View Full Version : I love it when liberalism pops it's head up on FB...
Belmont31R
02-17-12, 18:30
This wife of a friend of mine for whom Ive known at worst casually but would call a friend posted this thing about how evil it was this one womans insurance who was paid for by her employer didn't cover 'the pill'. Of course it has to do with Obama requiring religious institutions to cover contraceptives and all that jazz.
I simply posted how about people not work for a company who doesn't offer the benefits they feel they deserve? You're free to decline their offer of employment and go work somewhere else.
So she deletes the post, and all of the responses...keep in mind another poster agreed with my post and said it was well written just before the whole thing was deleted.
Then the OP writes to me...
I hadn't of thought of it like that and now I agree with you but I'm annoyed so I deleted the article.
Another win....;)
We can win the ideological debate but all you people out there just can't tune out this type of stuff. Just have your facts straight, and be polite. Im not saying you'll turn the most rabid of liberals around but there are plenty of people out there who buy into what they hear on MSNBC and just need a little alternative point of view which will obviously make more sense if you present it right, and as I said have facts to back up your argument.
Never mind I posted before I read the whole post.
Critical thinking requires effort.
Sadly most people prefer to be told what to believe and will generally go along with whatever is popular, exciting or fashionable.
Part of the problem is that liberals so completely wrap themselves in their ideology, that their entire personality is dominated by liberalism. This happens with conservatives and libertarians, but to a much less extent than with liberals. It is ideology before race, sex, ethnicity, religion, etc...
montanadave
02-18-12, 02:09
I worked for a hospital which had the maternity/neonatal unit but, if a woman wanted a tubal ligation following a cesarean section, required the patient be transferred by ambulance to another hospital for that procedure then transported back to their maternity unit.
But they covered my vasectomy.
Complete nonsense.
I worked for a hospital which had the maternity/neonatal unit but, if a woman wanted a tubal ligation following a cesarean section, required the patient be transferred by ambulance to another hospital for that procedure then transported back to their maternity unit.
But they covered my vasectomy.
Complete nonsense.
Holy shit....so do they keep the woman "open" while enroute or close her back up and open her up again? Forgive me, I know nothing of surgical procedures.
Perhaps they should just recommend she deliver at another hospital if they're going to have weird regulations like that.
montanadave
02-18-12, 10:10
Holy shit....so do they keep the woman "open" while enroute or close her back up and open her up again? Forgive me, I know nothing of surgical procedures.
Perhaps they should just recommend she deliver at another hospital if they're going to have weird regulations like that.
I was never involved so I don't know what the procedures were. I'm guessing it required more than just throwing a blanket over "mommy" for the ride. :laugh:
At that time, the Catholic hospital had the only maternity unit. With two hospitals in town, they divided up some of the specialty areas. Of course, now with insurance creating preferred provider networks and each hospital seeking contracts, there is almost 100% duplication of services between two hospitals/medical centers that sit right next to one another.
This wife of a friend of mine for whom Ive known at worst casually but would call a friend posted this thing about how evil it was this one womans insurance who was paid for by her employer didn't cover 'the pill'. Of course it has to do with Obama requiring religious institutions to cover contraceptives and all that jazz.
I simply posted how about people not work for a company who doesn't offer the benefits they feel they deserve? You're free to decline their offer of employment and go work somewhere else.
So she deletes the post, and all of the responses...keep in mind another poster agreed with my post and said it was well written just before the whole thing was deleted.
Then the OP writes to me...
Another win....;)
We can win the ideological debate but all you people out there just can't tune out this type of stuff. Just have your facts straight, and be polite. Im not saying you'll turn the most rabid of liberals around but there are plenty of people out there who buy into what they hear on MSNBC and just need a little alternative point of view which will obviously make more sense if you present it right, and as I said have facts to back up your argument.
I had a similiar experience. My response was health care is the treatment of injury or illness. Contraceptives used as birth control and most preplanned abortions are therfore not healthcare and should be paid out of pocket by the person that wants it, not out of everyones pocket that is in the same pool of insurance in the form of higher premiums.
There are always exceptions. Some drugs that are used for contraceptive use do treat other illnesses in women.
It is fairly easy to plant the critical thinking seed in any nonraging, logical, liberal with facts, common sense and explaining the consequences of each action taken on a particular topic.
montanadave
02-18-12, 11:17
And yet, many of these providers raising a stink about providing contraception have employee prescription drug coverage which covers medications for "erectile dysfunction."
More nonsense.
I had to bite my tongue the other day when one of my wife's friends (they're not that close at all... just did some modeling together a few times) posted a super long raging rant about our local city and how they're not paying her rent this month or something. She's a single mother who goes to school and I guess can't cover her own bills. So she reaches out to them for handouts and has become overly dependent on them from the sounds of it. She was saying how it was THEIR fault she was going to be homeless and in the same breath was talking about being the president of some horticulture club (yeah, I bet you are burnout) and some other things that she was leader of so I guess she didn't have time to get a job to pay for her own bills. Getting the government to pay for her health care, schooling and lots of other things just aren't enough I guess. It frustrates me because I'm actively looking for work, have been for quite some time and have yet to take a single penny in the form of a handout. Then I see someone like her threatening to contact the local news channel and newspaper to get them to pay up on her monthly handouts so she can continue to live her life of leisure and it makes me sick.
Glad to find others out there who agree with my standpoint so I can vent a little bit.
And yet, many of these providers raising a stink about providing contraception have employee prescription drug coverage which covers medications for "erectile dysfunction."
More nonsense.
While I personally have nothing against contraceptives, why is this non-sense?
Contraceptives normally are not used to correct or fix anything. Why should the insurance cover it?
"Erectile dysfunction" IS a medical problem (or psychological problem) and not comparable.
I am sure that actual physical issues with female anatomy are probably covered by most insurance that covers "erectile dysfunction"
-
While I personally have nothing against contraceptives, why is this non-sense?
Contraceptives normally are not used to correct or fix anything. Why should the insurance cover it?
"Erectile dysfunction" IS a medical problem (or psychological problem) and not comparable.
I am sure that actual physical issues with female anatomy are probably covered by most insurance that covers "erectile dysfunction"
-
Exactly. The hypocrisy of the little blue pill doesn't come from the insurance company, but from either you lying to your doctor or his making fraudulent medical diagnoses. ED pills are there to fix a dysfunction, not to mores the wife/girlfrien/ mistress or all three for that matter during your weekend getaway.
Don't mean to bust your bubble Belmont, but you didn't change anything. You just called someone on their BS. They will make the same argument next time the topic comes up.
ChicagoTex
02-18-12, 19:43
While I personally have nothing against contraceptives, why is this non-sense?
Contraceptives normally are not used to correct or fix anything. Why should the insurance cover it?
"Erectile dysfunction" IS a medical problem (or psychological problem) and not comparable.
I am sure that actual physical issues with female anatomy are probably covered by most insurance that covers "erectile dysfunction"
I can't speak for Dave, but I think part of what he was going for was since the premise of Catholics not offering birth control is that children should be doled out according to "God's Plan" without medicinal intervention, men who develop erectile dysfunction (for age or any other reason) are likewise clearly not "meant" according to "God's Plan" to have any more children. If NOT having children when you biologically "should" is a sin, how is having children when you biologically "shouldn't" not?
ETA: I do not expect you to defend Catholic doctrine, the question is more of a rhetorical example of the apparent logical double-standard of "contraception bad, viagra good".
I can't speak for Dave, but I think part of what he was going for was since the premise of Catholics not offering birth control is that children should be doled out according to "God's Plan" without medicinal intervention, men who develop erectile dysfunction (for age or any other reason) are likewise clearly not "meant" according to "God's Plan" to have any more children. If NOT having children when you biologically "should" is a sin, how is having children when you biologically "shouldn't" not?
ETA: I do not expect you to defend Catholic doctrine, the question is more of a rhetorical example of the apparent logical double-standard of "contraception bad, viagra good".
That is the first I have heard that.
Usually it is one of "sexism" or "discrimination". They will pay for male "reproductive care" but not female "reproductive care." Which is BS since they will pay for fixing actual female problems. Contraceptives are not a problem or do not address a medical problem that is being fixed.
btw, you do not need an erection to father children. You just need viable sperm, which can be ejaculated without an erection.
ps: I am not catholic so approach this from a rights issue, not a theological angle
I was never involved so I don't know what the procedures were. I'm guessing it required more than just throwing a blanket over "mommy" for the ride. :laugh:
At that time, the Catholic hospital had the only maternity unit. With two hospitals in town, they divided up some of the specialty areas. Of course, now with insurance creating preferred provider networks and each hospital seeking contracts, there is almost 100% duplication of services between two hospitals/medical centers that sit right next to one another.
And how might that have happened??????
Could it be because the GOVERNMENT mandates what insurance companies cover?
CarlosDJackal
02-19-12, 20:27
I can't speak for Dave, but I think part of what he was going for was since the premise of Catholics not offering birth control is that children should be doled out according to "God's Plan" without medicinal intervention, men who develop erectile dysfunction (for age or any other reason) are likewise clearly not "meant" according to "God's Plan" to have any more children. If NOT having children when you biologically "should" is a sin, how is having children when you biologically "shouldn't" not?
ETA: I do not expect you to defend Catholic doctrine, the question is more of a rhetorical example of the apparent logical double-standard of "contraception bad, viagra good".
This is entirely false. The Catholic Church is against Contraception for two primary reasons. (1) It promotes intercourse minus the intent to procreate. (2) Depending on the type of contraception, it induces death to a fetus that is still in development.
If you think about it, it's actually a pretty simple concept. Viagra does not prevent the conception or birth of a human being.
The Catholic Church's stance is to promote life and not death. So the use of Viagra to promote further procreation is in line with its Doctrine. Make sense?
ChicagoTex
02-19-12, 20:41
If you think about it, it's actually a pretty simple concept. Viagra does not prevent the conception or birth of a human being.
The Catholic Church's stance is to promote life and not death. So the use of Viagra to promote further procreation is in line with its Doctrine. Make sense?
Except that's not really accurate. The catholic church doesn't value birth because it values birth - that's an incomplete premise; the catholic church values birth because they believe any and all children that develop are intended as gifts from god, i.e. the product of god's will, and that employing contraception is actively defying god's will. Since the basis for the premise is "who are you to interfere with the will of god?", it very much cuts both ways in that using medication to artificially extend/enhance your natural and, dare I say it, "god-given" childbearing capability is also defiance. Just because it's more politically expedient defiance doesn't change the fact that failing to condemn it is a transparent double-standard.
The Catholic Church's stance is to promote life and not death.
Wait, so nobody has died in the name of the Catholic church? That's a relief.
(I couldn't resist)
Except that's not really accurate. The catholic church doesn't value birth because it values birth - that's an incomplete premise; the catholic church values birth because they believe any and all children that develop are intended as gifts from god, i.e. the product of god's will, and that employing contraception is actively defying god's will. Since the basis for the premise is "who are you to interfere with the will of god?", it very much cuts both ways in that using medication to artificially extend/enhance your natural and, dare I say it, "god-given" childbearing capability is also defiance. Just because it's more politically expedient defiance doesn't change the fact that failing to condemn it is a transparent double-standard.
Hogwash. There is no defiance in using such things (not that I encourage such things as the lack of ability to sustain an erection can often indicate other medical issues, e.g, in the circulatory system). You do not need an erection to ejaculate and cause pregnancy.
The supposed double standard is based on "Sexism" and preferring male while ignoring female "reproductive health"
ETA: your argument would mean that Catholics are against all medical intervention as going against "God's Will"
-
CarlosDJackal
02-20-12, 14:51
Except that's not really accurate. The catholic church doesn't value birth because it values birth - that's an incomplete premise; the catholic church values birth because they believe any and all children that develop are intended as gifts from god, i.e. the product of god's will, and that employing contraception is actively defying god's will. Since the basis for the premise is "who are you to interfere with the will of god?", it very much cuts both ways in that using medication to artificially extend/enhance your natural and, dare I say it, "god-given" childbearing capability is also defiance. Just because it's more politically expedient defiance doesn't change the fact that failing to condemn it is a transparent double-standard.
I'm sorry, but you are very much mistaken with this. This may be how it's explained to those who also believe that Catholics are not CHristians. But the Catholic Church I grew up in does not advocate the use of contraception because it is counter to life. They also do not advocate the death penalty for the same exact reason.
If what you are saying is true, then why would they advocate medicine in general; much less the continued existence of Hospitals whose business practice is to treat anyone and everyone (something that obama and the dumboKrats are obviously against because they have ensured all but the closure of these facilities with HHS mandate).
You can believe the propaganda that anti-Catholics like to spread. But if you were to actually evaluate their official mandate it is the preservation of life that is most important. And yes, they actually also advocate sex between married man and woman as long as the end goal is the creation of life.
In other words, intimacy between a married couple is not limited to once a month (as I've heard anti-Catholics claim it is). As long as the married couple accept any resulting life (IE: no contraception, no objectification, etc.); it is accepted and actually encouraged.
CarlosDJackal
02-20-12, 14:53
Wait, so nobody has died in the name of the Catholic church? That's a relief.
(I couldn't resist)
LOL. I know. But that's not exactly what I was saying.
I will say that not everyone who takes the pill takes it as birth control. My sister has taken it forever to regulate her periods. I see it as no different from an insurance company paying for insulin or high blood pressure pills. If I pay a premium for Rx coverage I think they should have to pay for whatever my Doctor says I have to have. If they want to start picking and choosing what I can get then the premiums need to start dropping.
It has NOTHING to do with Religion it has to do with business.
I will say that not everyone who takes the pill takes it as birth control. My sister has taken it forever to regulate her periods. I see it as no different from an insurance company paying for insulin or high blood pressure pills. If I pay a premium for Rx coverage I think they should have to pay for whatever my Doctor says I have to have.
Really? Not according to what you agreed to when you signed up for the insurance?
If they want to start picking and choosing what I can get then the premiums need to start dropping.
It has NOTHING to do with Religion it has to do with business.
ChicagoTex
02-21-12, 06:01
Let's get two things straight right off the bat, #1: I grew up Catholic and have never in my life been any more anti-catholic than I am anti-religion-in-general. So put the "anti-catholic propaganda" B.S. away before this turns into a giant mess of ad-hominem arguments and lashing out at strawmen.
And #2: I'm currently an empirical agnostic. I don't personally believe a word of this stuff anymore, but I still know how to read a bible, still have my experiences with the Catholic church (and several other denominations later in my life), and the ability to reason through an extremely simple theological cornerstone.
The delineation I've seen done on the "using medicine to keep someone healthy" vs "keeping medicine out of the reproductive realm" is based on the (admittedly somewhat fine) line between the creation of life and the personal management of existing life.
It's sort of like the difference between someone buying you a car as a gift that you can't refuse, and then doing maintenance on the car. On the one hand, it's defiant/rude/otherwise generally wrong to turn down the car, but once the car is yours, it is theoretically your responsibility as a good steward to keep the car in good shape and ensure that it's used as intended. Except, yknow, the car is a child.
I'm not taking the position that life isn't important to the Catholic church, I very much believe that it is. I'm simply saying that, particularly in the birth/contraception realm, the basis for the Catholic Church's stand on the issue runs a bit deeper than "life=good".
Hogwash.
NOT hogwash.
He's trying to explain or identify the dogma to you, not justify it or convince you of it's validity or lack thereof, and you're sticking to the biological where it does not apply, and where he's acknowledging what you're saying as a "given," like in a geometry problem.
If you're already aware of the dogma and the backstory behind it, or whatever you want to call it, and are just looking to haggle over trivia out of reflex....then please give us all a break, and quit bleating things like "hogwash" because you're feeling plucky and Don Quixote-ish.
As a "recovering" Catholic, myself, who despises the entire institution with a passion that rivals the heat of the sun, I recognize exactly what he's saying as dogmatically factual, and don't get why you're homing in on what he's posting as if he's arguing with you. He's not.
NOT hogwash.
It is hogwash. That is not the dogma. I am not Catholic and am not trying to defend the Catholic stance on contraception. But the reasons he gives is NOT Catholic dogma in any way that I have been able to corroborate and goes against Catholic sayings (specifically the "cutting both ways" referring to ED drugs [which I am also not trying to support the use of]). I have seen no Catholic pronouncements declaring the dogma he espouses about "interfering with God's will" in relation to physical disabilities and medical issues, which would, when brought to its logical conclusion, mean that Catholic dogma is against medical intervention when there are physical disabilities or problems.
He's trying to explain or identify the dogma to you, not justify it or convince you of it's validity or lack thereof, and you're sticking to the biological where it does not apply, and where he's acknowledging what you're saying as a "given," like in a geometry problem.
If you're already aware of the dogma and the backstory behind it, or whatever you want to call it, and are just looking to haggle over trivia out of reflex....then please give us all a break, and quit bleating things like "hogwash" because you're feeling plucky and Don Quixote-ish.
As a "recovering" Catholic, myself, who despises the entire institution with a passion that rivals the heat of the sun, I recognize exactly what he's saying as dogmatically factual, and don't get why you're homing in on what he's posting as if he's arguing with you. He's not.
I will say that not everyone who takes the pill takes it as birth control. My sister has taken it forever to regulate her periods. I see it as no different from an insurance company paying for insulin or high blood pressure pills. If I pay a premium for Rx coverage I think they should have to pay for whatever my Doctor says I have to have. If they want to start picking and choosing what I can get then the premiums need to start dropping.
It has NOTHING to do with Religion it has to do with business.
Apples and oranges. I used to deal with religious institutions coverage at the insurance co I work at. Drugs used for contraceptive use aren't covered. Those same drugs are however covered when used to treat a conditions. It's based on the diagnosis code that is billed.
ChicagoTex
02-21-12, 20:09
I have seen no Catholic pronouncements declaring the dogma he espouses about "interfering with God's will" in relation to physical disabilities and medical issues, which would, when brought to its logical conclusion, mean that Catholic dogma is against medical intervention when there are physical disabilities or problems.
Since apparently you missed my last post...
The delineation I've seen done on the "using medicine to keep someone healthy" vs "keeping medicine out of the reproductive realm" is based on the (admittedly somewhat fine) line between the creation of life and the personal management of existing life.
It's sort of like the difference between someone buying you a car as a gift that you can't refuse, and then doing maintenance on the car. On the one hand, it's defiant/rude/otherwise generally wrong to turn down the car, but once the car is yours, it is theoretically your responsibility as a good steward to keep the car in good shape and ensure that it's used as intended. Except, yknow, the car is a child.
is the concept of a "gift" really so difficult to understand?
Since apparently you missed my last post...
is the concept of a "gift" really so difficult to understand?
No. There is no problem with that.
Is the concept of "contraception" as a convenience blocking the "gift from God" being different than a ED drug being used to treat medical problem, which may allow the "gift from God" such a hard concept?
I accept that the Catholic dogma believes that a child is a Gift from God. I have no problem with that. I also have no problem accepting that the Catholic Church is opposed to Contraception as blocking the natural course of events which allows God to give such gifts. I may not agree with it but I accept that as their doctrine. What I don't accept is that Catholic dogma equates ED drugs to try and fix medical problems to Contraceptives, used to try and block conception, because it doesn't. In my search for any sort of support for your claim on Catholic dogma, the most I could come up with was a few blogs pondering the connection (not necessarily making the claim, but pondering if it could be equated. Nothing authoritative at all from the Catholic Church could I find.
So I therefore also reject the "double standard" idea, since one is a medical process to fix a problem and one is a choice to block conception.
-
ChicagoTex
02-22-12, 01:33
What I don't accept is that Catholic dogma equates ED drugs to try and fix medical problems to Contraceptives, used to try and block conception, because it doesn't. In my search for any sort of support for your claim on Catholic dogma, the most I could come up with was a few blogs pondering the connection (not necessarily making the claim, but pondering if it could be equated. Nothing authoritative at all from the Catholic Church could I find.
So I therefore also reject the "double standard" idea, since one is a medical process to fix a problem and one is a choice to block conception.
Are you seriously telling me that because the Catholic church doesn't admit to it's own double standard that there is none?
And your basis for this is a google search?
Good Grief.
Contrary to what you apparently think, the Catholic Church, like pretty much every other Christian denomination, does not have a detailed official handbook publically available of the entirety of their Dogma & Traditions. The Catholic Church instead "educates" their membership through the myriad classes they require you to attend over the course of your life in the church in order to maintain full standing (Catechism, Confirmation, Pre-Marriage Counseling (including "Family Planning"), et al). As you are not and never have been Catholic, you've never attended any such classes and are thus frankly ill-equipped to speak with any meaningful authority on what exactly the church tells it's members. I have told you exactly what I, and dozens of others I know were told growing up in numerous branches of the Catholic Church, but still you persist on swearing the sky is green on the basis of the fact that a quick web search wasn't able to yield the aforementioned non-existent guide book.
At this point I am forced to conclude that you sincerely live in a reality that differs from mine and every Catholic and former Catholic I know, and further discussion of this topic with you will obviously yield nothing of any worth. You may persist to dig your head further in the sand at your pleasure, but you will continue to do so without my involvement.
Good day.
More liberalism poste after today's shooting. Why doesn't the govt do something, install metal detectors. Ban guns blah blah blah. I've never seen solo many people calling for police state lately.
I had a similiar experience. My response was health care is the treatment of injury or illness. Contraceptives used as birth control and most preplanned abortions are therfore not healthcare and should be paid out of pocket by the person that wants it, not out of everyones pocket that is in the same pool of insurance in the form of higher premiums.
There are always exceptions. Some drugs that are used for contraceptive use do treat other illnesses in women.
It is fairly easy to plant the critical thinking seed in any nonraging, logical, liberal with facts, common sense and explaining the consequences of each action taken on a particular topic.
Using the same logic though, the cost of a contraceptive, in the short term, is much less than a possible unplanned child and abortion or full term and then adoption on the system as a whole. This is assuming that the child is unwanted from the get-go, which can be inferred from wanting birth control. The availability of a contraceptive isn't really the main point in this discussion though.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.