|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
DETROIT (AP) — General Motors' safety crisis worsened on Monday when the automaker added 8.2 million vehicles to its huge list of cars recalled over faulty ignition switches.
The latest recalls involve mainly older midsize cars and bring GM's total number of recalls this year to over 28 million. GM said it was aware of three deaths, eight injuries and seven crashes involving the vehicles recalled on Monday. But the company said it has no conclusive evidence that faulty switches caused the crashes.
The Detroit company also said it plans to take a $1.2 billion charge in the second quarter for recall-related expenses. Added to a $1.3 billion charge in the first quarter, that brings total recall expenses for the year to $2.5 billion.
The latest recalls cover seven vehicles, including the Chevrolet Malibu from 1997 to 2005 and the Pontiac Grand Prix from 2004 to 2008. The recalls also cover a newer model, the 2003-2014 Cadillac CTS. GM said the recalls are for "unintended ignition key rotation."
CEO Mary Barra said the recalls stem from an extensive safety review within the company.
"If any other issues come to our attention, we will act appropriately and without hesitation," she said in a statement.
GM is urging people to remove everything from their key rings until the recalled cars can be repaired.
Source
|
A rather poor ruling by the supreme court imho. It doesn't really solve the issue; it just raises a bunch of new question that are in dispute in already existing regulation.
Doing narrow rulings to avoid larger questions only works if the cases are very rare and there aren't other ones around.
Also seems like a lot of dodging so people can claim stuff that doesn't hold up to scrutiny (i.e. their salary + benefits WILL cover the cost of procedures one way or another)
|
On July 01 2014 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 03:15 RCMDVA wrote:
A bigger question is still why birth control isn't available OTC. Just guessing this has something to do with it. + Show Spoiler +1. Sex is 'sinful' unless it's to procreate with your spouse. God tells you everything you need to know about sex and he doesn't say anything about birth control pills. Birth Control just promotes riskier 'sinful sex'. 2. Show nested quote +"The comparison isn't taking the pill or not taking the pill," Moore said. "It's taking the pill or not taking the pill and risking becoming pregnant."
Approximately 50% of all pregnancies are unplanned, a rate that hasn't changed much in the past 20 years, according to the Guttmacher Institute We could reduce those unplanned pregnancies (potential abortions) by making it more available. Show nested quote +When nicotine patches and gum went on sale over the counter, attempts to quit smoking using those products nearly doubled, statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show. SourceWhen faced with those two arguments for OTC BC enough people pick the first one to keep it from being OTC. (It's not the only opposition but it's enough to put it over the top in the localities where this is an issue [which prevent change on a national level]) This is despite the fact that they have no science to back their claims up and you can get plan B (one of the methods in contention and considered 'abortion-causing' by many [regardless of facts]) OTC So just by having that available and not the pill we are actually pushing more women towards 'abortive' measures and away from preventatives. The total lack of comprehension/shame of ignorance is too grandly gross to really encapsulate, but that's in a context where it's mere existence is hard for many to even imagine.
The decision is up to the FDA. If you want to know why it isn't available OTC, you need to find out their reasons for not allowing it.
|
On July 01 2014 05:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2014 03:15 RCMDVA wrote:
A bigger question is still why birth control isn't available OTC. Just guessing this has something to do with it. + Show Spoiler +1. Sex is 'sinful' unless it's to procreate with your spouse. God tells you everything you need to know about sex and he doesn't say anything about birth control pills. Birth Control just promotes riskier 'sinful sex'. 2. "The comparison isn't taking the pill or not taking the pill," Moore said. "It's taking the pill or not taking the pill and risking becoming pregnant."
Approximately 50% of all pregnancies are unplanned, a rate that hasn't changed much in the past 20 years, according to the Guttmacher Institute We could reduce those unplanned pregnancies (potential abortions) by making it more available. When nicotine patches and gum went on sale over the counter, attempts to quit smoking using those products nearly doubled, statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show. SourceWhen faced with those two arguments for OTC BC enough people pick the first one to keep it from being OTC. (It's not the only opposition but it's enough to put it over the top in the localities where this is an issue [which prevent change on a national level]) This is despite the fact that they have no science to back their claims up and you can get plan B (one of the methods in contention and considered 'abortion-causing' by many [regardless of facts]) OTC So just by having that available and not the pill we are actually pushing more women towards 'abortive' measures and away from preventatives. The total lack of comprehension/shame of ignorance is too grandly gross to really encapsulate, but that's in a context where it's mere existence is hard for many to even imagine. The decision is up to the FDA. If you want to know why it isn't available OTC, you need to find out their reasons for not allowing it.
The reason is... there isn't one... If you think there is (you seem to assume there is) go ahead and find it. Whatever you find I guarantee wont make any sense (in relation to other OTC's).
The real reasons are what I said...? Not sure why you would go and work backwards to what the default politician answer would be?
|
The real reason is that America(and many other countries obviously, too) have a religiously dominated view on sexuality and put the religious feelings of superstitious backwards people over the rights of women by artificially making it harder to have access to birth control.
Everyone who puts the abstract idea of 'religious freedom' over the actual freedom of living individual persons should probably re-evaluate their definition of freedom.
|
On July 01 2014 05:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 05:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 01 2014 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2014 03:15 RCMDVA wrote:
A bigger question is still why birth control isn't available OTC. Just guessing this has something to do with it. + Show Spoiler +1. Sex is 'sinful' unless it's to procreate with your spouse. God tells you everything you need to know about sex and he doesn't say anything about birth control pills. Birth Control just promotes riskier 'sinful sex'. 2. "The comparison isn't taking the pill or not taking the pill," Moore said. "It's taking the pill or not taking the pill and risking becoming pregnant."
Approximately 50% of all pregnancies are unplanned, a rate that hasn't changed much in the past 20 years, according to the Guttmacher Institute We could reduce those unplanned pregnancies (potential abortions) by making it more available. When nicotine patches and gum went on sale over the counter, attempts to quit smoking using those products nearly doubled, statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show. SourceWhen faced with those two arguments for OTC BC enough people pick the first one to keep it from being OTC. (It's not the only opposition but it's enough to put it over the top in the localities where this is an issue [which prevent change on a national level]) This is despite the fact that they have no science to back their claims up and you can get plan B (one of the methods in contention and considered 'abortion-causing' by many [regardless of facts]) OTC So just by having that available and not the pill we are actually pushing more women towards 'abortive' measures and away from preventatives. The total lack of comprehension/shame of ignorance is too grandly gross to really encapsulate, but that's in a context where it's mere existence is hard for many to even imagine. The decision is up to the FDA. If you want to know why it isn't available OTC, you need to find out their reasons for not allowing it. The reason is... there isn't one... If you think there is (you seem to assume there is) go ahead and find it. Whatever you find I guarantee wont make any sense (in relation to other OTC's). The real reasons are what I said...? Not sure why you would go and work backwards to what the default politician answer would be?
Post facts, not speculations.
|
United States43989 Posts
The fact that this needed resolution is also a failure of common sense. What you spend the money your employer gives you on is not any of their business, as long as you do your job they don't give a fuck. Why they couldn't just go "Okay, we won't buy the good healthcare for you because we think it's a sin, instead as part of our pay packet we'll give you a voucher for healthcare and you can choose to sin yourself, just as you do when you spend your salary on whores and false idols".
|
On July 01 2014 05:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 05:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2014 05:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 01 2014 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2014 03:15 RCMDVA wrote:
A bigger question is still why birth control isn't available OTC. Just guessing this has something to do with it. + Show Spoiler +1. Sex is 'sinful' unless it's to procreate with your spouse. God tells you everything you need to know about sex and he doesn't say anything about birth control pills. Birth Control just promotes riskier 'sinful sex'. 2. "The comparison isn't taking the pill or not taking the pill," Moore said. "It's taking the pill or not taking the pill and risking becoming pregnant."
Approximately 50% of all pregnancies are unplanned, a rate that hasn't changed much in the past 20 years, according to the Guttmacher Institute We could reduce those unplanned pregnancies (potential abortions) by making it more available. When nicotine patches and gum went on sale over the counter, attempts to quit smoking using those products nearly doubled, statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show. SourceWhen faced with those two arguments for OTC BC enough people pick the first one to keep it from being OTC. (It's not the only opposition but it's enough to put it over the top in the localities where this is an issue [which prevent change on a national level]) This is despite the fact that they have no science to back their claims up and you can get plan B (one of the methods in contention and considered 'abortion-causing' by many [regardless of facts]) OTC So just by having that available and not the pill we are actually pushing more women towards 'abortive' measures and away from preventatives. The total lack of comprehension/shame of ignorance is too grandly gross to really encapsulate, but that's in a context where it's mere existence is hard for many to even imagine. The decision is up to the FDA. If you want to know why it isn't available OTC, you need to find out their reasons for not allowing it. The reason is... there isn't one... If you think there is (you seem to assume there is) go ahead and find it. Whatever you find I guarantee wont make any sense (in relation to other OTC's). The real reasons are what I said...? Not sure why you would go and work backwards to what the default politician answer would be? Post facts, not speculations.
So far the speculation is that 'the FDA has a reason' you can't seem to find because otherwise you would of posted it to prove I was wrong instead of just accusing me of speculating (pretty funny imo).
I've mentioned only some of the reasons (which are easily demonstrated and have been for you before) but you can't even figure out the reason you assumed they had?
But please scramble to find the reason to try to save face for a bit before giving up and saying that you don't want/have/BS to (or just disappear for a while as you've done before).
Post substance, or don't post at all. The one-liners ripped from political playbooks are tired. I thought we've already been over this?
|
On July 01 2014 05:58 KwarK wrote:
The fact that this needed resolution is also a failure of common sense. What you spend the money your employer gives you on is not any of their business, as long as you do your job they don't give a fuck. Why they couldn't just go "Okay, we won't buy the good healthcare for you because we think it's a sin, instead as part of our pay packet we'll give you a voucher for healthcare and you can choose to sin yourself, just as you do when you spend your salary on whores and false idols".
Because religious people in the US are unwilling to give others the freedom they rightfully have. All to often it is "you cant have this because of possible religious conflict" and not enough "choose yourself".
Freedom of religion only works 1 way in the US.
|
I don't particularly care about religious purposes, I don't like the idea that employer-provided insurance is mandated to provide access to things like contraception that in most cases are not medically necessary. It ends up creating a one size fits all plan under employers where employees are forced to pay for a lot of things that they certainly don't need, like birth control pills for men. The decision is correct, however. The opinions made it perfectly clear that this exemption only applied to these certain contraceptives, and the public is still able to purchase contraceptives, they just have to pay for it themselves (though it can still be paid for if deemed medically necessary). I don't like the provision of the ACA that started all of this business, but at least the court made the correct decision.
|
On July 01 2014 07:36 ampson wrote:
I don't particularly care about religious purposes, I don't like the idea that employer-provided insurance is mandated to provide access to things like contraception that in most cases are not medically necessary. It ends up creating a one size fits all plan under employers where employees are forced to pay for a lot of things that they certainly don't need, like birth control pills for men. The decision is correct, however. The opinions made it perfectly clear that this exemption only applied to these certain contraceptives, and the public is still able to purchase contraceptives, they just have to pay for it themselves (though it can still be paid for if deemed medically necessary). I don't like the provision of the ACA that started all of this business, but at least the court made the correct decision.
I get the libertarian aspect of the argument and I can even agree with a lot of it.
But really birth-control should probably be equally paid for by men and women? It's not like only one of them is benefiting from it's use?
I guess you could say people who stay virgins and only have sex to procreate might have a case for exemption? But just being a male shouldn't prevent you from contributing?
The bottom line is that less unwanted pregnancies is better for everyone. Easier access means more use, more use means less unplanned/wanted pregnancies, less unwanted pregnancies means less abortion (what is supposed to be the point of not supporting it in the first place).
You can prevent students from learning about contraception, you can lie about sex, you can try to keep birth control access unnecessarily difficult, but what you can't do is keep people who choose to have sex from doing so.
It only makes sense once someone has made that choice that they are going to have sex whether they want to get pregnant or not, that they have reasonable access to options that would prevent an unwanted pregnancy. The fairy tale that there is a net benefit to not teaching people about HIV, STI's, Contraceptives and just general Sex ed is not only ridiculous but dangerous.
It's at the root of why we end up with issues like not having standard birth control being available OTC or not teaching common sense about birth control and protection from STI's and HIV
|
I love how most healthcare insurances on the other hand cover Viagra without a question. Gotta love the bigotry.
|
Contraception is cheap and accessible here but it'd guess in the US as well. I don't see the need for it to be covered by heath insurance.
|
On July 01 2014 08:20 RvB wrote:
Contraception is cheap and accessible here but it'd guess in the US as well. I don't see the need for it to be covered by heath insurance.
So long as Viagra is covered, it's absolutely self-defeating not to cover contraception...
|
On July 01 2014 08:20 RvB wrote:
Contraception is cheap and accessible here but it'd guess in the US as well. I don't see the need for it to be covered by heath insurance.
Contraception is cheap and available *everywhere*. By this logic, we shouldn't subsidize birth control in Africa. It's cheap, it's available: if they want sex, just pay the dollar for the condom, right? Wrong.
These aren't sex toys. This isn't a cup of fucking coffee. This is healthcare of the highest order. It can sometimes be directly medicinal in use. I don't care if it's cheap, if the government wants to maintain its nation's healthcare, make birth control available to everyone. Africa would be in much, much, much, much, much, much better shape right now if they ignored the "logic" being used here and simply gave out contraceptions wherever it could.
But they don't -- not because it's "cheap and available" as is -- but rather because the Christian influences in Africa consider such actions as sinful, even though it would obviously alleviate human suffering on that continent to a large degree. Which is the same logic being used here: some influences consider birth control as sinful, so we curb the spread of birth control as they see fit. Not for health reasons, but because birth control "offends" people.
The fact that it's "cheap" is 100% irrelevant to the reasoning behind the case. This was religious doctrine trumping national health concerns, pure and simple.
|
On July 01 2014 08:20 RvB wrote:
Contraception is cheap and accessible here but it'd guess in the US as well. I don't see the need for it to be covered by heath insurance.
You have to see a doctor to get conventional birth control pills then get them to write a prescription, then get it filled at a pharmacy, while the pharmacist is in.
Why? No one seems to have an idea except the one I posited.
As for having it covered sometimes I wish it was mandated, so I'd much rather pay the front end of trying to prevent unwanted children from being born than pay the much larger sum taking care of them once they are practically abandoned by parents who never wanted them.
Of course I would like to see lots of other options but every day some kid is born to parents who regret having them and always will. I would vastly prefer that we increased the likelihood of them using birth control because it was inexpensive, convenient, and pleasurable, than increase the amount of unwanted children society has to take care of because we think telling them "no!" is enough.
|
On July 01 2014 08:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 08:20 RvB wrote:
Contraception is cheap and accessible here but it'd guess in the US as well. I don't see the need for it to be covered by heath insurance. You have to see a doctor to get conventional birth control pills then get them to write a prescription, then get it filled at a pharmacy, while the pharmacist is in. Why? No one seems to have an idea except the one I posited. As for having it covered sometimes I wish it was mandated, so I'd much rather pay the front end of trying to prevent unwanted children from being born than pay the much larger sum taking care of them once they are practically abandoned by parents who never wanted them. Of course I would like to see lots of other options but every day some kid is born to parents who regret having them and always will. I would vastly prefer that we increased the likelihood of them using birth control because it was inexpensive, convenient, and pleasurable, than increase the amount of unwanted children society has to take care of because we think telling them "no!" is enough.
It's because there are health risks. Because we don't have universal birth control education.
|
Watching the cspan coverage of the hearing on e-cigarette advertising; it's abundantly clear that the companies are marketing some of their products toward youth intentionally.
What I don't get it; is why they don't just use the simple plan: have e-cigarettes fall under all the same regulations as regular cigarettes.
|
On July 01 2014 09:33 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 08:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2014 08:20 RvB wrote:
Contraception is cheap and accessible here but it'd guess in the US as well. I don't see the need for it to be covered by heath insurance. You have to see a doctor to get conventional birth control pills then get them to write a prescription, then get it filled at a pharmacy, while the pharmacist is in. Why? No one seems to have an idea except the one I posited. As for having it covered sometimes I wish it was mandated, so I'd much rather pay the front end of trying to prevent unwanted children from being born than pay the much larger sum taking care of them once they are practically abandoned by parents who never wanted them. Of course I would like to see lots of other options but every day some kid is born to parents who regret having them and always will. I would vastly prefer that we increased the likelihood of them using birth control because it was inexpensive, convenient, and pleasurable, than increase the amount of unwanted children society has to take care of because we think telling them "no!" is enough. It's because there are health risks. Because we don't have universal birth control education.
And what about pain medication? Thousands of people die every year from OTC pain meds. Aspirin is horrible for treating pain, still countless of people are allowed to buy it OTC.
It's like with alcohol and pot. It's not about rational arguments, it's about religious and cultural ignorance.
|
On July 01 2014 09:38 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 09:33 Jormundr wrote:On July 01 2014 08:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2014 08:20 RvB wrote:
Contraception is cheap and accessible here but it'd guess in the US as well. I don't see the need for it to be covered by heath insurance. You have to see a doctor to get conventional birth control pills then get them to write a prescription, then get it filled at a pharmacy, while the pharmacist is in. Why? No one seems to have an idea except the one I posited. As for having it covered sometimes I wish it was mandated, so I'd much rather pay the front end of trying to prevent unwanted children from being born than pay the much larger sum taking care of them once they are practically abandoned by parents who never wanted them. Of course I would like to see lots of other options but every day some kid is born to parents who regret having them and always will. I would vastly prefer that we increased the likelihood of them using birth control because it was inexpensive, convenient, and pleasurable, than increase the amount of unwanted children society has to take care of because we think telling them "no!" is enough. It's because there are health risks. Because we don't have universal birth control education. And what about pain medication? Thousands of people die every year from OTC pain meds. Aspirin is horrible for treating pain, still countless of people are allowed to buy it OTC. It's like with alcohol and pot. It's not about rational arguments, it's about religious and cultural ignorance.
It's more tradition and grandfathering than religious and cultural ignorance. People at the FDA don't necessarily think aspirin is less dangerous than birth control-they just are forced to suffer it as an OTC due to judicial and legislative actions that exist for fairly good reasons.
Aspirin, ibuprofen, and even tylenol would not be as easily available as they are today if they were approved when most birth control was, and certainly not in the strengths they are (325 mg aspirin and 500 mg tylenol would both be behind the counter at the very least).
On July 01 2014 08:16 Nyxisto wrote:
I love how most healthcare insurances on the other hand cover Viagra without a question. Gotta love the bigotry.
Is there an actual source for this? I've heard it a lot, and I'm honestly curious. I know that when I was dispensing as a technician I never saw a $0 copay for Viagra-it was almost always 50 dollars per 4 pills here in MA. Most birth control I rung up was less than that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iAgfT7J.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nUkdMyB.png)
