Peter Schiff also argued about BC costs going up from a different angle. "There is no such thing as free birth control" is based on the reality that demand will materialize when something is given away for free.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U73xKgbXh....

you are so right, welcome to my world - people CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH.

Rush was right, that woman wants me to pay for her sex. She is an activist. this is to change the subject from the financial horror of Obama - abortion isn't working for the left anymore.

they are shocked that people like you and me and many others aren't blinded by their garbage anymore.

when their followers carried those 'kill bush' signs for 3 years and my president and vp and heads of congress labeled peaceful teapartiers RACISTS AND TERRORISTS

THEY GAVE UP THEIR RIGHT TO DEMAND CIVILITY FROM OUR SIDE. We turned the other cheek when they wanted to kill my president, and they got total control of our finances in 2007, TOTAL CONTROL.

nope, we don't give a darn what a radio talk show says - he can't make one law over me - the tea partiers are complaining that those 16,000 new IRS agents (packed in obamacare) are hunting them down now (there was a country we went to war with that did that to their 'certain, hated populations'

nope bill mahr calls my vp candidate a 'c' over and over and no one asks the liberal media OR THE DEMOCRATS IN CHARGE TO APOLOGIZE.............

strap in leftwingers - you boys taught us how to fight and you won on pure hatred - we would kill to have 14,093 stock market and bush's 5.2 unemployment and his ONE WAR..............and 'his' deficit

this time we will hate liberals back, they don't understand any other language...........we will never carry 'kill' signs, that is what they did, but we are sending barry back to chicago where he belongs.......
and this little scam by the flucker isn't going to change a thing

Lowbeyond... when I said that I was surprised about how polarizing this subject has become, I was referring to here on the Tickerforum. I figured that Karl would have been preaching to the quire on this issue, but there are about two or three other active threads on this subject where several had taken serious objection to the points he was trying to make.

The media and Pelosi are really taking advantage of this issue by villainizing anyone who can see through this BS for what it is. If you try to speak out on it, they'll jump all over you and lable you as some sort of male chauvinist pig. Although correct, Rush Limbaugh didn't help matters with his choice of words.

Low, "the government" you're attacking is just a front for TPTB and the various special interest groups that want to, as you put it, steal from others for their own sake. The medical industry, being 20% of the economy, is of course entirely complicit in this and in fact seeks to further entrench all the BS. The AMA pushed for Obamacare, for starters. Don't let women off the hook so easily either. They're disproportionately in favor of this sort of FSA bull****. We don't want to get too bogged down in division, but the situation is what it is and the female support of this isn't just incidental.

Gen: Indeed. I'm convinced. There are better ways to deliver birth control to women and men who can't afford it than forcing it on the entire country. Perhaps giving incentives to young women AND men, students, college students, welfare assistance recipients and other government assistance programs etc to attend seminars and let the market sponsor events with coupons for condoms etc might work. If a condom company can't make a FUN profitable program, I don't know who could. Fish bowl is still free for the events.. Perhaps coupons for upgraded condoms at every seminar. :)



Yes, Gen, removing the tax incentive from all health care would likely cause the price of all medical services and drugs to come down and increase the motivation of the individual to stay healthy by alternative means. Our government has it all backwards and Obama almost had me tricked too!

I haven't had health insurance since 2003 and have paid cash for all my medical needs. Shopping for price, I use a local doctor for $75 cash who looks about as old as the moon for prescriptions that I decide that I need (he just writes what I ask) and the clinic for $125 which includes doctor visit, x-rays and lab work etc. I've paid Walmart for $30 eye exams and my glasses were $50 from a guy who drives his RV up and down the east coast and deducts the whole cost of RV living because he has eye glass manufacturing equipment in one of the RV bedrooms. My total medical expenses since 2003 have been less than $1,000 for sure. If ALL people had to price their doctors like this, it would be a more competitive market.

"her elective choice to sleep with people"

By "people" i assume you mean "men".

Maybe it's time for all the women of this nation to go on a sex strike until men decide to take on responsibility for their ability to reproduce for themselves.

There'd be free bc for all in about 2 days, I'd wager.

Susan, the cost will go up, not because of demand, but because they took the lid off the cookie jar and can gouge the price. That is the reason for 9% annual growth in health care costs. Bull**** about litigation and practicing defensive medicine. That cost already happened.

Karl has a point, that if it is decided all women should take birth control pills, the damn things should be OTC. There isn't any proof the American/Western style of medicine is even the best way to provide health care. It is all based on an urban legend we are all conditioned to believe from the time we could wipe our own asses. Someone commented they had to take a controlled substance and it couldn't be refilled. What are we looking at when it costs $150 to get a doctor to sign a refill. I think you call it distributing a controlled substance. The $15 copay? Most likely the wholesale cost of the drug is under $5 and if sold off the shelf would be not more than $10. The whole thing is an extortion racket born out of the propaganda and imagination of idiots.

One thing that you left out is that if it is an employer based insurance system that the employee is going to pay the cost one way or another anyway. As I posted yesterday on the other thread most employers know the all in cost of your employment and take that into consideration when offering salary packages. When I ran my own mortgage brokerage I sat more than one person down and explained to them the all in cost to the company of their employment. Most were shocked that a $30K salary all in cost us way over $40K. Most had no idea of the part of health care we were paying and the cost of FICA we were paying.

There ain't no ****ing unicorns left folks. We've squeezed every last skittle out of the bastards we can.

well we really should decide to kill off social security because the plan was for american women to abort 90% of their kids and then we would let in the poor third world to do our labor.........but those kids were scheduled to pay for the social security tab, the money that was stolen all the taxpayer lifes.......instead of those workers being born we killed them and now we are forced to do the liberal dream - bring in every third world guy that can crawl here

i was military - you will hate everything about obamacare
and those of you that are rich thinking you will pay the doctor for YOUR family
when slick willie's wife hillary was in charge in 93 - she made a special point WHEN SHE TRIED TO TAKE OVER HEALTHCARE to make sure that it would be illegal for DOCTORS TO TAKE CASH, they have a plan for you guys...and when in the military the doctor tells you something - there is no second opinion - government all the way

military sickcall - if the corpsman (that's coreman obama) didn't write it down - it didn't happen

Yep. In the 1990s our AVERAGE monthly cost for a single person's health insurance premium was over $400 MONTHLY.

That's nearly $5,000 per year, every year, and guess where it came from?

THE AMOUNT OF SALARY I OFFERED YOU.

Splashdown, got it

Gizmodo wrote..

Low, "the government" you're attacking is just a front for TPTB and the various special interest groups that want to, as you put it, steal from others for their own sake.

That may be true, hell it probably is. But you still need the State to grant themselves or others power. Without that they have nothing.

People want the state to be able to grant them things.. well there you go.

There is a solution, of course, however the vast vast majority of this country does not want it. They _want_ to steal property from their neighbor for their own personal enrichment. They think they are entitled to it.

It is a modern and enlightened grand social bargain after all

The choice is actually pretty simple: cover contraception or allow the Obama administration to demonize opposition as anti-woman and face four more years of this administration. This site is often math oriented; you don't need to be Euclid to read the recent polls. For better or worse, the demographics are not your friend. Dig in your heels on this fringe issue and guarantee a loss in November or suffer a relatively small defeat on a specific topic and preserve an opportunity to win the larger battle in the fall.

Mayor: And next we'll hear the same argument for guns, for health care generally, for every other issue.

In a word: No.

Gen - that's the huge issue to me. They just don't get it. No one thinks that they are paying for there medical care. Everyone thinks free medical care just flies out of a monkey's ass. If you ****ing work and get your insurance thru work YOU'RE ****ING PAYING FOR IT.

If they would just get it out of the employer's and back into the peoples hands the cost of health care would go down as people would shop more effectively for medical care and health insurance.

okay - I have to comment on this one...

1) Cost shifting MUST be part of the equation when you are talking about sexual relationships. A single man can sexually pleasure himself and require no birth control, same as a woman. They can have gay sex with no need for birth control. However, if a man and a woman want to share this pleasure, they have implicitly entered a financial contract for the cost of a birth control method - unless they want to risk a chance of having a baby. In this financial contract, who pays the bill? who benefits most from this 'transaction'? Who is the biggest '*****' (it's obvious who Rush thinks it is.) Unless you think men should pay nothing - then talk about financial rape! If men and women are equal in their human rights, then they share an equal cost. However, its highly likely that one person picks up the entire cost. Cost-shifting has taken place for nearly every protected heterosexual copulation!!!!

You are acting as if women are solely financially responsible for their safe sexual encounters with men. That is simply not true - unless you want it for free Ticker Guy!? Nothing is free bud, not even baby free sex. It often takes two to give me "my sexual pleasure" as you say. Unless you are gay, you likely have directly benefitted from a womans ability to use birth control - financially, sexually, and at the same time reduced your risk of being a baby daddy when you weren't interested in procreation.

There are the exceptions for those who lived a virginal christian life prior to marriage, and never have coitus that isn't for the purpose of procreation.

2) I don't disagree about the ponzi payment plans of these things is going to drive the cost higher on all womens birth control, the root problem here is affordability of birth control for a woman AND a man to safely 'do-it' without fear of pregnancy. That cost isn't a womans to bear alone - it takes two to have sex.

3) A woman MUST be in control over her own vagina (as you have said many times on the ticker.) A woman can 'require' a condom (she can say "no glove, no love"). However, the act of using said condom is still not controlled by her directly. This may be a fine or quibbling point here, but a woman does not directly control the use of a condom. She does however have direct control over the use of the pill, or an IUD, etc...

4) I am glad you brought up viagra. You think the church or Rush is going to put up as much fuss over their employees or the gov't funding access to boner pills? I highly doubt it, and this gives you an indication who is under attack here. This so-called 'debate' so-far has been about womens access and control over their own reproductive freedom, not about the financialization of that freedom.

If you want to respectfully have the financialization debate, realize that any sexually active straight man in American has directly benefitted from a womans access to affordable birth control - in the form of not being a baby daddy, and maximizing "my sexual pleasure". The man is responsible for part of the cost of this - whether he admits it or not. The same goes for women asking their men to use condoms.

How the cost-shifting should take place should be the discussion, whether it be men helping women pay out of pocket, through private insurance, through Obamacare, the cost shifting must happen somewhere to help make 'sexual pleasure' affordable for both men and women. Not to mention allow for responsible family planning, and voluntary population control (and if you want to talk about runaway exponential growth... look no further than pop growth.)

Tickerguy wrote..

The correct result of this screaming is for Obamacare to be repealed, for anti-trust exemptions for health care in all of its forms (including insurance) to be repealed, for cost-shifting to be barred as a matter of federal law (including repeal of EMTALA and asserting Clayton and Robinson-Patman discriminatory pricing statutes against the pharma and device makers, along with forcing the posting of price and level billing for all procedures in like kind and quantity) and for tax preferences for businesses to be eradicated -- either let everyone have "from first dollar" exemptions against income tax for all medical expenses (including insurance) or repeal all of those exemptions, whether personal or business.

This is the bottom line on any discussion of the issue.^^^

But the facts on the ground are that the FSA -- which includes BOTH conservatives (like the Catholic Bishops) AND liberals (like Ms. Fluke) -- have convinced the Unicorn to **** more of the taxpayers' Skittles in the form of ObamaCare. The only argument remaining now is which color of ObamaCare Skittles the Unicorn ought to ****.

Short of The Supremes bring down the edifice by striking down the individual mandate, we're going to have to get used to it. It's the law of the land.

Thank you CONgress! "Oh yeah, the frog is boiling nicely now..."

If the rule breaks the law, the law will break the rule.

Hypertiger

People believe Congress makes laws or the dictatorship makes them. Laws are natural fact, but man believes if he flaps his arms fast enough, he can be a bird. The FSA will find out there isn't any free **** when the cookie jar is totally empty.

I was around what a lot of people here would call "tinfoil", back in the 1990's. The mantra about the conspiracy of the Rothschilds and others got old, as you could read 50 books and they would all tell the same story. The conspiracy was right, at least in that it centered around bankers in high places. But, what paralleled that experience was a detailed study of the law. There was a distinction between legal and lawful. Legal was to make permissible what wasn't lawful. Rights are lawful. Privilege is legal. Gold was lawful, currency was legal. In fact, if you find a picture of gold backed Federal Reserve Notes, they say nothing about legal tender for debts and plenty about redeemable in the lawful money of the US. The paper can't stand on its own.

A society based on free stuff will evolve into a society with no stuff. Insurance will go from a plan of protection to a plan of extortion. In a sense, we are now faced with a law that is going to attempt to force us to have it. This is what this is all about, forcing one group to pay for the choices and desires of another group. There are very few prescription drugs that aren't in some fashion poison and carry some risk of consumption. We are being moved from a society of health to one of planned illness. I would venture a large portion of health costs in the US have more to do with the fact that those that have insurance feel they have paid for it and are thus entitled to consume everything they can get out of it. Tit jobs are considered health care in the USA. I don't mean they are an insurable condition, but I wouldn't be surprised if some high end insurance doesn't at least cover a portion. In Europe, the same procedure is likely a consumer good.

The state is not your friend. This is what this mess is about, those behind the state, paraded in front of us by the state and used by the state for their ends. Karl hits the nail on the head when he talks about taxation, in that if the rate gets high enough, he will merely quit making money and they will get nothing. This is law, putting out something to get nothing doesn't go on for long. Free cookies all disappear. Government that is considered a necessary evil is no less evil for the fact it is considered necessary. Most of the time, it isn't necessary, merely necessary for one group to loot another.

While your righteous indignation over the specific issue is understood, this is a huge hot button (omigod, I swear I'm not playing double entendre) issue for women voters. In zealously advocating an unwillingness to pony up for birth control, you likely cede the majority of non-aligned wome voters to President Obama. By the time the Obama campaign staff is finished, they'll have women convinced that his opponents want to bring back scarlet letters and dunking tanks. Voter demographic trends already tilt toward the Democrats; if given the opportunity to grab anything above a certain threshold of independent women voters, we might as well forego the election now and just anoint Mr. Obama as CIC for an additional four years. Picking winnable battles is the key to generalship - and this is a battle that you cannot win.

The $600/month they take out of my check every month lets me know I'm paying for it. That's significantly more than 10% of my takehome pay. After the FSA gets their 20% that is.



The same insurance that I pay for would not cover my wife's BC pills. I don't want any more kids (I have 2), so I said **** it and got a vasectomy.

But that insurance company will gladly pay for unlimited child births.

In my case, this company's policy is based on their theology, not womens' health, or cost of benefit. Or any sense of social responsibility or freedom of choice. They're subsidizing my turning my family into the Duggars, and penalizing me for choosing to not obey their God's commandment of 'be fruitful and multiply'.

Bollocks

And my insurance sucks -- an emergency appendectomy for me last year ran me over $6k -- total bill north of $30k. 2 days in hospital, less than an hour in the OR... overpriced bull**** wiped out my savings for 2011.

Anybody here supporting a family on one above average income? Not in the upper 10%?

I'll tell you right now that inflation is eating up my discretionary income at a faster rate than I can get salary increases, and the rise in med costs is part of the problem.


This ship is going to the bottom. Sometimes I just wish it would go ahead and sink. The pre-sinking is pretty damned hard to swallow, all the anger, denial, attitudes of entitlement, MSM distracting and outright lying to the non-reading population (80%?) and enabling more sociopathic ****ery by the criminals in charge.

It won't change till it blows up and all those responsible are either out of the country, destitute, and/or dead.

Perhaps the issue of public funding of birth control should be looked at from a different perspective.

The world's population is about 7 Billion and is growing at the rate of 1.1% per year. Everything Karl has said about exponential growth applies to population growth. Estimates of the world's ability to support humanity put the population limit in the 10 to 12 billion range. Our current standard of living will not be sustainable as we approach the limit, wherever it is. If we don't bring our population growth under control, mother nature will - and she has no conscience.

The issue of public funding of birth control should not be about religion, politics, or whether Rush Limbaugh is a jerk. Enlightened self-interest might be the best justification for public funding of birth control.

Mannfm11 wrote..

The state is not your friend.

Right, and history shows that it can only be forced into a box by a people who love liberty. Good luck with that one, Land of the Freebie and Home of the Deranged.

Taco, I heard a guy who researched the law to the point that few lawyers ever attempt. Through reasoning of lawful procedure, he made a statement that what they call consenting adults is parents. I have never forgotten that idea. Thus, what we are really talking about here are children, not consenting adults. Age doesn't matter. Sex is a risky proposition. Being drunk wasn't a legal defense in Texas when I took law in college.

We have taken law away and replaced it with emotional reason. We are having a discussion about the reason every damn one of us is here, our parents got it on and here we are after so many years. I don't think man has a way of deciding he is having sex because it is fun or to have kids, but out of a sort of compulsion. This is why there are still people on earth after so many thousands of years. But, an adult is one that has outgrown his compulsive urges to the point that he or she doesn't make off the cuff decisions that will endanger them. Here we are engaged in a discussion about a woman, who is getting a high powered education, who will likely influence our legal system, being the libs have put her on a platform, who can't make an adult decision. God save America.

Jstanley, it has never been forced in a box in prior history. We are on a hell bound train and all I think I can do is learn enough that if I survive the crash, I can help pick up the pieces. I have accellerated my reading on this subject and I have been posting links to books I have been reading that are free on the mises.org site. I believe Karl is turning this into a Libertarian forum and I am with him. It is the duty of us that follow this line to figure out what kind of government is going to keep the country from falling into the dark ages. It won't be more of this socialism, which will only eventually lead to mass genocide and feudalism. I believe the end aim of both American political parties is just that, though few are aware of it. I quoted David Hume from a comment by Lacy Hunt in an interview he did that I found on the net. Hume said that once a government has spent all its future revenues, it was pretty much powerless. Look at Greece. Think that government can get its hands on any more resources or even match the resources it had previously?

America was based on the idea that the resources of the country were best utilized in the hands of the people, people as in the people, not the state. Should there be an EPA? Possibly, because it serves the ends of protecting the masses from the few and the common property of all. It should cover all public nuisances, clear and present dangers to the public at large. Should there be drug laws? No, but there should be laws for crimes drug addicts and other commit. There are already privately funded rehabs like the Salvation Army. People run themselves off the cliff enough times, other people take notes.

Quote:

The state is not your friend.

Oh it is the BESTUS friend in the whole wide world to tens of millions of FSA, SS, Medicaid, UE, SNAP and pension recipients.

Quote:

If you want to respectfully have the financialization debate, realize that any sexually active straight man in American has directly benefitted from a womans access to affordable birth control - in the form of not being a baby daddy, and maximizing "my sexual pleasure". The man is responsible for part of the cost of this - whether he admits it or not. The same goes for women asking their men to use condoms.

So why can't they come to an agreement to share the cost between themselves, and not get others involved?

Quote:

It just means that those on the left seized the opportunity to toss sand in their own vaginas and then scream about the self-inflicted pain after they were called out on their lies.

Classic!