Quote :

"Van Dyke: If our children can buy pornography on any street corner for five dollars, isn't that too high a price to pay for free speech? President Bartlet: No. Van Dyke: Really? President Bartlet: On the other hand, I do think that five dollars is too high a price to pay for pornography."

2/8/2012 2:57:24 PM

Quote :

"Lmao please explain to me how a greater prevalence of birth control drives up health insurance costs."

assuming you mean "how does mandating that birth control be covered by health insurance drive up health insurance costs," it's simple. a mandate on what health insurance must cover is essentially a mandate that health insurance pay for the mandated service. In order for health insurance to pay for that service, it must collect additional premiums to offset the cost of the previously not-paid-for service. Additional premiums means higher cost.

You might try to suggest that the extra cost incurred in paying for BC is offset by not having to pay for children born due to not having BC. But the fact is that, by and large, those who wanted BC were already getting it, and were bearing the costs of that themselves. Adding BC to the list of mandates services just shifts one more cost into the system without changing usage. And, since insurance will not pay full price for BC, that means the cost to purchase BC without insurance will now go up, thus making it harder for people without insurance to purchase it.

2/8/2012 3:50:12 PM

Quote :

"But the fact is that, by and large, those who wanted BC were already getting it"

Except the poor. You know, the exact people whose children end up racking up the most health costs



It's pretty fucking obvious that a 99 cent condom is a way cheaper to provide than 25 years of insurance. I don't know how this is controversial. People fuck each other, there is no way around that, at all, and the utter failure of abstinence-only education proves that. We can probably shove 1,000 condoms down somebody's throat and if they use just 1 it saves more money in healthcare costs (and thus premiums) than having a kid.

[Edited on February 8, 2012 at 4:32 PM. Reason : .]

2/8/2012 4:29:49 PM

Why the fuck do you have to go to the doctor to get on birth control, anyway? Can it be turned into meth or something?

2/8/2012 4:39:04 PM

In the case of the pill, it directly alters your hormonal chemistry and can make some women go fucking batty or worse. Doctors usually perform a few tests on girls who come in to determine if their body can handle it and/or what particular kind they should use. Even after its prescribed, many require the girls to check in periodically to make sure there aren't any side effects. In other words, self-medicating birth control can be very risky.


That's about half of it. The other half is "family values" people wanting to put every barrier possible in the way of people using birth control. Ironically, these people are in the South, which happens to have the worst rates for unplanned pregnancies.

With the morning after pill, it's almost entirely the latter. Plan B, while being one-time use, isn't painless to take and actually exerts a lot of stress on the body as it does its thing. In other words, any girl who's used it knows it would suck balls to have to take it every time they had sex. Still, the religious right has decided that, if it were widely available, girls would start fucking every man and dog on the block and popping them like tic tacs.

[Edited on February 8, 2012 at 4:52 PM. Reason : .]

2/8/2012 4:49:06 PM

Quote :

"Except the poor. You know, the exact people whose children end up racking up the most health costs"

yeah. the very poor who can go to almost any united way or planned parenthood and get the stuff for free. but don't. What the hell makes you think those people will bother going to the doctor now that it's covered by health insurance?

2/8/2012 5:14:23 PM

why is society so stupid. then we wouldn't have this problem


lol

2/8/2012 5:27:45 PM

^^they won't...they'll just drink, smoke, eat shit, and waste their lives and health away until they're on the verge of dying...THEN visit the doctor, accrue massive bills that the public still has to pay, and complain how enough isn't done for them.

[Edited on February 8, 2012 at 5:29 PM. Reason : ^]

2/8/2012 5:29:28 PM

As if on cue,

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/controversial-obama-birth-control-rule-already-law

Quote :

"In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today—and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally—but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too. "It was, we thought at the time, a fairly straightforward application of Title VII principles," a top former EEOC official who was involved in the decision told Mother Jones. "All of these plans covered Viagra immediately, without thinking, and they were still declining to cover prescription contraceptives. It's a little bit jaw-dropping to see what is going on now.... There was some press at the time but we issued guidances that were far, far more controversial." After the EEOC opinion was approved in 2000, reproductive rights groups and employees who wanted birth control access sued employers that refused to comply. The next year, in Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co., a federal court agreed with the EEOC's reasoning. Reproductive rights groups and others used that decision as leverage to force other companies to settle lawsuits and agree to change their insurance plans to include birth control. Some subsequent court decisions echoed Erickson, and some went the other way, but the rule (absent a Supreme Court decision) remained, and over the following decade, the percentage of employer-based plans that offer contraceptive coverage tripled to 90 percent. . . . . . . . . . [President Obama's] policy is only new in the sense that it covers employers with less than 15 employees and with no copay for the individual. The basic rule has been in place since 2000." "

2/8/2012 5:40:58 PM

Quote :

" Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt"

DOn't the new health care laws also require employers to offer coverage?

2/8/2012 7:00:08 PM

-1000000 for letting the banks off the hook with a slap on the wrist for foreclosure fraud

2/9/2012 8:27:05 AM

Quote :

"yeah. the very poor who can go to almost any united way or planned parenthood and get the stuff for free. but don't. What the hell makes you think those people will bother going to the doctor now that it's covered by health insurance?"

They wouldn't have to, they could get it at CVS or Rite Aid, which are both way more plentiful than Planned Parenthoods and United Ways, and to which they probably make regular trips to for other reasons.

You know, there *are* examples of this. Denmark provides contraceptive universally as part of their healthcare, and they have the lowest rates of unintended pregnancies AND abortions in the world. Meanwhile, the US has higher unintended pregnancy rates than every other first world nation. Hmmm...

[Edited on February 9, 2012 at 11:26 AM. Reason : .]

2/9/2012 11:21:09 AM

oh, so we are giving birth control out over the counter now at CVS? damn, didn't know that

2/9/2012 1:04:24 PM

Condoms, or bread...condoms...or...bread....

2/9/2012 2:02:39 PM

20% OF REPUBLICANS LEANING TO OBAMA!

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/20-of-republicans-leaning-to-obama/

Quote :

"In every case except the match-up against Ron Paul, more than 20 percent of Republican voters said they are more likely to support Obama than the Republican challenger. And Ron Paul is close, as 19 percent of Republicans said they are more likely to support Obama than Paul..... Obama would defeat all of the four Republicans if the election were held today, but Ron Paul fares the best against the incumbent. Obama leads Paul, 44 percent to 40 percent, with 16 percent undecided..... Romney also is within single digits of Obama, currently trailing, 48 percent to 41 percent. Obama leads both Gingrich and Rick Santorum Santorum by double-digits. Obama leads Gingrich, 50 percent to 36 percent, and Santorum, 49 percent to 34 percent...."

2/9/2012 2:41:43 PM

read that yesterday- can't say i blame the 20%. Obama beats republicans at their own game at least 20% of the time.

2/9/2012 3:47:29 PM

I bet Obama backs off on the birth control thing.

It's a small battle that's not worth fighting.

2/9/2012 8:57:27 PM

thats how i feel about gay marriage, even though I'm ok with gay people getting married

[Edited on February 9, 2012 at 9:00 PM. Reason : -]

2/9/2012 8:59:25 PM

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/white-house-announces-contraception-accommodation-for-religious-orgs

Quote :

""All women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services," the official said. "The insurance company will be required to reach out directly and offer her contraceptive coverage free of charge," if the employer objects to providing that coverage in its benefit package."

Hahahahaha, what a smart way around the issue. From the employees perspective nothing changes, and any employer that rages about this will be exposed as a nutcase. The opposition will sound something like this "If you work for a religious organization, you should not be allowed to get insurance with contraception coverage" or "We're just not going to offer health coverage at all if it means our employees get access to contraception". Getting my popcorn ready for that.

[Edited on February 10, 2012 at 11:00 AM. Reason : :]

2/10/2012 10:58:16 AM

thats awesome

2/10/2012 11:37:18 AM

^^ my favorite blog for doing just that. a 40 something white catholic housewife with 8 kids, who opposes abortion, birth control, and obama.

waiting for this thread to explode with comments

http://bit.ly/xmmbGM

[Edited on February 10, 2012 at 2:22 PM. Reason : .]

2/10/2012 2:20:07 PM

how the hell is that a compromise? It's the same fucking thing! "Hey, you gotta offer health insurance. Oh, and all health insurance has to cover things you find morally objectionable." Same. fucking. thing

2/10/2012 5:36:31 PM

Bait & switch: Tell churches and their organizations they have to cover birth control, wait for uproar, then "cave" and say churches won't have to...and force insurance companies to cover birth control. As if the President was empowered by some secret clause in the Constitution to do so.

2/10/2012 9:54:04 PM

Quote :

"All women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services.""

Just some more Utopian BS

2/11/2012 12:45:28 PM

i just farted a rainbow

2/11/2012 12:56:36 PM

^BS. Individuals cant do such things. Only through following our wise leaders can we acheive such things as a collective.

2/11/2012 1:10:17 PM

There's just something funny about people that demand health insurance cover extra services while also bemoaning the rising cost of healthcare.

2/11/2012 1:16:04 PM

^they will never see the correlation. In our society wants have become needs. Needs are now entitlements.

Think about it. Insurance for fucking BIRTH CONTROL. If you were approached by someone in a drug store and they demanded you buy them a condom you would tell them they were fucking crazy.

2/11/2012 1:25:44 PM

Quote :

"There's just something funny about people that demand health insurance cover extra services bitch about welfare queens with 5 kids draining the system while also bemoaning the rising cost of healthcare coverage for the very thing that would possibly prevent the situation in the first place."

[Edited on February 11, 2012 at 1:40 PM. Reason : ..]

2/11/2012 1:39:34 PM

^great point what does abstinence cost these days? Or bc someone decides to have unprotected sex we ALL should have the responsiblity for what may happen?

Or are you saying that people complain bc they have to take home less money to raise their own kids bc some people are paid to have kids so they have more? (many of which already have access to free insurance AND BC)

Im not sure what your point is. If you suggest forcing everyone on welfare take BC to get their checks, then Ill agree with you. Or if we could just end paying people to breed, a lot of this might just go away. That whole risk/reward responsiblity thing.



[Edited on February 11, 2012 at 1:55 PM. Reason : .]

2/11/2012 1:52:27 PM

i am saying that requiring coverage of birth control/contraception for a few dozen dollars a month for everyone who wants birth control (including people that wouldn't need government assistance if they did have children) is nothing compared to possibly paying hundreds in help supporting those families when they hit hard times.

simple concept of an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. or something like that..


[Edited on February 11, 2012 at 2:05 PM. Reason : nice try to add in other religious issues... thump the bible harder next time]

2/11/2012 2:02:00 PM

and he's saying that those people ALREADY HAVE ACCESS TO FREE BIRTH CONTROL AND THEY DON'T TAKE IT ANYWAY. what in the flying fuck makes you think that offering it free via another mechanism is going to change a single god damned thing?

2/11/2012 2:07:17 PM

^ ha, are you joking?

You should try screaming that out loud in real life, and see how it sounds...

how can offering something through 2 channels instead of one increase its uptake? HOW!?!?!!????

haha, lol...

2/11/2012 7:07:27 PM

so, lemme get this straight... it's currently free, and they don't take it. but if we make it free, they'll take it. wait, what?

2/11/2012 8:22:53 PM

Quote :

"so, lemme get this straight... it's currently free, and they don't take it. but if we make it free, they'll take it. wait, what? "

haha. You are SO stupid. You see there is another channel now. So now that someone who was paying for their BC is now getting it for "free" the people who were already getting it for "free" will now use it. Duh

And seriously people, condoms are under 10 bucks. Do we really need INSURANCE to afford such things? Fuck we might as well push that insurance cover band aids. You dont care that people bleed that cant afford the burden of health insurance? Heartless Band Aids and BC is really only for the 1%. Lets make a sign maaaan.

Scuba, other religious issues? WTF are you talking about? Do you know how babies are made?

[Edited on February 11, 2012 at 10:25 PM. Reason : .]

2/11/2012 10:20:51 PM

2/11/2012 10:58:26 PM

Use your words.

2/11/2012 11:03:23 PM

Obama to Pitch Lower Corporate Tax
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/10/us-usa-taxes-obama-corporate-idUSTRE8191YM20120210

He's a damned socialist, I tell you. And maybe a Republican.

2/12/2012 7:26:15 PM

ahahhahahhaa


is he trying to get defeated in November?

I mean, I see what is going on here, he is attempting to get those independents and moderates but fuck if I'm going to be pandered to by a no promise keeping dick like this guy.

2/12/2012 7:27:53 PM

^^smart move if true.

2/12/2012 8:05:55 PM

he's not attempting to win over voters.

he's attempting to win over corporate donors.











http://www.people-press.org/2011/06/07/more-blame-wars-than-domestic-spending-or-tax-cuts-for-nations-debt/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149567/americans-favor-jobs-plan-proposals-including-taxing-rich.aspx


gotta get that superPAC money, son.

[Edited on February 12, 2012 at 8:30 PM. Reason : ]

2/12/2012 8:18:35 PM

^im shocked the majority of people dont want to pay the bill. haha

Pathetic numbers on raising the SS age. That is probably the first thing that needs to happen. Most of the rest of it is just "make that guy pay more, he drives a nicer car than I do." lol

2/12/2012 8:30:56 PM

lol all you want (and conveniently ignore that a huge majority of people want to reduce spending -- military spending).

But it still supports the argument that Obama isn't interested in winning voters, but instead its about corporate sponsorship.


[Edited on February 12, 2012 at 8:37 PM. Reason : that much should be obvious by now.]

2/12/2012 8:32:01 PM

How does any of that support the argument? You're just making fucking assertions. There is nothing self evident about that so stop fucking saying the shit supports the argument when it does no such thing.

Are you this retarded in real life?

[Edited on February 12, 2012 at 9:45 PM. Reason : /]

2/12/2012 9:44:00 PM

Jesus, dude. Go eat a sugar cookie.

You said this, in response to Obama wanting to lower corporate tax rates:

Quote :

"I mean, I see what is going on here, he is attempting to get those independents and moderates but fuck if I'm going to be pandered to by a no promise keeping dick like this guy."

And yet, according to those graphs, 67% of Independents want to limit corporate tax deductions.

87% of Democrats (and even a slim majority of Republicans) want to increase taxes on some corporations by eliminating tax deductions.


So, in your head, you think he's trying to win over Independents by doing the opposite of what they want him to do? I'm genuinely curious as to whether or not this is your reasoning (if you can even call it that).

If the president just got a SuperPac, and then days later talks about reducing corporate tax rates even though INDEPENDENTS and Dems (AND A MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANS) don't want him to do that, how in the hell can you possibly conclude that he's trying to win over people by going against their explicit wishes?


I don't....howw???.....what the?.... fuck, dude. Do you need me to draw you a picture? Am I taking crazy pills? I cannot be the only person who sees who butters his bread...




Quick question: When you go outside, and the skies are grey, and the clouds roll in and the winds start to howl -- and someone says to you, "looks like it's gonna rain."

Do you go on your little diabetic rage and demand the facts and accuse them of making assertions without evidence? I bet you do this. You probably do this. I'm gonna go ahead and assume you do this.



[Edited on February 12, 2012 at 11:34 PM. Reason : ]

2/12/2012 11:06:15 PM

but when it doesnt rain he will be in your face like a thousand hot pins.

2/13/2012 9:41:04 AM

Quote :

" conveniently ignore that a huge majority of people want to reduce spending -- military spending"

I agree that needs to be cut. However that isnt our main problem. And as the chart pointed out the majority still favor that someone else pay for their shit. Im shocked.

Raising the SS age should be the easiest thing to do. Yet 65% of givemcrats and 51% of repubs oppose this. It is also funny they also agree to raise taxes in almost every question, except when it comes to raising THEIR taxes... strongly disagree. haha

2/13/2012 9:53:22 AM

Raising the SS age much further would put it above the life expectancy of blacks, lol.

Love how the people who are against "folks wanting someone else to pay for them" tend to support raising the SS age, which basically means more workers (lower life exp.) subsidize the retirements of their bosses.

[Edited on February 13, 2012 at 10:56 AM. Reason : .]

2/13/2012 10:56:12 AM

^you do realize that when it first came out SS did just that?

Ill agree with you if you agree we should just scrap this BS system completely. Or at least move to private accounts.(which will be MUCH better for everyone) No more how did you phrase it, "something for nothing."

[Edited on February 13, 2012 at 1:06 PM. Reason : .]

2/13/2012 1:00:13 PM

$800 million in aid for arab spring?

2/13/2012 2:06:10 PM