Backlash against Sandra Fluke

[vtboy]

Common misconception about how the separation of church and state works.  Here's the first amendment for you.

The first amendment protects the church from the state, not the state from the church.  It blocks the government from affecting religion, not the other way around.

The misconception is what allows people to force others to take down religious paraphernalia, even when doing so clearly violates the free exercise of their religion.

Perhaps the primary purpose of the Establishment Clause was to protect religions from each other. Religious persecution in England (and in many of the colonies here, too) being a fairly recent memory, the concern was that one religion might obtain state sanction and use the powers of the state to oppress others. Thus, the Clause serves not only to keep government's hands off religion, but also religion's hands off government.

Somewhat ironically, evangelists were among the strongest advocates of church/state separation. A fringe movement at the time, evangelical churches feared that more established religious institutions might, by influence or legislation, exploit the levers of state power to drive them from the scene. How different the evangelist voice is today. Of course, nothing corrupts like success....

[Trieste]

I think that health insurance companies should cover the cost of health care. That includes cancer screenings for both sexes, prescriptions for both sexes (yes, of birth control, too), surgeries for both sexes (yes, including sterilization), and doctor's visits for both sexes.

The fact that there has not been male-oriented birth control available is frustrating, and I've often expressed frustration at this. Not only does it strip men of control over their bodies and reproductive future, but it once again places the responsibility on the woman. Just because we are the ones with the carrying capacity doesn't mean we are the only ones responsible for contraception and whatnot.

Health insurance that purports to have prescription coverage should cover whatever prescriptions the doctor deems necessary to write. End of story.

Regarding the first amendment, making laws based on religious beliefs is more than certainly making a law that respects the establishment of religion, and that is a no-no. Absolutely not. If the religious have a moral objection to birth control, they don't have to make use of birth control. But it should be available to everyone. Just like the religious could go out and have premarital sex if they wanted to, it's available, but they choose not to do so because of their religion. Same with porn. Same with drugs, alcohol, and various other things that religions like to prohibit. It's the same concept. If your religion proscribes you from drinking alcohol, don't drink alcohol. But don't try to close down liquor stores. Same with birth control.

[MasterMischief]

I think Jon Stewart brought up an excellent point.  If we do not want to pay people to have sex, why do women (and men too now) get maternity leave?

[Callie Del Noire]

I think Jon Stewart brought up an excellent point.  If we do not want to pay people to have sex, why do women (and men too now) get maternity leave?

You might want to avoid stuff like that.. it's a ready made excuse for the fundies to put the women back in the house full time.

[Serephino]

Said radio personality is a jackass that spouts off ridiculous and radical crap for attention.  It doesn't surprise me.  I did sign a petition for his sponsors to cut off the funding.  Maybe that will finally shut him up...  I'm all for freedom of speech, but I really hate seeing it abused like that.

Birth control can be used for a number of things.  A female friend of mine uses it for heavy bleeding and cramps.  When I was a kid my mom lost an ovary to cysts, so I know that happens too.  She was older and done having kids, but still...  She ended up getting thrown into early Peri-menopause because of it, which I'm sure wasn't fun.

Finally, let's talk about casual sex.  Sure, people could abstain, but they don't usually want to, especially not for the several years it takes to get a law degree.  In high school I chose abstinence, but it was my personal choice.  Not wanting to get some girl pregnant wasn't even the only reason, but it was part of it.  However, not everyone wants to do that.  We are sexual creatures, and to start throwing chastity belts on women would be throwing us all back into the dark ages.

A woman should be able to take responsibility for her own reproductive organs.  I do believe in personal responsibility, and birth control is a great way to do that.  If a woman wishes to have sex despite the risk of pregnancy, birth control makes pregnancy a whole lot less likely.  Fewer unwanted pregnancies is a plus for everyone.     

[AndyZ]

Actually, it protects both the church and state from each other -- you really can't do one in a fair or honest manner without doing the other.  The government can't tell people how to practice their religions, but it also can't, for example, pass laws based on purely religious principles or enact legislation to punish minority religions.

Even if you disagree with this principle for some reason, it's well-settled precedent and thus the law of the land.

You do realize that our National Motto is "In God We Trust," right?

We can either discuss whether it's constitutionally possible or whether it fits a hypothetical and logical balance.  Purely constitutionally, if you force people to pay for something which goes against their religion, then you're impeding upon their religious rights.

I think that health insurance companies should cover the cost of health care. That includes cancer screenings for both sexes, prescriptions for both sexes (yes, of birth control, too), surgeries for both sexes (yes, including sterilization), and doctor's visits for both sexes.

The fact that there has not been male-oriented birth control available is frustrating, and I've often expressed frustration at this. Not only does it strip men of control over their bodies and reproductive future, but it once again places the responsibility on the woman. Just because we are the ones with the carrying capacity doesn't mean we are the only ones responsible for contraception and whatnot.

Health insurance that purports to have prescription coverage should cover whatever prescriptions the doctor deems necessary to write. End of story.

Regarding the first amendment, making laws based on religious beliefs is more than certainly making a law that respects the establishment of religion, and that is a no-no. Absolutely not. If the religious have a moral objection to birth control, they don't have to make use of birth control. But it should be available to everyone. Just like the religious could go out and have premarital sex if they wanted to, it's available, but they choose not to do so because of their religion. Same with porn. Same with drugs, alcohol, and various other things that religions like to prohibit. It's the same concept. If your religion proscribes you from drinking alcohol, don't drink alcohol. But don't try to close down liquor stores. Same with birth control.

The difference is in federal funding.  If we equate it to alcohol, a better comparison would be using federal funding to make alcohol free to everyone.  The current system for birth control is closer to what we currently have with alcohol, where it's not federally funded and not free, but you can buy it if you so choose.  However, as stated before, if it's truly a question of health and not of simply casual sex, the system should provide, and is in violation if it claims to do so and fails to live up to that claim.

I think Jon Stewart brought up an excellent point.  If we do not want to pay people to have sex, why do women (and men too now) get maternity leave?

Certainly a logical question.  Not everyone wants to have kids, and maternity leave requires people to pay for those who don't.  Is parental leave a requirement by the government, though?

Checking on Wikipedia, so please chime in if this is correct or not.

Only four countries have no national law mandating paid time off for new parents: Liberia, Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, and the United States.[2] In the U.S., the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) mandates up to 12 weeks of (potentially unpaid) job-protected leave, including parental leave, for many American workers. Subnational laws also vary; for example the U.S. state of California does mandate paid family leave, including parental leave for same-sex partners.

So far as I can tell, maternity leave isn't a law but is offered by companies.  Companies are free to do whatever they want, because we don't pay taxes to them and are free to boycott them as we choose.  We don't have the right to simply stop paying taxes and ignore the laws of the government, but we have a say (corrupt bureaucrats notwithstanding) in how our government works.

[Oniya]

We're not talking about federal funding, though.  We are talking about insurance.   If your employer offers health insurance, it's not free - it's paid for out of your paycheck.  Every month, if you have health insurance, you pay a premium.  You also pay a deductible on procedures and co-payments on doctor visits.  For some services, there's a certain percentage called a 'co-insurance' that you're required to pay.

[Lilias]

People already agree that if you need birth control for reasons other than casual sex, that you should be able to get it.  The issue is purely about casual sex.

Let's remove the medical reasons and only talk about the casual sex part of this conversation.

Actually, let's talk about the non-casual sex part as well. Because the particular policy impacts married students as well. Is married sex casual? Don't married women have to deal with issues that can require hormonal supplements? Or perhaps they have no right to such medication at all because it has the side effect of (gasp, shudder) preventing pregnancy?

[AndyZ]

If you're paying for insurance from a private company, then you follow the rules that the private company sets down.  If there's enough of a demand for contraception to be added to the market and regulations don't prohibit it from starting up, then a company will form which offers it.  If you don't want to buy insurance from a particular company, then you shouldn't have to.

Now, I'll certainly agree that they should open up insurance companies across state lines, but don't expect it in the foreseeable future.

If you want a public option as some do, then the public option would not be able to offer contraception because it would be using public funds for birth control, which would be forcing people to pay for something against their religion.

For the same reasons, if you federally require people to buy insurance, then you can't also federally require insurance companies to offer contraception, or else you're forcing people to pay for something which violates their beliefs.

Actually, let's talk about the non-casual sex part as well. Because the particular policy impacts married students as well. Is married sex casual? Don't married women have to deal with issues that can require hormonal supplements? Or perhaps they have no right to such medication at all because it has the side effect of (gasp, shudder) preventing pregnancy?

You have the right to purchase it if you can afford it.  You don't have the right to make people give you free stuff, though.  Huge difference there.

[Lilias]

You have the right to purchase it if you can afford it.  You don't have the right to make people give you free stuff, though.  Huge difference there.

If there's a doctor's prescription, it's nobody's business to contest the claim on it. Simple as that. From 'I don't believe you have PCOS, you must want the pills to have consequence-free sex', it's only a little step to 'I don't believe you're in chronic pain; you must want the painkillers to get high on them.'

[Trieste]

If you're paying for insurance from a private company, then you follow the rules that the private company sets down.  If there's enough of a demand for contraception to be added to the market and regulations don't prohibit it from starting up, then a company will form which offers it.  If you don't want to buy insurance from a particular company, then you shouldn't have to.

Now, I'll certainly agree that they should open up insurance companies across state lines, but don't expect it in the foreseeable future.

Yeah, this is pretty much a fairy tale, so I'm going to leave it as one.

If you want a public option as some do, then the public option would not be able to offer contraception because it would be using public funds for birth control, which would be forcing people to pay for something against their religion.

For the same reasons, if you federally require people to buy insurance, then you can't also federally require insurance companies to offer contraception, or else you're forcing people to pay for something which violates their beliefs.

First, it's not against someone's religion to pay taxes. That is all they are doing. In fact, the Bible specifically commands to give the government its due. So there is that.

Second, that's... not how taxes work. When is the last time you had any say in where your tax dollars specifically went? Government grants already go to Planned Parenthood - which provides contraception and abortion counseling, even if they don't use federal money to provide abortions themselves. Getting an abortion or taking birth control can be against someone's religion. I get that. But paying taxes to help out those who can't do for themselves is not against anyone's religion. In fact, I'm pretty sure the big JC told people to help out the poor and the needy, without a "unless you object to whatever the fuck they do" clause.

You have the right to purchase it if you can afford it.  You don't have the right to make people give you free stuff, though.  Huge difference there.

You mean free stuff like roads, bridges, schools, and whatnot? Oh wait, we pay for those. It would be the same for a national insurance plan.

However, we're not talking about a national insurance plan, we're talking about insurance coverage. That people pay for. That people purchase. How does that equate with 'free'? Please explain to me where you're getting this 'free birth control' idea from a speech encouraging health insurance purchased by the insured?

[Iniquitous]

If there's a doctor's prescription, it's nobody's business to contest the claim on it. Simple as that. From 'I don't believe you have PCOS, you must want the pills to have consequence-free sex', it's only a little step to 'I don't believe you're in chronic pain; you must want the painkillers to get high on them.'

That's a little step that has already been taken I might add! I suffer from fibromyalgia and yeah, I've had doctors flat tell me they don't believe I am in constantly pain, it's all in my head and I am just searching for my next high.

[Serephino]

Okay, let's talk about religion there.  If a law is passed that birth control can only be distributed for a medical need, then my religious beliefs would be violated.  'An it harm none, do what thou will.  A woman having sex and using contraception isn't harming anyone, except possibly herself because of side effects.  Still, if a woman knows the risks and is willing to take them...  Denying her access to birth control isn't letting her exercising her free will.

That is why Politics and Religion are not supposed to mix.  Christians aren't the only religious people in this country.  Shall we go through each and every law, and toss out any of them that violate any existing established religion?  Whelp... there go the drug laws then, and liquor sales on Sundays in this state.  But wait, Christians would be offended then, wouldn't they?   Isn't that a sticky situation?

You can't please everyone all the time.  That's why Congress needs to think about what's best for the people sans religion.  From what I understand of the article, Georgetown offers student health insurance that students pay for.  They don't want to cover birth control because it goes against their religion.  That Blunt law would have made it so any private health insurance company or employer could do the same.

How would this be bad for you?  Okay, let's say the owner of the company you work for is a Jehovah's Witness.  You buy health insurance through work.  You get into a bad accident or something that you need a blood transfusion.  Jehovah's Witnesses are against blood transfusions; another's body fluids in you makes you unclean (which makes you wonder what their view on sex is).  It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, but hey, if they want to let themselves die...

However, you're the one that needs it.  In such as case, the hospital has to give it to you unless you tell them not to.  But the insurance you pay for won't cover it.  You'll be stuck with that bill.  I'm not sure exactly how much a unit of blood costs, but probably a lot.  The whole reason you pay for insurance is so you won't get stuck with huge stacks of medical bills.

Medicare covers blood.  That's how I found out they actually charge for it.  They pay for 3 units, then after that I'd have to pay $600 per unit.  Should they not because there's a religion out there such a thing offends?  Where should the line be drawn?  That's why religion needs to stay the hell out of it.   

[kylie]

       Speak not the name of the demon, lest it gain more power?  But, does this not give The Name That Must Not Be Uttered more weight locally, more mystery and influence than that of others spoken easily?  Ahh, sorcery and conjuration on the Internet!  For these are dark times, and children who speak of the wrong names and numbers could go missing in the night...  If the Chinese Internet is any example, people will start naming things with proxy names, and then the regime shall have to track all those otherwise mundane words for things, on and on.

       It's very curious when said unnameable simultaneously complains about the supposed activities of a "whore," as he calls it and insinuates that many of his audience might quite enjoy purchasing those services.  If so many are likely to enjoy it privately, does it really make that much difference if we simply declare the business just another good, and stop flinging the word around as if its buyers and sellers should live in shame and fear? 

       If a woman does makes a sex video, will the complainants all kindly "man up" and generate private fees (as they seem to think this is very important in society), definitely pay for her birth control, or perhaps pay a goodly sum for the video on a regular basis?  Do they really believe that then they have purchased the right to spit names and vitriol -- and at any time, in public no less -- at the same woman?  Or perhaps that they have that right, simply because others might purchase her sexual services??  The whole underlying logic is fascinating but contradictory.  Won't pay her publicly, but if only her kind would act slutty and oh, definitely put a humiliated face on that while they do it to make it acceptable for us, why then so many of us would privately pay her for being such a "good" worker.  Wow.  So what kinds of office fantasies, or actual colleague relationships, do all these "pro-business" people who follow this have?

       There are several medical applications of birth control drugs, regardless of whether one approves of intervening in the baby production process. 

       It's one thing to oppose public funding for anyone's health in principle, but I'm not sure precisely how one can distinguish "women's health" here from public health, as we know it in other cases.  Presumably certain private insurance companies have a way, as some have been clamoring to keep mammograms and such from being covered in the national plan.  It rather sounds like another wave of the same woman-excluding motion, to me. 

       If one's bottom line "point" is to protest a shortage of personal responsibility in society, then I suspect anyone can pick and choose anything...  There's always room for smaller government and more private responsibility.  If you are against government funding for personal health generally, then why exactly should we start or stop at birth control?  Why, let's aim big:  Are modern sewer systems and water purification really necessary for basic survival?

   

[Jefepato]

You do realize that our National Motto is "In God We Trust," right?

Yes.  Courts have a rather bad habit of claiming that "In God We Trust" isn't a religious statement anymore because it's lost all meaning through rote repetition.  (This is annoying since polls have revealed that the actual citizenry disagrees.)

Per Wikipedia, it seems to have been motivated in a big way by propaganda in both the American Civil War and the Red Scare.  Lots of troublesome things happen that way.  And it's hard to get folks excited about something like a tiny motto no one actually looks at when they spend money -- usually when I complain about it, most people don't say "that's not unconstitutional."  They say "well, yeah, but who cares about that?"

(Also, I'm guessing it's pretty easy for courts to rule that some random citizen doesn't have standing to challenge the national motto.  They like to do that when they'd rather not make an actual ruling.)

[Caela]

My own personal thought is that any employer that isn't specifically a church of some type should have no say in what prescriptions your doctor can give you. I don't care if a church founded a University or Hospital, those are, by their very nature, public institutions with many employees who do not necessarily share the religious views of those who first opened said institutions doors and their employers religious views should not be a part of their medical decisions.

I used to work for a VERY catholic hospital that didn't so much as allow our OB's perform basic procedures like tubals, even for medical reasons. We had an OB get censored because she told a patient we were doing a c-section on that having more children would be dangerous for her. She'd had so many sections that her uterus just couldn't handle it anymore and was no longer fully healing. It was so thin when we got down to it that you could practically see the baby waving at you! Luckily it was a scheduled section because one or two good contractions and this patient had a high chance of rupture. Since we couldn't do the tubal there, she told the patient they would make an appointment to do one at the other hospital in town. Someone wrote her up and she ended up having to go before the hospital board for giving her patient medically pertinent information!

If I am paying for insurance, and that insurance includes prescription drug coverage than no one should have the right to question which prescriptions my doctor feels it is appropriate to give me, whether those prescriptions are for the pill, viagra, painkills, anti-psychotics, or anti-depressants etc, that should be privileged information between myself and my doctor...period.

[Trieste]

Jehovah's Witnesses are against blood transfusions; another's body fluids in you makes you unclean (which makes you wonder what their view on sex is).  It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, but hey, if they want to let themselves die...

Just a note, this is inaccurate. The moral objection JWs have against blood transfusions is God's command not to eat of the flesh and blood of another. They have interpreted this to mean that consumption of another's blood and body is verboten, including intravenous consumption. They say that hospitals give nutrients and water (saline) intravenously so taking blood intravenously is wrong because it's essentially cannibalism.

You can disagree with it if you want but please don't declaim others' beliefs as 'dumb', especially if you don't properly understand them.

[Oniya]

You do realize that our National Motto is "In God We Trust," right?

Only since 1956.  Came in partially due to McCarthyism to distinguish America from all those 'godless commies'.  Only two years before, the words 'under God' made their first official appearance in the Pledge of Allegiance.  Prior to that it was 'E Pluribus Unum' - From many, one.

[Callie Del Noire]

How would this be bad for you?  Okay, let's say the owner of the company you work for is a Jehovah's Witness.  You buy health insurance through work.  You get into a bad accident or something that you need a blood transfusion.  Jehovah's Witnesses are against blood transfusions; another's body fluids in you makes you unclean (which makes you wonder what their view on sex is).  It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, but hey, if they want to let themselves die...

Got one that is even worse. What if your boss(es) are Christian Scientists? Makes for fuck-all in the way of things they'd approve in a medical coverage (depending how strict they observe their faith)

[Serephino]

Got one that is even worse. What if your boss(es) are Christian Scientists? Makes for fuck-all in the way of things they'd approve in a medical coverage (depending how strict they observe their faith)

Yes, that could get interesting.

[AndyZ]

First off, I was rechecking everything and I think I goofed up on which thread this is when compared to another somewhere else.  Mea culpa.

If there's a doctor's prescription, it's nobody's business to contest the claim on it. Simple as that. From 'I don't believe you have PCOS, you must want the pills to have consequence-free sex', it's only a little step to 'I don't believe you're in chronic pain; you must want the painkillers to get high on them.'

Oh yeah, get a lawyer, sue the pants off of them.  I've heard of a number of them who will accept a case purely on a contingency fee, meaning that if you win, they get a percentage of the money, but if you lose, you don't owe a cent.

First, it's not against someone's religion to pay taxes. That is all they are doing. In fact, the Bible specifically commands to give the government its due. So there is that.

Assuming you mean the Render unto Caesar quote, that's a subject for extended debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar...

However, the phrase "That is all they are doing," I disagree with on the same grounds as this:

Calling Ms. Fluke several names and suggesting that she make a sex tape for everyone to watch, said radio personality incited quite a bit of ire against himself. I haven't seen much talk of it on Facebook, but it's all over Twitter, and I've personally been pressuring those companies of which I am a patron not to advertise on his show. I don't want any of my money going to him.

Even though not all of the money would go to Rush, you realize that some percentage of it does, and you consider that unacceptable.  You can understand how some percentage of the money similarly goes through the government into processes which people find unacceptable according to their religion.

Second, that's... not how taxes work. When is the last time you had any say in where your tax dollars specifically went?

I would love to see the concept of having things go more towards stuff where a much higher majority agrees with everything that gets done.  We'd have so much of this special interests crap go out the window.  Maybe I'm too much of an idealist there.

However, with respect, I do not consider "That's how it is" as a good argument.  Were it so, tradition would outweigh logic and nothing would change.

Government grants already go to Planned Parenthood - which provides contraception and abortion counseling, even if they don't use federal money to provide abortions themselves. Getting an abortion or taking birth control can be against someone's religion. I get that. But paying taxes to help out those who can't do for themselves is not against anyone's religion.
In fact, I'm pretty sure the big JC told people to help out the poor and the needy, without a "unless you object to whatever the fuck they do" clause.

[/quote]

If you'll forgive taking the argument to the extreme, I think that we'd all agree that rehab clinics are good, but simply providing illegal drugs would be a tragedy.  Similarly, we can talk someone down from a homicidal rage but not help them plan a murder.

Helping people does not mean that we allow them to do as they wish even if it goes against our values.

You mean free stuff like roads, bridges, schools, and whatnot? Oh wait, we pay for those. It would be the same for a national insurance plan.

Well, with roads and bridges, I can easily argue that it's all for the common good.  Everyone uses roads and bridges, whether for personal use or transport of goods that are bought and sold.

With schools, I would agree except that it teaches abject atheism over any particular religion, where religion of any sort cannot be taught but it's alright to make attacks on religion.  However, that will get us into the argument of whether atheism is a religion, and I don't want to derail everything.

However, we're not talking about a national insurance plan, we're talking about insurance coverage. That people pay for. That people purchase. How does that equate with 'free'? Please explain to me where you're getting this 'free birth control' idea from a speech encouraging health insurance purchased by the insured?

I'm going to chalk this up to a goof on my part.  This thread is not a debate for nationalized healthcare as a result of this woman, nor the recent debate about Catholic hospitals.  It's purely about private insurance companies and I didn't realize that.  I'm sorry.  I could explain my confusion, but it would only derail things further than I already have.

[Trieste]

You cannot please everyone with taxes, but the way it's supposed to work is that taxes go where the majority thinks they would do the most good. That includes things like welfare (which not everyone will agree with), mental hospitals (same), etc. There will always be someone who objects to something that taxes go to, but that's why we pay them in and we don't get a say in where they go except through elected proxies. It's different from choosing to buy into a corporate sponsor that supports the radio host I'm talking about, because it's my specific money that I'm able to threaten to pull. Enough consumers get together and you have a movement. A bunch of taxpayers get together and don't pay taxes, they get thrown in jail.

I do understand that Washington is broken at this time, so that's not the way it necessarily works, but that is how the system is set up to work and only a severe overhaul of taxes will overcome that.

Furthermore, my personal belief is that when churches start paying taxes, they can debate all they want about where those taxes go. Until and unless that happens, the actual church/religious organizations need to keep their noses out. Whether that violates separation of church and state is another matter for another thread entirely, but that's how I feel about religious input in taxpayers' matters.

If you'll forgive taking the argument to the extreme, I think that we'd all agree that rehab clinics are good, but simply providing illegal drugs would be a tragedy.  Similarly, we can talk someone down from a homicidal rage but not help them plan a murder.

Helping people does not mean that we allow them to do as they wish even if it goes against our values.

Nope, we don't all agree that. I'm in support of the government decriminalizing recreational mind-altering substances and regulating them. I would support a medically trained staff member dispensing a dose of heroin over someone mis-dosing or overdosing due to ignorance any day. I don't advocate giving away the drugs, but I don't think the government has a right to tell people what they can and cannot do for fun. The war on drugs has overcrowded our prisons and bloated our justice system until it can no longer deal with the violent criminals it was meant to deal with and that is truly an injustice in itself.

Planning and/or carrying out a murder doesn't fit in this situation, because the other two examples - drugs, contraception - don't hurt anyone else but the ones taking them (if they even hurt them). My Nuvaring has nothing to do with you, or anyone else. And it's not free - I pay through the nose for my insurance, which is not subsidized by the state or any employer, plus I have to pay coinsurance. I would much prefer, as a personal example, if the insurance company included my coinsurance with the darn insurance policy in the first place, so I could pay for everything in a lump sum (it comes out of my student loans, so I'm technically paying interest on my healthcare at the moment) and not have to worry about coughing up $50 a month for Nuvaring, $50 a month for something else, $20 a month for the other thing, plus the copays I pay for doctor's visits, lab tests, and preventative care such as my physical and my GYN exam.

I don't think it's asking too much to require insurance companies to actually insure their customers without tacking on extra bits and bobs that amount to thousands more dollars a year.

[AndyZ]

I do understand that Washington is broken at this time, so that's not the way it necessarily works, but that is how the system is set up to work and only a severe overhaul of taxes will overcome that.

Yeah, I tend to be an idealist anymore.  I thought for sure high school had cured me of that.

Given that someone will always disagree, I'm not fully convinced that a simple 51% is good enough, but it doesn't logically feel that 90% or any such is magically better.

Nope, we don't all agree that. I'm in support of the government decriminalizing recreational mind-altering substances and regulating them. I would support a medically trained staff member dispensing a dose of heroin over someone mis-dosing or overdosing due to ignorance any day. I don't advocate giving away the drugs, but I don't think the government has a right to tell people what they can and cannot do for fun. The war on drugs has overcrowded our prisons and bloated our justice system until it can no longer deal with the violent criminals it was meant to deal with and that is truly an injustice in itself.

I should have better stated the difference between simply giving them away and legalizing them.

I've heard it said that we won't be able to legalize drugs until the following: When the average person is able to see someone out on the street who is wasted out of their mind, who is begging for money, and be able to say no to them because the passerby knows that the money will only be used for drugs.

Now, giving them food, no argument.  Shelter, certainly.  Helping them get off the habit, no problem.  Simply giving them money that they'll use for more drugs?  No.

I don't know if you're familiar with the Wizard's Second Rule and I'm not always good at explanations.

Planning and/or carrying out a murder doesn't fit in this situation, because the other two examples - drugs, contraception - don't hurt anyone else but the ones taking them (if they even hurt them). My Nuvaring has nothing to do with you, or anyone else.

It was an extreme example simply to show that it's possible to help someone without blindly following their requests.  I should probably have stuck to the example that you can help a drug addict without buying them more drugs.

And it's not free - I pay through the nose for my insurance, which is not subsidized by the state or any employer, plus I have to pay coinsurance. I would much prefer, as a personal example, if the insurance company included my coinsurance with the darn insurance policy in the first place, so I could pay for everything in a lump sum (it comes out of my student loans, so I'm technically paying interest on my healthcare at the moment) and not have to worry about coughing up $50 a month for Nuvaring, $50 a month for something else, $20 a month for the other thing, plus the copays I pay for doctor's visits, lab tests, and preventative care such as my physical and my GYN exam.

I don't think it's asking too much to require insurance companies to actually insure their customers without tacking on extra bits and bobs that amount to thousands more dollars a year.

The way I've always seen health insurance is that it's a gamble: you're effectively betting that you're going to need more health insurance than you spend money.  However, you're also paying for every regulation that the health insurance companies have to deal with, all the red tape to cut through, and if I remember correctly, there's a requirement that a certain percentage of the money that absolutely has to go to payouts.  I want to say 90%, but someone correct me on that if I'm wrong.

If 90% has to go to payouts, and it costs them a million dollars to run their business, they have to take in ten million in order to make ends meet.  It doesn't surprise me that the prices skyrocket as a result. 

I do wonder sometimes if it'd just be better to boycott health insurances and pay out of pocket until they become reasonable.  Has anyone ever done a cost-analysis on the average person to see if this would end up being actually cheaper?  I realize this won't be legal as of 2014 unless Obamacare is repealed, but I'm curious.

[gaggedLouise]

Can't say I'm surprised by the comments of Mr. Radio Host even if they are moronic and insulting. He's talking the talk. Some years ago, a young woman journalist - let's call her Mary, whom I had been acquanted with when I was around twenty and we were both fresh students - got at one of the tabloids around here for their regular posting of exploitaitive tittie pictures and denigrating, sexist written reporting about any subject where they could fit it in (crime, reality tv shows, celeb profile interviews, all kinds of merchandise tests etc - her concern wasn't about prudishness but sexploitation). In an ironic flourish, she asked the readers of the small magazine she was running for nude pictures of the editor-in-chief of that tabloid. A few days later, she got a reply from one of the tabloid's young female pitbull star columnists - with big pic byline and everything - lambasting her for "making shrewd use of her immigrant kid credentials" - actually, they were both of immigrant background. Torpedo Girl shouted that Mary detested girls who love their bodies enough to make a living of them and crowned it with "I wanna see Mary posing as a naked statue in the main square of /name of a nationally well-known 'ghetto hood'/" Can it get any better? Any more scurrilous? As far as I'm concerned she was simply licking her boss's butt, while also trying to appear cool and daring.

I actually broke with another friend of mine over those comments - he was trying hard to get into that tabloid and I was 90% sure he personally knew that columnist, since he was a long-standing fan of her ten years older writer boyfriend. I challenged him in an sms on what he thought of the column; he never replied, and I pretty much decided on the spot never to be in touch with him again. Six months later I saw him sitting in a tv sofa with Torpedo Girl in a program hosted by their paper. Mmm, yeah.

[Callie Del Noire]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-are-making-hay-with-gop-fumbling-with-women/2012/03/09/gIQAgDA61R_story.html


Got to wonder why the GOP is going out of their way to alienate a large portion of the moderate community by their recent expedition into sexism.