SCOTUS upholds strip-search on arrest.

[beebobby]

A woman wanting her paid-for health ins. policy to cover BC is not the same as her demanding free BC (although some folks twist it that way). BC is much cheaper than birth for the rest of the policy holders in her insurance pool.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

A woman wanting her paid-for health ins. policy to cover BC is not the same as her demanding free BC (although some folks twist it that way). BC is much cheaper than birth for the rest of the policy holders in her insurance pool.

Quit it, you're making too much sense.

 

[Tawnos]

Actually, you could have gone here instead.

http://www.experiment-resources.com/overjustification-effect.html

Considering that you agree with Fluke and her drive to gain free 'pills', at the expense of others, your diagnosis is without merit.

Many have come before Fluke, and you, and have accomplished what Fluke and apparently you, can not or will not accomplish, get through life without holding their hand out.

But, this is America, go for it.

That one doesn't include the important bit that matters in this case:

...researchers at Stanford University once divided students into two groups. One received a small cash payment for turning wooden knobs round and round for an hour. The other group received a generous payment for the same task. After the hour, a researcher asked students in each group to tell the next person after them who was about to perform the same boring task that turning knobs was fun and interesting. After that, everyone filled out a survey in which they were asked to say how they truly felt. The people paid a pittance reported the study was a blast. The people paid well reported it was awful. Subjects in both groups lied to the person after them, but the people paid well had a justification, an extrinsic reward to fall back on. The other group had no safety net, no outside justification, so they invented one inside. To keep from feeling icky, they found solace in an internal justification – they thought, “you know, it really was fun when you think about.” ...

Just because your wife went through shiat doesn't mean that it was worthwhile or should be used as a justification for perpetuation of a bad system.

As for what I can or cannot accomplish or how much I "hold my hand out", you have no idea about me. However, I have been a net contributor to the tax pool, to the tune of paying my "debt per citizen" every two years and "debt per taxpayer" every six. So don't talk down to me about taking handouts.

Even so, I recognize that an extra percent or two a year on income (and an extra 10 percent a year on capital gains) across the tax board would go a long way towards fixing our problems. That wouldn't be an insignificant amount of my money, but it may be what is necessary to maintain the continued social stability and continue America's greatness.

 

[OC for ME]

That one doesn't include the important bit that matters in this case:

Just because your wife went through shiat doesn't mean that it was worthwhile or should be used as a justification for perpetuation of a bad system.

As for what I can or cannot accomplish or how much I "hold my hand out", you have no idea about me. However, I have been a net contributor to the tax pool, to the tune of paying my "debt per citizen" every two years and "debt per taxpayer" every six. So don't talk down to me about taking handouts.

Even so, I recognize that an extra percent or two a year on income (and an extra 10 percent a year on capital gains) across the tax board would go a long way towards fixing our problems. That wouldn't be an insignificant amount of my money, but it may be what is necessary to maintain the continued social stability and continue America's greatness.

It is unfortunate that you seem to think that my pointing out my wife's efforts to avoid handouts and you accepting handouts is talking down to you, that is your problem, not mine. You agree with the handout premise. OK. I and my wife do not, and that seems to cause some folks some level of consternation. Self-reliance is a difficult concept to grasp for some and even harder to live your life by. Not everyone is willing to put forth the efforts, make the tough choices, to become self-reliant. Accepting the handout is easy.

While the terms handout and charity are interchangeable, some folks expecting/demanding that I handout, is not the same as me being charitable at my discretion.

~$25K/yr. is no small amount of money in today's economy. Good for you.

But, your contribution is irrelevant where you and others like you promoting/advocating that I pay for Flukes pills so she can have a few more bucks for beer every week.

Where Fluke is concerned I have little charity for her plight. She is a leech on society in my view, and not worthy of my further consideration.

On Georgetown’s main campus, some student groups pass out free condoms but purchasing contraceptives of any sort requires venturing off campus, often to a pharmacy about half a mile away.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...eption-issue/2012/03/03/gIQAJq1UpR_story.html

Such a hardship, though, 1/2 a mile sounds farther than four blocks.

Ms. Fluke and her friends could use condoms instead of prescription birth control pills. One Georgetown student group reportedly handed out 4,500 "free" condoms during one recent semester. Or the law students could buy condoms online at $40.25 for a package of 100. At about 40 cents a condom, the Georgetown students could have sex twice a day, 365 days a year, for all three years of law school, for just $881 dollars.

Ms. Fluke and her friends could go to Walmart or Target, whose lists of inexpensive drugs include the oral contraceptive Tri-Sprintec priced at $4 for a 28-day supply. Total cost, assuming continuous use for three full years (including the summer after graduating law school or before starting): about $150.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204603004577269491399954950.html

Down to $4 at a Walmart....who would've thunk it?

And if Mr. Obama is correct and dispensing "free" contraceptives really reduces health care costs, why is it even necessary for the government to step in and force insurers to do something that will save them money?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204603004577269491399954950.html

Interesting poser.

How does the above relate to the OP?....I have no friggin idea.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I see where you have made your mistake: you associate my opinion that there is nothing Fundamental with Innateness. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I like pie, don't you?

I love Pie~ we have that in common at least...

I can use the word innate instead of fundamental, since definition 5 of fundamental proves my point...... http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamental

[h=2]Definition of FUNDAMENTAL[/h]1
a : serving as an original or generating source : primary <a discovery fundamental to modern computers>b : serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function : basic

2
a : of or relating to essential structure, function, or facts :radical <fundamental change>; also : of or dealing with general principles rather than practical application<fundamental science>b : adhering to fundamentalism

3
: of, relating to, or produced by the lowest component of a complex vibration

4
: of central importance : principal <fundamental purpose>

5
: belonging to one's innate or ingrained characteristics : deep-rooted <her fundamental good humor>

Yes, you have shown me one version of a True Meaning. HealthCare is a National issue; the Commerce Clause deals with National issues. I suppose the Government could mandate the food I purchase (hmm, the FDA), and the Government, the Culture of Society has in the past coerced homosexuals into choosing lovers that they were not interested in (hmm, DOMA, hmm, so-called Sodomy Laws), hmm, State sanctioned sterilization for homosexuals). What of Aboriginal theology?; is it any different than the Christian theology that is pervasive in America? Some of these things are Cultural judgements. I do not support female circumcision, and would put a bullet in the idiots head that came to my door to circumcise any female in my home; I do question my judgement of what is "right," and "wrong" as it relates to other peoples cultures.

Nope I showed you the original meaning of commerce clause as it applies to the government in the constitution the law that restricts the government. See you do draw lines, it's OK to mandate food but not homosexuality or circumcision. I don't draw those lines I say it isn't OK for government to be involved in our personal or innate choices. If you want the constitution to mean something else they should have gone through the proper channels of amending it, but progressive socialist/fascist know they can't get that passed so they change the meaning instead.


I think you mean to state that there will always be individuals who claim the Government is overreaching. Whether that is the case or not is, well, apparently a matter of perspective. And then you harken-back to the French Revolution; please, let's stick with the past hundred.

Why the past 100 are even worse for your argument, Bolsheviks killed millions, so did Chinese communists, Pol Pot, the Socialist of Germany, South America, how about Che?, worshipped by so many progressives yet he was a cold blooded murderer. I would include the progressive movement in U.S. has caused untold problems and deaths around the world in the last 100 years.

You, and me both would rather have Reason prevail, but you can only reach a non-violent end by consensus. What is the mantra from the right, that: consensus is defeat. And it is working out so well. Welcome to The Lost Decade, The Great Stagnation.

I disagree we don't need a consensus, we just need to be left alone. I don't want government to force or mandate my viewpoint upon you and I don't want it to mandate it upon me. I really don't care if you want to be a socialist I have no problem with that I have a problem of those in power forcing your ideology upon me. Which is why we have the 2A by the way to fight against an overbearing intrusive government yet the definition of the 2A has been changed by those in power too.

 

[Tawnos]

Down to $4 at a Walmart....who would've thunk it?

You still seem to think she was arguing solely about preventing pregnancy. While that is important, and condoms should be used for sexually active non-long-term-monogamous relationships, with testing between each partner. Condoms are helpful, but there are much better pregnancy inhibitors. However, that's still missing the issue: students who have medical needs that require hormonal birth control are being denied access by their health insurance provider just as much as students who desire to use pregnancy protection when engaging in horizontal recreation. Indeed, in her testimony she never said "I would need" or similar, but spoke of the experience shared with her by others.

Additionally, that price is a loss-leader. In some states that is illegal, and the minimum price that may be charged is the cost: $26.88. That's for the cheapest generic medicine, which may or may not cover the medical needs of all students due to their unique medical needs. That also still doesn't cover the cost of the medical appointments needed to be prescribed these pills. Nor does it address the variable bioavailability and related requirements of generic versus name brand medicine (and variable bioavailability is something you really don't want in BC). There are many issues in play here, and really, the core of the testimony is that paid for insurance providers are denying medical coverage, not because it's a sound policy move, but because they don't like the group being targeted. Go go gadget religious authoritarianism.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

[snippers]

Down to $4 at a Walmart....who would've thunk it?

[snippers]

Yes, there are certain types of BC that you can get for four bucks. You may not be aware of this but there are many forms of birth control, there are pill, patch, injection, IUD, implant, etc. Part of the reason there are so many is because not all females can take the same type of BC. Me for example, I can't take the pill form because it has a very bad impact on my thyroid (I have have thyroid issues, unfortunately). Then there are synthetic, there are premerin (from horses or soemthing like that), and there are 'bio-identical'. There is a wide range of types, cost, and a wide range of reasons why one is prescribed over another.

It seems like you are attempting to point out how cheap some forms are, but either missing or leaving out that there are many forms of birth control prescribed for many reasons; also, BC isn't always prescribed as a form of contraception.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

I disagree we don't need a consensus, we just need to be left alone. [snippers]

My friend, that would require a consensus; a majority at the least.

 

[OC for ME]

All of the variations of BC are known to me, I am married, my wife has used some of the variants. You pointing them out does not change the fundamental principal. Liberals desire to take from some to give to others. Liberals wish to use the power of the state to force me to pay for Fluke's BC. I am not able to resist the power of the state so I am compelled to submit to the power of the state and my confiscated property is transferred to those who I would otherwise not be charitable towards.

The singular focus on the method of BC clouds the issue, Fluke wants others to pay for her BC. There by mitigating any adverse impacts to her beer budget.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

All of the variations of BC are known to me, I am married, my wife has used some of the variants. You pointing them out does not change the fundamental principal. Liberals desire to take from some to give to others. Liberals wish to use the power of the state to force me to pay for Fluke's BC. I am not able to resist the power of the state so I am compelled to submit to the power of the state and my confiscated property is transferred to those who I would otherwise not be charitable towards.

The singular focus on the method of BC clouds the issue, Fluke wants others to pay for her BC. There by mitigating any adverse impacts to her beer budget.

You are right about one thing, you are not able to resist the Power of the State; thank goodness. I could only imagine the world that you would create for females in particular.

I am not sure why you are under the impression that females want their BC covered by insurance so they can purchase more beer. Is there some corrolation between beer-drinking, and BC?

 

[Tawnos]

adverse impacts to her beer budget.

And going back to that old trope, you've proved your lack of relevance in this conversation.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

And going back to that old trope, you've proved your lack of relevance in this conversation.

I disagree; they more than proved their point.

 

[OC for ME]

You still seem to think she was arguing solely about preventing pregnancy. While that is important, and condoms should be used for sexually active non-long-term-monogamous relationships, with testing between each partner. Condoms are helpful, but there are much better pregnancy inhibitors. However, that's still missing the issue: students who have medical needs that require hormonal birth control are being denied access by their health insurance provider just as much as students who desire to use pregnancy protection when engaging in horizontal recreation. Indeed, in her testimony she never said "I would need" or similar, but spoke of the experience shared with her by others.

Additionally, that price is a loss-leader. In some states that is illegal, and the minimum price that may be charged is the cost: $26.88. That's for the cheapest generic medicine, which may or may not cover the medical needs of all students due to their unique medical needs. That also still doesn't cover the cost of the medical appointments needed to be prescribed these pills. Nor does it address the variable bioavailability and related requirements of generic versus name brand medicine (and variable bioavailability is something you really don't want in BC). There are many issues in play here, and really, the core of the testimony is that paid for insurance providers are denying medical coverage, not because it's a sound policy move, but because they don't like the group being targeted. Go go gadget religious authoritarianism.

Fluke is desiring all states (insurers/firms), not some states, so the some states argument fails regarding the 'price loss-leader' because it may not be a 'price loss-leader' in all states.

The university could compel the insurer to cover what Fluke wants and in the manner she wants, or the university could seek another insurer who will. The university is a 'large' customer, millions of dollars. So, who is really denying Fluke free BC? Who pays for the BC if it is free for Fluke?

The free-market will force a insurer to provide products and services, at the price a costumer is willing to pay, or lose business to another insurer that will meet the customers requirements.

For some strange reason, liberals use and expect the free-market to work to their advantage for every product or service, until they get to health insurance, when somehow, free-market principals are claimed to not work.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

[snipper]

For some strange reason, liberals use and expect the free-market to work to their advantage for every product or service, until they get to health insurance, when somehow, free-market principals are claimed to not work.

The so-called Free Market works great since over 90% of females take BC during their lifetime, and not all insurance companies cover it, and with the exception of your four-buck walmart BC, there are many others that are very expensive, particularly without insurance.

I wonder: do you think all women are Liberal? It seems to me that this is less a Liberal issue, and more a female issue. Then again, Conservatives have some sort of obsession with what a female ought do, and ought not do with her reproductive organs. But when a man's unit stops working, insurance must cover the little blue pill, so-called "pump therapy," etc.

 

[ManInBlack]

I wonder: do you think all women are Liberal? It seems to me that this is less a Liberal issue, and more a female issue. Then again, Conservatives have some sort of obsession with what a female ought do, and ought not do with her reproductive organs.

Most true conservatives I know don't care what a woman does with her reproductive gear. We just don't want to have to pay for it or subsidize it in any way.

But when a man's unit stops working, insurance must cover the little blue pill, so-called "pump therapy," etc.

Yes, private insurance that he pays for. Private insurance companies can offer whatever coverages they want and make whatever agreements with customers that are legal. What Floozy Fluke wants is for everyone, even those who won't pay a dime, to be covered under insurance (which will require subsidization from those of us in the productive sector), and for that insurance to be FORCED, by the government, to make certain agreements with customers to cover certain medications, regardless of what the market demands are.

This is where you liberals jump the tracks. Instead of setting up a charity to make sure that every woman gets free birth control, if it is something your really believe in, you are so self-righteous as to believe you have the authority to point a gun at another citizen's head and steal his property to fund your pipe dreams.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Most true conservatives I know don't care what a woman does with her reproductive gear. We just don't want to have to pay for it or subsidize it in any way.

"Most true Conservatives," but not all? And what exactly is a True Conservative? I am not sure who "we" are.

Yes, private insurance that he pays for. Private insurance companies can offer whatever coverages they want and make whatever agreements with customers that are legal.

I see, so what if it is not legal for insurance companies to deny BC for free? Hey, we agree on something--we both agree that whatever is Legal, insurance companies must abide by the Laws.

This is where you liberals jump the tracks. Instead of setting up a charity to make sure that every woman gets free birth control, if it is something your really believe in, you are so self-righteous as to believe you have the authority to point a gun at another citizen's head and steal his property to fund your pipe dreams.

Slow down, take a step back there fella, nobody is putting a gun to anyones head. Comparing BC to a Pipe Dream is kinda funny.

 

[ManInBlack]

I see, so what if it is not legal for insurance companies to deny BC for free? Hey, we agree on something--we both agree that whatever is Legal, insurance companies must abide by the Laws.

Nope, not even close. Valid laws must be constitutional, which is precisely why Messiahcare is being challenged in court.

Slow down, take a step back there fella, nobody is putting a gun to anyones head. Comparing BC to a Pipe Dream is kinda funny.

You're right; you and your fellows in the consumptive sector are too cowardly to actually attempt stealing, so you outsource it to government thugs, who most certainly will put a gun to a person's head if he refuses to pay the extortion note.

Demanding that I pay for other people's birth control is a pipe dream, because A) it will never happen and B) it is clearly an idea conceived in the selfish mind of fools like you as you hit a pipe filled with psychoactive substances.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Nope, not even close. Valid laws must be constitutional, which is precisely why Messiahcare is being challenged in court.

So, the only way a Law is valid is when SCOTUS has Found it to be Constitutional? Or is there some other way in which we determine the constitutionality of a Law? Also, valid law ought to be constitutional, but then again, all of this is rather subjective now, isn't it. And what if Messiahcare is Found to be constitutional?; then I suppose it is by your own assertion.

You're right; you and your fellows in the consumptive sector are too cowardly to actually attempt stealing, so you outsource it to government thugs, who most certainly will put a gun to a person's head if he refuses to pay the extortion note.

Yes, I want the money in your pocket, because I am jealous, envious of your station in life, so I am using the Federal Government as a tool to take from you what is rightfully mine.

Demanding that I pay for other people's birth control is a pipe dream, because A) it will never happen and B) it is clearly an idea conceived in the selfish mind of fools like you as you hit a pipe filled with psychoactive substances.

I beg to differ, if health insurance becomes a Federal thing, and not a private thing, and you are taxed, then yes, you will be paying; unless you plan on not paying taxes. I can't hit the pipe, I have severe allergies, and it would cause me breathing issues; you must be thinking of some other Freedom-hating Liberal.