Sandra Fluke is no fluke

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
_Jaybear
_Emeritus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 6:49 pm

Re: Sandra Fluke is no fluke

Post by _Jaybear »

Droopy wrote: Actually it tells me that its most likely rooted in principled opposition to the state forcing me to be complicit in the lifestyle choices of others with which I strongly disagree through the force of law.

It also tells me that its rooted in principled opposition to the state being involved in human affairs with which it has no competence or business meddling.


If your premium does not go up because of this change, how are you "complicit"?
_Jaybear
_Emeritus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 6:49 pm

Re: Sandra Fluke is no fluke

Post by _Jaybear »

Droopy wrote:1. I don't want to pay for Fluke's healthcare costs or her contraceptive usage, and the constitution contains no provisions or text allowing the state to force me to do so.


No one has asked you to pay for her costs. She is paying for her own policy.

2. Fluke's contraceptive needs are her own problem and she has no business involving her fellow citizens in the support and abetting of her own lifestyle choices (and contraceptives are hardly expensive, and in fact, quite the opposite (as a quick trip to any local drug store will make apparent)).


My wife's contraceptives used to cost $27 per month. That adds up. Now they cost $0. The premiums did not go up.

3. If Fluke, or anyone else, wishes to live their sex lives at Hefneresque levels, their contraceptive requirements are their own problem and their own responsibility. If those requirements become economically prohibitive, then they can alter their behavior to reflect those economic realities.


Now you are just being an idiot.
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Sandra Fluke is no fluke

Post by _Droopy »

If your premium does not go up because of this change, how are you "complicit"?


Have you even been following the thread, Jaybear?
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_Jaybear
_Emeritus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 6:49 pm

Re: Sandra Fluke is no fluke

Post by _Jaybear »

Droopy wrote:
If your premium does not go up because of this change, how are you "complicit"?


Have you even been following the thread, Jaybear?


You "principled"objection is purportedly premised on being opposed to the: "state forcing me to be complicit".

If you didn't vote for Obama, or any legislator who voted for Obamacare ...
If your taxes aren't used to pay for Ms. Fluke's birth control ....
If you premiums are not raised to cover birth control,
then how is the state forcing you to be complicit in her "lifestlye" choice.

I am reading the thread, but no, I am not following your attempts to explain your objection to this policy.
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Sandra Fluke is no fluke

Post by _Droopy »

No one has asked you to pay for her costs. She is paying for her own policy.


…. For me, the likely scenario isn’t that the Republicans will be terrorizing rape victims or that the Democrats will finally pass the necessary legislation to make contraception available for the contraceptively starved millions crying out for it, but that America will be sliding off the cliff — literally, as Joe Biden would literally say. And when America slides off the cliff it lands with a much bigger thud than Greece or Iceland.


Fluke is a supporter of government subsidized contraceptives, specifically, the Obama mandate dealing with them, and she has made no bones about forcing business entities with religious affiliations to support her lifestyle and that of those like her (also contained in Obamacare). Once this camel's nose is in the tent, of course, it will rapidly and aggressively extend itself from religiously affiliated entities, such as schools, universities, and charities, to churches themselves, and then to tax funds gestating in the general treasury.

I, myself, am not paying for her lifestyle choices now, but many others will be - against the deepest opposition of their conscience - and I most assuredly will be, as the precedent has been set and, as with all things on the Left and most things within government, this precedent will expand, bloat, and relentlessly colonize other regions of cultural and economic territory. They always do (and, come now, Jaybear, that's the entire point of the contraceptive mandate, as with Obamacare itself).

My wife's contraceptives used to cost $27 per month. That adds up. Now they cost $0. The premiums did not go up.


There's no free lunch, Jaybear. If she's not paying for her own contraception, then someone else is, and there is no rational reason whatsoever why that sole responsibility, as with necessities such as house payments, groceries, electric bills, and car repairs or peripheral enjoyments such satellite TV, karate lessons, and contraceptives, should not fall on her (or you).

27 bucks a month? That's about $350 per year. Pay for it yourself, or alter your behavior to make ends meet. Don't ask your fellow citizens to pony up their own hard earned money to support your wife's lifestyle choices.

3. If Fluke, or anyone else, wishes to live their sex lives at Hefneresque levels, their contraceptive requirements are their own problem and their own responsibility. If those requirements become economically prohibitive, then they can alter their behavior to reflect those economic realities.


Now you are just being an idiot.


Anyone, including a law school student, who spends $3,000 a year on contraceptives (ten times what your wife was spending and what she claims the average Georgetown law school female student spends) should probably be considering extensive, long-term psychotherapy in lieu of any further influencing of public policy.

She should also grow up.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Sandra Fluke is no fluke

Post by _Droopy »

If you didn't vote for Obama, or any legislator who voted for Obamacare ...
If your taxes aren't used to pay for Ms. Fluke's birth control ....
If you premiums are not raised to cover birth control,
then how is the state forcing you to be complicit in her "lifestlye" choice.


The Obamacare mandate requires all insurance companies to support and subsidize Fluke's lifestyle choices, as well as non-profit religious charities and other religiously affiliated entities to cover contraceptives for their employees. Hence, if I have medical insurance, I will be complicit in her lifestyle choices. If I'm a Catholic, or Mormon, or whatever, working in a religiously affiliated charity, I will be forced to contribute through taxes withheld from my paycheck.

Then (of course), very soon, religious schools and churches themselves will be forced to directly contribute to lifestyles to which they have strong religious and philosophical objection, on the basis of legislation for which there is no constitutional basis, which costs attending those lifestyle choices should be born by those wishing to pursue those lifestyles.

You're a perfect Obama supporter, Jaybear, a libertarian/libertine in matters affecting yourself and a police statist in matters affecting everyone else and those whom you and others like you wish to compel to change your lifestyle and personal behavior diapers for you at their expense.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_Jaybear
_Emeritus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 6:49 pm

Re: Sandra Fluke is no fluke

Post by _Jaybear »

Droopy wrote:The Obamacare mandate requires all insurance companies to support and subsidize Fluke's lifestyle choices, as well as non-profit religious charities and other religiously affiliated entities to cover contraceptives for their employees. Hence, if I have medical insurance, I will be complicit in her lifestyle choices. If I'm a Catholic, or Mormon, or whatever, working in a religiously affiliated charity, I will be forced to contribute through taxes withheld from my paycheck.

Then (of course), very soon, religious schools and churches themselves will be forced to directly contribute to lifestyles to which they have strong religious and philosophical objection, on the basis of legislation for which there is no constitutional basis, which costs attending those lifestyle choices should be born by those wishing to pursue those lifestyles.

You're a perfect Obama supporter, Jaybear, a libertarian/libertine in matters affecting yourself and a police statist in matters affecting everyone else and those whom you and others like you wish to compel to change your lifestyle and personal behavior diapers for you at their expense.


Ms. Fluke has private insurance. Your taxes are not paying for her birth control.

As for her insurance pool, women who are on the pill have lower medical expenses that women who have children, not to mention the medical costs associated with the children. So even if you were in her pool, she would more likely be subsidizing your family, and the lifestyle of those in the pool who are overweight, don't exercise, smoke and drink excessively.
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Sandra Fluke is no fluke

Post by _Droopy »

Ms. Fluke has private insurance. Your taxes are not paying for her birth control.


I'm using her rhetorically, Jaybear. She's specifically and openly supported female college/university students in her public statements as needing government subsidized contraceptives (and if the state forces private insurance companies to subsidize them, the state has still then forced the private subsidization) as well as all woman generally speaking, at least those sexually active (as she appears to be on a daily, if not hourly basis).

As for her insurance pool, women who are on the pill have lower medical expenses that women who have children, not to mention the medical costs associated with the children. So even if you were in her pool, she would more likely be subsidizing your family, and the lifestyle of those in the pool who are overweight, don't exercise, smoke and drink excessively.


Your leftist slip is showing, Jaybear. There is only one way her lower medical costs (if this is even true, which I doubt to any significant statistical extent, especially given the long known and well understood health risks associated with "the pill") could be understood as in some sense "subsidizing" my family and anything they do, and that is if there is a big, green pile of medium of exchange somewhere that is understood to be a public commons, and in which, if one person takes a bit less, that leaves more for others, and vice versa.

That is not the way a free market economy works, and it does not represent economic reality. My medical costs are mine, and hers hers, in an unhampered, free market economy. Greater or lesser use of medical services alters the price of those services (mediated by other factors, such as competition and innovation), but my obesity (which I am not) does not cause you to subsidize my healthcare costs unless it was the case that all money existing within the realm of the delivery of medical services was, in essence, public money - socialized. Otherwise, I'm using my own money for my own medical care (or through a private insurer) and you are using yours.

I highly doubt, as I said before, that any differential in health between woman who have children and those who go to law school and party like its 1999 would be statistically significant enough to actually register as a salient rise in prices for you in the doctor's office, especially since medicine is subdivided, past general practitioners, into numerous sub-specialties having no direct relation to any problems that may or may not be caused by having children, which has its own specialists (its amazing how if you scratch a leftist just a little bit you will inevitably find an anti-natalist below the thin, translucent skin of "social justice").
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Sandra Fluke is no fluke

Post by _Kevin Graham »

Of course every assertion in Droopy's first post is a lie. This isn't about lifestyle choices or taxation. It is about insurance companies providing necessary health care to those who pay into it. That's it. Period.

This horse crap about taxation to pay for sexual promiscuity is the great lie told by idiots like Rush Limbaugh, and of course this kind of anti-intellectualism resonates with the village idiots on all forums. Facts don't matter. That's why they stick to the extreme Right Wing blogosphere (i.e. Townhall!)

Get educated folks, avoid the indoctrination from the blowhard Right.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/03/15 ... out/184620
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Re: Sandra Fluke is no fluke

Post by _beastie »

Droopy wrote:Let me get this straight, if this is understood to be within the realm of possibility: free birth control (tax subsidized birth control) would save me, the taxpayer who subsidizes that "free" birth control, money? It would seem that, at anything near Sandra Fluke levels of sexual promiscuity, saving $96 bucks a year is not even worth bringing up.



You're as much of an idiot as Rush Limbaugh.

(whoops, I see Kevin already pointed that out. LOL. As if one can measure promiscuity by birth control pills. It seems that neither Rush nor Droopy have any idea how bc pills work. Apparently they think the more sex you have, the more bc pills you need.)
Last edited by Tator on Thu Nov 29, 2012 2:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
Post Reply