Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Paying for Others to Have Sex
Topic Started: Mar 4 2012, 06:06 PM (2,489 Views)
cks
Member Avatar

duke09parent
Mar 6 2012, 02:33 PM
This place has really become an echo chamber. No condemnation of Limbaugh except as poor strategy? Disappointing. The whole flap had me admiring Maureen Dowd's column on Sunday. Is is a valid defense of Limbaugh that he's no worse than the jerk Maher? Of course it's poor strategy since quite a large majority of women, married and unmarried, use birth control other than condoms (which are better for prevention of disease than pregnancy) and enjoy sex for other than procreation and a leading Republican voice has called them all sluts, with barely a criticism from the candidates. At least O'Reilly didn't mistakenly call it a taxpayer subsidy and couched his complaint as using part of his mandated insurance premium to pay for behavior he doesn't approve of. And O'Reilly didn't call her a slut.

I agree the Viagra counterexample doesn't fit well. How about statins (Lipitor, etc.) for fat guys who have high cholesterol? Shouldn't they just go on a vegetarian and no cheese diet and not get the prescription medicine paid for? There are countless other health related issues/treatments which insurance pays for that could be subject to conscientious objection.
Limbaugh stepped over the line when he called Ms. Fluke a slut. There is no doubt about that. Should he be taken to task for that - yes, because a civil society demands that its members refrain from debasing others. Limbaugh apologized - Ms. Fluke has refused his apology (her right) because - and here I think that I am correct, she does not feel it is sincere. Again, her right but methinks that Ms Fluke is angling for a bigger pay-off - she would like to be known as the person who chased Limbaugh off the air....just as she entered Georgetown law school with the intent of changing its health care coverage.

I would say that what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. The right is correct that the wholesale filthy language of some on the left goes totally without comment or outcry. Bill Maher, Joy Behar, Keith Olberman have repeatedly used filthy and demeaning language. Where is the President or any of the others who were so exercised about Limbaugh's "slut" on the repeated filth spewed by these paragons of the airwaves?

Though I have been known to be less than temperate in my remarks about people in the heat of the moment, I have tried to remember that I was brought up better and apologize. And, I try to at least think to myself how I could have more politely (and kindly) expressed my views - with the intention of not engaging in profanities the next time. My guess is that Limbaugh will be somewhat more temperate - as well he should. I cannot say that I have the same hope that Maher, Behar, Kathy Griffen, or Olberman wil do anything but follow the same course of action that has guided them in the past - that when it comes to anyone who disagrees with them, there is no word or phrase that is off the table.

Edited by cks, Mar 6 2012, 03:39 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
wingedwheel
Member Avatar
Not Pictured Above
What is worse? Being called slut or being called a tea bagger? As a male I would rather be called a slut any day of the week.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
wingedwheel
Member Avatar
Not Pictured Above
Bob Beckel was right yesterday. Rush apologized and it's time to move on.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
duke09parent

chatham
Mar 6 2012, 03:00 PM
Just asking as a point of clarification on my part. Exactly who pays for insurance coverage? I do not believe it is the insurance companies, but the people who pay the insurance company for coverage. Fat people with high cholesterol who need statins do not deserve anymore of my money than women who want to go on birth control pills so they can have fun without responsibilities of a family. I believe that individuals who do have a medical problem should get it fixed and have their or some insurance pay for it...as long as it is not free. Because free to them means I pay for it. But a fat guy with high cholesterol that abused himself when young does not deserve my dollars to pay for his medical costs because... His problem is not his cholesterol, but his eating habits.
There seems to be a misconception about the use of "free" in the context of this debate. It does NOT mean that taxpayers are paying for it. The proposed administrative rule under Obamacare (yeah, I used the term since I can't remember the real name) is that contraception be considered preventative care and all treatments considered preventative care will be covered by the applicable insurance. It will be no more or less free than any other covered preventative care.

In the employment world, as opposed the the academic world, most health insurance has for many years been part of the employee's compensation. It is paid by the employer because the cost is deductible to the business and not included as part of income to the employee, and also because the greater the number of people being enrolled in an insurance program the less the per-person cost. But it is something the employee earns by taking the job and doing the work. Every employer I've known about includes the cost of insurance in the calculation of cost of each employee. So, an employer wanting to control how the compensation is to be used seems pretty intrusive to me. Do you think an employer should be able to prevent an employee from using part of her cash pay for contraceptives (or abortion for that matter).

If Maureen Dowd is too much NYT for you, take a look at this female Army officer's take:

http://www.jessicascott.net/blog/2012/03/i-am-not-a-slut/
Edited by duke09parent, Mar 6 2012, 03:47 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
wingedwheel
Member Avatar
Not Pictured Above
Baldo
Mar 6 2012, 01:59 PM
Laura Ingraham Blasts The View: When I Was Called A Slut, Barbara Walters Laughed It Off
http://tinyurl.com/7ck42f6
And if I remember right Schultz apologized and Laura accepted it. In the case of Fluke, she didn't.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
wingedwheel
Member Avatar
Not Pictured Above
$9 a month at Target. She could skip a meal and pay for a months worth of birth control pills. Or if she is still hell bent on someone else paying for it she could go out on a date with someone with a p___s and have them pay for her meal and use that saved money to buy birth control.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
retiredLEO
Member Avatar

duke09parent
Mar 6 2012, 03:44 PM
chatham
Mar 6 2012, 03:00 PM
Just asking as a point of clarification on my part. Exactly who pays for insurance coverage? I do not believe it is the insurance companies, but the people who pay the insurance company for coverage. Fat people with high cholesterol who need statins do not deserve anymore of my money than women who want to go on birth control pills so they can have fun without responsibilities of a family. I believe that individuals who do have a medical problem should get it fixed and have their or some insurance pay for it...as long as it is not free. Because free to them means I pay for it. But a fat guy with high cholesterol that abused himself when young does not deserve my dollars to pay for his medical costs because... His problem is not his cholesterol, but his eating habits.
There seems to be a misconception about the use of "free" in the context of this debate. It does NOT mean that taxpayers are paying for it. The proposed administrative rule under Obamacare (yeah, I used the term since I can't remember the real name) is that contraception be considered preventative care and all treatments considered preventative care will be covered by the applicable insurance. It will be no more or less free than any other covered preventative care.

In the employment world, as opposed the the academic world, most health insurance has for many years been part of the employee's compensation. It is paid by the employer because the cost is deductible to the business and not included as part of income to the employee, and also because the greater the number of people being enrolled in an insurance program the less the per-person cost. But it is something the employee earns by taking the job and doing the work. Every employer I've known about includes the cost of insurance in the calculation of cost of each employee. So, an employer wanting to control how the compensation is to be used seems pretty intrusive to me. Do you think an employer should be able to prevent an employee from using part of her cash pay for contraceptives (or abortion for that matter).

If Maureen Dowd is too much NYT for you, take a look at this female Army officer's take:

http://www.jessicascott.net/blog/2012/03/i-am-not-a-slut/
Most people using contraception are using it to prevent pregnancy, since when did pregnancy become a preventable DISEASE??
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

part of Duke09Parent's post
 
...So, an employer wanting to control how the compensation is to be used seems pretty intrusive to me. Do you think an employer should be able to prevent an employee from using part of her cash pay for contraceptives (or abortion for that matter).


Since he has a larger family, should his allowance on a company vehicle be for a 6 passenger model, though all the other employees get an allowance for a 4 passenger model?

Both of those read like a pay increase in my book.

Consider that when you apply for the job. Company A offers $1,000 deductible and FREE PILL, while Company B offers $750 and no pill, the potential employee can do their own math and select.

Anyway, many companies do offer direct pay increases if you choose to not use their coverage they select.

On another topic...

Why is Barry's making his daughter a not part of the "slut" conversation?

It does continue the conversation Barry selected for the right.
Edited by kbp, Mar 6 2012, 04:42 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

retiredLEO
Mar 6 2012, 04:17 PM
duke09parent
Mar 6 2012, 03:44 PM
chatham
Mar 6 2012, 03:00 PM
Just asking as a point of clarification on my part. Exactly who pays for insurance coverage? I do not believe it is the insurance companies, but the people who pay the insurance company for coverage. Fat people with high cholesterol who need statins do not deserve anymore of my money than women who want to go on birth control pills so they can have fun without responsibilities of a family. I believe that individuals who do have a medical problem should get it fixed and have their or some insurance pay for it...as long as it is not free. Because free to them means I pay for it. But a fat guy with high cholesterol that abused himself when young does not deserve my dollars to pay for his medical costs because... His problem is not his cholesterol, but his eating habits.
There seems to be a misconception about the use of "free" in the context of this debate. It does NOT mean that taxpayers are paying for it. The proposed administrative rule under Obamacare (yeah, I used the term since I can't remember the real name) is that contraception be considered preventative care and all treatments considered preventative care will be covered by the applicable insurance. It will be no more or less free than any other covered preventative care.

In the employment world, as opposed the the academic world, most health insurance has for many years been part of the employee's compensation. It is paid by the employer because the cost is deductible to the business and not included as part of income to the employee, and also because the greater the number of people being enrolled in an insurance program the less the per-person cost. But it is something the employee earns by taking the job and doing the work. Every employer I've known about includes the cost of insurance in the calculation of cost of each employee. So, an employer wanting to control how the compensation is to be used seems pretty intrusive to me. Do you think an employer should be able to prevent an employee from using part of her cash pay for contraceptives (or abortion for that matter).

If Maureen Dowd is too much NYT for you, take a look at this female Army officer's take:

http://www.jessicascott.net/blog/2012/03/i-am-not-a-slut/
Most people using contraception are using it to prevent pregnancy, since when did pregnancy become a preventable DISEASE??
I had thought about that, considering that pregnancy is treated by the doctor. Giving birth and the pregnancy require medical attention that is covered.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
.
Please. Did Obammy have a problem with Dem Rep Etheridge grabbing someone asking him about his vote? Did he condemn Ehteridge, in any way? Did he say how he would have felt if Sasha or Malia were grabbed and treated like that by someone in power?

Did Obama have a problem with Maxine Waters calling Republicans Demons? Did he ask Maxine Waters to step back? Did he consider how Sasha and Malia would feel being called Demons?

And these are Elected Representatives - not Radio Entertainment show hosts. I'm not falling for it - this is most divisive administration in our lifetimes - and they're just getting warmed up. I'm not falling for Poltical Manuevers either. Go Rush Go.


.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
.
Where is the P-word in this whole thing?

Isn't Ms. Fluke Privileged and she's asking for more? Shouldn't she be pondering those that have bigger problems than how they are going to pay for her next sex session?


.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Barry associated his daughters to a 30 YO sexually active activist. WTH are his objectives there? Continue the debate? Invite comments about his daughters so he may condemn the source? Color a more innocent picture for the activist, or score points if any do just the opposite?

I'm not clear on what he wants from that remark, but I know what most good wives would do to their husbands if they did the same.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
kbp
Mar 6 2012, 05:27 PM
Barry associated his daughters to a 30 YO sexually active activist. WTH are his objectives there? Continue the debate? Invite comments about his daughters so he may condemn the source? Color a more innocent picture for the activist, or score points if any do just the opposite?

.
Welcome to the Game.




.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

duke09parent
Mar 6 2012, 03:44 PM
There seems to be a misconception about the use of "free" in the context of this debate. It does NOT mean that taxpayers are paying for it. The proposed administrative rule under Obamacare (yeah, I used the term since I can't remember the real name) is that contraception be considered preventative care and all treatments considered preventative care will be covered by the applicable insurance. It will be no more or less free than any other covered preventative care.

In the employment world, as opposed the the academic world, most health insurance has for many years been part of the employee's compensation. It is paid by the employer because the cost is deductible to the business and not included as part of income to the employee, and also because the greater the number of people being enrolled in an insurance program the less the per-person cost. But it is something the employee earns by taking the job and doing the work. Every employer I've known about includes the cost of insurance in the calculation of cost of each employee. So, an employer wanting to control how the compensation is to be used seems pretty intrusive to me. Do you think an employer should be able to prevent an employee from using part of her cash pay for contraceptives (or abortion for that matter).

If Maureen Dowd is too much NYT for you, take a look at this female Army officer's take:

http://www.jessicascott.net/blog/2012/03/i-am-not-a-slut/
Healthcare is a benefit as the cost of your employer-provided health care isn't added to your W-2 form. So as you agree it is not compensation. Healthcare is deductible as a business benefit expense. It has been up to now optional. Employers were not mandated by govt to provide it.

I, as a business owner, chose the healthcare plan that I offered to my employees or a business reached an agreement with the employee's unions on what it should cover. Over the last decade govt, States mainly, started to mandate certain cover. I believe that is a mistake and is one reason costs are soaring.

So, an employer wanting to control how the compensation is to be used seems pretty intrusive to me. Do you think an employer should be able to prevent an employee from using part of her cash pay for contraceptives (or abortion for that matter).

You cannot call it compensation and not compensation at the same time.

Intrusive is forcing Catholic institutions to provide coverage for something they morally disagree with as a matter of belief.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Obama's support among women increases



Makes it his conversation and gains from it at the same time.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic »
Add Reply