Posted: March 19, 2012 at 7:34 am
The Imbecility Backfires
The sudden obsession with rolling back women’s rights to the 18th century has meant a drop in the polls for Republicans and a surge in fundraising for women’s rights groups and candidates.
The Republican attack on women has gone full-on crazy. All the GOP presidential candidates oppose birth control, (something 98% of all women use at some point) and Repubs in Congress are opposing the Violence Against Women Act. Catholic priests even took some time off from crafting their child sex abuse lawsuit defense to perform exorcisms in front of women’s clinics.
But the GOP’s attempts to take women’s role in society back a hundred years is backfiring.
One recent analysis of the backlash found that before the birth control war, women polled divided as to which party should control Congress: 46% (D)-42% (R). But just last week, a Wall Street Journal/CBS poll found that that’s changed. Women now prefer Democrats by a 15% margin: 51% (D)-36% (R).
With a gender gap of 15%-20% in favor of Democrats, and women making up the majority of the electorate—casting about 8 million more votes nationwide than men in 2008—the math doesn’t look good for the GOP in November if they continue down this path.
It’s not just women who are appalled. Men and women alike are losing confidence in the GOP’s sanity nationwide. The latest major poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, shows
a notable improvement in the Democratic Party’s image among voters, with just under half seeing the party positively. The public’s overall view of the Republican Party was strikingly negative, 36 percent to 56 percent.
Women candidates and advocacy groups are raising big money to un-elect GOP lawmakers who are taking these backwards positions and to elect more women lawmakers.
The same thing is likely to be seen in local politics.
You’ve probably seen the latest rash of letters to the editor in Montana defending Rush Limbaugh for calling Sandra Fluke a slut because she takes birth control. In this week’s Flathead Beacon, conservative columnist Dave Skinner says ”Fluke deserved to be turned away” from the opportunity to testify in Congress because of her “entitlement mentality.” He whines that women who want basic health care coverage are seeking a handout. (As if women don’t pay for insurance just like men do.)
Locally and across the U.S., forays into the twilight zone are are likely to continue to be a disaster for Republicans. That’s at least one piece of good news for Democrats this fall.
Hardly surprising to see earth hater Skinner excoriating the victim.
The Beacon tips its hat to Denise Juneau:
http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/montanas_graduation_rate_shows_slight_improvement/27134#.T2c8Ljn4Qjo.twitter
Perhaps Mr. Skinner believes that women should be at home, and only men should have jobs like Santorum. With men earning the money, they should get the health care that benefits their needs, and women should just suck it up and take what they can get.
No adult citizen of the United States should ever be turned away from their legal right to testify before Congress. Period. If Skinner is advocating this, he should be fired with cause. That is a basic right we are all guarenteed. What a numbnuts.
This whole mess started over what a health care plan would cover to be accepted on the health care exchange.
What a policy had cover to be accepted.
A new Car has to have seat belts and Airbags. Preventive measures for both MEN and Women. Free just means no Co-pay since you are already paying the premium. I’m sure Mr. Skinner will be the first to take an advanage of a colonoscopy with no co-pay.
“For patients covered by health insurance, out-of-pocket costs can range from zero to more than $1,000, depending on deductibles, copay and coinsurance amounts. For example, a Medicare patient at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center would pay $1,477, including deductibles and coinsurance. However, some insurance plans, such as the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Community Blue PPO plan, cover “wellness” screenings 100 percent, with no deductible or copay, usually with some restrictions.”
http://health.costhelper.com/colonoscopy.html
Right now if Health insurance was a Car, Automakers would be charging extra for Wheels, tires,etc seatbelts and airbags would only be availible to a few
What a chilling thought! Dave Skinner wants to take away the right of freedom of speech, The reason for it is that Sandra Fluke’s message about women makes to much sense to the American People, as a whole.
When did the republican public, the little guy, decide it was okay to vote against their interests as Individuals? How did they become so dumb. They are so worried about Morality Values, they are giving away all that we accomplished in the 20th Century as a country!
Montanan farmers were more then happy to give away their property to big Oil, only to find their property worth sinks to toilet levels, and they are stuck paying the same taxes for land and water that is now poisoned, and nobody wants to buy it. Busily, voting in jerks who take away their right to sue, when companies harm their families with poisoned wells and air. Have no problem voting for people who will not help them if they should get sick… so die quickly! Merrily enter the voting booth and pop a chad out for someone who doesn’t want their children to have a good education, or their female family members a medical choice for health.
Its amazing how gullible The GOP has made the public just by sowing fears and Unknowns without any facts!
RT @mtpublicradio: Breaking: Flathead County Commissioner and former Sheriff, Jim Dupont, died at home this morning…
A new analysis of health expense from the University of California, San Francisco shows that young women pay more for out of pocket health care expenses than young men. Relative to income, the difference is stark: women in the 25-34 age group currently pay twice as much out of pocket for medical care compared to men of the same age. http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2010/01/13/abortion-coverage-and-health-reform-bringing-evidence-to-bear/
Basically, women of reproductive age spend 68 percent more on out-of-pocket health care expenses than their male counterparts do. And we all know it takes two to get someone pregnant…
Is Skinflute gay? You see, I read his ENTIRE crap article, and not ONCE did he mention HIS significant other! Hence, only two possibilities. One, he’s gay, and therefore HIS partner needs no birth control. Or two, ol’ Skinnerflute HAS no significant other! Hence, why is this dufus an expert on ANYthing relating to women? He must be the new Dr. I.M. Kookie, an expert on all KINDS of stuff!
Come ON, Skinflute, explain your credentials to be speaking on behalf of the women of this country! Are you planning the big sex change maybe???? You gonna be the new Chaz Bonobo??
Like Flush Blimpo, Skinflute’s just a spouting moron. Now, he’s gonna speak for the women of America! And that is too funny!
These are Skinflute’s people. They are ALL about intimidation.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/19/tennessee-abortion-bill_n_1363410.html
Geez, bro.
Let’s just take a moment to contemplate, just how ridiculous something has to be to make Congress look more foolish than it already does. I presume their next “damage control” move will be to try to strike voting rights from half of the population (and more than half of the voting population.)
Well, I can see my loyal fans on the entitlementalist Left missed the point — which isn’t sex or womens rights at all.
Fluke was asking for free stuff paid for by others. Period. Entitlementalism is gender neutral.
Fluke made a big point of talking about the unsubsidized health plan premiums. But the fact is, in the pool, the less “lucky” would be directly bankrolling the more fortunate for what is a voluntary activity that doesn’t fall under the idea of insurable “risk.”
And by the way, Crotch, as for my selection of a sig-other, that’s my business. However, rest assured it would never be you. Wrong gender, for one, and you have no personality or brains to compensate for your looks.
No Dave, you missed the point. You have openly advocated – in print – for taking a basic constitutional right away from an individual because you disagree with what you assume she was talking about. Having listened to the entirety of her testimony, I completely disagree with your “analysis” of her point just like I disagreed with Rush Limberger’s “analysis”. You are a talking head, nothing more. Worse, you have advocated for something that is so opposite of what the Constitution of the United States says that anything out of your mouth will be judged by that simple fact. You are an idiot if you stand behind your own words. You also make Conservatives all over look bad. I pity you.
Moorcat, there is no constitutional right to testify before a congressional committee. One has to be invited or subpoenaed. The committee chair holds great digression.
Actually, Craig, you are incorrect. There is a constitutional right to testify and that right has been upheld on more than one occation. Moreover, Fluke was invited to testify. By refusing her that right, the committee chair seriously erred. She was given that right later at what Skinner is calling a “mock” hearing.
http://hobnobblog.com/2010/10/26/how-to-get-invited-to-testify-before-congress/
Thanks, Craig. The problem here is that Fluke was invited to give oral testimony. She was then denied that right – ensuring that she didn’t have the oppurtunity to submit written testimony either. This puts the situation firmly into an arena that the Supreme Court has already ruled on.
The problem is that the minority members of a committee cannot commit the whole of any committee or go forward with an invitation without approval of the committee chair. Pelosi was orchestrating a political stunt. Nothing more than that.
I am not arguing that Pelosi organized a political stunt. In the same way, the Republican “committee” meeting was a similar political stunt. It doesn’t change the nature of the offense. Nor does it change the nature of the issue. The Republicans backed the wrong horse on this issue and it is costing them. Now they are attempting political damage control. The issue is very simple and the more they try to muddy the waters, the worse it makes them look.
Moorcat, you do understand that Fluke did not represent the underprivileged and needy? She vactions in places like Spain and Italy. There are pictures.
This whole Fluke thing was orchestrated to deflect from the religious institution matter which was hurting Obama. Given what Politico reported a fews days ago I don’t think Pelosi’s stunt was very effective at moving the numbers: http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/03/poll-obama-down-among-female-voters-from-results-117411.html
What you don’t get, Craig, is that is doesn’t matter one shit whether Fluke represents the poor or needy. She represents the one thing that you, Limberger or Skinner can never represent – WOMEN. What difference does it make if she vacations in Spain, Italy, or Bumf$$$ Egypt?
While you seem to think that this matter is about religion, you have missed the whole point. It doesn’t matter a squirt of bull piss if it was a religious idea that brought this matter up (in fact, I would argue that the overly religious slant to the modern Republican party is going hurt them in November but I digress). What does matter is that the issue was directly about women’s health, and as such, fueled the fire for the supposed war on women.
As far as your polls, you might want to check out PEW research’s latest polls. They disagree with the one you posted. As I said, I don’t put a lot of faith in polls. What I do put a lot of faith in, is where women are spending their political money at the moment. You might want to check into that…
Moorcat, Fluke tried to convey she was a struggling student finding it hard to make financial ends meet. She claimed it would cost $3000 for her to buy BC pills during law school. First, she chose Georgetown because it was a religious institution. She had alternative schools to attend. Second, the $3000 figure is a lie. She had access to get free pills from PP. Also, many pharmacies charge only like $10 a month. SHE made her financial conditional an issue even though she can jet to Europe on vacation with her boyfriend. Cost is the only issue, and quite phony in her case, not access as she could get them for free or quite cheap. Don’t conflate the two.
You got THAT right, Fr. Moron! Women should not even be SEEN let alone heard when mens are making policy regarding women things! Oh, things was just SO much nicer and easier when women and darkies weren’t so damn uppity and they knew their place, right Father? If womens want a place at the table, they must FIRST set it and cook a fine dinner! THEN, maybe the menfolk, after a nice relaxing feed, will deign to give them a few minutes for their womenly concerns. IF’N they have time!
But the sixties screwd EVERTHIN up. Let’s go back, WAY back to the way things Jesus WANTED them to be! It’s Biblical! Heck, we was jus happy naked savages before Eve et that damn apple and spoiled everthin! Womens is evil!
Feel free to quote me in your next sermon, Fr. Mooron!
Craig, let me ask you an honest question. All partisanship aside, which political circus do you think actually effected more voters positively – the Republican Circus over the hearings or the “mock” hearings? If you believe in polls, (something I do not necessarily subscibe to), the Republicans have taken a bloodbath over this issue. Was it a political stunt? Of course it was. So were the first so-called hearings. The Chairman of that committee screwed up by not having a single female on that panel. In that instance, he screwed up. By doing so, he not only invalidated his “hearing”, he give Pelosi the means to pull her “political stunt” (and it certainly worked). Moreover, he supported the idea that the Republicans have declared war on Women – and that idea has gone “virul”. This single idea could sink the Republicans handily come next November. The question is… what are they going to do about it? Skinner has obviously made his choice – he is going to take a page from Rush Limberger and go down with the ship. Are you willing to do the same?
I find the whole War on Women disgusting. It would be one thing if there wasn’t any truth to it, but the evidence is mounting up even if you disregard Limberger and Skinner. The fight against women’s contraceptives, the fight against the Violence against women act, the new law moving through the Arizona legislature that would allow employers to fire women on contraceptives… These are all aimed directly at women and it is hard not to see a pattern. The fact that they are socially conservative driven has nothing to do with it. It doesn’t matter what the driving force is behind these decisions.. what does matter is that they are – by their very nature – anti women. Someone has to wake the hell up and smell the coffee. Declaring war on more than 50% of the voters of the US is a bad idea.
Moorcat, I find it disgusting that you continue your partisan “war on women” meme through conflation.
One thing I hope I never do is defend the idiotic actions of congressional chairs.
I find it also intellectually dishonest to dodge the clashing issues that deserve individual respect. Religious freedom is meaningful, and it is in the constitution as a right. What y’all miss is the way out by bringing people together rather than harvesting political opportunity through division and demonization. The BC pill issue could easily be finessed, but there is no political fruit to pluck from that. Have women pick up their BC prescriptions from pharmacies and have those pharmacies bill the govt. (Of course that raises a host of other issues.) Rather than attempt that or similar approaches, the outraged must slay the dragons, even if they have to be manufactured.
As to Healthcare mandate, where this matter starts, it’s not doing too well in public opinion: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law
As to a govt mandate for religious institutions to provide birth control: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2012/50_oppose_gov_t_mandate_for_religious_organizations_to_provide_contraceptives 50% oppose it while 39% support it. That’s why Pelosi pulled her contrived stunt with Fluke.
Father Craigorio Mooron’s DISGUSTED! DisGUSTED I tell ya! BHWHAHAHAHAHAHAA!
You’re a funny dude, Fr. Moron. Keep diggin’, dufus!
Pelosi! Pelosi, damn it! And Fluke! Pelosi and Fluke! Fluke and Pelosi! Just LISTEN to those names. WOMEN’S names! Bad names! EVIL names! NEVER were there two more uppity womens out there! They’s EVIL, right Fr. Mooron?
Keep diggin’, Fr. Moron. You’re gettin’ pretty deep now! I think you’ve pretty well made the case that you are a full blown misogynist! What happened. Did some girl laff at your advances in jr. high????? Seek help, father. And take Skinflute WITH you!
Craig, as has been well documented in more locations than can possibly be linked here, Rasmussen’s poll question (the latter one) relies on a complete fabrication. There is no government mandate for religious organizations to provide contraception. They might as well be asking how people favor the Papal mandate for priests to find sexual relief with underage boys …
Rob got to it before I could (had to take the dog to the vet). I will address the rest of your comment, though –
I am not at all disgusted by advocating women’s rightss – including the right to choose whether to be pregnant or not. This is a matter of law that the Republicans – including you – are trying to change. By doing so, you are flying in the face of a decision made by the Supreme Court and as such, flying in the face of the law of the land. Last I checked, the US of A is a land of law, not a land of religion.
And while we are on the subject of Religion, let’s examine your statement about the first Amendment. Too many Republicans – including you – are trying to use the First to be a Shield for all kinds of unconstitutional behavior. Let me make this as clear as I can… The first Amendment of the Constitution gives you the right to believe whatever the hell you want to believe. If you want to believe in Jesus, you have that right. You even have the right to practice your beliefs – TO A POINT. You do NOT have the right to violate anyone elses rights, regardless if that is a tenant of your religion. Further (and this is the important part you seem to be missing… ) You do NOT have the right to force your beliefs on others. PERIOD. Under no tenants of the Constitution do you gain the ability to do that. NONE. In fact, the Constitution is very direct about the fact that Congress cannot force a belief system on anyone.
This issue is about a person’s RIGHT to choose a medical doctrine for themselves. It is NOT about your ability to practice your beliefs. You cannot force your Christian beliefs on women simply because they are your beliefs. You don’t have that right. Do you want me to force my Animistic beliefs on you? Of course you don’t. You would scream bloody murder if I tried. Stop trying to do that to others.
As far as your lame attempt to bring up Baucuscare into the discussion, that was complete fail. This has nothing to do with the ACA. I have made my opinion of the ACA pretty clear and – as you well know – my opinion about that particular peice of legislation is probably closer to your’s than to most people who comment here. But then again, I have also made it perfectly clear that I think the answer to the entire Health Care issue (on both a pragmatic and financial level) is universal health care. That is an argument for a different time, though. We were discussing Skinner’s idiotic article.
Oh, one other thing…
The “war on women” stopped being a meme when the Republican Party, in general, provided action to back up fear. If you are too insular to understand the actions taken by the party you support as being antiwomen, you are not paying attention. It doesn’t matter on whit what the rational was for those actions (be it political/religious/moral), the result was definitely anti women and as such, it is no longer a meme. Only through action (I think you Christians call it repentance) can you remove the truth behind the meme. Instead of action, you have fallen to damage control and spin.
AHhhhh Idiot, Legally this is the line that makes it a right:
” For the most part, anyone can offer to appear or be called as a witness at a hearing by contacting a committee holding a relevant hearing. ”
Unless their is a time issue, because of too many witnesses, and generally there isn’t everyone is given the chance to submit vocal or written testimony. Only the GOP change the rules, when they lead committees, this year they have even booted Press from hearings as well!
Your another Idiot!
You got THAT right, Fr. Craigorio Mooron! I saw the panel. Hell, them old fart male dudes where MORE than qualified to speak for all the women of America!
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Jus like the catholic bishnuts of the Holy Roman Kiddy Diddlers!
Me an idiot? Sorry, mc, but it appears I’m more versed in what constitutes a right under the Constitution than you.
Fluke was denied a panel seat, not her right to submit testimony — which all Americans enjoy thanks to the First Amendment. Sitting on a Congressional panel is, rightly or wrongly, a congressional privilege, by invitation only, not a “constitutional right” — and the panel seats are allocated by the elected majority committee leadership, for whom we have a right in turn to vote for and against.
Did Fluke have a right to the panel? Only if you subscribe to the idea that she’s ENTITLED by right to a panel throne on any and all topics that might interest her.
Clearly, you didn’t read my column very carefully, which is fine. It’s okay to skim and get it wrong. But I’d suggest you read the Constitution more carefully than you apparently have.
Thas right, Moorcat. Skinflute’s been to Gen. Robert E. Skees tutorial! He’s an expert now!….BWHHAHAHAHAAAA!
Too funny.
I have read the constitution more than once and have even read the SC decisions that pertain to it. The modern method by which people are allowed to testify skirts those laws pretty narrowly and, in the past have been called on it. Fluke was invited to testify and then denied the ability (whether she was a panel member of not is not the question). The later “non-binding” hearing was an attempt to correct that mistake.
I did read your “article”. It was no different than Limberger’s rant done in slightly less colorful language and just as short on actual fact/content. You misrepresent her argument, you attempt to disparage her character and you use politically changed language to convince your reader that the issue is far different than it is. Shame on you.
Exactly! Once again, it’s all about intimidation! And only intimidation! A private citizen ravaged by the biggest blob-o-shit on talk radio for three days in a row! In the most obscene, misogynistic language! And then, follow up hit pieces by his scuzzy little ditto heads here in Montana like Skinflute! (was there REALLY nothing in Montana to write about?)
Bottom line, Moorcat. What woman in her right mind would EVER want to be dragged through the mud and have her name associated with that fat blob-o-shit Blimpaugh and his little sycophantic wannabee colloidial cysts hangin’ off his fat ass like Skinnerflute simply in order to testify?
Never have I witnessed a more innocent private citizen attacked in such a fashion! And for what?
The Pubbies have declared war on women. Why? Who the hell knows! But since they started it, it must now be fought. And really, who the hell actually imagined that the colloidial cysts like Skinflute would be comin’ out of every seedy orifice like they are. These dudes are Blimplaugh’s hangers on! This is truly amazing!
It seems to me you didn’t read or hear the testimony very clearly. Go back and try again.
YOUR BIDNESS???!! Too funny, Skinflute! For you see, dude, I would happen to think that a woman’s business is HER own business too, and NONE of a busybody like YOU’s business at all! Again, for the record, Skinflute, just WHAT are your qualifications to speak for the WOMEN of America? I don’t get it! I think it’s a legitimate question. Your pomposity is exceded ONLY by your arrogance and ignorance!
Now, if you’re NOT arrogant and ignorant on women’s issues, list your creds, dude! But I can tell that you have none. That’s why you look like such a horse’s ass!
entitlement mentality according to whom? according to skinner…consider the source on this one.
Boy, I’ll second that! Since when did Skinner decide what part of laws should be enforceable?
See, this is what I don’t get about this whole issue (especially with Skinner’s and Limberger’s “analysis” of the issue). This was about health care insurance – specifically about health insurance companies being required to cover reproductive care.
Businesses of all kinds have to meet local state and federal regulations. This has been the case as long as their has been government. Fluke (and women in general) aren’t asking that the government, the tax payer or anyone else for that matter – pay for their reproductive care. They are asking for the insurer – a service they pay for – be required to actually cover their health care. This isn’t entitlement. This is demanding a fair product for a payment rendered. When the hell did Republicans get into the business of protecting insurance companies from paying for actual health care? Are they all bought and paid for by the Insurance Lobbies?
Screw that. If I pay a contractor to do a damn job, he better do the damn job or I will sue his backside. It is no different. Skinner and Limberger can shove their “analysis” where the sun doesn’t shine because they are A)misrepresenting the arguement and B) playing defense for the bloated and overpaid insurance companies.
MC,
Until you understand the idea of insurance in terms of risk and what constitutes same, you will never understand — and that’s your problem, not mine.
Almost all group plans have co pays or deductibles for contraceptives, not because they are discriminatory, but because there is simply no “risk” to insure. That’s why insurance doesn’t cover condoms, or at least provide them as a free benefit. Same deal on the distaff side.
Take away the religious and moral and gender issues and answer me this — should all health plans provide free rubbers for the boys and free pills/IUDS/spermicides for the girls? If so, who pays?
Your CREDS, dipshit? Keep posting. You’re simply digging your dumbass deeper!
Nice try, but fail.
The point of the hearing was whether insurance companies can deny contraceptives as health care. This wasn’t about risk, co pays or deductables. It was about whether a health care company could deny women health care.
To answer you question… You worded it badly (again with the politically charged language), but yes, I believe a health insurance company should cover all contraceptives (male and female). It makes financial sense from a risk standpoint. A pregnant female costs the insurance company a HELL of a lot more than a non-pregnant female and lets not even get into what a delivery, early well baby care etc are going to cost.
You are again trying to make it sound like the taxpayer is on the hook for this. Shame on you. A little intellectual honesty is called for. This is a simple case of what a service (health insurance) should be be regulated to cover for the price of paying for that insurance. The religious/political/moral aspects are window dressings that you are using to bamboozal your audience and Limberger used to create the stir that he thrives on.
The intellectual dishonesty used by Skinner and by Limberger is simply astounding. Look at the question this political hack posed to me.
” If so, who pays?”
The simple answer is – the person paying for the health care, numbnuts. If I pay a health insurance company 700$ a month (and that is just our contribution, let’s not even consider what the employer is putting in toward it…), and my wife gets contraceptives (100$ a month of which the insurance covers 60$), then that 60$ came out of the 700$+ a month we pay for health insurance – giving the insurance company a profit of 640$ that month. No one is is getting anything for free. The insurance company is simply making 60$ a month less profit.
Any other rational is dishonest. Skinner is a bullshit artist writ large and he will continue to try to back his position by whatever means he feels necessary. The fact that he has a larger audience doesn’t make his arguement any more honest, it just means that his lie is seen by more people.
Though Moorcat has already done an exemplary job of ripping Skinner’s argument into teeny tiny little shreds, there are two things that need to be made extremely clear: 1) If we are discussing birth control then we aren’t talking about “boys” and “girls”. We’re discussing the needs of men and women. That kind of demeaning framing is meant only to separate ‘them’ from ‘us’, a foolish thing if one ever hopes that “them” will vote your way ever again. 2) A doctor’s prescription isn’t needed to purchase a rubber. Condoms aren’t “health care”, per se, though today they likely should be. So, how about this; Before a man can purchase condoms, he has to submit to an STD screening, including catheter swab.
Oooops! Where did that little colloidial cyst of a man (I prefer that to ditto head) SCURRY to? Come back come back and play, Skinnerflute!
BHWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAA!
Sorry, to laff, Skinflute. I WILL try to screen our calls more closely in the future so’s that you don’t get any negative feedback! For you see, isn’t negative feed back just so negative?! Isn’t that how your blob-o-shit master does it?
Why do you think the health insurance companies didn’t object to covering the cost of contraceptives? Because it overall saves them money. You have absolutely no valid reason for continuing to fight what to most of us is common sense. If you’re stuck on the religious freedom issue, consider being the woman who pays her own premiums, but still has someone who is NOT paying them and NOT affected by them actively denying her something that is routine coverage. In doing that, they are infringing on HER religious freedom to choose for herself. Georgetown U takes many millions in federal funding – which has no position against contraceptives, but does have a requirement to comply with US laws and the U takes money from non-Catholic students. It seems to me, they’ve lost the right to dictate anything on this subject.
But it seems religious institutions are delusional about just how ENTITLED they are to run other peoples’ lives.
The Catholic Church can’t seem to get women to Obey them so they figured they’d get our goverment to do it
Moorcat:
For the record, Bro, you “get” it just fine. You’ve shown that clearly. So quit assisting them by pretending that you don’t. Speak the truth of what you know. These assholes don’t give a shit about who has to pay for what. They want control over who behaves in the manner they proscribe.
You are, of course, right. I do get that this is about Health Insurance Company profits. I was trying to be “satirical” and it isn’t something I do very well. The Religious/Moral/Partisan BS is just window dressing to try to protect the real clients – the Health Insurance Companies.
I don’t know of anyone that has had a good experience with Health Insurance Cos. I hate them.
So, you support single payer, then?
Saved my life twice, when injured to the point of death for my profession. and they found the very best doctors in the country to do it. I had a friend that was burned in an airplane crash were 70% of his skin was burned 40% of it 3rd degree, and I watch Kaiser do everything they could to get him back into the world, sending him to the best burn center in the USA to return him to looking normal!
I watched insurance save my mother also. it does work well when they want too be good to their customers. the problem is alot of times they don’t!
Larry, don’t give yourself too much credit. Just had some grousers to work on and a gas piston to turn.
The willful ignorance displayed here, of what really constitutes risk, or what premiums do, just stuns me.
Equally stunning was that circular militia thing you all had going in the last thread. And you of the Left call us of the Right “intolerant?” Cht.
Reminds me of the old saw — great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people. As for those who go straight to insults and puerile invective — heck, where’s my electron microscope?
To me, Fluke wasn’t representing “women,” but rather an idea, an ideology, of entitlement — of entitlements that override the rights, finances and yep, moralities of other citizens. That’s a political outlook that has important consequences for America’s future, and I’m sorry you sports can’t understand that. A shame, really.
Skinner, you give others too little credit. See, kitten, I’ve worked in the insurance industry, and Moorcat has been correct all along. That is despite your claims that he doesn’t share your vast knowledge, even though he’s been correct from step one, or your current avoidance of his ripping you a new one.
“To me, Fluke wasn’t representing “women,” but rather an idea, an ideology, of entitlement”
Sorry, but in MY America, a fat, uneducated, ignorant, draft-dodgin’, lazy, never-had-a-real-job, loser, bag of SHIT like Blimpaugh does NOT get to call an innocent, decent, undeserving woman a SLUT!, and then ask to see the VIDEOS of her having sex posted on line, ONLY to recieve applause, accolades, and approbation from reprobates like yourself! Sorry, but THAT ain’t my America, dude! Your enthusiastic defense of him is equally offensive!
You slobs have a whole lotta apologizing to do to the women of this country. But you’re much too stupid to understand that.
p.s. And as far as namecalling goes, seems your fat blob-o-shit master pretty much takes the cake! You guys are real manly gentlemen! You really know how to treat the ladies!
Keep digging.
I’ll surely say it if no one ELSE will!
Have you as**holes no shame?
You, Skinflute, and Mooron, and Blimpaugh, and all the REST of you idiots! Of what PURPOSE is this war on women?
HAVE YOU NO SHAME?
No offense meant, Larry, but the reason no one else has said it is because the answer is obvious.
No. They have no shame.
I hear ya. I simply can’t believe what these people are attempting to do. I think that we must be very clear. It is INDEED intimidation, exactly like what McCarthy did. Led by a big, fat, homosexual, drug addicted, drug addled perv named Limpaugh. He IS the personification of McCarthy. Cross him and you can expect to be dragged before HIS court of public opinion, called a SLUT, demanded to turn over sex tapes, and suffer an attempt to have your life destroyed! Amazing stuff!
But today, the question is:
Have you now or have your ever used birth control? (see proposed Arizona law)
Truly amazing. And unbelievable in this day and age.
As happened with McCarthy, this fat bastard has gone too far. I hope that decent Americans have finally had enough and thoroughly renounce this miscygonistic hatred at every turn!
But the intimidation tactics will remain though. It’s what the nazis do.
An Entitlement is the Republicans Idea of Uppity. They call everything an entitlement now, that they want to take away from the American people and give to the corporations.
The last 60 years has been a bastion of equality for women, and minorities. The Republicans have decided in some smoke filled backroom, plied with money from corporate interests — they will start recalling any rights they don’t want Uppity minorities like women to have. The Plantation Owners (Corporations like KOCH) need more subservient and religious folk now! This has nothing to do with religion it has to do with the fact that 50% of the voting Public are now women. This is a war on woman and their rights!
Sorry republicans, the civil rights act and women’s rights are not a leased right, you can revoke at any given time. It is well established U.S. law, decided countless times, in the favor of women and Minorities people by the supreme court.
So the GOP has no other choice but to dismantle the U.S. Federal Laws in the legislature, or de-fund them to kill those Laws.
Dave Skinner, Your another GOP jerk, and Liar on My Feeble Minded List
BMonty, you should see the Fundiwackmentalists out in force here in GF. My GOD! There are two every block going door to door to spread the Word ’bout JAYsus and his Pubbie Apostles! It’s full on christofascism now! They’re gonna GET them uppity folks that you speak of one way or another! It’s really quite sickening to see. My GOD don’t these folks have real jobs? How DO they have enough time to dress to the nines and proseltyze to christofacism? And they alREADY have four or five slick radio stations too. One is Spanish that is very well produced propaganda! Who’s paying for all this??? God???
I kick them off my doorstep once a month here Buddy, I dont need a middle man to commune with my God!
Mr Skinner.
I have been reading your work for some time, which consistently leaves me with the following thought:
Please learn to think for yourself.
Everything you write is some reiteration of a Fox News program from the previous few days.
Until you learn to think for yourself, you will be nothing more than a lemming, furiously typing away, never realizing that you are headed towards a cliff,or how far you will fall when you go over the edge. And that’s your problem, not mine.
Yeah, but he gets paid for it. Skinner won’t fall off that ledge until the people who pay can say “you ain’t worth it, dipstick.”
In a way, that makes it worse for me. That means that the people who pay Skinner’s paycheck WANT him to lie to the people who reads his column. I find that distasteful on so many levels.
Wow. Who pays that guy to write a column? That’s just hard to believe!
I doubt he gets paid. Just sayin’
A regular columnist in a newspaper is usually paid – either as staff or by submission. I have no idea if Skinner is a paid columnist but if he has a regular column, he probably is.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/19/1075860/-Women-can-still-pay-up-to-81-percent-more-than-men-for-health-insurance-
Lynn,
From a purely financial standpoint, it makes sense to charge women more because the average child bearing age woman uses 61% more actual health care than the average male of the same age. It is a function of a number of things -
1) a woman of child bearing age has more issues that need medical attention (or at least doctor involvement) than men. As Rob pointed out to Skinner, a man doesn’t need a perscription for a condom but a woman not only must see a doctor for the perscription, she must continue to see that doctor for followup examinations.
2) Societally, men are less likely to seek a physician even when they probably should go to one. Men are far more likely to avoid say.. annual checkups than women. This is also a function of our media. We are constantly bombarded with ads – usually targeting women – to see a doctor of this medicine or that medicine. Women are (rightfully) suggested to seeing a doctor of breast exams etc. Women are far more likely to seek preventive care than men are.
All these things (as well as a few others) add up to women actually utilizing more care than men to at that age. In simple financial terms, it is the actualization of risk that insurance companies use to make profit – and therein lies the failure of the entire insurance system.
In the end, we all have to pay for our actual health care – whether there is an insurance agency between us and the doctor or not. If there is, we simply pay for that health care by paying a lifetime of premiums. The difference is that when the insurance agencies in the middle, we don’t have to pay it in one lump sum. We pay over time. Worse, when the insurance is in the middle, you are paying their expenses and profit. It is a scam really – regardless of what you pay (or don’t pay), the insurance company makes a profit.
Now I don’t want to sound like I agree with gender risk assessment but to treat it like it doesn’t have a basis is just silly. Of course it has a basis. Insurance companies are bean counters and there is a financial reason for most of what they do. The Huffpo article you linked is not all that helpful because it utilizes the same kind of misdirection that the Republicans use to fight the ACA. If you are going to argue against it, please keep it honest.
So, you favor single payer, right? …
I know that was rhetorical because you and I have spoken at length on this issue but for the benefit of everyone else, hell yes. I have always supported single payer (in fact, I have supported universal health care) for decades. It makes no financial sense to do anything else. It is the only effective way to control costs, it services everyone equally and it usually provides for a better baseline health care than any other model.
Preventive Care, the whole idea is if there is no CO-Pay people will get the care and Tests they need so problems are caught sooner. Since most people have no money left over after paying the insurance premium, they don’t have money for a co-pay
http://www.wellmark.com/blue/Spring2011/PlanSmarts_HealthCareReform.htm
http://www.piperreport.com/blog/2011/05/15/preventive-services-understanding-preventive-health-services-covered-under-the-affordable-care-act/
http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Clinical-Preventive-Services-for-Women-Closing-the-Gaps.aspx
Some with insurance still can’t afford to be sick:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/18/1075489/-Unaffordable-co-pays-and-deductibles-death-by-a-million-cuts-for-insured-Americans
Santorum: Secret Service protection or drone strike? WaPo.
In response to the DailyKos link provided by Lynn I was wandering around and found out that gender bias will go away in 2014 with the implementation of the ACA. I think that’s an benefit of the ACA that should be loudly pointed out.
Dallas,
Gender bias itself with be illegal but insurance company actuaries will change to incorporate the cost of the risk into everyone’s premiums. This is how it works so that the insurance companies make a profit.
As much as I hate the ACA (and I think I have made it abundantly clear that I do, in fact, hate the ACA), there are a lot of good ideas incorporated into it. I am still on the fence about whether I believe the ACA was a “gateway” legislation but, as written, I think it might do more harm than good. The mandate, in and of itself is a non-starter for me.
Had the legislation that President Obama championed at the beginning been enacted, I would have been much happier. That truly did seem to be a gateway bill intented to lead to universal health care. The original intent would have actually addressed the real cost of health care as well as deal with the issues of unfair practices done by insurance companies. The Public Option would have eventually led to the death of profit health care companies and would have resulted in universal health care eventually. The Abortion proposed by Baucus and later passed as the ACA does some of the good things but didn’t address the actual cost of health care. Worse, it ended up being an Insurance Industy bailout. Yes, it forces restrictions on the Insurance Agencies – restrictions that needed to be enforced, but it also did nothing to prevent those same insurance industries to jack up their premium rates to all their subscribers to maintain their profit. The end result is that everyone’s insurance premiums went up by and average of 18%.
The mandate for insurance will likely be the death knell for the ACA. It is likely to be repealed because of it. Sadly, the good things done by the ACA will be negated when it get’s repealed.
Moorcat,
I understand that the elimination of gender bias will not necessarily mean a reduction in premiums for women. Like you I anticipate that men’s premiums will go up to account for the loss which could be part of the negativity associated with the ACA. And like virtually everyone else here I too feel we this bastardized hybrib system in an attempt to get a foot in the door. It’ll be interesting to see what SCOTUS will do, but I’m not too optomistic.
And in response to the days comments/discussions, I really think the whole Skinner/Limbaugh/right wing assault on women is two things. Skinner and his ilk are mere patsies altho he’ll never recognize it.
1. the echo chamber of the right wing are being good little soldiers and marching in lockstep (Skinner and his ilk are mere patsies altho he’ll never recognize it) to try and 2. Intimidate women/minorities into staying home next November. The R’s have all but given up on the Presidential race. It’s the US House and US Senate where they’ll try to make their gains/hold the line. As an example, recall that Obama won Virginia in 2008; if the R’s can intimidate some the women and minorities in Virginia into staying home, they win the down ticket items for Senate and House. If they can do that in a few well chosen districts, the House stays in Republican hands and the Senate just might switch hands.
One good thing the ACA will do is limit the profit bt mandating that 80 to 85% of the preminiums collected MUST go for direct patient care. No more 25-30% in overhead. Medicare/Medicare runs at a 3% overhead. I would like Medicare E for everyone otherwise known as a public option. One thing that’s always left out in a jobs discussion is that every other “civilized”, “Modern” country has universal health care, not provided by employers. Its not part of the “Business Model”
Lynn,
I think it is overly optimistic to think that the US government will be able to enforce that part of the ACA. In fact, I think logistically, it can’t be done. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time the legislature passed an unenforcable law. I am sure they would like to see that enforced but I also beleive that it is a statistical impossibility.
You are correct about Universal Health Care, though. We are the only industrial country in the world that doesn;t have it. Worse, we are below the top 20 countries in the world when it comes to basic health care. Sure, we have the best technology (or more precisely, have more of the best technology than anyone else does) and we are the top in the world at elective procedures both in number and quality, but we are certainly not even in the top 20 in the things that make up basic health care like availability, afordability, and preventive care. It is sad and I actually see it as national security issue. When we have people in the hundreds of thousands dying every year from preventable health issues all because our health care is unafordable, I find that almost criminal and a threat to our very survival as a country.
It was pointed out to me tonight in a private discussion with someone else that what I thought as self evident about the ACA is not self evident unless you think like I do.
It breaks down like this…
If you take 30% of $1,000 you get $300. If you take 30% of 2,000, you get $600. This seems simple enough, right?
So lets put that in terms of the ACA. If an insurance company is limited to only getting 30% profit off their premiums, what in the blue blazes of hell will stop them from encouraging health care providers from charging more? The simple answer is… NOTHING. If the health care providers charge more (or somehow massage the system to make “additional” charges that are covered by insurance), the insurance companies can charge more for premiums and let’s face it, 30% of $2,000 is more than 30% of $1,000. Since overhead is essencially fixed once the policy is issued and since insurance companies get paid whether you pay your part of the actual health care costs or not, there is no incentive to slow or stop the exponencial rise in actual health care costs. As long as the actuary is set up correctly, the insurance company will ALWAYS be profitable. The loser in this is the person paying for the insurance (read – you and me).
This seemed to me to be elementary. I guess it isn’t. As I have said since the beginning, where the ACA really failed is that failed to address the insane cost of actual health care. A public option would have been a real incentive to control actual costs. That was taken off the table. The only other solution would have been universal (or single payer) health care. That was deemed “too socialist”. What we ended up with was a plan that actually encourages increasing cost (so more profit is made), a mandate to purchase that insurance and no element built in to control costs. This is a nightmare even if it did regulate that insurance companies had to stop their noxious habit of dropping people or denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions.
Though we disagree about giving wingnuts a forum, I would not agree more with what you wrote here.
We would not be having this debate if we had a zero-dollar, everyone and everything covered, single-payer plan run by the federal government. Instead, we have an unsustainable scheme that enriches health insurance companies at the expense of everyone else, and that encourages social progressives like Catholic Bishops and evangelical Bible pounders to attempt to inflict their anti-contraception dogmas on the whole country.
On health care, the president and both political parties have failed the nation; failed it badly.
Mr. Conner is exactly right. We need a single payer system. It’s the only way to cut costs and make health care affordable without enriching the insurance companies! The NY Times wrote today that the current health care “reform” bill was crafted by the Heritage Institute. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/opinion/krugman-hurray-for-health-reform.html?_r=1&ref=opinion No wonder it was full of give-aways for the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.
Careful there, James. The Catholic Bishnuts are gonna EXCORCISE your commie ass! That is in SPITE of the fact that a full SEVENTY-FREAKIN’-FIVE percent of the American public actually AGREES with you and will RISK an exorcism by the Holy Roman Kiddy Diddlers to get some freakin’ health care! Too bad that Mini Barfus is such a nutless wonder. We could’a had it all if ONLY the Dems like Mini would’a had some nuts!
But NOW, look what we got! The freakin’ Holy Roman Kiddy Diddlers and Skinnerflute callin’ the shots! Bad, bad shit, amigo!
Dang Larry, they are getting closer!
Shaun Winkler, White Supremacist, Running For County Sheriff: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/19/shaun-winkler-white-supremacist-kkk-sheriff-idaho_n_1365677.html?ref=topbar
The dude is NOT smart enough to be sheriff! In fact, he’s a dumbass! He don’t speak code talk! Now, if he we’re to parade around in his Confederidiot FLAG jacket inSTEAD of white robes, the message would be the same but he wouldn’t be associated with a vile hate group! See, he’s just not smart enough yet to run for office! He needs to talk to Gen. Robert E. Skees and Pastord Bulbdim to see how it’s done right!
In the spirit of brotherliness, I would like to invite our pals Fr. Craigorio Mooron and Dave Skinnerflute to conduct a leetle experiment just like Birther Bob did. Remember his? Birther Bob walked around town asking folks if they’d buy him a condom.
SO, that started me thinking. (always a scary though) I suggest that Fr. Mooron and Skinflute walk around their towns and ask attractive single young women if they use BIRTH control. And if they answer yes, tell them that they are SLUTS, and ask them if they would kindly provide videos of their sexual encounters!
HEY, it’s worth a shot, right? I mean, maybe THEN them two morons just might get some instant feedback, ESPECIALLY from any male companions that might to be near by! Then, they could report back to the forum just like Birther Bob did to the Lege about the results. I’m sure that nice attractive young Montana women have NO problem being called SLUTS by a couple’a pervy losers, right? I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
Pubbies. Dumber than dog shit and proud OF it!
Have a nice TIME, boys! I’ll be waiting for Skinnerflute’s next fascinating column for the results!…
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!
What sort of moronic inbred paper actually gives Skinnerflute space? Is that Crank Mealy’s rag?
Dave Skinner writes “Closing Range” for the Flathead Beacon. I don’t always agree with him, but sometimes I do and give him a plug at Flathead Memo. There are few conservative writers in Montana who produce prose as readable as Dave’s.
Dave’s been a guest poster here. He’s not a bad writer–just wrong on this issue : )
He is – technically – not a bad writer. His prose is easy to understand. That does not make him a “good” source. His “facts” are questionable, his writing is manipulative and dishonest and he is incapable of dealing at all with critisism. He may be a “not bad” writer, but he is a lousy human being.
I don’t think he should have been featured on this blog. Why hand this “lousy human being” a megaphone. Let’s give voice to those who use facts to promote their views, not lies and distortion.
In that, I would disagree with you, Havre. I posted a link a few days ago that I will repost here. In essence, the writer (one of the best blog writers available today in my opinion) explains why he reads and responds to the wingnuts that are invariably drawn to his writing. Go ahead and read it, I’ll wait…
http://www.stonekettle.com/2012/03/why-i-talk-to-loons.html
In the same light, by exposing the crazies (or in this case, the paid hacks like Skinner), Cowgirl is doing her part in allowing others to see Skinner for the hack he is. Yes, by allowing him to sound off in “defense” of his bullshit, Skinner has a platform but as we (as in all the people that have called him on that same BS) have proved, Skinner is a paid hack with an axe to dull. This lessens (to some small extent) his ability to influence and at the end of the day, that is something.
Exactly, The Backlash theory of the GOP is still alive and well in the propaganda machine. Another interesting story on this same logic can be found in the book What’s the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/0805073396
I highly suggest it as well! I knew I Liked you Moorcat, always like StoneKettles Blog myself
Thought I pass this along:
The following joke is by a commenter over at Crooks and Liars. I thought it was good enough to pass on to you guys.
A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, “Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don’t know where I am.”
The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, “You’re in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above ground elevation of 2,346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.
“She rolled her eyes and said, “You must be an Obama Democrat.”
“I am,” replied the man. “How did you know?”
“Well,” answered the balloonist, “everything you told me is technically correct. But I have no idea what to do with your information, and I’m still lost. Frankly, you’ve not been much help to me.”
The man smiled and responded, “You must be a Republican.”
“I am,” replied the balloonist. “How did you know?”
“Well,” said the man, “you don’t know where you are or where you are going. You’ve risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You’re in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but somehow, now it’s my fault.”
How convenient that you left out the fact that Obama’s poll numbers are dropping fast: http://www.americansagainstobama.com/2012/03/13/obama-poll-number-dropping-fast/
The closer we get to Obamacare’s detonation date, the lower he goes.
@RasmussenPoll: Daily Tracking: #Obama: 46%, #Romney: 45%… Obama: 48%, #Santorum: 43%.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/03/16/445984/fox-polls-on-gas-prices-and-gets-results-it-doesnt-like/
Drill baby, not only do you quote a poll from a source called “American’s against Obama”, you are assuming that any of us really buy into polling in the first place. I, for one, do not. Polling this year has been all over the map and even the actual respected pollsters are seeing really weird results. I have already posted ad nausium why I think that is but the bottom line is that polls are less than useful at this point.
@ Larry;
I agree that Lardbaugh is the closest thing to McCarthyism since Tail Gunner Joe himself; one difference however, McCarthy actually served, whereas Rash used a pimple on his ass for a medical deferment to dodge the draft.