Obama Administration Orders Health Plans to Cover Contraceptives

Forecast: torrential whining from the religious right
Health • Views: 26,989

Big LGF kudos to the Obama administration for holding the line against the whiniest lobby in America — the “social conservative” Neanderthals opposed to contraception: Health plans ordered to cover birth control without co-pays.

Most healthcare plans will be required to cover birth control without charging co-pays or deductibles starting Aug. 1, the Obama administration announced Friday.

The final regulation retains the approach federal health officials proposed last summer, despite the deluge of complaints from religious groups and congressional Republicans that has poured in since then. Churches, synagogues and other houses of worship are exempt from the requirement, but religious-affiliated hospitals and universities only get a one-year delay and must comply by Aug. 1, 2013.

“This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement. “I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.”

The Republican Party, of course, is complaining that their “religious freedom” is being violated, because they should have the right to deprive women of their rights. Yes, their argument really is this absurd, convoluted, and essentially stupid.

Congressional Republicans slammed the decision as an assault on religious freedom.

“This ruling forces religious organizations to violate the fundamental tenets of their faith, or stop offering health insurance coverage to their employees,” said the Republican Policy Committee. “Time will tell whether those institutions choose the former or the latter course — but neither option should be necessary, if the administration had not taken such an unbending approach to appease its liberal base.”

Jump to bottom

203 comments
1 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 11:20:46am
— but neither option should be necessary, if the administration had not taken such an unbending approach to appease its liberal base.”

Yes, because only liberals use contraceptives. Idiots.

2 wrenchwench  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 11:21:38am

I wonder how many times Dr. Paul prescribed contraceptives when he was practicing. I wonder whether he will ever be asked about it at a 'debate'. I don't think they did at the Personhood 'debate'.

3 Sionainn  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 11:21:47am

I'm so glad that this administration is actually concerned about the welfare of women in this country, something that certainly wouldn't occur under a GOP administration, as all the candidates have so loudly and proudly proclaimed.

4 Charles Johnson  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 11:24:31am

Social conservatives are essentially arguing that their religious faith compels them to dictate the behavior of everyone in America whether they're followers of the same faith or not. And if you say "wait just a danged minute," they weep about their rights being violated.

It's just sick.

5 Sinistershade  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 11:25:01am

Reason number 458 that a system that ties health insurance to employment is a bad idea.

6 makeitstop  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 11:25:44am

First the Keystone pipeline, now this.

You think Obama is just trolling conservatives at this point?

7 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 11:29:04am

re: #4 Charles

It's just sick.

A severe mental disorder, clearly.

8 Sinistershade  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 11:30:28am

re: #7 Slumbering Behemoth

A severe mental disorder, clearly.

But probably not covered by their insurance.

9 aagcobb  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 11:30:32am

re: #5 Sinistershade

Reason number 458 that a system that ties health insurance to employment is a bad idea.

If the religious hospitals and universities decide not to offer health insurance, the exchanges will ensure the employees can get insurance anyway, which is good.

10 calochortus  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 11:34:43am

I don't suppose any of these folks have noticed that Quakers don't get to deduct the cost of the military from their taxes. Sometimes people have to support things they don't like.

11 andres  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 11:35:28am

re: #6 makeitstop

First the Keystone pipeline, now this.

You think Obama is just trolling conservatives at this point?

It's the best way to make them look like frothing, babbling idiots.

12 Sinistershade  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 11:36:19am

re: #9 aagcobb

If the religious hospitals and universities decide not to offer health insurance, the exchanges will ensure the employees can get insurance anyway, which is good.

Absolutely a good thing, though I worry about how expensive individually purchased policies, even those purchased through an exchange, will be. My comment was directed more generally to all the problems brought about by our approach of expecting employment to be the main source of health insurance.

13 calochortus  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 11:37:37am

re: #12 Sinistershade

Absolutely a good thing, though I worry about how expensive individually purchased policies, even those purchased through an exchange, will be. My comment was directed more generally to all the problems brought about by our approach of expecting employment to be the main source of health insurance.

Quoting because I can only upding once.

14 simoom  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 11:41:40am

More on the ACA's expanded preventive healthcare services for women:
[Link: www.healthcare.gov...]

Additional women’s preventive services that will be covered without cost sharing requirements include:

Well-woman visits: This would include an annual well-woman preventive care visit for adult women to obtain the recommended preventive services, and additional visits if women and their providers determine they are necessary. These visits will help women and their doctors determine what preventive services are appropriate, and set up a plan to help women get the care they need to be healthy.

Gestational diabetes screening: This screening is for women 24 to 28 weeks pregnant, and those at high risk of developing gestational diabetes. It will help improve the health of mothers and babies because women who have gestational diabetes have an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the future. In addition, the children of women with gestational diabetes are at significantly increased risk of being overweight and insulin-resistant throughout childhood.

HPV DNA testing: Women who are 30 or older will have access to high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing every three years, regardless of pap smear results. Early screening, detection, and treatment have been shown to help reduce the prevalence of cervical cancer.

STI counseling, and HIV screening and counseling: Sexually-active women will have access to annual counseling on HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). These sessions have been shown to reduce risky behavior in patients, yet only 28% of women aged 18 to 44 years reported that they had discussed STIs with a doctor or nurse. In addition, women are at increased risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. From 1999 to 2003, the CDC reported a 15% increase in AIDS cases among women, and a 1% increase among men.

Contraception and contraceptive counseling: Women will have access to all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling. These recommendations do not include abortifacient drugs. Most workers in employer-sponsored plans are currently covered for contraceptives. Family planning services are an essential preventive service for women and critical to appropriately spacing and ensuring intended pregnancies, which results in improved maternal health and better birth outcomes.

Breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling: Pregnant and postpartum women will have access to comprehensive lactation support and counseling from trained providers, as well as breastfeeding equipment. Breastfeeding is one of the most effective preventive measures mothers can take to protect their children’s and their own health. One of the barriers for breastfeeding is the cost of purchasing or renting breast pumps and nursing related supplies.

Domestic violence screening: Screening and counseling for interpersonal and domestic violence should be provided for all women. An estimated 25% of women in the U.S. report being targets of intimate partner violence during their lifetimes. Screening is effective in the early detection and effectiveness of interventions to increase the safety of abused women.

15 aagcobb  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 11:43:06am

re: #12 Sinistershade

Absolutely a good thing, though I worry about how expensive individually purchased policies, even those purchased through an exchange, will be. My comment was directed more generally to all the problems brought about by our approach of expecting employment to be the main source of health insurance.

I expect that over time that will change, and the exchanges may become the primary source of health insurance.

16 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 11:43:37am

re: #14 simoom

Only liberals need that stuff. How dare Obama over-reach his authority like that.
/

17 aagcobb  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 11:44:45am

re: #16 Slumbering Behemoth

Only liberals need that stuff. How dare Obama over-reach his authority like that.
/

I bet the policies will cover Gardasil vaccines so that those libruls can turn our girls into retarded sluts./

18 simoom  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 11:44:57am

re: #14 simoom

Also the more general list of preventive healthcare services covered under the ACA (for men, women & children):

[Link: www.healthcare.gov...]

19 Ming  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 11:47:41am

But, but, but... if health-care routinely covers contraceptives, there will be fewer abortions for me and my friends to protest about!

20 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 11:52:24am

The safety features in my car (seatbelts, airbags, etc.) will only lead me to crash my car into stuff repeatedly and uncontrollably.

21 calochortus  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 11:53:17am

re: #15 aagcobb

I expect that over time that will change, and the exchanges may become the primary source of health insurance.

I hope you are right and the exchanges will be affordable, but I doubt it. Most people get their health insurance from their employer and have no idea what the total cost is. Not to mention the rate at which the cost goes up.

22 allegro  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 11:54:10am

I don't get how this is supposedly contrary to any religious faith. No one is commanding women to use birth control or take advantage of any of the services this insurance will cover. Is it that a few pennies of their premiums might be used to contribute to a woman's choice to use birth control and get well woman exams? If so, cry me a fucking river. When my taxes stop funding their churches and recruitment programs maybe I'll care (not really).

23 Sinistershade  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 11:54:56am

re: #15 aagcobb

I expect that over time that will change, and the exchanges may become the primary source of health insurance.

I am perplexed that the American business community isn't screaming for a single-payer system, so they can get out of the health insurance business. At every company I've ever worked for, the health insurance plan has been a massive, bureaucratic nightmare with annual renegotiations and plan changes to be managed and communicated. Imagine how it would streamline the American economy if no company had to manage health benefits. It would accomplish a thousand times as much good for business as a dozen SOPAs and PIPAs. Where's the Chamber of Commerce on this one?

I'm off to a capitalist business meeting now. Like the U.S., I'm a mixed economy.

24 Targetpractice  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 11:56:00am

re: #22 allegro

I don't get how this is supposedly contrary to any religious faith. No one is commanding women to use birth control or take advantage of any of the services this insurance will cover. Is it that a few pennies of their premiums might be used to contribute to a woman's choice to use birth control and get well woman exams? If so, cry me a fucking river. When my taxes stop funding their churches and recruitment programs maybe I'll care (not really).

Because there was no exemptions carved into the decision that allow religious businesses and organizations offering group health insurance to dictate that female members of the flock will be treated like second-class citizens. They have to (yegods!) choose to offer insurance that covers womanly needs or offer none at all.

25 CuriousLurker  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 11:56:18am

Heh, the #tcot tweets are flying by at an alarming pace; too fast to even read. I think I'll go set out a bucket to catch some of the salty socon tears. I hear that bathing in them is especially rejuvenating for liberals.

26 Targetpractice  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 11:57:45am

re: #23 Sinistershade

I am perplexed that the American business community isn't screaming for a single-payer system, so they can get out of the health insurance business. At every company I've ever worked for, the health insurance plan has been a massive, bureaucratic nightmare with annual renegotiations and plan changes to be managed and communicated. Imagine how it would streamline the American economy if no company had to manage health benefits. It would accomplish a thousand times as much good for business as a dozen SOPAs and PIPAs. Where's the Chamber of Commerce on this one?

I'm off to a capitalist business meeting now. Like the U.S., I'm a mixed economy.

Because the companies live in constant fear of taxes, such that they'd rather offer the illusion of health benefits to employees than accept a tax/fee that they know is not within their control and can be increased without their consent.

27 aagcobb  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 11:57:48am

re: #21 calochortus

I hope you are right and the exchanges will be affordable, but I doubt it. Most people get their health insurance from their employer and have no idea what the total cost is. Not to mention the rate at which the cost goes up.

But as I understand it, the ACA will provide subsidies for lower income families.

28 calochortus  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 11:58:58am

re: #23 Sinistershade

Some businesses (auto makers for example) have supported single payer, but I suspect keeping things as they are is a very high priority for the medical and insurance industries and a mid-level concern for other businesses. Guess who wins?

29 dragonfire1981  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 11:59:23am

The whole outrage over this is really fucking stupid. The right is trying to play it like Obama himself is forcing birth control into the hands of every woman in America against her wishes (which is dripping with hypocrisy by the way).

But that's not what this is at all.

It just means that for women who want it, it will be easier to get.

If you don't want to take contraceptives, then don't take them. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and saying "go on the pill or else!"

30 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 11:59:52am

I want less un-wanted pregnancies in America/the World.

If there were less un-wanted pregnancies, wouldn't there be fewer abortions?

I know I'm way out on a limb here...

31 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:00:33pm

re: #1 Slumbering Behemoth

Yes, because only liberals use contraceptives. Idiots.

The average conservative family has ten children!

No, wait, they don't.

Because most American families use birth control, regardless of their religious, political, or personal beliefs.

32 Feline Fearless Leader  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:01:01pm

re: #27 aagcobb

But as I understand it, the ACA will provide subsidies for lower income families.

Ah. The government supporting losers at our expense again.

33 allegro  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:01:28pm

re: #30 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I want less un-wanted pregnancies in America/the World.

If there were less un-wanted pregnancies, wouldn't there be fewer abortions?

I know I'm way out on a limb here...

Thus uncovering the true agenda which has nothing to do with teh baybeees and everything to do with a patriarchal culture in control of women.

34 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:01:29pm

re: #29 dragonfire1981

Nobody is putting a gun to your head and saying "go on the pill or else!"

I can think of a few people I'd like to do that with.
/

35 simoom  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:01:55pm

Sarah Posner at Religion Dispatches:

[Link: www.religiondispatches.org...]

Churches and other houses of worship have always been exempt from the requirement. But the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had pressured the Obama administration to expand that exemption to other religious institutions, including hospitals and universities, arguing that the rule infringed on their religious freedom. The pressure from the Bishops infuriated Democrats, but is one piece of a stepped-up campaign to portray public policy they view as being at odds with Vatican teaching on sex, gender, and reproductive issues as an infringement of religious liberty. Just yesterday, Pope Benedict told a gathering of Bishops that "radical secularism" poses a "grave threat" to religious freedom in the U.S.

...

As I reported in a piece earlier this month, these efforts to frame health policy, as well as laws granting equality to LGBT people, as infringements of religious liberty, will be central to the religious right agenda in 2012.

UPDATE: The Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty, which, as I reported in my long religious freedom piece, represents both a Catholic college and an evangelical university in challenging the rule, has issued a statement (tellingly calling the rule an "abortion drug mandate") claiming that the rule will not withstand constitutional scrutiny. As other observers have noted, opponents of the contraception mandate have claimed that the Supreme Court's recent decision in EEOC v. Hosanna-Tabor, which recognized a "ministerial exception" that prevents churches from being by "ministerial" employees under federal employment discrimination laws. The Beckett Fund makes this argument in its statement, but legal observers have noted the narrow holding in that case. The opponents of the Obama administration decision like the Beckett Fund does in its statement, will attempt to make the Hosanna-Tabor into a broad statement against government interference in church affairs in an attempt to bolster their claims against the contraception mandate.

36 calochortus  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:02:05pm

re: #27 aagcobb

But as I understand it, the ACA will provide subsidies for lower income families.

It's the middle income that has the biggest problem. How many families can afford the $10,000- $12,000 or so it costs to buy meaningful insurance for a family of 4?

37 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:02:37pm

re: #25 CuriousLurker

NOOO!!!

38 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:02:43pm

re: #2 wrenchwench

I wonder how many times Dr. Paul prescribed contraceptives when he was practicing. I wonder whether he will ever be asked about it at a 'debate'. I don't think they did at the Personhood 'debate'.

All of his patients paid for their pills! In chickens if necessary!

"Give the doctor a chicken, so you don't have to choke your own (chicken)."

39 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:03:02pm

re: #31 SanFranciscoZionist

The average conservative family has ten children.

I think the Duggers are terrible narcissists. They're free to have fifty children, but... they're narcissists.

40 CuriousLurker  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:03:39pm

re: #37 Slumbering Behemoth


NOOO!!!

Hahahaha!

41 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:04:22pm

re: #38 SanFranciscoZionist

I always think it's funnier when a woman makes a "choke the chicken" joke.

42 calochortus  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:05:20pm

re: #39 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I think the Duggers are terrible narcissists. They're free to have fifty children, but... they're narcissists.

No, no, no. God told them to keep having kids. You can tell because they do have all those kids. Oddly, God also apparently tells them to go to the doctor when they are sick, thus thwarting His plans for their future.

43 Targetpractice  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:05:43pm

re: #29 dragonfire1981

The whole outrage over this is really fucking stupid. The right is trying to play it like Obama himself is forcing birth control into the hands of every woman in America against her wishes (which is dripping with hypocrisy by the way).

But that's not what this is at all.

It just means that for women who want it, it will be easier to get.

If you don't want to take contraceptives, then don't take them. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and saying "go on the pill or else!"

The Socons think that the very idea that women have easy access to contraceptives is terrible. They'd rather outlaw them entirely, but would settle for locking them behind several doctor prescriptions and bank vaults. Rather next to the condoms.

44 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:07:28pm

re: #29 dragonfire1981

If you don't want to take contraceptives, then don't take them. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and saying "go on the pill or else!"

You don't get it. Women are weak of will, and as such are prone sin uncontrollably and make terrible mistakes. If you make contraceptives available to them in this way, they won't be able to stop themselves from taking them, and having sex with every man they meet. They may even have intercourse with minorities. Or Muslims!
/

45 Olsonist  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:08:39pm

It's rare that I agree with the Republicans on something but I do on this one:

This ruling forces religious organizations to violate the fundamental tenets of their faith, or stop offering health insurance coverage to their employees.

But then the alternative is worse, allowing a secular government to violate the rights of citizens. I'll side with the citizens. Now the Churches can choose between their prejudices beliefs and their flocks.

46 mikec6666  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:09:09pm

Actually the election year politics is forcing the administration to do the right thing. I like it.

47 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:10:23pm

re: #39 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I think the Duggers are terrible narcissists. They're free to have fifty children, but... they're narcissists.

That's pretty much my take.

48 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:10:33pm

re: #37 Slumbering Behemoth


NOOO!!!

That was ... disturbing. (Haven't seen.)

49 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:12:44pm

re: #48 Sergey Romanov

That was ... disturbing. (Haven't seen.)

What?!? That was from "Time Bandits", man. It's like I don't even know you anymore.

50 Feline Fearless Leader  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:13:31pm

OT: Feline Overlord bounty in Houston placed

[Link: www.huffingtonpost.com...]

Some archer is in for a world of hurt once the FO find out their identity. They should hope the police, ASPCA, and human authorities find them first.

51 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:14:29pm

re: #49 Slumbering Behemoth

What?!? That was from "Time Bandits", man. It's like I don't even know you anymore.

I know where it is from. I looked up at wiki.

52 Feline Fearless Leader  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:14:54pm

re: #45 Olsonist

It's rare that I agree with the Republicans on something but I do on this one:


But then the alternative is worse, allowing a secular government to violate the rights of citizens. I'll side with the citizens. Now the Churches can choose between prejudices beliefs and their flocks.

Another reason to go to government run single payer plan.

53 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:15:19pm

I once posted them, but these punk feminists continue to riot! :)

Yesterday (or today, depending on where you are), the Red Square:

Youtube Video
54 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:17:46pm

re: #53 Sergey Romanov

(Just to be sure - an anti-regime/anti-Putin song.)

55 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:20:01pm

re: #53 Sergey Romanov

You're coming close to the end of the internet. Soon, you'll have to turn around and head back towards the start.

56 Varek Raith  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:20:09pm

re: #53 Sergey Romanov

I once posted them, but these punk feminists continue to riot! :)

Yesterday (or today, depending on where you are), the Red Square:

[Video]

Heh, awesome.

57 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:23:14pm

re: #56 Varek Raith

Heh, awesome.

Glad you liked. Earlier, boutiques and catwalks:

Youtube Video

"Pizdets* to sexists, fucking Putinists."

---

*A hard-to-translate vulgarity, something between "fuck" and "the end".

58 CuriousLurker  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:25:06pm

re: #57 Sergey Romanov

*A hard-to-translate vulgarity, something between "fuck" and "the end".

You mean "the end" sort of like in FOAD?

59 Varek Raith  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:27:50pm

Fox's Dr. Keith Ablow: "Gingrich's Three Marriages Mean He Might Make A Strong President"

Just like the Death Star makes my coffee taste better.

60 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:28:30pm

OT: Sh*t Nobody Says.

Youtube Video
61 Feline Fearless Leader  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:28:56pm

re: #59 Varek Raith

Fox's Dr. Keith Ablow: "Gingrich's Three Marriages Mean He Might Make A Strong President"

Just like the Death Star makes my coffee taste better.

"That's not a moon. It's a perculator!"

62 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:29:44pm

re: #58 CuriousLurker

You mean "the end" sort of like in FOAD?

Something like that. "A very bad thing".

63 Varek Raith  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:29:50pm

re: #60 Slumbering Behemoth

OT: Sh*t Nobody Says.

[Video]

PAPYRUS FONT IS TEH BOMB.

64 Targetpractice  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:29:53pm

re: #59 Varek Raith

Fox's Dr. Keith Ablow: "Gingrich's Three Marriages Mean He Might Make A Strong President"

Just like the Death Star makes my coffee taste better.

So, because Newt's managed to con two other women with his bullshit and wealth, we're supposed to believe him good presidential material?

Didn't the Right hate Clinton with a passion for all the same reasons?

65 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:30:14pm

re: #59 Varek Raith

Fox's Dr. Keith Ablow: "Gingrich's Three Marriages Mean He Might Make A Strong President"

Just like the Death Star makes my coffee taste better.

Thank you Oprah Winfrey for bringing us Dr. Ablow. We are in your debt.
/

66 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:30:26pm

They're trust-fund Marxists! Mace them!11

67 Kragar  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:32:54pm

re: #59 Varek Raith

Fox's Dr. Keith Ablow: "Gingrich's Three Marriages Mean He Might Make A Strong President"

Just like the Death Star makes my coffee taste better.

I see a flaw in his logic:

1) Three women have met Mr. Gingrich and been so moved by his emotional energy and intellect that they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with him.

How did that work out for the first two wives?

68 Sionainn  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:33:23pm

re: #59 Varek Raith

Fox's Dr. Keith Ablow: "Gingrich's Three Marriages Mean He Might Make A Strong President"

Wow! What a load of misogynistic crapola.

69 calochortus  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:34:33pm

re: #59 Varek Raith

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. Oh wait... he's serious?

70 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:35:35pm

MONGO HAS MUCH MOJO
MONGO STRONG

71 Obdicut  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:35:54pm

re: #30 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

re: #68 Sionainn

A guy distributing some free newspaper was using this hawking cry:

"Pimp-daddy newt tried to eat a cake while sniffing at a pie. Read about how he pulled it off!"

72 calochortus  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:36:13pm

re: #67 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I see a flaw in his logic:

1) Three women have met Mr. Gingrich and been so moved by his emotional energy and intellect line of credit at Tiffany that they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with him.

Fixed

73 wrenchwench  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:37:09pm

re: #59 Varek Raith

Fox's Dr. Keith Ablow: "Gingrich's Three Marriages Mean He Might Make A Strong President"

Just like the Death Star makes my coffee taste better.

From your link:

We would need to worry that another nation, perhaps a little younger than ours, would be so taken by Mr. Gingrich that it would seduce him into marrying it and becoming its president.

He'll dump us for Mexico!

74 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:37:48pm

re: #67 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I see a flaw in his logic:

1) Three women have met Mr. Gingrich and been so moved by his emotional energy and intellect that they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with him.

How did that work out for the first two wives?

This. Being a charismatic and capable manipulator makes you a good campaigner. It doesn't mean you're capable of holding the position that you're running for, and it doesn't mean that you won't screw over everyone whose trust you have gained the second it's expedient for you to do so. And in Newt's case, we have evidence on both those fronts.

And frankly, Newt is not all that good on the campaign trail. He's gifted, yes, but not on a scale with Reagan or Clinton, both of whom were capable of luring voters away from their traditional parties. Democrats won't go for Newt.

75 bratwurst  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:38:27pm

re: #59 Varek Raith

Fox's Dr. Keith Ablow: "Gingrich's Three Marriages Mean He Might Make A Strong President"

Just like the Death Star makes my coffee taste better.

This is the same guy who warned parents against letting their children watch Chas Bono on Dancing With the Stars!

76 Feline Fearless Leader  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:39:55pm

re: #67 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I see a flaw in his logic:

1) Three women have met Mr. Gingrich and been so moved by his emotional energy and intellect that they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with him.

How did that work out for the first two wives?

They were flawed and not patriotic and obedient enough. Not to mention greedy and jealous in not being willing to share him with other women despite what some wedding vows may have said.
//

77 Varek Raith  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:39:58pm

re: #75 bratwurst

This is the same guy who warned parents against letting their children watch Chas Bono on Dancing With the Stars!

Ducks go quack!

78 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:40:39pm

re: #66 Sergey Romanov

I dunno. What with the insane amount of toxic fire extinguisher dust those geniuses are dousing themselves with, I doubt mace would have any impact.

79 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:40:56pm

re: #75 bratwurst

This is the same guy who warned parents against letting their children watch Chas Bono on Dancing With the Stars!

Selective morality.

80 Kragar  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:41:03pm

re: #76 oaktree

They were flawed and not patriotic and obedient enough. Not to mention greedy and jealous in not being willing to share him with other women despite what some wedding vows may have said.
//

"We all need to make sacrifices, and by we, I mean you."

81 RadicalModerate  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:41:58pm

re: #67 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I see a flaw in his logic:

1) Three women have met Mr. Gingrich and been so moved by his emotional energy and intellect that they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with him.

How did that work out for the first two wives?

And if you apply that logic on a consistent basis, then individuals like Charles Manson, Rev. Jim Jones, and Rulon Jeffs all would be PERFECT candidates for the presidency.

82 Charles Johnson  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:42:28pm

re: #59 Varek Raith

Fox's Dr. Keith Ablow: "Gingrich's Three Marriages Mean He Might Make A Strong President"

Just like the Death Star makes my coffee taste better.

OK, that one made me laugh out loud.

1) Three women have met Mr. Gingrich and been so moved by his emotional energy and intellect that they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with him.

Snort. Yeah, the power and the money had nothing to do with it. It was Newt's superhuman grandiosity.

83 Targetpractice  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:42:29pm

re: #80 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

"We all need to make sacrifices, and by we, I mean you."

"Either you need to share me with other women or you need to get packing, because either way, this is happening."

84 engineer cat  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:42:32pm

re: #7 Slumbering Behemoth

A severe mental disorder, clearly.

i'd like to contribute my diagnosis

Important Medical Information
the next version of the DSM will include a description of Stupid Personality Disorder:

Stupid Personality Disorder (SPD) is a personality disorder defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the diagnostic classification system used in the United States, as “a pervasive pattern of idiocy, a marked susceptibility to ridiculous theories and meaningless slogans, need to issue fascist diktat, and a lack of information gathering ability [1], beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. Lack of ability to gather, digest, and understand easily available information.
2. Intense attachment to pet theories, and a obsessive preoccupation with them.
3. Rejection of any facts that contradict these pet theories, accompanied by intense anger, and denigration of the person bringing these facts to their attention.
4. Marked susceptibility to conspiracy theories, random bullshit dressed up with ten dollar words, and melodramatic but impotent threats.
5. Addiction to issuing orders in Command Voice.
6. Poore speling and CAPITAL LETTERS
7. Inability to admit that perhaps one might be mistaken in some small detail.
8. Black and white thinking, perfectionism, inability to put themselves in other people’s shoes.
9. Narcissistic personality disorder

[Link: jazzincunabula.blogspot.com...]

85 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:43:21pm

re: #80 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

"We all need to make sacrifices, and by we, I mean you."

A somewhat prominent left-wing intellectual for whom I worked for a time basically said exactly that to his secretary. She complained, politely, about his lack of regard for her feelings, personal time, and general human dignity, and he told her that his work was so important that sacrifices had to be made to make it possible for him to save humanity.

I suspect Newt is made of similar cloth.

86 simoom  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:43:27pm

Sheesh:
[Link: www.jta.org...]

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- The owner of the Atlanta Jewish Times apologized for an opinion column in which he counted President Obama's assassination as among Israel's options in heading off a nuclear Iran.

"I very much regret it, I wish I hadn't made reference to it at all," Andrew Adler told JTA on Friday.

He said he would publish an apology in his next edition, and that reaction from readers had been overwhelmingly negative.

In a Jan. 13 column, Adler, who is also the paper's publisher, outlined what he said were three possible responses by Israel to Iran's acquiring a nuclear weapon: A preemptive strike against Hamas and Hezbollah, terrorist groups that he said would be emboldened by a nuclear Iran; a direct strike on Iran; and "three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies."

He continued: "Yes you read 'three' correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel's existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don't you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel's most inner circles?"

[Link: gawker.com...]

When I asked Adler why, if he didn't advocate assassination and didn't believe Israel was actually considering it, he wrote a column saying he believed that the option was "on the table," he asked for a minute to compose himself and call me back. He did a few moments later, and said, "I wrote it to see what kind of reaction I was going to get from readers."

87 Feline Fearless Leader  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:43:32pm

re: #84 engineer dog

That condition calls for Akbar and Jeff's Rehabilitation Hut!

88 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:44:21pm

re: #84 engineer dog

I thought that was already defined as RCI*.

*Rectal-Cranial Inversion.

89 Olsonist  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:44:46pm

re: #74 SanFranciscoZionist

And frankly, Newt is not all that good on the campaign trail. He's gifted, yes, but not on a scale with Reagan or Clinton, both of whom were capable of luring voters away from their traditional parties. Democrats won't go for Newt.

Strongly disagree. Newt is a gifted campaigner and lousy at governance. In fact, campaigning is really all he ever does. Recall that he started as a backbencher (ok, everyone does) and then he organized and campaigned his way to a majority (with a bunch of Newt clones) and Speaker of the House. Not easy That was him. It wasn't Rush. He'd send out audiotapes of words he wanted them to use. Words, not quotes, words.

As a campaigner, he is fully equal on a national level with the Clintons and Reagans. No, he does not do this by winning over moderates. There's more than one way to win. Gingrich does it by stirring up the base.

Yes, he's a philandering hypocrite. But the Dems have infinitely more to fear from him than Romney.

As further evidence, we're still talking about him in January. He could win SC.

90 Kragar  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:45:05pm

re: #85 SanFranciscoZionist

A somewhat prominent left-wing intellectual for whom I worked for a time basically said exactly that to his secretary. She complained, politely, about his lack of regard for her feelings, personal time, and general human dignity, and he told her that his work was so important that sacrifices had to be made to make it possible for him to save humanity.

I suspect Newt is made of similar cloth.

I live secure in the knowledge that I would club him over the head for a crust of bread in the proper contextual circumstances without a moment of regret for the loss to humanity.

91 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:45:40pm

re: #86 simoom

Sheesh:
[Link: www.jta.org...]

[Link: gawker.com...]

Holy fucking...the ODS is getting seriously bad out there.

93 engineer cat  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:47:04pm

gallup jan 10-14

romney 37%
gingrich 13%

gallup 15-19

romney 30%
gingrich 20%

gingrich can't win the nomination, much less the election, but he can fatally damage mitt and the republican party

maybe i'll make a donation to his campaign bwahahahah

94 wrenchwench  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:47:08pm

re: #85 SanFranciscoZionist

A somewhat prominent left-wing intellectual for whom I worked for a time basically said exactly that to his secretary. She complained, politely, about his lack of regard for her feelings, personal time, and general human dignity, and he told her that his work was so important that sacrifices had to be made to make it possible for him to save humanity.

I suspect Newt is made of similar cloth.

He wove the cloth!

95 calochortus  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:47:47pm

So Dr. Ablow thinks a polygamist would make excellent president? Does that give a traditional Muslim an edge?

96 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:48:01pm

re: #89 Olsonist

Strongly disagree. Newt is a gifted campaigner and lousy at governance. In fact, campaigning is really all he ever does. Recall that he started as a backbencher (ok, everyone does) and then he organized and campaigned his way to a majority (with a bunch of Newt clones) and Speaker of the House. Not easy That was him. It wasn't Rush. He'd send out audiotapes of words he wanted them to use. Words, not quotes, words.

As a campaigner, he is fully equal on a national level with the Clinton and Reagan. No, he does not do this by winning over moderates. There's more than one way to win. Gingrich does it by stirring up the base.

Yes, he's a philandering hypocrite. But the Dems have infinitely more to fear from him than Romney.

He's a hell of a campaign fighter, but I don't count stirring up the base as much of an achievement in this cycle, when the base came pre-stirred.

We'll see.

97 engineer cat  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:48:04pm

re: #88 Slumbering Behemoth

I thought that was already defined as RCI*.

*Rectal-Cranial Inversion.

heh

98 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:48:37pm

re: #86 simoom

He did a few moments later, and said, "I wrote it to see what kind of reaction I was going to get from readers."

99 Targetpractice  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:49:07pm

GOP Wars Part V: Mittens Strikes Back -

Romney Calls On Gingrich To Release Ethics Report

Seeking to turn the tables on an opponent who has demanded to see his tax returns, Mitt Romney called on Newt Gingrich to release of the congressional ethics report that helped force the former speaker out of office in the 1990s.

Former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu, who has endorsed Romney and often speaks for him as campaign surrogate, made a similar statement on a conference call with reporters yesterday, saying the ethics records were a “very important piece of opaque material” that could hurt Gingrich in November if he won the nomination.

100 engineer cat  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:49:18pm

re: #94 wrenchwench

He wove the cloth!

i though newt invented the whole idea of clothing, as well as the tensile properties of fibers!

101 wrenchwench  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:50:06pm

re: #100 engineer dog

i though newt invented the whole idea of clothing, as well as the tensile properties of fibers!

That's just a fig leaf.

102 Feline Fearless Leader  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:50:34pm

re: #92 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Newt Gingrich’s Tax Plan Gives Newt Gingrich A $540,000 Tax Break

So,

Assuming the accuracy of the following:

1. Newt and wife make about $3M a year.
2. Newt pays ~30% annually in taxes.
Calculation: 900K a year.

3. Newt gets 500K cut. (rounding)
Calculation: 900K -> 400K. 400K / 3000 K = ~14% tax rate.

So he's just bringing his rate into line with Romney's?

Nothing wrong with that, right?

103 albusteve  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:51:12pm

Newt's got legs, that's for sure

104 Targetpractice  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:51:31pm

re: #101 wrenchwench

That's just a fig leaf.

That's just because only smart people can see Newt's new robes. Truly, they are of such quality and splendor that I am brought to tears by their majesty.

///

105 Kragar  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:51:36pm

re: #102 oaktree

So,

Assuming the accuracy of the following:

1. Newt and wife make about $3M a year.
2. Newt pays ~30% annually in taxes.
Calculation: 900K a year.

3. Newt gets 500K cut. (rounding)
Calculation: 900K -> 400K. 400K / 3000 K = ~14% tax rate.

So he's just bringing his rate into line with Romney's?

Nothing wrong with that, right?

But Rush was saying how Newt wasn't rich.

106 Olsonist  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:51:38pm

re: #96 SanFranciscoZionist

He's a hell of a campaign fighter, but I don't count stirring up the base as much of an achievement in this cycle, when the base came pre-stirred.

We'll see.

Romney has been pissing off that pre-stirred base. Look again at that Gingrich face and you'll see one evil fuck. And that's what the Republican base wants. One evil fuck.

107 Feline Fearless Leader  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:51:45pm

re: #103 albusteve

Newt's got legs, that's for sure

Of course, if you cut them off they eventually grow back.

108 Eventual Carrion  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:53:18pm

re: #75 bratwurst

This is the same guy who warned parents against letting their children watch Chas Bono on Dancing With the Stars!

Q: What do you call a person that just barely passed in medical school?


A: Doctor

109 Obdicut  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:53:54pm

re: #86 simoom

All this sort of shit acts as a smear on Israel too. Thinking they'd ever be fucking stupid enough to assassinate a US president-- leaving all morality aside, it'd be the most asinine decision ever taken by a nation since we figured out inbreeding was creating nobles without jaws.

110 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:55:19pm

re: #109 Obdicut

I may dislike right-wingers, but I don't believe the current people in charge of Israel had such an idea even for a second. Apparently Mr. Adler thinks much worse of them.

111 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:55:22pm

re: #95 calochortus

So Dr. Ablow thinks a polygamist would make excellent president? Does that give a traditional Muslim an edge?

Or...maybe it's time for Romney to go FLDS. I bet they'd hook him up with a dozen lovely ladies in no time flat, out of pure gratitude for the exposure.

///However, polygamy does not shield politicians from scandal. The president of South Africa was in quite a lot of trouble over an affair some years ago, and he'd already got four wives. My mother wanted to know if all of them attended the traditional press conference thing where the wife appears looking all respectable and holding her husband's hand as they wait to speak.

///Of course, I know exactly one traditional Muslim who's got more than one wife, and he has because his first wife doesn't want a divorce, and wouldn't leave Libya when he got kicked out. I wonder what they're doing now. Hope everyone is OK.

112 Kragar  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:55:26pm

re: #108 RayFerd

Q: What do you call a person that just barely passed in medical school?

A: Doctor

Marine version: What do you call the guy who came in last in his class at OCS?

Sir.

113 calochortus  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:55:35pm

I see the good Dr. Ablow thinks we need to abolish marriage as we know it-removing the state from any involvement. I'm sure that will go over big.

114 ProMayaLiberal  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:55:40pm

re: #91 SanFranciscoZionist

Why I am de-facto neutral on the lands south of the Litani, and West of the Jordan.

115 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:56:15pm

re: #98 Slumbering Behemoth

Well, I guess now he knows.

Next project: peeing in the kitchen sink, to see what his wife does.

116 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:57:52pm

re: #106 Olsonist

Romney has been pissing off that pre-stirred base. Look again at that Gingrich face and you'll see one evil fuck. And that's what the Republican base wants. One evil fuck.

My money is still on the Mitt.

But I have no doubt about Gingrich's evil, his manipulative abilities, or, for that matter, his in-depth knowledge of how to run a campaign. I just think he needs all of those to make up for a geniune charisma he really hasn't got.

117 leftynyc  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:57:55pm

re: #96 SanFranciscoZionist

I'm curious why you think he's good at campaigning. He's only had to run in one congressional deep red district.

118 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 12:59:12pm

re: #110 Sergey Romanov

I may dislike right-wingers, but I don't believe the current people in charge of Israel had such an idea even for a second. Apparently Mr. Adler thinks much worse of them.

It's a fantasy, based on the idea that the Israelis are MUCH more frightened of Obama than they actually show any signs of being.

119 Four More Tears  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:00:00pm

What I've learned from this thread : John Edwards = GOP hero.

120 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:00:33pm

re: #119 JasonA

What I've learned from this thread : John Edwards = GOP hero.

He also procreated. No homo! //

121 engineer cat  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:00:54pm

re: #117 leftynyc

I'm curious why you think he's good at campaigning. He's only had to run in one congressional deep red district.

he's a world class stirrer up of morons and racists

122 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:00:59pm

re: #117 leftynyc

I'm curious why you think he's good at campaigning. He's only had to run in one congressional deep red district.

I'm counting his in-office organizing of other Republicans during the Age of Newt, I suppose, but that's a good point. He really doesn't have that much experience doing this sort of thing as a primary.

123 Targetpractice  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:01:02pm

re: #119 JasonA

What I've learned from this thread : John Edwards = GOP hero.

Nah, they still revile Edwards because he didn't have the sense of mind to ask his wife for an "open marriage" before word got out about the cheating.

124 Petero1818  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:01:22pm

re: #110 Sergey Romanov

I may dislike right-wingers, but I don't believe the current people in charge of Israel had such an idea even for a second. Apparently Mr. Adler thinks much worse of them.

I guarantee it has never come up among any serious people. It is utter nonsense. Obama is more popular in Israel than he is in the US. Furthermore, in every measurable way, Obama has been consistent with the last 3 American administrations on Israel. Obama speaks to the Arab world with more respect, but he treats Israel the same as America has always treated Israel (subject to an obvious personal dislike between Obama and Netanyahu - and can you blame Obama for that? Bibi is a complete asshole).

125 Kragar  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:01:48pm

Romney Support ‘Collapsing’ Nationally

Gallup’s tracking poll of the national Republican race released today shows that Romney has dropped seven points in six days, with Gingrich having risen seven over the same time, clipping Romney’s lead to ten, 30 - 20.

Gallup’s Editor-in-chief Frank Newport appeared on MSNBC to discuss the results, describing the Romney trends as a “collapse.”

126 calochortus  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:02:52pm

re: #116 SanFranciscoZionist

I agree. I think the cheers for his aggressive answers in the debate are more related to the self selected audience-the same basic group who cheers executions and people with no insurance dying-than to the general appeal of his campaign. I don't think he will play that well with independents.

127 Obdicut  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:03:28pm

re: #125 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Wow. That's unexpected.

128 Feline Fearless Leader  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:03:52pm

re: #125 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Romney Support ‘Collapsing’ Nationally

Isn't this the second or third go round of the media trying to drive the narrative and keep the GOP race "exciting"?

129 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:04:16pm

Happiness: A friday afternoon with a lunch consisting of two natural casing hot dogs, wood grilled with spicy mustard, sauerkraut, onions and celery salt and a side of homemade potato chips.

130 Four More Tears  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:04:28pm

re: #127 Obdicut

Wow. That's unexpected.

This party has no idea what it wants.

131 Kragar  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:05:26pm

re: #127 Obdicut

Wow. That's unexpected.

I think that Newt is the stripper the bride hooks up with the weekend before heading to the altar to marry Mitt.

132 Varek Raith  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:05:58pm

re: #98 Slumbering Behemoth

He did a few moments later, and said, "I wrote it to see what kind of reaction I was going to get from readers."

Image: tumblr_li2tf1doDM1qi1jfeo1_500.gif

133 Targetpractice  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:07:41pm

re: #125 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Romney Support ‘Collapsing’ Nationally

I should bookmark that for when he does win the nomination, just to have a laugh at the "experts."

But seriously, running Newt "Callista lets me do whatever I want" Gingrich against Obama would be fucking hilarious.

134 RadicalModerate  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:07:51pm

re: #110 Sergey Romanov

I may dislike right-wingers, but I don't believe the current people in charge of Israel had such an idea even for a second. Apparently Mr. Adler thinks much worse of them.

Given some of the far-right factions that Netanyahu's coalition has had to align with (examples: Yisrael Beiteinu and National Unity parties), I don't know if I would go as far as saying they had never even entertained the idea.

135 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:07:56pm

re: #124 Petero1818

(subject to an obvious personal dislike between Obama and Netanyahu - and can you blame Obama for that? Bibi is a complete asshole).

One of my mom's coworkers went to high school with Yoni Netanyahu. She says Bibi was a pain in the ass back then, too, following them everywhere and wanting to do stuff with the big kids.

Then, of course, Yoni died...I think Bibi has been the obnoxious little brother keeping up with the bigger kids all his life.

136 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:09:33pm

re: #134 RadicalModerate

Given some of the far-right factions that Netanyahu's coalition has had to align with (examples: Yisrael Beiteinu and National Unity parties), I don't know if I would go as far as saying they had never even entertained the idea.

YB are not my favorite people, to put it mildly, but I can't imagine that they're giving any thought to assassinating the POTUS either.

137 leftynyc  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:09:43pm

re: #122 SanFranciscoZionist

I'm counting his in-office organizing of other Republicans during the Age of Newt, I suppose, but that's a good point. He really doesn't have that much experience doing this sort of thing as a primary.

Exactly - and he has NO experience in trying to get independents on his side - only in stirring up resentment and hatred on the rightwing. His being the nominee would be a gift to the Democrats.

138 Wozza Matter?  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:10:01pm

re: #4 Charles

Social conservatives are essentially arguing that their religious faith compels them to dictate the behavior of everyone in America whether they're followers of the same faith or not. And if you say "wait just a danged minute," they weep about their rights being violated.

It's just sick.

They've made a frothing mess of the whole issue.

139 ProMayaLiberal  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:10:58pm

re: #136 SanFranciscoZionist

Let's not forget the history of Likud here.

140 Varek Raith  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:11:05pm

re: #86 simoom

He continued: "Yes you read 'three' correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel's existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don't you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel's most inner circles?"

That is the second dumbest thing I've read today.
Note to Adler; That would be an act of war. A war Israel would lose very quickly.
So stupid.

141 engineer cat  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:11:07pm

Romney Support ‘Collapsing’ Nationally

we didn't call it a 'romney boom' when his numbers went way up in january because we all thought that that was going to happen eventually, in the natural order of things

now it turns out that newt's hate speech tastes better to the wingnuts than anything else any candidate has to offer. however, i still refuse to believe that the republican party will allow newt to be nominated

the question right now is how much newt will damage mitt before he is flushed back down into his toilet

142 Targetpractice  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:11:45pm

re: #137 leftynyc

Exactly - and he has NO experience in trying to get independents on his side - only in stirring up resentment and hatred on the rightwing. His being the nominee would be a gift to the Democrats.

Let's be honest, at this point, any of the remaining candidates would be a gift. They lost their last at having a real run at the White House with Huntsman's departure. Now? They're left deciding just how badly they want to lose in November.

143 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:11:52pm

re: #139 ProLifeLiberal

Let's not forget the history of Likud here.

They've previously assassinated a U.S. president?

144 Wozza Matter?  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:11:57pm

re: #141 engineer dog

Romney Support ‘Collapsing’ Nationally

Santorum's would prolapse?

145 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:12:09pm

re: #134 RadicalModerate

Given some of the far-right factions that Netanyahu's coalition has had to align with (examples: Yisrael Beiteinu and National Unity parties), I don't know if I would go as far as saying they had never even entertained the idea.

If by "they" you don't mean clowns in Knesset but people in charge: no, I do not believe it and won't believe it for a second.

146 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:12:41pm

re: #143 SanFranciscoZionist

They've previously assassinated a U.S. president?

Kennedy!!!111! /frothy

147 Petero1818  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:12:48pm

re: #137 leftynyc

Exactly - and he has NO experience in trying to get independents on his side - only in stirring up resentment and hatred on the rightwing. His being the nominee would be a gift to the Democrats.

Its all lining up for Obama. One of two results. He gets Newt, which I agree is a gift because Newt has no appeal for independents or he gets a brutally weakened Romney after Newt et al hand over the template for how to attack him.

148 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:13:30pm

re: #145 Sergey Romanov

If by "they" you don't mean clowns in Knesset but people in charge: no, I do not believe it and won't believe it for a second.

Note: Anastassia Michaeli would probably love the chance to throw a glass of water on Obama. God willing, she will not be given the opportunity.

(I wonder how long THAT gets you suspended for? She got a month for throwing water on the Labor guy.)

149 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:14:29pm

re: #147 Petero1818

heads obama wins, tails they lose.

150 ProMayaLiberal  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:15:00pm

re: #143 SanFranciscoZionist

No, but they (or, more precisely, their predecessor group) are responsible for blowing up a hotel (King David Hotel Bombing) and slaughtering a town (Deir Yassin), among other actions. What's more, they still whitewash both events, so they haven't changed.

To me, the BJP in India, and Likud in Israel are roughly the same thing.

151 albusteve  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:15:15pm

Chuck Norris has endorsed Newt!...
who the fuck cares

152 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:15:20pm

re: #148 SanFranciscoZionist

(I wonder how long THAT gets you suspended for? She got a month for throwing water on the Labor guy.)

Which is a long time. Zoabi only got suspended for two weeks for going on the flotilla, but this was Michaeli's second offense assaulting another MK, so they're getting sick of her. Rivlin had apparently had it.

153 Petero1818  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:15:44pm

re: #143 SanFranciscoZionist

They've previously assassinated a U.S. president?

Have to admit I am puzzled on this too.

154 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:16:07pm

re: #150 ProLifeLiberal

Uh, times change.

155 albusteve  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:16:37pm

re: #154 Sergey Romanov

Uh, times change.

it's learning, don't disturb it

156 ProMayaLiberal  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:17:10pm

re: #154 Sergey Romanov

But they still claim various little excuses for both.

Maybe the facade has changed, but not the inner, rotten, putrid core.

157 Varek Raith  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:17:16pm

re: #148 SanFranciscoZionist

Note: Anastassia Michaeli would probably love the chance to throw a glass of water on Obama. God willing, she will not be given the opportunity.

(I wonder how long THAT gets you suspended for? She got a month for throwing water on the Labor guy.)

Likes throwing water?
Heh.

158 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:17:53pm

re: #156 ProLifeLiberal

But they still claim various little excuses for both.

Maybe the facade has changed, but not the inner, rotten, putrid core.

From this to "let's consider ..." is a big leap.

159 Obdicut  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:18:56pm

re: #145 Sergey Romanov

If by "they" you don't mean clowns in Knesset but people in charge: no, I do not believe it and won't believe it for a second.

The result of assassination a US president would be the US stomping you flat. You can't conspire to something like this and pull it off seamlessly.

Whatever you were, a group, a nation, an individual, whatever level the blame really fell to, whoever became vice president would have an obvious political mandate to just completely destroy you. And he wouldn't need you in any way whatsoever for continued support.

It's something no actual politician would ever think of.

160 ProMayaLiberal  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:19:07pm

re: #158 Sergey Romanov

Because of the history of the party, I will likely never trust Likud.

161 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:20:00pm

re: #160 ProLifeLiberal

Are we seriously debating that Likud members who are in charge have considered an assassination of a US President? Sorry, I'm dropping the subject.

162 ProMayaLiberal  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:21:48pm

re: #161 Sergey Romanov

No, I think I was coming from a different angle.

Pointing out that Likud there has been responsible for actual, literal terror attacks. Though they were certainly before me or my parents.

I was on a completely different train of thought from you guys.

163 CuriousLurker  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:22:07pm

re: #125 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Romney Support ‘Collapsing’ Nationally

Romney isn't particularly likeable or charismatic, but I can't see Gingrich being able to endure the stresses of another 10 months of campaigning without blowing it grandiosely and bringing the whole thing crashing down around the GOP. I don't think the (sane ones left) in the GOP can see it either.

The super PACs have plenty of money to spend, but I seriously doubt they want to spend millions, or possibly billions, on someone who's as unstable and unpredictable as Gingrich. We all saw how well Palin going rogue worked out for the GOP in '08.

164 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:22:36pm

re: #157 Varek Raith

Likes throwing water?
Heh.

The woman is insane.

165 Varek Raith  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:23:25pm

re: #164 SanFranciscoZionist

The woman is insane.

Yeah, I'm getting that distinct feeling the more I read about her.
Yikes.

166 ProMayaLiberal  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 1:25:03pm

re: #165 Varek Raith

Elaborate?

167 zora  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 2:06:49pm

re: #74 SanFranciscoZionist

This. Being a charismatic and capable manipulator makes you a good campaigner. It doesn't mean you're capable of holding the position that you're running for, and it doesn't mean that you won't screw over everyone whose trust you have gained the second it's expedient for you to do so. And in Newt's case, we have evidence on both those fronts.

And frankly, Newt is not all that good on the campaign trail. He's gifted, yes, but not on a scale with Reagan or Clinton, both of whom were capable of luring voters away from their traditional parties. Democrats won't go for Newt.

newt's so smart he's not going to be on the ballot in his state, va.

168 Romantic Heretic  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 2:33:22pm

Made the mistake of reading the comments over there. Must use brain bleach now. I'll be back in a while.

169 Amory Blaine  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 2:55:52pm

re: #129 Dreggas

Happiness: A friday afternoon with a lunch consisting of two natural casing hot dogs, wood grilled with spicy mustard, sauerkraut, onions and celery salt and a side of homemade potato chips.

Mmm. Love it when you get that casing "snap".

170 chunkymonkey  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 2:55:58pm

re: #4 Charles

Social conservatives are essentially arguing that their religious faith compels them to dictate the behavior of everyone in America whether they're followers of the same faith or not. And if you say "wait just a danged minute," they weep about their rights being violated.

It's just sick.

A little late to the party, but come one. FORCING health plans to cover birth control? You know, what if I don't need that covered? Why do I have to pay for it? My health care plan covers a lot of things I'll never use, why can the government compel my health "insurance" company to provide these things in my plan?

Just like the idiots whom you claim argue that their religious faith compels them to dictate the behavior of everyone in America, seems the liberals own form of faith compels them to dictate what things are covered in my health care plan. I'd really like the .gov to fuck off and mind their own business. I don't need them to protect me from the big boogeyman health insurance companies.

171 Amory Blaine  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 2:59:03pm

re: #170 chunkymonkey

What if you don't need it covered? Who gives a fuck all about you? Religious nut jobs have no right whether behind the counter or behind a desk to dictate health care. If religious organizations don't want to provide health care, then GTFO. Jesus isn't in the insurance game.

172 Obdicut  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 3:05:25pm

re: #170 chunkymonkey

That's not how insurance works. You're not just in the risk group of people who have similar illnesses/injuries, but a much broader risk group.

173 chunkymonkey  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 3:06:52pm

re: #171 Amory Blaine

What if you don't need it covered? Who gives a fuck all about you?

The problem is that I'm still paying for the freaking thing. When the particular item is required then they spread the cost to everyone. I don't need it, never will, why can I be compelled by the .gov to buy it? If the insurance companies want to include it, and then I can choose to buy that plan or search elsewhere for a plan that doesn't offer that feature and costs less, then that's just fine.

Religious nut jobs have no right whether behind the counter or behind a desk to dictate health care.

Agreed. But why does the .gov? Suppose the nightmare scenario became the reality and we got a supper wingnut for pres with big majorities in congress. By this precedent, they could force insurance providers to include pray-away-the-gay coverage in all their plans and nobody could do anything about it. Fuck that.

If religious organizations don't want to provide health care, then GTFO. Jesus isn't in the insurance game.

And if they do, the .gov can dictate what services and procedures the plan must cover? Why?

174 chunkymonkey  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 3:08:34pm

re: #172 Obdicut

That's not how insurance works. You're not just in the risk group of people who have similar illnesses/injuries, but a much broader risk group.

Er, well, that apparently was how insurance worked otherwise the .gov wouldn't have to compel health plans to cover birth control. In fact, most health care plans are about as far from actual insurance as you can get and still call the thing insurance with a straight face. When was the last time your car insurance covered an oil change?

175 Amory Blaine  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 3:11:57pm

re: #173 chunkymonkey

I think many things in health insurance should have no charge at all.

Like blood tests.
Prostate and breast exams.
Physicals.
Dietary advice.
Any and all preventative services.

Charging extra money for vital preventive service only serves greed. People who have to pay extra money for preventive services will not go to the doctor until it's too late.

176 allegro  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 3:12:56pm

re: #173 chunkymonkey

The problem is that I'm still paying for the freaking thing. When the particular item is required then they spread the cost to everyone. I don't need it, never will, why can I be compelled by the .gov to buy it? If the insurance companies want to include it, and then I can choose to buy that plan or search elsewhere for a plan that doesn't offer that feature and costs less, then that's just fine.

I don't need your viagra, prostate exams, or treatment for prostate cancer and never will. Why should I pay for the freaking things? Why should I be compelled to buy it?

177 chunkymonkey  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 3:13:47pm

re: #175 Amory Blaine

I think many things in health insurance should have no charge at all.

Like blood tests.
Prostate and breast exams.
Physicals.
Dietary advice.
Any and all preventative services.

Charging extra money for vital preventive service only serves greed. People who have to pay extra money for preventive services will not go to the doctor until it's too late.

That's a nice sentiment, but you need to couple this with the fact that none of the items listed are cost free. Where is the money supposed to come from to pay for those things?

178 Charles Johnson  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 3:18:00pm

re: #170 chunkymonkey

A little late to the party, but come one. FORCING health plans to cover birth control? You know, what if I don't need that covered? Why do I have to pay for it? My health care plan covers a lot of things I'll never use, why can the government compel my health "insurance" company to provide these things in my plan?

Yeah, sure, but why stop there? I've never needed a triple bypass operation, so why should I be forced to pay part of the cost of somebody else's triple bypass operation? I've never had gout, so why should I be forced to pay for somebody else's problem?

You do realize you're not making any sense, right?

179 Amory Blaine  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 3:18:01pm

re: #177 chunkymonkey

Insurance premiums. If you're in the health care business trying to get rich off the backs of paying members, you should have gotten into investment banking. Health care is not banking or real estate. You're supposed to be providing health care, not dividends for investors.

180 Obdicut  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 3:22:10pm

re: #174 chunkymonkey

Er, well, that apparently was how insurance worked otherwise the .gov wouldn't have to compel health plans to cover birth control.

No, this is just you not understanding health insurance. Of course, the fact we have private health insurance in the US-- which is a naturally broken market-- is confusing on its own.

Paying for birth control is also cheaper than paying for birth, so, by the way, you're an idiot to oppose this on monetary grounds anyway.

181 chunkymonkey  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 3:24:15pm

re: #178 Charles

Yeah, sure, but why stop there? I've never needed a triple bypass operation, so why should I be forced to pay part of the cost of somebody else's triple bypass operation? I've never had gout, so why should I be forced to pay for somebody else's problem?

You do realize you're not making any sense, right?

In that case why not compel insurance company to pay for your groceries at the health food co-op. That's preventative, right?

I don't need health care coverage for maternity related issues because I don't have a uterus. I don't need coverage for birth control because I don't use birth control as I'm married, have kids, and have no chance of having any more. I DO NEED coverage for a triple bypass because I DO have a heart, which includes arteries, which may become clogged.

You'd better start making sense yourself before you accuse someone else of not making sense.

182 Obdicut  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 3:25:11pm

re: #181 chunkymonkey

Oh wow. So you really don't think you should have to pay for a plan that includes coverage for a birth? Woman should pay more for those plans?

183 chunkymonkey  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 3:26:41pm

re: #180 Obdicut

No, this is just you not understanding health insurance. Of course, the fact we have private health insurance in the US-- which is a naturally broken market-- is confusing on its own.

Paying for birth control is also cheaper than paying for birth, so, by the way, you're an idiot to oppose this on monetary grounds anyway.

Oh, I see, so health insurance isn't the same thing as insurance. Thanks for clearing that up.

In a sane world, private health insurance is the only health insurance. A public health care system might be awesome and all, but insurance it ain't. People should stop calling it that.

184 Obdicut  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 3:27:43pm

re: #183 chunkymonkey

Oh, I see, so health insurance isn't the same thing as insurance. Thanks for clearing that up.

No, you don't appear to know what insurance is, at all.

A public health care system might be awesome and all, but insurance it ain't. People should stop calling it that.

And you don't understand the difference between public health insurance (often called single-payer) and public health care.

185 allegro  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 3:30:02pm

re: #182 Obdicut

Oh wow. So you really don't think you should have to pay for a plan that includes coverage for a birth? Woman should pay more for those plans?

Women have been paying more for those plans all along. Did you think the policy costs for everyone were the same?

186 Obdicut  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 3:30:40pm

re: #185 allegro

Women have been paying more for those plans all along. Did you think the policy costs for everyone were the same?

Fuck. I'd assumed we lived in a world where that small piece of sanity existed.

That fucking sucks. How goddamn shortsighted can you be. Fucking ridiculous.

187 Amory Blaine  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 3:34:26pm

Things are so fucked up in this country that we are treating having health care as some kind of litmus test that we're more worthy than the people around us.

188 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 3:34:41pm

re: #173 chunkymonkey

The problem is that I'm still paying for the freaking thing. When the particular item is required then they spread the cost to everyone. I don't need it, never will, why can I be compelled by the .gov to buy it?

You're not an island.

Agreed. But why does the .gov? Suppose the nightmare scenario became the reality and we got a supper wingnut for pres with big majorities in congress. By this precedent, they could force insurance providers to include pray-away-the-gay coverage in all their plans and nobody could do anything about it. Fuck that.

Agreed. Don't vote for wingnuts.

189 allegro  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 3:35:51pm

re: #186 Obdicut

Fuck. I'd assumed we lived in a world where that small piece of sanity existed.

That fucking sucks. How goddamn shortsighted can you be. Fucking ridiculous.

I found out about this some years ago when my SIL was pricing health insurance plans for hers and my brother's small company. It cost them about 30% more (as I recall) to cover women employees than their male counterparts due to pregnancy, "female troubles" etc. My SIL told the guy she'd had a hysterectomy, did that mean she'd get a discount? The guy just laughed and laughed at her "joke." She was not joking.

190 Obdicut  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 3:38:51pm

re: #189 allegro

Seriously. Once you start getting into that area, well, you either get stuff where overweight people should be charged more, or people who genetically have a higher predisposition to disease. Neither one is a good place to be.

191 allegro  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 3:41:14pm

re: #190 Obdicut

Seriously. Once you start getting into that area, well, you either get stuff where overweight people should be charged more, or people who genetically have a higher predisposition to disease. Neither one is a good place to be.

That's always happened. Older people pay more. Smokers pay more. Overweight people probably pay more as well - that question is asked on the forms. Lie and get dropped when you make a claim regardless of the illness.

192 Amory Blaine  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 3:41:46pm

Yeah we are heading in that direction.

193 chunkymonkey  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 3:42:39pm

re: #190 Obdicut

Seriously. Once you start getting into that area, well, you either get stuff where overweight people should be charged more, or people who genetically have a higher predisposition to disease. Neither one is a good place to be.

Should overweight people not pay more?

194 allegro  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 3:44:43pm

re: #193 chunkymonkey

Should overweight people not pay more?

I think idiots with an IQ of less than 130 should pay more. Why should I pay for your stupidity?

///

195 Obdicut  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 3:47:51pm

re: #191 allegro

That's always happened. Older people pay more. Smokers pay more. Overweight people probably pay more as well - that question is asked on the forms. Lie and get dropped when you make a claim regardless of the illness.

Oh, I've always gotten insurance through employers, where my plan cost the same for me-- though probably not for the company. recently, I've paid for my own but it's also through a collective group-- the Freelancer's Union-- so I get just one price.

196 Obdicut  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 3:49:55pm

re: #193 chunkymonkey

Should overweight people not pay more?

No.

First of all, the math is impossible: Should the overweight person who doesn't drink and has no sex life pay more or less than the fit guy who occasionally binge-drinks and has lots of sexual partners?

Should gay guys pay more because AIDs is easier to catch if you're gay?

Second of all, it's simply a stark, great example of how fucking ludicrously stupid private insurance is. Charging more for plans that cover people that tend to be more unhealthy means you have a larger population of people you know will probably require medical attention who have no insurance.

197 Charles Johnson  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 5:31:32pm

re: #181 chunkymonkey

In that case why not compel insurance company to pay for your groceries at the health food co-op. That's preventative, right?

I don't need health care coverage for maternity related issues because I don't have a uterus. I don't need coverage for birth control because I don't use birth control as I'm married, have kids, and have no chance of having any more. I DO NEED coverage for a triple bypass because I DO have a heart, which includes arteries, which may become clogged.

You'd better start making sense yourself before you accuse someone else of not making sense.

Hilarious. So let's see if I understand your point - you'd like to be able to pick from a list of possible ailments that you might suffer in the future, and pay only for coverage of those ailments?

And you appear to have no idea how dopey this sounds. But don't let me stop you.

198 chunkymonkey  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 10:40:54pm

re: #197 Charles

Hilarious. So let's see if I understand your point - you'd like to be able to pick from a list of possible ailments that you might suffer in the future, and pay only for coverage of those ailments?

And you appear to have no idea how dopey this sounds. But don't let me stop you.

This whole kerfuffle started because you think that it's a great idea for the government to compel insurance companies to pay for contraceptives. Apparently the insurance companies didn't mind letting us pay for our own birth control in the past, and that was fine with me.

But hey, whatever floats your boat. You won't get mad when the next wingnut administration feels the need to make you pay for some other person's anti-gay conversion therapy, right?

For the record, since you brought it up, I don't remember suggesting that I could tick through a list of ailments that would be covered or not. On the other hand, there could be a list of ailments that could be pre-screened as not applicable to me because of gender, age, marital status, etc, and a list that may apply very closely because of higher risk activities in which I partake such as snowboarding and hunting. In the end, it'd be up to the insurance companies to decide how to offer their products based on consumer demand and profit maximization. Hard for a San Fran lefty to understand, I know, but do try.

However it's done, I don't feel the need for the .gov to compel my insurance company to cover ailments I will never suffer.

199 chunkymonkey  Fri, Jan 20, 2012 10:44:37pm

re: #196 Obdicut

First of all, the math is impossible: Should the overweight person who doesn't drink and has no sex life pay more or less than the fit guy who occasionally binge-drinks and has lots of sexual partners?

No. But they should probably both pay more than the fit guy who never binge drinks and has one sexual partner, hetero or not. Newt Gingrich should pay more for being an asshole.

Should gay guys pay more because AIDs is easier to catch if you're gay?

No, but promiscuous persons of any persuasion should pay a hell of a lot more because their lifestyles are exceedingly risky.

Second of all, it's simply a stark, great example of how fucking ludicrously stupid private insurance is. Charging more for plans that cover people that tend to be more unhealthy means you have a larger population of people you know will probably require medical attention who have no insurance.

Uh-huh. Who the hell are you that you think you are so fracking smart that you know what's best for everyone else? Nobody, that's who.

200 Obdicut  Sat, Jan 21, 2012 2:54:48am

re: #199 chunkymonkey

But they should probably both pay more than the fit guy who never binge drinks and has one sexual partner, hetero or not.

And how do you propose to find that information out? And what if that fit guy happens to also have a congenital heart valve disease? He should pay more than a healthy person, right?

No, but promiscuous persons of any persuasion should pay a hell of a lot more because their lifestyles are exceedingly risky.

Idiot, the simple mechanics of gay sex makes transmission of AIDs easier. A promiscuous straight man has a much lower chance of contracting AIDs than a serial-monogamist gay dude.

Uh-huh. Who the hell are you that you think you are so fracking smart that you know what's best for everyone else? Nobody, that's who.

Hah. Sorry, I don't know what to do with that little squeal. Rant on.

201 Obdicut  Sat, Jan 21, 2012 3:00:45am

re: #198 chunkymonkey

This whole kerfuffle started because you think that it's a great idea for the government to compel insurance companies to pay for contraceptives. Apparently the insurance companies didn't mind letting us pay for our own birth control in the past, and that was fine with me.

No, some companies covered them, some didn't.

But hey, whatever floats your boat. You won't get mad when the next wingnut administration feels the need to make you pay for some other person's anti-gay conversion therapy, right?

Of course I will. Anti-gay conversion therapy doesn't work. Contraceptives do.

You do know that, right?

On the other hand, there could be a list of ailments that could be pre-screened as not applicable to me because of gender, age, marital status, etc, and a list that may apply very closely because of higher risk activities in which I partake such as snowboarding and hunting.

I love that your vision of freedom is this nightmarish bureaucracy that somehow needs to know the details of your private life in order to charge you more money if you ride a bike. You'd have to buy new insurance every time you took up a new hobby. And people with congenital conditions or pre-existing ones would be-- as they were before health care reform-- just fucking screwed.

In the end, it'd be up to the insurance companies to decide how to offer their products based on consumer demand and profit maximization. Hard for a San Fran lefty to understand, I know, but do try.

I'm in New York now, thanks. And in San Francisco, I'm a conservative.

Capitalism is awesome because it spurs innovation and creative solutions, allows choice and competition. What benefit does private insurance provide customers that public insurance does not? What innovations have they come up with, in what way have they served their customers better?

202 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sat, Jan 21, 2012 3:03:29am

re: #198 chunkymonkey

But hey, whatever floats your boat. You won't get mad when the next wingnut administration feels the need to make you pay for some other person's anti-gay conversion therapy, right?

Why do you keep bringing this shit up? This pseudo-therapy is quack science, like homeopathy. If it can be compelled it's only either against the law or because the law is flawed in permitting non-medical, quack treatments.

203 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jan 21, 2012 8:22:35pm

re: #202 Sergey Romanov

Why do you keep bringing this shit up? This pseudo-therapy is quack science, like homeopathy. If it can be compelled it's only either against the law or because the law is flawed in permitting non-medical, quack treatments.

He keeps bringing up "anti-gay conversion therapy" because he can't help it. You're seeing the obsessions coming to the surface.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 weeks ago
Views: 444 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1