OGTEleven Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 My first response to you was short, impersonal and without insult, your response was insulting and accusatory. Not the first time I have tried to deal evenly with you and then had to put up with that and I'm tired of it so I decided it was no longer worth it trying to have a discussion with you. My first response: Your response, at least the a$$clown part of it: You are right, I don't usually call you or your argument stupid but since that is usually your response to me as was the case here, I decided to join in on your fun and adopt your style. It is very liberating. 597717[/snapback] ????? You acted as if labor vs management and institution vs individual had no similarities despite the fact that they do and that I had specifically equated them. You then proceeded to ignore the entire content of my post while replying only to this nit picky component. Why reply at all? It was without a direct insult, but your decision to dismiss my post entirely, based on a minor detail would normally be considered insulting. Three posts later you still have ignored the primary point of my original post. Why? If you disagree fine, that's why the board is here. When I pointed this out, I re-stated what I had already said. The worst thing I said was "You're smart enough to figure that out." You are. Note I didn't say "Even you are smart enough to figure that out." That would have been an insult. I then cracked a lame joke about pregnancy. Your next post spent 75% of its text slamming the lame joke and 25% calling my assertion that Labor vs. management and Institution vs, Individual have a lot of corollaries a stupid one. I still think they do. I think most people would agree. You called it obviously stupid. You made only a veiled reference to my original main content and found it stupid based on the analogy you deemed invalid. It seems like you'd rather argue about semantics than the original content of my first post. If so, go eff yourself. I'm done. If not, take another look at my orignal post and strike any reference to labor vs mangement. Substitute Institution vs individual and make your comments. I'd like to hear them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 you have it wrong, pharmacies are not required to carry drugs "people would expect" because people can expect anything. they have to carry drugs that meet some subjective criteria of being needed or "expected". that is in and of itself grey. 594397[/snapback] Nope, you are wrong with regards to Massachusetts. I linked to the regulation in a previous post. Pharmacies ''shall maintain on the premises at all times a sufficient variety and supply of medicinal chemicals and preparations which are necessary to compound and dispense commonly prescribed medications in accordance with the usual needs of the community." You may not like that doctors are commonly prescribing it. Wal-Mart may not like that doctors are prescribing it. But they are being prescribed and they are being stocked by every other pharmacy in Mass. As of last year, a new legislative law in Mass requires all hospitals to provide the morning-after pill, and allows pharmacists to dispense it without a prescription. Stateline.org Next week, Massachusetts will begin allowing pharmacists to dispense the morning-after pill without a doctor’s prescription. The Democratic-controlled Legislature overrode a July veto by Gov. Mitt Romney ® to make the Bay State the eighth to let patients buy the drug without visiting a physician. The law allows specially trained pharmacists who partner with doctors to write and fill the prescriptions themselves. It also requires hospitals to offer the drug to rape victims. Earlier this week, Romney’s administration ruled that the mandate did not apply to Catholic hospitals, touching off a furor among politicians who say the administration’s stance undermines the purpose of the law. But Romney reversed course Dec. 9 after speaking to his lawyers and said that the law will be applied to all hospitals, according to the Boston Globe. With regards to that bastion of morality, Walmart, I wonder if their self-imposed ban is restricted to all contraceptives, such as birth control pills, or only those that don't fit their lofty standards. Seems kind of "grey", don't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Here is a thought. How about the doctors having their own pharmacy in their office? If they want to prescribe the medication, they need to supply the medication. It solves the problem of the government forcing businesses to cut their profit margins in order to carry items that they do not want to carry. It also eliminates one entity (the doctors) forcing their morality on another entity (businesses). 597280[/snapback] Huge conflict of interest issue. There is nothing to stop a doctor from diagnosing conditions the patient doesn't really have and prescribing medications that he is then selling directly to the patient. It would ultimately make healthcare even more unaffordable for those who do not have many choices in who gives them care, especially when their caregiver is more interested in being a retailer. That would require even more government oversite than you are already willing to give the pharmacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 And what the heck does an "emergency" need for contraceptive pills mean in the first place??? 597664[/snapback] Plan B is an emergency contraceptive in that it has an 89% effective rate of preventing pregnancy if taken within 72 hours. The rest of your post takes the archaic position that it's all the women's fault. We have a hard enough time getting rape and domestic violence victims to come forward. You would place a burden on the brave few who do by forcing them to hunt down their own medication. In many communities, Wal-Mart may be the only pharmacy around. But that's not our problem, right? It serves the little hussy right, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Let her go down to Planned Parenthood (who by the way gets a majority oftheir income from the abortions they do). According to documents revealed in a California court case, they made a deal with the manufacturer and can sell it at price to undercut pharmacies. And still make $20 profit per chemical abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Nope, you are wrong with regards to Massachusetts. I linked to the regulation in a previous post. Pharmacies ''shall maintain on the premises at all times a sufficient variety and supply of medicinal chemicals and preparations which are necessary to compound and dispense commonly prescribed medications in accordance with the usual needs of the community." You may not like that doctors are commonly prescribing it. Wal-Mart may not like that doctors are prescribing it. But they are being prescribed and they are being stocked by every other pharmacy in Mass. As of last year, a new legislative law in Mass requires all hospitals to provide the morning-after pill, and allows pharmacists to dispense it without a prescription. Stateline.org With regards to that bastion of morality, Walmart, I wonder if their self-imposed ban is restricted to all contraceptives, such as birth control pills, or only those that don't fit their lofty standards. Seems kind of "grey", don't it? 597844[/snapback] Especially since women have been taking what is basically the homemade version of the 'morning after' pill for years -- many 'regular' prescription birth control pills. It's the same thing, just higher dosage. Thing is the morning after pill is more regulated than an inordinate number of the regulars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Huge conflict of interest issue. There is nothing to stop a doctor from diagnosing conditions the patient doesn't really have and prescribing medications that he is then selling directly to the patient. It would ultimately make healthcare even more unaffordable for those who do not have many choices in who gives them care, especially when their caregiver is more interested in being a retailer. That would require even more government oversite than you are already willing to give the pharmacy. 597846[/snapback] Excellent point. Knowing how my doctor is already pestered and pushed by salesmen from drug companies to prescribe their products...imagine how bad that would get if doctors sold the drug companies' products as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Nope, you are wrong with regards to Massachusetts. I linked to the regulation in a previous post. Pharmacies ''shall maintain on the premises at all times a sufficient variety and supply of medicinal chemicals and preparations which are necessary to compound and dispense commonly prescribed medications in accordance with the usual needs of the community." You may not like that doctors are commonly prescribing it. Wal-Mart may not like that doctors are prescribing it. But they are being prescribed and they are being stocked by every other pharmacy in Mass. As of last year, a new legislative law in Mass requires all hospitals to provide the morning-after pill, and allows pharmacists to dispense it without a prescription. Stateline.org With regards to that bastion of morality, Walmart, I wonder if their self-imposed ban is restricted to all contraceptives, such as birth control pills, or only those that don't fit their lofty standards. Seems kind of "grey", don't it? 597844[/snapback] i know, thanks for that link by the way, I did read it. this medicine is available WITHOUT prescription. the law mandating pharmacies carry drugs "in accordance with the usual needs of the community" does not enumerate a list of drugs that do or don't have to be carried. so do they have to carry something that CAN be perscribed that is available WITHOUT perscription? how often is this pill really perscribed anyhow? do women often have unprotected sex and then run to the doctor and get a perscription and THEN go to walmart? considering they'd be able to get it without perscription at the hospital, or would get their perscription at planned parenthood and then just buy the pill there, why would they go to walmart anyhow? you should be able to see that it can easily be argued that walmart would not be expected to carry the above pill. these things ARE GREY, that's why these laws lead to so much controversy. as far as your assertion that i don't want walmart to carry this pill, I really don't care. why would you assume i did? and i've stated before, walmart doesn't make "moral" decisions based on its own morality, but on the percieved morality of its customers. they don't carry things that they think will cause their core consumer group to disassociate themselves from walmart. they don't carry certain items that would sell because they might cause a stir, but the do carry others (violent video games for example) that people might object to on the same "moral" grounds as other items that are not stocked. it is just the result of their cost benefit analysis, all business do this. anyhow, the only "moral" argument you might make is that walmart can do what it wants with its own business, although one might say that walmart is already in bed with the government so they did the deal with the devil and thusly must pay the price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 these things ARE GREY, that's why these laws lead to so much controversy. 598043[/snapback] The problem with that statement being that no other drug covered by those laws has ever led to so much controversy. Which would lead one to believe it's not the laws causing it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Lets see, slave labor, now what could that have to do with Nazis helping out German Industrialists...hmmm.....how would that relate to individuals, oh say the slaves for example, being taken advantage of by the Nazis for the benefit of German Industries....hmmmm.....I dunno, I'm stumped. 597733[/snapback] And yet, there were industrialists who were IMPRISONED by the Nazis in order that the party could take over their businesses. So which is it? Was Nazism a boon to business or a bane? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Let her go down to Planned Parenthood (who by the way gets a majority oftheir income from the abortions they do). According to documents revealed in a California court case, they made a deal with the manufacturer and can sell it at price to undercut pharmacies. And still make $20 profit per chemical abortion. 597857[/snapback] Classic hypocrisy from the right. Let them go to the Planned Parenthood clinics...the same clinics the religious right has been protesting at regularly for years...the same clinics that those on the religious right have been trying to close down for years. Are you personally going to escort her through the mob of fanatics waving their fetus signs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 i know, thanks for that link by the way, I did read it. this medicine is available WITHOUT prescription. the law mandating pharmacies carry drugs "in accordance with the usual needs of the community" does not enumerate a list of drugs that do or don't have to be carried. so do they have to carry something that CAN be perscribed that is available WITHOUT perscription? 598043[/snapback] There is no list because you would have to debate the merits of every drug a pharmacy carries. This regulation ensures that all pharmacies in Mass carry the medications that the citizens, or community, of Mass wants/needs. Every other pharmacy in Mass carries this medication. Therefore Walmart should as well. If every other pharmacy in Mass carries this medication, then a citizen of Mass would have a reasonable expectation that a Walmart pharmacy in Mass should too. how often is this pill really perscribed anyhow? do women often have unprotected sex and then run to the doctor and get a perscription and THEN go to walmart? considering they'd be able to get it without perscription at the hospital, or would get their perscription at planned parenthood and then just buy the pill there, why would they go to walmart anyhow? you should be able to see that it can easily be argued that walmart would not be expected to carry the above pill. these things ARE GREY, that's why these laws lead to so much controversy. 598043[/snapback] A woman who does not want to report a rape will not go to a hospital. There are more pharmacies than Planned Parenthood clinics. If a woman does not want to report a rape, and does not have easy access to a clinic, she should still be able to go to a pharmacy and get the emergency contraceptive. In many cases, the only pharmacy in town is a Walmart. as far as your assertion that i don't want walmart to carry this pill, I really don't care. why would you assume i did? and i've stated before, walmart doesn't make "moral" decisions based on its own morality, but on the percieved morality of its customers. they don't carry things that they think will cause their core consumer group to disassociate themselves from walmart. they don't carry certain items that would sell because they might cause a stir, but the do carry others (violent video games for example) that people might object to on the same "moral" grounds as other items that are not stocked. it is just the result of their cost benefit analysis, all business do this. anyhow, the only "moral" argument you might make is that walmart can do what it wants with its own business, although one might say that walmart is already in bed with the government so they did the deal with the devil and thusly must pay the price. 598043[/snapback] Walmart should then be debating whether-or-not a pharmacy is a retail store or a healthcare provider to the community. In my opinion, and it is just my opinion, a pharmacy is a healthcare provider and not a retail store. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Classic hypocrisy from the right. Let them go to the Planned Parenthood clinics...the same clinics the religious right has been protesting at regularly for years...the same clinics that those on the religious right have been trying to close down for years. Are you personally going to escort her through the mob of fanatics waving their fetus signs? 598139[/snapback] Don't like those signs? Well, that's what happens in an abortion. Informed consent that PP doesn't provide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Don't like those signs? Well, that's what happens in an abortion. Informed consent that PP doesn't provide. 598289[/snapback] Once again, the ill-informed Right attempts to form an argument devoid of fact. Plan B prevents pregnancy. It does not end an already established pregnancy. Mayo Clinic Are you aware that Planned Parenthood clinics also provide such hideous procedures such as breast exams, cervical exams, STD testing, and one right up your alley, vasectomies? Of course you didn't, because the Right neglects to show that these clinics are not the "abortion factories" they make them out to be, but are in fact valuable healthcare facilities to the community. The signs that anti-choice protesters display while harrassing clinics are not for informative purposes, but are instead extremely misleading for one reason only; shock value. They typically show late-term abortions which are extremely rare, and almost always performed to save the life of the woman. emedicine link Frequency: Most abortions in the United States were performed in the first trimester. Eighty-eight percent of abortions were performed at less than 13 weeks of gestation, 55% were performed at less than 8 weeks, and 18% were performed at less than 6 weeks. But, this argument isn't about pro-choice or abortion, even though the Right would like to frame it as such. It is about having easy access to an emergency medication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Don't like those signs? Well, that's what happens in an abortion. Informed consent that PP doesn't provide. 598289[/snapback] As usual, you are so effin' stupid. Go back and listen to Rush and Ann so you will know what to say or think for next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 As usual, you are so effin' stupid. Go back and listen to Rush and Ann so you will know what to say or think for next time. 598374[/snapback] Q: It's fairly obvious that you have a leftward-leaning point of view. In your opinion, do anti-abotrion groups have a right to protest outside of clinics? And if so, should the government be able to put restrictions on what they say or do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Q: It's fairly obvious that you have a leftward-leaning point of view. In your opinion, do anti-abotrion groups have a right to protest outside of clinics? And if so, should the government be able to put restrictions on what they say or do? 598375[/snapback] I definately support the First Amendment right to peacefull free speech. Anti-choice protesters can picket all they want, provided they do not become confrontational, do not physically block access to the clinic, and do not approach anyone who wishes to enter the clinic. An excellent example is the new Pittsburgh ordinance placing a 15 foot buffer zone, and an eight foot personal bubble zone. Pittsburgh: Women’s Advocates Celebrate New Protection for Patients, Escorts, and Protesters (December 2005) In response to an atmosphere of heightened conflict and confrontational protests in front of women’s health clinics, the Women’s Law Project researched and organized support for a Pittsburgh ordinance that would establish limited medical safety zones around health care facilities, including those that provide abortion care. Bill 1944 sponsored by Pittsburgh City Council members Doug Shields, Bill Peduto, Sala Udin, and Jim Motznik would establish a safety zone of 15 feet around the entrance to a health care facility, within which people may not congregate, patrol, picket or demonstrate. It would also bar anyone near a health care facility from knowingly approaching within 8 feet of another person to leaflet, display a sign to, or engage in oral protest, education or counseling unless that person consents. On December 7, 2005, after three and a half hours of testimony from pro- and anti-choice citizens, City Council voted in favor of the ordinance to support safe, unfettered access to medical facilities. The final vote was taken on December 13, 2005, and the ordinance was passed with a 6-3 vote. Voting in support of the ordinance were Councilpersons Deasy, Carlisle, Motznik, Peduto, Shields, and Udin. The ordinance is modeled in part after a Colorado statute that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hill v. Colorado in 2000. The Court held that the statute did not interfere with protesters’ First Amendment rights, but merely placed a minor place restriction on speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 I definately support the First Amendment right to peacefull free speech. Anti-choice protesters can picket all they want, provided they do not become confrontational, do not physically block access to the clinic, and do not approach anyone who wishes to enter the clinic. An excellent example is the new Pittsburgh ordinance placing a 15 foot buffer zone, and an eight foot personal bubble zone. Pittsburgh: Women’s Advocates Celebrate New Protection for Patients, Escorts, and Protesters (December 2005) 598400[/snapback] OK, well, now we have established that it's all right in your thinking to restrict WHERE a person is able to protest. So, I have to ask a follow-up question: Weren't you one who was against restrictions on people protesting W in the run-up to the Iraq war or the 2004 elections? Or is leftist protest more palatable than rightist protest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBill Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Once again, the ill-informed Right attempts to form an argument devoid of fact. Plan B prevents pregnancy. It does not end an already established pregnancy. Mayo Clinic Are you aware that Planned Parenthood clinics also provide such hideous procedures such as breast exams, cervical exams, STD testing, and one right up your alley, vasectomies? Of course you didn't, because the Right neglects to show that these clinics are not the "abortion factories" they make them out to be, but are in fact valuable healthcare facilities to the community. The signs that anti-choice protesters display while harrassing clinics are not for informative purposes, but are instead extremely misleading for one reason only; shock value. They typically show late-term abortions which are extremely rare, and almost always performed to save the life of the woman. emedicine link But, this argument isn't about pro-choice or abortion, even though the Right would like to frame it as such. It is about having easy access to an emergency medication. 598365[/snapback] In addition to those medical services mentioned, PP also provides low cost pre natal and post natal care to a population that is at extremely high risk. Most child development specialists will tell you that one of the easiest ways to ensure a productive citizen is to make sure a child is raised propoerly oin the first several years of its life. You don't want your tax dollars paying for numerous generations of welfare, prions, specila eductaion, etc, etc,. Make the best investment you can, increase funding to places like planned parenthood that intervene almost before the problems occur. Many women / girls from lower socio economic calsses have no other place to go for child raising assistance other than a Planned Parenthood clinic, but in my best PPP tradition..........lets go and ahead and keep our head in the sand and pretend that PP runs nothing abortion mills because that is what our leaders tell us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 OK, well, now we have established that it's all right in your thinking to restrict WHERE a person is able to protest. So, I have to ask a follow-up question: Weren't you one who was against restrictions on people protesting W in the run-up to the Iraq war or the 2004 elections? Or is leftist protest more palatable than rightist protest? 598403[/snapback] Find that post. I was never part of that debate. However, in my opinon there is a distictive difference between vocal protest at a public political event and obstructing the entrance to a healthcare facility. The buffer zones are in place for individual protection and access to the facility. Don't those people wishing to use the facility have a right to unimpeded access? Apparently several courts at many levels agree that they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts