Conservative Explanations

[Aradhus]

I'm too lazy to read.. well, anything you guys write or link to. So just going off the title of this topic, I find that conservative arguments tend to be counter intuitive, which makes them unappealing on a superficial level. Add onto that that the majority of conservatives tend to be fucktards who can't properly articulate the arguments they're trying to make and their arguments become very easy to strawman, it's almost impossible not to. With most topics though, it's not just a case of either the liberal argument is correct, or the conservative argument, things are a little more complex than that.

[Night Strike]

Even if 100% of women or men (by whatever parameter chosen) chose to use contraceptives, that wouldn't mean that the government could mandate that it be provided free of charge to the user. These arguments about "everyone does it" has exactly no bearing on a country that is governed by the rule of law provided by our Constitution.

[PLAYER57832]

Even if 100% of women or men (by whatever parameter chosen) chose to use contraceptives, that wouldn't mean that the government could mandate that it be provided free of charge to the user. These arguments about "everyone does it" has exactly no bearing on a country that is governed by the rule of law provided by our Constitution.

Which might be why no one is voicing that argument.

And why are you STILL arguing the "it shouldn't be free" bit when that is not even part of this particular debate?

[Night Strike]

Even if 100% of women or men (by whatever parameter chosen) chose to use contraceptives, that wouldn't mean that the government could mandate that it be provided free of charge to the user. These arguments about "everyone does it" has exactly no bearing on a country that is governed by the rule of law provided by our Constitution.

Which might be why no one is voicing that argument.

And why are you STILL arguing the "it shouldn't be free" bit when that is not even part of this particular debate?

Because there is more than 1 thing wrong with the mandate. And this one just happens to expand beyond just religious organizations. Just because the major problem with this mandate is its assault on religious freedom doesn't mean there aren't other problems that affect all the other employers and organizations.

[Woodruff]

Why does one have to identify as conservative to tell you what they think is wrong in that article? Is there any reason a liberal (or non conservative) could not tell you what is wrong in the article?

No, there's no reason a liberal COULDN'T...but from my experience in these fora, a liberal likely WON'T (because, my God, I can't work against my team!). Plus, conservatives would have a far more vested interest in doing so.

I have , are you going to respond to the questions posed in the OP or just keep waffling ?

Waffling? I legitimately regard the OP when I ask why it has to be a conservative that finds fault with the article.

So you agree that the article is accurate then?

[Woodruff]

Finally, I agree with VOL - What was the point Woodruff? Why does a conservative need to be the one to point out the problems with the article? We hear a lot of talk on this forum about being nonpartisan and about how the conservatives on this forum use ridiculous statistics. How is this any different? This is weird coming from you Woodruff, unless I'm mistaking the intent.

You are.

[Woodruff]

That said... the Gov't should NOT have the right to force ANY employer (be that employer a religious one or a secular one) to provide a benefit that said employer does not want to provide.

You mean like tolerable safety conditions?

[Woodruff]

Well, I sit here shocked. For me, the claim of the 99% was THE LEAST of the claims made in that article as far as nastiness, and yet...no conservative (or anyone else) has broached those others. So I ask again...are they accurate?

[ViperOverLord]

Why does one have to identify as conservative to tell you what they think is wrong in that article? Is there any reason a liberal (or non conservative) could not tell you what is wrong in the article?

No, there's no reason a liberal COULDN'T...but from my experience in these fora, a liberal likely WON'T (because, my God, I can't work against my team!). Plus, conservatives would have a far more vested interest in doing so.

I have , are you going to respond to the questions posed in the OP or just keep waffling ?

Waffling? I legitimately regard the OP when I ask why it has to be a conservative that finds fault with the article.

So you agree that the article is accurate then?

Well__ I think it is possible for liberals to be honest and step up and say yea this is wrong__ that's not right. I think the liberals who stick to their philosophies rather than seeing everything as an us vs. them scenario would look at the unfairness of the article and say something. But those types of libs seem few and far in between.

As for the article__ I think it goes beyond flawed logic. It's just a hit piece built upon lies to suit that group's agenda.

[Symmetry]

I don't think it's unreasonable for private companies and individuals to argue they should not have to provide for insurance to cover contraceptives.

If it's expected of the companies to provide insurance that covers overall healthcare, then there's no reason why that insurance shouldn't cover contraceptives as well.

If you guys had universal healthcare, then this thing wouldn't even be an issue.

There are plenty of reasons why companies would not want their health insurance to cover contraceptives:

(1) Money;
(2) Necessity vs. non-necessity;
(3) Religious reasons
(4) Personal reasons

If we had universal healthcare, this would be an even bigger issue.

It would not be an even bigger issue. It would be almost a non-issue entirely. As evidence I present pretty much any country that provides universal healthcare. Companies are very rarely involved (some companies in the UK offer private healthcare too), so there's virtually no issue.

I've only experienced three examples of national healthcare though- the UK, Japan, and the US, those being the only countries I've lived in. The UK and Japan provided excellent service, and nobody really had an issue with contraception (there are always a few nuts). Only in the US is it politicised, rather than normalised.

Why do you think it would be a bigger issue? It goes against almost every example I've experienced, at least.

[ViperOverLord]

I don't think it's unreasonable for private companies and individuals to argue they should not have to provide for insurance to cover contraceptives.

If it's expected of the companies to provide insurance that covers overall healthcare, then there's no reason why that insurance shouldn't cover contraceptives as well.

If you guys had universal healthcare, then this thing wouldn't even be an issue.

There are plenty of reasons why companies would not want their health insurance to cover contraceptives:

(1) Money;
(2) Necessity vs. non-necessity;
(3) Religious reasons
(4) Personal reasons

If we had universal healthcare, this would be an even bigger issue.

It would not be an even bigger issue. It would be almost a non-issue entirely. As evidence I present pretty much any country that provides universal healthcare. Companies are very rarely involved (some companies in the UK offer private healthcare too), so there's virtually no issue.

I've only experienced three examples of national healthcare though- the UK, Japan, and the US, those being the only countries I've lived in. The UK and Japan provided excellent service, and nobody really had an issue with contraception (there are always a few nuts). Only in the US is it politicised, rather than normalised.

Why do you think it would be a bigger issue? It goes against almost every example I've experienced, at least.

My brother lived in Japan__ He definitely disagrees with your summary of Japanese care. He recounted that it was 6 to 10 hours of waiting just to fulfill an appointment for antibiotics for the common cold b/c it was free and everybody felt the desire/need to take full advantage.

[Symmetry]

I don't think it's unreasonable for private companies and individuals to argue they should not have to provide for insurance to cover contraceptives.

If it's expected of the companies to provide insurance that covers overall healthcare, then there's no reason why that insurance shouldn't cover contraceptives as well.

If you guys had universal healthcare, then this thing wouldn't even be an issue.

There are plenty of reasons why companies would not want their health insurance to cover contraceptives:

(1) Money;
(2) Necessity vs. non-necessity;
(3) Religious reasons
(4) Personal reasons

If we had universal healthcare, this would be an even bigger issue.

It would not be an even bigger issue. It would be almost a non-issue entirely. As evidence I present pretty much any country that provides universal healthcare. Companies are very rarely involved (some companies in the UK offer private healthcare too), so there's virtually no issue.

I've only experienced three examples of national healthcare though- the UK, Japan, and the US, those being the only countries I've lived in. The UK and Japan provided excellent service, and nobody really had an issue with contraception (there are always a few nuts). Only in the US is it politicised, rather than normalised.

Why do you think it would be a bigger issue? It goes against almost every example I've experienced, at least.

My brother lived in Japan__ He definitely disagrees with your summary of Japanese care. He recounted that it was 6 to 10 hours of waiting just to fulfill an appointment for antibiotics for the common cold b/c it was free and everybody felt the desire/need to take full advantage.

Yeah, well, probably they knew that antibiotics can't treat a common cold. And it's also not free- just heavily subsidised. Your brother fed you a bit of BS. If he wanted antibiotics, and he told you it was for a common cold, likely it was a case of the clap.

[patches70]

If 99% of women have used contraceptives then it doesn't appear that there is any problem at all with access to contraception.

So what's the government's real angle? It's can't be to provide access since it's apparent that nearly every woman already has access.
So I ask, which of you is going to reach into your wallet and give me money so I can get condoms and get my multiple girlfriends free prescriptions for the pill. All donors PM me please. I expect every liberal to contribute from their own pocket. I don't want any babies don't ya know. So gimmee gimmee gimmeee!!!!

[Symmetry]

If 99% of women have used contraceptives then it doesn't appear that there is any problem at all with access to contraception.

So what's the government's real angle? It's can't be to provide access since it's apparent that nearly every woman already has access.
So I ask, which of you is going to reach into your wallet and give me money so I can get condoms and get my multiple girlfriends free prescriptions for the pill. All donors PM me please. I expect every liberal to contribute from their own pocket. I don't want any babies don't ya know. So gimmee gimmee gimmeee!!!!

Yay! Conspiracy theory!

[ViperOverLord]

Yeah, well, probably they knew that antibiotics can't treat a common cold. And it's also not free- just heavily subsidised. Your brother fed you a bit of BS. If he wanted antibiotics, and he told you it was for a common cold, likely it was a case of the clap.

That's just semantics. The point is that the system has created undue bottlenecks and a generation of hypochondriacs.

[Symmetry]

Yeah, well, probably they knew that antibiotics can't treat a common cold. And it's also not free- just heavily subsidised. Your brother fed you a bit of BS. If he wanted antibiotics, and he told you it was for a common cold, likely it was a case of the clap.

That's just semantics. The point is that the system has created undue bottlenecks and a generation of hypochondriacs.

Longest life expectancy of developed countries (just from memory this). No bottlenecks I ever saw, apart from obvious BS claims, which obviously get pushed to the back of the queue. Your brother fed you BS, sorry.

[patches70]

If 99% of women have used contraceptives then it doesn't appear that there is any problem at all with access to contraception.

So what's the government's real angle? It's can't be to provide access since it's apparent that nearly every woman already has access.
So I ask, which of you is going to reach into your wallet and give me money so I can get condoms and get my multiple girlfriends free prescriptions for the pill. All donors PM me please. I expect every liberal to contribute from their own pocket. I don't want any babies don't ya know. So gimmee gimmee gimmeee!!!!

Yay! Conspiracy theory!

So...how much are you going to contribute to the "keep Patches70 from having more babies" fund? I got a few fillies needing that magic sex without consequences pill. And I sure as hell don't wanna pay for it..... So, $20? $50? I'll need monthly contributions so what say you? $100 a month for the next 20 years? You can swing that, right? Thanks!

[Symmetry]

If 99% of women have used contraceptives then it doesn't appear that there is any problem at all with access to contraception.

So what's the government's real angle? It's can't be to provide access since it's apparent that nearly every woman already has access.
So I ask, which of you is going to reach into your wallet and give me money so I can get condoms and get my multiple girlfriends free prescriptions for the pill. All donors PM me please. I expect every liberal to contribute from their own pocket. I don't want any babies don't ya know. So gimmee gimmee gimmeee!!!!

Yay! Conspiracy theory!

So...how much are you going to contribute to the "keep Patches70 from having more babies" fund? I got a few fillies needing that magic sex without consequences pill. And I sure as hell don't wanna pay for it..... So, $20? $50? I'll need monthly contributions so what say you? $100 a month for the next 20 years? You can swing that, right? Thanks!

LOL- like you need a monthly contribution.

[ViperOverLord]

Yeah, well, probably they knew that antibiotics can't treat a common cold. And it's also not free- just heavily subsidised. Your brother fed you a bit of BS. If he wanted antibiotics, and he told you it was for a common cold, likely it was a case of the clap.

That's just semantics. The point is that the system has created undue bottlenecks and a generation of hypochondriacs.

Longest life expectancy of developed countries (just from memory this). No bottlenecks I ever saw, apart from obvious BS claims, which obviously get pushed to the back of the queue. Your brother fed you BS, sorry.

No he didn't. He had no reason to lie about long waits. But you're feeding me some BS is the point.

Addendum: Actually, he also mentioned people going to the doctor (in Japan) for skinned knees as well.

[patches70]

If 99% of women have used contraceptives then it doesn't appear that there is any problem at all with access to contraception.

So what's the government's real angle? It's can't be to provide access since it's apparent that nearly every woman already has access.
So I ask, which of you is going to reach into your wallet and give me money so I can get condoms and get my multiple girlfriends free prescriptions for the pill. All donors PM me please. I expect every liberal to contribute from their own pocket. I don't want any babies don't ya know. So gimmee gimmee gimmeee!!!!

Yay! Conspiracy theory!

So...how much are you going to contribute to the "keep Patches70 from having more babies" fund? I got a few fillies needing that magic sex without consequences pill. And I sure as hell don't wanna pay for it..... So, $20? $50? I'll need monthly contributions so what say you? $100 a month for the next 20 years? You can swing that, right? Thanks!

LOL- like you need a monthly contribution.

I knew you'd balk. You must be one of them thar GOP contraception denying tards. Not giving me money so I and my ladies can have access to contraception....
For shame.
Have a great day!

[Symmetry]

Yeah, well, probably they knew that antibiotics can't treat a common cold. And it's also not free- just heavily subsidised. Your brother fed you a bit of BS. If he wanted antibiotics, and he told you it was for a common cold, likely it was a case of the clap.

That's just semantics. The point is that the system has created undue bottlenecks and a generation of hypochondriacs.

Longest life expectancy of developed countries (just from memory this). No bottlenecks I ever saw, apart from obvious BS claims, which obviously get pushed to the back of the queue. Your brother fed you BS, sorry.

No he didn't. He had no reason to lie about long waits. But you're feeding me some BS is the point.

Addendum: Actually, he also mentioned people going to the doctor (in Japan) for skinned knees as well.

I have no idea what you're arguing anymore. Either your brother lied to you, or he's an idiot. Antibiotics don't treat colds. So if he wanted them, either he had a cold and wanted them, in which case he's an idiot, or he had something else that he didn't want to tell you about, in which case he lied.

On the whole, I doubt you have a brother, and you're just (to use the "vernacular") trolling as usual. But, if you want advice, put down toilet paper around the bowl before you sit on it next time you have a family gathering. Just in case, yaknow, you have a brother who needed antibiotics and wasn't willing to explain why.

[BigBallinStalin]

I once heard from a good friend that both of you are wrong.

REFUTE THAT.

[ViperOverLord]

Yeah, well, probably they knew that antibiotics can't treat a common cold. And it's also not free- just heavily subsidised. Your brother fed you a bit of BS. If he wanted antibiotics, and he told you it was for a common cold, likely it was a case of the clap.

That's just semantics. The point is that the system has created undue bottlenecks and a generation of hypochondriacs.

Longest life expectancy of developed countries (just from memory this). No bottlenecks I ever saw, apart from obvious BS claims, which obviously get pushed to the back of the queue. Your brother fed you BS, sorry.

No he didn't. He had no reason to lie about long waits. But you're feeding me some BS is the point.

Addendum: Actually, he also mentioned people going to the doctor (in Japan) for skinned knees as well.

I have no idea what you're arguing anymore. Either your brother lied to you, or he's an idiot. Antibiotics don't treat colds. So if he wanted them, either he had a cold and wanted them, in which case he's an idiot, or he had something else that he didn't want to tell you about, in which case he lied.

On the whole, I doubt you have a brother, and you're just (to use the "vernacular") trolling as usual. But, if you want advice, put down toilet paper around the bowl before you sit on it next time you have a family gathering. Just in case, yaknow, you have a brother who needed antibiotics and wasn't willing to explain why.

That's the point dude. The point is not whether the doctor should be treating it. The point is a person in Japan coughs and they are at the doctor. And I'd trust my brother 100 times out of 100 times vs you. So there's no point in having that argument. He didn't f'ing lie to me when he told me about the waits.

And I have a brother dude. What the f*ck is your deal? You really couldn't think of anything better to call me out on? And I already showed you that you were wrong about vernacular as well so bringing that baggage up just makes you look foolish.

[Symmetry]

I once heard from a good friend that both of you are wrong.

REFUTE THAT.

You're still wearing your Luns outfit from Halloween last year. Anybody who stays in their Halloween costume that long can generally be dismissed for hygiene reasons alone.

[Symmetry]

That's the point dude. The point is not whether the doctor should be treating it. The point is a person in Japan coughs and they are at the doctor. And I'd trust my brother 100 times out of 100 times vs you. So there's no point in having that argument. He didn't f'ing lie to me when he told me about the waits.

And I have a brother dude. What the f*ck is your deal? You really couldn't think of anything better to call me out on? And I already showed you that you were wrong about vernacular as well so bringing that baggage up just makes you look foolish.

So roughly, you're arguing that your brother went to see a doctor and had to wait 6-10 hours to get an entirely ineffective form of medication for a common cold, treatment for which is entirely available over the counter from any pharmacy in Japan, and that prescription, when granted, was free, although prescriptions aren't actually free in Japan, just heavily subsidised?

BS (to use the vernacular), obviously.