If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   John Boehner (R) claims providing co-pay free birth control to women is unconstitutional   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 362
    More: Unlikely, Boehner, health insurance plans, birth control, places of worship, valid argument, Affordable Care Act, mandates, religious denomination  
•       •       •

8222 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Feb 2012 at 7:25 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



362 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-02 08:22:45 PM
My state just passed laws requiring abortion providers to perform an ultrasound on each woman seeking an abortion and provide the woman an opportunity to view the picture so I'm really getting a kick, in the belly, repeatedly.

It's so wrong on so many levels and it only stings worse that they claim to be doing the good and moral thing. You can't help but wonder how many people believe such a fallacy, and how many just don't care.

No one decides a woman's medical needs but that woman and her doctor, and certainly not a man in a suit miles away who has no idea what the situation is other than "woman is pregnant, goes to doctor."


fark Bob McDonnell and any other ignorant fark who thinks like he does.
 
2012-02-02 08:22:51 PM

lilplatinum: MarkEC: 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.

It amazes me how people who whine about constitutionality fail to understand the fact that the constitution does not have to specifically allow the government to do things. You don't need a health care amendment as long as universal health care does not violate the limits already set in place by the constitution.


"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Which of the 18 powers laid out in the constitution does healthcare fall under?
 
2012-02-02 08:23:29 PM

iaazathot: thamike: vernonFL: Catholics believe that virgins can get pregnant, im not sure we should take their other views on human reproduction seriously.

[geek-news.mtv.com image 461x599]

It's pretty simple. He is calling into question Catholics' ability to reason.


I would call into question the Catholics' ability to reason too. What I'm calling into question is the strange implication that virgins can't get pregnant. Or did he just word it incorrectly?
 
2012-02-02 08:23:36 PM

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


You don't "Need" a lot of preventative medicine in general, but generally the minor cost of covering it outweighs the medical and social costs of not covering it.
 
2012-02-02 08:24:16 PM
Women are forced to pay insurance premiums that pay for men's erectile dysfunction.
Men are forced to pay insurance premiums for gynecological/obstetrical visits.
Old people are forced to pay for children and fertility-related treatments.
Young people are forced to pay for old-age diseases.

If we take out everything that bothers everyone, or everything that isn't "fair", we have nothing.
 
2012-02-02 08:24:21 PM

MarkEC: lilplatinum: MarkEC: 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.

It amazes me how people who whine about constitutionality fail to understand the fact that the constitution does not have to specifically allow the government to do things. You don't need a health care amendment as long as universal health care does not violate the limits already set in place by the constitution.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Which of the 18 powers laid out in the constitution does healthcare fall under?


You're about to be slapped with the general welfare clause. Not that I agree with it, but it'll come.
 
2012-02-02 08:25:05 PM

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, insuance is the second oldest industry and far more regulated than than oldest.

Of course some of the original gore photography involved coat hangers. Yes we need to revisit 1970. Compared to nearly headless Nikki is it really that bad?
 
2012-02-02 08:25:06 PM

Corvus: They are buying the health care for the employee not the contraception. What the employee does what that healthcare is THEIR business not the employer.

Or do you think employers should be able review everything you do with your healthcare provider?


This is the point. Employers are buying a package of options for their employees to exercise. If the employee chooses to use the contraception,it is on the employee.

We need to move to a system where healthcare is tethered to a person or a family, not a specific job, so that we can stop having these arguments.
 
2012-02-02 08:25:29 PM

Real Women Drink Akvavit: Some women do need those pills to treat things like endometriosis, irregular menstrual periods, and hirsutism, including my own sis and a couple of my friends (endometriosis is pretty common in 40-somethings, I guess).


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-02-02 08:27:09 PM

MarkEC: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Which of the 18 powers laid out in the constitution does healthcare fall under?


Article I Section 8 Clause 3.
 
2012-02-02 08:27:47 PM

UseLessHuman: My state just passed laws requiring abortion providers to perform an ultrasound on each woman seeking an abortion and provide the woman an opportunity to view the picture so I'm really getting a kick, in the belly, repeatedly.

It's so wrong on so many levels and it only stings worse that they claim to be doing the good and moral thing. You can't help but wonder how many people believe such a fallacy, and how many just don't care.

No one decides a woman's medical needs but that woman and her doctor, and certainly not a man in a suit miles away who has no idea what the situation is other than "woman is pregnant, goes to doctor."


fark Bob McDonnell and any other ignorant fark who thinks like he does.




Nothing wrong with being forced to look at the one you intend to kill IMO.

After all, it's just a blob of flesh right?
 
2012-02-02 08:27:55 PM

Wook: AverageAmericanGuy: This is precisely why medical care should be socialized. The government would be completely free to dispense this kind of care or free and fully within the bounds of he Constitution.

I agree with you if I don't have to pay for it. And where is abortion mentioned in the constitution?


Well, if someone doesn't get birth control and can't get an abortion, they'll have kids who get dumped on the state to pay for for 18 years. I wonder which is cheaper to the taxpayer - shelling out a bit for birth control pills, or paying for a kid who's in foster care for most of their life?
 
2012-02-02 08:28:16 PM

lilplatinum: MarkEC: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Which of the 18 powers laid out in the constitution does healthcare fall under?

Article I Section 8 Clause 3.


Sorry, Clause 1 i MEAN
 
2012-02-02 08:28:53 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: You're about to be slapped with the general welfare clause. Not that I agree with it, but it'll come.


I know, right, I mean one would really have to have a wild interpretation of general welfare to think that healthcare has anything to do with it.
 
2012-02-02 08:29:32 PM

thamike: Real Women Drink Akvavit: Some women do need those pills to treat things like endometriosis, irregular menstrual periods, and hirsutism, including my own sis and a couple of my friends (endometriosis is pretty common in 40-somethings, I guess).

(chewbacca.jpg)


Auntie Misa?
 
2012-02-02 08:31:08 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: MarkEC: lilplatinum: MarkEC: 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.

It amazes me how people who whine about constitutionality fail to understand the fact that the constitution does not have to specifically allow the government to do things. You don't need a health care amendment as long as universal health care does not violate the limits already set in place by the constitution.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Which of the 18 powers laid out in the constitution does healthcare fall under?

You're about to be slapped with the general welfare clause. Not that I agree with it, but it'll come.


I'll answer it preemptively. Promoting the general welfare is public service announcements telling you what types of food are good for you and what ones are bad. A law that mandates health insurance crosses the line into providing for the general welfare.
 
2012-02-02 08:33:45 PM

MarkEC: I'll answer it preemptively. Promoting the general welfare is public service announcements telling you what types of food are good for you and what ones are bad. A law that mandates health insurance crosses the line into providing for the general welfare.


Well If you say so - I'm glad Marbury v Madison established that such things are established by unsubstantiated claims on the internet.
 
2012-02-02 08:34:10 PM

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


Catholic moral theologians have a concept known as "remote material cooperation" - this concept expresses that the less direct ones' cooperation with "evil" is, the less responsible the person doing it is - for example the guy who empties the dumpsters for the city who, as part of his job, has to do it for a Planned Parenthood clinic, isn't then responsible for abortion (which they consider evil).

In this way, there would be no guilt for the church who provides insurance simply because the person using the insurance received contraceptives from it. It isn't at all the same as the church buying contraceptives and giving them to the person (the latter is formal cooperation)

In other words, this is all political pandering and I have no doubt the catholic league douchnozzles who are merely extensions of the GOP are going to try and capitalize on it as a political favor ignoring the fact that they are tools.

/atheist here :)
 
2012-02-02 08:35:05 PM

Hagenhatesyouall: Tax funded birth control?


Who said it was tax funded? RTFA dumbass
 
2012-02-02 08:35:40 PM

MarkEC: I'll answer it preemptively. Promoting the general welfare is public service announcements telling you what types of food are good for you and what ones are bad. A law that mandates health insurance crosses the line into providing for the general welfare.


Not to mention that Hamilton, who may have known a little more about its intent than you, specifically said it can be used for things such as education provided it doesn't favor one portion of the country over the other. Thats a little more than giving out nutritional information which apparently is the limit of the federal governments powers in your eyes.

But what did he know.
 
2012-02-02 08:35:44 PM

lazyguineapig33:
but women NEED this extra health care to stay healthy you say? well i NEED about 1000 more calories per day than an average woman to stay healthy. therefore, by the same arguement, women should be forced to subsidize my food. i should pay less for my food, and women should pay more for theirs to make up the difference. that would be fair.


icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-02-02 08:35:52 PM

lilplatinum: The_Six_Fingered_Man: You're about to be slapped with the general welfare clause. Not that I agree with it, but it'll come.

I know, right, I mean one would really have to have a wild interpretation of general welfare to think that healthcare has anything to do with it.


Then let me ask you why the government relies on the commerce clause argument instead of what you, apparently, believe is an open and shut case using the general welfare clause?
 
2012-02-02 08:35:54 PM

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


////...And neither does the Catholic Church. The Church itself practices and endorses the distribution of contraception.
//according to the Pope
I imagine Speaker Boehner's made up problem is that the government cannot interfere with business practices, ie. demanding that a product be given away free. Which it is not, of course. The bill states that insurance, which is not free (even when not paid for by the patient), must cover the entire cost of the prescribed contraceptives without a co-pay.
The Church is invoked here only to rile up the moronic base that may see this as a more invasive policy if Catholic (or more pertinently Christian) institutions are involved.
//Boehner also voted for the war which the Pope described as a "Defeat for Humanity"- nice principles Catholic guy.
 
2012-02-02 08:38:00 PM

UseLessHuman: My state just passed laws requiring abortion providers to perform an ultrasound on each woman seeking an abortion and provide the woman an opportunity to view the picture so I'm really getting a kick, in the belly, repeatedly.

It's so wrong on so many levels and it only stings worse that they claim to be doing the good and moral thing. You can't help but wonder how many people believe such a fallacy, and how many just don't care.

No one decides a woman's medical needs but that woman and her doctor, and certainly not a man in a suit miles away who has no idea what the situation is other than "woman is pregnant, goes to doctor."


fark Bob McDonnell and any other ignorant fark who thinks like he does.


Arkansas just proposed a law requiring women to name their unborn fetus and paint a baby's room prior to obtaining an abortion (new window)
 
2012-02-02 08:38:59 PM
 
2012-02-02 08:39:37 PM
I want THIS U.S. Government to GTFO of my U.S. Constitution.
 
2012-02-02 08:40:02 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: This is precisely why medical care should be socialized. The government would be completely free to dispense this kind of care or free and fully within the bounds of he Constitution.


Needs a stupid button.
 
2012-02-02 08:40:10 PM

EZ1923: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Which of the 18 powers laid out in the constitution does healthcare fall under?

You're about to be slapped with the general welfare clause. Not that I agree with it, but it'll come.

No, he's about to get slapped with the elastic clause. Implied powers (new window), biatches.

Jeebus, people watch Glenn Beck scrawl the 10th Amendment on a chalkboard and all of a sudden they're con-law scholars.


Well that was an unconstitutional mess of HTML.
 
2012-02-02 08:40:17 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Then let me ask you why the government relies on the commerce clause argument instead of what you, apparently, believe is an open and shut case using the general welfare clause?


They rely on the commerce clause because of the structure of the health care legislation as it is. Since Obama pushed through a half assed one this whole legislation of regulating various health insurance claims is a function of regulating interstate commerce as opposed to simply being a general welfare issue.

If they were actually doing a proper socialized universal health care system it probably wouldn't be an issue, but as it is now it has to rely on both taxing and spending clause and interstate commerce clause, but under current case law it will not be found in violation of either. The right wing idiots have lawyers smart enough to know this so they are going for the only vulnerable part, the mandate.

(Specifically the general welfare clause attack would be a huge loser for the right wing lawyers, since Butler in 1936 this has been pretty clearly allowed,
 
2012-02-02 08:40:27 PM

lazyguineapig33: Forcing men to pay for womens health care is not justified for the following reasons. Men do not have to visit the oby/gyn and therefore should not have to pay for one. men's regular doctor visits are less frequent and less expensive. most medical expenses are acrued during the end of life and therefore women cost more than men because they live almost 6 years longer than men (last time i checked anyway). If men are forced to pay the same as women in health insurance, then women should be forced to pay the same as men in car insurance. no descrimination works both ways.

but women NEED this extra health care to stay healthy you say? well i NEED about 1000 more calories per day than an average woman to stay healthy. therefore, by the same arguement, women should be forced to subsidize my food. i should pay less for my food, and women should pay more for theirs to make up the difference. that would be fair.


You sound fat and hopelessly flaccid. And probably addicted to eating the dead flies off the windowsill at the clinic.
 
2012-02-02 08:41:18 PM

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.


farking a woman without protection means you automatically consent to either becoming a father or allowing an abortion if the woman chooses. It's like a contract. Put your mark on that line if you consent to any of the penalties listed above and hereafter. If you don't like those options, don't fark a woman without protection. That is all the input you get to have.

You can control if she gets pregnant by your or not, you know.
 
2012-02-02 08:41:19 PM

dahmers love zombie: Women are forced to pay insurance premiums that pay for men's erectile dysfunction.
Men are forced to pay insurance premiums for gynecological/obstetrical visits.
Old people are forced to pay for children and fertility-related treatments.
Young people are forced to pay for old-age diseases.

If we take out everything that bothers everyone, or everything that isn't "fair", we have nothing.


well i think that forcing me to pay for a kid/STD/papsmear that i didnt have anything to do with is bullshiat. and yes, most kids are fathered by a minority of men, and yes women have double the STD rate that men have for the same reason. and no, womens health care vs ED meds do not balance out. i should pay more money simply because i am a man? how much of a yoke should be placed on my shoulders to make the life of some slut easier? at what point are we going to make peole responsible for their own actions?
 
2012-02-02 08:41:40 PM

TheMadChaosopher: I didnt read anything in the constitution that says the fed government is supposed to provide anything to anyone, outside of national security, economy, and the most basic framework of our society.

The fed government was never intended to provide food, shelter, medical care or much else to anyone.

So he's correct.


How much of the economy is healthcare?

How much of the economy does it have to be before the necessary and proper or commerce clause kicks in?
 
2012-02-02 08:42:49 PM

MarkEC: The_Six_Fingered_Man: MarkEC: lilplatinum: MarkEC: 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.

It amazes me how people who whine about constitutionality fail to understand the fact that the constitution does not have to specifically allow the government to do things. You don't need a health care amendment as long as universal health care does not violate the limits already set in place by the constitution.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Which of the 18 powers laid out in the constitution does healthcare fall under?

You're about to be slapped with the general welfare clause. Not that I agree with it, but it'll come.

I'll answer it preemptively. Promoting the general welfare is public service announcements telling you what types of food are good for you and what ones are bad. A law that mandates health insurance crosses the line into providing for the general welfare.


That's just it though - a civilized society does provide for the general welfare. After WWII the US was instrumental in setting up the systems in place in much of Europe, including socialized health care. The US was supposed to get the same thing under the Second Bill of Rights, but FDR died and the Second Bill of Rights died with him.

I think most of the "screw you, I got mine" that so many in the US have as opposed to the "what can I do to help?" that my European relatives have going on is completely cultural. We have been taught to be selfish douchebags in this country and trample whoever we want to benefit ourselves. It's going to take a long time to change the culture to the point we actually give a rat's ass about other people, I guess. Like, generations, even.
 
2012-02-02 08:43:38 PM

lazyguineapig33: dahmers love zombie: Women are forced to pay insurance premiums that pay for men's erectile dysfunction.
Men are forced to pay insurance premiums for gynecological/obstetrical visits.
Old people are forced to pay for children and fertility-related treatments.
Young people are forced to pay for old-age diseases.

If we take out everything that bothers everyone, or everything that isn't "fair", we have nothing.

well i think that forcing me to pay for a kid/STD/papsmear that i didnt have anything to do with is bullshiat. and yes, most kids are fathered by a minority of men, and yes women have double the STD rate that men have for the same reason. and no, womens health care vs ED meds do not balance out. i should pay more money simply because i am a man? how much of a yoke should be placed on my shoulders to make the life of some slut easier? at what point are we going to make peole responsible for their own actions?


This guy should shack up with a Fleshbot and be done with women altogether.
 
2012-02-02 08:43:53 PM

Oznog: Arkansas just proposed a law requiring women to name their unborn fetus and paint a baby's room prior to obtaining an abortion (new window)


In the spirit of using the Boner Pill Counterpoint, what should we propose? A law requiring any man who gets boner pills to.....

I eagerly await the results, as I will phone these in to DC101 in the morning.
 
2012-02-02 08:43:55 PM

saloman: It isn't at all the same as the church buying contraceptives and giving them to the person
/atheist here :)


The Catholic Church already does this as well. The Church recognizes the importance of contraception in improving the lives of people. It is considered by the Church as the greater good. Something the Speaker apparently does not consider.
 
2012-02-02 08:44:03 PM

lilplatinum: 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.

How, exactly? Please cite specific sections of the constitution and supporting case law.


Opposition to abortion, sterilization, and contraception is a well-known and often deeply held Catholic belief. Forcing the Catholic Church or Catholic employers to subsidize a violation of their beliefs is a violation of the Establishment Clause (Amendment I, Section 1) and the Free Exercise Clause (Amendment I, Section 2)

Sherbert v. Verner - SCOTUS holds that a Seventh Day Adventist can't be denied government benefits (in this case unemployment) because of religious beliefs precluding them from following the general rule. (Sherbert was ruled ineligible for benefits because she wouldn't accept working on Saturday ).

Thomas v. Review Board - Similar case with same decision. Jehovah's Witness denied unemployment benefits after he quit his job because his employer transferred him from the industrial factory to the military factory. SCOTUS rules government can't decide or even ask about the validity of a religious belief so long as the claim is made in good faith. (pun not intended)

Wisconsin v. Yoder - SCOTUS holds that forcing Amish children to attend school past 8th grade is a violation of the Free Exercise Clause.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette - SCOTUS holds that the government cannot force schoolchildren to salute the flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance
 
2012-02-02 08:44:17 PM

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?


You can start a church for under $200 in Florida, http://www.amerilawyer.com/fl_501c3corporation.htm

You have to have a space and hold services. Getting certified so you can accept donations costs another couple hundred bucks. There's some forms.

http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=96210,00.html

That's about it.
 
2012-02-02 08:44:42 PM
I'm going to have to go with Boner on this one.

You start giving all these benefits to women and it's just going to make them more uppity and hard to control...
 
2012-02-02 08:44:52 PM

thamike: lazyguineapig33: Forcing men to pay for womens health care is not justified for the following reasons. Men do not have to visit the oby/gyn and therefore should not have to pay for one. men's regular doctor visits are less frequent and less expensive. most medical expenses are acrued during the end of life and therefore women cost more than men because they live almost 6 years longer than men (last time i checked anyway). If men are forced to pay the same as women in health insurance, then women should be forced to pay the same as men in car insurance. no descrimination works both ways.

but women NEED this extra health care to stay healthy you say? well i NEED about 1000 more calories per day than an average woman to stay healthy. therefore, by the same arguement, women should be forced to subsidize my food. i should pay less for my food, and women should pay more for theirs to make up the difference. that would be fair.

You sound fat and hopelessly flaccid. And probably addicted to eating the dead flies off the windowsill at the clinic.


im 6'3" 170lbs. 10% body fat. fyi
 
2012-02-02 08:45:29 PM

Real Women Drink Akvavit: I think most of the "screw you, I got mine" that so many in the US have as opposed to the "what can I do to help?" that my European relatives have going on is completely cultural. We have been taught to be selfish douchebags in this country and trample whoever we want to benefit ourselves.


The amusing part is that the bulk of support for the "fark you, I got mine" party comes from people who would benefit from such support, but they have adequately been brainwashed against the idea of government from the rich who control their party that they vote en masse against their own interest and are violently opposed to those who don't.

I mean, I understand being rich and saying "fark you, I've got mine" - but when you are poor and say it...
 
2012-02-02 08:47:14 PM

thamike: TheMadChaosopher: I didnt read anything in the constitution that says the fed government is supposed to provide anything to anyone, outside of national security, economy, and the most basic framework of our society.

The fed government was never intended to provide food, shelter, medical care or much else to anyone.

So he's correct.

What was the federal government intended for?


And no standing military, either. What the fark do we even need a government for?
 
2012-02-02 08:47:39 PM

Ablejack: saloman: It isn't at all the same as the church buying contraceptives and giving them to the person
/atheist here :)

The Catholic Church already does this as well. The Church recognizes the importance of contraception in improving the lives of people. It is considered by the Church as the greater good. Something the Speaker apparently does not consider.


Can you provide an example of this?
 
2012-02-02 08:47:51 PM

TehNacho: misanthropic1: OgreMagi: The republicans don't want poor people to have birth control. They don't want them to have abortions. And they don't want to pay for welfare babies.

Do the math, idiots. Which one is cheapest?

Dunno, but I'm guessing privatized prisons and wars of aggression are most profitable...

Truly, we should imprison all women for the duration of their pregnancy, and then drop the newborns into combat first thing.

No more welfare babbys AND we get to keep our jobs jerbs!


FTFY
 
2012-02-02 08:47:55 PM

lazyguineapig33: thamike: lazyguineapig33: Forcing men to pay for womens health care is not justified for the following reasons. Men do not have to visit the oby/gyn and therefore should not have to pay for one. men's regular doctor visits are less frequent and less expensive. most medical expenses are acrued during the end of life and therefore women cost more than men because they live almost 6 years longer than men (last time i checked anyway). If men are forced to pay the same as women in health insurance, then women should be forced to pay the same as men in car insurance. no descrimination works both ways.

but women NEED this extra health care to stay healthy you say? well i NEED about 1000 more calories per day than an average woman to stay healthy. therefore, by the same arguement, women should be forced to subsidize my food. i should pay less for my food, and women should pay more for theirs to make up the difference. that would be fair.

You sound fat and hopelessly flaccid. And probably addicted to eating the dead flies off the windowsill at the clinic.

im 6'3" 170lbs. 10% body fat. fyi


johnfitzgeraldpage.com
 
2012-02-02 08:47:57 PM

lazyguineapig33: thamike: lazyguineapig33: Forcing men to pay for womens health care is not justified for the following reasons. Men do not have to visit the oby/gyn and therefore should not have to pay for one. men's regular doctor visits are less frequent and less expensive. most medical expenses are acrued during the end of life and therefore women cost more than men because they live almost 6 years longer than men (last time i checked anyway). If men are forced to pay the same as women in health insurance, then women should be forced to pay the same as men in car insurance. no descrimination works both ways.

but women NEED this extra health care to stay healthy you say? well i NEED about 1000 more calories per day than an average woman to stay healthy. therefore, by the same arguement, women should be forced to subsidize my food. i should pay less for my food, and women should pay more for theirs to make up the difference. that would be fair.

You sound fat and hopelessly flaccid. And probably addicted to eating the dead flies off the windowsill at the clinic.

im 6'3" 170lbs. 10% body fat. fyi


Good for you. I notice you had no problem with being flaccid and eating dead flies off the window sill, though. And ultra skinny and tall just makes the image more creepy. Have fun with your misogyny, Sir William.
 
2012-02-02 08:49:34 PM

EZ1923: lazyguineapig33: dahmers love zombie: Women are forced to pay insurance premiums that pay for men's erectile dysfunction.
Men are forced to pay insurance premiums for gynecological/obstetrical visits.
Old people are forced to pay for children and fertility-related treatments.
Young people are forced to pay for old-age diseases.

If we take out everything that bothers everyone, or everything that isn't "fair", we have nothing.

well i think that forcing me to pay for a kid/STD/papsmear that i didnt have anything to do with is bullshiat. and yes, most kids are fathered by a minority of men, and yes women have double the STD rate that men have for the same reason. and no, womens health care vs ED meds do not balance out. i should pay more money simply because i am a man? how much of a yoke should be placed on my shoulders to make the life of some slut easier? at what point are we going to make peole responsible for their own actions?

This guy should shack up with a Fleshbot and be done with women altogether.


if i did, i would still be forced to pay for their choices. that is the problem. does your ad hominem somehow make my statement incorrect?
 
2012-02-02 08:50:41 PM

ArkAngel: Opposition to abortion, sterilization, and contraception is a well-known and often deeply held Catholic belief. Forcing the Catholic Church or Catholic employers to subsidize a violation of their beliefs is a violation of the Establishment Clause (Amendment I, Section 1) and the Free Exercise Clause (Amendment I, Section 2)


Even if it was a violation of these 2 (and I don't agree it is), this law specifically exempts the church. It is religious non-profits that are forced to comply. Sorry, just because your non-profit has religious ideals does not make it a religion and does not give it special constitutional exemptions to hiring policy, its the same reason catholic run charitable systems can't discriminate in hiring but catholic churches themselves can.

Sherbert v. Verner - SCOTUS holds that a Seventh Day Adventist can't be denied government benefits (in this case unemployment) because of religious beliefs precluding them from following the general rule. (Sherbert was ruled ineligible for benefits because she wouldn't accept working on Saturday ).

This has to do with federal employment law and unemployment claims in particular. It has to do with the rights of an individual not an organization. no link to this case.

Thomas v. Review Board - Similar case with same decision. Jehovah's Witness denied unemployment benefits after he quit his job because his employer transferred him from the industrial factory to the military factory. SCOTUS rules government can't decide or even ask about the validity of a religious belief so long as the claim is made in good faith. (pun not intended)

Same as above, it cites that employers can't discriminate on their employees based on faith. It does not give an employer the right to ignore federal regulations.

Wisconsin v. Yoder - SCOTUS holds that forcing Amish children to attend school past 8th grade is a violation of the Free Exercise Clause.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette - SCOTUS holds that the government cannot force schoolchildren to salute the flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance


Public schools are government institutions.

See the theme in every case you cited, these are cases about what government organizations are not allowed to do to individuals.
 
2012-02-02 08:52:14 PM

thamike: greyw1980: 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.

You do have input, pray harder.

I thought the man's input had already been supplied. Hence, the pregnancy.


Are you suggesting prayer can't fix causality? Repent!

Pray harder earlier.

/BTW I think Psalm 109 covers miscarriage and post election death rituals.
 
Displayed 50 of 362 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report