Republican's War on Women

[davew]

Seems to be the Democrats new campaign strategy

- why would this work?

[reckless]

Seems to be the Democrats new campaign strategy

- why would this work?

It shouldn't work, especially if I were running these GOP campaigns. :)

But I am not, and those that run campaigns for the GOP lack a set of onions and will not counter this Democrat lie.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Great strategy - it works. The Dems know how to play hardball.

[Tom]

Too many people are stupid enough to believe what they hear on TV.
With very little effort, you can see it is the dems who are at war with women and minorities.

Good case in point - The Ass Clown Act (ACA). Lying dems claimed that women were unfairly charge for HC. Not true, as they, as a group, use more HC than men and run up larger bills than men. Nothing sexist here, just reality. Like Man pay more for car insurance because we use more of it and run up higher bills.
But the way the low-life dems "fixed" this alleged inequality is to charge men more for HC and make them pay for service they will never use. So now EVERYONE pays more for HC.

The WOW by them dems is 100% lies and 100% handed out by a biased media, like corner drug dealers.

If you see it on network TV or hear from a democrat, take my word, it is a lie.

[NJ Stinks]

Too many people are stupid enough to believe what they hear on TV.


So now women are too dumb to know what's good for them. Gee, I wonder why women vote Democratic. :rolleyes:


Everybody is dumb except you - according to you. :sleeping:

[Clocker]

So now women are too dumb to know what's good for them.

I saw nothing in his comment about low information voters implying it only applied to women. The latest accusation from the left is that employers objecting to paying for certain "reproductive health" benefits on the basis of religious beliefs are engaging in a war on women because they are "denying access" to those services.

There are men and women who are so stupid as to believe that not paying for something for some else is equivalent to denying access to those things.

[thaskalos]

If you see it on network TV or hear from a democrat, take my word, it is a lie.

But if a republican says it...then take it to the bank. :rolleyes:

[JustRalph]

But if a republican says it...then take it to the bank. :rolleyes:

Nope. Just less likely to be a lie :rolleyes:

[Robert Goren]

I saw nothing in his comment about low information voters implying it only applied to women. The latest accusation from the left is that employers objecting to paying for certain "reproductive health" benefits on the basis of religious beliefs are engaging in a war on women because they are "denying access" to those services.

There are men and women who are so stupid as to believe that not paying for something for some else is equivalent to denying access to those things.The Catholic Church has no right as employer to deny basic health coverage to anyone. After the way the covered up the priests raping of young boys, their words on morality ring harrow. They need clean up their own house and compensate victims fairly instead of looking for every legal loophole to keep from paying before passing judgment on others.

[JustRalph]

The Catholic Church has no right as employer to deny basic health coverage to anyone. After the way the covered up the priests raping of young boys, their words on morality ring harrow. They need clean up their own house and compensate victims fairly instead of looking for every legal loophole to keep from paying before passing judgment on others.

Yeah, those two are related issues. Yes sir.......

[Robert Goren]

The republicans are now fighting two wars. One on women and one on science. They can't win either one.

[delayjf]

They need clean up their own house and compensate victims fairly instead of looking for every legal loophole to keep from paying before passing judgment on others.

If you could apply that standard to California's education system you would bankrupt the state. When it comes to molesting children, the Catholic Church has got nothing on the CA public school system.

[Clocker]

The Catholic Church has no right as employer to deny basic health coverage to anyone.

How is not paying for health coverage denying health coverage to anyone?

An employer says I will pay for W and X and Y for all my employees, and anyone that wants Z can pay for it themselves. How is that denying Z to anyone? How is that blocking access to Z?

How does an employee of the Catholic Church or of any other employer have a right to anything other than what the employer offers and what the employee agrees to accept?

[TJDave]

How is not paying for health coverage denying health coverage to anyone?

An employer says I will pay for W and X and Y for all my employees, and anyone that wants Z can pay for it themselves. How is that denying Z to anyone? How is that blocking access to Z?

How does an employee of the Catholic Church or of any other employer have a right to anything other than what the employer offers and what the employee agrees to accept?

Because reproductive care is a required benefit of the ACA and must be included in coverage offered. It is not something that an employer has the right to exclude.

[Clocker]

Because reproductive care is a required benefit of the ACA and must be included in coverage offered. It is not something that an employer has the right to exclude.

That issue is still under appeal and has not been heard by SCOTUS. I don't have faith that SCOTUS will make the correct decision, but an employer has the moral right no matter how they rule.

[Robert Goren]

That issue is still under appeal and has not been heard by SCOTUS. I don't have faith that SCOTUS will make the correct decision, but an employer has the moral right no matter how they rule.Then somebody could claim the moral right not cover white men if they could come with an excuse? or for that matter a Lutheran employer could not cover Catholics because they believe Catholics are going to Hell? Where does it stop?

[DJofSD]

Yes, that's a good question, where does it stop?

I guess the answer is with the current dictator in the White House. His intentions are pure and we have no need to question them let alone need to have a choice. He can choose for us.

On one hand, corporations are given the same rights and opportunities as an individual so they can exercise those choices as they choose. Campaign financing comes to mind. But yet, when it comes to the ACA, they do not have the right to make a choice. Seems duplicitous to me.

[Clocker]

Then somebody could claim the moral right not cover white men if they could come with an excuse? or for that matter a Lutheran employer could not cover Catholics because they believe Catholics are going to Hell? Where does it stop?

We convicted people of war crimes at Nuremberg for not objecting to immoral laws. Where does that requirement stop?

[Robert Goren]

Yes, that's a good question, where does it stop?

I guess the answer is with the current dictator in the White House. His intentions are pure and we have no need to question them let alone need to have a choice. He can choose for us.

On one hand, corporations are given the same rights and opportunities as an individual so they can exercise those choices as they choose. Campaign financing comes to mind. But yet, when it comes to the ACA, they do not have the right to make a choice. Seems duplicitous to me.I was told by a business prof many years ago that the only morals that a corporation has is the law of the land and that is the way it should be. I was sure he was right about the last part back then, but the older I get, the more I become convinced he was right.

[Tom]

Then somebody could claim the moral right not cover white men if they could come with an excuse? or for that matter a Lutheran employer could not cover Catholics because they believe Catholics are going to Hell? Where does it stop?
That is nonsense.
The difference between man's health issues and women's health issues are what is being discussed here. Stop being so asinine. Men should not pay for services they will NEVER use. Do you understand the topic here?

[Clocker]

I was told by a business prof many years ago that the only morals that a corporation has is the law of the land and that is the way it should be.

A corporation doesn't have any morals. Its owners and management do. A corporation does not decide to do something or not to do it.

Your business professor is probably right when talking about large, publicly traded corporations. Management cannot be making decisions based on the moral position of thousands of stockholders. As far as I know, most of the objections to the ACA on moral grounds are coming from private corporations or businesses run by religious groups. They certainly have the moral right to refuse to obey what they consider to be an immoral legal requirement.

[Robert Goren]

A corporation doesn't have any morals. Its owners and management do. A corporation does not decide to do something or not to do it.

Your business professor is probably right when talking about large, publicly traded corporations. Management cannot be making decisions based on the moral position of thousands of stockholders. As far as I know, most of the objections to the ACA on moral grounds are coming from private corporations or businesses run by religious groups. They certainly have the moral right to refuse to obey what they consider to be an immoral legal requirement.They have the right to stop being in business, but as long as they are in business they have to obey the law whether they agree with it or not. We are not allowed to pick and chose the laws we obey without consequences. We would have chaos if that was the case.

[tucker6]

They have the right to stop being in business, but as long as they are in business they have to obey the law whether they agree with it or not. We are not allowed to pick and chose the laws we obey without consequences. We would have chaos if that was the case.
Curious as to your opinion on whether the bolded text applies to the POTUS as well???????????

[DJofSD]

POTUS is a misnomer. It's more like king or dictator.

[Tom]

:bang: They have the right to stop being in business, but as long as they are in business they have to obey the law whether they agree with it or not. We are not allowed to pick and chose the laws we obey without consequences. We would have chaos if that was the case.

Eichman said that same at Nuremburg.
We are not allowed to blindly obey laws that go against our core beliefs.
We are people first, citizens secondly.
No government that legislates us to do otherwise can be obeyed, respected, or allowed to continnue.

[Clocker]

They have the right to stop being in business, but as long as they are in business they have to obey the law whether they agree with it or not. We are not allowed to pick and chose the laws we obey without consequences.

And it never occurred to you that the government should not be passing laws dealing with legitimate issues of personal morality?

[Robert Goren]

And it never occurred to you that the government should not be passing laws dealing with legitimate issues of personal morality? No

[jballscalls]

I'd be curious to hear...I don't know...a woman's take on this

[Tom]

No

You hypocrite!
You sound off a lot about government trying to restrict horse race betting.
Tell me how that is different.

On second thought, don't.
I don't think I could take it. :rolleyes:

[Clocker]

Tell me how that is different.



Libs are big on situational morality. Consistency is for the common folk.

[incoming]

Libs are big on situational morality. Consistency is for the common folk.

You got that right, big contradiction in abortion. Although it has turned around a lot in the last decade.

[Robert Goren]

You hypocrite!
You sound off a lot about government trying to restrict horse race betting.
Tell me how that is different.

On second thought, don't.
I don't think I could take it. :rolleyes:I don't agree with all laws, but I should obey them or pay the consequences. If you don't like a law, try to get it changed. That is the American way. I don't like some of the gambling laws here in Nebraska and have in the past worked to change them. I and others got some of them put a vote of the people twice. We lost the election twice. I still can't open a casino.:rolleyes:

[davew]

I don't agree with all laws, but I should obey them or pay the consequences. If you don't like a law, try to get it changed. That is the American way. I don't like some of the gambling laws here in Nebraska and have in the past worked to change them. I and others got some of them put a vote of the people twice. We lost the election twice. I still can't open a casino.:rolleyes:

It used to be, but if a dictator gets into power and writes his own laws 'presidential power?' and have his croony AG selectively enforce the laws they like, it makes enforcement mute.

Back to the women, do they feel they have lost the kids and illegals, and have to go after a new easily influenced large group?

[NJ Stinks]

That is nonsense.
The difference between man's health issues and women's health issues are what is being discussed here. Stop being so asinine. Men should not pay for services they will NEVER use. Do you understand the topic here?

FYI, you trying to tell us you are smart and Robert is dumb in every post isn't working. As for what you posted above, here's a thought. I've been paying thousands of dollars for as many years as I can remember clearly in order for my neighbors' kids to go to school. (No kids here.) According to your argument above, I shouldn't be.

Seems to me that both making sure kids get the same chance I got and making sure women get the healthcare coverage they need - just like I get the healthcare I need - are very good things in a civilized society. That you don't agree means nothing to me.

[Tom]

No problem, nothing you have ever said means a thing to me~! :lol:

[NJ Stinks]

No problem, nothing you have ever said means a thing to me~! :lol:

Fair enough. :)

[Clocker]

making sure women get the healthcare coverage they need - just like I get the healthcare I need - are very good things in a civilized society.

If society believes that, then they should pay for health care honestly, with a transparent tax system. ObamaCare is a lie, providing welfare benefits to the poor, and funding them with artificially high insurance premiums on the young and healthy.

Not only is it a tax and spend program, it is a regressive tax system, putting a relatively higher burden on the young and the marginal middle class, with an insignificant burden on the rich. The latter despite Obama's regular mantra about millionaires and billionaires paying their fair share.

[incoming]

As for what you posted above, here's a thought. "I've been paying thousands of dollars for as many years as I can remember clearly in order for my neighbors' kids to go to school. (No kids here.) According to your argument above, I shouldn't be."



Does the fact that one is a state law and one is a federal law make a difference to you.

[delayjf]

to deny basic health coverage to anyone

My issue is I don't believe birth control is "basic health coverage". I would define basic health coverage as coverage that is applicable to everyone.

If Obama wants to do women a favor with regards to birth control, make the pill, etc, OTC and cheap.

[NJ Stinks]

If society believes that, then they should pay for health care honestly, with a transparent tax system. ObamaCare is a lie, providing welfare benefits to the poor, and funding them with artificially high insurance premiums on the young and healthy.

Not only is it a tax and spend program, it is a regressive tax system, putting a relatively higher burden on the young and the marginal middle class, with an insignificant burden on the rich. The latter despite Obama's regular mantra about millionaires and billionaires paying their fair share.

It's so regressive, it allows people who can't afford health insurance to secure health insurance. Hey, that sounds progressive! :cool:

[NJ Stinks]

As for what you posted above, here's a thought. "I've been paying thousands of dollars for as many years as I can remember clearly in order for my neighbors' kids to go to school. (No kids here.) According to your argument above, I shouldn't be."



Does the fact that one is a state law and one is a federal law make a difference to you.

You raise an interesting point. I would prefer that each state figure out a way to secure all of it's residents health insurance coverage. But that's not happening. Just like all states would not have written a civil rights law if left to decide on their own.

[Clocker]

It's so regressive, it allows people who can't afford health insurance to secure health insurance. Hey, that sounds progressive! :cool:

It's not about making health care available, it is about who pays for it.

You don't even have to buy a dictionary these days. You can just look stuff up on the internet.

re·gres·sive (rĭ-grĕs′ĭv)adj.1. Tending to return or revert.
2. Characterized by regression or a tendency to regress.
3. Decreasing proportionately as the amount taxed increases: a regressive tax.
4. Of or relating to geological regression.



A regressive tax is one that inflicts a relatively greater burden on the low end of the income spectrum. Which is what happens when politicians are too spineless to do their business openly and honestly.

HTH

[NJ Stinks]

It's not about making health care available, it is about who pays for it.

You don't even have to buy a dictionary these days. You can just look stuff up on the internet.



A regressive tax is one that inflicts a relatively greater burden on the low end of the income spectrum. Which is what happens when politicians are too spineless to do their business openly and honestly.

HTH

One more time. The "low end" is paying less for healthcare coverage.

[Clocker]

One more time. The "low end" is paying less for healthcare coverage.

The poor are getting subsidies. Those just above that level are paying for it. The millionaires and billionaires are not paying for it. That is a regressive tax.

If they can get the Obamacare exchange website to work, young people may learn some bad news upon signing up.

A report from the conservative American Action Forum found that health insurance rates for 2.7 million people aged 18 to 35 — the so-called young invincibles crucial to the health-care law’s success — would rise dramatically.

The main purpose of the individual mandate was to have these younger, relatively healthy consumers subsidize the costs of older, sicker and more expensive insurance enrollees.

“Due to the ACA’s sweeping market reforms, rates for low-premium plans have increased exponentially between 2013 and 2014. In fact, on average, a healthy 30 year old male nonsmoker will see his lowest cost insurance option increase 260 percent,” reads AAF’s report.

A healthy 30-year-old would see his health insurance costs rise in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Pre-Obamacare premiums average about $62 per month, according to AAF, while post-Obamacare premiums average about $187 per month — a 202 percent difference. The average change between 2013 and 2014 low-cost premiums is 260 percent.

[NJ Stinks]

The poor are getting subsidies. Those just above that level are paying for it. The millionaires and billionaires are not paying for it. That is a regressive tax.

Young people are not getting nothing out of this this. They are getting adequate health insurance coverage at a reasonable price. It's a possible win-win for everybody. Even if you do prefer the guaranteed winners and losers format we use to have.

[Clocker]

Young people are not getting nothing out of this this. They are getting adequate health insurance coverage at a reasonable price.

A 30 year old single male paying 200% more for a policy that includes "reproductive health care" and post-natal benefits is getting better coverage at a reasonable price?

Sorry, I am drinking some beer this evening, not Kool Aid, and I ain't swallowing that. If you believe what you just said, you believe that a 30 year old guy is not capable of deciding what his insurance needs are, and what a competitive price for that coverage is. You believe the Obama hype that "bad apple" insurance companies are selling worthless policies, and that the average person in their late 20s or early 30s is too stupid to figure it out.

And if you do believe that, I'd suggest that you look at the facts. You will find that the target consumers are literally not buying that story. Obama may have sold you this line of hype, but the younger generation, to their credit, ain't buying it.

[HUSKER55]

does forcing citizens to buy health insurance sound like something a government should be doing?

[davew]

does forcing citizens to buy health insurance sound like something a government should be doing?


ACA probably will end up being like social security in 20 years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)

[incoming]

You raise an interesting point. I would prefer that each state figure out a way to secure all of it's residents health insurance coverage. But that's not happening. Just like all states would not have written a civil rights law if left to decide on their own.

This is still not a good analogy, one is a tax and one is about a persons rights.

[TJDave]

does forcing citizens to buy health insurance sound like something a government should be doing?

If the majority of its citizenry approves.

[Clocker]

If the majority of its citizenry approves.

So if the majority of the citizenry approves of putting Jews in concentration camps, that makes it okay?

[TJDave]

So if the majority of the citizenry approves of putting Jews in concentration camps, that makes it okay?

Laws which discriminate against a legal minority class are prohibited under the constitution.

The ACA affects all citizens, was passed by a representative majority and upheld by the courts.

[incoming]

Laws which discriminate against a legal minority class are prohibited under the constitution.

The ACA affects all citizens, was passed by a representative majority and upheld by the courts.

Do you agree with how it was passed? It was never read. The press repeated every lie that the administration put in front of us including "This is not a TAX." How did that one turn out.

[Clocker]

Laws which discriminate against a legal minority class are prohibited under the constitution.

The ACA affects all citizens, was passed by a representative majority and upheld by the courts.

So if a law was passed saying that the only car you could drive was a Chevy Volt, you would be okay with that?

[Robert Goren]

So if a law was passed saying that the only car you could drive was a Chevy Volt, you would be okay with that?You don't have agree with the law, you just have to obey it. In this country if you can get enough people agree with you, you can change the law. Here the American people decide what is right or wrong and should be law, not some old man in Rome.

[TJDave]

So if a law was passed saying that the only car you could drive was a Chevy Volt, you would be okay with that?

If I owned GM stock I would be ecstatic.

For a guy who quotes Pogo you seem to be having a tough time with it.

WE are the government. The ACA act was proposed by our president and passed by our representatives.

You can make the case that we got hoodwinked but that would be our fault as well.

[Tom]

You don't have agree with the law, you just have to obey it. In this country if you can get enough people agree with you, you can change the law. Here the American people decide what is right or wrong and should be law, not some old man in Rome.

How about some old man in DC?
Are you saying you oppose Obama deciding what laws to enforce and what ones to ignore? Would you call that an impeachable offense?

[Tom]

WE are the government. The ACA act was proposed by our president and passed by our representatives.

Same with the laws Obama chooses not to enforce.
Do we impeach him?

[Robert Goren]

Same with the laws Obama chooses not to enforce.
Do we impeach him?You can try, but I would not count on a conviction.

[NJ Stinks]

A 30 year old single male paying 200% more for a policy that includes "reproductive health care" and post-natal benefits is getting better coverage at a reasonable price?

Sorry, I am drinking some beer this evening, not Kool Aid, and I ain't swallowing that. If you believe what you just said, you believe that a 30 year old guy is not capable of deciding what his insurance needs are, and what a competitive price for that coverage is. You believe the Obama hype that "bad apple" insurance companies are selling worthless policies, and that the average person in their late 20s or early 30s is too stupid to figure it out.

And if you do believe that, I'd suggest that you look at the facts. You will find that the target consumers are literally not buying that story. Obama may have sold you this line of hype, but the younger generation, to their credit, ain't buying it.

Your problem is that you can't grasp the fact that 30 year olds eventually become 60 year olds. I started paying the same rates as everybody else in the federal government when I was 23 years old. For many years, it was not in my best interest to do so. Now - in my 60's - it's one of the best investments I ever made.

The question as I see it is this: Is it in one's long-term interest to invest in something like this? The answer is obvious.

Young people ain't buying it? Is that an argument? Like I said earlier, I'm paying school taxes so my neighbors kids can go to good schools. Been doing it for over 40 years. Am I dumb or stupid for investing in my neighbors' kids? I don't think so. Why? There are long-term benefits for all of us!

[TJDave]

Same with the laws Obama chooses not to enforce.
Do we impeach him?

If the house wants to bring a bill I say let them have at it.

[davew]

Your problem is that you can't grasp the fact that 30 year olds eventually become 60 year olds. I started paying the same rates as everybody else in the federal government when I was 23 years old. For many years, it was not in my best interest to do so. Now - in my 60's - it's one of the best investments I ever made.

The question as I see it is this: Is it in one's long-term interest to invest in something like this? The answer is obvious.

Young people ain't buying it? Is that an argument? Like I said earlier, I'm paying school taxes so my neighbors kids can go to good schools. Been doing it for over 40 years. Am I dumb or stupid for investing in my neighbors' kids? I don't think so. Why? There are long-term benefits for all of us!

Do you feel bad about investing in a ponzi scheme (as long as you get paid)?

Your property taxes do not just go to schools, there are roads/maintenance, sheriffs,911, fire depts, police, sewer/water infrastructure, city/county gov't..... but maybe you are paying $20K/yr in property taxes and $2K is going to your local school district, idnk.

[DJofSD]

Same with the laws Obama chooses not to enforce.
Do we impeach him?
Yes, only if the oath of office means anything.

[NJ Stinks]

Do you feel bad about investing in a ponzi scheme (as long as you get paid)?

Your property taxes do not just go to schools, there are roads/maintenance, sheriffs,911, fire depts, police, sewer/water infrastructure, city/county gov't..... but maybe you are paying $20K/yr in property taxes and $2K is going to your local school district, idnk.

The point is that about half my property taxes are going to fund education for somebody other than me or my family.

As for "ponzi scheme", I have no idea what you are talking about. I paid a lot for health insurance when I didn't need it to keep the cost of health insurance in my "group" down. Now I find I really need health insurance and guess what? It has worked out as advertised. The cost of my health insurance is reasonable as opposed to the expenses incurred for health care for my family.