07-18-2014 04:07 PM
484 ... 1213141516 ...
tools
  1. pappy53's Avatar
    Stating fact is far from being an instigator. The right wing are generally red meat eaters. A diet heavy in red meats leads to obesity, high cholesterol, and those are generally conditions that lead to ED.

    I can understand trying to act as if I've violated some sort of forum rule in an attempt to get a moderator to give me an unwarranted infraction. You see it all the time in the NBA and lately in Soccer. I believe they term the phrase "flopping". I believe you to be flopping at this point, unless you have statistics that show right wingers that eat tofu, are generally vegetarian/vegan, shop at whole foods, and eat foreign cuisine at a higher rate than their left leaning counter parts.
    Man, you are really reaching to not get an infraction. You had none of this stuff in mind when you made that statement. Plus there is no way that you could know the eating habits of Republicans or Democrats.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    07-07-2014 08:37 PM
  2. anon8126715's Avatar
    Man, you are really reaching to not get an infraction. You had none of this stuff in mind when you made that statement. Plus there is no way that you could know the eating habits of Republicans or Democrats.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    You can't be serious. How many right-wingers would thumb their nose up if someone offered them some sort of tofu anything? Even Rush Limbaugh claimed that the left wing is anti-beef. and I would have no beef with his assertion (yes that pun was intentional, that's not an infraction is it?)
    07-07-2014 08:51 PM
  3. pappy53's Avatar
    You can't be serious. How many right-wingers would thumb their nose up if someone offered them some sort of tofu anything? Even Rush Limbaugh claimed that the left wing is anti-beef. and I would have no beef with his assertion (yes that pun was intentional, that's not an infraction is it?)
    So you don't believe anything Rush Limbaugh says, unless it's something that is to your advantage. I don't think he knows eating habits of Democrats. Do you believe that Democrats would turn their nose up to beef? Lol!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    07-07-2014 08:54 PM
  4. anon8126715's Avatar
    I know more than a handful of liberals that would.
    07-07-2014 09:37 PM
  5. pappy53's Avatar
    I know more than a handful of liberals that would.
    A handful? Oh, that settles it then! Excuse me!
    07-07-2014 09:55 PM
  6. Scott7217's Avatar
    We are subsidizing it. They pay no taxes, so we have to pay more to make up the difference in the long run. Just another reason why tax free status needs to be eliminated.
    It probably depends on how the organization is set up. Here is some information from the IRS website:

    IRS: The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments: Section D: Constitutional Amendment Claims -- page 21 (document link here)

    Excerpt: "The First Amendment, however, does not provide a right to refuse to pay income taxes on religious or moral grounds or because taxes are used to fund government programs opposed by the taxpayer."

    Therefore, I don't think Hobby Lobby (for example) can ask for a subsidy to pay for bibles under their First Amendment right to freedom of religion. I also don't think Hobby Lobby could avoid paying taxes and use the resulting funds for bible purchases, either.
    07-07-2014 10:42 PM
  7. Scott7217's Avatar
    Not likely, since it's more the GOP's thing to be non-inclusive and most of the GOP's base is generally obese and impotent. I can't imagine how many Rush Limbaugh listeners an act like that would alienate.
    Honestly, I haven't found any group (Democrat or Republican) that would drop coverage for cholesterol medication. As far as health goes, there seems to be some research on that matter:

    Republicans Have Higher Well-Being Than Democrats And Independents, Survey Shows -- The Huffington Post (article link here)

    Excerpts:

    "Republicans are more religious in general than independents or Democrats, and Gallup has shown in previous analyses that religiosity has a significantly positive relationship to well-being."

    "In 2009, a study in the International Journal of Epidemiology showed that Democrats are more likely to report poor health than Republicans."

    "The study, conducted by Harvard School of Public Health researchers, included data from the General Social Surveys from 1972 to 2006. The researchers found that the likelihood of Republicans reporting poor health was 26 percent lower than Democrats, while the likelihood of Republicans smoking was 15 percent lower than Democrats."
    07-07-2014 11:02 PM
  8. Scott7217's Avatar
    Stating fact is far from being an instigator. The right wing are generally red meat eaters. A diet heavy in red meats leads to obesity, high cholesterol, and those are generally conditions that lead to ED.
    I would be interested in the data you have on the dietary habits of conservatives versus liberals. So far, I've found this:

    Red vs. Blue: Divided by politics, united by food -- USA Today (article link here)

    Excerpts:

    "The Republican-leaning red states aren't all biscuits and gravy, nor are the Democrat-favoring blue states all granola and yogurt."

    "Not only does the NPD study quash conventional beliefs that folks from red and blue states have widely different eating habits, but it can ultimately affect the way food makers and sellers market, distribute and sell food."

    "And, for those consumers whose politics may be widely different from the other guy or gal, perhaps there's an odd comfort in knowing, we all eat pretty darned near the same."
    07-07-2014 11:35 PM
  9. anon8126715's Avatar
    Honestly, I haven't found any group (Democrat or Republican) that would drop coverage for cholesterol medication. As far as health goes, there seems to be some research on that matter:

    Republicans Have Higher Well-Being Than Democrats And Independents, Survey Shows -- The Huffington Post (article link here)

    Excerpts:

    "Republicans are more religious in general than independents or Democrats, and Gallup has shown in previous analyses that religiosity has a significantly positive relationship to well-being."

    "In 2009, a study in the International Journal of Epidemiology showed that Democrats are more likely to report poor health than Republicans."

    "The study, conducted by Harvard School of Public Health researchers, included data from the General Social Surveys from 1972 to 2006. The researchers found that the likelihood of Republicans reporting poor health was 26 percent lower than Democrats, while the likelihood of Republicans smoking was 15 percent lower than Democrats."
    Unless you test participants from each camp, of course the Democrats are going to report less well-being. It's almost like insisting men report better health than women, but are they actually healthier? Probably not because how often do men go to the doctor on their own?

    I would be interested in the data you have on the dietary habits of conservatives versus liberals. So far, I've found this:

    Red vs. Blue: Divided by politics, united by food -- USA Today (article link here)

    Excerpts:

    "The Republican-leaning red states aren't all biscuits and gravy, nor are the Democrat-favoring blue states all granola and yogurt."

    "Not only does the NPD study quash conventional beliefs that folks from red and blue states have widely different eating habits, but it can ultimately affect the way food makers and sellers market, distribute and sell food."

    "And, for those consumers whose politics may be widely different from the other guy or gal, perhaps there's an odd comfort in knowing, we all eat pretty darned near the same."
    Feel free to go in to your local Whole Foods and randomly ask people what brand they subscribe to, and I don't mean what brand of Tofu.
    07-08-2014 04:53 AM
  10. pappy53's Avatar
    of course the Democrats are going to report less well-being.
    And why is that?
    07-08-2014 05:23 AM
  11. Scott7217's Avatar
    Unless you test participants from each camp, of course the Democrats are going to report less well-being.
    The researchers looked at people from each camp, and they also adjusted for factors such as race, age, location in the country, marital and child status and socioeconomic status.
    07-08-2014 05:49 AM
  12. Sylvia Grimes's Avatar
    The "abortion pill" and the "morning after pill" are two very different things. Just throwing that out there.

    Posted via Android Central App

    As an edit, this was supposed to have a quote. It wasn't just random. Getting the hang of this app yet. Thanks.
    07-08-2014 06:03 AM
  13. Scott7217's Avatar
    Now if Viagra wasn't covered, I guess then, there is always BOB. Fun for her, meh for him. And, no need for birth control. ๐Ÿ˜†
    I don't understand the reference to BOB. Could you give more information about that?

    Honestly, I think Viagra can benefit women as well, albeit indirectly. Given a preference, women don't want to be in a relationship with men who have erectile dysfunction. Viagra treats the erectile dysfunction. Once that problem is gone, women and men can go back to having sex and being intimate with each other. Therefore, both women and men stand to benefit from Viagra.
    07-08-2014 07:51 AM
  14. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I don't understand the reference to BOB. Could you give more information about that?
    Battery Operated Boyfriend.
    Scott7217 and msndrstood like this.
    07-08-2014 07:59 AM
  15. anon8126715's Avatar
    I don't understand the reference to BOB. Could you give more information about that?

    Honestly, I think Viagra can benefit women as well, albeit indirectly. Given a preference, women don't want to be in a relationship with men who have erectile dysfunction. Viagra treats the erectile dysfunction. Once that problem is gone, women and men can go back to having sex and being intimate with each other. Therefore, both women and men stand to benefit from Viagra.
    lol, I'm glad you asked, I was assuming she was talking about this bob....


    Scott7217 likes this.
    07-08-2014 10:56 PM
  16. msndrstood's Avatar
    lol, I'm glad you asked, I was assuming she was talking about this bob....


    ๐Ÿ˜‚
    07-08-2014 11:29 PM
  17. rexxman's Avatar
    It seems this thread has gone off track.

    Some claimed not to worry, there is no slippery slope in the HL decision. It is only 4 of the 20 birth control meds.

    Now the stooges (no offense to Larry, Curly and Moe) have expanded their decision to all 20 meds!

    So much for that argument.

    This is not really about Hobby Lobby. It is just the latest tactic to destroy the ACA.

    DISGUSTING!

    Posted via Android Central App
    A895 and nolittdroid like this.
    07-09-2014 12:55 AM
  18. Scott7217's Avatar
    This is not really about Hobby Lobby. It is just the latest tactic to destroy the ACA.
    If you want to be specific, it is a tactic to destroy the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act.

    However, dropping contraceptives has the potential to infuriate people to a point where they take health care out of the employers' hands and put it under a different system (e.g. single-payer) that is independent. Such a system would leave all medical decisions to patients and their doctors.
    07-09-2014 02:03 AM
  19. Sylvia Grimes's Avatar
    Medical decisions are still in the hands of the patients and their doctors. No one, not even hobby lobby is telling women then can't pursue any course of treatment. All they are asking is that they not be a party to (i.e. Be legally forced to pay for) treatment options the don't agree with. If women aren't willing to pay for their chosen course of treatment, that is hardly "denial of service" on the part of doctors or employers.

    Posted via Android Central App
    07-09-2014 06:30 AM
  20. anon8126715's Avatar
    If you want to be specific, it is a tactic to destroy the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act.

    However, dropping contraceptives has the potential to infuriate people to a point where they take health care out of the employers' hands and put it under a different system (e.g. single-payer) that is independent. Such a system would leave all medical decisions to patients and their doctors.
    I still don't think an employer should hold an employee's healthcare hostage. Hopefully this will be what triggers a single payer option. What gets me is when people insist that the government can't afford single payer. Look at it this way, if a company can afford it and use it as leverage to keep an employee working at a certain low wage, why not take that leverage out of an employer's hands? If an employee can then bargain for their wage without having to worry about their healthcare, hopefully that will mean that they can make more money by bargaining more for wages, exclusively. More money made by employees means more money to tax. Although, ideally I'd like to see employers (especially large multi-national businesses and those making over $250,000/yr) heavily taxed to cover single payer.

    Here's to hoping the right wing's little devious plan backfires on them.
    07-09-2014 06:35 AM
  21. rexxman's Avatar
    Medical decisions are still in the hands of the patients and their doctors. No one, not even hobby lobby is telling women then can't pursue any course of treatment. All they are asking is that they not be a party to (i.e. Be legally forced to pay for) treatment options the don't agree with. If women aren't willing to pay for their chosen course of treatment, that is hardly "denial of service" on the part of doctors or employers.

    Posted via Android Central App
    That isn't the issue. This decision says that religion trumps secular law. Dangerous for our well established system of governance and law. The founding fathers were more afraid that religion would restrict law, not the other way around.

    The ultimate solution is single payor. Win-win for all.

    Posted via Android Central App
    07-09-2014 08:19 AM
  22. Mooncatt's Avatar
    the ultimate solution is single payor. Win-win for all.
    Except for the people being essentially robbed to cover everyone else's healthcare due to excessive taxes. And the long wait times, scandals that will pop up, and other inefficiencies that ALWAYS come with every other government ran program in the U.S. Just look at the track record of our government. I don't see how anyone can think they will adequately handle such a system when they can't even run what they have already right.

    And that's not even getting into the constitutional side of that debate.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    07-09-2014 09:10 AM
  23. SteveISU's Avatar
    Healthcare should be handed to the individual. Government and business should stay out of it. Let the employer hand the employee X dollars tax free to buy their own health insurance and if there's any money left over that isn't put into a health savings account, tax it at the normal income rate.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    07-09-2014 09:50 AM
  24. Timelessblur's Avatar
    Except for the people being essentially robbed to cover everyone else's healthcare due to excessive taxes. And the long wait times, scandals that will pop up, and other inefficiencies that ALWAYS come with every other government ran program in the U.S. Just look at the track record of our government. I don't see how anyone can think they will adequately handle such a system when they can't even run what they have already right.

    And that's not even getting into the constitutional side of that debate.
    but do you care to address the problem that the here in the US we pay more for less than the rest of the developed world?

    Simple fact is what we have does not work and really is robbing us blind.
    07-09-2014 10:16 AM
  25. Mooncatt's Avatar
    but do you care to address the problem that the here in the US we pay more for less than the rest of the developed world?

    Simple fact is what we have does not work and really is robbing us blind.
    I do, thanks in large part to regulations, over testing/treating, and frivolous malpractice lawsuits. I think that's hampered both our in country developments and costs. And in your statement about costs, are you also including the additional taxes paid to cover those other government insurance programs in other countries?

    Here's another note on the difference between cost and affordability. If a group of people are having to now pay more to cover cost subsidies to another, have you really made the product more affordable? No. You just moved the money around. Sure, it's more affordable for the one receiving the subsidies, but at the expense of someone else. You've done nothing to address the cost of the product to make it truly more affordable for everyone. And in a government ran system, with no competition, costs naturally will go up and everyone ends up paying more in the long run.
    07-09-2014 12:25 PM
484 ... 1213141516 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Cases for the OnePlus One?
    By rkleung in forum OnePlus One
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 09-02-2014, 05:52 PM
  2. anyone think Razr M Battery Case will be too late?
    By antonywan in forum Droid RAZR M
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-01-2014, 01:17 AM
  3. Best Nexus 7 cases?
    By RaginCajun2OI8 in forum Google Nexus 7 Tablet (2013)
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-24-2014, 10:53 AM
  4. HTC One M8 Cases and Screen Protectors
    By Wildo6882 in forum Marketplace Archive
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-06-2014, 01:51 PM
  5. Samsung keyboard autocorrect random case errors
    By mdye in forum Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 (2014)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-29-2014, 11:35 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD