The real issue at hand in the Limbaugh/Fluke controversy

[Bubblehead1980]

While feminists and liberals continue to lose their minds over Rush Limbaugh being what he is, a provocateur, the real issue has been pushed to the wayside.The real issue is Obama and his government going too far yet again by violating the constitution and demanding contraception coverage, religious freedoms be damned.They know very well they can't win the constitutional argument since it is pretty black and white, so in predictable liberal fashion, they try to shift the subject without appearing to.They find a female law student(who it turns out is a long time feminist activist/political operative) and parade her out as if she is just a regular student trying to get by in order to inject emotion into the argument and get women on their side.Apparently it has worked to a degree as Obama's support has went up in the past week among the most emotional among us, women.

Another one of your misogynist rants young man?
Still feeling bitter about not getting any?

[Takeda Shingen]

Georgetown University's student health programs cost the taxpayer $0.00 US. They are subsidised from tuition and donor contributions. Limbaugh's argument is, therefore, rendered a moot and inaccurate ad hominem. The rest of the OP's comments amount to blatent Misogyny. Sorry, but you just labeled half of the population as weak and emotional. Bad form.

[mookiemookie]

Bubs has shown and proven in the past to be a misogynist. No shocker here.

[Subnuts]

Those dishes aren't going to wash themselves, Bubblehead.

[vienna]

They know very well they can't win the constitutional argument since it is pretty black and white, so in predictable liberal fashion, they try to shift the subject without appearing to.

You mean kind of like the way the GOP Religious Right in Congress know they can't win any up-or-down vote on thier issues so, in predictable Fringe Right fashion, they try to attach their issues as amendments to bills having nothing to do with their pet peeves?...

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Subnuts

Those dishes aren't going to wash themselves, Bubblehead.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by vienna

You mean kind of like the way the GOP Religious Right in Congress know they can't win any up-or-down vote on thier issues so, in predictable Fringe Right fashion, they try to attach their issues as amendments to bills having nothing to do with their pet peeves?...

Both sides do this vienna - calling out "the other side" when both do it (and neither should) simply shows you to be the same as bubblehead - a partisan hack....

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Georgetown University's student health programs cost the taxpayer $0.00 US. They are subsidised from tuition and donor contributions. Limbaugh's argument is, therefore, rendered a moot and inaccurate ad hominem.

OK - let me take issue here Takeda. The cost for the required insurance is $1895.00 a year per student. (source: http://studentaffairs.georgetown.edu...teraccept.html)
Most students are required to participate: (Source: http://studentaffairs.georgetown.edu/insurance/ )

It is added to their "student account" - you know the same "student account" where financial aid - such as FAFSA gained Pell Grants get deposited. Those are federal funds - paid for by the taxpayer. So are student loans - though they are (at least in theory) repayed. I found nothing on Georgetown's site that indicated that the insurance costs were defrayed using donor contributions. Could you show me where that is indicated?

Every piece of information shows that universities charge the student - and the student uses money in their "account" to pay such charges. Given that most students qualify for federal grants - again, paid for by taxpayers - the claim that health insurance for college students costs taxpayers "0.00" is inaccurate.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

OK - let me take issue here Takeda. The cost for the required insurance is $1895.00 a year per student. (source: http://studentaffairs.georgetown.edu...teraccept.html)
Most students are required to participate: (Source: http://studentaffairs.georgetown.edu/insurance/ )

It is added to their "student account" - you know the same "student account" where financial aid - such as FAFSA gained Pell Grants get deposited. Those are federal funds - paid for by the taxpayer. So are student loans - though they are (at least in theory) repayed. I found nothing on Georgetown's site that indicated that the insurance costs were defrayed using donor contributions. Could you show me where that is indicated?

Every piece of information shows that universities charge the student - and the student uses money in their "account" to pay such charges. Given that most students qualify for federal grants - again, paid for by taxpayers - the claim that health insurance for college students costs taxpayers "0.00" is inaccurate.

Now that is a stretch, at best. As you noted, these loans are (again, theoretically) repaid. The money derived from Pell Grants is, at most, indirect.

[CaptainHaplo]

Takeda - its not a stretch. Taxpayers foot the bill for Pell Grants. Simple as that. Pell Grant money is mixed with other funds and used to pay student bills - including the insurance in question. So if you mandate contraceptive coverage - taxpayer money goes to it. Simple as that.

But the more important argument isn't even being made. That is that the cost of additional coverage is not going to be absorbed by the insurer. There is no such thing as "free" coverage - no matter how much the president says it is. Someone is paying for it. That "someone" is everyone who does business with the insurer - because the insurer passes on the costs to its consumers.

You know that as well as I do. So not only does taxpayer money go to help pay for the insurance - if additional costs are put on the coverage - the consuming public will have to pay additionally.

So why should you or I or another consumer have to defray the costs for students - or any other group for that matter?

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

While feminists and liberals continue to lose their minds over Rush Limbaugh being what he is, a provocateur, the real issue has been pushed to the wayside.The real issue is Obama and his government going too far yet again by violating the constitution and demanding contraception coverage, religious freedoms be damned.They know very well they can't win the constitutional argument since it is pretty black and white, so in predictable liberal fashion, they try to shift the subject without appearing to.They find a female law student(who it turns out is a long time feminist activist/political operative) and parade her out as if she is just a regular student trying to get by in order to inject emotion into the argument and get women on their side.Apparently it has worked to a degree as Obama's support has went up in the past week among the most emotional among us, women.

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.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Hell, I am all in favor of free birth control for everybody, and I hope they use it.

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!

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I don't think that we would disagree about the need of government to remove itself from social responsibility. I think that we would disagree about how far it would go, and not in the way that you might anticipate that we would disagree. I am all for the removal of all safety nets. I am also for the legalization of all drugs, the end of restriction of marriage as it pertains to same-sex marriage or even polygamy and the full availabilty of abortion in any and all cases. To me, civil liberties are just as important as fiscal liberties.

It is here that I disagree with the Republican party. When they talk about 'liberty', they mean almost exclusively finance. Civil liberty is not now, nor has it been for most of the past century, a priority. This is a party that gave us the so-called Patriot Act, opposes abortion as part of it's party platform, attempts to legislate theological morality and stands in the way of gay rights. It is the polar opposite of the Democratic party, which is in favor of civil rights, but wants to control your money. I want a party that holds liberty in a much broader light.

Then we agree in many ways. The issue of drugs and abortion I will differ with you on - because both hold dangers to people other than the user/recipient. The issue of "gay marriage" is one where government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all.... While I have a moral objection to it - the reality remains that your talking about something that government shouldn't have its fingers in either way. Still - your entirely correct that "team R" definines freedom and liberty with a narrow scope under most circumstances.

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!

If you look at your statement - you will see why you don't understand the objection. Your coming at this with the predetermined view that some entitlement spending by government is absolutely a necessity. Your example of "the necessity for things like welfare" is exactly where the confusion comes in. Sure, if you assume welfare is a necessity, then reducing more kids on welfare reduces the cost of the program. But for many conservatives, the welfare system is broken beyond repair.

Take a moment to step outside of your normal view and play devils advocate for a moment. Pretend that you see entitlements - all of them (Social security being a partial caveat) as entirely NOT the job of government. Medicaid, TANF & SNAP (welfare and foodstamps), Section 8 (subsidized housing), etc - look at it from the perspective of "none of these are the job of the government". If you do that - then the entire equation changes.

Now - lets be realistic. These programs cannot be just "killed" outright - but when a conservative sees how much the government has already gotten into things they feel it shouldn't - and then it wants to add MORE fingers to the pie, for whatever reason - they scream and yell and kick and raise a fuss. Why? Because its all going the WRONG way - we should be looking at putting more responsibility on citizenry for their own welfare - not increasing the role of government in their lives.

As conservatives - we hear all the time that new program A is "for the children", and new program B is "for the elderly" and new program C is "for the poor" or "for the GLTB folks" or some other nonsense - and that if we oppose more government gimme's we are somehow heartless and meanspirited.

Yes - to a few nuts this is about some biblical moral standard. For most of us, its not. Its about personal responsibility and the role of government. If someone wants to argue the fiscal wisdom of this - thats fine. But before that conversation can happen, the real root of the matter needs to be addressed - where is the line that defines how much government intervention in the life of its citizens?

The first question any legislator or government official should ask when they consider a "government program" or governmental interference is simple..... HOW is this within the proper role of government as defined by the Constitution.

If Washington had done that over the last 100 years or so - we would not be anywhere near this mess - and a whole lot more people in this nation would be standing on their own 2 feet, instead of kneeling at the alter of the government nipple.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

And that pretty much shoots the free market in the foot.

They want it both ways. They scream about "free market! free market! let the market decide!" but then anytime the issue of revoking the antitrust exemption for insurance companies (McCarran-Ferguson Act) is brought up, all of a sudden it's "Whoooooaaaa, not that free of a market!" The insurance companies in this country are absolute slimeballs and one of the worst examples of regulatory capture.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

If you look at your statement - you will see why you don't understand the objection. Your coming at this with the predetermined view that some entitlement spending by government is absolutely a necessity.

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

But for many conservatives, the welfare system is broken beyond repair.

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

Take a moment to step outside of your normal view and play devils advocate for a moment. Pretend that you see entitlements - all of them (Social security being a partial caveat) as entirely NOT the job of government. Medicaid, TANF & SNAP (welfare and foodstamps), Section 8 (subsidized housing), etc - look at it from the perspective of "none of these are the job of the government". If you do that - then the entire equation changes.

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.

Now - lets be realistic. These programs cannot be just "killed" outright - but when a conservative sees how much the government has already gotten into things they feel it shouldn't - and then it wants to add MORE fingers to the pie, for whatever reason - they scream and yell and kick and raise a fuss. Why? Because its all going the WRONG way - we should be looking at putting more responsibility on citizenry for their own welfare - not increasing the role of government in their lives.

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

As conservatives - we hear all the time that new program A is "for the children", and new program B is "for the elderly" and new program C is "for the poor" or "for the GLTB folks" or some other nonsense - and that if we oppose more government gimme's we are somehow heartless and meanspirited.

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

[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!*