This might even account for the importance of the contraceptive issue, because mandated contraceptive coverage may be seen as representing not just a modest monetary benefit, but also perhaps some sort of societal validation. I would have thought that a strong independent woman wouldn’t need a stamp of societal approval for her choices, but apparently I would have been wrong. I leave it to the evolutionary-psych folks to work out why the “slut” charge retains such power in liberated times.Who did the shaming? Conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh, were characterizing sex as nothing more lowly than private recreational activity. The idea was: You have to pay for that yourself. It was the other side that seized upon that argument and imposed a new, politically motivated interpretation on it, that the woman was shamed. The wounded woman — wounded in the "war on women" — should then seek succor in the arms of the Democratic Party, who would care for what are health needs (not recreational supplies!).
Apparently, however, it is especially wrong to “slut-shame” even though lefties feel no compunction about shaming people regarding other personal choices — from not recycling to owning an SUV to, worst of all, being a Republican. As I say, there’s something more going on here. And if the “shaming” part of slut-shaming isn’t bad, because shaming is fine in other contexts, then it must be the “slut” part.
Realistically, this should be a policy debate about insurance coverage, but minds must be manipulated, so competing templates are offered. What should a woman prefer, to be thought of as a strong free agent, doing what she chooses, with the government as far from her sex life as possible or a government that sees her as vulnerable, easily wounded, and in need of protection and support?
One answer is: I'm for whichever side gives me $1,000. That's what's really frightening.
Posts
280 comments:
1 – 200 of 280 Newer› Newest»Ann, the next to last sentence is the essence of welfare.
And the first sentence of the next to last paragraph is the mantra of the Democrat Party and its apparatchiks for the last 80 years.
The crusty Conservative coating just went a bit deeper.
For a woman to regard herself as a "strong, free agent," she would have to discount years of indoctrination from government schools, pandering (are there any other kind?) politicians and - especially, IMHO - television, where women are routinely portrayed as greedy, vain tramps who want the biggest bling with no care about where - or whom - it comes from.
Those women are out there, but they're few on the ground, as the Fluke brouhaha has proven. The vast majority want Big Daddy Government to coddle them.
If you're easily offended, then you're easily manipulated.
One answer is: I'm for whichever side gives me $1,000.
Or, paraphrased, "I'm a Democrat."
How many women, as individuals, were actually insulted.
The axiom of the case is that a lot of people on the left dislike Rush Limbaugh and reject his politics.
Then Rush handed them a stick they could beat him with.
Being easily offended is just a tool in the toolbox. Or, as a Fiona Apple wrote, "Whipping Cords Will Serve You More Than Ropes Will Ever Do."
Althouse, I wonder how much of your own reaction to this issue can be traced to that visit the young Althouse had to make to the principal's office, where she was scolded about her skirt being too short.
Yes, of course, Limbaugh was assholish to use words like "slut" and squicky to suggest that he get to see videos of her in action.
But this is all trivial, and the manufactured outrage is obviously to provide a distraction from some truly outrageous things, like 16% real unemployment, trillion dollar deficits, and 300 Mexicans killed with guns planted by the feds in an effort to take away our civil liberties.
Don't let yourself be distracted.
"Conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh, were characterizing sex as nothing more lowly than private recreational activity. The idea was: You have to pay for that yourself. It was the other side that seized upon that argument and imposed a new, politically motivated interpretation on it, that the woman was shamed."
Right. Rush was just politely and respectfully stating his opinion that birth control should not be covered by insurance, and thin-skinned Democrats and women took offense. That's exactly what happened.
Right. Rush was just politely and respectfully stating his opinion that birth control should not be covered by insurance, and thin-skinned Democrats and women took offense. That's exactly what happened.
You forgot to add hypocritical to your thin-skinned comment, but otherwise, you're on the right track.
I've been trying to limit my comments on this, but I'm really scratching my head on why an adult woman would care about someone thinking her a "slut."
I went to a weird high school, and a lot of girls I knew just didn't really date. I think a lot of it was the "small-town" of it all, everyone had just grown up together, but I could name at least a dozen girls I knew in my (public) high school that I'm pretty sure had never had a first kiss at graduation.
Being an out of towner, I dated pretty aggressively in high school. I'm not aware that I was ever called a slut, but I did hear those girls say some things that implied it a few times. (You've "had a lot of boyfriends," etc.)
I wondered about it occasionally, but it certainly didn't bother me. I knew that what I was doing was perfectly fine, and I had a pretty strong values-line that I drew. I sometimes hated that I didn't fit in with those girls, since we didn't have much in common, but I mostly felt sorry for them because I was having so much fun.
My overall point being, I've always known what I was doing, sexually, and known what was too much for me. If someone else thinks what I'm doing in wrong, why would that bother me? We respectfully disagree.
I grew up on "sticks and stones may break my bones . . ." Do we not teach that anymore?
"One answer is: I'm for whichever side gives me $1,000. That's what's really frightening."
What to be even more frightened? It's really, I'm for whatever side gives me $9x12=$108.
wouldn’t need a stamp of societal approval for her choices
Which is what gay marriage is all about.
See, the left are so brave and wise that they need the government to validate all their choices through fiat.
Realistically, this should be a policy debate about insurance coverage
Minor differences over insurance regulations versus a long-running and passionate effort by conservatives to shame and punish women over their sexuality.
And you really think people won't be more concerned about the latter issue?
No, no, Original Mike, you have to include the doctor's visit for the prescription. That's another $200.
And you round $308 up to $1000. Don't you understand how the female body works? Do you need AndyR to explain it to you?
Self-righteous blowhard sex tourist Rush is a buffoon who couldn't even be bothered to get his facts straight. Take him out of the equation.
If the equivalent of bitch is prick, what is the equivalent of slut, packing the same kind of punch?
More importantly, what is the equivalent of cunt, which seems to be the worst thing you can call a woman these days (in the US).
Contraception is extremely important for many reasons besides preventing pregnancy. If your religious provider won't cover it, get a rider from another company, as many have for Dental, get another job, or cough up the $4 to $40 a month for the piil.
"You forgot to add hypocritical to your thin-skinned comment, but otherwise, you're on the right track."
Why are these hypocritical, thin-skinned Democratic women being so mean and disrespectful to Rush Limbaugh?
If the equivalent of bitch is prick
This is not correct.
Maybe the question is: who is calling me a slut? If it's other women whose men I'm drawing - Fine, If it's men, meaning unattractive types will swarm me - not fine. If it's media types - aren't they all sluts?
There would be a lot less shaming if society had no responsibility for the actions of those shamed.
I guess that puts me in the "strong, free agent" camp.
If the equivalent of bitch is prick
"This is not correct."
In your case, we could probably be persuaded to make an exception to the rule.
"Then Rush handed them a stick they could beat him with."
Wrong. Rush talks 15 a week, 40 weeks a year (conservative estimate) - that's 600 hours/per year of talking. Every broadcast is monitored by "Media Matters" and other lefties trying to find something to attack him on.
Its simply impossible not to say something that can't be taken out of context or deliberately distorted and used as an attack.
But thanks for the pseudo-sophisticated attack on Rush. I'm sure as a "conservative" you're just trying to help.
Bear in mind that Fluke probably isn't promiscuous; or she wouldn't use the pill, she'd use condoms, to protect against disease. Most women who use the pill are in a monogamous relationship.
So how many women are we talking about here?
There are about 150 million women in the US; of these, maybe 50% are in their child-bearing years and fertile. Of these, maybe half are in a relationship at all; and maybe half of those want to avoid pregnancy and use birth control of some sort.
So how many of these remaining women work for an employer whose insurance company doesn't already cover the pill? 2%? And of these, how many can't afford $9 per month, or even $100 per month (if we accept this absurdly high claim), despite the fact that they work somewhere that offers insurance?
I think we're talking about at least 12 or 13 women here. Quick, let's change the law.
Andy, bu saying they are equivalent I mean that in a similar situation one would say, 'she's such a bitch,' or 'he's such a prick.' Do you mean something different?
"Why are these hypocritical, thin-skinned Democratic women being so mean and disrespectful to Rush Limbaugh?"
To boost their feminist cred? To be a loyal Democrat participating in the Two Minute Hate? To be empty-headed partisans?
Who knows? But - this gift to Little Black Jesus notwithstanding - Democrat women who bragged about giving Bill Clinton a blow job and who looked the other way while he molested an intern, Democrat women silent as ghosts when Sarah Palin is called a cunt and Democrat women who stare down at their shoes when someone fantasizes about Michelle Malkin with a man's balls in her mouth now having fainting spells that would do justice to Scarlett O'Hara over Rush's "slut" comment are most certainly hypocritical.
"More importantly, what is the equivalent of cunt, which seems to be the worst thing you can call a woman these days (in the US)."
Calling a woman a cunt is like calling a man a dick. What's the big deal?
If you think a cunt is so much worse, then you're saying female genitalia is horrible/disgusting in a way that male genitalia is not. Sexist!
We call men pricks/dicks/schmucks at the drop of hat. Do women want equality or not?
Bitch is calling a woman a dog. It's like calling a man a dog or a cur. That's all.
We call men pricks/dicks/schmucks at the drop of hat. Do women want equality or not?
Great satire!
I think douchebag Andy does a great job of illustrating the left's preference to avoid economic arguments whenever there's a loosely-related hypocritical accusation of Puritanism to be made. Politically, this probably hurt the Republicans some, but unfortunately, all of America will have to bear the cost of accelerating dependence.
You can't include the appointment because you're supposed to go to that, birth control or no, and the appointment is covered by insurance.
The men and the owners of substantial property are not tempted when Dems pander to the women and to the poor or today's getting-poor-fast.
But why do dull minded GOP spokesmen go on and on about Dems cheating when they pander to those groups for votes for Obama?
Female law Students are not poor, but they are dependent for that time of their life. Some body needs to pay their expenses while they study and do not work.
Bingo...it's really all about them having sex.
Somebody sane needs to quit trying to win this argument. In order to protect the men and the substantial property owners, this election cannot be thrown to Obama over women having sex expenses insured in existing health policies.
As a man and a substantial property owner, I have always welcomed the wonderful part of life that includes heterosexual women who have sex.
I assume that "cunt" is considered so awful just because of the guttural, grunting sound of the word. It certainly carries more stigma (and so more power) than calling a woman "vagina".
I've been called a lot of things; I think probably the worst insult I've received is "dumbass" or "dipshit", probably because they cut a little close to home.
"Cocksucker" is a pretty powerful (albeit homophobic) slur, but I've never minded that one as much.
Hey, I'm going to a Red Wings game tomorrow, and I have seats close to the road team's bench. I'll do a little research and experimentation and report back with the most effective slurs.
More importantly, what is the equivalent of cunt, which seems to be the worst thing you can call a woman these days (in the US)."
A white, Christian, non-handicapped employed man. God forbid, you're self-employed.
What to be even more frightened? It's really, I'm for whatever side gives me $9x12=$108.
Better: It's "I'm for whatever side gives me $108, and I don't care if they take $1000 from somebody else along the way."
Ann Althouse said...
More importantly, what is the equivalent of cunt, which seems to be the worst thing you can call a woman these days (in the US).
Calling a woman a cunt is like calling a man a dick. What's the big deal?
Even though Jane Fonda wanted to be called one, I'll bet she'd scream bloody murder if Rush did it - respectfully, of course.
You can't feel shame unless in your core you know the action is shamefull. Rush's comment hit a nerve because he ever so indelicately pointed out the obvious. The faux outrage is simply an admission that Fluke is what she is.
Bitch has taken on a completley different meaning than female dog.
Currently, in the US, cunt packs a derogatory meaning different than prick, dick, or schmuck.
Language morphs, but at the heart of it is sexism, or the awareness of differences in the sexes established from birth; rage at the withholding Mother, men's essential 'fear' of something that bleeds for seven days without dying. You know.
"That's what's really frightening."
Welcome to my nightmare.
Trey
Condoms are less than a dollar a piece at condomdepot. Ms. Fluke said a year of contraception costs $3000.
$3000 a year = 8.22 condoms a day. Ms. Fluke is not a slut.
She is a liar.
Trey
Andy, bu saying they are equivalent I mean that in a similar situation one would say, 'she's such a bitch,' or 'he's such a prick.' Do you mean something different?
Althouse is making my point for me with her comments.
I try to never call a woman a bitch. Or a man either. I'm not a fan of gendered insults that are used to oppress women.
I am sorry, I misphrased that. It should not read Ms. Fluke is a liar. It should read Ms. Fluke is an abortion rights activist.
Fixed it.
Trey
One answer is: I'm for whichever side gives me $1,000.
Or, about the going rate for a middling call girl.
Oops. I denounce myself!
"Do women want equality or not?"
Apparently, not if it's going to cost them $108.
Conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh, were characterizing sex as nothing more lowly than private recreational activity.
You do remember that Rush called her a slut and a prostitute?
Even the women that I know who initially supported Fluke and were arguing with me about it are now admitting to me that they don't want government forcing churches or insurance companies to provide free contraceptives or any other medical service and that such should be mutually agreed upon voluntarily in a contract.
They were just pissed off at what Rush said about Fluke and wanted to defend her honor, such as it is. Now, they done emoting and they don't support the Democrats on this at all. They see whats up.
I think this is a win for the GOP in the long run as the real issue is government mandates on medical spending and that is not popular right now. Nor is government overspending popular at all.
Leftists need the faux outrage to win. They also need people to ignore their own vile name calling of women. It isn't working.
I'm not a fan of gendered insults that are used to oppress women.
Are you okay with it when women use it with other women, jokingly or not? Much like the blacks and nigger, I here women, talking among themselves, use "bitch" all the time. "Cunt" usually only comes out when alcohol has been imbibed (as per usual).
Interestingly, Insta links (Jessica Simpson shot in upper left NSFW) to a Michael Kinsley (of all people) piece deriding the Left for it's faux outrage.
I'm beginning to wonder if the real polls are starting to show this is becoming a real loser for the Demos.
Andy R. said...
If the equivalent of bitch is prick
This is not correct
Actually, it is, but how would Hatman know?
WV "hedbyMs" Quite possibly, your worst nightmare.
What really amuses me is the Victorian pearl clutching and fainting couch vapors over the word "slut" from the leftists. Particularly the "Large and In Charge" wing of the left feminists.
As for the "c" word, let's start with the definition. Here, from Dictionary.com:
cunt /kʌnt/ Show Spelled[kuhnt] Show IPA
noun Slang: Vulgar .
1.the vulva or vagina.
2.Disparaging and Offensive .
a.a woman.
b.a contemptible person.
3.sexual intercourse with a woman.
Origin:
1275–1325; Middle English cunte; cognate with Old Norse kunta, Old Frisian, Middle Low German, Middle Dutch kunte.
I think that part of its staying power as derogatory is its origins, some 700 or so years ago in Middle English, with its roots going back further to the German or Dutch. Being of German, and not French, origins is relevant here, because French was the language of the aristocracy, while older English was the language of the peasants, etc.
And, of course, the "c" word is not unique here, as the same sort of thing applies to the "f" word too.
I think that the long lasting class distinction between French and German origin words in English helps perpetuate the disparaging nature of these words.
and the appointment is covered by insurance.
Not if many of the commentors (and most likely Glenn Reynolds) had their way.
What really amuses me is the Victorian pearl clutching and fainting couch vapors over the word "slut" from the leftists?
Then I'm sure you won't mind if I call your wife or daughters sluts or prostitutes?
Then I'm sure you won't mind if I call your wife or daughters sluts or prostitutes?
That's your standard for what comes out of broadcast entertainment? That's exactly what Rush is, an entertainer. He's not a journalist and he's not a politician.
Garage apparently believes that we shouldn't abide by anything that anyone says in the breadth of broadcast media if we don't want our own loved-ones called the same thing.
Leave It To Beaver just called, Garage, and golly are they sore at you.
Freder since Rush simply called her for what she is what is the problem? Andy truthbisn't pleasent a calling something what it is insn't an insult. Of course the real problem for the left is they tried to set up a stage prop and it failed. Ignore the wires, I'm really flying. Honest! But go ahead, keep digging. Your are halfway to China.
Another answer is "I will do anything, no matter how pathetic to advance my political positions".
Another answer is "I am so pathetically easily manipulated by others that I can be deceived into thinking this is about me."
Then I'm sure you won't mind if I call your wife or daughters sluts or prostitutes?
The women I know would punch you in the face if you did that. They'd never think of crying out for help.
By the way, this is all really about vocabulary battle space preparation for the coming election. SLUT is the new N word. You can't use it, only we can, say the womyn.
It's about power over words and using that power over words to move/advance power over the other.
Isn't it all, at its heart, based on an unwillingness to engage other ideas? You only have to engage ideas that are real ideas. Real ones. That involve thought. You don't have to engage fake ideas. You don't have to engage fake ideas that are about racism, or punishing women for their sexuality. (and "punishing" is "failing to subsidize," or not going to the party to celebrate.)
Anyhow, there has to be some explanation for all the people who have ideas they never thought about. Where do all of these illegitimate ideas (that don't have to be engaged) come from? They have to come from some where. So where?
Rush! Obviously all of these illegitimate ideas that do not deserve actual consideration are from Rush. Bad Rush!
All these stupid people who never think and who have no legitimate opinions, not even legitimate but wrong opinions (on account of them not being real, because they don't think) must be not-thinking while listening to Rush.
This, clearly, makes Rush all-powerful.
People calling themselves "ditto-heads"is making fun of stupid Liberals who believe this foolishness.
But if anyone stopped believing that Rush holds thisincredible place of power 'they'd have to come up with a new excuse not to pay any attention to different opinions.
Rush being obnoxious is Rush being Rush... if you are a conservative. Rush being obnoxious is the validation of your entire political reality if you're a liberal.
Then I'm sure you won't mind if I call your wife or daughters sluts or prostitutes?
Is my wife demanding that anybody pay for contraceptives?
If no, then how would it be relevant?
Not if many of the commentors (and most likely Glenn Reynolds) had their way.
Feel free to name a single commenter who believes that. Or any evidence that Reynolds does.
Garage so you are telling us if your or daughter were sluts you would be proud of them and not at all ashamed?
Freder just because you want something or feel you are entitled to it doesn't mean you get others to give you want or are entitled to it. 3 years make a better argument for they want than you do.
Freder Frederson said...
"and the appointment is covered by insurance."
Not if many of the commentors (and most likely Glenn Reynolds) had their way.
Your stupidity is reaching shilovian depths.
Here, have a clue: Opposition to mandates =/= opposition to voluntary contracting.
It should not read Ms. Fluke is a liar. It should read Ms. Fluke is an abortion rights activist.
Same, same.
Any word on cable network cancellations in the last few days?
"and the appointment is covered by insurance."
Not if many of the commentors (and most likely Glenn Reynolds) had their way.
Not true.
The medical aspects of routine female health issues are covered by all insurances, including the self insured Catholic or other religious agencies. Pap smears, mammograms, hysterectomies ....MEDICAL needs are covered,
Currently, you or your employer can choose to pay extra and include maternity, delivery of babies, and that is also included in the routine medical coverage.
What THIS issue is about is forcing employers and religious institutions to pay for birth control and abortions for non medical purposes. For contraception purposes only....aka recreational sex.
The issue is a First Amendment issue because many people, and especially the Catholic Church consider the use of artificial contraception a sin and is a part of their free exercise of religion.
Health insurance is not at risk or even on the table. It is about FORCING payment for religiously objectionable practices.
"Realistically, this should be a policy debate about insurance coverage, but minds must be manipulated, so competing templates are offered."
True! Which is why I have come to the Hayekian position that neither template of the parties can succeed, and that these issues should be left solely to individuals, and to the companies they choose to contract with for their insurance.
Government should not be involved in private matters!
Ann said...
"One answer is: I'm for whichever side gives me $1,000. That's what's really frightening."
Ann,
Should the government do away with tax credits for children or the tax deduction for home mortgage interest? Do those benefits frighten you as well?
I'm not a fan of gendered insults that are used to oppress women.
Yes!!!
Because we all know Rush was aiming to "oppress" this "not normal" coed who was last seen surrounded by Democratic Congresswoman on her way back to her $50,000 a year law school.
I'd call you an idiot, but that doesn't adequately describe the situation.
Andy R wrote: I'm not a fan of gendered insults that are used to oppress women.
Some people oppress with insults. Some with condescension.
It's really up to the target to decide if they're oppressed or not. I realize that Andy R's passive voice leaves that open.
I'm not much of a fan of insults, of any gender.
Conservative Blog Advertising Network lists Althouse as a conservative website. I never noticed it before but it was displayed on the Althouse site.
The Rush/Fluke thing has always seemed manufactured (ratings for Rush, political point scoring for the dems/Fluke) and idiotic.
It would be much better if gov does not tell people/companies what to do but hands out insurance vouchers to the needy that they can spend on insurance as they see fit. It is about liberty. Political power is a zero sum game, don't give any more power to the fed gov than is absolutely necessary.
Should the government do away with tax credits for children or the tax deduction for home mortgage interest? Do those benefits frighten you as well?
Yes, because tax dedcutions (which are voluntary) are the exact same thing as a federal mandate covering private insurance contracts!!!
In a not totally unrelated happenstance, Philadelphia Cream Cheese (part of Kraft) is dropping it's sponsorship of "Good Christian Bitches".
PS Somebody tell fiend the "tax credit" is a welfare payment.
The issue is a First Amendment issue because many people, and especially the Catholic Church consider the use of artificial contraception a sin and is a part of their free exercise of religion.
It is a well established constitutional principle that when religious affiliated organizations are providing services outside of core pastoral care, they are subject to the same laws and regulations as private employers. E.g., while a seminary could refuse to provide birth control to its employees or students, a university that does not discriminate on religious grounds must provide the same benefits as a non-religiously affiliated institution.
Jay said...
"Yes, because tax dedcutions (which are voluntary) are the exact same thing as a federal mandate covering private insurance contracts!!!"
So you have never taken advantage of these tax deductions, is that correct?
So you have never taken advantage of these tax deductions, is that correct?
Huh?
How would that be relevant, again?
Feel free to name a single commenter who believes that. Or any evidence that Reynolds does.
look at Cubanbob's 10:41 comment on the other thread.
"Apparently Freder does not understand what insurance is; a bet against a catastrophic or rare event or unforssen event." Obviously, Cubanbob confuses how he thinks things should be with what they actually are.
As for Reynolds, he is an arch-libertarian (but apparently not libertarian enough that he would forgo his state-funded salary). It is a reasonable bet that he believes that medical coverage should be limited to catastrophic coverage.
It's a simple question. Have you taken advantage of a government give-away?
Except this is more than a "government giveaway" since it is requiring employers to do something.
A tax deduction is no such thing.
You really have no logical elements to your thinking.
Jay said...
"So you have never taken advantage of these tax deductions, is that correct?
Huh?
How would that be relevant, again?"
It's a simple question. Have you taken advantage of a government give-away?
Ann's frightened about one side promising to give people $1,000 in regards to this insurance mandate issue. Is she frightened by other give aways?
It's an easy question?
zzz. I can't express how boring all this is.
The hypocrisy of conservatives, who believe in biological differences and gender roles (and politeness,) calling women "sluts" when they try to deal with the reality of pregnancy.
The hypocrisy of liberals, the biggest name-callers on the planet, the champions of feminism and free speech, who do their best to shout down their opponents and protect the delicate flower of woman from the nasty, mean old world of men.
It's all bullshit. Just partisan bullshit used for the exigences of the moment. None of it means anything. There are no principles in evidence here.
It is a reasonable bet that he believes that medical coverage should be limited to catastrophic coverage.
INSURANCE coverage should cover the medical issues that the individual contract holder wants to pay for.
OR....what the employer is willing or able to offer.
If you don't like your employer's coverage...find another job.
If I don't want to buy anything more than a catastrophic coverage policy, that should be MY choice.
Under Obamacare. I wll be forced FORCED to buy insurance policies that include birth control and maternity coverages. Not that I am against either of those practices....but those are items for which I have no use.
But Freder wants me to have to pay for them anyway....right?
Jay said...
“Except this is more than a "government giveaway" since it is requiring employers to do something.
A tax deduction is no such thing.
You really have no logical elements to your thinking.”
Ann stated she is frightened by the idea that people are for whichever side gives them $1,000. If Obama was pushing to eliminate child tax credits and home mortgage interest tax deductions I would have no doubt people here would be howling about the loss of those government benefits as provided by public law.
No different from a public law directing certain levels of insurance coverage.
The hypocrisy of conservatives, who believe in biological differences and gender roles (and politeness,) calling women "sluts" when they try to deal with the reality of pregnancy
This has nothing to do with the reality of "pregnancy".
Pregnancy is a medical condition that is covered under most policies provided by group plans and you can buy your own maternity rider if you are purchasing your own policy......for now. Soon you will be forced to pay for maternity whether you want to or not.
Birth control and abortion (with very very rare exceptions) are not medical issues and are voluntary/discretionary items.
Just like breast augmentation and other plastic surgery procedures are voluntary and should not be covered under a MEDICAL insurance policy.
Speaking of Limbaugh, I just turned on the radio and he seems to be doing an infomercial for some doctor who hates statins.
What?
doing what she chooses, with the government as far from her sex life as possible
This an accurate description of my actual behavior and how I've actually lived my adult, female life (turning 51 tomorrow).
to be thought of as a strong free agent
I never, ever considered, or even thought of, sexuality or contraception or my health etc. in this way, not once in all those years. The thought didn't even occur to me, either way, in terms of strong/weak , free/dependent . I just didn't give it any deep thought, or any thought of it all in terms of philosophy or anything like that at all. I just did what wanted and had to do.
Weird. Some days I feel like I come from a different universe and live on a different planet.
fiend wrote: Ann stated she is frightened by the idea that people are for whichever side gives them $1,000. If Obama was pushing to eliminate child tax credits and home mortgage interest tax deductions I would have no doubt people here would be howling about the loss of those government benefits as provided by public law.
Actually, people who have such deductions should count themselves lucky and ask themselves themselves whether such subsidies can be continually expanded.
But, fiend, really, even you should know better than to equate the threat of losing an extant tax deduction differs from a healthy and able-bodied cohort seeking to expand a different type of healthcare subsidy.
Ann stated she is frightened by the idea that people are for whichever side gives them $1,000. If Obama was pushing to eliminate child tax credits and home mortgage interest tax deductions I would have no doubt people here would be howling about the loss of those government benefits as provided by public law.
No different from a public law directing certain levels of insurance coverage.
Yes "no different" other than they are not mandatory.
You've gone full retard (or reached your intellectual capacity).
Thanks for participating.
Tax credits could all go away tomorrow and I doubt any of the small-go conservatives would howl if they went away as part of across the board massive tax cuts. Let people spend their own money on houses and children and health insurance.
In the mean time, if the tax man wants to let me keep a bit of my own money, I will keep it.
I don't understand how keeping your own money is inconsistent with a political stand that we ought to keep more of our own money.
The word "cohort" has an interesting root shared with horticulture.
rcommal said...(turning 51 tomorrow).
Thanks for the intel!
No different from a public law directing certain levels of insurance coverage.
It is "no different" other than the fact that:
A. It isn't a "law" it is an Adminstrative Rule
B. It is a mandatory requirement on insurance companies and employers.
C. Tax credits and deductions are entirely voluntary.
You are simply a moron.
Stray thought:
Whether or someone, or anyone, takes offense or not to something said isn't necessarily relevant to whether something was a stupid, inappropriate or--yes--even offensive thing to say.
Just sayin'.
chickenlittle said...
“Actually, people who have such deductions should count themselves lucky and ask themselves themselves whether such subsidies can be continually expanded.”
chickenlittle,
Have you taken advantage of child tax credits or home mortgage interest tax deductions?
“But, fiend, really, even you should know better than to equate the threat of losing an extant tax deduction differs from a healthy and able-bodied cohort seeking to expand a different type of healthcare subsidy.”
You need to reread Flute’s testimony. She was addressing situations besides just birth control where women with other medical conditions require the pill.
"Whether or not", not "Whether or"
"If Obama was pushing to eliminate child tax credits and home mortgage interest tax deductions I would have no doubt people here would be howling about the loss of those government benefits as provided by public law."
Not me.
Jay said...
“Yes "no different" other than they are not mandatory.
You've gone full retard (or reached your intellectual capacity).
Thanks for participating.”
Again, have you taken advantage of child tax credits or home mortgage interest tax deductions?
It’s a simple question.
No different from a public law directing certain levels of insurance coverage.
So, I take it you are in favor of laws directing certain mandatory levels of purchases?
Can the government mandate that you must purchase certain levels of milk and vegetables every week?
Even if you don't want those vegetables or are allergic to milk, can the government mandate that you pay for them anyway?
This is what you are approving when you say that the government can force you to buy insurance covering things you don't want.
Do you think we should have no free will at all and the government can tell us what to buy, how much to buy?
Jay said...
“A. It isn't a "law" it is an Adminstrative Rule”
B. It is a mandatory requirement on insurance companies and employers.
C. Tax credits and deductions are entirely voluntary.”
It’s a rule being established in accordance with a public law, in this case the ACA.
So, have you never taken advantage of tax deductions provided by the government? Are you willing to give up those give always? Do those give aways frighten you like Ann?
Have you taken advantage of child tax credits or home mortgage interest tax deductions?
Why yes, I have. You?
Cunt refers to a woman as sexually desired or rejected, part for the whole, but the part then is then taken as important thing, perhaps even to her.
Dick doesn't do that.
Dick leans more on German for thick, as in dickhead, for the insult.
Robert Frost uses cunt resonance in The Need of Being Versed in Country Things, which as the point of the poem praises it.
Fluke perfectly exemplifies the Demo ethos--
1. I want stuff
2. I cannot or will not pay for this stuff
3. I will get the state, through coercive
violence, to make YOU pay for my stuff.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
“So, I take it you are in favor of laws directing certain mandatory levels of purchases?
Can the government mandate that you must purchase certain levels of milk and vegetables every week?
Even if you don't want those vegetables or are allergic to milk, can the government mandate that you pay for them anyway?
This is what you are approving when you say that the government can force you to buy insurance covering things you don't want.
Do you think we should have no free will at all and the government can tell us what to buy, how much to buy?”
Are there not minimum levels dictated by law regarding auto insurance?
But again, Ann stated she is frightened by the idea that people are for whichever side gives them $1,000. Have you taken advantage of child tax credits and home mortgage interest tax deductions? If so, are you prepared to give up these benefits provide by public law?
fiend wrote: You need to reread Flute’s testimony. She was addressing situations besides just birth control where women with other medical conditions require the pill.
Fiend, you're still equating expanding entitlements with existing entitlements. That's disingenuous.
Why not just say "I don't think it's fair and I want mine too?"
chickenlittle said...
“Have you taken advantage of child tax credits or home mortgage interest tax deductions?
Why yes, I have. You?”
Home mortgage interest, yes. Child credit, no. So I guess I’m one of those folks who is helping to subsidize that benefit, not that I have a problem with that.
Are you prepared to give up those give aways?
Have you taken advantage of child tax credits and home mortgage interest tax deductions?
Home mortgage, yes.
If so, are you prepared to give up these benefits provide by public law?
Yes.
But this is such a dumbass argument. If you've ever taken advantage of a legal tax "break", you apparently have no standing to state that, as a matter of policy, it would be better if they didn't exist. Dumb. Ass.
chickenlittle said...
“Fiend, you're still equating expanding entitlements with existing entitlements. That's disingenuous.
Why not just say "I don't think it's fair and I want mine too?"
chickenlittle,
I don’t really have a problem with insurance companies covering contraception. If you look through the news, you don’t see much about insurance companies pushing back on this requirement. Why is that?
Are there not minimum levels dictated by law regarding auto insurance?
I don't have to buy any auto insurance UNLESS I plan to drive a car.
And if I own my car, I also don't have to buy collision or comprehensive unless I want to.
I get to chose to buy or not buy and I get to choose the level of coverage that I want.
fiend wrote: You need to reread Flute’s testimony. She was addressing situations besides just birth control where women with other medical conditions require the pill.
And those are already covered. So Fluke is either a stupid c*nt or a lying one.
Original Mike said...
“But this is such a dumbass argument. If you've ever taken advantage of a legal tax "break", you apparently have no standing to state that, as a matter of policy, it would be better if they didn't exist. Dumb. Ass.”
Ann was the one who stated she is frightened by the idea that people are for whichever side gives them $1,000.
I’m asking if she is frightened by the side who promises to maintain other government give aways.
How about you?
If you look through the news, you don’t see much about insurance companies pushing back on this requirement. Why is that?
Could be a variety of reasons:
incentive
profit
coersion
PR
Do you know?
Dust Bunny Queen said...
“I don't have to buy any auto insurance UNLESS I plan to drive a car.
And if I own my car, I also don't have to buy collision or comprehensive unless I want to.
I get to chose to buy or not buy and I get to choose the level of coverage that I want.”
I don’t have a lot of choice in controlling the development of cancer. I’m forced to deal with unexpected occurrences with my body. I can trade it in like a car.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
"And those are already covered. So Fluke is either a stupid c*nt or a lying one."
You need to reread the testimony.
If all it takes to oppress someone is an insult they are too weak to matter.
Sticks and stones.
Call me names? Whatever.
But then I am strong enough to matter. 8)
Trey
For the record, I would like to know where fiend draws the line for healthcare entitlements.
He/she gives the impression that there is no limit.
How much is too much?
"I’m asking if [you are] frightened by the side who promises to maintain other government give aways."
I don't think I'm following your logic, but I am disgusted by the politicians who use the give aways to keep their precious little job. And that would be most of them.
I don’t have a lot of choice in controlling the development of cancer. I’m forced to deal with unexpected occurrences with my body. I can trade it in like a car.
So what. That's your problem.
The minimum auto insurance, liability, exists to protect other drivers from you, not to protect you.
chickenlittle said...
“Could be a variety of reasons:
incentive
profit
coersion
PR
Do you know?”
I think it’s for profit. Birth control is cheaper than the costs associated with birth and abortion.
36fsfiend said...
It’s a rule being established in accordance with a public law, in this case the ACA.
Actually, it is arbitrary in that the Secretary of HHS decided to do it, but did not have to.
You're continuing to fail at this.
Birth control is cheaper than the costs associated with birth and abortion.
So is a 32 bullet to the head.
Let's all demand free guns!!!
Plus since it is so inexpensive, why don't people like Fluke buy it themselves instead of demanding that it be given free or forced to be paid for against the religious laws and objections of other people.
chickenlittle said...
“For the record, I would like to know where fiend draws the line for healthcare entitlements.
He/she gives the impression that there is no limit.
How much is too much?”
What does this have to do with my point that Ann is frightened by the idea that people are for whichever side gives them $1,000? How about other give aways?
Are you ready to give them up?
I think it’s for profit. Birth control is cheaper than the costs associated with birth and abortion.
If so, then what stopped them before? Did they just need Obama mandating it?
Original Mike said...
“I don't think I'm following your logic, but I am disgusted by the politicians who use the give aways to keep their precious little job. And that would be most of them.”
Mike,
I agree.
For the record, I would like to know where fiend draws the line for healthcare entitlements.
There is no line, anywhere, ever using this dipstick's 'logic'
See, once there any sort of new government program, you can't argue against it because you may have used some other one.
Oh, and apparently they are all mandatory too.
Watching this bozo continue to equate a tax deduction with a federal mandate is bizarre.
My employer-provided insurance paid for my vascectomy. I don't know why my employer would have agreed to do that, as was a completely vountary choice on my part.
Well, almost voluntary. In reality, my wife, upon discovering that she was pregnant with our fourth, very calmly and clinically explained to me that, until and unless I had a vascectomy after the baby was born, that she would never have sex with me again. But the choice was entirely up to me.
So, faced with this choice, I exercised my right as a man to make my own decisions and promptly got the vas. That story of that is for another blog comment if AA ever does a vas topic. To this day (well not literally) my employer "pays" me to have consequence-free sex. It's wonderful. And, though I never gave it much thought until the current kerfuffle, even a little bit naughty.
The plan also pays for contraceptive lady-pills, so there does not appear to be any double standard.
I don't know why my employer should HAVE TO pay for either of these things if it did not care to do so. Particularly if it was a religious-based employer with particular scruples against what I done of my own free will.
6fsfiend said...
Mike,
I agree.
Hysterical.
You've only spent a few weeks here arguing in favor of this mandate.
But you're against give aways!!!
Are you ready to give them up?.
My mortgage interest deduction is diminishing rapidly as I approach the end of a 15 year fixed.
My child tax deduction will go away one too. Not likely I'll get that back. I will not complain.
Now tell us something about yourself, Fiend.
How about other give aways?
Are you ready to give them up?
I don't have any religious or moral objections to keeping more of my own money.
In fact, I think it is a virtue and a skill to be honed. (You do know what I used to do before retirement? Right?)
I do have objections on being told what to DO with my money or being forced to buy things that I don't want or need, in order to subsidize other people.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
“So what. That's your problem.”
Actually, not true. Who pays the bill if I don’t have insurance?
So now Ann Althouse and other conservatives insist it is no insult to call a woman a slut and a prostitute? Along with all the other insulting things Limbaugh said.
You're really grasping at straws here.
Why not just reprise that great viral video of a few years ago? It would be as sensible:
"Leave Rush Limbaugh ALOOOOOOONE!"
Jay said...
"Actually, it is arbitrary in that the Secretary of HHS decided to do it, but did not have to."
You need to read up on the background of the rule.
Jay wrote: Watching this bozo continue to equate a tax deduction with a federal mandate is bizarre.
Agree. Except I'm not sure if it's a bozo or a boza.
I detest fraud.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
“So is a 32 bullet to the head.
Let's all demand free guns!!!
Plus since it is so inexpensive, why don't people like Fluke buy it themselves instead of demanding that it be given free or forced to be paid for against the religious laws and objections of other people.”
You still don’t get it.
I think it’s for profit. Birth control is cheaper than the costs associated with birth and abortion.
Why in the world do you think that? Insurance companies deal with pools not individuals. Keep that in mind.
As for why no push-back from insurance companies: insurance companies don't make waves. They just set premiums.
36fsfiend said...
You need to read up on the background of the rule.
Actually, I don't.
But feel free to pull out your copy of Obamacare and cite the passage requiring the HHS secretary to mandate this.
chickenlittle said...
“If so, then what stopped them before? Did they just need Obama mandating it?”
Not sure. Why did they insure erectile dysfunction drugs as soon as they hit the market? Could it be something about men issues versus women issues and the influences of society on a woman’s role in life?
Actually, not true. Who pays the bill if I don’t have insurance?
The taxpayer will if you are ready to impoverish yourself, get rid of your possessions, jewelry, cars, get rid of your house, eliminate any investments or income go on welfare and make yourself a ward of the state.
Charitable organizations also exist to help the truly needy.
Personally, I don't care. If you are that bad off, then help should be available for the MAJOR MEDICAL and life threatening issues....ONLY.
The tax payer shouldn't be paying for every little hangnail you have or every little cold or bruise.
What does this have to do with forcing the Catholic Church to give free abortions and birth control against its wishes.
Jay said...
"There is no line, anywhere, ever using this dipstick's 'logic'
See, once there any sort of new government program, you can't argue against it because you may have used some other one.
Oh, and apparently they are all mandatory too.
Watching this bozo continue to equate a tax deduction with a federal mandate is bizarre."
You haven't answered the question about giving up other government benefit that are available to you?
Why?
Not sure. Why did they insure erectile dysfunction drugs as soon as they hit the market?
ED drugs were mandated?
Agree. Except I'm not sure if it's a bozo or a boza
Woman. The illogical arguments and dealing with emotion instead of reason and facts = boza
Jay said...
“ Hysterical.
You've only spent a few weeks here arguing in favor of this mandate.
But you're against give aways!!!”
I accept that politicians use give aways to keep their precious little job. That doesn’t change my position about the birth control issue.
chickenlittle said...
“ My mortgage interest deduction is diminishing rapidly as I approach the end of a 15 year fixed.
My child tax deduction will go away one too. Not likely I'll get that back. I will not complain.
Now tell us something about yourself, Fiend.”
That doesn’t answer the question. If you bought a new home, would you take the tax deduction on the mortgage?
@36fsfiend: It's almost like you "work" for Althouse.
You caught my attention weeks ago when you argued that it was hypocritical for Christians to pray in churches. You always use silly emotional "logic."
It's almost like you come here to gin things up. It's impossible to take you seriously as a commenter. I'm bored with you for that reason.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
“I do have objections on being told what to DO with my money or being forced to buy things that I don't want or need, in order to subsidize other people.”
Well, how about people who don’t believe in war? So they get a write-off and not contribute to the common defense?
36,
Insurance companies LOVE mandates. It allows them to tell the acutaries to run the numbers to build another $X into the premium and, if desired, another %X into profit. Insurance companies will never lose money on a mandate. Even if the insurers are "forbidden" to directly pass the charge along in the premium, their pool of insureds will end up paying for the coverage in one way or another.
ED drugs are simply one more item that employers said they wanted and that insurers were happy to oblige by folding the costs into the premium.
Do you think all employers should be FORCED to pay for ED drugs? That is what this debate is (or should be) about.
I refuse to believe that people don't understand the difference between calling someone cracker or kike, breeder or faggot, and cunt or dick.
Unless perhaps, we are talking about white christian males who know exclusively only other white christian males. Then that type of stupidity might be understandable.
Jay said...
“Actually, I don't.
But feel free to pull out your copy of Obamacare and cite the passage requiring the HHS secretary to mandate this.”
If you read up on the law, you would know that there originally wasn’t even an exemption for religious institutions. The DHHS elected to include that accommodation.
That doesn’t answer the question. "If you bought a new home, would you take the tax deduction on the mortgage?"
I say again, this is a dumb ass assertion on your part. Anybody who doesn't take a currently established deduction is stupid. That in no way negates their right to argue that the deduction should not exist.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
“The taxpayer will if you are ready to impoverish yourself, get rid of your possessions, jewelry, cars, get rid of your house, eliminate any investments or income go on welfare and make yourself a ward of the state.
Charitable organizations also exist to help the truly needy.
Personally, I don't care. If you are that bad off, then help should be available for the MAJOR MEDICAL and life threatening issues....ONLY.
The tax payer shouldn't be paying for every little hangnail you have or every little cold or bruise.
What does this have to do with forcing the Catholic Church to give free abortions and birth control against its wishes.”
The taxpayer pays. Correct. Why not have private insurance pay instead?
chickenlittle said...
“Not sure. Why did they insure erectile dysfunction drugs as soon as they hit the market?
ED drugs were mandated?”
Why weren’t contraceptives covered as soon as they hit the market?
Well, how about people who don’t believe in war? So they get a write-off and not contribute to the common defense?
Yawn....that tired old argument again? Can't you libs come up with something original.
It is like dealing with three year olds and one of those little puzzle books..... One of these things is not like the others
All of my taxes go into the general fund. I don't get to, as much as I would like to, tell the government what to spend the money on. I can work to vote the assholes in government OUT and replace them with someone who will spend or not spend the way I want.
Since I can't tell the government what to spend my money on, I work to reduce the amount of money that they can get from me by using every tax trick in the book.
The money IN my pocket is mine and I should be able to spend or not spend it as I wish. If I don't wish to buy auto insurance or a bells and whistles health insurance policy or even milk, that is my choice.
Not yours....or the government....yet.
chickenlittle said...
“@36fsfiend: It's almost like you "work" for Althouse.
You caught my attention weeks ago when you argued that it was hypocritical for Christians to pray in churches. You always use silly emotional "logic."
It's almost like you come here to gin things up. It's impossible to take you seriously as a commenter. I'm bored with you for that reason.”
What emotional logic? I asked a simple question. If Ann is frightened about people being for the side that will “give” then $1,000 in this case, then is she frightened about other give aways provided by public law? Pretty simple question.
Why not have private insurance pay instead?
Um....because it is ....."private"?
If you bought a personal contract with a private insurer it will cover the items that you have mutualy decided you want covered.
You really are dumb.
BarrySanders20 said...
“Insurance companies LOVE mandates. It allows them to tell the acutaries to run the numbers to build another $X into the premium and, if desired, another %X into profit. Insurance companies will never lose money on a mandate. Even if the insurers are "forbidden" to directly pass the charge along in the premium, their pool of insureds will end up paying for the coverage in one way or another.
ED drugs are simply one more item that employers said they wanted and that insurers were happy to oblige by folding the costs into the premium.
Do you think all employers should be FORCED to pay for ED drugs? That is what this debate is (or should be)”
If ED drugs help reduce long term public costs, sure. Each taxpayer $1 spent on birth control saves around $14 of taxpayer money in birth and abortion related costs.
"Apparently Freder does not understand what insurance is; a bet against a catastrophic or rare event or unforssen event." Obviously, Cubanbob confuses how he thinks things should be with what they actually are.
Ah, so you CAN'T read.
cuban provided three reasons for insurance.
What as the THIRD reason?
Hint: unforeseen event.
That doesn't mean catastrophic. That was an earlier reason for insurance.
As for Reynolds, he is an arch-libertarian (but apparently not libertarian enough that he would forgo his state-funded salary). It is a reasonable bet that he believes that medical coverage should be limited to catastrophic coverage.
Given your inability to read what cubanbob wrote, I have little faith in your assumptions.
The hypocrisy of conservatives, who believe in biological differences and gender roles (and politeness,) calling women "sluts" when they try to deal with the reality of pregnancy.
Conservatives don't care what women do. Asking us to PAY for it is the issue.
"I asked a simple question. If Ann is frightened about people being for the side that will “give” then $1,000 in this case, then is she frightened about other give aways provided by public law? Pretty simple question."
It appears to me to be a nonsensical question. I believe she was "frightened" by the people selling their principles (or not having any principles). I don't understand the leap to being frightened by the give aways themselves.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
“All of my taxes go into the general fund. I don't get to, as much as I would like to, tell the government what to spend the money on. I can work to vote the assholes in government OUT and replace them with someone who will spend or not spend the way I want.
Since I can't tell the government what to spend my money on, I work to reduce the amount of money that they can get from me by using every tax trick in the book.
The money IN my pocket is mine and I should be able to spend or not spend it as I wish. If I don't wish to buy auto insurance or a bells and whistles health insurance policy or even milk, that is my choice.”
So, again, are you OK with people who don’t agree with war getting a tax break? They are being forced to pay for something they don’t agree with, in some cases that’s based on religious beliefs.
"Apparently Freder does not understand what insurance is; a bet against a catastrophic or rare event or unforssen event."
As a matter of fact, Freder demonstrated long ago in a conversation with myself and Sippican Cottage that he in fact does not understand exactly that.
He also doesn't understand how a light bulb works.
"I asked a simple question. If Ann is frightened about people being for the side that will “give” then $1,000 in this case, then is she frightened about other give aways provided by public law? Pretty simple question."
One of these things is not like the others. Your question is idiotic.
Taking tax deductions, such as the mortgage interest deduction, is not a "Give Away". No one is GIVING me money. It is my money. Not the government's money. I am getting to keep more of my own money.
Forcing insurance companies and employers to GIVE free coverage for anything. IS a give away because you are taking money from the pockets of the insurance company, the employer and/or the employee who will be paying higher premiums....because......wait for it.....nothing is completely free. There is a cost to someone.
YOU just want to be on the getting end of the deal. Sweet!!
Dust Bunny Queen said...
“Um....because it is ....."private"?
If you bought a personal contract with a private insurer it will cover the items that you have mutualy decided you want covered.”
As I stated up thread, every taxpayer $1 spent on birth control saves around $14 of taxpayer money in birth and abortion related costs.
Why not push this cost to the insurance companies instead of the government picking up the bll?
Original Mike said...
"I asked a simple question. If Ann is frightened about people being for the side that will “give” then $1,000 in this case, then is she frightened about other give aways provided by public law? Pretty simple question."
It appears to me to be a nonsensical question. I believe she was "frightened" by the people selling their principles (or not having any principles). I don't understand the leap to being frightened by the give aways themselves.
No. She stated is frightened about people being for the side that will give then $1,000 in this case, i.e., a benefit provided by a public law, in this case insurance coverage.
"Taking tax deductions, such as the mortgage interest deduction, is not a "Give Away". No one is GIVING me money. It is my money. Not the government's money. I am getting to keep more of my own money."
Yes, but much better to do away with the deduction and lower the rates.
"No. She stated is frightened about people being for the side that will give then $1,000 in this case, i.e., a benefit provided by a public law, in this case insurance coverage."
Well, I'm glad you cleared that up. :rolleyes:
As I stated up thread, every taxpayer $1 spent on birth control saves around $14 of taxpayer money in birth and abortion related costs.
Why not push this cost to the insurance companies instead of the government picking up the bll?
Every extra dollar spent on milk and especially if the milk isn't used....will ultimately lower the cost of milk for everyone.
I propose that whenever you go to the grocery store, you pay a $10.00 mandatory milk insurance subisidy fee so that my cost of milk will go down!!
Liberals are such totalitarian creepy people.
Why should the taxpayer or anyone for that matter of fact pay for your abortions and birth control.
And while the idea of you not replicating yourself does have some societal merit, I don't think it is the responsibility of the rest of us to pay you for that purpose.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
“One of these things is not like the others. Your question is idiotic.
Taking tax deductions, such as the mortgage interest deduction, is not a "Give Away". No one is GIVING me money. It is my money. Not the government's money. I am getting to keep more of my own money.
Forcing insurance companies and employers to GIVE free coverage for anything. IS a give away because you are taking money from the pockets of the insurance company, the employer and/or the employee who will be paying higher premiums....because......wait for it.....nothing is completely free. There is a cost to someone.
YOU just want to be on the getting end of the deal. Sweet!!”
As I responded to Original Mike, Ann stated is frightened about people being for the side that will give then $1,000 in this case, i.e., a benefit provided by a public law, in this case insurance coverage.
You keep talking about your own money. If I don’t have children or own a house, I am in effect subsidizing the credits and write-offs for those people who take advantage of those benefits provided by public law. Why do I have to subsidize those benefits?
Original Mike said...
“No. She stated is frightened about people being for the side that will give then $1,000 in this case, i.e., a benefit provided by a public law, in this case insurance coverage."
Well, I'm glad you cleared that up. :rolleyes:”
Well, as I responded to DBQ, If I don’t have children or own a house, I am in effect subsidizing the credits and write-offs for those people who take advantage of those benefits provided by public law. Why do I have to subsidize those benefits?
Who did the shaming? Conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh, were characterizing sex as nothing more lowly than private recreational activity. The idea was: You have to pay for that yourself.
Wrong again, prof. The type of wanton slut behavior exemplified by Fluke and her other unnamed co-conspirators was about getting tax payers or insurance companies to foot the bill for all kinds of sexual behavior and gender reassignment procedures. She is a plant. She is a tool of the left. Stefanopoulous let the cat out of the bag a little early when he revealed the question to Santorum on this very subject. It was orchestrated, it was scripted. The fact that she was brought in by Nancy Pelosi as a testimonial stand-in for why women aren't getting free contraception from those evil, rascally republicans, should have been enough to get people to step back and say, "Woah, where is this coming from and why now."
Darrel Issa did. He refused her to testify initially because he didn't know who she was, what she wanted to say, etc. but we know what happened after that. You professor have become an unwitting co-conspirator in this little bit of Kabuki and I'm surprised that you couldn't step back and see the tendrils of this little conspiracy as it unfolded. You got played and so did republicans because it largely created a non-contreversy. There are no contraception struggles in the US. You can get them anywhere, but where Limbaugh stepped in it was in his delivery, not the contextual meaning of the argument which is, "Have all the sex you want, but don't expect the public or corporations to pay for your behavioral mistakes in the bedroom.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
“Every extra dollar spent on milk and especially if the milk isn't used....will ultimately lower the cost of milk for everyone.
I propose that whenever you go to the grocery store, you pay a $10.00 mandatory milk insurance subisidy fee so that my cost of milk will go down!!
Liberals are such totalitarian creepy people.
Why should the taxpayer or anyone for that matter of fact pay for your abortions and birth control.
And while the idea of you not replicating yourself does have some societal merit, I don't think it is the responsibility of the rest of us to pay you for that purpose.”
Is the government subsidizing milk and if people don’t buy milk will that cause the price, and subsequently the taxpayer subsidy, for milk to increase?
Doesn't seem to be a valid comparison.
Taking tax deductions, such as the mortgage interest deduction, is not a "Give Away". No one is GIVING me money. It is my money. Not the government's money. I am getting to keep more of my own money."
Yes, but much better to do away with the deduction and lower the rates.
True. But, since this isn't going to happen, I'm taking advantage of the opportunities that I have now.
Such as our business is a S Corp, we lease and rent items to the corporation to reduce the SS and Medicare taxes on that portion on our personal taxes and reduce the corporation's tax burden for those items. Take a reasonable salary and keep our income in a level where we can take advantage of the other tax deductions and get back our personal taxes. Deduct as many allowable expenses from the operation of the business and pay for our insurance (health and key man life) out of the corporation for more deductions.....etc ...etc....etc.
Unlike 36dumshit, we know that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone is going to pay for the freebies that she wants. I just want to make sure it isn't me.
Liberals are such totalitarian creepy people.
Yes, but they're smarter than us, so it's OK.
The GOP will not win the presidential if it looses too many single women.
Was it about shame? Or was it about insulting a large group of voters?
"True. But, since this isn't going to happen, I'm taking advantage of the opportunities that I have now."
Well, me too (though I no longer have a mortgage). The assertion that you can't avail yourself to something you think would be better off abandoned is just childish.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
“Taking tax deductions, such as the mortgage interest deduction, is not a "Give Away". No one is GIVING me money. It is my money. Not the government's money. I am getting to keep more of my own money."”
If I don’t have children or own a house, I am in effect subsidizing the credits and write-offs for those people who take advantage of those benefits provided by public law. I consider that a give away from my point of view.
Even if you don't want those vegetables or are allergic to milk, can the government mandate that you pay for them anyway?
But the government already does this through crop subsidies. And I will add that I am also subsidizing you through all the water projects that make most of the area west of Kansas habitable.
If I don’t have children or own a house, I am in effect subsidizing the credits and write-offs for those people who take advantage of those benefits provided by public law.
Hardly. You aren't giving me a dime. It doesn't affect your financial situation if I do or don't take a tax deduction. I am merely keeping my own money. Which I now have to spend in the general economy.
I consider that a give away from my point of view.
Of course you do. You think what belongs to other people should belong to you.
Typical totalitarian progressive point of view.
Ann said...
"One answer is: I'm for whichever side gives me $1,000. That's what's really frightening."
Ann,
Should the government do away with tax credits for children or the tax deduction for home mortgage interest? Do those benefits frighten you as well?
I think you miss her point. My take: she is not frightened by any particular benefit. She is frightened by the idea that people's votes and loyalty can be bought by handouts from the govt. That people can be easily led into dependency by govt. handouts is indeed disturbing to contemplate.
Your point that people make use of existing benefits and may be hesitant to give them up, strengthens the disturbing idea that people are being led into dependency on the government.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
“Hardly. You aren't giving me a dime. It doesn't affect your financial situation if I do or don't take a tax deduction. I am merely keeping my own money. Which I now have to spend in the general economy.
Well, if I could pay less in taxes like those with children or a mortgage, I could spend that extra money in the general economy on things that suit me. But, I’m in effect subsidizing those whose personal desires are to have children or own a home.
fiend,
Conservatives want the government to not interfere with markets unless it is absolutely necessary. We absolutely do not want gov micro managing a business or industry. We don't want dems politicizing and corrupting the health care industry or any other industry.
A reasonable compromise is to get the gov out of the health care business and give vouchers to the needy to buy whatever health insurance they wish. Do you agree?
Relentlessly expanding gov inevitably causes the loss of liberty. Do you really trust gov that much? Recent history has taught us that big gov is oppressive gov. Learn from history, preserve liberty. If all you want is to take care of the needy, it can be done without expanding the size and power of gov.
Just Lurking said...
“I think you miss her point. My take: she is not frightened by any particular benefit. She is frightened by the idea that people's votes and loyalty can be bought by handouts from the govt. That people can be easily led into dependency by govt. handouts is indeed disturbing to contemplate.
Your point that people make use of existing benefits and may be hesitant to give them up, strengthens the disturbing idea that people are being led into dependency on the government.
Just Lurking,
As I stated up thread, if the Democrats were pushing to eliminate child tax credits or home mortgage interest tax deductions, the folks on this site would be howling, I’m sure. That’s my jist with the question on Ann’s comment about being frightened about people being with the side who is promising them a benefit.
Steve Koch said...
“fiend,
Conservatives want the government to not interfere with markets unless it is absolutely necessary. We absolutely do not want gov micro managing a business or industry. We don't want dems politicizing and corrupting the health care industry or any other industry.
A reasonable compromise is to get the gov out of the health care business and give vouchers to the needy to buy whatever health insurance they wish. Do you agree?
Relentlessly expanding gov inevitably causes the loss of liberty. Do you really trust gov that much? Recent history has taught us that big gov is oppressive gov. Learn from history, preserve liberty. If all you want is to take care of the needy, it can be done without expanding the size and power of gov.”
Steve,
So are the Republican on board with ending the $4 billion in subsidizes provided each year to the oil industry which is suppose to be a free market?
Gov subsidies are usually a bad thing that ends up screwing up a market (law of unintended consequences). An obvious example is the gov impact on the housing market that was a huge factor in the housing bust that destroyed the economy.
Politicians have a terrible reputation because of their stupidity, corruption, lack of integrity, and excessive egos. Why should we give them any more power than absolutely necessary?
Absolutely, as long as it is part of a package ending all energy production subsidies. Make it happen.
Re: "slut"
It's still never fun being called something you are not or seeing it happen to someone else. It feels unjust especially if it's something that is part of someone's basic identity.
He was using the societal firepower behind those words, the historical disparity of power they reflect.
And he revealed himself to be the big fat sweaty old pig many have always suspected he is undermeath - he is beginning to lose control in front of the mic like someone who is drunk, getting senile, or on medication. There's that.
I don't recall Christopher Hitchens, a well known drinker. losing control in that way right up until the end, for example.
Rush is getting older and losing power. I watched it happen to my grandfather who was a powerful attorney. It's weird to watch it happen to guys who have held power in society as they age - they get whacked. They suddenly have to accept that personal choice is not the whole story. A lot of them stumble around completely confused. From their perspective, they are the same as they've always been. (And they likely are...) So why are people suddenly reacting differently? Well, because now you're old and society doesn't value you or your opinion as much. How's it feel?
Steve Koch said...
“Gov subsidies are usually a bad thing that ends up screwing up a market (law of unintended consequences). An obvious example is the gov impact on the housing market that was a huge factor in the housing bust that destroyed the economy.
Politicians have a terrible reputation because of their stupidity, corruption, lack of integrity, and excessive egos. Why should we give them any more power than absolutely necessary?”
Steve,
My point is that right now taxpayers subsidize healthcare costs spending $14 dollars in birth related costs compared for $1 in birth control costs. The mandate is sifting this burden from the taxpayer to the insurance companies where I think it should be.
Again, I haven’t seen much in the news about the insurance companies pushing back on this rule since I understand that it can be easily covered by the money saved from not paying out claims associated with child birth and abortion.
And the reason that birth control pills were not originally covered by insurance when they first hit the market is, in my opinion, due to the place women have traditionally held in society. Who has always dictated the woman’s role in society over history, men or women?
As I stated up thread, if the Democrats were pushing to eliminate child tax credits or home mortgage interest tax deductions, the folks on this site would be howling, I’m sure. That’s my jist with the question on Ann’s comment about being frightened about people being with the side who is promising them a benefit.
So you are discounting Althouse's point in order to criticize her commenters based on things you imagine? Okay. I leave you to it then.
Steve Koch said...
"Absolutely, as long as it is part of a package ending all energy production subsidies. Make it happen."
Well, that's not the response I get from my senator, Toomey, who is a Republican.
I think there is a real danger in the assumption that "saving money" is the proper role of government. There ane things government is meant to do. I'm not an anarchist. The list of things government is meant to do is not defined as "anything good."
The excuse for the insurance mandate was it will Save money. Even if it did, that is not a good enough reason. Justifying adding totally free stuff because it will save money is not a good enough reason. Lots of stuff would save tons and tons of money. Any time government does anything at all liberty is reduced. We could make a list of great ways to save money.. None of them would be justification for the intrusion of government and lessening of our freedom to choose. None of them would justify tossing 1st Amendment religious protection.
That none of these things will save money, not pandering to women with free stuff, not an insurance mandate that includes ever more benefits._ The fact money won't be saved doesn't make the initial assumption, that if it DID Save money it wouldbe A-okay, any more valid. This is not the purpose of government.
People seem to think that it is so much the purpose ofgovernment that it supercedes the Constitution.
Just Lurking said...
“So you are discounting Althouse's point in order to criticize her commenters based on things you imagine? Okay. I leave you to it then.”
No. I’m basing it what I’ve see posted on this blog in the past.
Would you be OK with eliminating child tax credits and home mortgage interest tax deductions? Have you taken advantage of these benefits in the past?
"As I stated up thread, if the Democrats were pushing to eliminate child tax credits or home mortgage interest tax deductions, the folks on this site would be howling, I’m sure."
Being "sure" doesn't make you right. I can only speak for myself, but I would applaud it ASSUMING we're going to drop the rates as well.
Blogger Original Mike said...
“Being "sure" doesn't make you right. I can only speak for myself, but I would applaud it ASSUMING we're going to drop the rates as well.”
And if the rates were not going to be dropped? Only the deductions eliminated. What then?
No. I’m basing it what I’ve see posted on this blog in the past.
Would you be OK with eliminating child tax credits and home mortgage interest tax deductions?
Yes. I am perfectly content to live my life w/o handouts from the govt. I have even planned for my old age with the assumption that SS and Medicare do not exist. I am not frightened by that thought. However if they exist, and I am allowed, I will gladly take back from a system I was forced to paid into.
Have you taken advantage of these benefits in the past?
Yes. I'd be stupid not to.
BTW, what point are you trying to make with this line of questioning? That anyone who takes a govt. handout has no right to say handouts are a bad thing? That's specious reasoning. (Shades of Catch-22. )
I was quite clear that I don't want gov subsidizing almost anything, including birth related or birth control costs. Aren't we in agreement? You seem to be avoiding answering my direct questions. Please try.
I don't want the gov to mandate anything re: my health insurance.
Why do you want to give the gov power to push you around? What about when you don't like the gov? It is extremely hard to preserve democracies because there is always a group like the dnc that figures out it can buy political power by buying votes. Politicians are innately corrupt and venal, give them as little power as possible.
If you want to help the needy, it is easy enough to do through vouchers.
You can try to shift the burden to the insurance companies but they just pass it along to the customer or they go out of business.
The insurance companies will play the game. Here is how it works: the dems strong arm a business (such as finance or health care ore insurance) and extort contributions from them. The dems then carve out concessions for those companies. Please realize that the dems are profoundly corrupt.
I am relatively certain that you can find insurance that covers birth control. Realize that birth control is a routine expense and that insurance (independent of anything else) is about taking care of unexpected events. Women's place in society has nothing to do with it.
fiend,
There is no greater threat to our liberty than our own government.
People have explained that keeping more of your own money is not in conflict with believing a person should keep more of her own money, and you are still insisting that taking your mortgage interest tax credit means taking a handout from government?
Just Lurking said...
“Yes. I am perfectly content to live my life w/o handouts from the govt. I have even planned for my old age with the assumption that SS and Medicare do not exist. I am not frightened by that thought. However if they exist, and I am allowed, I will gladly take back from a system I was forced to paid into.
Have you taken advantage of these benefits in the past?
Yes. I'd be stupid not to.
BTW, what point are you trying to make with this line of questioning? That anyone who takes a govt. handout has no right to say handouts are a bad thing? That's specious reasoning. (Shades of Catch-22. )”
No. Just responding to Ann’s comment about her being frightened by the idea of people siding with a group that is wiling to provide them a benefit when this siituation obviously occurs on both sides of the aisle
Andy R.,
I refuse to believe that people don't understand the difference between calling someone cracker or kike, breeder or faggot, and cunt or dick.
Could you please explain it to Bill Maher and Keith Olbermann? I don't believe they got the memo.
WV: ghtsR porgen. You can say that again.
36fsfiend said...
"Well, that's not the response I get from my senator, Toomey, who is a Republican."
Can't speak for an individual sen, obviously. Conservatives and libertarians strongly believe that energy production subsidies distort energy markets and should be eliminated.
You do realize that green energy production subsidies are also enormous, right (especially relative to the amount of energy actually delivered to the public)?
Steve,
I agree with the point that government should limit subsidizes and in this case I see the mandate as shifting healthcare costs currently covered by the taxpayers to the insurance companies where I think it should be.
Again, in this case I don’t believe the insurance companies will go out of business, hence why there is no push back on this rule from them. Most of the push back has been from the religious sector and I think some politicians are using that argument as a cover for a larger agenda.
As far as there being no greater threat to our liberty than our own government, are you oin board with eliminating the Department of Defense?
36fsfiend,
Are there not minimum levels dictated by law regarding auto insurance?
Oh, yes. But the difference is, I don't have to buy a car; I don't have to drive. (In fact, I don't.) But I do have to breathe. The mandate says that I mustn't be an American citizen and breathe without either purchasing health insurance to the government's stipulation (which rules out the kind of high-deductible, catastrophic insurance I'd rather have), or incur a fine/tax penalty, whichever it is today (it depends on whether they're addressing the public or the Supreme Court).
Steve Koch said...
“You do realize that green energy production subsidies are also enormous, right (especially relative to the amount of energy actually delivered to the public)?”
Steve,
I recognize the difference between subsidizes for start up industries and those for multi-national industries that are making billions in profits each year.
The government subsidize our nascent aviation industry in the early 20th century which helped to make it one of the strongest in the world.
"Just responding to Ann’s comment about her being frightened by the idea of people siding with a group that is wiling to provide them a benefit when this siituation obviously occurs on both sides of the aisle"
Except that conservatives and libertarians are vigorously pushing to reduce the size, cost, and power of the gov while dems are strenuously resisting even though we are insanely over budget year after year.
Two different concepts. One concept is what political change you want to make happen. The other concept is am individual living with an existing political economic system. You are conflating the two concepts.
Post a Comment