Where did we change? (Page 5)

phoenixazul - 2013-01-29 5:07 PM

Jackemy1 - 2013-01-29 4:39 PM

mr2tony - 2013-01-29 3:14 PM

powerman - 2013-01-29 2:43 PM

mr2tony - 2013-01-29 1:30 PM

TriRSquared - 2013-01-29 2:24 PM

I just don't see how birth control got to be such a big issue.  You can get a month's supply at WalMart or Target for $9. Condoms are even cheaper.

How is this not affordable for a VAST majority of people?  And those who are on government assistance can get them even cheaper.

It's a non issue. It's just used by the left to try to villainize the right for being "anti-woman".

To be sure, I for one am not trying to make a villain out of anybody. I'm just looking at it from an economic standpoint. You pay a little now to avoid paying more later. In a perfect world, yes, people would go to Target and get the $9 pills, but we don't live in a perfect world. If they're free or subsidized, more people will use them -- Jackemy's axiom was spot on. And the more people who use them, the fewer unwanted pregnancies we have. And the fewer unwanted pregnancies we have, the less you and I will have to pay for those `oops' kids for the next couple of decades in the form of welfare, WIC and education.

OK... glad you have isolated the problem. Feel free to give as much BC as you can afford away to strangers. Better yet, come up with a organization to get donations to give free birth control to all those tyhat want it. work to make this world a better place. Personal responsibility.

But what politics has become is how can it pay for my way in this world. You can talk about how much BC cost me... what maybe 10 cents a year.... but I have a 100,000 government programs I pay 10 cents a year for and this country is going broke. The U.S. is a very wealthy nation, but we can never afford to pay for peoples living.

Feel free to donate to any program you feel passionate about... just stop mandating for me to do the same..... and while we are at it... who says I am responsible for paying for someone else's kids? I made my decision... I didn't have any. Who says I should pay for a person to stay on welfare all their lives and then pay for every kid they feel like having... it's wrong.

Personal responsibility.

The funny part about this is that I agree with you, in a sense. I would love it if I paid fewer taxes. It would be great if I only had to pay taxes on the things I use. I don't use the road in your city, so I wouldn't have to pay for that. Heck I choose to not own a car, yet I pay for the roads in MY CITY on which people drive everyday, I shouldn't have to pay for that. I haven't had to call the police yet, so I guess I shouldn't have to pay for that. Rumor is the Grand Canyon is lovely, but I've never been there, yet I'm paying for upkeep of a national park there. I shouldn't have to pay for that. Spare me the holier than thou `I should only pay for stuff I think is important.' We're all in this together, the rich, the poor, the middle-income, the Democrats, the Republicans, all of us. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't pay them. Find out what happens.

I have no problem paying taxes for the things you just mentioned even if I may not use them, it is a function of government to maintain roads and provide for public safety and upkeep parks. Conservatives aren't anarchist, government does serve a purpose and needs funds to function.

Here is my viewpoint on paying for social behavior.

If I pay for what happens behind your bedroom door, I should have a say of what happens behind your bedroom door. 

If I am required to pay for your diabetes, I should have a say in limiting the sugar you put in your body. 

That is fair, right? Bloomberg has a point even if I don't agree with the overall policy. If the taxpayer is going to pay for your behavioral choices, the taxpayer should have a say. However, I would rather live under a government that stayed out of my bedroom and refrigerator.

 

 

 

Ah yes, the insidious DIABETIC BLOC. Sugar does not cause diabetes. It does not cause type 1, it does not cause type 2, it does not cause MODY or LADA. Diabetes is not anyone's fault. It is not curable (no, T2 cannot be cured. You can stop taking insulin/pills, but you're still diabetic). If you want to be accurate, you'd want to be limiting the amount of carbohydrates they put in to their bodies. Which wouldn't be possible. Because not only do you have to eat a normal diet anyways just to function, but you have to treat the inevitable lows that come with properly taking your medicine. Grr. This strikes a big old vein where my non-functioning pancreas lives. And I'm linking to the Diabetes Etiquette Card. http://behavioraldiabetesinstitute.org/resources-diabetes-informati... And why not this to

Interesting, I always thought diet and exercise played a part in the severity of diabetes.

Where I live in Indiana, there are many conservatives where this is their sole issue.  Where I grew up in Michigan, many vote democratic because of being pro choice.  Abortion is a huge polarizing issue that divides our country.

You were saying?

So you are saying that some types of Diabetes it doesn't matter what you eat or if you exercise and other types in some people can be controlled to some extend with with diet &/or exercise.

phoenixazul - 2013-01-29 7:07 PM

Jackemy1 - 2013-01-29 4:39 PM

mr2tony - 2013-01-29 3:14 PM

powerman - 2013-01-29 2:43 PM

mr2tony - 2013-01-29 1:30 PM

TriRSquared - 2013-01-29 2:24 PM

I just don't see how birth control got to be such a big issue.  You can get a month's supply at WalMart or Target for $9. Condoms are even cheaper.

How is this not affordable for a VAST majority of people?  And those who are on government assistance can get them even cheaper.

It's a non issue. It's just used by the left to try to villainize the right for being "anti-woman".

To be sure, I for one am not trying to make a villain out of anybody. I'm just looking at it from an economic standpoint. You pay a little now to avoid paying more later. In a perfect world, yes, people would go to Target and get the $9 pills, but we don't live in a perfect world. If they're free or subsidized, more people will use them -- Jackemy's axiom was spot on. And the more people who use them, the fewer unwanted pregnancies we have. And the fewer unwanted pregnancies we have, the less you and I will have to pay for those `oops' kids for the next couple of decades in the form of welfare, WIC and education.

OK... glad you have isolated the problem. Feel free to give as much BC as you can afford away to strangers. Better yet, come up with a organization to get donations to give free birth control to all those tyhat want it. work to make this world a better place. Personal responsibility.

But what politics has become is how can it pay for my way in this world. You can talk about how much BC cost me... what maybe 10 cents a year.... but I have a 100,000 government programs I pay 10 cents a year for and this country is going broke. The U.S. is a very wealthy nation, but we can never afford to pay for peoples living.

Feel free to donate to any program you feel passionate about... just stop mandating for me to do the same..... and while we are at it... who says I am responsible for paying for someone else's kids? I made my decision... I didn't have any. Who says I should pay for a person to stay on welfare all their lives and then pay for every kid they feel like having... it's wrong.

Personal responsibility.

The funny part about this is that I agree with you, in a sense. I would love it if I paid fewer taxes. It would be great if I only had to pay taxes on the things I use. I don't use the road in your city, so I wouldn't have to pay for that. Heck I choose to not own a car, yet I pay for the roads in MY CITY on which people drive everyday, I shouldn't have to pay for that. I haven't had to call the police yet, so I guess I shouldn't have to pay for that. Rumor is the Grand Canyon is lovely, but I've never been there, yet I'm paying for upkeep of a national park there. I shouldn't have to pay for that. Spare me the holier than thou `I should only pay for stuff I think is important.' We're all in this together, the rich, the poor, the middle-income, the Democrats, the Republicans, all of us. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't pay them. Find out what happens.

I have no problem paying taxes for the things you just mentioned even if I may not use them, it is a function of government to maintain roads and provide for public safety and upkeep parks. Conservatives aren't anarchist, government does serve a purpose and needs funds to function.

Here is my viewpoint on paying for social behavior.

If I pay for what happens behind your bedroom door, I should have a say of what happens behind your bedroom door. 

If I am required to pay for your diabetes, I should have a say in limiting the sugar you put in your body. 

That is fair, right? Bloomberg has a point even if I don't agree with the overall policy. If the taxpayer is going to pay for your behavioral choices, the taxpayer should have a say. However, I would rather live under a government that stayed out of my bedroom and refrigerator.

 

 

 

Ah yes, the insidious DIABETIC BLOC. Sugar does not cause diabetes. It does not cause type 1, it does not cause type 2, it does not cause MODY or LADA. Diabetes is not anyone's fault. It is not curable (no, T2 cannot be cured. You can stop taking insulin/pills, but you're still diabetic). If you want to be accurate, you'd want to be limiting the amount of carbohydrates they put in to their bodies. Which wouldn't be possible. Because not only do you have to eat a normal diet anyways just to function, but you have to treat the inevitable lows that come with properly taking your medicine. Grr. This strikes a big old vein where my non-functioning pancreas lives. And I'm linking to the Diabetes Etiquette Card. http://behavioraldiabetesinstitute.org/resources-diabetes-informati... And why not this to

No need for a lecture, I have diabetes. So what was your point? How is it related to the discussion? Are you saying that since having diabetes is not your fault it is my responsibility to pay for the treatment?  

This^^^^^  Everything I've seen/read points to this.

If they'd drop the Christian Coalition stuff, they'd get my vote back in a heart beat.  Of course they did have a mormon run for office this year............

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

What ever happened to that party?

Buying insurance for the purpose to pay for pre-existing condition is not really purchasing insurance. It would be like buying fire insurance after your house burns down and expecting to be made whole from all the people who actually did buy insurance as a tool to manage their risk. 

I do agree that the current health insurance system is inadequate in most states, especially for chronic conditions, and is in need of reform, however we disagree on what that reform would be and that discussion is not for this thread anyway. 

What is that saying that my science teacher used to say that I never understood..."the exception proves the rule"

The context of this famous line from JFKs speech was that he was talking about the worldwide threat of freedom due to communism. The line was a call to stand up and defend America and the world against it.

I realize the quote can, and has been, extrapolated to take on any number of meanings. To imply, however, that the current Democratic party, by wanting things like universal healthcare, is somehow straying from the message in that line is just incorrect, when you consider its context.

Pay for an unplanned pregnancy before or pay for it after.  Either way you are paying for it.  And while it's sad and insensitive to say, it's cheaper to pay for it before in a variety of scenarios.

Based on recent record I'd go with the Dems tax, borrowing, and spending. 

In all seriousness both parties have a horrible spending problem.  It used to be just a matter of what party was in office spent money on different things.  Now it seems to be a competition as to which party can spend us bankrupt faster.

Oh my, I can't tell you how many people I KNOW PERSONALLY who blow this out of the water. One friend and her husband had to claim bankruptcy after their 4th child was born (but they are Catholic and don't subscribe to birth control, another whole can o' worms there). 

Yeah, I am guessing I give people too much credit to expect them to think about how they are going to afford and provide a nurturing, healthy upbringing for child before they have one.

It is apparently just too much to ask from people to be responsible for their own life and choices. And then we wonder why we have the social problems we do.

It always has been.  Take a look at Maslow's Heirachy if you want to see how people prioritize.

You know it used to be (may still be) that a person who didn't have money for birth control could go to a place like Planned Parenthood and have an exam, discuss options, and get free or low-cost birth control based on their needs.  Unfortunately making a trip to some Planned Parenthood locations is taking your life in your hands.  At the least, you may be shouted at and endure personal slurs from protesters.   So, at least some of that basic medical care is now covered and women can go to a clinic of their choosing.

I'm a bit perplexed about the birth control, though.

I actually don't fully understand the whole issue, I haven't followed it other than remembering when I first heard I'd be able to get my Rx with no copay.  Time passed and I went to Walgreens last week to pick up my 3-month supply and instead of paying I think $120, I paid $0 for the first time in my adult life.   I'm a middle-class married lady who chooses not to have kids.  I can afford the Rx and so I just went ahead and used the money to stimulate the economy elsewhere.   Something is definitely broken there. 

I had to look that up. Thanks TL

Mean while, back to what ever happened to that party. This is from a 1962 JFK speech at the New York Economic Club:

"In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low. And the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now."

In context the maximum tax rate he was referring to was in the ballpark of 90% and he was talking about bringing it down to something in the range of 75%.

It was up at 90% to pay down the deficit that we incurred during the 2nd world war.

Hmmm, we raised taxes to pay off a debt, once we paid it off, the president suggested lowering the tax rate.

Oh, he was in the sauce that night.  Disregard.