Who said anything about free? Nobody is getting anything free. How about you actually get something you pay for?

You pay the health insurance company to keep you healthy. When they deny you the medicine you need, that is a problem.

Seriously, just fucking read this already: Rush Limbaugh-Sandra Fluke controversy

Birth controls doesnt keep people healthy. It keeps people from making a mistake. Vitamins keep me healthy, but I have to pay for those.

The chemicals USED in birth control have been used separately to treat other ailments, but not the BC itself.

rush limpdick is just mad because he got caught pill poppin

Texas is full of crazy people... choosing to have an abortion in cases of accident or rape is an personal option, but then there is choosing to do so far enough down the line where you can see something on a sonogram.


But, i dont believe they should force you to have a sonogram. Fuckers.

OK I get that this was about insurance and not hospitals but for the sake of argument:

If a religious institution wants to play the "hospital game", then there must be a certain level of standards to meet. If not, then they should be treated more like a voodoo clinic or accpuncture shop or chiropractor.

Not all insurance plans cover voodoo and chiropractic care.

She's a lawyer. If she signed on the dotted line for the insurance and the insurance policy clearly stated that she would get no day after pills for those sweaty nights in your arms then I don't see how she really has an argument.

I don't even think the Affordable Care Act (known epithetically to most of you as Obamacare) even requires that insurance pay for birth control.

Stay on topic, AIDS-man.

I can't get over the logic of this bull-dike knowingly signing a contract for health insurance, then a government stepping-in to change the terms of the religious institution. Religous idiots have the right to be as crazy as they want among themselves. If you don't like it, don't sign the contract.

Bingo.

aidsman?




I have no idea why its so hard to simply not agree with terms, dont sign and move on.

Ah, ok, so you are just trolling. Fool me once, shame on you.

Good stuff. You had me for a bit there. :vash:

You want to pay for our health policy? Here is our terms and conditions.

You signed? So you agree that we wont cover EVERYTHING...

K.



Wait, you want us to change the policy you agreed with because the need came up?

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1347313531

Naw dawg, go somewhere else if you dont like it.

the centipad:laugh:

The list of preclusions on a health insurance policy and a smart-phone Cent-i-pad agreement are two very different things.

This is how I see this whole situation.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1347315136

I wouldn't call Sandra Fluke a dyke, given that she has testified before Congress that she enjoys having heterosexual intercourse with sufficient regularity to cause her financial hardship.

As to the rest, I kind of respect her temerity in seizing this opportunity to make a name for herself. Nobody mentioned my name in a speech at the DNC.





There are standards of care, and religious hospitals conform to them.

In the town where I grew up, there were (and still are) two hospitals. Fawcett Hospital is a private hospital which is independent (not owned by a larger corporation.) St. Joseph's hospital is also a private hospital (I believe they are either a charity hospital or a non-profit corp, but I'm not 100% certain), which is part of the Bon Secours Health System, a Catholic organization.

In the lobby of St. Joseph, there is an idol of the blessed Virgin Mary, as well as a great deal of other religious imagery. I think there's also a framed copy of their mission statement, which is "to bring compassion to healthcare and to be good help to those in need, especially those who are poor and dying. As a system of caregivers we commit ourselves to help bring people and communities to health and wholeness as part of the healing ministry of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church. "

The two hospitals are literally right across the street from one another.

As a teenager, I was once hospitalized for a couple of days after I threw myself at the street from a bicycle and managed to give myself a pretty serious concussion. I was treated at St. Joseph. To the best of my recollection, they didn't burn incense over me or sacrifice any lambs- it was just pretty standard healthcare. They used modern technology and medications, and I was not given any religious tracts or questioned about my faith.

So, yeah. Your argument is invalid. Here's Sandra Fluke with some pancakes on her head:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...1&d=1347318553



EDIT: As concerns a previous thread in which I said "If it has images then I didn't create it," I did create this image myself using Jasc PaintShop Pro, from two separate pictures which I located using images.google.com. I did not take the original photographs, and thus, this image is a derivative work which I consider to be protected as Fair Use, in that I am using the images as a form of satire and political speech.





That's pretty weaksauce, even for you. The idea that a doctor should be required to perform diagnostic imaging prior to performing surgery on a patient might be new and scary to y'all down there in Tejas, but here in the civilized world it's considered to be pretty standard.

The fact that it has to do with performing an abortion is hardly relevant aside from the fact that this makes it easy fodder for politics.

If Sandra Fluke needs an emergency abortion while visiting Texas, I will gladly pay for her ultrasound.

If Georgetown receives any money from the federal government, or any benefits, they must comply with federal discrimination standards.


She felt she was being discriminated against, as a non-catholic. Even though the college may have a "catholic history" (whatever that means), it must comply with federal law if it receives federal money. Even in a ( non-college) catholic school, students must still pass state mandated exams, to prove the school is operating properly, and to receive federal and state aid.


As an atheist (catholic raised), issues like this are one of many which proves the separation between church and state does not fully exist. Tax exempt status for churches? WTF

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

I chose my pics semi carefully, as a lot misrepresent the issue and just talk of her being a slut and wanting free condoms.

So are you sayng that if Walmart added an urgent care and surgery center and decided to only treat evangelical christians with enlarged goiters by using a hack saw and tweezers, they could do it and if you were to complain and wanted laser goiter surgery, tough shit?

See, I keep seeing this. Do you guys not know what actually happened, or do you just not care?

I don't want to ruin this great circlejerk with facts or anything, but...

The last time I checked, religious ideas and practices were protected by the constitution.

I'm 99% certain she's a trucker, though anecdotal. I don't really care if she takes wiener or not, nor do I care how often she does it, however its absurd that she'd sign-on to healthcare that precludes it from a Catholic/Jesuit university. If you don't like the religion, don't sign on to it's programs.

What purpose does the ultra-sound serve?

This is the pain of being an atheist Republican.

The original wording of the Pledge of Allegiance did not include "under god". Until 1954, when the Republican Party added it.

The current Republican Party seems willing to be led by those factions within it that are intent on turning this nation into one that recognizes Christianity as the national religion, above all others.

Well, this time we are good, seeing as how Mitt is not really a Christian, right?

1: Presupposing that Wal-Mart does not posses a monopoly on outpatient goiter treatment, and that it could provide some reasonable justification for doing so (eg, by demonstrating that treatment of goiters by laser was in conflict with the established doctrine and traditions of whatever religious faith Sam Walton and his family professed to practice) then yes, I would find this acceptable.


B: See my post # 54 in this thread, starting with "Obviously it's possible to dream up hypothetical scenarios to justify (or refute) pretty much any imaginable point of view."


III: I find it interesting to see members of this forum who, in general, argue against government meddling in its citizens freedom of choice and the operation of capitalist enterprise in general adopting arbitrarily contrarian viewpoints in this particular thread, and instead arguing that the federal government should force commercial entities to sell certain products and perform certain services. Such behavior is suggestive of the fundamental tenets of Marxist-Leninism as they pertain to directive economic planning.


0100: If you look hard enough, it's possible to find something to be offended by pretty much anywhere. Personally speaking, one of the burdens which I bear is the difficulty of finding shoes which fit me. I have found that the department store Kohls, for instance, carries no men's shoes at all in size 14 except for athletic shoes (eg: basketball shoes.)

Now, the size of my feet is no less genetically predetermined than my race, gender, eye-color and sexual orientation. So I suppose that if I really wanted to, I could attack Kohls in the courts and claim that they are discriminating against me by unjustly perpetuating the stereotype that men with large feet are all mindless jocks who belong only on the basketball arena and have no need for office-appropriate footwear.

Or, as an alternative, I could decide not to be a douchebag and simply take my shoe-buying money elsewhere. In doing so I forfeit the opportunity to have pancakes photoshopped onto my head, but such is the nature of life.


Abe Lincoln: Suppose that a hypothetical person whose last name is Perez is a member of an ethnic group whose traditional holiday cuisine includes numerous dishes made from pork (eg: lechon, chorizo, empanadas, croquetas, etc.) In preparation for the Navidad feast, this person goes to a kosher deli owned by a Jewish family to buy food. The proprietors of this establishment refuse to sell him any pork products, and claim that this is because their religion decrees that pork is unclean and that is cannot be handled or eaten by righteous persons.

Has Mr. Perez been discriminated against? Would he be justified in arguing that the owners of the kosher deli have insulted him and disparaged his heritage? Should he address Congress and argue that since the USDA recognizes pork as a staple food in the United States and sanctions its production and butchering, the owners of all Delis should be obligated to supply pork to their customers? What if Mr. Perez intended to use federally-provided food stamps to pay for the pork- would that make any difference one way or the other?


Tricia Helfer: Suppose that I have no particular education or job skills, and I am reduced to working in the fast-food industry. The local economy isn't all that good, and the only place I can find a job is at some joint called Chick-for-all that sells chicken sandwiches and peach tea. Because I need to support a large family, I am desperate for all the hours that I can get. The owners of Chick-for-all claim to be of a certain religious belief, and as such, they close their restaurant on Sunday.

Am I justified in claiming that Chick-for-all is unfairly imposing the religious beliefs of its owners upon me by forcing me to conform to their customs and not allowing me to fry chicken on Sunday? Has the state government sanctioned this imposition of religion by the fact that they have granted a business license to Chick-for-all? What about the fact that the city granted a tax break to Chick-for-all in order to encourage business development in the downtown area- does that make the city also culpable in sanctioning a certain religion?

Oh, and the bicycle thing- that was clever. :D

Ya think she'd pay for my vasectomy?

Not if they are funded by federal cash and blatantly discriminatory.

I can use federal money to start my own college, and refuse entry to blacks, right? My religion says they're bad, so I'll take tax dollars, and use them to enforce my doctrine.

yes, acutally.

Why not? There are all-black or all women's schools

2ndGearRubber, did you miss the part where Georgetown is a private University?

Unless you consider Federal student aid to constitute "funding" then this argument is groundless, and in that case, I ask you to resolve the paradox which you have just created for yourself under sections "Abe Lincoln" and "Tricia Helfer" of my last post above.

I'm not quite up on what the law is nowadays.

I think in certain states you can be a minor and get an abortion without your parent's consent.

With the new ruling, will the nurse's office at grade school be handing out the morning after pill?

So, since when do you need insurance for falling down some stairs?

TLDRwhole thread, but Grove City v. Bell (as well as substantial later decisions, but I don't have the time I need to sit down and do a full treatment on this right now. This is just a quick and dirty explanation.) clearly establishes receiving federal student aid is receiving federal funding. (Sidenote: Also, receiving state student aid is receiving state funding with all the restrictions involved.)

You can establish a private college, and so long as it receives *no* subsidies *or* funding whatsoever from the state or federal governments, you can do whatever the fuck you want with it. The second it receives even so much as a dime from either, though, it creates restrictions. You can see this example in, for instance, all women's colleges - but they don't even offer federal or state student aid in order to be able to operate as such. This is tied to why so many colleges became co-ed and/or desegregated over the past ~50-60 years.

Fair enough.

1: Remember that this isn't about Georgetown itself. It's about a private health insurance plan.

2: While I haven't researched it, I'm going to go out on a limb and posit that said healthcare plan probably does not pay for contraceptives for men, either. (eg, condoms, vasectomies, RISUG/VasalGel, etc.) If true, then this policy is non-discriminatory.

3: If the Jewish owner of a kosher deli refuses to sell me a pork chop on the grounds that pork may not be handled or consumed by righteous persons, has he insulted me / discriminated against me / uttered a slur against my heritage? (My culture espouses the frequent consumption of pork at holiday celebrations.) Presupposing that I normally use food stamps to pay for purchases which I make at this deli, and in light of the fact that the USDA (a federal agency) sanctions and regulates the sale of pork, does that mean that the deli is being federally subsidized?

1: You asked about financial aid and federal funding.

2: Actually, vasectomies can be covered under insurance if certain medical conditions are met, Joe (Similar medical conditions that are required for birth control, even!). The rest of your argument is inherently fallacious and makes me wonder what you have been smoking - it doesn't meet the smell test of your typically extremely well researched and well thought out posts.

3: See above. Not a goddamn thing to do with the topic I was discussing, and even then of only extremely questionable relevance. It would be a question of if the Deli refused to serve you as a non-Jew, not that the Deli refused to stock non-kosher items.

Ok, so we're basically just making arguments that aren't relevant to the thread.

this should be blaen's sig.

ftfy

yeah but it's the optimy of Blaen.

ftfy again :giggle:

Would it have helped if she had used Megasquirt?

all arguments are not relevant to the thread.

the thread is dedicated to Joe's illogical lust for this woman.

I think she reminds me of Caterina Fake a bit.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1347555443

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1347555443

http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/...Mutterperl.png

Greg Gutfeld said something funny about Fluke yesterday on his Last Words on The Five yesterday. I wanted to repeat them so I sounded cool but cant remember, so all you get is this lousy post.

There's something about which I am genuinely curious, given all of the negative commentary here.

Do the majority of the folks in this thread actually find Fluke to be physically unattractive and/or undesirable as a mate, or are you projecting your general revulsion at her political views / sense of entitlement / etc?

she looks kind of like that ugly bitch from mad men named peggy fuck that hoe

look bro, I'm sure you don't have much luck with women too often but that bitch is UGLY and even you with your Hawaiian shirts and black jeans can do better than that.

I'd hit it.
She is a 716
I think her politics are absurd.

She's plain at best. She looks like a lesbian. I would not give her a second glance. Add in the political views, and she's ugly.

Ok, so we've heard from the Short Bus crowd now.


Interesting.

She's not stunningly hot- no question there. And yeah, I'll grant you both plain and sort of boyish / lesbian-looking.

And I do find her political views / sense of entitlement abhorrent.

as in 7:16?

its 'the code' on a scale of 0-10 with 10 being best
first digit is face, middle is 'would you hit it' 1 for yes and 0 for no, third digit is body.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1347658669

^ 10110
/threadjack