feedback.pdxradio.com » Politics and other things

Did Obama bite off more than he can chew?

(337 posts)
  • Started 2 years ago by Deane Johnson
  • Latest reply from chickenjuggler

  1. Taking on the Catholic Church may turn out to be a bit of a mistake during an election year.

    http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/02/06/catholic-league-poised-to-go-to-war-with-obama-over-mandatory-birth-control-payments/

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 06:29 PM #
  2. Andy_brown

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,432

    The hard core white Catholics didn't vote for him last time, so what's your point?

    http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/How-the-Faithful-Voted.aspx

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 06:37 PM #
  3. Amus

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,368

    You don't want all those priests on your ass.
    He's screwed.

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 06:39 PM #
  4. >>>"The hard core white Catholics didn't vote for him last time, so what's your point?"<<<

    Just who did the the "hardcore" porn Catholics vote for?

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 06:48 PM #
  5. Andrew

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,081

    The Catholic Church has no case on this. They are wrong. Once people see the facts, rather than misunderstanding the highlights of news stories.

    I hope the Obama Administration doesn't back down on this, though I understand it's an election year. Even though Obama didn't get the votes last time of many of the people who would be offended by this, it's still not an issue you want to give to the opposition, even if it's a fake issue.

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 06:55 PM #
  6. >>>"even if it's a fake issue."<<<

    I've noticed in reading this forum that all issues affecting Obama are "fake issues". One never stops learning interesting things.

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 07:03 PM #
  7. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,721

    Perhaps you can show us which of there "alerts" that you've posted over the past few months represent Obama's biggest albatross? After this past weekend, it doesn't appear that any of this stuff is sticking. Did you see the latest polls?

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 07:07 PM #
  8. "The Catholic Church has no case on this. They are wrong. Once people see the facts, rather than misunderstanding the highlights of news stories."

    Catholic organizations will essentially be forced to dispense contraceptives.

    Where is the misunderstanding?

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 07:11 PM #
  9. Andrew

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,081

    Deane: I've noticed in reading this forum that all issues affecting Obama are "fake issues". One never stops learning interesting things.

    I'm not surprised you've noticed that, even though it isn't true.

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 07:13 PM #
  10. Andrew

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,081

    F&B: Catholic organizations will essentially be forced to dispense contraceptives.

    Where is the misunderstanding?

    Catholic organizations that employ large numbers of NON-CATHOLICS will be required to pay for contraceptives (not "distribute" them) as part of their insurance plans. Sorry, being a non-Catholic employed at a Catholic hospital should not allow your employer to avoid paying for certain health benefits for you.

    Catholic organizations that have largely Catholic employees will be exempt.

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 07:18 PM #
  11. Andy_brown

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,432

    >>>"The hard core white Catholics didn't vote for him last time, so what's your point?"<<<

    Just who did the the "hardcore" porn Catholics vote for?

    Click on the link again and read for yourself.

    Clearly, only the total Catholic vote gave Obama a majority due to black Catholics more than likely.

    Every other Christian category went for McShame.

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 07:25 PM #
  12. " Black Catholics "

    Now there is a major block of voters ! NOT...

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 07:29 PM #
  13. "Catholic organizations that employ large numbers of NON-CATHOLICS will be required to pay for contraceptives (not "distribute" them) as part of their insurance plans. Sorry, being a non-Catholic employed at a Catholic hospital should not allow your employer to avoid paying for certain health benefits for you."

    Even without the religious objection it's ridiculous that all insurance companies are coerced to provide "free" contraception. That is something anyone who wants can purchase themselves, and don't need to be subsidized by the non-contraceptors and the abstinent. Functioning reproductive organs are not medical conditions that need to be treated and a pregnancy is is not a disease.

    But the religious organization should be able to set standards which comply with their religious beliefs. A Catholic hospital should not be forced to perform abortions. A Catholic organization should not be forced to hand out birth control pills to employees of their organization.

    Just as a non-Catholic who goes to a Catholic school has to do the prayers and go to mass, a non-Catholic worker who CHOOSES to work for a Catholic organization should accept that the organization cannot violate the tenets of their faith.

    Two things are going on with this. 1) It is a smack-down of a religion which dares to defy the idea that drugs and plugs are the essence of morality and goodness. 2) It's a way to get religious employers to drop their coverage and and enlarge government programs.

    This is evil.

    Hopefully this outrage will wake up Catholics to get off their butts and vote according to their consciences for a change. Freedom of religion is at stake.

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 08:17 PM #
  14. This letter was read at all Masses in the Portland diocese and similar letters have been written and read aloud in Catholic parishes nationwide.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

    It is important for you to know that the federal government has just dealt a heavy blow to the Catholic population and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic faithful.

    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all employers, including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees’ health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those “services” in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies.

    By this ruling, the Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. Unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to violate our consciences or drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The Administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.

    We cannot and will not comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom.

    In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.

    And therefore, I would ask of you two things. First, as a community of faith we must commit ourselves to prayer and fasting that wisdom and justice may prevail, and religious liberty may be restored. Without God, we can do nothing; with God, nothing is impossible. Second, I recommend visiting http://www.usccb.org/conscience, to learn more about this severe assault on religious liberty, and how to contact Congress in support of legislation that would reverse the Administration’s decision.

    Thank you for all you do to build the Church and society.

    Sincerely yours in Christ,

    Most Reverend John G. Vlazny

    Archbishop of Portland in Oregon

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 08:29 PM #
  15. Andrew

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,081

    F&B: But the religious organization should be able to set standards which comply with their religious beliefs.

    What if a religion doesn't believe women should work? Should the organization be allowed to not hire women?

    What if the organization's leaders are Christian Scientists who don't believe in transfusions? Should they be allowed to deny insurance to cover transfusions to non-members of their religion?

    The religious beliefs of a big organization that employs a lot of people should not be relevant to what it is allowed to deny in insurance coverage.

    A Catholic hospital should not be forced to perform abortions.

    Nor is anyone suggesting they be forced to do so.

    A Catholic organization should not be forced to hand out birth control pills to employees of their organization.

    Nor is anyone suggesting they be forced to do so.

    A large employer is a large employer; they should not get special exemptions because of the religious beliefs of their leaders. Small employers can get exemptions when they employ large people of that faith.

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 08:50 PM #
  16. PianoMan

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 516

    Politically, it's a non-issue because the majority of U.S. Catholics use and/or support birth control, and the minority who don't are never going to vote for Obama anyway. The bishops and Catholic League are (as usual) spitting in the wind. One wishes they would stop to consider that accessible birth control is more effective in reducing unwanted pregancy and abortion than any other single measure. There is also the inconvenient fact that condoms prevent most STDs.

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 08:55 PM #
  17. A large CATHOLIC organization identifies as such for a reason, and that is to be an influence for good. Passing out contraceptives is NOT good from a Catholic perspective. It is to cooperate with evil. If they are forced to provide insurance which provides contraception, they are materially cooperating with evil.

    But once again, how is it that the government could have so much power that they could micromanage all insurance companies and FORCE them to provide contraception? That's an outrageous power grab and social engineering at its ugliest.

    Contraception is cheap. Fertility and pregnancy are not diseases or medical conditions.

    This attack on freedom of commerce is evil enough, let alone what it does to the religious organizations.

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 09:04 PM #
  18. "Politically, it's a non-issue because the majority of U.S. Catholics use and/or support birth control, and the minority who don't are never going to vote for Obama anyway. The bishops and Catholic League are (as usual) spitting in the wind."

    On the bright side, this provides an opportunity to teach ignorant Catholics about their faith.

    Just curious--how do you know the majority of Catholics use birth control? And if you're drawing this from statistics, does it include the "Cheasters" and the CINOs?

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 09:07 PM #
  19. Andrew

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,081

    F&B: A large CATHOLIC organization identifies as such for a reason, and that is to be an influence for good.

    Good for them - but from the standpoint of society and the government, they are just another organization that employs workers and should therefore have to follow the same rules as every other big employer. If they don't want to follow the same rules as everyone else, they should cease running organizations that employ many people not of their faith.

    Passing out contraceptives is NOT good from a Catholic perspective.

    I agree - good thing no one is suggesting they be forced to do so.

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 09:10 PM #
  20. What business is it of the government to FORCE insurance companies to provide contraceptives?

    How unfair is that that they FORCE the abstinent and those who don't use contraception to pay for those who do?

    What if insurance companies could be FREE (I hope that's not a dirty word) to provide or not provide? How does it hurt anyone if some insurance companies don't provide it?

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 09:15 PM #
  21. " Black Catholics "

    I have been to two all-black Catholic churches in my travels.

    What I remember most about those experiences, besides the fact that I felt a little uncomfortable unexpectedly sticking out like sore thumb, is that there was such a great reverence and respect there. And everyone was well-dressed, hardly a man there who was not wearing a coat and tie. They dress way too casually in most other churches I attend, imho.

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 09:29 PM #
  22. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,657

    Simple. Health care is a SHARED RISK. Everybody pays for everyone else in one form or other. That's how just about the entire world does this. And there is ACCESS to care, and delivery of care. I'm writing on ACCESS, not delivery, two different things. The health care legislation passed deals with ACCESS to care.

    There is a basic conflict between making a profit on ACCESS to care, and adequately funding the care needed by sick people. And, just about everybody gets sick, and we all need ACCESS to preventative care of all kinds, so that the cost of ACCESS to care of all kinds makes sense.

    Given that, they either:

    1. employ private companies, with strict regulation to overcome the profit for care conflict, allowing margins appropriate for the work done

    , or

    2. they do not employ private companies, socializing ACCESS to care across the population served

    , or

    3. they do a mix of private insurance and socialized insurance, using regulation for the private companies, where they add value, and socializing the rest, where there isn't a lot of value to be added.

    An example would be France, which has a core socialized system, preventative, most medical, etc... On top of that, the French can buy private add on insurance to buy down their risk and or increased "posh" care. Such add-ons might be luxury lodging, or house calls, or employer comp for days missed, etc... A very high percentage of French purchase this secondary insurance, but they don't have to, if they don't want to.

    In many nations it is illegal to provide foundation, or primary health care insurance, because of the for profit access conflict.

    ACCESS to care is a considerable risk. It's not FREE to anyone. It is however, well distributed so that no one person faces a cost / risk that exceeds their ability to pay, resulting in early death, or much more costly advanced problems not resolved when they were basic problems, etc...

    Everybody pays, everybody gets covered. That's fair. What isn't fair is to start exclusions based on this or that. Where we exclude, we raise the overall cost of ACCESS and risk everybody sees, because where access is limited, costs and risk distribution doesn't provide the economies needed for things to work. Costs for ACCESS in general, will rise for that added cost and risk being present and accounted for. Our lowest cost for ACCESS happens when we insure everybody, pooling risk as widely as possible.

    Our current cost of care ACCESS per person is the highest in the world, costing double what the next most expensive system costs. Our current cost of DELIVERY is also much higher than average, and often the highest in the world. This is due to our current system not providing ACCESS for everyone, and it failing to distribute risks nation wide, largely driven by private insurers seeking good margins from healthy people, discouraging sick people, which is the basic conflict we seek to resolve.

    Since this is an ACCESS mandate, actual DELIVERY of health care IS NOT MANDATED, only ACCESS.

    This means anyone can choose to ACCESS health care from those providers who feel they can offer it. Nobody wants to force health care delivery. Think about it. Would you want care from somebody forced to do it, or get care from those that WANT to do it?

    Much of the confusion surrounding this issue stems from the failure to differentiate ACCESS, which is the target of the legislation, from DELIVERY, which currently isn't the target of any legislation.

    Any American should be able to access health care on their terms, which is the goal of the current legislation. If they have religious objections, they won't be accessing those care elements they object to. However, if somebody decides that care is more important than their convictions, they will be able to ACCESS said care, just like any other American, all protected equally under the law.

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 09:33 PM #
  23. Andrew

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,081

    F&B: How unfair is that that they FORCE the abstinent and those who don't use contraception to pay for those who do?

    How fair is it that I have to pay - via my insurance premiums - for insulin for diabetics? I'm not diabetic, so I don't want to pay for their insulin.

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 09:34 PM #
  24. PianoMan

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 516

    How unfair is that that they FORCE the abstinent and those who don't use contraception to pay for those who do?

    Because we all benefit from accessible birth control, whether we personally avail ourselves of it or not.

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 09:35 PM #
  25. And what if insurance companies could design their own programs? Why should a private enterprise be forced to comply with the bureacratic wet dream of condoms, pills, and abortions for all?

    Even if not for moral reasons but as a business decision.

    Economically, it makes no sense. Contraception is cheap.

    And Andrew, diabetes is a medical condition. Being healthy, fertile, and sexually active is not a condition that needs to be treated medically.

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 09:41 PM #
  26. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,657

    When we pick and choose, we fail to get the economic benefit distributing ACCESS costs delivers.

    Secondly, dollars wasted on ACCESS, which total up to 30 percent of all dollars spent in the US, compared to a few percent for Medicare and most other nations ACCESS costs, are dollars NOT DELIVERING CARE.

    Insurance companies design their programs for PROFIT, not DELIVERING CARE. The desire to profit is always there for private insurers, who make the most when PEOPLE DO NOT ACCESS CARE. In particular, preventative care ACCESS costs currently mean serious under-utilization of preventative care, raising costs due to increased incidents of major medical care, which typically is covered.

    Preventative care is not a high margin area of care, not very profitable for private insurers and health care providers, both of whom often prefer to deliver high margin care, which means tests, advanced procedures and major medical in general.

    The goal of the legislation was to check GROWING ACCESS to care costs, so that more of our dollars actually end up used for DELIVERY of health care, again, those ACCESS costs are nearly 1 in every three dollars not resulting in care DELIVERY, and rising, and THE MOST EXPENSIVE in the world. Mind you, ACCESS to care PROFITS do not add value. No care is delivered.

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 09:54 PM #
  27. Vitalogy

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 7,082

    I'm sure my insurance company would have been more than happy to pay for the $25 per month cost for birth control rather than paying the $35,000 it cost to have our son, plus 18-24 more years of healthcare costs.

    Birth control saves money and reduces abortion. Why someone like you is against it is a testiment to how lame your religion really is. And, how lame you are as a person.

    I think the catholic cult could spend their time better dealing with their pedophile priests rather than getting their rosary in a bunch.

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 10:01 PM #
  28. Then there would be no need to point a gun at the insurance companies and FORCE them to offer "free" contraception. They would do it automatically to save costs.

    We're dealing with the homosexual predators in the Church. That evil doesn't mean we should accept evil forced on us by the government.

    Insurance OUGHT to be about the "big things." Ongoing expenses are not medical catastrophes. Anybody can afford to buy condoms or bc pills. That doesn't need to be an insurance claim.

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 10:13 PM #
  29. Andrew

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,081

    F&B: And Andrew, diabetes is a medical condition. Being healthy, fertile, and sexually active is not a condition that needs to be treated medically.

    You think pregnancy isn't a medical condition? Would you prefer that women who skip contraceptives due to the cost get pregnant and abortions instead? As long as someone else pays for it, I mean?

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 10:13 PM #
  30. Vitalogy

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 7,082

    What does it say about the catholic cult that it attracts so many pedophiles, and not only that, attracts those in position of leadership that feel the need to sheild those pedophiles to protect the brand?

    What other religion has the amount of abuse that occurs in the catholic cult?

    Having to provide birth control is the LEAST of your worries when you can't even police your own pedophile priests and and their superiors.

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 10:43 PM #
  31. There is just as much of that going on in the secular world, including the school system, and in other religions.

    But we Catholics do know that it is evil. I don't think you've grasped that yet.

    And one evil doesn't mean we should condone another.

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 11:30 PM #
  32. "You think pregnancy isn't a medical condition? Would you prefer that women who skip contraceptives due to the cost get pregnant and abortions instead? As long as someone else pays for it, I mean?"

    I would rather that the insurance companies and individual organizations who provide insurance as a benefit could have the freedom to construct their own programs--with or without contraception.

    It's an injustice to force it.

    And arguments that it's cheaper that way because of what it prevents don't hold water, since if that were the case, the insurance companies would not have to be forced to do it. But cheaper or not, the government should not have the authority to force it. And why would something so cheap need to be forced anyway?

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 11:33 PM #
  33. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,657

    Insurance companies are not about CHEAPER, only MORE PROFITABLE. That's the conflict, and the justification for uniform access to basic, preventative health care.

    That's cheaper for us as a people, not so much for the insurer. Given they don't actually DO anything, their margins should reflect that. Insurers make the most when transaction counts are low, and margins high per transaction. This discourages preventative care, and a quick look at all but the very best policies reflects that reality.

    Private health care insurance, primary care insurance is illegal in most of the world F&B.

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 11:40 PM #
  34. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,657

    BTW: Most of your dated and grossly oversimplified economic ideas do not work well for analyzing private health care insurers. The reason? They do not produce anything, and instead profit by denying care to the maximum number of people, and or cases to maximize their profit.

    They do not generally base those decisions medically either.

    Their position isn't the same as a company actually creating wealth, adding value in other words. They don't add value, only take a cut, which is why it either highly regulated, or illegal.

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 11:42 PM #
  35. It depends how you define "adding value." And is that the criteria for whether commerce should be regulated?

    Does an agent add value? Does advertising add value? Does Kim Kardashian add value?

    It really doesn't matter as far as the economy is concerned. Do the consumers want it?

    Insurance companies have to compete with each other. Nobody gets to take too big of a cut for too long.

    But this discussion is beside the point. Insurance OUGHT to be for the big thing that would devastate someone. A house that burns down. A heart attack.

    Not for a dirty window or leaves in the gutter. That's just regular maintenance. Likewise antibacterial soap or contraception. And contraception is cheap. Why does it need to be a FORCED insurance benefit?

    People can buy their own, and those who don't use it don't have to pay for it. That's simple, fair, and common sense.

    But since when does that matter to bureaucrats? And I don't think this is well intended. It's a purposeful attack on religion. The intent is to undermine the "medieval beliefs" and eventually rid our society of them. Let them be held within the walls of their church, but don't let any of it seep out into the "real" world.

    Posted on February 6, 2012 - 11:55 PM #
  36. Andrew

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,081

    F&B: contraception is cheap. Why does it need to be a FORCED insurance benefit?

    People can buy their own, and those who don't use it don't have to pay for it.

    Why on earth do you think advocates want insurance plans to pay for contraception??? You think it's all part of the liberal/commie/Obama socialist conspiracy to force liberal values on Catholics? But you think the liberals LOOOOOOVE abortion, don't you? Wouldn't they want want MORE out-of-wedlock pregnancies, so they could make more money on abortions over there at the Planned Parenthood? Therefore, wouldn't they want as few women using contraceptives as possible? Isn't contraception bad for the abortion business?

    If effective contraception were as affordable as you claim, there would be no need for insurance companies to pay for it. Not all forms of contraception are equal.

    Believe it or not, advocates of cheap contraception want FEWER unwanted pregnancies and FEWER abortions. Does that bother you?

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 12:06 AM #
  37. Contraception is the evil twin of abortion.

    The two are inseparable. It is the contraception culture that brought us the abortion culture, as abortion became a form of back-up "contraception" when the contraception failed.

    One leads to the other.

    And over half of women who aborted were using contraception.

    The way to avoid unwanted pregnancy is for couples to practice their sexuality within the confines of a committed relationship, and with the knowledge that using their reproductive organs is likely to lead to reproduction, and that they should be well-prepared to take care of the gifts Mother Nature will bestow.

    Throwing condoms and pills at teenagers does not send a message of responsibility, and will lead to more promiscuous sexual behavior which will lead to more cases of failed contraception and unwanted pregnancies.

    So no, I don't buy the argument for contraception. In the long run it causes more and not less unwanted pregnancies. And I don't buy that when there are unwanted pregnancies the product has to be killed. We can still save the babies, even in difficult situation. Contraception does not save any babies from abortion.

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 12:15 AM #
  38. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,657

    Private health care insurers do not deliver health care. Their goal is in conflict with health care, in that private health insurers only profit when people DO NOT GET CARE after paying for ACCESS.

    Our health care insurers here run as high as 30 percent, though that's about to drop to 20 because of the new legislation. Medicare performs the same task for a few percent! Other nations generally are in the few percent, maybe something north of 10 at most.

    Why give private insurers so much money when we don't have to? The dollars they keep simply do not do anything for anyone but them. That's not adding value.

    Profit for value added is fine! Making things, fixing things, services, and such are all value adds. You pay dollars and get value in exchange for them.

    Private insurers provide no such value. No service is rendered, no care delivered. All they do is regulate access and operate. Their operating margins are THICK, as are their profits, because people are not accessing care they can't afford to access!

    Atena just announced record earnings. People have policies and who then cannot afford to make use of those policies is very profitable. A very common scenario is employer paid insurance with a fairly high deductable being matched up with minimum wage, or low wage laborers, who simply cannot afford to use the policy, unless forced to.

    Those policies can cost HALF THEIR WAGE, yet they get very little for it.

    The legislation mandated preventative care be given with little or no co-pay, so that people could access both major medical and preventative care on a modest wage. This will cut down on major problems, because we catch them early, it will increase the number insured, which lowers costs for everybody as emergency care is very expensive, among other benefits.

    A drop from 30 percent to 20 percent means more ACCESS per dollar spent. People get more for their health care dollars. A further reduction to non-profit / medicare, or even a very large risk pool, would mean people get even more.

    This is why every other nation, or just about every other nation, made private primary care illegal, or regulated it strongly to keep margins at a few percent, competitive with what the people would pay anyway on a socialized ACCESS system.

    In France, private insurers offer value above standard medical care, which is affordable to any French citizen, because it's socialized. What the private insurers do is sell add on, luxury policies for things like special lodging, home care, equipment and other cost coverage, employer compensation for days missed and all sorts of other nice things OF VALUE.

    Those are value adds, and it does not contradict the goal of keeping people healthy like for-profit primary care insurance does. We pay huge sums to private insurers and get LESS VALUE for our dollar than anywhere else in the modern world. (some underdeveloped places still struggle with this)

    The result of that high value for the dollar is very broad use of the private add-on, high value insurance and nice profits for the companies adding real value to health care.

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 12:18 AM #
  39. Andrew

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,081

    F&B: I don't buy the argument for contraception. In the long run it causes more and not less unwanted pregnancies.

    Of course YOU don't buy it, but research shows you would if you believed in science:

    http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2011/03/09/index.html

    Guttmacher Institute research shows that the two-thirds of U.S. women at risk of unintended pregnancy who use contraception consistently and correctly throughout the course of any given year account for only 5% of all unintended pregnancies. The 19% of women at risk who use contraception but do so inconsistently account for 44% of all unintended pregnancies, while the 16% of women at risk who do not use contraception at all for a month or more during the year account for 52% of all unintended pregnancies.

    Of course, these facts contradict your cherished beliefs, so it's not surprising you reject them, the way people centuries ago at first rejected the idea that the earth was round and not the center of the solar system, because it contradicted what they believed.

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 12:28 AM #
  40. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,657

    Contraception is the evil twin of abortion. -->says the resident clown.

    Well:

    http://pphsinc.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/a-look-into-global-access-to-birth-control/

    Basic facts are why you are on the losing end of this stuff F&B. And the voters trending older are trending left in these matters too. As more of the old guard tips over? Well, let's just say it doesn't look good for your type.

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 12:32 AM #
  41. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,725

    UF&UB will YOU pay for all the people that are born if there is NO birth control? Seriously will YOU be 100% responsible for all those who are born? What will you do for them after they are born? How will YOU pay for them?

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 01:52 AM #
  42. Mrs.Merkin

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,435

    F'n Clueless: "Contraception is cheap."

    No, it isn't.

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 08:28 AM #
  43. Mrs.Merkin

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,435

    Thank you, Andrew.

    This is why F'n Clueless NEVER "shows" his work. He knows it will quickly prove him wrong, if he even bothered to look.

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 08:47 AM #
  44. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,721

    I also wish that you'd drop this canard that "requiring" insurance companies to offer BC coverage somehow besmirches the Catholic Church. There's no requirement that "practicing Catholics" will be required to use those coverages. All kinds of insurance companies have coverages that are never used. I'll bet your current company covers mammograms. Are YOU going to avail yourself of that benefit? Where's your umbrage over that? Despite the hue and cry from the church, no one is going to hold a gun to anyone's head, forcing them to use that coverage. Where does the Catholic Church get off, trying to dictate what a private company can or cannot offer? Why is the church's compulsion better than the government's?

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 08:48 AM #
  45. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,725

    UF&UB doesn't care about women period.

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 10:18 AM #
  46. "This means anyone can choose to ACCESS health care from those providers who feel they can offer it. Nobody wants to force health care delivery. Think about it. Would you want care from somebody forced to do it, or get care from those that WANT to do it?

    Much of the confusion surrounding this issue stems from the failure to differentiate ACCESS, which is the target of the legislation, from DELIVERY, which currently isn't the target of any legislation.

    Any American should be able to access health care on their terms, which is the goal of the current legislation. If they have religious objections, they won't be accessing those care elements they object to. However, if somebody decides that care is more important than their convictions, they will be able to ACCESS said care, just like any other American, all protected equally under the law."

    Whether I buy this or not, it makes no sense to force "free" contraception when it's so cheap and easily accessible.

    But yes, the "clown" and and the largest and oldest Christian Church in the world says that contraception and abortion are evil and that one leads to the other.

    That's how seriously Catholic organizations would see this issue, and that's why it's so outrageous that Catholics would be forced to cooperate in what they believe is an intrinsically evil practice.

    And I think those who are forcing this know this and like it. They want to bring religion down to their level.

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 10:28 AM #
  47. "I also wish that you'd drop this canard that "requiring" insurance companies to offer BC coverage somehow besmirches the Catholic Church. There's no requirement that "practicing Catholics" will be required to use those coverages."

    You've totally missed the point. The Catholic organizations are being forced to provide free contraception to their employees. It's just wrong for them to enable others to use contraception as it is to use it themselves.

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 10:31 AM #
  48. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,725

    They want to bring religion down to their level.

    And the Religious ram their message down everyone's throat's 24/7 365. If they wanted to live YOUR way they would. Now leave them the fuck alone!

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 10:32 AM #
  49. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,721

    "It's just wrong for them to enable others to use contraception as it is to use it themselves."

    No, it's not, unless this isn't America.

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 10:34 AM #
  50. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,725

    UF&UB, you would just be tickled pink if there was a mandate on earth to live your way.... Come on..... admit it! You've got the "My way or the highway" syndrome don't you????

    It's okay....

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 10:35 AM #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.