http://www.isidewith.com/results/11537087Originally Posted by Andrea Griffin
I'm a socialist, nbs.
http://www.isidewith.com/results/11537087
I'm a socialist, nbs.
Now you're just being intentionally obtuse.I don't think anyone in this thread was suggesting that "free" birth control means that it is magicked into existence via a violation of local quantum causality.Yet it's not the governments money that is being spent when it comes to insurance companies so your statement is ridiculous unless the U.S. socializes healthcare.Consider it in terms of preventative vs. acute medicine. Paying extra to the insurance companies now simply much less expensive than paying the collective cost of more unplanned pregnancies in the future. Paying for someone's birth control, for their entire lifetime, is a tiny fraction of the cost of:While this is true I have a problem when it comes to the word free when it comes to the government forcing others to provide something for free. If the government wants something provided for free the government(aka everyone) should pay for it, otherwise the TINSTAAFL rule applies and insurance rates should go up to compensate. Business being business that means insurance companies will over compensate.Yes, condoms are more cost-effective at preventing unplanned-pregnancy than hormonal birth control. But it doesn't mean that free hormonal birth control isn't also cost-effective and can't further reduce the rate of unplanned pregnancy.If it wasn't for the fact that you can already get free condoms from several places. location dependent of course the closer to a city the easier it gets I would agree. Other forms of birth control I can see as it actually requires visits to a doctor. Condoms are cheap as hell and don't require any effort higher than going to a store, even in my poorest of poor days I could afford condoms.Because unplanned pregnancies are a net drain on society. Parents and their children perform better, are less likely to be impoverished, and less likely to become dependent on government welfare when their children are planned. The financial cost of an armed robbery case could pay for a million birth control pills.
1. Investigating a robbery
2. Giving a suspect a trial
3. Incarcerating them
If you can prevent one criminal case per every ten thousand lifetime supplies of birth control, it's still worthwhile.
Though my annoyance is more with the word "free" which actually means adjust your rates so you can supply birth control for free which I would not be bent out of shape about. I'll always be against the idea of the government forcing person A to provide a product to person B at a loss. If there was fair compensation for at the very least a zero profit, to minimal profit I would be fine with it there are only a few birth control measures that need a little more than a few extra tests during a doctors visit.
It's not that I disagree with the goal it's the approach and terminology that have my panties in a twist.
http://www.isidewith.com/results/11549111
NOooo!! It is not 100%!! I will therefore turn myself in to nearest FEMA camp, where hard manual labour and regular beatings will help me eliminate 13% deviation from Dear Leader's worldview.I side 87% with Barack Obama
So you're basically a weak kneed not-in-my-backyard white suburban cunt who thinks himself liberal because you support gay marriage. Right. Massage your nuts with a cheese grater please.http://www.isidewith.com/results/11549111
NOooo!! It is not 100%!! I will therefore turn myself in to nearest FEMA camp, where hard manual labour and regular beatings will help me eliminate 13% deviation from Dear Leader's worldview.I side 87% with Barack Obama
Out of curiosity, I tried to figure out how to get "I stand with Mitt Romney" rating...
Apparently, the only way to do it is to answer each survey question, then change you answers to the opposite ones later on.
"Are you in favor of decriminalizing all drugs?"
errrrr
edit: i side with the greens
1% over obama - mustve been the drilling vOv
editedit: i side more with the rentistoodamnhigh-guy than romney nbs
Last edited by RoemySchneider; July 13 2012 at 01:10:10 AM.
Actually, I answered the gay marriage question with following: "Civil unions for everybody, regardless of sex, marriage as currently established is a religious institution and should not be recognized by the Government".So you're basically a weak kneed not-in-my-backyard white suburban cunt who thinks himself liberal because you support gay marriage. Right. Massage your nuts with a cheese grater please.http://www.isidewith.com/results/11549111
NOooo!! It is not 100%!! I will therefore turn myself in to nearest FEMA camp, where hard manual labour and regular beatings will help me eliminate 13% deviation from Dear Leader's worldview.I side 87% with Barack Obama
The reason I am 87% is because, being an immigrant myself, I side 100% with Romney and Ron Paul on Immigration issues.
v0v
I side ~90% with Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.
Unsurpised Libertarian is quite unsurprised.
Stupid quiz is stupid:
That doesn't mean the same thing, infact its quite the opposite to each other in Ron Paul's view. Many other examples in the quiz if you pick options other than straight yes or no.Should we expand our offshore oil drilling?
Ron Paul: Deregulate and let the free market determine the best energy sources
Your similar answer: Incentivize the private sector to develop alternative forms of energy
Anyway unsurprised that I have a strong liberal bias with a leaning towards libertarian positions on some issues.
http://www.isidewith.com/results/11560399
I notice you guys have completely ignored the fact that many women take hormonal birth control for a wide raft of medical issues.Now you're just being intentionally obtuse.I don't think anyone in this thread was suggesting that "free" birth control means that it is magicked into existence via a violation of local quantum causality.Yet it's not the governments money that is being spent when it comes to insurance companies so your statement is ridiculous unless the U.S. socializes healthcare.Consider it in terms of preventative vs. acute medicine. Paying extra to the insurance companies now simply much less expensive than paying the collective cost of more unplanned pregnancies in the future. Paying for someone's birth control, for their entire lifetime, is a tiny fraction of the cost of:While this is true I have a problem when it comes to the word free when it comes to the government forcing others to provide something for free. If the government wants something provided for free the government(aka everyone) should pay for it, otherwise the TINSTAAFL rule applies and insurance rates should go up to compensate. Business being business that means insurance companies will over compensate.Yes, condoms are more cost-effective at preventing unplanned-pregnancy than hormonal birth control. But it doesn't mean that free hormonal birth control isn't also cost-effective and can't further reduce the rate of unplanned pregnancy.If it wasn't for the fact that you can already get free condoms from several places. location dependent of course the closer to a city the easier it gets I would agree. Other forms of birth control I can see as it actually requires visits to a doctor. Condoms are cheap as hell and don't require any effort higher than going to a store, even in my poorest of poor days I could afford condoms.Because unplanned pregnancies are a net drain on society. Parents and their children perform better, are less likely to be impoverished, and less likely to become dependent on government welfare when their children are planned. The financial cost of an armed robbery case could pay for a million birth control pills.
1. Investigating a robbery
2. Giving a suspect a trial
3. Incarcerating them
If you can prevent one criminal case per every ten thousand lifetime supplies of birth control, it's still worthwhile.
Though my annoyance is more with the word "free" which actually means adjust your rates so you can supply birth control for free which I would not be bent out of shape about. I'll always be against the idea of the government forcing person A to provide a product to person B at a loss. If there was fair compensation for at the very least a zero profit, to minimal profit I would be fine with it there are only a few birth control measures that need a little more than a few extra tests during a doctors visit.
It's not that I disagree with the goal it's the approach and terminology that have my panties in a twist.
as a bored euro i took the "quiz" ...
got 95% for jill stein and 88% for steward alexander. obama is third with 79%.
for all it's worth tho' i wouldn't mind the USA turnin into the united soviets of america /hides
Last edited by untilted; July 13 2012 at 05:23:50 AM.
I notice you guys have completely ignored the fact that many women take hormonal birth control for a wide raft of medical issues.Now you're just being intentionally obtuse.I don't think anyone in this thread was suggesting that "free" birth control means that it is magicked into existence via a violation of local quantum causality.Yet it's not the governments money that is being spent when it comes to insurance companies so your statement is ridiculous unless the U.S. socializes healthcare.Consider it in terms of preventative vs. acute medicine. Paying extra to the insurance companies now simply much less expensive than paying the collective cost of more unplanned pregnancies in the future. Paying for someone's birth control, for their entire lifetime, is a tiny fraction of the cost of:While this is true I have a problem when it comes to the word free when it comes to the government forcing others to provide something for free. If the government wants something provided for free the government(aka everyone) should pay for it, otherwise the TINSTAAFL rule applies and insurance rates should go up to compensate. Business being business that means insurance companies will over compensate.Yes, condoms are more cost-effective at preventing unplanned-pregnancy than hormonal birth control. But it doesn't mean that free hormonal birth control isn't also cost-effective and can't further reduce the rate of unplanned pregnancy.If it wasn't for the fact that you can already get free condoms from several places. location dependent of course the closer to a city the easier it gets I would agree. Other forms of birth control I can see as it actually requires visits to a doctor. Condoms are cheap as hell and don't require any effort higher than going to a store, even in my poorest of poor days I could afford condoms.Because unplanned pregnancies are a net drain on society. Parents and their children perform better, are less likely to be impoverished, and less likely to become dependent on government welfare when their children are planned. The financial cost of an armed robbery case could pay for a million birth control pills.
1. Investigating a robbery
2. Giving a suspect a trial
3. Incarcerating them
If you can prevent one criminal case per every ten thousand lifetime supplies of birth control, it's still worthwhile.
Though my annoyance is more with the word "free" which actually means adjust your rates so you can supply birth control for free which I would not be bent out of shape about. I'll always be against the idea of the government forcing person A to provide a product to person B at a loss. If there was fair compensation for at the very least a zero profit, to minimal profit I would be fine with it there are only a few birth control measures that need a little more than a few extra tests during a doctors visit.
It's not that I disagree with the goal it's the approach and terminology that have my panties in a twist.While your meaning is good, it also completely ignores the fact that the conversation was about birth control for birth controls sake. I notice you failed to grasp that in your comment.Other forms of birth control I can see as it actually requires visits to a doctor.
So condoms, then.
Nope, didn't ignore it. Commented on it, in fact.
WoT: Mike_Hammer
Tanks are like Pokemon, gotta collect 'em all.....
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer
Funny I thought the conversation was about requiring health insurance to subsidise hormonal contraception.
Well I started this particular conversation, and that was only part of it.
WoT: Mike_Hammer
Tanks are like Pokemon, gotta collect 'em all.....
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer
Isn't hormonal an order of magnitude or two more effective than condoms?
At least. Particularly when you don't rely on human action for it to work, like with the implant.
Yes and no. According to what I read condoms fail in cca 15% in typical use and 2% with perfect use while for hormonal birth control that is they list @ 8% and 0.03% respectively. So in normal day to day you get half of condom unwanted pregnancies while in a perfect world you do actually get 100× less unwanted pregnancies. All though im not sure how much i can trust those numbers.
Wtf is this "typical use" which is apparently completely head on pants retarded use? I've seen figures around 3% failures for the most part, and that includes people failing to use them properly, instead of the product itself failing.Yes and no. According to what I read condoms fail in cca 15% in typical use and 2% with perfect use while for hormonal birth control that is they list @ 8% and 0.03% respectively. So in normal day to day you get half of condom unwanted pregnancies while in a perfect world you do actually get 100× less unwanted pregnancies. All though im not sure how much i can trust those numbers.
But pills do fuckall for std's and people both men and women are some proper whores these days so it's only going to get worse. Since we're talking about the states here, apparently some 20mil people (in US) are affected by them each year, and they cost some 14bn $ a year to treat.
I'm not arguing against "free pills" as such, just saying the same logic regarding health benefits could be applied to any number things. And that if "free pills" reduces condom use it also increases std's.
Last edited by Qui Shon; July 13 2012 at 10:59:08 AM.
WoT: Mike_Hammer
Tanks are like Pokemon, gotta collect 'em all.....
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks