Republican War on Women Grows

[Night Strike]

That's a really well put together message,
but it's still bullshit.

Health issues, including those that involve women,
affect us all and preventative measures trump the
expense of aftercare. I'm not only considering the
abortion issue but all health risks.

Killing innocent humans also affects us all.

An honest question here. Do you also think of this phrase in times of war? Our military, as great as they are, still unfortunately maim and kill innocent civilians. Should military funding and such be looked into because of this affect on us all?


--Andy

Of course. Killing innocent people should never be desired, which is why that military person who allegedly killed the 16 Afghans should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And the military isn't out to kill innocent people, unlike what many liberals like to believe and claim. They're out to kill people who would otherwise harm us or others. Civilians die because of either bad intelligence or because the enemy we face are cowards. They purposefully hide among civilians because they know it makes it harder for our military to do their jobs and they get to blame us every time a civilian dies on accident. On the other hand, abortion is designed to kill innocent humans. Our military is not designed to do that.

[notyou2]

You need to move to Texas and be with the majority of your kind.

[Night Strike]

So what you are saying is those that don't have a car should not pay taxes that are used for highways.

Or those that don't have children should not pay taxes that are used for schools.

Hmm....when did I say that? I said the government can't come in and tell you what purchases you make out of your own pocket. I also said that the government providing health care is unconstitutional and unsustainable.

How is health money different from transportation money or education money?

You can't pick and choose.

Perhaps you need to live in a cave and become a hermit.

Transportation money could be tied to the government's role in interstate commerce, which is why it is ok to use that. The federal government is not responsible for education, so that should be cut anyway. The federal government is not responsible for health care either, so that shouldn't be started. The states however can fund those options if they want to (and can afford it), so you can debate their effects in those realms. However, the federal government is imposing their will on the states, which is why we have this debate anyway.

Furthermore, their plans to pay the health care expenses of those who can't pay for themselves are unconstitutional and are way to expensive to sustain.

You do realize that nobody is denied emergency hospital treatment regardless of their ability to pay and that those costs average more than ten times what preventative measures cost? In many cases a serious illness that could have been resolved easily with early detection --or just a simple check up by a qualified doctor-- will cost tens of thousands of dollars to treat. Where do you think the funds come from to pay for that treatment?

A big hunk of my property taxes goes to the county hospital and schools.

Property taxes are local taxes, not federal ones. I'm debating federal issues. And maybe the government should do more work to make sure that people who can't pay for their medical services are put on some sort of payment plan or are held accountable for their outstanding bills. No one deserves free medical care. Free medical care is comparable to slavery as it forces the doctors and nurses to provide work without compensation.

[Night Strike]

You need to move to Texas and be with the majority of your kind.

I'm just following the Constitution. If you don't like it, feel free to find another country to live in. There are plenty of socialistic countries in the world.

[HapSmo19]

You need to move to Texas and be with the majority of your kind.

I'm just following the Constitution. If you don't like it, feel free to find another country to live in. There are plenty of socialistic countries in the world.

He(it) already lives in canada, which is wierd that this is a big deal to him(it).

But, doncha' know, socialist ideals trump the constitution because they've worked so well throughout history.

Anyway, I'm not sure how empowering women to pay for their own abortions can be construed as a "war on women".

[Night Strike]

Anyway, I'm not sure how empowering women to pay for their own abortions can be construed as a "war on women".

Because people aren't responsible enough to make their own decisions and purchases: the government has to do it for them because it's now a "right".

[patches70]

On the other hand, abortion is designed to kill innocent humans. Our military is not designed to do that.

Meh, our military is designed to kill the enemy and unless we are fighting robots those enemy are human beings. Innocent, not innocent, regardless of who you would call "the bad guys", can you blame anyone anywhere for fighting for their country?

It doesn't matter if we hate our enemy or we think they are evil. We have to say that, just like the other side of any conflict is saying the exact same things to their people, their soldiers. Who's right? It all depends from which side your viewing it from....

I don't blame anyone for fighting for their country or their cause. After all, isn't that what we are doing?

You might hate the tactics the enemy uses but to be blatantly honest with yourself, what else are they supposed to do? Face the United States military in open battle? That's suicide and no one wins a war by dying for their country. One wins a war by making the enemy die for their country. Everything our enemy uses, every tactic no matter how distasteful it may be to us, is a valid tactic if it helps defeat the enemy (us). That's war. If you can't accept that then you won't know how to win a war.

Which is probably why the conflict in Afghanistan is unwinable. We don't have the stomach to do what we'd have to do to actually win. Even if we do "win" what is it that we will have won? Afghanistan will not accept a true democratic system and even if they did that wouldn't mean they'd be a friend to the US anyway. Contrary to popular belief, democracies don't automatically get along just because they have similar systems of government.

[natty dread]

Afghanistan will not accept a true democratic system

They might, but only if they're doing it of their own initiative, not by being forced into one by the world police USA.

[patches70]

Afghanistan will not accept a true democratic system

They might, but only if they're doing it of their own initiative, not by being forced into one by the world police USA.

Why do you say that? Are you arguing with me or something? Why not include the entire quote-

"and even if they did that wouldn't mean they'd be a friend to the US anyway."

and go from there instead of your typical America bashing. I get it, you hate the US. Good for you, thankfully you don't have to live here and even furthermore you wouldn't be allowed to come here. Due to your criminal record and all. You should just ignore the US.

And you understand that is what I said-

not by being forced into one by the USA.

Did you get that is what I was saying or do you need some reading comprehension lessons?

[natty dread]

[thegreekdog]

Anyway, I'm not sure how empowering women to pay for their own abortions can be construed as a "war on women".

This is well played.

Unrelated - Some of you may remember a thread where Natty and I argued about whether it was appropriate for me to spend my money on stuff I cared about. Well, I had a real life conversation about similar issues with a college-aged woman who was soliciting signatures and/or cash to help "save Planned Parenthood." I indicated to her that I did not want to save Planned Parenthood and she gave me a lecture on the importance of womens' rights. I believe I replied something like, "Having rights doesn't mean I have to pay for them" or something like that, and I suggested she take her solicitation to another part of the city.

[PLAYER57832]

How is cutting funding to Planned Parenthood a war on women?? Are there no other organizations that provide the same "services" they do? And if they're a private organization, why are they getting public money anyway? If they're so valuable, let individuals provide their funding, not the government.

Because medical care is too big for private entities. Private entities are what keep driving up the costs, taking the profits while the government supports the very sick, the poor and does most of the baseline research.

[PLAYER57832]

Anyway, I'm not sure how empowering women to pay for their own abortions can be construed as a "war on women".

This is well played.

Unrelated - Some of you may remember a thread where Natty and I argued about whether it was appropriate for me to spend my money on stuff I cared about. Well, I had a real life conversation about similar issues with a college-aged woman who was soliciting signatures and/or cash to help "save Planned Parenthood." I indicated to her that I did not want to save Planned Parenthood and she gave me a lecture on the importance of womens' rights. I believe I replied something like, "Having rights doesn't mean I have to pay for them" or something like that, and I suggested she take her solicitation to another part of the city.

When it comes to solicitations and such, I agree. However, women's reproductive health is not something that you should have a say about, any more than I should have a say about what medical care you recieve. That is the VERY big difference. And, as I stated above, medical care is just too big and, I would add too necessary, to be subject to the whims of private enterprise and profits. That doesn't mean that some models of efficiency, etc cannot be transferred into medicine, but overall... when medicine is for profit it does not help people, it makes it more expensive and less effective. (and yes, the data does prove that... remember the thread with the Texas clinics as an example of this?)

[Night Strike]

How is cutting funding to Planned Parenthood a war on women?? Are there no other organizations that provide the same "services" they do? And if they're a private organization, why are they getting public money anyway? If they're so valuable, let individuals provide their funding, not the government.

Because medical care is too big for private entities. Private entities are what keep driving up the costs, taking the profits while the government supports the very sick, the poor and does most of the baseline research.

Kind of like "too big to fail" so the government has to run everything? Until you amend the Constitution to say that the federal government has the power to make medical decisions for the country as well as force every person to participate in its system, such a system and mandates have no place in this country. Private entities only drive up costs because the government places more and more mandates on them, refuse to protect them from frivolous lawsuits causing them to perform every single test available whether it's need or not, and refuse to allow individuals to shop for their own insurance plans. If you let private entities actually function properly, prices WILL drop. The government has created the atmosphere of inflated insurance prices and then are trying to come in to install their big-government take-over as a solution. It's the typical ploy of progressivism.

[Night Strike]

Anyway, I'm not sure how empowering women to pay for their own abortions can be construed as a "war on women".

This is well played.

Unrelated - Some of you may remember a thread where Natty and I argued about whether it was appropriate for me to spend my money on stuff I cared about. Well, I had a real life conversation about similar issues with a college-aged woman who was soliciting signatures and/or cash to help "save Planned Parenthood." I indicated to her that I did not want to save Planned Parenthood and she gave me a lecture on the importance of womens' rights. I believe I replied something like, "Having rights doesn't mean I have to pay for them" or something like that, and I suggested she take her solicitation to another part of the city.

When it comes to solicitations and such, I agree. However, women's reproductive health is not something that you should have a say about, any more than I should have a say about what medical care you recieve. That is the VERY big difference. And, as I stated above, medical care is just too big and, I would add too necessary, to be subject to the whims of private enterprise and profits. That doesn't mean that some models of efficiency, etc cannot be transferred into medicine, but overall... when medicine is for profit it does not help people, it makes it more expensive and less effective. (and yes, the data does prove that... remember the thread with the Texas clinics as an example of this?)

So the people who oppose government intrusions don't get a say, but people like you do get to dictate what plans and options are offered? Brilliant hypocrisy there.

[Lootifer]

Actually, it's not the federal government's job to provide disaster relief anyway. Individuals are responsible for helping other individuals when disaster occur. That's why you ALWAYS see a massive outpouring of assistance whenever disasters occur. That's why you have organizations like the Red Cross and Convoy of Hope who respond in times of need.

Recent earthquakes in NZ have provided an interesting example of what would happen (apologise for the hyjack).

If the recovery was left exclusively to private firms almost every single insurance firm would have defaulted and many people would have been left with a grand total of zero cover.

Natural disasters NEED at least some coverage by the state (or regulated ultra-conservative insurance brokers) because the risk equation (of natural disasters) is so nasty. Private firms are happy to provide policy for ultra low risk/super high consequence events; but fucked if they will be carrying enough cash to cover anything if an event actually occurs.

[PLAYER57832]

How is cutting funding to Planned Parenthood a war on women?? Are there no other organizations that provide the same "services" they do? And if they're a private organization, why are they getting public money anyway? If they're so valuable, let individuals provide their funding, not the government.

Because medical care is too big for private entities. Private entities are what keep driving up the costs, taking the profits while the government supports the very sick, the poor and does most of the baseline research.

Kind of like "too big to fail" so the government has to run everything?

No, but leave it to you to insist that any hint of anything but the far right means we are descending into an abyss of big government.

Kind of like.. hmmm.. that old "domino theory" or, yeah.. all those pamphlets telling us to be so very watchful of communism.

Until you amend the Constitution to say that the federal government has the power to make medical decisions for the country as well as force every person to participate in its system, such a system and mandates have no place in this country.

I amend the constitution? Gee.. never knew I had such power!

Private entities only drive up costs because the government places more and more mandates on them, refuse to protect them from frivolous lawsuits causing them to perform every single test available whether it's need or not, and refuse to allow individuals to shop for their own insurance plans. If you let private entities actually function properly, prices WILL drop. The government has created the atmosphere of inflated insurance prices and then are trying to come in to install their big-government take-over as a solution. It's the typical ploy of progressivism.

Hmm... from a specific comment into a luanched diatribe of how anyone who disagrees with you just wants big government.

You might try actually THINKING instead of just reciting what you have memorized. And, it would be nice if you actually had facts to back up your beliefs. Because, as I have said over and over.. the real ground breaking research that moves medicine forward has come with very heavy government input, from vaccines for polio to cures malaria to cancer and AIDS research... its not private entities that are doing that on their own. They rely on government funding and then get to go out and take the patents and refine/market it for profit. But only IF there are enough people to warrant the production. (the government had to make companies produce some medicines through the orphan drug program).

[PLAYER57832]

Anyway, I'm not sure how empowering women to pay for their own abortions can be construed as a "war on women".

This is well played.

Unrelated - Some of you may remember a thread where Natty and I argued about whether it was appropriate for me to spend my money on stuff I cared about. Well, I had a real life conversation about similar issues with a college-aged woman who was soliciting signatures and/or cash to help "save Planned Parenthood." I indicated to her that I did not want to save Planned Parenthood and she gave me a lecture on the importance of womens' rights. I believe I replied something like, "Having rights doesn't mean I have to pay for them" or something like that, and I suggested she take her solicitation to another part of the city.

When it comes to solicitations and such, I agree. However, women's reproductive health is not something that you should have a say about, any more than I should have a say about what medical care you recieve. That is the VERY big difference. And, as I stated above, medical care is just too big and, I would add too necessary, to be subject to the whims of private enterprise and profits. That doesn't mean that some models of efficiency, etc cannot be transferred into medicine, but overall... when medicine is for profit it does not help people, it makes it more expensive and less effective. (and yes, the data does prove that... remember the thread with the Texas clinics as an example of this?)

So the people who oppose government intrusions don't get a say, but people like you do get to dictate what plans and options are offered? Brilliant hypocrisy there.

When it comes to a PRIVATE decision.. absolutely. You don't get to dictate that I must follow your religion, and that is exactly what this would mean.

Medical decisions are properly decided by DOCTORS, not priests or politicians. Not even your priest or your favorite politician.

Furthermore, as I have stated countless times, you don't even have your facts straight.. and seem proud of your ignorance. Not exactly a stance of strength OR freedom.

[Night Strike]

Actually, it's not the federal government's job to provide disaster relief anyway. Individuals are responsible for helping other individuals when disaster occur. That's why you ALWAYS see a massive outpouring of assistance whenever disasters occur. That's why you have organizations like the Red Cross and Convoy of Hope who respond in times of need.

Recent earthquakes in NZ have provided an interesting example of what would happen (apologise for the hyjack).

If the recovery was left exclusively to private firms almost every single insurance firm would have defaulted and many people would have been left with a grand total of zero cover.

Natural disasters NEED at least some coverage by the state (or regulated ultra-conservative insurance brokers) because the risk equation (of natural disasters) is so nasty. Private firms are happy to provide policy for ultra low risk/super high consequence events; but fucked if they will be carrying enough cash to cover anything if an event actually occurs.

Then the insurance companies are either not charging enough in premiums or aren't keeping enough assets on hand to cover damages. In the US, it's not the federal government's job to bail them out for poor business practices. In fact, it's actually the government's job to prosecute them if they promise a certain level of payouts and don't fulfill their contractual obligations.

[Night Strike]

Anyway, I'm not sure how empowering women to pay for their own abortions can be construed as a "war on women".

This is well played.

Unrelated - Some of you may remember a thread where Natty and I argued about whether it was appropriate for me to spend my money on stuff I cared about. Well, I had a real life conversation about similar issues with a college-aged woman who was soliciting signatures and/or cash to help "save Planned Parenthood." I indicated to her that I did not want to save Planned Parenthood and she gave me a lecture on the importance of womens' rights. I believe I replied something like, "Having rights doesn't mean I have to pay for them" or something like that, and I suggested she take her solicitation to another part of the city.

When it comes to solicitations and such, I agree. However, women's reproductive health is not something that you should have a say about, any more than I should have a say about what medical care you recieve. That is the VERY big difference. And, as I stated above, medical care is just too big and, I would add too necessary, to be subject to the whims of private enterprise and profits. That doesn't mean that some models of efficiency, etc cannot be transferred into medicine, but overall... when medicine is for profit it does not help people, it makes it more expensive and less effective. (and yes, the data does prove that... remember the thread with the Texas clinics as an example of this?)

So the people who oppose government intrusions don't get a say, but people like you do get to dictate what plans and options are offered? Brilliant hypocrisy there.

When it comes to a PRIVATE decision.. absolutely. You don't get to dictate that I must follow your religion, and that is exactly what this would mean.

Medical decisions are properly decided by DOCTORS, not priests or politicians. Not even your priest or your favorite politician.

Furthermore, as I have stated countless times, you don't even have your facts straight.. and seem proud of your ignorance. Not exactly a stance of strength OR freedom.

If it's a medical decision, why is the government getting involved? If a person needs any type of treatment, it's their responsibility to find a way to pay for it. They don't get to go plead with the government to force someone else to pay for it. If you work for a religious organization who disagrees with providing birth control, then you do NOT have the right to dictate that they change their religious beliefs to accommodate yours. Yet that is EXACTLY what you support and what this government is mandating. And you think MY beliefs are "everything but my way is wrong". You're the epitome of that argument.

[PLAYER57832]

Actually, it's not the federal government's job to provide disaster relief anyway. Individuals are responsible for helping other individuals when disaster occur. That's why you ALWAYS see a massive outpouring of assistance whenever disasters occur. That's why you have organizations like the Red Cross and Convoy of Hope who respond in times of need.

Recent earthquakes in NZ have provided an interesting example of what would happen (apologise for the hyjack).

If the recovery was left exclusively to private firms almost every single insurance firm would have defaulted and many people would have been left with a grand total of zero cover.

Natural disasters NEED at least some coverage by the state (or regulated ultra-conservative insurance brokers) because the risk equation (of natural disasters) is so nasty. Private firms are happy to provide policy for ultra low risk/super high consequence events; but fucked if they will be carrying enough cash to cover anything if an event actually occurs.

Then the insurance companies are either not charging enough in premiums or aren't keeping enough assets on hand to cover damages. In the US, it's not the federal government's job to bail them out for poor business practices. In fact, it's actually the government's job to prosecute them if they promise a certain level of payouts and don't fulfill their contractual obligations.

Except,. that requires a government with the power to enforce and investigate such things... Too bad you want to eliminate all that "big government" stuff. Sounds a lot like you are supporting it there.

[Lootifer]

Then the insurance companies are either not charging enough in premiums or aren't keeping enough assets on hand to cover damages. In the US, it's not the federal government's job to bail them out for poor business practices. In fact, it's actually the government's job to prosecute them if they promise a certain level of payouts and don't fulfill their contractual obligations.

I agree, but the risk equation that underpins it is so ugly that no private investor in the world is going to touch it. Mmmm high risk, low reward... YUM!

I mean high risk in terms of what is at stake, the actual risk of events is low, but if one happens you are likely to lose the lot. (not 100% sure but I think that means the hazard is extreme but the risk is low? I dunno the exact terminology).

[Night Strike]

Actually, it's not the federal government's job to provide disaster relief anyway. Individuals are responsible for helping other individuals when disaster occur. That's why you ALWAYS see a massive outpouring of assistance whenever disasters occur. That's why you have organizations like the Red Cross and Convoy of Hope who respond in times of need.

Recent earthquakes in NZ have provided an interesting example of what would happen (apologise for the hyjack).

If the recovery was left exclusively to private firms almost every single insurance firm would have defaulted and many people would have been left with a grand total of zero cover.

Natural disasters NEED at least some coverage by the state (or regulated ultra-conservative insurance brokers) because the risk equation (of natural disasters) is so nasty. Private firms are happy to provide policy for ultra low risk/super high consequence events; but fucked if they will be carrying enough cash to cover anything if an event actually occurs.

Then the insurance companies are either not charging enough in premiums or aren't keeping enough assets on hand to cover damages. In the US, it's not the federal government's job to bail them out for poor business practices. In fact, it's actually the government's job to prosecute them if they promise a certain level of payouts and don't fulfill their contractual obligations.

Except,. that requires a government with the power to enforce and investigate such things... Too bad you want to eliminate all that "big government" stuff. Sounds a lot like you are supporting it there.

LOL. Have you ever read and understood the Constitution? Article 1 instructs the Congress to set up a national court system as well as pass laws. Article II instructs the Executive Branch to carry out and enforce the laws passed by Congress. The roll of the established courts is to be a neutral 3rd party to adjudicate whether a contract has been violated or not. Please learn and understand the proper role of government before pushing your health care system and other big-government systems.

[PLAYER57832]

If it's a medical decision, why is the government getting involved?

They are not. However, because our society has decided that having sick people lying in the street is not good for business or the general health and welfare, they government does provide indigent health care.

AND, because private companies, including insurance companies, don't just go out and provide coverage out of the good ness of their hearts, some mandates and controls are necessary so that insurance companies don't just take money and provide basically no coverage. (pretty much what some insurance companies are doing now anyway)

If a person needs any type of treatment, it's their responsibility to find a way to pay for it. They don't get to go plead with the government to force someone else to pay for it. If you work for a religious organization who disagrees with providing birth control, then you do NOT have the right to dictate that they change their religious beliefs to accommodate yours. Yet that is EXACTLY what you support and what this government is mandating. And you think MY beliefs are "everything but my way is wrong". You're the epitome of that argument.

URRRGH.. Would be nice if you actually paid attention to what the real debates are for a change. This is about INSURANCE. See, the coverage IS paid for. It is paid, in part by the employee, and in part by the employer, thanks to WWII, actually, when employers could not offer more wages and decided to offer health insurance as compensation as a way to get around the no wage increase rules. I don't believe that employers have any business being in health care, but they are.

Since they ARE in the health insurance industry, employers need to provide real coverage.. not just whatever they feel they want to provide. That means that vaccines are covered for children even if the employer thinks vaccines cause autism, it means that surgery and blood transfusions are covered even if the employer is Christian Scientist or Jehovah's Witness. It also means that if you happen to be Roman Catholic, you don't get to decide to exclude what medical science AND the Supreme Court have decided is a part of a woman's basic health care needs.

[PLAYER57832]

[
LOL. Have you ever read and understood the Constitution? Article 1 instructs the Congress to set up a national court system as well as pass laws. Article II instructs the Executive Branch to carry out and enforce the laws passed by Congress. The roll of the established courts is to be a neutral 3rd party to adjudicate whether a contract has been violated or not. Please learn and understand the proper role of government before pushing your health care system and other big-government systems.

Then again.... It could be that I already do understand, and that a good many constitutional EXPERTS firmly disagree with you.

See, the irony is that what you propose very much IS a violation of the above. You think that the fact and employer is paying a bill means they have the right, not ME to decide MY religion and my religious practices. If it were about someone wearing crucifex', I am sure you would be out there proclaiming that the employer had no right (aside from safety concerns such as using metals near MRI's and the like). However, because it is woman's health care.. you think you have the right, that an employer has the right to dictate what a woman does or does not do on the advice of her doctor?

Pretty scary precedent. What's next. Vegetarian employers refusing to pay a full paycheck because some of it might be used to buy meat?



But.. carry on.