While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

Justices Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia are issuing narrow rulings, knowing that lower courts will soon expand them into broader law.
Lets them appear more gradual and even-handed when the rulings are announced.
The fig leaves fall away later.

[Woodsman]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

But wouldn't a woman using the methods Hobby Lobby is not opposed to not find herself in a position of needing morning after solutions.

What if she found "herself in a position of needing morning after solutions" after being raped? What do we say to her then? No, I'm sorry you can't have this medicine?

I'm not wise enough to answer your question, mostly because I never worried about becoming pregnant or being raped, not once, so it's hard for me to relate. I'm not medically trained either, so any opinion I'd have about which contraceptive was best for your hypothetical woman in a position would be worth zilch. I guess that makes me wiser than five Supreme Court Justices, so I have that going for me. I can say that I believe whatever position a hypothetical woman may or may not find herself is immaterial to which medical treatment she and her doctor determine is best. That's really the best I can do here for you, vt.

What about the issue of STD, that seem to be on the rise? Many birth control methods do not protect. How can cheap, protective birth control also prevent disease?

Separate issue intended to muddy the waters, I believe.

One request: please do not assume someone opposed to an idea you may favor is an "idiot". You may find others more open if you are more tactful in presentation.

Oh dear.

[vinoveri]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

Women take then not to induce abortions, but to prevent pregnancy from occurring after unprotected sexual intercourse or contraceptive failure.

Women take them to prevent pregnancy no doubt. In any case, there effectiveness results in the deliberate termination of an innocent human life (blastocyst).

They do not encourage women to have sex. Women who use them are already sexually active. They will not turn your daughter into a trollop or your son into a satyr. The American Academy of Pediatrics has time and again said that emergency contraceptives offer no increase in risky behavior and will not disrupt an established pregnancy. In Europe emergency contraceptives have been available to women for more than a decade and most of those years as an OTC drug and they've had no increase in the rate of abortions.

Unmitigated BS with respect Woods, half truth at best. Contraceptive don't encourage people to have sex; after all nature is pretty good at doing that after all. They do however effectively reduce the likelihood of pregnancy thereby allowing sex-on-demand lifestyle. Should adult women have access to contraceptives? Absolutely. Only diehards dogmatists will deny however that the rise of contraceptives is correlated with the rise of pornography, the exploitation of women as objects, breakdown of the family and IMO coarsening of the culture. I've always thought men were the primary beneficiaries of contraception, now enabled to hump anything that moves without the risk of a palimony suit; women who did not want to engage in sex (imagine that,OMG, the horror) could easily decline w/o prejudice b/c of the risk of pregnancy, but now there is nowhere to hide from those satyrs (or 17 year old sweetheart for that matter)
Remember Griswold? Scotus decided that married couples have the right to privacy and thereby contraceptives. That was about the same time Hugh Hefner began to gain traction. And it was all downhill (or uphill depending on your POV). Boy what a different world it was 50 years ago, Playboy for goodness seek seems downright wholesome for the human degradration that one can observe on porn cable channels today. Where is the wisdom of Socrates and Aristotle? Where is the golden mean? Ignored while lives of women and children are crushed and ruined under the scourge of humans pursuing the latest form of debasement. The pendulum has swung too far and those who call for more "freedom" (read license) continue to sow the and fertilize the seeds of cultural destruction and that of individuals.

[Woodsman]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

Women take them to prevent pregnancy no doubt. In any case, there effectiveness results in the deliberate termination of an innocent human life (blastocyst).

You think contraception is "the deliberate termination of an innocent human life." Okay, that's what vino thinks.

Unmitigated BS with respect Woods, half truth at best. Contraceptive don't encourage people to have sex; after all nature is pretty good at doing that after all. They do however effectively reduce the likelihood of pregnancy thereby allowing sex-on-demand lifestyle.

So it is an issue of morality then, not medical or legal. You have a particular moral viewpoint and you want all others to orient their lives around it, I see.

Should adult women have access to contraceptives? Absolutely.

I'm sure I can safely speak for all women everywhere. Thank you for recognizing their humanity. Next, maybe let's try a little less slut shaming.

Only diehards dogmatists will deny however that the rise of contraceptives is correlated with the rise of pornography, the exploitation of women as objects, breakdown of the family and IMO coarsening of the culture. I've always thought men were the primary beneficiaries of contraception, now enabled to hump anything that moves without the risk of a palimony suit; women who did not want to engage in sex (imagine that,OMG, the horror) could easily decline w/o prejudice b/c of the risk of pregnancy, but now there is nowhere to hide from those satyrs (or 17 year old sweetheart for that matter)

You think the culture declined and families have broken down because women have taken control of their sexual and reproductive health? That's the necessary condition? If the pill had never come into existence, the culture and families would have prevailed? Okay then.

Remember Griswold? Scotus decided that married couples have the right to privacy and thereby contraceptives.

Well, we've killed privacy. Contraception should be easy to turn back.

That was about the same time Hugh Hefner began to gain traction. And it was all downhill (or uphill depending on your POV). Boy what a different world it was 50 years ago, Playboy for goodness seek seems downright wholesome for the human degradration that one can observe on porn cable channels today. Where is the wisdom of Socrates and Aristotle? Where is the golden mean?

Socrates and Aristotle were both pederasts and had sex with boys and teenagers. Classical Greece and Rome were awash with brothels and sexual imagery. Poor old Hef was way late to the game.

Ignored while lives of women and children are crushed and ruined under the scourge of humans pursuing the latest form of debasement.

Curious how each time the right express concern about debasement and degradation, sex is the first thing that comes up.

The pendulum has swung too far and those who call for more "freedom" (read license) continue to sow the and fertilize the seeds of cultural destruction and that of individuals.

Everything was glorious before women could have sex on the same terms as men. Sounds familiar:



I appreciate your honesty, vino and for yet again confirming my understanding that right wing conservative evangelicals want to impose their moral and spiritual viewpoint on us all by force. Now if you could help me understand why they seem so terrified of women's sexuality and independence, we'd be going places.

Only something tells me we're not going to agree, vino. Maybe we should stop now, unless there's more you want to share?

[lektrode]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

..... something tells me we're not going to agree, vino. Maybe we should stop now, unless there's more you want to share?

+1
ok woody - so i'm guilty of taking the thread off into libraries, omaha+parades, along with the bluestate crony class' hijinx - but chrikie mate - how in hell did we get to birth control and moral relativism?

can we go back to the diff tween hil and liz ???

[lektrode]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

Politicians are just looking for a steady pay check with a phenomenal defined pension plan.

As long as we believe these characters can rebuild our economy we are in trouble.

I'm waiting for the first politician who stands up and turns down all the financial benefits of being President in order to help rebuild the economy.....I suspect it won't happen in my life time.

+1
HEAR here!!!
why methinks one must be 'wealthy' (preferably NOT inherited) to even sign up to run for the job... they also REQUIRE some .mil experience.
and without both, i question whether how they could even possibly have the acumen to even contemplate the task

since its VERY SIMPLE in my book:
I do NOT want the occupant of The Most Powerful Office On The Planet to be thinking about ANYTHING other than running the USA; not their next book, nor their next campaign/re-election - since we've seen lately that its a very different set of attributes; ie: the campaigning vs the actual GOVERNING and MANAGEMENT of The USA

which is what the CEO's primary function is all about - read: style vs substance or form vs function and
FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION, in my book - since if something dont function, i couldnt care less what its form looks like

and what we've got now COULDNT POSSIBLY BE MORE DYSFUNCTIONAL

[Woodsman]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

+1
ok woody - so i'm guilty of taking the thread off into libraries, omaha+parades, along with the bluestate crony class' hijinx - but chrikie mate - how in hell did we get to birth control and moral relativism?

can we go back to the diff tween hil and liz ???

I think you might better direct that at someone else, lek. Vino broached the subject of Hobby Lobby now having "conscience rights." and this was the start of the conversation.
http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...916#post283916

To your question, those rights have now been created out of the controversy between the Green family and the companies they own versus the versus the HHS mandate that contraceptives and other reproductive health services be made available as part of health care benefits.

Following Vino's point, I then noted that in supporting their claims, the Greens argued that birth control harms women because men will only want them "for the satisfaction of [their] own desires" and that contraception leads to "the maximization of sexual activity".

From here, vino asked why abortion wasn't covered. JK then asked what Hobby Lobby supporters thought. VT followed up with questions that conflated abortion with the oral contraceptives the Greens want to deny their employees. JK added some detail in VT's questions about Christian Science and I followed with detail on the case and the facts about emergency contraceptives.

VT followed up and indicated some confusion on the matter and chastised me on my style of communication. I felt that I was not qualified to answer but offered him my opinion. Vino called BS and I made my best effort to highlight all the BS I could find. And as you saw there was so much of it I suggested we stop shoveling.

Hope that helps.

[vinoveri]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

You think contraception is "the deliberate termination of an innocent human life." Okay, that's what vino thinks.

I state a scientific fact Woods. You infer on you own a value judgment, and as usual neglect to answer directly.

So it is an issue of morality then, not medical or legal. You have a particular moral viewpoint and you want all others to orient their lives around it, I see.

And as usual, your vision is clouded with the apparent antipathy you feel for those who disagree with you. It is you who have the dogmatic viewpoint, but apparently you think that "going with the flow" and having a "liberally" oriented audience allows you to hide behind emotion vs thought; but they don't teach how to think any longer in the academies so you have the advantage (were you ever a college professor by the way - you seem quite experienced in berating those who don't subscribe to your own personal, and coincidently politically correct views)

I'm sure I can safely speak for all women everywhere.

I really wish you wouldn't, but if you must would you please get some new material

Socrates and Aristotle were both pederasts and had sex with boys and teenagers. Classical Greece and Rome were awash with brothels and sexual imagery. Poor old Hef was way late to the game.

Ad hominem again ... so Woodsie; MLK was an adulterer, so maybe we should discredit him too?
I take it you don't like the "golden mean" as you did not comment on it. Or perhaps it is too inconvenient? Rationality? Philosophy? no we wouldn't want to let those ever get in the way - first principles again, I know so retro, so hard to think and be consistent isn't it now

Curious how each time the right express concern about debasement and degradation, sex is the first thing that comes up

I believe it was you who brought it up and are in fact revealing a militant type of obsession about it.

confirming my understanding that right wing conservative evangelicals want to impose their moral and spiritual viewpoint on us all by force.

of course as is clearly evident by the facts - all those right wingers who control the courts, the academies, the Catholic church with its vast armies and enforcers - I can only accept that you are blinded by the reality that the actual facts show; the HL case was a small check against the continuing onslaught of governmental power, plain and simple

You're right, Woods, we probably won't agree b/c we can't seem to agree on first principles. I tend to subscribe to an Aristotelian ethical worldview if that helps. Let me ask you, do you believe in "human nature", i.e., a inherent nature shared by all human beings?

[vinoveri]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

I think you might better direct that at someone else, lek. Vino broached the subject of Hobby Lobby now having "conscience rights." and this was the start of the conversation.
http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...916#post283916

No No Woods, don't lay this one on me; I simply highlighted that I thought Warren's "platform" had more traditional leftist base appeal than a populist candidate should have for broad appeal. Other itulipers took it from there and opened the can of worms.
Agree with Lek, let's get back to lw and hc

[lektrode]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

....simply highlighted that I thought Warren's "platform" had more traditional leftist base appeal than a populist candidate should have for broad appeal..... let's get back to lw and hc

yep - again, somewhat sadly - it seems the 'best hope' the dems are able to come up with is to appeal to ever smaller slivers of the electorate and their tendency to 'reach out' to one-issue/kneejerkers

[lektrode]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

I think you might better direct that at someone else...And as you saw there was so much of it I suggested we stop shoveling.

Hope that helps.

eye read it all woody - didnt need the recap - but was hoping you BOTH would take my act of contrition as a suggestion that maybe we argue about why liz might be a better choice than hil (not that i'm suggesting such)

[jk]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

i still want to know whether hobby-lobby-decision supporters think christian scientists should be able to refuse to offer health insurance altogether? and if not, why not? and should jehovahs witnesses be able to exclude coverage for transfusions? and if not, why not? those are sincerely held religious beliefs.

i think these questions are being avoided because they show the contradictions between an employer-based healthcare system, which we have, and the newly awarded [by 5-4] ability of corporate "persons" to restrict health coverage based on the religious beliefs of their owners.

so. what are the answers? please enlighten me.

[shiny!]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

i still want to know whether hobby-lobby-decision supporters think christian scientists should be able to refuse to offer health insurance altogether? and if not, why not? and should jehovahs witnesses be able to exclude coverage for transfusions? and if not, why not? those are sincerely held religious beliefs.

i think these questions are being avoided because they show the contradictions between an employer-based healthcare system, which we have, and the newly awarded [by 5-4] ability of corporate "persons" to restrict health coverage based on the religious beliefs of their owners.

so. what are the answers? please enlighten me.

Women take them to prevent pregnancy no doubt. In any case, there effectiveness results in the deliberate termination of an innocent human life (blastocyst).

Hobby Lobby highlighted a serious problem with the current healthcare law: Religions have different, strongly held beliefs concerning when life begins, even how life is defined. There are other religious beliefs at stake as well, such as the ones you and I mentioned.

Whether it's a company refusing to provide a service on religious grounds, or an employee wanting a service that their employer objects to on religious grounds, no one wants someone else's religious beliefs imposed upon them- especially by force of law, and especially when it involves something as private as our own bodies and as personal as our relationship with our Higher Power, if we choose to have one. We are a republic, not a theocracy. And that's the problem when government tries to manage our private, personal matters as it does with the ACA.

Likewise I can respect people not wanting their tax dollars used for drugs and medical procedures that offend their religious beliefs, just as conscientious objectors don't want their tax dollars used to finance wars. Religious objections would only grow under single payer. The more that government intrudes into people's private lives, the more people are going to fight to make their beliefs the law of the land. There will be no end to it. The end result will be balkanization.

There isn't ever going be a perfect solution that satisfies everyone. As the libertarians are fond of saying, "Utopia is not an option." I think we should admit failure, ditch the ACA as well as the I in FIRE and go in the opposite direction:

1. Limit the federal government's control over our private lives and businesses. Stop it from trying be all things to all people. Restrict it to the things it's supposed to control: borders, defense, infrastructure, treaties, issuance of currency...

2. Make medical care affordable again, like it was before government and insurance companies took it over and made it unaffordable. What has caused medical care to become so expensive? A lot of the reasons don't have anything to do with healthcare. They have to do with inflationary monetary policy, special interests, campaign financing, regulatory capture, lack of term limits, etc. Fix those problems and we'll be fixing a lot more than an unaffordable healthcare system.

3. Separate insurance from employment. If employers want to offer insurance as an incentive, they can offer what they like and employees can purchase supplemental plans for whatever they want that isn't covered. And if people don't agree with a company's philosophy they can hopefully find a job elsewhere and shop elsewhere as well.

4. Create a system of plentiful low cost health clinics at the state and local levels. With a greatly reduced federal government we could afford it.

5. Use insurance for catastrophic events; for everything else, keep the medical relationship and financial transactions between patients and their doctors, where it used to be.

6. Look at systems in other countries and learn from their successes as well as their mistakes.

Perhaps I'm wearing rose-colored glasses about the good old days, but it sure beat the Big Government/Big Pharma/FIRE system we have today! Our current system is not only guaranteed to divide and offend as many people as possible, it's insanely expensive, bloated, and dehumanizing. It's an enormous tail wagging the dog. Perhaps even worse for the longterm, it's forcing the courts to make decisions that could have terrible ramifications for years to come. As long as we keep trying to fix something so broken by adding more caveats and addendums, we're only going to have worse and worse insanity.

Is there any candidate from either party thinking along these lines? Certainly not Liz or Hillary. The Left wants big government controlling health care. The Right wants FIRE controlling it. No one seems to want patients and doctors controlling it.

[Slimprofits]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

i think these questions are being avoided because they show the contradictions...

Folks, we have a winner!!!

[vinoveri]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

Hobby Lobby highlighted a serious problem with the current healthcare law: Religions have different, strongly held beliefs concerning when life begins, even how life is defined. There are other religious beliefs at stake as well, such as the ones you and I mentioned.

Whether it's a company refusing to provide a service on religious grounds, or an employee wanting a service that their employer objects to on religious grounds, no one wants someone else's religious beliefs imposed upon them- especially by force of law, and especially when it involves something as private as our own bodies and as personal as our relationship with our Higher Power, if we choose to have one. We are a republic, not a theocracy. And that's the problem when government tries to manage our private, personal matters as it does with the ACA.

Likewise I can respect people not wanting their tax dollars used for drugs and medical procedures that offend their religious beliefs, just as conscientious objectors don't want their tax dollars used to finance wars. Religious objections would only grow under single payer. The more that government intrudes into people's private lives, the more people are going to fight to make their beliefs the law of the land. There will be no end to it. The end result will be balkanization.

There isn't ever going be a perfect solution that satisfies everyone. As the libertarians are fond of saying, "Utopia is not an option." I think we should admit failure, ditch the ACA as well as the I in FIRE and go in the opposite direction:

1. Limit the federal government's control over our private lives and businesses. Stop it from trying be all things to all people. Restrict it to the things it's supposed to control: borders, defense, infrastructure, treaties, issuance of currency...

2. Make medical care affordable again, like it was before government and insurance companies took it over and made it unaffordable. What has caused medical care to become so expensive? A lot of the reasons don't have anything to do with healthcare. They have to do with inflationary monetary policy, special interests, campaign financing, regulatory capture, lack of term limits, etc. Fix those problems and we'll be fixing a lot more than an unaffordable healthcare system.

3. Separate insurance from employment. If employers want to offer insurance as an incentive, they can offer what they like and employees can purchase supplemental plans for whatever they want that isn't covered. And if people don't agree with a company's philosophy they can hopefully find a job elsewhere and shop elsewhere as well.

4. Create a system of plentiful low cost health clinics at the state and local levels. With a greatly reduced federal government we could afford it.

5. Use insurance for catastrophic events; for everything else, keep the medical relationship and financial transactions between patients and their doctors, where it used to be.

6. Look at systems in other countries and learn from their successes as well as their mistakes.

Perhaps I'm wearing rose-colored glasses about the good old days, but it sure beat the Big Government/Big Pharma/FIRE system we have today! Our current system is not only guaranteed to divide and offend as many people as possible, it's insanely expensive, bloated, and dehumanizing. It's an enormous tail wagging the dog. Perhaps even worse for the longterm, it's forcing the courts to make decisions that could have terrible ramifications for years to come. As long as we keep trying to fix something so broken by adding more caveats and addendums, we're only going to have worse and worse insanity.

Is there any candidate from either party thinking along these lines? Certainly not Liz or Hillary. The Left wants big government controlling health care. The Right wants FIRE controlling it. No one seems to want patients and doctors controlling it.

+1
Thank you Shiny.
Yours is a voice of reason and obvious good will with concern for equity and the interests of all.