Gay Patriot Header Image

Contraception kerfuffle to distract us from higher grocery bills?

Last night, I attended a meet-up organized through Ace of Spades for its readers and conservative bloggers in the heart of Obama country, Santa Monica. And once again, I introduced myself as a GayPatriot blogger and received a far warmer welcome than I do when I introduce myself as conservative at gay gatherings.

I had the good fortune to talk to Joy McCann who now blogs at Conservative Commune. Last week, she weighed in on the contraception kerfuffle, offering an opinion effectively identical to my own, “I don’t think the state should pay for it, or mandate it, or force others to pay for it, either directly or indirectly. Nor should the state discourage it.

Democrats sure do want to make it appear that Republicans want to prohibit it.  And with a generous assist from the legacy media, Rick Santorum and, briefly, Rush Limbaugh, they’ve been pushing that dishonest notion — and raising money from it.  As William A. Jacobson put it, zeroing in on the talk show host’s language, “the use of ‘slut’ or ‘prostitute’ even in an analogy was inappropriate, as Rush has acknowledged.  It also distracted from the attack on religious freedom which is the heart of the controversy.”

That’s not the only thing it’s distracted from.  Seems the president is bending over backwards to reach out to women voters.  And women, Joy reminded me, tend to do most of the grocery shopping.  They know, what reader ChrisH and I have observed, the cost of groceries has increased significantly over the past year.

And Obama may be trying to win them back by playing to their fears about losing their right to contraception.

Republicans may have lost the public relations battle over “slut-gate,” but the contraception issue will likely fade away before November.  But, our monthly grocery bills won’t be returning to 2009 levels–even when adjusted for inflation.

Maybe the Obama campaign’s internal polls show a number of anxious women voters, wavering in their support of the incumbent.

Share

70 Comments

  1. [...] Because you know how you’re having to mentally tally everything up, and then figure out what you’ll have to put back on the shelves before you head to the checkout line? [...]

    Pingback by Pay No Attention to Those Rising Food Costs! — March 5, 2012 @ 6:18 am - March 5, 2012

  2. It’s not an attack on religious freedom. The 1st amendment doesn’t give people the right to opt out of laws that supposedly contradict their religious preferences. Do you not understand that if this were the case, any justification could be given to opt out of paying for virtually any law?

    What this really is is an invasion of privacy, interference with the client-patient relationship, and discrimination against women. Catholic weirdos that hate condoms more than AIDS have every right to believe what they believe and can do whatever they can to try to convince people not to use contraception, but they shouldn’t be able to coerce their employees in this way. Hating the law is a separate issue, but the mandate covers everybody, and no one has the right to prevent others from the full extent of the law. This should be especially true when you’re talking about something as stupid and destructive as pointless opposition to contraception.

    Comment by Levi — March 5, 2012 @ 7:18 am - March 5, 2012

  3. Funny I was just decribing the idiot ball and the first comment I read is… Levi’s. Karma anyone?

    Ms. McCain is correct. “I don’t think the state should pay for it, or mandate it, or force others to pay for it, either directly or indirectly. Nor should the state discourage it.” What people refuse to see is that a government big enough to give you anything you want is big enough to take it away.

    “The government would never take something away! Next you’ll be telling me the government would round people up and ship them to camps!” umm well…

    Comment by The Livewire — March 5, 2012 @ 8:00 am - March 5, 2012

  4. I see our resident fascist and antireligious bigot has once again opened his mouth and given us ammunition with which to hammer him.

    Hating the law is a separate issue, but the mandate covers everybody, and no one has the right to prevent others from the full extent of the law.

    Comment by Levi — March 5, 2012 @ 7:18 am – March 5, 2012

    So Levi admits that Obamacare forces churches to pay for abortions. Levi has stated that “EVERYBODY” must be covered for abortions and that “NO ONE” can opt out.

    Furthermore, Levi is lying, since Obama Party-approved religions and religious organizations and Obama donors are allowed to exempt themselves from the law and not pay for contraception or abortions.

    So that’s another set of lies that demonstrate that Levi doesn’t care about women and is merely acting out of a weird obsession with and hatred toward Catholics.

    Next:

    What this really is is an invasion of privacy, interference with the client-patient relationship, and discrimination against women.

    Comment by Levi — March 5, 2012 @ 7:18 am – March 5, 2012

    Of course, Levi supports invasions of privacy and interference with the client-patient relationship when Obama tells doctors they can’t perform procedures.

    So that’s another set of lies that demonstrate that Levi doesn’t care about women and is merely acting out of a weird obsession with and hatred toward Catholics.

    And then finally, Levi has no problem with employer coercion — such as employees being fired for refusing to join unions.

    So that’s just another example that demonstrates that Levi doesn’t care about women and is merely acting out of a weird obsession with and hatred toward Catholics.

    And now watch as Levi runs away and refuses to answer. “Progressives” are so fact-averse, and are particularly incapable of answering for their own hypocrisy.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 5, 2012 @ 9:35 am - March 5, 2012

  5. Rush made the controversy about himself. And then, realizing that it was a mistake and not reflecting of his real wishes, he apologized. What a concept.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 5, 2012 @ 10:41 am - March 5, 2012

  6. The price of food is going up. Gasoline under Pres. Obama has doubled to $3.83. And the GOP candidates are handing him his re-election on a plate by these fratricidal and suicidal social side-issues instead of focusing on the red meat issue of the US Economy.

    I’m voting in the NJ Primary for Rep. Ron Paul out of sheer frustration….

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — March 5, 2012 @ 10:50 am - March 5, 2012

  7. You’re all idiots!

    They don’t care about distracting us from the grocery bills and gas prices. THIS is the kind of thing they really don’t want us to notice. So while you guys argue over the stupid birth control issues, something quite trivial to much of the country, your rights to protest, either as a member of the Tea Party or the Occupy movement, has just been diminished right under your noses.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 5, 2012 @ 11:22 am - March 5, 2012

  8. “have just been diminished”

    Wish I wasn’t always in such a hurry.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 5, 2012 @ 11:23 am - March 5, 2012

  9. What this really is is an invasion of privacy, interference with the client-patient relationship, and discrimination against women.

    And mandating that insurance companies cover contraceptives discriminates against gay men.

    Not discrimination because gay men are just as free to use contraceptives as straight women are? Then the Defense of Marriage Act is not discrimination, because gay men are just as free to marry someone of the opposite sex and obtain federal marriage benefits as straight women are.

    Comment by Michael Ejercito — March 5, 2012 @ 11:38 am - March 5, 2012

  10. Hi SF,
    I am with you on this one…

    Comment by Cas — March 5, 2012 @ 12:22 pm - March 5, 2012

  11. It’s not an attack on religious freedom.

    Really?

    The birth-control coverage mandate violates the First Amendment’s bar against the “free exercise” of religion. But it also violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That statute, passed unanimously by the House of Representatives and by a 97-3 vote in the Senate, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. It was enacted in response to a 1990 Supreme Court opinion, Employment Division v. Smith.

    That case limited the protections available under the First Amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion to those government actions that explicitly targeted religious practices, by subjecting them to difficult-to-satisfy strict judicial scrutiny. Other governmental actions, even if burdening religious activities, were held subject to a more deferential test.

    The 1993 law restored the same protections of religious freedom that had been understood to exist pre-Smith. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act states that the federal government may “substantially burden” a person’s “exercise of religion” only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person “is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and “is the least restrictive means of furthering” that interest.

    The law also provides that any later statutory override of its protections must be explicit. But there is nothing in the ObamaCare legislation that explicitly or even implicitly overrides the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The birth-control mandate proposed by Health and Human Services is thus illegal.

    David B. Rivkin Jr.
    Edward Whelan

    Comment by TGC — March 5, 2012 @ 1:13 pm - March 5, 2012

  12. The other funny part is that this really shows the disdain the Obama Party has for women. They seriously think that women don’t care about the economy, national defense, taxes, business climate, government overregulation, freedom, or anything of the sort; they believe that the only thing women want is to have someone else pay for their abortions, and that the rest of the world can go .

    When you look at Fluke, you can see why they think that; this woman chose where to go to law school based solely on wanting to force them to pay for her abortions. She clearly is obsessed with punishing the Catholic Church and doesn’t care about anything else.

    But she’s not normal. Most women would choose a school based on its reputation, value, and convenience, not whether or not they could punish Catholics by attending. What Barack Obama is saying is that he intends to use the force of law to punish the Catholic Church and discriminate against them; that will only attract the obsessed bigots like Fluke and Levi.

    Obama seriously believes women are stupid and care

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 5, 2012 @ 3:06 pm - March 5, 2012

  13. Catholic leaders and the GOP presidential candidates have intentionally distorted the Obama administration’s new rule requiring employers and insurers to provide reproductive health benefits at no additional cost sharing. Conservatives are seeking a way to politically unite Republican voters around a social issue and portray the regulation as a big government intrusion into religious liberties. In reality, the mandate is modeled on existing rules in six states, exempts houses of worship and other religious nonprofits that primarily employ and serve people of faith, and offers employers a transitional period of one year to determine how best to comply with the rule.
    It’s also nothing new. Twenty-eight states already require organizations that offer prescription insurance to cover contraception and since 98 percent of Catholic women use birth control, many Catholic institutions offer the benefit to their employees. For instance, a Georgetown University spokesperson told ThinkProgress yesterday that employees “have access to health insurance plans offered and designed by national providers to a national pool. These plans include coverage for birth control.”
    Similarly, an informal survey conducted by Our Sunday Visitor found that many Catholic colleges have purchased insurance plans that provide contraception benefits:
    University of Scranton, for example, appears to specifically cover contraception. The University of San Francisco offers employees two health plans, both of which cover abortion, contraception and sterilization…Also problematic is the Jesuit University of Scranton. One of its health insurance plans, the First Priority HMO, lists a benefit of “contraceptives when used for the purpose of birth control.”
    DePaul University in Chicago covers birth control in both its fully insured HMO plan and its self-insured PPO plan and excludes “elective abortion,” said spokesman John Holden, adding that the 1,800 employee-university responded to a complaint from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission several years ago and added artificial contraception as a benefit to its Blue Cross PPO.
    Christian Brothers University in Memphis, Tenn., offers employee health insurance via the Tennessee Independent Colleges and Universities Association, a consortium of Christian Bible and other private college and universities. Its plan excludes abortion, but probably covers artificial contraception as a prescription drug, said C. Gregg Conroy, the executive director of the TICUA Benefit Consortium.

    Comment by rusty — March 5, 2012 @ 4:03 pm - March 5, 2012

  14. Forgot the link. . .

    http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/07/420114/many-catholic-universities-hospitals-already-offer-contraception-as-part-of-their-health-insurance-plans/

    Comment by rusty — March 5, 2012 @ 4:04 pm - March 5, 2012

  15. Found an interesting tidbit. . .Rush went by Rusty Sharpe when he first started in radio way back in the day.

    And special thanks to ILC, for I went to bed yesterday with the smile he gifted me yesterday. . .TY

    Comment by rusty — March 5, 2012 @ 4:10 pm - March 5, 2012

  16. Levi claims that I am obligated to pay for a woman’s contraception because “reproductive freedom is a basic human right.” Yet, he will not explain why that woman may not be forced to buy me a gun, which is one of my basic human rights (and unlike “reproductive freedom” is actually written into the Constitution).

    Comment by V the K — March 5, 2012 @ 4:13 pm - March 5, 2012

  17. Sorry, one more thing. . .Leonard Pitts wrote a piece about that adorable kiss last week of the returning marine and the welcome home kiss.

    Pitt’s went with this:

    That promise is part of a breathtaking Republican lurch — not just to the right, as a number of pundits have framed it, but to the past. On issue after issue — gay rights, contraception, labor rights — the goal seems to be to return the nation to the supposed tranquility of its Beaver Cleaver years, before Martin Luther King had his dream, before Betty Friedan wrote her book, before Rock Hudson was gay, before everything changed.

    And while it’s doubtful Morgan and Wells set out to make any particular point, the sheer joyousness of their reunion makes one, nonetheless — the same point a similar kiss between two Navy petty officers, both women, made just two months ago. Namely, that you cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube.

    Or, as Fleetwood Mac once put it, “yesterday’s gone, yesterday’s gone.” And the sooner the Grand Old Party concedes that and stops pandering to the bitterness and fear of dead-enders and hardliners still desperately clinging to the broken remains of Beaver Cleaver’s white picket fence, the better off we all will be.

    Their fear is that pretty soon, no one will fear, that we are approaching a day when a kiss like this will make no news, merit no attention, because it will be normal. They are right, of course. That is entirely the point.

    There is something bracing in the very publicness and unselfconsciousness of that lip lock. Coming after years of government-imposed silence and government-mandated lies of omission, it feels not unlike sunlight and fresh air blasting into a room that has been dark and stuffy for years. And it suggests four words of advice to those discomfited by this newborn change.

    Get used to it.

    Comment by rusty — March 5, 2012 @ 4:14 pm - March 5, 2012

  18. NRO debunks the Think Progress BS rusty copied and pasted.

    In states where there are mandates religious organizations can simply opt out by self-insuring or dropping prescription drug coverage. The federal mandate does not allow any of these alternatives, and does not protect our religious liberty.

    Comment by V the K — March 5, 2012 @ 4:16 pm - March 5, 2012

  19. I notice some Republican moderates are only too happy to buy into and propagate the dishonest MFM “Republicans want to take away contraception” propaganda; using it as a cudgel against social conservatives who, BTW, weren’t the ones who brought this issue up.

    Comment by V the K — March 5, 2012 @ 4:18 pm - March 5, 2012

  20. And also, rusty ignores the fact that the stated goal of Fluke and the Obama Party, as expressed by Levi above, is to force churches to pay for abortions.

    That is all this game is about. It is about forcing churches to pay for abortions. And since both Levi and rusty have screamed, quote, “the 1st amendment doesn’t give people the right to opt out of laws that supposedly contradict their religious preferences”, the obvious next step is to force churches to perform gay-sex marriages or be punished.

    The insane bigotry of Barack Obama, Levi, rusty, and Sandra Fluke on this one is obvious. Fluke herself admits that she chose Georgetown specifically so she could force them to pay for her abortions — meaning that she had a choice of several other institutions that would have. Similarly, no one has to work for an institution that doesn’t provide abortion coverage, just as no one has to work for a company that doesn’t have a “bring your dog to work” benefit.

    This is, as Heliotrope put it elsewhere, all about the government making laws to punish any religion that does not do as the government orders. It is a clear abrogation of the First Amendment, and compounds the constitutional mess that Obamacare is already.

    Social change is not happening fast enough for the bigots like Leonard Pitts, so they are trying to force it at gunpoint. What conservatives need to do is to reverse the gun back on them and call out Pitts as the lying, pathetic racist he is.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 5, 2012 @ 4:37 pm - March 5, 2012

  21. Nope just pointing out that Georgetown U already provides contraception options before Ms Fluke even testified.

    Comment by rusty — March 5, 2012 @ 4:41 pm - March 5, 2012

  22. Let’s talk Alinsky.

    Nationalized health care in the United States is the target of the progressives. There are two issues that have to be subsumed: abortion in general and the Catholic Church doctrine on contraception.

    The Catholic Church doctrine on contraception is possibly the larger issue as the Catholic Church is focused and the doctrine is lang standing. What Obama is attempting to accomplish is to clear the floor so that the issue is “resolved” by the time the state takes over health care. Pelosi, Biden, Kerry and all the other Catholic-lite Democrats have already put the state over the church on this issue.

    If Obama can get win in having the mandate on private insurance provide “free” contraception coverage, the issue will be “resolved” when the government takes over and continues the “benefit.”

    Understand that the same “compelling state interest” for providing birth control to women would apply to the Amish or any other sect. Whether nationalized health care would force itself on the Amish or not, I do not know. Perhaps there is some sort of catechism among Progressives as to which religious doxologies they attack and which they preserve as quaint. Certainly the Amish have been given “reservation” status in many places.

    Abortion has been entirely side-tracked as a core issue. Progressives insist that the “thing” in the woman’s reproductive area is her property and that she has the ancient “chattel” right to dispose of it as she wishes. They use the reasoning applied in the Dred Scott decision.

    The Progressive game plan is to topple the Catholic doxology on contraception first and then let them fight out the Catholic Hospital abortion battle when the time comes. They may very well have chased the Catholics out of the hospital business by that time.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 5, 2012 @ 4:42 pm - March 5, 2012

  23. Fluke herself admits that she chose Georgetown specifically so she could force them to pay for her abortions — meaning that she had a choice of several other institutions that would have.

    Which is precisely what I despise about the left. They are always trying to force their moral choices on other people. Why shouldn’t Catholic be free to choose to not pay for birth control? Why should the Boy Scouts be forced to take in atheists and homosexuals? Why can’t the left just learn to live and let live?

    Comment by V the K — March 5, 2012 @ 5:35 pm - March 5, 2012

  24. So much for live and let live from those right of center

    At the time, he expressed regret that he didn’t push back against the Bush campaign’s support for a federal anti-gay marriage amendment and anti-gay marriage initiatives on state ballots.

    “I can’t change the fact that I wasn’t in this place personally when I was in politics, and I genuinely regret that. It was very hard, personally,” he said

    Now he’s gone a step further:

    “At a personal level, I wish I had spoken out against the effort,” Mehlman said. “As I’ve been involved in the fight for marriage equality, one of the things I’ve learned is how many people were harmed by the campaigns in which I was involved. I apologize to them and tell them I am sorry. While there have been recent victories, this could still be a long struggle in which there will be setbacks, and I’ll do my part to be helpful.”

    While GOP presidential candidates uniformly oppose gay marriage, it’s becoming less of an issue among rank-and-file Republicans, and the general public is increasingly supportive of gay marriage.

    Laura Bush and her daughter Barbara have both campaigned in support of same-sex marriage. Former Bush solicitor general Ted Olson worked to overturn California’s gay marriage ban. Former vice president Dick Cheney, an early GOP supporter of gay marriage, lobbied Maryland lawmakers on the issue this year.

    Comment by rusty — March 5, 2012 @ 5:47 pm - March 5, 2012

  25. Hi, I’m rusty. I’m losing the argument, so I’m going to try and change the subject to gay marriage. Here’s something I cut and pasted without attribution.

    Comment by V the K — March 5, 2012 @ 5:50 pm - March 5, 2012

  26. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/ken-mehlman-apologizing-for-role-in-bush-campaign/2012/03/02/gIQAPNSjmR_blog.html

    Forgot the link

    Comment by rusty — March 5, 2012 @ 5:50 pm - March 5, 2012

  27. Smooches James. . .http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/l569/rusty98119/smooch.jpg

    Some day you’ll have to share all your talents and skills at pushing soft porn, misogyny, and fun.

    Comment by rusty — March 5, 2012 @ 5:53 pm - March 5, 2012

  28. They are always trying to force their moral choices on other people.

    Something I’ve notivced about the left, in general, is that they do exactly what they accuse the right of doing. Perhaps it is just projection, or perhaps they are trying to obfuscate their goals by vocally speaking out against what they are doing in order to try to hide what they are doing. They accuse social conservatives of trying to force their morality on everyone, but that is exactly what social liberals do. And, while rusty says “so much for live and let live from those right of center,” he has pasted something that completely undermines what he evidently intended what he pasted to demonstrate:

    Laura Bush and her daughter Barbara have both campaigned in support of same-sex marriage. Former Bush solicitor general Ted Olson worked to overturn California’s gay marriage ban. Former vice president Dick Cheney, an early GOP supporter of gay marriage, lobbied Maryland lawmakers on the issue this year.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — March 5, 2012 @ 6:04 pm - March 5, 2012

  29. Mehlmann was apologizing for not taking a stronger stand when it came to federal anti-gay campaign during his tenure with Bush. All four noted, Laura & daughter Barbara, Cheney and Olsen have been singing their support after GW left the White House.

    Comment by rusty — March 5, 2012 @ 6:09 pm - March 5, 2012

  30. I think rusty’s dumb attempt to change the subject actually illustrates the point pretty well, just not in the way that he thinks. See, the FMA would not have forced anyone’s moral choices on anyone. Gays would still be able to enter into committed relationships. Secondly, the FMA would have had to have been approved by both Houses of Congress and 3/4ths of the states… so there would be the opportunity for huge public input into the issue before it was ratified.

    The Obama Contraceptive Rule on the other hand, not only forces people to pay for other people’s immoral activity, it was also promulgated by a bureaucrat, Kathleen Sebelius, with absolutely no public input, and no votes. It was the sort of ‘rule by decree’ we see in totalitarian regimes.

    And, of course, Levi, rusty, and Cas think it’s just swell… because it’s their morality the Government is forcing on people.

    Comment by V the K — March 5, 2012 @ 6:10 pm - March 5, 2012

  31. No V, when Mehlmann crafted the anti gay marriage meme it was just a tool to increase voter enthusiasm. Much like what has happened with the contraception kerfluffle. Whether the spin doctors in the White House had even a hint or hopes of what has played out over the last week, it certainly has left a mark. . .pun intended.

    Now BDB is wondering if the ever increasing prices in the grocery stores (which are directly tied to the increasing gas prices) will redirect folk to ask. . . What is Obama doing? . . .guess will have to hold my nose for one of those Big R folk.

    But the difference with the contraception kerfluffle is that with the struggle to get ahead, many families are holding off on increasing the family size. Then BDB also stated that many women are the primary shopper so there might be a shift since they will see the impact on a weekly basis. But women also have that lovely cycle that reminds them every month just how nice it is to have affordable contraception. Even with women who are past the point on relying on contraception, but have sympathy for women who are currently rely on and even young women who will soon be considering contraceptive options.

    It won’t take much to run a 10 or even 15 second spot with an image of Rush and his recent comments to give folk pause when it comes to casting their vote.

    Comment by rusty — March 5, 2012 @ 6:35 pm - March 5, 2012

  32. But once again James, Smooches

    A slightly different selection from the bucket

    http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/l569/rusty98119/photobucket-1722-1330440273527.jpg

    Comment by rusty — March 5, 2012 @ 6:39 pm - March 5, 2012

  33. And also, V the K, it points something else out; rusty and the Obama Party that owns him fully believe in using the power of government to force churches to go against their beliefs or be punished/jailed.

    Thus the people in Washington state have a ready-made example of how the gay and lesbian community and the Obama Party are going to force their churches to accept and perform gay-sex marriages or be punished/jailed for doing so.

    This is where doing what the abortionist left wants is a really stupid idea, rusty. Should have thought of that first.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 5, 2012 @ 6:40 pm - March 5, 2012

  34. But women also have that lovely cycle that reminds them every month just how nice it is to have affordable contraception. Even with women who are past the point on relying on contraception, but have sympathy for women who are currently rely on and even young women who will soon be considering contraceptive options.

    It won’t take much to run a 10 or even 15 second spot with an image of Rush and his recent comments to give folk pause when it comes to casting their vote.

    Comment by rusty — March 5, 2012 @ 6:35 pm – March 5, 2012

    Well, of course, rusty, because according to you and your Obama Party, women don’t worry their pretty little heads with anything other than their menstrual cycles and having sex — and will do whatever you say as long as you allow them to commit infanticide.

    Sandra Fluke is an excellent example of the typical liberal woman. She doesn’t care about Georgetown’s academic reputation, its cost, or anything else; she chose it solely because she wanted to force it to pay for abortions.

    Your first problem is that, having actually bought contraceptives or condoms in the past, the vast majority of women know that Fluke and her fellow rich white liberals spend an average of ten times the amount they do on them.

    Your second problem is that most women are not as abortion-obsessed as Fluke and will ask themselves if Obama’s support of church-funded abortion and infanticide to the tune of $9 per month for pills or $20 for a box of 100 condoms is worth cratering our economy and destroying the businesses that employ them.

    You don’t understand this because you cannot view women as people; you view them as reproductive organs that are incapable of lasting more than ten seconds without sex and thus need men like you to bless their infanticide.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 5, 2012 @ 6:49 pm - March 5, 2012

  35. Miss Rita Beads. . .um. . .

    looking for this. . just can’t find anything to justify this. . .please please please help me.

    Thus the people in Washington state have a ready-made example of how the gay and lesbian community and the Obama Party are going to force their churches to accept and perform gay-sex marriages or be punished/jailed for doing so.

    thanks and Smooches

    Comment by rusty — March 5, 2012 @ 7:14 pm - March 5, 2012

  36. One of the the advertisers that pulled out of the Limbaugh kerfluffle stated that he has daughters and couldn’t with good conscience continue to work with someone with such little regard for women.

    Comment by rusty — March 5, 2012 @ 7:16 pm - March 5, 2012

  37. A Statement from David Friend, CEO of Carbonite:
    “No one with daughters the age of Sandra Fluke, and I have two, could possibly abide the insult and abuse heaped upon this courageous and well-intentioned young lady. Mr. Limbaugh, with his highly personal attacks on Miss Fluke, overstepped any reasonable bounds of decency. Even though Mr. Limbaugh has now issued an apology, we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show.

    We hope that our action, along with the other advertisers who have already withdrawn their ads, will ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse.”

    Comment by rusty — March 5, 2012 @ 7:19 pm - March 5, 2012

  38. It sure didn’t offend the CEO of Carbonite when Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a slut. He still advertises on Special Ed’s Show. Also, which shouldn’t surprise anyone since the CEO of Carbonite is a major contributor to Moveon.org.

    Comment by V the K — March 5, 2012 @ 7:26 pm - March 5, 2012

  39. Lets see, within 24 hours give or take Schultz apologized and announced an suspension from his show.

    Comment by rusty — March 5, 2012 @ 7:32 pm - March 5, 2012

  40. You beat me to the punch V.

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 5, 2012 @ 7:34 pm - March 5, 2012

  41. Leonard Pitts wrote a piece about that adorable kiss last week of the returning marine and the welcome home kiss.

    I love that pic!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 5, 2012 @ 7:41 pm - March 5, 2012

  42. Rusty,

    How much does contraception actually cost?

    I have a specific association with a large hospital and there has been a great deal of concern over abortion linked breast cancer and oral contraceptive linked breast cancer. This is no small concern as the statistics show an unspoken catastrophe in the making.

    People like you seem to pick and choose their women’s health issues, both great and small. Well, breast cancer is largely a women’s problem and oral contraceptives are also, largely, a women’s issue.

    We see the pink ribbons everywhere, but for whatever political reasons, the NIC has deep-sixed the research on abortion and oral contraceptive links to breast cancer. I think you would be hard pressed to kiss away a 40% threshold.

    Of course, there are other types of contraception. IUD’s can be had for very little money and they are underwritten by Planned Parenthood. The Guttmacher Institute has plenty of information about its contraceptive initiatives. But IUD’s also have a history of implantation leading to sterility and hysterectomies.

    So, I wonder why you liberals are so ignorant of what you liberals already provide in terms of contraception.

    Curiously, it appears that you want to force contraception on young girls for some philosophical reason.

    Can you state what backs the philosophy of the state mandating contraception other than eugenics or something mighty close to imitating eugenics?

    You keep coming to this site with sweeping broadsides involving women’s health. Do you not have any access to the balanced concerns involved in tampering with biology in order to seek desired outcomes? Or are you so ideologically predisposed that the victims of social engineering are just collateral damage?

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 5, 2012 @ 7:44 pm - March 5, 2012

  43. Well Iam not a health practitioner but for a short period of time I was a sexual health educator. For PP. And did a luttle presentation on contraception history and options. I always referred folk to their health care practitioner for options

    Comment by rusty — March 5, 2012 @ 7:55 pm - March 5, 2012

  44. All these comments, especially from our liberal friends, illustrate exactly why medical care should be between physicians/nurses and patients.

    The more third-party involvement there is, the harder it is to draw the line at what it or is not someone else’s business.

    When someone wants to stick me with the check, it becomes my business… whether or not I want it to.

    Sonic – thanks for the link. Yet another effort by the feds to make a federal crime out of everything. The blizzard of outrages from the government over the last decade or so has exceeded the ability of the sheeple to comprehend.

    http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556

    Comment by SoCalRobert — March 5, 2012 @ 8:07 pm - March 5, 2012

  45. Heliotrope, never gave out costs, but the $3 grand seems high. Unless it was a case of needing ongoing supervision and additional appointmentsthere could have been additional fee.

    Not all oral contraceptuves are equal and some find tge need ti use differentcombinations. And yes, all who consider iral forns need full information before choosing.

    Comment by rusty — March 5, 2012 @ 8:27 pm - March 5, 2012

  46. looking for this. . just can’t find anything to justify this. . .please please please help me.

    Comment by rusty — March 5, 2012 @ 7:14 pm – March 5, 2012

    That’s easy, rusty.

    You said you weren’t going to make churches and religious organizations pay for birth control and abortions, either.

    Thus you have convincingly demonstrated that your word is meaningless when you come to churches and that, as was outlined previously, you care about nothing other than the raw exercise of political power to destroy whoever disagrees with you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 5, 2012 @ 8:32 pm - March 5, 2012

  47. That request ms beads was about Washington’s SSM law

    Comment by rusty — March 5, 2012 @ 8:50 pm - March 5, 2012

  48. Does anyone else appreciate the irony in SF’s comments?

    Thank you SF.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 5, 2012 @ 8:53 pm - March 5, 2012

  49. That request ms beads was about Washington’s SSM law

    Comment by rusty — March 5, 2012 @ 8:50 pm – March 5, 2012

    And my answer was about Washington’s SSM law.

    Liberals like you passed Obamacare and claimed it did not force churches to pay for abortions.

    Now you are using it to force churches to pay for abortions.

    So you lied. And you continue to lie. You demonstrate that you have no principles, no values, no respect for the First Amendment, no nothing. As stated above, you will justify/rationalize ANYTHING to push your leftist ends and punish churches.

    You can’t be trusted. And you have proven that with the abortion debate. All people need to do is to point to statements like yours that say the government can force churches to do whatever the government wants them to do and punish them if they don’t.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 5, 2012 @ 9:00 pm - March 5, 2012

  50. Sandra Fluke: Your Health Care Should Cover Gender Reassignment Surgery

    I wonder if she will argue that conversion therapy should be covered.

    Comment by Michael Ejercito — March 5, 2012 @ 9:22 pm - March 5, 2012

  51. And mandating that insurance companies cover contraceptives discriminates against gay men.

    ???????

    Getting birth control pills isn’t something you can just do. You need to go to a doctor, who needs to examine you, who needs to know how healthy you are, who needs to know if you have any other conditions, who needs to know the interactions between any medicine you’re taking and the the pill, who needs to make sure you understand the side effects, who needs to be able to check in with you periodically to make sure everything is going okay, and on and on and on.

    In short, taking the pill is an involved medical process that requires doctors and nurses and pharmacists, and there’s no reason that this sort of thing shouldn’t be covered under prescription drug plans solely because it (maybe) has something to do with sex.

    What that has to do with gay men is beyond me.

    Not discrimination because gay men are just as free to use contraceptives as straight women are? Then the Defense of Marriage Act is not discrimination, because gay men are just as free to marry someone of the opposite sex and obtain federal marriage benefits as straight women are.

    Of all the many stupid, worthless, and embarrassing arguments against gay marriage, this is one of the worst. That’s all.

    Comment by Levi — March 5, 2012 @ 9:47 pm - March 5, 2012

  52. Levi claims that I am obligated to pay for a woman’s contraception because “reproductive freedom is a basic human right.” Yet, he will not explain why that woman may not be forced to buy me a gun, which is one of my basic human rights (and unlike “reproductive freedom” is actually written into the Constitution).

    If you think that owning a gun is a more fundamental human right than a woman have self-determination over her own reproductive cycle, than you’re an idiot. You belong in the Dark Ages.

    Comment by Levi — March 5, 2012 @ 9:50 pm - March 5, 2012

  53. If you think that owning a gun is a more fundamental human right than a woman have self-determination over her own reproductive cycle

    Yes, because the only way a woman can have self-determination over her reproductive cycle is by the government forcing insurance companies to cover contraception. (/sarcasm)

    Comment by Rattlesnake — March 5, 2012 @ 10:22 pm - March 5, 2012

  54. if you think that owning a gun is a more fundamental human right than a woman have self-determination over her own reproductive cycle

    Levi:

    1) Can a woman have self-determination over her own reproductive cycle without any contraceptives whatsoever?

    2) Are some women too immature, or stupid, or unreliable to have self-determination over their own reproductive cycles which makes it necessary for the government to implant them with birth control?

    3) If birth control is a more fundamental human right than owning a gun, should the government at least provide gun owners with free ammunition?(If the government mandates contraception, why not ammunition?)

    4) What is the compelling state interest in having the government mandate “free” contraception in health insurance programs?

    5) Do you favor imposed birth control on the Amish as an enlightened solution to their religious doxology?

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 5, 2012 @ 10:38 pm - March 5, 2012

  55. I don’t think the Government is obligated to provide us with any material thing, so I don’t have to defend my position. It’s the “health care is a right” crowd that has to justify why the Government must provide for one right but not another.

    And Rattlesnake is right. A woman’s reproductive freedom is not a “right” that obligates me or anyone else to financially support its exercise.

    Face it, Levi. You’re greedy. You’re selfish. You want someone else to pay for your stuff. i.e. A progressive.

    Comment by V the K — March 5, 2012 @ 10:42 pm - March 5, 2012

  56. Last week, she weighed in on the contraception kerfuffle, offering an opinion effectively identical to my own, “I don’t think the state should pay for it, or mandate it, or force others to pay for it, either directly or indirectly. Nor should the state discourage it.”

    You conservative types that claim to be such savvy businessmen and masters of the economy really can’t seem to tell a solid investment when you see one. The government should most assuredly pay for birth control, because the relative costs are entirely negligible in comparison to the costs associated with unplanned and unintended pregnancies. Reigning in healthcare costs is in the best interests of the federal government because it’s currently out of control, and is redirecting and squandering an enormous portion of our economic activity and productivity. Preventative medicine including contraception is one of the most efficient ways to tackle rising costs. This also justifies the government advocating things like physical exercise and healthier eating – it’s cheaper to do this stuff than it is to cut peoples’ legs off after diabetes gives them gangrene.

    Unfortunately, the dumbness of conservatism compels right-wingers to dramatically flail about whenever the government takes a common sense approach to one our many mounting problems like this, complaining about their freedoms as if Michelle Obama is somehow forcing people to eat vegetables. It is in the best interests of our society and the economy for we to have as few unintended pregnancies as possible, and with nothing but the ravings of religious lunatics who, I can’t stress this enough, believe that AIDS is a better thing than condoms, this is a policy that does nothing but good and in no way tramples on anybody’s freedoms.

    Comment by Levi — March 5, 2012 @ 11:16 pm - March 5, 2012

  57. Levi:

    1) Can a woman have self-determination over her own reproductive cycle without any contraceptives whatsoever?

    Yes, but people also like to have sex, it isn’t the 1400s anymore, and modern science has invented this great thing that gives us both sexual satisfaction and control over the reproductive cycle. There is absolutely no downside to this win/win situation unless you conjure one up out of the air because your religion insists on sexual repression.

    2) Are some women too immature, or stupid, or unreliable to have self-determination over their own reproductive cycles which makes it necessary for the government to implant them with birth control?

    ?????????

    I suppose some of them are, but why would it ever be necessary for the government to implant them with birth control? What that has to do with anything I’m sure you can’t explain.

    3) If birth control is a more fundamental human right than owning a gun, should the government at least provide gun owners with free ammunition?(If the government mandates contraception, why not ammunition?)

    What about this metaphor is so appealing to you? There are a number of ways that the government will provide you with all the bullets you want. If you become a police officer or join the military, they’ll even pay you to shoot them into other human beings on occasion.

    What these things have to do with one another is not at all clear to me. Women have been subjugated for the vast majority of human history by men, and one of the ways they’ve done that is by preventing them from controlling their own reproduction. Don’t you think they deserve the freedom to make their own choices without coercion from their narrow-minded employers who share a delusion about an imaginary, celestial dictator?

    4) What is the compelling state interest in having the government mandate “free” contraception in health insurance programs?

    The costs to the government of providing contraception to women are dwarfed by the costs to the government of providing medical care and social services to women who for whatever reason aren’t ready to have children. Additionally, women have more opportunities to seek higher education and develop their careers if they use contraception, not to mention more spending money. Undoubtedly, lots of women already do this. Also undoubtedly, many more women would if contraception was easier to obtain and more affordable. This is particularly true of lower-income women.

    5) Do you favor imposed birth control on the Amish as an enlightened solution to their religious doxology?

    Who is talking about imposing birth control on anybody? The Catholic bishops aren’t having birth control imposed on them. They don’t have to take it, they have to provide it, which I’m sorry to say is part and parcel of being an employer in this country. The government does a great deal to provide employers with a massive pool of would-be workers and customers, and part of the arrangement is that employers have to comply with certain rules that the government sets up. You guys are fond of saying that the women can just find another job, well I will offer that the Catholic employers can find another government. Why don’t they relocate to Somalia, where they can treat their employees however they want with absolutely no interference from the government at all?

    Comment by Levi — March 5, 2012 @ 11:51 pm - March 5, 2012

  58. he government should most assuredly pay for birth control, because the relative costs are entirely negligible in comparison to the costs associated with unplanned and unintended pregnancies. Reigning in healthcare costs is in the best interests of the federal government because it’s currently out of control, and is redirecting and squandering an enormous portion of our economic activity and productivity.

    All problems that could be solved by getting government out of the healthcare business entirely. If the government doesn’t have to pay for healthcare in the first place (which it shouldn’t), then it doesn’t have any interest in investing in preventative health care. And, again, the government doesn’t have to provide something (or force other people to provide it) for it to be available. You progressives can’t seem to get that through your heads. Birth control is widely available and inexpensive. And if the government does do something to reduce the rate of unintended/unwanted pregnancies, perhaps it could use its public schools to actually teach some common sense (i.e. if you can’t afford contraception, and don’t want a kid (which you shouldn’t have if you can’t afford contraception anyway), then don’t have sex. Why that is so complicated, I have no idea. But there is no reason it should be)).

    Comment by Rattlesnake — March 5, 2012 @ 11:51 pm - March 5, 2012

  59. I wish I could argue as well as Levi.

    Yeah, ND30, add THAT to your library of Obamabot links.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 6, 2012 @ 12:01 am - March 6, 2012

  60. Yes, because the only way a woman can have self-determination over her reproductive cycle is by the government forcing insurance companies to cover contraception.

    Women’s reproductive systems are about a thousand times more complex than a man’s, and women are much more intimately involved with the reproduction process than men. Do you really think that this deserves absolutely no special consideration? Women spend nine months carrying the baby, women are disproportionately responsible for the burden of raising children, women are susceptible to postpartum depression, women sideline their careers more frequently after they start a family, there are more single women than there are single men…. these things are all true about women, and meanwhile they are massively underrepresented in business and in government and almost invariably make less money than their male counterparts. Consider these unassailable facts and ask yourself again if it’s too much to ask of our society to provide easier access to the one form of contraception that is virtually guaranteed to be effective all the time.

    It would be one thing if the pill was some easily accessible thing that you could buy over the counter, but it’s not. It affects body chemistry and must be prescribed by a doctor. In addition to the burdens listed above, should we really be arbitrarily declaring that this prescription, unlike all other prescriptions, not be covered, even after all the things we’ve considered when it comes to women’s health?

    Make no mistake, women are the target here, not the bishops (who are all male, of course). They have no business interfering in the medical care that their female employees seek, and the government absolutely has an interest in protecting women from that interference.

    Comment by Levi — March 6, 2012 @ 12:19 am - March 6, 2012

  61. Do you really think that this deserves absolutely no special consideration?

    From the government? Yes. Without question. I would hope that whatever concerns a woman might have with her reproductive system her doctor could help her with.

    In addition to the burdens listed above, should we really be arbitrarily declaring that this prescription, unlike all other prescriptions, not be covered, even after all the things we’ve considered when it comes to women’s health?

    No one is preventing anyone from providing contraception as part of their insurance plans. Why should the government have any say in what insurance plans cover, and what insurance plans are provided by employers? That is not a legitimate government function, in my opinion, and it in fact gives the government way too much power than I think is wise.

    They have no business interfering in the medical care that their female employees seek

    Which they aren’t. Women are free to purchase contraceptives on their own, even if they work for a Catholic employer.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — March 6, 2012 @ 12:31 am - March 6, 2012

  62. All problems that could be solved by getting government out of the healthcare business entirely. If the government doesn’t have to pay for healthcare in the first place (which it shouldn’t), then it doesn’t have any interest in investing in preventative health care. And, again, the government doesn’t have to provide something (or force other people to provide it) for it to be available. You progressives can’t seem to get that through your heads. Birth control is widely available and inexpensive. And if the government does do something to reduce the rate of unintended/unwanted pregnancies, perhaps it could use its public schools to actually teach some common sense (i.e. if you can’t afford contraception, and don’t want a kid (which you shouldn’t have if you can’t afford contraception anyway), then don’t have sex. Why that is so complicated, I have no idea. But there is no reason it should be)).

    Of course, the largely privatized healthcare system in this country gobbles up an enormous chunk of the GDP every year and produces people that are sicker and weaker and fatter and shorter-lived than just about every Western European country that boasts a much less expensive and greater producing version of national healthcare. One of the most popular government programs in the US is Medicare, but you’re telling us if that were to go away tomorrow, things would start getting better, huh? You don’t see it as a problem that huge portions of the private healthcare industry are dedicated to denying coverage and dropping patients? There are governments that interfere in their country’s healthcare systems much more than ours does, so why are we the country of sick fatties who die young?

    Comment by Levi — March 6, 2012 @ 12:36 am - March 6, 2012

  63. You conservative types that claim to be such savvy businessmen and masters of the economy really can’t seem to tell a solid investment when you see one. The government should most assuredly pay for birth control, because the relative costs are entirely negligible in comparison to the costs associated with unplanned and unintended pregnancies.

    Comment by Levi — March 5, 2012 @ 11:16 pm – March 5, 2012

    Ah, but you see, Levi, according to Sandra Fluke, the costs are NOT negligible; she and her fellow rich white liberals would be filing claims for “contraception” of thousands upon thousands upon thousands of dollars a year.

    Hence the hilarious contradiction of your argument; you insist that the costs of contraception are negligible while simultaneously whining about how the thousands of dollars you spend annually on contraception is bankrupting you.

    Pick one. Either contraception is cheap or it isn’t.

    Next up:

    Preventative medicine including contraception is one of the most efficient ways to tackle rising costs.

    Comment by Levi — March 5, 2012 @ 11:16 pm – March 5, 2012

    False.

    In yet more disappointing news for Democrats pushing for health care reform, Douglas W. Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, offered a skeptical view Friday of the cost savings that could result from preventive care — an area that President Obama and congressional Democrats repeatedly had emphasized as a way health care reform would be less expensive in the long term.

    Obviously successful preventive care can make Americans healthier and save lives. But, Elmendorf wrote, it may not save money as Democrats had been arguing.

    “Although different types of preventive care have different effects on spending, the evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall,” Elmendorf wrote. “That result may seem counterintuitive.

    “For example, many observers point to cases in which a simple medical test, if given early enough, can reveal a condition that is treatable at a fraction of the cost of treating that same illness after it has progressed. In such cases, an ounce of prevention improves health and reduces spending — for that individual,” Elmendorf wrote. “But when analyzing the effects of preventive care on total spending for health care, it is important to recognize that doctors do not know beforehand which patients are going to develop costly illnesses. To avert one case of acute illness, it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway. … Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness.”

    You repeat the lies, but the facts once again prove otherwise.

    Furthermore, Levi, if you so care about your sexual partners having contraception, pay the bill yourself.

    But you won’t do that, will you? You blabber and scream and whine and demand that the rest of us foot the bill, but you won’t reach into your own pocket and pay your own bills, will you?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 6, 2012 @ 2:01 am - March 6, 2012

  64. Nicely done, Levi.

    It is reassuring to see that you have not got a clue. I was uncertain if you had begun to develop a cogent philosophy. Your babbling shows no evidence of progress.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 6, 2012 @ 2:09 am - March 6, 2012

  65. You don’t see it as a problem that huge portions of the private healthcare industry are dedicated to denying coverage and dropping patients?

    Comment by Levi — March 6, 2012 @ 12:36 am – March 6, 2012

    Actually, Levi, what is funny is that you shit yourself over private insurance companies denying coverage, but both you and Barack Obama bragged about how Obamacare denying coverage would result in cost savings.

    Now let us make this very clear. Under our current system, you have a wide array of health plans from basic to fully loaded; you choose the coverage you want at the price you want it. If one plan doesn’t cover contraception, you can choose another that does. If you don’t like the coverage requirements for one, you can pick a different plan.

    Your heart’s desire is to force everyone onto a single government plan where there are no choices and no options, and if the government denies you, there is literally no other choice.

    Now, because you are an idiot statist, you probably are dumb enough to scream that that’s not true, that people can pay out of pocket for things that the government doesn’t cover, and that there’s nothing wrong with that.

    At which point we will simply point out that you, little statist that you are, have stated that forcing people to pay out of pocket for ANYTHING is a human rights violation — and that your logic could just as easily apply to people like Fluke who chose to attend a school where contraception coverage wasn’t offered to her.

    And finally, the ultimate in your hypocrisy.

    Who is talking about imposing birth control on anybody? The Catholic bishops aren’t having birth control imposed on them. They don’t have to take it, they have to provide it, which I’m sorry to say is part and parcel of being an employer in this country. The government does a great deal to provide employers with a massive pool of would-be workers and customers, and part of the arrangement is that employers have to comply with certain rules that the government sets up. You guys are fond of saying that the women can just find another job, well I will offer that the Catholic employers can find another government. Why don’t they relocate to Somalia, where they can treat their employees however they want with absolutely no interference from the government at all?

    Comment by Levi — March 5, 2012 @ 11:51 pm – March 5, 2012

    But of course, that “part and parcel of being an employer” doesn’t apply if you are of an Obama Party-approved religious group or donate sufficient dollars to the Obama Party.

    So again, Levi, you are lying. You don’t have ANY problem with employers or religious leaders “denying coverage”; your only problem is with religious leaders or beliefs you don’t like and non-donors. You fully believe in using the government to punish religious beliefs, establish various religious beliefs as governmentally privileged, and to trade government favors for kickbacks, bribes, and cash contributions.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 6, 2012 @ 2:19 am - March 6, 2012

  66. All problems that could be solved by getting government out of the healthcare business entirely.

    As a bonus, getting the Government out of health care would practically eliminate the deficit.

    You blabber and scream and whine and demand that the rest of us foot the bill, but you won’t reach into your own pocket and pay your own bills, will you?

    Yes, exactly, Dressing up selfishness in fascism and calling it “Progressivism” is the name of the game. Deny other people their freedom so that Levi, Cinesnatch, and Sandra Fluke don’t have to pay for their own lifestyles.

    Comment by V the K — March 6, 2012 @ 6:02 am - March 6, 2012

  67. A serious question for unserious people (Levi, Cinesnatch)

    If the Government can decree a company provide a product, why can’t they decree something not be provided?

    If the government can ban risky behaviour, where does it end?

    By supporting the goverment requiring an employer to provide something, you also give them the power to ban something. Levi would whine and pout and cry if the government banned employers from paying for contraception (how would he make balloon animals then?) but it would be using the exact same power that he is cheering now. It might be difficult for those without principles to understand, but if the Catholic Church makes good its promise to shutter its institutions, it won’t be the fault of the Catholics when hospitals close, children aren’t adopted and the ill die. It will be the fault of people like Levi.

    Simpler solution, get the government out of the industry. Obamacare has already destroyed smaller, more affordable plans, and simple math shows it will destroy a lot more than just health insurance.

    (Standard Disclaimer applies.)

    Comment by The Livewire — March 6, 2012 @ 8:25 am - March 6, 2012

  68. Oh, one more flaw in LEvi’s propganda.

    Medicare has a higher claim rejection rate than any major insurance company. (And a lower rate of loss due to fraud)

    So Levi, [you] don’t see it as a problem that huge portions of the private healthcare industry are Medicare industry is dedicated to denying coverage and dropping patients?

    Comment by The Livewire — March 6, 2012 @ 1:33 pm - March 6, 2012

  69. And also, I would point out my post from a few weeks ago in which I cited several studies that showed that those on “free” government insurance were in fact the greatest users of the highest-cost services, with providers being stiffed for the largest portion of costs.

    The reason why is obvious to capitalists. The only limits on demand for free anything are a) supply and b) satiation. As a result, when you hand out “free” health care, there is no reason for people to limit their usage of it, and thus utilization skyrockets.

    The seriously-evil thing about it is that it clearly demonstrates the Barack Obama-Levi fascist mindset. To them, it is evil for a private insurance company to deny coverage in the name of cost control, even though the person still has the option to purchase the health care they want themselves or switch carriers. But they are wholly and completely supportive of the government denying health care — even though you then have no option to switch providers or pay for it yourself.

    That’s the point. Fascist Levi and his friends like Cinesnatch think the government should be able to deny you health care at will. And one can only imagine how the fascist Levi and Cinesnatch would use it — such as demanding that people who vote against Obama or who publicly disagree with gay-sex marriage being denied health care coverage, just as they sicc the IRS on anyone who doesn’t obey now.

    And finally:

    You guys are fond of saying that the women can just find another job, well I will offer that the Catholic employers can find another government. Why don’t they relocate to Somalia, where they can treat their employees however they want with absolutely no interference from the government at all?

    Comment by Levi — March 5, 2012 @ 11:51 pm – March 5, 2012

    Fine. Since you, Cinesnatch, and your slut Fluke want the government to redistribute wealth, suppress religious belief, and provide unlimited health care and contraceptives to all, why don’t you move to Cuba?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 6, 2012 @ 2:26 pm - March 6, 2012

  70. [...] increase felt more acutely by those who do the grocery shopping which, in heterosexual households, tends to be women.  No wonder the Obama campaign is making “an intensified effort this week to build support [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Oil prices up, President Obama down — March 12, 2012 @ 12:09 pm - March 12, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.