this is also a problem in other countries. Birth control was covered here for years yet you still see idiots without jobs having 3 or more kids they cant raise properly.

I was using the word "permit" for lack of a better term. The point I was making is there is absolutely no negative recourse for someone unfit to be a parent from having children. In fact the opposite is true.

edit; and by unfit yes, I do mean not able to financially provide.

It's all about catholic organizations wanting to start an insurance company. The ONLY way this should EVER have been framed is simply this:

Should anyone who starts an insurance company be required to follow all local, state and federal rules which regulate insurance agencies? Yes or No.

By the way, consider the actual argument! NOBODY is forcing ANY WOMAN to go and request birth control. If someone is so religious that they personally wouldnt do it, then good for her! But whats this shit about telling someone that nobody ELSE should be able to ask for it? What's with the people trying to be dictators from the sidelines? Yeesh.

You know they pay into the pension system for 30 years to get that pay out, right?

It's not provided for free, our taxes would pay for it... working women wouldn't get it for free, they would have insurance or pay for it through taxes. However if the women is poor, lives in a state that does not provide assistance, or is part of a religion or ends up in a hospital, that all "refuse" to provide for her, then Obama's policy would kick in, if she has no insurance. Again, paid for through our taxes, because a religion refused to honor a womens choice.

You're mad at the wrong person.

A business is a regulation, every corp has regs, some more than others... some suck, some are bad, and some are very good and very needed. A serious problem is what was happening to make these regulations happen, like religion forcing a womens choice is a constitutional violation - which far out weights a corps rights......... which are ZERO!

Your premiums went up for the last 10, 20+ years, and your coverage went down... and even without Obamacare, it would have went up and continue to do so. You pay for poor women that can't afford it already, at a much higher premium rate.... typically hitting both the state and the fed.

But hey... your money is more important than a womens rights. Of course you would be singing a totally different song if you were a women that needed this.

Boston, like most other cities/towns with pensions, are stuck with paying for over 40% to 50% of the teachers pensions. In Boston the teachers are only funding 60% of what the city is paying out. So yeah, the teachers pay in, but the tax payers pay in a lot.

They pay 11% of salary, mandatory, and they can retire at 55. They then receive up to 80% of their highest salary for the rest of their lives. Get in at 25, retire at 55, die at 85 with that same 80%.

The math doesn't work. They are dependent on future teachers paying dues. It's a Ponzi scheme.

This is the biggest problem. Luck for us Obama ended the wars! :thumbsup

But their dues never add up to what they are paying out. They are lucky to get to 70% of what they are paying out. Most are near 50%. So the tax payer is on the hook for the scheme.

I would to see mandatory birth control pill policy in ghetto projects and trailer parks. This way we would have to see all there black kids running around with guns and shit.

so you pay for the lifelong welfare moms and their many kids instead. seems like a great trade off.

Well let us not forget the Millions the gov gives Planned Parent hood for the free or reduced cost of Birth controll and testing.

BC cost my GF $45-$65 a Month --

it was law already in 28 states before obama but this became important now because unemployment is dropping.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012...le-already-law


President Barack Obama's decision to require most employers to cover birth control and insurers to offer it at no cost has created a firestorm of controversy. But the central mandate?that most employers have to cover preventative care for women?has been law for over a decade. This point has been completely lost in the current controversy, as Republican presidential candidates and social conservatives claim that Obama has launched a war on religious liberty and the Catholic Church.

Despite the longstanding precedent, "no one screamed" until now, said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law expert at George Washington University.

In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today?and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally?but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.

"It was, we thought at the time, a fairly straightforward application of Title VII principles," a top former EEOC official who was involved in the decision told Mother Jones. "All of these plans covered Viagra immediately, without thinking, and they were still declining to cover prescription contraceptives. It's a little bit jaw-dropping to see what is going on now?There was some press at the time but we issued guidances that were far, far more controversial."

do you feel that way about politicians? They all get pensions and free healthcare.

Absolutely. They are also insider traders, which is illegal to everyone else.

The GOP has NO PLAN to fix ANYTHING moving forward. This is why they will lose in 2012. Social issues are all they have, and no one gives a fuck about them, except the brain dead idiots who think we should cut taxes on the billionaires.

Maybe the righties can pull some sort of message together by 2016, but I doubt it.

Let's bomb Iran!

Yep over 80 percent of catholic woman use some sort of birthcontrol

seen "Idiocracy"? Pretty sweet movie about just this, only the dumb asses breed because the intellects are too worried about their financial situation to risk having kids. Soon enough the planet is full of people who just masturbate and watch shows about people getting kicked in the balls.

Makes a lot of sense, idiots don't worry about how they are going to pay for their kids, they just think hey, now when the football goes over the fence I can send my little fucker to go get it, more time to drink beer for me!

what's all the complaining about Teachers Pensions? Is it vastly different in the U.S. than it is in Canada? Teachers pay into their pension plan from the day they start working, and their pension is paid out of the funds that have accumulated. People don't pay for teachers to get a pension, they pay for it themselves, The Ontario Teachers Pension Fund is the richest pension funds in Canada, with like 110 Billion $$ in assets. The fund could pay teachers a $500,000 a year pension, and no, besides other teachers, has a right to complain, it's their money.

do it like czech clinics with gypsy women - sterilize them without telling them





edit: [/sarcasm]

If that was how our public pensions worked, it would be fine.

haha, look at you expecting long term thinking from the porn industry.

That's a federal budget breakdown. Most education taxes are collected and spent on a state level.

.

I think we should totally be debating whether people can get free birth control pills or condoms or whatever, if they can't make any money, and totally not paying attention to the problem where more and more Americans can't afford basic things like birth control.

/saracasm

maybe you guys need to start the math part of this over. the money they put in does not sit in a checking account, pension funds are run by some of the best investors there are.

if I start working at 25, and work till I am 55, and make $10,000 a year. and I pay 10% into a pension fund. ($1000 a year) and a good investor can generate 10% return on that, (complaining that interest is to low to make 10% right now is irrelevant cause these funds have existed for decades and decades.) after a year my contribution is worth $1050, after 2 years $2155, after 3 years $3475, and so on, after my 30 years, at the young age of 55 I get to retire, and lets say they decide to give me a 100% pension WooHoo! my pension would be $10,000 a year, but the money I put into the pension is now worth $211,194.70, so the fund manager only has to make 4% on my money to pay me a 100% pension.

there is no this is how I feel about the subject on this, it is straight mathematics, the reality is that the magic # is 7%, If you are forced to put 10% of your earnings away every year in a pension fund, for 30 years, and the fund manager can get 7% return on your money, after 30 years you can retire, and take a 100% pension in perpetuity, and you can live to be 1000 years old without the money ever running out.

I don't see it as so much of a cost issue as a version issue. It seems to me that forcing the Catholic church, for example, to pay for the morning after pill is kind of like forcing the ACLU to pay for Fred Phelps' projects.

That's just the tip very tip of the iceberg, though. We chose a health plan that we can afford (barely) parky because it doesn't convert acupuncture, aromatherapy, and a lot of other crap. We had the freedom to decide what coverage we wanted to buy. We're nite allowed to keep it after 2012 because Obama and the interest groups lobbying in Washington don't longer it. They are telling us we must pay 50% more for a policy that covers acupuncture and crap. Urned a freedom issue, an issue of whether you and I make our own decisions or if Washington runs our lives.

Sorry to hear it is not the same there, forced saving for retirement is incredibly important, without it, we would probably have to off everyone on their 70th birthday

Didn't Enron have a lot of pension funds invested in them?

Absolutely agree that unfit parents shouldn't have children... more so the mentality of people or the way people live. Whether hygiene or personality.

To be fair, some folk with financial problems are more tolerable than those without. The is a small amount of people but some, I would think were unfit to raise a child, with no personal morals that count. There's a huge amount of people that have financial worries, yet are very able for a family, with love & support to give to their children to raise them as decent people ready to grow in the big wide world.

And they pay for it.

While I agree it is a LOT cheaper to pay for BC than the many other outcomes, I beleive the Business should be able to run as it wants. What if I was required to shoot and pay for 300lb models when my business model was for victoria Secrets?

I do not like what my insurance covers and doesn't cover, should I bitch?

Just because it makes more sense to pay for BC than not, it is still NOT A RIGHT.

I suggest you use the following calculator: http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/...ent_calculator

I suggest that might be the worst retirement income calculator I have ever seen. go to it now, put in the same figures I quoted, as I just did, at the end is says I would need to put away an additional $300,000, that's in order to spend $10,000 a year. Even though at the investment risk I chose, it told me I would get an average of 9.8% return.

anyone who thinks that you need $300,000 to take out $10,000 a year when making 9.8% return can go ahead and keep using that calculator. or should try grade 2 math again.

BTW, just a note, it's not in the best interests of an investment company to tell you "hey that's enough, don't give us any more money"

Yes, A stitch in time saves 9.

Give out free contraceptives, free abortions and say that single women are not getting paid any extra benefits for children born after a date 12 months after the free pills and abortions law is passed. Would save billions. But not PC so no chance of it happening.

We need more people on minimum wage rushing into burning buildings to save people, policing and protecting us and above all teaching our children. </sarcasm>

In the UK we also got a massive tax reduction on pension funds. I paid into mine from 30 to 57. Which allows me to site here and say it like I really see it and not have to kiss asses.

The way the pensions invest is simple. They buy good solid bonds, stock, etc. They spend the same amount as you put in, lumped in with everyone else. So the market goes up, they can't buy so much. Market goes down they buy lots that are put into the fund. 30 years of ups and downs evens itself out. Ending with a massive lump sum at the end.

That calculator is based on today's returns being the same for the next 30 years. If that happens we're all so far in the shitter. Tin cans of beans will be the best investment. When I say we, I mean you lot. :1orglaugh

Also was on slightly more than $10,000. Some of these guys clearly don't plan on retiring early.

I Canada, Pension funds buy professional sports teams and run them into the ground

Pay for birth control? Fuck no. I'm sure we can come up with a criteria to reversibly sterilize though. Country would be a far, far, better place.

The guy that wrote freakonomics drew the conclusion that abortion rates go up = crime rates go down. So I think we're onto something here.

What criteria should be used? You want to be on welfare? Sterilize. On medical disability in the long term? Sterilize. Food stamps? Sterilize. Children already in foster care? Sterilize.

Whatdya guys think? Maybe you can start paying down that huge debt?

Crazy Americans

your avatar = mesmerizing!

Nobody is forcing a church to do anything, this is what is such a misdirection and talking point ploy that has been so effective. The church doesnt HAVE to start an insurance company which will be required to comply with existing laws. And again, what happened to the individual woman either choosing to not take birth control (99% do though) or a morning after pill? Why not rely on your teachings and sermons and have faith in them to make good choices? If it's such a lost cause that it has to be viewed as forcing this or that, better give up the fight and fight something else.

Politics queers everything in an election season.

Yes they, and we, ARE being forced to pay 50% more to cover the morning after pill, acupuncture, etc. which they don't want to have to buy. I don't want to spend an extra $500 / month either, but tough shit. After this year, you have to buy a plan Obama likes. What you want no longer matters.

The church isn't being forced to do anything - a church is not an insurance company. Any corp, if they own it, you or me, all fall under the same rules. The difference is, they don't think they should have to... and they're wrong.

We are NOT paying 50% more, nor are you paying $500 a month more, very simple to understand why.... it's capped.

Like "every" year, if your plan changes, your insurance company changed it, just like they have before. If you want different insurance, go get it... the choice is 100% yours. At that, your corp isn't big enough that it's forced to do anything, so the choice is all yours.