DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:
Thank you for answering the questions you've answered, tazzy. And, thank you for demeaning me by attempting to make my opinions irrelevant because I'm not learned enough to know anything. Go on with your vitriol and rantings against the Catholic Church. But, it's obvious you have absolutely no desire to accept that I have a point of view that is as valid as yours and actually have a discussion.
The questions you have asked could have been pulled up from any medical or government web site. Its your game to ask inane questions then pretend you knew the answers after they were given. I am tenacious when it comes to women's issues and even when you treat it like a joke, someone else may read and learn something.
Treat it like a joke? And, you are simply assuming that I didn't know the answers prior to asking the questions. Wrong assumption mostly. What you lack the understanding to see is that by having you answer the question - sometimes even linking and quoting the exact same site that I was already looking at - it can get you to realize something that I think you were missing. If I were to have told you everything, you'd get nothing because you have little to no respect for my viewpoint. But, if you were to answer the questions I ask and finally get a clue about what I'm saying, then you'd have buy in, because I may have led you to that, but I didn't simply tell you. Unfortunately, you aren't open-minded enough to accept that someone else has an opinion different than yours (though mine isn't really all that different - another thing you couldn't take into account).
quote:
I hate the Church, without a doubt. I dont hate catholics. Do try and understand that difference.
Wait. What?!? lol No shit. And, that is also why I specified the "Catholic Church" and not just Catholics.
quote:
quote:
When your choice starts to cost me (generally speaking, nothing specific), shouldn't I have some say in that choice?
I wanted to specifically address this from your post #53.
The idea that a pregnancy doesnt cost you anything is... interesting. It costs everyone. It costs you in insurance premiums, it costs you in Medicaid, it costs you in TANF, it costs you in all those "freebies" you love to complain about. It costs in over crowding, it costs in carbon footprints, it costs you in educational expenses, it costs you in college tuition.
And that is if the kid grows up and goes to college. If not, its minimum wage and food stamps, Medicaid. Depending on the person, it can even cost in an upswing in crime, public defenders, jail costs, more medical, ect ect ect.
So, to say you are dead set against birth control because it "will cost" you is sorta funny from that perspective. Seems to me that will save you a hell of a lot of money.
Just a few things to think about.
Yet, if were to get to a society where people were tasked with the responsibility to make their own way, to not leech off the Government (except under emergency conditions and disability situations), then it wouldn't. Insurance is it's own thing. That is a choice - or should be - to buy or not. The simple fact that medical care is too expensive to afford without insurance (which is itself too expensive to afford because of the high cost of medical care) isn't a valid reason for forcing people to buy insurance. It has been shown that the individual costs of medical procedures is higher than elsewhere. What do you think would happen if the cost of procedures was that of Germany, France, Canada, etc.? What would happen to the cost of care, in general (without insurance?)? What do you think would happen to the cost of insurance?
Forcing people to buy insurance to increase the size of the risk pool (which really lowers the costs for those at the higher end of the risk pool at the expense of those that present a lower risk). That is simply enabling the problem. The way our welfare programs have been run enables leeches (who are not the ones I refer to in my signature line; huge difference) and has led, does lead, and will continue to lead (unless reformed), to even larger programs, subsidies and enrollments.
Is it right that my home insurance goes up not because of anything I've done, or any increase in the risk I present to the insurance company, simply because a natural disaster hits Florida, Mississippi, Texas, etc. and the insurance company got socked with massive payouts? Is it right that financial companies roll the dice with Federally insured monies and lose their asses, not actually having to take the massive hit because of that Federal insurance? Increasing the depth and breadth of government and government programs will create more of these examples where the taxpayers are shafted.
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: Did the GOP really understand the last election? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread