You are right the use of the word side is a poor choice. The point is there are serveral ways to argue this. I completely agree the fundatmental issue is liberty and responsibilty. The two are tied to together. My point is if we argue the economic and individual responsibilty angle then it makes more sense. Part of the reason it places the economic issues in front and then they have to argue against facts, numbers, logic. It also extends to private business that can't afford to offer comprehensive coverage. It demonstrates the economic distortions of employee based coverage.
That being said-point taken you are correct.
So giving the statists more ammo is going to work? I understand it was a sarcastic and there was underlying argument under there, but I don't give a crap about entertainment points if takes away from the real problem-mandated comprehensive coverage. Now that is what people are talking about "slut" and not the real economic fallacy of comprehensive coverage. It actually falls into the morality talking points the media wants to push.
Conservatives would be better off debating this like Libertarians are. First, of course there is the religious conscience issue. But also the comprehensive mandate issue. If Ms. Fluke is spending $3000 a year on contraceptives then she isn't going the most cost effective route ie condoms paid for out of pocket, but the expensive route precisely because it is "free" There is no incentive to question costs because now it is a "right" and provided by others. If the debate was about comprehensive coverage for visits to the eye doctor and contacts or even lasix eye surgery, that would be obviously ridiculous when simple glasses paid for out of pocket would be more cost efficient. In fact, that illustrates that coverage for glasses is stronger than contraceptives, because poor eye sight isn't voluntary condition, but the use contraceptives to prevent pregnancy is not only voluntary but completely predictable. Insurance should be used for low probability/high cost medical procedures.
Sorry, but Rush should apologize. I'm not talking about Fluke, but to conservatives and Libertarians. By calling her a slut he moves the debate from the economic side to the moral side. Obviously he was being sarcastic to illustrate a point, but that's all the ammunition the progressive statist needs. Now they have their sound bite.
Not a big fan of Santorum to be honest, but Grayson is the very definition of slimmy politician. This is the same guy who compared his opponent, Dan Webster, to the Taliban by completely taking Webster's statements out of context. In fact, the statements he used were the exact opposite to what Webster said.
Because I'm sure Obama has never supported diverting public money to private interests before.......well unless it the financial sector or green energy industry or the car companies, not mention to "stimulus" money......
Yet here is a program that is actually revenue neutral and gives low income parents a choice.
GDP is the sum of private consumption+gross investment+GOVERNMENT SPENDING+trade surplus. The jump in GDP during the 30's under FDR is due to FDR run away spending on make work programs. The debt also exploded as well. All the chart proves is that FDR spent money above revenue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt...
Not this one either. Catholics have taken the "social justice" slogan as endorsement of "progressive" entitlements and welfare. It is long past due that we understand that social justice should be based on free trade and private charity. Where we view free trade and yes profits as a means to serve others. I see my disposable income disappear from my check because of mandates and wonder what good I could do for my family, locally for my Church and people outside of the Church in real need. The "progressives" don't seem to understand (or don't care) as opposed to allowing our resouces to serve a bureacrat and then allowing that same bureacrat to decide how to serve others, far more good is done when we control our income. It is more efficient and will produce better results for people, when we can decide how we value charity. Until Catholics in general realize that, we will continue to see diminishing returns on good works.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Joint