|
On March 03 2012 01:29 DoubleReed wrote:
Come on, xDaunt, how are you not a Ron Paul supporter??!! Seriously! I'm so confused on your beliefs because they are seemingly contradictory.
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I not only voted for Ron Paul at the Colorado caucuses, but I gave a speech on his behalf.
There's nothing really contradictory about my beliefs. It's all a matter of degree.
|
On March 03 2012 01:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 01:29 DoubleReed wrote:
Come on, xDaunt, how are you not a Ron Paul supporter??!! Seriously! I'm so confused on your beliefs because they are seemingly contradictory. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I not only voted for Ron Paul at the Colorado caucuses, but I gave a speech on his behalf. There's nothing really contradictory about my beliefs. It's all a matter of degree.
Oh ok. I must have missed that post then. Fair enough.
|
On March 02 2012 19:12 Velr wrote:
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.
As you said, pregnancy itself is health insurance business. Health insurance pays for prenatal checkups, delivery, and medical treatment for the child once it is born.
Thus, the shot or the pill are analogous to vaccines - particularly from the perspective of the insurer, who is looking at this from a cost perspective rather than a moral/religious/etc one. They are medical treatments given to healthy individuals to prevent that individual from developing a condition that falls under "health insurance business."
Condoms don't just prevent pregnancy, they also prevent the spread of STDs. They are also health insurance business.
|
On March 03 2012 02:37 Signet wrote:
Condoms don't just prevent pregnancy, they also prevent the spread of STDs. They are also health insurance business.
Yeah, this is the point being lost in this whole debate. From a guy's point of view, you have to be an utter idiot to rely solely upon the pill for protection during sex. STD's are too rampant to not use condoms, and women simply can't be trusted to reliably use the pill. There are too many occurrences where a girl says she is taking the pill but isn't doing it properly. It isn't worth the risk.
|
On March 03 2012 02:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 02:37 Signet wrote:
Condoms don't just prevent pregnancy, they also prevent the spread of STDs. They are also health insurance business. Yeah, this is the point being lost in this whole debate. From a guy's point of view, you have to be an utter idiot to rely solely upon the pill for protection during sex. STD's are too rampant to not use condoms, and women simply can't be trusted to reliably use the pill. There are too many occurrences where a girl says she is taking the pill but isn't doing it properly. It isn't worth the risk.
That has nothing to do with it at all. You havent seemed to accept the fact that the pill is used for other purposes, aside from birth control. I have a couple friends that arent sexually active at the moment, but have been on the pill for years due to various issues. You want to tell these women "deal with your cramps, your acne, your cysts, your increased chance of cancer, etc... because you just want to be a slut"?
You havent seen the point 2 pages of posters have been trying to make. Stop being stubborn and realize this isnt a slut vs. not-slut issue, its far deeper an issue than that. Thats only besides the point that offering viagra, which is ONLY for boning to non married men, makes this entire debate hypocritical.
Yet again I am left baffled at how this is actually even a political issue. My fiancee has been on the pill for 6 years, hasnt paid a penny, and overall, weve probably saved the system money. We cant afford a child being only 24, and finishing our degrees. We would be 100x more of a burden to the system if we had a child, and were coming from middle class families. The poor, who procreate the most, cause an incredible burden, and offering them contraception can curb that rate and save the system way more money than dealing with 18 more poor kids would cost.
|
On March 03 2012 03:11 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 02:47 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 02:37 Signet wrote:
Condoms don't just prevent pregnancy, they also prevent the spread of STDs. They are also health insurance business. Yeah, this is the point being lost in this whole debate. From a guy's point of view, you have to be an utter idiot to rely solely upon the pill for protection during sex. STD's are too rampant to not use condoms, and women simply can't be trusted to reliably use the pill. There are too many occurrences where a girl says she is taking the pill but isn't doing it properly. It isn't worth the risk. That has nothing to do with it at all. You havent seemed to accept the fact that the pill is used for other purposes, aside from birth control. I have a couple friends that arent sexually active at the moment, but have been on the pill for years due to various issues. You want to tell these women "deal with your cramps, your acne, your cysts, your increased chance of cancer, etc... because you just want to be a slut"? You havent seen the point 2 pages of posters have been trying to make. Stop being stubborn and realize this isnt a slut vs. not-slut issue, its far deeper an issue than that. Thats only besides the point that offering viagra, which is ONLY for boning to non married men, makes this entire debate hypocritical. Yet again I am left baffled at how this is actually even a political issue. My fiancee has been on the pill for 6 years, hasnt paid a penny, and overall, weve probably saved the system money. We cant afford a child being only 24, and finishing our degrees. We would be 100x more of a burden to the system if we had a child, and were coming from middle class families. The poor, who procreate the most, cause an incredible burden, and offering them contraception can curb that rate and save the system way more money than dealing with 18 more poor kids would cost.
I'm well aware of the other reasons why birth control is prescribed, and, quite frankly, they're all irrelevant to the larger point that I am going blue in the face repeating:
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO MANDATE THAT PRIVATE PERSONS BUY OR SELL SPECIFIC PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.
I don't give a shit that insurance companies choose to cover viagra. That's their business. I wouldn't give a shit if every insurance company also chose to cover birth control. Again, that would be their business. What I care about is the overreach of the federal government.
Christ, the willingness (or carelessness as the case may be) of liberals to trample all over the Constitution in pursuit of their normative values seems to know no bounds.
|
On March 03 2012 03:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 03:11 Focuspants wrote:On March 03 2012 02:47 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 02:37 Signet wrote:
Condoms don't just prevent pregnancy, they also prevent the spread of STDs. They are also health insurance business. Yeah, this is the point being lost in this whole debate. From a guy's point of view, you have to be an utter idiot to rely solely upon the pill for protection during sex. STD's are too rampant to not use condoms, and women simply can't be trusted to reliably use the pill. There are too many occurrences where a girl says she is taking the pill but isn't doing it properly. It isn't worth the risk. That has nothing to do with it at all. You havent seemed to accept the fact that the pill is used for other purposes, aside from birth control. I have a couple friends that arent sexually active at the moment, but have been on the pill for years due to various issues. You want to tell these women "deal with your cramps, your acne, your cysts, your increased chance of cancer, etc... because you just want to be a slut"? You havent seen the point 2 pages of posters have been trying to make. Stop being stubborn and realize this isnt a slut vs. not-slut issue, its far deeper an issue than that. Thats only besides the point that offering viagra, which is ONLY for boning to non married men, makes this entire debate hypocritical. Yet again I am left baffled at how this is actually even a political issue. My fiancee has been on the pill for 6 years, hasnt paid a penny, and overall, weve probably saved the system money. We cant afford a child being only 24, and finishing our degrees. We would be 100x more of a burden to the system if we had a child, and were coming from middle class families. The poor, who procreate the most, cause an incredible burden, and offering them contraception can curb that rate and save the system way more money than dealing with 18 more poor kids would cost. I'm well aware of the other reasons why birth control is prescribed, and, quite frankly, they're all irrelevant to the larger point that I am going blue in the face repeating: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO MANDATE THAT PRIVATE PERSONS BUY OR SELL SPECIFIC PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.I don't give a shit that insurance companies choose to cover viagra. That's their business. I wouldn't give a shit if every insurance company also chose to cover birth control. Again, that would be their business. What I care about is the overreach of the federal government. Christ, the willingness (or carelessness as the case may be) of liberals to trample all over the Constitution in pursuit of their normative values seems to know no bounds.
Isn't there all sorts of stuff that we've chosen to do that has nothing to do with the constitution? Personally, I am not concerned with how the constitution protects corporations that already have a ton of security and loaded pockets. They can take a hit, and I'm perfectly willing to look at cases individually. I think that in this case, it really isn't that bad. Its not gonna kill jobs. Insurance companies will be just fine.
|
On March 03 2012 03:22 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 03:16 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 03:11 Focuspants wrote:On March 03 2012 02:47 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 02:37 Signet wrote:
Condoms don't just prevent pregnancy, they also prevent the spread of STDs. They are also health insurance business. Yeah, this is the point being lost in this whole debate. From a guy's point of view, you have to be an utter idiot to rely solely upon the pill for protection during sex. STD's are too rampant to not use condoms, and women simply can't be trusted to reliably use the pill. There are too many occurrences where a girl says she is taking the pill but isn't doing it properly. It isn't worth the risk. That has nothing to do with it at all. You havent seemed to accept the fact that the pill is used for other purposes, aside from birth control. I have a couple friends that arent sexually active at the moment, but have been on the pill for years due to various issues. You want to tell these women "deal with your cramps, your acne, your cysts, your increased chance of cancer, etc... because you just want to be a slut"? You havent seen the point 2 pages of posters have been trying to make. Stop being stubborn and realize this isnt a slut vs. not-slut issue, its far deeper an issue than that. Thats only besides the point that offering viagra, which is ONLY for boning to non married men, makes this entire debate hypocritical. Yet again I am left baffled at how this is actually even a political issue. My fiancee has been on the pill for 6 years, hasnt paid a penny, and overall, weve probably saved the system money. We cant afford a child being only 24, and finishing our degrees. We would be 100x more of a burden to the system if we had a child, and were coming from middle class families. The poor, who procreate the most, cause an incredible burden, and offering them contraception can curb that rate and save the system way more money than dealing with 18 more poor kids would cost. I'm well aware of the other reasons why birth control is prescribed, and, quite frankly, they're all irrelevant to the larger point that I am going blue in the face repeating: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO MANDATE THAT PRIVATE PERSONS BUY OR SELL SPECIFIC PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.I don't give a shit that insurance companies choose to cover viagra. That's their business. I wouldn't give a shit if every insurance company also chose to cover birth control. Again, that would be their business. What I care about is the overreach of the federal government. Christ, the willingness (or carelessness as the case may be) of liberals to trample all over the Constitution in pursuit of their normative values seems to know no bounds. Isn't there all sorts of stuff that we've chosen to do that has nothing to do with the constitution? Personally, I am not concerned with how the constitution protects corporations that already have a ton of security and loaded pockets. They can take a hit, and I'm perfectly willing to look at cases individually. I think that in this case, it really isn't that bad. Its not gonna kill jobs. Insurance companies will be just fine.
The ironic part is that insurance companies actually want to supply contraceptives, because it saves them money in the long run, which is why the compromise was so easily reached in the first place. Overall healthcare costs go down by supplying adequate preventive medicine/measures, not up. From an efficiency standpoint there is no debate, which is why insurance companies are not the ones complaining in the first place.
The people complaining are a group of old catholic institutionalists that still think contraceptives are an affront to god, even while 98% of catholics in the US use contraceptives themselves. A bunch of 80 yo's feeling like the world has passed them by and a political party trying to make hay out of it, that's all it is.
|
On March 03 2012 03:22 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 03:16 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 03:11 Focuspants wrote:On March 03 2012 02:47 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 02:37 Signet wrote:
Condoms don't just prevent pregnancy, they also prevent the spread of STDs. They are also health insurance business. Yeah, this is the point being lost in this whole debate. From a guy's point of view, you have to be an utter idiot to rely solely upon the pill for protection during sex. STD's are too rampant to not use condoms, and women simply can't be trusted to reliably use the pill. There are too many occurrences where a girl says she is taking the pill but isn't doing it properly. It isn't worth the risk. That has nothing to do with it at all. You havent seemed to accept the fact that the pill is used for other purposes, aside from birth control. I have a couple friends that arent sexually active at the moment, but have been on the pill for years due to various issues. You want to tell these women "deal with your cramps, your acne, your cysts, your increased chance of cancer, etc... because you just want to be a slut"? You havent seen the point 2 pages of posters have been trying to make. Stop being stubborn and realize this isnt a slut vs. not-slut issue, its far deeper an issue than that. Thats only besides the point that offering viagra, which is ONLY for boning to non married men, makes this entire debate hypocritical. Yet again I am left baffled at how this is actually even a political issue. My fiancee has been on the pill for 6 years, hasnt paid a penny, and overall, weve probably saved the system money. We cant afford a child being only 24, and finishing our degrees. We would be 100x more of a burden to the system if we had a child, and were coming from middle class families. The poor, who procreate the most, cause an incredible burden, and offering them contraception can curb that rate and save the system way more money than dealing with 18 more poor kids would cost. I'm well aware of the other reasons why birth control is prescribed, and, quite frankly, they're all irrelevant to the larger point that I am going blue in the face repeating: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO MANDATE THAT PRIVATE PERSONS BUY OR SELL SPECIFIC PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.I don't give a shit that insurance companies choose to cover viagra. That's their business. I wouldn't give a shit if every insurance company also chose to cover birth control. Again, that would be their business. What I care about is the overreach of the federal government. Christ, the willingness (or carelessness as the case may be) of liberals to trample all over the Constitution in pursuit of their normative values seems to know no bounds. Isn't there all sorts of stuff that we've chosen to do that has nothing to do with the constitution? Personally, I am not concerned with how the constitution protects corporations that already have a ton of security and loaded pockets. They can take a hit, and I'm perfectly willing to look at cases individually. I think that in this case, it really isn't that bad. Its not gonna kill jobs. Insurance companies will be just fine.
Arguably, there are a lot of things that the federal government has done that is not allowed by the Constitution. However, I'm singling out this birth control/Obamacare issue because it is something new with profound consequences.
|
On March 03 2012 03:22 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 03:16 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 03:11 Focuspants wrote:On March 03 2012 02:47 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 02:37 Signet wrote:
Condoms don't just prevent pregnancy, they also prevent the spread of STDs. They are also health insurance business. Yeah, this is the point being lost in this whole debate. From a guy's point of view, you have to be an utter idiot to rely solely upon the pill for protection during sex. STD's are too rampant to not use condoms, and women simply can't be trusted to reliably use the pill. There are too many occurrences where a girl says she is taking the pill but isn't doing it properly. It isn't worth the risk. That has nothing to do with it at all. You havent seemed to accept the fact that the pill is used for other purposes, aside from birth control. I have a couple friends that arent sexually active at the moment, but have been on the pill for years due to various issues. You want to tell these women "deal with your cramps, your acne, your cysts, your increased chance of cancer, etc... because you just want to be a slut"? You havent seen the point 2 pages of posters have been trying to make. Stop being stubborn and realize this isnt a slut vs. not-slut issue, its far deeper an issue than that. Thats only besides the point that offering viagra, which is ONLY for boning to non married men, makes this entire debate hypocritical. Yet again I am left baffled at how this is actually even a political issue. My fiancee has been on the pill for 6 years, hasnt paid a penny, and overall, weve probably saved the system money. We cant afford a child being only 24, and finishing our degrees. We would be 100x more of a burden to the system if we had a child, and were coming from middle class families. The poor, who procreate the most, cause an incredible burden, and offering them contraception can curb that rate and save the system way more money than dealing with 18 more poor kids would cost. I'm well aware of the other reasons why birth control is prescribed, and, quite frankly, they're all irrelevant to the larger point that I am going blue in the face repeating: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO MANDATE THAT PRIVATE PERSONS BUY OR SELL SPECIFIC PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.I don't give a shit that insurance companies choose to cover viagra. That's their business. I wouldn't give a shit if every insurance company also chose to cover birth control. Again, that would be their business. What I care about is the overreach of the federal government. Christ, the willingness (or carelessness as the case may be) of liberals to trample all over the Constitution in pursuit of their normative values seems to know no bounds. Isn't there all sorts of stuff that we've chosen to do that has nothing to do with the constitution? Personally, I am not concerned with how the constitution protects corporations that already have a ton of security and loaded pockets. They can take a hit, and I'm perfectly willing to look at cases individually. I think that in this case, it really isn't that bad. Its not gonna kill jobs. Insurance companies will be just fine.
Come on, that's not a argument. "We're already doing it so let's do it more" that actually reinforces his "liberals trample on the constitution" remark.
Hmmm, I think there must be some good examples of the government mandating the purchase of services and it's a good thing. I just can't think of any off the top of my head. But you should reiterate that this has nothing to do with the contraception debate. That's more against Obamacare.
|
On March 03 2012 03:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 03:11 Focuspants wrote:On March 03 2012 02:47 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 02:37 Signet wrote:
Condoms don't just prevent pregnancy, they also prevent the spread of STDs. They are also health insurance business. Yeah, this is the point being lost in this whole debate. From a guy's point of view, you have to be an utter idiot to rely solely upon the pill for protection during sex. STD's are too rampant to not use condoms, and women simply can't be trusted to reliably use the pill. There are too many occurrences where a girl says she is taking the pill but isn't doing it properly. It isn't worth the risk. That has nothing to do with it at all. You havent seemed to accept the fact that the pill is used for other purposes, aside from birth control. I have a couple friends that arent sexually active at the moment, but have been on the pill for years due to various issues. You want to tell these women "deal with your cramps, your acne, your cysts, your increased chance of cancer, etc... because you just want to be a slut"? You havent seen the point 2 pages of posters have been trying to make. Stop being stubborn and realize this isnt a slut vs. not-slut issue, its far deeper an issue than that. Thats only besides the point that offering viagra, which is ONLY for boning to non married men, makes this entire debate hypocritical. Yet again I am left baffled at how this is actually even a political issue. My fiancee has been on the pill for 6 years, hasnt paid a penny, and overall, weve probably saved the system money. We cant afford a child being only 24, and finishing our degrees. We would be 100x more of a burden to the system if we had a child, and were coming from middle class families. The poor, who procreate the most, cause an incredible burden, and offering them contraception can curb that rate and save the system way more money than dealing with 18 more poor kids would cost. I'm well aware of the other reasons why birth control is prescribed, and, quite frankly, they're all irrelevant to the larger point that I am going blue in the face repeating: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO MANDATE THAT PRIVATE PERSONS BUY OR SELL SPECIFIC PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.I don't give a shit that insurance companies choose to cover viagra. That's their business. I wouldn't give a shit if every insurance company also chose to cover birth control. Again, that would be their business. What I care about is the overreach of the federal government. Christ, the willingness (or carelessness as the case may be) of liberals to trample all over the Constitution in pursuit of their normative values seems to know no bounds.
You fail to realize the constitution is an incredibly old document, and had no way of being able to understand the modern world. The world is a million times more complicated. Corporations have so much power now its unbelievable. Leaving them up to their own devices is actually quite foolish. The constitution made sense at the time it was written, but clinging to it word for word doesnt accomplish much by way of dealing with modern problems. At the end of the day, with issues such as healthcare and education, I trust the government far more than private corporations when making decisions in the best interest of ALL people.
This whole free market, small government, no regulations, no demands idea is so dangerous. The single reason Canada wasnt crippled by a huge recession like you were, is our banks tried to pull the same stunt yours did, but the Liberal government, much to the displeasure of the conservative party, wouldnt allow them to play with our money. They required the banks to seperate banking and their speculative investing, and we were fine. Corporations are greedy, and the bottom dollar is the focus. As corrupt as a government could be, its still somewhat representative of the people, and for the sake of re-election, they at least need to focus somewhat on pleasing you and looking after you.
This notion of government mandates all taking away your freedom is silly. They are mandating a prescription that saves the system money, and saves people hardships, and in some cases their lives. How does that hurt freedom? This is the reason I think constitutionalists and libertarians are too extreme. When you would prefer people be gouged and taken advantage of, or denied essential services in the name of "freedom", youve gone too far.
|
On March 03 2012 03:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 03:11 Focuspants wrote:On March 03 2012 02:47 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 02:37 Signet wrote:
Condoms don't just prevent pregnancy, they also prevent the spread of STDs. They are also health insurance business. Yeah, this is the point being lost in this whole debate. From a guy's point of view, you have to be an utter idiot to rely solely upon the pill for protection during sex. STD's are too rampant to not use condoms, and women simply can't be trusted to reliably use the pill. There are too many occurrences where a girl says she is taking the pill but isn't doing it properly. It isn't worth the risk. That has nothing to do with it at all. You havent seemed to accept the fact that the pill is used for other purposes, aside from birth control. I have a couple friends that arent sexually active at the moment, but have been on the pill for years due to various issues. You want to tell these women "deal with your cramps, your acne, your cysts, your increased chance of cancer, etc... because you just want to be a slut"? You havent seen the point 2 pages of posters have been trying to make. Stop being stubborn and realize this isnt a slut vs. not-slut issue, its far deeper an issue than that. Thats only besides the point that offering viagra, which is ONLY for boning to non married men, makes this entire debate hypocritical. Yet again I am left baffled at how this is actually even a political issue. My fiancee has been on the pill for 6 years, hasnt paid a penny, and overall, weve probably saved the system money. We cant afford a child being only 24, and finishing our degrees. We would be 100x more of a burden to the system if we had a child, and were coming from middle class families. The poor, who procreate the most, cause an incredible burden, and offering them contraception can curb that rate and save the system way more money than dealing with 18 more poor kids would cost. I'm well aware of the other reasons why birth control is prescribed, and, quite frankly, they're all irrelevant to the larger point that I am going blue in the face repeating: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO MANDATE THAT PRIVATE PERSONS BUY OR SELL SPECIFIC PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.
Sure it does. See the 1937 Supreme court rulings on the social security act.
|
On March 03 2012 03:39 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 03:22 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2012 03:16 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 03:11 Focuspants wrote:On March 03 2012 02:47 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 02:37 Signet wrote:
Condoms don't just prevent pregnancy, they also prevent the spread of STDs. They are also health insurance business. Yeah, this is the point being lost in this whole debate. From a guy's point of view, you have to be an utter idiot to rely solely upon the pill for protection during sex. STD's are too rampant to not use condoms, and women simply can't be trusted to reliably use the pill. There are too many occurrences where a girl says she is taking the pill but isn't doing it properly. It isn't worth the risk. That has nothing to do with it at all. You havent seemed to accept the fact that the pill is used for other purposes, aside from birth control. I have a couple friends that arent sexually active at the moment, but have been on the pill for years due to various issues. You want to tell these women "deal with your cramps, your acne, your cysts, your increased chance of cancer, etc... because you just want to be a slut"? You havent seen the point 2 pages of posters have been trying to make. Stop being stubborn and realize this isnt a slut vs. not-slut issue, its far deeper an issue than that. Thats only besides the point that offering viagra, which is ONLY for boning to non married men, makes this entire debate hypocritical. Yet again I am left baffled at how this is actually even a political issue. My fiancee has been on the pill for 6 years, hasnt paid a penny, and overall, weve probably saved the system money. We cant afford a child being only 24, and finishing our degrees. We would be 100x more of a burden to the system if we had a child, and were coming from middle class families. The poor, who procreate the most, cause an incredible burden, and offering them contraception can curb that rate and save the system way more money than dealing with 18 more poor kids would cost. I'm well aware of the other reasons why birth control is prescribed, and, quite frankly, they're all irrelevant to the larger point that I am going blue in the face repeating: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO MANDATE THAT PRIVATE PERSONS BUY OR SELL SPECIFIC PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.I don't give a shit that insurance companies choose to cover viagra. That's their business. I wouldn't give a shit if every insurance company also chose to cover birth control. Again, that would be their business. What I care about is the overreach of the federal government. Christ, the willingness (or carelessness as the case may be) of liberals to trample all over the Constitution in pursuit of their normative values seems to know no bounds. Isn't there all sorts of stuff that we've chosen to do that has nothing to do with the constitution? Personally, I am not concerned with how the constitution protects corporations that already have a ton of security and loaded pockets. They can take a hit, and I'm perfectly willing to look at cases individually. I think that in this case, it really isn't that bad. Its not gonna kill jobs. Insurance companies will be just fine. Come on, that's not a argument. "We're already doing it so let's do it more" that actually reinforces his "liberals trample on the constitution" remark. Hmmm, I think there must be some good examples of the government mandating the purchase of services and it's a good thing. I just can't think of any off the top of my head. But you should reiterate that this has nothing to do with the contraception debate. That's more against Obamacare.
This is why I like responding to you. You actually take the time to pay attention to what I am saying.
As far as I know, the closest that you will get to this level of federal interference in the marketplace is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting discrimination in the workplace. Many libertarians (Ron Paul included, I believe) object to the Civil Rights Act for this very reason. Affirmative action is another good example.
|
On March 03 2012 03:44 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 03:16 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 03:11 Focuspants wrote:On March 03 2012 02:47 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 02:37 Signet wrote:
Condoms don't just prevent pregnancy, they also prevent the spread of STDs. They are also health insurance business. Yeah, this is the point being lost in this whole debate. From a guy's point of view, you have to be an utter idiot to rely solely upon the pill for protection during sex. STD's are too rampant to not use condoms, and women simply can't be trusted to reliably use the pill. There are too many occurrences where a girl says she is taking the pill but isn't doing it properly. It isn't worth the risk. That has nothing to do with it at all. You havent seemed to accept the fact that the pill is used for other purposes, aside from birth control. I have a couple friends that arent sexually active at the moment, but have been on the pill for years due to various issues. You want to tell these women "deal with your cramps, your acne, your cysts, your increased chance of cancer, etc... because you just want to be a slut"? You havent seen the point 2 pages of posters have been trying to make. Stop being stubborn and realize this isnt a slut vs. not-slut issue, its far deeper an issue than that. Thats only besides the point that offering viagra, which is ONLY for boning to non married men, makes this entire debate hypocritical. Yet again I am left baffled at how this is actually even a political issue. My fiancee has been on the pill for 6 years, hasnt paid a penny, and overall, weve probably saved the system money. We cant afford a child being only 24, and finishing our degrees. We would be 100x more of a burden to the system if we had a child, and were coming from middle class families. The poor, who procreate the most, cause an incredible burden, and offering them contraception can curb that rate and save the system way more money than dealing with 18 more poor kids would cost. I'm well aware of the other reasons why birth control is prescribed, and, quite frankly, they're all irrelevant to the larger point that I am going blue in the face repeating: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO MANDATE THAT PRIVATE PERSONS BUY OR SELL SPECIFIC PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. Sure it does. See the 1937 Supreme court rulings on the social security act.
No, those aren't the same. Those were states rights and powers of taxation cases, which are different. The better examples are the commerce clause cases, particularly Wickard v. Filburn where the Court said that the government had the power to apply and enforce wheat supply quotas for the purpose of regulating the price of wheat nationally. However, this is still a little bit different because it's a restraint on production rather than a affirmative mandate to buy or sell. (As I have said elsewhere, the Supreme Court is probably going to gut Wickard when it rules on Obamacare).
|
On March 03 2012 03:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 03:39 DoubleReed wrote:On March 03 2012 03:22 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2012 03:16 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 03:11 Focuspants wrote:On March 03 2012 02:47 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 02:37 Signet wrote:
Condoms don't just prevent pregnancy, they also prevent the spread of STDs. They are also health insurance business. Yeah, this is the point being lost in this whole debate. From a guy's point of view, you have to be an utter idiot to rely solely upon the pill for protection during sex. STD's are too rampant to not use condoms, and women simply can't be trusted to reliably use the pill. There are too many occurrences where a girl says she is taking the pill but isn't doing it properly. It isn't worth the risk. That has nothing to do with it at all. You havent seemed to accept the fact that the pill is used for other purposes, aside from birth control. I have a couple friends that arent sexually active at the moment, but have been on the pill for years due to various issues. You want to tell these women "deal with your cramps, your acne, your cysts, your increased chance of cancer, etc... because you just want to be a slut"? You havent seen the point 2 pages of posters have been trying to make. Stop being stubborn and realize this isnt a slut vs. not-slut issue, its far deeper an issue than that. Thats only besides the point that offering viagra, which is ONLY for boning to non married men, makes this entire debate hypocritical. Yet again I am left baffled at how this is actually even a political issue. My fiancee has been on the pill for 6 years, hasnt paid a penny, and overall, weve probably saved the system money. We cant afford a child being only 24, and finishing our degrees. We would be 100x more of a burden to the system if we had a child, and were coming from middle class families. The poor, who procreate the most, cause an incredible burden, and offering them contraception can curb that rate and save the system way more money than dealing with 18 more poor kids would cost. I'm well aware of the other reasons why birth control is prescribed, and, quite frankly, they're all irrelevant to the larger point that I am going blue in the face repeating: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO MANDATE THAT PRIVATE PERSONS BUY OR SELL SPECIFIC PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.I don't give a shit that insurance companies choose to cover viagra. That's their business. I wouldn't give a shit if every insurance company also chose to cover birth control. Again, that would be their business. What I care about is the overreach of the federal government. Christ, the willingness (or carelessness as the case may be) of liberals to trample all over the Constitution in pursuit of their normative values seems to know no bounds. Isn't there all sorts of stuff that we've chosen to do that has nothing to do with the constitution? Personally, I am not concerned with how the constitution protects corporations that already have a ton of security and loaded pockets. They can take a hit, and I'm perfectly willing to look at cases individually. I think that in this case, it really isn't that bad. Its not gonna kill jobs. Insurance companies will be just fine. Come on, that's not a argument. "We're already doing it so let's do it more" that actually reinforces his "liberals trample on the constitution" remark. Hmmm, I think there must be some good examples of the government mandating the purchase of services and it's a good thing. I just can't think of any off the top of my head. But you should reiterate that this has nothing to do with the contraception debate. That's more against Obamacare. This is why I like responding to you. You actually take the time to pay attention to what I am saying. As far as I know, the closest that you will get to this level of federal interference in the marketplace is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting discrimination in the workplace. Many libertarians (Ron Paul included, I believe) object to the Civil Rights Act for this very reason. Affirmative action is another good example.
Well the government regulates RF spectrum. They decide who can have which bands of spectrum so that other people can't start manufacturing equipment that causes interference. They also make sure companies don't have too much spectrum to corner the market. The government practically hordes the spectrum too because it accumulates in value. There's plenty of bands that aren't being used that companies would love to have.
I don't think there's anything in the constitution about the government being the arbiter of spectrum usage.
|
Just to put a little perspective on this contraception issue:
$3,000 over three years is under 3 dollars a day.
You're telling me this law student couldn't afford 3 dollars a day?
|
On March 03 2012 04:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Just to put a little perspective on this contraception issue:
$3,000 over three years is under 3 dollars a day.
You're telling me this law student couldn't afford 3 dollars a day?
$3/day = $90/month. Yes this is substantial.
|
On March 03 2012 04:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Just to put a little perspective on this contraception issue:
$3,000 over three years is under 3 dollars a day.
You're telling me this law student couldn't afford 3 dollars a day?
$3/day is roughly $90 a month. That's a lot of money.
|
On March 03 2012 04:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Just to put a little perspective on this contraception issue:
$3,000 over three years is under 3 dollars a day.
You're telling me this law student couldn't afford 3 dollars a day?
Your talking about the crappy education system that america has. Im tempted to say that it is indeed possible.
|
On March 03 2012 04:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Just to put a little perspective on this contraception issue:
$3,000 over three years is under 3 dollars a day.
You're telling me this law student couldn't afford 3 dollars a day?
You're right, college students can definitely afford that a lot easier than an insurance company. An insurance company that will save money down the line because of the fact that birth control saves medical costs down the line.
Good god, man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
