The real issue at hand in the Limbaugh/Fluke controversy

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by krashkart

The hardcore flaming right has come to Rush's defense.

NSFW - http://www.defendrush.org

Aaaaaaahahahhahahahahha

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by krashkart

The hardcore flaming right has come to Rush's defense.

NSFW - http://www.defendrush.org





.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

This is where I can't understand the hardcore righties. They're so opposed to "entitlement" spending, but things like the spread of birth control that prevents entitlement spending and the necessity for things like welfare, they're against!

I can see being against entitlement spending, but like you said, when it curtails other costs, like birth control, I think it's money well spent.

[krashkart]

What exactly is entitlement spending?

[August]

Originally Posted by vienna

The insurance company is probably responding to the Lipitor "co-pay" situation. Once the generic forms were given the go ahead, Pfizer, the maker of Lipitor tried lowering its prices, but was unable to compete with the $4 generics. So they devised the "$4 dollar co-pay". But the lower price comes with conditions that may be what has caused your insurer to balk:

http://myhealthcafe.com/pfizer-offer...ood-to-be-true

So while they fight it out amongst themselves i'm stuck with a cheap copy.

[Blood_splat]

Originally Posted by krashkart

The hardcore flaming right has come to Rush's defense.

NSFW - http://www.defendrush.org





.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

So while they fight it out amongst themselves i'm stuck with a cheap copy.

Generics work just as well as the name brand stuff. A chemical's a chemical's a chemical.

Originally Posted by krashkart

What exactly is entitlement spending?

It's simply spending that happens automatically under law. It's more accurate to call it "mandatory spending" - it happens unless Congress specifically votes to change it.

In reality it's a loaded phrase. "Entitlement" has a negative connotation, and those with a political agenda loooooove to use that to their advantage.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Generics work just as well as the name brand stuff. A chemical's a chemical's a chemical.

But i'm not buying a chemical. I'm buying a little white oval pill that somebody says contains a certain amount of a chemical. Now I wouldn't care if it was laundry detergent but when it comes to health maintaining drugs I just like knowing who that somebody is.

[CaptainHaplo]

First of all, let me thank you Mookie. While we disagree, this conversation has a tone in which we are dealing with the problem - now lets see over the course of some give and take how we can get closer to a solution that maybe people can get behind!

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

It is, and that's the prevailing view in Washington as well.

I agree it is the prevailing view. As to if its necessary - well you put forth a good arguement as to why.

Then you're getting into a completely different argument altogether.

Maybe. But lets not dismiss it quite yet since you bring up the point in a way below.

Ok, I'll go with you on your tangent. The social safety net was enacted because the world we lived in without it was brutal and cruel. Some have the attitude of "oh the government's gone wrong, it's made all these mistakes getting into the health insurance and food stamp business. etc etc." as if there was no good reason for the programs to be enacted in the first place. The days of debtor prisons and the elderly's only choice, as a rule, was having to live in squalor or with relatives are too far gone for anyone alive today to remember. Maybe that's why there's these pushbacks against the programs that eliminated these things. Do we really want to go back to the days of child labor? Do we want to go back to people dying in the streets or in sanitariums? Would it be an improvement to tell the elderly "welp, you've used up your usefulness and you can't work anymore, so unless you've saved and had good luck with your investments, piss off!" I don't think that's a world I'd like to go back to.

Like almost every well meaning idea - there are success and failures. Things like Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps, even Social Security, were all programs started with wonderful intentions. You are right in the point that none of us want to "go back to" those bad old days. The problem is that while these programs have alleviated some problems - they have created more.

The elderly do not always have multiple sources of income. Many survive on a "fixed income" that is - under most cases - almost all Social Security. That means in 2011, they recieved less than $1200 a month.

Social Security benefits represent about 41% of the elderly's income, according to the Social Security Administration. But 22% of married couples and 43% of singles rely on the monthly checks for 90% of their income.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/19/news...ease/index.htm

Nearly 1 out of 4 elderly rely almost exclusively on SS payments. And the amount they get is just barely enough to keep them above the federal poverty numbers. And that is not counting all the other help they get - with Medicare, etc. Just ask AARP about whether or not subsistance (and not a "living wage" amount) is sufficient for the elderly.

Welfare - the most the state will allow in TANF is usually around $650 - Still well below the poverty cutoff. If you make money, you lose benefit money. So welfare is not lifting people out of poverty - and in some ways its incentivizing them to not work a "low paying" job.... so instead of a solution, its prolonging the problem....

Continuing the cycle and exacerbating the situation for those who are poor is trapping people in poverty - so how is this "better"?

Soooo, social Darwinism? No thanks. As I said before, that's a brutal way of life.

In 1973, 22.9 Million people were considerd to be "poor". In 2010, that number had more than doubled to 46.2 Million people. Given population growth - that is a growth in percentage - of 4%.

http://npc.umich.edu/poverty/
http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_new...n-income-falls

The number of poor people in the country has more than doubled in less than 30 years... No matter how you slice it, poverty has grown. So how are we doing on that whole "war on poverty" thing? How are social programs ending the issue of poverty in this country? Answer - they are not....

The "social safety net" has become an utter failure. Continuing to support programs that "make you feel good" because of their purpose - but are abject failures - thus leaving the poor worse off than before - is just as much social Darwinism.

Telling the disadvantaged that they just have to suck it up and tough poop for your disadvantage is pretty heartless and mean spirited.

So is promising them help, only to have that "help" be a hinderance instead. Especially when it comes at the expense of others through forced wealth distribuiton at the behest of the government tax man.

""Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members ; the last, the least, the littlest." - Cardinal Mahoney or Ghandi or a million other sources. Still a good quote though. And if you don't care for that one, there's always "Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me." - Jesus.

Seriously - if your going to quote Jesus - please provide context. This is at the judgement - and it was those who never CHOSE to follow the Lamb that would be told this - because good works do not earn you a pass into heaven. If anything - the quote proves the point - we could all claim to have clothed the destitute, fed the hungry, comforted the poor - because the government did it with our money. And Jesus says - that doesn't fly. Doing it for the wrong reason (be it because it makes you feel good about yourself - or because the "gubment" makes you) is a fail. Still, I digress.....

Now I submit that we need to consider that if the "answer" we have used for more than 30 years has failed - its time to come up with a new answer to the problem.

There is nothing wrong with true charity - and that must be a component of the answer. But charity cannot be mandated by the government. However, government does have a place in encouraging charity.

Why not make charitable gifts deductable on a dollar for dollar basis? This alone would spur charitable giving like nothing else! Since private (and especially - local) charities are more agile and efficient, more of the giving would go to actually helping those who need it.

One other idea is to make donations of time tax deductible. Say $1 an hour. This would encourage volunteerism as well, allowing charities to better reach those who need help.

These changes alone would result in a massive outpouring of support to those most able to help the needy. Isn't that the purpose?

I hope that those reading this don't misunderstand - I recognize the desire to help the underprivileged - and I applaud it. I do what I can - and I encourage others to do so as well. Conservatives are not cold hearted bastids - ok well some are but most are not. We simple see how personal choice - combined with encouragement and not coercion - could do so much more for this wonderful country of ours. We were founded on the right to choose -to help or not - to reach out or not, as we see fit. We can find ways to encourage our fellows to reach out - without using the force of government to pick their pockets.

*edit - I just got told that time is actually tax deductible - good! Lets increase that!*

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

In 1973, 22.9 Million people were considerd to be "poor". In 2010, that number had more than doubled to 46.2 Million people. Given population growth - that is a growth in percentage - of 4%.

http://npc.umich.edu/poverty/
http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_new...n-income-falls

The number of poor people in the country has more than doubled in less than 30 years... No matter how you slice it, poverty has grown. So how are we doing on that whole "war on poverty" thing? How are social programs ending the issue of poverty in this country? Answer - they are not....

How much worse would those numbers be if the programs weren't there? Income disparity is a troubling problem...the rich are getting richer, while the ranks of the poor keep expanding. It can't continue, and I see it as one of the biggest threats to our country. History shows that unchecked income inequality in a country will lead to its downfall.



The rich are richer than ever before. Scary. And no, it's not because of merit and hard work.

There is nothing wrong with true charity - and that must be a component of the answer. But charity cannot be mandated by the government. However, government does have a place in encouraging charity.

Why not make charitable gifts deductable on a dollar for dollar basis? This alone would spur charitable giving like nothing else! Since private (and especially - local) charities are more agile and efficient, more of the giving would go to actually helping those who need it.

One other idea is to make donations of time tax deductible. Say $1 an hour. This would encourage volunteerism as well, allowing charities to better reach those who need help.

These changes alone would result in a massive outpouring of support to those most able to help the needy. Isn't that the purpose?

I hope that those reading this don't misunderstand - I recognize the desire to help the underprivileged - and I applaud it. I do what I can - and I encourage others to do so as well. Conservatives are not cold hearted bastids - ok well some are but most are not. We simple see how personal choice - combined with encouragement and not coercion - could do so much more for this wonderful country of ours. We were founded on the right to choose -to help or not - to reach out or not, as we see fit. We can find ways to encourage our fellows to reach out - without using the force of government to pick their pockets.

*edit - I just got told that time is actually tax deductible - good! Lets increase that!*

Charity is fine. But someone's right to life shouldn't depend on whether a rich person is feeling generous that day.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Charity is fine. But someone's right to life shouldn't depend on whether a rich person is feeling generous that day.

What? Has it come to this, someone's right to life depends on the govt taxing the rich?

I'm sure you didn't mean that the way it sounds, Mookie. I sure hope a guy like me can get by ok without assistance from the rich (however they are defined).

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

How much worse would those numbers be if the programs weren't there?

How much better would it be if those programs were not there? We have no way of knowing either way....

Income disparity is a troubling problem...the rich are getting richer, while the ranks of the poor keep expanding. It can't continue, and I see it as one of the biggest threats to our country. History shows that unchecked income inequality in a country will lead to its downfall.

The rich are richer than ever before. Scary. And no, it's not because of merit and hard work.

So instead of addressing the proven failure of the "social net" system, we jump to "lets just bash the rich"? That doesn't address the problem.

Someone please explain to me why we should blindly continue on using a system that is demonstratably a failure at its stated goal. Someone please explain to me why even discussing changing a failed system that is proven to trap more and more people in poverty into something that has the potential to actually be more effective to help the underpriviledged is somehow "hearless and cold".

Someone explain to me why it makes sense to continue down a road that shows us that doing so will only create more poor people. Is this what we want for our countrymen? I say no - and thus the failed answer needs to change - else we doom even more people to poverty. We are better than that.

Charity is fine. But someone's right to life shouldn't depend on whether a rich person is feeling generous that day.

You have made the accusation - so by all means - show us how someone will lose their life if the strategy for the war on poverty were to change. I have already shown how NOT changing it means making more people poor, so you need to show how changes to the system are somehow automatically going to "kill people".

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I disagree wholeheartedly. First, it's no big news that Limbaugh is an entertainer, and pretty much a terrible person. While I agree with much of what he says on a theoretical level, how he says it is irresponsible, mean, and downright uncivil. He's embarrasing. And he's hypocritical. I remember years ago how he would rant and rave about Ted Kennedy's alchohol habits, pretty much ripping him apart. Which is ok, except Limbaugh has his own substance abuse issues.

And his comments about this woman were way across the line--and stupid. Where does he get this idea that she's having "lots of sex". You pretty much have to take the pill every day, regardless of how often you engage in sex.

As for the "religious freedom" aspect of this, I don't understand at all how religious people think everything is about them and their religion. So what if insurance covers contraception. That's great! It means fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions. Hell, I am all in favor of free birth control for everybody, and I hope they use it.

Well her claim about $3,000 a year is total bull.I remember my ex spent $50 a month, does not add up.I have heard others mention can get it for $20, sure the numbers are a little different depending on insurance, or lack there of etc etc but nowhere near three grand, just an outrageous figure from a democratic/feminist operative with an agenda, not the all american student the Dems tried to make her out to be.I believe Limbaugh was lampooning her ridiculous claims as the sarcasm in his voice was pretty easy to detect.I found his remarks somewhat amusing as did many others but as usual the fems, the dems and others who can't handle satire etc because it offends their politically correct sensibilities are just full of "moral outrage" and self righteous indignation.

The religious freedom aspect, which is the real issue not contraception itself, is a constitutional right.The federal government has absolutely no authority under the constitution to require a church to pay for something or do anything that is against it's own teachings.A church buys health insurance but does not want their policy to cover contraception, that is their right to do so.

I am an atheist and very much a fan of contraception BUT this is not about my opinion or yours, it is about not allowing the government to once again violate the constitutional rights of others.Some may say "so what?" government gets a pass because it's just those silly religious people.Well that sets a precedent and they will do it again in the future, next time you may be your or I because some fool like obama decides he knows better than us.That is why we have a bill of rights, to protect us.

I always think of the Martin Niemoller quote "

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me."


I find religious people to be morons usually, some are more intelligent than others but they certainly lack some intellect to believe in the fairy tale that is religion and I mean pretty much any religion.Sure. church is a big thing in many cultures and it is difficult to pull away, I grew up in the south so am well aware of that but I evolved away from that nonsense and that is my right, to be an atheist and not have the government involved in my religious life or lack thereof.Well, religious people have a right to the same protections.Like I said in the OP, people like Obama know this(for all things he is, he is not stupid really, he knows the constitution, just dislikes it unless it serves him which is rare as most liberal's views are contrary to the constitution) but just decided to be intellectually dishonest OR they shift the subject as they did this time.I do admire their political skill in this one as the sympathetic press really picked up on it and changed the discussion.

Well her claim about $3,000 a year is total bull.

Wow, maths not your strong point either then.

Bubbles, are you trying to prove in simple stages that you are absolutely clueless about the issue as well as clueless about the constitution?

BTW you previously said you were going to show that last "constitutional experts" piece to your teachers of law, which raises two questions.....
did you and have they stopped laughing yet?

I always think of the Martin Niemoller quote

priceless

I find religious people to be morons usually

So you have insulted women and the religious, which blanket segment of humans are you coming for next?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

What? Has it come to this, someone's right to life depends on the govt taxing the rich?

I'm sure you didn't mean that the way it sounds, Mookie. I sure hope a guy like me can get by ok without assistance from the rich (however they are defined).

Food and medicine wouldn't fall under right to life?


[QUOTE=CaptainHaplo;1852809]
So instead of addressing the proven failure of the "social net" system, we jump to "lets just bash the rich"? That doesn't address the problem.]/quote] You're the one that brought up the expanding ranks of poor.

Someone please explain to me why we should blindly continue on using a system that is demonstratably a failure at its stated goal. Someone please explain to me why even discussing changing a failed system that is proven to trap more and more people in poverty into something that has the potential to actually be more effective to help the underpriviledged is somehow "hearless and cold".

Someone explain to me why it makes sense to continue down a road that shows us that doing so will only create more poor people. Is this what we want for our countrymen? I say no - and thus the failed answer needs to change - else we doom even more people to poverty. We are better than that.



You have made the accusation - so by all means - show us how someone will lose their life if the strategy for the war on poverty were to change. I have already shown how NOT changing it means making more people poor, so you need to show how changes to the system are somehow automatically going to "kill people".

You're going to help the starving and those without any way of getting health insurance... by taking away their food stamps and Medicare. That's pants on head crazy.