Translation: Democrats are Democrats.
Am I being unfair? Of course, they found women who say they are/were Republicans/independents....
The sudden return of the “culture wars” over the rights of women and their place in society has resulted, the women said, in a distinct change in mood in the past several weeks....Some women!
After the talk show host Rush Limbaugh denounced a Georgetown University law student as a “slut” and a “prostitute” for her advocacy of insurance coverage of contraception, some women were critical of Mr. Romney’s tepid response.
“Everybody is so busy telling us how we should act in the bedroom, they’re letting the country fall through the cracks,” said Fran Kelley, a retired public school worker in Seattle who voted for Senator John McCain over Mr. Obama in the 2008 election. Of the Republican candidates this year, she added, “They’re nothing but hatemongers trying to control everyone, saying, ‘Live as I live.’ ”Of course, Democrats started the conversation, but it was a good conversation to start if the goal was to get some Republicans to say some things that could be used against them. Fortunately, Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate who is going to be the nominee, had the sense not to say much. He was "tepid." Good! We don't want the government in our bedroom, so we don't need a passionate President. Let him stay in his office and coolly and calmly do his job, which shouldn't have anything to do with sex. He's not our boyfriend.
She continued, “If Republicans would stop all this ridiculous talk about contraception, I’d consider voting in November.”
Man, I loathe this pandering to women! Don't treat us like we're stupid. Don't act like we need your special protection. Don't buy us things.
पोस्ट्स
२०५ टिप्पण्या:
«सर्वात जुने ‹थोडे जुने 205 पैकी 201 – 205If Rush wanted to start another shit storm he ought to come out and say as long as woman have a right to subsidized sex and have the sole decision whether or not to stay pregnant then child support is purely optional for men. Watching the feminist arguing heads I win tales you lose would be great entertainment.
Republican women do not use words like 'hatemonger'.
Republican women don't have the air of saintly victimhood that the women quoted express.
That is strictly Smith College Democrat Feminista territory.
Didn't see any reference to any specific intrusive policy being promoted by those waging this "war on women". The article underscores how reflexively gullible so many are to the mere discussion of these issue.
But underneath the surface argument in Fluke's testimony and many right to free eff folks is a pathetic helplessness with zero recognition of the shared responsibility between the man and the woman regarding the "burdensome" expense of recreational sex. I thought I read earlier that Fluke is married. Where is this invisible man? Does he have the nerve to get in front of a camera and explain how he can't contribute adequately? No..that wouldn't advance the "war on women" narrative, a ruse for electoral gain and/or paving the way for more mandates.
What also is being completely lost is the absurd elevation of contraception coverage to level above true afflictions. Someone with cancer or a heart condition can reasonably expect to pay deductibles and copays. Not these poor victims of the "war on women". Pediatric oncology patient? Parents pay. Daily predictable expense of normal human behavior? Waaaa!! Gimmmee!
You can argue the details with these folks but at some point they need to be called out as selfish losers who want to eff on someone else's dime and are willing to be participate in their own political exploitation to to get it..on.
What also gets lost is that Fluke had choices even in the world of GU:
"although Georgetown U. does require that fulltime students have health insurance, the university does not require that students enroll in Premium Plan. A student can opt out, get a waiver and secure her own policy from another insurance provider not affiliated with Georgetown. Also, Georgetown does not stipulate that those other insurance plans not cover contraception. So, even though she can buy a policy that suits her, Fluke wants to change the whole insurance industry."
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/03/sandra_fluke_and_the_nature_of_insurance.html#ixzz1olfYVTHZ
Sebellius and some others are willing to say with a straight face that a federal mandate is required to force insurers to save money. Really? I thought they were all about the dollar. Amazing they could miss the benefits of no copay effing. Oh..but there are other ways to look at it:
"Under the current system, drug companies have an incentive to compete on price. If you have health insurance that covers birth control today, your insurer is likely to charge you a higher co-pay for expensive, “branded” versions of birth control over cheaper, generic ones. If you don’t have health insurance, and you’re buying the Pill directly from the pharmacy at Wal-Mart, you have even more incentive to shop on price."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/03/06/the-bi...
"Under the new mandate, this price incentive disappears. Insurers will be required to pay for any and all oral contraceptives, without charging a co-pay, co-insurance, or a deductible. This “first dollar coverage” of oral contraception kills the incentive to shop based on price."
"If you were surprised that PhRMA, the pharmaceutical trade group, backed Obamacare, now you can see why: the HHS contraception mandate alone will be a multi-billion-dollar boondoggle for the pharma industry. If your health insurance plan allowed you to buy a television, of any price, without any cost-sharing on your part, would you buy a 13-inch CRT or a 60-inch flat screen?
This gets us to a broader question: how the definition of insurance has lost any meaning in the context of American health care. Insurance, traditionally defined, is meant to protect us from the risk of unexpectedly incurring catastrophic costs. Car insurance, for example, protects us against collisions, but doesn’t cover our purchase of wiper fluid or gasoline. Homeowner’s insurance doesn’t cover the cost of air conditioning. And yet, now, we have a federal law that forces health insurance to cover something that is even cheaper than gasoline or air conditioning."
"The contraception contretemps is a case study in how thoughtless laws and policies drive up the cost of health care, making it less accessible to those who are most in need. The path to truly affordable health care involves moving in exactly the opposite direction: restoring the notion that health insurance is meant as protection for catastrophic costs, and letting people buy birth-control pills for themselves."
Providing basic health care = pandering?
Well thank Gog & Magog that the GOP knows what's best for women - & that such "pandering" isn't on the menu. No, just mandatory enforced penetration to shame those sluts who went & got pregnant so that hopefully they won't get a legal medical procedure. That this gruesome violation winds up changing the minds of approximately zero women is a mere pecadillo, my dears!
Insurers making The Pill more widely available = premiums go DOWN because it's so much cheaper to cover some pills than prenatal/neonatal care. Why does the GOP hate the Free Market?
Sandra Fluke asks for contraceptive coverage from insurers, that she herself will pay into - & which will save both women & insurance companies money = OUTRAGE.
Taxpayer money being wasted by the millions on needless (& gratuitously barbaric) procedures on pregnant women = CRICKETS.
Yep, it sure is a mystery why the Republicans aren't doing so well with teh ladyfolks of late, alright.
PROTIP: even the bloody Taliban has some limits on their abortion ban. When you're making even the misogynist scumbags in the Taliban look moderate by comparison, maybe all those nasty libtards calling you out on your extremism have a point.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा