Mufasa and Gambit

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

From there, I pretty much see it as a zero sum.[/quote]

No, It’s not even close man.
[/quote]

K, what am I missing, then?[/quote]

Very simple.

Most adults with working sex organs have sex (or close to it).

Contraception prevents unwanted pregnancies.

The prevention of unwanted pregnancies lessens abortions and children in foster homes.

[/quote]
So get on your bike and pick up a pack of trojans if you’re so inclined.
[/quote]

What does that have to do with my point?

I’m arguing that the benefits of contraceptives outweigh the negatives. Pat said it was a zero sum, I told him he was wrong.
[/quote]

So go get your trojans…

But around 2050, when the nation of retired, single or divorced, childless, old folks can’t cash their government checks, or use their government services, because their demographic growth grossly outstripped the barely above-board replacement rate (if still even that high, which I seriously doubt)…
[/quote]

Immigration.

Goodbye white babies.[/quote]

That’s pretty much an admission that the culture/society is a Darwinian dead end. I credit you for the honesty.
[/quote]

That is in fact very Darwinian.

It is worth pointing that out, because most people use it wrong. From a Darwinian point of view it does not really matter who survives or is the fittest, it matters who procreates.

I find it funny that after decades of social engineering we ended up with societies that cannot pass this simple test.

On the other hand you still have the Mormons and the Amish, doing the heavy lifting procreation wise.

183

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

From there, I pretty much see it as a zero sum.[/quote]

No, It’s not even close man.
[/quote]

K, what am I missing, then?[/quote]

Very simple.

Most adults with working sex organs have sex (or close to it).

Contraception prevents unwanted pregnancies.

The prevention of unwanted pregnancies lessens abortions and children in foster homes.

[/quote]
So get on your bike and pick up a pack of trojans if you’re so inclined.
[/quote]

What does that have to do with my point?

I’m arguing that the benefits of contraceptives outweigh the negatives. Pat said it was a zero sum, I told him he was wrong.
[/quote]

So go get your trojans…

But around 2050, when the nation of retired, single or divorced, childless, old folks can’t cash their government checks, or use their government services, because their demographic growth grossly outstripped the barely above-board replacement rate (if still even that high, which I seriously doubt)…
[/quote]

Immigration.

Goodbye white babies.[/quote]

That’s pretty much an admission that the culture/society is a Darwinian dead end. I credit you for the honesty.
[/quote]

That is in fact very Darwinian.

It is worth pointing that out, because most people use it wrong. From a Darwinian point of view it does not really matter who survives or is the fittest, it matters who procreates.

I find it funny that after decades of social engineering we ended up with societies that cannot pass this simple test.

On the other hand you still have the Mormons and the Amish, doing the heavy lifting procreation wise. [/quote]

Yeah, a few hundred years and this nation will be majority Amish! Seriously, they’re exploding.

184

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

No, by not forcing them to eat bacon, they have the choice not to do so, ergo ensuring they can stick to their zany magic diet.[/quote]

That is absurd - an institution now faces a penalty for adhering to its beliefs (no pork), whether the kids eat it or not. Of course it is a kind of persecution. Be serious.[/quote]

How is it absurd? I can elect to have pork removed from my health insurance.[/quote]

THE INSTITUTION CAN’T! AND THAT’S THE ISSUE!!!1111!11ONEONE!

This whole thing doesn’t start with the employee having access or not. It starts with the religious institution being forced to provide for the coverage, even the option. Can you people please at least understand the debate, first.
[/quote]

I think we’ve established that I don’t care about what the institution of boy lovers can and cannot do.

185

Hope I didn’t offend any Amish here…

Oh, wait.

186

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

From there, I pretty much see it as a zero sum.[/quote]

No, It’s not even close man.
[/quote]

K, what am I missing, then?[/quote]

Very simple.

Most adults with working sex organs have sex (or close to it).

Contraception prevents unwanted pregnancies.

The prevention of unwanted pregnancies lessens abortions and children in foster homes.

[/quote]
So get on your bike and pick up a pack of trojans if you’re so inclined.
[/quote]

What does that have to do with my point?

I’m arguing that the benefits of contraceptives outweigh the negatives. Pat said it was a zero sum, I told him he was wrong.
[/quote]

So go get your trojans…

But around 2050, when the nation of retired, single or divorced, childless, old folks can’t cash their government checks, or use their government services, because their demographic growth grossly outstripped the barely above-board replacement rate (if still even that high, which I seriously doubt)…
[/quote]

Immigration.

Goodbye white babies.[/quote]

That’s pretty much an admission that the culture/society is a Darwinian dead end. I credit you for the honesty.
[/quote]

That is in fact very Darwinian.

It is worth pointing that out, because most people use it wrong. From a Darwinian point of view it does not really matter who survives or is the fittest, it matters who procreates.

I find it funny that after decades of social engineering we ended up with societies that cannot pass this simple test.

On the other hand you still have the Mormons and the Amish, doing the heavy lifting procreation wise. [/quote]

Yeah, a few hundred years and this nation will be majority Amish! Seriously, they’re exploding. [/quote]

That works faster than you think, its the nature of exponential growth.

187

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

No, by not forcing them to eat bacon, they have the choice not to do so, ergo ensuring they can stick to their zany magic diet.[/quote]

That is absurd - an institution now faces a penalty for adhering to its beliefs (no pork), whether the kids eat it or not. Of course it is a kind of persecution. Be serious.[/quote]

How is it absurd? I can elect to have pork removed from my health insurance.[/quote]

THE INSTITUTION CAN’T! AND THAT’S THE ISSUE!!!1111!11ONEONE!

This whole thing doesn’t start with the employee having access or not. It starts with the religious institution being forced to provide for the coverage, even the option. Can you people please at least understand the debate, first.
[/quote]

I think we’ve established that I don’t care about what the institution of boy lovers can and cannot do.[/quote]

First they came for the yadayada, then for the such and such and then I got anally raped.

Cliff notes.

188

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

No, by not forcing them to eat bacon, they have the choice not to do so, ergo ensuring they can stick to their zany magic diet.[/quote]

That is absurd - an institution now faces a penalty for adhering to its beliefs (no pork), whether the kids eat it or not. Of course it is a kind of persecution. Be serious.[/quote]

How is it absurd? I can elect to have pork removed from my health insurance.[/quote]

THE INSTITUTION CAN’T! AND THAT’S THE ISSUE!!!1111!11ONEONE!

This whole thing doesn’t start with the employee having access or not. It starts with the religious institution being forced to provide for the coverage, even the option. Can you people please at least understand the debate, first.
[/quote]

I think we’ve established that I don’t care about what the institution of boy lovers can and cannot do.[/quote]

A little late…But you deserve it.

189

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]milod wrote:
Feel free to point out the error. If you can. [/quote]

The money trail, dude. You pay a fraction of the insurance cost of your benefit, the organization, or in this case the church, pays the rest.[/quote]

No, they dont.

[/quote]

Yes they do.[/quote]

No they dont and, FTR, Milton Friedman is with me.

Pisses me off that people fall for the easiest tricks in the book. [/quote]

Yeah! Employees pay Social Security, therefore employees really carry all the insurance premiums, not the 25% we actually really carry!
Clearly somebody from a single-payer system knows exactly what our system is like.[/quote]

Dont be an idiot.

[/quote]

You’re the one intermingling private insurance with government taxation, I am not so confused… I live and work in the system and for the industry, actually. Don’t take my word for it, but taxes /= private insurance.
For one, I can refuse the insurance all together, I cannot refuse the taxes. Second, the corporation is more than happy to provide the division of assets as to who contributes to who and to what.
A youtube video about social security is not going to trump everyday, real actual experience.

Watching someone squat on youtube is not the same as squatting.

190

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]milod wrote:
Feel free to point out the error. If you can. [/quote]

The money trail, dude. You pay a fraction of the insurance cost of your benefit, the organization, or in this case the church, pays the rest. However you split the cost of said pills, there is still a direct contribution from the organization for them. Even if you don’t use them, the price of the pills has to be covered, or the pills aren’t available. That’ basically it.
[/quote]
No, the money trail is the same either way. Here’s a diagram:

Church → Blue Cross → Pharmacy → Bayer
Church → My Wife → Pharmacy → Bayer

In both cases, the church pays a third party for a service, and the third party uses the money to buy a contraceptive.

In both cases, the money from the church is intermingled with money from others before being paid out to purchase the pills (making it difficult to be sure whether or not any actual church dollars are used to pay for those particular pills).

In both cases, someone other than the church requests the diagnosis and the purchase of the contraceptives.

In both cases, the church has rendered payment knowing that it may legally be used for services of which the church does not approve.

So what’s the difference?

191

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]milod wrote:
Feel free to point out the error. If you can. [/quote]

No reason for me to board the short bus.[/quote]

No worries. Not even the short bus could help you at this point.

192

[quote]milod wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]milod wrote:
Feel free to point out the error. If you can. [/quote]

The money trail, dude. You pay a fraction of the insurance cost of your benefit, the organization, or in this case the church, pays the rest. However you split the cost of said pills, there is still a direct contribution from the organization for them. Even if you don’t use them, the price of the pills has to be covered, or the pills aren’t available. That’ basically it.
[/quote]
No, the money trail is the same either way. Here’s a diagram:

Church → Blue Cross → Pharmacy → Bayer
Church → My Wife → Pharmacy → Bayer

In both cases, the church pays a third party for a service, and the third party uses the money to buy a contraceptive.

In both cases, the money from the church is intermingled with money from others before being paid out to purchase the pills (making it difficult to be sure whether or not any actual church dollars are used to pay for those particular pills).

In both cases, someone other than the church requests the diagnosis and the purchase of the contraceptives.

In both cases, the church has rendered payment knowing that it may legally be used for services of which the church does not approve.

So what’s the difference?[/quote]

Your wife went to the pharmacy. The institution secures a contract and pays for a plan that has a Birth Control option. Which, is against IT’s religious conscience. There you go, and glad to have helped.

If you’re still having trouble understanding, don’t worry about it. Just be glad you live in a country where we take the free exercise of religion seriously. So, while you can’t grasp the difference, I’m sure you’ll stand up for their right.

193

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Your wife went to the pharmacy. The institution secures a contract and pays for a plan that has a Birth Control option. Which, is against IT’s religious conscience. There you go, and glad to have helped.

If you’re still having trouble understanding, don’t worry about it. Just be glad you live in a country where we take the free exercise of religion seriously. So, while you can’t grasp the difference, I’m sure you’ll stand up for their right.[/quote]
Right, I covered that. Church gives money to third party, third party buys contraceptives. Church has contract with third party that permits them to do stuff with church money that church does not approve of.

Are you saying that the fact that the contract lists some potential uses of the money that the church may disagree with is the key difference? Then Obama’s compromise clearly solves the problem. Now the contract specifically says that the church’s money will not be used for that purpose. That’s an even stronger guarantee than they get with just giving the money to the employees and letting them do whatever they want with it.

Also, protip: That’s not what “free exercise of religion” means.

195

[quote]milod wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Your wife went to the pharmacy. The institution secures a contract and pays for a plan that has a Birth Control option. Which, is against IT’s religious conscience. There you go, and glad to have helped.

If you’re still having trouble understanding, don’t worry about it. Just be glad you live in a country where we take the free exercise of religion seriously. So, while you can’t grasp the difference, I’m sure you’ll stand up for their right.[/quote]
Right, I covered that. Church gives money to third party, third party buys contraceptives. Church has contract with third party that permits them to do stuff with church money that church does not approve of.

[quote[Are you saying that the fact that the contract lists some potential uses of the money that the church may disagree with is the key difference?[/quote]

Yes. And this is why many if not most of them self-insure, so they don’t have to deal with even state mandates similar to this. Obama though will impose it upon even this healthcare setup

No, it doesn’t. The religious instition will have secured a contract that provides the services.

We’re not stupid…We pay for the contract, or the self insurance, that carries the ‘free’ contraceptives, whose cost will be rolled back in. I stopped believing in ‘free’ stuff awhile back.

What they do with their money isn’t on the institutions hands. Acquiring a plan that offers such services is.

Seriously, there’s no accounting trick good enough. Full exemption.

Sure it is.

196

[quote]milod wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]milod wrote:
Feel free to point out the error. If you can. [/quote]

The money trail, dude. You pay a fraction of the insurance cost of your benefit, the organization, or in this case the church, pays the rest. However you split the cost of said pills, there is still a direct contribution from the organization for them. Even if you don’t use them, the price of the pills has to be covered, or the pills aren’t available. That’ basically it.
[/quote]
No, the money trail is the same either way. Here’s a diagram:

Church → Blue Cross → Pharmacy → Bayer
Church → My Wife → Pharmacy → Bayer

In both cases, the church pays a third party for a service, and the third party uses the money to buy a contraceptive.

In both cases, the money from the church is intermingled with money from others before being paid out to purchase the pills (making it difficult to be sure whether or not any actual church dollars are used to pay for those particular pills).

In both cases, someone other than the church requests the diagnosis and the purchase of the contraceptives.

In both cases, the church has rendered payment knowing that it may legally be used for services of which the church does not approve.

So what’s the difference?[/quote]

Your wife isn’t force to pay for it if she doesn’t want it. The church has to pay for it whether somebody wants it or not. That’s the ‘coverage’ part.
Second, the government isn’t mandating your wife pay for it, or take it, but they could. It’s called a slippery slope. And once you open the door for one forced action, you open the door for another.
The law is a prohibitive force to prevent behavior. You start allowing the mandating of behavior and you can open the door for all kinds of mandates. Sound crazy?
Well we did have prohibition didn’t we?

197

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I can’t believe the desperate stupidity I see on this thread by those who try to defend this blatant incursion into the First Amendment.

It’s stupendous. I can barely believe my eyes at times.[/quote]

It’s astounding… Everybody is trying to make this very simple, basic issue a bunch of things it’s not.
So far I have heard that we’re anti-contraception, against women, against women’s health, etc. This whole notion that the government is forcing institutions to pay and support behaviors they stand against goes way over their head.
No law says you have to like a institutions stance, but not liking it doesn’t give you the right to force to do what you want.
I think PETA should support hunting clubs… I hate them and am against what they stand for, so they should support that which they are against…It’s only fair right?

198

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]milod wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]milod wrote:
Feel free to point out the error. If you can. [/quote]

The money trail, dude. You pay a fraction of the insurance cost of your benefit, the organization, or in this case the church, pays the rest. However you split the cost of said pills, there is still a direct contribution from the organization for them. Even if you don’t use them, the price of the pills has to be covered, or the pills aren’t available. That’ basically it.
[/quote]
No, the money trail is the same either way. Here’s a diagram:

Church → Blue Cross → Pharmacy → Bayer
Church → My Wife → Pharmacy → Bayer

In both cases, the church pays a third party for a service, and the third party uses the money to buy a contraceptive.

In both cases, the money from the church is intermingled with money from others before being paid out to purchase the pills (making it difficult to be sure whether or not any actual church dollars are used to pay for those particular pills).

In both cases, someone other than the church requests the diagnosis and the purchase of the contraceptives.

In both cases, the church has rendered payment knowing that it may legally be used for services of which the church does not approve.

So what’s the difference?[/quote]

Your wife isn’t force to pay for it if she doesn’t want it. The church has to pay for it whether somebody wants it or not. That’s the ‘coverage’ part.
Second, the government isn’t mandating your wife pay for it, or take it, but they could. It’s called a slippery slope. And once you open the door for one forced action, you open the door for another.
The law is a prohibitive force to prevent behavior. You start allowing the mandating of behavior and you can open the door for all kinds of mandates. Sound crazy?
Well we did have prohibition didn’t we?[/quote]

How much money does the church save on an insurance policy with contraception omitted vs one that includes contraception?

199

You are such children. Do you actually want abortion rates reduced or do you seriously expect things to work according to your Church doctrine?

Not going to happen.

Grow up. Life isn’t as simple as you make it seem.

200

Goodmorning everyone.

Milod, thanks for the argument. I had tried to ask this some time ago on this thread and no one would reply. I agree with what you have written.

therajraj, Thanks for your arguments. I’ve found them very sound as well. I’ve enjoyed your posts.

TB and Push, why not respond to my points rather than trying to be sarcastic and funny or commenting on my perceived intellect?

Pat, I posted some data above regarding benefits to society regarding contraception and other women’s health services. If you are interested.

SM, It seems you don’t like the woman’s politics and activism, and so have elected to go after her personally than just attacking her ideas. I understand but I still think it is a horrible thing to do. It reminds me of the way the left attacked Michelle Bachmann.

==============================================================

Catholics are forced to pay for things they don’t like/are against doctrine all the time. Numerous states, for example, have the death penalty paid for by tax dollars. 28 States already have similar healthcare requirements as are now being argued against. I’ve posted data (and others have talked about) the health benefits for women and society. I understand that Catholic leaders don’t like contraceptives despite the majority of Catholic women using them. I also understand that catholic women are bared from higher levels of leadership in the church and I do think there is a connection there. There HAS been compromise from direct to indirect payment, people can argue if it has gone far enough.

I guess, in the end, I am like Milod in that I have a connection to the catholic church but have family issues that make me look at this from the perspective of women’s health. The following is from an article liked to above:

“This is a case of two principles colliding. Catholic institutions are making a principled stand for what they see as the sanctity of life. The administration argues with no less conviction that the well-being of women depends on affordable access to contraception no matter where they work.”

This is about how I see it along with “freedom of religion” thrown in for good measure. Personally, I come down on the side of women’s health. I understand others disagree and hope we can do so civilly.