federal judge sends racist anti-obama email

[Phantasmal]

It's typical right-wing pennywise/pound foolish thinking. Birth control should be given out for free, everywhere. They claim to want to limit abortions, and then oppose common sense on birth control? What is the cost of unwanted children in this country, anyway...can anyone even calculate that?

It always just leaves me shaking my head. Their agenda is so tied into ridiculous outdated mores on sex & sexuality. It's all just a colossal waste of time. If they're so concerned about what what something as paltry as birth control is doing to their health premiums, they need help anyway. It's like how they want to cut the NEA to save tax money, but are cool w/ spending trillions on Iraq...

It is why I could never be a Republican it causes too much dissonance within the human condition.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I just looked it up and wikipedia says he has no children. But what he will say is that he can afford birth control and it's not his problem who can't.

There is always tons of race and class stuff involved whenever you talk about women's rights and issues. But to me, the bottom line is, women pay for their health insurance through labor and money, and no one else is paying for it. SHE'S paying for it. How outrageous for them to falsely claim otherwise??

When you are talking about GROUP plans, if the GROUP plan is forced to cover something (regardless of what that something is)... EVERYONE PAYS FOR IT.

If I were to join my companies group plan, I would be paying for the high risks associated with those that are out of shape bring to the 'comprehensive' coverage. Group plans charge on the assumption that you are going to USE/NEED the things covered.

I have already posted the links disputing those who claim that if you let the bitches use their health care insurance, the menz rates will go up, and we must always put what the menz want first. It does not raise rates, or costs.

But the fact is, that if it did raise rates, too effing bad. You know what else raises rates for everyone? People who have four, five, TWELVE children, that's what.

While we can disagree that 'menz' are put first or not in coverage issues (if you look, you will find that is not the case), the above is indeed a good example of something we ALL have to pay for. Regardless of whether we have no kids or 12 kids.

And I, who have chosen to have no children, have to pay for that via higher premiums. Do I care? NO. That's what fucking insurance is! That's the entire premise of insurance.

No, that is what insurance has become due to the cookie cutter group approach. It is one of the driving forces to the ever escalating costs. It is the mentality that leads people to continue (on average) to become more and more obese. Because who cares... that is what insurance is for. They don't feel the impact of such choices because THEIR costs are spread among ALL of us.

You are correct that birth control is not one of the coverages that would add to overall costs. But it is an example of the mentality that so many have on their respective "I want this covered".

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

im jumping into this thread without paying much attention.

First, I am very much in favor of birth control for women. The last thing I want is to accidentally get some girl pregnant and have her be too religious that im stuck with a shitty kid to support financially and emotionally for the rest of my life. That would fucking SUCK.

So I say, pop them pills all day long, abortions for all, lets make fetus soup.

BUTTTTT forcing say... a catholic hospital to provide birth control, I don't know, that doesn't seem right.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

When you are talking about GROUP plans, if the GROUP plan is forced to cover something (regardless of what that something is)... EVERYONE PAYS FOR IT. Yes I know. As I said this is the basic premise of insurance, any insurance. Your point?

If I were to join my companies group plan, I would be paying for the high risks associated with those that are out of shape bring to the 'comprehensive' coverage. Group plans charge on the assumption that you are going to USE/NEED the things covered. Yes, and no one is suggesting that insurance companies have the legal right to deny health care services to a fat person they insure. Again, your point?

I will also have to point out, for the FIFTH time, that fully paid for birth control does NOT raise health care costs, so it cannot raise your premiums. http://moneyland.time.com/2012/02/1...rol-will-not-hike-the-cost-of-your-insurance/



While we can disagree that 'menz' are put first or not in coverage issues (if you look, you will find that is not the case), the above is indeed a good example of something we ALL have to pay for. Regardless of whether we have no kids or 12 kids.



No, that is what insurance has become due to the cookie cutter group approach. It is one of the driving forces to the ever escalating costs. It is the mentality that leads people to continue (on average) to become more and more obese. Because who cares... that is what insurance is for. They don't feel the impact of such choices because THEIR costs are spread among ALL of us.

You are correct that birth control is not one of the coverages that would add to overall costs. But it is an example of the mentality that so many have on their respective "I want this covered". These final two paragraphs have absolutely noting to do with the issue, they are diversion attempts (look at me I can solve this! so I am disregarding them. Now we are talking about a "mentality". No, we are talking about stealing women's compensation from them, giving her employer's "morals" legally sanctioned weight over her own, and denying that birth control is a big part, perhaps the biggest part, of a woman's over all health care. .

My responses are in bold.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

im jumping into this thread without paying much attention.

First, I am very much in favor of birth control for women. The last thing I want is to accidentally get some girl pregnant and have her be too religious that im stuck with a shitty kid to support financially and emotionally for the rest of my life. That would fucking SUCK.

So I say, pop them pills all day long, abortions for all, lets make fetus soup.

BUTTTTT forcing say... a catholic hospital to provide birth control, I don't know, that doesn't seem right.

I'm not going to have the whole religious argument again, because the Blunt amendment Grind, demand that ALL employers in this country have the right to veto a woman's birth control in her health insurance coverage. So let's stick to the legislation they actually attempted to pass yesterday. And came close to succeeding!.

 

[cawacko]

im jumping into this thread without paying much attention.

First, I am very much in favor of birth control for women. The last thing I want is to accidentally get some girl pregnant and have her be too religious that im stuck with a shitty kid to support financially and emotionally for the rest of my life. That would fucking SUCK.

So I say, pop them pills all day long, abortions for all, lets make fetus soup.



BUTTTTT forcing say... a catholic hospital to provide birth control, I don't know, that doesn't seem right.

Wear that jimmy hat young Grind. I've learned the hard way that because a woman says she's on the pill doesn't necessarily mean that she actually is.

 

[Phantasmal]

When you are talking about GROUP plans, if the GROUP plan is forced to cover something (regardless of what that something is)... EVERYONE PAYS FOR IT.

If I were to join my companies group plan, I would be paying for the high risks associated with those that are out of shape bring to the 'comprehensive' coverage. Group plans charge on the assumption that you are going to USE/NEED the things covered.



While we can disagree that 'menz' are put first or not in coverage issues (if you look, you will find that is not the case), the above is indeed a good example of something we ALL have to pay for. Regardless of whether we have no kids or 12 kids.



No, that is what insurance has become due to the cookie cutter group approach. It is one of the driving forces to the ever escalating costs. It is the mentality that leads people to continue (on average) to become more and more obese. Because who cares... that is what insurance is for. They don't feel the impact of such choices because THEIR costs are spread among ALL of us.

You are correct that birth control is not one of the coverages that would add to overall costs. But it is an example of the mentality that so many have on their respective "I want this covered".

I thought group insurance was cheaper than individual insurance plans, are you saying this is not the case?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I don't care what you think. Anyone paying attention sees the assault against women. It's ongoing, it's sustained, it's brutal, and it's making gains.

I don't care what you think. Anyone paying attention to what is ACTUALLY happening, knows that is just the political speak of the left being used to attack Reps in General. Show me ONE FUCKING INSTANCE where they said you could not buy birth control. Or that NO insurance company could provide birth control.

I "discount" "the religious views" because religion has no place in the workplace, my health care, my compensation, or the terms of my employment.

While it has not place in YOUR health care, nor do YOUR beliefs have a place in THEIR health care. You seem to be under the impression that ONLY your view should count.

You may think that it's a great idea to empower any employer with moral judgement and LEGALLY SANCTION his religious views to be superior to his employee's, but that is a gross, and radical stripping of an employee's rights.

LMAO... so instead you think EVERYONE should be FORCED to accept YOUR views? Hypocritical much? Nothing is stopping those whose insurance doesn't cover it from buying birth control on their own. NOTHING. If you are paying for it via your insurance premiums or buying it out of pocket... do you really think it costs you any different?

Don't throw men using birth control into this. Not using birth control doesn't mean you have to bear a child every year. It does not destroy your body or your health. I have some shocking news for you SF, so sit down:

Not having birth control covered under a specific group plan doesn't preclude you from:

1) Buying birth control on your own
2) Declining to be in the plan and getting your own individual coverage
3) Declining to work for said employer and finding one whose group plan does cover what you want it to.

Women have some health care needs that men do not. Some would say burdens. I would say burdens.

And men have health care needs that women dont. Old that young don't. Obese that healthy don't. etc... etc... etc...

This is what insurance is about. It is the very premise of insurance. Insurance companies insure old people and they insure young people. We know that old people are going to use more health care dollars than young people. We spread the risk and the cost to best serve society. This is what insurance does. However, to be clear, fully covering birth control LOWERS health care costs. So that's off the table.

No, that is why insurance costs keep going higher. We continue to release people from more and more personal liabilities and so the ones that get pregnant 12 times or weigh 100 pounds more than they should don't feel the cost impact of their decision. Instead, the rest of us are forced to bear the costs. Age is one thing we spread because we know that barring an untimely death, we are all going to get there some day.

I agree that birth control coverage lowers the costs overall... IF the people actually USE it. But like many preventative measures... too many DON'T.

That said, you do not have the right to FORCE others to include it in insurance plans. A smart employer is going to cede to the wishes of the majority. The whole 'these evil male owners are going to force their religious beliefs on us' is fear mongering. yeah, the Catholics are opposed to birth control. Guess what... don't work for them if having birth control in insurance is going to be an issue for you. You have that choice. But the whole pretense of it being something widespread is nothing short of fear mongering.

I took out your other stuff because it's ideological babble that you and Damo as well always engage in. I'm not interested in some Libertarian rant on what we should do to revamp the system in your view.

That is your problem. You could care less what others views are. All you care about is forcing others to accept YOUR views.

I am interested in this: I pay for my insurance with my money and my labor And YOU, are not going to come along and instruct ME or any woman, on what is essential health care.

Yet you feel it is OK for YOU to instruct the Catholic Church what they HAVE to cover? Why the fuck should they have to listen to YOU?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I thought group insurance was cheaper than individual insurance plans, are you saying this is not the case?

No, not even close. Mainly because with individual plans, you pay for YOUR set of circumstances. Not the average persons as you would in a group plan.

 

[Phantasmal]

I don't care what you think. Anyone paying attention to what is ACTUALLY happening, knows that is just the political speak of the left being used to attack Reps in General. Show me ONE FUCKING INSTANCE where they said you could not buy birth control. Or that NO insurance company could provide birth control.



While it has not place in YOUR health care, nor do YOUR beliefs have a place in THEIR health care. You seem to be under the impression that ONLY your view should count.



LMAO... so instead you think EVERYONE should be FORCED to accept YOUR views? Hypocritical much? Nothing is stopping those whose insurance doesn't cover it from buying birth control on their own. NOTHING. If you are paying for it via your insurance premiums or buying it out of pocket... do you really think it costs you any different?



Not having birth control covered under a specific group plan doesn't preclude you from:

1) Buying birth control on your own
2) Declining to be in the plan and getting your own individual coverage
3) Declining to work for said employer and finding one whose group plan does cover what you want it to.



And men have health care needs that women dont. Old that young don't. Obese that healthy don't. etc... etc... etc...



No, that is why insurance costs keep going higher. We continue to release people from more and more personal liabilities and so the ones that get pregnant 12 times or weigh 100 pounds more than they should don't feel the cost impact of their decision. Instead, the rest of us are forced to bear the costs. Age is one thing we spread because we know that barring an untimely death, we are all going to get there some day.

I agree that birth control coverage lowers the costs overall... IF the people actually USE it. But like many preventative measures... too many DON'T.

That said, you do not have the right to FORCE others to include it in insurance plans. A smart employer is going to cede to the wishes of the majority. The whole 'these evil male owners are going to force their religious beliefs on us' is fear mongering. yeah, the Catholics are opposed to birth control. Guess what... don't work for them if having birth control in insurance is going to be an issue for you. You have that choice. But the whole pretense of it being something widespread is nothing short of fear mongering.



That is your problem. You could care less what others views are. All you care about is forcing others to accept YOUR views.



Yet you feel it is OK for YOU to instruct the Catholic Church what they HAVE to cover? Why the fuck should they have to listen to YOU?

The church is an antiquated institution behind the times on sex and even their members do not practice what they preach.

This issue has brought to life just how much in the Dark Ages the church remains in its view on women, sex and procreation.

In my humble opinion the church needs to listen to the modern women.

If Cathloic institutions take federal funds they also need to comply with federal mandates.

 

[Bonestorm]

No, not even close. Mainly because with individual plans, you pay for YOUR set of circumstances. Not the average persons as you would in a group plan.

In other words, individual plans, if you can get one, are cheaper because they don't cover much of anything. For comparable plans, the individual market is much more expensive -- again, if you can get covered.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

My responses are in bold.

Yes I know. As I said this is the basic premise of insurance, any insurance. Your point?

My point is THAT is large portion of why health care costs are sailing out of control.

Yes, and no one is suggesting that insurance companies have the legal right to deny health care services to a fat person they insure. Again, your point?

No plan could afford to cover every health issue an obese person might face. They are not all inclusive 'pay for everything' plans.

I will point out for the billionth time... whether birth control raises the costs or reduces costs... YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORCE THOSE WITH RELIGIOUS BELIEFS TO ACCEPT YOUR VIEW. PERIOD.

No, we are talking about stealing women's compensation from them, giving her employer's "morals" legally sanctioned weight over her own, and denying that birth control is a big part, perhaps the biggest part, of a woman's over all health care. .

No we are not. That is simply fear mongering on your part. No one would be stealing compensation from you for birth control and then not providing it to you. You would know up front if the plan covered birth control or not. You just want to make this an issue of 'evil men attacking womens rights'. What it IS... is people with more liberal views trying to FORCE others to accept their views on birth control. We both agree that the Catholic Church's position on birth control is ridiculous. But they HAVE THE RIGHT to religious freedom. You cannot and should not be able to force them to cover something they find morally wrong. No matter how ridiculous you or I think their position is.

Period.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

In other words, individual plans, if you can get one, are cheaper because they don't cover much of anything. For comparable plans, the individual market is much more expensive -- again, if you can get covered.

No, I pay about half of the costs for the EXACT same plan my employer offers. But again, if you are going to do nothing but create straw men, then we will not be discussing the issue any further.

 

[Bonestorm]

No, I pay about half of the costs for the EXACT same plan my employer offers. But again, if you are going to do nothing but create straw men, then we will not be discussing the issue any further.

I very seriously doubt that you do, but even if you did, you aren't everyone and your experience is hardly universal.

 

[Phantasmal]

I very seriously doubt that you do, but even if you did, you aren't everyone and your experience is hardly universal.

I don't mean to insult him, but I doubt he does, either. I have had to buy private individual insurance in the past nd it was epensive just for major medical.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I don't mean to insult him, but I doubt he does, either. I have had to buy private individual insurance in the past nd it was epensive just for major medical.

LMAO... I really could care less what either of you believe. It is the truth. it is because I have a pref. plus rating and am not subsidizing those in poor health. I know logic is beyond most liberals, but you have to think about where you are at on the spectrum of healthy to not-healthy. The better your health, the better your rate is going to be with an individual plan. With a group plan it is the same... for the group (though they use data from the state you live in and national averages to determine your group). So as obesity increases, the costs of group plans escalate faster than an individual plans for those in good health. I know this is very confusing for Dung as common sense is not his forte. But you should comprehend that Rana.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

I don't care what you think. Anyone paying attention to what is ACTUALLY happening, knows that is just the political speak of the left being used to attack Reps in General. Show me ONE FUCKING INSTANCE where they said you could not buy birth control. Or that NO insurance company could provide birth control. That is not my claim so why would I show you an instance of it? That's YOUR claim. You try to change the argument all of the time. here is what the Blunt amendment did do: Gave every employer in the United States the legal right to pass a moral judgement on their female employee's health care decisions.



While it has not place in YOUR health care, nor do YOUR beliefs have a place in THEIR health care. You seem to be under the impression that ONLY your view should count. What are you talking about? This is a senseless claim. You are arguing that THEIR religious beliefs DO belong in my health care choices. You have stated this over and over on this board. You stated it here on this very thread. OTOH, My refusal to submit to theocratic rule does not constitute "placing my beliefs in their health care". In fact, my refusal to allow their religious beliefs to affect my health care, has not affected their health care at all. This was pure babble.



LMAO... so instead you think EVERYONE should be FORCED to accept YOUR views? Hypocritical much? Nothing is stopping those whose insurance doesn't cover it from buying birth control on their own. NOTHING. If you are paying for it via your insurance premiums or buying it out of pocket... do you really think it costs you any different? There is a reason why health care costs go down when birth control is covered by insurance. Can you guess what this reason might be? BECAUSE SOME WOMEN, WOMEN OUTSIDE OF YOUR SOCIO-ECONOMIC CLASS, FIND BIRTH CONTROL COSTS PROHIBITIVE. That is why they skip buying their birth control, and THEN GET PREGNANT, raising health care costs. DUH?



Not having birth control covered under a specific group plan doesn't preclude you from:

1) Buying birth control on your own
2) Declining to be in the plan and getting your own individual coverage
3) Declining to work for said employer and finding one whose group plan does cover what you want it to. 1 and 2 have already been dealt with above. Now here we move onto the favorite "libertarian" argument. If you don't like it, find another job. NO. Instead of saying, hey bitch, if you don't like your male boss grabbing your ass or demanding sexual acts in exchange for keeping your job, find another job, we made laws putting the actual burden on the person causing the problem. Birth control is not controversial. We have done the same in this instance. Insurance covering birth control is not controversial. You and yours have made it into a controversy, and you and yours will pay the price for that at the ballot box. This law in fact, would legally sanction one method of sexual harassment. There is zero doubt that across our country, probably on a daily basis, a male boss will call a female employee into his office, either one he had a past relationship with, or has tried and failed to have a current relationship with, and say, hey whore ,get your whore ass in here. I'm exercising my right to deny coverage of your birth control, bitch . Will he use the words whore and bitch? In some cases, certainly. In most, no. Instead, he will sit there with a smarmy grin and the woman will feel humiliated but have no legal recourse. Because YOU said it was nonsense. Except you don't get to say that.



And men have health care needs that women dont. Old that young don't. Obese that healthy don't. etc... etc... etc... Yeah I already said that. It's the entire premise of insurance remember? How many times are you going to repeat to me what I said first as if you are instructing me on something?



No, that is why insurance costs keep going higher. We continue to release people from more and more personal liabilities and so the ones that get pregnant 12 times or weigh 100 pounds more than they should don't feel the cost impact of their decision. Instead, the rest of us are forced to bear the costs. Age is one thing we spread because we know that barring an untimely death, we are all going to get there some day.

I agree that birth control coverage lowers the costs overall... IF the people actually USE it. But like many preventative measures... too many DON'T. If they aren't using birth control then they are not part of this debate. You are again going completely off topic in order to muddy the waters, and maybe it works with Bravo. But it's purely irrelevant horseshit.

That said, you do not have the right to FORCE others to include it in insurance plans. A smart employer is going to cede to the wishes of the majority. The whole 'these evil male owners are going to force their religious beliefs on us' is fear mongering. yeah, the Catholics are opposed to birth control. Guess what... don't work for them if having birth control in insurance is going to be an issue for you. You have that choice. But the whole pretense of it being something widespread is nothing short of fear mongering. In fact, what you are proposing here is a radical change in the employee/employer relationship. BUT ONLY FOR WOMEN. Because everyone will notice, SF assumes Christian "objections". Now, if a Jehovah Witness says that he has a moral objection to SF or some other man using some part of their health insurance, very fast this will become what it is: facism and theocracy. But this radical restructuring of the employee/employer relationship only effects the bitches, so it's okay. ANd how do we know this? Why we know this because when DH informed SF that the Blunt amendment was so broad it could empower employers to deny health care to any one and claim a "moral objection" Sf said, and I quote "YIKES! No, I'm not for that, I thought it was just contraception!"


Yet you feel it is OK for YOU to instruct the Catholic Church what they HAVE to cover? Why the fuck should they have to listen to YOU? As we see here, even though SF Knows full well that the Blunt amendment bestows this power upon every employer in the United states, he is trying to make this about the Catholic Church.

My responses in bold.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

It's also important to note that when this argument began on another thread (which I am linking to) Sf made these claims:

Yes, REALLY. It is stupid fucking shit like this that causes overall health care costs to continue to skyrocket. Every time you add to the list of what EVERY plan must cover, you jack up the prices.
You do understand that if you require the insurance company to pay for something, that the insurance company adjusts EVERYONES insurance premiums?

He was then informed, with links, that in fact, birth control coverage lowers health care costs. Instead of admitting he was wrong, he came onto this thread and validated me by saying "You are correct that birth control lowers health care costs". But in fact, I don't need SF to inform me I am correct, I am the one who informed HIM that he was incorrect.

More importantly, when they lose one of their arguments against this on the facts, they quickly change their arguments.

Why do you think this might be? Could it be because this is not what they claim it is about?

Link: http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...ma-in-birth-control-fight-poll-suggests/page3

 

[Onceler]

Ouch. That one's gotta smart a bit...

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

My point is THAT is large portion of why health care costs are sailing out of control. And yet, mandating insurance companies pay for women's birth control would lower these very costs. But you are against that. But you are railing against out of control costs. This is not a coherent position.



No plan could afford to cover every health issue an obese person might face. They are not all inclusive 'pay for everything' plans.

I will point out for the billionth time... whether birth control raises the costs or reduces costs... YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORCE THOSE WITH RELIGIOUS BELIEFS TO ACCEPT YOUR VIEW. PERIOD. I do not have the right to force them to accept my point of view, nor do I want to. I don't care what their view is or what they accept. We all have the right to insist that religious individuals (which btw is what an employer would be) and institutions abide by our rules. Do you know why that is SF? It's because we don't live in a theocracy.



No we are not. That is simply fear mongering on your part. No one would be stealing compensation from you for birth control and then not providing it to you. You would know up front if the plan covered birth control or not. You just want to make this an issue of 'evil men attacking womens rights'. What it IS... is people with more liberal views trying to FORCE others to accept their views on birth control. We both agree that the Catholic Church's position on birth control is ridiculous. But they HAVE THE RIGHT to religious freedom. You cannot and should not be able to force them to cover something they find morally wrong. No matter how ridiculous you or I think their position is. Absolutely false on all counts. In fact, if the Blunt amendment had passed, women could be called into offices all over the country and informed that they were no longer going to have their birth control covered. Because of a "moral objection" Not only is this a theft of her compensation, it's a humiliating and shameful situation. It is giving employers power to humiliate and shame their female employees. Further, even if the woman is informed before employment, when you legally sanction the denial of basic, preventative health care for women only, you are lowering their compensation and they already only earn 80 cents for every dollar men earn. You are not talking about religious freedom. No one is telling them they have to take birth control. What you are talking about is theocracy.

Period.

Oh, and, Period.