In his bitter words...

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
In his bitter words...
Mon, 09-17-2012 - 7:32pm


Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Sun, 09-23-2012 - 10:23pm

"I have no misunderstandings about the Muslim world and while cartoons and videos may be the excuse given for rioting and murder, it's not the underlying reason. I sure hope that our government isn't naive enough to think it is,  as they were with the Libyan attacks"

   What is the underlying reason?  Of course our government in foriegn relations is naive it has been that way for decades.


"As a woman, there are many things that I "want", but it's not the job of the government to provide those things for me or to mandate that others do."

 Health care is provided by government it has been the law for decades.  Any county hospital handles emergency room cases.  Specifically what is it ?  Gonvernment exists to serve the needs of the people. 



iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Sun, 09-23-2012 - 11:46pm
From my point of view, insurers made a mistake in the calculus of birth control cost, particularly considering the cost of pregnancy. Insurance companies covered the cost of male performance enhancing drugs. Am at a loss to explain the "why" of both the above.

I personally don't worry about getting pregnant since that period (pun intended) of my life is over. Years ago, after deciding that two children were the limit, I had a tubal ligation. Abstinence would not have gone over well with my spouse, though it would have been a surefire way to prevent pregnancy.

I don't know what your insurance plan is like or how many choices you have but most employees don't have a whole heckuva lot of choice about coverage, particularly for small businesses. IOW, there isn't much leverage at the consumer level, to compel insurers to change their business model even if the demographic affected is a significant percentage of the insurance risk pool.

Government stepped in and mandated protections for food, air, and water. Got a problem with that too?

I mentioned the Middle East in the context of "outrage". It can be a selfish emotion, particularly when the "outraged" individual decides that her/his expression of that emotion trumps good sense and moderation.

I strongly suspect that there are multiple causes for the animosity towards the U.S. xxxs makes the case that education is rare and religious more often than not. Some have decided that the Obama administration got it wrong about what led to the assaults in Libya and then lied. From what I have read the one thing on which there is consensus is that the Libyan embassy should have had better security, particularly on the anniversary of 9/11. That's a valid point, All the rest is political haymaking. It's early days to be deciding what's "true" and what isn't. The FBI doesn't have it all figured out, much less partisans of the U.S. political opposition.


iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
Tue, 09-25-2012 - 10:07am

You don't want insurers to pay for contraception, because you believe it impacts your cost.


Wrong, why? Oh, because you don't believe the Constitution madates it. Um, the Constitution is a vague document, intentionally so, and it was not meant to be absolute, because it can't be. It can be interpreted in many ways, because the people who created it were not of one opinion. It was meant to be malleable. Otherwise, it wouldn't exist, not enough would have supported it.

As has been pointed out by others as well as me, the consequences of *your choice* costs much more.

The consequences are not a factor in this debate. Strike two.

roflmao. Oh yes they are. That's why the law exists. See point above, you can't argue Constitution on everything you don't like. Iraq war, against the Constitution. Where were you then? Not once did I ever see you argue against the war.

You keep forgetting that pesky 'promote the general welfare' thingie.

You didn't even know this issue existed until the administration made it a nationwide thing. It's sound social policy,  and it in fact reduces costs, not increases it. It reduces other societal issues. It's a huge huge positive.

Again, irrelevant. The argument that the government should be able to force insurers to provide free birth control because, otherwise, those women will be unable to stop themselves from becoming pregnant is demeaning to women. Can you say "War on Women"?

Nope, nice try. Whiff. Points for the spin. Some cannot afford the cost, particularly teens. This helps. And government can regulate interstate commerce, so...

This isn't a big bad government thing. This is government sticking up for average people. 

No, it isn't. It is, first and foremost, Obama buying votes. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just fooling themselves. Strike three.

Obama buying votes? roflmao... care to tell me about all the billionaire money doing an end around in the election? That apparently is okay, but... doing something that you know... actually helps people, why "YOU'RE BUYING VOTES!!!"

How about Republicans blocking votes that help people, and who do it for the sole purpose of making Obama look bad? It's on the record, McConnell said it. That too is okay, it seems.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
Tue, 09-25-2012 - 10:10am

As a woman, there are many things that I "want", but it's not the job of the government to provide those things for me or to mandate that others do.

What is the purpose of government, when we get right down to the essence? To promote and advance civilisation, our corner of it. We do so by setting policy that encourages and helps these things, and this is decidedly one area where it serves positive purpose.

The government has the right to regulate interstate commerce and the right to regulate insurers. States traditionally have served this purpose, but over the last several decades, the insurers have grown to national in scope and even multi-national. There is a need to regulate contract provisions as well as the financial end of things.