Tea Party Misogynist Limbaugh Demands Free Government Porn

[pimpdave]

Hrmm, why does american policy seem so backwards... Anyhoo, gotta work with the system you have...

Um can someone explain to me how insurance policies have anything to do with birthcontrol? I may have missed something but can you make an insurance claim to get condoms under most (non-religious) policies? And why does a university supply insurance in the first place?

I feel like I want to voice an opinion on the matter but the US system seems so damn weird...

I don't think condoms are usually covered under insurance policies, but since the birth control pill has more medical uses than just to prevent pregnancy, many policies do cover it.

It's law that to be enrolled as a student in the USA one must have health insurance, so many (if not all) colleges and universities provide health insurance and care through their own health system.

This probably all seems crazy to you, because you live in a country with universal health care, right?

[Timminz]

I live in a country with "universal" health care, yet I still carry insurance through my work, my wife's work, and my school. I actually get paid to go to the dentist.

[Lootifer]

Hrmm, why does american policy seem so backwards... Anyhoo, gotta work with the system you have...

Um can someone explain to me how insurance policies have anything to do with birthcontrol? I may have missed something but can you make an insurance claim to get condoms under most (non-religious) policies? And why does a university supply insurance in the first place?

I feel like I want to voice an opinion on the matter but the US system seems so damn weird...

I don't think condoms are usually covered under insurance policies, but since the birth control pill has more medical uses than just to prevent pregnancy, many policies do cover it.

It's law that to be enrolled as a student in the USA one must have health insurance, so many (if not all) colleges and universities provide health insurance and care through their own health system.

This probably all seems crazy to you, because you live in a country with universal health care, right?

Yeh, makes sense now, i just wasnt aware of the Universities thing.

So this new proposed law; is it forcing coverage for the pill or for birthcontrol specifically (ie condoms)?

[Night Strike]

Hrmm, why does american policy seem so backwards... Anyhoo, gotta work with the system you have...

Um can someone explain to me how insurance policies have anything to do with birthcontrol? I may have missed something but can you make an insurance claim to get condoms under most (non-religious) policies? And why does a university supply insurance in the first place?

I feel like I want to voice an opinion on the matter but the US system seems so damn weird...

I don't think condoms are usually covered under insurance policies, but since the birth control pill has more medical uses than just to prevent pregnancy, many policies do cover it.

It's law that to be enrolled as a student in the USA one must have health insurance, so many (if not all) colleges and universities provide health insurance and care through their own health system.

This probably all seems crazy to you, because you live in a country with universal health care, right?

Yeh, makes sense now, i just wasnt aware of the Universities thing.

So this new proposed law; is it forcing coverage for the pill or for birthcontrol specifically (ie condoms)?

It mandates that employers provide all female forms of contraceptive to all female employees or insurees at no cost to the individual and regardless of the reason. This means that organizations that are affiliated with a religion must provide all forms of female birth control even if their religious beliefs state that contraception cannot be used to prevent procreation. For all entities, it mandates that the employer has to provide for ALL forms of contraceptive, free of charge, even if it's not the cheapest option on the market. This means that a woman could choose to have the most expensive option on the market and neither the employer nor the insurance company can charge her more money, or even a co-pay, for that medicine. They have to pay for it out of their expenses.

[natty dread]

Man rember when sex was to bring life into the world. No just wondering

When was this exactly?

Oh wait, the answer is never. Humans have always had sex for pleasure.

Sexuality is a beautiful thing that should not be repressed because your imaginary sky-daddy commands so.

before your time Natty, which means it does not matter to you, or else it's tradition and must be destroyed.

Sorry to inform you Phatscotty, but that time never existed in anywhere except your imagination. People have been fucking each other left and right since the dawn of time. There has never, I repeat NEVER, been a time when sex was reserved for procreational purposes only.

Of course, I don't expect the facts to matter to you. After all, facts don't make for a very good scaremongering traditionalist rhetoric.

[Phatscotty]

Man rember when sex was to bring life into the world. No just wondering

When was this exactly?

Oh wait, the answer is never. Humans have always had sex for pleasure.

Sexuality is a beautiful thing that should not be repressed because your imaginary sky-daddy commands so.

before your time Natty, which means it does not matter to you, or else it's tradition and must be destroyed.

Sorry to inform you Phatscotty, but that time never existed in anywhere except your imagination. People have been fucking each other left and right since the dawn of time. There has never, I repeat NEVER, been a time when sex was reserved for procreational purposes only.

Of course, I don't expect the facts to matter to you. After all, facts don't make for a very good scaremongering traditionalist rhetoric.

Sorry to inform you, hedge never said only, neither did I. Go hallucinate imaginary arguments somewhere else.

[Lootifer]

It mandates that employers provide all female forms of contraceptive to all female employees or insurees at no cost to the individual and regardless of the reason. This means that organizations that are affiliated with a religion must provide all forms of female birth control even if their religious beliefs state that contraception cannot be used to prevent procreation. For all entities, it mandates that the employer has to provide for ALL forms of contraceptive, free of charge, even if it's not the cheapest option on the market.

Well if this is free of bias and correct then I agree with you.

Since we dont use the insurance model (we have insurance but its more of a luxary rather than a requirement for health services - skipping queues, specific grey area stuff in terms of optional procedures etc etc) we have state funded contraceptive, you can go to your doc and get a prescription for a metric shit tonne of condoms or the pill or whatever and then bag it up til your hearts content. Though you cant go and get "Super comfortable ribbed ultra expensive vibrating" condoms ofc, you get the standard inch thick "you aint getting no feeling from this sucka" condoms.

I like this system; sure it comes off everyones tax bill (religious people included), but its a service that the state should provide since use of condoms gives significant community/state benefits.

[natty dread]

Man rember when sex was to bring life into the world. No just wondering

When was this exactly?

Oh wait, the answer is never. Humans have always had sex for pleasure.

Sexuality is a beautiful thing that should not be repressed because your imaginary sky-daddy commands so.

before your time Natty, which means it does not matter to you, or else it's tradition and must be destroyed.

Sorry to inform you Phatscotty, but that time never existed in anywhere except your imagination. People have been fucking each other left and right since the dawn of time. There has never, I repeat NEVER, been a time when sex was reserved for procreational purposes only.

Of course, I don't expect the facts to matter to you. After all, facts don't make for a very good scaremongering traditionalist rhetoric.

Sorry to inform you, hedge never said only, neither did I. Go hallucinate imaginary arguments somewhere else.

Oh, fuck you for thinking you're being clever. That's an insult to all clever people everywhere.

If you can't win, try moving the goal posts, eh? No wonder they call you the Dodge King.

It's obvious that that guy you're agreeing with is saying there was a time when people had sex only for procreation. He's saying that "sex was to bring life into the world". That's a clear statement of purpose that doesn't specify any alternate motivation or purpose for sex besides procreation.

Sorry for your phat little butt, scotty.

[pimpdave]

Guys, guys, GUYS.

Settle down. Let's remember that the real enemy here isn't each other, but that phatso, Rush Limbaugh!

[Juan_Bottom]

Guys, guys, GUYS.

Settle down. Let's remember that the real enemy here isn't each other, but that phatso, Rush Limbaugh!

This is why we can dismiss everything that he says and anyone who listens to his show.

[Night Strike]

It mandates that employers provide all female forms of contraceptive to all female employees or insurees at no cost to the individual and regardless of the reason. This means that organizations that are affiliated with a religion must provide all forms of female birth control even if their religious beliefs state that contraception cannot be used to prevent procreation. For all entities, it mandates that the employer has to provide for ALL forms of contraceptive, free of charge, even if it's not the cheapest option on the market.

Well if this is free of bias and correct then I agree with you.

Since we dont use the insurance model (we have insurance but its more of a luxary rather than a requirement for health services - skipping queues, specific grey area stuff in terms of optional procedures etc etc) we have state funded contraceptive, you can go to your doc and get a prescription for a metric shit tonne of condoms or the pill or whatever and then bag it up til your hearts content. Though you cant go and get "Super comfortable ribbed ultra expensive vibrating" condoms ofc, you get the standard inch thick "you aint getting no feeling from this sucka" condoms.

I like this system; sure it comes off everyones tax bill (religious people included), but its a service that the state should provide since use of condoms gives significant community/state benefits.

I disagree that the government provides those things (because it's not the role of the government), but your government is not the US government, so it's not my job to correct it. However, at least your government only provides the cheap options. Our government is mandating that every single form of contraceptive, from the dirt cheap to the most expensive option, are all covered free of charge.

[Phatscotty]

When was this exactly?

Oh wait, the answer is never. Humans have always had sex for pleasure.

Sexuality is a beautiful thing that should not be repressed because your imaginary sky-daddy commands so.

before your time Natty, which means it does not matter to you, or else it's tradition and must be destroyed.

Sorry to inform you Phatscotty, but that time never existed in anywhere except your imagination. People have been fucking each other left and right since the dawn of time. There has never, I repeat NEVER, been a time when sex was reserved for procreational purposes only.

Of course, I don't expect the facts to matter to you. After all, facts don't make for a very good scaremongering traditionalist rhetoric.

Sorry to inform you, hedge never said only, neither did I. Go hallucinate imaginary arguments somewhere else.

Oh, fuck you for thinking you're being clever. That's an insult to all clever people everywhere.

If you can't win, try moving the goal posts, eh? No wonder they call you the Dodge King.

It's obvious that that guy you're agreeing with is saying there was a time when people had sex only for procreation. He's saying that "sex was to bring life into the world". That's a clear statement of purpose that doesn't specify any alternate motivation or purpose for sex besides procreation.

Sorry for your phat little butt, scotty.

or, you can just start cursing at everyone, lose control, call them a bunch of names, and rest your case with class.

He meant there was a time when sex had more purpose. But maybe I am wrong, maybe there haven't been any changes whatsoever concerning sexuality in the last few decades, and maybe the 60's never happened, and maybe the whole free love thing is just a myth. I think it's much more likely that you think the counter-culture has always existed, and you know nothing else. Take it from Natty, sex and the reasons for it have not changed one bit since the beginning of time.

And that is not a dodge, it's a pile-driver.

[natty dread]

or, you can just start cursing at everyone, lose control, call them a bunch of names, and rest your case with class.

Cry me a river, hippie.

He meant there was a time when sex had more purpose. But maybe I am wrong, maybe there haven't been any changes whatsoever concerning sexuality in the last few decades, and maybe the 60's never happened, and maybe the whole free love thing is just a myth. I think it's much more likely that you think the counter-culture has always existed, and you know nothing else. Take it from Natty, sex and the reasons for it have not changed one bit since the beginning of time.

Wow, nice dodge + strawman combo move. Classic Scotty.

There has never existed a time when "sex had more purpose". Superficially, there have been times when the public opinion of sex has been on the repressive side (eg. victorian times) but actually? People's sex habits were just as promiscuous back then than they are now. They just didn't talk about it publicly as much.

And just FYI, contraception has been known since ancient greece.

[Lootifer]

I disagree that the government provides those things (because it's not the role of the government), but your government is not the US government, so it's not my job to correct it. However, at least your government only provides the cheap options. Our government is mandating that every single form of contraceptive, from the dirt cheap to the most expensive option, are all covered free of charge.

But isn't having unprotected sex [indirectly] a demerit good/service that the state wants to discourage?

Now you guys are always going on about government and its efficiency (or lack there of)... And promoting the use of contraceptives is much more effective/efficient than telling horny jocks to abstain.

Another way to look at it is promoting contraceptives (not sex, you can promote safe sex without telling people to get. it. oooonnnn.) provides an obvious NPV positive benefit to the community, and thus the state (through less unwanted children/abortions/adoptions). Its actually very efficient state intervention (as far as state intervention goes) and is within their mandate since its providing community/social state-wide benefits.

[thegreekdog]

I disagree that the government provides those things (because it's not the role of the government), but your government is not the US government, so it's not my job to correct it. However, at least your government only provides the cheap options. Our government is mandating that every single form of contraceptive, from the dirt cheap to the most expensive option, are all covered free of charge.

But isn't having unprotected sex [indirectly] a demerit good/service that the state wants to discourage?

Now you guys are always going on about government and its efficiency (or lack there of)... And promoting the use of contraceptives is much more effective/efficient than telling horny jocks to abstain.

Another way to look at it is promoting contraceptives (not sex, you can promote safe sex without telling people to get. it. oooonnnn.) provides an obvious NPV positive benefit to the community, and thus the state (through less unwanted children/abortions/adoptions). Its actually very efficient state intervention (as far as state intervention goes) and is within their mandate since its providing community/social state-wide benefits.

Apologies for jumping in midstream, but I don't think the government should be encouraging or discouraging anything with respect to sex. Of course, I think all forms of consensual sex should be legal and prostitution should be legal. And I'm sure most conservatives don't agree with me on that.

[Lootifer]

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

[BigBallinStalin]

I disagree that the government provides those things (because it's not the role of the government), but your government is not the US government, so it's not my job to correct it. However, at least your government only provides the cheap options. Our government is mandating that every single form of contraceptive, from the dirt cheap to the most expensive option, are all covered free of charge.

But isn't having unprotected sex [indirectly] a demerit good/service that the state wants to discourage?

Now you guys are always going on about government and its efficiency (or lack there of)... And promoting the use of contraceptives is much more effective/efficient than telling horny jocks to abstain.

Another way to look at it is promoting contraceptives (not sex, you can promote safe sex without telling people to get. it. oooonnnn.) provides an obvious NPV positive benefit to the community, and thus the state (through less unwanted children/abortions/adoptions). Its actually very efficient state intervention (as far as state intervention goes) and is within their mandate since its providing community/social state-wide benefits.

Okay, Malthus, when you're off your "population growth is bad" platform, lemme know.

show

On a slightly more serious note, the NPV of curtailing population is up for debate. It depends on reducing the population growth for whichever groups and how much of a burden their kids would place on the state's resources.

So, it would make more sense if the state subsidized the costs of contraceptives for people in the <20% or <40% income brackets. For other brackets, it doesn't make as much sense.

[Lootifer]

On a slightly more serious note, the NPV of curtailing population is up for debate. It depends on reducing the population growth for whichever groups and how much of a burden their kids would place on the state's resources.

I would assume that in the case of unwanted pregnancies this proportion would be high. Also its not just babies, you will get a small, but still material, reduction healthcare costs, though since your system isnt state funded then I guess you dont see this. Prevention is always better than cure though...

So, it would make more sense if the state subsidized the costs of contraceptives for people in the <20% or <40% income brackets. For other brackets, it doesn't make as much sense.

Sneaky eugenics, i love it!

[Lootifer]

Also the net effect of funding only shitty inch thick condoms is that if you can afford to pay for decent ones, you tend to, so I guess its an indirect way of achieving what funding for low income brackets would do anyway.

[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.

Kinda makes one wonder if the right wing just wants to punish whoever dares to commit the crime of enjoying sex. Especially if that someone dares to commit the even worse crime of being a woman who enjoys sex.

[BigBallinStalin]

On a slightly more serious note, the NPV of curtailing population is up for debate. It depends on reducing the population growth for whichever groups and how much of a burden their kids would place on the state's resources.

I would assume that in the case of unwanted pregnancies this proportion would be high. Also its not just babies, you will get a small, but still material, reduction healthcare costs, though since your system isnt state funded then I guess you dont see this. Prevention is always better than cure though...

To be clear: <puts on moderate hat>

I don't think the benefits from subsidies on contraceptives for richer groups would offset the costs of the subsidy because presumably richer groups know better, have a much less state-dependent capability of providing for the child, and can afford the contraceptives like condoms, birth control pills, and day-after pills without incurring nearly as much as a decrease in their real income compared to poorer groups.

So, it would make more sense if the state subsidized the costs of contraceptives for people in the <20% or <40% income brackets. For other brackets, it doesn't make as much sense.

Sneaky eugenics, i love it!

Hey! Let's act like the know-it-all scientists and central planners here!

Subsidizing the population growth of poorer people would bring in marginally greater cost-savings from the expected reduction in future state services. Of course, the future is uncertain and who knows what the unintended consequences are, but if we want to draft public policy, then let's draft public policy.

[BigBallinStalin]

Also the net effect of funding only shitty inch thick condoms is that if you can afford to pay for decent ones, you tend to, so I guess its an indirect way of achieving what funding for low income brackets would do anyway.

To me, that seems like a waste of tax revenues and an unnecessary misallocation of resources in the production of "shitty inch thick" condoms.

But you might have a point here I'm overlooking.

[natty dread]

Also the net effect of funding only shitty inch thick condoms is that if you can afford to pay for decent ones, you tend to, so I guess its an indirect way of achieving what funding for low income brackets would do anyway.

To me, that seems like a waste of tax revenues and an unnecessary misallocation of resources in the production of "shitty inch thick" condoms.

But you might have a point here I'm overlooking.

Poor + uneducated people might be more likely to just go without rather than use shitty, one-inch-thick condoms - especially with a lack of proper sex education.

It's much better to just hand out free quality condoms for everyone. And also tell people to use them.

[Lootifer]

Lol theyre not that bad, theyre just the bog standard basic product from durex, ultra safe or whatever...

[thegreekdog]

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

That's cool dude. I just don't want the government legislating when I can and cannot have sex and who pays for it if I do. You can feel free to tell me the dangers of unprotected sex to my health and I can feel free to take your advice or ignore it.

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 could not agree more with this statement (except that a typical social conservative will tell you the answer is to not have sex... which I find an unrealstic answer).