Active Users:103 Time:21/08/2014 07:15:33 AM
The widespread inability to believe that is deeply worrisome. Joel Send a noteboard - 11/02/2012 06:33:01 AM
Sex may not be a need to the rational mind, but it is a driving force of our nature. Sex is part of what is to be human. Sex drive and sexual needs are different to each person, many people need sexual release. I can't believe you just said that the poor shouldn't have sex. Should they just eat their babies too? (yes I probably just ended the conversation right there with invoking Godwin)

I did not say they should not have sex, but their inability to provide for a child is, I think we can agree, a much bigger and deeper problem than whether their health insurance covers contraception. That is true if only because, once again, contraception is not a panacea: Poor people who screw like rabbits because they have contraception and "poverty makes procreation recreation" will still get pregnant with children they cannot feed. They do. Less often than when birth control was unavailable, but it still happens plenty. I calculated a rough estimate in the Planned Parenthood thread based on teen birth rates, number of teens and birth control with 92% effectiveness; came out to about 80,000 teen pregnancies per year. If 92% were a mortal (or perhaps vital, in this case) I would have gotten a full college scholarship instead of a one time $1000 stipend.

Poor people who do not want/cannot provide for children should not have sex. Contraception changes the odds of children, but not that fundamental reality. They still have the CHOICE of what to do with their own bodies, but choices have consequences and, contrary to what some claim, liberalism does not mean making others accountable for ones poor decisions.

It is a not a payment issue and it is a privacy issue. I can't believe you can't see that. The issue is not how much does the insurance plan cost but the privacy issue about the Church wanting to stop contraception.

The church cannot stop contraception, but it can refuse to pay for it. Regardless, when doctors prescribe contraception and have their nurses send claim forms to insurance company functionaries so they can be processed by claims adjustors and paid by accountants we are no longer talking about a matter between me and my partner, but HOW MANY others we inform of it. As far as that goes, the church would not be informed which employees did and did not use contraception whether or not their insurance covered it, and they really do not care: They just do not want to pay for something their religion forbids, anymore than Rabbis want to pay for ham sandwiches at the B'nai B'rith lunch counter.

Oh, it is nothing like that and you know it. Once they pay you the money is yours, not theirs. We are talking about how they spend money that was NEVER yours, but ALWAYS theirs until they paid it to an insurer. They are wholly within their rights to decide what they will and will not pay that insurer to do. If the insurer decides, for whatever reason, to provide contraception coverage with some of their profits IN ADDITION TO what they have contracted with the church to provide, they are as free to do so as I am to buy porn with my pay once it BECOMES my pay. I just hope the reduced pregnancy costs and lure of the insurance exchange is enough incentive for them to do that, because otherwise they will refuse and there is little anyone can do about it.

I am sorry but I do not see it this way. By the church paying for my insurance but not allow me to have a choice in my insurance, they are dictating what I can and can't spend my money on.

1/3rd of what an employer spends on an employee are benefits unrelated to direct pay but instead are "benefits" The largest benefit by far is health insurance. People can't pick and choose their health insurance plan since they instead get whatever their company chooses for them. The main reason why wages for individuals are flat since the 1970s is not due to lack of productivity increases (we have had a lot of those), no the reason is health cares costs have gone up and instead of the boss giving you a raise or a bonus he instead paid that 15% health insurance premium increase.

Just because you separate two directly contradictory statements with a single sentence does not make them any less contradictory, y'know. Here, I will shorten the pair to a single internally consistent sentence:

"By the church paying for my insurance but not allow me to have a choice in my insurance... People can't pick and choose their health insurance plan since they instead get whatever their company chooses for them."

If we want people to have freedom of choice in insurance we will institute a public option. Until then, people will get what their employer chooses to share the cost of (and, thanks to Obama, be forced to pick up the difference out of their wages.) At least as bad, the cost will continue to skyrocket and eat up more and more of any productivity increase as it has for the past generation, because the insurance companies that were already gouging a public dependent on them now have a captive audience, plus a $900 billion federal subsidy. The price had already climbed so high even DEATH could not ensure everyone met it by any means necessary, so now they are required to by law. Call me crazy, but I expect any for profit corporation GUARANTEED a consumer base to suck the poor bastards dry (not that they were not doing a fine job already.)

Contraception coverage is just a tiny facet of that monstrous problem; were it not for China, I would call it the biggest one facing America (and it may be anyway.) How much of our GDP goes to health insurance? How much of our debt is Medicare, even though its costs are only growing about a third as fast as private insurance (thanks in no small part to the fact it is a single payer government plan)? Meanwhile, yes, you get the insurance your employer chooses to provide; the feds have made some coverage mandatory, but if you think this is the last time an employer (or insurer) will try to weasel out of one you are kidding yourself.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
Democrats bailing on Obama - War against the Catholic Church heats up - 09/02/2012 04:03:35 AM 658 Views
This is not a war on Catholics, it is Obama being an idiot again. - 09/02/2012 04:52:01 AM 104 Views
For someone who used to be a Con Law professor - 10/02/2012 08:23:34 PM 64 Views
Also, kudos for linking to a source, and a fairly non-partisan one as well. - 09/02/2012 01:33:07 PM 111 Views
I am a non-partisan guy, so I only use unbiased sources! *NM* - 09/02/2012 04:02:50 PM 28 Views
Is there really such a thing? *NM* - 09/02/2012 04:11:30 PM 28 Views
You lost all credibility in the first line of your post. - 09/02/2012 04:49:23 PM 108 Views
The subject line didn't help. *NM* - 09/02/2012 06:04:11 PM 28 Views
But it added some flair to the discussion! *NM* - 09/02/2012 07:46:47 PM 27 Views
You actually think any of us has 'credibility' anymore in regards to neutrality? *NM* - 09/02/2012 06:46:13 PM 26 Views
It's one thing to have a bias. - 09/02/2012 07:28:51 PM 83 Views
Some would say putting a spotlight on it is more honest. *NM* - 09/02/2012 09:34:17 PM 27 Views
Ah, the Rupert Murdoch School of Objectivity. - 09/02/2012 10:15:57 PM 49 Views
Wow, talk about making a supernova out of a couple hydrogen atoms. - 09/02/2012 08:41:44 PM 78 Views
I'm somewhat suprised that Obama blundered this badly. - 10/02/2012 01:40:14 AM 73 Views
Why? Have you not been paying attention? - 10/02/2012 02:03:43 AM 64 Views
If I am not satisfied with Romney then my Plan B is to not vote. - 10/02/2012 10:58:34 PM 58 Views
How does that help anything? Except Romneys election chances, of course. - 11/02/2012 01:08:22 AM 52 Views
Bullshit. - 11/02/2012 04:29:31 AM 63 Views
A vote for no one is a vote for more BS. - 11/02/2012 05:55:11 AM 59 Views
Obama doing this actually impresses me to no end. - 10/02/2012 02:21:10 AM 147 Views
He is already preparing to cave. - 10/02/2012 02:42:32 AM 77 Views
Why are you even replying to me? What you said has little meaning to what I said. - 10/02/2012 03:33:27 AM 64 Views
"And here I thought he was just another politician." - 10/02/2012 01:29:36 PM 61 Views
So Jehovah Witness employers should not have to pay for blood transfusions? - 10/02/2012 03:57:47 AM 78 Views
Not if it conflicts with their religious beliefs. - 10/02/2012 04:20:32 PM 76 Views
One last point - 10/02/2012 11:35:25 PM 52 Views
The federal government forcing private groups to facilitate without committing sin also infringes. - 11/02/2012 01:03:30 AM 52 Views
You argument does not make sense - 11/02/2012 01:26:57 AM 82 Views
It was an analogy, not an equivalency. - 11/02/2012 01:48:14 AM 58 Views
Lets enhance your analogy making it closer to reality - 11/02/2012 02:19:41 AM 64 Views
Why could I not buy it with my own money? - 11/02/2012 03:46:33 AM 56 Views
Re: Why could I not buy it with my own money? - 11/02/2012 04:17:17 AM 46 Views
In other words, I could. - 11/02/2012 04:21:05 AM 39 Views
Some more points - 11/02/2012 02:30:27 AM 57 Views
Sex is not a necessity either. - 11/02/2012 03:56:51 AM 54 Views
I can't believe you just said that - 11/02/2012 04:30:12 AM 48 Views
The widespread inability to believe that is deeply worrisome. - 11/02/2012 06:33:01 AM 60 Views
LMAO due to Obama's compromise (the word compromise should have a in it ) - 11/02/2012 12:12:57 AM 79 Views
Obama just got two weeks of being portrayed as "anti-church" to the point even Dems complained. - 11/02/2012 02:00:28 AM 55 Views
The polls disagree with you. - 11/02/2012 02:32:59 AM 61 Views
It is an interesting article, but not for the polls. - 11/02/2012 04:18:17 AM 52 Views
I wouldn't put too much into that poll anyway - 11/02/2012 05:37:05 AM 86 Views
I don't think it's quite the laughing matter you think it is - 11/02/2012 12:31:23 PM 76 Views
Nossy that was not Joel, that was me - 11/02/2012 01:56:39 PM 105 Views
I know that. - 11/02/2012 03:23:32 PM 99 Views
Understood. - 11/02/2012 07:51:14 PM 61 Views
mmm... - 11/02/2012 08:20:26 PM 52 Views

Reply to Message