fark Congress.

FlashHarry: After about 10 of them took turns issuing similar missives against the mandate, while dismissing Obama's religious accommodation as a gimmick, I put the question to them: Would any of you refuse to support a presidential candidate who enacted a similar mandate?

There were uncomfortable smiles across the stage. "Somebody else want to do that?" asked Fortenberry, stepping aside from the podium and looking around at his colleagues as they let out a mixture of laughs and groans. A few seconds went by and none volunteered.

farking hypocritical cowards.

I think the GOP is beginning to realized this that's why the surge for Santorum and dwindling support for Romney.

At least with Santorum there is less of a hypocrisy than with Romney. While some of his views may be right of center, I can't think of anything Santorum did in his past that would ignite any controversial or hypocritical arguments against him or the GOP in general. His views on certain things are very clear whether you are for or against them.

sweetmelissa31: Fark_Guy_Rob: I gotta say - I don't see any good reason for my tax dollars to help facilitate other people's sexual activity.

I don't see why my tax dollars should pay for wars.

Or torture.

sweetmelissa31: Fark_Guy_Rob: I gotta say - I don't see any good reason for my tax dollars to help facilitate other people's sexual activity.

I don't see why my tax dollars should pay for wars.

Because, MELISSA. Life is sacred, and there is nothing more sacred than taking another man's life. Just gotta get him out of the womb first.

Walker: [img.photobucket.com image 600x600]

If the women pictured is involved in said acts, I'd have to agree.

//One ticket please.

///Oh ok, fine, she can have her abortion or gay lover, but please, for mother of god, don't make me watch it.

MetryPapi: I gotta say - I don't see any good reason for my tax dollars to help facilitate other people's sexual activity.

I really don't care which political party backs it. I just have trouble seeing an actual justification (well, one that doesn't amount to blackmail that is).

Cost of providing a lifetime's supply of contraception to someone is much much smaller than paying for one instance of pregnancy which incurs pre-natal care (which for lower-income families may be provided free by state gov't [taxpayers], cost of delivery and post-natal care.

One of the main reasons to provide universal health care is to reduce costs through common sense preventative mandates: yearly check-ups, contraception, universal access.

So the question to you is, do you want to live in a society that values the health of all its citizens?

And my answer is, 'No'. For a lot of reasons.

First and foremost, people are already free to give money to whomever or whatever they want. If *YOU* care about helping the poor, you can directly help the poor without mandating that I also get stuck helping the poor.

And, let's be honest, it's fairly rare that a government program (even with the best of intentions) manages to do anything right. The poorest people won't have insurance programs to begin with. And historically, even when contraception is made available 100% freely; the people who most need to use it, still don't. Government mandates still can't get around the basics of supply and demand either - so you can expect a significant increase in the cost of contraception too.

Beyond that, there are more philosophical questions about what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'.

The optimal short-term solution is not always the optimal long-term solution. So yeah, you are probably right; the cost of contraception is less than the cost of child care. But do we really want to adopt that policy? If X costs less than Y - we do X? That's not a pattern I can get behind.

oh, we were hoping you wouldn't pick up on that.

SuperNinjaToad: FlashHarry: After about 10 of them took turns issuing similar missives against the mandate, while dismissing Obama's religious accommodation as a gimmick, I put the question to them: Would any of you refuse to support a presidential candidate who enacted a similar mandate?

There were uncomfortable smiles across the stage. "Somebody else want to do that?" asked Fortenberry, stepping aside from the podium and looking around at his colleagues as they let out a mixture of laughs and groans. A few seconds went by and none volunteered.

farking hypocritical cowards.

I think the GOP is beginning to realized this that's why the surge for Santorum and dwindling support for Romney.

At least with Santorum there is less of a hypocrisy than with Romney. While some of his views may be right of center, I can't think of anything Santorum did in his past that would ignite any controversial or hypocritical arguments against him or the GOP in general. His views on certain things are very clear whether you are for or against them.

I hereby submit my nomination for the Understatement Of The Year Award.

lohphat:
The difference is that it's not blackmail when the numbers and data support it. A large percent of crime committed by poorer populations has decreased over the last 40-50 years due to the ability to decrease the number of unwanted children. The children who are had, tend to perpetuate the cycle of poverty and crime.

In your world, spending money on healthy activities and makeing better choices in your youth to ward off the chronic problems obesity and smoking and excess drinking cause is "blackmail".

You sound conservative.

You just pulled that from your ass.

Fark_Guy_Rob: And, let's be honest, it's fairly rare that a government program (even with the best of intentions) manages to do anything right.

Again, how is private insurance coverage of contraception a "government program"? You sure make a lot of oopsies for someone who is trying to have an honest discussion.

Fark_Guy_Rob:
Except that doesn't make any sense.

If every individual person paying for insurance can either choose to enter or not enter the plan that costs contraceptives - the only people who would enter that plan would be the ones who intend to use it. An insurance plan only works by mitigating risk - since the group of people in the plan that covers contraceptives would ALL be taking advantage of the contraceptive coverage - it would, by definition, be less effective as having no insurance.

I'm guessing you've never had an insurance plan then. Yes, the point of health insurance is to mitigate risk, but since you and/or your employer is covering the costs, you are free to deny parts of your plan. That's the way they work. Hell, a lot of insurance companies, if not all of them, offer a sort of "a la carte" plan building that lets you put together what you want covered and then your co-pay goes towards that.

I'll admit I shouldn't have said 'tax dollars'.... 'my dollars' would have been a better choice. Certainly, the politician's drafting up the plan are all being paid with tax dollars, and because I'm against policies such as this, I do see it as a waste of my tax dollars. I also believe health insurance premiums can be deducted from your taxable income in some fashion, such that people do receive tax benefits for having insurance - that may now be legally required to facilitate people's getting laid.

But you're still missing the point. You're not paying for ANYONE except yourself (or your family if you have that sort of insurance plan). Your money for your co-pay only covers YOUR insurance plan, and no one else. If you have a problem with your insurance company offering coverage for birth control at all, that's your problem, but your money certainly isn't affecting that.

Regardless, the ENTIRE point of this program is to move the cost of contraceptive from irresponsible people who would still bang each other without it, onto people who wouldn't otherwise pay for someone else's contraceptive....whether it's tax dollars or insurance premiums or whatever. OTHER people are going to pay it.

No, the entire point of this program is to lower the overall burden cost of tax payers who would no longer be footing the bill for the care of someone else's child. Regardless of how the child is born, lower income people rely on the taxpayer supported Medicaid system for health coverage for their children, and with more birth control available, there would be fewer children born that would sap resources from the system.

The issue I have has nothing to do with birth control which I am all in favor of my problem is with government involvement in religion. We get all up in arms when they want to display the 10 commandments in the courthouse which freedom of religion has nothing to do with it, but we get on the side of government we they force a religion to proceed against its doctrine which is exactly what freedom of religion was meant to protect.

Does plan pay for comdoms? Those things get costly even more so when you use three a night. Would cover me anyway they would just come back and say sorry you make too much money like always.

sweetmelissa31: Fark_Guy_Rob: I gotta say - I don't see any good reason for my tax dollars to help facilitate other people's sexual activity.

I don't see why my tax dollars should pay for wars.

Same thing these days, what with all the military over-quota rapes.

HAMMERTOE: To be fair, this also opened up the door for more progressive bosses to deny coverage for circumcisions.

/Law of unintended consequences. Always./

Circumcisions are covered? Seriously? An entirely elective cosmetic procedure done without the consent of the patient?

Now THAT I have a problem with.

Fark_Guy_Rob: I gotta say - I don't see any good reason for my tax dollars to help facilitate other people's sexual activity.

I really don't care which political party backs it. I just have trouble seeing an actual justification (well, one that doesn't amount to blackmail that is).

Because health insurance pays the cost to fix your dick if it breaks, whether that includes an implant or other surgical ED treatment or a prescription drug like Viagra.

Because you don't get a free ride of women insureds paying for your reproductive healthcare in the whole insurance pool without you paying for ours.

I suppose we could mandate complete actuarial separation of women's versus men's health insurance, and by mandating that X% of dollars had to go to healthcare, not overhead, thereby insist that women's premiums accurately reflected the actual care women's bodies were receiving.

Given the amounts spend on male-body-specific illnesses versus the scandalously nubianrdly approach to illnesses that are more commonly seen in women (breast cancer), and given how likely things like female heart attacks are to be simply missed, I'm not sure how that would work out, but hey, we could try it.

Until then? Since your pee-pee is covered? Quit whining.

Fark_Guy_Rob: And, let's be honest, it's fairly rare that a government program (even with the best of intentions) manages to do anything right.

Medicare is more financially efficient than every single health insurance company in the country with only a 5% overhead. Try again.

stevenboof: Fark_Guy_Rob: that may now be legally required to facilitate people's getting laid.

I'm sure that you realize that the pill is not just used to prevent pregnancy and this little sentence was just "something you shouldn't have said" again.

When it's called CONTRACEPTION it is.

Just about every health insurance plan is already going to cover medical *conditions*. Where 'Condition' is something abnormal. If you take the pill because you have medical condition and benefit from the hormonal adjustment - you're really undergoing some hormone therapy....a side-effect is that you won't get pregnant. But, being a normal, healthy person able to reproduce....that's not a medical condition. That's a the default. That's normal. Insurance should help you GET to that state.

I don't need condoms because I have a medical condition.
I need condoms because *I DON'T* have a medical condition.

Requiring insurance companies to provide insurance against being UNHEALTHY AND HEALTHY doesn't make any sense.

Cognitive dissonance is a discomfort caused by holding conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously.

You can just feel their discomfort. Yet, they are smart enough to not say anything.

These are your double think patrons.

Cognitive dissonance seems to be at an all-time high this cycle. One of my favorite clips was some Gingrich supporter saying, "Well, historically, lots of men had more than one wife because their wives had died..."  But Gingrich's wives are still alive  "Well.....yeah."

I feel like if I were at a point where I tried to make a statement like that, I'd have to just shoot myself in the head at the end of the interview.

Stay classy you hypocritical bags of shiat.

birchman: Fark_Guy_Rob: And, let's be honest, it's fairly rare that a government program (even with the best of intentions) manages to do anything right.

Medicare is more financially efficient than every single health insurance company in the country with only a 5% overhead. Try again.

Doesn't mesh with his worldview, so it's obviously wrong.

SuperNinjaToad: FlashHarry: After about 10 of them took turns issuing similar missives against the mandate, while dismissing Obama's religious accommodation as a gimmick, I put the question to them: Would any of you refuse to support a presidential candidate who enacted a similar mandate?

There were uncomfortable smiles across the stage. "Somebody else want to do that?" asked Fortenberry, stepping aside from the podium and looking around at his colleagues as they let out a mixture of laughs and groans. A few seconds went by and none volunteered.

farking hypocritical cowards.

I think the GOP is beginning to realized this that's why the surge for Santorum and dwindling support for Romney.

At least with Santorum there is less of a hypocrisy than with Romney. While some of his views may be right of center, I can't think of anything Santorum did in his past that would ignite any controversial or hypocritical arguments against him or the GOP in general. His views on certain things are very clear whether you are for or against them.

Yeah. I'll give Santorum that much. At least he actually BELIEVES all the crazy bullshiat he spews.

Julie Cochrane: Fark_Guy_Rob: I gotta say - I don't see any good reason for my tax dollars to help facilitate other people's sexual activity.

I really don't care which political party backs it. I just have trouble seeing an actual justification (well, one that doesn't amount to blackmail that is).

Because health insurance pays the cost to fix your dick if it breaks, whether that includes an implant or other surgical ED treatment or a prescription drug like Viagra.

Because you don't get a free ride of women insureds paying for your reproductive healthcare in the whole insurance pool without you paying for ours.

I suppose we could mandate complete actuarial separation of women's versus men's health insurance, and by mandating that X% of dollars had to go to healthcare, not overhead, thereby insist that women's premiums accurately reflected the actual care women's bodies were receiving.

Given the amounts spend on male-body-specific illnesses versus the scandalously nubianrdly approach to illnesses that are more commonly seen in women (breast cancer), and given how likely things like female heart attacks are to be simply missed, I'm not sure how that would work out, but hey, we could try it.

Until then? Since your pee-pee is covered? Quit whining.

Whether someone is for, or against, mandatory health insurance coverage for contraceptives; I really don't think they should base their opinion on past or current injustices. I think the expression is, 'Two wrongs don't make a right'.

Also, I don't have health insurance, so, my pee-pee is most certainly not covered. I mean, unless I actually pay for something to cover it.

Weigard: sweetmelissa31: Fark_Guy_Rob: I gotta say - I don't see any good reason for my tax dollars to help facilitate other people's sexual activity.

I don't see why my tax dollars should pay for wars.

Same thing these days, what with all the military over-quota rapes.


Non-story, over zealous privates.

Jake Havechek: Wow, Jean Schmidt is still a coont.

And I'm not surprised at all that that shrill harpy is involved with this mess. Been trying to get her voted out for years now.

Fark_Guy_Rob


Also, I don't have health insurance, so, my pee-pee is most certainly not covered. I mean, unless I actually pay for something to cover it.

Don't get sick: Vote Republican

stevenboof: Fark_Guy_Rob: And historically, even when contraception is made available 100% freely; the people who most need to use it, still don't.

Do you have any sources to cite on this? Until you can reference something other than your opinion, I'll stick with the IOM report that urges us to provide simple low cost health checks to women. You know, the people that actually do get paid to study these types of things.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/healthcare/institute-of-medicine-repor t -recommends-free-women-s-health-services-20110719

My high school gave out 'free' (to the students) condoms.
People attending my high school were still having (unintentional) children.

The ones who got knocked up where the exact types you wouldn't want to get knocked up.

Fark_Guy_Rob: Also, I don't have health insurance, so, my pee-pee is most certainly not covered. I mean, unless I actually pay for something to cover it.

Awesome, so when shiat does hit the fan, we're paying for your dumb ass.

Oh well, as long as you don't have to pay to have some WHORE out GALLIVANTING with her ladyparts all hanging out, then all is right with the world.

this is why romney is not the strongest candidate.

InfrasonicTom: can everyone please stop pretending there are two different politioso parties that being too lazy to educate oneself on the political issues isn't brainless hipsterism?

ftfy lazy politics hipster

Codenamechaz: SuperNinjaToad: FlashHarry: After about 10 of them took turns issuing similar missives against the mandate, while dismissing Obama's religious accommodation as a gimmick, I put the question to them: Would any of you refuse to support a presidential candidate who enacted a similar mandate?

There were uncomfortable smiles across the stage. "Somebody else want to do that?" asked Fortenberry, stepping aside from the podium and looking around at his colleagues as they let out a mixture of laughs and groans. A few seconds went by and none volunteered.

farking hypocritical cowards.

I think the GOP is beginning to realized this that's why the surge for Santorum and dwindling support for Romney.

At least with Santorum there is less of a hypocrisy than with Romney. While some of his views may be right of center, I can't think of anything Santorum did in his past that would ignite any controversial or hypocritical arguments against him or the GOP in general. His views on certain things are very clear whether you are for or against them.

Yeah. I'll give Santorum that much. At least he actually BELIEVES all the crazy bullshiat he spews.

I wouldn't be so sure. I tend to believe his views are a reaction formation against his latent homosexual urges. He's consistently just too grandiose and over the top to truly be earnest.

There's some pretty good trollin' up in here.

I guess I'm out of the loop on the latest nonsensical shiat that nutjobs and drama queens are outraged about. When did contraception become unworthy of funding?

Is there an "Idiocracy" strategy the Republicans are counting on to gain a numerical advantage in the decades to come?

keylock71: Oh, I'm sure that the rationalization will be that the brave and noble "Real Americans" diligently kept the Administration from enacting these things with their righteous derp...

That reminds me of that magical dragon-repelling rock I bought once.

Mearen: States rights vs federal... but keep trying.

So you're saying it's ok when states violate the 1st amendment, as you say this does?

...but keep trying.

GranoblasticMan: Fark_Guy_Rob: Also, I don't have health insurance, so, my pee-pee is most certainly not covered. I mean, unless I actually pay for something to cover it.

Awesome, so when shiat does hit the fan, we're paying for your dumb ass.

Oh well, as long as you don't have to pay to have some WHORE out GALLIVANTING with her ladyparts all hanging out, then all is right with the world.

I think you are projecting ideas/values onto me that don't represent my view on the topic.

First - this has nothing to do with gender. I don't care if it's a girl (ladyparts) or a boy (manparts?).
Second - 'whore' implies that I either have a problem with women having sex, or casual sex or something. I don't. I'm PRO-Sex. If you want to participate in a weekly gang-bang, more power to you. Hell, if you want to, literally, be a whore and charge for sex, I even support your right do that (I believe prostitution should be legal).

I'm simply against the government passing laws that require private insures to provide coverage for things that are not medical issues.
I'm also against the idea that 'If X is cheaper, we should do it'.

The US benefited a lot from slave labour. That doesn't mean we should allow it. Because it was *wrong*. Granted, that is an extreme example; but the justification that 'X costs less than Y' doesn't mean we should do X.

The 4chan Psychiatrist: Codenamechaz: SuperNinjaToad: FlashHarry: After about 10 of them took turns issuing similar missives against the mandate, while dismissing Obama's religious accommodation as a gimmick, I put the question to them: Would any of you refuse to support a presidential candidate who enacted a similar mandate?

There were uncomfortable smiles across the stage. "Somebody else want to do that?" asked Fortenberry, stepping aside from the podium and looking around at his colleagues as they let out a mixture of laughs and groans. A few seconds went by and none volunteered.

farking hypocritical cowards.

I think the GOP is beginning to realized this that's why the surge for Santorum and dwindling support for Romney.

At least with Santorum there is less of a hypocrisy than with Romney. While some of his views may be right of center, I can't think of anything Santorum did in his past that would ignite any controversial or hypocritical arguments against him or the GOP in general. His views on certain things are very clear whether you are for or against them.

Yeah. I'll give Santorum that much. At least he actually BELIEVES all the crazy bullshiat he spews.

I wouldn't be so sure. I tend to believe his views are a reaction formation against his latent homosexual urges. He's consistently just too grandiose and over the top to truly be earnest.

This is a man who slept in the same bed as a dead fetus to try and treat it as a human baby before they buried it.

I have no doubt that he believes what comes out of his mouth.

Codenamechaz: Well to be fair

no need for that, son. we're in the politics tab.