Why Aren't Conservative Women Worried About Losing Their Rights? (politician, bias, federal government)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know how the pill works. And, yes, I was being facetious.
That said, condoms prevent not only pregnancy, but also STD's. Though, yes, the pill is used to treat medical conditions and not only to prevent pregnancy and it requires a doctor's involvement to get so it's a bit different.
Regardless, I'm against government telling insurance companies what they have to cover no matter what it is. A lot of people having been saying "why should Viagra be covered?" Well, to the best of my knowledge, it's not required to be covered. That's the difference.
Personally I think everyone should be able to choose an insurance policy that covers what they want it to. That's why I'm against employer-provided health insurance. In addition, most people have no understanding of how much health insurance that their employer pays for really costs (it amounts to over $1,000 per month usually). If they knew, they would force the costs to come down. Insurance would actually work like a free market allowing more competition. Right now most people see little option but to take their employer-provided insurance.
I'm getting a little tired of the comparison of pills to condoms. The pill is a woman's way of ensuring she has the birth control situation covered. A woman would be foolish to expect the man to carry a condom at all times, and even if she "offered" one, some guys don't like them. As for buying insurance that covers what you want it to, just what would you prefer to exclude? Lots of guys and people past middle age say maternity, but when my friend's daughter got pregnant while she was on their policy, it covered her. What else would you rather pay full fee for?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamajane
I think the government should pay for tampons. It's a women's health issue.
Nice way to move the thread along.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
That people seriously believe that things were any better for boys from families of extremely limited means, and that the way to solve this is to casually call men unspeakable names and promulgate institutionalized prejudice against young men through things like Title IX.
I grew up in a mill town outside of Pittsburgh. It's true that most parents wanted both their sons and daughters to escape that way of life, but the girls didn't work in the mills. It was deemed important for the boys to get the education, so they wouldn't have to work there. The girls could do what they'd always done, which was mostly get no further education whatsoever. I get a little peeved at people who diss teaching and nursing. Only 30% of adults over 25 have bachelor's degrees now, in 2012, let alone in the late 60s. In fact, most of the people in my hometown who had college degrees were teachers. Nurses as well have to have at least an associate's degree, and about 50% of us have a BSN.
If you want to debate Title IX, start a thread and I'll give you a go!
Funny you object to calling young men "unspeakable" names, in light of what Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke. The words he used were very common among the guys in my high school. I never knew a girl to say much more than "bastard" regarding a guy.
I grew up in a mill town outside of Pittsburgh. It's true that most parents wanted both their sons and daughters to escape that way of life, but the girls didn't work in the mills. It was deemed important for the boys to get the education, so they wouldn't have to work there. The girls could do what they'd always done, which was mostly get no further education whatsoever. I get a little peeved at people who diss teaching and nursing. Only 30% of adults over 25 have bachelor's degrees now, in 2012, let alone in the late 60s. In fact, most of the people in my hometown who had college degrees were teachers. Nurses as well have to have at least an associate's degree, and about 50% of us have a BSN.
I'm from a family of teachers and ranchers, and I have lots of friends in nursing. I'm so sorry if anything I said offended you--my only point was that those were the ONLY careers girls were allowed to pursue, not that they're not incredibly valuable ones. There's a difference and it's nice to have choices now. We have entire counties out here that would have NO medical care at all without clinics run by nurse practitioners, or visiting nurses. It's a tough job, and it becomes more complicated and demanding by the day. Again--I absolutely did not intend to diss your profession. Sorry!
^^Apology accepted. I am glad that my daughters had more opportunities than I had. It wasn't so much the "teaching, nursing, secretary" thing that boxed me in, but that the mindset in that mill town was that you should go to college to learn to "do" something. It wasn't OK to arrive at college undecided. A year later, after I forged the path, my brother did just that and ended up with a BA in history, something that I couldn't have gotten away with. Well, someone has to lead the way. And nursing has been a good life for me. I was able to work part-time at a professional job when my kids were little.
I was purusing some other threads, and I came across this OP:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kerby W-R
New York Assemb. Teresa Sayward (R)
Questions about women and womens’ health have dominated the political debate over the past weeks, and at least one female Republican lawmaker is unhappy with her party’s record. New York Assemblyman Teresa Sayward (R), who is retiring after serving a decade in Albany, told the New York political program Capital Tonight that she does not support any of her party’s presidential candidates, because of their stances on women.
Here's the article:
I think conservative woman look to the men for their roll in life......as opposed to the liberal women who want to make their own way. So I don't think conservative women think they are losing their rights because I don't think they feel they have any rights. They just seem to listen to their man.
Liberal women are nothing more than sheep. They can't think for themselves and are the worst when it comes to bleeding heart rhetoric. They don't know what they want and are confused easily because of a liberal indoctrination in so-called institutions of "higher learning".
Or it could be all those drugs they take to fight off venereal diseases from all the premarital promiscuity and prostitution.
Isn't taking Gods name in vain against some commandment? Why do you do it with every single post? Just asking.
Yes, I'm aware. It doesn't change the fact that the MA legislation was passed by a very solidly Democratic Legislature.
As I said earlier, the only provision I'm aware of in Obamacare that attempts to get carriers to lower their costs is to require that a percentage of revenue go directly to health care. That is only likely to cause them to increase premiums so that they can maintain the same profits.
My idea is that employer-provided health insurance should be banned and that every state should figure out what to do about the uninsured for itself.
Didn't you hear those republicans at the political rallys yelling out "let them die"?
You don't get it. Lots of moderate R's and independents aren't thrilled with Obama, but they don't absolutely hate everything about him like some do--they don't think he's satan's representative on earth. you know as well as I do that lots of people aren't too happy with our choices on the R side either. It's coming down to issues, and holding your nose to vote for the lesser of two evils. As the R's spend less time talking about the economy and more about this, the far right end of the party is pushing people away. How is it propoganda when these crazy bills are popping up all over the country--they're EVERYWHERE. Are you denying that the religious right end of the party is pulling this crap? The democrats are doing their best to focus attention on it--you're right about that--but that doesn't mean it's not happening. The fastest way to get off this topic and on to other issues is for the religious right to knock it off, because this is an issue that DOES rile people up. The far right end of the party used immigration last time to fire up the base, and they thought they'd do the same with reproductive issues this time. It's blowing up in their faces, because even many conservative women don't support what they're proposing.
there you go.....warning the dittoheads to start getting smarter! We like them, just the way they are. Bless their little hearts!
As authoritarian as you are on womens health. You are intentionally leaving out that folks that can't afford mandated insurance are going to be subsidized to afford it.
That's half of this country who won't be paying any premiums.
Do you actually believe the "poor" equal l/2 the country. Seriously, get someone to do your math for you you aren't very good at it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
