The "WAr On Women??"

[StrictMasterD]

There is apprently a "War Om Women" Campaign goingon withthe Republican Party towards Women is Country.
My question is Is there REALY a "War On Women" and if so you you think LOng Term it wil have an effect om the November election, if there realy is this War going on, coul it cost The Republicans the White House in November?

[Thorne]

The "War on Women" is actually a primary goal of the far-right fundagelical wing of the Republican Party. The problem is that the candidates have been bending over backwards to appeal to the far right, and have been embracing their malignant, retrogressive policies towards women, gays and people of color. Now, with Romney the apparent candidate, you'll see him pulling away from such rhetoric, at least publicly, in order to try to win back the women who have been fleeing the Party for months. After all, why would you want to embrace a group that wants to take over control of your body, your rights, and your future, all in the name of "smaller" government?

Hopefully there are still intelligent women in the GOP who can see what these idiots are trying to do and will vote them ALL out of office. Sadly, though, I think there are far too many who will vote the party line, just because it IS the party line. That way they don't have to actually think about what they're voting for, or how it is themselves, and their daughters, who will have to pay the price.

[StrictMasterD]

Thorne,
I agree with you, BUt asidefrom the "War On Women" the Fanitical Right of the Republican Party wil also cause the Republicans to loose alot if not Most of the Support of the Gay Comminuty, and other Minorities, what Romey needs to realize is that the Women of this Country, the Gay Community, the Latino Communty and other Minorities have a HUGE Voting block come November, and recently I rwad that Nation wide Obama has about 92& of the Layino vote for November, the Far Right of the Republicans need to relaize tht the more the try to Deprive Women of Equal Rights, the more Condosending they conitnue to be towards Gays, and their apprent "Lack of Interest" in the Latino Population can and wil cost them dearly in November, alot of these groups are not heardfrom aily on a public basis but they have some morei mportant then a lack of Public Voice, the have the POWER of the Vote
I beleive that Romey is very affraid to distance himself from the likes of the TeaPary, The Evengelical's etc and by not distancing himselffrom them he wil further alienate their support for him
If he won't denouce what Rush Limbough hassaid, he wil hardly critisize the Fanitical Right Wing of the Party who wil Alienate EVERYNONE in this Country except The Relgious Right, if the Republican Party continues it's "WAr On Women," thier refusal to acknowledge the Gsy Community, and Gay Rights, the Latino Communit,y this election could end up asa bigger landslide for Obmam the when Jimmy Carter was soundly defeated for a 2nd termby Regan, the Republicn Party has EVERYTHING to loose at this point but Romney,for what ever thereason wil not distance himself from remarks made etc
Ifthe Republicans do loosei n November, they can thank the lack of Womens's Vote, The Gay Vote and the Latino vote for their lack of supporting Romneny, they wii have nobody to blame but themselves,
I am not necessarily ENDORSING Obama herem simply pointing out what the Repulbicans have to loosei n November and it ciuld end up VERY costly in not only nottaking overthe White House BUT al re loosing control of the House Again and the Democrats taking a stronger hold in the Senate then they have already. I think the American people are mart enoughnow to know EXACTLY wha tthe Tea Party stand for and I asm not so sure the Majority of American's agree withtheir views in General
And I truely believe that the Republicans right now are more concenred about Bashing Obmam they seeingwho they are Alienating andbythe time they see who and why it wil be too late forthem to change course
Romey needs to stan up for what he believesi n Publcly and not gice in to the Far Right of the Party which is what he was donig
He never even distanced himself fromthe commentthat Ted NUget made at the NRA Covnention, he is too afriad to stand up to the Fringe Geoups of his party, who may very call cost him and the Party not only the White House but possibly theHouse and Senate as well

[denuseri]

Coughs...this so called "war on women" is simple rhetoric used by the left to try and paint their opponents as doing something detestable isn't it?

What specifically is this so called war about?

Abortion right?

Not the least contested of issues?

Sounds like the democrat leadership is simply attempting to re-brand the terminology and make anything pro-life into some imaginary war being waged upon the fairer sex imho.

Another case of classic sophism at work in politics.

[StrictMasterD]

The Republicans as always are stil trying to make Women appear to be 2nd class Citizens, NOBODY eact the Hubby, Doctor or the Woeman herself shoud have ANY say about what they as women do withtheir Reproductive Systems, the Republicans do not believei n Equal Pay for Equal Work, the Republicans as they alwayshave are tryingto control the liveso f Womens, they wantto dictate to Womens what they can have can't have etc, yes they do not hestiate to Help out the Oil Industry which in and of itslef is a whole different thread and I wil not highjack it for that
The Democrats have been trying to end subsadies for Oil Companie,s End Tax breaks for them but the Repulicans won't letthem
The Republicans would rather see gas prices sky rocket then to help women, the middle class, tthe minorities
I hope if Roney windsi n November that he does follow throughon what ever Repulbican Candiae had said during the Dbates "If I win Gas wil go down to $2.49 a Gallon" it will never happen, Women wi never have equal rights with a membero f the GOP in the White House, histroy has shown that, they are more concenreda bout apsinig the ringe Right Wingers that tryin to help the comon man, they could care less abou NYONE who earns thess then $250,000.00 butthen again they have always been like that
Abortion has been an issue in all election for the last 15 years that is no new issue
And asidefrom not supporting Women's Right, they the Repubicans do not Support, Gay Rights, the Latino community at all, which has HUGE VOTING POWER in November but the certain support the NRA, The Oil Companies, The Banks etc this is about more then Womens rights it is about, Gays, Minorities, Big Businees, Banks etc andsupportingo nly thosewho earn more then $250,000 a year
I am diabled, I wil not go into specifics but have been for the last 12 years, I recenty went to an Community Town Hall Meetin,g featuring a Tea Party Member runnig for Reelction, I asked them what they plan to do about Medicare, to help those who are diaabled, the asked me if I worked, I said no ,I leftwork 12 years ago do to my disability, they asked me if I paid Taxes, I told then when I worked Yes just like everyone els,er they askedifi piad then now, I said no I recieive SSDI then then tol me ifi do not pay Pay Taxes and have a job I can't Donate to Political Campaighsn bei t theirs or other, I said I am not financialy able to at this time do to the state of the Economy, their reply was "You do not currently work, do you not curreny donate to me or any Politician, there for since you have no money to donate your issues are not a xoncenr for me" I did respecftfulltel lthem that no I can't contribue to any Campaign but I can do someting FAR more important I CAN STILL VOTE, their reply... Next question please, they would not answer my question since I am not wealthy

[Punish_her]

Coughs...this so called "war on women" is simple rhetoric used by the left to try and paint their opponents as doing something detestable isn't it?

What specifically is this so called war about?

Abortion right?

Not the least contested of issues?

Sounds like the democrat leadership is simply attempting to re-brand the terminology and make anything pro-life into some imaginary war being waged upon the fairer sex imho.

Another case of classic sophism at work in politics.



i thought the same thing . . . seems more like a cat fight of career grrrl power vs traditional stay at home. if it wasnt an election year, nobody would give a crap

[Thorne]

Coughs...this so called "war on women" is simple rhetoric used by the left to try and paint their opponents as doing something detestable isn't it?
No, it isn't. It's a term used by women who understand what the radical theocrats on the right are trying to do.


What specifically is this so called war about?
It's about reducing the rights of women, making them less than men, making them little more than carriers for men's babies, regardless of their own feelings. It's about getting women out of the workforce and back into the kitchen. It's about removing the rights that women have fought so hard to claim.


Abortion right?
Absolutely WRONG! Not a right to have an abortion, but a right to CHOOSE whether or not to carry a parasitical clump of cells to term. A right to CHOOSE whether or not to get pregnant at all!


Sounds like the democrat leadership is simply attempting to re-brand the terminology and make anything pro-life into some imaginary war being waged upon the fairer sex imho.
I try to avoid the term, "pro-life" since the large majority of vocal anti-abortion/anti-contraception people seem to be anything but! They tend to favor the death penalty, they tend to disapprove of any kind of government support of women and children, they tend to frown upon medical research and treatments whose primary beneficiaries are women. They are not "pro-life", the are simply "pro-birth".

And for the record, I disapprove of most forms of abortion, especially when used as a form of post coital birth control. However, being a man and not a woman, I don't believe that I have any right to force a woman to carry a fetus to term if she feels incapable of providing for the child, or in the case of rape or incest, or when there are medical problems which cannot be repaired by doctors. In short, I approve of allowing the person most affected by it the right to choose for herself!

[Punish_her]

It's about reducing the rights of women, making them less than men, making them little more than carriers for men's babies, regardless of their own feelings. It's about getting women out of the workforce and back into the kitchen. It's about removing the rights that women have fought so hard to claim.[QUOTE=Thorne;967467]

How?


[QUOTE=Thorne;967467]
Absolutely WRONG! Not a right to have an abortion, but a right to CHOOSE whether or not to carry a parasitical clump of cells to term. A right to CHOOSE whether or not to get pregnant at all![QUOTE=Thorne;967467]

Once again, it strikes me as enormously unfair that a woman gets a way out of an unwanted pregnancy, but a man does not.
and what's the last part about? Nobody is tellling women they have to have babies

[QUOTE=Thorne;967467]
And for the record, I disapprove of most forms of abortion, especially when used as a form of post coital birth control. However, being a man and not a woman, I don't believe that I have any right to force a woman to carry a fetus to term if she feels incapable of providing for the child, or in the case of rape or incest, or when there are medical problems which cannot be repaired by doctors. In short, I approve of allowing the person most affected by it the right to choose for herself!

Once again, does a woman have a right to force me to be a father? If I get a girl pregnant, and she does not want the child but I do, then tough luck on me.
If she wants the kid and I don't, I'm on the hook for 18 years of child support.
And don't say "that's what you get for getting a girl pregnant because last time I checked it is a group effort.

[Punish_her]

and someone is going to have to explain to me how to use the quote function cause damn I cant figure it out

[Thorne]

How?
By forcing women to have children if they want to have sex. Or even if they don't want to have sex ("You MUST submit to your husband!") Basically going back to the "barefoot and pregnant" stage of ancient history (like the 1950's for FSM's sake!) By not allowing women to choose whether of not to have children, they are in essence telling women that they are incapable of making proper decisions and should leave those kinds of things to "da menfolk".


Once again, it strikes me as enormously unfair that a woman gets a way out of an unwanted pregnancy, but a man does not.
I have never yet seen a man who was pregnant, unwanted or not! But it isn't the man who has to undergo the enormous biological changes that come with pregnancy. He doesn't have to take the risks to life and health that come with even an easy pregnancy. He isn't the one who will have to lose time from his job, or time with his drinking buddies, because of doctor's appointments and recovery times. Until men are able to carry a fetus for nine months and undergo all of the hazards of doing so, they don't get the choice. Of course, in an ideal world, they should have some say in the matter, but when it comes right down to it, the woman should be the one to make the choice.


and what's the last part about? Nobody is tellling women they have to have babies
They are trying to prevent women, and men, from using ANY form of contraception. In short, they are telling women that if they have sex, they MUST risk pregnancy. And they are trying to pass laws which will prevent abortions of ANY kind, even after rape or when the life of the mother is threatened. In other words, they are trying to FORCE women to have babies. Pro-birth, not pro-life. They place the life of the fetus (NOT child) ahead of the life of the mother.


If I get a girl pregnant, and she does not want the child but I do, then tough luck on me.
Pretty much, yeah. Once again, SHE is the one taking the risks, SHE is the one who has to carry the fetus to term, SHE is the one who does all of the work! That's why a good sex-ed class teaches about the risks and responsibilities of having sexual relations and not the fun parts.


If she wants the kid and I don't, I'm on the hook for 18 years of child support.
Yep. That's about the size of it. If you don't want children, get a vasectomy. Or use a condom. Of course, if the right has their way, neither of those will be an option, either.


And don't say "that's what you get for getting a girl pregnant because last time I checked it is a group effort.
Not always! But I'll assume that you're not a rapist. So yes, in your case it will probably be a group effort. And the potential price for that group activity is becoming a parent. Whether you like it or not. Allowing the use of contraceptives, for men AND women, including the morning after pill, reduces that risk astronomically. If the theocons have their way, you will have even less choice than now. If you have sex, you WILL become a father, sooner rather than later.

[Punish_her]

Im trying this quote thing one last time, cause damn, it's getting embarassing

[/QUOTE]By forcing women to have children if they want to have sex. Or even if they don't want to have sex ("You MUST submit to your husband!") Basically going back to the "barefoot and pregnant" stage of ancient history (like the 1950's for FSM's sake!) By not allowing women to choose whether of not to have children, they are in essence telling women that they are incapable of making proper decisions and should leave those kinds of things to "da menfolk".[/QUOTE]

How exactly are they doing this? Nobody is saying women can't work or own property or vote.


[/QUOTE]I have never yet seen a man who was pregnant, unwanted or not! But it isn't the man who has to undergo the enormous biological changes that come with pregnancy. He doesn't have to take the risks to life and health that come with even an easy pregnancy. He isn't the one who will have to lose time from his job, or time with his drinking buddies, because of doctor's appointments and recovery times. Until men are able to carry a fetus for nine months and undergo all of the hazards of doing so, they don't get the choice. Of course, in an ideal world, they should have some say in the matter, but when it comes right down to it, the woman should be the one to make the choice.[/QUOTE]

Thomas Beattie (Beatie?)


[/QUOTE]They are trying to prevent women, and men, from using ANY form of contraception. In short, they are telling women that if they have sex, they MUST risk pregnancy. And they are trying to pass laws which will prevent abortions of ANY kind, even after rape or when the life of the mother is threatened. In other words, they are trying to FORCE women to have babies. Pro-birth, not pro-life. They place the life of the fetus (NOT child) ahead of the life of the mother.[/QUOTE]

I am quite sure you're referring to the sandra fluke/birth control fiasco. nobody is trying to ban birth control; the question is whether or not the gov't should make insurance companies pick up the tab. theres a big difference


[/QUOTE]Pretty much, yeah. Once again, SHE is the one taking the risks, SHE is the one who has to carry the fetus to term, SHE is the one who does all of the work! That's why a good sex-ed class teaches about the risks and responsibilities of having sexual relations and not the fun parts.


Yep. That's about the size of it. If you don't want children, get a vasectomy. Or use a condom. Of course, if the right has their way, neither of those will be an option, either.[/QUOTE]

the maternal mortality rate is .024 percent. And once again, if she didn't want kids, she should be on the pill. you can't dumpall the blame on the man which is what everyone does all the time. Give both sexes a way of opting out: if a man wants the kid and she doesn't, then the man foots all the bills during a 9 month gestation and takes sole custody; if the man doesn't want it and the girl does, then he gives up all financial responsibilities. that is only fair.
and if people think the gov't should pay for womens BC, maybe it should pay for my vasectomy.

[Punish_her]

okay, and for real, how the hell do you use the quotes? I put the [/QUOTE] thing in there, and nothing happens.I would greatly apppreciate a tutorial

[Thorne]

Im trying this quote thing one last time, cause damn, it's getting embarassing
Use just QUOTE (in brackets) to open the quote, and /QUOTE (with brackets) to close the quote. Or highlight the text you want to quote and click on the 'Wrap QUOTE tags around selected text' button at the right end of the formatting bar.


How exactly are they doing this? Nobody is saying women can't work or own property or vote.
No, not yet. The laws they are trying to change, though, could result in women being kept out of the work force by being continuously pregnant. And if you don't thing they would eventually go after their right to vote you're being naive. These are people who secretly admire the Muslim's Sharia Law. They just think those people are talking to the wrong god.


Thomas Beattie (Beatie?)
A transgender man. Born female. And he CHOSE to have children.


I am quite sure you're referring to the sandra fluke/birth control fiasco. nobody is trying to ban birth control; the question is whether or not the gov't should make insurance companies pick up the tab. theres a big difference
Nope, not referring to that at all. That's clearly a case of people like Rush Limbaugh either not knowing what they're talking about or deliberately lying about it.

No, I'm talking about laws restricting access (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/04/09/wisconsin-governor-scott-walker-signs-three-anti-abortion-and-anti-contraception-bills-into-law/) to contraceptives. I'm talking about groups like the Catholic Church which lies about condoms (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids)preventing the spread of AIDS. I'm talking about prominent politicians (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/rick-santorum-contraception-6632083) who think that "contraception is 'a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.'"


the maternal mortality rate is .024 percent.
And the UN says that there could be as many as 817,000 such deaths each year! That's a lot of dead mothers.


And once again, if she didn't want kids, she should be on the pill.
Which she might not be able to afford, since her insurance company isn't required to pay for it. And if the theocons have their way she won't even be able to GET birth control pills.


you can't dumpall the blame on the man which is what everyone does all the time. Give both sexes a way of opting out: if a man wants the kid and she doesn't, then the man foots all the bills during a 9 month gestation and takes sole custody; if the man doesn't want it and the girl does, then he gives up all financial responsibilities. that is only fair.
Except you still have the woman bearing the physical, medical burden of being pregnant. Would you be willing to pay her for lost wages while she is confined to her bed for problems with the pregnancy? What about future problems resulting from complications with the pregnancy? Should the father be held responsible for those if he forces her to have the baby? As for the other option, true he shouldn't be solely responsible for the medical bills, but he is responsible for that child. After all, he did play role. And sometimes you have to pay the piper. If you didn't want kids, you shouldn't have slept with her!


and if people think the gov't should pay for womens BC, maybe it should pay for my vasectomy.
I agree. I'd rather the government pay the few dollars needed for those than pay welfare for the huge number of children and mothers in poverty. It would be a bargain! A couple hundred one time for a vasectomy? Or a couple hundred a month for each little bastard you spawn? No contest!

[thir]

There is apprently a "War Om Women" Campaign goingon withthe Republican Party towards Women is Country.
My question is Is there REALY a "War On Women" and if so you you think LOng Term it wil have an effect om the November election, if there realy is this War going on, coul it cost The Republicans the White House in November?

I think you can say there is, seeing the unusual boom of initiatives conerning laws against women. Whether it will cost them the election - no idea, but one can hope!

[thir]

Coughs...this so called "war on women" is simple rhetoric used by the left to try and paint their opponents as doing something detestable isn't it?

What specifically is this so called war about?

Abortion right?

Not the least contested of issues?

Sounds like the democrat leadership is simply attempting to re-brand the terminology and make anything pro-life into some imaginary war being waged upon the fairer sex imho.

Another case of classic sophism at work in politics.



Actually, it seems that the war is considered 'a war on religion' by the religious right, because they cannot be allowed to decide what other people - mainly women, but also others - should be doing. If I had the energy, I would post a shit load of links to shit I have been reading for months about this.

It has to do with abort, yes, but also with prevention of pregnancy, health, and the right to a sex-life and a job.

[Thorne]

Actually, it seems that the war is considered 'a war on religion' by the religious right, because they cannot be allowed to decide what other people - mainly women, but also others - should be doing.
Yes. We atheists, along with secular humanists and democrats, are persecuting the religious right by not allowing them to bully and persecute women, gays, Muslims and anyone else that is not them.

[~CreamySub~]

I approve of allowing the person most affected by it the right to choose for herself! < Quote: Thorn.

saying it that way in and of itself removes it from being ones (choice )

I by far do not say much but I felt a need to, no disrespect intended.

[Thorne]

I approve of allowing the person most affected by it the right to choose for herself! < Quote: Thorn.

saying it that way in and of itself removes it from being ones (choice )
Not sure I understand. You're saying that allowing someone the right to choose is taking away their choice? How so?

[Punish_her]

I still don't understand where this "religious right wants to oppress women" comes from. Of course you can find outliers who are insane on any spectrum, but I strongly disagree with the blanket statements.
I mean, nobody is going to say that this is a typical Obamaesque liberal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bavou_SEj1E

its also a funny video either way, and maybe proff that women shouldnt be making their own decisions

[thir]

And for the record, I disapprove of most forms of abortion, especially when used as a form of post coital birth control. However, being a man and not a woman, I don't believe that I have any right to force a woman to carry a fetus to term if she feels incapable of providing for the child, or in the case of rape or incest, or when there are medical problems which cannot be repaired by doctors. In short, I approve of allowing the person most affected by it the right to choose for herself!

I am not sure I could ever have an abortion, but that does not mean that I get to decide what others should do. Other people, other circumstances, other decisions.

I agree that abortion should not be a kind of birth control, but the really really odd thing is that the COPs also are against anti-conception, which would help to avoid abortions. So is the Catholic church, or at least the top of it, it seems that the people on the floor have different opinions.

The anti abortion campain has gone rabid, when you start to suggest that you cannot have an abortion in case of rape, incest, health problems with danger for your life, or even if the fetus died!

When you teach at various schools that you get breast cancer if you have an abortion, that condomes do not protect against unwanted pregnancies and aids, and when you teach that sex is icky and anti-conception should not be allowed, because that would mean people just having pleasure from each other..!

[thir]

Yes. We atheists, along with secular humanists and democrats, are persecuting the religious right by not allowing them to bully and persecute women, gays, Muslims and anyone else that is not them.

Well of course, you are the bad guy, you atheist you! Or, as Bush senior said: "I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

"One leader, one nation, one people"

[thir]

I still don't understand where this "religious right wants to oppress women" comes from. Of course you can find outliers who are insane on any spectrum, but I strongly disagree with the blanket statements.
I mean, nobody is going to say that this is a typical Obamaesque liberal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bavou_SEj1E

its also a funny video either way, and maybe proff that women shouldnt be making their own decisions

You mean she got all those children by Heavenly intervention?
Or maybe there are some men, or man, who should also not be making his own decisions?

[denuseri]

I am as pro-choice as they come...but I still believe this so called War on Women is a fabrication for political gain.

[Thorne]

I still don't understand where this "religious right wants to oppress women" comes from. Of course you can find outliers who are insane on any spectrum
By "religious right" I'm referring to those outliers on the right wing of (primarily) the Republican Party. These fundamentalists are, by and large, against any form of birth control, against abortion, of course, against any form of non-heterosexual relationships, and in some of the more extreme cases are against ANY sex outside of marriage. They are against having insurance companies pay for birth control, but not against having them pay for erectile dysfunction medication. They are, by and large, against the concept of sex for any reason other than procreation, yet would howl about persecution if laws were passed denying those ED pills to any but men in a marriage with a fertile wife. They would force every woman to carry every child to term, regardless of the circumstances of conception or of the health of either fetus or mother, yet refuse to sign off on any kind of aid to needy women and children. Once the child is born, they want nothing to do with it!


I mean, nobody is going to say that this is a typical Obamaesque liberal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bavou_SEj1E
This woman needs to file a lawsuit against all of the churches which cry out against REAL sex education, against the use of condoms, against the use of birth control, and against abortion. She's done exactly what they want: let THEM pay for her kids.

After all, they have taught her, and those like her, that SHE is not responsible for her condition. It's all GOD'S doing, don't you know!


its also a funny video either way, and maybe proff that women shouldnt be making their own decisions
I see nothing funny about it at all! And if you want to use this as an excuse to condemn ALL women, then you have to condemn the fathers of her (and others like her) children just as well. Unless their god has taken an interest, it's likely that she had some help in getting all of those children. Maybe the fathers should have their rights curtailed as well! They certainly haven't made any good decisions.

[thir]

I am as pro-choice as they come...but I still believe this so called War on Women is a fabrication for political gain.

Political gain for sure - the idea is to get elected. But the actual outcome - the many new laws or attempts to put laws through as well as sometimes the rhetoric - can be described as a war on women - also for the political gain of cathing people's attention to what is going on.

"In the first three months of 2012, legislators introduced 944 provisions related to reproductive health and rights in 45 of the 46 legislatures that have convened this year."

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/04/13/state-policy-trends-abortion-and-contraception-in-crosshairs

If you are interested in other topics, I will try to look them up.

[Punish_her]

this whole thread seems strangely familiar

[thir]

this whole thread seems strangely familiar

In what way? All this is a new developement from the upcoming elections, as far as I can see -?

[thir]

I have been battling with problems in front of the pc as well as behind the screen, but I will try to post links by and by.

For now an article on the issue in general, from The Guardian UK by a journalist with a leg in both US and UK:

The Republican party declares war on women

"Forget the economy: this election is becoming a referendum on women's bodies"

"With the notable exception of Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, a moderate who announced last week that she'd had enough of the ugliness and would not seek re-election,"

" an Indiana legislator pitched a hissy fit over the girl scouts, the US version of the girl guides, accusing them of promoting lesbianism and feminism and, worst of all, working hand in glove with Planned Parenthood."

"Forget the economy: this election is becoming a referendum on women's bodies,"

"Republicans in Congress have launched a dubious investigation of Planned Parenthood, the century-old women's health organization, and tried to take away its funding. "

"The Senate narrowly defeated an amendment that would have allowed employers to deny insurance coverage for anything the employer found morally or religiously objectionable: contraception, certainly, but perhaps also lung cancer treatment ("you should have stopped smoking"), HIV/Aids testing ("homosexuality is an abomination"), and pre-natal care for single women ("nice girls get themselves a husband before they get themselves a baby")."

" A couple of weeks ago, California Representative Darrell Issa convened an all-male panel on birth control. He claimed that the issue was not women's health, but "religious freedom" (Representative Nancy Pelosi sighed:"I may at some point be moved to explain biology to my colleagues")."

"Therefore, he [Darrel Issa] refused to allow Sandra Fluke, a young law student and an admitted female, to speak (pdf)."

"Democrats later held their own hearing at which Fluke testified that while Georgetown, the Roman Catholic-run university she attends, provides some health insurance, it does not include contraception – and the pill can cost $1,000 per year. Women take contraception for a variety of medical reasons, not only to prevent pregnancy: Fluke recounted the story of a friend, a fellow student, who needed the pill to treat cysts. She couldn't afford it, got sick and had to have an ovary removed."

"Fluke's reward for speaking truth to power? A public trashing. Rush Limbaugh – if not the de facto leader of the Republican party, then surely the clearest expression of its "id" – called her a prostitute and demanded that she post video of her sexual encounters on the internet. After several days of outrage and the loss of some important advertisers on his radio show, Limbaugh issued something approximating an apology. But the conservative blogosphere, the radio provocateurs and Fox News continue to attack Fluke as a Democratic "plant", a "FemiNazi" activist, and, of course, a harlot." "

"Santorum's vision of America is a hybrid Puritan and Catholic theocracy. He constantly rants against Obama's promotion of "secularism", and says the idea of an "absolute" separation of church and state makes him want to throw up."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/mar/05/republican-party-declareswar-on-women

The author of the article:
Diane Roberts
Profile

Diane Roberts is a writer and broadcaster. A native Floridian, she was educated at Oxford where she was a Marshall scholar. She broadcasts regularly for the BBC and National Public Radio in America, and writes for newspapers such as the Washington Post, the New York Times and the St Petersburg Times. She is also professor of literature and writing at Florida State University and the author of four books, the most recent of which is Dream State, a political history of Florida.


Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine:

[I]"In announcing her plans, Snowe, 65, emphasized that she is in good health and was prepared for the campaign ahead. But she said she was swayed by the increasing polarization in Washington.

“Unfortunately, I do not realistically expect the partisanship of recent years in the Senate to change over the short term,” Snowe said in a statement. “So at this stage of my tenure in public service, I have concluded that I am not prepared to commit myself to an additional six years in the Senate, which is what a fourth term would entail.”"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/maine-sen-olympia-snowe-to-retire-in-blow-to-gop/2012/02/28/gIQAkzWkgR_blog.html

More later.

[thir]

.

[leo9]

I am as pro-choice as they come...but I still believe this so called War on Women is a fabrication for political gain.

Well, yes, but by whom and for whose gain?

In the same way that the creationist issue is not fundamentally about Darwin, but about the religious right dictating what can be taught in schools (like sex ed,) and gay marriage is just the latest target in the war over what sexual behaviour is allowed, so the ongoing pressure on ordinary people's rights is currently focussed on women's rights in the belief that it's a soft target (because it can be presented to the base as liberals versus ordinary God-fearing folks.)

"War on women" is perhaps not as technically correct as "political agenda to reverse a range of legal protections of women's rights, women's health issues and reproductive freedom," but as soundbites go, it's close enough.

"Ordinary people's rights" because these changes in the law never touch the political class. They don't need their contraception covered by insurance any more than they need Medicare or Obamacare, they can always get a discreet abortion for their daughters, and battered wives' protection is all about whose legal firm can beat up whose. This is about keeping the little people in their place, male and female; women's rights are just the current target.

[Thorne]

This is about keeping the little people in their place, male and female; women's rights are just the current target.
Well said, Leo. It reminds me of a line from the movie, Titanic: When informed that half the people on the ship were going to die, Cal Hockley muttered, "Not the better half!" What we're seeing from our supposed representatives in Government, from local to federal levels, is an attempt to make certain that the "lower classes" don't overreach themselves and impinge upon the rights of the elite. Women are bearing the brunt of this attack now, but it won't be long before the rest of us come under attack as well.

[Punish_her]

In what way? All this is a new developement from the upcoming elections, as far as I can see?

It seems like no agreement was reached in the thread "Male Discrimination" so someone changed the name and here we are again.
Thorne thinks women are repressed
I think society royally shafts men
not getting involved in this one again

[Thorne]

Thorne thinks women are repressed
Not repressed, just not given equal treatment. How many men would, for example, willingly submit to unnecessary, invasive medical procedures for the sole purpose of satisfying some woman's religious prejudices? Would you, as someone else put it, submit to a transurethral ultrasound before getting a prescription for ED medication, in order to insure that you are fertile, and therefore using the medication to actually father a child? Because someone's religion says that the only purpose for sex is to have babies?


I think society royally shafts men
Of course! Forcing them to get better pay than their female counterparts; forcing them to risk suffering and death to have the baby inflicted upon them by their rapist; forcing them to file all that paperwork so their insurance can pay for their V*agra! Such hardships!

[Punish_her]

Not repressed, just not given equal treatment. How many men would, for example, willingly submit to unnecessary, invasive medical procedures for the sole purpose of satisfying some woman's religious prejudices? Would you, as someone else put it, submit to a transurethral ultrasound before getting a prescription for ED medication, in order to insure that you are fertile, and therefore using the medication to actually father a child? Because someone's religion says that the only purpose for sex is to have babies?


Of course! Forcing them to get better pay than their female counterparts; forcing them to risk suffering and death to have the baby inflicted upon them by their rapist; forcing them to file all that paperwork so their insurance can pay for their V*agra! Such hardships!

i really wanted to find a clip of george costanza going crazy over an unresolved issue but to no avail
anywho . . . http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/showthread.php/26898-Male-discrimination/page3 . . . we've already been over this with no catharsis

[denuseri]

Well birth control pills can run anywhere from 1 to 3 dollars per pill.

Which comes out to around 30 dollars a month.

I certainly don't need my insurance to cover that elective cost any more than I need it to cover botox or liposuction.

[Thorne]

Well birth control pills can run anywhere from 1 to 3 dollars per pill.

Which comes out to around 30 dollars a month.

I certainly don't need my insurance to cover that elective cost any more than I need it to cover botox or liposuction.
YOU may not need the help, but there are those who do! And not just so they can feel safe while having sex, but for valid medical reasons. They are used to control severe cramping, even excessive bleeding, during menstrual cycles, problems which can virtually cripple some women for long periods of time each month. How can this NOT be covered by insurance? Just because it's branded as birth control? So rebrand it as hormonal therapy! Unlike botox or liposuction or other optional treatments, this can be a life-altering benefit for many women. Even if its only purpose is to keep her from getting pregnant by her randy, abusive mate.

I take daily doses of antibiotics to control my rosacea. The pills are cheap, less than $20 per month without insurance. Yet they are covered by my plan, dropping the cost to under $5 per month. For acne control! How can anyone justify NOT covering medication which can help millions of women to function almost normally? If you can afford it without insurance, denuseri, more power to you. For some, though, that $30 each month can mean an extra pair of shoes for her kids, or maybe buying the kid a half-way decent birthday present. Or eating something beside Ramen noodles every day. Not everyone has that much extra cash every month.

Ahh, there's the reason right there! Because it's for WOMEN! And uppity women at that! The kind who want to be able to go to work every day, or go to school everyday, without pain.

[Punish_her]

or maybe it's because if every woman is going to use a guaranteed 30$ a month she probably doesn't need to, then health insurance premiums are going to go up yet I will see no benefit myself

[StrictMasterD]

correct but you HAVE THAT CHOICE which is what it is all about, you have the choice, if you want you can have it if not you don't have to have it

[StrictMasterD]

or maybe it's because if every woman is going to use a guaranteed 30$ a month she probably doesn't need to, then health insurance premiums are going to go up yet I will see no benefit myself

Most People do not see Benifits to anyting til they need the goods or serices in question
I have never had a car accient is 40 years of driving, but I am required to have it, not having it prohbits me from ownig car or driving

You may never need it but you are required by law to have car insurance, you may not need health insurance now, but what happens one day you get deadly sick, you need to go to the Hosptial but you have no insurance you are in aaccident and needto berushed to the Hospital, but you have no insurance, INSURANCE is just that it makes sure you can afford Health Care hopefully you wil never need Emercency Health Care Services, but what happens if you do, you can't say you wil neevr need to be rushed to a Hosptial or be in an Accident, nobody can but at least you know you have coverage if needed

[Thorne]

or maybe it's because if every woman is going to use a guaranteed 30$ a month she probably doesn't need to, then health insurance premiums are going to go up yet I will see no benefit myself
So, by the same logic, insurance companies shouldn't pay for prostate medications, because they only raise the premiums, but women don't get any benefit.

[Punish_her]

no, because insurance by its definition is defined as "a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss."
it's not insurance if there's a 100 percent chance there's going to be a problem, it's just passing the costs onto someone else.
in the US every 2 years you must have your car inspected. this costs money and it is related to automobiles. however, car insurance does not cover this because it is a guaranteed cost.
insurance, by definition must hedge against possible adverse effects, so if a man pays into insurance from age 25 and then gets prostate cancer at age 45, he should be treated because he's been hedging against possible adverse effects for 20 years. If a woman pays into insurance from age 25 and gets breast cancer at age 45, she shouldabsolutely be covered because she's been playing the insurance game for 20 years. The premiums people pay are a statistical probability of how much overage they want and the odds of them incurring medical costs. With women wanting birth control, it's a guarantee that every woman will be able to get it,so either the insurance premiums for women must increase by the exact cost of buying it themselves, or it gets passed onto me

[Thorne]

With women wanting birth control, it's a guarantee that every woman will be able to get it,so either the insurance premiums for women must increase by the exact cost of buying it themselves, or it gets passed onto me
You're assuming that the ONLY reason women want it is to avoid pregnancy. But even if that is so, aren't the low costs of birth control far more tolerable than the high costs of getting pregnant? Prenatal care, labor and delivery, post natal care, child care, etc., are all much higher costs to the insurance company, as well as the patients and society in general, than birth control.

But in the now-infamous Sandra Fluke case, immortalized by Rush Limbaugh, she was only talking about women who need those pills for medical reasons, not specifically as birth control pills. And that should be covered by insurance even by your standards.

[Punish_her]

if they actually do need the pill for medical reasons then yes it should be covered by insurance companies. i admit that i have no idea what percentage of women would qualify for it, but i assume it is the teeny tiny minority, and probably would not affect the vast majority of women seeking the pill

[denuseri]

You're assuming that the ONLY reason women want it is to avoid pregnancy. But even if that is so, aren't the low costs of birth control far more tolerable than the high costs of getting pregnant? Prenatal care, labor and delivery, post natal care, child care, etc., are all much higher costs to the insurance company, as well as the patients and society in general, than birth control.

But in the now-infamous Sandra Fluke case, immortalized by Rush Limbaugh, she was only talking about women who need those pills for medical reasons, not specifically as birth control pills. And that should be covered by insurance even by your standards.

If they need the pill for medical reasons other than to prevent pregnancy or to make life more fluffy for them IE for other than "elective" reasons then I am all for it being covered by their insurance.

[StrictMasterD]

If they need the pill for medical reasons other than to prevent pregnancy or to make life more fluffy for them IE for other than "elective" reasons then I am all for it being covered by their insurance.

That's the whole Point, most people do not Realize Or Accept that Birth Control is used by Women for more then just Presenting them from getting Pregnant, it is for a Myriad of other Allements, I know people who receive Anti Deressents and the Filler card says "This Medication is to Treat the Symptoms of Depression OR OTHER MEDICAL ISSUES AS DIRECTED BY THEIR DOCTOR" so you can be on an Anti Deprssent not be Bi Polar but stil beneift from the Chemical Makeup of the Medciation
Women do use birth control for reasons beyond just not getting pregnant

[Thorne]

if they actually do need the pill for medical reasons then yes it should be covered by insurance companies. i admit that i have no idea what percentage of women would qualify for it, but i assume it is the teeny tiny minority, and probably would not affect the vast majority of women seeking the pill
According to this site, (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/11/15/index.html) "14% of pill users—1.5 million women—rely on them exclusively for noncontraceptive purposes." and that "more than half (58%) of all pill users rely on the method, at least in part, for purposes other than pregnancy prevention—meaning that only 42% use the pill exclusively for contraceptive reasons."

That's a lot of women who use the pill for reasons other than exclusively to prevent pregnancy.

[StrictMasterD]

According to this site, (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/11/15/index.html) "14% of pill users—1.5 million women—rely on them exclusively for noncontraceptive purposes." and that "more than half (58%) of all pill users rely on the method, at least in part, for purposes other than pregnancy prevention—meaning that only 42% use the pill exclusively for contraceptive reasons."

That's a lot of women who use the pill for reasons other than exclusively to prevent pregnancy.

Thank You, for exspandingon what I have said Birth Control Pills are NOT used EXCLUSIVELY for Birth Control, and in this country (The UnitedStates if you do not wantto use them DON"T, all they laws says if you WANT TO they are paid for, that is NOT A MANDATE to getthem

[Thorne]

all they laws says if you WANT TO they are paid for, that is NOT A MANDATE to getthem
And, contrary to Limbaugh's bloviating, even if you do use the pill to prevent pregnancy, it doesn't mean you are using it so you can have unfettered sex as many times as you want with anyone you wish. Married couples use it so they can enjoy sex without worrying about the wife getting pregnant with a baby that they cannot afford and do not want. That doesn't mean they will hump like rabbits, all day every day. And, contrary to Limbaugh's implications, you don't take a pill every time you have sex. Unless you're using the aspirin technique.

[leo9]

The premiums people pay are a statistical probability of how much overage they want and the odds of them incurring medical costs. With women wanting birth control, it's a guarantee that every woman will be able to get it,so either the insurance premiums for women must increase by the exact cost of buying it themselves, or it gets passed onto me

Just one of the insane consequences of treating healthcare as an insurance issue, rather than a public health issue. The health issues which people need most protection against are the ones that are certain to occur. So the interests of insurers are the exact opposite of healthcare needs.

There was a time when fire brigades were paid for by the insurance companies, so if you had a fire and didn't have a sign on your house showing it had coverage, the firefighters wouldn't help. (I'm not making this up, you can see the signs in museums.) Draw your own parallel.

[js207]

And, contrary to Limbaugh's implications, you don't take a pill every time you have sex. Unless you're using the aspirin technique.

As I recall, Limbaugh was mocking Fluke's hugely inflated claimed costs of buying contraception when 'the pill' was documented as being commercially sold for $9 per month within about 3 blocks of her university, as well as available free from Planned Parenthood and others - and, apparently, covered by the university's health plan as long as it's for non-contraceptive medical reasons, too. If I appeared in public complaining about how terrible a burden it is having to pay $300 per day* to commute to work, would it not be reasonable to mock my apparent international detour?

As you point out, greater activity wouldn't account for the greater costs, so someone calculated it in terms of contraception which does vary with usage instead - giving the figures of multiple times per day some then pointed to.

(* Fluke was claiming the $9/month pill Planned Parenthood give for free amounted to $1000 per year; $300/day would be roughly my current commuting costs inflated by a similar amount. Sadly for me, Planned Parenthood don't offer free transportation, though I suppose I could try switching to bus rather than train...)

[Punish_her]

Just one of the insane consequences of treating healthcare as an insurance issue, rather than a public health issue. The health issues which people need most protection against are the ones that are certain to occur. So the interests of insurers are the exact opposite of healthcare needs.

not at all the case, not everyone gets cancer, not everyone has a stroke, not everyone has a stroke. it's the same logic behind insurance companies not accepting people, or charging vastly higher premiums, with pre-existing conditions. it's not the way insurance is supposed to work. you don't total your car, then call an insurance company to get a quote, sign up, and then mention your car was smashed. the system works with people paying into it who are young, paying their whole lives, so that when they are elderly and do need treatment (or in the cases of catastrophic events) they are covered. it is completely unfair for people who are already sick to expect coverage from those who are playing by the rules.

There was a time when fire brigades were paid for by the insurance companies, so if you had a fire and didn't have a sign on your house showing it had coverage, the firefighters wouldn't help. (I'm not making this up, you can see the signs in museums.) Draw your own parallel.

this also is not unreasonable. the fire department has to be paid by someone, either you can buy fire insurance or you can have higher taxes on a state or city run department

[leo9]

not at all the case, not everyone gets cancer, not everyone has a stroke, not everyone has a stroke. it's the same logic behind insurance companies not accepting people, or charging vastly higher premiums, with pre-existing conditions. it's not the way insurance is supposed to work. you don't total your car, then call an insurance company to get a quote, sign up, and then mention your car was smashed. the system works with people paying into it who are young, paying their whole lives, so that when they are elderly and do need treatment (or in the cases of catastrophic events) they are covered. it is completely unfair for people who are already sick to expect coverage from those who are playing by the rules. My point exactly: the insurance business model does not work for healthcare. It only works for cars because maintenance and breakdown repairs are done on a different system, and people aren't cars.

It works moderately well in this country because the National Health Service picks up all the conditions that don't fall within the insurance-based systems, as well as supporting those who can't afford or don't want the extra coverage. I don't have to imagine what it must be like without that backup, I read enough American novels to know.



this also is not unreasonable. the fire department has to be paid by someone, either you can buy fire insurance or you can have higher taxes on a state or city run departmentI thought the point was too obvous to need explaining. If your neighbour doesn't have fire insurance, are you going to be happy that the fire brigade leaves his house to burn? And set the whole block afire? Firefighting is a communal interest. So is healthcare.

[Punish_her]

My point exactly: the insurance business model does not work for healthcare. It only works for cars because maintenance and breakdown repairs are done on a different system, and people aren't cars.

It works moderately well in this country because the National Health Service picks up all the conditions that don't fall within the insurance-based systems, as well as supporting those who can't afford or don't want the extra coverage. I don't have to imagine what it must be like without that backup, I read enough American novels to know.I thought the point was too obvous to need explaining. If your neighbour doesn't have fire insurance, are you going to be happy that the fire brigade leaves his house to burn? And set the whole block afire? Firefighting is a communal interest. So is healthcare.

the insurance business model works just fine for healthcare if people play by the rules, but they don't want to


I thought the point was too obvous to need explaining. If your neighbour doesn't have fire insurance, are you going to be happy that the fire brigade leaves his house to burn? And set the whole block afire? Firefighting is a communal interest. So is healthcare.

as long as the rest of the block has the insurance, it's not their problem, as firefighters would be obligated to keep the fire away from those who did pay

[ksst]

I sure wish my health insurance would cover a single thing, much less birth control pills. Biggest scam ever, IMO.

[leo9]

the insurance business model works just fine for healthcare if people play by the rules, but they don't want toThat's because health and disease don't work according to commercial rules. To take a current hot issue: as researchers discover genetic predispositions to disease, insurance companies want to screen for them and charge higher premiums. From a business point of view, this is only common sense. From a human point of view, it's cruel discrimination against the sick.

as long as the rest of the block has the insurance, it's not their problem, as firefighters would be obligated to keep the fire away from those who did payA lovely example of the consequences of clinging to an ideology in defiance of reality. I can just imagine a firefighter's response if you told him to leave a house burning in the middle of a block for commercial reasons. Leaving aside the very poor chance of containing a fire by such roundabout means, if yours were the next house, the inevitable consequence would be that instead of a brief alarm while your neighbour's fire was put out, your house would be saturated with water as well as (at the very least) suffering major structural damage to adjoining walls. In fact, if the whole block apart from the one house was insured, the logical commercial decision would be to dynamite your house to create a firebreak; your house would be ruined anyhow, so best to get rid of it to save the rest.

In fact, it doesn't even make sense commercially: by leaving the uninsured house to burn, the insurers get at the very least the cost of two insured houses wrecked, plus just as much firefighting costs as if they'd tackled the original blaze. (Maybe more, the firefighters would be working for many hours to contain the fire that they might have put out much faster at source.) See what happens when you follow a theory ad absurdum?

[leo9]

I sure wish my health insurance would cover a single thing, much less birth control pills. Biggest scam ever, IMO.It's inevitable given the clash of interest. The ideal model for business is to take the customers' money and give nothing back. This is particularly easy with insurance, where the payments are mandatory and the payouts are discretionary. The customers' solution is informed shopping around, but payroll insurance makes that impossible and introduces another conflict of interest: the employee wants the most generous insurance, the employer wants the cheapest.

With all these levels of systems aimed at making or saving money rather than providing healthcare, it's a wonder your costs are only twice or three times what the rest of the civilised world pays.

[denuseri]

And a shame too.

Greed over good yet again.

Take all that "profit" the insurance bastards make hoodwinking people away and we would be able to float a very good state run system imho. (the insurance lobby is why we got stuck with this mandatory insurance scheme btw)

[js207]

With car insurance, you aren't actually required to insure yourself: you're just required to make sure you can pay other people for any damage you might cause them in your driving, either by having sufficient funds yourself (Enterprise Rent-A-Car do this in most states: they don't have an insurance policy, they just have a big enough pot of money that if you crash one of their cars, they pay for the damage).

Ksst: Make your insurance policy pay $9/month for contraceptive pills, they'll be taking that $9 from you in premiums - plus some overhead. Why not expect your car insurance to "cover" oil changes and servicing, too?

[thir]

And a shame too.

Greed over good yet again.

Take all that "profit" the insurance bastards make hoodwinking people away and we would be able to float a very good state run system imho. (the insurance lobby is why we got stuck with this mandatory insurance scheme btw)

Good point! If we all have to pay anyway, why not pay where we get the most out of it = a system that doesn't have to show a profit, but just has to cover costs?

[thir]

This is not war on women, or girls, in this case, it is war by the bishops on everybody they do not agree with, in this case girl scouts. Thought police.


Girl Scouts Targeted by Catholic Bishops

Girls schouts have been tageted by some republican politicians before, now it is the bishops:


“Girl Scouting helps girls develop their full individual potential; relate to other with increasing understanding, skill, and respect; develop values to guide their actions and provide the foundation for sound decision-making; and contribute to the improvement of society through their abilities, leadership skill, and cooperation with others.”

The bishops’ Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth will conduct the investigation, trawling through a wide variety of program materials and liaisons that the Catholic Church finds problematic in order to make requests about changing the materials.


Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/girl-scouts-targeted-by-catholic-bishops.html#ixzz1ufPYO7su

[StrictMasterD]

That may be true but you stil have to have the Insurance Policy on your car
What ever one here si missingi t that WOMEN DO NOT HAVE TO BUY CONTROCEPTION it si therir choice if they do not wantto but it they do not have to, and again those on Birth Control use it more then then just Preventing Pregnancies, they are usedfor varies otherthings
You CAN buy Birth Control if you want you are NOT requiredit all it dsays is your insurancecomany wil pay for it is IF you wantti it does not say you MUST BUY it, with Car insurance YOUMUST buy it their are no options there

[Thorne]

Oops! Wrong thread!

[Thorne]

Girl Scouts Targeted by Catholic Bishops
Personally, any group that can piss off the Catholic Bishops is at least worth looking into as a force for good in this country. If the Bishops don't like what the girl scouts are doing, let them come up with their own organization to teach their propaganda. Call them, "The Nuns" or something.

Oh, wait! They're pissed at the nuns (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02nuns.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper), too!

[js207]

Good point! If we all have to pay anyway, why not pay where we get the most out of it = a system that doesn't have to show a profit, but just has to cover costs?

In practice, that tends not to work; the small profit margin tends to help improve efficiency, which isn't generally something government bodies are known for.

[Punish_her]

Good point! If we all have to pay anyway, why not pay where we get the most out of it = a system that doesn't have to show a profit, but just has to cover costs?

simple: niskanen's bureaucratic budget optimization in public choice theory.
every agency that just covers costs via federal handout seems to have rapidly inflating costs with decrasing efficiency. tell me the dmv is a well-oiled machine

[Punish_her]

That's because health and disease don't work according to commercial rules. To take a current hot issue: as researchers discover genetic predispositions to disease, insurance companies want to screen for them and charge higher premiums. From a business point of view, this is only common sense. From a human point of view, it's cruel discrimination against the sick.

and if they can't charge higher premiums for the sick, they must charge higher premiums for all, which means me, which means they're discriminating against the healthy because i almost never use medical services

[Punish_her]

That may be true but you stil have to have the Insurance Policy on your car
What ever one here si missingi t that WOMEN DO NOT HAVE TO BUY CONTROCEPTION it si therir choice if they do not wantto but it they do not have to, and again those on Birth Control use it more then then just Preventing Pregnancies, they are usedfor varies otherthings
You CAN buy Birth Control if you want you are NOT requiredit all it dsays is your insurancecomany wil pay for it is IF you wantti it does not say you MUST BUY it, with Car insurance YOUMUST buy it their are no options there

if its free why would people not want it?

[StrictMasterD]

No my point is very simple, Car Insurance is Required by Law
As far a Birth Contorl goes, you are NOT being told you have to buy it, all they are sayingis IF YOUWANT IT youer Insurance Company ha to pay for it not you
Ifyou do not want BC Pills don't buy them, they are used as I have said repeatadly for more the justto Prevent becoming Pregnant, BC Pills are used to trea a variety of other issues, not justto keep you from getting pregnant, thae law say the Inusrance Comany must pay for them not the indivudal, if you do not wantthem don't getthem their is no law that says YOU have to buy them it say YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY MUST pay for them but ONLYIF YOU WAN THEM
Insurance is a Requirment therei s a difference
btwi got into a minor accidentthe other day, the other driver HAD NO INSURANCE so iahd have to pay for my dmamge hie can;t has no no insurance and at this point I believe also no liscence now or a car
He was arrested for not having insurance never heard of ANYONE being arrested for not having BC Pills

[Punish_her]

No my point is very simple, Car Insurance is Required by Law
As far a Birth Contorl goes, you are NOT being told you have to buy it, all they are sayingis IF YOUWANT IT youer Insurance Company ha to pay for it not you
Ifyou do not want BC Pills don't buy them, they are used as I have said repeatadly for more the justto Prevent becoming Pregnant, BC Pills are used to trea a variety of other issues, not justto keep you from getting pregnant, thae law say the Inusrance Comany must pay for them not the indivudal, if you do not wantthem don't getthem their is no law that says YOU have to buy them it say YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY MUST pay for them but ONLYIF YOU WAN THEM
Insurance is a Requirment therei s a difference
btwi got into a minor accidentthe other day, the other driver HAD NO INSURANCE so iahd have to pay for my dmamge hie can;t has no no insurance and at this point I believe also no liscence now or a car
He was arrested for not having insurance never heard of ANYONE being arrested for not having BC Pills

if they're free why would a girl not want them, just in case

[StrictMasterD]

Simply put the Law says Your Insurance Company must pay for Brith Control Pills if youwant it does not say aNYTHING about YOU that YOU MUST BUY THEM you don't have to use them if you don't want onlt that the Insurance Comany IF YOU WANT THERM MUST PAY FOR THEM not you

[StrictMasterD]

if they're free why would a girl not want them, just in case
Becauee BC Pills are not just used to Prevent Pregnacies if you read ANY INFO cardon ANY perscription it says " This NMedication isdegiend to Prevent PREGNANCIES OR for other Conditions as directed by your Doctor" BC pills are used by women for a variey ofthings besides preventing Prgnancy
The issue is that people think the BC issue is mandted that they have to getthem they don't BUT IF THEY want to they can for free if someonedoes not wantto get them thats fine they are not required to the only requiremnt is that their Insurance Comany has to pay for them thats all
Some peole may not wantthem even for free as it may violate their Religious Beliefs or Persoanl beliefs that fine they don;t use them their Comapny does not have to pay for them
Why someonewould not wanthem for free is beyond me

[StrictMasterD]

Simply put, the Mandate say ONLY that if you want /birth Controls Pills your Insurance Comanpy wil have to pay for them I does NOT say you have to buy them only that the company has to do that buy ONLY if you want nobody is mandated to buy BC pills all the mandtedwas who pays for them

[Thorne]

Insurance coverage does not necessarily mean free. My pharmacy plan requires I pay a co-pay. Still much cheaper than paying the full price, but certainly not free. Even low cost pills, like birth control pills, would require some co-pay. Plus, some people may not be able to take them, for medical reasons. Plus, Catholics wouldn't be permitted to take them by the Church. (Whether that will KEEP them from taking them is another story!)

The simple answer is, you have no problem with the insurance companies covering YOUR prescriptions, but you have a problem with them covering prescriptions intended solely for women. The reasons they take them are of no concern to you. Only that YOU can't use them, so you don't think they should get them.

[StrictMasterD]

Insurance coverage does not necessarily mean free. My pharmacy plan requires I pay a co-pay. Still much cheaper than paying the full price, but certainly not free. Even low cost pills, like birth control pills, would require some co-pay. Plus, some people may not be able to take them, for medical reasons. Plus, Catholics wouldn't be permitted to take them by the Church. (Whether that will KEEP them from taking them is another story!)

The simple answer is, you have no problem with the insurance companies covering YOUR prescriptions, but you have a problem with them covering prescriptions intended solely for women. The reasons they take them are of no concern to you. Only that YOU can't use them, so you don't think they should get them.
I understand that Thorne, my point was most of the cost minus a samll co pay is your insurance or as you put it you do not wantthe pill you do not andare not madated to buy them just becaue you insurance covers most of the expesne if they don'twant BC that si their choice but I assume there are other meds they will need to buy for onereason or another, the Mandate is directedat the Inusrance Companies they must pick up mostof the cost it is not Mandte the everyone needs to buy them

[js207]

No my point is very simple, Car Insurance is Required by Law

Not comprehensive car insurance, though: all you're required to insure against is damage done to other people by your driving. There's no requirement for you to insure against your own car being stolen, wrecked or torched, because that's your own problem.

The problem with requiring contraception to be paid for by "the insurance company" is that ultimately all you're doing is forcing it to be included with the premiums - which, of course, will go up as a result. Surely better to point people struggling with the cost at the low-cost options - $9 at Target - or free ones such as Planned Parenthood, rather than fighting over ramming through yet another coverage mandate, forcing insurance costs up another little bit?

[StrictMasterD]

Ok, basic liability is required by we are getting off the point which is simply women do NOT HAVE TO BUY PC if they do not want to all that was mandated was how it was paid for not who had to use it, that Insurance Companiw must pay for it ONLY,ONLY,ONLY is the LADY WANT IT, THEY DO NOT HAVE TO BUY IT, that is not, what was Mandated only how it was paid for was, that Insurance Companie if the Lady wants it her Insruance Company was required to pay for it minus a pssibile small co-payment by her not sure what is not clear here
If A lady WANTS BC Pills most of it must be paid for by her Insurance Comapny the BILL DOES NOT SAY SHE HAS TO BUY IT only that her Insurance Company must pay for it minus a small co paymeny by her

[ksst]

I'm a bit confused by this, but I would not take birth control pills even if they were free. I was on them previous to having kids and my Master did not like the side effects. He said I should not go back on the pill so I have not.

Our insurance (privately purchased) has a huge deductible, which means that we pay for everything out of pocket anyway. So we give them lots of money every month on the off chance that one of us gets a serious illness and we would actually use the insurance. Otherwise they pay for nothing. We can't afford the lower deductible plans at all.

I hate the insurance companies, and would love to see us go to a health system like Canada, single payer plan. And yes, birth control pills should be covered by whatever plan is in place. They are a lot cheaper than an unwanted pregnancy.

[Punish_her]

Insurance coverage does not necessarily mean free. My pharmacy plan requires I pay a co-pay. Still much cheaper than paying the full price, but certainly not free. Even low cost pills, like birth control pills, would require some co-pay. Plus, some people may not be able to take them, for medical reasons. Plus, Catholics wouldn't be permitted to take them by the Church. (Whether that will KEEP them from taking them is another story!)

The simple answer is, you have no problem with the insurance companies covering YOUR prescriptions, but you have a problem with them covering prescriptions intended solely for women. The reasons they take them are of no concern to you. Only that YOU can't use them, so you don't think they should get them.

that's a comical, offensive twisting of my words.
if you fall into the, what is it, 14% that uses bc for non bc reasons, cover them. if you just want to save 9$ a month, not a reason

[Thorne]

if you fall into the, what is it, 14% that uses bc for non bc reasons, cover them.
But that's the problem! Religious organizations, such as the Catholic Church, don't want to have to pay premiums for their employees and have birth control pills covered, for ANY reason! The same with the pro-forced birth crowd. Any medication that might allow a woman to enjoy sex without the risk of pregnancy, regardless of the actual reasons for her taking the meds, is hateful to them! Really, this is not a cost issue. As you yourself note, the cost of the pills is negligible, and by having them covered by insurance, and thus made available to more women, the costs would drop even more.

[leo9]

In practice, that tends not to work; the small profit margin tends to help improve efficiency, which isn't generally something government bodies are known for.Then why are healthcare costs in the US twice or three times as much as they are in all those "inefficient" government run systems in other countries? (For poorer health outcomes, in many areas.) Could it have something to do with the need for corporations to keep paying their shareholders? Or is it - as our recent economic disasters suggest - that the whole idea that capitalism automatically means efficiency is a myth?

[denuseri]

Looks up. Well well said Sir leo!

[leo9]

and if they can't charge higher premiums for the sick, they must charge higher premiums for all, which means me, which means they're discriminating against the healthy because i almost never use medical servicesAnd I'd guess you rarely need to call the police, so why should you have to pay taxes to support the police force? And you haven't had a house fire, so you shouldn't be expected to contribute to the fire brigade either. And foreign enemies haven't recently threatened you personally, so what are the government doing expecting you to contribute to the defence budget...?

[StrictMasterD]

Then why are healthcare costs in the US twice or three times as much as they are in all those "inefficient" government run systems in other countries? (For poorer health outcomes, in many areas.) Could it have something to do with the need for corporations to keep paying their shareholders? Or is it - as our recent economic disasters suggest - that the whole idea that capitalism automatically means efficiency is a myth?

No it is so Pharmcutial Comaspnies can send Billions upon Billions on R&D and pay thier CEO's etc $25,000,000 a year in slalry plus bonuses it is all about the money noting more,Pharmacitical Companies could care less about the average American Joe, they do it for the Money
They jsut said on the new tonight that the CIO of Chase, although she resigned do to the scandal, that she was paid $23 mill, in salary last years and got a "Serverence Check" today for $15 Million and she ovewr saw the issue and did noting so it cost Chase $2-4 Milioni n comapny money, they did mention money last was NOT customer money but their own money, yet she recieive as $15 miloin dolar bomus as service pay for costing her company to loos $2-4 Billion,?? No wonder our Costs and bank feesare so high, if i cost my company that kind of money I would not only be out a job but possibly facing criminal charges

[Punish_her]

And I'd guess you rarely need to call the police, so why should you have to pay taxes to support the police force? And you haven't had a house fire, so you shouldn't be expected to contribute to the fire brigade either. And foreign enemies haven't recently threatened you personally, so what are the government doing expecting you to contribute to the defence budget...?
once again, you dontseem to know what the word "insurance" means, or "risk averse" or "hedge"

[js207]

And I'd guess you rarely need to call the police, so why should you have to pay taxes to support the police force?

You pay more in higher-risk circumstances, yes: high risk events generally seem to pay for it, and of course more valuable properties pay higher taxes too. Just as smokers pay considerably more toward the NHS than non-smokers.


And you haven't had a house fire, so you shouldn't be expected to contribute to the fire brigade either.

My building's high risk - big gas-powered generators in the basement - and we do indeed pay a substantial amount extra to the fire brigade each year because of it. Bigger properties also tend to pay higher taxes generally, to fund such services, as well as being held to higher standards regarding fire alarms, extinguishers etc.

As for price: yes, the NHS is cheap. It's also very nearly killed me once due to inadequate staffing (or rather, politically skewed staffing: instead of a proper hospital, they were fighting to keep a "cottage hospital" open with no actual doctors in, hence no properly trained staff when complications occurred). I'd rather have an expensive system that doesn't kill me, thanks.

[leo9]

No it is so Pharmcutial Comaspnies can send Billions upon Billions on R&D and pay thier CEO's etc $25,000,000 a year in slalry plus bonuses it is all about the money noting more,Pharmacitical Companies could care less about the average American Joe, they do it for the Money
They jsut said on the new tonight that the CIO of Chase, although she resigned do to the scandal, that she was paid $23 mill, in salary last years and got a "Serverence Check" today for $15 Million and she ovewr saw the issue and did noting so it cost Chase $2-4 Milioni n comapny money, they did mention money last was NOT customer money but their own money, yet she recieive as $15 miloin dolar bomus as service pay for costing her company to loos $2-4 Billion,?? No wonder our Costs and bank feesare so high, if i cost my company that kind of money I would not only be out a job but possibly facing criminal chargesLike I said: the claim that capitalism leads to efficiency is a myth. Corporations waste money on a scale that no government outside China could get away with.

[Punish_her]

Like I said: the claim that capitalism leads to efficiency is a myth. Corporations waste money on a scale that no government outside China could get away with.

if chase is wasting its own money, who cares? the government wastes FAR more money, and its my money that they're wasting

[leo9]

if chase is wasting its own money, who cares? the government wastes FAR more money, and its my money that they're wastingIf you think a bank's losses are nobody else's problem, you really haven't been paying attention. Banks don't make money out of thin air, though they often talk as if they did, to cover up the fact that their money comes from the same place as everyone else's, the hard work of ordinary folk.

These losses will come out of the pockets of their customers, in poorer interest rates and higher charges, and out of the general economy, in less loans to business, depressing trade. Even if they never have to apply for a government bailout, they are sustained on the market by the certainty that the government will catch them if they fall: and the government's credit rating is the poorer because the markets know it could be exposed to that kind of unplanned cost. Which means that when the banks look shaky, government borrowing costs the government more, which comes out of your taxes. "No free lunch" applies to bad stuff as well as good.

It's all of a piece with what I've been trying to explain about social welfare issues like health and policing and emergency services. Society is all interconnected, that's what "society" means, and anyone who thinks they can live as a heroically independent individual within it is dreaming. Unfortunately, it's a dream that a lot of politicians and business leaders like to encourage, since people don't act collectively if they think their neighbours' troubles are nothing to do with them. Divide and rule at the personal level.

[Punish_her]

If you think a bank's losses are nobody else's problem, you really haven't been paying attention. Banks don't make money out of thin air, though they often talk as if they did, to cover up the fact that their money comes from the same place as everyone else's, the hard work of ordinary folk.

These losses will come out of the pockets of their customers, in poorer interest rates and higher charges, and out of the general economy, in less loans to business, depressing trade. Even if they never have to apply for a government bailout, they are sustained on the market by the certainty that the government will catch them if they fall: and the government's credit rating is the poorer because the markets know it could be exposed to that kind of unplanned cost. Which means that when the banks look shaky, government borrowing costs the government more, which comes out of your taxes. "No free lunch" applies to bad stuff as well as good.

It's all of a piece with what I've been trying to explain about social welfare issues like health and policing and emergency services. Society is all interconnected, that's what "society" means, and anyone who thinks they can live as a heroically independent individual within it is dreaming. Unfortunately, it's a dream that a lot of politicians and business leaders like to encourage, since people don't act collectively if they think their neighbours' troubles are nothing to do with them. Divide and rule at the personal level.

ah yes, i do love getting lectures on the banking system, its not as if im about to complete a masters degree in the field or anything.
1) you're absolutely right, their money does come from the hard work of ordinary folk . . . which will grow with interest if they give it to a bank.
2) if you're literally losing money by having it in a bank, you wont leave it in the bank. thats just stupid
3) bailout and fdic insurance is not the same. at all really
4) a 500 billion dollar bailout would only make up 13% of the federal budget. considering the deficit is already projected to be 2.5 times that, i got a feeling its not that big of a deal
5) seems that you really just want free shit from other people. you said yourself "no such thing as a free lunch" but then you find it unbelievable that people should pay out of their pocket for fire protection, health services, or police.
and finally, in the wake of serious losses, the cio steps down, and this is inefficient? usps loses about 3 billion every quarter, and they close only a few offices. right, super efficient

[denuseri]

Which has what exactly to do with a supposed war on women?

[Punish_her]

nothing . . . everything

[js207]

Which has what exactly to do with a supposed war on women?

That's the spin the other side wanted to put on it, that somehow expecting a woman to pay her own $9 for pills or collect it free with federal funding from a place like Planned Parenthood rather than making it a compulsory part of her health insurance was some sort of evil misogynist plot. Bit of a stretch, of course, but some have run with it anyway.

[StrictMasterD]

I agree denuseri,
the post above you have NOTHING to do with this thread

[Punish_her]

If you think a bank's losses are nobody else's problem, you really haven't been paying attention. Banks don't make money out of thin air, though they often talk as if they did, to cover up the fact that their money comes from the same place as everyone else's, the hard work of ordinary folk.

These losses will come out of the pockets of their customers, in poorer interest rates and higher charges, and out of the general economy, in less loans to business, depressing trade. Even if they never have to apply for a government bailout, they are sustained on the market by the certainty that the government will catch them if they fall: and the government's credit rating is the poorer because the markets know it could be exposed to that kind of unplanned cost. Which means that when the banks look shaky, government borrowing costs the government more, which comes out of your taxes. "No free lunch" applies to bad stuff as well as good.

It's all of a piece with what I've been trying to explain about social welfare issues like health and policing and emergency services. Society is all interconnected, that's what "society" means, and anyone who thinks they can live as a heroically independent individual within it is dreaming. Unfortunately, it's a dream that a lot of politicians and business leaders like to encourage, since people don't act collectively if they think their neighbours' troubles are nothing to do with them. Divide and rule at the personal level.


and this is? . . . hookay

[thir]

It seems like no agreement was reached in the thread "Male Discrimination" so someone changed the name and here we are again.
Thorne thinks women are repressed
I think society royally shafts men
not getting involved in this one again

It is up to you to involve yourself in what you want, no need to get into something that distresses you (generic you)

But just for clarity, the two topics were started by two different people.

[thir]

In practice, that tends not to work; the small profit margin tends to help improve efficiency, which isn't generally something government bodies are known for.

Each system has its pro and cons..commercial health care is there to make money, and so it does what makes the most money with smallest cost, which is often not something that benefits the customers. We have this discussion here in UK right now, with our goverment wanting to sell out public health care.

It is also true that public hospitals can be very expensive and need overseeing, but at least their first priority is people's health, and we are many who share in paying.

[thir]

simple: niskanen's bureaucratic budget optimization in public choice theory.
every agency that just covers costs via federal handout seems to have rapidly inflating costs with decrasing efficiency. tell me the dmv is a well-oiled machine

Federal 'handouts'? You mean, like the banks got and the car firms quite recently? Or are you talking about the military, maybe?

Here we call it taxes, and we pay them happily (no, honestly, at least in Denmark surveys show that Danes do not mind paying taxes if they get value for money) and yes, you have to keep a rein on expenses, that is true.

[js207]

Federal 'handouts'? You mean, like the banks got and the car firms quite recently? Or are you talking about the military, maybe?

Which of those do you think are examples of fiscal probity and efficiency?


Here we call it taxes, and we pay them happily (no, honestly, at least in Denmark surveys show that Danes do not mind paying taxes if they get value for money) and yes, you have to keep a rein on expenses, that is true.

Paying some taxes for necessary services, properly delivered, is one thing - but would you not object to vast sums of your money being handed to failed businesses so they can keep on failing at your expense? I know I do.

[MMI]

Which is better? I can keep some of my wealth by subsiding failed businesses with the rest of it, or I can lose it all while watching those businesses go down the pan?

What pisses me off is that many of the people who ran those businesses into bankruptcy are still there getting fatter and richer than me, or have been paid off with amounts that make mortal men weep.

So maybe, after thinking about it a bit more, I do object.

[thir]

Editorial from New York Times, 19th of May:

The Campaign Against Women

Despite the persistent gender gap in opinion polls and mounting criticism of their hostility to women’s rights, Republicans are not backing off their assault on women’s equality and well-being. New laws in some states could mean a death sentence for a pregnant woman who suffers a life-threatening condition. But the attack goes well beyond abortion, into birth control, access to health care, equal pay and domestic violence.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/opinion/sunday/the-attack-on-women-is-real.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytopinion&seid=auto

[thir]

Federal 'handouts'? You mean, like the banks got and the car firms quite recently? Or are you talking about the military, maybe?




Which of those do you think are examples of fiscal probity and efficiency?



None. Which are federal handouts?





Here we call it taxes, and we pay them happily (no, honestly, at least in Denmark surveys show that Danes do not mind paying taxes if they get value for money) and yes, you have to keep a rein on expenses, that is true.



Paying some taxes for necessary services, properly delivered, is one thing - but would you not object to vast sums of your money being handed to failed businesses so they can keep on failing at your expense? I know I do.


And so do I!
This mix up of private and public responsibilites are a pestilence, but I guess that is another topic.

[js207]

None. Which are federal handouts?

The support given to GM and Chrysler in particular, as well as the literal bankrolling of many large banks.


This mix up of private and public responsibilites are a pestilence, but I guess that is another topic.

Actually, I think it's this same topic: the federal government has strayed into far too many areas it has no business entering. It's supposed to provide a military, immigration/customs ... prop up failed car manufacturers? Not in my book - particularly when others like Ford were viable - and yes, that was a federal handout, at least partly aimed at enriching the powerful car manufacturing unions, who just happen to be politically connected...

[thir]

The support given to GM and Chrysler in particular, as well as the literal bankrolling of many large banks.


Then I agree, absolutely. The biggest welfare clients in history, and a spike through the myth of 'a free market.'



Actually, I think it's this same topic: the federal government has strayed into far too many areas it has no business entering. It's supposed to provide a military, immigration/customs ... prop up failed car manufacturers? Not in my book - particularly when others like Ford were viable - and yes, that was a federal handout, at least partly aimed at enriching the powerful car manufacturing unions, who just happen to be politically connected...

I agree. I just meant it was probaly starying from the topic of war on women.

[js207]

Then I agree, absolutely. The biggest welfare clients in history, and a spike through the myth of 'a free market.'

Well, a major deviation from that ideal - though not the first (Britain made the same stupid mistake with poor quality car manufacturers and a few other failed businesses a few decades ago) and sadly I doubt it will be the last either.


I agree. I just meant it was probaly starying from the topic of war on women.

Not really: the "war on women" is the label the pro-handout side is applying to their opposition, as if expecting all but the poor to pay $9 a month themselves (the poor get it free under a government program already) is some form of attack. They'd probably have branded anti-bailout sentiment a "war on cars" if there had been a fight over it.