• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

VOTE AGAINST

RChildress107 said:
townies examples (at least the first two) are not about freedom. We aren't a theocracy and I am grateful for that. Everyone in this country is free to use birth control. Catholic universities are not free to run their universities in accordance with their faith if they are forced to cover birth control as part of their employer provided insurance.

But they are taking government funds. In any business, if you are a primary source of capital to a business, you often set rules. this is no different.

My first two examples were also about freedom. If the mandate holds up I am no longer free to make decisions about my health. I am also not free in the state of North Carolina to smoke in certain places.
Click to expand...

Your examples are not about freedom as they directly other people. You have no right to cause others to pay for your actions. Whether you are in NC or anywhere else, you have no right to cause me to have my clothes cleaned so you can smoke. You also have no right to impact my health via your smoking around me.
 
That's insinuating that you have the right to clothes that don't smell of smoke. Should institutions that cause smog/pollution have to pay everybody for any perceived damage to clothing and/or health?
 
That's preposterous and you know it. You can't legitimately compare out in the air to an enclosed area.there is no way to empirically do what you say. However it quite evident what happens when you a smokey restaurant.

Change you name to Gumby.
 
RChildress107 said:
If you don't want smokey clothes don't go to a restuarant which allows smokers. Or sit in the no smoking section.

First of all even sitting in the no smoking section you can be covered in smoke. Plus you neglect the health issues your actions cause others.

And I'm not asking for anyone to pay for my actions. But people who demand birth control coverage from Catholic Universities certainly are.

Wrong again. it's basic healthcare coverage and doesn't necessarily have to do with birth control. If every other employer has to cover them, so should hospitals

The government restricts freedoms all the time for a variety of reasons.

When you claim that townie's examples are about freedom and mine are not you are really just saying that Townie's examples are freedoms you think are important and my examples are freedoms which you feel like should be restricted.
Click to expand...

there's nothing about freedom that gives you the right to cause harm and illness to me. That's not freedom. That's normally actionable.
 
RChildress107 said:
Forcing faith based organizations to provide birth control for their employees clearly negatively impacts the leaders of these organizations by making them go against their faith.

Many pro-life supporters fervently believe that the fetus constitutes a person or at least should garner protection from the state. To someone with these views allowing abortion is equivalent to genocide. It impacts the fetus extremely negatively and a large portion of society emotionally.

I'm equally surprised at how much economic regulation liberals want for how little they want it socially (except when it fits their social views).
Click to expand...

I totally agree with this. The right and left both pick and choose which regulations they want to force on society, and both talk shit about the other for it. It's bullshit to force a birth control opposed religious organization to provide it for anyone, just as it's bullshit to amend the state constitution to restrict marriage freedoms.
 
RChildress107 said:
Forcing faith based organizations to provide birth control for their employees clearly negatively impacts the leaders of these organizations by making them go against their faith.

Many pro-life supporters fervently believe that the fetus constitutes a person or at least should garner protection from the state. To someone with these views allowing abortion is equivalent to genocide. It impacts the fetus extremely negatively and a large portion of society emotionally.

I'm equally surprised at how much economic regulation liberals want for how little they want it socially (except when it fits their social views).
Click to expand...

don't accept government money then
 
WFFaithful said:
don't accept government money then
Click to expand...

If there is a specific purpose for government funding that has nothing to do with birth control, then you're just being arbitrarily controlling and manipulative. The purpose of government is to serve the people, not the other way around.
 
The reality is the churches aren't required to pay for the birth control. Like dozens of other medications and procedures, it's part of free preventative care.

Should taxpayers be allowed to deduct payments to departments of the government they don't support or find morally reprehensible?
 
RJKarl said:
The reality is the churches aren't required to pay for the birth control. Like dozens of other medications and procedures, it's part of free preventative care.

Should taxpayers be allowed to deduct payments to departments of the government they don't support or find morally reprehensible?
Click to expand...

I don't know RJ, should brothers be allowed to marry just because gays are?
 
That's absurd and a weak effort. There are mental health issues and other legal reasons for those laws.
 
RJKarl said:
That's absurd and a weak effort. There are mental health issues and other legal reasons for those laws.
Click to expand...

are you trolling me? I only brought up that up to show you that you were making an ridiculous comparison, in the same thread where you gave rchildress hell for doing the same thing. Of course individual taxpayers shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose the departments their taxes go to, but that has nothing to do with Churches not providing birth control for their employees.
 
Read the rules. churches are not giving employees contraceptives.

Plus where was the outrage for the past 15-25 years in the those twenty-eight states where even more open laws have existed? This is a political issue not a religious one or it wouldn't have passed and been used in states in which over 200M America reside.
 
RJKarl said:
FL tried this and it's a miserable financial failure. About 2% tested positive:

"Net savings to the state -- $3,400 to $8,200 annually on one month's worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400 for the cash assistance program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year."

Yep that's a great idea.
Click to expand...

$8,000 is 2% of floridas unemployment compensation per month? If my math is right, that implies a total of $5,000,000/year statewide for unemployment?
 
Last edited:
DeacDiggler said:
$8,000 is 2% of floridas unemployment compensation per month? If my math is right, that implies a total of $5,000,000/year statewide for unemployment?
Click to expand...

It's not unemployment. It';s welfare.

As they said, the program cost $178M and doesn't come close to getting that in returns. Of the people muc of the $178M had direct ties to Scott before he became governor.
 
RJKarl said:
It's not unemployment. It';s welfare.

As they said, the program cost $178M and doesn't come close to getting that in returns. Of the people muc of the $178M had direct ties to Scott before he became governor.
Click to expand...

RJ, i'm just confused by the math. If 2% of applicants were rejected for whatever it is, and that results in savings of $8,000/month, then that implies that 100% of the costs of the program equals about $5 million/year. If that's the case, why in the world did someone approve spending $178 million to police this?

I'll admit: it's the $5 million that I'm suspicious of. I have to assume that at least 1 million Floridians are in whatever this program is - so are they really getting $5 each? It seems likely to me that someone writing the article you linked missed a whole crapload of zeroes - perhaps thought that something was actual dollars when in fact it was in thousands?
 
http://floridaindependent.com/51662/welfare-drug-testing-costs

This link seems to say (I think - tell me if you disagree) that 7,000 people applied for benefits from July-Oct 2011, 32 failed their drug test, and 1500 people never completed their drug test. The test requires the applicant to pay for it, and the state reimburses them once they pass. It also says that the state lost a total of $200,000 (actual dollars) over 3 months - a little short of $178,000,000. My math: 1500 people x $253/month x 4 months = approx. $1.5 million of unpaid benefits, which exceeds $246k paid in reimbursements.

I'd say that from a financial perspective, this has been a success. I think the law was tossed, but it's not because it was a "miserable failure" under the criteria you laid out.
 
And to head this off: if you really need welfare, you can make the time to take a drug test. I'm sure a few people didn't get it done for legitimate reasons, but they must not need welfare that much if they aren't able to clear 15 minutes in their schedule for this. The rest of them I'm guessing didn't want to get denied for a year.
 
I saw my first Vote For sticker today. It was homemade stuck in the rear window of a car parked at the K&W.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top