Paying with tax dollars is just as heinous as forcing employers to pay; either is a violation of the individual's right to be secure in their property.
For the record, I am also opposed to publicly funded roads, transport, fire services, and nearly everything in which the military is involved.
Ha ha, you just did what you accused the commenter of doing. I.e. Calling the people who disagree with you stupid.
I take it that this is what you are talking about:
I get it now! Everybody is an idiot who disagrees with you (and that "you" is a general "you", not just you, but your fellow Democratic airheads).
I didn't really mean it as an insult to people who disagree with me as much as I did mean it as an insult to those who insult pettily, people who, I find, tend to be of the Democratic persuasion.
But, just to even things out:
Republican airheads annoy the hell out of me, too!
What about the men who want to go "whoring around"?
Let them pay.
It only applies to one sex in your mind, doesn't it?
Honestly, I cannot recall having ever heard a man complain about having to pay for contraceptives.
The Pill
The Pill is God. We must capitalize Its name."
Would those men be guilty of wanting to go "whoring around"?
If they wanted to "whore around", then yes.
Yeah, let's not provide birth control so you can all really complain when women are on welfare because they couldn't afford the child you forced them to have.
No, they shouldn't be on welfare either. Theft involved there, too.
Sex is a natural human function. Get over it.
Precisely. The government shouldn't be involved.
There is no excuse for not having federal healthcare, none.
How about patient survival? There are more MRI machines in Pittsburgh than in all of Canada, and waiting lines to see a doctor in Great Britain are astronomically long. America, though more expensive, has the best medical care in the world - something which many Americans seem to think they can maintain even in a decapitalized environment.
And the idea that an employer can arbitrarily decide what medications it wants to provide is ludicrous.
If they are providing it, then why can't they "arbitrarily decide"?
You're saying that if you wind up with a heart problem or cancer, the company you work for should suddenly be allowed to refuse to pay for your medication?
Yes, unless there is a contract in which the company has agreed to pay for such medications.
Are you insane?
Probably, but so are all great genii.
We're in a tough market.
And placing restrictions/requirements on employers is only going to make it tougher.
I know it's hard for the far right to see the ground from atop their high horses, but saying "get another job" is not going to magically make jobs available.
I redirect you to my previous response.
What about women who are on birth control for different reasons?
The reasoning is irrelevant.
I was on it before I ever even had sex because I had painful cramps, chronic heavy bleeding and ovarian cysts. I couldn't go to school for two days every month.
I could say that I am sorry for you - and the human inside of me truly is sorry at any human suffering - but that does not give you the right to stolen goods.
Are you saying that I should be denied medical care because someone else thinks they have the right to make choices for my life? Absurd.
No, I'm saying that other people don't have the right to make choices for your life. You are twisting the entire idea; if somebody is forced by government to give you something, then the government is now taking over your life.
You remind me why I never bothered to go to a "top tier University". A life in the library has taught me more than you'll ever learn, simply because you are too self-important and egoistical to debate/think with an open'd mind.
I count four profanities in three lines of "argument". Each line contains insults; one is sexist, one is an accusation of misogyny based entirely on the accusee's non-liberal/non-brainwashed opinations, and another is a sexual slur. You fail to mention or even allude to the topic being discussed, preferring to curse your opponent rather than rebut.
If we had federal healthcare, EVERYONE would be paying and EVERYONE would be covered.
EVERYONE shouldn't be forced to buy something against their wishes.
I'm sorry you're the only person in your life you're capable of thinking about. Must be lonely.
Now that's a pretty low blow, even for a partisan. There was a time when "top tier Universities" had levels of expectations for their students, such so that they wouldn't go about ridiculing and pettily insulting individuals over halfassed arguments.
I detect some pent-up tension brewing within your rather fallacious argument.
If a woman's health insurance doesn't cover contraception and they can't afford it otherwise, what makes you think they can suddenly afford an abortion?
What makes you think it is any of my business?
Since all the idiot Republicans are trying to ban those as well, what do you propose everyone to do?
I get it now! Everybody is an idiot who disagrees with you (and that "you" is a general "you", not just you, but your fellow Democratic airheads).
I wouldn't want that because it isn't the government's responsibility (or privilege) to provide me with a product, especially at the expense of others. Whether or not I am directly saving money or not is irrelevant; what matters is that, otherwise, the government's power and authoritative/totalitarian reign shall go on unchecked as we are appeased and assuaged by their brief generosity.
Sanskrit has an hellishly difficult system of letter-changing called Sandhi; it comes in two forms: internal and external. If you were to look at a line of Sanskrit text, it would look like a a language filled with extremely long words. It's not. Instead, each of those long lines (eg. समन्तपञ्चकम, or विचित्रार्थपद
With about how many other languages have you a sense of acquaintanceship? The manner in which your argument is writ would suggest that you want others to believe that you've a background in the topic which you are discussing, but the substance leads me to believe that you are simply repeating an oft-heard line with which you've no scholastic background. Throughout my manifold studies, while I will not deny that the number of barriers that must be crossed in learning English is large, there is still a sense of regularity and, with enough experience, can often be predicted. While this may be true for most languages, English is far from being one of the hardest modern languages to learn. Whilst it is true that there are many tongues which would rank ahead of English in terms of ease of acquisition, there are also many, many harder languages. I shan't discuss Old Norse, Latin, or Middle High German - the ancient tongues with which I am most familiar - merely because of your reference to modern languages, but of those languages which fall under that heading with which I am also familiar, I would have to say that French and German are harder. Swedish, Icelandic, and the other Romance languages are relatively easy, though this summation is coming from a native speaker of English. Sanskrit is, by far, the hardest language which I have ever studied, but it, too, is closer to the category of ancient than to modern, despite still being spoken as a native language by a number of individuals. The Celtic languages, though I am not very well acquainted with them, are also quite difficult, the grammar being far removed from that of the Teutonic and Romance tongues with which English is most closely related. Then, of course, there are the Uralic languages; namely Hungarian and Finnish, the difficulties of which are infinitely greater than those of the other European languages. I fear, though, that I have focused too heavily on European languages; thus, despite being mostly ignorant in them, I shall now repeat that which I have oft heard. Arabic is, I have learned from those who have studied the language, very difficult not so much in the grammar but in the manner in which the language is writ, for vowels are so often omitted from writing, as with the other Semitic languages. Korean is also an extremely difficult language, having a hellishly complicated system of honorifics. Chinese, like many of the other East Asian languages, is difficult more in its pronunciation and writing systems than grammar.
It depends on how you yell it. Right now I'm envisioning a beach so crowded you can barely move, and an hysterical woman pointing to the beach and screaming at the top of her lungs: "Tsuuuuuuuuuunnnnnammmmmmmiiiiiiiiii!!!
If 99% actually believed in that crap, I'm sure something more would've come from the whole movement. I bet 50% of the "occupiers" can't even agree with the other 50% - how can mainstream America agree when the people involved in the act themselves can't even agree?
Your experience is not the same for everybody. If you take away from a reading of the Bible a different set of beliefs and/or values than others, than that may be considered a fluke. Just as I may enjoy the works of Stephen King and others find him revolting, so can you enjoy the Bible, which others may find revolting. It is all in the eye of the beholder.