NY Times poll shows there's no "war on women", not even close

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You are not trying to say that this recent uproar over contraception was equally relevant in 2010 are you?

Nope. What I'm saying, and I'm 100% correct, is that conservative views on sex, and Catholic views on sex, have not changed one bit since 2010. Liberals are making hay out of this, because what are they going to do, point to the economy? Gas prices? Our debt?

You mentioned my side's "nutso" views on sex. We feel sex is a healthy, yet serious, thing, not to be taken lightly.

Your side says that if it feels good, DO IT! As a result of that, numbers are up for unwanted pregnancies, abortions, divorce, infidelity, and kids born out of wedlock. That's irrefutably a result of making sex a casual thing. Those results, in my opinion, do not represent a great cultural leap forward. Your side won't have that conversation, because it makes you look crazy.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Dishonesty? The question could also be made that an insurance company should not discriminate against a client because of the employers belief, no? You will be much better off when you start to consider that people with other views are not inherently wrong.

"an insurance company should not discriminate against a client because of the employers belief, no?"

Zimmy, for the last time, there IS NO LAW that says that women have the right to contraception, except where there are legitimate health needs.

However, there IS precedent (the 1st amendment) saying that the feds cannot force a religion to violate its beliefs.

What part of those 2 paragraphs can't you understand? I know you don't like it, you don't have to like it. But liberals need to realize that the Bill Of Rights even applies to Catholics.

"You will be much better off when you start to consider that people with other views are not inherently wrong"

You called my church's beliefs "nutso", and now you're telling me I need to me more mindful of the possibility that the other side is right? Get over yourself, OK? Did you get appointed God, and I missed that announcement?

The First Amendment says my side is right, and your side is wrong.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Nope. What I'm saying, and I'm 100% correct, is that conservative views on sex, and Catholic views on sex, have not changed one bit since 2010.

Your side says that if it feels good, DO IT! As a result of that, numbers are up for unwanted pregnancies, abortions, divorce, infidelity, and kids born out of wedlock. That's irrefutably a result of making sex a casual thing. Those results, in my opinion, do not represent a great cultural leap forward. Your side won't have that conversation, because it makes you look crazy.

Which Catholic views? Santorums or the churches? Which divorce rates? Newt's? You know divorce rates are higher among Republicans, for whatever that is worth? You say too much patently untrue bs.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"
Zimmy, for the last time, there IS NO LAW that says that women have the right to contraception, except where there are legitimate health needs.
?

The First Amendment says my side is right, and your side is wrong.

By the way, do you even know what the first Amendment says? The insurance coverage of contraception does not establich a religion or prohibit free excercise of religion. Anyone who does not want the contraception does not have to take it. The church isn't required to foot the bill.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Which Catholic views? Santorums or the churches? Which divorce rates? Newt's? You know divorce rates are higher among Republicans, for whatever that is worth? You say too much patently untrue bs.

"Which Catholic views? Santorums or the churches?"

This may be news to you, but Rick Santorum is not the Pope. If he says something, he is not speaking on beghalf of the Church. The Catholic Church advocates family planning, which is a form of birth control.

"Which divorce rates? Newt's?"

Unless I said that no Republican ever got divorced, Newt's past has nothing to do with this. I said divorce rates are higher after the sexual revolution than they were before. Newt Gingrich's divore statistics don't reflect on anyone other than Newt Gingrich. You're going to pick one extreme case, and apply it to all conservatives? You think that's reasonable? Do you also assume Osama Bin Laden's actions tell you something about all Muslims? Godd luck getting out of that...

"You know divorce rates are higher among Republicans, for whatever that is worth?"

I didn't know that. I never said divorce rates are lower for Republicans,. I said that the sexual revolution (which was a liberal cause) had a lot of devasting consequences on the stable family unit, and nothing you said refutes that one bit.

"You say too much patently untrue bs"

One example please. I've made mistakes here, and I admit them. That's the difference between me and you, and between me and Spence.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

By the way, do you even know what the first Amendment says? The insurance coverage of contraception does not establich a religion or prohibit free excercise of religion. Anyone who does not want the contraception does not have to take it. The church isn't required to foot the bill.

"do you even know what the first Amendment says?"

Sure. Here is the relevent portion...

"prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another"

"The church isn't required to foot the bill"

They aren't? Zimmy, if the church's insurance policy is expanded to provide contraception, who do you think does pay the bill? The customer, that's who.

You liberals crack me up. Time and time again, you act as if taking money from businesses is mutually exclusive from taking money from individuals. Liberals act as if there's this giant, infinite ATM out there called "business", which we can raid whenever we want. You could not be more wrong.

How can you not understand that? Have you never ever bought something from a business? Don't those businesses raise your prices as their costs increase?

I work as an actuary Zimmy, which means it's my job to set insurance rates. When state laws require that we increase coverage, guess what? One hundred percent of the time, we pass that on to the customer. Every single time. We have no other choice.

I know what the ist amendment says. Perhaps you should be as well versed in economics 101 as I am with the 1st amendment.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

By the way, do you even know what the first Amendment says? The insurance coverage of contraception does not establich a religion or prohibit free excercise of religion. Anyone who does not want the contraception does not have to take it. The church isn't required to foot the bill.

Do you have any familiarity with the Church's position on this issue? The church doesn't forbid its employees from using contraception for casual sex. The church just refuses to pay for it, because the church believes it's immoral. The 1st amendment clearly gives the Church that right, doesn't it?

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Do you have any familiarity with the Church's position on this issue? The church doesn't forbid its employees from using contraception for casual sex. The church just refuses to pay for it, because the church believes it's immoral. The 1st amendment clearly gives the Church that right, doesn't it?

Based on what you are saying, the Catholic church pays for birth control anyway, unless they use a company that does not cover birth control at all. The price the employer is quoted is affected by everyone insured by the insurance provider, not just one particular employer. Obama was wrong to require Catholic organizations to directly fund the contraception. By shifting it to the insurance company, it is not specifically covered by the church.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Based on what you are saying, the Catholic church pays for birth control anyway, unless they use a company that does not cover birth control at all. The price the employer is quoted is affected by everyone insured by the insurance provider, not just one particular employer. Obama was wrong to require Catholic organizations to directly fund the contraception. By shifting it to the insurance company, it is not specifically covered by the church.

"the Catholic church pays for birth control anyway"

If it's used as medicine (which is rare), they pay for it. The vast majority of women on birth control are not using it for medicinal purposes, but for "recreation", I don't know what else to call it.

"The price the employer is quoted is affected by everyone insured by the insurance provider, not just one particular employer"

Absolutely, 100% not true. I do this for a living. In quoting premiums for the vast majority of our customers (employers), we look at how much money that employer costs us in the form of benefits. If the church was one of our customers, and now they're forced to offer more benefits than before, that means my health insurance company will have higher benefits paid than before, which means the church must pay a higher premium. In order for my profit margin (as the insurance company) to stay the same, I have to raise my rates for the Church.

Zimmy, trust me on this. The premium you pay for any insurance policy is the expected value of what the insurance company will pay out in benefits, plus expenses (rent on the building, etc) plus a small profit load. In this case, when you increase coverage, that necessarily means that the insurance company will pay more dollars out in the form of benefits, which necessarily means they increase the premium.

Think of your auto policy. Let's say you only have liability coverage, not physical damage. If you call your agent (or company) and tell them you want to add physical damage coverage to your vehicle, you don't fully expect to pay more? You have to pay more.

"By shifting it to the insurance company, it is not specifically covered by the church"

I do not know what planet you, or Obama, live on. Zimmy, from where do you think businesses get their money? From revenue, from the customer. When a business has an increase in expenses, that is almost always passed on the customer. In this case, when an insurance policy is modified to increase coverage, it is always associated with an increase in costs. Always...

If what you and Obama said was true, that would mean you could get something for nothing. The real world doesn't work that way Zimmy. When the feds take money from businesses (through tax hikes, raising the minimum wage, whatever), the businesses pass that expense on to the customer.

Zimmy, neither you nor Obama can claim that taking money from business somehow "spares" the customers of that business from paying more. It may sound great in a press conference. But it's completely ridiculous, and I bet you know that.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"the Catholic church pays for birth control anyway"

If it's used as medicine (which is rare), they pay for it. The vast majority of women on birth control are not using it for medicinal purposes, but for "recreation", I don't know what else to call it.



Zimmy, trust me on this. .

Please give an actual percentage of woman who use birth control pills for medicine, if you know it. Otherwise, you are just speculating.

Did you work specifically in health insurance?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Please give an actual percentage of woman who use birth control pills for medicine, if you know it. Otherwise, you are just speculating.

Did you work specifically in health insurance?

"Please give an actual percentage of woman who use birth control pills for medicine"

Common sense, i don't have #'s. I see that you didn't provide #'s to say that more Republicans get divorced, so it's OK when you speculate I guess.

"Did you work specifically in health insurance?"

I did, and do. But even if I didn't, I'd know that the liberal "myth" that taking $$ from businesses is easier on people than taking $$ from people, is a crock. And I bet you know it, too.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Please give an actual percentage of woman who use birth control pills for medicine"

Common sense, i don't have #'s.
"Did you work specifically in health insurance?"

I did, and do. But even if I didn't, I'd know that the liberal "myth" that taking $$ from businesses is easier on people than taking $$ from people, is a crock. And I bet you know it, too.

Common sense Enough said

The Republican vs. Democrat divorce rate is from actual census bureau data. I haven't recently come across the original data, you could find it on their website. Here is a link that has a related simplified graph. It seems to show the same data, but doesn't give the specific numbers the census bureau did.
Chart of the Day: Red States, Blue States, and Morality Vox Nova

As far as the taking money from business "myth," your view is way too simplistic for a complex issue. Same with the insurance. You think the rates are entirely determined by a particular group? The underwriters make the decision based on the costs of insuring all of the customers, figure out probabilities and costs associated with the probabilities, then calculate the cost per customer. Yes, there are different levels of coverage. But... the rate charged to Notre Dame U as an employer is affected by the entire population insured by the insurer, including the percent who use birth control, viagra, eat cheese steaks and fries 4 days a week, etc.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Common sense Enough said

The Republican vs. Democrat divorce rate is from actual census bureau data. I haven't recently come across the original data, you could find it on their website. Here is a link that has a related simplified graph. It seems to show the same data, but doesn't give the specific numbers the census bureau did.
Chart of the Day: Red States, Blue States, and Morality Vox Nova

As far as the taking money from business "myth," your view is way too simplistic for a complex issue. Same with the insurance. You think the rates are entirely determined by a particular group? The underwriters make the decision based on the costs of insuring all of the customers, figure out probabilities and costs associated with the probabilities, then calculate the cost per customer. Yes, there are different levels of coverage. But... the rate charged to Notre Dame U as an employer is affected by the entire population insured by the insurer, including the percent who use birth control, viagra, eat cheese steaks and fries 4 days a week, etc.

Zimmy, are you serious?

Just because the divorce rate is higher in "red" states than "blue" states, doesn't mean that conservatives divorce more than liberals. Here is why...not everyone in a red state is conservative, not everyone in a blue state is liberal. The average divorce rate for a state doesn't tell you how that divorce rate breaks down by conservative versus liberal.

And if common sense isn't a valid argument, I'll hold yuo to that, and ask you to provide support for every opinion you have.

Zimmy, do you really doubt that most women who use contraception, are using it solely to avoid getting pregnant? Do you really think a majority of these women have a legitimate medical issue requiring contraception?

In any event, that doesn't matter. Because if a woman has a legitimate medical need, the church pays for the contraception. So the only women who can't get the contraception are the ones who don't need it as "medicine". So what's the argument in favor of forcing the church to fund the voluntary, recreational activities of its employees? If I want to climb Mt Everest, is my emlpoyer obligated to hire a sherpa guide for me? If I want to buy a motorcycle, is my employer obligated to pay for the helmet?

[PaulS]

What a quanundrum! Jim says there is no war on woman yet House Repubs. think the opposite???


"WASHINGTON — House Republicans, unsure how to proceed, have slowed their efforts to overturn a federal rule requiring employers, including religious institutions, to provide female employees with free health insurance coverage for contraceptives.

While most House Republicans still support legislation to broaden the exemption for religious employers, House Republican leaders are carefully reviewing their options on the issue, which Democrats used to political advantage in the Senate.

The goal of House Republicans has not changed, they said, but they worry about further alienating women in this year’s elections"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

What a quanundrum! Jim says there is no war on woman yet House Repubs. think the opposite???


"WASHINGTON — House Republicans, unsure how to proceed, have slowed their efforts to overturn a federal rule requiring employers, including religious institutions, to provide female employees with free health insurance coverage for contraceptives.

While most House Republicans still support legislation to broaden the exemption for religious employers, House Republican leaders are carefully reviewing their options on the issue, which Democrats used to political advantage in the Senate.

The goal of House Republicans has not changed, they said, but they worry about further alienating women in this year’s elections"

Paul - I never said the media wasn't spinning this as a war on women. I'm saying that's not what it is, if you look at the facts surrounding the issue.

Instead of posting a gotcha! link, can yuo answer a question?

As you may or may not know, the church is covering contraception where there is a valid medical need. The church won't cover contraception if it's a tool to engage in recreational sex. Here is my question...why would liberals assume that an employer is legally obligated to pay for the voluntary, recreational activities of its employees?

That's all this issue boils down to. The rest is liberal spin. It may be effective spin, but it's still intellectually dishonest spin.

If your side needs to frame the debate in a totally dishonest way right off the bat, qwhat does that tell you?

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I said divorce rates are higher after the sexual revolution than they were before.

You mean when a women's place was in the kitchen barefoot and making babies, not voting, not allowed to work also when it was a woman's fault if she was raped?

Head out of butt please. Pronto.

Or just stop wasting JohnR's poor bandwidth with this drivel.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

You mean when a women's place was in the kitchen barefoot and making babies, not voting, not allowed to work also when it was a woman's fault if she was raped?

Head out of butt please. Pronto.

Or just stop wasting JohnR's poor bandwidth with this drivel.

A very well thought out post, Glad you took a break from your MENSA meeting to enlighten us...

"You mean when a women's place was in the kitchen barefoot and making babies, not voting, not allowed to work "

No, I never said any such thing. I said divorce rates were lower before the sexual revolution, and I was irrefutably correct. It wasn't women's rights that caused divorce rates to skyrocket, it was moral decay, and the general view that sex is more casual than the way society viewed it then. I don't see how the acceptance of casual sex has helped the woman's rights movement.

"also when it was a woman's fault if she was raped?"

Abortions were always legal in the case of rape.

Was there anythihg else you wanted to add? Perhaps something pertinent?

"just stop wasting JohnR's poor bandwidth with this drivel"

In other words, why worry about silly things like the Constitution...

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

No, I never said any such thing. I said divorce rates were lower before the sexual revolution, and I was irrefutably correct.

Divorce rates where lower before we landed on the moon. I am irrefutably correct. They were also lower before Reagan came into office and Michael Jackson made the Thriller video. In my opinion, it was having an actor as president and his Hollywood mentality that led to higher divorce rates.


Here is some anecdotal (circumstantial ) evidence for an other possibility, based on a life experience of someone I was close to:
Female person friend was born into a very strict Catholic family. Parents were born in the 1920's, she was born in the 1950's. In the 1980's, she divorced her husband who was severly abusive; physically and mentally. Her father disowned her for going against the teachings of the church. He was old school Catholic and in his mind the circumstances did not matter in the Church's eyes. The percentages who felt the same were almost certainly higher for his generation than today. Maybe there are some changes in religious conviction about divorce, which are unrelated to the moon landing or sexual revolution, that have contributed with the divorce rate. That said, Reagan's Hollywood antics certainly correlate with the demise of marriage. I mean, look at his connection to Newt.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

As you may or may not know, the church is covering contraception where there is a valid medical need.

So then it is up to a doctor to decide what is a valid medical need, correct?

[RIJIMMY]

everyone take a breath for a minute....
Can I provide another angle, one I believe 100% valid and may help liberals understand this
Religious organizations invest their $. They do it for pensions and for charitable trusts. Now, written into many (I've seen a lot) of the guidelines is that a money manager cannot invest in weapons of mass destruct, sin stocks - gambling, alcohol, etc. The religous organizations do not want any part of their $ going to things that are against their religion.
I dont think anyone here would have a problem with that, right?
Well, what if the govt suddenly changed the Social Security laws and mandated that all businesses buy into some govt run fund which invested in all kinds of stocks, some of these were sin stocks or abortion companies? Dont you think these religous organzatins have a right to say they dont want to fund this? Isnt it against their 1st amendment rights to practice their religion?
I think its a good comparision.
For the record, Im all for providing it and for free love for all BUT, unlike the people with the Tolerance stickers on their cars, I am tolerant of others beliefs and their rights.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Paul - I never said the media wasn't spinning this as a war on women. I'm saying that's not what it is, if you look at the facts surrounding the issue.

but I just gave you quotes from Repub. leaders saying that is how it is coming across. They did not say that the media was spinning it that way.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Divorce rates where lower before we landed on the moon. I am irrefutably correct. They were also lower before Reagan came into office and Michael Jackson made the Thriller video. In my opinion, it was having an actor as president and his Hollywood mentality that led to higher divorce rates.

Divorce rates were lower when the Pilgrims landed. Irrefutable.

BRB, need to go shoot Indians.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

everyone take a breath for a minute....
Can I provide another angle, one I believe 100% valid and may help liberals understand this
.

Believe it or not, I am in complete agreement that religious organizations shouldn't be forced to pay for things that are against the religion. It gets murky once the Church or any organization chooses to employ people who have different religious beliefs, but if it is clear in the terms of employment, and the employee agrees to them, so be it. My personal opinion is that this part of the health law was questionable, though not necessarily unconstitutional. It doesn't prevent practice of religion or force anyone into a religion. That said... the law needed to be changed. The way they changed the law, no matter what someones "opinion" is, eliminates the burden for the church to specifically cover birth control of employees who choose to use it. The cost of the birth control can be eaten by the insurance company. It may reduce profits by some small percent, but it would prevent the church from paying for it. Another perspective is that the costs of all prescriptions are actually already written into the formula used by the underwriters in determining rates , so the Church is affected by birth control costs, no matter what (even if some claim that it isn't true).

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Divorce rates where lower before we landed on the moon. I am irrefutably correct. They were also lower before Reagan came into office and Michael Jackson made the Thriller video. In my opinion, it was having an actor as president and his Hollywood mentality that led to higher divorce rates.


Here is some anecdotal (circumstantial ) evidence for an other possibility, based on a life experience of someone I was close to:
Female person friend was born into a very strict Catholic family. Parents were born in the 1920's, she was born in the 1950's. In the 1980's, she divorced her husband who was severly abusive; physically and mentally. Her father disowned her for going against the teachings of the church. He was old school Catholic and in his mind the circumstances did not matter in the Church's eyes. The percentages who felt the same were almost certainly higher for his generation than today. Maybe there are some changes in religious conviction about divorce, which are unrelated to the moon landing or sexual revolution, that have contributed with the divorce rate. That said, Reagan's Hollywood antics certainly correlate with the demise of marriage. I mean, look at his connection to Newt.

Zimmy, I don't think putting a man on the moon led to higher divorce rates and more abortions.

Everyone who can think rationally for a minute knows that there are more abortions and divorces, because our society views sex more casually than we did in the past.

Your single observation says nothing about national trends, most trends don't aply 100% of the time. I'm not saying that there's never a valid reason for a divorce. Please don't put crazy jibberish words in my mouth.

You're coming unglued. Take a breath.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

but I just gave you quotes from Repub. leaders saying that is how it is coming across. They did not say that the media was spinning it that way.

Your post contained EXACTLY ZERO specific quotes from specific "Republican leaders".

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Believe it or not, I am in complete agreement that religious organizations shouldn't be forced to pay for things that are against the religion. It gets murky once the Church or any organization chooses to employ people who have different religious beliefs, but if it is clear in the terms of employment, and the employee agrees to them, so be it. My personal opinion is that this part of the health law was questionable, though not necessarily unconstitutional. It doesn't prevent practice of religion or force anyone into a religion. That said... the law needed to be changed. The way they changed the law, no matter what someones "opinion" is, eliminates the burden for the church to specifically cover birth control of employees who choose to use it. The cost of the birth control can be eaten by the insurance company. It may reduce profits by some small percent, but it would prevent the church from paying for it. Another perspective is that the costs of all prescriptions are actually already written into the formula used by the underwriters in determining rates , so the Church is affected by birth control costs, no matter what (even if some claim that it isn't true).

"I am in complete agreement that religious organizations shouldn't be forced to pay for things that are against the religion. It gets murky once the Church or any organization chooses to employ people who have different religious beliefs,"

So you think it makes sense to penalize the Catholic church for hiring non-Catholics? They should be rewarded for that kind of tolerance, no?

"The cost of the birth control can be eaten by the insurance company. "

No, it can't, and it won't. It will get passed on to the Church. Or, it would, if that law ever got enacted, but it will not. When actuaries set the rates, they do it based on what the policy covers. If the policy is changed to cover more, it necessarily costs more. Customers pay for the cost of the products they buy.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Repubs. are now coming out against renewing the Violence Against Women Act.

"Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska sternly warned her colleagues that the party was at risk of being successfully painted as antiwoman — with potentially grievous political consequences in the fall, several Republican senators said Wednesday."

If 1% of independents switch sides b/c of this war on woman, the Repubs are toast.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Your post contained EXACTLY ZERO specific quotes from specific "Republican leaders".

I posted that earlier

Here are 2 more:

"Representative Judy Biggert, Republican of Illinois, said, “We should keep our focus on economic growth and jobs, instead of getting sidetracked by issues that divide us.”

Representative Tom Reed, Republican of New York, disagrees with the president’s policy. But he said: “We have clearly staked out our opposition to it. It’s time to move on to other issues, like jobs and the economy.”

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Zimmy, I don't think putting a man on the moon led to higher divorce rates and more abortions.

I actually don't know how to respond. It has been entertaining Jim

[likwid]

Divorce rates were lower when Jesus was riding dinosaurs.

IRREFUTABLE!!!!!

[spence]

Originally Posted by likwid

Divorce rates were lower when Jesus was riding dinosaurs.

IRREFUTABLE!!!!!

Are you 100% correct?

Game, set and match.

-spence