Who are American politicians beholden to? The People? The Constitution?

[kentonio]

Why are my wants and needs less important than 'low income woman'? Why are their needs more important?

Because they outnumber immigrant religious fanatics by a rather vast proportion.

True, I don't. But American citizens do. Your case essentially amounts to, "I want it, therefore it must happen". Pretty ****ty argument. Oh, and some good patriachal insight that 'poor women need their contraception paid for because they can't be trusted to keep their legs closed". Well said, Kentonio.

Aww, it's so cute to see your inner sexist coming out (not that you bother to hide it much it must be said). You know who wants these things? Women, which is why they came out hugely in support of the President in the last election and against the sexist idiots who forgot you can't win an election if half the population hate you.

No, I'm tired of liars who use women.

That's hilarious, did you actually bother listening to the polls where women were asked about these issues? Apparently not because otherwise you'd already know that large majorities of women favour these organizations

You've already admitted that Obamacare doesn't just cover 'low income women'. It covers everyone- and I end up paying not just for the low income women but for everyone's condoms. Rich or poor.

You pay next to nothing, and again no-one cares about your outdated religious fantasies.

This is why your argument is garbage. If it were truly about poor women, Obamacare would provide benefits only for them. But it doesn't, so that's just a smokescreen. At least Obama's honest about his desire to **** the poor.

Let me see if I can decipher your frankly bizarre statement..

-Because Obamacare takes care of more than just poor women, it means that its not intended to help poor women and so is all about ****ing over the poor?

Seriously? Does that even make any sense to you when you read it back?

****ing tool.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because they outnumber immigrant religious fanatics by a rather vast proportion.

Ahh. I see. So 'low income' (whatever THAT means) women are a majority of America. Good to know for future reference.

Aww, it's so cute to see your inner sexist

I'm sexist for saying that your income level at present has no bearing on keeping your legs closed?

you can't win an election if half the population hate you.

Half the population are 'low income' women who desire contraception? I'm sure there's a few 'non-low income' women like Fluke whatishername in there too.

That's hilarious, did you actually bother listening to the polls where women were asked about these issues?

So, we've graduated onwards from 'low income' women to women in general? I guess income level really doesn't affect your desire for contraception, like you concluded earlier.

Apparently not because otherwise you'd already know that large majorities of women favour these organizations

Shouldn't that be, 'large majorities of 'low income' women?' You, yourself stated that the primary use of contraception was by 'low income' (is that the same as lowborn? One wonders), women were the primary consumers of contraception. If this is the case, you're telling me that large majorities of women in general are 'low income'. Wouldn't that be 'average income' then?

You pay next to nothing

Ahh, but I do pay, nonetheless. You admit this is so? That I pay for everyone's contraception not just 'low income' (lowborn?) women?

-Because Obamacare takes care of more than just poor women, it means that its not intended to help poor women and so is all about ****ing over the poor?

I don't see Obama exempting poor women from Obamacare. But he is raising their taxes! So the poor women are in effect subsidizing the wealthy women who desire condoms fanclub. Presumably their husbands are too poor to afford them.

[kentonio]

Ahh. I see. So 'low income' (whatever THAT means) women are a majority of America. Good to know for future reference.

You see, this favoured tactic of yours is why so many people call you dishonest. You take a simple statement and then repeat it back with a completely new conclusion that was never present in the original. Did I say that low income women are a majority of America? Did I? No, I ****ing didn't. Answer me this one thing honestly, do you just do it to piss people off?

I'm sexist for saying that your income level at present has no bearing on keeping your legs closed?

You're a sexist for talking about womens need for contraception in terms of 'they can't be trusted to keep their legs closed'. A comment that was purely of your making. I understand that you are a virgin who covers up his sexual inadequacies with religious fundementalism, but at least try and be a little less insulting towards women please.

Half the population are 'low income' women who desire contraception? I'm sure there's a few 'non-low income' women like Fluke whatishername in there too.

A large majority of women support the funding of services like Planned Parenthood, regardless of whether they personally depend on them. Many women used them when they were younger and understand the importance of the service they provide. They now have daughters and granddaughters of their own who they recognize need the same help they once did. It's not a complex idea, please try and keep up.

So, we've graduated onwards from 'low income' women to women in general? I guess income level really doesn't affect your desire for contraception, like you concluded earlier.

Again with the ridiculous lies. Where did I conclude that? Quote me actually saying that. Do you think god would be happy about all this endless lying of yours? Is this how you teach the kids in your school, "If you're losing an argument, just make up some lies"?

Shouldn't that be, 'large majorities of 'low income' women?' You, yourself stated that the primary use of contraception was by 'low income' (is that the same as lowborn? One wonders), women were the primary consumers of contraception. If this is the case, you're telling me that large majorities of women in general are 'low income'. Wouldn't that be 'average income' then?

Who wonders that? What does low born even mean? I think we're getting a really good look at the terms you really think in in this thread. I didn't state that low income women were the primary consumers of contraception incidentally, that was yet another case of you either proving yourself incapable of simple reading, or you just being dishonest again. I said that low income women were the primary consumers of organizations like Planned Parenthood, that exist to support low income womens sexual health needs and various other services such as cancer screening. A pretty obvious conclusion really.

Ahh, but I do pay, nonetheless. You admit this is so? That I pay for everyone's contraception not just 'low income' (lowborn?) women?

I'm pretty sure that the 50 cents in tax you pay a year isn't going to pay for one persons contraception, must less everyones. I do however hope that the federal government takes your minute tax contribution and spends it on condoms and lube.

[DinoDoc]

That's the thing you see, in lots of places they don't.

Citation needed.

Ah, so you want them to provide vital services to American women, but you don't want the country to lend a hand with that in any way. Good to see you Republicans wanting free handouts again.

I don't see the point in giving credence to a crutch to an area in which they aren't a significant provider (primary care) nor do they actually provide cancer screenings which was the reason Komen tried to strip their funding from it initially.

[kentonio]

Citation needed.

How about you use a little common sense? You think some of Americas rural areas have a wide range of local services for this stuff? When the Komen debacle kicked off last year there were lots and lots of women pointing out just how few and far between those services can be, yet you want to destroy the nations largest provider because you personally disagree with 3% of the services they provide? Services that federal funds do not pay for anyway?

I don't see the point in giving credence to a crutch to an area in which they aren't a significant provider (primary care) nor do they actually provide cancer screenings which was the reason Komen tried to strip their funding from it initially.

Incorrect, PP do not perform mammograms (although they do sometimes arrange for mammogram vans services), they do however perform breast exams (747,607 of them in 2010) and cervical cancer screenings (pap tests) (769,769 of them in 2010). They also find help for poor people to find funding for mammograms.

[molly bloom]

No, I'm tired of liars who use women.

So you're leaving the Roman Catholic Church ? Good job.

[MichaeltheGreat]

So only low income women purchase contraception? Contraception coverage should only cover low income women? Interesting positions, sir.

What qualifies one for being 'low income'?

There are specific legal standards, some federal, some state and regional depending on the specific context. Same applies to federal programs targeting business development in historically underserved areas, state enterprise zones, etc. Typically they are either inflation adjusted and/or based on median income in the relevant area.

[MichaeltheGreat]

You've been missed, straybow.

Car salesmen are proud of earning money.

Doesn't mean anyone is going to trust them. Or vote for them.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Why are my wants and needs less important than 'low income woman'? Why are their needs more important?

Why the semantic games singling out contraceptive coverage alone from all other aspects of health care insurance?

True, I don't. But American citizens do. Your case essentially amounts to, "I want it, therefore it must happen". Pretty ****ty argument. Oh, and some good patriachal insight that 'poor women need their contraception paid for because they can't be trusted to keep their legs closed". Well said, Kentonio.

Our remedy is to vote. If you're some bay area vegan Pelosi-walks-on-water type, you don't get to exclude your tax dollars from the DoD and DHS budgets.

No, I'm tired of liars who use women. You've already admitted that Obamacare doesn't just cover 'low income women'. It covers everyone- and I end up paying not just for the low income women but for everyone's condoms. Rich or poor.

And we might pay for your triple bypass. If there had been a public option.

[MrFun]

Yeah, I hear O'Reilly really loves giving ol' Obama's boots the spit-shine. Are you conveniently forgetting that part of the media (which makes tons of money) that vilifies Obama as the Kenyan Muslim Soshlist Anti-Christ? Or, for that matter, all the attention the evil lib networks gave to Trump and his mindless horse****? Trump sold, therefore Trump got an audience in the "liberal" media. It's just part of the conservative playbook - everyone would be conservative if they weren't brainwashed. We're the enlightened patriots surrounded by (insert villain of the era here) and we're the last bastion of freedom and blah blah blah.

QFT

[DinoDoc]

How about you use a little common sense?

How about you man up and provide a source?

[Ben Kenobi]

Why the semantic games singling out contraceptive coverage alone from all other aspects of health care insurance?

Because it's an emotional issue for Kentonio that low income women get free condoms?

Our remedy is to vote. If you're some bay area vegan Pelosi-walks-on-water type, you don't get to exclude your tax dollars from the DoD and DHS budgets.

Which is why democracies invented this thing called 'budgets'. So that the representatives could vote on fiscal priorities. I suggest that America adopt this approach.

And we might pay for your triple bypass. If there had been a public option.

No, you won't. If I wanted a public option I'd still be in Canada. I'd much, much prefer a private health care system.

[Ben Kenobi]

Doesn't mean anyone is going to trust them. Or vote for them.

Hey, if I'm going to vote for the evil capitalist, you might as well get one who's proud of being an evil capitalist. Romney couldn't even do that.

[Ben Kenobi]

There are specific legal standards, some federal, some state and regional depending on the specific context. Same applies to federal programs targeting business development in historically underserved areas, state enterprise zones, etc. Typically they are either inflation adjusted and/or based on median income in the relevant area.

And where inside Obamacare do we find legislation limiting these benefits to 'low income' women?

[Ben Kenobi]

Did I say that low income women are a majority of America?

No, but you did your usual bait and switch. Hence, why you keep getting called out. Your argument is that Obamacare represents the demand of the majority - I'll give you that. But someone who's got some semblence of honesty would admit that this is because EVERYONE, RICH OR POOR, WOMEN OR MAN, gets bennies from it. This is why singling out low income women is dishonest.

You're a sexist for talking about womens need for contraception in terms of 'they can't be trusted to keep their legs closed'.

If I'm paying for it - then I have every right to say this. They want privacy? Pay for your own damn contraception. You can't get both privacy and force others to pay for it!

I understand that you are a virgin who covers up his sexual inadequacies with religious fundementalism, but at least try and be a little less insulting towards women please.

Mind if I quote Coulter's thoughts on this matter? I was trying to be somewhat more diplomatic.

A large majority of women support the funding of services like Planned Parenthood, regardless of whether they personally depend on them. Many women used them when they were younger and understand the importance of the service they provide. They now have daughters and granddaughters of their own who they recognize need the same help they once did. It's not a complex idea, please try and keep up.

Thank you - so your appeal to emotion is 100 percent invalid. Good to see you moving on and discarding that argument.

Where did I conclude that?

When you said earlier that the people who most needed these services were low income women.

I didn't state that low income women were the primary consumers of contraception

Yes, you did. You stated this is why they were relevant.

I'm pretty sure that the 50 cents in tax you pay a year isn't going to pay for one persons contraception, must less everyones. I do however hope that the federal government takes your minute tax contribution and spends it on condoms and lube.

Question, would you trust me to buy your contraception?