Reading the two articles made you:
More for Obama
47.2% (25)
47.2% (25)
More for Romney
13.2% (7)
13.2% (7)
Stayed the same
22.6% (12)
22.6% (12)
other
17% (9)
17% (9)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Julia: two visions of a citizen's relationship to government

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

The Obama for America group is now posting this:

http://www.barackobama.com/life-of-julia

Check it out. My virus alert did not go off. Odd thing happened, my IE 9 minimized for a few moments, but now I'm reading through it: it's like a flash slide show.

The reviewers at National Review are freaked out. Writes Rich Lowry, "In the competition for the creepiest campaign material of 2012, we may already have a winner. It is "The Life of Julia," the Obama reelection team's cartoon chronicle of a fictional woman who is dependent on government at every step of her life."

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/298936/nation-julias-rich-lowry

I think the two links juxtapose two competeting views of a person's relationship with government, and I'm (here comes the surprise) on Lowry's side.

He's at least as concerned about the moral impact big government has on "Julia" I'm thinking at almost every step of the way, government shouldn't be doing what it is doing, or is not doing it properly and will, at this rate, fail "Julia". The steps they go through (and typically tend to warn readers that Romney will cut this program or that) are:

Age 3: Head start (I thought it a failure?)
Age 17: "Race to the Top" program. We already spend enough on public education, and what we do spend crowds out private alternatives.
Age
Age 18: College subsidy: What you subsidize you get more of at a higher cost. College is already too expensive, rising in cost much faster than inflation and we are becoming the most over-credentialed society ever. Government needs to back out of the College racket, not get in deeper.
Age 22: Thanks to Obamacare, she is covered for surgery. Back in the Ice Age, I was covered for surgery by an insurance plan offered by my college (that I shouldn't have gone to).
Age 23: for some reason, this "Julia" thinks she needs government imposed bigotry against men to earn fair pay in the free market. Absurd and wrong.
Age 25: Studen loan support. See my response to Age 18 above.
Age 27: Julia is able to force other people to pay for her birth control. I think most Americans oppose that.
Age 31: Julia (finally! Little old to be just starting out!!!!) is going to have a baby. She forces other people to pay for her screenings. Or at least she thinks she is, as she is getting these services "free". There is no free lunch. One way or another, this money is coming out of the economy in which she works.
Age 37: Julia sends her son to a school in which he is less likely to achieve than his female classmates, more likely to drop out and much more likely to go to prison. Public funding crowds out private alternatives to this.
Age 42: She gets an SBA loan. The SBA has been derisively called "Congresses petty cash drawer". Why does she get the loan and not someone else? If her idea is so good, why can't she get a private investor to back her?
Age 65: She enrolls in Medicare. The program is going broke.
Age 67: She retires on Social Security. At this rate, social security will not exist. The CBO says the USA will be broke by 2027.

Your thoughts?

Zachary Tarlow:
Ron Paul 2012

Noted Video Game Analyst Amnestic 2012.

What? I've got about as much chance at the Presidency as Ron Paul.

Gorfias:
Julia is able to force other people to pay for her birth control. I think most Americans oppose that.

If so, most Americans are fucking stupid. There's no two ways about it. Ensuring free (or near-to-free), freely accessible birth control is an enormous cost saver. The only reason to oppose it is if you're a) stupid or b) have a hard-on for keeping women shackled to the kitchen with a chain long enough to reach the bedroom.

Pick one.

Most of those concerns don't really seem to be towards what the government is doing to "Julia", so much as it's concerns over what it'd do to the economy. Which is very hard to know even know, and anyone's guess just a few years into the future.

What's certain is that welfare states with capitalist economies haven't failed en masse though, so that it spells certain doom is quite a stretch. And really, what's the alternative without any government aid or assistance at all?!

Age 0: Julia's mother can't afford medical help. Mother and child dies from complications during the birth.
Age 3: Julia's mother can't afford a daycare. She leaves her daughter home alone for 12 hours at a time to earn enough for food and shelter.
Age 5: An emotionally stunted Julia accidentally dies from playing with the hairdryer in the bathtub.
Age 6: Julia enrolls in public school, which is universally viewed as being for second class citizens, and have no resources. She learns little but how the various drugs work on her.
Age 18: Julia can't afford any higher education. She flips burgers at McDonalds for the rest of her life, with no rules for minimum wage and no health care benefits.
Age 27: Julia develops mental health problems. She can't afford treatment. She kills a man and commits suicide.
Age 35: Julia loses her job in the middle of a recession. She becomes a homeless prostitute on the street. After being raped several times, she is infected with HIV. She yet again commits suicide.
Age 60: Due to her harsh circumstances, Julia haven't been able to save up anything from her crap job at McDonalds. She lives off charity in a homeless shelter. She freezes to death when it's overcrowded at a particularly cold night.

It can be good and proper that the state offers up positive rights to its citizens, particularly when it comes to education and health care. It can create a much larger skilled work force, keep it in a condition where it can work, and keep people alive and in a decent state too, which have some merit.

What's a despicable and disproportionate interference is when the state takes away rights "for their own good", such as banning them from using drugs, selling themselves as prostitutes, gamble their fortune away etc. That's when the state oversteps its bounds.

Gorfias:
Check it out. My virus alert did not go off. Odd thing happened, my IE 9 minimized for a few moments, but now I'm reading through it: it's like a flash slide show.

My computer is fine. Don't know that yours acting up had anything to do with the site. You don't download porn torrents from .ru domains, do you?

The reviewers at National Review are freaked out.

Well of course they're freaked out. Obama did something.

It is "The Life of Julia," the Obama reelection team's cartoon chronicle of a fictional woman who is dependent on government at every step of her life."

A bullshit characterization if I've ever heard one. Every slide shows her benefiting from government. No slides show her depending on government. Benefiting from government != depending on government. I know there's been a recent meme in the Republican party to pretend that no one can ever possibly benefit from government, so I can understand why this slideshow is a threat to partisans. But that doesn't give license to lie about its content.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/298936/nation-julias-rich-lowry

Lowry:

No doubt, the creators of Julia - imagine a dour and featureless version of Dora the Explorer who grows old through the years

"Dour?" "Dour?!" Wow, well as long as you're being completely absurd in order to spread your propaganda...

He's at least as concerned about the moral impact big government has on "Julia"

It is absolutely ridiculous to think that one's relationship to one's government could be a moral issue. Morality is defined by our actions. Being safe from workplace discrimination isn't an action. That this guy bemoans the fact that Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will allow her to sue her employer if she's discriminated against and the fact that you criticize this as "misogyny" show how shockingly out of touch with reality both of you are.

Amnestic:

Zachary Tarlow:
Ron Paul 2012

Noted Video Game Analyst Amnestic 2012.

What? I've got about as much chance at the Presidency as Ron Paul.

Gorfias:
Julia is able to force other people to pay for her birth control. I think most Americans oppose that.

If so, most Americans are fucking stupid. There's no two ways about it. Ensuring free (or near-to-free), freely accessible birth control is an enormous cost saver. The only reason to oppose it is if you're a) stupid or b) have a hard-on for keeping women shackled to the kitchen with a chain long enough to reach the bedroom.

Pick one.

No I oppose free birth control because when I look at all the other forms of medication that people have to pay for, my immedate response is, why are the diabetics/cancer pateints/[insert other form of sever illnesses that require people to take medicaction] being charged for their medicine that they need to have in order to live, yet birth control of all things(something that I wasn't aware a person needed in order to live) is getting the spotlight? Seriously, why are diabetics being charged for medicine, but people who want to have sex without it costing them anything are getting special treatment? How does that make any sense?

Volf:
No I oppose free birth control because when I look at all the other forms of medication that people have to pay for, my immedate response is, why are the diabetics/cancer pateints/[insert other form of sever illnesses that require people to take medicaction] being charged for their medicine that they need to have in order to live, yet birth control of all things(something that I wasn't aware a person needed in order to live) is getting the spotlight? Seriously, why are diabetics being charged for medicine, but people who want to have sex without it costing them anything are getting special treatment? How does that make any sense?

Why do you then oppose free birth control and not instead endorse free medical treatment?

I don't think any one of those examples is an issue in the UK or most countries in Europe, are these actual points of contention in the US?

Also, I found a really nice comment hidden in the HTML:

Amnestic:
If so, most Americans are fucking stupid. There's no two ways about it. Ensuring free (or near-to-free), freely accessible birth control is an enormous cost saver. The only reason to oppose it is if you're a) stupid or b) have a hard-on for keeping women shackled to the kitchen with a chain long enough to reach the bedroom.

Pick one.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

...

Here we go again. For some reason I'm always surprise at how controversial the idea of the US government supporting/investing in its own citizes is.

Volf:
No I oppose free birth control because when I look at all the other forms of medication that people have to pay for, my immedate response is, why are the diabetics/cancer pateints/[insert other form of sever illnesses that require people to take medicaction] being charged for their medicine that they need to have in order to live, yet birth control of all things(something that I wasn't aware a person needed in order to live) is getting the spotlight? Seriously, why are diabetics being charged for medicine, but people who want to have sex without it costing them anything are getting special treatment? How does that make any sense?

Yes, I agree that's a load of bull.

But funny thing is, I'd approach this problem by trying to make the medicine for diabetics and cancer patients free; not crying out in outrage over free birth control. But hey, there's no way people of US of A would support a socialist policy like public healthcare, right!

Amnestic:

Why do you then oppose free birth control and not instead endorse free medical treatment?

There's no way people of US of A would support a socialist policy like public healthcare, right!

Rightm sorry Amne, but I just had to.

Amnestic:

Volf:
No I oppose free birth control because when I look at all the other forms of medication that people have to pay for, my immedate response is, why are the diabetics/cancer pateints/[insert other form of sever illnesses that require people to take medicaction] being charged for their medicine that they need to have in order to live, yet birth control of all things(something that I wasn't aware a person needed in order to live) is getting the spotlight? Seriously, why are diabetics being charged for medicine, but people who want to have sex without it costing them anything are getting special treatment? How does that make any sense?

Why do you then oppose free birth control and not instead endorse free medical treatment?

That's fine, I don't oppose that. What I oppose is giving preferential treatment to birth control and not making insulin shots for diabetics free.

Amnestic:

Gorfias:
Julia is able to force other people to pay for her birth control. I think most Americans oppose that.

The only reason to oppose it is if you're a) stupid or b) have a hard-on for keeping women shackled to the kitchen with a chain long enough to reach the bedroom.
Pick one.

How about, it's against your religion, or you think people should pay their own bills?

Imperator_DK:

Age 3: Julia's mother can't afford a daycare. She leaves her daughter home alone for 12 hours at a time to earn enough for food and shelter.

Why isn't it, Julia's mother marries and socializes a man and gives him purpose, keeping him out of prison. While he works, she cares for Julia? Or, Julia's mom, fiercly indepenent, provides daycare for 1/2 dozen kids including her own? Or Julia's mom enters into an arrangment of any number of forms that don't include government involvement? And again, what you subsidize, you get more of at a higher cost. Government daycare has the economic impact of steering women out of their homes.

Katatori-kun:

It is absolutely ridiculous to think that one's relationship to one's government could be a moral issue. Morality is defined by our actions. Being safe from workplace discrimination isn't an action. That this guy bemoans the fact that Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will allow her to sue her employer if she's discriminated against and the fact that you criticize this as "misogyny" show how shockingly out of touch with reality both of you are.

I think that's "Mysandry" and it will allow women to pursuit bullshit lawsuits, making lawyers rich, men discriminated against in the workplace, just in case, and place new burdens on businesses that hire people. Bad and unjust idea all around. And yes, one's relationship to government is a moral issue. It is immoral to spend one's life thinking the way to get by is to live off of your neighbors.

Vegosiux:

Volf:
No I oppose free birth control because when I look at all the other forms of medication that people have to pay for, my immedate response is, why are the diabetics/cancer pateints/[insert other form of sever illnesses that require people to take medicaction] being charged for their medicine that they need to have in order to live, yet birth control of all things(something that I wasn't aware a person needed in order to live) is getting the spotlight? Seriously, why are diabetics being charged for medicine, but people who want to have sex without it costing them anything are getting special treatment? How does that make any sense?

Yes, I agree that's a load of bull.

But funny thing is, I'd approach this problem by trying to make the medicine for diabetics and cancer patients free; not crying out in outrage over free birth control. But hey, there's no way people of US of A would support a socialist policy like public healthcare, right!

As I said, if all medicine is to be made free, then thats fine. However what I don't like is giving birth control favor over life depending medication.

Volf:
No I oppose free birth control because when I look at all the other forms of medication that people have to pay for, my immedate response is, why are the diabetics/cancer pateints/[insert other form of sever illnesses that require people to take medicaction] being charged for their medicine that they need to have in order to live, yet birth control of all things(something that I wasn't aware a person needed in order to live) is getting the spotlight? Seriously, why are diabetics being charged for medicine, but people who want to have sex without it costing them anything are getting special treatment? How does that make any sense?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill#Non-contraceptive_uses

^ that is why all the recent attempts to make it illegal is crazy. It's not exclusively used for sex, and can be used quite successfully to treat acne in teenagers, and lowers the risk of some cancers.

Also, you could very easily argue that a lot of Americans only have diabetes because they've chosen to eat crap & not exercise, which was most definitely their choice. It's harder to distinguish who has definitely got it as a result of their behaviour, but why should all diabetics get free medicine if some of them act like this?

Esotera:
It's harder to distinguish who has definitely got it as a result of their behaviour, but why should all diabetics get free medicine if some of them act like this?

Heh, very subtle. This is going to be interesting now, well done.

Esotera:

Volf:
No I oppose free birth control because when I look at all the other forms of medication that people have to pay for, my immedate response is, why are the diabetics/cancer pateints/[insert other form of sever illnesses that require people to take medicaction] being charged for their medicine that they need to have in order to live, yet birth control of all things(something that I wasn't aware a person needed in order to live) is getting the spotlight? Seriously, why are diabetics being charged for medicine, but people who want to have sex without it costing them anything are getting special treatment? How does that make any sense?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill#Non-contraceptive_uses

^ that is why all the recent attempts to make it illegal is crazy. It's not exclusively used for sex, and can be used quite successfully to treat acne in teenagers, and lowers the risk of some cancers.

Also, you could very easily argue that a lot of Americans only have diabetes because they've chosen to eat crap & not exercise, which was most definitely their choice. It's harder to distinguish who has definitely got it as a result of their behaviour, but why should all diabetics get free medicine if some of them act like this?

Seeing as how there are other ways of treating acne, your not convincing me why birth control needs to be free and not topical acne creams. I was referring to type-I diabetes, but pick another illness that requires medication to sustain life if you don't like my diabetes example.

Gorfias:

How about, it's against your religion

Really? Point out to me where any religion states

"Thou shalt not subsidize female birth control."

Go on. DO IT.

Gorfias:

, or you think people should pay their own bills?

Which either results in increased government spending to deal with the results (which in turn results in increased taxes to deal with the increased spending) or poverty and death for those who cannot pay.

But fuck the poor, amirite?

Amnestic:

But fuck the poor, amirite?

Nope.

It's "Fuck the poor now, even if we all get fucked in the long run. But fuck the poor now, because that makes me feel BIG."

Gorfias:

Katatori-kun:

It is absolutely ridiculous to think that one's relationship to one's government could be a moral issue. Morality is defined by our actions. Being safe from workplace discrimination isn't an action. That this guy bemoans the fact that Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will allow her to sue her employer if she's discriminated against and the fact that you criticize this as "misogyny" show how shockingly out of touch with reality both of you are.

I think that's "Mysandry" and it will allow women to pursuit bullshit lawsuits, making lawyers rich, men discriminated against in the workplace, just in case, and place new burdens on businesses that hire people. Bad and unjust idea all around. And yes, one's relationship to government is a moral issue. It is immoral to spend one's life thinking the way to get by is to live off of your neighbors.

I'll accept your correction on my typing the wrong word, but your disagreement with my overall comment is just so much pointless hot air until you can show some evidence that backs up anything you are saying.

Gorfias:
Why isn't it, Julia's mother marries and socializes a man and gives him purpose, keeping him out of prison. While he works, she cares for Julia? Or, Julia's mom, fiercly indepenent, provides daycare for 1/2 dozen kids including her own? Or Julia's mom enters into an arrangment of any number of forms that don't include government involvement?

Possibly because that's not going to be possible for many in that situation.

Yes, not every single mother needs government support. That does not translate to none needing it.

If everyone had a nice fix they could use, quite likely they'd be using it.

Volf:
Seeing as how there are other ways of treating acne, your not convincing me why birth control needs to be free and not topical acne creams. I was referring to type-I diabetes, but pick another illness that requires medication to sustain life if you don't like my diabetes example.

I don't think any other treatment for acne comes with quite as many benefits/few downsides (lowering risk of certain cancers), and it's cheap. Also, I'm not a doctor, but am fairly sure there are good reasons why the pill is prescribed rather than other medicines, that are unrelated to birth control, such as accelerating antibiotic resistant bacteria. You also can't treat severe acne very well using topical remedies alone.

I'll go with type-II diabetes. Although a lot of cases are due to lifestyle factors, it's been shown that you can be genetically predisposed to the illness. Would you give free medical care to those who have been predisposed, but not to those that have made a lifestyle choice?

Gorfias:

I think that's "Mysandry" and it will allow women to pursuit bullshit lawsuits, making lawyers rich, men discriminated against in the workplace, just in case, and place new burdens on businesses that hire people. Bad and unjust idea all around. And yes, one's relationship to government is a moral issue. It is immoral to spend one's life thinking the way to get by is to live off of your neighbors.

How is it mysandric to allow sexual harassment lawsuits? I'm intrigued how you arrived at that conclusion...what's wrong with the law?

Gorfias:
...
Why isn't it, Julia's mother marries and socializes a man and gives him purpose, keeping him out of prison. While he works, she cares for Julia?

Can you guarantee her that such a man who'll have her exist?

And is it reasonable that she's pretty much forced to sell herself to such a man in order to make ends meet? I guess it doesn't violate any negative rights, but it still doesn't seem like something the government should promote.

Or, Julia's mom, fiercly indepenent, provides daycare for 1/2 dozen kids including her own?

If she has the resources and ability to do so, great idea! That's not necessarily the case though, not everyone can just get up and run a daycare. I dread to think how I'd fare.

Or Julia's mom enters into an arrangment of any number of forms that don't include government involvement?

If she has the option to do so, sure. But that's not necessarily the case. Some people have no such options.

And again, what you subsidize, you get more of at a higher cost.

Getting more of something - skilled labour for instance - isn't always a bad thing, not even if the cost of each "unit" rises: Which isn't even necessarily the case, government initiatives might not have any competition to motivate them, but they're major customers in a very strong position for negotiation, and private initiatives need to turn a profit, so they can't always afford to undercut what the government could've done it for.

Government daycare has the economic impact of steering women out of their homes.

...and this is bad?

More women at work means a larger workforce and thus a better economy. And that the individual women have the option to choose whether they want to stay at home to raise the children, or go out and earn their own money. I really can't see that being negative.

Volf:
...
No I oppose free birth control because when I look at all the other forms of medication that people have to pay for, my immedate response is, why are the diabetics/cancer pateints/[insert other form of sever illnesses that require people to take medicaction] being charged for their medicine that they need to have in order to live, yet birth control of all things(something that I wasn't aware a person needed in order to live) is getting the spotlight? Seriously, why are diabetics being charged for medicine, but people who want to have sex without it costing them anything are getting special treatment? How does that make any sense?

They aren't getting it for their own sake, they're getting it for the sake of the tax payers.

Unwanted pregnancies, medical complications from them, teen mothers who drop out of education and employment for good, child support, child protection services, orphanages, all of that costs everyone a shitload of money. And since even Americans don't want to simply let children be abused, starve, or live on the street, those are all expenses there's no real way to get around.

...unless of course you stop some of the unwanted pregnancies among poor and unfit parents from happening in the first place. Hence free contraception.

On the other hand, people who don't get cancer treatment tend to simply die. That doesn't necessarily cost everyone else much, though if enough of them belong to the workforce, you can economically justify making treatment free so that those can get back out there and contribute instead of dying (Or if you're a softie with feelings and stuff, you can make health care free because you don't like the thought of poor people dying from treatable diseases).

Economy isn't always a zero sum game, sometimes offering a group of people something is what'll benefit everyone in society the most in the end. Which is then obviously what you should do, unless innocent others will be hurt by it (like with Affirmative Action policies, where some people will lose jobs or scholarships they'd otherwise have gotten, which is discriminatory towards them).

Esotera:
snip

Again, if they want to combat acne birth control isn't the only way of doing that. As for diabetes, whatever I'm not going to fight you on that, you can be petty and only refer to type-II. As I said before, I see no reason why birth control should get free coverage but other medication should still be required for purchase.

Imperator_DK:

They aren't getting it for their own sake, they're getting it for the sake of the tax payers.

If they want to keep the tax payers in mind, then they should be careful about having sex in the first place.

Just what does the right wing have against education. Do they not know that education is an investment.

Someone with no education at all will contribute nothing to the economy, if you are lucky they might break even in terms of returning what they cost in government assistance. Spend $30,000 giving someone an education and they will contribute millions upon millions of dollars in their lifetime.

Even the difference between college education compared to high school is significant over someones life to more than make up the cost.

There is a direct correlation between education and prosperity. The last thing you want to do is cut education funding. There is a reason most developed countries try to make education cheap to get.

They also seem to have it in their heads that privatizing something is a magical solution. Do you know the number one primary and secondary education system in the world, Finland. Do you know how many private schools Finland has, zero. Another fun fact, America ranks next to Estonia and Poland, despite the fact that you can add the GDP per capita of Estonia and Poland together and they are still behind the US.

Amnestic:

Zachary Tarlow:
Ron Paul 2012

Noted Video Game Analyst Amnestic 2012.

What? I've got about as much chance at the Presidency as Ron Paul.

Gorfias:
Julia is able to force other people to pay for her birth control. I think most Americans oppose that.

If so, most Americans are fucking stupid. There's no two ways about it. Ensuring free (or near-to-free), freely accessible birth control is an enormous cost saver.[/i]

Without insurance your basic birth control pill that most women have no trouble using is less than 10 bucks a month. If you can't afford 10 bucks a month for birth control, perhaps you should be concentrating on something besides sex.

Volf:
...

If they want to keep the tax payers in mind, then they should be careful about having sex in the first place.[/quote]

It's not the poor and horny people who keep the tax payers in mind here, it's the government. The government knows that later on it'll cost all of its citizens more if it doesn't now spend the much smaller amount needed to get some of the poor horny people the contraception, so that's what it should reasonably do, for the sake of every American's wallet.

ravenshrike:

Without insurance your basic birth control pill that most women have no trouble using is less than 10 bucks a month. If you can't afford 10 bucks a month for birth control, perhaps you should be concentrating on something besides sex.

Oh, look it's this "Lazy fuckers taking MY MONEY!!!"™ argument again. I'm sure you feel BIG when you use it, don't you?

Imperator_DK:

Volf:
...

If they want to keep the tax payers in mind, then they should be careful about having sex in the first place.

It's not the poor and horny people who keep the tax payers in mind here, it's the government. The government knows that later on it'll cost all of its citizens more if it doesn't now spend the much smaller amount needed to get some of the poor horny people the contraception, so that's what it should reasonably do, for the sake of every American's wallet.[/quote]So now money is more important than the health of the citizens?

Vegosiux:

ravenshrike:

Without insurance your basic birth control pill that most women have no trouble using is less than 10 bucks a month. If you can't afford 10 bucks a month for birth control, perhaps you should be concentrating on something besides sex.

Oh, look it's this "Lazy fuckers taking MY MONEY!!!"™ argument again. I'm sure you feel BIG when you use it, don't you?

Well no, specifically my argument in this case is that the employer tax credit is a blight on the insurance system and forces people to keep their jobs if they want uninterrupted health insurance. Combined with the ban on interstate insurance it jacks costs through the roof and limits pools. Without employer health insurance many of the insurance issues that most people have, including the one at hand, would never come up at all.

That being said, it makes zero sense for the BC pool to be extended to males, or to force employers to carry it since BC is so very cheap. The only exception would be medical issues from standard birth control which is a minority of women.

ravenshrike:
Well no, specifically my argument in this case is that the employer tax credit is a blight on the insurance system and forces people to keep their jobs if they want uninterrupted health insurance. Combined with the ban on interstate insurance it jacks costs through the roof and limits pools. Without employer health insurance many of the insurance issues that most people have, including the one at hand, would never come up at all.

Well, wagging your finger at people who have sex for it isn't the right way to go about solving that problem, I think.

That being said, it makes zero sense for the BC pool to be extended to males, or to force employers to carry it since BC is so very cheap. The only exception would be medical issues from standard birth control which is a minority of women.

That can be spun both ways. If it's so very cheap, why is it a problem? And why do some insist on demonizing people for having sex...

The part about the Lilly Ledbetter Act was pretty hilarious, Gorfias. You realize that the only thing it did was change when the clock started ticking on previously exists anti-discrimination laws, right? Laws which protect against a host of possible discriminatory factors.

ravenshrike:
That being said, it makes zero sense for the BC pool to be extended to males, or to force employers to carry it since BC is so very cheap. The only exception would be medical issues from standard birth control which is a minority of women.

Oh look, another argument that reasons based on the faulty libertarian premise that all citizens are rightless state property, whose sexuality is a political issue.

Unfortunately for your reasoning, it doesn't work like that.

Also unfortunately for you, we have this bugger called reality, in which we live. And in this reality thing, people have medical costs.

Such as the Cerazette pill costing nearly € 14 a pack, and the Yasmin over € 24 a pack. And here comes someone claiming it would cost $ 10 a month.... lol.

Also for instance when taking the pill will cause a deadly pulmonary embolism, and someone is restricted to non-hormonal contraception, which would pretty much come down to an IUD.

Now not only are those expensive, they need to be placed by a gynocologist is most cases, and pretty much require a local anaesthetic, all of which costs money. The pain of placing one without is worse than taking an impact on several bruised ribs.

Actually I'd be pretty willing to bet that sort of pain would put any anti-reproductive rights freak sobbing on their knees begging for mercy. But of course, when is that going to stop them from pretending to be experts, far away in their gated community, completely detached from society?


As for the National Review being pissed... Well, it's an ultra-conservative pamphlet, what would you expect? "National Review pissed" is like "hardcore communists apalled by income disparity" or "neonazis decry increase in number of immigrants"; it's text, yes, but it doesn't actually mean anything.

Vegosiux:
That can be spun both ways. If it's so very cheap, why is it a problem? And why do some insist on demonizing people for having sex...

Because cost shifting to others when you can damn well afford 10 bucks a month(anybody with health insurance from their job can afford 10 bucks a month) is morally evil. A minor evil to be sure, but still evil.

And above we have another FINE example of Blablahb's poor reading comprehension. He apparently manages to miss an entire fucking sentence.

ravenshrike:
Because cost shifting to others when you can damn well afford 10 bucks a month(anybody with health insurance from their job can afford 10 bucks a month) is morally evil. A minor evil to be sure, but still evil.

Evil. Right. I suppose I'm not going to respond to that, on the grounds of "that's not the sort of morality I want to touch with a 10-foot pole".

Volf:
...
So now money is more important than the health of the citizens?

When you're a nation where most seem to consider people's health their own responsibility?

Then yes. Whether or not offering free treatment for something will benefit the economy then becomes the reasonable and rational criteria to differentiate on. And that criteria says that free contraception should be handed out. As did the health criteria, so that's two good reasons for doing so.

Would it be better if the US had free health care? Apparently most Americans don't think so, and it's obviously their country to govern as they wish (...so long as they don't step on people's civil rights).

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked