The Right Wings War On Women...

[1NEMESIS]

Originally Posted by satexasguy

can't we just get back to talking about pussy? or is that too much to ask on this site?

ummm, in the Sandbox Tex? Go start a thread in Coed where you can talk all day and night about that.

[1NEMESIS]

Wow, talk about a war on women!! Republicans unanimously voted against reauthorization of Violence Against Women Act for the first time ever since 1994!!


"Republicans vote against reauthorization of Violence Against Women Act"


"As if they want to ensure that no woman ever votes Republican again, the GOP has now made domestic violence a partisan issue. Just a week after they lost the contraception fight to the Obama administration’s clever maneuvering, the GOP is now set to take sides on the issue of violence against women.

When now-Vice President Joe Biden introduced the Violence Against Women Act in 1994, the bill was aimed at the epidemic levels of intimate partner violence, sexual assault and stalking. The VAWA not only includes grants and training programs for prosecutors to ensure that abusers are put behind bars, but it also trains police officers to adequately deal with these types of crimes. Shelters for victims of abuse also rely on service grants authorized by the VAWA."
http://www.facebook.com/dailykos/posts/382415418451789

[Laz]

Sounds reasonable to me. On the topic of this thread I do not believe there is a war against women. The ultrasound legislation is a waste in my opinion but if it did not have broad support it would not have passed. If it is unwanted the people of the state can toss out their elected officials and change the law.

The contraceptive insurance coverage is not about whether a woman can have contraceptives it is about whether the federal government has the power to order a private organization to provide that coverage. In this case it is compounded by religious freedom issues.

[1NEMESIS]

Originally Posted by Laz

Sounds reasonable to me. On the topic of this thread I do not believe there is a war against women. The ultrasound legislation is a waste in my opinion but if it did not have broad support it would not have passed. If it is unwanted the people of the state can toss out their elected officials and change the law.

The contraceptive insurance coverage is not about whether a woman can have contraceptives it is about whether the federal government has the power to order a private organization to provide that coverage. In this case it is compounded by religious freedom issues.

The issue over contraception is about women's health and right now, the majority of Americans polled agree.

"The ultrasound legislation is a waste in my opinion but if it did not have broad support it would not have passed. If it is unwanted the people of the state can toss out their elected officials and change the law".

Broad support is not needed if you have the majority and the governors office. As I've shown, this is a coordinated effort amongst the entire party nationally.

[Laz]

Originally Posted by 1NEMESIS

The issue over contraception is about women's health and right now, the majority of Americans polled agree.

Just because that is how Obama framed the debate and people have gone along with him does not make it fact. Contraception is available to all women the only issue is who pays for it. It is not a product that has high costs so those that are employed can afford to pay for it. If the insurance pays for it the insurance company will simply pass the cost on through premiums so the customer is still paying for it.

I would argue that making these types of services be paid for with insurance will actually make the cost higher not lower. When you take the payment for a good or service out of the consumers hand you eliminate the natural market forces that occur. There is no motivation to shop for a lower cost provider and competition is eliminated.

[1NEMESIS]

Originally Posted by Laz

Just because that is how Obama framed the debate and people have gone along with him does not make it fact. Contraception is available to all women the only issue is who pays for it. It is not a product that has high costs so those that are employed can afford to pay for it. If the insurance pays for it the insurance company will simply pass the cost on through premiums so the customer is still paying for it.

I would argue that making these types of services be paid for with insurance will actually make the cost higher not lower. When you take the payment for a good or service out of the consumers hand you eliminate the natural market forces that occur. There is no motivation to shop for a lower cost provider and competition is eliminated.

"Just because that is how Obama framed the debate and people have gone along with him does not make it fact."

I didn't say it was fact I said the majority of Americans polled agreed this issue was about women's health.

I'm glad you brought this cost issue up because I've observed no push back from the health insurance companies over this issue. Where are they, haven't you noticed the same thing? You've already said that birth control is not costly but what you should ask yourself is, compared to what?
That's the key question and since we are talking about women that are insured, what would the insurance companies rather do, hand out "cheap" birth control to prevent pregnancies or pay for a pregnant woman's medical coverage? It's a no brainer Laz, especially if it involves a difficult pregnancy with complications and a sick child that will now have coverage from the same company.

[Laz]

I know that the democrats are saying there is no cost with this but I don't buy it. For that to be true you would have to assume that the women would not use birth control unless insurance paid for it. I suspect that women will use birth control at almost if not exactly the same rate regardless of insurance coverage.

If premiums would actully increase without contraceptive coverage then the quickest way to get the Catholic church to allow the inclusion of contraception is let them see the difference in premium. They would find a way of not noticing that contraception was included and justify it by stating the church is not paying for or encouraging its use.

As for insurance companies not pushing back, why should they? They will pass the cost on to their customers regardless.

[1NEMESIS]

Originally Posted by Laz

I know that the democrats are saying there is no cost with this but I don't buy it. For that to be true you would have to assume that the women would not use birth control unless insurance paid for it. I suspect that women will use birth control at almost if not exactly the same rate regardless of insurance coverage.

If premiums would actully increase without contraceptive coverage then the quickest way to get the Catholic church to allow the inclusion of contraception is let them see the difference in premium. They would find a way of not noticing that contraception was included and justify it by stating the church is not paying for or encouraging its use.

As for insurance companies not pushing back, why should they? They will pass the cost on to their customers regardless.

"For that to be true you would have to assume that the women would not use birth control unless insurance paid for it. I suspect that women will use birth control at almost if not exactly the same rate regardless of insurance coverage."

"Incorrect, approximately a third of female voters surveyed have struggled to afford prescription birth control at some point in their lives, and as a result, used birth control inconsistently. This isn’t surprising considering co-pays for birth control pills typically range between $15 and $50 per month. That adds up to over $600 per year. Other methods, such as IUDs, can cost several hundred dollars, even with health insurance."
So, what your saying is the health insurance companies will pass the cost on to it's customers and let's just say for arguments sake that is true, why wouldn't you agree that the market would then come into play and reduce that cost through competition? If I were an insurer, I would then offer my plan sans the cost of the contraception and bid a lower price to beat the other guy out.

[Laz]

Generic contraceptives are available and their cost is reasonable,

As for your second point I agree. I suspect that most companies would not be receptive to that limitation and their employees would complain. In the Catholic Churches case they have an answer their employees would accept.

I believe that health insurance should not cover any routine expense. It should do what insurance is good for and cover large financial expenses. Using insurance to cover routine costs simply raises the cost of those services and removes the natural market incentives that drive prices down.

[1NEMESIS]

Originally Posted by Laz

Generic contraceptives are available and their cost is reasonable,

As for your second point I agree. I suspect that most companies would not be receptive to that limitation and their employees would complain. In the Catholic Churches case they have an answer their employees would accept.

I believe that health insurance should not cover any routine expense. It should do what insurance is good for and cover large financial expenses. Using insurance to cover routine costs simply raises the cost of those services and removes the natural market incentives that drive prices down.

Generic cost-agreed.

As far your last point I agree and that would be the type of responsible capitalism I want and we should expect, but that is not what we're getting Laz. We're having this discussion under a false pretense and it just destroys our discussion.

The assumption that the health insurance industry, these giant conglomerates, are operating under the basic tenets of capitalism is erroneous as they have rejected the inherent social/moral imperatives necessary to a robust, thriving economy under the guise of "Free market capitalism", which is in itself a misnomer, and greed.

Both Democrats and Republicans agreed that healthcare was a problem because these industries were making obscene profits and at the same time cutting back coverage and driving the cost of coverage through the roof at an exponential rate. It is this fact, that led to the creation of Obamacare as an answer to this egregious behavior and to keep the people of this country from falling into bankruptcy because of a sickness or emergency room visit.
So, we have agreed to a solution that the healthcare industry would've negated were it not for Obamacare.

[Laz]

I do not agree on the point of insurance companies making obscene profits. They are definitely making a profit as any company deserves to do and they are operating within the constraints that the government allows. You can't demonize them for that.

Obamacare just makes this bad economic policy national and forces it on everyone. He wants to have everyone covered for everything which will just maximize inefficiency and eliminate the natural free market forces that control cost and encourage innovation. Eventually reality will occur and the government will not be able to tax enough or borrow enough to cover the costs and then they will start using "cost control measures" also known as rationing. Then we will get crappy service and crappy care.

I am all for health care reform and helping the less fortunate in society but Obama has the worst possible solution. Why doesn't he encourage high deductible policies with HSA's. There are already methods for providing health care to those that can't afford it. If those methods are inefficient then work on refining those. Free market capitalism will do more to innovate new methods of providing services than anything the government will ever do.

[1NEMESIS]

Originally Posted by Laz

I do not agree on the point of insurance companies making obscene profits. They are definitely making a profit as any company deserves to do and they are operating within the constraints that the government allows. You can't demonize them for that.

Obamacare just makes this bad economic policy national and forces it on everyone. He wants to have everyone covered for everything which will just maximize inefficiency and eliminate the natural free market forces that control cost and encourage innovation. Eventually reality will occur and the government will not be able to tax enough or borrow enough to cover the costs and then they will start using "cost control measures" also known as rationing. Then we will get crappy service and crappy care.

I am all for health care reform and helping the less fortunate in society but Obama has the worst possible solution. Why doesn't he encourage high deductible policies with HSA's. There are already methods for providing health care to those that can't afford it. If those methods are inefficient then work on refining those. Free market capitalism will do more to innovate new methods of providing services than anything the government will ever do.

"I do not agree on the point of insurance companies making obscene profits."

No Laz, this is where we are going to butt heads because I will not allow this to pass, you may not agree and that's your prerogative, but the hard numbers, financial reports and stats do not support your "belief". This is why I don't debate in this manner because I know your trajectory and you've already tipped your hand with the Obama economy argument which again, I can bring all kinds of proof and show you the hard facts supported by mountains of financial reports saying otherwise and you will then pivot to: "liberal media" "liberal agenda" "socialism" and I'm not doing that, sorry Laz.

[Laz]

Originally Posted by 1NEMESIS

"I do not agree on the point of insurance companies making obscene profits."

No Laz, this is where we are going to butt heads because I will not allow this to pass, you may not agree and that's your prerogative, but the hard numbers, financial reports and stats do not support your "belief". This is why I don't debate in this manner because I know your trajectory and you've already tipped your hand with the Obama economy argument which again, I can bring all kinds of proof and show you the hard facts supported by mountains of financial reports saying otherwise and you will then pivot to: "liberal media" "liberal agenda" "socialism" and I'm not doing that, sorry Laz.

I only resort to liberal BS statement when I read stuff like all conservatives are racists. Statements so idiotic that they are unworthy of serious consideration.

Just so we have some kind of reference point. What do you consider a reasonable profit objective to be for a corporation? Obviously the amount of risk a corporation takes would impact that but I would expect a corporation to have a goal of at least 20%.

[1NEMESIS]

Originally Posted by Laz

I only resort to liberal BS statement when I read stuff like all conservatives are racists. Statements so idiotic that they are unworthy of serious consideration.

Just so we have some kind of reference point. What do you consider a reasonable profit objective to be for a corporation? Obviously the amount of risk a corporation takes would impact that but I would expect a corporation to have a goal of at least 20%.

No, I'm not rehashing that argument, that has already been done and the result is Obamacare. If you want to wear the corporate badge that's fine, I'll stick with the people, that's the winning hand.
I'll have 2 more threads coming where I will address racism and put my claims into context and then I'm going to take on private equity and flash trading and why I think they should either be heavily taxed or outlawed. Your invited to participate and I'm looking forward to it. Good Day Laz!

[Grifter]

Originally Posted by 1NEMESIS

Speaking of optics, three of the leading republican candidates have horrible baggage concerning women in their past:

Herman Cain- Numerous charges of sexual harassment.
Newt Gingrich-Considered a serial philanderer with 3 wives.
Mitt Romney-A self-identified Mormon which itself is commonly linked to polygamy.

Really a bad message to women….

OMG Let me fix this.

Herman Cain- Numerous charges of sexual harassment. Clintonesque
Newt Gingrich-Considered a serial philanderer with his wife. Clintonesque
Mitt Romney-A self-identified Mormon which itself is commonly linked to polygamy. Not in the last 100 years. Polygamist associate themselves with Mormons not the other way around.

Are you offeneded that it took the antics of Gingrich and Cain to measure up to level of immorality of the best Democrat president in the last 40 years?