McCain Anit-Contraceptive and Anti-Choice - Page 2

rivrrat · 07-13-08, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gladiator

Have you ever met a woman who was working, but poor?

Yes. Once myself.

Quote:

How far would you have to travel to find a working poor woman? A woman on a tight budget?

I could call my sister. Wouldn't matter if some insurance company covered her pills though, she doesn't have insurance.

Quote:

An unemployed woman? A mother whose husband has lost his job? Ever met a learning disabled woman on SSI? Emotionally diabled?

I'm sure I wouldn't have to go far to find someone unemployed, been there myself a few times. And, yes, yes, yes to the rest. And?

Quote:

Contraceptives are an expense that is a challenge for some Women, and takes some planning around, and the expense can sometimes be challenging to fit in.

Are you suggesting this is the insurance company's problem? Or my problem? Or the government's problem?

Sounds like a personal problem to me.

Quote:

Families should take care of their elderly relatives, but Government Social Security and Medicare take care of them.

Buahahhahaa... yeah, sure it does.

Quote:

Some government expenses are wise investments. Roads could be operated by communities and turnpike fee companies. Why Federal highways?

I would be perfectly fine with privatization.

Quote:

How much extra do you wantt o spend on Educating unplanned children, whose mothers were not careful during pregnancy, and now have learning diabled children, because the women failed to fit contraceptives into their budget.

$0. I don't think the government should be spending anything on education.

Quote:

How far would you have to travel to find an unemployed, or underemployed woman who was living in a household, where a man would sometimes demand sex, that was not voluntary and by mutual consent? And being intimidated or intoxicated, submit to unplanned sex, to be able to have a place to live?

If a woman is being regularly raped in her household, she should remove herself from the household. I have no sympathy for those who remain.

jallman · 07-13-08, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gladiator

McCain has voted agianst health insurance providing birth control pills twice in the US Senate.

Insurance companies are required to provide Men with Viagra and other male performance enhancements, because Ercectile Disfunction is a "Disease".

McCain twice had the opportunity to give women a safety net to proect from accidental parenthood caused by revved up husbands and lovers.

I saw McCain on CNN try to handle a question about the unfairness of Women not being provided access to birth conrol pills, and other contracpetive measures by health insurers. McCain panders to both Anti-choice and Anti-Contraceptive advocates.

McCain Squirms on Birth Control and Viagra - Election ’08 - Care2

.

I am zealously pro-choice and pro-women's rights. However, the abortion/reproductive rights debate becomes so intensely irrational and so grey that I had long ago made it my policy to not even consider the issue when deciding on a candidate. He would have to be extremely radical in his position to even catch my notice. I hear abortion/birth control/reproductive rights and I instinctively tune it out now. I just don't have a dog in that hunt.

Gladiator · 07-13-08, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

I am zealously pro-choice and pro-women's rights. However, the abortion/reproductive rights debate becomes so intensely irrational and so grey that I had long ago made it my policy to not even consider the issue when deciding on a candidate. He would have to be extremely radical in his position to even catch my notice. I hear abortion/birth control/reproductive rights and I instinctively tune it out now. I just don't have a dog in that hunt.

You are not alone. Even if a Pro-choice candidate is elected US President, there are so many Anti-Choice Democrats in congress, that little or nothing will get done by the US government, or the UN.

..

Doc Howl · 07-13-08, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

IMO, they shouldn't force private insurance companies to cover anything.

They already don't.

And to you, this is a desirable state?

winston53660 · 07-13-08, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
IMO, they shouldn't force private insurance companies to cover anything.

Then why buy insurance?

rivrrat · 07-13-08, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Howl

They already don't.

And to you, this is a desirable state?

Yes. A private business should be allowed to offer what services it wishes. Or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by winston53660

Then why buy insurance?

Because they cover what I want them to cover. If they don't, I find anohter plan.

winston53660 · 07-13-08, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

Because they cover what I want them to cover. If they don't, I find anohter plan.

If things were that easy fine but they never will be in a fiduciary responsible society.

Doc Howl · 07-13-08, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winston53660

Then why buy insurance?

Truth. Given that there should be no regulation, then the insurance companies obviously can't be trusted.

Let's just go over to nationalized healthcare.

Doc Howl · 07-13-08, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

Because they cover what I want them to cover. If they don't, I find anohter plan.

Because they're all so different.

rivrrat · 07-14-08, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winston53660

If things were that easy fine but they never will be in a fiduciary responsible society.

Why aren't they that easy? It's that easy as far as I'm concerned. I compare plans, what they cover, how much, and I make my choice accordingly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Howl

Because they're all so different.

You seriously don't think the different plans are any different? Seriously? Do you actually READ them?