ObamaCare vs. the Catholic Church

[baghdad bob]

a bit more on topic and a far more effective approach than the free aspirin suggestion. that is unless more unintended pregnancies are the intended goal.

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/201...homas.aspx?p=1

Unintended pregnancy is a widespread problem with far-reaching implications: almost half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended, and the women and children involved in these pregnancies are disproportionately likely to experience a range of negative outcomes. I review research on the causes of unintended pregnancy and the impacts of various evidence-based pregnancy prevention policies. I discuss the estimated effects of mass media campaigns discouraging unprotected sex, teen pregnancy prevention programs, and expansions in publicly funded family planning services, and then present new research showing that expansions in these policies would likely lead to reductions in teen and unintended pregnancy, out-of-wedlock childbearing, and child poverty. The research also shows that each dollar spent on these policies would produce taxpayer savings of between two and six dollars. Over the last few years, prudent investments have been made in several proven pregnancy prevention policies. Some of these investments, however, have recently come under attack at the state and federal levels. The findings presented in this brief suggest that policymakers would be wise to expand these programs rather than pare them back.

The bottom portion of the table presents estimates of the cost of each program and of the taxpayer savings that each one would produce. Because of limitations in the relevant data, taxpayer savings are measured only in terms of the amount that would be saved on publicly subsidized medical care for pregnant women and on a variety of means-tested benefits provided to children under the age of five. The prevention of unintended pregnancy would probably also reduce government expenditures on the criminal justice system, on means-tested benefits for older children and adults, and on a range of other spending programs not incorporated into this analysis. Had sufficient data been available to allow for a more complete accounting of the taxpayer savings that would be generated by these policies, my estimates of the monetized benefits of these policies would be even larger.

Even given the relatively conservative approach taken here, the three programs’ estimated benefits substantially exceed their estimated costs. The benefit-cost ratios listed in the final row of the table show that the three interventions would produce public savings of between two and six dollars for each tax dollar spent. Due in large part to the fact that the Medicaid expansion and mass media campaign have lower costs per member of their target populations than does the more intensive teen pregnancy intervention, the benefit-cost ratios for the former two programs are higher than for the latter one. In other simulations whose results are documented in a longer paper but are not shown here, changes were made to some of the key assumptions underlying these analyses in order to test the sensitivity of their results. Under most of these alternative specifications, the core finding persisted that these policies would produce more in taxpayer savings than would be required to fund them.

The key message of these results is that each program would generate a substantial net savings for taxpayers at the same time that it helps to reduce child poverty and avert teen and unintended pregnancies. All three policies are thus a win-win proposition for taxpayers and for the populations they serve.

bb

[Keven]

a bit more on topic and a far more effective approach than the free aspirin suggestion. that is unless more unintended pregnancies are the intended goal.

How is that on topic at all? We're discussing the constitutionality of forcing a religious employer to provide something that is against their beliefs, not the overall cost of pregnancies.

I'm sure if the Catholic Church wanted to save the maximum amount of money and threw all their beliefs out the window, they would just abort every baby every time their employees got pregnant. Then, there would be $0 childcare costs.

[Meridian]

Hmmm… Do you think there’s a possibility Ms Fluke might be a lesbian?

Think about it… Most far-left female activist professional victims are quite often lesbians.

Are you actually serious? Are you so sure that women want to be doormats that any attempt to stand up for themselves must only be because they are pinko lesbos? Really? Have you ever actually met any women? Every actually spent any time talking to one?


M

[Dutchcedar]

Are you actually serious?

Turns out that she's an advocate for free sex change operations.

Not sayin' that makes her a lesbian, or that there's anything wrong with being one.

I give an "A" to the Democrat's operatives that came up with this entire diversion.

[Keven]

Great editorial from Cathy Cleaver Ruse that was published in the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...305035966.html

Last week Sandra Fluke, a student at Georgetown University Law Center, went to Congress looking for a handout. She wants free birth-control pills, and she wants the federal government to make her Catholic school give them to her.

I'm a graduate of Georgetown Law and former chief counsel of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution. Based on her testimony, I wonder how much Ms. Fluke really knows about the university or the Constitution.

As a law student 20 years ago, I wasn't confronted by crucifixes in the classroom or, in truth, by any religious imagery anywhere. In that respect the law school has a different "feel" than the university. The law school chapel was an unadorned, multipurpose room in the basement used for Mass when it wasn't used for Gilbert and Sullivan Society rehearsals and club meetings. Among the clubs while I was there, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance was particularly vigorous.

I was not Catholic when I attended Georgetown Law, but I certainly knew the university was. So did Ms. Fluke. She told the Washington Post that she chose Georgetown knowing specifically that the school did not cover drugs that run contrary to Catholic teaching in its student health plans. During her law school years she was a president of "Students for Reproductive Justice" and made it her mission to get the school to give up one of the last remnants of its Catholicism. Ms. Fluke is not the "everywoman" portrayed in the media.

Georgetown Law School has flung wide its doors to the secular world. It will tolerate and accommodate all manner of clubs and activities that run contrary to fundamental Catholic beliefs. But it is not inclined to pay for or provide them. And it has the right to do so—to say "this far and no further."

When congressional committee counsels plan hearings, they look for two kinds of witnesses: "experts" and "victims." The experts are typically lawyers or law professors who can explain the constitutional authority for the new law and its legal impact, and the victims illustrate why the law is needed.

At the hearing of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee chaired by Nancy Pelosi, Sandra Fluke testified as a victim. Having to buy your own contraception is a burden, she said. She testified that all around her at Georgetown she could see the faces of students who were suffering because of Georgetown's refusal to abandon its Catholic principles.

Exactly what does the face of a law student who must buy her own birth-control pills look like? Did I see them all around me and just not know it? Do male law students who must buy their own condoms have the same look? Perhaps Ms. Fluke should have brought photos to Congress to illustrate her point.

In her testimony, Ms. Fluke claimed that, "Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school." That's $1,000 per year. But an employee at a Target pharmacy near the university told the Weekly Standard last week that one month's worth of generic oral contraceptives is $9 per month. "That's the price without insurance," the employee said. (It's also $9 per month at Wal-Mart.)

What about Rush Limbaugh? I won't defend his use of epithets (for which he's apologized), but I understand his larger point. At issue isn't inhalers for asthmatics or insulin for diabetics. Contraception isn't like other kinds of "health care." Yes, birth-control pills can be prescribed to address medical problems, though that's relatively rare and the Catholic Church has no quarrel with their use in this circumstance. And the university's insurance covers prescriptions in these cases.

Still, Ms. Fluke is not mollified. Why? Because at the end of the day this is not about coverage of a medical condition.

Ms. Fluke's crusade for reproductive justice is simply a demand that a Catholic institution pay for drugs that make it possible for her to have sex without getting pregnant. It's nothing grander or nobler than that. Georgetown's refusal to do so does not mean she has to have less sex, only that she has to take financial responsibility for it herself.

Should Ms. Fluke give up a cup or two of coffee at Starbucks each month to pay for her birth control, or should Georgetown give up its religion? Even a first-year law student should know where the Constitution comes down on that.

[Cobra_nVidia]

I wonder if any of her male lovers can bear the humiliation of admitting they had sex with Ms Fluke.

How about the humiliation of admitting that you accepted her admission to the Law School?

Her male lovers (great lovers of alcohol too, for obvious reasons) probably support her 100% on this "women's issue", even though it's quite a sacrifice for them. They all dream of sex in the car followed by getting married to someone they barely who will annoy the living shit out of them for the rest of life.

[Frank1946]

"Should Ms. Fluke give up a cup or two of coffee at Starbucks each month to pay for her birth control, or should Georgetown give up its religion? Even a first-year law student should know where the Constitution comes down on that." Well that sums it up nicely

[jimzinsocal]

Go figure:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...panies/254048/

[Keven]

Go figure:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...panies/254048/

Hmmm, Big Pharma was a big contributor to the Obama 2008 campaign run. They gave him over $630,000 in 2008.

http://www.furiousseasons.com/archiv...ributions.html

Now the pieces come together. Not only is Obama winning the debate by making Republicans look like silly bible bangers who want to take away the birth control pill, but he's paying off his pals at Merck and Pfizer.

Everybody in the country gets full coverage of birth control medication.

Doctors prescribe the brand name drugs, instead of generics.

Big Pharma gets richer.

[baghdad bob]

looks from the article they put their money where it has the best chance of making a return. wonder who they will invest in this election.

Based on Federal Election Commission data released on April 28th the drugmakers, overall, have split their money evenly between the two parties. That is in stark contrast to recent election cycles.

In 2006, pharma gave 28 percent to Democrats, 70 percent to Republicans. In the last presidential election year it was 30/70 respectively. And the one before that 23/77. Even with all of their industry investigations and anti-pharmaceutical lobbying/influence rhetoric, Democrats are grabbing more cash from the companies.

bb

[Keven]

looks from the article they put their money where it has the best chance of making a return. wonder who they will invest in this election.

Probably with Obama. As we've seen from Solyndra and LightSquared, Obama takes care of his buddies. I'm sure Tony Rezko is waiting for his full pardon.

[AMDScooter]

Probably with Obama. As we've seen from Solyndra and LightSquared, Obama takes care of his buddies. I'm sure Tony Rezko is waiting for his full pardon.

But bamma will come out condemning crony capitalism, MSM will carry water for him yet again and the hopeychangers will keep drinking the kool aid.

[Cobra_nVidia]

[tucker]

Are you actually serious? Are you so sure that women want to be doormats that any attempt to stand up for themselves must only be because they are pinko lesbos? Really? Have you ever actually met any women? Every actually spent any time talking to one?


M

It was a simple question and all I needed was a simple answer.

Hmmm… Let me think a minute …

Married 38, like married 41

Yep I can say I’ve met women.

No need to talk … after 35 years we learned to communicate without talking (telepathically).

[baghdad bob]

Downward trend since yesterday? Down 10% in 24 hours.

link

bad day all around it seems.

Wall Street marks first big loss of 2012

http://www.gurufocus.com/news/166675...right-decision

What has been the effect on the companies who have withdrawn their support? The one highlighted by conservatives the most has been Carbonite (CARB). Why? Because the stock dropped nearly 9% yesterday. Many of the other advertisers were larger, such as J.C. Penney (JCP), Sears Holdings (SHLD) and AOL (AOL), and the controversy hasn’t seemed to affect them. Then again, if you’re a Sears’ shareholder and this is the reason you dump the stock, as opposed to the plethora of other reasons that can be imagined, you may not necessarily be a rational actor.

Carbonite, though, is a business that is easier to boycott. They’re in a tough position because liberal activists could call for a boycott if they continued to advertise with the show, and conservative activists may now boycott since they pulled their ads. Their CEO, David Friend, announced the withdrawal of their ads on Saturday afternoon. It took until Monday at 2:30 in the afternoon to see a drop in the price of their shares.

It’s tough to peg that drop specifically on the Limbaugh event. Investors had Saturday night, all day Sunday, and most of the day on Monday to consider it. Other companies who pulled their ads didn’t have shareholders bail any more than the overall market. The fact is, few people will remember this controversy and base any buying decisions on it six months from now anyway, so any boycott or reverse boycott damage will be minimal.

Ultimately the effect will probably be less advertising for politically active radio and television shows in the future, both for the left and the right. Each perceived slight will be especially highlighted this election year. It’s probably a net negative for society to have corporations bullied in this way and will only encourage them to curry more favor with whoever holds office. That’s how we got Obamacare in the first place.

Rush Limbaugh loses 39 advertisers

bb