A different way of looking at things...

maj4e

Again no. I don't troll, in fact I think you have to be a paying member to post here. I was simply using a like analogy.

maj4e

Jon Stewart nails it.

http://gawker.com/5890752/jon-stewart-s ... e-comments

inlet13

Sandra Fluke wants us to cover sex changes...

http://mrctv.org/blog/sandra-fluke-gend ... -insurance

...you guys on board with that one?

he still stands

$40 per year. that's how much it increases premiums, and that doesn't include the amount of money is saved by not having unwanted pregnancies, which is HUGE. $40 per year isn't much when you consider it costs $5,049 for an individual employee and $13,770 for family coverage, on average;

Read more: http://moneyland.time.com/2012/02/14/wh ... z1oMgp0oka

SO, the whole sanscrosant bullshit moral argument doesn't work... AND your financial argument doesn't work...
what now?

throw poop at each other? THAT'S the level of intellectualism being displayed here.

inmytree

this issue confounds me...I find it shocking and sad that in 2012 we are having a conversation about contraception...

really, who cares...? so the Obama administration wanted insurance companies cover this product for women...tell me again what the issue is...? women can get the pill covered by their insurance...?

SWEET GOD, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....that will end the world as we know it...

this is a dumb issue...

Jeanwah

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i can not believe that we are debating this in 2012 with near double digit unemployment.

It's a classic distraction tactic that's working not only against the real problems this country's facing but also takes focus off of the Catholic Church's pedophilia problem.

mikepegg44

Jeanwah wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i can not believe that we are debating this in 2012 with near double digit unemployment.

It's a classic distraction tactic that's working not only against the real problems this country's facing but also takes focus off of the Catholic Church's pedophilia problem.

it is a distraction technique. I don't really think this has anything to do with pedophilia scandels and everything to do with politics. Democrats are using it as a way to frame the republicans as social program, contraception hating morons...Republicans TRYING to showcase it as a government power grab infringing on the constitution they pretend to love...
As long as the politicians can frame this as republicans vs social issues, the republicans will lose damn near every time in the court of public opinion.
If it doesn't have to do with the economy/debt the GOP and their candidates for re-election would be wise to avoid this one.
Deal with one thing at a time...HHS mandates really shouldn't be central to the discussion right now...while they are a symptom of the overall problem with government, they are about 50th on the list of things that are important, and dealing with the other things will ultimately deal with this problem...it is like worrying about a cold when you have lung cancer.
on a side note, the more these types of things are aloud to dominate the conversation the more people will turn to supporting Santorum for some reason, and that is bad for EVERYONE.

bennett13

Jeanwah wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i can not believe that we are debating this in 2012 with near double digit unemployment.

It's a classic distraction tactic that's working not only against the real problems this country's facing but also takes focus off of the Catholic Church's pedophilia problem.

Actually, it was George Stephanopoulos who initially brought up the issue during one of the Republican debates. Yeah, the same guy who used to be a political advisor to Bill Clinton. Makes me wonder who exactly is using distraction tactics.
I agree that the Republicans can't win on the social issues...they can win on the economy alone. That is why the media is harping on social issues like birth control. Anything to help their chosen one get re-elected.

Jeanwah

mikepegg44 wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i can not believe that we are debating this in 2012 with near double digit unemployment.

It's a classic distraction tactic that's working not only against the real problems this country's facing but also takes focus off of the Catholic Church's pedophilia problem.

it is a distraction technique. I don't really think this has anything to do with pedophilia scandels and everything to do with politics.

While it has everything to do with politics, it helps shift people's perception of the Catholic church. Therefore focus off of the pedophilia issue is noted. If people just stepped back from politics and looked at it all from a big picture view, people would stop allowing themselves to get swallowed by details and "sides", and start looking at it all as just a game being spun on us all. Which is all it is anyway.

inlet13

he still stands wrote:

$40 per year. that's how much it increases premiums, and that doesn't include the amount of money is saved by not having unwanted pregnancies, which is HUGE. $40 per year isn't much when you consider it costs $5,049 for an individual employee and $13,770 for family coverage, on average;

Read more: http://moneyland.time.com/2012/02/14/wh ... z1oMgp0oka

SO, the whole sanscrosant bullshit moral argument doesn't work... AND your financial argument doesn't work...
what now?

throw poop at each other? THAT'S the level of intellectualism being displayed here.

Not sure who this directed towards, but...

...it's not a cost issue on either side, bro. BC is free in a lot of places and is not expensive without insurance. Those against this are against government saying they HAVE to cover items they morally are against.... which includes contraception AND additional services, maybe even including abortion.

inlet13

bennett13 wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i can not believe that we are debating this in 2012 with near double digit unemployment.

It's a classic distraction tactic that's working not only against the real problems this country's facing but also takes focus off of the Catholic Church's pedophilia problem.

Actually, it was George Stephanopoulos who initially brought up the issue during one of the Republican debates. Yeah, the same guy who used to be a political advisor to Bill Clinton. Makes me wonder who exactly is using distraction tactics.
I agree that the Republicans can't win on the social issues...they can win on the economy alone. That is why the media is harping on social issues like birth control. Anything to help their chosen one get re-elected.

I remember when he did that, I was scratching my head. Now we know. He must've had a head's up or something. Otherwise, it's a very very strange coincidence. If only the media was fairminded and actually inspected "why" he asked that question. Won't happen, but would be interesting.

he still stands

inlet13 wrote:

he still stands wrote:

$40 per year. that's how much it increases premiums, and that doesn't include the amount of money is saved by not having unwanted pregnancies, which is HUGE. $40 per year isn't much when you consider it costs $5,049 for an individual employee and $13,770 for family coverage, on average;

Read more: http://moneyland.time.com/2012/02/14/wh ... z1oMgp0oka

SO, the whole sanscrosant bullshit moral argument doesn't work... AND your financial argument doesn't work...
what now?

throw poop at each other? THAT'S the level of intellectualism being displayed here.

Not sure who this directed towards, but...

...it's not a cost issue on either side, bro. BC is free in a lot of places and is not expensive without insurance. Those against this are against government saying they HAVE to cover items they morally are against.... which includes contraception AND additional services, maybe even including abortion.

great! so we agree it is not a cost issue and that is no reason to not provide it as part of a health insurance plan.

but, as for as the moral argument, it is complete rubbish. just total shite. who exactly is against contraception for moral reasons? Show me one person. 98% of American Catholic women have used some form of contraception, and the only people against contraception for moral reasons are Catholic Bishops and the Amish, as far as I can tell.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/02/13/bi ... z1oRFAC33C

inlet13

he still stands wrote:

great! so we agree it is not a cost issue and that is no reason to not provide it as part of a health insurance plan.

First, this is not just birth control as I've said repetitively.

Second, what I agree with is that birth control is free in a lot places, and when you do have to pay it's not expensive (even without insurance). If the birth control aspect was not a "cost issue" (which you just said it's not) for Ms. Fluke, what exactly is her argument? Further, although this certainly raises costs (premiums), I don't really think the amount it raises premiums is the issue (which is my point). The issue is government intruding on private sector (in this case a religious institution).

he still stands wrote:

but, as for as the moral argument, it is complete rubbish. just total shite. who exactly is against contraception for moral reasons?

The Catholic Church (or the employer) is (and has been forever) against abortion and contraception... the administration knows that. They knew they would make them angry, but they thought it was a wedge issue, and needed help with women voters. The problem is it's not just a contraception issue... That's what the media wants to make it because this was brought up on purpose for voting reasons. But, it's larger than that. It involves gov't overreach. It can include abortion services. I'd say it's not rubbish at all.... anymore than the government forcing PETA to pay for people to eat fish or steak. They are against that, yet, government needs to force it?

The government has no need to do this. No one was complaining prior to them reaching their slimy tentacles into another issue they have no business being involved in.

Prince Of Dorkness

Providing birth control and condoms will lower overall health insurance costs.

However, it will also mean that women can have sex without getting knocked up and women and gay men not getting stds.

And we can't have that.

By the way... I'm a vegan and I don't drink wine but I won't force my own dietary choices on anyone even if I personally think they're the best choices to make.

Everyone pays for things they don't want to pay for. I, for instance, pay taxes that fund the war. My husband and I also pay taxes - higher taxes than straight married couples - and yet we don't have access to about 95% of all the resources and rights and protections that married couples get.

I pay for the coast guard when I don't ever go sailng and I pay for the FAA although I hardly ever fly.

I pay for the fire routes in rural areas to be kept safe and maintained even though I don't live in the forest and I also pay taxes that fund schools when -gasp- I don't even have kids.

So cry me a river... You have just woken up to the fact that the whole world doesn't revolve around straight, white, Christian men Who never get laid and now you got yo panties in a bunch.

Welcome to the real world, feel free to hAve a coffee.

Prince Of Dorkness

While we're on the subject of having to pay for things you're morally against, I have to pay extra taxes to make up the shortfall from he catholic church and cult of Mormon not paying taxes.

That I need to support two racist, sexist, homophobic organizations whose biggest contribution to the country has been molesting children is something I'm morally against. Sadly, I haven't gotten a tax rebate for that.

Welcome to the real world that doesn't revolve around you. Please refill the water jug and put it back in the fridge after you use it.

inlet13

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Providing birth control and condoms will lower overall health insurance costs.

Let's not confuse ourselves here. The Catholic Church being forced to provide it's employees with birth control, condoms and other services (related to abortion) will not lower overall health insurance costs. It will raise them.

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

However, it will also mean that women can have sex without getting knocked up and women and gay men not getting stds.

And we can't have that.

Under the conditions prior to this overreach by government, women and men (of any sexual orientation) could also have sex without getting knocked up or STDs. They would simply have to pay for their own birth control or protection with their own money. Given most are salaried, they would need to pay the less than 25 cents per condom or roughly $15 for birth control/month out of their own pocket rather than forcing an institution against that to fund it through their healthcare program. There's not a big difference there other than the government trying to force a PRIVATE institution to do something.

The whole charade of acting like they can't obtain birth control in the private market without insurance at a low cost is silly. I've read that Ms. Fluke could have obtained it down the street for $9 a month in more than one location. $9/month. .... without insurance!

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

By the way... I'm a vegan and I don't drink wine but I won't force my own dietary choices on anyone even if I personally think they're the best choices to make.

That's fantastic. But, you're ok with the state telling religious institutions what to do. You know, sometimes people get so invested in their own political party, that they don't see when it's actually working against them. You are ok with the government getting bigger and telling what to do (in certain situations). But, not when roles are reversed. I simply say... wake up... there is a way to get government smaller so although you'll have less control over what Catholics do, they'll also have less control over you! Small government works that way.

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Everyone pays for things they don't want to pay for. I, for instance, pay taxes that fund the war. My husband and I also pay taxes - higher taxes than straight married couples - and yet we don't have access to about 95% of all the resources and rights and protections that married couples get.

I pay for the coast guard when I don't ever go sailng and I pay for the FAA although I hardly ever fly.

I pay for the fire routes in rural areas to be kept safe and maintained even though I don't live in the forest and I also pay taxes that fund schools when -gasp- I don't even have kids.

This is not a tax issue. Every single item you just listed is involves taxes. I suggest you read about it, rather than immediately siding with Democrats. The issue is deeper than giving a moral ok to contraception (or even abortion). The administration is framing it like that, but that's not what it's about. It's about a private employer being forced to cover certain items they are against.

Prince Of Dorkness

The absurd and dangerous argument of people having to pay for things they don't support isn't one you can win.

I'm morally against people having more than one child and yet I as an employer have to pay for the family health coverage of all my employees even if they have 3 kids. Or 8. And their pre-natal care.

I'm very against Christianity and yet I have to pay for my staff's federally-recognized religious holidays.

I sure didnt hear straight white men complaining that they were forced to pay for prostate exams or erectile disfunction treatments.

Or tennis elbow. I have to provide coverage for that and I think tennis is the lamest sport in the world. Honestly... They wear white... AFTER LABOUR DAY!!

If you provide health insurance or health care, you should have to provide all available health care, not just what you personally cherry pick as things you "morally support." if you don't like it... Don't provide health care. Nobody is forcing you to do that.

The whole world doesn't revolve around you. Sorry.

he still stands

Catholics aren't against contraception. 98% of catholic women have used contraception (see earlier posted article as source)

Catholic BISHOPS are against contraception.

And anyway, who cares what a bunch of pedophiles think?

Furthermore, since apparently a groups' morality views or opinions allow them to not pay for things, can i stop paying the war portion (44%) of my federal tax bill now?

Prince Of Dorkness

Following that argument, any employer can claim that his membership in the KKK means that he doesn't have to pay his employees for Martin Luther King Day or Chanukah.

Or that I shouldn't have to allow staff time off on thanksgiving since its a celebration of carnivorous gluttony.

Can play ths game all day.

It's so sad to see some straight, white men suddenly see that their own morality isn't the period at the end of the sentence.

inlet13

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

The absurd and dangerous argument of people having to pay for things they don't support isn't one you can win.

I'm morally against people having more than one child and yet I as an employer have to pay for the family health coverage of all my employees even if they have 3 kids. Or 8. And their pre-natal care.

I'm very against Christianity and yet I have to pay for my staff's federally-recognized religious holidays.

I sure didnt hear straight white men complaining that they were forced to pay for prostate exams or erectile disfunction treatments.

Or tennis elbow. I have to provide coverage for that and I think tennis is the lamest sport in the world. Honestly... They wear white... AFTER LABOUR DAY!!

If you provide health insurance or health care, you should have to provide all available health care, not just what you personally cherry pick as things you "morally support." if you don't like it... Don't provide health care. Nobody is forcing you to do that.


The whole world doesn't revolve around you. Sorry.

Like you said, no one is forcing you to provide those services. Ummmm... wait, now the government is. Whoops.

Bro, re-read your statements. I think it's you who needs a reminder that the whole world does not revolve around you. You act as though you (as an individual) are equivalent to one of the largest religious institutions in the world. It's rather hysterical.