Pro-women legislation from the right...

Discussion in 'Killingsworth Court, Formerly The General Forum' started by pcf, Mar 19, 2012.

  1. Republicans sure know how to make a lady feel like her vote is valued and her voice is heard.
    "Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said in an interview on Sunday that he opposes a controversial bill moving through the Arizona legislature that would let employers restrict health insurance coverage of contraception to only those cases when a woman can prove a need for it because of a medical reason, such as endometriosis or an ovarian cyst.

    The GOP-sponsored bill, which would put some women in the uncomfortable position of having to explain to their boss why they use birth control, already passed in the state House of Representatives and was endorsed by a Senate committee last week. McCain said, however, it has little chance of becoming law."

    Why are there no boner pill backlashes?
  2. Nobody in here said that, so it doesn't represent the Republican viewpoint at all. It's irrelevant.
  3. [​IMG]



    Soooooooooooo PCF,.....which one are you going to use as your new avatar? Im thinking the trained monkey might be nice.
  4. So you relent and we get to judge Republicans only based on people in here?

    I'll give you as much time as you need to think about it, but as your friend, let me advise you that that's a bad deal. :biggrin:
  5. You've already made up your mind anyway!
  6. When? Everything changes. Republicans get stuck defending way too much crazy stuff because they made too many bad deals to get power and they've got no one as strong on the moderate side of the party as there is on the far right.

    Republicans desperately need a strong "liberal" Republican willing to tell the rest of them to quit the crazy. He or she doesn't even have to be liberal, they just have to understand the concept that we have to form coalitions and have priorities that come out of somewhere beside the Bible Belt.

    I thought maybe Chuck Hagel.
  7. Won't make any difference anymore anyway. HHS just passed a rule that said all universities will cover the pill for free (suuuurre it is for free..idiots) regardless of their religious affiliation.

    What was that gargabe pc was spewing about the one making a nice compromise? Either the kids (read "parents") are going to start paying more for the insurance or, most likely, there will be an increase in tuition for all kids.
    In the same way that religious colleges and universities will not have to pay, arrange or refer for contraceptive coverage for their employees, they will not have to do so for their students who will get such coverage directly and separately from their insurer.
  9. Birth control lowers costs.
  10. I'm all in favor of birth control. I don't understand why more insurance companies don't cover it completely. It seems to me like it'd lower costs.

    Birth control is one of the few things I'd get on board with the government providing free of charge to users with my tax dollars.

    However, the real issue here is Government control of private businesses. The government is forcing businesses to provide a service. I'm against that kind of government control on voluntary commerce. If someone wants insurance that covers birth control, buy insurance that covers it. There's no law that says you have to get insurance through your employer. I buy my insurance on my own because my employer's insurance is too expensive. There's also no law that says you have to work for the same employer.

    I completely disagree with the Catholic Church's stance on Birth Control. I think their teaching creates massive poverty and increases crime. However, I don't think the government should force anyone to buy or sell anything.
  11. I watched a TV show last night with Fareed Zakaria about global health care. We need a single payer insurance program with private providers.

    Until we get there, we're going to have to regulate the policies to standardize some coverages.
  12. Honestly, it's a very tough issue for me. I'm very pro birth control, but I see the problem with those who oppose providing it because of religious convictions.

    Healthcare is a very tough issue. The Market Capitalist in me says let the private market solve the problems. However, the consumer is at a decided disadvantage because the consumer is often making a life or death decision (or sometimes can't even make a decision) with very few options.

    I fear the inefficiencies and massive red tape of government solutions though.

    I prefer for the patient to make most of his/her healthcare and payment decisions.

    I do not like the idea of employer provided healthcare. I don't think healthcare should be tied to your job and I don't like companies making healthcare decisions for their employees.

  13. That's why we need to rip it away from people with issues and make it a secular and public thing. It needs to be standardized and we need to make some tough calls on what works and what doesn't.

    I think most of the superdrugs are hyped rip offs.

    I clipped your other good points, but one benefit of single payer/government health insurance is that US insurers waste an incredible amount on things like ads and sponsorships and those sorts of things. This increases administrative costs beyond the government's price. Most governments are much more effective with bureaucratic costs, believe it or not.

    In Taiwan, they have a smart card system which gives instant reports to government. In the US, it takes 2 or 3 years. That's why private sector fraud against Medicare can be so horrible.
  14. There are quite a few people on here who make a good argument for birth control.
  15. Speaking of Commercials, didn't it used to be illegal to advertise prescription drugs? It seems like the rise in healthcare costs and the increase in prescription drug ads came along at about the same time.
  16. But then we wouldn't have ads with people in bathtubs on the porch or guys throwing footballs through tires. :tongue:

  17. It's never been illegal, per se, but FDA requirements on what the ad had to reveal made it impossible to create one. Until they found a loophole....

    In the early 1980s, FDA regulations required that drug ads include both the name of a drug and its purpose, as well as information about all the side effects. But side-effect information often took two or three magazine pages of mouse print to catalog, and this wouldn't do for a major television campaign. As Castagnoli says, "We couldn't scroll the whole disclosure information over the television screen — OK?"

    But then, in 1986, while designing an ad for a new allergy medication called Seldane, Davis hit on a way around the fine print. He checked with the Food and Drug Administration to see if it would be OK.

    "We didn't give the drug's name, Seldane," he says. "All we said was: 'Your doctor now has treatment which won't make you drowsy. See your doctor.' "

    The rules were loosened in '97.

    In 1997, the FDA rules governing pharmaceutical advertising changed, and now companies can name both the drug and what it's for, while only naming the most significant potential side effects. Then, the number of ads really exploded. The Nielsen Co. estimates that there's an average of 80 drug ads every hour of every day on American television. And those ads clearly produce results:
  18. A more detailed explanation...without the "" hyperbole.

  19. We wouldn't have as many gay, black, and hispanic babies being born if more hetero couples would quit procreating...
  20. Very interesting. I wish there was a way to limit this advertising. It probably adds millions or billions of $ to healthcare costs. Plus, the commercials are annoying and I don't look forward to explaining erectile dysfuntion or 4 hour erections to my sons.

Share This Page