|
On March 02 2012 18:28 Velr wrote:You don't get my point. My point is really, really simple...: Being able to get Pregnant is no illness. Therefore it is not the Health Insurances business. Not being able to get a boner, when diagnosed by a doctor, is an illness and therefore you get treatment which is paid by the health insurance company. It's no moral issue, it's an issue of facts. A health insurance insures your health and thats it. It's not giving out "cookies" (contraceptive pills  ). It pais for treatment a doctor has deemed necessary and certain vaccines. If you want the health insurance paying for contraception pills, then you basically are calling "getting pregnant" an illness and could also pay for TONS of other stuff. Which you might think would be good, i would just say that this should not be done by a health insurance company. It's just not their business.
Pregnancy can be argued to be a very serious "illness", or more accurately, a parasite. If not cared for properly, it can result in death of the mother and the child. Contraception saves lives and money -- boner pills do neither of those things. Common sense would be to make contraception easily available, with an effort towards the poor and uneducated.
But that's being practical, and who enjoys that? Better to find something that maybe perturbs our ideology so we can manufacture some outrage and make a fuss about it. Common BS tactic, but I think Republicans crossed the line on this. Our government doesn't need to worry about whether or not it's offending your religion by offering you access to free contraception.
Really, step back and think about it -- you actually think boner pills are more important to your health coverage than contraception? Really? Well, even if you do, it's a very safe bet most women would disagree with you, perhaps quite strongly.
|
On March 02 2012 18:28 Velr wrote:You don't get my point. My point is really, really simple...: Being able to get Pregnant is no illness. Therefore it is not the Health Insurances business. Not being able to get a boner, when diagnosed by a doctor, is an illness and therefore you get treatment which is paid by the health insurance company. It's no moral issue, it's an issue of facts. A health insurance insures your health and thats it. It's not giving out "cookies" (contraceptive pills ). It pais for treatment a doctor has deemed necessary and certain vaccines. If you want the health insurance paying for contraception pills, then you basically are calling "getting pregnant" an illness and could also pay for TONS of other stuff. Which you might think would be good, i would just say that this should not be done by a health insurance company. It's just not their business.
And as others have pointed out birth control pills helps against other medical conditions as well. Why do you disregard this? Painful menstrations (of the serious type), and similar things and there are also some decent studies that shows it's also effective in a preventive way when it comes to certain types of serious illnesses (cervix cancer, vascular deseases). Look it up. And it's facetious to say boner pills are used to treat medical contitions when so many people take it just to "keep it up" a little longer.
|
No, i never said that one thing is more important than the other....
FOR FUCKS SAKE.
IT'S SO BLOODY SIMPLE.
Getting Pregnant is no illness... So it is NOT health insurances business. BEING Pregnant is a diffrent story (still no illness, but pregnancy which is health insurance bsuiness).
Not being able to get a Boner IS an Illness... So it IS health insurance business.
POINT. Thats all.
You can have easily accecible contraception all you want, i am all for it, but it's not the health insurance business to grant this.
You don't go to your dentist if your car needs an overhaul. You don't go to your health insurance for contraception. That does not mean I or anyone is against contraceptions, this just means that it's not the health insurances business to assure that you can fuck around whiteout consequences.
Btw: How would having the health insurance company involved into this be "easyer", do you call your lawyer before buying anythign at a store because that is "easyer"?
Btw2:
BONER pills are not paid by the Health Insurance if not assigned to you by a doctor. If a man buys himself Boner pills thats his own business and has AGAIN nothing to do with Health Insurance.
|
You need to calm down and attempt to read the posts in this thread.
I'm getting tired of posting over and over 'there are other benefits to the birth control pill besides preventing pregnancy.'
There are studies showing a massive reduction in the risk of ovarian cancer, the prevention of ovarian cysts, reduction in cramps, pain, bleeding, and many other benefits to using birth control pills.
Though I guess your swearing, and apparent anger, and the insulting nature of your post shows that you have little desire for an actual discussion.
|
On March 02 2012 19:12 Velr wrote:
No, i never said that one thing is more important than the other....
FOR FUCKS SAKE.
IT'S SO BLOODY SIMPLE.
Getting Pregnant is no illness... So it is NOT health insurances business. BEING Pregnant is a diffrent story (still no illness, but pregnancy which is health insurance bsuiness).
Not being able to get a Boner IS an Illness... So it IS health insurance business.
POINT. Thats all.
You can have easily accecible contraception all you want, i am all for it, but it's not the health insurance business to grant this.
You don't go to your dentist if your car needs an overhaul. You don't go to your health insurance for contraception. That does not mean I or anyone is against contraceptions, this just means that it's not the health insurances business to assure that you can fuck around whiteout consequences.
Btw: How would having the health insurance company involved into this be "easyer", do you call your lawyer before buying anythign at a store because that is "easyer"?
Btw2:
BONER pills are not paid by the Health Insurance if not assigned to you by a doctor. If a man buys himself Boner pills thats his own business and has AGAIN nothing to do with Health Insurance.
Many health insurances disagree with you (at least here in Germany), but I guess they also have no clue what their "business" is, right? In Germany it is obligatory for health insurances to take over the cost of contraceptive pills for women under the age of 20 and some pay even beyond that. The arguments for why that is so have pretty much all been given to you. Contraceptive pills have further to be prescribed by a doctor here (usually the gynaecologist) and this is done for various reasons, some of which are not at all related to contraception per se (this has also been pointed out already). I am afraid you might need to accept that the situation is not as "simple" as you would like to believe.
|
On March 02 2012 19:12 Velr wrote:
No, i never said that one thing is more important than the other....
FOR FUCKS SAKE.
IT'S SO BLOODY SIMPLE.
Getting Pregnant is no illness... So it is NOT health insurances business. BEING Pregnant is a diffrent story (still no illness, but pregnancy which is health insurance bsuiness).
Not being able to get a Boner IS an Illness... So it IS health insurance business.
POINT. Thats all.
You can have easily accecible contraception all you want, i am all for it, but it's not the health insurance business to grant this.
You don't go to your dentist if your car needs an overhaul. You don't go to your health insurance for contraception. That does not mean I or anyone is against contraceptions, this just means that it's not the health insurances business to assure that you can fuck around whiteout consequences.
Btw: How would having the health insurance company involved into this be "easyer", do you call your lawyer before buying anythign at a store because that is "easyer"?
Btw2:
BONER pills are not paid by the Health Insurance if not assigned to you by a doctor. If a man buys himself Boner pills thats his own business and has AGAIN nothing to do with Health Insurance.
You don't understand what health insurance is. The way you narrowly define health insurance is wrong.
Period.
End of discussion.
|
On March 02 2012 19:12 Velr wrote:
No, i never said that one thing is more important than the other....
FOR FUCKS SAKE.
IT'S SO BLOODY SIMPLE.
Getting Pregnant is no illness... So it is NOT health insurances business. BEING Pregnant is a diffrent story (still no illness, but pregnancy which is health insurance bsuiness).
Not being able to get a Boner IS an Illness... So it IS health insurance business.
POINT. Thats all.
You can have easily accecible contraception all you want, i am all for it, but it's not the health insurance business to grant this.
You don't go to your dentist if your car needs an overhaul. You don't go to your health insurance for contraception. That does not mean I or anyone is against contraceptions, this just means that it's not the health insurances business to assure that you can fuck around whiteout consequences.
Btw: How would having the health insurance company involved into this be "easyer", do you call your lawyer before buying anythign at a store because that is "easyer"?
Btw2:
BONER pills are not paid by the Health Insurance if not assigned to you by a doctor. If a man buys himself Boner pills thats his own business and has AGAIN nothing to do with Health Insurance.
Except that most insurance plans in the states *do* cover boner pills. It's actually easier to get your viagra covered than birth control.
|
And birth control ain't cheap. It is for those of us whom have health insurance, but for the uninsured? It sucks.
![[image loading]](http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk34/feministing/Feministing%20NEW%20ALBUM/bc_costs.jpg)
I don't think people realize how fucking important the ability to control your reproductive cycle is to women's autonomy. And those numbers above may not look astronomical to many of us here, but for poor women in America, that's a huge deal. Unplanned pregnancies can completely turn a woman's life upside down, and cheap widely available birth control is easily the beset way to prevent that. The Institute of Medicine recommends that *all* birth control be *completely* covered for *all* women. It makes a huge difference.
Fewer unplanned pregnancies, fewer abortions, less stress, less children born into already poverty stricken families, etc.
The fact that an old man's ability to get a boner is deemed more important that my ability to have sex without getting pregnant honestly baffles me.
Here are some stories written from various women around the country. Listen to some of their tales: Linky. Married women with kids unable to afford contraceptives, highschoolers getting pregnant with their 2nd or 3rd child, etc etc. But I really just want to again state how absolutely important planning one's reproductive cycle is to women.
|
I'm pretty disconcerted at the amount of support Bachmann got in the polls. I hope that it was people trolling. Left or Right you have to understand she is grossly unqualified for a position of this magnitude.
|
On March 02 2012 14:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 14:35 Djzapz wrote:On March 02 2012 14:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 02 2012 13:54 xDaunt wrote:On March 02 2012 13:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 02 2012 13:41 xDaunt wrote:On March 02 2012 13:38 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 02 2012 13:33 Defacer wrote:On March 02 2012 13:09 xDaunt wrote:On March 02 2012 12:47 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
What do you think insurance companies should be forced to offer? Nothing. Kind of defeats the concept of insurance. Sometimes I wonder if Americans are just fighting for the freedom to let someone else rip them off. That's basically what it is. People like xDaunt refuse to acknowledge how the world really works and think that the free market will fix everything just like it does in their magical hypothetical land. Unfortunately, that isn't how the world actually operates. No, you have it wrong. I don't expect the free market to fix anything. That's not the point. The point is that people should be free to succeed and free to fail. If someone wants to buy shitty insurance, that's their problem, regardless of whether they have good reasons, bad reasons, or no reason at all for buying it. That's what freedom is. Seriously, when did we become such a nation of pussies? What happened to self-reliance? That is such a load of bullshit. No one is skirting self-reliance. The problem is that so many essential things aren't available to large amounts of the population if they are left to the free market. That's why the federal government mandates it, so everyone has equality of opportunity. This has absolutely nothing to do with equality of outcome, and your argument is a strawman and it's pathetic that you're bringing in that BS to this discussion. So the federal government telling people what insurance they can buy, thereby limiting their options in the marketplace, promotes "equality of opportunity?" Really? I have no idea what you're talking about, I know that you have no idea what I am talking about, and I am not even really sure that you know what you're talking about. This isn't the first time that this has happened, either. I'm going to do us both a favor and just ignore your posts from here on out. You're just jumping around and saying random crap that has no relevance to the actual point whenever I bring up an argument that deals with yours. I was never talking about individual mandates to the employee to buy insurance. It's always been about requiring employers/insurance companies to cover healthcare needs and not allowing them to refuse to cover certain medical treatments. Don't bother, xDaunt is pretty hopeless, and when he doesn't understand something, he inevitably accuses you of not understanding which is ironic. He's done it to me more than once and I've seen him do it to other people. People who disagree with his broken opinion are not "wrong", according to him they actually "don't understand", which is pretty ridiculous seeing how resistant he is to new information which he outright rejects because of his preconceived opinions. The problem with posters like him is that I'll be talking about A, and he'll reply to my post and start talking about B, which inevitably is an irrelevant tangent. For example, in this latest episode, I spent several posts talking about self-reliance and how we should not need a paternalistic government in the context of government mandates relating to what services insurers provide, and this guy barges in and starts ranting about the glory of welfare programs and social safety net, which are irrelevant to what I was talking about. As I have said countless times before, I'm not here to change anyone's mind. I'm here because good argument amuses me. Nothing more. If people respond to what I say with good arguments, I'm more than happy to respond in kind. Conversely, I'm not interested in arguing with people who consistently refuse to stay on point.
Funny, I remember debunking your claim that there was a "global cooling" going on by providing evidence that the Earth was getting warmer and not cooler, and you stopped answering. What happened to "responding in kind"?
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 02 2012 22:04 Haemonculus wrote:
The fact that an old man's ability to get a boner is deemed more important that my ability to have sex without getting pregnant honestly baffles me.
Understand that its contention is entirely focused around the Republican Christian view of family and marriage, and it ties in with gay marriage and all those other things. Their argument is that you are a slut, you should not be having sex until marriage. And once you are married, it's your job to produce babies, therefore birth control isn't needed.
Obviously none of them (besides Paul) know what birth control actually does, so educating them (if they'll listen) is one possible argument. But the other one that needs to be made - the one that challenges their system - is that Viagra is not just for old man boners but young man boners as well. So in order to remain morally consistent - that sex should not take place outside of a marriage (which lolNewt and many others didn't follow) - Viagra should be denied for unmarried men.
Then you've got yourself a nice, good ole Christian nation.
|
On March 02 2012 18:28 Velr wrote:You don't get my point. My point is really, really simple...: Being able to get Pregnant is no illness. Therefore it is not the Health Insurances business. Not being able to get a boner, when diagnosed by a doctor, is an illness and therefore you get treatment which is paid by the health insurance company. It's no moral issue, it's an issue of facts. A health insurance insures your health and thats it. It's not giving out "cookies" (contraceptive pills ). It pais for treatment a doctor has deemed necessary and certain vaccines. If you want the health insurance paying for contraception pills, then you basically are calling "getting pregnant" an illness and could also pay for TONS of other stuff. Which you might think would be good, i would just say that this should not be done by a health insurance company. It's just not their business.
; /
a baby is pretty much a parasite until its born, its more an illness than not being able to get a boner....
health insurance isnt (or shouldnt be) a case of 'if it doesnt kill you, we dont care'. comes across as really sad. let a lone the wider problems of unwanted pregnancy. unwanted kids in the fostercare system, dragging poor familes into poverty. overcrowding, emotional distress, schooling and hospitals for these kids. if you must take a purely money based view on these things then the abortion is a lot better for everyone involved.
this attitude of we told you so in america is almost disgusting, if you dont want to help women who either made a mistake, or worse, got raped, then how long before you take away speed signs and barriers. people should look after themselves on the road right? how long before you remove the police force, because you dont want to pay taxes to help the whole population. because lets be clear here, an unwanted baby can and does affect whole groups of people in a community, not just the mother who made a mistake 1 night.
On March 02 2012 22:29 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 22:04 Haemonculus wrote:
The fact that an old man's ability to get a boner is deemed more important that my ability to have sex without getting pregnant honestly baffles me. Understand that its contention is entirely focused around the Republican Christian view of family and marriage, and it ties in with gay marriage and all those other things. Their argument is that you are a slut, you should not be having sex until marriage. And once you are married, it's your job to produce babies, therefore birth control isn't needed. Obviously none of them (besides Paul) know what birth control actually does, so educating them (if they'll listen) is one possible argument. But the other one that needs to be made - the one that challenges their system - is that Viagra is not just for old man boners but young man boners as well. So in order to remain morally consistent - that sex should not take place outside of a marriage (which lolNewt and many others didn't follow) - Viagra should be denied for unmarried men. Then you've got yourself a nice, good ole Christian nation.
i think the 1 saving grace for this discussion is that it probably wont lead to anything. the republican candidates know they are talking crap. whatever they actually believe, the stuff they come out with in these debates is approved by campaign staff in order to galvanize the far right base. its funny that perhaps the most insane of them all, santorum, actually tried to explain how politics actually works in a debate a week or so ago, and he gets booed for not taking a ridiculous far right appraoch to the subject. 1 week later in this debate (and news broadcasts since) hes back to insane random rants about stuff he doesnt appear to understand.
|
On March 02 2012 19:12 Velr wrote:
No, i never said that one thing is more important than the other....
FOR FUCKS SAKE.
IT'S SO BLOODY SIMPLE.
Getting Pregnant is no illness... So it is NOT health insurances business. BEING Pregnant is a diffrent story (still no illness, but pregnancy which is health insurance bsuiness).
Not being able to get a Boner IS an Illness... So it IS health insurance business.
POINT. Thats all.
You can have easily accecible contraception all you want, i am all for it, but it's not the health insurance business to grant this.
You don't go to your dentist if your car needs an overhaul. You don't go to your health insurance for contraception. That does not mean I or anyone is against contraceptions, this just means that it's not the health insurances business to assure that you can fuck around whiteout consequences.
Btw: How would having the health insurance company involved into this be "easyer", do you call your lawyer before buying anythign at a store because that is "easyer"?
Btw2:
BONER pills are not paid by the Health Insurance if not assigned to you by a doctor. If a man buys himself Boner pills thats his own business and has AGAIN nothing to do with Health Insurance.
It's called health insurance not illness insurance (breaking a bone isn't an illness either). I mean under that logic health insurance couldn't cover delivery of the baby (or all the prenatal care that happens), because that's not illness either. "it's not an illness", seriously??? If you think pills that douse you in hormones and regulate your menstrual cycle don't have serious health consequences (most of which are very positive), then you are crazy. Secondly, due to contraception being hormonally based, you cannot simply talk about pregnancy because it's significantly more serious than say, condoms. Finally, health experts agree that female contraception is integral to women's health issues. These are people who actually study women's health issues and know a hell of a lot more about this shit than you do.
And as others have pointed out, medication for erectile dysfunction is covered by most health insurance. You're just wrong on that last one.
|
Also, I would like to point out that many women use birth control for acne control, as was stated by Haemonculus article. I have a female friend that uses birth control for adult acne. Should accutane be removed from drug plans then?
|
On March 02 2012 15:43 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 15:20 xDaunt wrote:On March 02 2012 15:06 Djzapz wrote:
That's ridiculous. Seems to me like the whole concept of self-reliance relates to this absurdly individualistic notion of survival of the fittest, a very "right" thing to argue for. Sorry if I'm extrapolating, but that's basically what occurs to me. It seems obvious that welfare programs and safety nets are in direct opposition to the things you preach, so I don't know in what way you can say that he "barged" in with something completely alien to what you were talking about - it's closely related.
Self-reliance is generally the right, social safety nets are generally the left. What he brought up wasn't nonsense in any way... So what the hell dude? You'd be correct if I was advocating the elimination of federal social safety nets, which I clearly wasn't and do not. In fact, there's basically no one on the right who advocates the elimination of federally provided safety nets. Curtailment to various degrees? Yes, and usually only moderate in scope if at all. And even then, the general idea is to shift safety nets from being federally administered to being locally administered. No one advocates pure social darwinism. This is why bringing up social safety nets in the context of what I was discussing is irrelevant. Sorry for kind of repeating this, but I absolutely don't understand which scope can look at the whole notion of self-reliance without talking about social safety nets. Those topics are opposites!
FFS, it really isn't that hard to understand my objection. Think about it this way. Let's pretend that we were talking about drinking problems and alcoholism. I make the point that people should drink in moderation, and then you accuse me of arguing that prohibition should be reinstated. It's not different here. I was saying that it was overly-paternalistic (not to mention unconstitutional) for the government to mandate that private persons (or entities) sell/provide goods and services to individuals. Then bleeding heart liberal #1 comes in and starts bleating about the glory and benefits of welfare programs, which is irrelevant to what I was talking about.
And this is the problem with this thread 50% of the time as far as I am concerned. I'll make a very discrete point, and then some kid will show up, not really understand what I am saying, and make some normative argument in response to what I was saying that doesn't even address my original point. Hell, just look at the rest of your post below. Your as guilty of it as the first guy was.
First I want to say that there indeed are people who are for the complete abolition of those safety nets - although probably people who are not well versed in the art of "not killing your own population". Those folks still get to vote and talk about their opinions. I understand that you're not for the abolition of those safety nets though, which is good - but in this case what's up with self-reliance and the possibility of failure that you mentioned earlier.
And what are the real gains from locally administering something so simple as food stamps or welfare, or any social safety nets for that matter, it seems to me like it's more efficient to do something that simple from a federal admin instead of creating a whole bunch of little organizations that you need to create and hire people for... Handling things locally allows for a more "hands-on" democracy, but it's not cheap, and you don't need a nice lady to smile at you every time you go pick up your check. I'm not saying that there are no advantages by the way, but for one the disadvantages would most likely be greater, and I don't understand that whole self-reliance thing... not in a system with local administrations that provide safety nets.
(That'll be my last response for the night, cheers)
|
On March 03 2012 00:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 15:43 Djzapz wrote:On March 02 2012 15:20 xDaunt wrote:On March 02 2012 15:06 Djzapz wrote:
That's ridiculous. Seems to me like the whole concept of self-reliance relates to this absurdly individualistic notion of survival of the fittest, a very "right" thing to argue for. Sorry if I'm extrapolating, but that's basically what occurs to me. It seems obvious that welfare programs and safety nets are in direct opposition to the things you preach, so I don't know in what way you can say that he "barged" in with something completely alien to what you were talking about - it's closely related.
Self-reliance is generally the right, social safety nets are generally the left. What he brought up wasn't nonsense in any way... So what the hell dude? You'd be correct if I was advocating the elimination of federal social safety nets, which I clearly wasn't and do not. In fact, there's basically no one on the right who advocates the elimination of federally provided safety nets. Curtailment to various degrees? Yes, and usually only moderate in scope if at all. And even then, the general idea is to shift safety nets from being federally administered to being locally administered. No one advocates pure social darwinism. This is why bringing up social safety nets in the context of what I was discussing is irrelevant. Sorry for kind of repeating this, but I absolutely don't understand which scope can look at the whole notion of self-reliance without talking about social safety nets. Those topics are opposites! FFS, it really isn't that hard to understand my objection. Think about it this way. Let's pretend that we were talking about drinking problems and alcoholism. I make the point that people should drink in moderation, and then you accuse me of arguing that prohibition should be reinstated. It's not different here. I was saying that it was overly-paternalistic (not to mention unconstitutional) for the government to mandate that private persons (or entities) sell/provide goods and services to individuals. Then bleeding heart liberal #1 comes in and starts bleating about the glory and benefits of welfare programs, which is irrelevant to what I was talking about. And this is the problem with this thread 50% of the time as far as I am concerned. I'll make a very discrete point, and then some kid will show up, not really understand what I am saying, and make some normative argument in response to what I was saying that doesn't even address my original point. Hell, just look at the rest of your post below. Your as guilty of it as the first guy was. Show nested quote +
First I want to say that there indeed are people who are for the complete abolition of those safety nets - although probably people who are not well versed in the art of "not killing your own population". Those folks still get to vote and talk about their opinions. I understand that you're not for the abolition of those safety nets though, which is good - but in this case what's up with self-reliance and the possibility of failure that you mentioned earlier.
And what are the real gains from locally administering something so simple as food stamps or welfare, or any social safety nets for that matter, it seems to me like it's more efficient to do something that simple from a federal admin instead of creating a whole bunch of little organizations that you need to create and hire people for... Handling things locally allows for a more "hands-on" democracy, but it's not cheap, and you don't need a nice lady to smile at you every time you go pick up your check. I'm not saying that there are no advantages by the way, but for one the disadvantages would most likely be greater, and I don't understand that whole self-reliance thing... not in a system with local administrations that provide safety nets.
(That'll be my last response for the night, cheers)
I was under the impression that employers do not have to offer healthcare at all if they don't want to. What this is doing is establishing a standard of care, and it happens to include contraception. If organ transplants was the issue then these complaints would be disregarded because a persons boss should not have that kind of control over his employees health.
|
xDaunt, you seem to think that social safety nets are an absolute in some way, although you don't. Nobody's saying that you intend to bring it down completely, but its importance can be argued to bring down the importance of what you call self-reliance. I mean, it's not like we're talking at something as extreme and absolute as prohibition, as there are different "degrees", so to speak, of safety nets.
|
On March 03 2012 00:53 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 00:46 xDaunt wrote:On March 02 2012 15:43 Djzapz wrote:On March 02 2012 15:20 xDaunt wrote:On March 02 2012 15:06 Djzapz wrote:
That's ridiculous. Seems to me like the whole concept of self-reliance relates to this absurdly individualistic notion of survival of the fittest, a very "right" thing to argue for. Sorry if I'm extrapolating, but that's basically what occurs to me. It seems obvious that welfare programs and safety nets are in direct opposition to the things you preach, so I don't know in what way you can say that he "barged" in with something completely alien to what you were talking about - it's closely related.
Self-reliance is generally the right, social safety nets are generally the left. What he brought up wasn't nonsense in any way... So what the hell dude? You'd be correct if I was advocating the elimination of federal social safety nets, which I clearly wasn't and do not. In fact, there's basically no one on the right who advocates the elimination of federally provided safety nets. Curtailment to various degrees? Yes, and usually only moderate in scope if at all. And even then, the general idea is to shift safety nets from being federally administered to being locally administered. No one advocates pure social darwinism. This is why bringing up social safety nets in the context of what I was discussing is irrelevant. Sorry for kind of repeating this, but I absolutely don't understand which scope can look at the whole notion of self-reliance without talking about social safety nets. Those topics are opposites! FFS, it really isn't that hard to understand my objection. Think about it this way. Let's pretend that we were talking about drinking problems and alcoholism. I make the point that people should drink in moderation, and then you accuse me of arguing that prohibition should be reinstated. It's not different here. I was saying that it was overly-paternalistic (not to mention unconstitutional) for the government to mandate that private persons (or entities) sell/provide goods and services to individuals. Then bleeding heart liberal #1 comes in and starts bleating about the glory and benefits of welfare programs, which is irrelevant to what I was talking about. And this is the problem with this thread 50% of the time as far as I am concerned. I'll make a very discrete point, and then some kid will show up, not really understand what I am saying, and make some normative argument in response to what I was saying that doesn't even address my original point. Hell, just look at the rest of your post below. Your as guilty of it as the first guy was.
First I want to say that there indeed are people who are for the complete abolition of those safety nets - although probably people who are not well versed in the art of "not killing your own population". Those folks still get to vote and talk about their opinions. I understand that you're not for the abolition of those safety nets though, which is good - but in this case what's up with self-reliance and the possibility of failure that you mentioned earlier.
And what are the real gains from locally administering something so simple as food stamps or welfare, or any social safety nets for that matter, it seems to me like it's more efficient to do something that simple from a federal admin instead of creating a whole bunch of little organizations that you need to create and hire people for... Handling things locally allows for a more "hands-on" democracy, but it's not cheap, and you don't need a nice lady to smile at you every time you go pick up your check. I'm not saying that there are no advantages by the way, but for one the disadvantages would most likely be greater, and I don't understand that whole self-reliance thing... not in a system with local administrations that provide safety nets.
(That'll be my last response for the night, cheers)
I was under the impression that employers do not have to offer healthcare at all if they don't want to. What this is doing is establishing a standard of care, and it happens to include contraception.
Actually, part of Obamacare is that employers must provide healthcare for employees (depending upon the size of the employer, if I recall correctly).
Here's the real issue: regardless of the desirability of a policy, it matters how that policy is implemented. Let's take health care as an example. I don't really doubt that government-run, national healthcare is Constitutional. In fact, I actually would prefer that some base very limited, basic coverage be provided for everyone. However, that is not what Obamacare does. Obamacare is the federal government telling individual, private persons what they must buy and sell. That is a violation of the Constitution, and it sets a very bad precedent for what the federal government could do in the future. This is all a matter of form, not substance. Form matters.
|
On March 03 2012 00:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 15:43 Djzapz wrote:On March 02 2012 15:20 xDaunt wrote:On March 02 2012 15:06 Djzapz wrote:
That's ridiculous. Seems to me like the whole concept of self-reliance relates to this absurdly individualistic notion of survival of the fittest, a very "right" thing to argue for. Sorry if I'm extrapolating, but that's basically what occurs to me. It seems obvious that welfare programs and safety nets are in direct opposition to the things you preach, so I don't know in what way you can say that he "barged" in with something completely alien to what you were talking about - it's closely related.
Self-reliance is generally the right, social safety nets are generally the left. What he brought up wasn't nonsense in any way... So what the hell dude? You'd be correct if I was advocating the elimination of federal social safety nets, which I clearly wasn't and do not. In fact, there's basically no one on the right who advocates the elimination of federally provided safety nets. Curtailment to various degrees? Yes, and usually only moderate in scope if at all. And even then, the general idea is to shift safety nets from being federally administered to being locally administered. No one advocates pure social darwinism. This is why bringing up social safety nets in the context of what I was discussing is irrelevant. Sorry for kind of repeating this, but I absolutely don't understand which scope can look at the whole notion of self-reliance without talking about social safety nets. Those topics are opposites! FFS, it really isn't that hard to understand my objection. Think about it this way. Let's pretend that we were talking about drinking problems and alcoholism. I make the point that people should drink in moderation, and then you accuse me of arguing that prohibition should be reinstated. It's not different here. I was saying that it was overly-paternalistic (not to mention unconstitutional) for the government to mandate that private persons (or entities) sell/provide goods and services to individuals. Then bleeding heart liberal #1 comes in and starts bleating about the glory and benefits of welfare programs, which is irrelevant to what I was talking about. And this is the problem with this thread 50% of the time as far as I am concerned. I'll make a very discrete point, and then some kid will show up, not really understand what I am saying, and make some normative argument in response to what I was saying that doesn't even address my original point. Hell, just look at the rest of your post below. Your as guilty of it as the first guy was. Show nested quote +
First I want to say that there indeed are people who are for the complete abolition of those safety nets - although probably people who are not well versed in the art of "not killing your own population". Those folks still get to vote and talk about their opinions. I understand that you're not for the abolition of those safety nets though, which is good - but in this case what's up with self-reliance and the possibility of failure that you mentioned earlier.
And what are the real gains from locally administering something so simple as food stamps or welfare, or any social safety nets for that matter, it seems to me like it's more efficient to do something that simple from a federal admin instead of creating a whole bunch of little organizations that you need to create and hire people for... Handling things locally allows for a more "hands-on" democracy, but it's not cheap, and you don't need a nice lady to smile at you every time you go pick up your check. I'm not saying that there are no advantages by the way, but for one the disadvantages would most likely be greater, and I don't understand that whole self-reliance thing... not in a system with local administrations that provide safety nets.
(That'll be my last response for the night, cheers)
Does the concept of "free markets" ring a bell? If an employer (or in this case, a private Catholic school) does not want to offer free birth control to its employees (students), why should the federal government be able to force them to do so? More importantly, where in the Constitution does the federal government have that power? It's really as simple as that.
What do you think insurance companies should be forced to offer?
Nothing.
What is a "standard insurance plan?" I'll tell you from experience that this is the type of thing that legislators spend a lot of time defining. Essentially, giving the federal government the power to mandate that employers provide health care for employees necessarily entails that the federal government also has the power to define what services are provided, thereby interfering with and limiting what the free market may otherwise offer.
I agree with you that it's growing. It grows as an unintended consequence of every liberal welfare policy (and that's really what this birth control funding issue is) that purports to help the people that it is inevitably going to screw over. Rather than merely providing a safety net for people who are down on their luck, we're creating a permanent class of people who are dependent on the state for their very existence.
Several posts of yours that are talking directly about what I was addressing. Stop lying just because I called you out on your BS.
|
Come on, xDaunt, how are you not a Ron Paul supporter??!! Seriously! I'm so confused on your beliefs because they are seemingly contradictory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
