Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
#1 Even if true, it doesn't make it right. Mandatory and permanent birth control of selected people would certainly cover the cost too - and would be less wrong.
Posted by Glenmore 2012-03-02 07:28||
#2 Just think - in order for this to be true - Sebelius would have to force the use of contraception.
Sebelius responded, "Family planning is a critical health benefit in this country, according to the Institute of Medicine."
Keep in mind that to her - you of course cannot be trusted to make these decisions on your own - the government, or more likely some government buearucrat, would make that critical decision for you.
And if the term 'contraception mandate' doesn't give you the heebe-jeebies....
Posted by CrazyFool 2012-03-02 08:26||
#3 Even though utterly discredited, Paul R. Ehrlich and company's 'Population Bomb' theory still resonates with the left, with a simple concept:
"If everybody we hate died, the world would be a better place."
And this gets really inclusive. The infamous "scientific" speech by Dr. Eric Pianka in Texas, that was greeted with a standing ovation from his fellow "scientists", proposed that 90% of humanity should die.
He even suggested that this would optimally be done with a mutated form of ebola virus. Which shows not only that he is pro-genocide, but also that he has no clue about epidemiology.
Apologists for this speech use the really bizarre logic that since he didn't actually *call* for these "scientists" to develop this mutated form of ebola, it's okay.
One whistle blower, however, disagreed, and notified the FBI about Pianka's advocacy of "bioterrorism".
Posted by Anonymoose 2012-03-02 08:48||
#4 Violates the firts rule of actuary. You cannot increase utilization and lower costs.
Posted by Beavis 2012-03-02 10:20||
#5 At least not in our world Bevis -
Sebelius and Obama are on an entirely different world. Where raising taxes stimulates the economy and all sorts of bizarre things.
Posted by CrazyFool 2012-03-02 11:26||
#6 You talk about terror...
But then, this is a logical extension of the belief that government is responsible for everybody's health. Once you accept that notion, babies can be seen more as a cost and less as human life. And with all that money at stake there is no telling what Big Sister might do about it.
Congratulations to Rep. Murphy for getting her on the record with this.
Posted by Abu Uluque 2012-03-02 13:29||
#7 So, do I get free Vlagra?
Posted by Deacon Blues 2012-03-02 13:57||
#8 But there is no mandatory birth coverage...
That right there says a lot about the Democratic mindset. And it isn't pretty.
Posted by CrazyFool 2012-03-02 15:44||
#9 Obama,Sebelius, Pelosi, and the rest JUST DON'T GET IT. This is a religious freedom issue. It wouldn't matter if 100% of Catholic women use birth control. The point is that the mandate FORCES the Catholic Church to pay for contraceptives in violation of their principles. The Church cannot control the behavior of her members. All it can do is try to teach them. If Catholics don't follow the Church's teaching, that is THEIR problem, not the Church's. The Church will not - cannot - change her principles just because many Catholics don't follow them.
Would the administration force Muslims to pay for alcohol and pork products? Of course not - it is part of Muslims' religion. Yet they are forcing the Catholic Church to pay for something that goes against their religion.
Posted by Rambler in Virginia 2012-03-02 18:14||
#10 Problem is Rambler - I think they *do* get it - and get it very well.
Its just they don't give a rats arse about anything but their agenda. As for the consitution they are sworn to uphold - well we know how much they respect that.
And your right about him not forcing muslims to pay for pork products and alcohol (or even forcing them to touch it packaged.).
Posted by CrazyFool 2012-03-02 18:20||
#11 CF, Catholics don't riot or cut people's heads off if their religion is attacked.
Hmmm. Maybe there's a way we could get some respect...
Posted by Rambler in Virginia 2012-03-02 18:56||
#12 This is a religious freedom issue.
No. It's much bigger than that. It's an issue of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Freedom to choose our own destiny - as individuals, not as a collective. The instant the state has a financial interest in individuals' health, it has the power to micromanage every waking - and sleeping - moment of our lives.
Because every decision carries a health risk, and thus a potential cost: smoking; drinking; what we eat; keeping pets in the house; how often we floss, drive a car, stand on a ladder, or mountain bike on rocky singletrack; who we sleep with and all downstream consequences.
The door is open to infinite regulation. You don't have to be religious at all to feel a primal urge to smash that kind of slavery before it ever takes root.
Posted by RandomJD 2012-03-02 21:34||