U.S. Presidential race - Republican Discussion

[bergmann620]

As this is a law for Obamacare by which we assume all have insurance or pay a fine remarkably close to the cost of insurance, the statement stands, all women deserve equal access to prescription medicine. Add in the qualifier [under the same plan] if you'd like, it's what it is intended to mean. if obamacare stands constitutionally and we move forward with a nationalized healthcare under that system, it is ludicrous to allow organizations to choose what flavor of nationalized healthcare they want to provide based on personal beliefs. I disagree with about 99% of what Wells says, but agree with his line that [assuming a nationalized standard of care] allowing certain exemptions based on personal belief, even religious ones, is bigotry.

If religious organization in its current form can't exist without government benefits (which i think you're asserting? I'm not really sure) then it has no business existing. Isn't that the libertarian approach?

Obamacare won't result in anything close to universal insurance- it certainly won't result in anything approximating equal access to care.

The point Diurdi was making, was that government has expanded to the point that it's virtually impossible to compete without taking advantage of the available opportunities. If there has to be separation of church and state, and state continuously expands, what happens to church?

[Wells]

Semantics. You said "forcing others to observe their religious laws" and "arbitrarily restricting access." Sounds like claims of illegality and bans to me.

Sounds like a failing on your part to me. I did not say banned or made illegal. Refusing to cover is a restriction of access by any stretch of the imagination though.

Prove it. Temporarily try to extend your usual just-brief-enough, just-long-enough argument bites and prove that it's sexism that drives this debate.

When bergmann keeps pointing to the contraceptive side and is so ill informed he thinks that every other use is rare I can't help but suspect sexism. And there is a huge amount of sexism in this debate at the national level, just look at the garbage Rush said, which sparked this whole discussion here.

---------- Post added 2012-03-05 at 09:30 PM ----------

If there has to be separation of church and state, and state continuously expands, what happens to church?

It gets everything it wants because this is America and they always do?

[Wells]

The church has consistently been the gainful recipient of beneficial laws for the life of this country. We as a nation bend over backwards to accommodate them. The "persecution complex" is malarkey.

Yeah we happily ignore the separation when it benefits the church.

[Dacien]

[/COLOR]Oh hey your boy Walker is doing a great job btdubs

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...,1998550.story

Considering the protracted political turmoil Wisconsin has suffered at the hands of greedy public sector unions and their sympathizers, this really is no surprise. Unemployment is still way down in Wisconsin.

[emulsion]

Sounds like a failing on your part to me. I did not say banned or made illegal. Refusing to cover is a restriction of access by any stretch of the imagination though.

From now on, I will accuse my friends of "restricting my access" to beer when they refuse to buy me another round. Semantics.

When bergmann keeps pointing to the contraceptive side and is so ill informed he thinks that every other use is rare I can't help but suspect sexism. And there is a huge amount of sexism in this debate at the national level, just look at the garbage Rush said, which sparked this whole discussion here.

I agree that it's none of my business what a woman eats, drinks, shits, fucks, drives or smokes. But the Protect the Choosy Vagina campaign is hardly any different from the Protect the Holy Vagina campaign in my eyes: What flavor of self-righteous bullshit do you prefer?

[Wells]

Considering the protracted political turmoil Wisconsin has suffered at the hands of greedy public sector unions and their sympathizers, this really is no surprise. Unemployment is still way down in Wisconsin.

Oh man this is great. Do you have anything to actually back up the claim that private sector jobs aren't happening because of public sector unions? Or is this just more knee jerk scapegoating?

[Dacien]

Oh man this is great. Do you have anything to actually back up the claim that private sector jobs aren't happening because of public sector unions? Or is this just more knee jerk scapegoating?

The article even theorizes about the political uncertainty and turmoil as the cause. And that turmoil has dragged on for years because Walker dared stand up against the greedy unions.

[Wells]

From now on, I will accuse my friends of "restricting my access" to beer when they refuse to buy me another round. Semantics.

One of these things is not like other.

I agree that it's none of my business what a woman eats, drinks, shits, fucks, drives or smokes. But the Protect the Choosy Vagina campaign is hardly any different from the Protect the Holy Vagina campaign in my eyes: What flavor of self-righteous bullshit do you prefer?

The one where an employer isn't injecting their faith in between a woman and her doctor.

---------- Post added 2012-03-05 at 09:49 PM ----------

The article even theorizes about the political uncertainty and turmoil as the cause.

It says some people claim that.

[Deleted]

Wells you're way off base here. Not even the democrats are arguing that employers should not be able to make decisions based on moral/religious grounds.

The U.S. is the land of the free, not the freaking land of the atheists.

The democrat argument is the gender discrimination one, which has some meat to it but it's quite a stretch.

[Wells]

The U.S. is the land of the free*, not the freaking land of the atheists.

*employers only.

[Somebodyelse]

Oh goodie.. we're off to a good start! 0.o

Sadly he's right...No matter how retarded opinions people may have...if they're old enough to vote...They can

[bergmann620]

When bergmann keeps pointing to the contraceptive side and is so ill informed he thinks that every other use is rare I can't help but suspect sexism. And there is a huge amount of sexism in this debate at the national level, just look at the garbage Rush said, which sparked this whole discussion here.[COLOR="red"]

14% of BC users use it exclusively to prevent pregnancy. 1.5 million women. I wonder what percentage of those women have coverage that would even be affected?

I wonder how many people will lose all of their coverage if this whole thing holds up?

Also, getting back to cost... The most popular BC when I still worked in the pharmacy is currently retailing online for $40 a month, and if you buy it 3 months at a time, it drops to $33.

Personally, I think all the Catholic institutions in the country should just drop all of their employee coverage plans, pay the $2000 fine per person, and use the savings buy bigger signs to wave when they protest in front of abortion clinics. The women will be able to use the money they save from not paying for their insurance to pay for birth control. Everyone wins!

[emulsion]

One of these things is not like other.

Just paying homage to a clever retreat.

I prefer the one that doesn't get between the woman and her doctor on a proven medical necessity. In case it's not apparent, that's the "Protect the Choosy Vagina" side.

EDIT - I love the names you chose. You're my kind of smartass, emulsion. :P

Cheers, Chonogo. Right back at ya.

[Wells]

14% of BC users use it exclusively to prevent pregnancy. 1.5 million women. I wonder what percentage of those women have coverage that would even be affected?

58% of all women use it for reasons beyond pregnancy control. "birth control" is a complete misnomer.

Just paying homage to a clever retreat.

I just refuse to indulge terrible analogies.

[Dacien]

58% of all women use it for reasons beyond pregnancy control. "birth control" is a complete misnomer.

But don't 86% of women use it, at least in part, to prevent pregnancy?

[Wells]

But don't 86% of women use it, at least in part, to prevent pregnancy?

yes so? Hormonal birth control has and is used for a wide wide variety of treatments beyond pregnancy control. Its a misnomer. Not to mention it doesn't matter what its used for.

[Catta]

But don't 86% of women use it, at least in part, to prevent pregnancy?

And what if they do?

[Dacien]

Just challenging that "birth control" is a misnomer. The vast majority use it for birth control, at least in part. That's all I'm saying.

[emulsion]

yes so? Hormonal birth control has and is used for a wide wide variety of treatments beyond pregnancy control. Its a misnomer. Not to mention it doesn't matter what its used for.

And what if they do?

Yeah, Dacien. And why is that mirror on your shoe? And why do you hate women?

/torchpitchforkmob

[Dacien]

Yeah, Dacien. And why is that mirror on your shoe? And why do you hate women?

/torchpitchforkmob

I'm just a misogynist, what can I say? /sarcasm.