colourwheel Posted January 26, 2014 Author Share Posted January 26, 2014 (edited) @TRoaches You make a good argument... but this debate was never remotely about economic policies, Obama, or anything other than about a "war on women"... If you wish to start your own debate about these issues you have brought up feel free to start one on your own, like I always suggest when you manage to completely derail any topic thread I start... But more so back to my point I have tried to illustrate time and time again on this forum, the republican party is slowly dying when even someone like TRoaches is no longer a supporter of a party he use to identify with.... Which is why the Republican party has deeper issues they need to deal with then other than just how they try to deliver their messages to female voters.... Edited January 26, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagrant0 Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 Here are some things that people intentionally do that often require medical attention or disable them in some way: *snip* and, of course -cutting off your own feet? Removing the ones that are just a part of the mechanics of living in reality. Or did you forget to include Breathing? -smoking = Already accounted for with the extremely high taxation on purchasing any tobacco product, bans in public places (or even outside in California), and heavy social stigmas. Even still, rare to occasional smoking hasn't been shown to conclusively lead to health problems from first hand smoking, with health problems mostly reported in cases of constant and long term first hand smoking, or related to second hand smoke. -drinking = Already accounted for with similarly high taxation, high penalties due to alcohol abuse. Alcohol consumed in responsible quantities does not cause any lasting damage to the body or organs, only harms others when taken to excess or when paired with heavy equipment, and has in many cases been shown to have beneficial effects to stress levels, immune response, and heart health. -football and other sports = Admittedly dangerous, but since there is a ridiculous amount of money involved, including funding for colleges to afford the facilities for other sorts of activities, not going away, and a dead horse. In most cases these are accounted for by offering scholarships, wages, fame, endorsements, or other things that allow otherwise unremarkable people to subsist until their body fails them. Regardless, very few people enter into these activities for the sole intent of injuring themselves or intentionally being unsafe in their activity. When regarding safety, there is no all-or-none policy, it would simply never work, just as you cannot hermetically seal everyone in their own little bubbles. Some matter of discretion is needed when deciding what laws are prudent and what laws are excessive, not as a matter of protecting those that know better, but as a matter of protecting those who don't know any better, or society from those who would seek to exploit whatever gaps in the law that exist. If everything was permitted, about the only thing you would accomplish would be a mass culling of the population as those with some sense are killed off by the stupidity of others. It also leads into important problems, such as determining what age or level of education is necessary to where a person should be accepted as being able to have an informed decision regarding what they should or should not be allowed to do. Should it be just limited to those who possess enough capacity of mind to recognize dangerous acts as dangerous, or should be it be unlimited no matter how young or stupid you are. Should children be allowed to drive cars, sell themselves for money, or any number of equally destructive or questionable acts just because they decided that they wanted to do so? What about adults who are so desperate or mentally defunct that they would willingly submit themselves to anything that was asked, without moral bearing, just because it could be done without some law getting in the way? Sure, this means utopia for those people who were blessed with intelligence, common sense, and the logistic basis to keep them from falling into a bad end, but for everyone else it is a life of exploitation, danger, and quick death. Even something simple, like no longer requiring warning labels on dangerous chemicals, or allowing companies to add anything they wanted to their products would have a very severe consequence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 @TRoaches You make a good argument... but this debate was never remotely about economic policies, Obama, or anything other than about a "war on women"... If you wish to start your own debate about these issues you have brought up feel free to start one on your own, like I always suggest when you manage to completely derail any topic thread I start...It is not a derailment. Your position (the Republican party is anti-woman, therefore they should not appoint a woman to speak on their behalf) is a perfect example of the kind of doublethink that the parties rely on to stay in power, and that I am pointing to in my previous post. Perhaps you don't see the connection, but that does not mean it is not there. Perhaps you don't see the connection because the whole situation that you are in uproar about was engineered by very smart people specifically to work at a subconscious level and instill loyalty to one side and disdain for another regardless of how you really feel about the situation. That is why the same people who marched with Cindy Sheehan only a few years ago are now driving around in SUVs with Obama bumber stickers. They don't even realize how hypocritical and compromised they are being, and I believe that this is the intended effect of these types of wedge issues. It is, I suspect, how a person like yourself, who most likely would never have anything negative to say about a person's female gender, is attacking a politician for being female and attacking her party for daring to appoint a woman to an important position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted January 26, 2014 Author Share Posted January 26, 2014 @TRaoches Let me remind you in 2005 when Huckabee was Governor of Arkansas he signed into law mandating insurance plans provide contraception coverage in his state (which don't get me wrong I don't have a problem with that).... But Isn't that government intrusion into personal medical affairs? Which is why I find it ironic you are calling others hypocritical when you yourself are displaying a level of hypocrisy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 Huckabee is crap. I've said it over and over, yet you continue to try to associate my viewpoint with his. I don't think I can be any more clear than to say that Huckabee is crap. He does not represent me, and I have never supported him with words, dollars, or votes. I have supported his opponents, people specifically running against him for office with words, dollars, and votes. Why do you insist that I support him? In answer to your question, yes it is a government intrusion into personal medical affairs and Huckabee was probably wrong to sign it according to a strict conservative ideology. A privately owned insurance company should be allowed to refuse contraception for whatever reason they wish (moral, financial, or otherwise) provided that they are honest about this policy and the consumer is able to make an informed decision to give their business to that insurance company or to take their business elsewhere to a company that is willing to provide the service that they desire. This way an individual who has a moral opposition to a particular practice can be insured without the moral dilemma of indirectly supporting that practice financially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagrant0 Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 In answer to your question, yes it is a government intrusion into personal medical affairs and Huckabee was probably wrong to sign it according to a strict conservative ideology. A privately owned insurance company should be allowed to refuse contraception for whatever reason they wish (moral, financial, or otherwise) provided that they are honest about this policy and the consumer is able to make an informed decision to give their business to that insurance company or to take their business elsewhere to a company that is willing to provide the service that they desire. This way an individual who has a moral opposition to a particular practice can be insured without the moral dilemma of indirectly supporting that practice financially. Except that there were no likely no insurance plans which covered it, atleast not among plans that the average person could afford. Afterall, why would an insurance company WANT to cover a medication which is typically not necessary to maintain a quality of life or prevent a disease which is related to something that the insurance company ends up paying significantly more for. Although prenatal care is covered by insurance in most cases, it's a coverage over the span of several months and which is statistically uncommon among all women. Paying for contraception isn't something that insurance companies want to do, which is exactly why they are paying lobbyists to get government officials to make it so that they don't have to. Insurance companies are businesses, and although businesses generally want to attract new customers, they also need to do so in ways which are justifiable economically. The free market doesn't work when all the deciding players are sitting on the same side of the table and get to come up with their own prices leaving you with no alternative but to pay it. Take a look at the price tag of some common medicines compared to what they actually cost to make and ship sometime, not all of that is going back into drug research. Subsequently, medicines are also something that people cannot typically produce on their own, so there are no new contenders into the market who can pose any challenge... Even if drugs themselves weren't protected against duplication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 @Vagrant0: If you like sprinkles on your ice cream why would you go to an ice cream shop that does not offer sprinkles? If an ice cream shop was losing customers because they refused to offer sprinkles to customers who expect them to be available why would they continue to refuse to offer that product? If an ice cream shop could attract customers away from a competitor by offering the sprinkles that their competitors lack why would they choose not to? If you need a particular medication (birth control or anything else) and you want it to be covered by your insurance why would you choose an insurance company that does not provide that service? If an insurance company is losing customers because they refuse to offer a particular service then why would they continue to refuse to offer that service? If an insurance company could attract customers away from a competitor by offering a service that their competitor lacks why would they choose not to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted January 26, 2014 Author Share Posted January 26, 2014 (edited) Huckabee is crap. I've said it over and over, yet you continue to try to associate my viewpoint with his. I don't think I can be any more clear than to say that Huckabee is crap. He does not represent me, and I have never supported him with words, dollars, or votes. I have supported his opponents, people specifically running against him for office with words, dollars, and votes. Why do you insist that I support him? If you are not supportive or defending Huckabee then you could agree it's people like Huckabee that are destroying the Republican party because they can't seem to resist injecting their views about women in publicly humiliating ways which only end up nationally denigrating females... And there are far too many examples of people within the Republican party who end up doing this.... In answer to your question, yes it is a government intrusion into personal medical affairs and Huckabee was probably wrong to sign it according to a strict conservative ideology. A privately owned insurance company should be allowed to refuse contraception for whatever reason they wish (moral, financial, or otherwise) provided that they are honest about this policy and the consumer is able to make an informed decision to give their business to that insurance company or to take their business elsewhere to a company that is willing to provide the service that they desire. This way an individual who has a moral opposition to a particular practice can be insured without the moral dilemma of indirectly supporting that practice financially. Then why stop at "birth control"? Why isn't the debate about privately owned insurance companies refusing to provide erectile dysfunction meds? Maybe Insurance companies shouldn't even have to provide pain medication or sleeping medication.... This might come to a shock to you but "Birth control" pills are not just used as a "contraceptives". Sometimes teenage girls get prescribed birth control pills just to help regulate their menstrual cycles at a young age. This doesn't mean they are out of control people who can't control their "lobidos".. If The Republican party is trying to make the argument that privately owned insurance companies shouldn't be obligated to provide "medication", they shouldn't be using "birth control" always as their prime example. This only turns the heads of a majority of females in the nation and makes the party always lose national elections.... The Republican party just ends up denigrating the very people who they are trying to win over every time they try to talk about "women" as if they are a minor demographic. Last time I checked women "still" hold the majority of the national voting pool and it's evident more and more females each year are voting Democratic... Edited January 26, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 (edited) If you are not supportive or defending Huckabee then you could agree it's people like Huckabee that are destroying the Republican party ...Nobody is destroying either party. The drama that you are focusing on and hyping on this forum is pure theater, and is intended to divert your attention away from the stuff that neither party wants you to look at with a critical eye. Why isn't the debate about privately owned insurance companies refusing to provide erectile dysfunction meds? Because nobody is pretending like erectile dysfunction meds are some kind of basic human right and demanding free erection pills under a plan that does not cover them. A medical need for something does not necessarily equate to a responsibility, morally or contractually, on the part of the insurance company to provide it. If a doctor recommends a hot pad for an injured back is my insurance company required to pay for it? What about over the counter medications? If I am allergic to common perfumes is my insurance company obligated to provide me with fragrance-free soap? If I am overweight should they be required to buy me fruit and a a gym membership? If that does not work should they be required to provide me with a trainer? What about hair transplants or cosmetic surgery? If someone can prove that their baldness is causing psychological trauma should they force their insurance company to cover that? Is there anything that you don't think the insurance company should be required to provide its customers? Edited January 26, 2014 by TRoaches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted January 26, 2014 Author Share Posted January 26, 2014 @TRoaches I think you are missing the point.... Vagrant0 has pointed this out in an earlier post.... The only reason why birth control is even on the list of topics is because it is this thing that government now has to pay for, and it's something which resonates with beliefs that women should remain chaste until they are married, and only have sexual intercourse for the sole purpose of procreation. Views which conflict heavily with reality, or practicality. This is exactly why Republicans have an issue with "birth control".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts