part of the institution back then and was something that was taken as a given. But would they be offended by the spirit of the law (as opposed to the letter), I think they would.

Probably...

Maybe...

Fuck, I've no idea. Why'd I even tried to answer this one in the first place? :doh:

Tracer Bullet
03-02-12, 04:36 PM
Once when I was in the ER with some suspected heart issues (false alarm), a minister came in for a while to talk to me. Maybe they ask so they know which chaplain to send in (or keep out).

This was a hospital in Bushwick and there was a lady handcuffed to a chair right outside the examining room I was in, as well as assorted homeless gentlemen sleeping in the waiting room. Somehow I doubt that was the reason. :lol:

orangecrush
03-02-12, 04:42 PM
I don't think people realize that there are 611 catholic hospitals, 244 catholic universities, and 7000 catholic schools in this country alone.That can't be true. I have been told that religious institutions only ever do bad things.

orangecrush
03-02-12, 04:43 PM
I had to go to the emergency room last night and they asked my religion. I thought that was weird.I hope all is well with your health.

dork
03-02-12, 04:49 PM
I have been told that religious institutions only ever do bad things.
Isn't lying a sin?

Dr Mabuse
03-02-12, 05:10 PM
Isn't lying a sin?

...so be sure it's true when you say "I love you", it's a sin... to tell... a lie.

orangecrush
03-02-12, 06:12 PM
Isn't lying a sin?Sarcasm isn't.

wmansir
03-02-12, 07:33 PM
President Barack Obama called a law student on Friday after she was branded a "slut" (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/02/us-usa-contraception-obama-idUSTRE8211Q120120302)

It's stories like these that make me miss president Clinton.

Navinabob
03-02-12, 07:47 PM
President Barack Obama called a law student on Friday after she was branded a "slut" (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/02/us-usa-contraception-obama-idUSTRE8211Q120120302)

It's stories like these that make me miss president Clinton.

Clinton would have made a house-call and leave a $50 under her pillow.

Jason
03-02-12, 08:09 PM
I had to go to the emergency room last night and they asked my religion. I thought that was weird.

That'll gives you a sinking feeling, won't it? Am I that close to checking out they need to see if they can find my preferred holy man? I just thought I ate some expired food.

kvrdave
03-02-12, 08:11 PM
Clinton would have made a house-call and leave a $50 under her pillow.

That'll gives you a sinking feeling, won't it? Am I that close to checking out they need to see if they can find my preferred holy man? I just thought I ate some expired food.

:lol:

JasonF
03-02-12, 09:30 PM
although I did get to see bone, which was great!

You gay guys always have a one-track mind. -ohbfrank-

Josh-da-man
03-02-12, 09:54 PM
Yes, just a quiet debate about religious freedom on which one side insists that women who use birth control are "sluts" who should shut their legs.

Rush gets angry when other people have sex because his cock has been buried in ten inches or rancid blubber and he hasn't been laid since the Carter administration.

Screwadu
03-02-12, 10:11 PM
Something I am not understanding. Planned Parenthood states that Birth control pills...cost about $15–$50 a month (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-pill-4228.htm).
And Fluke said in her testimony that some students at Georgetown spend as much as $1,000 per year (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/obama-calls-sandra-fluke-georgetown-law-student-assailed-by-rush-limbaugh/2012/03/02/gIQAIoW0mR_blog.html).
So even at the maximum of $50 a month, that's only $600 a year. How could it cost as much as $1000?

Numanoid
03-03-12, 12:37 AM
This was a hospital in BushwickI love how you throw that out there, like any of us know where the fuck that is.

Tommy Ceez
03-03-12, 01:22 AM
Something I am not understanding. Planned Parenthood states that Birth control pills...cost about $15–$50 a month (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-pill-4228.htm).
And Fluke said in her testimony that some students at Georgetown spend as much as $1,000 per year (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/obama-calls-sandra-fluke-georgetown-law-student-assailed-by-rush-limbaugh/2012/03/02/gIQAIoW0mR_blog.html).
So even at the maximum of $50 a month, that's only $600 a year. How could it cost as much as $1000?

Those students are HUGE sluts

Artman
03-03-12, 01:54 AM
I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of your martyrdom.

Did you read my post? I proudly proclaim I was not on the receiving end of any mistreatment.... I went to school for... (drum roll) school! Imagine that... I'm quite capable of handling my finances and personal hygiene on my own.

Edit: Btw, my monthly expenses went up $100 for my health plan and parking this yr. I don't like it, but I'm perfectly free to find another job that offers better benefits if I want.

kvrdave
03-03-12, 03:19 AM
Rush gets angry when other people have sex because his cock has been buried in ten inches or rancid blubber and he hasn't been laid since the Carter administration.

I understand that he is fat and that is why he is wrong. Though it does make me wonder why we should condemn him for calling a gal a slut when all we can say about him is that he is fat.

MoviePage
03-03-12, 05:12 AM
That's far from all we can say about him.

slop101
03-03-12, 10:53 AM
I understand that he is fat and that is why he is wrong. Though it does make me wonder why we should condemn him for calling a gal a slut when all we can say about him is that he is fat.It's weird how kvrdave always keeps jumping to Rush's defense, yet keeps proclaiming how he's not a fan nor even a listener of his. It's been firmly established that Rush is a fat hypocritical lying piece of shit, and no amount of defense from a "non-fan" can prove otherwise.

Sean O'Hara
03-03-12, 11:09 AM
It's weird how kvrdave always keeps jumping to Rush's defense, yet keeps proclaiming how he's not a fan nor even a listener of his. It's been firmly established that Rush is a fat hypocritical lying piece of shit, and no amount of defense from a "non-fan" can prove otherwise.

But he does have a point in that Limbaugh being fat is irrelevant to the conversation. I bet he smells like shit and talcum powder too, but there's no point in bringing it up in a discussion about why he's wrong.

Tommy Ceez
03-03-12, 11:44 AM
Or that Oxy abuse has turned his bowel movements to bloody slush

Psi
03-03-12, 01:00 PM
Something I am not understanding. Planned Parenthood states that Birth control pills...cost about $15–$50 a month (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-pill-4228.htm).
And Fluke said in her testimony that some students at Georgetown spend as much as $1,000 per year (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/obama-calls-sandra-fluke-georgetown-law-student-assailed-by-rush-limbaugh/2012/03/02/gIQAIoW0mR_blog.html).
So even at the maximum of $50 a month, that's only $600 a year. How could it cost as much as $1000?

I don't know the price difference, but people on the pill don't take one each time they have sex, so this idea of college women having "so much sex that they need to spend thousands" is wrong. Maybe they think "too many" women have sex, but that's not the same as saying they have "too much sex".

Duran
03-03-12, 01:23 PM
Leave it to Rush to take a valid point and turn everyone against it.

Ms. Fluke chose to go to Georgetown, a Catholic, private institution. Why should they be forced to provide her with contraceptive coverage?

I don't get her logic. If students are spending $1000 year for contraceptives (absurd, really), how is making Georgetown provide insurance coverage going to help that? Someone has to pay for it, right? It doesn't suddenly become free just because insurance covers it. Or does she expect others to pick up the tab for her wish to have coverage for entirely voluntary medicine?

Tommy Ceez
03-03-12, 09:33 PM
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/03/a_statement_from_rush

For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week.* In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit? In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.

My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.

Wow! Someone finally realized that this entire issue was a ticking demographic time bomb

MoviePage
03-04-12, 03:49 AM
Bullshit non-apology. Sounds to me like he's feeling the sting over the loss of ad revenue. He "did not mean a personal attack"? :lol:

Besides calling her a "slut," he also called her a "prostitute," said that he wanted her to make sex tapes and post them online, and speculated that she only had a problem paying for contraception because she was having "so much sex."

What a disgusting pig. At least maybe now the Republican candidates can feel safe enough to drop their deafening silence and weigh in with an opinion on the issue. Ah well, the damage has been done. Really, all Obama has needed to do this election cycle is sit back and watch the opposition implode. I suppose if he really wanted to do some work, he could boldly come out in favor of weekends and cake so that the Republicans can immediately launch their anti-weekend and anti-cake campaigns.

The Bus
03-04-12, 06:04 AM
This was a hospital in Bushwick and there was a lady handcuffed to a chair right outside the examining room I was in, as well as assorted homeless gentlemen sleeping in the waiting room. Somehow I doubt that was the reason. :lol:

Why were you in Bushwick punching glass?

Sheff
03-04-12, 08:55 AM
Something I am not understanding. Planned Parenthood states that Birth control pills...cost about $15–$50 a month (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-pill-4228.htm).
And Fluke said in her testimony that some students at Georgetown spend as much as $1,000 per year (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/obama-calls-sandra-fluke-georgetown-law-student-assailed-by-rush-limbaugh/2012/03/02/gIQAIoW0mR_blog.html).
So even at the maximum of $50 a month, that's only $600 a year. How could it cost as much as $1000?

I just looked up the cost on my insurance's website for a popular birth control pill. And for what it's worth, we have pretty good insurance.

30-Day Supply 90-Day Supply
You Pay You Pay
SEASONALE 0.15-0.03 MG TAB, brand $120.00

$1,440.00 per year

Sheff
03-04-12, 09:03 AM
I just looked up the cost on my insurance's website for a popular birth control pill. And for what it's worth, we have pretty good insurance.

30-Day Supply 90-Day Supply
You Pay You Pay
SEASONALE 0.15-0.03 MG TAB, brand $120.00

$1,440.00 per year

For a more eye-opening look, here's the same drug (3-month supply) without any insurance coverage.

Seasonale - 3 disp pack $741.95 - save 20% ($184.94) (Drugstore.com)

And if women shouldn't be getting such new, fancy drugs that stop their period for 3 months and provide other health benefits, here's a 'regular' one (1-month supply):

Yasmin - 28 tablets $85.99 - save 11% ($11.04) (Drugstore.com)

Sluts.

Tracer Bullet
03-04-12, 11:19 AM
Why were you in Bushwick punching glass?

Because I'm angry.

wmansir
03-04-12, 11:28 AM
@Sheff

First, you have the 3-pack for Seasonale, each pack is 3 months worth of pills. Second, there are generics for both of those that cost a fraction of the brand name.

Some women prefer the brand name, but it's mostly a moot point in this discussion because the insurance mandate only requires insurance to cover the full cost the generic, if it is available and effective. The exact rules for this are not clear at this time.

shadowhawk2020
03-04-12, 11:31 AM
@Sheff

First, you have the 3-pack for Seasonale, each pack is 3 months worth of pills. Second, there are generics for both of those that cost a fraction of the brand name.

Some women prefer the brand name, but it's mostly a moot point in this discussion because the insurance mandate only requires insurance to cover the full cost the generic, if it is available.

So the mandate doesn't cover a fraction of the name brand?

My wife's endometriosis is helped by her birth control. For some reason the generic was not as effective.

wmansir
03-04-12, 11:43 AM
So the mandate doesn't cover a fraction of the name brand?

My wife's endometriosis is helped by her birth control. For some reason the generic was not as effective.
The insurance company can charge a co-pay for the difference in cost, so they will cover the generic's cost.

The rules for when the insurance company has to pay in full for the brand name are not clear at this time. HHS has said that the company must have a mechanism in place for waiving these fees for individuals for whom the generic is "medically inappropriate".

wmansir
03-04-12, 12:50 PM
My wife's endometriosis is helped by her birth control.
This isn't directed at you, shadowhawk, but your post just reminded me.

I noticed a common response from the from the Fluke kerfuffle is that women take bc for more than just contraception. To me that is largely irrelevant because the mandate comes from the obamacare requirement for full coverage of preventative services. In other words, the mandate is for birth control purposes, not for the treatment of other conditions. In fact, I wonder if insurance companies can charge their normal prescription drug co-payments for non-contraceptive usage?

Artman
03-04-12, 03:20 PM
For those who currently take advantage of the BC coverage - would it be the end of the world if your job benefits changed so that your current plan was considered the "deluxe plan" and now cost about $60 a month? That's what happened to me this year, and I decided to keep my current plan (and job) and pay the extra cost. For something as important as BC, wouldn't it really be a non issue to be able to work it into your budget?

Duran
03-04-12, 04:01 PM
For those who currently take advantage of the BC coverage - would it be the end of the world if your job benefits changed so that your current plan was considered the "deluxe plan" and now cost about $60 a month? That's what happened to me this year, and I decided to keep my current plan (and job) and pay the extra cost. For something as important as BC, wouldn't it really be a non issue to be able to work it into your budget?

Where are you getting coverage for $60/month?

mosquitobite
03-04-12, 04:08 PM
This isn't directed at you, shadowhawk, but your post just reminded me.

I noticed a common response from the from the Fluke kerfuffle is that women take bc for more than just contraception. To me that is largely irrelevant because the mandate comes from the obamacare requirement for full coverage of preventative services. In other words, the mandate is for birth control purposes, not for the treatment of other conditions. In fact, I wonder if insurance companies can charge their normal prescription drug co-payments for non-contraceptive usage?

Not that this discussion even makes sense in the republican primary thread...but...

Birth control would still be preventative in the case of endometriosis. Untreated it spreads throughout the body. Birth control would "prevent" spread and more serious, more costly insurance procedures.

Jason
03-04-12, 04:55 PM
So, we're having a discussion about how much politics can enter into a patient's health care plan, and the republican candidates want to get in-between the patient and the doctor to decide what can and can't be paid for?

Just want to make sure I got this right.

wmansir
03-04-12, 04:56 PM
Not that this discussion even makes sense in the republican primary thread...but...

Birth control would still be preventative in the case of endometriosis. Untreated it spreads throughout the body. Birth control would "prevent" spread and more serious, more costly insurance procedures.
That may be true but the law doesn't cover all preventative treatments, only specific services recommended by the US Preventative Services Task force. The majority of these services are basic screenings and counseling. For adults, I believe the only other medication covered is asprin for cardio-vascular disease and flu shots.

I was actually wondering if infertile women would be covered and it appears my suspicions were correct. The HHS rules (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=HHS_FRDOC_0001-0443) say that the rule only applies to "women with reproductive capacity".

wmansir
03-04-12, 05:02 PM
So, we're having a discussion about how much politics can enter into a patient's health care plan, and the republican candidates want to get in-between the patient and the doctor to decide what can and can't be paid for?

Just want to make sure I got this right.
Actually, you have it exactly backwards. Obamacare already has the government deciding what can and can't be paid for. Those candidates that want to repeal obamacare wish to reduce government interference.

Artman
03-04-12, 05:31 PM
Where are you getting coverage for $60/month?

Premera, offered through work. Not happy with the extra cost but it's not exactly breaking the bank. But I imagine that'll be the way it goes for a lot of people... regardless of the specific benefits, most people's plans should start going up in price (even if you're receiving it from an employer).

Kinda makes the narrowly framed religious organization benefits a non-issue imo.

PenguinJoe
03-04-12, 09:05 PM
Someone please explain to me with birth control and contraceptive devices are even an issue? I mean all I've been hearing about since high school is about condoms and birth control and having safe sex and all of the sudden this is an issue? And suddenly a woman that doesn't want to have children or have any more children is a slut? This is the dumbest shit I've ever heard.

Jason
03-04-12, 09:13 PM
Someone please explain to me with birth control and contraceptive devices are even an issue? I mean all I've been hearing about since high school is about condoms and birth control and having safe sex and all of the sudden this is an issue? And suddenly a woman that doesn't want to have children or have any more children is a slut? This is the dumbest shit I've ever heard.

Appointing yourself the arbiter of the moral high ground is easier than talking about the economy, since the only thing they have to offer are more tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation that got us in this mess in the first place.

classicman2
03-04-12, 09:31 PM
Appointing yourself the arbiter of the moral high ground is easier than talking about the economy, since the only thing they have to offer are more tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation that got us in this mess in the first place.

You don't really believe that, do you? It's not that simple.

Tommy Ceez
03-04-12, 10:42 PM
You don't really believe that, do you? It's not that simple.

Explain the complexity

kvrdave
03-05-12, 02:21 AM
Appointing yourself the arbiter of the moral high ground is easier than talking about the economy, since the only thing they have to offer are more tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation that got us in this mess in the first place.

Ah, so that's why higher taxes and more regulation have put us on the path to success.

CRM114
03-05-12, 09:23 AM
entirely voluntary medicine

Um, I'd say the majority of prescription drug usage is "voluntary."

CRM114
03-05-12, 09:27 AM
So, we're having a discussion about how much politics can enter into a patient's health care plan, and the republican candidates want to get in-between the patient and the doctor to decide what can and can't be paid for?

Just want to make sure I got this right.

It is quite the interesting dynamic at work. Obamacare says everyone is the same, everyone gets the same coverage. Now the Repubs want to differentiate and analyze.

Ah, so that's why higher taxes and more regulation have put us on the path to success.

Higher taxes? Where?

classicman2
03-05-12, 09:41 AM
Obmacare takes, who knows how much money, from Medicare which has already trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilties. It's rather disingenious, IMO, for the Democrats who claim to support Medicare to be in favor of that portion of Obamacare.

CRM114
03-05-12, 09:43 AM
Nice talking point.

orangecrush
03-05-12, 09:49 AM
So, we're having a discussion about how much politics can enter into a patient's health care plan, and the republican candidates want to get in-between the patient and the doctor to decide what can and can't be paid for?

Just want to make sure I got this right.I think the Republican's who don't want to force religious institutions to pay for practices they find morally objectionable would argue that the patient can pay for any services they want from a doctor.

CRM114
03-05-12, 09:58 AM
Health coverage should be secular. Then the religious person can choose what he or she wants to deny themselves. Why complicate matters?

wendersfan
03-05-12, 10:50 AM
I think the Republican's who don't want to force religious institutions to pay for practices they find morally objectionable would argue that the patient can pay for any services they want from a doctor.But employees are already paying. Yes, many people get health insurance through their employers, but they pay into the system themselves. And it's not like I can pick and choose which services I want to access based on need or morals or anything else. It's all or nothing.* Why should employers get to choose which services they'll provide, but employees not get to choose which ones they'll pay for?


*True, my employer offers several tiers of service, but it's not about which services, it's about caps and co-pays.

Th0r S1mpson
03-05-12, 11:22 AM
Health coverage should be secular.

So don't force it on religious institutions. This is only an issue because of the mandate.

Again, why is an employer the entity required to provide coverage for people? I understand it as an incentive to work for your company. But if I want to start a widget company, what does that have to do with providing health insurance?

CRM114
03-05-12, 11:28 AM
Force? I think we are just trying to keep up with the rest of the industrialized world in trying to care for our people - all of the people.

And the questions you ask are many decades too late. The employer system is the system and tens of millions of people rely on said system. We're open to Single Payer but then there is the outrage at that concept as well.

Th0r S1mpson
03-05-12, 11:34 AM
I much prefer single payer if you can get the costs down first. I've said that before.

I know there are/were plenty of jobs out there that don't provide health insurance. The fact that tens of millions of people have coverage through their employer is a good thing. The fact that they rely on it is not. There are obviously other ways to handle the issue, and the result we ended up with is absurd. The fact that we are debating contraception is evidence of that.

Rather than arguing about how best to eat rotten apples, we should realize that's what we've been given, send them back and try to grow fresh ones.

wendersfan
03-05-12, 12:11 PM
So don't force it on religious institutions. This is only an issue because of the mandate.But as soon as "religious" institutions become businesses and hire employees using the same labor market as other institutions, the ball game changes. If a church wants to be an all-volunteer staffed organization then they can do what the want. But they want it both ways. Look, if Georgetown University wants an exemption, fine - simply stop accepting students that receive federal aid, don't allow any faculty or grad students to apply for or receive federal research grants, etc. Yet somehow I don't see that happening.

kvrdave
03-05-12, 12:17 PM
But employees are already paying. Yes, many people get health insurance through their employers, but they pay into the system themselves. And it's not like I can pick and choose which services I want to access based on need or morals or anything else. It's all or nothing.* Why should employers get to choose which services they'll provide, but employees not get to choose which ones they'll pay for?


*True, my employer offers several tiers of service, but it's not about which services, it's about caps and co-pays.

Man, this is painful for me to read. Why should employers get to choose which services they'll provide? Because they are the employer who offers the benefit. It is a benefit to have them give health care. There are likely other employers that offer different benefits. Why should they be able to choose 2 weeks of vacation when others offer 6 weeks? Why can universities choose how much to charge for tuition? Why can't the government just take over those businesses and universities and run them better? Well, hell....they basically have. Maybe not the universities, as those are places where the current administration needs to keep the love flowing.

orangecrush
03-05-12, 12:23 PM
Health coverage should be secular. Then the religious person can choose what he or she wants to deny themselves. Why complicate matters?Health insurance whether provided by the state or a private company doesn't cover everything anywhere in the world. Someone who is not the person receiving treatment decides if a procedure or drug will be covered.

X
03-05-12, 12:27 PM
Look, if Georgetown University wants an exemption, fine - simply stop accepting students that receive federal aid,Just wondering, is that one factor enough to get the government into their business? If so, what about grocery stores that accept food stamps?

kvrdave
03-05-12, 12:27 PM
Health insurance shouldn't be something provided by employers. That is probably the biggest reason the cost is so high. They ought to give people the money and let them buy their own insurance. Why not simply let religious organizations give everyone an extra $50 a month and let them decide if they want to spend it on contraception? Well, obviously because we are more concerned about forcing everyone to do what we want, and then complain when the other side is making us do what they want. Heaven forbid we all do what we prefer....we need the government to dictate how we live.

Groucho
03-05-12, 12:29 PM
Health insurance shouldn't be something provided by employers.I knew you'd come around to supporting a single-payer system sooner or later!

orangecrush
03-05-12, 12:32 PM
But employees are already paying. Yes, many people get health insurance through their employers, but they pay into the system themselves. And it's not like I can pick and choose which services I want to access based on need or morals or anything else. It's all or nothing.* Why should employers get to choose which services they'll provide, but employees not get to choose which ones they'll pay for?


*True, my employer offers several tiers of service, but it's not about which services, it's about caps and co-pays.In practice, a small group of people who work for the employer look at various plans and pick what the employer will offer. It is very rare for a company to offer multiple plans. The real benefit of employer provided health plans is that pooling allows for premium reductions. If you offer more plans, you dilute the pool and it is less beneficial. The employees choose to go with their employers plans because the employer usually pays a part of the premium as a part of the compensation package and the pooling allows for cheaper plans than individual policies. I suppose you could include the entire company when the plan is being selected, but that seems a bit impractical.

The people who really get screwed, so to speak, are post menopausal woman who have to pay for coverage’s relating to pregnancy (which are very expensive) and don’t have the option to opt-out of a coverage they will never need. But that one of the trade offs you make when you are in a group.

wendersfan
03-05-12, 12:35 PM
Just wondering, is that one factor enough to get the government into their business? If so, what about grocery stores that accept food stamps?Hard to say. But this is really the tip of the iceberg when dealing with the fundamental disconnect in current American politics - the lack of understanding or acknowledgement of how much of the federal budget goes to the middle class.

I'm willing to say that, if you accept a penny of federal money, you accept the regulations that accompany it. Only when and if people understand the ramifications of federal aid/intrusion (however you want to look at it) will they understand the complexities of the budget problems we have.

kvrdave
03-05-12, 12:37 PM
I knew you'd come around to supporting a single-payer system sooner or later!

Yes, but it's called an "individual payer" system.

wendersfan
03-05-12, 12:39 PM
Man, this is painful for me to read. Why should employers get to choose which services they'll provide? Because they are the employer who offers the benefit.Obviously I know the literal answer, I'm just asking at a more philosophical level why one actor (the employer) who is paying for the insurance gets to decide its contents, but the other actor (the employee) who's paying for it not. Why is it not a la carte.

(Bear in mind, it's for basically this reason that I no longer have cable, so I know it's a losing battle.) :lol:

Groucho
03-05-12, 12:40 PM
Yes, but it's called an "individual payer" system.But without pooling (see orangecrush's post above) costs would be astronomical. I know you can afford it (must be nice), but for the rest of us there's not a lot of money for insurance, and our EBT benefits are blown on lobster.

Th0r S1mpson
03-05-12, 12:42 PM
But as soon as "religious" institutions become businesses and hire employees using the same labor market as other institutions, the ball game changes.

Actually, the ball game changed when the Obama administration added new rules that violate distinctions that were previously honored. Why is that being consistently overlooked here? There was no contraceptive coverage before, and no outrage over that fact.

Or maybe I'm wrong. Were people at Georgetown University receiving contraception coverage before this administration, and now Republicans are taking it away?

Dr Mabuse
03-05-12, 12:49 PM
But without pooling (see orangecrush's post above) costs would be astronomical.

Yeah... I mean right now, due to the corruption that allows the pharma, medical equipment, and hospital corporations to screw America with often exponentially higher prices than anywhere else on Earth, jacked up for no other reason than they can get away it because they grease the palms of politicians like Obama and both 'sides' of the legislature, our health care costs are only the highest in the world, and in the history of the world now.

If something changes, they might really get expensive.

kvrdave
03-05-12, 01:09 PM
But without pooling (see orangecrush's post above) costs would be astronomical. I know you can afford it (must be nice), but for the rest of us there's not a lot of money for insurance, and our EBT benefits are blown on lobster.

Pooling is a mechanism that gets insurance companies to compete for policies from businesses. If health insurance were purchased only individually, you wouldn't have the same situation. It would be like car insurance and companies advertising to get your business and compare it to the other companies as well.

The whole point of people buying their own insurance is so that they have skin in the game and actually do a little research into different companies and the costs associated with them. You would need a few things to make this work like true pricing for proceedures as well. But that would all be a part of actually reforming health care. These things would benefit the consumer and not the medical companies. What we have brought forth is something that doesn't benefit the consumer and only benefits the medical companies.

X
03-05-12, 01:31 PM
Hard to say. But this is really the tip of the iceberg when dealing with the fundamental disconnect in current American politics - the lack of understanding or acknowledgement of how much of the federal budget goes to the middle class.

I'm willing to say that, if you accept a penny of federal money, you accept the regulations that accompany it. Only when and if people understand the ramifications of federal aid/intrusion (however you want to look at it) will they understand the complexities of the budget problems we have.That's interesting because I believe that the government would require that you not discriminate against someone who has federal tuition aid (all student loans can be looked at that way since the federal government took them away from private banks). And I would think they require that all grocery stores accept food stamps for payment.

orangecrush
03-05-12, 01:43 PM
Obviously I know the literal answer, I'm just asking at a more philosophical level why one actor (the employer) who is paying for the insurance gets to decide its contents, but the other actor (the employee) who's paying for it not. Why is it not a la carte.

(Bear in mind, it's for basically this reason that I no longer have cable, so I know it's a losing battle.) :lol:I understand your point, but as a practical matter, you aren't going to see a lot of a la carte employer sponsored plans (some companies do offer them). And I think it is important to point out that employers do pick plans which exclude coverage for things that a lot of people might want. They just don't often do it for religious reasons. And all of the states already have a list of coverage’s that all major medical policies must provide.

And just to be clear, I think not providing coverage for birth control pills is stupid.

orangecrush
03-05-12, 01:48 PM
Yeah... I mean right now, due to the corruption that allows the pharma, medical equipment, and hospital corporations to screw America with often exponentially higher prices than anywhere else on Earth, jacked up for no other reason than they can get away it because they grease the palms of politicians like Obama and both 'sides' of the legislature, our health care costs are only the highest in the world, and in the history of the world now.

If something changes, they might really get expensive.That is what is so stupid about all this discussion about health costs. Nearly everyone has focused on health insurance costs and not health care costs. Health insurance is so expensive because health care is so expensive.

wendersfan
03-05-12, 01:50 PM
That's interesting because I believe that the government would require that you not discriminate against someone who has federal tuition aid (all student loans can be looked at that way since the federal government took them away from private banks). And I would think they require that all grocery stores accept food stamps for payment.The grocery store/food stamp issue is a little different since it's a state-administered program, and I would argue it's designed mainly to benefit producers (farmers) rather than consumers (poor people.) Again, a middle class program.

But what I really want is a dialogue about how involved the middle class is with the "benefits state." Until that time we won't get a meaningful discussion about the proper scope of the federal government vis a vis taxes and spending. We probably won't then, either.

X
03-05-12, 02:23 PM
But what I really want is a dialogue about how involved the middle class is with the "benefits state." Until that time we won't get a meaningful discussion about the proper scope of the federal government vis a vis taxes and spending. We probably won't then, either.I guess you could start a thread about that and see how it turns out.

What I see happening is that the federal government takes so much tax revenue that it graciously offers to return some to the states. Then, because the states take it, the federal government gets to tell the states what to do (such as speed limits, drinking age, etc.) This is now extending to individuals and transfers to the organizations that provide products and services to those individuals.

wendersfan
03-05-12, 02:34 PM
I guess you could start a thread about that and see how it turns out.Maybe when I get a bit more time. Lately I've had to post and run a lot (no graphs, even...)
What I see happening is that the federal government takes so much tax revenue that it graciously offers to return some to the states. Then, because the states take it, the federal government gets to tell the states what to do (such as speed limits, drinking age, etc.) This is now extending to individuals and transfers to the organizations that provide products and services to those individuals.This is basically the way I see it too. And until people see the full extent of it, this won't change. It probably still won't change even then.

X
03-05-12, 02:42 PM
This is basically the way I see it too. And until people see the full extent of it, this won't change. It probably still won't change even then.There are some people who like that since they want the federal government to be able to dictate how every individual and every entity has to behave.

Navinabob
03-05-12, 02:52 PM
What is the "middle class" exactly? We use the term quite a bit, but do numbers for it actually exist? I know we have a lot of poor, and a very select "mega rich", but how much income does it take to be middle?

Shannon Nutt
03-05-12, 03:10 PM
What is the "middle class" exactly? We use the term quite a bit, but do numbers for it actually exist? I know we have a lot of poor, and a very select "mega rich", but how much income does it take to be middle?

A lot of it has to do with where you live and the cost of living in that area, but I don't think ANYONE (including multiple-income homes) who makes over $250,000 a year should be allowed to call themselves "middle class".

Dr Mabuse
03-05-12, 03:18 PM
This is basically the way I see it too. And until people see the full extent of it, this won't change. It probably still won't change even then.

Now don't be so pessimistic...

We're gonna be the first democracy in the history of the world that doesn't collapse on itself and commit suicide! Why? Cause we're us, that's why, and stuff like that can't happen to us.

That stuff only happens to those 'other people'. Those people back in history from a time when people were far different that people are now. We're all advanced and enlightened now... totally different people.

Th0r S1mpson
03-05-12, 03:43 PM
Any predictions for Super Tuesday?

kvrdave
03-05-12, 03:52 PM
I predict gloom in the morning followed by a sprinkling of doom by afternoon.

CRM114
03-05-12, 04:01 PM
Health insurance shouldn't be something provided by employers. That is probably the biggest reason the cost is so high. They ought to give people the money and let them buy their own insurance. Why not simply let religious organizations give everyone an extra $50 a month and let them decide if they want to spend it on contraception? Well, obviously because we are more concerned about forcing everyone to do what we want, and then complain when the other side is making us do what they want. Heaven forbid we all do what we prefer....we need the government to dictate how we live.

Part of the reason employers provide healthcare, and this is lost on you people who don't work for someone, is that the employer wants a healthy workforce. It's not as if this is all done out of generosity. They want healthy people who show up every day and do the necessary preventative things people with health insurance do. It would be counter productive to give people money and hope they buy health coverage. Most of the people wouldn't and it would be even worse than it is today.

X
03-05-12, 04:02 PM
A lot of it has to do with where you live and the cost of living in that area, but I don't think ANYONE (including multiple-income homes) who makes over $250,000 a year should be allowed to call themselves "middle class".Do you think a middle class person should be able to buy a home that costs the median price where they live?

CRM114
03-05-12, 04:06 PM
I understand your point, but as a practical matter, you aren't going to see a lot of a la carte employer sponsored plans (some companies do offer them). And I think it is important to point out that employers do pick plans which exclude coverage for things that a lot of people might want. They just don't often do it for religious reasons. And all of the states already have a list of coverage’s that all major medical policies must provide.

And just to be clear, I think not providing coverage for birth control pills is stupid.

I would think employers ask for a list of offerings with prices from insurance companies and then offer their employees the best bang for the amount of bucks they are willing to spend. I would doubt that employers are concerned with what isn't covered because insurance companies are generally going to put sensible packages together in the first place.

Th0r S1mpson
03-05-12, 04:07 PM
Part of the reason employers provide healthcare, and this is lost on you people who don't work for someone, is that the employer wants a healthy workforce. It's not as if this is all done out of generosity. They want healthy people who show up every day and do the necessary preventative things people with health insurance do. It would be counter productive to give people money and hope they buy health coverage. Most of the people wouldn't and it would be even worse than it is today.

That's awesome, because it's something the employer is choosing to do, and for a good reason.

1) I haven't seen anyone object to employers choosing to offer health insurance to keep employees healthy, and
2) I haven't seen anyone object to employers providing contraception if they choose to.

These are all good things, the opposition of which is almost entirely imagined.

CRM114
03-05-12, 04:08 PM
A lot of it has to do with where you live and the cost of living in that area, but I don't think ANYONE (including multiple-income homes) who makes over $250,000 a year should be allowed to call themselves "middle class".

Is middle class the amount of money you make or the amount of money you spend?

CRM114
03-05-12, 04:10 PM
That's awesome, because it's something the employer is choosing to do, and for a good reason.

1) I haven't seen anyone object to employers choosing to offer health insurance to keep employees healthy, and
2) I haven't seen anyone object to employers providing contraception if they choose to.

These are all good things, the opposition of which is almost entirely imagined.

What are you talking about? You and kvrdave both have been going on about how stupid it is for employers to provide healthcare. So it obviously isn't awesome.

As to point 2, why is it so difficult to want someone to treat one prescription drug like any other? A private medical decision made between a patient and a doctor.

Tracer Bullet
03-05-12, 04:28 PM
Any predictions for Super Tuesday?

Romney will get a majority of delegates despite fewer people voting for him than in 2008.

Santorum will do well enough to continue.

Paul will keep working on his secret plan to reveal his winning delegate count at the convention, gained using the power of hypnosis.

Gingrich will eat a chicken. He will not enjoy it.

classicman2
03-05-12, 04:32 PM
Any predictions for Super Tuesday?

After the dust is settled on Super Suesday - the GOP will still be looking for the right candidate to go against Obama in the general election.