TehNacho: Look, between you and me, I am all for people having easy access to inexpensive or free healthcare- but I am not convinced that we can rely on the government to do it any better than the private sector- not that the private sector is really great at providing it either.

You only have to look at almost every other industrialized country in the world to see that it can be done. Now compare how much we spend here in the US with those other countries and I think you'll find it can be done much better than the way we are doing it now.

Spade: A woman can just opt out of having the kid without any input from the guy.

So can a guy

*snip*

Controlling the sex lives of women gives these disgustingly rich scumbags in suits huge Boeners.

Really, these cold-hearted old farts are holding our society back, for the sake of tradition (and to fatten their bank accounts)

Yet the blithering idiots and rednecks still vote for them.

I blame Bush

Spade: It also forces homosexual couples, who certainly don't need birth control, to pay for it as well.

You don't "need" birth control. It's an elective thing.

You don't "need" Viagra either.

And insurance rates are determined by what you might need in the future, so guys aren't paying for potential birth and women aren't paying for potential proctology.

meat0918: Ken at Popehat: Query, seen elsewhere: if the feds can order that insurers MUST cover birth control, can the feds order that insurers MAY NOT cover birth control?

Yes.

Besides, if they wanted to do that, they could have the FDA recall all birth control pills and ban their sale without even needing to tell insurers anything.

Besides, I'd think pro-pharma Republicans would love this. It's another hand out to drug manufacturers

The employers could solve this problem easily by just firing women after they got knocked up. They need to be home taking care of the kids after that anyway.

/dives out window

Pincy: TehNacho: Look, between you and me, I am all for people having easy access to inexpensive or free healthcare- but I am not convinced that we can rely on the government to do it any better than the private sector- not that the private sector is really great at providing it either.

You only have to look at almost every other industrialized country in the world to see that it can be done. Now compare how much we spend here in the US with those other countries and I think you'll find it can be done much better than the way we are doing it now.

What, and deny all those shareholders their dividends?

That's heresy.

Spade: This too. A woman can just opt out of having the kid without any input from the guy.
Or decide to keep it. We deserve input in this if we have to pay for it.

You sound jealous. Too bad you weren't born a woman.

Yogimus: He is not incorrect. You may oppose his view point, but the stance he is taking is NOT incorrect.

Hardly. This is a case of one's own personal views interfering with the ability to do a job. A white supremacist's ability to own a business is protected by the Constitution; his business is unaffected provided his beliefs don't enter the workplace. A medical professional's views on contraception fall into the same category. It doesn't matter what they think because dealing with matters of that nature are a necessity for proper job function.

A place of worship (which is exempt from the mandate) is not a business and thus is not subject to those kinds of rules.

Spade: Yogimus: Spade: Also, why do only biatches get free stuff?

Do I get prostate cancer screenings co-pay free?

Better yet, how come I don't get to decide if she keeps the baby? After all, I have to pay for it. Can I opt out of childcare payments?

This too. A woman can just opt out of having the kid without any input from the guy.
Or decide to keep it. We deserve input in this if we have to pay for it.

By the time she's discovered she's pregnant, you've already given her your input :)

I sympathize with you, but if you aren't prepared to take care of a kid then it's your responsibility to make sure your input doesn't go in.

Ken at Popehat: StubhyGraham: How hard is it to start a religion? I mean, could I go out there and start a religion based on doing a large amount of drugs and if anyone tries to arrest me, I can just claim religious persecution? Could I sell drugs and launder it through this religion and therefore make it tax-free?

This joke was funnier before 1990. (new window)

Ahh, I remember this, but thought it was judged the other way. Thanks for the info.

/Shakes tiny fist and shouts, "Scaliaaaaaaaa!"

TehNacho: Do you believe that systems that work in other places with differently set up governments, population densities, overall population numbers, tax schemes, etc., would work perfectly here?

There is a big difference between saying a different system would work perfectly here and saying that a system can't be created to work here.

There are, in fact, dozens of different systems. To take the position that it can't be done here is to say that it can't be created, which is very stupid. Given the huge range of factors in other countries, it is a statistical impossibility to say a system can't be created in America that could work.

Unless, of course, one takes the position that Americans are too goddamn stupid to come up with something when every other industrialized nation has figured it out and spends less per capita than us.

TehNacho: At minimum, you have to realize that we have some real farksticks working for our government- have you talked to a veteran about their healthcare recently? Have you seen the condition some of our infastructure is in? Have you ever heard of the TSA?

Lots of veterans love their care. Lots of old people love Medicare.

Have you seen how for-profit health insurance companies screw over their customers, are wildly inefficient to the point they need waivers because more than 20% of their expenditures is not for health care costs?

Are you of the belief that private companies aren't just as bad? Because, well, there are more than a few companies that completely collapsed because of idiocy in 2008....

TehNacho: Also, you are not going to convince me that I am wrong by accusing me of wanting the government out of healthcare because that's communist durrrrr. That's not the case at all. They have consistently proven themselves not only incompetent, but they also get to make the rules and enjoy the liberty to screw around with people- why give them even more power to do so?

When you build up a strawman like that, how could you ever be wrong?

I sure hope you are out there advocating the removal of Medicare, the disbanding of the Army, and all the other millions of things the government gets wrong.

Tax funded birth control?

Sure.

And, uh, how about some toothpaste and floss, for the "public good" of course.

And soap, can't forget we need tax funded soap too. Gotta keep the spread of disease in check.

Deodorant too. Can't forget about that. GOTTA have tax funded deodorant so the "poor" won't be discriminated against for having B.O. at the all important job interview.

Funny how the "poor" can afford tattoo's, rims, and cell phones, but can't afford to buy their own farking rubbers.

/spit

Pincy: TehNacho: Look, between you and me, I am all for people having easy access to inexpensive or free healthcare- but I am not convinced that we can rely on the government to do it any better than the private sector- not that the private sector is really great at providing it either.

You only have to look at almost every other industrialized country in the world to see that it can be done. Now compare how much we spend here in the US with those other countries and I think you'll find it can be done much better than the way we are doing it now.

You only have to look at the article to understand that guys like Boehner would have their turn in deciding what government run healthcare could look like.

Many of you are crying about republicans and the religious right trying to control you- but you want government run healthcare from a government run by republicans and the religious right and you ask me where I could possibly get the idea that your plan would back fire?

Sorry, you don't to decide what happens to someone else. That is only for the doctor and patent.

shadow9d9: EVERY other first world country does it and you are unconvinced? What would convince you?

Apparently, only a company with the exact same size, population, population density, tax structure, history, Constitution...you know, like an Evil US. It could even have a goatee.

How does the gov't know I pull out, and how is that illegal?

Boehner's true plan:

Roll the breast cancer screenings into a standard TSA screening. We just need to jack up the intensity of the scanner's radiation so we can call it a mammogram.

The founding fathers were slave owners that did not feel anyone other than white, landowning men should vote. Call me crazy, but I take their ideals with a grain of salt, and their actions with a shot of penicillin.

Raping the country for money, still constitutional.

ArkAngel: No, he's saying that forcing Catholic employers that employ or service non-Catholics to offer a service that violates their beliefs is unconstitutional. And I agree with him. Would you force a Muslim-owned restaurant to serve alcohol or force a Jewish deli to serve ham and cheese on rye?

/don't agree with the Catholic stance on birth control
//neither does my Catholic girlfriend
///no, it doesn't matter anyway at the moment

Would you allow an anti-Jewish construction agency to forbid the use of hardhats?

Less birth control = more abortions = more power to people like Boehner

Hagenhatesyouall: random, obvious trolling

Account created: 2012-01-09 19:15:46

Which account got banned now, sockpuppet?

Splinshints: Spade: You don't "need" birth control. It's an elective thing.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Not that I'm exactly surprised to find that someone defending your standard-issue republican derp-spew is completely ignorant of the subject at hand.

Splinshints: Spade: You don't "need" birth control. It's an elective thing.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Not that I'm exactly surprised to find that someone defending your standard-issue republican derp-spew is completely ignorant of the subject at hand.

That's a treatment for something different.

And I'm actually a Libertarian who greatly believes in greater access to abortions because I hate children. Well, I mostly hate parents but you work with what you have.

Mandating that a product be seized from a private manufacturer and given away may not be unconstitutional, but it is a bad practice. If it's paid for by money seized by a government, then that is also a bad practice.
Birth control has a certain amount of personal responsibility associated with it. That should remain.

johnnyrocket: [www.dirtandseeds.com image 253x344]

I believe there is nothing in the Constitution about crying.

Whining is though right? I mean Democrats are experts on the subject, they do it so often and over less important stuff.

kid_icarus: The employers could solve this problem easily by just firing women after they got knocked up. They need to be home taking care of the kids after that anyway.

/dives out window

aka DEFENESTRATION
1: a throwing of a person or thing out of a window
2: a usually swift dismissal or expulsion (as from a political party or office)

The government cannot be everything for everybody. The bill will soon be coming due.

Thisbymaster: Sorry, you don't to decide what happens to someone else. That is only for the doctor and patent.

Hagenhatesyouall: Funny how the "poor" can afford tattoo's, rims, and cell phones, but can't afford to buy their own farking rubbers.

And therefore, because a few people are irresponsible, no one should get anything for free, ever.

/If you don't wanna make the argument, don't imply it.

mycatisposter: Mandating that a product be seized from a private manufacturer and given away may not be unconstitutional, but it is a bad practice. If it's paid for by money seized by a government, then that is also a bad practice.
Birth control has a certain amount of personal responsibility associated with it. That should remain.

FTFY

Spade: That's a treatment for something different.

What the fark is your point? You said "you don't birth control" and you're entirely wrong, now aren't you?

bulldg4life: ...

When you build up a strawman like that, how could you ever be w ...

Your Weeners was pretty much "shut up dood you understand nothing and just don't want socialism hurrrr." I tried to respond by replying that that is not the case. It's not.

Again, if you give the government your healthcare, it's pretty damned obvious that Boehner and his ilk are going to screw around with it.

As far as the inefficiency in the running of privately run insurance versus government run insurance and the absurdly high cost- many people right now are either uninsured or on private insurance. Now let's shuffle everyone including the currently uninsured to a government run healthplan. Surely nothing like that would cause a sudden, sharp increase in the amount it would cost for said hypothetical health plan to just have to take on millions and millions of customers.

vernonFL: The Founding Fathers didnt support women voting, much less getting subsidized birth control.

You are absolutely right, that's why we now have the 19th amendment. Where is your subsidized birth control amendment?

It amazes me how people think the constitution should just be interpreted to allow new government controls over their lives. You want universal health care? Start the amendment process, that's what it's there for.

The founding fathers in their wisdom knew that the future would bring changes to society. That's why the amendment process is built into the constitution. Slavery was ended by the 13th amendment. Prohibition was established by the 18th amendment. Women got the right to vote by the 19th amendment. Prohibition was ended by the 21st amendment. Why do people today think that suddenly we can just interpret the constitution to mean new things instead of using the amendment process?