Tea Party Misogynist Limbaugh Demands Free Government Porn

[Lootifer]

I dont really get the connection between subsidising a society benefiting consumber good and the government telling you what to do... If they were making pre-marital unprotected sex illegal or something like that sure, but simple nudges in the right direction through government funding is hardly restricting your freedom.

Edit: and No I dont think slippery slope argument applies here, just incase youre going to use that.

[thegreekdog]

I dont really get the connection between subsidising a society benefiting consumber good and the government telling you what to do... If they were making pre-marital unprotected sex illegal or something like that sure, but simple nudges in the right direction through government funding is hardly restricting your freedom.

Edit: and No I dont think slippery slope argument applies here, just incase youre going to use that.

I'm not going to make that argument. Here is my argument: It is inefficient from both a monetary perspective and an effectiveness perspective for the government to do something. Why would I pay $50 to the government to help pass out condoms, for example, when I can pass out condoms myself for $20 and make sure they get to the people who need them?

[Lootifer]

Heh, I see where you are coming from, but in this case a) I'd say the government would be just as good if not better at minimising costs over organic charitible actions (since the condoms are either free or price capped via subsidy here) and b) the cost/benefit analysis will should be carried out by any "good" governing body, i'd hazard to guess this will come out positive (in terms of NPV) and better than alternatives (education, abtainance programmes etc etc), but thats an unfounded assertion.

[thegreekdog]

Heh, I see where you are coming from, but in this case a) I'd say the government would be just as good if not better at minimising costs over organic charitible actions (since the condoms are either free or price capped via subsidy here) and b) the cost/benefit analysis will should be carried out by any "good" governing body, i'd hazard to guess this will come out positive (in terms of NPV) and better than alternatives (education, abtainance programmes etc etc), but thats an unfounded assertion.

I can't think of something that the government does more efficiently than non-government entities. I know there's the standard "Look how much money goes to [insert charity] that doesn't get distributed in a charitable fashion," so maybe people can rely on that.

Abstinence is the surest way to not get an STD. The next surest way is a condom. In either case, I don't want the government telling me what I should be doing (from a principle perspective) and I don't want the government to be telling me what I should be doing (from an economic perspective). So, I have two reasons why the government should stay out of my bedroom (or any other room in my house, or the backseat of my car, etc.)

[natty dread]

I just don't want the government legislating when I can and cannot have sex

Well, I would argue that in certain cases, the government should legislate whether you can have sex or not.

For example, say you'd want to have sex with a minor. Or say you'd want to have sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you. In those cases I think it's entirely justifiable and preferable for the government to legislate that you can't have that sex.

[Phatscotty]

It's funny, the right wing hypocrites are always going on about how they hate abortions. Yet, they're against contraception, which is really effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies and thus abortions.

I do not hold those views, but I can easily understand how both abortion and birth control are not pro-life policies.

You should practice thinking more.

[natty dread]

It's funny, the right wing hypocrites are always going on about how they hate abortions. Yet, they're against contraception, which is really effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies and thus abortions.

I do not hold those views, but I can easily understand how both abortion and birth control are not pro-life policies.

You should practice thinking more.

Click image to enlarge.

[BigBallinStalin]

LET'S HAVE THE GOVERNMENT RELEASE CONDOMS TO THE MASSES:


So which company should the government subsidize? (incoming rent-seeking!) How should the resources be allocated?


What if the company's quality of its products degrade or become more expensive? How does the central planner know when to shift to another company? How can this be done more efficiently than the individuals within the market?

[Lootifer]

What if the company's quality of its products degrade or become more expensive? How does the central planner know when to shift to another company? How can this be done more efficiently than the individuals within the market?

It can't, of course, derp.

But using condoms provides a social service (when used to prevent STDs and unwanted pregnancies among uneducated/irrational consumers) that the market will likely fail to provide.

[thegreekdog]

I just don't want the government legislating when I can and cannot have sex

Well, I would argue that in certain cases, the government should legislate whether you can have sex or not.

For example, say you'd want to have sex with a minor. Or say you'd want to have sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you. In those cases I think it's entirely justifiable and preferable for the government to legislate that you can't have that sex.

Yes, that's true. I would refer to those acts as nonconsensual sex (i.e. rape).

[BigBallinStalin]

What if the company's quality of its products degrade or become more expensive? How does the central planner know when to shift to another company? How can this be done more efficiently than the individuals within the market?

It can't, of course, derp.

But using condoms provides a social service (when used to prevent STDs and unwanted pregnancies among uneducated/irrational consumers) that the market will likely fail to provide.

Without state subsidies, there would an underprovision of condoms in the market?

I don't think so. This seems to be more of a knowledge problem. If people were given the relevant information about STDs and unwanted pregnancies, why wouldn't the demand for condoms and birth control pills increase in the market?

If that information is supposedly already out there and being received, then why would those, who choose to ignore that information, even accept the government-provided condoms, birth control pills, etc.?

[Night Strike]

Discouraging unprotected sex is very much more of a health issue than a sex issue as far as im concerned but thats just me...

There is a HUGE different between the government discouraging unprotected sex and actually subsidizing or mandating providing contraceptives.

It's funny, the right wing hypocrites are always going on about how they hate abortions. Yet, they're against contraception, which is really effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies and thus abortions.

I have never once said that I am against contraception. That's why it's used in our marriage until we're ready to have kids. It's also one of the myriad of reasons why I'm not Catholic. However, I will support the first amendment rights of Catholic and other religious institutions that believe that contraception is against their religious tenants. The government does not have the authority to mandate that it be provided. And they don't have the power to mandate that it be provided for free. There is a big difference between what I may or may not support or do and what the government has the authority to do.

[oVo]

So birth control is not a woman's health issue? Since abortion is legal in America
the government doesn't need to be concerned with the promiscuity of young people
here and all concerns about the availability of contraceptives should be dismissed.

Rush Limbaugh has 600 radio stations broadcasting his show with an estimated
20 million listeners. His 8 year $400,000,000 contract shouldn't take too big a
hit if a few drop him as 30 major advertisers pull their business.

Phatscotty, it's been awhile since you've raised any moot points while attempting
to discredit Sandra Fluke. Please dig around and find something actually related
to the university health issue and birth control policies.

[Night Strike]

Phatscotty, it's been awhile since you've raised any moot points while attempting
to discredit Sandra Fluke. Please dig around and find something actually related
to the university health issue and birth control policies.

So the fact that she was not just a student who happened into this plight of not having free birth control and was instead a plant to force the religious school to conform to her beliefs doesn't discredit her? Or what about the fact that Georgetown offers 4 different health insurance policies to students and only one of those policies doesn't include birth control coverage? But that one policy was a large enough affront to her that she had to enroll in the school for the sole purpose of forcing the administration to change that single policy.

[thegreekdog]

Phatscotty, it's been awhile since you've raised any moot points while attempting
to discredit Sandra Fluke. Please dig around and find something actually related
to the university health issue and birth control policies.

So the fact that she was not just a student who happened into this plight of not having free birth control and was instead a plant to force the religious school to conform to her beliefs doesn't discredit her? Or what about the fact that Georgetown offers 4 different health insurance policies to students and only one of those policies doesn't include birth control coverage? But that one policy was a large enough affront to her that she had to enroll in the school for the sole purpose of forcing the administration to change that single policy.

(1) How was she a plant? Who planted her? Did she not plant herself?
(2) If she was a plant (whether she planted herself or someone else planted her), who cares? Conservatives use plants all the time? Plants are great, they help get to the bottom of issues.
(3) Why is this thread still relevant?

I seriously do not understand the relevance of this continuing discussion.

[oVo]

Being a women's rights activist doesn't make her a plant. Exposing a university's questionable women's health policy may or may not be her sole intention for enrolling. Much to you and Scotty's chagrin, her previous education, political orientation, sexual proclivities, age or intent are not the issue.

[Night Strike]

Being a women's rights activist doesn't make her a plant. Exposing a university's questionable women's health policy may or may not be her sole intention for enrolling. Much to you and Scotty's chagrin, her previous education, political orientation, sexual proclivities, age or intent are not the issue.

So the fact that the university offers 3 other policies that cover birth control means she has the right to come in and demand that they change the only policy that doesn't cover it? That's working on an agenda to have the government force everyone who disagrees with her to change their policies. She didn't have to choose that insurance policy from the school, but she did in order to mislead the public during her false testimony implying that it was the only policy they offer and that they were infringing on her rights by not giving her birth control.


TGD, plants may be good to get to the bottom of real issues. Fluke was there to create controversy where non existed in order to push a political agenda. This is absolutely different from plants who work to expose illegal activities.

[oVo]

This is a real issue, or there would be no ongoing debate on the subject
and it would have expired three years ago. I don't know all the facts about
the different health plans; eligibility, cost or coverage. But if the four plans
did cover all student's needs sufficiently there would be no issue.

[Night Strike]

This is a real issue, or there would be no ongoing debate on the subject
and it would have expired three years ago. I don't know all the facts about
the different health plans; eligibility, cost or coverage. But if the four plans
did cover all student's needs sufficiently there would be no issue.

If a specific plan does not cover something you want or need covered, then you select a different plan. That's the whole point of a free market system. One-size-fits-all is a big-government system that restricts the freedoms of everybody involved to make decisions for themselves. You don't get to force the provider to change 1 plan simply because you don't like it. Yet that is exactly what Fluke is trying to do.

[Juan_Bottom]

The government does not have the authority to mandate that it be provided. And they don't have the power to mandate that it be provided for free. There is a big difference between what I may or may not support or do and what the government has the authority to do.

Isn't there something to be said for the argument that without some kind of protection in place, then your employer is deciding what is moral for you? What's the difference if the government forces that an employer provides all options as opposed to an employer denying you all options?


But actually I don't care for this debate. Night Strike is right if the university or whatever had several plans in place. Including religiously conscious plans.
but if they didn't have a plan for each religion...

It's just funny how big of a douche bag Rush Limbaugh is.

[Phatscotty]

Phatscotty, it's been awhile since you've raised any moot points while attempting
to discredit Sandra Fluke. Please dig around and find something actually related
to the university health issue and birth control policies.

They painted a phony picture and set a trap. You are not supposed to be the one who actually falls for it.

[Night Strike]

The government does not have the authority to mandate that it be provided. And they don't have the power to mandate that it be provided for free. There is a big difference between what I may or may not support or do and what the government has the authority to do.

Isn't there something to be said for the argument that without some kind of protection in place, then your employer is deciding what is moral for you? What's the difference if the government forces that an employer provides all options as opposed to an employer denying you all options?

But you can change your employer. You can't change the government's policies. You can argue that the policy could be changed by a later Congress, but really? Nothing lives longer than a government program. And part of the reason they wanted to push this health care law through was that they knew that once the ball started rolling, it's incredibly difficult to just stop a massive program such it.

By the way, this is exactly why I do NOT support the current system of employer-provided health insurance. If every individual could go out to build and buy their own insurance policies, as well as shop around for the best providers, you would never have the problem you mention in your argument. Every other type of insurance is purchased by the individual, yet health care is purchased by a third party. Buying your own insurance would spur massive changes in the economy as workers would no longer be forced to stay with the same employer just to keep their insurance.

[oVo]

But you can change your employer.

Have you been paying attention to current events? It's not just bank bailouts, people losing their homes to foreclosure and the price of gasoline. Most people are just happy to have a job, many of which include no insured health care at all.

[Night Strike]

But you can change your employer.

Have you been paying attention to current events? It's not just bank bailouts, people losing their homes to foreclosure and the price of gasoline. Most people are just happy to have a job, many of which include no insured health care at all.

It's tough times that tend to bring out the best in people. Tough times in conventional markets cause individuals to become creative to start their own businesses or even relocate to places that are doing better. Furthermore, every single one of those problems you list are because of the federal government being too involved in the private market. They wasted money on bailing out businesses, mandated that banks provide mortgages to people who couldn't afford it, and continually block development of oil fields that would drive down the price of gasoline. How will the government getting more involved in an industry that envelopes 16% of our economy be a good thing for us? It can't be.

[ViperOverLord]

But you can change your employer.

Have you been paying attention to current events? It's not just bank bailouts, people losing their homes to foreclosure and the price of gasoline. Most people are just happy to have a job, many of which include no insured health care at all.

It's tough times that tend to bring out the best in people. Tough times in conventional markets cause individuals to become creative to start their own businesses or even relocate to places that are doing better. Furthermore, every single one of those problems you list are because of the federal government being too involved in the private market. They wasted money on bailing out businesses, mandated that banks provide mortgages to people who couldn't afford it, and continually block development of oil fields that would drive down the price of gasoline. How will the government getting more involved in an industry that envelopes 16% of our economy be a good thing for us? It can't be.

And it's only 16 percent or 20 percent of our economy (depending on what number you're using) b/c government is making it bloated. There's no f'ing way that health care should be 1/5 of our expenses. Think about that; one in every five dollars you earn is supposed to go to medical care. F that.