Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

8246 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Feb 2012 at 7:25 PM (4 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 09:45:47 PM  

Ablejack: saloman: Ablejack: Ablejack: saloman: 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?

yup. http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=19561

better: Link (new window)

A condom used between two guys isn't a contraceptive - they aren't having "conceptive" sex. I believe that is the point in the pope's rationale.

It isn't condoms or the pill the catholic church is against - it is the artificial interference with the natural process of conception.

Good point, the Pope did use "an example" of two men. Clearly he is speaking of the prophylactic use rather than the contraceptive. But still, baby steps. I'm not trying to argue that the Church has dropped the Humanae Vitae any more than I think the Pope is advocating butt-sex for men as long as you use a condom. It is interesting that the Pope recognizes the benefits of condom use and perhaps "looks the other way" at their distribution recognizing the good.


I lol'd.

It does seem the catholic church has painted itself into a corner with this one and will have a hard time getting out of it. I do like to think if it could it would.
 
2012-02-02 09:46:12 PM  
Flying $12 billion in cash to Iraq and not getting receipts is totally constitutional though.
3.bp.blogspot.com

Old news? Not really. Americans spend $200 million a year on contraceptives. If we still had that $12 billion we'd only be in the first decade of a 60-year program of free contraceptives for everyone. In 50 years if someone wonders where their contraceptives are, they can look at this old picture.
 
2012-02-02 09:46:53 PM  

lilplatinum: Real Women Drink Akvavit: They do not seem to view women as equal to men as many of the old faiths do. This is why when a young Asatru (or Theodist or Forn Sedr, etc etc) man meets a young Christian woman, the female usually ends up converting after a while. They see that the Nordic/Germanic Heathen and Pagan paths in general are "gender neutral" and women are actually highly respected. We are our deeds, not what is between our legs. Now if only the Abrahamic faiths could catch up, the world would be a better place.

I'm torn between mocking the followers of these even more absurd-than-Christianity religions or at least just appreciating that they don't bother anyone and keep their bizzare beliefs to themselves like Christians should...


We leave others alone, so others should leave us alone. It's the only polite (and honorable) thing to do. I admit it is rather sad we do not have zombies in our base faith which I suppose counts as "bizarre", but the basic concept of "don't be a dick" is not at all bizarre.

Actually, that's not entirely true that we leave others alone. We also tend to be very active in our communities, especially charity for all of these children that so many of the Christians don't seem to care one bit about after the kid has passed through the birth canal. Birth control would be a lot cheaper, especially for people like me who actually, you know, care about other humans (to a certain extent).

/actually an agnostic polytheist (Nordisk Sed)
//don't know for sure about the divine because I can'tknow - no one can
 
2012-02-02 09:50:50 PM  

TehNacho: 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.

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.


If you paid insurance premiums for the past 10 years it would be obvious that the private sector cannot do it either .
 
2012-02-02 09:55:27 PM  

lilplatinum:
Almost makes up for him being a Nazi.
/and probably a Bayern Muenchen fan which is even worse.


Sinful, but that is his cross to bear. Although He may switch allegiances:

Vatican Serie A team? (new window)
 
2012-02-02 10:01:15 PM  

lilplatinum: SquiggelyGrounders: What? That would just be.... well... fair. But good luck forcing women to take full responsibility for their choices.
Its like if you have sex with a drunk girl - you are a rapist because she isn't responsible for her decisions when I'm drunk..


Keep your dicks in your hands, where you're holding them right now while you type out your diatribes, and you won't have to worry about those pesky little things at all, will you? I mean, if you already know women are like that, why are you farking them anyway? Did she force you? Oh but now you sound like a woman.
 
2012-02-02 10:02:07 PM  
This law is in no way unconstitutional because itt is a neutral, generally applicable law. It doesn't go after the church; it doesn't tell them who can become a nun. It has nothing to do with the exercise of religion and religious practice as such. The government regardless has a compelling interest in women's health."
 
2012-02-02 10:02:31 PM  

cryinoutloud: lilplatinum: SquiggelyGrounders: What? That would just be.... well... fair. But good luck forcing women to take full responsibility for their choices.
Its like if you have sex with a drunk girl - you are a rapist because she isn't responsible for her decisions when I'm drunk..

Keep your dicks in your hands, where you're holding them right now while you type out your diatribes, and you won't have to worry about those pesky little things at all, will you? I mean, if you already know women are like that, why are you farking them anyway? Did she force you? Oh but now you sound like a woman.


You sound mad...
 
2012-02-02 10:04:22 PM  
RE Nem Wan: "Flying $12 billion in cash to Iraq and not getting receipts is totally constitutional though."

Good point.
 
2012-02-02 10:05:33 PM  

saloman: Ablejack: I'm not trying to argue that the Church has dropped the Humanae Vitae any more than I think the Pope is advocating butt-sex for men as long as you use a condom.

I lol'd. It does seem the catholic church has painted itself into a corner with this one and will have a hard time getting out of it. I do like to think if it could it would.


Perhaps this is simply the Pope's veiled message that it's OK to get behind Santorum.
 
2012-02-02 10:07:44 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: RE Nem Wan: "Flying $12 billion in cash to Iraq and not getting receipts is totally constitutional though."

Good point.


Agreed.
 
2012-02-02 10:18:02 PM  

lilplatinum: StanTheMan: Except that healthcare isn't listed as a congressional power under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. or a right anywhere else in it.

General welfare does not just apply to enumerated power, its an implied power.


Yeah, I'm sure that's what the Framers were intending by "general welfare," that doctors and patients be forced into a federal system. I'll bet the anti-Federalists would have rushed to ratify that document.

And the fact that socialized medicine sucks ass.

As someone with a health problem who has lived in worked in both US and Germany, I beg to differ.


Your cool story bro (anecdotal evidence) aside, we have better outcomes in the major causes of death (top-5 on cancer, heart disease outcomes), and manage to have pretty damn good life expectancy, despite a fat, lazy slob, type 2 diabetes-inducing lifestyle.

You silly libs might think access is how you judge a healthcare "system." I judge it by outcomes, and ours is among the best for those in it. So don't throw the baby out the bathwater, dumbfarks, and you might win some hearts and minds to cover those who don't have insurance. But ruin my healthcare to do it? DIAF.
 
2012-02-02 10:20:23 PM  
Just wanna say to those shouting "Your employer shouldn't be involved with what your healthcare can and cant do!":

As someone that works for the government and has medical coverage through my job, they absolutely have a say. I was given pages and pages of certain treatments, medicines, and doctors that I can or cannot have, based on what they worked out with the insuring company. Two big changes this year? Fertility treatments were no longer covered and we can only fill prescriptions at certain pharmacies. Oh, and we have to use generic drugs instead of name brand.

Just saying, because you get health insurance through a company/government job, doesn't mean you can do with it whatever you want. I don't know where people are getting that.

/my apologies if someone already brought this up
//only read about half the thread until i posted
 
2012-02-02 10:25:49 PM  

thekingcobra: Just wanna say to those shouting "Your employer shouldn't be involved with what your healthcare can and cant do!":

As someone that works for the government and has medical coverage through my job, they absolutely have a say. I was given pages and pages of certain treatments, medicines, and doctors that I can or cannot have, based on what they worked out with the insuring company. Two big changes this year? Fertility treatments were no longer covered and we can only fill prescriptions at certain pharmacies. Oh, and we have to use generic drugs instead of name brand.

Just saying, because you get health insurance through a company/government job, doesn't mean you can do with it whatever you want. I don't know where people are getting that.

/my apologies if someone already brought this up
//only read about half the thread until i posted


Ploy detected.

Denied.

;)
 
2012-02-02 10:27:38 PM  

StanTheMan: Yeah, I'm sure that's what the Framers were intending by "general welfare," that doctors and patients be forced into a federal system. I'll bet the anti-Federalists would have rushed to ratify that document.


The federalists and anti federalists were completely at odds with what they meant with the constitution, thats why it has been read through the years through the idea of common law and judicial review because just yelling "framers intent" or taking literal readings from it would get us nowhere. Hamilton explicitly said it should have a broad view.

Your cool story bro (anecdotal evidence) aside, we have better outcomes in the major causes of death (top-5 on cancer, heart disease outcomes), and manage to have pretty damn good life expectancy, despite a fat, lazy slob, type 2 diabetes-inducing lifestyle.

And the system in Germany here eats up a smaller portion of GDP while covering everyone and meeting or exceeding the US heal system in pretty much every medical metric.

You silly libs might think access is how you judge a healthcare "system." I judge it by outcomes, and ours is among the best for those in it.

Hey, I come from a rich family - you are absolutely right that if your loaded its good to get sick in the States. But hell, even in "socialist" Germany if you are rich you can still buy better private coverage too, so don't worry your little "fark you, i've got mine" head off.
 
2012-02-02 10:28:11 PM  

StanTheMan: lilplatinum: As someone with a health problem who has lived in worked in both US and Germany, I beg to differ.

StM:Your cool story bro (anecdotal evidence) aside, we have better outcomes in the major causes of death (top-5 on cancer, heart disease outcomes), and manage to have pretty damn good life expectancy, despite a fat, lazy slob, type 2 diabetes-inducing lifestyle.
You silly libs might think access is how you judge a healthcare "system." I judge it by outcomes, and ours is among the best for those in it. So don't throw the baby out the bathwater, dumbfarks, and you might win some hearts and minds to cover those who don't have insurance. But ruin my healthcare to do it? DIAF.


Alright then, check the WHO rankings if you prefer more concrete evidence rather than your own "anecdotal" experience.
/warning: the more scientific and authorative evidence you call for as criteria for does not support your claims.
 
2012-02-02 10:28:52 PM  

cryinoutloud: Keep your dicks in your hands, where you're holding them right now while you type out your diatribes, and you won't have to worry about those pesky little things at all, will you? I mean, if you already know women are like that, why are you farking them anyway?


What are you babbling about? I didn't claim all women are like that, I just said there is a double standard when it comes to the concepts of alcohol and taking responsibility for your actions.

/but I won't continue trying to be logical since you are obviously on the rag
 
2012-02-02 10:36:11 PM  

EZ1923: Implied powers. (new window)


The implied powers only apply in carrying out the explicit powers within the Constitution. This is similar to the Supremacy clause applying to not to all federal laws, but rather only those which are "made in Pursuance" of the Constitution. So, if you want to invoke implied powers, or Supremacy, you're back at square one: show that this is pursuant to a federal power.
 
2012-02-02 10:39:20 PM  

treesloth: The implied powers only apply in carrying out the explicit powers within the Constitution. This is similar to the Supremacy clause applying to not to all federal laws, but rather only those which are "made in Pursuance" of the Constitution. So, if you want to invoke implied powers, or Supremacy, you're back at square one: show that this is pursuant to a federal power.


Except the general welfare clause has already been ruled as being a power from which the government can derive implied powers - see Steward Machine Company vs Davis among others.
 
2012-02-02 10:41:18 PM  

TFerWannaBe: 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.


A similar thing can be said for the female.

But for some reason the consequences of sex are the mans responsibility.

Its a womans choice but the mans responsibility; as if the woman was unaware that intercourse was occurring or capable of producing pregnancy.

Something isnt right in a situation like that.
 
2012-02-02 10:41:47 PM  
Why the can't people buy their own birth control? Hell it's cheap! They don't need help with that. Why are we even getting the federal government involved in the first place?
Look if your going to have the pleasure of getting laid you should at least chip in a the tiny bit that covers birth control, it shouldn't be a federal matter and it's got to be simpler without the government being involved.
 
2012-02-02 10:42:11 PM  

rkiller1: 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)


Defenestration is a fun word. Mostly because I'd never really expected the English language to have a word for throwing things out of windows.
 
2012-02-02 10:48:14 PM  
vernonFL:

So does Boehner support Sharia Law for Muslims?

i483.photobucket.com

 
2012-02-02 10:48:30 PM  

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

Do I get prostate cancer screenings co-pay free?


you're less likely to be a swing voter, that's why
 
2012-02-02 10:48:34 PM  

treesloth: EZ1923: Implied powers. (new window)

The implied powers only apply in carrying out the explicit powers within the Constitution. This is similar to the Supremacy clause applying to not to all federal laws, but rather only those which are "made in Pursuance" of the Constitution. So, if you want to invoke implied powers, or Supremacy, you're back at square one: show that this is pursuant to a federal power.


Hello, literal?
 
2012-02-02 10:49:41 PM  

ParallelUniverseParking: vernonFL: So does Boehner support Sharia Law for Muslims?

[i483.photobucket.com image 119x160]


Seems likely...
 
2012-02-02 10:51:38 PM  
Catholics are annoying anyway.
 
2012-02-02 10:55:42 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

the government's allocating less than a penny of my taxes 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?

FIFY. By the way, you have no say on how your taxes are spent (except via representation), because they're fees we all pay so we get stuff and services from the government.
 
2012-02-02 11:02:38 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.


Yep, kind of BS.

If its wrong for the father to force the mother to be a parent, then its wrong for the mother to force the father to be a parent based on her personal choice.

/pro-choice
 
2012-02-02 11:06:08 PM  

safetycap: 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 the government's allocating less than a penny of my taxes 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?

FIFY. By the way, you have no say on how your taxes are spent (except via representation), because they're fees we all pay so we get stuff and services from the government.


Someone once described taxes as the "subscription fee" for a country. I thought it was a neat metaphor.
 
2012-02-02 11:10:16 PM  

safetycap: 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 the government's allocating less than a penny of my taxes 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?

FIFY. By the way, you have no say on how your taxes are spent (except via representation), because they're fees we all pay so we get stuff and services from the government.


my health insurance was about $100 a month because i am i young healthy man. when the law that requires men and women to pay the same amount for health insurance goes into effect, i will probably have to pay double that amount. so no, the idea that women are special and deserve to have free/subsidized healthcare does not cost me pennies. it costs me $1200 a year. in most other ways i support the law.
 
2012-02-02 11:10:59 PM  

Ablejack:

Alright then, check the WHO rankings if you prefer more concrete evidence rather than your own "anecdotal" experience.
/warning: the more scientific and authorative evidence you call for as criteria for does not support your claims.


Uh, the last WHO ranking of healthcare systems puts the US at #37. Those damn dirty socialist Spaniards rank #1. They no longer do the rankings "due to the complexity of the task" so the last one was in 2000. Things have not gotten better in the US since then and indeed, the county clinics in my area are nearly all closed so the poor are well and truly screwed. This is worrisome as it could eventually impact those of us who either have cash to see a doctor or who have insurance. Especially when the poor start spreading their otherwise preventable or treatable sick all over the city. *gags*

I would like to point out that even in many countries with socialized medicine, you can still obtain private insurance. Norway even lets you opt out in favor of private insurance, but most people do not go that route as you all see the same doctors anyway.

The World Health Organization's ranking
of the world's health systems
(pops like an abscess)
 
2012-02-02 11:11:28 PM  

Indubitably: thekingcobra: Just wanna say to those shouting "Your employer shouldn't be involved with what your healthcare can and cant do!":

As someone that works for the government and has medical coverage through my job, they absolutely have a say. I was given pages and pages of certain treatments, medicines, and doctors that I can or cannot have, based on what they worked out with the insuring company. Two big changes this year? Fertility treatments were no longer covered and we can only fill prescriptions at certain pharmacies. Oh, and we have to use generic drugs instead of name brand.

Just saying, because you get health insurance through a company/government job, doesn't mean you can do with it whatever you want. I don't know where people are getting that.

/my apologies if someone already brought this up
//only read about half the thread until i posted

Ploy detected.

Denied.

;)


Its not a ploy, honestly. To be fair, we had an option of two plans. They both offered the same coverage on prescriptions, treatments, and lack of fertility stuff. The only difference was that there was an "out of network" option that allowed you to pick a doctor that wasn't on the on the list as long as you went 30% out of pocket on all doctor visits.
I'm not saying its not great overall. Almost everything is covered, and believe me i've used up my very low deductible on some pretty serious health problems. But being covered by insurance, no matter how you get it, isn't some blank check that you can use for any kind of treatment you want. The insuring company/employer gets to set boundaries. Where it affects the average person the most is when doctors opt in or out of coverage policies because of what they're willing to pay. I cant go to my favorite dentist because he was too expensive for the county/insurance company to keep on and i didnt wanna pay out of pocket.
Oh, and Honestly, I dont give two shiats about fertility treatments. They were cut because our state/county is broke and had to slash somewhere.
 
2012-02-02 11:14:17 PM  

thekingcobra: Indubitably: thekingcobra: Just wanna say to those shouting "Your employer shouldn't be involved with what your healthcare can and cant do!":

As someone that works for the government and has medical coverage through my job, they absolutely have a say. I was given pages and pages of certain treatments, medicines, and doctors that I can or cannot have, based on what they worked out with the insuring company. Two big changes this year? Fertility treatments were no longer covered and we can only fill prescriptions at certain pharmacies. Oh, and we have to use generic drugs instead of name brand.

Just saying, because you get health insurance through a company/government job, doesn't mean you can do with it whatever you want. I don't know where people are getting that.

/my apologies if someone already brought this up
//only read about half the thread until i posted

Ploy detected.

Denied.

;)

Its not a ploy, honestly. To be fair, we had an option of two plans. They both offered the same coverage on prescriptions, treatments, and lack of fertility stuff. The only difference was that there was an "out of network" option that allowed you to pick a doctor that wasn't on the on the list as long as you went 30% out of pocket on all doctor visits.
I'm not saying its not great overall. Almost everything is covered, and believe me i've used up my very low deductible on some pretty serious health problems. But being covered by insurance, no matter how you get it, isn't some blank check that you can use for any kind of treatment you want. The insuring company/employer gets to set boundaries. Where it affects the average person the most is when doctors opt in or out of coverage policies because of what they're willing to pay. I cant go to my favorite dentist because he was too expensive for the county/insurance company to keep on and i didnt wanna pay out of pocket.
Oh, and Honestly, I dont give two shiats about fertility treatments. They were cut because our state ...


Read it, friend, and I concur.

A plan at all is a plan.

Wouldn't it be coo if that was an anagram?

;)
 
2012-02-02 11:21:08 PM  
I lose all respect for anyone who adheres to a religious principle that states birth control is wrong. Also, what is it with religious people and their rules on sex? So freakin' weird, none of it makes sense, and nobody really follows it anyway, but they sure like to yell and tell everyone else how wrong they are for doing the same as they do in private.

I'm tired of religion, it's boorishly stupid, especially the bible, noway in hell, or wherever, does it make sense to say a man who rapes a virgin has to pay the girl's dad and marry the girl, or, that a man lived inside of a whale for days, or that we're born with original sin, or that an omnipotent and omniscient deity can give us free will without there being a conflict in logic, or a million other things that religious people like to make excuses for, or mostly, just ignore and talk about the parts that support their beliefs. Done. I'm glad the House of Reps in PA declared 2012 the Year of the Bible, maybe as part of this honor everyone should actually read the damn thing and discuss how freakin' idiotic the book of fairy tales is.
 
2012-02-02 11:24:11 PM  

lilplatinum: Except the general welfare clause has already been ruled as being a power from which the government can derive implied powers - see Steward Machine Company vs Davis among others.


That case deals with incentive and inducements, not mandate, and it applied to federal interaction with states.

Indubitably: Hello, literal?


Oh... well, I stand corrected...
 
2012-02-02 11:32:51 PM  

Doink_Boink: I lose all respect for anyone who adheres to a religious principle that states birth control is wrong.


So you lose all respect for people who have religious convictions that you don't have. Awesome. I lose all respect for people who are intolerant of those with religious beliefs.
 
2012-02-02 11:34:42 PM  

treesloth: That case deals with incentive and inducements, not mandate, and it applied to federal interaction with states.


Regardless of what the case deals with specifically, it found that the federal governments had an implied powers not specifically enumerated in the constitution and derived from the GW clause. Much like it does if it wants to ever implement a real health care plan, much like it already does with medicare and medicaid.
 
2012-02-02 11:34:56 PM  

bulldg4life: Viagra still a-ok


That's different.

Men need to get boners.

Women don't need to not get pregnant.
 
2012-02-02 11:38:31 PM  

thekingcobra: The insuring company/employer gets to set boundaries


Insurance companies should never ever be allowed to decide what sort of treatment or where a person goes for treatment. That's tantamount to practicing medicine, which is illegal unless you happen to have a license to practice medicine.
 
2012-02-02 11:39:02 PM  
That dude really lives up to his name.
 
2012-02-02 11:40:09 PM  

Vindibudd: So you lose all respect for people who have religious convictions that you don't have.


People with those convictions may want to look into why they have them. The opposition to birth control of the catholic church is a fabrication with no support in anything other than "cause we say so". And if that's enough for you? Then you should expect people to not give a damn about what you think.
 
2012-02-02 11:40:47 PM  

Vindibudd: Doink_Boink: I lose all respect for anyone who adheres to a religious principle that states birth control is wrong.

So you lose all respect for people who have religious convictions that you don't have. Awesome. I lose all respect for people who are intolerant of those with religious beliefs.


What else is new?

You religios have been playing respect-based victim-hood for centuries...

And quite frankly, religion has been MORE intolerant than not.

Chew on that hat.

;)
 
2012-02-02 11:46:10 PM  

Strix occidentalis:

Someone once described taxes as the "subscription fee" for a country. I thought it was a neat metaphor.


dude i hate ayn rand as much as anyone here and probably more so. in general im a pretty harcore leftist guy.

taxes to support hoover damn, interstate roads, military, internet, science research, schools, universities, FDA, EPA, CPA, CFTC, SEC, FBI, firfighters, police, etc etc etc i suppurt absolutely.

the difference is that i cannot build roads, check my food for disease, check drugs for safety, build powerplants, regulate banks, catch criminals, fight fires, fight enemy countries, develope the internet, develope basic science, or educate kids by taking individual action.

women can stop getting knocked up by keep their farking legs shut.
 
2012-02-02 11:46:21 PM  

lilplatinum: treesloth: That case deals with incentive and inducements, not mandate, and it applied to federal interaction with states.

Regardless of what the case deals with specifically, it found that the federal governments had an implied powers not specifically enumerated in the constitution and derived from the GW clause. Much like it does if it wants to ever implement a real health care plan, much like it already does with medicare and medicaid.


No, it didn't. That's an overgeneralization. It found that the federal government could use inducements-- persuade financially. It did not say that it could assume new powers outside of taxation and appropriation. In fact, by striking down the Agricultural Adjustment Act, they specifically slapped down an effort at fabrication of such an "implied power".
 
2012-02-02 11:48:35 PM  

treesloth: No, it didn't. That's an overgeneralization. It found that the federal government could use inducements-- persuade financially. It did not say that it could assume new powers outside of taxation and appropriation. In fact, by striking down the Agricultural Adjustment Act, they specifically slapped down an effort at fabrication of such an "implied power".


The "Mandate" in the health care case is a function of it's taxation powers, its not a criminal fine to not have health care it is a tax penalty. Still under their powers of taxation and appropration. Completely constitutional. Next.
 
2012-02-02 11:51:57 PM  

lazyguineapig33: women can stop getting knocked up by keep their farking legs shut.


So, would you be against health insurance plans covering any sort of injury or illness sustained as an unintended consequence of something that a person did voluntarily?
 
2012-02-02 11:53:30 PM  

Corvus: 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?

So then Jehovah Witnesses don't have to pay for insurance that cover blood transfusion or surgeries?


Taking this to the logical extreme, if Catholics employers are legally able to do this, should Christian Science employers be able to give their employees a health care plan that included nothing but band-aids and other people praying for them?
 
2012-02-02 11:53:56 PM  

Biological Ali: lazyguineapig33: women can stop getting knocked up by keep their farking legs shut.

So, would you be against health insurance plans covering any sort of injury or illness sustained as an unintended consequence of something that a person did voluntarily?


If you leave your home voluntarily for any reason and get hurt, you shouldn't be covered by any insurance. In fact, if you leave your bed and get injured or sick, no insurance for you. You could have stayed put and nothing bad would have happened!
 
2012-02-02 11:55:08 PM  

Ablejack: Alright then, check the WHO rankings if you prefer more concrete evidence rather than your own "anecdotal" experience.
/warning: the more scientific and authorative evidence you call for as criteria for does not support your claims.


Bullshiat, and learn to spell "authoritative." WHO is your typical leftist political organization. And its methodology is flawed, because it allows self-reporting by regimes like Cuba - so dopes like you and Michael Moore buy into their cooked numbers.

Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA Better Than Europe and Canada
 
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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report