B-Man Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 The Left and their media minions have framed this from the start as Republicans trying to take away birth control. What they've dishonestly done is make it appear that the GOP have initiated something that would reduce access to contraceptives. Quite the contrary, it is the administration that has altered the landscape mandating that employers - even religious organizations - include birth control with their health insurance programs. As this has never been required before, nobody has had anything taken away from them. But sadly this is how the media works today. If someone proposes an additional entitlement beyond what currently exists, all opposition is falsely depicted as stealing from the citizenry. This is the same tactic as declaring a reduction in the growth of an entitlement as being a cut much has been done countless times by the press with programs such as Social Security and school lunches. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Actually, I believe that medical care, as an exclusive use resource, is an individual responsibility and should NOT be provided by the government. now that really would eliminate the need for "death panels". most below a certain income level would die off before or during the early geriatric years. active eugenics if you will... now is that good or bad. i'm certain it's bad but Rob? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 now that really would eliminate the need for "death panels". most below a certain income level would die off before or during the early geriatric years. active eugenics if you will... now is that good or bad. i'm certain it's bad but Rob? Yeah, don't/can't take care of you and your'n, suffer the consequences. Life kind-of sucks that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) Yeah, don't/can't take care of you and your'n, suffer the consequences. Life kind-of sucks that way. economic darwinism....not a concept i think even darwin would subscibe to. The Left and their media minions have framed this from the start as Republicans trying to take away birth control. What they've dishonestly done is make it appear that the GOP have initiated something that would reduce access to contraceptives. Quite the contrary, it is the administration that has altered the landscape mandating that employers - even religious organizations - include birth control with their health insurance programs. As this has never been required before, nobody has had anything taken away from them. But sadly this is how the media works today. If someone proposes an additional entitlement beyond what currently exists, all opposition is falsely depicted as stealing from the citizenry. This is the same tactic as declaring a reduction in the growth of an entitlement as being a cut much has been done countless times by the press with programs such as Social Security and school lunches. i agree. i think the framing of the argument is less than honest. but everyone hones into how this bill effects them personally anyway. so does it matter? feminists frame it as a reproductive rights issue. churches as a religious freedom issue. constitutionalists as a constitutional issue. it's all of these things and all are being discussed by the various factions who see it as good or bad to their goals. if nothing else, i see it as a stupid political move by obama and i'm surprised at his lack of pliability on the issue. . Edited March 5, 2012 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) The Left and their media minions have framed this from the start as Republicans trying to take away birth control. What they've dishonestly done is make it appear that the GOP have initiated something that would reduce access to contraceptives. Quite the contrary, it is the administration that has altered the landscape mandating that employers - even religious organizations - include birth control with their health insurance programs. As this has never been required before, nobody has had anything taken away from them. But sadly this is how the media works today. If someone proposes an additional entitlement beyond what currently exists, all opposition is falsely depicted as stealing from the citizenry. This is the same tactic as declaring a reduction in the growth of an entitlement as being a cut much has been done countless times by the press with programs such as Social Security and school lunches. Tactics that have been used ad nauseum by both sides. Most republicans are as you say (you will never convince some on the left of that). Limbaugh hasn't helped the issue with his idiotic and vile comments (The comments being kept out there don't represent the thoughts of anyone I know). Problem is that unless one side comes up with a prefect plan, the other side will demogouge it to death- and there is no perfect plan. No, the problem is that the health care law is a REALLY bad law. Keeping the government out of it wouldn't have this problem (the Church would have a choice). Likewise, a completely government-run system wouldn't have this problem (the Church wouldn't have to make the choice). It's the bull **** "public program by mandated private purchase" law that causes the problem of the feel-good idea of "free contraception" to run up against the reality of religious freedom. And again...some of us actually predicted this before the bill was passed. Some of hated the bill BECAUSE it was such an ugly, craven compromise. That deserved to be bolded, underlined and resized. I don't think anyone on either side of the aisle or the middle could ever disagree with that. While I am not big on the whole contraception issue, it is the big topic right now, so I thought I would chime in. If the law says that it has to be provided, they should have to provide it. If the law doesn't specify that, they they have an out. What I am against, is the ability to only enforce laws that one deems good laws, I may have been unclear on that last night. Edited March 5, 2012 by Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) There is also this to consider..................... Forget for a minute the religious question and look at who wins big here: Big Pharma. This mandate is not really about condoms or generic versions of the pill, which are available free or cheap in lots of places. This is about brand-name birth control drugs and other devices that some consumers swear off because they are too expensive. The Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate requires health-insurance companies provide contraceptive coverage for all FDA approved contraceptive methods. It does not insist on generics. And it does not offer any cost containment. Whats more, the mandate prevents health-insurance companies from having copays or deductibles for the benefit. This is the perfect set up for Big Pharma. Since the drugs will be paid for by a third party (insurance companies, who will pass the cost on to employers and the rest of us), the consumer wont worry about the price. Expensive brand names will no doubt see demand rise. Ask more health-care analysts why the cost of medical services continues to rise so rapidly and near the top of the list is the fact that a third-party payment system wont contain costs. Back in 2009, many observers were surprised when Big Pharma came out in favor of President Obamas health-care reform bill. The industry spent millions running television ads in favor of the law and industry lobbyists pushed hard for it. One important reason they did so was the promise that with the new law they would have a new market of millions of new customers. The contraceptive mandate is a perfect example. It’s important to point out that among President Obama’s biggest financial backers are precisely the Big Pharma companies who benefit from the mandate. Big Pharmacy . Edited March 5, 2012 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 There is also this to consider..................... Big Pharmacy . no doubt in my mind big pharma traded their support for the healthcare bill for the removal of the threat of a national formulary (which could save billions and hurt them bad). but there aren't that many big players in the contraceptive market...have a hard time believing this was a big motivator in this issue. it is a huge market though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 are your thought processes really this simplistic? i had the distinct impression you were amoral but wasn't so sure you were simple. of course it has to do with "good and bad". everything does. the wars, the economy, the health care system, immigration, taxation... every side of every argument concerns "good and bad". Of course it has to do with "good and bad." However the issue isn't whether birth control is good or bad but whether imposing it upon those who disagree with it is good or bad. It's not a complex concept. I'm mildly surprised you were too simple to comprehend it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 6, 2012 Author Share Posted March 6, 2012 http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/05/sandra-fluke-a-self-described-professional-pro-abortion-activist/ A little more info on the girl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/05/sandra-fluke-a-self-described-professional-pro-abortion-activist/ A little more info on the girl. Wait...you mean a ringer was invited to testify in a Congressional Hearing? Shocked, yes, SHOCKED I am at the violation of the sanctity of a Congressional Hearing! How dare they sully such a vital institution! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 (edited) http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/05/sandra-fluke-a-self-described-professional-pro-abortion-activist/ A little more info on the girl. so? why don't you link limbaugh's cv. not gonna see cornell and georgetown but i forgot top academic credentials are unimportant to many of you. how silly of me. rush is like one of the players that on mnf says "central high" but in his case he really means it. whatever any of you think he's injured himself significantly with this insult yet after apologizing had to bring up that he's being held to a different standard than rappers...brilliant! just can't control that oversized ego. even conservative pundits and advertisers are throwing him under the bus and on top of it all, h physically, he looks like shite.... how bout i link a current photo of him and ask female readers "would ya?" Edited March 6, 2012 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Couldn't care less about that fat piece of ****, all he does is rile up the right wingers, and is more of a divisive energy within the conservative movement. Having said that, just got done reading that link, and she indeed was a ringer, and pretty much was dishonest in parts of her congressional testimony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Couldn't care less about that fat piece of ****, all he does is rile up the right wingers, and is more of a divisive energy within the conservative movement. Having said that, just got done reading that link, and she indeed was a ringer, and pretty much was dishonest in parts of her congressional testimony. That seems fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Couldn't care less about that fat piece of ****, all he does is rile up the right wingers, and is more of a divisive energy within the conservative movement. Having said that, just got done reading that link, and she indeed was a ringer, and pretty much was dishonest in parts of her congressional testimony. Particularly the part about needing birth control, with a face like that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Couldn't care less about that fat piece of ****, all he does is rile up the right wingers, and is more of a divisive energy within the conservative movement. Having said that, just got done reading that link, and she indeed was a ringer, and pretty much was dishonest in parts of her congressional testimony. I agree completely. To add to that, It's nice that he stays in shape and is a uniter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 6, 2012 Author Share Posted March 6, 2012 Couldn't care less about that fat piece of ****, all he does is rile up the right wingers, and is more of a divisive energy within the conservative movement. Having said that, just got done reading that link, and she indeed was a ringer, and pretty much was dishonest in parts of her congressional testimony. I noticed in that link that she received a Rainbow Service Scholarship. I Googled "rainbow scholarship" and some organizations were definately for lesbians and gays and others didn't appear to have any connection. I'm wondering if she even needs birth control? It would be pretty funny if after all of that she turns out be a lesbian. Anyway I'm not claiming anything here, just laughing at the possibility that the left's new poster child brought to the forefront to confuse the issues, was a total and complete scam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 I noticed in that link that she received a Rainbow Service Scholarship. I Googled "rainbow scholarship" and some organizations were definately for lesbians and gays and others didn't appear to have any connection. I'm wondering if she even needs birth control? It would be pretty funny if after all of that she turns out be a lesbian. Anyway I'm not claiming anything here, just laughing at the possibility that the left's new poster child brought to the forefront to confuse the issues, was a total and complete scam. like you, no idea what the scholarship is about but have you considered the possibility that a straight person might support gay causes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 I knew there was..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 6, 2012 Author Share Posted March 6, 2012 (edited) like you, no idea what the scholarship is about but have you considered the possibility that a straight person might support gay causes? What does that have to do with what I posted? I said it would be funny after all her proclamations about it costing her $3000 for birth control if she ended up being a lesbian and didn't have reason for birth control. C'mon doc, use your noggin. Edited March 6, 2012 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 (edited) What does that have to do with what I posted? I said it would be funny after all her proclamations about it costing her $3000 for birth control if she ended up being a lesbian and didn't have reason for birth control. C'mon doc, use your noggin. even if the scholarship comes from a gay organization, it would be presumptuous to assume she's gay. she may have written a great essay for a small scholarship. i don't think it's on par with a fulbright. Edited March 6, 2012 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts