DIYbanter - Dudu would, as he seems to have no sould ofhis own - You would sell my soul for your birth control?

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 14:39:34 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:

"Lookout" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 13:23:48 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:

"Lookout" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:30:28 -0400, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
om...

"Jeff Strickland" on Tue, 20 Mar 2012 16:25:00
-0700 typed in misc.survivalism the following:

wrote in message

[whack]

And you intend to force me to participate in an insurance system that
kills human life or spreads contraceptives that I might consider
ungodly
or might mean that I can't get to heaven or nirvana or get my 72
virgins? You would sell my soul for your birth control? Thanks
that's sweet of you.

Can you also force me to buy insurance that protects me from ending
up
in HELL?

Can you use medieval medical procedures to get me to confess my
witchcraft too?

You people are worse than the Pope or any religion ever was.
The only people I know of that are worse than the Religious zealots
are
the Socialist Zealots.

If you think you are going to hell because you participate in a
program that helps others in society to be able to practice safe and
effective family planning (thereby lessening the need for abortions)
then you are truly one crazy ass mother****er and your opinion means
nothing so maybe you should shut the **** up. You have NO grasp on
reality so you don't dare to criticize others for being zealots.

Dude. Your oars are sheered off at the waterline.

Dudu has both oars in the water. Floating on the same side of the
boat, but both oars are in the water, never the less.

What Dudu and other Democrat shills fail to understand (because it
seems quite outside their ability to grasp the concept), is that for
some people, all human life is sacred. From the unborn, to those
disabled by age. That includes the handicapped - mentally or
physically, those with chronic illness, and even the insane (which
would include such as Dudu).

Fine.
Just don't try to force YOUR view on every one else.

There's the pot calling the kettle black. Sheesh.

Bull****.
I'm as libertarian as they come on individual freedoms

Just can't seem to find a personality that anyone likes, huh?

And filtered

I don't get it. My view that you pay for your own birth control, and Viagra
for that matter, is forcing something on somebody, but your view that I pay
for your birth control or Viagra is an individual freedom? How, exactly,
does that work.

Whatever you have, or may have, is something I don't want to pay for,
either. If you have the misfortune to have a heart condition, that
ought to raise your rate to something over $25,000/yr. Same for
diabetes. And if you have a heart attack, I hope you bought coverage
on your ala carte system. Otherwise, say goodbye to your house, or to
most of your savings. 'Same for kidney failure, or cancer, or any of a
dozen other things you won't be offered coverage for by insurance
companies -- unless they have to by law.

You don't seem to get the idea of health nsurance. The idea is to
spread risk, including unanticipated risks.

That includes things that prevent you from having a "normal life,"
such as a prosthesis for a lost limb. Under your criterion, if it
isn't life-threatening, it doesn't get covered, right? Lots of people
get along on one arm or leg, after all.

And those decisions about what is "normal life" are political
decisions. You may disagree; you're welcome to cast your vote, of
course. Unless you're talking about Catholic priests, most people
consider sexual activity for adults to be "normal."

Beyond that, there is the assumption, properly founded or not, about
the preventive value of contraception, and, thus, costs to society of
*not* covering it. You can argue that one. There is serious research
on the subject, although it's unlikely we'd ever see that here.

Insurance is a system for socializing risk. There is nothing about
insurance that relates to "freedom," except the freedom from having
your life ruined by an unanticipated health event. It isn't what
libertarians mean by freedom. NOTHING about insurance has anything to
do with what libertarians mean by freedom. What you're talking about,
with your ala carte "insurance" system, is minimizing your own costs,
while relying on society (and EMTALA) to cover your butt if you guess
wrong. You can roll the dice with impunity because, in the end, you
don't have to worry about dying on a gurney after they push you out
into the street. Philosophical posturing is so much easier when you
know you won't have to live up to it.

Insurance companies would like to support you in your posture. Having
worked with them for some years, I could give you a pretty good idea
of what they'd offer you, if they weren't regulated. You wouldn't like
the results.

If anything, I am promoting individual freedom and telling you that you
should pay for it yourself. You are imposing your freedom on me by demanding
I pay for it. Sorry for my ignorance, but from my perspective it is you that
is forcing a view on every one (sic) else.

If you buy insurance, you're a socialist by principle. The entire
purpose is to spread your risk among other people. Otherwise, pay for
it all yourself.

--
Ed Huntress