Will Someone Please Pay for my Rubbers

[guido911]

Doesn't prove she is or isn't.  Rush's rants are unacceptable due to the fact he is on the far right.  It has nothing to do with truth or fiction.  I personally believe the rants were uncalled for regardless of whether she is or isn't.

Rush is a damned radio personality yet he has got the panties of people in here so wadded up you'd think he was a presidential candidate. The moment Fluke testified before Congress, she placed herself and views into out political discourse. Period. Don't like his opinions or views? Change the damned channel, just like I do when misogynist extraordinaire Bill Maher does on HBO. Sheesh, the amount of absolute hypocrisy of the left is nauseating.

[Hoss]

Doesn't prove she is or isn't.  Rush's rants are unacceptable due to the fact he is on the far right.  It has nothing to do with truth or fiction.  I personally believe the rants were uncalled for regardless of whether she is or isn't.

Of course they were.  If it were a far lefter I would have called them unacceptable.

Rush's issue is that, like many who post on here, he is an unabated AW.  If he's not the center of attention he feels weak.  Look how many of the conservatives that criticized him for this have now relented on that criticism.  He's the defacto spokesman for the RNC, or at the very least, a controlling faction of the Republican party.

[we vs us]

Where or where were these benefiters of doubt when Joe the Plumber came onto the scene? I will look back to his thread in the future next time some newbie on the right surfaces and opines on a controversial subject.

If the newbie has some standing or credibility, then I'm happy to not call him or her a slut or a whore.  In fact, I'll probably refrain from calling them a slut or a whore even if I find them reprehensible.  

[guido911]

Of course they were.  If it were a far lefter I would have called them unacceptable.

Rush's issue is that, like many who post on here, he is an unabated AW.  If he's not the center of attention he feels weak.  Look how many of the conservatives that criticized him for this have now relented on that criticism.  He's the defacto spokesman for the RNC, or at the very least, a controlling faction of the Republican party.

I got no problem with you calling Rush for what you perceive him to be. Heck, I kinda agree that he is an AW. By seriously, is he worth all of this crap? Again, this whole event sprang from Obama's contraception policy that really got the Catholic church upset. Solution? Get a woman from Georgetown, (the oldest catholic/Jesuit college in the US) to speak in favor of broadening the availability of BC. That to me is partly why I started this.

[dioscorides]

Solution? Get a woman from Georgetown, (the oldest catholic/Jesuit college in the US) to speak in favor of broadening the availability of BC. That to me is partly why I started this.

I didn't read through everything in this thread, but has it been pointed out the Georgetown has an insurance plan 'offered and designed by national providers to a national pool' for its employees that includes oral contraceptives?  I am not trying to be a pain, just curious since the girl being from Georgetown is what upset you.

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

[erfalf]

Ms. Fluke kept claiming that this contraception was going to cost $1,000 a year. I understand some pill forms are quit expensive. I also understand Wal-Mart offers a product for less than $10/month. Plus my wife (who does not follow this stuff at all, but still heard about this) told me, "why doesn't the idiot just get an IUD, there like $500 and they last 5 years". I love how my wife is the most common sense person. She's got her opinions and you better have some pretty damn good facts if you think you can change her mind, cause she'll mow you down if you don't.

That all being said, this whole thing starting with the testimony and ending with Rush was all for Political purposes. She had no real business testifying cause she's not an expert on anything that was actually being heard at the time. It was a sneaky ploy by the libs to change the "language" (translate, lie) of the argument. I don't know how this got started (but I do), but at no point was the availability of contraception the issue. But now it is somehow. And the repubs are anti-women. What?

[Gaspar]

I'm still getting a kick out of this.

What have we become?

This confirms that sometime in my lifetime I will get to hear testimony before congress presented by someone demanding that their employer or government pay for their food, housing, clothing, etc, and congress men/women will hear that testimony with teary eyes, and bobble-heads.  

I think we're almost there.

The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened. – Norman Thomas

We used to fight for liberty, now we fight for dependence, because liberty is too hard.

[dbacks fan]

Only if your goal is to be a self righteous d!ck wise guy.

Don't get upset guido, I'm exercising my right to free speech in a public forum. 

[dioscorides]

Ms. Fluke kept claiming that this contraception was going to cost $1,000 a year. I understand some pill forms are quit expensive. I also understand Wal-Mart offers a product for less than $10/month.

True, but not every woman can take every birth control.  Different ones can react negatively with some women and will be just fine for other women.

Plus my wife (who does not follow this stuff at all, but still heard about this) told me, "why doesn't the idiot just get an IUD, there like $500 and they last 5 years". I love how my wife is the most common sense person. She's got her opinions and you better have some pretty damn good facts if you think you can change her mind, cause she'll mow you down if you don't.

She is correct there.  I, personally, don't like the idea of telling someone what birth control they have to use.  Just my personal opinion.

That all being said, this whole thing starting with the testimony and ending with Rush was all for Political purposes. She had no real business testifying cause she's not an expert on anything that was actually being heard at the time. It was a sneaky ploy by the libs to change the "language" (translate, lie) of the argument. I don't know how this got started (but I do), but at no point was the availability of contraception the issue. But now it is somehow. And the repubs are anti-women. What?

I agree that this has become political and that some Republicans have really stepped in it.  As far as who started it, I guess that depends on how far back you what to go.  I don't think this would have blown up like it did if Issa would have let a woman on the panel.  Once again, just personal opinion.  I have no way to know for sure one way or the other.

[heironymouspasparagus]

This confirms that sometime in my lifetime I will get to hear testimony before congress presented by someone demanding that their employer or government pay for their food, housing, clothing, etc, and congress men/women will hear that testimony with teary eyes, and bobble-heads.  

It has always been about that one way or the other, at one level or the other.  The whole point of working at a job is to earn money to pay for all those and all other things one wants to have money to spend on.  Goes to the "total compensation" package mentioned by employers.  Don't forget, they are also paying for our vacation.  And that is the way it should be in a free enterprise system.

The big shift we have seen in recent decades is that rather than the employers using their built in resources to perhaps get volume discounts, or other group buying considerations, they want to put it back on the employee (typically without a corresponding raise in pay to keep it even for that employee).  Pensions are probably the biggest example of that just because it was the 'low hanging fruit' for diverting large blocks of cash back to the company.  Now we see insurance coming to the head of the line.

I would be content to take that fantasy "total compensation" package as a cash payment and go find my own benefits.  But that is NOT the way it works in this system since it is stacked in favor of the people who can afford to buy the influence.  I would - and have - end up taking a major hit, all of which accrues to the benefit of the employer.  Not exactly a win-win....

[Red Arrow]

I would be content to take that fantasy "total compensation" package as a cash payment and go find my own benefits. 

That is essentially what contract employees (as compared to full time, regular employees) do.  At least in the engineering world, they get more pay but no benefits.  ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) frequently sends me info on insurance but since I toss it, I don't know if any of it has been health insurance.  It's frequently life insurance.  IEEE probably offers something similar.

[heironymouspasparagus]

That is essentially what contract employees (as compared to full time, regular employees) do.  At least in the engineering world, they get more pay but no benefits.  ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) frequently sends me info on insurance but since I toss it, I don't know if any of it has been health insurance.  It's frequently life insurance.  IEEE probably offers something similar.

Yep.  Been there, done that.  Got the t-shirt.

IEEE - probably.  Haven't associated with them for a long time.  Pretty much worthless in my little backwater world.  ASME would be much better fit.


Goes to the point of who is best suited for a particular task.  For example, every corporation is required to have some accounting resource.  As most small business', too.  They are the ones best suited to handle tax issues relative to the Federal/State/Local governments.  The IRS would be a much smaller, much less intrusive entity if interfacing with a few million companies versus a couple hundred million individuals.

[Gaspar]

It has always been about that one way or the other, at one level or the other.  The whole point of working at a job is to earn money to pay for all those and all other things one wants to have money to spend on.  Goes to the "total compensation" package mentioned by employers.  Don't forget, they are also paying for our vacation.  And that is the way it should be in a free enterprise system.

The big shift we have seen in recent decades is that rather than the employers using their built in resources to perhaps get volume discounts, or other group buying considerations, they want to put it back on the employee (typically without a corresponding raise in pay to keep it even for that employee).  Pensions are probably the biggest example of that just because it was the 'low hanging fruit' for diverting large blocks of cash back to the company.  Now we see insurance coming to the head of the line.

That is the perfect response I was looking for.

As we rush to our knees to beg our employers, and our government to directly provide more and more of the luxuries we desire and more and more of the necessities we require we naturally limit our choices.  We surrender our ability to regulate the market through the choices we make with our wages.  The quality of the products and services we receive is no longer under our control. The free market becomes corrupted through contract and negotiation.

We freely give up our freedom to choose, because it is easier not to have to make a choice.  It is also easier to leverage the buying power of the company/government against the providers of those goods and services.  We perceive this as acquiring goods and services at some discount.  But this is an illusion.  Over a very short period of time the market corrects any initial vacuum in profit through decrease in quality, service, and limited choice.  Eventually this market imbalance creates outrageous and unchecked profits, insulated from the choices of the consumer.

When a company relies the choices of individuals, the company does everything within their margin to produce products that appeal to their market segment.  Take that away and you eliminate most if not all of the expense they spend on marketing, R&D, service, and innovation.  Even when you do this just slightly (like our current insurance industry) you create an imbalance in profits, and the emergence of near-monopolies.

We get angry when we see industries that do not answer to the consumer, but we're too myopic to see that we delivered that power to them.

If you hate the modern health insurance industry, set it free.  Watch the choices of individuals destroy it, and pick its bones clean like 300 million hungry piranha.  Then watch a thousand new choices grow from the carcass.

[heironymouspasparagus]

That is the perfect response I was looking for.

As we rush to our knees to beg our employers, and our government to directly provide more and more of the luxuries we desire and more and more of the necessities we require we naturally limit our choices.  We surrender our ability to regulate the market through the choices we make with our wages.  The quality of the products and services we receive is no longer under our control. The free market becomes corrupted through contract and negotiation.

We freely give up our freedom to choose, because it is easier not to have to make a choice.  It is also easier to leverage the buying power of the company/government against the providers of those goods and services.  We perceive this as acquiring goods and services at some discount.  But this is an illusion.  Over a very short period of time the market corrects any initial vacuum in profit through decrease in quality, service, and limited choice.  Eventually this market imbalance creates outrageous and unchecked profits, insulated from the choices of the consumer.

When a company relies the choices of individuals, the company does everything within their margin to produce products that appeal to their market segment.  Take that away and you eliminate most if not all of the expense they spend on marketing, R&D, service, and innovation.  Even when you do this just slightly (like our current insurance industry) you create an imbalance in profits, and the emergence of near-monopolies.

We get angry when we see industries that do not answer to the consumer, but we're too myopic to see that we delivered that power to them.

If you hate the modern health insurance industry, set it free.  Watch the choices of individuals destroy it, and pick its bones clean like 300 million hungry piranha.  Then watch a thousand new choices grow from the carcass.

You completely left out the effect of big money buying the legislative agenda it wants.  That is a much bigger effect than any of the second/third order effects mentioned.

And that can only be resisted by large moneyed organizations in opposition to that effect.  That's where unions came from in the first place.  The moneyed corporate interests have been winning that contest - for better or worse - for several decades, with no new institution to take the unions place.  Ending up with corporate interests AND bought and paid for government handing our heads to us on a platter.

[Gaspar]

You completely left out the effect of big money buying the legislative agenda it wants.  That is a much bigger effect than any of the second/third order effects mentioned.

And that can only be resisted by large moneyed organizations in opposition to that effect.  That's where unions came from in the first place.  The moneyed corporate interests have been winning that contest - for better or worse - for several decades, with no new institution to take the unions place.  Ending up with corporate interests AND bought and paid for government handing our heads to us on a platter.

That's all part of it, in the Book of progress. . .  

Entitlement begot dependence.  Dependence begot collective purchasing.  Collective purchasing begot limited choice and the lobby.  Lobbying begot exclusive contracts and even more limited choice.  Limited choice begot worker organization to demand more entitlement.

The grand Ouroboros content to devour itself.

Liberty is often a heavy burden on a man. It involves the necessity for perpetual choice which is the kind of labor men have always dreaded. – Oliver Wendall Holmes